Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/04/2005 R August 4, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 4, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 4,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND 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 1 0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 7, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS - JUNE 14,2005, REGULAR MEETING; JUNE 28, 2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-7152, Valewood Properties, LLC, represented by Bruce Tyson of WilsonMiller, Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development "PUD" Document and Master Plan to revise 21.74 acres of land from Commercial to Residential use, allowing an additional 260 multi-family residential units. The subject property is located in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) CONTINUED TO 8/18 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-7469, Richard and Frances Craig and CDN Properties, LLC, represented by Robert MuIhere of RW A, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to be known as Sonoma Oaks PUD, a mixed-use development consisting of a maximum of 112 residential dwelling units and 120,000 square feet of commercial uses on a total of 37.5± acres. The subject property is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1/4 mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) CONTINUED INDEFINITELY C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4965. Crystal Lake POA Two, Inc., represented by Terry Kepple of Kepple Engineering, requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment to revise the maximum area for a Park Trailer from 500 to 1,000 square feet; provide for construction of a fence on top of the berm located along Collier Boulevard to protect the residents from noise and visual impacts of Collier Boulevard; and minor clean-up items in the PUD language such as change in owner, and preparer. The subject property is 168.8 acres located at 14960 Collier Boulevard in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) D. Petition: PUDZ-2004-AR-6207, MAC Builders, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of Talon Management, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C-l and C-2 zoning districts to the PUD Planned Unit Development zoning district to allow a maximum of 86 multi-family dwelling units. The property, consisting of 10.76 acres, is located on the northwest comer of Radio Road extension and Palm Springs Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike Bosi) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 8-04-05/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 Patricia L. Morgan Subject: BosiMichael [MichaeIBosi@colliergov.net] Tuesday, August 02,20058:47 AM Martin, Cecilia Phillips, Sharon; Johnson, Connie; LeaSandra; Brock, Mary; Filson, Sue; Minutes and Records PUDZ-04-AR-6207 From: Sent: To: Cc: ec p[ease adjust tlie liearina áates for tlie a60ve petition. rrTie petition was origina{{y sclieáu[eá for tlie 8-4-05 ecPe aná tlie 9-13-05 <Bee liearings, 6ut áue to tlie appCicants fai{ure to post tlie necessary signs on site, tlie petition can not 6e liead tliis rrTiursáay. rrTie new áates are 9-1-05 ecPe aná9-27-05 <Bee. 'TIianƧ, Mi/?s August 4, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll call this meeting to order. Please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good morning. For our roll call: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Midney is not here. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Budd is here. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, addenda to the agenda. We have our Item 8(A) is continued to August 18th. Item 8(B) is continued indefinitely. And Item 8(D) has been rescheduled to September 1 st of '05. Are there any other modifications to our agenda this morning? MR. BELLOWS: Yes-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: -- Mr. Chaiffi1an. I have an item to add to the agenda concerning the follow-up issues from the last CCP workshop training. . CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, that will be new business? Or, no, I see under Item 9, old business. Page 2 August 4, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, old business. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. All right, we'll add that. Any other changes to our agenda today? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Abernathy. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Planning Commission absences. Any known or planned absences in our future? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 17th, likely I will not be able to make it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Any others? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 17th I may not be here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Also the evening of the 17th, Mr. Adelstein. Other absences anticipated? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, approval of minutes, July 7th, 2005, regular meeting. Mr. Schiffer? Page 3 August 4, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one item. On Page 22, on the vote, and it was for that setback variance, I actually voted opposed, and I think Mr. Adelstein voted in favor. So if they could switch that out, that would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein agrees? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes, of course. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other modifications? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, do we have a motion to approve as modified? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Board of County Commission report. Ray, anything noteworthy from the Commissioners? MR. BELLOWS: The Board has not met. They're on vacation, so there's nothing new. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. There is no chairman's report. We'll move into our advertised public hearings and start with Item Page 4 August 4, 2005 8(C). That is Petition PUDZ-A-2003-AR-4965. Are there any disclosures on this item by Planning Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. Okay, all those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Ifwe could hear from petitioner, please. MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple, representing the Property Owners Association of Crystal Lakes this mornIng. Before you is a fairly minor PUD amendment. There's a couple. I'll run through the main items. The rest of them are mostly cleanup items to bring it in compliance with today's codes and Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. There's three fairly main items, and they're fairly benign in their overall -- overall on the proj ect. One, we removed the camping trailers from the approved uses. We changed some language in there to allow park models to be up to 1,000 square feet. Currently they could be at 500 square feet with up to a 500 square foot either stick built or vinyl room enclosure as an addition. Now they have basically a choice of either putting 1,000 square foot park model-- basically a double wide park model up, or putting a 500 square foot and then putting a screen enclosure on it. Still keeping the maximum total of 1,000 square feet. There -- and we added a berm and fence along Collier Boulevard to help in the buffing of the project. Those were not in the original plans. They are actually there now, and staff thought that we needed to add those to make sure that it was addressed in the PUD. We actually did a insubstantial change to the subdivision plans to add the berm about a year or year or two ago. Page 5 August 4, 2005 Those are the real changes. We have -- the other items that you see as crossed offs and adds in the PUD document are cleanup items either requested by staff or just things that are no longer effective for the proj ect. They're outdated. If you have any questions, I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein has a question for you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. Good morning. MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as you say cleanup items. On your petition, I guess, let's see, doesn't say the page. However, Item 12. And under there where I'm looking at 85 gallons per minute __ per minute, I guess it is -- utility provision statement RJM 10-1 7 -97. So that information is still from 1997, or is that still valid for that. MR. KEPPLE: That was from the original PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. KEPPLE: And if I may, the proj ect is essentially built out. There's a couple common area tracts that haven't been built on, but all the home sites have been built on. So those numbers apply to the homes as they were built at that time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The only other thing of consequence I guess to me, there was -- I see you went to conversion vans are okay, but the camping trailers are not. That's your privilege. What struck me was the screened porches are elevated or at ground level, 500 square feet. And I was surprised, your vehicle max length is 40 feet. If you go 10 by 50, that's 500. Just -- that's one heck of a big porch. And I'm wondering -- and they could be left up, even though the vehicle may be removed? MR. KEPPLE: Well, as it stood now, the current PUD, before today, they would have to be removed when the vehicle's moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 6 August 4,2005 MR. KEPPLE: I believe we did make that change so they could stay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the caretaker is permanent residency; is that right? Caretaker -- MR. KEPPLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- caretaker's place, there is a caretaker there, I assume? MR. KEPPLE: There's none on-site at this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I see. But if they were, they would be permanent residents? MR. KEPPLE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then I have another question. On lots sold, what consideration should be given to the question of when a person owns a vehicle or a unit and then they, because they have to leave because there's no permanent residency there they must leave, how long before they can come back? A day? MR. KEPPLE: I can't answer that. I believe it's two weeks they have to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two weeks? Okay, because it's not in here. I mean, in general, I can see it's a cleanup, and I don't really have a major problem. One other final thing: On Page 15 of your document where it talks about a convenience established and so forth, and you have in here five percent of the original project area, 149 acres. I thought I read it was 169, unless the original was 149. MR. KEPPLE: The original was 149. Then there was a PUD amendment in between that added additional acreage to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, it looks like the POA group is doing a good job trying to bring things together. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions for the petitioner? Ms. Page 7 August 4, 2005 Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question. I want to follow up. Just obviously you want to take out camping trailers, which you've done. But in 5, wouldn't that allow them to come back in? And did you really want to do that? Because you took out camping trailers, but then number five says, another recreational unit not specifically mentioned above that is designed to provide temporary or seasonal living quarters for recreational or travel use. MR. KEPPLE: Is that Page 5? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 10. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Way down at the bottom. MR. KEPPLE: That's really to address -- who knows what things may happen in the next 10 or 20 years. Different types of vehicles or types of trailers may be made. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I understand that. But the goal here was to take out camping trailers. MR. KEPPLE: Camping trailers, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it looks like they could come back in under number five, and I was just bringing that to your attention. If you don't care, I don't care either. MR. KEPPLE: That's not the intent, other than to specifically say that camping trailers are not permitted, which we do not wish to do that. We just took it out of the permitted uses. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And then back to the screened porches. You're saying they can be left up? Is that a wise move here in a hurricane area? I'm not understanding what -- MR. KEPPLE : Well, the way they are built, they have to be built to hurricane standards. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. KEPPLE: And they have had to be built that way in the past. Page 8 August 4, 2005 COMMISSIONER CARON: So they are a permanent structure. MR. KEPPLE: And that's why they are a permanent structure, because they're built to hurricane codes and it's extremely difficult to take them down. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Kepple, could you put that prior diagram back up? The one with the divided lots? Thank you, Heidi. How many lots are there; do you know? MR. KEPPLE: The 490. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The -- you're adding -- or not adding, you did add back in, I forgot what year, the storage area you're not talking about. In that storage area, what's in there now? MR. KEPPLE: There is outside storage of recreational vehicles and there is enclosed storage. They built I believe six buildings now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the storage that's in that storage area is in addition to the 490 units that are in the subdivided area that we're looking at on the -- MR. KEPPLE: Well, those are stored units. They're not livable units. You can't live in them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Section 3.3 of your PUD says the maximum number of parked trailer/recreational vehicle units allowed within the PUD shall be 490. Doesn't say whether they're being lived in. If they're within the PUD, they're not to exceed 490. Are you -- do you need to change that language to make your storage area an exception to the 490, or is the 490 to be included in the storage area? MR. KEPPLE: I don't think so. Because if the people are storing their unit there, they don't have a unit on their lot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What do they have on the lot? Page 9 August 4, 2005 MR. KEPPLE: Well, that's when they're -- they've moved out for the season or whatever. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the lot's just vacant? MR. KEPPLE: The lot's vacant, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So including the storage area, at no time there'll be more than 490 units there? MR. KEPPLE: That's my understanding, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't they just leave it on the lot? MR. KEPPLE: I can't answer that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't that constitute permanent residency if they do that? MR. KEPPLE: As long as they're not living in it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can you show me where-- MR. KEPPLE: Because the park models are there permanent, if you would. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Heidi, thank you for the photo you just put up. Show me a vacant lot there and then show me where that -- I think what you've done is you've got 490 lots plus the RV storage and the storage area. And this photo seems to emphasize that. MR. KEPPLE: Well, it's kind of hard to tell from the photo. I can't see it real close. But all the lots have concrete pads on them, so it's really hard to differentiate whether there's an actual unit on some of those or not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Mr. Kepple, all I'm suggesting is that while you're in here for a PUD change today, if there is to be an exception to the 490 count, then somebody ought to suggest that. If not, then we ought to stick with the 490 and after the meeting's over, maybe code enforcement could go out and check to see if there's 490 in the lots plus what's in the RV storage area and see if you need to accommodate -- make some changes. Page 10 August 4, 2005 MR. KEPPLE: I mean, if we need to change that to state that the storage lot is not included in the 490 lots, 490 units -_ COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I think if that's what you need to do, that needs to be on the table as something to be discussed. Because I don't know what would be wrong with that, but at least it needs to be thought out. Because right now the way the PUD reads, it's 490 within the PUD. And the storage area is within the PUD. So you'd be 490 capped, period. At least that's what I would think. Heidi, do you have any -- has anybody from staff gone out and looked at this? MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. I know when the issue of the number of units was addressed by prior staff, it was found that any number of units over 500 would trigger this development to become a DRI. And that is why the number of units was not increased from the current approved number. We could certainly add some language that -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Now we're getting somewhere. MS. WILLIAMS: -- that stated that units not hooked up to either electric or water be considered storage. We could put in some language that address your concerns that way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, on a very practical sense of the way this PUD is worded, I would think you would want that clarification, just so code enforcement doesn't go up there and tag 200 stored recreational vehicles as all of a sudden having to be removed from the site. MR. KEPPLE: If I may, again, Terrance Kepple. I did just confer with my clients. Occasionally someone that owns a lot in there has a park model set up on their lot and they will drive an R V down as they travel from Page 11 ---..-.. August 4, 2005 their home state and tour the country or whatever, and then they will park it in the storage area and live in the park model while they're there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I expected that. MR. KEPPLE: And, you know, maybe if we put some language in there, no more than 490 living units or -- COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Livable. MR. KEPPLE: Livable. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Inhabitable. MR. KEPPLE: -- something of that nature. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Patrick's not very happy with that, it looks like. That's okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think before this gets done, this needs to be clarified, or you need to stipulate you're not going to do more than 490 total. That means -- so at some point, Patrick, if you've got some suggestions on how to make some -- clear up the language, I'd recommend it. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I'd be happy to work with the staff and Mr. Kepple to do so to implements your intent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, you haven't made your presentation yet. I do have a few questions for you, but let me see if I have any more -- oh, 7.3(A), Terry, you're talking about leaving some canal widening and maintenance easement 25-foot wide along CR951. But also, there's a -- just east of that maintenance easement is an additional five-acre __ five-foot wide area. Now, what is that five-foot wide area for? MR. KEPPLE: When we created the berm and went through the county review of it, they asked that that berm be left at least five feet from that canal widening and maintenance easement, so that if and when the county puts a sidewalk in that 25- foot maintenance, canal Page 12 V~___,,·. August 4, 2005 maintenance easement, that the berm would not be adjacent to the sidewalk, for safety purposes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How is a 4-1 slope berm not safe? MR. KEPPLE: I noticed on other projects it's not the berm that's not safe, but over time the slope will slough down and encroach on the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that's a -- so because someone doesn't want to the maintain the berm, you keep it back five feet from the sidewalk? MR. KEPPLE: I'm just stating that in other instances I've seen that. I'm not saying that Crystal Lake would not maintain the berm, but staff had asked that we keep it five feet away from that easement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, well, I'll ask staff then, because I don't understand why we have that provision. I mean, it probably isn't a big issue, but it's one that if we set the precedent with this one, I'd like to know why we're setting it. MR. KEPPLE: I might also note that that was in the original PUD, and we -- originally it was also for landscape buffering. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, but the original PUD didn't have the berm you were asking for -- MR. KEPPLE: It did not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and it was -- the berm's got a 4-1 slope, so the center of the berm is substantially back further from the 20- foot maintenance easement. MR. KEPPLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've got more than five feet by a long shot. I'm not sure why you need the additional five feet. In the storage area, do you have any lighting in there? MR. KEPPLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is it glares (sic)? Is it restricted from casting any glare on the neighboring property? MR. KEPPLE: As much as possible, yes. And it's centrally Page 13 ---- August 4, 2005 located on the parcel. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Again, it's -- it has to be-- MR. KEPPLE: By code it's required to not shine on the adjacent properties. I mean, it was designed that way. I haven't been out there at night to -- to certify that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When your original PUD was approved, the gentleman who is -- who took your place here today stated in response to Commissioner Norris's concerns over the lighting, we'd also have no lights glaring onto the residents in Crystal Lake or adjacent properties. I just want to make sure that that was consistent with what you've done today. MR. KEPPLE: I would say it is, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you're not going to have any lights glaring onto Crystal Lakes -- MR. KEPPLE: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- or adjacent properties? That's all I have of you, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and it's kind of focused on the same thing as on the screen. We're calling it a recreational area, but is that the proper -- I mean, shouldn't we be calling that just a vehicle storage area? I mean, in your PUD in recreation you're allowed vehicle storage, but it's really only within the building. I mean, looking at Page 14, none of the principal uses are occurring on that site. And the storage of RV's is the only accessory use. And it does state storage structures constructed for the purpose of maintenance storage, including R V storage. So is this thing -- isn't this really just a vehicle storage area? MR. KEPPLE: Well, if you're on Page 8, number 4.2, number (8), outdoor storage for vehicles owned or leased by the residents of Crystal Lake is a principal use. Page 14 --...- August 4, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where -- I'm sorry, Page 8? MR. KEPPLE: Page 14, number eight down at the bottom, right at the bottom, the last item on the bottom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But there is no real recreational things occurring at this tract, is there? MR. KEPPLE: At this time there are no recreational things occurrIng, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is words you're adding to this -- I mean, it looks to me it's just like a storage function. MR. KEPPLE: Well, it's as common area owned by the property owners in their entirety, and that's why it's a common/recreation area. You know, some of the sites have recreational facilities. One of them has the main office on it. So they're common areas, as well as recreational. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the neighboring sites develop, is there going to be any berm, any -- because essentially it's a commercial use. You can call what you want. Is there any way to protect the neighboring sites from having to look at it as they develop out? MR. KEPPLE: We were required to put, I believe it was a type B buffer around that entire site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is there? MR. KEPPLE: It's -- I believe it's being built with this last building at this time. That was a change in the code in the last couple of years before the last couple of buildings were built. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've got my curiosity now. Those buildings, you're saying one of them or one of them, at least, is a recreational hall of some sort? Page 15 --~-_.,- August 4, 2005 MR. KEPPLE: No, I'm not, no. There are other tracts within the PUD that have recreational as well as office buildings on them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. As far as I can tell, it looks to me like they would be maintenance sheds there. MR. KEPPLE: Yes, that's all maintenance area and storage area on that parcel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So basically there's no activity there, nor is there any planned to be activity there, such as common recreation activity? MR. KEPPLE: As far as I know, there's none to be planned there as today. But that's not to say that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That tomorrow it couldn't happen. MR. KEPPLE: -- six months or whatever -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, if we could hear from staff, please. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. Again, for the record, Heidi Williams, Zoning and Land Development Review. Staff has reviewed the petition, and as noted by Mr. Kepple, this application has changed over time. The original request did increase the density or use of the site. There was involved a potential increase in the land area. This has since been withdrawn by the applicant and the petition has simplified to simply change some language in the document, amend some of the development standards. County reviewed -- county staff reviewed from all aspects to include compliance with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. One deviation is proposed by the applicant. It is in reference to Page 16 -...-.- August 4, 2005 the berm at the western side of the property. Typically a less intense landscape buffer is required. The residents felt that it was necessary to increase that landscaping. The deviation is specifically in reference to the way the wall height is measured. Generally it's from the ground elevation. This allows it to be measured from the top of the berm. The wall is measured from the top of the berm. It's four feet tall, and then a type B buffer is -- landscape buffer is provided, not a type D that would normally be provided. To perhaps clear up a little bit of the issue with the five-foot setback from the maintenance easement, that is a holdover from the original PUD. That five feet was originally the entire landscape buffer required. When staff did review this, they felt it was appropriate to leave that five feet originally required by the PUD, and the new landscape buffer is in addition to that. The exhibit handed out, Exhibit B, today for your review hopefully clarifies that a little bit. Adds some width of the berm, and can really show what's on site there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Heidi, though, the question was why is the five foot there? I mean, I understand you left it because it was in there and staff thought it was a good idea to leave it, but for what? MS. WILLIAMS: My understanding is that when it was reviewed for pedestrian access, that was a request made by the pathways reviewer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And wouldn't we be better off stating that that's what that five foot's for and it's to be dedicated at the request of Collier County, so we haven't (sic) got to come in and take it by eminent domain or request it by payment at a future date? MS. WILLIAMS: I would probably leave a determination of that to the applicant, whether they'd be willing to do that. Page 1 7 -.-..,. August 4, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a simple solution I guess, we could do that. But I think that if that's what the intent is, we ought to state that's what the intent is. And then we ought to actually get the applicant to commit to dedicating that to Collier County so we haven't got to go in an after date and try to extract it from the owner for payment in addition to here he's coming in asking today for something that he might be willing to commit to that. MR. KEPPLE: If I may again, the county staff did not see a need to utilize that five feet. They just wanted us to keep the berm five feet away from the potential location of a sidewalk. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But in the future, if the county wishes to utilize it for a sidewalk, do you have any concern or any problem with providing that free of charge to the county? MR. KEPPLE: My understanding is they're designing it now in the 25 foot that we've already dedicated to the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But in this five foot, if the county wishes to use that in the future for a sidewalk or any kind of means of access, bike path or whatever, do you have any problem with dedicating that to the county with no cost? MR. KEPPLE: Can I confer with my client for just a second, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, while he's doing that, isn't that essentially just a maintenance easement? I mean, my lawnmowing days are long gone, but in other words, to turn your mower around on the berm itself, you really have to come down level. I mean, if you brought the berm to the edge of the property line, it would be awkward to work on that berm. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't think the county would be requiring them to have a maintenance easement for themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but that's -- yeah, well. MR. KEPPLE: It's not a maintenance easement. Page 18 August 4, 2005 And my client said they would have no problem in dedicating it, if the county needs it. But my understanding is the county doesn't have any request for it. It was we accommodated the county's request to shift our berm five feet farther back from where we wanted it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't have a problem with it. Thank you. MR. KEPPLE: No problem. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions from staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I've-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- got a few, Heidi, if you were finished with your presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, were you finished with your presentation? MS. WILLIAMS: Actually, just one more note -- two more notes. The required neighbor information meeting was held by the applicant. It was held prior to the alteration of the application. So they discussed increased density and the change to the boundary. They did meet the required neighborhood information meeting, and subsequent to that have responded to concerns raised at that meeting by altering the application. The last note is that in my staff report, there -- as a stipulation of a recommendation of approval, there was revised language to Section 7.3(A). The PUD document you were provided with your review material has that revised language, and it has been verified that that is fine with the client -- or with the applicant. With that, I'll open it up to questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Heidi, do you know, and maybe Ray or Joe could help as well, if the county has implemented a Page 19 August 4, 2005 policy or ordinance that allows penTIanent occupancy of recreational vehicles in a TTRVC or similar zoning district? It's under 3.9 in the PUD. And what it does, it negates Section 3.8. Now, if you don't know that answer, then my next question would be under 3.8, it requires registries of -- and it says the registry shall track the occupancy of the owned or rental lots and shall be provided to persons employed by Collier County in official capacity, upon their request. And it really is to make sure there's no penTIanent residents in this PUD. Have those registries been asked for, provided, reviewed, acknowledged before today's meeting to know if they're consistent with this? Or are they negated by 3.9? MS. WILLIAMS: Ray, did you want to address that? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to do some checking. MS. WILLIAMS: We would probably need to look into that further to answer your question. This is not a portion of the PUD that was requested for amendment by the applicant, so it was not reviewed by staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, you didn't review -- MR. SCHMITT: We do have-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I'm asking, Joe, is just that they're asking for some things here today, and that's fine. I want to make sure that the things they obligated themselves for previously have been met. And 3.8 is an obligation of keeping a registry to make sure there are no penTIanent residences within that facility, and it's tracked by a registry that they are to keep on a continuous basis. I just want to make sure it's being kept and someone's reviewed it, if need be. Or if it's not an issue anymore because of paragraph 3.9, then it's a moot point. MR. SCHMITT: We have a separate ordinance for rental Page 20 August 4, 2005 registration program. It's the basically -- well, it's a requirement through code enforcement. It's the housing maintenance standards and rental registration. So it's already an ordinance. Frankly, this does not need to be in the PUD, because it's already an ordinance and already a requirement of the county's codes and ordinances, the rental registration from a land use petition. And I would have to ask -- turn to Ray. But this is really not a zoning issue, per se. It's in the PUD. If they want to leave it in, all it does is just validate the need to comply with the rental registration program, if in fact any of these vehicles are rentals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just checking, following up with language in the PUD. If you guys have got it covered in another manner, then it's a moot point. I just wanted to make sure that if it wasn't covered, that you're aware of it and that somebody does check it at some point along the way. MR. KEPPLE: If I may help with that answer? Terrance Kepple agaIn. The Crystal Lake does keep a registry of use of the lots, and in their homeowners documents, property owners association documents, there is a requirement that no one may live there for more than 10 months. So they've got a two-month that they may not occupy that uni t. And the registry is available, if the county wishes to see it. They would be more than welcome to provide that registry to the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that they kind of fit in then with 90 percent of the population of Collier County that doesn't live here more than 10 months. So I guess permanent versus non-permanent is no difference. MR. KEPPLE: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi, the last question I have is on the aerial that you so nicely provided us. Page 21 ----...... August 4, 2005 The storage area was supposed to have a buffer around it, five feet in width with 80 percent capacity -- or opacity requirements. Has that buffer been placed? MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to defer to the applicant for that answer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In some areas it doesn't look like there is one on this aerial, especially to the lower left corner. MS. WILLIAMS: This aerial was most likely taken in January of '04. I'm almost certain things have changed since that time. MS. KELLER: The buffer was constructed in accordance with the Land Development Code. It is in place at this time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. That's all the questions I have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Heidi, just a question. I noted in the earlier -- the document preceding as well, that you talk about a silt fence. And I notice that you reference the issue of noise right at your Page 3. Concern to protect the residents from noise and visual impacts. And you refer to a wall, and I see the word fence, and I'm just -- are they used interchangeably here? Fence and wall? MS. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Page 3 of which -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of the staffs PUD document. The very top, purpose -- description of project. The third line. Protect residents from noise and visual impacts on Collier Boulevard. My question, I'm just giving you that relationship, but I've heard the word wall and I've seen the word fence, and I'm just wondering if they're being used interchangeably here. MS. WILLIAMS: Our landscape code does provide for -- does allow for either a wall or a fence in the type B buffer, and so in that sense, both are allowed. And I know that this particular proj ect does have a wall, not a fence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to have that clarified Page 22 August 4, 2005 for myself, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, what would the zoning classification necessary be to do what they want to do with this outdoor storage? Would it be a C-5 or something like that, or-- MS. WILLIAMS: Other than the PUD zoning that it currently holds? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, if it was outside the PUD. MS. WILLIAMS: It would be a commercial use of either C-4 or C-5. I'd have to check into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you think that this has the protection that that use would have for the neighboring boundaries? MS. WILLIAMS: This PUD -- that section of the PUD was reviewed prior to this amendment and was approved and found to be consistent and found to protect the neighboring uses at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this amendment's asking for the outdoor use. I mean, the prior amendment I could argue the storage within a building. It was pretty clear. I mean, if you look at the eight that he pointed me to, he's adding the words outdoor storage. So the question is, does this have the protection of the neighboring boundaries that commercial outdoor storage would have? I mean, it's called a commons recreation area, but, you know, call it what you want, it's still a commercial use. And my concern is solely for the neighboring properties. I don't want to diminish use of their land, based on this decision. MS. WILLIAMS: Sure. The prior amendment allowed outdoor recreation vehicle storage. This amendment expands that to allow outdoor storage of all types of vehicles, not only R V storage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm not sure the -- before it Page 23 August 4, 2005 said recreation of vehicle storage limited to recreational vehicles owned by the residents. This says outdoor storage for vehicles, which I think is different. And then if you look at B-1, it says you can have structures constructed for the purpose of maintenance, storage, including R V storage. I guess the question is forgetting what it says, does this have the same protection that a commercial use would be to the surrounding properties in the PUD as it is? MS. WILLIAMS: I don't believe this amendment has changed the intent of the prior adopted PUD, and as such would have an adequate buffer required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But let me ask again. If there was a commercial use in an outlining zoning, does it have the protection that other commercial use would have? Because I mean, this is the time, if we don't think it's protecting the properties, we can increase the protection. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The -- a Commercial Zoning District wouldn't require a greater buffer than -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pardon me? MR. BELLOWS: Wouldn't require a greater buffer when adjacent to residential. This is deemed an accessory use to the RV park, though, and the outdoor storage was implied with the recreational vehicle storage on a previous amendment and the type B buffer was deemed adequate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going further into that, those storage sheds, are they exclusively for storage or will there be some maintenance carried out on it? I thought I read that there was maintenance activity permissible. And if there will be maintenance Page 24 August 4, 2005 activities within, will there also be maintenance activities outside of those shelter's units? MR. KEPPLE: No, those buildings are for storage. There is a maintenance building on the site in the northeast corner of the site. There is a maintenance building there for maintenance purposes, but it's not a storage building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And if you own an RV of any sort, you know that they're maintenance intensive, and so I wondered, there will be maintenance -- I mean, it should be clear, if it's going to happen, maintenance is carried out on that property, is it not? MR. KEPPLE: I'm sure it is. People go wash them or do whatever to them and maintain them, yes. On that site there is also a dumping station for the entire PUD for the RV's, so there is those types of activities that are occurring on that parcel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, and just to clarify for myself, because I'm not hearing as well as I'd like to, we don't have volume on these things, this picture that we're looking at, the aerial is not recent? MR. KEPPLE: 2002. No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I would -- based on this aerial, it doesn't seem to comply with what the purpose was to -- I don't see an adequate buffer. That's where I'm-- MR. KEPPLE: The buffer I believe has been constructed since then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said that. I heard you say that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. Ray, what would the buffer that would be required if this was a commercial thing? You said it would be increased. It would be increased to what? Page 25 August 4, 2005 MR. BELLOWS: Well, the setbacks were increased when commercials adjacent to resident of 25 foot separation between structures and the residential -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't hear you. MR. BELLOWS: -- would be part of the buffering that's associated with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there a buffer in the -- you know, the A, B, C, D. What would be the required buffer? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have my code with me, but I believe it -- it still might be a B, actually. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ray, are there any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, they're being none, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Adelstein, you have a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that AR-49-65 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a second on that motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: For discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that, but I also have questions. The deviations -- it wasn't clear to me how the deviations were structured in this. I understand it was within the language as presented, but it wasn't as clear as I'd like it to be. So perhaps we could qualify the deviation one more time so that we could be happy about that. Page 26 August 4, 2005 Staff recommends the deviation, is what I understand. But I'm not clear on what the deviation actually says. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, a second by Mr. Murray. Were you directing that question, Mr. Murray, to the staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may, through the Chair, yes. MS. WILLIAMS: Heidi Williams, for the record. 7.2(A)(4) in the PUD document describes the deviation from the Land Development Code. LDC Section 5.03.02.B, and Sections 5.3.2.C in the Land Development Code describe the way that fence height is measured. Generally these are measured from ground elevation. This deviation allows the height to be measured from the top of the berm, as opposed to the ground elevation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That was important for me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I'd like the motion maker and second to consider three stipulations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you talk a little louder, Mr. Strain, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mark. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, Mark, please. You almost scared me there. The first stipulation that is the county attorney and staff will work out some language concerning the way the units are counted in regards to the total maximum for the PUD. Second would be that a five-foot wide buffer be required along the entire storage area, with an 80 percent opacity. Now, I know that may seem redundant. It was actually in the minutes of the prior meeting, but I didn't find it specified in the PUD. Since it was Page 27 ~--- August 4, 2005 obligated in the minutes, I'm sure we should add it to the PUD. And the third thing was that the five-foot easement that the applicant's providing along the 25-foot maintenance easement along 951 will be provided to Collier County for whatever use the county wants to make of it at no cost to the county, when requested. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is the motion maker in agreement -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would accept it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is the second in agreement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have an agreement from both. Any further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, about the buffer in that commercial zone, the area I've been talking about, shouldn't we increase that to be what would be required of a commercial area? The concern I have is that as these other projects develop out, it's not fair to leave them up against what essentially is a C-5 use without C-5 protection. I know it's in the PUD, but the PUD's not supposed to veil this stuff, it's supposed to actually enhance the regular zoning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Brad, my concern was first of all, I didn't think we were opening up that many issues in the PUD in regards to the zoning. It's not a C-5 zoning, it's a use by the people who own the units within the facility. They're not going to come in there and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not concerned about the people inside. It's the visuals from the neighboring property. They are opening up the fact that they want to be allowed outdoor storage. They want to clarify the outdoor storage. So let's clarify the buffering of outdoor storage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you want to ask the motion maker and the second to add a stipulation, that's up to you. I mean, Page 28 August 4, 2005 the way it was originally written with the caveat to make them provide as a minimum what they committed to to the Board of County Commissioners was where I was going. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the issues to you, Mr. Adelstein, do you wish to modify your motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to ask a question before I do that. What is the staffs recommendation on this area on this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And think of it -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is it necessary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, you're a neighboring property owner. Don't -- I know that it's only used by the people within it. I'm on the other side of the property line. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I asked her. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm on the other side of the property line. MS. WILLIAMS: Staff recommendation does not address this landscape barrier, because it was not a part of the requested amendment. Something that may help you to understand: This area, that is currently zoned agricultural. And at that time that the landowner requested an amendment to provide a more intense use on that site, the applicant at that time would have to address compatibility with the existing use, not the existing use addressing a future potential use. Because currently that is agricultural. Another portion that is adjacent to this storage area is preserve for another PUD and is not developed. As far as staff is concerned, the landscape buffer provided in the current PUD is adequate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I won't accept it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, the current motion stands. Any Page 29 August 4, 2005 further discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That stands with the stipulation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And that's with the three stipulations -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- recommended by Mr. Strain, and accepted by the motion and the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, the motion carries 7-1. Okay, our next agenda item, figure out where I put it, is old business. Follow-up Commissioner Training Workshop. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Some of these people may be here for the other one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: For those people in the public, you may be waiting for one of the petitions that was either continued or postponed. The Valewood Properties has been continued to August 18th. The Richard and Frances Craig and CDN Properties has been continued indefinitely. And the MAC Builders petition has been rescheduled to September 1 st. So we are completed with the petitions in our agenda today and Page 30 August 4, 2005 we're moving on to old business. Follow-up of Commissioners Training Workshop held July 27th and 28th, with a brief discussion with comments related to future training and workshop suggestions. Is that Mr. Bellows or Mr. Schmitt who are going to lead that discussion? MR. SCHMITT: I don't have any more to say on that. I believe I thought somebody had -- one of the commissioners had asked to have that item placed on the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The reason it was placed on the agenda is we just wanted to make sure that if you had other issues or questions or would like further workshops to -- just for other clarification, we'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein. MR. BELLOWS: And I just wanted to get your feedback on that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd first like to state that I thought the first day of that seminar was absolutely excellent. It was an educational experience in that he went into all types of different variations, giving us the opportunities to understand whether it could be done this way or that way. And when I walked out of that after that Wednesday meeting, I looked forward to going to the Thursday meeting. However, the Thursday meeting turned around a little bit differently. What we got was fed facts. If we wanted facts, we -- I thought in a seminar, we would be shown how to obtain those facts by ourselves. That was not done. I will say as for a first-time shot at this, I thought it was excellent. But I do believe that what -- at least what I want out of this is not you giving me all these facts and writing them on a note, which I couldn't write down fast enough anyhow, is to find out where things like that could be found so that I can find them easily. Page 3 1 ~--_.- August 4, 2005 But again, like I said, I really think the seminar was very well done for its first shot through. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, very good. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On that subject? CHAIRMAN BUDD: On that subject. (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being done, we'll move on. Any new business? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just a quick -- and Joe and Ray, if you could thank Sharon who prepares our packages, they're coming earlier, they're coming more complete. I really appreciate the work she's doing. It sure has helped me read these things well in advance. So thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. There being no further business, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9: 17 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 32