Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/13/2003 SNovember 13, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION /LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Naples, Florida, November 13, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 am in SPECIAL SESSION at 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, 34104 in rooms 609-610 with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell A. Budd, Absent Mark Strain, Acting Chairman Dwight Richardson Lindy Adelstein Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Bob Murray George Evans Ken Abernathy ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Joe Schmitt Marjorie Student Russ Mueller Susan Murray Page 1 November 13, 2003 Roll Call Call to Order Discussion of Agenda - Joe Schmitt indicated that the agenda would begin with the continuance of the Vanderbilt Overlay discussion carried over from the meeting of October 22. - Richardson requested review of the results of the last meeting. - Mr. Schmitt confirmed that the LDC had not found the staff proposal to be incompliance with the GMP. He also indicated that some revisions had been addressed and will be presented. Mr. Schneider, Community Development Services - Provided a review of the slide presentation initially reviewed at the meeting of October 22. Discussion of zoning issues Actual versus zoned height Setbacks Discussion of proposed overlay and existing overlay Mr. Schmitt discussed changes to original proposal to include the deletion of "Winged parking." Mr. Hank Fishkind, economist for Fishkind and Associates, presented economic analysis of staff's overlay proposal. - Presentation included market and fiscal impacts of proposal. - Limited impact on the marketplace - Chart illustrating that value increases for higher floors - Discussion of the "penthouse effect" (bigger impact in taller building and less in smaller). Multiply density and height. 3 habitable floors versus 10. Vacant lots were considered in determining results for the study Based on historical data Mr. Schiffer: Discussion about value and how value can also be related to scarcity. Mr. Abernathy questioned whether the LDC is supposed to consider fiscal impact. It was determined that they do not have to take it into consideration but can if they wish. Public speakers: Diane Ketchum, Vanderbilt Beach resident Discussed condo values Measuring heights Page 2 November 13, 2003 Reiterated county attorney Weigel's presentation of October 22 Suggested that 3 versus 10 would increase value more than the staff's proposal of 10 versus 3. David Depew, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Discussed the GMP - Max. density of 3 units per acre - High hazard coastal area concerns - Question of balance in the environment Dwight Nadeau, Attorney for Vanderbilt Beach Inn Questioned if all Vanderbilt Beach homeowners were made aware of overly plan proposal by the residents. Indicated that 10 units per acre was more reasonable than 3 per acre. Discussion of values and heights - Agrees with staff proposal Bruce Burkhard, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Requested that the fiscal analysis presented by Dr. Fishkind be disregarded. Joe Connolly, Vanderbilt Beach resident Discussion of Burt Harris Act BJ Savard Boyer, Vanderbilt Beach resident Quality versus quantity - Creation of an upscale community Rich Yovanovich, Attorney for Vanderbilt Beach Inn - Height discussion and association with values - Loss of 16 units = approx. 9.6 million in loss value - Signature property value Fiscal impact of lot with minimum of 150 feet Property rights of others should be considered Addressed canyonization and agree with staff's proposal Mr. Schiffer: Questioned how units could be lost? Height is being reduced 25 feet. In width- increase on 12.5 heights on each side. Does not agree that units are lost by height reduction. Dr. Richard Bing, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Discussed the fact that the topic at hand has not changed- status quo has been proposed by staff. Residents had to retain planner and attorney to respond to the original moratorium request Discussion over uncontrolled development - Request staff's proposal be found inconsistent with the GMP. Page 3 November 13, 2003 Mr. Murray questioned "the plan." Mr. Schmitt indicated that Vanderbilt Beach residents have a response but there was no actual amendment filed. The staff's proposal can be amended as needed to reflect the residents' requested revisions. There is one LDC "on the table" and that can be modified. Ross Martin, Vanderbilt Beach resident Expressed concern over separating the sidewalk from the bikepath Mr. Schneider summarized request to consider staff's proposal and offered closing comments: - They were responsive to the moratorium - Elements of development services reviewed the segments such as the GMP and it was indicated that it does comply with the GMP. - RT Zoning can be changed to enhance the area as provided in proposal. - Request to consider staff proposal set before them. Mr. Adelstein requested if the LDC has committee to CAP height. Mr. Schmitt indicated that the final decision needs to come from the BCC via a recommendation brought forth by the LDC. Ms. Student discussed equal protection issues as to how height is measured in the county. Would need to be fleshed through with staff. 10 MINUTE BREAK Call to Order Ms. Student provided options for decision-making per Sec. 2.7.2.3.4, para 1 of the LDC that there could be an additional hearing if they elect to do so by a majority decision. Mr. Strain confirmed that a motion could be made and decision be made or discussion and second meeting could happen. LDC agreed to make final motion. Mr. Richardson made the following statement: The BCC requested development standards sensitive to scale and compatibility and the sense of place that exists in the Vanderbilt Beach area. BCC's direction was to cause a change in the LDC that would eliminate further canyonization on Gulfshore Drive - In the review of the overlay of the RT district, it was determined that the GMP density for this area is 4 units per acre with the reduction of 1 per acre on traffic congestion according to the density rating system. This coupled with the fact that the properties in the RT zone are all seaward of the coastal high hazard area that the density be restated to conform with the GMP. - This reduction is further supported by 9J5 of the Fla. Administrative code which directs the concentration of population away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas. Coastal element- Goal 12 of the GMP discusses the health and safety of people Page 4 November 13, 2003 Goal 12.2- minimizes the danger of life and property from hurricane Density bonuses should not apply CCPC has a responsibility to make recommendation to the BCC to show that staff's study has been considered. The following were found to be true: 1. Staff's proposal is not consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the future land use map and the GMP specifically goal 12, objective 12.2 and policy 12.2.2. 2. Consideration of the staff's overlay proposal would adversely impact living conditions in the neighborhood. 3. The RT overlay that would prevent 100 foot buildings would restrict light and air movements and cause canyonization. 4. Property values: Influenced by a host of factors. Rezoning may or may not affect value. Scarcity does affect value. 5. Overlay composed by staff is not consistent with a plain reading of the GMP 6. Be sensitive to not deteriorating quality of life CCPC has the responsibility to recommend to the BCC a resolution to the 2-year moratorium. The resolution must be supported by the GMP and meet the health, safety and well being of the residents most affected. Mr. Richardson proposed the following motion: - BCC direct the county manager to create a new overlay district for the Vanderbilt Beach RT zone and that it be established in the current LDC cycle. This will permit the moratorium to be lifted. - The new overly zone is to contain the following components, each of which is supported by a plain reading of the GMP. - Maximum Height: 54 feet of the crown of the adjacent street as measured to the mean roofline. Maximum density: Redevelopment or new: Transient: 16 units per acre; Multifamily: 3 units per acre Greenspace and maximum lot coverage: Redevelopment or new: Transient: 35%, Multi family- 25% - Permitted Uses: Limit redevelopment or new to multifamily, family care or townhouses. - Conditional uses for transient: Eliminates additional private clubs and removes conditional heights provisions. - Min. lot size: 1 contiguous acre - Min. yard requirements: Min. setback and prohibit encroachment into setback and elimination of wedding cake - Use of submerged lands: Prohibit the inclusion of submerged lands in waterside lot lying calculations for density or setbacks. CCSL- no encroachment expect as authorized by the BCC Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion Discussion among the commissioners regarding height, contiguous lot, setbacks Page 5 November 13, 2003 The following revisions were made to the motion: Max. Height: 75 feet as otherwise in the code 4 units per acre for multifamily Eliminate the contiguous lots from this motion. code. Ms. Student will research the matter. Unanimous 8-0. State it to stay as defined by Staff will modify to reflect the changes. Mr. Schmitt thanked the residents of Vanderbilt and the CCPC for input in helping to resolve this issue. Review of afternoon agenda: Will include: - CCSL Variance - Boat Houses Concurrency Review Building Heights (To be discussed at next meeting) School Board PSP Process Other Amendments Mr. Richardson made motion to move boat houses before CCSL, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried 8-0. Boat Houses Presented by Ross Gochenaur, Planning Services - Staff is not recommending approval of this amendment. - According to the LDC boat houses is a valid accessory use for a single family lot with a single family home. - 6 criteria are currently in place to meet the request for a boathouse. The addition of a seventh criterion, addresses the impact of a boathouse on the view of neighboring property owners, to the existing six criteria used o evaluate boathouse petitions. Discussion of how to measure the significance of impact. - Staff came up with revised language: "The boathouse must be so located as to minimize the impact of the view of the adjacent neighbors to the greatest extent practical." This means that if you have a linear waterfront lot with a seawall, the boat house should be put in the middle. If it can be put in the middle, then there is question as to whether it be parallel or perpendicular and this depends on the individual properties. - Adjustment can be objectively evaluated. - Requesting consideration of the amendment. Page 6 November 13, 2003 Mr. Murray does not feel that the revision doers not help more than the comp. plan. There is a problem due to subjectivity. "Practicality" becomes a problem. Mr. Gochenaur feels the subjectivity has been reduced. Discussion of practicality and possibility. Discussion of "major" and impact. Clarify ambiguous language. Mr. Strain: Discussion of creating a finite measurement/angle. Mr. Schiffer discussed addition of the seventh criterion. Ms. Student confirmed that the CCPC would need to make ajudgrnent on the boat house issue if a neighbor had a problem with it. Public Speakers BJ Savard Boyer, Vanderbilt Beach resident Concerns over obstruction of view Unattractive Absentee owners Does not want boathouses at all Discussion of what can be done with the current language. Bruce Burkhard, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Serious issue for a long time - Proliferation of boathouses - Make it more difficult for residents to get boat houses. Increase the criteria. Chris Carpenter, Vanderbilt Beach resident - Make it difficult to have one Mr. Abernathy: Suggested that each request for boathouse be treated individually. Mr. Strain: Does not favor getting rid of them all together. Unfair to people who do not have an objection. Mr. Schiffer made a motion to accept language as proposed by staff. Mr. Adelstein seconded. Carried 8-0. LUNCH BREAK- RECONVENE AT 1:15 CCSL Variance Presented by Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services Page 7 November 13, 2003 Per the GMP, prohibit construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, with minor exceptions. Staff provided clarifying language to the exemption section (3.13.7.2) and to the dune restoration permit (3.13.8.2) Proposed striking 3.13.5.1 which is the language to use adjacent contiguous structures. Has not allowed staff to consistently review applications. - New language: 3.13.4- construction or replacement of seawalls or similar structures. - Section 3.13.5- coastal construction setback lines variance shall not be approved for construction of new structures except where said prohibition would result in no reasonable economic utilization of the property in question for safety reasons or as otherwise permitted hereinafter. - EAC made a recommendation to delete the phrase "reasonable economic utilization" because it is immeasurable. The language was left in because it is in the GMP. It may be needed to be defined more carefully. 3.13.5.1- Identified what is permitted to be constructed in front of the CCSL- chickees, storage boxes, etc. Not permitted: permanent type structures. Prohibited to use an materials that become dislodged during a storm such as pavers, landscape stones, etc. Anything outside of the footprint of the approved minor structure needs to be kept in a natural condition or landscape with the native vegetation - Discussion ofgreenspace - 3.13.8- now allows someone to request a CCSL variance as long as the construction does not create additional negative impacts to the beach or dune system. - 3.13.5.5- Variances was changed after the DSAC meeting where language was changed: Recommended approval of this amendment. Simplify language to: "reconstruction shall conform to the provisions of division 3.17 of the LDC in effect at the time of reconstruction. Said reconstruction may require a new CCSL variance. - Exemptions: Clarified 3.13.7.2: Allows for exemptions. Certain things cannot qualify as an exemption: replacement of any pervious surface with a non- pervious surface and modification or any additions to any dune walkover or deck area. 3.13.8.3: Applicant who needs to remove a seawall will be provided a permit rather than requesting a variance. Would also be required to restore and replant after removal of seawall. Discussion of coastal lines - pools - dune walkovers ~ distance/width - platforms - dune vegetation Mr. Strain: Email received by Bruce Anderson: Page 8 November 13, 2003 Concerns over forcing a building behind the coastal line Water will come in further inland if building is further back Language proposed to be deleted by staff in LDC Sec. 3.13.5.1 comes from the beaches and shore preservation act- Sec. 161052(2) (B) which authorizes DEP to issue construction approval under such circumstance unless local government has proposed a stricter setback standard which staffhas proposed to do. Mr. Strain asked if these citations were accurate. Ms. Burgeson had not heard of water inundating a building. Whenever a CCSL variance is requested staff requires re-creation of dunes or coastal materials. Mr. Schiffer asked where dune would be when being rebuilt. Ms. Burgeson indicated that a replanting plan was required to be provided. Public Speaker: Dwight Nadeau, representing Vanderbilt Inn This will create non-conformities Will not be able to be built back- reduction of property values No consideration as far as beach access- limitation of walkways Erosion of the private property rights - State does have a permitting process for this Ms. Burgeson indicated that walkovers are allowed through a pernfit process. Also indicated that CCCL was moved 180 feet more landward than the county line which was adopted in 1974. The state line was adopted in 1989. County did not adopt that. Mr. Richardson made a motion to find 3.13- CCSL be found in congruence with the GMP with the exception of the simplification of 3.13.5.5 that the submission be recommended to the BCC for approval. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Carried 8-0 Ms. Student: Confirmed that second hearing was not needed. CCPC agreed. Concurrency Review presented by Stan Litsinger: - Handed out some page changes - Provided background: LDC changes 3.15 or parallel LDC amendment that is running the Comp. plan amendments that will be heard on Dec 2. and the BCC will adopt in the current form or with changes. Review changes: Page 9 November 13, 2003 Page 171 - Added the conditions of meeting the concurrency test relative to the project locations within a projects location within a transportation concurrency management area or transportation concurrency exception area. - Meeting the concurrency requirements which are that the necessary services and facilities are subject to commitment from the developer. Mr. Richardson asked about the level of services standard on the roadways. Ms. Student discussed how this was advertised. The entire Division 3.15 was advertised as an LDC amendment consideration. Mr. Strain indicated that a second hearing would probably be needed. Mr. Richardson discussed the moratorium constraints. Discussion included: Movement away from link by link concurrency approach System-wide capacity Traffic count Plan and build Analytical standards TCMA application Page 173 - Added 3.15.3212. Apply concurrency on each local development order on a checkbook or declining ledger balance of traffic capacity on an ongoing basis. The approval of any application that comes through is based on the analysis of the TIS based on the systems on the date of the approval. - Reviewing change of category B levels of service. Pages 174 and 175 - Added clarifying language relative to the application of the payments. For a project that is approved for concurrency but is in a TCMA that is meeting all the standards would be approved for concurrency but has impact on a deficient roadway within that TCMA would be called upon to make a proportionate share payment. Payment is in addition to impact fee. Page 178 Proposed to establish one transportation concurrency exception area in the area of S. U.S 41 and the Bayshore/Gateway redevelopment area. Page 179 - Transportation concurrency management- system-wide rather than link-by-link - Analytical standards Page 10 November 13, 2003 - Need more data analysis to sustain this amendment Page 187 - Modification made to merge the two collections (PUD monitoring report and maintenance concurrency management system with transportation) - Based on actual data- real numbers Back-tracked to pages 171-174 - Complete changes - High impact amendment Direction is to go to a one-year plan versus 3-year plan. Each December the BCC will identify needed projects and direct the country manager to include projects in annual budget. 1-75 is not taken into account currently. 6 years out for that project. Public Speakers David Ellis, CBIA - DCA has reacted to first submittal - Good ideas: TCMAs, TCEAs - Consolidation of PUD monitoring process with transportation - Concerns about money in advance to improve but not provided with credit. - 3-year funded plan versus the one-year funded plan; 9J5 recognizes reliance on the 3-year funded plan - Recommend that 3-year plan be maintained DCA reacted with a 1 O-page work report which was critical of the county's proposal and how it will impact the system. Need more certainty in the process Discussion of how this will work BCC left recommendation of 1 year versus 3 years. Lengthy debate to transmit: 3-2. Discussion of DCAs response. Will be presented on December 4th. Lengthy discussion regarding how this would work. Reed Jarvi, CBIA - Professional engineer. - Discussion over financial feasibility- 1 year versus 3 year The 1-year program has not been proved Requesting 3 year approval Impact fee concerns Mr. Schiffer discussed impact of a wealthy developer being able to block other development. Could negatively impact the smaller developer. Mr. Strain: Suggested that this come back for a second hearing. Page 11 November 13, 2003 Mr. Schiffer made a motion to have this return for a second hearing. Mr. Murray seconded. Carried 7-0 (Mr. Adelstein absent) Motion changed to reconsider by Schiffer. Seconded by Murray. Carded 7-0 (Mr. Adelstein absent) Motion made to continue (instead of second hearing) made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray. Continued to Nov. 24th. 10 MINUTE RECESS: RECONVENE AT 2:50 Mr. Mueller- Handouts for building heights. When will these be considered? School Board - Sections are going through every zoning district to permit a school. - Property owners will not be notified that a school would be developed on a site. - Each site will go through a school board review process which includes architectural reviews and compatibility issues. Moved through page by page: Page 1: 2.2.2.2.1 Page 8: 2.2.3.2.1 Page 15: 2.2.4.2.1 Page 17: 2.2.5.2.1 Page 22: 2.2.6.2.1 Page 26: 2.2.7.2.1 Page 32: 2.2.8.3 Page 34: 2.2.9.2.1 Page 40: 2.2.10.2.1 Page 47: 2.2.12.41 Page 47: 2.2.13.2.1 Mr. Richardson requested that conditional use be moved into permitted use for future consideration. Section C1, C2 and C3. Page 51: 2.2.14.2.1 Page 57: 2.2.15.21 Page 65: 2.2.151/2.2.1 Page 69: 2.2.16.21 Page 73: 2.2.18.21 Page 76: 2.2.19.21 Page 79: 2.2.20.7 Page 117:2.7.3.5 Page 12 November 13, 2003 Page 146:3.3.4.1 Mr. Strain: Questioned page 149 under compatibility review. Is there criteria for this? This would be reviewed in the buffering aspect. Discussion of PUD rezones and public input. School Board is considered the developer. Page 152: Item 1: Mr. Strain asked about the school district making improvements. - Issue of timing - Road agreement - Sidewalks Page 150: Sec. 3442- reference should be changed. Mr. Richardson made a blanket motion to allow that the school board sections previously enumerated are in compliance with the GMP and the local agreement and recommend approval to the BCC. Ms. Student asked if comp. plan amendments were in effect yet? She requested motion be amended to say "to be reviewed by state. Mr. Richardson agreed. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein Carried 8-0 PSP Process Page 107:2.4.7.2 Page 124:2.7.4.9 Page 126:3.2.6.2 Page 128:3.2.6.3.8 Page 129:3.2.7 Page 134:3.2.8.3 Page 136:3.2.8.2.14 Page 137:3.2.8.3.8 Page 138:3.2.8.3.19 Page 141:3.2.8.4.7 Page 144:3.2.9.1.2 Page 159:3.5.5.1.3 Page 162:3.12.5.1.2 Page 163:3.12.5.2 Motion by Mr. Richardson to find the PSP process to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Page 13 November 13, 2003 Seconded by Mr. Adelstein: Carried 8-0. Yard Requirements: Section 2.3.4.3 - Golden Gate section property line discrepancy. Clean-up - Drawings out of scale. - Clarify language Motion by Mr. Murray to find 2.3.4.3 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein: Carried 8-0 Section 2.3: Off Street Parking and Loadine - No garage door can be closer than 23 feet. Motion by Mr. Adelstein to find 2.3 to be in compliance (with above amendment) with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Schiller: Carried 8-0 Section 2.3.21.4 Rewording clarification in the existing language for off-street loading. Motion by Mr. Schiffer to find 2.3.21.4 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Mr. Murray seconded: Carried 8-0 Section 2.4.7.5 - Landscape and Buffering - Incorporate the "Construction standards handbook for work within the public rights-of-way Collier County, Florida" into the LDC. Motion by Mr. Abernathy to find 2.4.7.5 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Mr. Midney seconded: Carried 8-0 Section 2.5.5.2.3 - Realign and adjust the text for real estate signs. No regulatory change. Section 2.5.5.2.5.1.1 - Pole or ground signs - Option for businesses with less than 150 foot frontage to request variance for sign. Discussion about permitted use by right and variance provisions, size of lots and distance. Page 14 November 13, 2003 Motion by Mr. Abernathy to forward the two sections under 2.5 to the BCC with the additional request to consider permitted use for 2.5.5.2.5.1.1 with approval for recommendation. They also considered in compliance with the GMP plan. More discussion about lot size. Mr. Abernathy withdrew the motion. Mr. Strain made a motion to find 2.5.5.2.3 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Midney: Carried 8-0 Mr. Murray made a motion for section 2.5.5.2.5.1.1 that the signs ordinance B set as a permitted use that this be sent back to the BCC for evaluation that this be considered for permitted use and not subject to a variance and recommended for approval. Seconded by Mr. Evans: 3-5 Motion fails Mr. Schiller made a third motion to find section 2.5.5.2.5.1.1 as is. Found consistent with the GMP. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein: Carries: 6-2 Section 2.6.33.10 Coming Soon signs Staff feels that a provision should be adopted to address signs intended to inform the public as to new businesses in the area. Section 2.6.37 - Kitchens in dwelling units - Language clarification to for criterion to permit secondary kitchen Discussion about prevention of breaking up houses into multiple units. Motion by Mr. Midney to find 2.6.33.10 and 2.6.37 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein: Carries 8-0 Section 3.2.3 - Subdivision Applicability - Add language to clarify platting requirements Page 15 November 13, 2003 Section 3.2.8.3.25 - Central water systems - Original language needs clarification and pipe color-coding needs to be addressed. Motion by Mr. Abernathy to find Section 3.2.3 and Section 3.2.8.3.25 to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Midney: Carded 8-0 Section 6.3 Definitions Adding the definition of "build out" or built out" Definition of secondary kitchens: revise language to definition of gust house or cottage and kitchen, primary and add language to define cabanas, guest quarters/suites and kitchen, secondary. Discussion about temporary guest (change to "their" domestic employee) and guest house problems. Public Speaker Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Coordinator - Difficulty with two different types of structure: Guest quarters and guest houses - Kitchens were being added to the guest suite and this needs to be limited. Suggestion to strike the word "structurally." Motion by Mr. Abernathy to find Section 6.3 definitions to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation as amended above. Seconded by Mr. Adelstein: Carries 8-0. - Russ Mueller indicated one minor change in appendix D, p. 204: Airport zoning updates to the map based on FAA regulations. Motion by Mr. Richardson to find appendix D of the LDC to be in compliance with the GMP and forwarded to the BCC with approval for recommendation. Russ Mueller indicated that the next meeting is Nov. 24 at 5:00 PM. Commission voted to hear concurrency issue on Nov. 24th. Building heights and pole and ground signs will also be heard on Nov. 24th' November 17th meeting cancelled. Page 16 November 13, 2003 November 20th: Eastern Lands Motion made by Mr. Schiffer to hear building heights, concurrency and pole and ground signs on November 24th at 5:00 PM Seconded by Mr. Abernathy: Carried 8-0 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Vice-Chairman Mark Strain Page 17