Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/05/2017 January 5, 2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida,January 5,2017 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 am.,in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Patrick Dearborn EXCUSED ABSENCE:Diane Ebert ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Fred Reischl,Principal Planner Mike Bosi,Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 32 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,JANUARY 5,2017,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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 1,2016 and December 15,2016 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PUDA-PL20150002280: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-10,as amended,the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), by amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on Tracts 7-10, and 15 of the commercial use areas, "A"parcels, as shown on the PUD Master Plan; by amending the PUD document to add specific institutional uses as permitted uses on tracts 16-20 and 24-25 of the commercial/light industrial uses area "B", parcels as shown on the PUD Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B to further define the areas that allow the institutional uses as permitted uses; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Beck Boulevard in Section 35, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 2,Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Fred Reischl,AICP,Principal Planner] B. BDE-PL20160000863: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE-PL20160000863 for a 67-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 87 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility with two vessels for the benefit of Lots 58 and 59,Isles of Capri Unit No. 1 subdivision,also described as 14 Hawk Street,in Section 14,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,in Collier County,Florida. [Coordinator:Ray Bellows,Manager,Zoning] C. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two—Zoning Districts and Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts, section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts; Chapter Three— Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards; Chapter Five — Supplemental Standards, adding section 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses; Chapter Six— Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including section 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements, adding section 6.05.03 Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units, Two-Family Dwelling Units, and Duplexes; Chapter Ten — Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County, Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, AICP, Manager, LDC, Development Review] (The CCPC members have been provided copies; however, the LDC Amendments can be accessed here:www.colliergov.net/publicmtgs.) 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp January 5,2017 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the January 5th 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. Our secretary has an excused absence today,as does Mr.Eastman, so I will do the roll call. Mr.Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Strain is here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a quorum,so we'll move forward. Addenda to the agenda: We have three items on today's agenda. I don't know of any changes. Ray,does staff have any? MR.BELLOWS: No changes from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which takes us to Planning Commission absences. This is the month that we have a--and there's probably going to be quite a few of these occurring throughout the year because of the number of the LDC issues going on,including moratoriums. We have a meeting on the 19th,which is our regular meeting. And does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 19th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other meeting is on the 30th on the evening at 5:05 in this room.Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 30th in the evening? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that one will be for the LDC amendments. Okay. So with that in mind,we'll have a quorum both dates. That take us to the next item,which is the approval of the minutes. We had two sets of minutes sent to us electrically. The first one is December 1st,2016. Did anybody have any changes?if not,is there a recommendation? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick.Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Second set of minutes was December 15th. Pm asking for the same indications. Anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. Page 2 of 32 January 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Patrick.Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: There are no recaps. The Board did not have their second meeting in December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report:Just one thing. Nora Francis,Happy New Year. Hope everything's going well for you. Your husband's doing a great job. ***We have nothing on the consent agenda,and that takes us to our first advertised public hearing. This is Item PUDA-PL20150002280. It's the Tollgate Commercial Center Planned Unit Development. It's on Beck Road and 951. 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: Thank you. Disclosures on the Planning Commission. We'll start with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I talked to Bob Duane. I tried to talk to Rich Yovanovich, but he wouldn't talk to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I talked to Rich Yovanovich,because he would talk to me, and I also talked with staff as recently as yesterday afternoon,and we went over a lot of files. We're going to go a little bit out of order here after this discussion,because in talking with staff,there's some corrections staff wanted to put on the record to start out with. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move right into the application,but before we do, Mr.Reischl and Mr. Sawyer and I met yesterday.Mr.Reischl has some elements he wanted to get on the record that need to be clarified from what was issued in our staff report. So with that,Fred,do you want to tell us those changes you're talking about? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl with Planning and Zoning. And as you mentioned also,thanks to Mike Sawyer for helping with these citations. In the revised PUD Section 3.4,development standards,A and B,the two— l OA and I OB,the two citations were—it looks like a typo but they're incorrect. The correct citation in A should be 4.06.02.C.4. That's where they're describing the Type D buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it C.l.4? We're on Page 16 of 28. MR.REISCHL: Then I may have written it down incorrectly,as I look at Mike. Let me go on—while Mike's checking that,f II move on to Section 5.8,transportation commitments. A-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,before you do that,you had told me there were two corrections you wanted to make to 10; 10A and 10B. 10B would read,the— MR.REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10B,I believe you said,should read what A says,and I OA should read what B says;is that—that's correct? Page 3 of 32 January 5,2017 MR.REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Okay. Thank you. Now I'm sorry. So it's just C.4,and then just C.1; is that right? MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. MR.REISCHL: Thank you. Thanks,Mike. And on Section 5.8,transportation commitments,A,the citation for the ordinance was 209-19. That was a typo. It should have been 2009;2009-19. And on the same section,5.8.D, instead of referencing the Florida Statute,it should reference in some kind of wording LDC Section 6.06.01.H.2,which basically says it defers it to the uniform traffic-control devices and their warrants and things for signalization. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that helps,because I was having a hard time finding some of that stuff. Thank you. Fred,when you said you wanted to correct l OA and 10B on Section 3.4,that's duplicated again in the other section. So you mean both sections will be corrected then? MR.REISCHL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Great. Any objections from the applicant? MR.DUANE: No,none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who said that? MR.DUANE: Robert Duane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Bob,you've been around here long enough. You don't shout from the audience. If you've got something to address us with,use the microphone. Richard,do you have any objections to those changes? MR.YOVANOVICH: No,Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Let's go forward with your presentation. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Good morning.For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant,and Bob Duane's here to assist me in the presentation. And Happy New Year, and I--as you know,I normally call people ahead of time. I didn't mean to slight anybody,but the holiday schedule kind of made things a little bit different for me,and I lost track of time. Before you today is a request to amend the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD,which I'll put on the visualizer;basically,an aerial that outlines the PUD,and actually the yellow area is the area we're discussing today. The Tollgate Center PUD is within an interchange activity center,and ifs partially developed and partially undeveloped. The total project size is approximately 100 acres. There are two different development categories within the PUD. There's a commercial section,which is basically the front section of the PUD that fronts 951,and that's approximately 54 acres in size,and then there's the rear parcel,the Parcel B section,which is the commercial/light industrial section,which is approximately 45 acres in size. What we're trying to do is add institutional uses on portions of both Parcel A and Parcel B.And in your PUD packet is the master plan,Exhibit B,that identifies the specific parcels within the PUD that these institutional-type uses can be constructed on. It's about four acres in the commercial and 14 acres in the commercial/light industrial section that would be eligible for these institutional-type uses. Overall,if you compare the uses we're trying to add to the already permitted uses,there's no negative transportation impacts related to the request that we're asking for and the uses that we're asking for. Your staff is recommending approval of the changes. Obviously,there were some typographical errors that happened as we retyped this document from the very beginning of time. I think this is the first time I've actually had to go back and assimilate multiple amendments of one PUD to make sure we caught everything,and I think we did--overall we did a pretty good job with a few minor exceptions to this,and Heidi was very helpful in making sure we did this correctly or as close to correctly as we can get it today. I don't want--I don't know that we need a very long presentation on what we're requesting to do. I do know there are some questions about some of the specific uses within SIC Code 8322 under social Page 4 of 32 January 5, 2017 services that I know at least Mr.Strain has and others may also have issues with either some specific uses in the SIC codes or not. So with that,I'd like to open it up to any questions you may have about the changes to the PUD that we're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with the Planning Commission members. Anybody have any questions on this--on the applicant's side of it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I do have a question about offender rehabilitation. Is that sexual offenders and predators? MR.YOVANOVICH: Is that within the 8322 category? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. Let me--I brought my SIC code book so we can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's--you're okay with parole offices and probation offices and alcoholism treatment and all that then? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,no. They're all kind of the same thing. If you have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was wondering,too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: —an amusement/recreation,you're going to have--you could possibly have something where children are— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually,ifs— COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I know that,but they're using this,too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're only using--they're not. If you look at the language in the PUD,they're only using six or seven items from that. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. For the amusement section,we've limited it to gymnastics instruction, judo instruction,karate instruction,yoga instruction,scuba and skin diving instruction,and day camps under the SIC Code 7999.And what I envisioned was we probably would do something similar to 8322;say,8322 limited to,and hopefully we can agree on—like,I don't think anybody has an issue with daycare,either child daycare or adult daycare,those types of uses. I do understand or did anticipate some concerns about drug rehabilitation and those types of uses in this area,so I understand that concern,and I'm sure we're obviously flexible on that in limiting the list. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Well,yeah.Daycare,if you're going to have children around in a daycare or nursing--I mean,any kind of little kids being around where there's going to be sex offender rehab and-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,I understand,and I'm sure we're very comfortable with taking that use out of the list of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you know,I asked staff yesterday how this started,because you're adding 139 uses to this PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Fred told me—and,Fred,correct me if I am wrong. You said it came in,and the only use you were looking for was a church use; is that right,Fred? MR.REISCHL: It was a code case that a church moved in,and when they went to get their business license,business tax receipt,it turned out that"church"was not a permitted use;therefore,they were directed to seek a PUD amendment for the church,which then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So during the process for the one use they added 139 other uses. In fact, they started out adding 237 uses,and you pared 7999 back to eight uses,which totals now 139,but they want all of the other SIC code uses,which I'm concerned about how—for example,if you look at Tract 28 and 24, which is the southernmost tracts to the right side,they're up against parcels that currently have--for example, on Tract 31, I think it is--I can't see your map too clearly,but on the corner of Beck Boulevard and Beck Road,that's a concrete pumping company. They run huge concrete pumping trucks out in and of there. To have children running back and forth in that area would seem to be concerning,especially with the traffic and the kids that might be going in and out. Page 5 of 32 January 5,2017 I know the neighborhood to the south has already made some complaints about the concrete pumping company. I know the concrete pumping company has not moved in consistent with the code,and I know they're currently being looked at by some of our staff. And Chris is here who might be able to provide us some information before this is over in regards to that. So I'm not sure this has been well thought out concerning,well,we just want to put a church on this property. No,we want 139 uses on this property. That's putting it a lot greater than what this started out to be. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,Mr. Strain,with all fairness and due respect,we were cited with a code issue,and we went through and looked and said,okay,we're going to have to amend the PUD to address this code issue. I don't think it is illogical to look at other uses that might make sense to add to the PUD because we were already in the PUD amendment process. We've been in this process for quite a while.We've been reviewed by staff about all the uses,and they've noticed uses that they don't like and have asked us to take out,and we have. We've had neighborhood information meetings,and we've addressed concerns,if any were raised,with those meetings. My understanding--and I get the concern with 8322,and I'm prepared—I don't want to--if 8322 is an issue,let's just delete it in its entirety,but these other uses have been in the process from the very beginning and have been vetted through the review process. And to say that all of a sudden--or imply that, you know,we're adding a ton of uses because of one code complaint,the answer is,yes,because we're in the process anyway. • So we went through the review process,and we added—we added other uses that make sense in this area of Collier County according to your staff. And it's been a process that hasn't been a week; it's been over several months of this review process. So if 8322 is the issue,let's just delete it.But this is the first I'm hearing about any other uses that are not within 8322 that may be an issue because of how we started this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,when I was talking to Fred yesterday and he told me it all started with the church being the subject of the use need. Then I thought,well,why don't you just do a comparable/compatible analysis to clean up the church? That seems to have blown up to 139 uses.And I am not implying you're asking for that. You are asking for 139 uses;are you not? MR.YOVANOVICH: I didn't say--I said,implying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said I'm implying it,and Pm not—it's not just an implication. It's the fact. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yeah,but the fact is,what you're implying is we originally came in only to address a church. The church was the catalyst to the PUD amendment. We never came in with just an amendment to add a church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred-- MR.YOVANOVICH: That's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --did the Code Enforcement case center around 139 uses or just one use? MR. REISCHL: The subject use of the church. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought.Thank you. Well,let's move on with any other questions that at least I've got. Karen,you were--I didn't mean to interrupt you. I wanted to make sure we understood all of it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you'd be willing to get rid of that 8322? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I make a little comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have three grandkids,and they have gone through all the daycare facilities. I'm used to taking them,because the parents both work. I pick them up.And I look at where the daycare facilities are.Daycare facilities always have a fence around them;a wall. They have people inside. I've never--and some of these daycare facilities are not in the best neighborhoods,but I've never seen any problem with—I don't worry that the kids are there. It's just— I can understand,you know,if Page 6 of 32 January 5,2017 somebody's not paying attention maybe you have a concern,but I didn't have a concern on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many of them did you see in industrial parks;did you remember? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None of them were in industrial parks. They were in commercial parks,and they were in neighborhoods that were not all that great. MR.YOVANOVICH: And,you know,I don't understand,anybody who's going to do a daycare is obviously going to put fences to keep people—the children safe and keep both—from visitors and from running out in the street,and the like,that may occur. But why wouldn't you put a daycare center in an employment center so people who maybe work in there could drop their kid off on the way to work? We're leaving daycare center in,by the way under 8351; I took it out because it's also duplicative under 8322. And adult daycare,I mean,there's not enough of these facilities,frankly,in town,and they are secure facilities. And I don't know why we're—there's a lot of the uses in 8322 that I understand may be objectionable,but I don't know why adult daycare would be,why childcare would be an objectionable use in this area_ And,candidly,we could come in at any time and amend the PUD to add these uses within an activity center. The catalyst of the reason to do it is immaterial. But it's an allowed use under the Comprehensive Plan. We're allowed to ask for it,we're asking for it,and your planning staff is saying it makes sense to them. So I'd like— I don't like the way this got started with"why did we start this process in the first place," because it's not—it's immaterial to the request. It's consistent with the Comp Plan,and we're allowed to ask for these uses. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, I take back one thing I said. One of them was on Trade Center Way,an industrial park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's not just daycare.You've got children's dance schools, gymnastics. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Most of your gymnastics, I think,are in industrial parks. MR.YOVANOVICH: Go up on Immokalee•- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. But I'm— MR.YOVANOVICH: 1 didn't mean to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Go ahead. MR.YOVANOVICH: If you go to the industrial park off of Airport Road up by J&C Boulevard, my kids went to gymnastics camp there. They went to—you know,there's all kinds of these types of uses within these industrial parks,and they function fine. I mean,I'm not going to take my kid to a place that's unsafe. They have Friday evenings,you know, where kids go,and they have open gym in an industrial park. They're not at a--dance studios,they're all in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,other than 8322,Karen,did you have any other issues that you wanted to bring up? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you're taking out 8322,that takes the bulk of my concern away from the uses. So I think that that resolves that issue for me. I think--anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on it,on that same page--and,by the way,that would be under 3.3 and also 4 point whatever number,because everything's repeated twice in this application. Under B,permitted accessory uses,it says the following: "Any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with a permitted principal use and structures,"and then is says,"including outdoor eating areas for special events,bake sales,Christmas tree sales,and fundraising events,all subject to obtaining use permits." I would like to suggest that it should read,"any accessory uses or structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures subject to obtaining the use permits described in the LDC." Page 7 of 32 January 5,2017 All those itemized items—uses are not needed to be in there. Especially if ifs all subject to the permits from the LDC. It's just— MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That could be a conflict. MR.YOVANOVICH: We don't need a permit. We have the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have the use to the extent you can--to the extent it's subject to obtaining the use permits described in the LDC. So if you need a temporary event permit,whether it's an outdoor eating area,a bake sale,Christmas tree,whatever,you just get your temporary use permit to whatever rules are in place for that permit. MR.YOVANOVICH: And the corollary is,if I don't need a permit for that,I can still do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to staffs determination when you come in and apply for it. MR.YOVANOVICH: No. I understand that. I just want to make sure the concept--I understand the concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. rm not suggesting to change that. I'm just telling you that that language isn't needed. MR.REISCHL: Could I ask you to repeat what section that was again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be in the permitted accessory use section,Section B. It would be 3.3.1.B,and it would also be in the subsequent mirrored section in 4,and it would be the referenced--specific references after the comma in Paragraph A. MR.REISCHL: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go down--and,Fred,I appreciate you catching the issues on the minimum landscape requirements,but D, I took a look at that,it says"all landscaping"--it used to say, "all landscaping requirements of Section Division 2.4 of the Land Development Code not in conflict with A, B,and C above." And A,B,and C above specifically addressed buffers. But that section division of the code was the entire landscape code. So everything in that section,it's saying,still applies. So by now saying 4.06.00,landscaping buffering and vegetation retention dash Alternative D,limits it far more than it was limited by the general reference of the division previously. So Alternative D language should be struck from that paragraph in both sections as well. MR.YOVANOVICH: Are you talking about 10A in 4.3.1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pm talking about 1013. 10D— MR.YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —if you look after the word"vegetation retention"in the second line,you have added"dash Alternative D." You don't need that there. You've got it-- MR.YOVANOVICH: I understand. I was in the wrong section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That should be crossed out in both references in the PUD. MR.YOVANOVICH: 1 understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under No. 12,it says, "permitted institutional uses set forth in Section 3.3.1 shall meet the standards of the Activity Center No.9 overlay in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan." What of the uses you're asking for are considered institutional and which ones are you trying to say shouldn't meet that overlay? MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't know that--honest to God,1 don't know the genesis of where this came from and,frankly,I thought we were getting away from restating what the law is in PUDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In this particular case it's relevant. Pd first like to get--and I'll walk you through the steps in a minute,but first I'd like to understand what,of the permitted uses in A,are considered institutional for reference to the paragraph 1 just pointed out and which ones are not. And if there's not a need for the word"institutional,"why is it there? Just why not permitted uses in 3.33.A? MR.YOVANOVICH: That's fine. 1 think because the heading of 3.31 says"institutional"Is where the word came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: So if you want to say uses,permitted uses in Section 3.31,without the word "institutional,"that's fine. Page 8 of 32 January 5, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'd like to ask Chris Scott to step up. And I had asked him this morning on a very late note to research something.1 don't know if he's got time to do it,but it's pretty relevant to the map that's on the table right now. Thanks for showing up on such short notice. I understand that Matt has gone to a higher calling this morning with Mr.Casalanguida,so you got stuck with this duty. And what I'm trying to find out is the overlay has specific buffer widths and requirements. Can you tell me what buffer widths the PUD—or the SDPs were looked at for the projects or the parcels that are bordering Beck Boulevard? And the reason for that is you have a concrete company there now on one side, and you have two buildings,office-type buildings. One, t think,is the Florida Department of—DEP maybe and the other is a location with a bunch of broken up office-type structures. Can you--do you know what those parcels set—not necessarily—both the setbacks and the buffers were required when your review was taking place? Because there's several different standards here. MR.SCOTT: Sure. For the record,Chris Scott,Planning Manager with the Development Review Services. We recently had an SDP come through,the Kam Concrete project,which you just referenced. The buffer along Beck Boulevard that was applied in that instance was based off of the PUD language that notes the buffer shall be in compliance with the LDC,and the Activity No.9 buffer requirement requires a 25-foot Type D buffer along that right-of-way line. Some of the previous SDPs that were done earlier,we were able to pull some of those SDPs.They appear to be about 25 feet in width,some of them down as low as 20. But I can't speak on how those were applied at the time,because that was before I was in the department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the changes coming into play today are for the tracts a little bit to the east--or to the west of the concrete pumping company. And the way I'm reading this--and Mr. Yovanovich,I'm sure,will jump in to correct it--No. 12 basically says if those uses are used in those parcels, then those parcels shall meet the overlay. The overlay is 25 feet. And so I was wondering if those existing buildings were measured on the overlay distance of 25 feet, or they used the PUD language that seems to vary between five feet and 20 feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: My understanding about why this is in there was to make it clear that the revisions we're making to the PUD,not on a setback or landscape buffer for individual parcels; but the PU D as a whole will still have to meet those standards. That's why I didn't understand why we need it in the first place. And you point out the confusion that,frankly,I hadn't thought about is that now the individual parcels are going to be developed as if—in a way that the entire PUD is supposed to be development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like City Gate and the others,that's how they're looked at. And I just was curious as to, if this is the case and you decide that an existing building that may have been reviewed under different standard--which we're going to talk about that in a minute because the PUD had a couple different standards in it. How would you change that to allow a church to go in,for example? That strip building along the front and across from--the one that brought this whole thing up,that code enforcement action,how could that church go in that building if it didn't have the 25-foot setback required by the interchange activity center? MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,again,the intent of this PUD was to not change the Land Development Code landscape buffer requirements,okay,that currently applied and have always applied to this PUD development. Okay. So that building that was originally constructed met whatever the PUD requirements were at the time. We are simply asking for the ability to,within that building,put these types of uses. So if the building met the code at the time it was developed,we could put one of these institutional uses as a tenant in the building or an occupant in that building. That was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why—if that was the intent,can you tell me why are you crossing out,on Page 24,Paragraph D that has the required buffers in it for that PUD? MR. REISCHL: Which PUD section is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 24,5.3,under engineering;5.3.D. The whole paragraph's being crossed out,and it provides a change in both buffers and setbacks and where they're measured from for this Page 9 of 32 January 5,2017 PUD. And it seems to me that if this is in the PUD and you're striking it all and replacing it with the interchange activity center which is a different standard than what's here,how do we know that the projects that you would fit these uses into can meet the new standard versus the old standard or even if they met the old standard? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'll help Rich out a little bit on this one. When I requested that they bring all the language up to date in this new draft,it was discovered that the'93 ordinance provided the--there are two D's you'll see on here--the second D language and didn't address the first D language which is struck through,and so I required that they do that to clean it up so there wasn't any confusion in the future. MR.YOVANOVICH: Thank you,Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,then if you go with the second D paragraph,it says,pursuant to the changes—or to the language in--and it's 4.4.10--for the language that we're talking about that you guys are changing here today. So if you go to 10,the minimum landscape requirements,landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to 84,951,semicolon;84 would be five feet,and 951 would be 10 feet. And then on the second part it says,landscape buffer width requirement adjacent to interior platted streets,five feet. So is Beck Boulevard--on this map it's shown as 84,and the PUD originally called it out as 84 because Beck Boulevard didn't exist as Beck Boulevard. It was 84. So now are we saying that the buffers there are five feet and not required to be either 20 feet or 25 feet as the overlay requires? And I've asked staff to tell me what those existing buildings are,and I don't think they've had enough time to do that,and they only know the most current one,which is the concrete pumping company which is not part of the changes being proposed today. So I'm a little confused how you think that the three different measurements--you've got a 5-foot requirement,as I just pointed out,you've got a 20-foot requirement that you're trying to strike,and you've got a 25-foot requirement in the interchange overlay. How are all three of those fitting in to this same location on any of those parcels abutting CR84 as shown on that master plan?I don't know. MR.REISCHL: Mr.Chairman,if I can interject. I haven't heard anybody mention that this PUD predates Activity Center No.9,if that has any relevance to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It predates it by seven years,which is why when the language,I saw it show up,I couldn't figure out why they were doing it,but then they said they were doing it to be consistent with the new uses. But then how do you do that if the new uses are going to existing buildings that may not have followed that sizing for that buffer? MR. REISCHL: I see your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't know why this hasn't been cleared up. I mean,this may not be a blanket application that works for all the cases that you're asking for today. And I think the language you're inserting is going to cause more confusion unless you've got a solution to it,Richard. MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,I do. Let's just drop it,and we'll let the LDC—to the extent it applies,it applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then you're saying that you don't—well,okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. If you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Let me tell you where the problem is on that. MR.YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: GMP Ordinance 99-63 was done at the time Interchange Activity Center No.9 was instituted. The purpose of the meeting will be to establish mutually accepted vision statement for Activity Center No.9. The interchange master plan shall be adopted by the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. All rezones thereafter shall meet the intent of the vision statement. So you're in here for a PUDA,which is a rezone. You're adding new uses to this project. So I think you're right by adding it. It should be part of the request. I'm just wondering,has anybody thought this out so that when you come in for a use as,say,a church where the one exists--and I think it's the Living World Church,whatever the name of it is,on tract,I think it's 15 —or it's the one on 84 and Bush Boulevard. When you come in for that use and they don't have the buffer that now is required when these new uses are instituted,how is it going to exist there if your intent is to have it there? Page 10 of 32 January 5,2017 MR.YOVANOVICH: Why don't we just simply say that the uses that we're adding can be—are permitted to be added to existing structures that exist on the date of this ordinance. Then if there's a new church built on a vacant piece of property,it will meet--it will be a new building;it can meet the new requirements. I don't understand the big deal with putting a church into an existing structure—the new use into an existing structure,which was always the intent because,remember,we started to try to fix the church that was in an existing building use.Nobody was saying that's a problem. I get that you caught this and nobody else did. So I think the fix is simple: We allow these uses to go into existing structures so we don't have to worry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Ray or Fred,in the review of this by comprehensive planning staff--this will end up having to come back to us in some form or another for cleanup. Would you make sure that David takes a look at the language that initiated the rezones in this activity center to see how it's written in a manner that's not going to mess things up when they come in and try to get their operational permit for the church that I know is already there. That church is not hurting anything. Ifs not a bad use at all. I'm not against that. I don't like language that contradicts it,especially when you went to the attempt to change one paragraph up,and you're adding another paragraph that makes it even worse. MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,that was clearly not the intent,and nobody caught that issue until right now. So I appreciate your bringing that up,and we obviously want to fix it. MR. BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.We'll coordinate with David,but I think the option or language proposed by Mr.Yovanovich is acceptable to staff,and it seems to address the concerns so that any new construction will be subject to the current Activity Center 9 buffer requirements and that any existing building at the adoption of this amendment would be exempt from being retrofitted unless it was completely removed,destroyed,and a new building built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the paragraph--go ahead,Heidi. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think you'll need to put it in the form of a deviation from, like,the nonconforming use sections. We'll work with staff and come up with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to end up today listening to all this and then continuing it for final vote at whatever meeting this can get cleared up at. Chris? MR.SCOTT: I just wanted to point out that the language that's in the proposed PUD amendment, the Sections 3.3.10 and 4.4.10 are inconsistent with the most recent version of the ordinances,the approved Tollgate PUD ordinances. Those sections just say landscaping shall be in compliance with the Collier County LDC,and it's not broken out into three sections with various buffer requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not exactly clear on what you're saying. Can you take it a little bit— MR.SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you refer me to a page and a citation so I know exactly how to look at what you're saying? MR.SCOTT: Ordinance 93-91,they made changes— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page? MR.SCOTT: I don't have the page numbers in front of me,so 1 apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No problem. MR. SCOTT: They made changes to the engineering commitments where it initially called for a 20-foot buffer adjacent to Beck Boulevard and some of the other roads. So--and in those sections,it reverts you back to landscaping shall be in compliance with Sections 3.3.10 of the PUD and 4.4.10 of the PUD,and it made no other changes to those specific sections. But if you go back to Ordinance 92-10,that ordinance in Sections 3.3.10 and 4.4.10 of the PUD just say landscaping shall be in compliance with the Collier County LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The'92 and'93 --there was an addendum to the'92 PUD. That changed some of that language. But,Chris,we're going to have some time to take a closer look at this. Is this something--is this something you could check out and verify before this comes back to us? Page 11 of 32 January 5,2017 MR.SCOTT: No,I was--yeah,[can certainly do that,yes. Sony. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. That would be great. I'd appreciate it if you would;thank you. I'm just checking to see if there's anything else in my notes right offhand. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I'd just like to correct the record that 93-91 does provide standards which,if you would like,I can put it on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I've reviewed it. And it's already--it's what they incorporated into this version that they brought forward today,if I'm not mistaken. I did check that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think for now that's all the questions I have,and we'll go forward with a staff. Anybody else have any other questions they want to follow up on? Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: 8322,though,is definitely going to be taken out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8322 is definitely coming out,yeah. That was a commitment made by the applicant. Yes,Richard? MR.YOVANOVICH: Since I'm coming back and we're not going to get a vote today, I would respectfully request that you let me go through 8322,and if there's,like,adult daycare,things like that that might make sense to leave in,I'd be allowed to just bring the list down to not everything in there. There may be four or five that may make sense to stay in the PUD for consideration by you-all since we'll be coming back for the formal vote,instead of— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody? MR.YOVANOV[CH: —taking all of those uses out right now,to keep the process moving? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have-- MR.YOVANOVICH: Do you-all object to that? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For senior. MR.YOVANOVICH: Senior senior housing,senior care,things like that-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No,that's fine. MR_YOVANOVICH: —1 think are fairly innocuous uses. I'd like to go through and cull down the list similar to what we did earlier in 7999. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be fine. Fred,did you want to--well, let's go through the staff report and any public speakers just to finish that part of it up today,then we'll look to seek a continuance to a date mutually agreeable. Fred? MR.REISCHL: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Fred Reischl. I just wanted to put on the record I received a call from the property owner to the east,which is State of Florida. And it's a complex situation that started out as Florida Highway Patrol,and now the last use was Department of Health,which has now left there. It's now for sale. The interesting concept is it's still zoned agricultural. I think it was--there's a conditional use,but the conditional use is for a cell tower. So as far as zoning would be concerned,it's an agricultural parcel of property with an office building on it,which is very strange,but I wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's to the east over towards-- MR.RE1SCHL: East. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as you go down to the end of Beck Boulevard. MR. REISCHL: Formal highway patrol office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It used to be the office where they had—the toll workers, 1 think, were in there one time,but the-- MR.REISCHL: Toll workers and FHP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: FHP,yeah. MR.REISCHL: And aside from that,we have no issues with any of the changes that have been talked about. I did speak to Mike Bosi this morning,and just maybe by next meeting if we can get some guidance on where more intense uses can go--because this is an interstate activity center,which is supposed to be the full complement of commercial uses. And we have no problem changing it on this PUD,but just if you can Page 12 of 32 January 5,2017 give us some guidance in the future on,you know,what would be the circumstances that would allow more noxious uses to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say,these aren't more intense uses. That's already acknowledged by staff. In fact,traffic and everything else,they're less intense. Then from a comparable/compatible analysis,some of them could have probably gone there without a PUD modification. But I think the concern is is that this is the entryway to Collier County;basically all of our metropolitan area. So people coming down and into the community,the first thing they're going to see is this industrial park. I'm not sure of the right entry into a county or— I mean,anywhere like on the main roads like this, our probation offices,alcoholism treatment centers,narcotics or drug treatment rehabilitation centers and things like that. I think the location of this in particular is a little more problematic. I would suggest it stay more to what you normally expect to see in an interchange activity center,not all of these uses. MR.REISCHL: Interchange would be more the issue rather than activity center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is an interchange activity center,yes. MR.REISCHL: Right. But I'm saying that that would be the mitigating factor at this location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that was my thought.And I don't know if anybody else had any thoughts on it,but that was mine. MR.REISCHL: Okay. We're just looking for some guidance on this for the future,so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,Mark,I recall this activity center being an issue of concern back when I was with the county,specifically the design standards for Activity Center No.9. The frontage requirements of those buildings that front— MR.REISCHL: Seventy-five. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --75 have always been an issue. And I believe,you may remember, this thing did come back before the Board at one time to even review the entire Activity Center No.9 requirements. So I'm not sure—I'm not-- I know what you're saying. I just don't know what is it you need? I mean,are you going to try and amend the entire activity center? Is that what you want to do? MR. REISCHL: No,no,just some guidance for the future so that we know that even though the interstate activity center says the complete complement of commercial uses,that,okay,well,this is an interstate activity center. It's a gateway to the community;therefore,we're going to be more selective on it. So if maybe we can discuss that at the Part 2 of this meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the other piece of it,it's going to be significantly impacted by the eventual construction of the complete cloverleaf interchange that will eventually go--I believe it's already planned and,you know,part of the record even showed some of the designs of that,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is;you're right. I've got the maps on the new cloverleaf that's going in. We're putting two overpasses in,one on each side going up over Davis Boulevard. So the whole complex of this area's going to change. Another thing you may want to do is if you want to get a better idea what this project was originally approved and envisioned to be,it is a DRI. That means they've got an ADA somewhere,whether it's in our offices or up at Southwest Regional Planning Council. The ADA is much more of a concept vision statement for a project. It might be nice to see what they thought they were going to be. If you remember City Gate,City Gate had the same thing;a vision statement. It was very flexible because theirs was in the early'80s,I believe. This one may have more detail on it,and then we can see if this even fits with what their vision was originally. And that may be how this all got to be in the first place is because of what was said back in those days,so... MR.REISCHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Fred,you mentioned noxious uses. I assume your definition is in the vein of Potter Stewart's"I know it when I see it"? MR.REISCHL: Justice Stewart was probably very wise in that way. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOW SKI: Okay. Page 13 of 32 January 5,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pd like to make an attempt at the next meeting to combine a final vote with no consent needed. So hopefully the language can get worked out. With that in mind,before we go to try to fix a date,are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item that are here today that cannot be here whenever we may continue it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's look at a date. What do you think it would take to get this cleaned up? And I would like you to get with Chris Scott as well as others and understanding what's already there are how these different standards fit in so we're not approving something that's going to cause problems as soon as an application's submitted. MR.REISCHL: Well,our drop-dead date for having things for the second January meeting would be Wednesday,so I don't know--that's more of a question of Rich and Bob,how they can get this stuff done. We need it to our office so Heidi and I can review it and then get it distributed by Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich,do you want to take a stab at a date? And from the podium, please. MR.REISCHL: What I'm saying is it may be better for the first meeting in February to give them a little more time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I know that meeting's wide open. There's nothing currently scheduled,so that would work. MR.YOVANOVICH: What is the first meeting in February,if somebody could-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second. MR.BELLOWS: Second. MR.YOVANOVICH: Groundhog Day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCI-IMITT: We'll wake you up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be a gloomy day. It will be full of clouds. Don't worry. MR.YOVANOVICH: Does that mean we have a shorter winter;is that how that works? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Winters have been too short down here anyway lately,so... MR.YOVANOVICH: Well,you know, I obviously can get it done for the next meeting. The problem is is coordinating with staff and making sure we get the language right because,to be honest with you,I'm sitting here going,I'm not really sure what I need to change because of the different references to the landscaping requirements. So I think we probably need to sit in a room and figure out where the glitch is now that you've raised the concern about--do I need to change anything other than come up with language to say that these uses can go into existing buildings? If that's the answer,I could do that,you know,on my way back to the office. I can dictate language,get it typed up and sent to review. If that's the only change I've got to make,then let's go for the next meeting. But if—Mr.Strain,I'm asking you,because you clearly are the most familiar with these potential glitches. If it's more than just doing that,I need to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have three different standards right now that could apply. I just want to make sure that--I don't know what was applied along SR84 on the south side,because we have one section of the PUD that's said to be 20 feet,another section of the PUD that's said to be five feet,and now the standards for the overlay say 25 feet. So,first of all,I think we need to understand what's there then somehow fit that into the language so that can remain as it exists,and then once that's established,whatever those buildings add for the uses you're picking up today and as long as it's an existing building, I agree with you,they should be fine,but I don't want the buffer language to trip you up when we come in for a project. MR.YOVANOVICH: On a new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the new building. But the way it reads now,it doesn't apply to just new buildings. It applies where those uses are used. MR.YOVANOVICH: Right. And I can fix that with language that says— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Page 14 of 32 January 5,2017 MR.YOVANOVICH: That's easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anything here is impossible to fix;it just needs to be cleaned up. MR.YOVANOVICH: I don't disagree. I just want to make sure Pm cleaning up the right stuff. That's all Pm asking_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,no matter what,this would have to come back for either consent or a hearing. I'd rather it just come back clean as--with the right language,we can vote on it,be done in one day. So you just tell us--and it would be with staffs review and Fm sure the County Attorney's Office,and I need David Weeks to make sure that the language for that overlay can be applied in whatever manner language comes up,okay? MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I ask another question timing-wise? And this is purely selfish and personal. I have a commitment that basically starts at the end of February--you're aware of this,Mr. Strain--through May,end of May. I can obviously come back for hearings as necessary. But I would prefer to have my BCC hearing before I have to take care of this other commitment So is there any way we can come back to the Planning Commission on February 2nd and advertise for the second BBC hearing in February concurrently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred,what do you feel about that? MR. REISCHL: I dont see any—yeah,it's doable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.YOVANOVICH: Normally you don't do that,so that's why I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect if this comes out right,you'll be on consent for the BCC hearing. MR.YOVANOVICH: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would expedite the whole process. MR.YOVANOVICH: But I'd like to know that before my other commitment,because if I get pulled on consent,it's a long drive back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to accommodate your other commitment,we should schedule this for the first meeting in March? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR.REISCHL: Actually,that works out well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to do that. First meeting in February. MR.REISCHL: That works out well,because they're currently penciled in for February 14th,which is expected to be a very long board meeting. MR.YOVANOVICH: So this way we're only moving two weeks. And I get it,and these are issues that are helpful that came up,and we'll fix them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then I have no problem. If we request a continuance—you're requesting a continuance until the February 2nd meeting;is that right? MR. REISCHL: Is it a continuance,officially,or is it just tabled until then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we usually continue. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,it would be a continuance— MR.YOVANOVICH: Which one's free? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --because we don't want to have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one's free? Does this have to be readvertised? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: For the February 2nd meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have an advertising issue. So you are requesting a continuance to February 2nd? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,as long as I don't have to pay the$500 fee to request a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under what standards does that$500 fee become imposed so we do avoid that? Page 15 of 32 January 5,2017 MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows.That's normally required when there isn't this type of discussion— MR.YOVANOVICH: Got it. MR.BELLOWS: —about standards being revised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're not going to have the fee,so you are requesting a continuance to February 2nd? MR.YOVANOVICH: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend a continuance— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —to February 2nd? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: --to February 2nd,to continue. MR.YOVANOVICH: Can I—before you vote on that,can 1 take it to mean that my focus on issues from everybody who is here today is the landscape buffer and 8322 type uses? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the correction of the other pieces we talked about. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The correction of the other pieces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second for that motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. This item's continued to February 2nd,which you'll be the first up on February 2nd. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Fred or Ray,Pd only suggest,please don't send the entire backup again with the next packet. MR.BELLOWS: Noted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All we need is the PUD amendment change. I don't need the four pounds of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's to give you something to do over the holiday. You didn't know that? ***Okay. I'll read off the next item. Ifs a boat dock extension. lfs BDE-PL20I 60000863. It's the 67-foot boat dock extension for a 14 Hawk Street on Isles of Capri. 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. I'm going to have an interesting disclosure,but we'll start with Stan, because we always do,on that side of the building. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Nothing to disclose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This originally came before the Hearing Examiner's Office,or was scheduled to come before the Hearing Examiner's Office. Because of the way my ordinance is written,I had to continue it to this board to hear it as a final decision,and then I will be—I am not allowed to sit on this board while it's being heard. So I will be turning the dais over to Karen to hear on this issue. And Pd like to ask Karen that after you finish hearing this,please take a five-minute break so I can start my computer back up and get back on for the next one. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Sure. Page 16 of 32 January 5, 2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or if we're near breaktime,maybe a full 15-minute break;whatever you feel is appropriate. With that, I'll leave it--we'll finish disclosures. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe,do you have any disclosures? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN S[RAIN: Okay. With that,I will turn it over to Karen. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. Go ahead. You can-- MR.THOEMKE: For the record,Pm Kris Thoemke with Coastal Engineering Consultants. We're the agents for the Lyons on this petition. And,as Mark said,we originally expected this to be heard by the hearing examiner,but there were two letters of concern that were raised by neighbors. We--our client,Mr.Lyons,who is here,addressed those with the neighbors. We resolved the issues with them,and in the packet that you have,there are letters stating that. But just to briefly give you an idea of what is going on--okay. The property that we're talking about is this house right here,which will be replaced. As you can see,the current conditions,that are two existing docks on the property. The plan that we are bringing forward would remove both of those docks and replace them with a new dock. And the original plan was for a 56-foot dock with the boat out there. That is what drew the objections from some neighbors. And after consulting with the neighbors,a plan was devised,which is this here,to relocate the dock. We shortened it up a little bit. And that is the plan that the neighbors that objected to it said that if this plan was enacted,that they would be fine with that and withdraw their objections. And that's all in the packet. Other than that,the application is there.And as staff will tell you,we meet all the criteria for the boat dock extension. So I think with that,if there are any questions,I will just entertain those. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. So your submittal is the Option B? MR.THOEMKE: Yes,correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No questions. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: My only question is you mentioned the letters. I see the one here from Fred and Marcia Prunetti. Was there any others,or that's the only one? MR.THOEMKE: There was another one from Downs. They own property,but it's not in the immediate--it's a few lots over. But they also sent a letter withdrawing their objection as well. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Is that in our packet as well? MR.THOEMKE: It should be,yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It is in there. Okay. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: For the record,Ray Bellows. I'm filling in for Rachel Beasley,who was the planner who did the initial review for this petition. We are recommending approval,and be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No questions,I move--recommend approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Were there any speakers on this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh,please;yes. MR.BELLOWS: No registered speakers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I move to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All those in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 17 of 32 January 5,2017 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Opposed,like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My computer didn't even have time to get turned off. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh,there you go. Do you still want to take a break now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why don't we take a 15-minute break,and that will be our normal break before we go into the LDC which will start immediately when we get back from break. So let's break till 10:15. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,everybody. Welcome back from our break. ***The final item up for today is Item 9C,and it's an additional hearing for the Collier County Land Development Code amendments,and this one is involving the various golf course issues that we heard previously. There's been some refinements by staff,and I've also been told by staff they'd like to continue this to the 19th as well. We'll hear it today,we'll hear it again on the 19th,and then the meeting on the 30th is going to be involving this as well. Now,not all those meetings necessarily have to rehash the whole issue,but the broad spectrum of reaching out and having multiple meetings will certainly help everybody understand all the detail. Before we go too far—and I know I probably share the opinions with the rest of this board--Caroline,you and your group have done a fabulous job,and this submittal was the best I've ever seen,and I've been on this board 16 or 17 years.You did a great job. I want to thank you. The detail is unbelievable. It helps—I think all that's going to help everybody understand what the outcome of this could be and how we're going to get there. So thank you very much for the way you did the job. MS.CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent job. And I'll turn it over to you now. MS.CILEK: All right. Super. Caroline Cilek,LDC manager,for the record. And what I'd like to do today is go over two different LDC amendments and,at the pleasure of the Planning Commission,we can choose whether we go over the new amendment being shared today,which is regarding 2.03.09 or going back into 5.05.15,conversion of golf courses. Which would you like to do first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take them in order numerically--well,let's do them in the order you've presented them. It would be--2.03.09 would be the first one,and then 2.03.06. MS.CILEK: Great. All right. As discussed at the last meeting,this is a board-directed amendment to add uses to the open space zoning district,in particular the golf course district,as it's referred to. And what we tried to do was include uses that were very low intensity,and these would be uses by right within the golf course zoning district. And there are several GC golf courses out there today. And then we updated the rest of the section as well to add conditional uses which we thought would be reasonable given the public vetting associated with a conditional use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess that,then,takes us right into your—the first part of your staff report included a review of the amenities. Would you mind putting that amenities table on the overhead. MS.CILEK: Can you speak to what page you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. MS.CILEK: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. MS.CILEK: Oh,well,2.03.09 is distinct from that amenities table. So that amenities table is specific to the 5.05.15,so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,it is. You're right.I was just going in order of your staff report. Sorry. MS.CILEK: That's okay. Looking at 2.03.09,we've added three additional permitted uses:Hiking trails,walkways,multi-use paths with observation decks as one;two would be passive recreational uses as Page 18 of 32 January 5,2017 defined in the LDC;and,three,disk golf. So those would be the other uses we're seeking to add to 2.03.09. And this would give more flexibility to a property owner of a golf course if they should feel the need to,you know,market that property as something other than a golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And since 2.03.09 is adding some of those uses,you're restricting the accessory uses though,for the most part,to the golf course use. MS.CILEK: Yes,we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain that a little bit. MS.CILEK: Well,we felt that the other uses wouldn't need these additional accessory uses. I'm happy to see if the Planning Commission feels otherwise. Obviously,they could—you know,we could change it to include them. But we did narrow the accessory uses to relate to the golf course use in particular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So,for example,if someone had a golf course and they wanted to put a restaurant in,that would be considered an accessory use,but if they had disk golf and they wanted to put a restaurant in, it wouldn't be an accessory use. It would have to be a principal use,and it wouldn't be one that's currently listed as an allowed principal use by right. MS.CILEK: If they only have the disk golf on that site,correct,they wouldn't be allowed to have a restaurant. If they had golf and disk golf,then they would be able to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And under conditional uses,you've got a series of other uses that-- if they go through a public process,then the considerations of the surrounding community,and everybody else is listened to,and the compatibility standards are established,basically,those other 11 uses, which include things like cemeteries and equestrian facilities,museums,bocce ball courts,fitness centers, parks and playgrounds,things like that would be able to go in but only if they went through a successful conditional use process? MS.CILEK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's just the—in our report,everybody,it's Pages 11 and 12. That's the LDC language on Pages 11 and 12 for 2.03.09. This is just addressing opening up the existing golf course zoning to these additional uses in order to—if I understand your and my conversation correctly,to preserve some of the open space—some of the ability to keep a golf course. For example,if a golf course wasn't working by itself and they wanted to put in a disk course to help augment their income,they could actually go out and just do this? MS.CILEK: Correct. They would just,as a right,be able to add those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's how that section works. Did anybody have any questions in that section before we get to the more meatier one which I think is 5.05.15? That's where we're heading next. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we move into the next one then. MS.CILEK: Okay. Super. So for this amendment,what Pd like to do is start with our followup materials. We had some really good discussions and were requested to come back with research regarding the"conversion of golf courses"amendment. And beginning on Page 2 of your packet,we have outlined--I believe there are—let's see here--five different topics that we addressed. So beginning with the first one,we did research on the impact of a golf course view on property values,and we took a two-tiered approach.One,we went out and looked at the literature to see what the literature said,and then we also did,as recommended by the commissioners,take a look at Collier County data. And so based on the literature,we were able to provide you that golf course views and open space views do have a valuable and positive impact on property values,period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that chart now on the overhead. Now it's relevant. MS.CILEK: And then the second part of it was reaching out to the Property Appraiser,and we were able to find that open space views do have a positive impact on property values. Now,it's important to note that there were several more categories of view amenity types,but those that had less than 10 sales we removed from the table to focus on those that had a larger quantity so that the Page 19 of 32 January 5,2017 data would be more correct.And then we also combined several of the green space categories together to make sure that if there were any subjectivity in the review by the Property Appraiser,that we're kind of removing that and combining those. And what we found was that those that are natural and open space,green space areas have the highest impact on a property value in a positive way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions from the table? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the sake of the audience and everybody that's listening,the way that I interpreted this,and I think--and correct me if it's wrong,Caroline,the highest amenity--if you live on a lake,that's supposed to be worth the most as far as bucks,dollars per bang,bang per buck. But if you live on a golf course,that's the third--actually,it's the fourth,31 percent value. It tell you that a golf course has a premium comparable to about 31 percent of the overall premiums that were weighed in on this analysis. But at the same time,the landscape buffer,green space,and green belts also had a similar value. So if you live on a golf course now and it's replaced by a buffer,green space,or green belt of a significant,assuming,size,then you would actually be—wouldn't be diminished in value.Your value would basically remain,we hope,the same based on a chart like this. Is that a fair assessment? MS.CILEK: Yes. And we used—as you can see on the table,we used the single-family as the control here to compare to. And so all of the ones that are,like,above are based off of the single-family being the control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would imagine a chart like this,if I was an HOA negotiating with a new golf course coming in for a conversion,this would weigh heavy on how I might want to consider arguing with the developer on what we need in our backyards versus what we have. MS.CILEK: Sure. And staff feels that it most definitely supports having the greenway as a part of the conversion process. I mean,what we're doing is preserving the open space view,and it would be either a lake,a preserve,a natural area,or a landscape buffer,or a golf course,and all of those are in the top,you know,tier compared to the other option,which is single-family. And that's why we used the single-family as the control. If we didn't have the green space,then it most likely would be looking from a backyard of a single-family onto another single-family,and that's why we used that as the control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick,this would be right up your alley in real estate,so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: My only comment is I would challenge some of the data as far as percentage attributed to amenity premiums,but it's not relevant now--and I don't want to take up Caroline's time,but further down the list,I mean,to say that I back up to a street and that added--that actually adds value as an amenity to the amenity premium or a drainage easement,I see those are still positive 8 percent and 2 percent. I would challenge those. I see canal and recreational areas are negative. But,I mean,it's definitely-- MS.CILEK: And keep in mind it's being compared to looking on a backyard of a single-family or front yard,single-family. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure. MS.CILEK: So it's compared to that,not to another type of amenity. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah,I know. Backing up to a street to me would be,in my opinion,my experience,almost,arguably,the worse compared to backing up to somebody's home with a few bushes or trees behind it,but that's just my--what do I know? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just for clarity,this is what the data showed. There's no subjectivity or-- MS.CILEK: Right. And if 1 may,in the packet on Page 3 we identified all of the,more or less, parameters of the dataset. So,you know,keep these bullet points in mind. And I can put those on the overhead as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. Basically it does what I had asked. It's just that you made a general statement when we last heard this,and all I wanted was some verification to back up that statement, and you provided that. MS.CILEK: Well,most certainly,those open space view amenities are at the top tier when Page 20 of 32 January 5, 2017 compared to single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you,Caroline. I think we can move on to the next part,which I think is your legal research. MS.CILEK: Yes. What we did was take a look online at news articles and,in some very few instances,some of the decisions from courts,but[tried to--I'm not an attorney. Pm a land use planner. So I tried to stick to what's available through the local newspapers online as to what was happening with golf course conversions across the state of Florida. And keep in mind what I was able to find were those that were controversial. Those that would get approved through the process are not going to be,you know,highlighted in many articles in the newspapers. But those that were controversial showed kind of what happens at the end and how long it took to get there and all of the time and money that was spent,you know,in litigating these. So I think that's really important to keep in mind. And then the end result,which is that in a vast majority of cases,you know,the golf course was approved to be developed in some way,some form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: And I think that highlights why this amendment is really important,because it puts protections in for those existing single-family residences and residential properties around the golf course with the knowledge that in most cases these golf courses do get converted. CHA IRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The examples you presented,it's clear that once the decision is made and the developer or the owner,up front and early,meets with the community,the results appear to be very positive. So I guess from a standpoint,that's what the LDC amendment is promoting is trying to make sure that this is worked through the community process. I do have a question,though,maybe Heidi could answer from a legal perspective. The Example No. 5,could you kind of explain what the unity of title covenant—what was that issue? I didn't quite understand that case. I don't know if you looked at these,Heidi. It went back to the appeals court,and they affirmed. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,I did not review the case,but I believe it would probably be some sort of restrictive covenant against the property. MS.CILEK: Yeah. The idea behind it was that it couldn't be sold off into different pieces,that it needed to stay as a whole parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it had to stay one parcel;could not sell it. MS.CILEK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be something that--we have one golf course that is in litigation right now over title issues,and that's the Golden Gate golf course,and that may be something that comes out of that. MS.CILEK: Perhaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this part of it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one other thing in looking at some of the layouts of some of the communities who are currently being affected by this;one most recently is the Riviera Golf Club.They have a PUD that surrounds their golf club—their golf course,but the course isn't part of the PUD,so--it's a GC district. MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've been notified that the owner of that intends to do something with it; sell it,convert it,do whatever. Since I've worked a lot of projects,and especially PUDs,one thing that happens inside a PUD a lot of times is the roads are private,and this contrasts between Riviera and the Evergreen golf course. The Evergreen golf course came in for a change,a conversion, but they didn't have any access unless they went through private roads,roads not maintained by the public,roads that weren't county dedicated roads. Now, I don't know what all their plats may have said and how the language was fitted,but that Page 21 of 32 January 5,2017 seemed to be a burden they would have had to figure out how to overcome versus a community—and I think Riviera has a lot of,if not all,county-owned roads through it,which means they're public,which means there might be different ability for the golf course then to access that road that they wouldn't have if it was a private road. In your review of various—of these things,did you come across any scenarios that talked about how—I mean,when you enter a road system from a golf course,you basically enter it through the clubhouse; you go out and ride the scooters around,or whatever golfers do,and then they go back and park the thing--yeah,whatever those are. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Golf carts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golf carts,okay. I don't play golf Anyway,so the impact is at the golf club. Well,now what's happening-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Buggies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Buggies—is the impact's going to be throughout everywhere they have contact where they have new units,and so the impact on the internal road systems, it seems,would be heightened. And I'm not sure how--1 didn't see that discussed,because it's a facet that may actually lend a lot of ability for these communities to really consider how this golf course could even think of adding density. Because if the internal roads can't take it because they're already maximized by the development that's there, I'm just wondering what justification government has in order to look at it. Did you come across any discussions of those in your scenarios? MS.CILEK: First,I wasn't super focused on looking at transportation issues when I was looking through the materials,to be honest. Second,a lot of this that we were able to review was at,like,a much higher level of zoning even having the ability to develop it rather than going down to the next stage of,like, where can you put access. So I think it's a really good question,and for our part what we're aiming to do is that in the amendment we talk about the intent-to-convert application,and that has an administrative code section associated with it. And part of the administrative code will require that they show how they're going to do that. And the intent-to-convert application has to get approved by the county. So if they're not able to show that they had legal access some way,shape,or form then,you know,I think that's going to be an interesting—you know,how do you get that approved then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason it struck me is because I took a close look at the Riviera golf course trying to think of avenues they might pursue to better their position,and then I realized they don't have private—from what I could tell,I think they have public roads. I mean,I'm going to look at it a little more closely,and I'll probably give it to Mr.Sawyer to find out how impactful those are. Because there's got to be some sort of—well,I know there is. There's some kind of capacity calculation on those internal roads by the number of units built around them. And if the road is going to be increased by a percentage above the units that are there that is unexpected,that's a whole different story, because it's not going now to just the golf club location. It's going to all the different pieces of that golf course. So—and,plus,you're going to have intersections now alongside homes that have connections to the road that they didn't have a road there before. They had a golf course,so... Anyway,it's an interesting twist,and I'll certainly be looking at that when these things come forward, so... MS.CILEK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you want to move next? MS.CILEK: Number 3 is changes and additions to the LDC amendment text,so we'll go through those in a minute. The next one is an overview of Dark Sky concepts. And we are currently working on this,but we will be able to present that information to you at the next meeting on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: And then the last one is the visual survey. I just have to ask,did anyone have a chance Page 22 of 32 January 5,2017 to go take a look at the survey that we put on our website. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I did. 1 like it. I was impressed by it,yeah. MS.CILEK: Great. So our goal there was simply to show what a visual survey looks like,how easy it is to fill out or complete from the stakeholder side,and then also that it's possible for an applicant to do it as well. If staff can do it,we're hoping an applicant could as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On those surveys,how much interaction would the applicant have in setting them up with staff? MS.CILEK: Well,that's a good question. We can address that through the administrative code.But I think that staff would need to take a look at it before it goes public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is you know any survey is really going to be subject to the way you asked the question. MS.CILEK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what we've seen with attorneys that come in here,they have a twist on every question different than what most people would see it as,and I'm real concerned that the questions are clear enough so that the public can know what they're answering. MS.CILEK: PII make a note to make sure that it's reviewed by the county staff members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where does that take us next? MS.CILEK: Okay. So next I'd like to go through the narrative and discuss those changes in 5.05.15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MS.CILEK: I am going to Page 14,if that's all right. I just want to address some—a typo that we made in the table. So there's Table 1,Table 2,and Table 3,and our goal here was to identify only the courses in Collier County,and we were able to do that in 1 and 2. We did make a mistake in Table 3,and we actually included the golf courses in Marco Island and the City of Naples,so the numbers don't add up. And so we will fix that in the next draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: I'm on Page 17. And please feel free,if you have questions before that,to let me know. We updated the figure,Figure 1,to be a little bit more clear on what the process is. As we went through the PowerPoint last time,the stakeholder outreach process comes first,and then it goes into an either/or situation;either you're going through the land use petition process,or you're going through the compatibility design review process,and I made sure that that was a little clearer how that process works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the difference between the compatibility design review process versus what we currently do,SDPs were at the time we do most of that review,and they're not done through public hearings,but in this case they would be done through a public hearing. MS.CILEK: Yes. Similar to the site plans with deviations for redevelopment,the parts that are the compatibility measures,those would be approved by the public hearing process,and then it would go back in to be approved administratively,the entire SDP,for example,if that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS.CILEK: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.CILEK: Later on in Page 17 we address the changes in the LDC text,and we'll go through those in a little bit more detail. Okay. And then from there,I'm happy to go right to the LDC text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 18,stakeholder outreach meetings,the word"several"needs to be "couple,"or however you want. MS.CILEK: I can make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,because there's only two required. MS.CILEK: Yes,two are required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did have some changes under compatibility design review on Page 19. Page 23 of 32 January 5,2017 MS.CILEK: And I'd be happy to explain those through the LDC text. I think that would be a better time to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just want to make sure you didn't mean to skip those. And then the LDC text for this one starts on Page 22;is that correct? MS.CILEK: Correct;for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Looking at H,at the last meeting we talked about making sure that everyone is clear on when this conversion process would apply,and so staff is proposing that it would apply once the golf course is actually constructed. So the fairways are in,the tees are there,golf court paths are there;it is a golf course. And that's when it would apply,not at the approval stage. So if you got it approved in the PUD or at the SDP but never constructed it,then this would not apply.You could still revise those documents through the relevant process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Looking at Page 23,it's come to my attention we should and need to update BI,2,and 3 to be consistent with the constructed concept. So right now we have this section applies to a golf course developed,and we need to make that consistent with the proposed constructed. On C.1.A,which is highlighted in yellow,we have updated that language per the Planning Commission's request,and I worked with the County Attorney's Office to do that. Anything else on 23? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. You're making the corrections. That's great. MS.CILEK: Twenty-four,2.B,little i,no conversion. The discussion at the last meeting was really helpful in regearing this section. So what we're looking for here is for the applicants to still go through a no-conversion concept and thought process,but we have changed it to whether the existing homeowners association that surrounds the golf course would be able to purchase all or part of the golf course and in the consideration of whether any new association that would come forward from the existing surrounding homeowners or the new homeowners would be interested in purchasing it. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark,do we need verbiage in there that differentiates between homeowners and condo,just in that respect,or does that"homeowner"general term apply to condo and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,I think the intent is that,but I would ask to—I guess I'd defer to Heidi to see if we need to make sure it's"any"homeowners association. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I would clarify that it's any,you know,owners association. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Any owners association? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS.CILEK: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Patrick. MS.CILEK: So I would adding"any"to 1A. It's already in B,actually,or"any new." So I can add it to B as well. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Any new association. MS.CILEK: But I can make it consistent throughout. That would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That would work. MS.CILEK: All right. Page 25,looking at 4,conversion application procedures. Here I did make an oversight,and it was recommended at the last Planning Commission that we modify the language regarding deviations and just identify them as prohibited. That way there's no confusion as to the fact that they could not be requested or approved,and that would be consistent with how we use the word"prohibited" throughout the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Where's deviations in that piece? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 25,4.A,B,and C. Page 24 of 32 January 5, 2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS.CILEK: Page 26. 1 will speak to the highlighted language under F. Here,following the Planning Commission's direction at the last meeting,we have revised it to have this process,the compatibility design review,go through the Planning Commission,and they would make the recommendation to the Board to approve those compatibility measures as a part of this process.Previously it had been the Hearing Examiner. Then we also moved F.3.0 and D following the Planning Commission's conversation as well. Under G,development standards,the second sentence is highlighted here. This was something that was not discussed but I wanted to bring up for discussion today. Going back to how this process works,the compatibility design review does not require the development standards in G currently. So if you're--because it's a permitted use that you're reviewing. So you're really just reviewing that use for the compatibility. You're not reviewing whether—that you should be allowed or not. And so we're not requiring the greenway,and we're not requiring stormwater management requirements,those extra ones;however,what we did want to ensure was that the health/safety of the site was maintained for any application and for the soil and groundwater testing. The section that we have in here under 6 on Page 28 is filling a hole currently with soil and groundwater testing,and [wanted to make sure that it was applied across all different processes to convert the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And while we're on Page 26,up in the top under D and E,you use the word "reasonable"several times. And I think I've seen every kind of interpretation of the way words can be twisted when it comes before a public body that you can imagine. And I'm worried that"reasonable" in some persons minds may not be reasonable in others. My concern is, if there are—say you have these meetings and there are viable alternatives put on the table or concerns from the neighborhood,the way this reads,the applicant only reports the ones they consider reasonable. I'd like to make sure somehow that's not limited to that,because— MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —what they consider reasonable may be very reasonable in other people's minds,and I'd rather us catch all of them. And let us know what was thrown on the table,and everybody, then,can determine what's reasonable. MS.CILEK: I think that's a good observation.Under D.4,that's where we're looking for the applicant to provide those explanations,so we can just require that they provide an explanation for all of the input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That would be better; I agree. MS.CILEK: Okay. Looking at Page 27,2.A,taking a look at the greenway language previously,I wanted to really clarify that the greenway is designed to go around those existing residential properties,and I felt that this was an improvement over the prior language. So I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Caroline, if I could interrupt for a minute-- MS.CILEK: Sure. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --and go back to Page 26,Line 48 and 49,you'll just need to clarify the compatibility review is only subject to that other section. MS.CILEK: I can do that;no problem. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Caroline, I have a question,too. It might just be a clarification. MS.CILEK: Sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Go back to Page 27,and No.2,right before the highlighted A, the greenway shall not include required yards—setbacks of any individual lots. Help me understand what that verbiage is intended to mean. MS.CILEK: Sure. So open space,as defined in the LDC—it might be usable open space; I'd have to go double-check. But the concept of open space in the LDC can include yards,and that's often how a percentage of meeting the minimum open space is met by including yards. Not all the time,but sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--but I think for Patrick's benefit,when she says"yards,"she means the 25 feet that's the setback,not the backyard as a whole. Just the yard you're referring to is the side setback Page 25 of 32 January 5,2017 yard,the rear yard,or the front yard,but only to the distance of the setback's depth. Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MS.CILEK: Right. But that can be open space. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Right. I understand. MS.CILEK: And so here I'm looking to make sure that that's not being what's used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to use something on top of that,is what the goal is. MS.CILEK: Yes. Thank you for adding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we on Page— MS.CILEK: Yep,27,2.C,we addressed the maintenance as discussed at the last time. So they would basically need to work through the process during the zoning or the SRA amendment process,and it would just be on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on Page 27? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Caroline,if you go to No.2 on the top,fourth line down,it says continuous strip of,and it says undeveloped land. Could we just say continuous strip of land set aside for passive recreation uses? "Undeveloped"may connotate meaning can't be touched,and I think-- MS.CILEK: That's just fine. The main part here is we're trying to get to the fact that it's supposed to be passive recreational uses. So 1 think that would be just fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under E it talks about the inventory. It was either E or--I think it was E we talked about. Yeah,I mentioned this to you before. I wanted to make sure that we weren't going to be double-dipping into the count of the open space used for the new conversion versus the open space that was previously required by the PUD, because they can't be the same. The PUD already has required a certain amount of open space or a straight—whatever condition it's under,and many of these projects have utilized the golf course as their required limitation of open space. So the conversion can't use the same thing because it's already been utilized. I don't know how that fits into this,but I kind of wanted to make you aware that's a concern,so... MS.CILEK: Sure. So two things: One is that just the general open space concept is addressed under G1. So if we take a look at Gl,previously approved open space,they cannot utilize the open space that was utilized for approval previously,and so that takes care of that;however,what I do want to bring your attention to is 3B on Page 27,and that's dealing with the preserve requirement,because they are distinct. Open space is one requirement and preserve is another. And Pm going to work with the environmental staff to address making sure that we're not allowing for any double dipping of preserves. One thing I do want to ask you is would it be the Planning Commission's desire to require that preserves on golf courses are maintained? If they've been there for 10 years,that we are not opening them up to future development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if they're in a conservation easement,I think that's a primary factor. If they're not,then I guess they're open game,more or less. MS.CILEK: Sometimes they're under an actual conservation easement and,from my understanding, sometimes they're just identified as a preserve--you know,in prior decades as a preserve on the SDP. So if they're identified as land set aside for preservation,I'd like to see if you would want to keep that as preserved land moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,mostly,people count on that when they buy their homes. If it says "preserve,"in most people's minds,with the exception of when we give exceptions to it,which we probably shouldn't do as much-- MS.CILEK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: —they can count on it. MS.CILEK: Then I will— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would support no requirement—or definitely would require the preserves to stay and meet the requirements of the original PUD. I would support no--nothing that would cause a reduction or modify those existing preserves. Page 26 of 32 January 5,2017 MS.CILEK: Okay. So I will make sure the language reflects that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 27 under H,I like your suggestion,the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the county's official records describing the use and maintenance of the greenway. But in reading your case law that you provided,one of them was really interesting.Basically because the covenant was in favor of the homeowners and the elected officials—I think it was the commission as well—the judge said,well, it's a public process. You can't just do away with it. It's a whole different ballgame when you get to that level of commitment. And this one--this H did not discuss who the beneficiaries of the covenant are. And I would suggest between now and the 19th maybe you get together with the Count Attorney's Office and figure out a solution to that so that we have some--if there's a higher elevation of protection there that we can obtain,we might want to consider that. MS.CILEK: I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then 3.B is the one we just revolved. It's about the double-dipping,so--okay,that's good. Okay.Pm done. We're onto 28 unless somebody else has something on 27. (No response.) MS.CILEK: I don't have any changes on 28,but I will just remind you that H,design standards for lands converted from a golf course—so this is important to remember that it will apply to those non-golf course uses that we've added to 2.03.09. So those,disk golf,hiking trails,hiking observation decks,those will have these setbacks and these lighting standards. And then at the next meeting we may tweak H.1 to see if we can talk about any additional Dark Sky concepts. We may not. We're still under that review,but that may evolve through our research. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know,I know Commissioner Nance is no longer here--he's here,but he's not on the commission. But he was heavy into that initiative involving Dark Skies. You may want to reach out to him and ask him how he--if he saw that playing out in situations like this. I'll try to do that and let you know,too. MS.CILEK: Sure. I know he's been really influential in getting the county started on addressing lighting standards,and that's still an ongoing project,and we're also going to provide that update to you on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know one of his last meetings he wanted to make sure that that issue got on the table at least,so I want to make sure we still continue to consider it. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For greenways or any other type of pathways or those type of things--I can't recall if the LDC requires it to meet the ADA requirements,American Disabilities Act. I mean,at least some of the requirements--I know when we purchased land through Collier County,there were certain requirements. If this is a conversion,would you still have to meet some requirements to accommodate ADA--requirements of the ADA? I believe it would,but... MS.CILEK: It would fall to what's in the Land Development Code for,you know,SDP requirements-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,ADA—ADA is above the LDC. It's a federal code. I don't know if we can not pay attention to it. MS.CILEK: It's mentioned in the LDC where it's applicable. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to make sure if we do,that there's accommodations at least for wheelchair access,those kind of things that would have to be—to accommodate to meet those requirements as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would—yeah,I'd hope so. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one question in general terms,and probably more from Heidi's perspective. It's a legal issue. The only--I fully support this. My only concern is,is it more onerous from a standpoint,could someone come back to the county and say you are forcing me to comply with requirements far above and Page 27 of 32 January 5,2017 beyond any land development of an ag land--converting ag land? If I'm in a home next to an ag property and that's been my view for 40 years and all of a sudden now I've got a,you know,building or some other, it's kind of the same type of impact. We have here a green space,essentially,which was a golf course. Now we're imposing what I would call pretty significant restrictions on setbacks and requirements. Could they come back and say,no,this is a taking. You're-- I guess they could challenge that in court somehow. Where does that put the county? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,my personal opinion on the regulations as they're currently drafted is that I don't believe that it rises into the level of a taking or Bert Harris Claim. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It does increase the standards for compatibility,but they can still go forward with their property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the premise is based solely on the fact that it was an existing green space of some sort,we'll call it a golf course,that is being proposed to take from someone. Whether it's their property or not,they bordered it,and we're showing that there was certainly a value. I'm just curious. This becomes more—far more onerous than any other development standards we've ever had in the LDC as regards to the requirement for setbacks and other type of things that need to be done. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,we've been identifying certain uses that do require greater compatibility standards,such as gas stations,and we've been evaluating some uses in doing this,and it doesn't totally halt the process. It requires them to comply with heightened compatibility standards. And then,of course,if they're going through a conditional use or rezone,they still have to meet those standards as well. MS.CILEK: If I may add something,too;staff did a lot of research before,you know,we prepared this language,and we're finding that many communities across the state of Florida are adding more restrictive requirements when a golf course is converted. Miami-Dade requires that two-thirds or at least 50 percent of the golf course is maintained as open space. So--and there are other jurisdictions that are requiring more or less what we have,a greenway or a buffer strip,you know,up to 100 feet,sometimes a little bit more. So,you know,we feel that what we have presented to you is very consistent with what's occurring across the state. And we also found that developers are just doing the outreach in that so that they can go smoothly through the process in those cases where they go really well. And that's why we provided the stakeholder outreach meetings. And,you know,it is basically starting off with the NIM concept and really bolstering it up to make sure that there's interaction and collaboration. But we have that process already. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Now,when I'm buying—if I'm buying a house next to an undeveloped parcel and it's treed,I should assume that that's going to be developed someday. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If Pm buying next to a farm,yeah,maybe,you know,they got a rezone. If I'm buying next to a golf course,I would assume that golf course is always going to be there; like a preserve. So I think it's part of the buyer beware. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If you're thinking of buying a house,though,I'll talk to you after the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well,it will be interesting as this--once it's approved,to see the first community go through this in Collier County,and I believe we have one that's pretty close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there's actually four of them that are in some form or another of attempted starting conversion: Evergreen,Lakewood,Riviera,and Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Well,Golden Gate,of course,the preponderance of that borders 951 and— CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,lineal footage-wise,there's far more homes bordering it than there is road because it's got that big island in the middle surrounded by houses,and then--so you've got to count all that as well as lineal footage,so... Page 28 of 32 January 5,2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I forgot about that.No,it will be significant. Of course,there's issues with the Golden Gate. I think Riviera's going to be one that's going to be pretty significant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,they all will be. You know what's interesting is,this road issue,for some of the communities,might be a really interesting way they can protect themselves. I just don't know how it plays out yet with all of them. Pm trying to think of—especially in PVDs where they've got private roads. That would be a really interesting scenario. So hopefully— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But a PUD—essentially,many of the roads are truly public because they had bonds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,those that are CDDs,but-- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: CDDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --there's only—I mean,we have 431 PUDs in Collier County. There's only a small percentage that are CDDs. So all the rest don't—and of the golf courses—we have 70 golf courses. What, 12 are straight zoned;the rest are PUDs. So we may not have as many PUDs that are CDDs. All these acronyms. I bet the public's loving to follow this conversation. But,anyway,hopefully that won't be as bad as we could expect it to be. I guess we're at the end of your presentation. MS.CILEK: Yes. So we'll get to work on the remaining items to address,and we'll bring that draft to you on the 19th. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mark, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Good job. MS.CILEK: Oh,thank you. Team work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what Pd like to do is see if there's any members of the public that want to speak. If there are,we'll swear them in all at once. And then please raise your hand or stand up if you want to speak on any of these issues. Okay. And would you swear them in,please. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time,if you'd like to come up to one of the podiums. Ladies first. Oh,she defers to you,so... MR.DANZ: Good morning, Mr.Chairman,Commissioners. My name is George Danz. Pm president of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association. In reference to Section 2--well,first of all,let me compliment staff. I think they've done a fantastic job on it. And I also want to compliment you folks for taking the time to diligently go through what staff has prepared and make your comments,too. I think it's a good document. I'm somewhat concerned with 2.03.09,recreational facilities,and with some specifics there. Specific (sic)No. 5,water-related activities. Does that sort of imply that if I bought this golf course, I could put in a water theme park with a two-story water slide for kids sliding down and having fun in recreational facilities? That's a major concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can--if you don't mind, I'll by to explain some of that. That's under the conditional use section. That would require a hearing before this board and the Board of County Commissioners,and in that hearing they would have to go through how they've met standards to try to meet your concerns and your neighbors'concerns and questions like that. So it's saying,yes,you can conditionally do that,but you've got to get through this process to do it. MR.DANZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's why it's in that location. MR. DANZ: And I realize that with all that stuff,too,because it ties in with neighborhood fitness centers and things like that. I don't know whether they could build commercial-type buildings for fitness centers and things like that. If that's the case,there's a major concern. But I think--overall,I think it's an excel lent document and puts in some good guidelines. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Page 29 of 32 January 5,2017 Next speaker,please. MS.IRVIN: Good morning. For the record,I'm Sherry Irvin,broker associate with Premier Plus Realty,and I am also the listing agent for the Lakewood Country Club and Golf Course. And I was just hoping to clarify some points that went over this morning,one being the data Caroline had presented on the tables. Like Patrick,I tend to dispute some of those,and I would just like to know how many were used—single-family homes were used in the control group and also if they were used from both homes that surround private courses as well as bundled golf course communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,Caroline--ma'am,we don't normally have questions directed at the speakers previously. Usually you will ask us the questions,and we'll ask the speaker to come up and answer them. Caroline, if you don't mind,we can do this a little differently. If you want to use the other microphone and just try to answer her questions as we go along,or one of you use the other microphone. MS.CILEK: I would like to use the overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ma'am,would you mind going to this microphone then. Thank you. MS.CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you understand and follow her first question involving the data source and-- MS.CILEK: Yes,absolutely. So let me just pull up some information. So,one,we reached out to--let me get the title correct—Mr.Quinby,he is the director of real appraisal and an assessment analyst with the Property Appraiser. So we worked with him personally,and he provided us this data. And as you can see on the table—and I'll put that up there—all of the information that we used to do the ranking is actually on the table. So as you can see,the first column to the right of the"view amenity type"is the number of sales. Then we have what percentage of the overall total,which is at the bottom;2,572,I believe.So that's the data source that we were looking at altogether. And then to do the analysis,I have some bullet points below. It's been a couple days. I wouldn't mind reading them if that's okay. There we go. So each view amenity,the total sales amount was divided by the total adjusted square feet to arrive at the price per adjusted square feet,which is one of the columns. And then we did an example to kind of show you the square footage. And then we can compared them all with the single-family view. And as noted,we did combine some of the open-space view amenities into one because there were,like,five,and so we combined them into one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next comment? MS.IRVIN: My question is,though,were the single-family homes used--they reference golf course communities and,typically—I don't know if they're talking about golf course communities that are bundled and owned by the homeowners that surround the golf course or where there were private golf courses that are surrounded by individual houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like the one you have listed? MS.IRVIN: Yeah. And as to your point,Mr. Strain,when people purchase a property and it backs preserve land and we tell them it is preserve land,their expectation is that that will remain preserve land forever;however,if you do buy a piece of property that is privately held property that could be used for other uses in the future,you do have the opportunity to enjoy that view and those benefits of living adjacent to that property but have to have the understanding that it may not always be that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had ran into that Pelican Marshes as a change that the people in the existing community,Marsala,I believe,thought that they had a preserve view across there,and that was never a preserve. And it definitely upset them,so... MS.IRVIN: And that was my main concern is just trying to see where the value determination came from and how it differs if we are using communities that,you know,are bundled. It's not looking at apples to apples,at least in my case. MS.CILEK: Sure. And,actually,making sure that our dataset was more or less comprehensive and Page 30 of 32 January 5,2017 represented all the golf courses in the county was important to us,and we worked with Mr.Quinby with the Property Appraiser's Office to identify both GC zoned golf courses and PUD ones. And under the overview of date,I have those parameters there. And we have—let's see here.There were slightly less. That were-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not on the screen. MS.CILEK: —four on Page 3 of your packet,and I'll put it on there. Page 3 there were four golf course zoned properties and eight PUDs,and we wanted to make sure that they represented the county,so they are from different areas across the county as well. MS.IRVIN: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead,Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark,just for the record again,we asked for the data because there was a general statement made,and I said, I'd like to see the data. I definitely would encourage any owner of a golf course,if they attempted to make a conversion and they refuted this,they certainly have the right at the public meeting to present the data that they come up with in saying we really don't think your homes are of greater value. They're always welcome to present that in the public process and do their own research. I don't know if that belongs in the LDC,but they certainly can do that during the public process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that if Mr.Yovanovich,as an example,was one of the presenters on behalf of a client,he would come loaded with appraisers— COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --and all kinds of people to defend his position while,at the same time, staff would have to defend their position as far as compatibility goes. So it works both ways. MS. IRVIN: Absolutely. And I do thank everyone for all the hard work in this because,in the long run,that is going to shorten that process for us if we go in knowing what we can do and who we can sell it to. So I appreciate everything you both--all have done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS.IRVIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public who have not spoken who would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else from the Planning Commission have any questions of anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Caroline,I think that brings us to the end of this episode. We're going to have another one on the 19th,which takes us back to our agenda. Thank you very much for your efforts,because they have been well received. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well done. MS.CILEK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have no new business scheduled. There's no old business scheduled. Is there any other public comment made on any topic here today needed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wish to speak on anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that,is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 31 of 32 January 5,2017 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here;5-0. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:10 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARIA STRAIN,C AIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on (Z )- /7 ,as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S.LEGAL SUPPORT,INC.,BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 32 of 32