Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/16/2006 R March 16, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 16, 2006 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: Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Lindy Adelstein Tor Kolflat Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH ]6,2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 330] 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 ] 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION 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 - DECEMBER 20, 2005, AUIR MEETING; JANUARY 5, 2006, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 5, 2006, AUIR MEETING; JANUARY ]3,2006, AUIR MEETING; JANUARY ]9,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JANUARY 25, 2006, AUIR MEETING; FEBRUARY 6, 2006, AUIR MEETING; FEBRUARY 8, 2006, LDC MEETING; FEBRUARY ]4,2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: BD-2005-AR-8828, Ruediger Brungsberg represented by Ne]son Marine Construction Inc. is requesting an 18-foot boat dock extension from the 20-foot protrusion allowed, which will replace the existing dock and extend 38 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 222 Barefoot Beach Boulevard, Lot 2, Bayfront Gardens, Section 6, Township 48, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) B. Petition: BD-2005-AR-8642, John Phillips, represented by Turrell & Associates, is requesting a 32-foot boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet for a protrusion of 52 feet into the waterway. The subject property is located at 224 Malibu Cove, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, Lot 21, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Bonita Springs, F]orida. (Coordinator: Joyce Ernst) CONTINUED FROM 2/] 6/06 1 C. Petition: V A-2005-AR-8857, Laura and Angelo Puleio, owners of Enzo's Pizzeria and Italian Restaurant, represented by Carlo F. Zampogna, of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., requesting a variance from two side yard setbacks to allow for renovation of the interior and an addition to provide restroom facilities and storage. The new addition encroaches 11.66 feet into the required 25-foot side setback leaving a 13.34-foot side yard on the southern side of the property and also encroaches 14.99 feet into the required 15-foot side setback leaving a O.OI-foot setback on the western side of the property. The subject property, consisting of 0.47 acres, is located at 4351 Bonita Beach Road, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) D. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8081, La Playa Golf Club LLC, represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, is requesting a conditional use allowed per LDC Section 2.04.03 of the RSF-3 (Residential Single Family) zoning district for a Golf Course Maintenance Facility. This proposed conditional use will permit a reconfiguration of the site and construction of a new maintenance structure. The subject property, consisting of 2.5 acres, is located at 220 Cypress Way East, in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) (CONTINUED TO 4/6/06 Due To Advertising Error By Petitioner) 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Continuation of Comprehensive Planning Department EAR-Based Growth Management Plan amendments 10. NEW BUSINESS A. To discuss specific dates for the 2006 AUIR Special Meeting. Possible dates would be October 11 th and 2nd, 2006. B. Requesting approval from CCPC for hearing to be held on Oct. 5, 2006, with carryover to Oct. 19, for the Adoption of EAR-Based Amendments 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 3-16-06/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp/mk/hr 2 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. It is now 8:30. If you'd all rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was united in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Madam secretary, will you please take the roll call. MS. CARON: I will. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray, Mr. Vigliotti, and Mr. Tuff are not here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. First thing I want to do today is reaffirm the agenda. We're going to have three cases to hear this morning. Once we're past those, we're going to move into where we left off on the EAR amendments. First one of which is to finish up the solid waste portion of that. The intention today, as announced in our last meeting as we continued the EAR hearings for today, was Page 2 March 16, 2006 to finish the amendments in order in the book as we were provided. Then the 30th of this month, we'll finish -- we'll go through and do the cleanup items that staff brings back on those amendments. There have been some questions if we were going to go back and revisit some of the other items today. That is not the intent, nor was that the direction given in our last meeting, so we will purely follow what's in the book today when we get to that agenda item. And that will start right after our three hearings this morning. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES So with that, planning commission absences for the next hearing, which is the March 30th meeting, do we have the members here planning to be there? MS. CARON: I'll be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we have a quorum. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 20, 2005, AUIR MEETING; JANUARY 5, 2006, REGULAR MEETING; JANUARY 5, 2006, AUIR MEETING; JANUARY 13, 2006, AUIR MEETING~ JANUARY 19.2006 REGULAR MEETING The approval of the minutes. Ray, it looks like we have one, two, three, four, five sets of minutes. The first one being December 20th. That was our A UIR meeting. Is there recommendation for approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 3 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Minutes of January 5th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. MS. CARON: I have one correction to make. On page 31 it should say TCEA the bottom of the page. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now is there a motion with the correction? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? None. The minutes of January 5th AUIR meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Page 4 March 16, 2006 Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That you. January 13th, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 19th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Page 5 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Well, that was easy. Bet we don't go through the rest of the day that fast. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 25, 2006, AUIR MEETING; FEBRUARY 6, 2006, AUIR MEETING; FEBRUARY 8, 2006, LDC MEETING; FEBRUARY 14, 2006, REGULAR MEETING Ray, you had a pile of recaps sent to us too. You have anything you want to add to that? MR. BELLOWS: Just on the February 28th meeting, the conditional use for the earth mining and the containment variance. The earth mining conditional use petition, the motion failed by a vote of two to three. The variance, the containment variance was approved. The PUD extension for restaurant plaza was passed four to one. The PUD rezone for the Rock Edge PUD was continued to June 6th, and the development order amendment extending the DRI for the Vineyards was approved five to zero. And then on last Tuesday, the Board approved the variance for The Hamilton which was 2.5-foot variance from the required 37-foot front yard setback and that was approved four to one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Chairman's report. There's been so much we've been doing lately, I've just been embroiled in reading so I don't have anything to add to that today. Page 6 March 16, 2006 Item #8A PETITION: BD-2005-AR-8828 With that, we'll move into advertised public hearing. The first one is petition BD-2005-AR-8828. I might say this wrong, but it's Ruediger Brungsberg represented by Nelson Marine Construction. 18- foot boat dock extension. Will the court reporter please swear in anybody that's wishing to speak in this. Please rise. (So sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures from the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move into the presentation by the applicant. MR. NELSON: For the record, Ben Nelson with Nelson Marine Construction. I'll just simply say, if there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. It's a fairly straightforward dock extension in the ares that you've probably seen a lot of before with these dock extensions with the mangrove fringe and depth of water. There is some accompanying documentation there showing the protrusions around the area. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would be the size of the boat that would be going in here? MR. NELSON: It's around a 30 foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Commissioner Midney has arrived at 8:36. Any other questions of the Board? Mr. Kolflat. Page 7 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just a question. I boated all the coastal waters of Florida from Mobile to Jacksonville and also the Bahamas. I've never seen a slip like this on an angle into the dock. Would you share with me the purpose of the angularity of the slip on the dock? MR. NELSON: Yes, sir. What we found is that in some of these areas because of the length of the boats, and as you're aware a lot of these areas became more affluent, and, of course, as the people seem to want to have the bigger boats and the water depths here to accommodate those size boats. So what happens is, it makes it easier for them to get in, because their neighbors -- and even though you'll have 25-foot setbacks with a 30-foot boat, it's really nice to be able to come in at an angle, and it allows the customer of just a better chance of coming in there safely. It really is a safety aspect. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's very interesting. thank you. MR. NELSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It looks to me from your drawing the dock could actually come closer to the mangrove fringe and you would still be okay in water depth. MR. NELSON: Well, we're trying to -- MS. CARON: We don't need-- MR. NELSON: Well, minus four is what we're looking for. That four foot of water at low tide is what you always strive for. And that minus four will come to the actual edge of that angle where it comes at right there. If we moved it out any further, if you look at the drawing, you move the minus four line across on the site plan view, that comes around where the bow of the boat is. And the reason you're trying to get into that deeper water is because you don't want to cause any environmental damage because of the bow of the boat hitting into the sand and disturbing the bottom soils and stuff. So Page 8 March 16,2006 really when you do these, if you've got plenty of width across the waterway, especially when there's a lot of other docks out there that are protruding the same distance, it's always better to be in that deeper water environmentally because you won't cause any bottom scouring. And that's what the DEP tries to get you in, into that deeper water. MS. CARON: And a smaller boat with less draft. MR. NELSON: Yeah. MS. CARON: As part of the backup material, there is a letter from the DEP. MR. NELSON: Yes. MS. CARON: That says that the permit from them expire -- or one of the permits expires December 17, 2005. MR. NELSON: Well, the Army Corps of Engineers permit, they have a nationwide permitting system. And that is routinely re-approved as the days and the months and the years go by. And that has already been extended, that nationwide permit. MS. CARON: So you have an up-to-date permit? MR. NELSON: That is a nationwide permit. That's under SPGP permitting, is year to year is extended. So, I mean, that is extended on another permit. But that is the applicant's responsibility to renew those if it's applicable, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I see on your top of your survey that one inch equals 30 feet; is that correct? MR. NELSON: On the drawing? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. NELSON: On the site plan it's one inch equals 20 feet is what I have here. And at the top on the cross section is one inch equals 10 feet. Are you looking at the survey itself? There's a drawing and a survey. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Page 9 March 16, 2006 MR. NELSON: The survey is one inch equals 30 foot, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And if I put a one inch ruler right here, it will show me the 30 feet? Because it isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have an eight-and-a-halfby 11. Did you do your survey on an eight-and-a-halfby 11 sheet of paper? MR. NELSON: You're talking the survey by Mark Allen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. NELSON: The only thing I can think of, if it doesn't match, it may have been reproduced for you. And maybe in that reproduction, maybe it lost some of the scale. Yeah, this is on legal size -- this is on legal size, so it may have been reproduced differently. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Otherwise it comes out with 30 feet being the whole length of the dock. MR. NELSON: Oh, in the survey. The survey actually shows the existing. There's an old existing dock that's going to be replaced there too. That's what the survey shows. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I see. Thank you. MR. NELSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Commissioner Murray showed up at 8:40. Thank you. MR. NELSON: Boy you can't get away with anything around here, can you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have to make sure the record is complete. MR. NELSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of this gentleman? Hearing none, we'll ask for a staffs report. Thank you, sir. MR. NELSON: Thank you. MS. ERNST: For the record, Joyce Ernst from Zoning Land Development Review. First of all, I wanted to thank Commissioner Kolflat. He brought up some issues that were addressed in the staff Page 10 March 16, 2006 report. And I guess if you notice when you read over the staff report, they have been added to the staff report and that is the criteria for the primary and secondary criteria. That has been copied exactly the way it is in the land development code. And it shows how staff evaluates each one of those criteria. In addition to that, in the staff report, page two under staff comments, that's also been revised. And what happened was, the old land development code contained a statement regarding the number of primary and secondary criteria that should be met in order to either deny or approve the petition. And this was omitted from recodification of the LDC. And staff is working to put that back into the land development code, and hopefully it will be put back in the next segment of amendments to the LDC. Now, I put up the aerial and this located-- this is located in Bayfront Gardens, which is in Lely Barefoot Beach. And as the applicant said, there's an existing dock there that will be replaced with this U -shaped dock. And similar docks have been approved for other areas in both Bayfront Gardens and South Port. Similar U-shaped docks. And also I wanted to -- I noticed the pictures that you had that were copied originally in color, and when they copied them, they weren't very clear. So I'm going to show you some of the pictures that were included with the staff report. Now this first picture is standing on the existing dock looking across the canal or the bay. And as you can see, the waterway there is quite wide, so staff feels that this facility will not have an impact on navigation. The second picture is also standing on the dock and looking to the north. Now, you really don't see too much except the mangrove shoreline. And this picture is standing on the property close to the shoreline in approximate location of where this boat dock will be located. And there you can see again, the mangrove shoreline and the existing residence to the north. Page 11 March 16, 2006 And then the last picture is standing on the subj ect dock again looking to the south. And there you really can't see much of the property to the south. The lot to the south is undeveloped. Because of the -- this being in the flood zone and all the homes have to be elevated, and because of the mangrove shoreline, staff feels that this facility will have little impact on the view of adjacent property owners. I have not received any comments for or against this facility. The facility complies with the criteria for recommendation of approval and, therefore, staff recommends approval. Can I answer any question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Hearing none. Thank you, Joyce. Ray, are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve BD-2005-AR-8828, subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion to approve by Commissioner Adelstein and a second by Commissioner Kolflat. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank Page 12 March 16, 2006 you. Item #8B PETITION: BD-2005-AR-8642 The next item was one that we previously heard and was continued for a correction on a survey. I hope that most of our questions were resolved prior to today based on the prior hearing, and -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman, did you want disclosure at this point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. I was just -- let me finish up if I could what I was going to say. That once we get into this if we've answered all our questions from the prior, we don't really need to go into them again hopefully and just receive the survey for the record. Now with that, is there any disclosures? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I had a conversation with Rocky Sculfield. I also exchanged some emails relative to concerns I had on this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I have to disclose that I received an email from Commissioner Kolflat concerning this matter. I did not open the email and it still to this day has not been opened. I believe the rest of the commission received the same email. MS. CARON: We received the same email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll move into the applicant's presentation. Oh, you need to be sworn in. Court reporter, please swear in. (So sworn.) MR. SCULFIELD: Good morning. Rocky Sculfield representing Dr. Phillips up in San Mateo Drive and South Port. I'll just put the corrected survey that was -- this is a continuance of a Page 13 March 16, 2006 previous hearing. The only discrepancy was brought up by Commissioner Schiffer, which the riparian line on the north property line did not match the permit drawings. That has been corrected by the surveyor. It has been distributed. This is the correction on the north property line right here for this riparian line. And that's the -- Commissioner Strain mentioned a while ago. if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, what is shows -- just, why isn't he making the riparian line a nice dark dash line like he did on the other side? I mean, what are you saying is, it's going due east at this point. MR. SCULFIELD: Well, that riparian line is the dash line -- the riparian line is -- I don't know if you can see it. If you have an original. You probably -- I don't know if you have an original or not. The riparian line is a faint line. That dotted line across there is some other survey sect line that's not -- he did the riparian lines the same on both. But that -- you see down below there where that other dotted or dash line is? There's two of them. There's one here and one right by the riparian line. Those are sect lines that the survey used on the plat. That doesn't really refer to it, Repairian line. But, I understand what you're saying in the future, that probably should be a little bit darker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also the question, you seem to have a good expertise. How do you determine the riparian line? Do you go out and try to approximate what you call the thread of the channel, which I assume is like the center line of the shore or something. MR. SCULFIELD: It's either the center line -- in this case Little Page 14 March 16, 2006 Hickory Bay would be the center line of the channel, which they call the thread. Or if it's a marked channel, it would be the center line of the marked channel. And then you start at that channel or the thread line and you draw a 90-degree angle to that line, perpendicular to that line to the lot line on the shore. And what that does, riparian lines were made so everybody who has a waterfront property has access, but it cannot be denied access to their property. That's where riparian lines came from. In order to make that equiable, instead of, you know, before they used to take whatever angle property lines were on, and they just extend them. Well, that would give one guy a great view -- I mean, access and the neighbor next to him on a reverse pie shaped lot on the water, he would have virtually no access. So that's why they go to the thread of a channel, and it kind of gives everybody a fair shake on access to their property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And like the property adjacent to you, which is a small sliver of land. I guess it's mostly a road access, but it is a lot. I mean -- MR. SCULFIELD: No, that's a 30-feet easement. That's a road easement. The county -- it's a utility and road easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on the appraiser's website it's a lot -- MR. SCULFIELD: They're calling it lot 108, but that is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's an easement through it, but -- MR. SCULFIELD: That is -- it's called a lot but it's an actual easement on the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the other question is, how important is the riparian line? In other words, we measure setbacks in the land development code from the property line essentially it's from the corner. But like the concern we had before is the riparian line as shown was going through the dock and everything. Do we measure setbacks off of that riparian line? Page 15 March 16, 2006 MR. SCULFIELD: The setbacks are measured from the riparian lines. And the state views it the same. State has 25-foot setbacks. The county has 15 - foot setbacks, but they are measured from the riparian lines. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I guess the point is. It would be nice to see better documentation how to establish it. For example, if you look at the one that is an extension of the property line on the other side, I know it's not relevant to this matter, but it isn't even really perpendicular. With computers now, we can go to that point and go perpendicular to an arc. So that line would actually not be exactly shown there either. MR. SCULFIELD: Well, it's awful close. It's probably within a degree or two. If you drew on this survey, this channel is very narrow right here. If you drew a line right through the middle there, it would be pretty close to perpendicular, that line to the center line of that little channel coming in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess in the future it would be nice to have a larger scale thing showing the thread, showing the riparian being perpendicular to that. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Sculfield, on -- I'm not sure which. This one. This lovely colored drawing we have. MR. SCULFIELD: Is that -- is this the one? MS. CARON: Yeah. The entire dock area is 52 feet? MR. SCULFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But how much actually is beyond the mangroves? MR. SCULFIELD: Well, the mangrove fringe, you see which would be the western, or the head of the slip. COMMISSIONER CARON: CARON: Right. MR. SCULFIELD: The mangroves you can see actually come out and encroach into that u-shaped slip. Page 16 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: How much is beyond -- MR. SCULFIELD: That's the overhang. COMMISSIONER CARON: How much of the dock goes beyond that mangrove area? Of the 52 feet-- MR. SCULFIELD: Right. Approximately 28. COMMISSIONER CARON: CARON: Okay. MR. SCULFIELD: 28 feet. COMMISSIONER CARON:: Good. That's what I needed to know. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the commission? Hearing none, we'll move to the staffs comments, if any. Thank you, Rocky. MS. ERNST: For the record again, Joyce Ernst from Zoning and Land Development Review. You know, aside from what Rocky had said that other similar U -shaped docks have been approved in this area in South Port. And staff feels that because of the location of this property and the mangrove shoreline, that this facility will have very little impact on the adjacent property owners. Just to the north of this, let me just show you the area one minute. That small piece of property we're talking about just north of this is actually Malibu Cove right of way. It's a right of way and provides access to this property and the property next door as well as the one just north of that Malibu Cove. And you can see to the south and to the west of this property, it's the bay -- Little Hickory Bay. So as I said, it will have very little impact on the view of adjacent neighbors. Where this dock facility will be located, the waterway is quite wide. So staff also feels this will have little impact on navigation. I have not received any comments for or against this facility. It complies with the criteria for recommendation of approval, and therefore staff recommends approval. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Page 1 7 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joyce, I have two. MS. ERNST: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this survey as submitted sufficient to meet the criteria of the code in regards for your review and staffs review? MS. ERNST: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you'd say yes, but I wanted to have that for the record since it's been questioned so much. MS. ERNST: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And lastly, we heard comments that the setback for this is measured from the riparian line. I don't have a land development code book with me today. Do we actually reference setbacks in the land development code from the riparian line? MS. ERNST: Yes. It does actually say that the setback is measured from the riparian line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve BD-2005-AR-8642 subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. And I believe he meant BD. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, BD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments? Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one comment. That's on the little dock that's being left. I'm concerned that once this is over -- well, there's a stipulation in there that there can't be any mooring at Page 18 March 16, 2006 this dock. I don't think we have any control over that. I think the little dock should go in favor of the new dock, which I have no problem with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Hearing none we'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion as stated signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries. We're at seven to zero this time. Thank you. Item #8C PETITION: V A-2005-AR-8857 The next item on our agenda is petition V A-2005-8857. All those wishing to speak in this matter please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (So sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I had a meeting with Mr. Pires. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I visited the site, inspected the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing out of the ordinary is I reviewed the documents on file for the construction documents. Page 19 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I met with Mr. Pires office too. MR. MURRAY: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a meeting in discussion with Mr. Pires and Carlos. And, Carlos, I would screw up your last name if I tried to say it, so -- and we discussed the almost, page by page, the staff report, so, hearing no other disclosures, we'll ask the applicant to make a presentation. Heidi, are you up there to -- did you want to start? I'm surprised if you did. I thought we usually start with the applicant. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. For the record, Anthony Pires with Carlos Zampogna of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo law firm representing the petitioner in this case, this application. And this is a variance application with regards to an existing commercial restaurant operation requesting a variance for the fact from the required 25-foot side yard setback to 13.34 feet as it relates to commercial structures abutting a residential. It's really side yard because you know in a corner lot you have two fronts and two sides. And the one variance is for the setbacks as to the back portion of this. This southerly portion abuts a residential neighborhood. And the other variance is a request for the variance acquired 15 foot setback to zero point zero one feet on the west side. And all this is to allow an addition that houses restrooms and storage. This application does not request a variance for any additions to seating capacity. The only seating capacity will be the fact that we have ADA handicapped reliant rest rooms. That's all we have. That's what this is designed to do. It's approximately 400 square feet. No additional tables are being provided by virtue of this. There's no density increase. No density increase. It's merely to provide and replace the existing approximately 149 square foot restrooms that were there previously with handicapped ADA compliant restrooms, Page 20 March 16, 2006 family rest room facilities. The prior restrooms have been converted to wait stations and waiter stations and service stations. No additional tables, no chairs with regards to that. I think it's always helpful to have aerial photographs and photographs in these types of applications. And also to recall, this restaurant was first built in 1990. And at that time the CC zoning regulations provided as to side yard setbacks, the setback was zero or five feet. And it was built in compliance with the requirements of back in 1990 -- 1991, the land development code changed the criteria with regards to the setbacks, and we have the current LDC requirements with regards to setbacks that are issued in this particular application today. You can see the aerial photograph depicting the particular restaurant. It's highlighted in yellow. To the south -- I have some additional photographs I might be utilizing. It might be difficult to see but we have some other photographs from the ground. The addition is in this general area for the restrooms. This is a commercial parcel to the west. This structure is approximately 10 feet from this property line. Along the south, or back portion of the restaurant, there's a fence on this residential side, landscaping then another fence on Americline's property. There's FP&L's power lines that run through here also. So you have sort of -- I'll call it the cream sandwich, or oreo sandwich effect. You have fencing on the south side of the residential side, landscaping, and fencing on our client's property. There was a photograph that was included in your agenda packet that we would like to explain and describe also. It wasn't all that flattering, I guess, but I want to describe and explain this particular photograph. I don't know if you can see it on the visualizer. On the photographs -- this is in your agenda packet. This fence is actually on the property to the west. It is not on our client's property. This is the approximate location of the property line. So this area here is part of the commercial property to the west. This is the southwest corner of the bathroom addition. This is looking due east along the Page 21 March 16, 2006 rear portion of the restaurant. This is the bathroom addition here. You'll notice -- and once again, in this photograph you can see the basketball net from the neighbor's backyard in some of the vegetation. There's a gap in the vegetation, and we'll explain that. During Hurricane Wilma, some of the oak trees that were back touching the power lines and caused a bit of a fire issue. So they've been taken back. And some of the other vegetation has been damaged. We will replace the vegetation in this particular area to bring it up to standards and also to account for the issues that occurred with Hurricane Wilma. Another photograph taken yesterday I think also will assist you. Thank you, Ray. This was taken yesterday afternoon. This again depicts -- this fence is on the commercial property to the west. It's a south property line of the commercial property to the west, looking again due east. And you can see the vegetation in here, and you can see the fence, the other fence on the residential property. So you have sort of that buffer that's composed of fencing in our client's property, which is recently constructed, vegetation is the filler, I guess, and fencing on the residential property. And here is the gap in vegetation that we would propose and working on replacing the vegetation. There's two oaks growing in there now to bring it back to the way it was before. Just to give another perspective of the neighborhood. This is -- and all these will be made part of the road. This is a photograph looking west at the neighboring commercial parcel. This is the fence to the west and this is part of the building on the west side. It actually comes backs. This is the corner of the bathroom addition. This is looking west. So the commercial property to the immediate west extends pretty far south in that particular location. A question arose as to location of the dumpster between the buildings. Some people construe that to be an obstruction. Our clients did not place that dumpster there. There is a dumpster. This Page 22 March 16, 2006 is the front of our client's property. This is the rear and this is the bathroom addition. This is the commercial property to the west. That dumpster has been there for two months, placed there by one of the owners of one of the commercial condominium units next door. Our client asked when that would be removed. It has not been removed. But that is not on our property. It's not been utilized by our client. We understand demolition work has been underway in one of the units next door, and they've been working on getting a permit for the last couple of months. Again, this is another photograph from the front, from Bonita Beach Road facing south. Our clients, front of our client's building of the property to the west, and there's the dumpster, not on our client's property. So, I want to address that issue because I didn't want that to become a point of contention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pires, just to help me with some of my confusion. So you are not putting -- the building is already on the zero property line? MR. PIRES: The building was first built in 1990 at the location of -- yeah, on the property line on the west side pursuant to the zoning regulations for C4 existence at that time pursuant to the building permit, building code and zoning ordinance in existing up until October 1991, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: And this addition, the bathroom addition, is the southerly extension along the westerly property line. To maintain, once again, that continuous line of construction that maintains the 10- foot separation, it still maintains the substantial distance between -- I'll call it the back property line, you know, where the residential community is, neighborhood is, and the building. And the person in the back -- I think Ray Bellows has placed for you a survey which may be of some assistance. Again, this is facing south. The original building is this configuration from here to here, here to here. Page 23 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your aerial is what threw me. That yellowed-in aerial you showed, it didn't look like the building was on the property line. That's why I was -- MR. PIRES: Sometimes I think the property appraiser's aerials, I'm not sure what the tolerance is for the variation, and that's the aerial that you saw, but the building is on the property line per the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PIRES : We have had some issues raised with regard to some of the neighbors. There's some letters of objection you may have received in your packet. I think it's always helpful to know the relationship of the properties if they're making objections or not to the applications. I think the Elliotts wrote a letter that might be in your agenda packet as to the objections that they have. These -- this is the Elliott property and this is the restaurant. The restaurant is right here, Elliott is right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You went off of the screen with your pointer. MR. PIRES: I'm sorry. The Kerrys wrote a letter of objection. And the Kerrys are at 120 First Street. The restaurant is up here. The Kerrys are located right there. Also, an objection was filed -- and we'll get into that in a little bit -- one of the commercial unit owners to the west. But two commercial unit owners to the west have provided letters of no objection, in fact, support. If I can give these to Ray to make part of the record. Camarade and Careden who own some condominium units in the commercial property to the west have no objection to this application. Remax over in this unit two buildings away, they have no objection. And Mr. Bevin or Bevan, B-E-V-A-N, who owns -- this is the restaurant again. This is Mr. Bevans residence. He signed a letter of no objection. He also owns this lot right here. So, this is the Page 24 March 16, 2006 restaurant and he had no obj ection. As to these two neighbors to the immediate south, they have not provided letters of no objection, but our clients have had conversations with them. In fact, this gentleman, this family, they come in frequently to the restaurant and dine there, at least once a week. They're out of town but they've told my client, my understanding is, they have no objection. My client has had conversations with the people that live here and they have no objection, is my understanding to this application. In fact, my clients have tried to work with these people in the past with any issue they've had. There was an issue at one time about a dumpster location here, and my clients worked with them and the county to relocate the dumpster to another location to avoid any issues, to be good neighbors with the neighbors to the south. To give an idea of the sort of relationship with the various parties who have sent written correspondence in, this is the property, the restaurant up here. This is the unit property to the west, which one party has objected, one has not. The property further to the west, they've indicated no obj ection. Mr. Bevans' property, no objection. And then Kerry and Elliott are back here in the pink. And you have, as I said, the people right behind have verbally advised my client that they have no objection to the variance request. As to obj ections raised by one of the property owners in the commercial unit to the west, we were not advised of that previously until we were provided a copy of the correspondence that Mr. Pritt represented them supplied to the county staff. And in that regard, once we advised our client that one of the property owners next door, commercial property owners owning a commercial condominium unit, had an objection, my client called there yesterday and said what the heck is going on? I didn't think you-all had a problem. He talked to Susan Myelic. And a gentleman Page 25 March 16,2006 arrived in the restaurant shortly after that and he said he was one of the manager's of the company, the LLC, that owns that unit. And my client, Angelo Puleio explained the variance request. It wasn't additional seating, it was merely bathroom additions. Then the person said, well, then we don't have any problem with that. And that was repeated again apparently in the hallway this morning. But in conversations with Mr. Pritt, they indicated they wished to talk to us about parking, shared parking arrangements. And the unit is for sale. So I'm not sure what is going on with that particular objection. There is no utilization of the property to the west for this variance. It's not increasing seating capacity. It's not a red herring for anything. And I wish Mr. Pritt would have called me ahead of time. Possibly we could have explained in greater detail what the variance is for. The staff has done a really good job of analyzing this particular variance application. And we make the recommendation to you that you forward it with the recommendation of approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals with the very stipulation we have no problem with that. As outlined in the staff report, the variance would not allow any increase of the existing encroachment. It's the minimum variance required to allow the bathroom facilities to remain. It does unify the back of the building. The property to the west is already developed with commercial uses, has provided adequate separation between the buildings, except for the dumpster that we've been trying to get rid of for two months. It doesn't have a negative effect on the neighborhood. In fact, as I mentioned to you, the property owners immediately to the south have a very good relationship with my clients. They have advised they have no objection to this request. And the property owners that do have an objection are far removed from the property. The property is very well buffered and screened on the south side. This doesn't really add to any issue with regards to that as far as it doesn't have any negative effect. And therefore, we would request that you all recommend to the Board of County Page 26 March 16, 2006 Commissioners and the Board of Zoning Appeals this variance applications with the stipulation as provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I got the copies of your proposed variance that you sent out. How many did you actually send out? How many did your firm send out? You've got three of them back. How may did you actually send? MR. PIRES: You mean letters of no objection? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. PIRES : We sent 16 letters out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And three of them were the ones that came in saying they didn't mind, correct? MR. PIRES: That's correct. Once again, two have advised verbally that they have no objection, but they didn't put it in writing in response to that mailing that we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer. MR. PIRES: Excuse me. If I can be corrected, it's 12 letters that were sent out, Mr. Adelstein. I have been corrected. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you give me like a history of what happened and why the building was stopped? You applied for a permit. You submitted documents. I kind of looked at the document. There's really no site plan. There's nothing on setbacks noted, but what happened in the construction? The reason we're here today is somebody stopped this. MR. PIRES: I think during the construction, the permit was applied for. The permit was issued and then when the spot survey came in, the county staff thought that there might be an issue with regards to the construction at this particular project and a stop work order was issued. Our clients then wanted to continue working on it because they wanted to -- they're at the stage of construction. They're at the tie beam stage when the county noticed on the spot Page 27 March 16, 2006 survey that there might be an issue with regards to the setback. And so being at the tie beam stage, our client has substantial amount of funds already invested in the proj ect. We asked the county commission -- or, my clients did -- if they could proceed ahead, you know, and be applying for the variance, recognizing they would be proceeding at their own risk with regards to the variance application-- with regards to the building construction. And then they would be processing the variance. So in order to protect the investment that they already had, protect it against the weather -- also have a functioning restaurant, they completed the work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, in other words, at the tie beam stage. So they're out in the back and they're building this wall ready to pour the tie beam, and the county says, stop work. You know this-- , MR. PIRES: The tie beam was already poured, is my understanding. And they already had -- my understanding is they already had cut into the main building and they wanted to protect the main building from weather and also mitigate the damages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the file there, the building director gives them the okay to go at their own risk for the interior build out only. What do you think that meant? MR. PIRES: For the bathroom addition. That's what the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The permit also showed renovations to the inside of the existing building. MR. PIRES: There have been removal-- for example, the bathroom removed and now it's a wait and serve station. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you think when the building official said the interior, he meant the interior of the addition also? MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if I understand that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the file the building official Page 28 March 16, 2006 -- you said they went before the commission to get approval to do this? MR. PIRES: The county commission, just to be able to basically have a stop work order lifted to allow the construction to continue at their own risk while they were working through the variance process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the building official -- I guess, Joe can answer that. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development Environmental Services Division. First, understand for those who are not aware of the process, it's up to the applicant that within 10 days of placing slab, it's their responsibility to come in with the spot survey. And the review of the spot survey, that's when we detected the encroachment. We issued a stop work order. By that time the applicant was well beyond -- of course, they proceed at their own risk. They were well beyond the stage where they probably should have been, but that's normal most everywhere in the construction business. They submit the spot survey. The petitioner petitioned the board. I can't recall the dates. I can look at my notes, but we encouraged the petitioner to petition the Board of County Commissioners. Understanding this was an error. It was an error, I believe if I recall, this was an owner builder doing some of the work and placed the wall. It was certainly just an error, not done in anyway towards in malice or trying to deceive in anyway the county. It just was simply an error in placing the wall with the alignment of the home. They petitioned the commissioner. We supported the commission in regards to allow them to continue with the building, certainly at their own risk as they proceeded through the variance process. And that's basically how they got to this point. They assumed the full risk with the understanding that they had to proceed with this variance before the appropriate boards through the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have questions for Joe and Page 29 March 16, 2006 Mark, but should I wait for the staff report and stay with Mr. Pires? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. There may be more questions. It's up to you. Do you want to hold or continue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll stay with the petitioner's sides then I'll go to Joe. Tony, in the permit you're requesting 150 seats. Isn't that in excess of what was existing? MR. PIRES: The permit application has a notation for 150 seats, but we are not requesting 150 seats. In the construction, it has nothing to do with additional seats or tables. It's to -- I notice that notation is on there, but the permit application is for some of those interior remodeling and the bathroom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the bathrooms can handle, by the plumbing count, in excess of 150 seats. So in other words, the bathroom addition is not a bathroom addition to build a 75- foot -- 75 seat restaurant. It's to build a restaurant that would be probably in excess of 150 seats. So where would that seating be controlled? MR. PIRES: The additional bathrooms are to make them ADA and handicapped compliant. The restrooms -- if you look on the plans, the restrooms are very small prior to this time -- were very small bathrooms. And they're approximately 130 to 140 square feet is all. The bathrooms indicate on the plans, it says 396 square feet. I did my math 39 feet times 12 feet. And I came up with 468 square feet for the bathroom additions. And that's handicapped accessible and family bathrooms. And there is no additional seating provided, and no additional seats or tables have been provided. And the seating capacity is what it was at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the bathrooms are provided for more than you would need for 150 seats even. In other words, the way the plumbing code is, it's 75 seats per, let's say, lavatory toilet combo. So it's a very large bathroom. So when you say it's not -- how do we know it's not 150 seats? Page 30 March 16, 2006 The plans say 150 seats. The bathroom says more than 150 seats. Where have you limited the seating? MR. PIRES: The actual physical number of chairs in the restaurant is less than 150. I think it's around 80, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Today? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they have the facilities to bring in another 80 seats. But anyway -- MR. PIRES: I don't know if they have the space to do that, Mr. Schiffer, quite frankly, in the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PIRES: And they have other constraints that would come into play when they had to occur also. I don't think they physically have the space within the dimensions to achieve that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the owner is the builder of this? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The owner submitted the plans, got the plans done, filled out the application, which didn't have any setbacks on it. The plans have no site plan on it that shows at least the new construction. Do you agree or have you looked at the plans? MR. PIRES: Part of the -- if you recall, the staff report says if there's an approval of this variance application that there also needs to be a concomitant site development plan amendment to reflect this. I didn't see a site development plan amendment as part of the site. I believe you're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Get some clarification from you also regarding, at one time there were two other prior property grant variations. All three of these though are in one area; is that correct? Page 31 March 16, 2006 MR. PIRES: That's correct, yes, sir. But generally, this is more westerly where the other ones were more easterly. They are the back portion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If, in fact, you went and worked on that back end again, why weren't you able to get rid of the situation why you still had the right to work on it instead of waiting for it to be finished and then you're still going to go in for another variance? Couldn't you fix it while you were doing the work prior to meeting your -- MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if I understand the question. They went before -- there was a stop work order issued -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. Now you've got the chance to go back in and finish up the work. MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why wouldn't you be able to fix the variance at that time too also. MR. PIRES: As far as processing the variance application? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You have a situation where you're allowed to do the work. If you did the work and the variance then became obselete, didn't need to be -- if you moved what needed to be moved in order to do it at that time. MR. PIRES: Well, we really couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the 39 by 12 foot approximately size. And once again, a tie beam was poured. There's really -- it would have to be demolished to bring it back to the original configuration and then go back and apply for variance. And there's a substantial amount of money already invested at that time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know it's a lot of money invested, but the situation here we've got three of them in one area and now you're asking for another variance. MR. PIRES: But once again, the construction was already underway. The only way to have, sort of brought it back to the prior Page 32 March 16, 2006 condition would have been knock this addition down and then process the variance, I guess. And because, once again, the County Commission recognizing, they told us clients were proceeding at their own risk. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At their own risk. Now that they haven't got it done, what right do you have to ask for another variance? MR. PIRES: No, we're not asking for another one, it's part and parcel to the variance package in that whole building. There's no additional variance. This is the third variance application. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is the third variance, right? That's what I'm saying, you don't think -- never mind. I understand what your statement is. I just don't understand why you didn't clear it up before you did it, finished it. MR. PIRES : Well, at the time they applied for the permit, they didn't think they needed it. And by virtue of them making the application to the county and the county issuing the building permit and letting them proceed with the construction at the beginning, that's what -- I think Mr. Schmitt was indicating was sort of an error on both parts. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't see where you get a basis for your claim for this entitlement. I don't see it at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: For follow-up on your response to Brad Schiffer relative to the seating. Is the seating 150 seating; is that correct? MR. PIRES: No, sir, it's not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the current seating? MR. PIRES: I don't know the actual physical count. The occupational license is issued for 85 to 149 seats, but the actual count is -- well, it depends upon whether the private dining area is being utilized in this particular way. I think it's like 135. Page 33 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 135? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the comparable parking area required for a 135-seat restaurant? MR. PIRES: I'm not sure. I don't have that analysis. Once again, this was built when the parking requirements were different than what they might be today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ray, do you know that? MR. BELLOWS: I can tell you what the current code requirement is, but I can't tell you what it was approved for at the time this building was built. The code has changed, the parking requirements changed. So what happens is, the building becomes a legal nonconforming building. Also, the setbacks have changed as was depicted on the survey. The building abuts the western property line which is no longer allowed. You would have to have a setback off the property line. We are dealing with the pre-existing nonconforming building. Therefore, they're vested in at the current standards and for parking. However, if there is an addition to the building that requires additional parking, they would have to provide it. MR. PIRES: And I think that's the issue here. We're not providing additional seating. We're providing a larger bathroom facility. The old bathroom facility is no longer used as a bathroom. It's a server station. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now the permit that you filed says interior and references bathrooms as being the work that's maintained? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no statement in that permit that says it would be exterior work done, expanding the building wall. MR. PIRES: But the plans show that it's an addition onto the Page 34 March 16, 2006 rear of the building. Look at the plan that has that depicted. It's in addition to the southerly portion of the building on the outside. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But looking at the permit, there was no way to asertain there was an exterior modification going on in this application. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. If you look at the application and all the materials that were supported with the application and supplied as part of the application, it's clear on that application that this was exterior bathroom addition to the building. That was part of the whole application. So it's not just the cover sheet of the building permit, but it's the actual whole packet that is reviewed for purposes of making the determination as to whether a permit would be issued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back to the seating. The permit states that obviously it shows 150 seats in the plan, but it also states in the area calculations that the seating capacity is 150 people. The new seating capacity is 150 people, so, what words are we supposed to believe and what words are we not supposed to believe on the plans submitted? And there's a survey in the plans submitted that does not show -- the only survey, does not show any additional work to the exterior of the building. Granted the structural plans for work on the exterior of the building. But if you look at, or you show me which would be better. A survey that shows, for example, the G.I00, it shows that as an open yard where the building is. MR. PIRES: Bear with me while I go through the permit application. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's important before the staff comes in and says maybe the staff made a mistake, is that this set of plans has no indication whatsoever that there's any exterior work on the building. The setbacks have never been filled out on the application. I don't think an exterior or new building frame could even be built by an owner builder on a commercial property. So the Page 35 March 16, 2006 staff must assume it was just interior work. MR. PIRES: Mr. Schiffer, this is part of the building application. Perhaps this can address some of it. This is page D-I00. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Show me where -- MR. PIRES: Right in this area here. This is the area that sort of circled and tethered as part of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But in that circle it's shown as an exterior space. I mean, a good clue is the three propane tanks in there. They don't go well in bathrooms. In other words, my point, had that survey, exactly what you had there, blackened in that area and said new addition, I don't think we'd be here today. MR. PIRES : Well, I guess part of the question is, this isn't the Board of Zoning and Adjustment Appeals involving building permits. This is in regards to the variance. So I guess part of the issue is -- and this was a boundary survey also that we, as of March 2004, which is under construction. But with regards to the issuance of the permit, the staff had this information and material at the time that indicated this was an exterior addition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, show me -- there's structural plans for an exterior addition. There's no site plans showing where that structure is even occurring. MR. PIRES: Right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what makes you-- MR. PIRES: It says Enzo's addition. This area indicated back here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where does it say Enzo's addition? MR. PIRES: Right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the title block, yeah. MR. PIRES: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's just a cirle there and there's nothing that says that's even where the new addition is going. Page 36 March 16, 2006 And like I said, it shows a sidewalk, it shows propane tanks out there. That's just a copy of the survey, the existing survey. MR. PIRES: This is -- part of the materials submitted to the county, and the pages indicate -- it's circled there as far as where this work was going to occur. And, again, this page has the restaurant -- I mean, the restrooms depicted, it's page A-I 00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, your question is maybe better asked of staff in regards to this issue. I think the applicant submitted what they thought were the required documents and staff reviewed them in some manner. Maybe when staff gets here, those questions can be better answered by them, if that works for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. MR. PIRES: And again, also Enzo's addition back here has where it's tied into part of the framing plan. But I think it would be more appropriate as Mr. Strain indicated, for the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions for the applicant? I have several. Mr. Murray, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. I was just going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Pires indicated some documents he wanted to enter into evidence. You needed a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need your mike. MR. MURRAY: Whether you needed a motion to accept those documents he offered into evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't received any documents from him. MR. MURRAY: He had indicated he had a number of pictures and things that he wanted to enter into evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe does, he needs nine copies -- or the number of copies for here so we can review it, otherwise I'm not sure it helps us any. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I brought it up, sir. Page 37 March 16, 2006 MR. PIRES: I don't have nine copies, but I'd like to make those part of the reoord. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. attorney, is that okay? Ms. attorney. Marjorie. I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. He can submit them for the record. I think maybe it would be helpful if there were sufficent copies for the commission. But, Mr. Bellows could put them up there, or pass them up to you and you can view them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll do it that way. If that's fine with the county attorney, then we'll have a motion to accept those pictures into evidence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Second by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Pires, I have several questions for you. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Apparently, this was discovered at the time a slab survey was issued. Spot survey. Page 38 March 16, 2006 MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did the spot survey, was it consistent with the building plan application? MR. PIRES: I'd say, yes, sir, and here's a copy of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking is then, I'm trying to figure out where it was originally missed. Apparently, it was originally missed on the original submission -- MR. PIRES: That's correct. That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it shows up back after they went ahead and built, and it showed back up at the time you submitted a spot survey. And then it wasn't -- your spot survey was not inconsistent with your building application, but that's when it was noticed by staff that there may be an issue. MR. PIRES: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain, there's some existing easements on this property. I guess for me it's easier to see in a visual manner how they overlay with what you're doing today. MR. PIRES: From our perspective, the existing easements don't have any effect on what we propose today. I only have one copy, but this is a boundary survey that shows this area and shows some of the easements. If I can put this on the visualizer. Were those easements to the rear of the building? MR. PIRES: On the back side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I keep using the word easements. I mean variance. MR. PIRES: Oh, the variances? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The variances which were previously issued to the rear of the building as well. MR. PIRES: All the activity is taking place at the back of the building. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you show me on this plan just by pointing out the limitations of those prior variances. I'd like Page 39 March 16, 2006 to see how much deviation you have from the prior variance from the one you're asking for today. MR. PIRES: Ifwe look at the area that's designated as a cooler CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PIRES: And this area here also, they were a product of the prior variances. And this is the area that is the subject matter of the existing variance. As you can see, it's no further south than what was indicated and allowed by the prior variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was no overlap then? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only question I had. Thank you. Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Mr. Pires, on one of the photos -- I think perhaps it was the earliest photo that you showed -- it seems to me that the structure had now been completely enclosed. It appeared that way; is that correct? MR. PIRES: That's my understanding, yes, sir. MR. MURRAY: On the survey that you just showed, the site plan there, there was some indication too that there was some propane cylinders, chain link fence previously. The building is now completely enclosed. What happened with those propane cylinders? Where are they now? MR PIRES: This survey reflects that the propane tanks are over on the east side. Located here, here, and here. MR. MURRAY: So they've been relocated? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. MR. MURRAY: Okay. I didn't pick that up. I thank you very much. MR PIRES : Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other questions of the applicant, I'd like to hear from the staff, please. Thank you. Page 40 March 16, 2006 MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Heidi Williams, principal planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. I'd like to start with a little bit of the history of this project. The restaurant was constructed following an approved site development plan in the earlier nineties. The parking was established at that time by the current land development code standard. The approved site development plan has 150 seats on that SDP. At that time parking was calculated using the square footage of the restaurant and parking was shown as 37 spaces, which was actually above the requirement at that time. The building was constructed with a zero foot setback along the western property line. That was in compliance with the code at the time. Arising from some conflicts with the residential neighbors to the south two variances were sought. One in 1993 to enclose a quote, can washing facility. I believe that the variance resolution and some backup material regarding that '93 variance was included with your backup material. That was prior to enclosure of that structure. A second variance was granted in 1994 after construction of that was completed and there was a little bit of a discrepancy. The second variance was to bring the intended encroachment into compliance at that time. This variance clearly solves some nuisance problems for the neighbors. It was a good example of working together with the neighborhood to clean up some of the conflicts that can occur when residential and commercial are adjacent. The applicant then obtained a permit to provide the current addition, the one we're speaking about today, for storage and restrooms. This was obtained from the county, and as we have already discussed, after construction began it was discovered that there were further encroachments into the required setbacks. The current land development code has a 15- foot setback along the western property line. That's considered a side yard adjacent to commercial. The southern property line is also a side yard based on Page 41 March 16, 2006 the fact that there are two street frontages to this property. Because that is adjacent to residential, that side yard is a 25-foot requirement. Once these encroachments were discovered, the applicant was issued a stop work order by the county. And also as previously discussed, they petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to be permitted to proceed with construction so there was no damage to the structure already started. The variance requested today is a little bit complicated, so I'd like to go into it in detail. The western property line would require to bring this addition into compliance, a 14.99 foot variance to the 15-foot setback. The structure is 0.01 feet feet from the property line. It extends the line of the original building. The original building is, as Ray mentioned, legally nonconforming. So that portion of the structure is acceptable to the county. The new addition has to meet today's standards, and so would be required for, I believe, its 12 feet of length on that side. Along the southern property boundary the new addition requires a -- has a 13.34 setback according to the boundary survey, which is an 11.66 foot encroachment. It was also discovered by this survey that the first addition to the south side of the restaurant, although it was attempted to be in compliance, it still has a minor encroachment. This could be fixed by an administrative variance process. However, since we are going through the full variance process, it would make sense to roll it all into one application. There is, like I said, a very minor difference between the approved encroachment and what is there today. I believe it's less than six inches. So the proposed resolution should this be approved, would include that the entire structure could be brought into compliance with today's code from that standpoint. The variance process has eight criteria to consider. They are, staff analysis in the staff report. Overall the new addition does extend pre-existing conditions. There were protections placed along Page 42 March 16, 2006 the southern property line as discussed by the previous variances including fencing and landscaping. The applicant has discussed that there were -- there was some damage to that. And, although I do recommend approval with three prior stipulations, I would add that the new commitment to replace the vegetation be another stipulation of the recommendation for approval. It would be suggested that it be limited to those structures shown on the survey today, that a site plan amendment be required and no further encroachments be permitted on this site. Could I answer any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt first, if you don't mind. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I just wanted to add to some stipulations because Mr. Schiffer brought up an issue that, up until now, hadn't really been noticed. And I believe there is a problem in regards to permit. Permit was, it's a commercial building. The permit was issued under the application as an owner builder, and an owner builder cannot apply for a permit for a commercial building. So, there is a problem in the permit. Now I know that has nothing to do with the variance. The permit has gone through the entire review process. The plans have all been reviewed. But, I am going to have to have the applicant reapply for a permit with the licensed general contractor. It cannot be an owner builder. And I've looked through all the affidavits, all the applications. This was an expressed permit. It was -- description of work clearly says interior build out, add restrooms. And this involved exterior work. Why that was not caught. I can't explain that. It's gone through the review process. It's gone through the entire review process noting interior work, though the exterior plans reviewed and approved, so there will have to be a re-application with a licensed general contractor, or a licensed contractor to comply with the Florida Building Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? Page 43 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hedi, how many seats is that restaurant able to have? MS. WILLIAMS: The original site development plan in 1990 does show 150 seats. So that was approved at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's a moot point. How come an SDP revision or amendment wasn't required to build an exterior thing like this? From my experience, you change a doorknob, I got an SDP amendment. MS. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure why it was not required at the time, but that is a stipulation of the recommendation of approval that it be brought up to date. MR. SCHMITT: Ask Mr. Schiffer, I can only assume it came in under the application of interior build out so it was never sent from the building department over to the planning department for review. And I note that it even had been reviewed by the planning staff. You go through the entire application, and I believe -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, you don't have to do that. MR. SCHMITT: It was missed. I mean, this came in as an interior build out, and it definitely included exterior work. It should have required a site plan and that's part of the stipulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's the point I'm making. Reviewing the application data, reviewing the application itself, it doesn't state that there's any addition. This set of documents gave the impression, the impression to fool many areas of the building department, that it was only an owner builder. A little interior build out. So I think the fact that we find ourselves here is really due to the way the documents were prepared and sent to the city. Okay. That's enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. Page 44 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Joe, you mentioned earlier about the option that person has to go ahead and build recognizing his responsibilty. I personally feel this is an undue implicit influence on the planning commission to make a judgment on the merits of the case by itself. Because we come here now recognizing that this applicant has obtained more unnecessary hardship than he would have otherwise obtained if it had been stopped the build out at the time the detection was noted. MR. SCHMITT: I understand your position. The applicant through public petition, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners asking for permission to continue, it was clearly on the record that if they were allowed to continue, it was at their own risk. Yes, you may feel compelled based on the fact that where they are in the process, but many months ago, it was clearly stated on the record that there was no guarantee that this variance would be approved and the Board of County Commissioners, understanding the situation at that time, allow the applicant to proceed at their own risk as they proceeded through the variance process. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What, if any, is the course that anybody on this commission could take to reinvestigate or reanalyze that position as far as the allowance to continue construction? MR. SCHMITT: I hear your question, but I'm not really sure what kind of answer you're looking for. You mean, policy in general? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is something that would come up in the review of the LDC that would be brought up as a suggestion to change the LDC, or could it be just brought up in the meeting under new business of this meeting? MR. SCHMITT: It is not an LDC issue. It was strictly the petitioner petitioning the Board of County Commissioners being asked to allow to go forward and proceed at their own risk. Staff basically advised that the applicant still had to proceed through the variance process, they clearly understood. Mr. Pires may want to Page 45 March 16, 2006 highlight on that, but they clearly understood that they were proceeding at their own risk. Like a builder today does a spot survey. If they go up the tie beam, they know clearly they're proceeding at their own risk. Because it clearly states at spot survey, once you place the slab, the applicant is required within ten days of receiving an approval of a spot survey. If they wait 30 or 40 days and put block down and go all the way up the tie beam, they do it at their own risk. There's no compelling reason that this panel should feel obligated to sway its vote because an applicant now has basically built out and has the interior completed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You do recognize there is an implicit influence there? MS. SCHMITT: I do. I do, but at the time that this was asked, and again today, as Ms. Williams mentioned, the staff -- I guess if you want to define as maybe egregious or as complicated as this may be, it does not exceed what already exists as far as the encroachment. And this will clean up a lot of the past history we've had with this building. So, there is a give and take. I understand. There is a give and take here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Two things. One, Joe, the impact of a new permit being required, how does that impact, if at all on this meeting today with respect to variance? In any way? MR. SCHMITT: Only as a requirement, I would add a stipulation that they -- I need to talk to my building director on this because, just as Mr. Schiffer pointed out, I mean, this is not a legal permit. They would have to reapply with a licensed general contractor. It will not impact the variance. Unless you want to delay the variance and have this come back with the proper application, but it's -- it's exclusive, so to speak. The variance is the variance. The permit process is the Florida Building Code. And I just need to get the permit to be legal. Page 46 March 16,2006 MR. MURRAY: I appreciate that. MR. SCHMITT: We'll probably not have to go through any re-review, but I need to talk to my building director in regards to how to make this right. But that, as Mr. Pires said, that is another issue through either the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, or some other process as Mr. Schiffer certainly is well aware of, if there are any problems or issues regarding the building permit. MR. MURRAY: Another question is, if the building were destroyed to the 50 percent plus one, or whatever, reconstruction would be -- if it were attempted, would have to go to the proper setback line. What would that do with respect to all of the other factors? Here by the granting of a variance, does that mean that that new footprint is what would be accepted, or would they -- would have to go back to the original line, and then would that impact on the parking and the residence? MR. SCHMITT: Normally-- MR. MURRAY: Or is that a brand new? MR. SCHMITT: That's part of the build out, basically the rebuilding process and normally if 50 percent or more of the building is destroyed, it would have to be rebuilt in accordance with the current standards, yes. MR. MURRAY: So they should know that and the stipulation is not required should this get that far? MR SCHMITT: It's already part of the - part of our code of laws. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you turn to page seven of your staff report, item F? Requested variance would extend in existing condition across the edge of the property. Is that the right terminology? What edge of property is it extending across? Page 47 March 16, 2006 MS. WILLIAMS: Well the rest of the sentence refers to the residential neighbor. So I would - I believe I wrote that referring to this southern property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's -- is it going across the southern property line? MS. WILLIAMS: Not across the property line, but along that property line. Along the same side of the building as the earlier encroachment that was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When I read that, I knew you didn't mean it's -- the building is being built over the property line, but it seemed to read that way. It also said that -- because this building has two fronts, that this is considered a side yard in this back area. If it was a rear yard, what setback would be required? MS. WILLIAMS: It actually has the same requirement of a 25- foot setback, whether it's called a rear or a side, just technically to be completely accurate, it is a side -- considered a side yard. But the required setback happens to be the same in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. No other questions of staff. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: We have three registered speakers. The first speaker is Robert Pritt followed by Robert Varing. MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, may I approach? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Pritt, you supplied us with eight colored photographs and two pages of a letter that, I think some of us may have already received. It is your intention for these to be submitted into evidence? MR. PRITT: Yes, sir, I wish to have this submitted into evidence. The letter I think already did come to you in the supplement. I already prepared the supplement. There are no changes to my letter. The photographs are photographs that I took, I think, it was the day before yesterday depicting the situation on the Page 48 March 16, 2006 property. And I would ask that that would be -- MR. MURRAY: I would so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're moving to admit this into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Motion carries. It's submitted into evidence. Thank you. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I'm here on behalf of SUMA Holdings owned by Sue Mayelic who is here in the audience. She has filled out a speakers card. I have it here. But declined to -- is declining to speak unless you wish to ask her questions and I will talk in her behalf. Also, Hialea Holdings owned by Jean Rhoades who is also here and has filled out a card, and likewise, I'll speak in their behalf. But they'll be available to answer any questions in case you have them. SUMA is unit 116 immediately to the west in the building, immediately to the west of the subject parcel. And that 118-- unit 118 is immediately to the west of unit 116, so that is their interest in the application that is here before you today. A lot of what I have intended to say has already been said. And I'm not sure what we just put up here. I had something else up here. Page 49 March 16, 2006 May I have my document back, please? This is the document that we received in our public records request with the staff. And unfortunately, it's not very easy to read. Let me point this out as to what it says. Again, you may have it. I'm not sure. But in this area here this says existing kitchen here, existing dining room, and it has bathrooms, existing bathrooms, restrooms right here. Thank you, Ray. And this says existing dining area here. And this portion down here it says 150 people. So that's where we got the information concerning what the intentions are of the property owner. And what it appeared to us to be, and does appear still to me to be, is a situation where in fact the -- where, in fact, the restaurant area is being expanded in order by taking out the restrooms and putting them in the back. And that does have the effect of making for more area for the restaurant. And our position on that is that if you're going to do that, then we need to recognize the practical effect, and the practical effect is that it has an effect on the needed parking. And the parking right now -- I counted the spaces. It's 41 spaces. There are currently 41 spaces there. And under your current code at 150, your current code would provide for 67 spaces. I do have a copy of the Collier County Land Development Code 4.05.04 restaurant, sit down. One per 60 square foot for public use areas including outdoor eating areas, or one per two seats, whichever is greater. And then for non-public use areas kitchen storage, freezer, et cetera, one per 200 square feet. Now I understand that the analysis has been done that a certain number of spaces was vested. But it seems to me that when you're adding onto the interior of the restaurant, for whatever purposes that happened to be up to the owner, by moving the restrooms out of the building and into a building in the back, that that is going to have an effect on the parking. So we know it's already under -- it's already over utilized in parking. There's not nearly enough parking for the restaurant that is currently there. The restaurant keeps expanding, and it keeps Page 50 March 16, 2006 expanding to the south and to the west. You'll notice that it's not expanding to the east or to the north, and there are reasons for that I'm sure, having to do with perhaps loss of entrance, and loss of view from both of the roads, especially Bonita Beach Road. But it does have a deleterious affect on the overall parking situation. The units 116 and 118 that are next door, and if we could go -- Ray, I would now like to go back to the one that you have here. We can pull that up. My point was that what's happening is as -- as the building is expanding, it's expanding to the back at the expense of the neighbors and it's continuing the expansion along the property line to the expense or detriment of the neighbors to the west. The commercial neighbors to the west. All of which allows this area here to be -- to continue to be utilized without any change. And there are other ways that you can expand a building. You don't have to go back into the neighborhood in the back. You don't have to go to the neighbors to the west. There are two other directions. And obviously, they don't want to go those directions for their own purposes, but, frankly, that's not -- I think that that's something at least relevant for you to consider that there might be other options that they would have available. Now, why are we concerned about this? Well, a couple of reasons. One, the front door -- the main entrance has been moved down -- moved back to the west. And you'll see in the first photograph that I have here, you'll see there's a door there and I believe there's an arrow there and a sign that says please use other door. So it's referring people to the west to enter into the restaurant. And that is, human nature being what it is, the people are going to tend to want to park closer to that door, and therefore it's actually pulling the parking down to the parcel to the west. So that's primarily what the concern is on behalf of my clients. And other than the normal concerns concerning the overuse of a parcel it's -- as one planning commissioner I used to know out in Sanibel, she always Page 51 March 16, 2006 used to say, that's just too much on too little. And I think that's what we're getting to with regard to Enzo's. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the photo here and the roof overhang on the building for the client that you represent, and also behind there it almost appears as though there's a structure, although it's difficult to see clearly. I recognize we're not talking about your client's property, but at the same time I'm wondering and making comparison, unless it's an illusion based on shadow, it certainly seems that the roof structure extends further than the original building line. Is there -- was that subject to a variance? MR. PRITT: May I put up another photograph? MR. MURRAY: Please do. MR. PRITT: I'm not sure that helps. Both of those buildings do have shadows on them, and it's kind of hard to tell, but I think that as far as I know, the building that my clients are in, complies with setback requirements and there's nothing back there. If there is, then somebody can correct me on it, but I don't think so. I did not personally go back and eyeball it, but I don't think so. I don't think there are any encroachments. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, I'm looking at some of your photographs from the front of the building side by side, both your clients' building which seems to have been either for sale or for rent and then Enzo's building. MR. PRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is this addition detrimental to the appearance of those buildings? The photographs I'm looking at, you can't even see it. Page 52 March 16, 2006 MR. PRITT: Well, as far as the looks of the building are concerned, I don't know that its detrimental as far as visual is concerned, but our concerns have to do with the building -- the Enzo's building being expanded at the expense of parking. And but I'm glad you brought that up. I would like to make a point on that. I think it's in my -- at least alluded to in my letter. By the Enzo's building being right up to the property line within one-tenth of an inch of the setback, it narrows -- it continues the narrowing of the line in the back. I don't know what effect that may have in the future, but that building is right on the property line. It may be that it would be beneficial for the property next door, my client's property. And they're only some of the owners in this building. But, it may be beneficial for that property to be expanded, to be fixed, to be upgraded. Maybe expanded, maybe not. But, it certainly makes it more difficult the further along that line you go to do anything that may cause two buildings to come together or to maintain anything further along the back. And frankly, I think it was pretty unnecessary to put that where it was, but that's the main concern. The other thing, one of the things we thought about, and I just raised it today. I don't know if it would work or not, but it could be -- there could be a parking agreement between the parties so on and so forth, but none of that has ever been suggested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt, you're getting a ways off from where my question was from. MR. PRITT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since you did bring up the parking arrangement, there was a discussion earlier by Mr. Pires that in the hallway there was some mention of that. Do you see that as a potential solution to your applicant's concerns? MR. PRITT: Well, I raised the issue, and you want to go ahead and proceed. So, we're not in the hallway anymore. We're here testifying in front of you. I do think that that is a -- is something Page 53 March 16, 2006 that's worth talking about because we're moving the parking with the front door and everything, we're moving the parking down closer to this building. And then I think we're exacerbating the situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I need to finish up some of my questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all from staff. The building door, is there any way pursuant to the code, could they ever come in with any kind of application that would allow them to build closer than the required setback under today's code for the building that's there? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The building to the west, you're asking if they wanted to expand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they wanted a zero setback, could they get it? MR. BELLOWS: No. Unless they applied for a variance and received the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't think there's a concern there then because they can't expand to the east from what it sounds like. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the capacity of Enzo's, can they in any way legally have more than 150 seats in that restaurant? MR. BELLOWS: No. The land development code would not permit it based on the parking requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they came in with an application for more than 150 seats and didn't provide any more parking, would they be able to be successful in that application? MR. BELLOWS: I don' believe so, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's really not a parking issue. MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's true. The board would have to approve -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the parking issue that seems to be of Page 54 March 16, 2006 a concern cannot happen, unless someone were to operate illegally, which means that could happen anywhere in the county at any business in the county any time they want it to happen? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get to the bottom of where the real concerns are. As far as the joint parking arrangement from staffs viewpoints, is there any advantages to having a joint parking arrangement with the facility next door? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The code does allow for those type of situations where the hours of operation are different. The restaurant typically has a larger need for parking at night, while retail uses are typically closed at that time. So there is that arrangement that can occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that arrangement did occur, the retail establishment could benefit from the additional parking they would gain by the joint relationship, more or less. So if the other party was refused a joint relation, the expansion of the retail business might not be as capable or as great. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other questions. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. I'd like an explanation for one of your sentences. It says the applicant did proceed -- didn't proceed at its own risk, and when that is done, there's a lawful basis upon which the claim of any right of entitlement. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. Where was that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Third paragraph, last sentence. Second to last sentence. MR. PRITT: The applicant did proceed at its own risk, and when that is done, there's no lawful base upon which to claim any right or entitlement. Yes. The law is very clear on that. There's a Page 55 March 16, 2006 case, I know all of the attorneys in the room are very familiar with. Pinecrest versus Shidell. You probably heard it also. But essentially, what that says is that you're proceeding at your own risk all the way up through -- in that case it was a Court of Appeals process. And if you do something that -- if you go ahead and build and you are granted permission to build, even though it was at your own risk, if that permission is not granted, then you must tear it down. You must take it out. I stood before this planning commission about two or three years ago on a very similar matter and went to the county commission sitting as the board, and essentially that's what I was told in that case also. So I think that's -- there's no question that's the law, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. So you build at your own risk. Any other questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Sir. We'll take a 15-minute break right now. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. If you'll all come back to your chairs, we'll get going again. We left off with the public speakers. We're on our second speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Varing followed by Robert Elliott. MR. V ARING: Good morning. My name is Robert Varing and I live at 76 First Street. I also have a home at 72. They're both together. I guess my only concern is that if a variance is issued for this particular property, that additional variances that are applied for would be granted based on well this person got one, why can't we. Living on First Street in Bonita Shores, and I'm sure most of you are aware that we're only a mile from the beach, that is Bonita Beach, that this time of year the traffic on Bonita Beach is horrendous. And a lot of people try to avoid the light on the corner of Vanderbilt Drive and Bonita Beach by coming down First Street and going through the Shores creating a lot of traffic problem. If you continue to -- it would be my opinion, that if you continue to grant variances for Page 56 March 16, 2006 businesses on Bonita Beach Road that with the existing construction of the Bonita Village and the Bonita Walk and many of the new construction sites hat are taking place, that we're going to be -- you're talking about encroaching, or encroaching on the residency of Bonita Shores. That's my only concern. That's my complaint, I guess that would be registered. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Elliott. MR. ELLIOTT: My name is Robert Elliott. I live at 86 First Street. This variance request, in my opinion, will have no direct impact on me or my property. I am concerned about precedence it will set for future commercial expansion on Bonita Beach Road that borders a working class residential community. If this request was made to properties that border an upscale gated community, I don't think it would pass. And I think this should be treated the same way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, are there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. We normally allow the applicant to rebut for a very short rebuttal. Mr. Pires, did you have anything else you wanted to add to your presentation? MR. PIRES: Just briefly, if I can? Thank you very kindly. The response to some of the comments made by Mr. Pritt, if there's a desire on the parts of his clients to enter into a shared parking agreement, my clients are willing to do that. It appears that's the concern he expressed. Also just for note, his clients own two of the condominium units in the commercial condominium. Other owners of the condominium units in that commercial condominium unit to the west have indicated no objection to this particular project. Additionally, I think there was a question asked as to how far back is the line of construction for the building where his client has their Page 57 March 16, 2006 units. This has been shown before and introduced as part of it. And this is again looking -- this is the addition to the back of Enzo's. And this is the back portion of the building to the immediate west. So it does extend further south, I believe, than the line of construction of our client. With regards to the point that needs to be clarified that the existing, or the prior bathrooms are gone and they are server stations. That no additional seating has been provided. In fact, 13 tables have been removed. That this was for bathroom facilities, plain and simple. And the issue as to the parking spaces has been resolved by the fact that there is an SDP. We ask that you grant the -- make recommendation of approval for the granting of the variance with the stipulation as outlined by the staff and Mr. Schmitt today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Mr. Pires, it may be moot, but Mr. Pritt also brought up the question of the door and use of the other door. Is there -- you know what I'm referring to? MR. PIRES: Yeah. And I'm not a traffic or parking expert. I don't know how people -- I'm not a retailer or marketing, so I think that's pure speculation or supposition. MR. MURRAY: Okay. My question would be really on the idea that, would it take much to change that process and go back to the other door that is currently suggested to go elsewhere? MR. PIRES: Once again. I don't -- to my mind, that doesn't have anything to do with this particular application because it's an entry. Where do you put the door, the middle or the right. MR. MURRAY: I appreciate that. MR. PIRES: And ifhis concern is parking and ifhe wants to enter into a shared parking agreement, we're willing to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that answers the question. MR. PIRES: And that appears to be the only reason why they're Page 58 March 16, 2006 really here, and we're willing to do that. Absolutely. That's being good neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The building is showing there -- it actually isn't a building. Isn't it a cooler? I see the four panels. I see the refrigerant lines. I see the compressor. MR. PIRES: It appears to be attached to the building. That's all I'm saying. There's some construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like your client has a cooler attached. MR. PIRES: It's a structure. Our client is further north than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. PIRES: I think the comment made by Mr. Pritt was that none of his client's building extends further south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Pires. Heidi, can I ask you one question? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are coolers such as shown in this diagram required to have variances as well for their intrusions in the setback, if there are any? MS. WILLIAMS: The structure would have to meet the setback requirement. I don't have knowledge about this particular cooler, whether it was constructed. I would naturally assume that it was constructed possibly prior to the setback requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. WILLIAMS: But the zoning map does not show a variance for that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it doesn't? So would that cooler-- would that cooler require a variance, do you think, by looking at this picture? Page 59 March 16, 2006 MS. WILLIAMS: If it were constructed prior to the setback requirement. If it were constructed in a way that it was legal at the time, it would not. Unless it were to be replaced and upgraded, then it would need to meet today's standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. Hearing no other questions, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like to share with my fellow Commissioners my analysis of this petition. In order not to ramble, I've written this out. The building addition increases the building floor area of 15 percent. If the property owners to the west were allowed the same encroachment requested in this petition, their retail floor space could be enlarged by 38 percent. Granting this variance will confer on the petitioner a special privilege denied these other buildings to the west. Another factor to consider is whether a literal interpretation of LDC imposes an undue hardship on the applicant. A January 23rd, 2006 memorandum to the BCC from Jeffrey Klatskow through David Weigle presents some general principles on variance law and the term unnecessary hardship. From that document, and I quote, for purposes of supporting a zoning variance, a legal hardship will be found to exist only in those cases where the property is virtually unusable or incapable of dealing a reasonable return when used pursuant to the applicable zoning regulations. In seeking a variance on the ground of unique or unnecessary hardship, the property owner cannot assert the benefit of the self-created hardship. Stated differently, when the owner by his or her own conduct creates the exact hardship that the owner alleges to exist, he or she should not be permitted to take advantage of it. Applicable case law is also cited in this memorandum. Since the property has been usable and capable of dealing a usable return for 16 years, and the alleged hardship was created by the owner, a literal interpretation Page 60 March 16, 2006 of LDC does not work in undue hardship on the applicant. In conclusion, granting this variance will confer a special privilege on the petitioner denied others in the same zoning district, a literal interpretation of LDC does not impose an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. The petition does not meet these two requirements in the LDC, and I believe should be denied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. Heidi, I've got one more question. Do you have any knowledge of anybody else in that neighborhood requesting a variance such as this? MS. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Heidi, in just thinking back into the way the codes were written and the way they worked, you know, we're assuming in the old code that this was a side setback. And, Ray, you may -- in my knowledge of the old code, you would choose one front setback. This would be a side street and the old code didn't necessarily have to be, you know, you had to meet the street setbacks, but I think this could be a rear setback. The building is placed 25 feet. So I don't think this ever was a situation where there was, you know, the setbacks were less than 25 feet in this yard. Do you see where I'm saying? Obviously the new code has a different way of doing it. The new code treats both streets as front streets. The old code didn't. The old code you would take the smallest street or something else. So this could be -- and the fact that the building was built at 25 feet, people didn't take -- you know, they take advantage of what they can get. I think that the interpretation, or could it be the interpretation that this was a lesser setback in the old code, may not be right. Page 61 March 16, 2006 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Pires has just handed me a copy of ordinance 90-13 revision 89 that does define a rear yard. And it has in parenthesis that in the case of through lots and corner lots, there will be no rear yards, but only front and side yards. And I think that the difference -- I mean, the current code, the difference in the setbacks between the western side and the southern side for this particular corner lot, there is an increase setback because it's adjacent to residential versus adjacent to commercial. So even though they're both side yards, they have different setbacks. And I'm not sure -- the previous code did not have this distinction between commercial use and residential use. Or if it did, it had a zero next to commercial and it had the 15 next to residential. Actually, I'm not hundred percent certain on that, but there was a distinction it was just different at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you think when this building was built, it could have been built on the property line alongside that residence? MS. WILLIAMS: No, I don't believe it could have at that time. That's why it's not on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the setback be at that time? MS. WILLIAMS: I know that I did look at that and I'm not -- I don't have that in front of me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY : Yeah. Heidi, I have a question that just was provoked here. We saw a picture earlier that showed a fence, a space that was an easement apparently for FP&L and then another fence. The setback was from the fence directly owned by, I assume, owned by the property owner of the residential? MS. WILLIAMS: Setbacks are measured from the property line. MR. MURRAY: From the property line. Presumably that fence Page 62 March 16, 2006 would be there or near that property line, correct? MS. WILLIAMS: I believe some of the surveys did assume that the fence was on the property line. I think future surveys have shown that the fence is not exact. MR. MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I just want to be clear in my mind that the setback we're talking about goes past the first fence that the commercial property and past the easement area and up to. MS. WILLIAMS: Yes. The setbacks to the property line, and may include the easement. In this case it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still looking for a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward petition V A-2005-AR-8857 to the County Commission with a recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The issue is that really the documents that went to the building department gave them no idea that they were building an exterior building. There's no site plans. There's no fire separation distance. There's no way anybody reviewing these plans would know where this building was, therefore, I don't think the building department properly reviewed it. It shouldn't have been given an owner builder permit. The owner shouldn't have been able to do this. And the problem really was that the document they submitted, and I'll be polite, confused the building department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? My part of it, I will not support the motion. I see no detriment to the public welfare or harm to the public in this matter. The people most contiguous to Page 63 March 16, 2006 this in the south are not here to object. In fact, they've been asked their opinion. They've not voiced an objection. In fact, we verbally heard that they didn't have an objection. The fact that they had an existing easement or variance that allowed them to go the same distance out from the building, just the fact that they simply continued this a little bit further west on that commercial property offers no problem that I can see to anybody in that area. Therefore, I would not support this motion. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that there are a couple of things that we need to thing about here. I don't think there's any problem with the neighbors to the back. I quite frankly didn't understand the entire discussion by Mr. Pritt on his side -- I think it was a non-issue. However, the greater issue here is our land development code. And the fact that these people have already had two other variances, they should have known that if they want to do anything else back there, it was going to require a variance, and, thus, should have come in for something before the fact not after-the- fact. And let us discuss it all then before they got to the point where they're going to have to tear something down that they don't want to have to tear down. Or, you know, redo bathrooms to make them ADA compliance. I really think we need to adhere to our land development code. We, in the past, I believe have handed out variances, after the fact variances, especially without consideration whether or not there were land related conditions. And I will support the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to say one thing. It is not in the county's best interest for health and welfare that a building permit could be applied for an interior building to add restrooms and then build exterior structures. Page 64 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody insinuated that or said that, Brad. But hearing that, we will call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion as stated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed. Motion carries, six to one. Item #8D PETITION: CU-2005-AR-8081 - CONTINUED TO 4/6/06 Petition D -- or item D on the agenda. Petition CU-2005-AR-8081 was continued to 4/6/06. Item #9 A OLD BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT EAR-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to old business. Old business will be resumption of the EAR amendment process that is continued from our meeting last week. At that particular time we were discussing solid waste. And we were going into public speakers at the time. Mr. Krasowski was about to speak when we ran out of time due to the fact this room had to be occupied by another group. So, as Page 65 March 16, 2006 soon as we all get ourselves together here and staff changes their seats. I wish to remind the commission that when you wish to speak, please be recognized and speak into the mike and slowly enough so the court reporter can accurately reflect what you say. Just for the tone of this meeting, the discussion will be between the applicant -- not the applicant in this case, but the county staff and/or the public to this commission. And the commission then will decide what questions they want to listen or respond to to the various parties. The conversation is not supposed to be between the public and the staff at this meeting. It's supposed to be to us. We'll try to retain and maintain that decorum. With that said, David, if you're ready, we can resume where we left off last week. And I believe Mr. Kra -- Bob, I'm going to say your name wrong a thousand times. You might as well get up here and say it correctly. MR. KRASOWSKI: It's Bob Krasowski. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: It's one of those rare names that sounds exactly the way they're spelled. Break it down in three syllables and it just goes right along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I know you sent out an email with some information on it, and I appreciate the heads up on your information. I received it last night. And I know you asked for extra time. I'd like you to limit yourself to ten minutes. I think that's fair and consistent with the others. So if you could proceed from there, we will certainly listen to what you have to say, and if we have any questions from what you have to say, we'll ask those of staff. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. I think you're generous with your time allotment. For the record, my name is Bob Krasowski. And I'm here as a private citizen. Although, I've been involved with solid waste issues in Collier County for many, Page 66 March 16, 2006 many years. In the '80s when there was an effort to bring a trash incinerator here, and mid eighties and in 2000 another effort, and now there's another effort being geared up to. It's a continuation of the last one. The basis of my orientation to this issue is that I understand what burn technologies are they pollute, they would reduce our air quality standards and then also they waste resources that can be used in other ways. So I object to that. And so for years now we've been encouraging alternatives. So here you have in front of you the supplement to the growth management plan. And I wanted to speak to those issues. And my suggestion in the letter to you was that this entire sub-element is very poorly organized and that it should be organized in a way that prioritizes the different steps that we would go through as a community to address an over abundance of waste materials being discarded. And those steps would be first to reduce waste then to reuse, then recycle, then compost, which would be a part of treatment. So it would then be treatment and then a disposal objective. The way these documents are organized, you have your headline statement, and introduction, and then you have your objectives and policies. So I think those items I mentioned should be objectives. And then the policies that would implement, or serve those objectives should be listed under that. I've worked up a plan and will share it with you at a later date, but I didn't want to send it out prior to this presentation because for now, I've wanted to deal primarily with the document that solid waste department had generated. I and the sewer waste Collier County group had been working for many years with the Solid Waste Department. Most recently under when Jim Mudd, now county manager, was public utility director, and we have developed many programs including the non-residential resource recycling program which was adopted by the Board, as opposed to the one that was submitted by the county waste department. They went with our Page 67 March 16, 2006 strategy. And we've been working with the school board to divert recycables from the waste stream there. But, it's never acknowledged. And we're not looking for fame here or even for fortune. This is a volunteer effort. But we'd like these people to be honest about what's happened in the past and what's going on. Recently I talked to some people in the solid waste and they've been now considering implementing what's called in California resource recovery park, which is a set aside portion of land that is provided for people who absorb recyclables and encourages businesses to do that before the stuff gets to the landfill. This concept was brought here by Dr. Paul Connet, and who we had brought here in the early nineties. And the new leadership in the solid waste department has been misinformed that this concept was a creation of one of their previous directors. So there's a whole inappropriate transfer of information regarding this whole thing. And not to digress too far, but at the state level now and last year and now there are the incineration industry has gotten enough impetus, or enough inertia going on their programs where any county that's looking to expand or add a new landfill, which we tried to do in the nineties on the new landfill, if you researched that. It was a whole big deal in the mid nineties. Any county now looking to do that is encouraged to consider incineration technologies, burn technologies. And then once an incinerator is in place, you're not allowed to take, by law, take recycled materials out of that waste stream. That's committed to go to that incinerator for 30, 50 years, however that incinerator -- however long it last. So if we had that here in Collier County, according to law, any dedicated materials to that incinerator could not be changed, taken out to be recycled. And also, if the incinerator were to run into financial viability problems, then that community would be exempt from the requirements, the legal requirements to recycle, and the incinerator could take from that waste stream whatever it needed to maintain its operation. Page 68 March 16, 2006 So, in essence what's been done is incineration is being put in front of reduce, reuse, recycle programs. And here in Collier County, these programs are just like a first blush very poor effort, very poor effort, in implementation. They're there in name only because, in my estimation, because the plan is to bring an incinerator in place of the landfill or somewhere else. The suggestions I've made, as far as policy, would be implemented understanding we don't want the air pollution and the waste of resources that an incinerator brings. As we as a community, would be committed to reducing, reusing, recycling and composting. I have a lot of information over the years that is just too much to share with you at this time to re-enforce my position on each one of these objectives. But in other places, and interestingly enough -- well, in other places like California, Oregon or Washington, those states, there's been a lot of work over the years to develop these concepts and practices. In the mid nineties when Commissioner Py and Commissioner Carter were on this board, the solid waste consultant to the County, Malcolm Perney, offered five options for the handling of our waste. Four of them were incinerator type of proposals, and then one was Bright Star, the operation from Australia you might be familiar with. And then another one was putting it on a train and shipping it out to Georgia or a truck or something like that. And then so we got involved in that. We brought up what was called scenario six, and it develops and implements a strategy that we're USIng. The public utilities director at that time, Mr. Mudd, was directed by the board to put out a request for proposals for a zero waste analysis of Collier County's material discards. And he never did it. He was directed by the board as a matter of record on the videotape and the minutes, and his explanation after about six or seven months when we checked back on it was that, by looking at each individual component of composting and recycling and these things, he was Page 69 March 16, 2006 able to put together what he perceived would have been the zero waste program. We had a workshop design here at one time prior to that when we brought in experts. This is what we suggest the county should do is adopt a plan as I've suggested in my mailing to you. Use those values and hierarchies. I could work to develop another plan, which would have to be certified and stamped and developed as our work, not the county's work, and we would share that with you and get on a discard management program and not a temporary holding pattern that fills up our landfill. While we're not doing what we're doing, just because in the future, these people are thinking they're going to have an incinerator in there. Weare committed to 100,000 tons a year to the landfill. We have to prove that to stay at the level of cost per ton. We drop behind -- below that, our cost per ton goes up. But we're putting in almost 300,000 tons a year now -- or more than 300,000 tons a year now. We could divert that material to recycle, reduce to that 100,000 and then the per capita would drop and the landfill would last a lot longer as the landfill maintenance strategy. And then I think it would be an interesting question to ask the solid waste department what is the actual per capita disposal rate of the residential people into the landfill when you take out the business garbage bag. They average everything out. Everything going into the landfill is not just from residences. It would be nice to have a waste stream analysis that would tell us that kind of stuff so we could attack the problem. Also, another concept that wasn't in the material I sent to you was that I believe we should place a five or ten dollar per ton fee on the tipping fee at the landfill to get these recycling and alternative programs going. If it's a ton per person per year, it would work out to be five dollars a person across the board. But if we analyze who is really putting the weight and tonnage into the landfill. And then another aspect is they've eliminated the multifamily recycling Page 70 March 16, 2006 collection in the document they've provided you that was crossed out as you remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think last time we asked that that be put back in. MR. KRASOWSKI: I would certainly support that. It's the most difficult area to work in as far as recycling. It should be done. And we should work with the schools on a recycling program. What they're doing there, the institutional part of that, not just kind of laying back and waiting for the new initiative for the incineration thing to go through. I've also asked on a number of locations, and what I sent you for increased transparency. Before the solid waste department and the public utilities unit secretly design and develop and prioritize what they want for a program for solid waste, it should just be discussed in workshops including the public so that we can have input to this. The program that we have developed, and it's going on today, is isolated to the desires of a certain point of view. And also the information that input that's given by their Malcolm Perney, light consultants, who are pro incinerator promoters and expanded landfill promoters. But, I've seen at the solid waste authority meeting in Tampa the incineration technology meetings they have there, the representative from Malcolm Perney here representing and promoting the Bright Star facility, which is a form of incineration, it's two different chambers, program that we opposed from the very beginning that it was suggested in the early nineties that the county spent -- must be more than a million dollars on this consultant to develop along those lines that their program came to conclusion that the Bright Star facility was the one they ultimately had come to consider. And then the thing went belly up. Its parent company dropped and took a 40 million dollar loss two days before the county commission voted positively to pay Malcolm Perney to continue $70,000 for that component to continue with the negotiations with Bright Star. This is after a $20 call to Australia. Page 71 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I think you're getting, first of all, we're here to discuss -- I appreciate you comments on this issue. And you've certainly used up your ten minutes. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. And I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to -- I've got-- Commissioner Caron is going to have a question here in a minute. You did distribute some questions. I'll ask some of those that I understand of staff and the rest of the commission may want to do the same thing. I have to ask that we end your presentation right now except for response to questions. MR. KRASOWSKI: Very good. I thank you very much. As I've said, there's tons of material and I hate to drift on it. But it's all relevant to what you people will help decide as far as directing what happens in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. She's got some questions. COMMISSIONER CARON: I actually didn't have a question, but I did want to assure you that in the policy that's been presented to us on disposal and recycle and recovery, it says the county shall promote public awareness of and participation in solid waste disposal issues by requiring all issues to be addressed in advertised public hearings. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Yes. I read that and would go a step further as to these advertised public hearings. They have a hearing and the whole representation is favorable to incineration or what they hide as integrated waste management plan. What I'm saying is a workshop format where they sit down and citizens have adequate amount of time to address the various issues. Really open it up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you, sir. Phil, or whoever can represent us, or can represent the county in solid waste. Page 72 March 16, 2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, I'm Dan Rodriguez. Solid Waste Management Director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for being here today. There are some follow-up questions that we may have as a result of the input provided by Mr. Krasowski. First of all, before I have any questions, does anyone on this panel have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll just move into policy 1.4. Have you seen the email that was sent to us? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I did see it late last night. I didn't have an opportunity to break down each question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I received it late last night as well. There were some elements here that I do understand. There were a lot that I do not. And at this time and stage of this process, it would be hard for me to suggest, or even to the panel or to the board, a recommendation over staffs at this point because historically, right now, staff is the one that presented this document. But I do want to ask you some reasonable cleanup items. Policy 1.4 that Ms. Caron just touched on, does reference public meetings, but there is a difference between a public meeting and a public workshop. Meetings are more informational. Workshops are more participatory. Does your department have any reason why you wouldn't want to include public workshops as well? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Basically the public hearings and workshops, all of our direction is gained from direction for the Board of County Commissioners. So any direction that we receive would be in front of the public, in front of the board in open forum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you have any concerns besides the advertised public meetings, we just add the words and public workshops? MR. RODRIGUEZ: If that's the recommendation of the Board Page 73 March 16, 2006 of County Commissioners, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no objection to the panel? Okay. And David, are you taking notes on these changes, or who is doing that? MR. WEEKS: Kris. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Kris. Okay. Good. As long as somebody is. That would be under 1.4. Under policy 2.4, one of the questions raised was to delete item four. By doing -- what does item four mean in the eyes of your department? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's just basically looking at any technology that's in the industry and giving the Board of County Commissioners the opportunity to review it, and review the facts and the feasibility of implementing it in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conservation technologies then go beyond just incineration? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it could be any technology whether it's environmentally sensitive or not. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right. We wouldn't want to limit the opportunities for the board to make a decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with you. 2.5A, the tons of solid waste per capita per year. We had it at five complete fiscal years. Is five -- how did you choose the five years as the standard? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, that was the -- I believe the original AUIR guidelines was five years and I believe this year we just moved that to three. That's correct, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we need to make a correction. In 2.5A from five to three. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. And the reason for that is because of the success of the waste diversion and recycling in Collier County within the last three years. Page 74 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under policy 3.1 we did reinstate the multiresidential recycling program. I think that's back in the positive language from our last meeting, which was one of the recommendations. There's some other comments I just, at this time I can't follow them. Policy 3.3, county shall promote public awareness of, and participation in, solid waste disposition issues by requiring all issues to be addressed in advertised public hearings. And would you mind adding the words and public workshops? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody object to that? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no objection. I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. Comment and a suggestion. I have an experience with the mulch because over at the Immokalee Airport there was a lot of Wilma mulch that was piled up and eventually chipped. I put in a request for myself for mulch for my own garden and I was told that, well, they might if they had time. But most of it was going to the incinerator in Lee County. And in the end I didn't get any. And I think that shows that there is the existence of an incinerator, does prioritize mulch goes because they have demands and priorities for it. I think that an incinerator will affect the air quality in Collier County. As the years go on and we do have more and more motor vehicle traffic and industrialization. And so I would I like to see some prioritization, as Bob suggested, reduce, reuse, recycle, compost and then disposal. Would you have any objection to anything like that being in there? MR. RODRIGUEZ: As long as we do not eliminate any opportunity for the county manager, Board of County Commissioners to bring in a technology that would better serve the community. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm not talking about Page 75 March 16, 2006 eliminating anything, I'm talking about prioritizing. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That would be a board decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as prioritization, did you have any specific language suggested changes, Paul, that we could direct staff, or -- I'm trying to figure out how to implement what you're trying to say. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I don't have any language, but I would like to see something that indicates prioritization rather than just the way it is now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On March 30th we're going to have what's basically going to be a final and hopefully a cleanup meeting on outstanding issues. Would you mind taking a look at this issue and commenting back to us as to the viability of it, or reasons why it's not viable? MR. RODRIGUEZ: In reference to the composing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually I think it's referencing to the overall layout. I think Mr. Krasowski started it out when he indicated that reordering goals and objectives. I'm not saying he's right, but I don't know ifhe's wrong, and I'd certainly like any good idea that comes forward, we ought to consider it. If you can take a look at that suggestion in his email. And it does occur in the third sentence in his email. And I think this almost mimics what Commissioner Midney was saying. it talks about reorganizing the objectives under different order. Now, I don't know there's a downside or upside to that. But I think if it's something better for us to do, we ought to at least take a look at it. And since we're coming back on the 30th anyway, would you mind taking a look at that and coming back to us letting us know your thoughts on that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will that take care of it for you, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Page 76 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel on the solid waste issue? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you get all of 2.4 cleared. We were supposed to get the language. I just have a note that says -- clarified language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From our last meeting, you mean? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The items that we did at the last meeting in regards to this won't be responded to until the 30th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 30th is our cleanup meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all the issues that we previously discussed are supposed to be followed up and staff is going to finish up their comments and provide a clean draft for us to vote on by that point. So, if that's okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know if I mentioned this last time. Could you bring in a revised index? Because the current index is showing stuff that long ago has been reorganized. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions for solid waste. I thank you for coming back in. I know you had to wait another week to come back but thank you for your time. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. And thank you for your support of the recycling program and solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the job the recycling is doing. I pull my two out and that little one with the yellow top is heavier and fuller than the one that was garbage. And that's absolute Page 77 March 16, 2006 reverse of what it was a year ago. MR. RODRIGUEZ: It sure is. And recycling on the whole is averaging 55 percent increase over last year. And February which is the shortest month in the last quarter here, is actually going to be our biggest month of recycling. So it just continues to grow and grow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who knows, it might lead to a tax reduction. MR. RODRIGUEZ: There you go. Thank you again. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, I would just like to add that you are going in a positive direction in Naples, but in Immokalee you're not making any progress at all. I'd like to see -- it was mentioned that it was a contractor problem that the contractor didn't have the capacity to improve the recycling. I'd like to see that addressed. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'll look into that. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just remember to bring it up on the 30th, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm very sorry. On the 30th I'm getting a grant that I wrote. I have to be absent from that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, I'll make a note of it and so will probably a bunch of the rest of us. Thank you. Kris. MR. VAN LENGEN: Mr. Chairman, Thank you. Kris Van Lengen, comprehensive planning. I just want to make one further clarification. Something we just discussed today, which is the promotion of public awareness through advertised public meetings and public workshops. There are three different policies in the sub-element that refer to that issue. So, I assume that your direction is to fix all three of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think our intention was to be consistent amongst all three unless -- MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. And the last one 3.3, it talks about Page 78 March 16, 2006 promoting public awareness participation in disposal issues. I believe that should read recycle and recovery issues. It's meant to reflect the objective under which it falls. I think that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good point. MR. VAN LENGEN: Unintentional error. One last comment I would like to make. At the EAC meeting several weeks ago, Environmental Advisory Committee meeting, a recommendation was made that was not carried forward. And it was as follows: Add A provision to create a program to study, recommend and implement regulatory restrictions on the packaging of retail goods sold in Collier County. We did not carry that forward as we felt it was beyond the scope of the EAR report. Also the implications of that type of policy are so far reaching that it would be the type of policy consideration it would be best aired in a series of public meetings. So, that I guess our recommendation is that that be considered in a future GMP cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's an issue because of the cost. You may certainly want to weigh that before the board before anything else. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would agree that that may well be beyond the scope of what's required for this element. And it may also be beyond the scope of the authority vested in the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just have to go a different path. Okay. With that I had asked for the convenience of a member of the public who was here today that we move the Golden Gate master plan element up on our list, as there's only -- that's the only issue for the public that seems to be here today to finish up on. So I think it will be -- hopefully not too lengthy discussion, but -- Mr. Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Krasowski. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anyway. Page 79 March 16,2006 MR. KRASOWSKI: Mr. Strain, I also registered to speak on the housing element. I believe that's still to come today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I didn't -- I'm trying to -- I'm sorry. I thought you were here just for the one element. MR. KRASOWSKI: I just wanted to make sure you understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will get to that. Thank you. So why don't we move our way through to the Golden Gate master plan element, and then after the board -- the panel is done, we can ask for public comment. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michelle Mosca, with the comprehensive planning staff. The changes proposed by the EAR report for the Golden Gate area master plan generally include reformatting the master plan for ease of use and clarity, as well as addressing change in conditions, eliminating all of the density bonus provisions, except for the affordable housing bonus and the conversion of commercial zoning bonus. Additionally, although not specifically identified in the EAR report, staff has proposed a provision for affordable housing. And this additional density will be allowed by right in the urban designated area up to four dwelling units per acre. And guest houses will be allowed to be rented in the estates destination. And this is similar to the language that was proposed in the flu, which you all know you embraced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And which I believe we recommended be removed. MS. MOSCA: Yes. And finally, staff has some additional word smithing missing that we've done, but we'll propose that for the 30th meeting. And with that, if we'd like to move forward with the questions and go step by step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We used to -- we've been taking these page by page. Something you just said, I wanted to make clear to Page 80 March 16, 2006 staff, the 30th is not a reinvention of the wheel by staff for things that weren't brought up. We are supposed to be reviewing everything in draft form now so the 30th is just a cleanup and it goes fairly efficiently. Any new stuff that isn't discussed by us, I mean, it's going to be like starting over again, so -- MS. MOSCO: Well, I know that David Weeks had sent an email out last night with the definition change for work force, affordable work force housing. I don't know if you've all had a chance to read that, but that's been added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the emaillast night said it would be handed out in hard copy today. I, last night, had enough to do to finish up my review of stuff. Anything beyond last night isn't going to get addressed by me at least today. Although, I would like to ask staff if you're going to produce so much data for us on the 30th that it runs beyond the time frame we've allocated, I don't mind. But there seems to be other people in this county administration that get upset when we take too long to review things. I want to make it perfectly clear, it isn't our problem. We're trying to review it, but if we get too late and it's got to start all over again, that isn't something we should be penalized for. MS. MOSCA: I understand. That's not what I'm proposing for the 30th. It would be just a matter of general wordsmithing because a sentence, for example, does not make sense. It doesn't read well. So not anything substantive. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive planning director. The intent of our department is to follow your direction with respect to making the corrections as directed previously. I don't anticipate any new language coming forth from our department other than the language that you previously directed with respect to housing. That's what you should be seeing on the 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. We'll start, as Page 81 March 16, 2006 we did in the past on page one. Are there any questions from the panel on the first page? Ifnot, we can move to page two. On page two, Michelle -- I mean, under policy 114, I think the four is intended to be crossed out. I'm not sure. I think it's supposed to be 115. MS MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. Four should be crossed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The conditional use request within Golden Gate Estates shall adhere to the guidelines outlined in the conditional uses subdistrict. Do you mean within southern Golden Gate Estates? I mean, it's under the southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection overlay. MS. MOSCA: Actually, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There isn't any conditional uses in the southern Golden Gate Estates. MS. MOSCA: Not, that's not intended to be under the southern Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that whole policy is in the wrong place, possibly? MR. WEEKS: Let me jump in. David Weeks, comprehensive planning manager. Policy 1.1.4 only addresses overlays and special features. And the only one of those is the southern Golden Gate Estates natural resource protection overlay. Policy 1.1.5 is a new policy. It has nothing to do with those overlays and special features. It's a separate independent policy from 1.1.4. As is policy 1.1.3 is only pertaining to different -- well, they're pertaining to different areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way it was reading following the southern Golden Gate Estates natural resource protection overlay, it seemed like it was a conditional use allowance for the southern Golden Gate Estates and I didn't know there were any. MS. MOSCA: I think because of the languages not included for the rural sediment area, et cetera, so it just looks like it's out of Page 82 March 16, 2006 context. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. Any other questions on page two? Questions on page three? Questions on page four? Page five and then page six? Have already as a board -- go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The commercial zoning bonus, could you explain that a little bit? I mean, is the intent there that if you have commercial zoning and you tend to keep some of it, you can add residential for every acre you remove? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you still have to keep the commercial? MS. MOSCA: No, you do not. It's the conversion of commercial zoning. And that falls under the same -- the flu also has that provision. So if you're converting commercial zoning, or even a portion of commercial zoning, for every one acre, you may receive up to 16 additional units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way it's worded and the way you crossed it out, I'm not sure. If the project includes commercial zoning -- therefore, I'm doing a proj ect, by that it has to include commercial zoning. A bonus of up to 16 residential units may be added for every one acre of zoning that is converted. I mean, we're trying to do mixed use and stuff like that. Is wise to -- first of all, the way it's worded, doesn't it sound like it has to have commercial zoning? MS. MOSCA: It does read that way. That's existing language and maybe we need to rework that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you don't cross out, either you know, what you crossed off conversion of -- in other words, I think the way it was before gave the intent that you weren't. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chariman, I think staff can take a crack at this. I agree with Mr. Schiffer. If we pretty much reinvert the Page 83 March 16, 2006 paragraph and start off with the conversion of the zoning from residential to commercial then explain what that commercial would have to be to qualify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you suggest some language when you come back on the 30th? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now that I've done that, the intent that this says now without you changing it is, that you have to have a mixed use project to use these units. I think that would make sense. Is there a lot of little pockets of commercial zoning, or is this not an opportunity to have mixed use zoning? MS. MOSCA: Well I know David had mentioned in the past with the flu. I think this provision has probably been used twice. David, I might have to defer to you. But I believe there was a project proposed on Davis where they were going to retain a certain portion of commercial and then convert some to residential units. Is that -- MR. WEEKS: Let me jump in again. This provision is, as Michelle mentioned, is also in the future land use element under density rating system there. The purpose for this provision is an incentive for property owners to rezone property from commercial to residential. And the incentive is to rezone from commercial that is not consistent with the future land use map. It's property that is generally speaking, it's going to be striped commercial, or it's isolated in its location. It's commercial that is not consistent with how the county has said we want commercial to be located. So it's an incentive to get rid of that commercial and replace it with residential development. As Michelle said, that is correct. It's only been used twice, that I'm aware of, since the plan was adopted, but nonetheless I think it's appropriate to keep a provision there. There's a separate provision in the future land use element called commercial mixed use subdistrict. What that does is allow for commercially zoned properties to have mixed use. To have residential development. So Page 84 March 16, 2006 there is an opportunity to have a mixed use development and does not require to rezone that property. It's two different issues. Promoting mixed use versus promoting rezoning of isolated or strip commercial that the county would like to see go away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the owner could decide which way to go. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page six? Well I have one. We discussed in the flu the fact about adding four units by right for affordable housing. Didn't require rezone or public hearings. We're back with the same language in item B in the density rating system, if I am not mistaken. And I think we have struck it in the flu. I don't know why we want to leave Golden Gate City. Their problems there about constrained roadways are worse than the rest of the county. So, the Board is in agreement. I recommend that language be struck here as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposition? Hearing none, on page seven, the same language occurs under affordable housing bonus by right. It's the same language we just went through in the flu, and I would recommend it be struck here as well. Anybody objecting? Okay. Any questions on page eight? Page nine? Page ten? Page II? All strike out -- page 12 is all striked out. Page 13 is all striked out. Page 14 is all striked out. Page 15 is the problem child. I'll start off with discussion there. Michelle, I don't know how this happened, but I certainly think that allowing the rentals in Golden Gate Estates of guest houses will cause a huge burden to the people out there that are already overburdened with traffic and congestion and septic systems and wells and about every other element that you can possibly think of Page 85 March 16, 2006 that's maxed out right now. This language by allowing these rentals of guest houses would radically increase the number of guest houses in Golden Gate Estates. And I think this is horrible language to allow in this document. So my recommendation would be to strike it. I don't know what the rest of the panel wants to say about it, if anything. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we did that last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we did but we didn't do it unde the GGMP so I wanted to make sure that the panel doesn't have any objection to striking it here as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since I was a lone wolf on that last vote, wouldn't -- your concern was in Golden Gate, so could we make a deal here where we strike it here and allow it back in the other areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I can tell you. I live there and I know how bad it would be where I live. I don't think it would be good for anybody in this county to be having doubled their density potentially the way this could be written. It's just wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, a guest house is a good way to add density to an area. First of all, they're small. They're monitored by the owner of the property. They're a class -- I mean, I grew up in neighborhoods in New England where we had nice little garage apartments and stuff like that. And that's really where the teachers -- that's where the people starting out really did live. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, Golden Gate Estates is the largest subdivision, I believe, in the world. It's not small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine with it here, because that was your big concern. I'm saying, now that we take it out here -- because I was surprised to see it here because your comment back then was you didn't want it here. And I understand the geometry of Golden Gate, and I understand the way the lots are, and I think you Page 86 March 16,2006 might be right. But I think the rest of the county maybe should have that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next week we're going to rehear the language that we talked about. That would be a better opportunity to rebring up your argument. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to state for the record that there should be some distinction. I think you going in that direction, why you would not allow in the Estates, but in other parts of the county to avoid any equal protection of the law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if we get to that point, I'm sure we can make that -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just wanted you-all to be thinking about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just a little confused. The principal dwelling may also be leased or rented as well? They can't rent it now? MS. MOSCA: Yes they can. I think it was jut for clarity. MR. WEEKS: In the -- excuse me. In the instance where you have a guest house, no, you cannot rent the principal dwelling. If you simply have a principal dwelling on your property, certainly you can rent it out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you should also take out the last statement also for the whole? MR. WEEKS: The whole thing? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, you didn't go that far. MR. WEEKS: My understanding then it's the paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We all in agreement on that then? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- I can't believe there's a Page 87 March 16, 2006 public speaker on this particular issue in Golden Gate Estates. MR. WEEKS: Ms. Pat Humphreys. MS. HUMPHREYS: My name is Pat Humphreys. And I am on the Board of Directors for the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Weare against legalization of renting guest houses in the Estates. This will put a further burden on the Estates residence that are already experiencing serious problems because of early build out of homesteaded property, and overburned road systems, school systems and essential services. This plan appears to allow a form of track housing that is designed for low density on large lots. It would create an absent landlord situation that was never meant to be part of the Estates' way of life. We respectfully request that you do not grant this amendment, that would threaten to change a unique area in Collier County that is trying to maintain its characteristics as a low density and environmentally friendly family-oriented community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That you. MR COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, could you clarify if you're talking about that last paragraph in that particular section just so we make sure that's the language that you want spoken? MS. HUMPHREY: Who's talking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This gentleman right here is Mr. Cohen. He's talking about the paragraph that talks about the Golden Gate Estate rentals is on page 15, and it's item -- the second paragraph of item two, Estates destination. I believe that's the issue you were addressing as the rentals of the Golden Gate Estates houses. MS. HUMPHREY: The guest houses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am, right. MR. COHEN: And you want that provision stricken, correct? MS. HUMPHREY: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Ms. Humphreys. Page 88 March 16, 2006 MS. HUMPHREYS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to page 16. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just -- the guest house is still allowed, it just can't be rented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not the whole paragraph. It's part of the paragraph? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the part pertaining to the rental application. Again, Randy, maybe you can clarify. That whole paragraph is underlined as new. We already have provisions in the land development code that guest houses are allowed to be built. So why would we need that paragraph at all? I know where Brad's question saying, you know, it's just one word or so in there, but I'm wondering, why be redundant if the code already allows for guest houses and has the criteria for guest houses. Why is that entire paragraph being restated here in the CIR? MR. COHEN: I think it would be appropriate for the land development code to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and this would insure that consistency existed in that rationale that would actually be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the land development code is supposed to implement the EAR or the GMP which is supposed do be conceptual. You're not getting into the same minutia in the GMP as you are in the EAR. MR. COHEN: Part of the reason for adding that, of course, ties in with the proposal to allow the rental. But presently the Golden Gate master plan is completely silent to guest houses. It simply says nothing about them as to whether they're allowed, not allowed. It's just silent. So staff was proposing that as to clearly indicate to all readers of the master plan that, in fact, guest houses are permitted. I do not think there would be any adverse impact if we deleted that Page 89 March 16, 2006 entire paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already said in the development code, you have guest houses out there already. So, obviously, people have figured that out. I can't see why the need is to repeat it here. It's just, I think, it causes more confusion in consistency in case you change the LDC in the future. So I would assume just see the whole thing struck if nobody has any objection to it. MR. WEEKS: I would note as well, Mr. Chairman, that the proceeding, the very first paragraph under this state's designation, we do make reference to guest houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: By that language remaining there, that certainly suggests that they are in fact allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: It would just simply further support the notion of deleting that paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Thank you. Now we'll move onto page 16. Page 17, the second bullet from the last one it says eastern 2.2, question mark. I'm sure the question mark needs to be removed. MS. MOSCA: It needs to be removed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's not a huge issue but one you may want to look at. Okay. Page 18. The rest of the element is graphics. It should wrap up Golden Gate area master plan element for this discussion. And with that -- thank you, Michelle. Phil, you're here for a reason. I'm trying to move people who don't have to wait all day. I'm trying to help you so, what is your next issue. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. For the record, this is Phil Gramatges. I'm here to cover natural ground water and aqua resource development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's good. Thank you for telling me. That's probably going to take all day. That's a heavy one, but Page 90 March 16, 2006 let's go into it -- I'm just kidding. COMMISSIONER CARON: You just sent us into cardiac arrest. MR. GRAMATGES: I'm ready, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's try to get that over with before lunch, and that will help you out. Okay. Page one of the natural ground water act for recharge sub-element. are there any questions? MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: I do have an issue on that page. In fact, after reviewing this with the director, Mr. Smith, who unfortunately could not be here today, there are a couple items that we would suggest making changes on. And if you don't mind, I would like to do that as you review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. MR. GRAMATGES: We do have one on page one under objective one, line one. The county shall continue to review on a biannual basis. That's an error. It should be biennial basis, meaning every two years. We suggest you change that language to read every two years instead of biannual. And then further down that paragraph on the fourth line it again says biannual. I suggest to change that to biennial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. You guys should be doing a lot of the reports. MR. GRAMATGES: It gets confusing after a while, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on that page, sir? MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On policy 1.1 you said the county shall -- and it says periodically revise and update it's three-dimensional computer models. Periodically could be anything in anybody's eyes. You have a reference time frame? Page 91 March 16,2006 MR. GRAMATGES: Well, not really. The reason the word periodically is written in there is because we don't have a set time period to do this. The way we work this pollution control -- and I say we meaning public utilities engineering is whenever there is a change in a well field, or whenever we are going to create a well field, we notify them. And at that time they run their analysis to determine whether or not there's any changes. We anticipate that there will be long periods of time so there will be no changes in any of our wells or well fields. And consequently, it would be -- it would not be very useful for us to do this when there's no changes. So, the use of the word periodically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do it based on criteria, there's a need. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tie it to a need? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, a need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you could suggest, since we're going to have to have some language changes on this small language to clean up anyway, is there a way you could take a look at that between now and the 30th and suggest something that indicates a criteria that defines periodically? MR. GRAMATGES: I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On page two. Any questions? MR. MURRAY: Again, you have updated periodically in 1.2 at the end of the sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1.3 on the first line and 1.4 on the first line, so -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, once again, the term periodically comes up and it's for the same reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish Ms. Student was here. I'd like to ask her how we take a element in the GMP that references an Page 92 March 16, 2006 ambiguous word like periodically and translate that into an implementation document, which is the next level down. So, somehow that needs to be taken a look at. And if you can come to grips with the language that meets the legal review as well, I appreciate that for the 30th. Does that work for everybody? MR. WEEKS: I was going to just make a comment certainly staff will work to make changes on the language. But not every single policy or provision in the growth management plan has to be implemented through the land development regulations or other subsequent regulations. For example, the future land use element has various provisions that are implemented through a rezone action. There is no need to amend or create land development regulations to implement some of those provisions. I think it's the same case here. I don't know that we would create a provision that requires our code and law ordinances or land development regulations to implement this policy. Whatever the language ultimately is, it will be implemented through the act of, in this case, doing the study or doing the monitoring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know that. I thought everything had to be followed up from a concept in this document to an implementation in some other document. Well, if there is a way to clean up the word periodically, it might help. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm back on page one. But, couldn't you say that the county shall automatically revise an updated dimensional computer model based on as additional criteria became available? Would that -- MR. GRAMATGES: If you look at page one, the very last two lines in parentheses, with rates, numbers and locations of wells within well fields, I had geologic information. That is the basis for us to determine whether or not there is a significant change that will require a change in the wording. We certainly will look at this and, in Page 93 March 16, 2006 fact, I believe I just received some suggested language changes. And we'll bring this on the 30th and make every attempt to clarify to your satisfaction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll move to the rest of these pages, but at the last page, I'd like to ask Ms. Student to confer with Randy during the meantime and see if she can get a grasp on the word periodically and recommend something to us. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Which? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the ground water recharge element. And we're on policy 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question on page two. It's a word I don't know. What is karst, K-A-R-S-T? I just don't know what it is. MR. GRAMATGES: I'm sorry. Where are we at? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm looking for education here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 2.1. It's the bottom of page two. MR. GRAMATGES: Oh. I would refer to Mr. Rob Ward who is from the pollution control department because I am not too sure that I know what it means either. MR. WARD: Rob Ward, Pollution Control. Karst refers to dissolution holes in limestone, i.e. sink holes. And the fact that water can be carried through the subsurface at a much higher rate through these dissolution holes than if it was actually traveling through a formation or the porosity of the aquifer is actually an underground openIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You learned a new word. COMMISSIONER CARON: I learned new things today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I've noted where the term periodically appears. And I think it's fine for us to come up with a Page 94 March 16, 2006 reasonable, say every two years every three years, whatever, and insert that in there instead of periodically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In lieu of that, some criteria that they could -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Or a triggering event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, triggering event. That would work. MR. GRAMA TGES : Yes, we'll look at that and suggest some wording changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In 1.5 you're going -- are you going to remove map one and two, or just update map one and two? MR. GRAMATGES: Are we still on page two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. It's policy 1.5. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. And please, can you restate the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The maps that are in the GMP are from 1995 data. Obviously this is saying you're going to update it through at least 2000, maybe even wait and get 2006. But are the maps still going to be in the GMP? Are you going to update the maps? You've crossed it out, that's why. MR. GRAMATGES: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we stop the cross through right before map one? Are you taking the maps out or are you just -- MR. GRAMATGES: No. The maps are looked at and are brought up to date on a regular basis. I'm not sure as to how regularly now. But they certainly are kept up to date whenever new information is received. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intent is that you're going to revise the map with new information, and it's still going to be included in the GMP though. It is now in the GMP based on the '95 data? Page 95 March 16, 2006 MR. WARD: I believe the maps that are referred to in policy 1.5 are actually the maps produced by the South Florida Water Management District. Their intent is to publish a new map in 2006, which should supersede and be revised and replace their maps that they previously produced in 1995. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there are two maps in the GMP. I'm looking at them. So you're going to reproduce those with the new data; is that correct? MR. WARD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So could we eliminate the strike through between 1995 and the parentheses map one so that -- and the reason I think that's important is that shows what those maps are. MR. GRAMATGES: We will look at that for relevance and certainly we'll bring any changes to the meeting on the 30th. Or an explanation as to why we couldn't make it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can we move onto page three. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: On 2.4, I wrote myself a little statement here. Collier County shall evaluate the necessity for adopting more stringent ground water. Reach our standards for high and recharge areas within two years of the governing board. I wrote that with whatever thought I had at the time. I'm reading it now and I don't see the same thing jumping out at me. Just give me a moment. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I agree. Whatever you had was fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Murray, you know, we reserved these so long ago then we get here and have trouble wondering what the tab was for anyway. So it does happen. We have to send notes to ourselves in the future. Page 96 March 16, 2006 MR. MURRAY: I thank you for your pity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page four. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question on page four. On policy 3.5. Why are we even waiting? Why don't we have this planning group set up now? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, if I may address that question. I mean, this kind of work requires considerable amount of thought and it requires a selection of committee members that would be knowledgeable and would enable us to reach the right conclusions. We felt that the time period was appropriate. COMMISSIONER CARON: Supposedly you've been thinking about this since 1997. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So-- MR. GRAMATGES: It hasn't been done. MR. MURRAY: They need some more time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why not change it to '06? MR. GRAMATGES: We feel we don't have enough time between now and October '06 to do all that is necessary. Like I said before, this is something that would require a considerable amount of thought and certainly a process of trying to identify proper members. And the reason why we chose October 1 st, we felt this would give us sufficient time to do that properly. COMMISSIONER CARON: What's happened so far? How far along are you in that process? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't believe we are far along at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you haven't started it, yet it's so serious. I mean, it -- somebody should have started talking about this in '98 -- '97 or shortly thereafter. It's now almost ten years later. MR. GRAMATGES: I'm not trying to represent that we have not talked about it. It's simply that we are not far enough along to be able to select a group and have started this project. Page 97 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically you couldn't accomplish the goal by October of this year, is that what you're saying? MR. GRAMATGES: No, we could not. We don't feel there's enough time to accomplish that by October of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be by default we're looking at another date. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The scary thing is, is there any planning being done between the county, City of Naples and the South Florida Water Management? I mean, the scary part of your answer is that there's no planning amongst those three groups. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we do plan with the South Florida Water Management District. I can tell you that because we do it within public Utilities Engineering. As to any coordination between the City of Naples or other communities, I need to refer this back to Rob Ward. MR. WARD: Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment. It's probably the same comment that Mr. Weeks wanted to make as well. These amendments won't be effective by October 1, 2006. So that's one of the reasons why the October 1, 2007 date is in there. A date earlier than October 1, 2007 prior -- I mean, after the adoption of the amendments and the effectiveness could be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, is staff willing to commit to a date they could do it sooner than October 1, 2007? MR. GRAMATGES: We will certainly bring that to a discussion internally, and we will bring a new date to you on the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. September 30th, maybe? MR. GRAMATGES: We will certainly take that into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: May I, sir? We are proposing a change here on the policy 3.4. The last line here states database used on the Page 98 March 16, 2006 county's three-dimensional ground water model. We are proposing to strike out the word used in the county's three-dimensional ground water model. I believe it is redundant and is confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that same language though is used on page 10 of the CCME policy 3.3.2? MR. GRAMATGES: We will make sure they're consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because staff is in the process. David and I spoke about this in the break, of responding to our concerns on that policy already so you may want to coordinate with him to get that language corrected. MR. GRAMATGES: Most certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the intent to not be providing three-dimensional data? MR. GRAMATGES: No, not at all. It's just we don't want to be limited to be used only in the county for the three-dimensional ground water model. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the intent of that is so you don't waste time to two-dimensional modeling and you stay with three-dimensional modeling. It's an old clause. MR. GRAMATGES: We realize that. However, there is a number of different instruments that we could use for modeling. And we don't want to rule out two-dimensional modeling either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'd like to leave it the way it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff needs to come back with an argument based on their suggested changes. And if we don't agree with you, we'll have to request it be left as it was. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page four? If not we'll move to page five. Page 99 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On policy 5.5, the last words allowing small businesses to participate and then you put, to some extent. This was not good wording, but secondly, why are we limiting it at all? MR. GRAMATGES: We will cross out the word to some extent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That language was already acknowledged or recommended by this panel to be crossed out on page four of the solid waste element policy 2.8. If you look at that policy, it's identical to this policy. So if you need both of them, that's fine. But if you are going to keep them both, the language ought to be consistent. And we did recommend those last words be struck, so -- Mr. Schiffer's comments to be consistent with prior policy was. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question on 5.3. Reference to private property rights to identify, continue to identify costs under the mechanisms of private property rights. What does that really mean? What is that actually saying to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? I mean -- I'm sorry. Ms. Student. MR. GRAMATGES: We'll volunteer to answer that question for you, Mr. Murray. MR. WARD: There is a computer model that has been put together, that three-dimensional model that we've been referring to by Dr. Michael Voorhees. And further development of this model to look at the areas that are east of 951 would incur some cost of more investigative drilling and/or development of said model to more thoroughly identify the areas where there's high permeability in between the surficial and Tamiami aquifer. And cost would be incurred by further developing that model. Page 100 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that the other aspect has to do with there's a recharge area on private property and the property owner might not be able to use it for anything. It's to monitor and look at that situation and see where we were. And so there wouldn't be a taking. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. What was going through my mind is what typically now seen in PUDs and other documents where the county's waste water people and the folks here, they want to have a space for the ASR and so I'm just wondering what that really references. So that's what you're saying. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. I think in this case is, if you recall that, I guess the applicant is approached with the situation and then they agree to allow it on their property. But a mechanism to make sure that private property rights are protected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Without taking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the last page of this element, which is page five? MR. GRAMATGES: If I may, Mr. Chairman. There are two changes we would like to suggest on this page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: Under objective five, the first line, the county shall implement existing plans. The word existing should be struck out. It is really redundant and confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. GRAMATGES: Furthermore under policy 5.4, the second line, petroleum storage tank cleanup program. The storage tank cleanup program as such is an old program, and we would like to replace the word cleanup with inspection. We feel that we have accomplished everything that the original program intended to accomplish. Page 101 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it hurt just in case there's an occasion where you might not have accomplished everything, to use the word cleanup and inspection program? MR. GRAMATGES: I have no objection to that. We're not trying to preclude cleaning up if we need to, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would prefer it that way, ifno one else has an objection? MR. MURRAY: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a lot of buried tanks up there we don't know about yet. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. I have been advised that the county no longer manages the cleanup program that has been transferred to the state. And therefore, we are only managing the inspection program. Whenever we find something that needs cleanup, we refer it to the state and they act on it. So consequently, if they were to add cleanup and inspection is probably not consistent here. Since we have no way to just continue that program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can't, you can't. I guess it has to remain inspection. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was that surrendered to the state as a function, or the state acquired it by its initiative? MR. GRAMATGES: I need to ask Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: The petroleum -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please identify yourself for the record. MR. WARD: Oh, I'm sorry. Robert Ward, pollution control. The petroleum cleanup program is a program that is administered by the DEP and they give that out to some counties or districts. We had received a three-year contract which came to its conclusion last May, I believe it was. Anyway, it was last spring. And the state did not renew the Collier County contract for this because we brought it below their number of cleanup -- active cleanup sites that they saw economically feasible to subcontract the county to take care of that Page 102 March 16,2006 program. We do still hold the contract for the petroleum tank inspection program. And we have referred all the files from the cleanup program on the remaining sites in the county that are in the cleanup program to the DEP. And they are administering that program on their own. MR. MURRAY: That's known as Brownfield? MR. WARD: No. Brownfield is more hazardous waste sites. This is petroleum. MR. MURRAY: I thought it was petroleum as well, but okay, go ahead. MR. WARD: Generally speaking, no. The petroleum cleanup program is completely revolving around petroleum sites predominantly around cleanups where there are underground storage tanks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of this element? Hearing none, we have completed it. Phil, thank you very much for your time today. And Roy, thank you guys. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it. With that we will take Mr. Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I understand you're going to be going on to the housing element. If I would be allowed to just make a couple of brief comments, I won't have to stick around for lunch and I can go to the school board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with that? MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you. I appreciate it very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brief comment like five minutes worth? MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, even less than that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good. MR. KRASOWSKI: What I would like to do is just introduce a couple of concepts here in regards to housing. At the state level, the Page 103 March 16, 2006 state has generated a Florida Energy Plan that the governor is behind. There's many components in that that I like or don't like. But one of the things it does address is solar, using solar energy. So, what I'm suggesting here is we have to integrate these innovative and newer -- they're not new, but refined and they're very useable now programs. And I'd like to mention a couple. And what I'd like to see is certainly that these be required on all housing that receives consideration subsidies or deferrals in Collier County, and actually all new buildings and houses should have some of these things. And this is the one, the biggest most -- is that every new building built in Collier County should have a waste heat recovery system that allows for its air conditioning unit to heat its hot water. Now when we research this we'll find that that's available now and it is an energy saver. The more energy we defer and save, the less need there is to build energy generating plants. And, of course, my big complaint, the sold waste burning. The filthy thing that pollutes the air and ruins the environment and causes disease and stuff for children and defenseless women. The other thing would be passive solar heating, not to blind anybody. The passive solar heating as opposed to what we get from the photovoltaic cells that generate electricity. It's still a pretty expensive thing, and there's an economics of scale that applies to that. But putting solar heaters on hot water heaters is very long-term energy efficient and economical, it's just an upfront cost. But what I would think is that the county should develop some type of ability to relate to these things. The government just moves along like tomorrow is going to be like yesterday in a lot of regards. And things have got to change. You know, we need energy, we go out and pollute to make more energy. Well, there's a lot of new innovations we can put in place. Like passive solar heating, certainly the heat capture, the heat exchange capture and then also the third thing, which is in this plan. And a lot of these things involve Page 104 March 16, 2006 programs that involve architects and designers and builders to work along these lines. Another thing that is a big energy saver are the Energy Star appliances. On all these counts, the state has economic applications that help defray the cost, the additional cost of these things. I think Collier County, no appliances should be sold that aren't the most efficient of appliances. Now if the county government can identify the cost of an appliance into the future, and then maybe be able to provide help in purchasing that appliance up front, but add the cost, monthly electric bills, it still would be lower in bills because of the energy saved, but it would defray the cost over the period of the purchase of the rental of the utility. But I'd like to just introduce those concepts now. I hope you can put them in somewhere and at a later date work on them even harder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you did. I think it's a good point, and I can assure you we'll be discussing it. MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, thank you very much. Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you took the full five minutes. MR. KRASOWSKI: Did I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KRASOWSKI: I didn't go over though, did I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you didn't. MR. KRASOWSKI: That's amazing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. And we will take a recess for lunch. We'll be back here at 1 :00. Thank you. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back in session. It's one o'clock. We'll start off where we left off and that would be the housing element which I bet you need Cormac here. Page 105 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I'm saying. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back to the e-mail that I sent you last night to all the planning commissioners. And as you'll recall there were some changes proposed to the housing element and Golden Gate and Immokalee master plans. Those changes primarily pertain to the term "affordable housing." And we'll go back to the very first meeting on -- on these EAR based amendments. And I brought to your attention that -- that we would need to change those terms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And the e-mail last night was identifying those. Similar, there was a couple of changes made that correlated with some of your direction on the -- on the CCME, Conservation and Coastal Management Element, pertaining to stormwater being allowed within preserve areas. Let me get to the point. I'm assuming from the earlier comments made at the beginning of the meeting and the fact that the e-mail was sent to you so late that you don't want to discuss those matters today. You want to wait until the 30th. Would I be correct in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, all I'm going to do and my -- and if the board wants to do something different then, obviously, we will -- we will, but my intention was to move through the document that you've already presented to us, that we've already had time to read and digest. And I cannot sit here on the fly and read new documents. So whatever comments we have in the remaining elements of this EAR, I was hoping you could take those, combine them with the ones that you sent out and give us a better and more complete package prior to our March 30th meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Though I would prefer getting a copy of it today which I will not use today, but I would like to have a copy. MR. WEEKS: Sure. We -- we could provide you those hard Page 106 March 16,2006 copies of what was sent to you in e-mail last night. But as you're saying, Mr. Chairman, you've already made -- been through the Golden Gate Master Plan and directed changes, so we're going to have to come back with the revisions there. So I very much understand and agree with the concept of -- of merging your direction from today with the e-mailed information from last night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while we're on the subject, can you tell me what day next week you're going to provide this board with the documents that we will need to review on the 30th? MR. WEEKS: Our target date is -- is Thursday to give you a full week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we had ample time and that will work. Thank you. With that, then, we'll move into the housing element of the -- MS. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Fernandez, senior planner with the comprehensive planning department. As far as the housing element is concerned there are changes just about on every page of the document and most of them are relatively minor in nature. However, if you'd like to go page by page as you've been doing with the other ones, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'll keep the same pattern. MS. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And -- so that takes us to the first page of the housing element. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. On page 1 about in the middle it says, Demolition of new construction. I suspect it should be demolition with new construction? MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let's go down to the paragraph below. And it says, Confirms that Collier County is 30,949 units short of providing affordable housing. Where are these Page 107 March 16, 2006 families that we count? I -- I -- I understand that we're short, but I just wonder where do we get this information? Where -- how do we know that these families -- these -- these are Collier County families? There's -- there's some place right now right; is that right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go there, I think Cormac will agree that using that number is misleading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin, housing and grants manager. If I could provide some background to what the number means. I think that will be helpful. The second -- and it is explained in the second half of the same paragraph. It says, The 30,949 unit deficit is divided roughly between one-third rental, two-thirds owner-occupied housing. Furthermore, this figure represents the current deficit experienced by those residing in Collier County. It doesn't take into -- individuals into account who may work in the county, but unable to affording the housing. Just before -- just before the sentence I started at it says, These residents are cost-burdened and are spending more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on housing expenses. So that is what the number means is that that is the number of households currently residing in Collier County who are cost-burdened. And by definition spend more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I -- I think I read it some place, God knows now where, but that this was determined by some consultant or some data from -- from census or -- MR. GIBLIN: This data comes to us directly from the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: State of Florida. MR. GIBLIN: Through the Schinberg Center for affordable housing. Page 108 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And it is the data that the DCA uses to evaluate each county's effectiveness in meeting the goals, objectives and policies of -- of their housing element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And not to pursue it too far, but -- but you don't know whether that's anecdotal or whether they actually have a surveyor-- MR. GIBLIN: I've spoken extensively to the gentleman who runs the -- this center and is responsible for the numbers. He's given me their methodology or at least the factors that go into his methodology. I can tell you that it is the purpose of the center and the purpose of the cost-burdened housing analysis was to provide all local governments in Florida a single source for what I would say would be the most accurate or -- or the most accepted data to measure all the comprehensive plans against statewide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just want to make a comment. I realize yours is an uphill battle. I'm not negative in any way, but I think it's imperative that we have -- and everybody understands that the data that is supplied are -- can be qualified and -- and dependent upon to be real. And it -- when you refer to units, if we consider 2.8, is that the average we use per family 2.8, something like that? That's a lot of folks. MR. GIBLIN: Well, no. You're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a heck of a lot of folks. MR. GIBLIN: This is -- this is 30,949 units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. The 2.8 was the family -- average family. And I may not be accurate. But I guess what I'm getting at is it confounds me because when I go around the county and I look at the housing when you go past the main avenues, there aren't that many homes. And I just wonder where all these folks are now living. And if -- if that -- if this data or these data account for that, then -- then fine. But it's just I Page 109 March 16, 2006 really want to be able to depend upon this in order to support it. That's really where I'm coming from. MR. GIBLIN: Well, to be counted in that number, you must be living in Collier County already. You may be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. GIBLIN: -- doubled up, tripled up to make ends meet. You may be paying -- and by definition you are currently here in the community, but you're paying unaffordable housing expenses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's a very good response. Thank you. Does it include the people out in Immokalee who are here only part of the time doing their thing? MR. GIBLIN: Depends. Some of the factors that go into that are census data and rental -- rental income data. If those people are included in the census and claim Collier County as a -- as their permanent residence, then it would. For migrants I would assume it doesn't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. So those are in actually, if we think about it that's in addition to the number of needed. Would I make -- is that a fair supposition? MR. GIBLIN: That would be fair. But I think that the greatest addition to this number comes from the number of uncounted households who don't live in Collier County to begin "Yith to be considered in the number. People commuting from Lee County or Dade County or Charlotte County on a daily basis who are unable to -- to reside in Collier County in the first place to even be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But as you said, though, they are not in this. MR. GIBLIN: They are not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- but that's a magnitude beyond? MR. GIBLIN: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you for that. Page 110 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Is there a way to get a copy of that study because your definition, I was curious. Because essentially what you're saying, if I was making a million dollars a year spending over $300,000 a year in living expenses, I would be considered in this category? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. That's correct. And this 30,949 unit number-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GIBLIN: -- is encompassing of everyone who makes zero income up to the -- the maximum, up -- up to unlimited income. That is a gross number. We can then further -- that the study using the data, you can then break it out: Number of this income, number of that income, renters, owners, number of senior citizens, number of -- by household size. It's very -- it's a very powerful tool. And if we were to, for the sake of this discussion, limit this number to only those -- those households that 80 percent of median or less who are low income? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under 50 percent of -- MR. GIBLIN: There's no break point at the 150, but there is one at 80. And it's about 24,000 households are at 80 percent or less of median and cost-burdened. So that's low-income residents and cost-burdened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the question was, you can make this data available to us somehow? MR. GIBLIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I hope we're not worrying about millionaires that just had to get too close to the beach and -- MR. GIBLIN: I will tell you that some of -- some of the -- some of this number is inclusive of all income categories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wish there were a way -- Page 111 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: An observation. I think that, you know, if you're depending on sort of, like, a windshield survey and driving around to determine where the low-income housing is, you'll tend to underestimate it. Because low -- where the poor people live, it's usually in areas that you don't see. It's hidden away back in the woods. People really doubling up. At least I know that's true in Immokalee and among the migrants. So I would tend to say that this is an underestimate rather than an overestimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron then Mr. Murray then Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I believe Mr. Murray is next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They already have. . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I -- I -- I was just going to engage. But I think that would rip on it. We're fine. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any comment, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, not at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've got a problem in my own mind. Why we went up to take 1,000 units as the goal. I did some research and found that -- well, I'm on page -- okay. I'm talking about 82,000. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still trying to get through page 1. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's finish. Mr. Kolflat, do you any questions on page I? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. As I understand this, at 30,000 units approximately here you indicate that this is going to be 500-some units per year, is that correct, is the target? MR. GIBLIN: That is the old target. That was -- that was the Page 112 March 16, 2006 existing target prior to this amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is it -- yes. What is the present target? MR. GIBLIN: On the next page when we get into Objective No. 1 we propose to change the target from 500 to 1,000 units per year. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, that still is 30 years duration to solve the problem; is that right? MR. GIBLIN: That -- that would be correct. And plus, the problem keeps growing every year so it's probably longer than that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The other -- other question I had in my mind is that the first paragraph on Introduction seems to stress or make a point that government is going to correct this problem. I don't believe that government is solely responsible for this problem, but is there any way we can incorporate something here in the private sector being involved in solving? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, we've looked at the language very carefully. And we don't propose that government is going to solve this problem. We -- what we do and if you look at the last sentence in the first paragraph we say that, Thus, there's a need for Collier County to find ways to encourage the provision of affordable housing for these families. So we see our goal as providing an environment so that public and private solutions can be found to meet -- to meet the need, but -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I was hoping possibly there would be some wordage in that introduction that would convey that feeling that it has to be done jointly. It's not one party's responsibility. MR. GIBLIN: Again, I think that's what we're trying to reach when we say, Encourage the provision of rather than provide. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Cormac, middle of the sentence, the sentence you're referring to on page 1 with the 30,949 units short. Page 113 March 16, 2006 It says 30,949 units short of providing affordable housing. I'm going to read you something and tell me if it's accurate or not. Thirty thousand is the estimated number of residents currently living in Collier County or are paying more than 30 percent of their income on either mortgage payments or rent. That number is generated by the State of Florida and residents above 30 percent threshold are classified by the state as cost-burdened. To suggest that the county needs 30,000 affordable or work-force housing units is misleading. If it's misleading, I don't believe that sentence reads correctly because the way the sentence seems to read is that there's 30,949 units short of providing affordable housing. MR. GIBLIN: I will agree that the -- the word "short" probably could be substituted with -- with a different word because it is not a measurement of a shortage. It is a measurement of a current condition. That said, the Growth Management Plan doesn't specify that we are to provide -- provide affordable housing only to certain income levels of household. It says that the county shall provide affordable housing, period -- to all residents, actually, then period. So I think that it can be cleaned and to made -- be made more specific, but I don't believe that it's -- that it is incorrect as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the quote I was reading was from the county manager. MR. GIBLIN: Well, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would certainly agree with his statement that it is misleading. I don't believe at all that there's any statistics that show what the affordable housing need is in Collier County. And "affordable" meaning in the criteria that we've established as a definition throughout this first page, we refer to affordable numerous times. And every time we refer to it, the mind-set in people that read this is affordable according to a definition that we have. Your mind-set in using the 30,000, it seems to be, is that if a Page 114 March 16, 2006 millionaire can't afford a home that he's paying over thirty -- one-third of his income and all of a sudden he's -- he has an -- he qualifies for being an affordable need. I don't think that's a true statement in regards to how the public is going to be reading this. So why would we want to mix in people who don't necessarily fall into the affordable category into this picture? I don't understand the necessity of doing that. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I'll say that -- let me start by saying I agree with you. But the problem we run into is that let's take two years ago, for example, we had a definition of "affordable" that was capped at a certain level. And now we have a definition of -- of affordable housing that is capped at a higher level. What we're trying to do on this page is be all-inclusive so that if next year the board decides to raise the definition again, we don't require any more changes necessary to the comp plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, won't they arrange it by the definition -- by changing the definition of "affordable housing" like they just most recently did? They're not going to create another level of housing or if they do, they're going to change a definition. I honestly don't see the need to accommodate through any kind of affordable reference multi-millionaires living in homes above their means. That is misleading to the public and misleading to anybody that would be reading this. And, Mr. Cohen, you had a comment. MR. COHEN: I was going to make the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, the -- the definition in -- of affordable housing normally in the specificity is normally found in the objectives of the policies that follow the introduction. A lot of times introductions are a little bit more general in nature. And I would suggest probably it may be a better means of achieving the goals and objectives of what's affordable with the specificity and the objectives and policies and modifying the introduction to be a little bit more general in nature. Page 115 March 16, 2006 For example, rather than stating that we're 30,949 units short of providing affordable housing, we could just say that the Schinberg study confirms that Collier County has 30,949 units that are cost-burdened. I think it's disingenuous to say, you know, that it's affordable housing in that capacity based on what the definition is. And I think probably we can come up with some alternative language in the introduction that basically takes into account your concerns with respect to grouping in of what is considered to be cost-burdened by the Schinberg study and what is actually affordable housing and what that definition would be when it's forthcoming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the purpose of this housing element in it being in the GMP? Is it -- is it the purpose to tell the world that we have cost-burdened millionaires or is the purpose to address a social -- a social need that could be affordable housing? And if it is, why don't we just focus on what the need is instead of something that is probably silly to be looking at? MR. CO HEN : You know, and if -- and if the reference is to -- to remove, you know, what is considered to be cost-burdened, if that's considered to be -- you know, and I look at that study because I'm cost-burdened personally based on the study. And I don't consider myself in need of affordable housing. I'm an example of somebody that falls into that category. And there are a lot of other people along those lines. So -- so when I see that, I think some type of alternative language in the Introduction would -- would be a good route to take in this particular instance. And then address the affordable work force and the housing language that David provided you -- to you earlier today in the goals, objectives and policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if the purpose of the Growth Management Plan is -- is to provide concepts for social situations in Collier County such as affordable housing, make it read for what it's there for and don't put statistics in that don't really apply Page 116 March 16, 2006 to that segment that you're trying to specifically target. Because by using that, it also puts an onus on the other elements of this same element that we're going to be discussing in the quantities that you've isolated in those elements. And I want to make sure that we're playing from a level playing field and we're using accurate statistics. And I don't see that number as witnessed by the county manager as being a true statement of affordable housing. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as a -- as a question relating to that. If using myself for -- for an example for this purpose only, if as a retiree I reach a certain point where my purchasing power because I'm on a retirement program and I can no longer afford to live in my condominium, that means I can come to the county government and I can be subsidized for the balance of my needs because I have reached that threshold? MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry. I don't -- you own your-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, I will have reached the 30 percent -- in excess of 30 percent because I no longer have enough money. I don't have the purchasing power. The condo fees and everything have gone up. So I could now come to the county and I could say , You need to help me because I -- I have to -- I have to -- I'm living in now it's affordable housing. The housing is not affordable housing, but I'm in a situation where I'm cost-burdened. MR. GIBLIN: And -- and that's the reason that some of those people may be -- may be in that situation that are included in that 30,000 gross number. Mr. Cohen's, I think, suggestion that we follow up that number with a breakdown of -- and this many are -- are in the low-income category. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. GIBLIN: Or this many are in the gap and lower-income categories, I think would be a good suggestion to incorporate into Page 11 7 March 16, 2006 that introduction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you didn't answer my question and I didn't -- I know you didn't not -- I know you meant to answer it, but, so, I just want to find out if my -- in the future I can come to the county and get some of my rent paid? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. GIBLIN: We don't -- we don't have those kind of programs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Midney was first. MR. COHEN: I think it's kind of the consensus of the board that you'd like us to reword and redraft that entire paragraph to where it actually makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ms. Caron has a better suggestion, but Mr. Midney raised his hand first and please let the record acknowledge that Mr. Tuff has finally graced us with his presence. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He's a few minutes late. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Good morning. I just woke up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those newspaper guys. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I would agree. I understand that you're using this Schinberg study because it's probably one simple authoritative measure. But it probably would be good to add to it or incorporate or even maybe substitute it something that recognizes federal poverty guidelines and only to include the ones that are below a certain level. I -- I was talking a few days ago with a nurse who is making good money working for Naples Hospital, but her rent is $1,500 a month and it's about to go up. So, you know, you start getting into extraneous issues when you start using just strictly 30 percent. Because the way things are going, that's going to include a lot of Page 118 March 16, 2006 people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. My suggestion was just to -- just to strike this paragraph. I don't even see the need for it. I think it certainly reads fine down to, Collier will continue to address affordable housing deficit. I mean, I'm not sure what's gained by that paragraph. MR. GIBLIN: Reference -- references to the Schinberg study -- again, like I said a minute ago, that is -- those are the numbers that the state holds every local jurisdiction accountable to. And so in our -- in our EAR report those were the -- we made reference to the Schinberg study. And most of the changes -- and I'll agree with Nicole -- there are not many substantive changes throughout the rest of this housing element. But the ones that are point back to an increase or a -- a -- a demonstration of what the need is in Collier County. And so that's why the numbers are in there in the -- in the beginning. COMMISSIONER CARON: How about this, Cormac, why don't you say -- why don't we strike this paragraph, but you can add the Schinberg Center language in the final paragraph by just saying when it gets to governmental agencies, you can put in parens that we used the most up-to-date housing data available from the state through the University of Schinberg Center? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to agree with the commissioner. I don't see the necessity for this ambiguous, inaccurate paragraph. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nor do I. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. Mark, where do we have -- excuse me. Where do we have definitions in the GMP, anyway, or are the bolded words, you go to the LDC for the definition? Page 119 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular element I understand from Randy's introduction a couple of weeks ago that he just bolded all the references to affordable whether they were a definition or not just to show where it occurs to highlight it to us. Because so many changes in the overall EAR amendments were affecting affordable issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then it'll drop back in the final? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as dropping this paragraph, we have one, two, four of us are suggesting that -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Which paragraph are you talking CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entire -- that second -- that whole-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The third paragraph? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't help anything. It's actually going to bring in more unsubstantiated, let's say, data to confuse the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I agree, Mark. I think if we give the impression that we're worried about affordable housing for millionaires, that'll bring a lot more people to town than guesthouses. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As a matter of fact, I'm going to apply tomorrow. COMMISSIONER CARON: Done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody -- is everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Our recommendation, then, is to drop that paragraph. Any other issues on page I? Page 120 March 16, 2006 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did staff have any changes to page I? MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes. There are several changes on page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to kind of chime in on each page as we go along so we can also understand what changes you're talking about. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, Nicole. Mr. Chairman, I think I should go and pass out our changes then so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, are these the ones on the sheets that you sent us last night? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, you should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I didn't get -- I didn't get that e-mail so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got it, but they didn't send a printer with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three and a half pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When David sends out these large e-mails, he's going to start couriering out printers to our home. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three and a half pages? Let me have it, then, in case I missed something. No, I got these earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think -- we can see your changes, Miss. So rather than have you walk through each one of them, if there's any changes on here -- they're all in red I would assume? MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's anything on here that stands out to a member right now that wants -- that needs discussion, we can go into it. Other than that, we'll just -- we'll continue to review on that till the 30th. Page 121 March 16,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is affordable work force? That seems to be the main change. MS. FERNANDEZ: Affordable work force, anywhere on the document where you found affordable, that term, it was changed to reflect consistency with the new definition that's found in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And does that kind of tend to eliminate the millionaire thing that we were just talking about? MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes. It only goes to 150 percent of median income. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there you eliminate all the wealthy people right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But that doesn't -- well, I understand that, yeah. That's where this -- this is -- that's honestly where this element is directed. So if I understood what happened at the commission meeting with regards to the LDC definitions, didn't they incorporate a new definition for GAP housing? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, when -- when the Board of County Commissioners took up the LDC amendments and the definitions, they're presented with basically two options which came to this board as well in the weeks prior to that. One option was an all-inclusive definition of affordable work-force housing ranging from zero to 150 percent of median. Another option was leave affordable work-force housing as it was and create a new definition of GAP housing which would be from 81 to 150 percent of median income. What the Board of County Commissioners did at their adoption hearing, though, in a sense was they did both. They adopted a new definition of affordable work force housing that was all-inclusive and they also Page 122 March 16,2006 adopted a definition of GAP housing which was 81 to 150. So for purposes of the comp plan or anywhere that we see the word "affordable" work force housing from now on it is an all-inclusive definition of anything from zero to 150 percent of median. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only concern I'm going to have is as you well know there are going to be policies coming before the board that will be very specific to affordable work force or to GAP. Now, if a policy's created for GAP housing and doesn't reference affordable work force, how does it fit into any of the definitional changes you made here? MR. GIBLIN: You'll see when we move through this -- through this element that anywhere that the percentage of median income is important to the definition or to the policy or to the program, it is followed up by the range that it's specifically speaking to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, I know you're aware of the ongoing issue with the definitions and the -- the concerns between affordable and GAP housing and the fact that a matrix is going back before the board on the 28th of March, I believe, or somewhere close to that. If they separately -- if the definitions are as Cormac has said and separate criteria are in the LDC to define when and how GAP is incentivised and implemented, does GAP have to be separately annotated in the GMP in order to be implemented in the LDC. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think what we might need to do is look at how that, you know, comes about and then when we have this element back add it if need be. I haven't worked as fully with Cormac as another member of our office has on that. And I -- I think I probably want to defer to Cormac a little bit on it too, but -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the way I understand the current definitions as adopted by the board, it will be similar to posting a speed limit, 55 miles an hour for all cars or 55 mile an hour for all cars and Cadillacs. I think the first one covers everything. And to Page 123 March 16, 2006 say cars and Cadillacs would be redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I just would -- if staff could make sure that this is not going to trigger a problem like I just reiterated to you, that would be better by the 30th and let us know. Onward to page 2. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why was it changed from 500 to 1,000 units? How many units did we actually do this past year? MR. GIBLIN: That is one thing that we track. This last year, the last fiscal year we created just over 500 affordable units as under the -- the old existing definition, a combination of rental and owner-occupied units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, that's -- that's basically true, but it's a fiction in this respect. At the end of the year -- before the end of year Joe Schmitt made this comment, that over 4,000 affordable unit housing had been approved by the -- by us, by the county commissioners. The only problem is that they haven't been started yet because of the paperwork they have to go through to do it. Actually, over 4,000 units are now waiting to get that permission. So in actual fact, there's over 4,500 units been done this past year in 19 -- in 2005. MR. GIBLIN: No. I'll have to correct you there for a second. The 4,000 is cumulative of all previous approvals that have not yet been built, not just in the past year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All affordable housing units have already been approved by -- but not built out. This is now Joe Schmitt's statement. Okay? Over 4,000 units all have been permitted, all of it's been done. They just have not been built yet for other reasons. So we've already got over 4,500. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. But I thought your question was Page 124 March 16, 2006 how many in the past year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm talking about the -- that many were approved in the year 2005. Forty-five hundred units have been approved if you've got five hundred already out there. Because Joe said over 4,000 units have been approved this past year in '05, they just not have -- have not started building them yet. MR. GIBLIN: No. That's incorrect, sir. It's around 4,000 have been approved to date. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : You want to read this? I mean, it's -- Joe Schmitt's stating this to me. Not to me, but somebody else and I got a copy. That over 4,000 units are on the books now. MR. GIBLIN: Right. But they all didn't come on the books within the past year, which I thought was your question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, either way it's -- if you're getting down that we've got over 4,000 units still, the problem isn't you giving a number from 500 to 1,000. The problem is to pull the cork out from stopping these things from getting built. It doesn't make any difference how many you suggest. Because, obviously, they're not getting anywhere. So that problem should be handled rather than to figure out whether it's 500 or 1,000. It just doesn't make any difference. MR. GIBLIN: Again, I -- I see your logic there. And I can tell you that 2,000 of that 4,000 are the town of Ave Maria that are approved but yet unbuilt. They're going to be built out over -- over many, many years. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So we take that 2,000 out. MR. GIBLIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So there's still over 2,000 more here in the county for the purpose of affordable housing. MR. GIBLIN: Most -- most of those numbers are meaning approved as in zoned. Then after zoning, you have to go through site Page 125 March 16, 2006 planning and building permits, all of that. And so it may take three years from zoning approval to rooftop. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Again, so we're saying is to come up with an idea -- a statement that we must do 1,000 instead of 500 is kind of a nomenclature because basically the problem isn't that we want to do them. The problem is it takes this much longer to get them approved and then back into -- starting into the ground. So something else has to be changed. MS. FERNANDEZ: Nicole Fernandez for the record. I just would like to add that this was a recommendation made by the EAR report adopted in 2004 to evaluate that number. And in addition to that the EAR report did document that in recent years the production levels did exceed 1,500. And as of fiscal year 2003 approximately 2,500 units were produced, affordable housing units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. So either way we're getting to the point where that number doesn't mean much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't really know what this discussion is going to. It seems as though some people in the panel seem to be saying that the affordable housing is not that significant because look at all the units that are coming online. The affordable housing problem is terrible. It's abominable and we're nowhere near close -- coming close to what we need to have done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, I can assure you I don't think anybody's -- at least I'm not and I don't think Mr. Adelstein is trying to insinuate where you were going. I think the problem is the statistics that need to validate it are been -- have been brought into question, not by this panel but by -- I sat on two. I sit on another one right now. And we can't get good statistics. So until we do, it's very hard to implement policies without knowing just because our gut says we need more, which we do, how much more is it? There's no doubt we need more. Page 126 March 16,2006 Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I agree with you somewhat, too. It's very hard to get statistics. And as an example, the Arrowhead community in Immokalee, 500 units supposedly is going to be affordable housing. They started off saying that they would be -- a lot of them would be at the $150,000 range, but now due to the increase in costs and property values, the cheapest is going to be $250,000. So it's like -- and they're not even built yet. I think there's seven built. But it's very hard to get statistics that matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney -- or Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm going to attack the -- the word "create," not because I wish to but because under Policy 1.2 I asked the question, Collier County and its municipalities will work together to accomplish a countywide goal of creating a sufficient -- how can Collier County -- can it require other governments to respond? MR. GIBLIN : We have interlocal agreements with both the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island in terms of affordable housing in particular. Again, I would myself question the word "create. " COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because you're not in that business. MR. GIBLIN: We are not building. And Collier County doesn't build any affordable housing. We create an environment hopefully where the private sector will step forward and create affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in that vein could you confirm something for me? With the interlocal agreements with the City of Naples and Marco Island, aren't they enabled to buyout of having to construct any affordable housing that they -- in lieu of that they can actually give money. Is that true? MR. GIBLIN: That is the way both are structured, yes. Page 127 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they're never encumbered by actually having to construct an affordable housing unit? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, you mentioned earlier that Ave Maria has 2,000 affordable housing units. MR. GIBLIN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that within the town of Ave Maria? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are they a 15-year deed restricted or -- MR. GIBLIN: It varies. Some are restricted only for five. Like moderate income households are restricted for five years and then low incomes are restricted for the fifteen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you count units in affordable housing, does that mean you count ones that are outside your program? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How are you accounting for all the existing units that were purchased affordable in this county sitting here today? There's 111,000, just to let you know. MR. GIBLIN: For example, Ave -- the town of Ave -- the affordable units in Ave Maria were not as part of any housing program. They didn't use a density bonus. They didn't use impact fee deferrals. It was -- it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you're counting those; right? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. How are you counting the others in Collier County that under -- that aren't part of your program? MR. GIBLIN: The ones we count need to be occupied by a low-income buyer or low-income renter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ones in Ave Maria are going to be monitored for that occupancy? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. Page 128 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the people living in Collier County that bought their home here and are affordable income -- if they're not registered with your department, then you don't acknowledge they're living in an affordable house; is that right? MR. GIBLIN: If they are -- if they buy a home on the open market in Collier County and they are low income, then they would qualify for various programs offered by our department; down payment assistance, impact fee deferrals and the such. It's our hope that we can get the word out enough to where anyone who buys an affordable home who meets the definition comes and takes advantage of those, but there may be some that don't. But yet affordable homes solely in the private market that do take advantage of some of the programs that are available to them are counted in the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only way you have it tracking them is if they come in to you? MR. GIBLIN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have two other questions, Mr. Murray, and then I'll -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you don't mind. Obj ective 1, the -- your first sentence, The number of new affordable housing units. How does that account for any resale or any non-new -- new -- ones that are created and maybe sold and moved to a different person? How are you accounting for those? MR. GIBLIN: Again, through that same process that if it were an existing home that was sold privately and then because our programs also enable the assistance on a -- on an existing home, that number would be counted. That would be counted towards the total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, again, though you only pick up the people that come into your program? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 1,000 -- the 500 to a 1,000 Page 129 March 16, 2006 unit count that you have here, in the current EAR, the EAR that was produced last year that this amendment is based on, do you remember the statement in there about the 500? The statement was that it's working at this time. So if it's working, why are we changing it? MR. GIBLIN: I think the statement -- the intent there was that we are meeting 500. When I said -- when we wrote-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Working? MR. GIBLIN: -- it's working. It means that we are currently producing at least 500 per year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe set the goal higher than what we can realistically keep maintaining for a period of time, I mean, obviously, like any other kind of goal a government sets, if the private sector may fail to go by that goal, does that mean the taxpayers would then have to subsidize the housing further to get it created? I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I want to understand the implications of the 500 to 1,000. MR. GIBLIN: The numbers that Nicole read into the record a minute ago, clearly for the past few years, probably for the past ten years or so we've been creating over 1,000 units per year. So I think that we're safe with the -- in terms of setting an attainable goal, the first part of your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GIBLIN: We're confident that we could meet that 1,000 even -- that even the new information now that affordable work force will also include the GAP level makes it even easier, I think, for the county to meet that 1,000 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe did meet it, would it -- would it be looked at just like the water shed management plans have been for 18 years? You kind of just ignore it then and go on with life. MR. GIBLIN: That would be up to the next -- the next EAR report and -- Page 130 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- see what the state has to say about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have anything else to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I wanted to follow up on the question of the city and -- and Marco and GAP housing. GAP housing now is under the -- it's under the definition. So have you thought it out? Has it been even qualified yet as to whether or not GAP housing would be a buyout rather than -- than them having to build GAP housing in those communities? MR. GIBLIN: I can't say that that -- that the conversation has gone that far. The -- the definitions as you know were only approved about two weeks ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. MR. GIBLIN: And that would be something to look at when the interlocals come up for -- for reapproval. They're each on a three-year cycle with Marco's coming up later this year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so would you be an advocate of them including GAP housing as an -- as an opportunity to buyout or would you exclude that and allow those types of homes to be built within those communities even though it's within the definition of affordable work force? MR. GIBLIN: I'm not sure I understand your question in terms of allowing them to buyout. Right now, for example, the agreement we have with Marco Island is that they make a payment to Collier County quarterly of 10 percent of their building permit fees. That is whether it be residential, commercial. Whatever building permits were pulled on Marco Island, they pay Collier County 10 percent of that total on a quarterly basis not to -- not to be less than $50,000 per year. For the past three years it's -- it's averaged about $125,000 per year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in return they're not Page 131 March 16, 2006 compelled to build any work-force housing? MR. GIBLIN: In return the state does not hold them responsible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm referring to and that's -- if that makes it clearer to you, that's what I was talking about buyout. They're not required to build homes, that type of housing there? I hope -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- we understand each other. My question to you is to think about is the GAP housing and what the implications are there when you do come to renewal of agreement whether or not now that it's been included within your purview, whether or not that will be an encumbrance or whether that will be something else that -- that pops up? MR. GIBLIN: We'll keep that in mind also -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. GIBLIN: -- with the -- with the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I would like to see something. It's good to say we want to produce 500 or 1,000 units of affordable housing a year, but that looks as though we're actually getting ahead by that amount. We're not taking into account the loss of housing. Because all the housing that -- almost all the housing that's -- that's destroyed or has to be demolished or whatever because it doesn't meet code is low-income housing. And the result is that we're losing lots and lots of houses that were low-income especially after Wilma. And in Immokalee what's going on is that a lot of houses because of the terrible shortage of farm worker housing, what used to be families, there's one two houses down from mine. It used to be a family of three kids and two parents who lived there. They moved out and now there's nine single men in there. And that's going on all Page 132 March 16, 2006 over Immokalee where they're just -- even Habitat for Humanity houses I know of where they've just been taken over by single men. So can you put in something there that you're not -- that takes into account the loss of the housing. MR. GIBLIN : Yes. And I was briefly flipping through. I -- I thought one of the later policies addressed that because I have had conversations with -- with our code enforcement department. And in terms of tracking that, how many units have come out of service every year and that question has been asked in the past by our Affordable Housing Commission. And so it is something that we're trying to keep an eye on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But shouldn't it be included when you're counting about a gain of 500 or 1,000 houses, shouldn't you subtract what's lost? MR. GIBLIN: I agree. And another -- another loss in addition to storm related or trailer condemnations would be current affordable rental apartments converting to unaffordable condos. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's another problem. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I really have what I think is an extremely serious question here. How do we ever plan to get ahead of the game if you are only requiring areas like Marco Island and the City of Naples to contribute $125,000 toward affordable housing? These are the people -- these are the areas that demand the services of these people. We're taking on all of this burden in the county for $125,000? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, that -- that was the deal that the Board of County Commissioners entered into with each of them. I think the City of Naples agreement's going on maybe nine years now and this will be the first three years of -- of the Marco Island agreement. And it was necessary for each of them to come to the Page 133 March 16, 2006 county to partner on the housing element for their plans to be approved. So certainly we do have a bargaining chip over each of them. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me tell you, I mean, it's sort of a classic thing that happened recently when you had your affordable housing workshop was you had the City of Naples. The hospital was there sitting at that table saying how much they need housing for their nurses and -- and even some doctors and technicians. And yet they had just sold property that they owned to Jack Antaramian to build housing and not one unit was affordable. I mean, I just don't understand the logic that's going on here. Where is the thinking? And the only answer that ever comes out on anything is, let's give the developers a density bonus. I mean, I'm just -- I'm shocked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I share your shock. I certainly do. I had no idea that marketplaces like Marco Island and Naples which are the attraction are getting off so lightly and we're carrying the burden. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm so surprised. I'm glad I brought it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars doesn't cover one house for one person servicing one -- one lobby of one hotel on Marco Island. It doesn't make any sense at all. MR. GIBLIN: I -- I agree with the -- with your -- your conversation. And just that the -- the concept of providing high-cost areas the ability to partner with the overall county to share in that housing situation is -- is not unique to Collier County. Like, you know, Sanibel, Captiva, they all have interlocal agreements with Lee County. So it is -- in areas where it is difficult to develop affordable housing like Marco Island, like the City of Naples is not an uncommon avenue for them to look -- look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray then Mr. Schiffer. Page 134 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then on specific under Policy 1.2, then, I think you need to look at the wording. Because it says that municipalities will work together to accomplish the communitywide goal creating a sufficient supply of market rate. I'm not sure, then, that those interlocal agreements constitute an adequate venture together. And if you look at Policy 1.4 on the following page, although I know I'm ahead, and, again, it relates to agreements. And we talk about equitably throughout the county. So I think those things need to be looked at because, if not, then the attention brought to them at some point will make this look fallacious. I'm probably too strong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, on the -- and, again, remember I still want those numbers just to review. Because I think what we're learning here is we have to review this ourselves. Where is the information? Do you have a web site that we -- that we could visit and get this information? We asked that the AUIR start to include some of the elements that aren't just concurrency like yours. But how -- how do we know what's going on? How do we know what the municipalities are doing? Where would we go look to be brought up-to-date and up-to-speed on that. MR. GIBLIN: So -- I apologize. When you started your question, I thought you were -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you do an annual report? Do you do something that we could be reading to see, you know, where the funding's coming from? Where -- for example, we've been $1,000 a unit's been going. Where's that been going? How do we study that? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Two answers. The first in regards to the interlocal agreements, I can certainly provide copies of those interlocal agreements to all of you to -- to review. The second part was the $1,000 per unit voluntary contribution Page 135 March 16, 2006 from developments that have been approved, let's say, in the past year or so. To date not $1 has actually been received by the county. Those are commitments that are tied to milestones that are in some cases years away. So to date not $1 has been received. When they do start to come into the county, they'll be deposited to a local affordable housing trust fund and then used to implement programs that will be identified for the use of those funds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, do you have like a -- do you do an annual report or anything on your web site where people can review and see the funding, where it's going, what's happening or is it a -- MR. GIBLIN: Our department's programs are basically split between two fund -- two or three funding sources. We have state funds for the Ship Program and that has an annual report. And we have federal funds through CDBG and home programs which has its own annual report. I believe the federal programs report is available on our web site. I can't say for certain whether the state is, but certainly all of that information is available at our -- at our department. And also made -- presented in a public fashion to the Affordable Housing Commission at least once a year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, I got one language suggested change on that page. It's a small one and maybe we can get on. On Objective 1 and I'll read the first sentence. The number of new affordable housing units shall increase by 1,000 units each year, and I'd insert the words "by requiring 250 units per year from Marco Island or cash equivalent, comma, 250 units per year from the City of Naples or cash equivalent, comma, and the balance from Collier County." And then go on "in an effort to continue to meet" -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's a really good idea. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You go. That start's -- good. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Very good. Page 136 March 16,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it might send a message. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's about all it's going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. GIBLIN: David, can our comp plan hold other municipalities accountable for something? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It doesn't hurt to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't I hear you say they couldn't get approvals without our -- without a cooperative agreement with us? MR. GIBLIN: Without that -- they couldn't get their own comp plans approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there might be a hammer there we ought to start using instead of putting the burden on -- entirely on Collier County. There's dead silence from the County Attorney's Office. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would just say that I think that our interlocal agreement would have to be amended to reflect that. We just can't do that without entering into an agreement with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I realize that, but it might spark that agreement to be -- be more realistic. So, anyway, that language is -- does the rest of the board like that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like that. COMMISSIONER CARON: We all like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The commission can take it out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if it's equivalent, it would be a Jim Dandy dollar -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Well, let's move on. How about page 3? Does anybody have any questions on page 3? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: At the top of the page, Cormac, Policy 1.4. I just -- where it says in the second line, Which include. I think it should read, Which may include. Because, again, we're Page 137 March 16, 2006 back to the old sawhorses here. Only density bonuses and only impact fee deferrals are -- are the only thing we ever talk about here. And I think "which may include" because there are a whole laundry list of other things we should be talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem. Anybody? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Marjorie, I wanted to ask you relative to this statement we just made which I support. I think it ought to be in there. If it goes in the comp plan, whether the Board of Commissioners approve it or not is not relative? Doesn't this board have to approve it, period? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The Planning Commission makes the recommendations on the plans to the Board of County Commissioners. And then the Board of County Commissioners chooses to -- whether or not to take those recommendations and adopt the comp plan. So the final authority is on the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I misunderstood that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any concerns over the changing -- adding the word "may" to Policy 1.4? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No concern. MS. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me. For the record, Nicole Fernandez. I just would like to add that it reads further, Which include but are not limited to density bonus agreement, et cetera, et cetera. So would you like us to delete "but are not limited to?" COMMISSIONER CARON: No. No. I want both of them in there. Because I don't want it to be limited in any way. Believe me. And the way it reads now, you could include other things, but you would also have to include or you would be expected to include density bonuses and impact-fee deferrals. You might do something else in addition, but you would be expected to do those things as well. So I don't want it to be limited that way. Maybe we don't give Page 138 March 16, 2006 any density bonuses. Maybe it's totally something that's not even listed there or maybe it's a combination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything? Page 4, any questions on page 4? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2.5, I don't like the idea of crossing out the other housing. I think Collier County should continue to -- this is an important thing. This would reduce the cost of all housing. Reduce the cost of all housing might even help that poor affordable burdened millionaire. So I definitely don't think that -- I think that should maybe read, Processing time of cost of housing and affordable housing and keep into identified areas to be streamlined. If you could bold that last statement, I'd be happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Policies 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 and perhaps subsequently, I haven't looked yet. You're using "and city staff," yet earlier we spoke about your municipalities. Is consistency desirable there? Under Policy 1.2 we spoke about Collier County and its municipalities. Or is this very specific to the city in this particular case? MR. GIBLIN: Again, where are you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm looking at -- on page 4, Policies 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. And it says, Collier County and city staff. And it says, Collier County and the city -- and the city; however, if you go back to page 2 and you look at it where in Policy 1.2 you say, Collier County and its municipalities. I'm just wondering for consistency. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah, we can -- we can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: The interlocal agreement we have with both cities reference a lot of these things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it makes sense; right? Page 139 March 16,2006 MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The density bonus system, you want to just periodically review it or -- or how is that being reviewed? Obviously, that's become how we decide we're going to get private industry to participate. Or this might be the only thing we're using to get private industry to participate. I'm not comfortable leaving it where it isn't periodically adjusted. And also I think there should be a way that we kind of see what's even happening. We've had petitions come through here. We're-- there's no score card. There's no way of seeing what really -- how it is being used, how often and stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the -- the first one you're suggesting is use something more specific than the word "periodically"; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you look at doing that and bring us back a corrective language on the 30th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think because of the problem we have now, at least every year, if not less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else on that page? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Going to Policy 2.10 just a wordsmithing thing, I think. And it starts out, the Collier County operations support. If you go down to the third line toward the end where it says, urban designated areas, comma. I believe the word, "its" rural residence is appropriate there. But more importantly I think under 2.11, consistent with the Page 140 March 16, 2006 county's concurrency management system, my question I wrote to myself, would you ever say no? There have been times when you have brought forward requests for approvals that were inconsistent with the county -- county's concurrency management program because it was a need that was deemed to be more significant or at least equal to the contradicting or conflicting issues. So I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I'm wondering in that case, will continue to coordinate, local utility provides and ensure the necessary infrastructure, I'm not really clear what you're saying there. Consistent with county's concurrency management system. Is it -- is it that you -- you -- if you were talking about building in an area where the infrastructure was not there, you would say no? MR. GIBLIN: I think that's the intent of this is that we wouldn't allow a very large affordable housing development to be located somewhere that isn't on water or sewer infrastructure services. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Need you say that, the LDC would cover that, would it not? MR. GIBLIN: Or what -- but -- but more specifically I think what this policy is saying that we will do is encourage it or encourage either those developments be located where those services exist or bring the services out to where the affordable housing is going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Provide more incentives. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. If everybody else is satisfied with it. I just had the question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, back to the first paragraph, the second sentence. The purpose of the affordable housing density bonus ordinance shall be to encourage the blending of affordable housing density bonus units into market-rate developments. Would that by the words "shall be to," because those are pretty strong road -- words, does that eliminate the impossibility of stand-alone affordable Page 141 March 16, 2006 housing communities, that being able to benefit from that housing density bonus ordinance? MR. GIBLIN: Well, I think that the purpose of the density bonus -- I think -- I think the sentence is correct, but it also should not -- I agree with you. We should not preclude the opportunity of 100 percent affordable development be built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's what I think by the words "shall be" to encourage. I'm wondering if it can be used for more than just what it's intended to be, shall be encouraged to be. So with that, you may want to look at modifying that language to accommodate the ability of stand-alone projects. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about "is to encourage"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they can come back with some kind -- on the 30th if that's okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, on that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe we do want to avoid stand-alone projects. I mean, some of the failure of affordable housing in other areas and we are kind of new, we don't want to make the same mistakes other ones had is exactly that. MR. GIBLIN: I appreciate what you're saying, Commissioner. But what -- a stand-alone affordable housing development may be a Habitat For Humanity community or, you know, or a low-income housing tax credit rental development. And it is -- it is kind of imperative that those two type scenarios be all affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it could also be Bedford Stivenson (phonetic) and we don't want to tear it down. I don't know. I mean, I guess we could do that through our review process to prevent the dangerous housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think as a concept we wouldn't want to necessarily make it impossible to do that, but then through other Page 142 March 16, 2006 implementation we can make sure it's done right, at least the best anybody can. Any questions on page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question, the Policy 3.5 initiating an Old Naples study. Is that something we're supposed to be doing or -- MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. Those are City of Naples policies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't -- I mean, are they in our comp plan or do they -- okay. So they're a subset of our -- MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Up at the -- the policy you're deleting which is old 3.11, why wouldn't we want some system of at least inspection or something? Remember Naples had a problem with after the storm repairs weren't made. Affordable housing units were being abandoned or being -- people were being evicted from them. Wouldn't we want to prevent that? MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry. Which policy are you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's old 3.11. You're trying to cross it all out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're on page 6. Is that -- that one -- you're on the next page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I went up to the next page. Sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's just finish page 6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Otherwise we'll be all over the place. Anybody else got any questions for page 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's great. Sorry, Brad. MR. COHEN: Can I -- can I get a verification on -- on -- on Page 143 March 16, 2006 page 5 under Policy 2.10. Mr. Murray made a reference to having the word "its" in front of rural residence. I don't think that was the intent of that policy. I think it was trying to be all-inclusive with respect to addressing residents in urban designated areas as well as the rural residents and also farm worker families. I think it's an all-inclusive sentence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true. So you think it's superfluous? MR. CO HEN: I -- I think the intent there was to -- was to address and provide affordable housing, in essence, from what I can read from that, almost countywide. And Cormac can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. GIBLIN: That is the intent. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: The sentence structure I think is improper there. On that Policy 2.10, the third line we state, Affordable housing to residents of the county's urban area -- areas, and then we say rural residents. We should say rural areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. COHEN: And I think that would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would fix it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what jumped -- somewhere jumped out, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Now we're on page 7. Mr. Schiffer, I think you wanted to follow up on your conversation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Cormac, why are we taking that other -- I think we should -- and I think we should be proactive in the -- the maintenance and inspection of these units. MR. GIBLIN: Again, this is the City of Naples policy and it Page 144 " "<"'.'_",._~'~'.... .,,"......,...~"."'>o"'_ "'t "" -A . ,M,;"_'_'_""""_" March 16, 2006 was my understanding that they had accomplished that by a 1999 statement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then can we write, The city shall continue or something? I mean, why -- I mean, normally what we've done when we've accomplished it, we worded it to be an ongoing thing, not crossed it out. MS. FERNANDEZ: Nicole Fernandez for the record. We did have communication with the City of Naples and they did indicate that that had been accomplished and they've adopted a maintenance code. However, we can contact them again and -- and get direction for them also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we should have something in there that it's continuing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you get together with the city and come back with some proposed language after your conversation with them? Ask them for the 250 units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Ask them for the 250 after you go through this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question about 3.6. What's the intent of that paragraph? What are we trying to get at about the large homes on small lots? MS. FERNANDEZ: Again, Nicole Fernandez for the record. That was based on direction from the City of Naples. They used to use the language "mega houses." They no longer use that terminology. And have directed us to change it to larger homes on smaller lots. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what are we trying to accomplish by looking at those impacts? COMMISSIONER CARON: Stormwater issues primarily. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And trying to avoid housing envy. Page 145 March 16,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Are we finished with that particular question? Could you bring me down to Obj ective 4 under County Policies. Just a recommendation back to municipalities again. And then also the word "periodically. " Would -- would yearly for accurate numbers be effective there as opposed to periodically? Are you constrained in any way? How often do, in fact, you do this? MR. GIBLIN: That's -- Commissioner, that's where I was going. You know, a comprehensive housing survey may take eight or nine months on its own so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. GIBLIN: -- to finish one and then start again a couple months later might -- might be too much studying the problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But how -- if you are required to make up dates each year you -- wouldn't you want to have a confidence that the Schinberg information and other factors which you said Schinberg is not all inclusive of your statistical base, you have other components that have been added and, therefore, you have a potential. Wouldn't you want to have -- maybe twice, maybe every two years? I mean, what I'm driving at and I'm not trying to tell you how to make your operation run, but it would seem to me you'd want to be more clear than periodically because what is periodically? MR. GIBLIN: Let me ask a question. When you say we're going to be updating every year, getting -- updating what every year? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know those units, the 30,000 units that you -- that information comes to you -- part of that would be associated with this, would it not? MR. GIBLIN: In an indirect way. I mean, this would identify those units that are falling off of the -- you know, that are being dilapidated or repaired. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which would tell you how Page 146 March 16, 2006 important it is to get your number -- I mean, in some way it's part of the total package. I recognize these are all burdens in terms of workload, but I would think you'd want to be more clear than periodically unless you want to say -- well, it's your choice. I mean CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't -- why don't they come-- why don't you let -- why don't staff come back on the 30th with a clean -- we've asked for the word "periodically" in other areas to be cleaned up. Why don't you look it over and come back with a suggestion to clean that verbiage up? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I also had in that same paragraph at the end of it, what is -- my question, what has been the history, the success rate? Because you have my yellow here is, shall be reduced by 5 percent per year through rehabilitation or demolition. Have you actually achieved your 5 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you've exceeded it hopefully? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. We've had conversation with code enforcement again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Terrific. MR. GIBLIN : We have a very extensive -- a lot of the information that's presented here in this chamber needs to -- has to do with new housing or new developments or -- or incentives for -- for new homeownership. But fully about half of the staff in -- in our department is dedicated to homeowner repairs and rehab and rehabilitation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And some of these same people are the ones that need the right homes, the new homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just not sure with this statement, within certain targeted areas. What are you trying to say Page 147 March 16, 2006 there? MR. GIBLIN: We're saying that we can't undertake a housing study of the entire county at one time. So it would target certain areas, be it -- we've recently done a specific housing study for the Immokalee community. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For some -- for some reason the word in this thing, the word "targeting" is rather offensive. And I don't think there's any reason in any area. You don't need to label it with a target. MR. GIBLIN: What this -- that language specifically is also included in what we call our -- our -- our CDBG action plan. We have specific targeted neighborhoods, targeted areas. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Specific areas is the same thing. You have a specific area in mind. I'm only saying leave out the word "targeted." You don't need it. MR. GIBLIN: The word "targeted" area, the term "targeted area" is a term that we use in other documents and they are specifically enumerated. I under -- I under -- I know what you're saying, that it has a certain connotation to it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. And you can have them and all you have to do is still say -- you're making the statement. You know what you want. So to just say certain targeted areas would accomplish the same thing because you know you're targeted. Just not being in writing. At least that's what I feel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure you guys will cogitate on it for a little bit before you come back here March 30th. The Policy 4.1 where you utilize the periodic comprehensive housing inventory, since you reference the housing inventory in the prior paragraph, could you just simply say, Utilizing the most recent comprehensive housing inventory? Because you're going to redefine the word up above. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. Page 148 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8, any questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, since the last time we did this -- this was done seven years ago, Marco's become a city. Is that why -- how come we're not including this as a city, just Naples? Should we not be -- or should "city" be pleural? MR. GIBLIN: It really depends on where in the document we're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right in this area here (indicating). In other words, obviously when this was written the City of Naples existed so we, therefore, shared comprehensive wording. But should we -- what should we be -- how do we handle Marco? Are we going to handle it the same way or are we going to -- MR. GIBLIN: Well, in some instances it is applicable to say Collier County and its municipalities has been identified. But some instances as where we define city policies -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. GIBLIN: -- would be specific only to the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But does the City of Marco have a similar policy? MR. GIBLIN: No, they don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they don't have a housing policy? MR. GIBLIN: Their policy is to piggyback onto the county's policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they don't because they simply give us $125,000 a year? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. That's how they accomplish that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's how they buy in. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, the distinction is the City of Naples and Collier County agreed back in 1989 and continues to have a joint housing element. And that's why we have specific Page 149 March 16, 2006 policies as you're seeing here for the City of Naples and then those that apply to the county or to both. But the City of Marco Island and Everglades City do not have such a joint element with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that explains it. I'm not sure it makes it right, but it does explain it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you approached them to get them to come in and join in these policies or are they -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For David, if that is combined and they request those funds together, now don't they get more money back by cooperating with us? So, actually, they make more money than they actually spend out or at least it used to work -- by joining with the counties, they end up getting more funds back. The county does. The county can give them more money than they actually put in. MR. GIBLIN: That has to do with our federal entitlement funds, the CDBG program. The City of Naples used to have to apply for CDBG funding on its own. And then by combining their population with the county's and making it a unified approach to the -- to the Federal Government we are able to -- actually they were -- you're right. They're able to get more than they were -- than they had previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer had not finished his question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just saying, have you approached Marco to get them to maybe join in with this? I mean, why aren't the -- why aren't they -- I mean, obviously they weren't covered by this prior. When they incorporated they abandoned these objectives or do they have their own comp plan or how are they doing it? MR. GIBLIN: They have their own comp plan. What they don't have, I believe is they don't have their own housing element. Their housing element is accomplished by partnering with the county. Page 150 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we still on page 8? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. On 4.3, again, periodically. And that's the relocation policy of the city and the county . Wouldn't you say the county and its municipality? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I also have under 4.4 my question to myself, How does that fit with spreading it around? Let's see what I meant. In the event of an actual replacement -- okay. I think we've covered that issue. It's beat to death. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to page 9. Any questions on page 9? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 5.2, periodically again. MR. GIBLIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, again, under Objective 5, since you're still under county, would be Collier County and its municipality? Would that be appropriate here? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tell you what, from here on and the rest of this element, anywhere where you see the word "county" and the "city," could you just automatically check it before the 30th to add -- add the language that Mr. Murray's saying that we haven't got a -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And periodically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and periodically. So there. Those two are done. Okay? Any other thing on page 9? Page 151 March 16, 2006 Mr. -- Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 4.7, why was that eliminated? MS. FERNANDEZ: For the record, Nicole Fernandez. For the EAR report it was moved to Policy 8.2 in an effort to provide updated information regarding the Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Okay. Let's move on to page 10. Any questions on page 10? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm almost afraid to say. All right. No. I'll pass on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We took all the city out of it, huh? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, on page 10 I could bring you an Objective 6. Should it be Collier County shall or is will -- what is the will of Collier County to do this. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shall. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And up at 5.6, the last sentence. The survey shall also review and make similar recommendations regarding any previously unidentified historic structures or sites, were any other have been previously identified and recorded. We've achieved some of that goal? MS. FERNANDEZ: I'm not aware of -- of anything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's -- that's unknown. But by 2008 we're going to do it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 11. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just looking up at 6.2. Make sure we can still do foster homes. I'm sorry. 6.4. The way we worded that, it's still that they'll be allowed. I mean, shall be allowed. I mean, it's a permitted use as governed by the Land Development Code. I mean, you're crossing out "will be allowed," but the way you did it, Collier County shall allow. I'm just kind of Page 152 March 16,2006 talking out loud. I just want to make sure they're still allowed. MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it is. That was just simple wordsmithing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: I think you need on Policy 6.4, check the phrase too. The current phrase is group homes and foster care facilities. But I think group care facilities, if I'm not mistaken, is the correct terminology to correlate with that Florida statute. I know in the future land use element we used that term. We could -- we could just check with the County Attorney's Office. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah. That -- whatever the terminology is in the statute should be consistent with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Under Objective 7, we talk about mobile home developments. Is there -- what about premanufactured homes in the high-hazard area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your mic a little closer to you, Mr. Kolflat. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Objective 7 it just talks about mobile home developments. And one of my questions, what about premanufactured home developments in the high-hazard area? Isn't that also a problem? MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, there -- there are different levels when you say premanufactured homes. Some are certified as -- to the Department of Community Affairs specifications. And those -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm thinking about the ones that blow apart in a hurricane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, some hurricanes that's all homes. But the mobile home is not a permanent structure. That would be covered by the building code. So, in other words, if you Page 153 March 16, 2006 did make a premanufactured home in Florida, it would have to meet the building code. It's not a lesser standard. A mobile home is governed by the transportation department. That's a lesser standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 8.1, is that brand new or is that something that's been going on? It says -- when was the last time this was actually done? MR. GIBLIN: That is an ongoing policy. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's been ongoing? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. We've done that through our Immokalee initiative and through code enforcement sweeps in that area. And the board actually has a workshop scheduled later on next month. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to make sure. MR. GIBLIN: It's an ongoing policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other questions, we'll go on to page 13. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Policy 8.6, I have a question here. Just for the record, do all of these folks have to be citizens? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same notation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just resolved me a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We haven't talked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, you guys. Two words. MR. GIBLIN: It depends on what -- which funding source is used. Certain federal funding sources require not citizenship but legal residents and others do not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Permanent legal residents. MR. GIBLIN: The -- a good example of this would be the dormitory built in Immokalee, a dormitory was used using funding Page 154 March 16, 2006 sources through the U.S. Department of Agriculture that don't require l,egal residency. Other developments that -- that we've partnered in use sources that do require legal residency. So this -- this policy is -- could be used for either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You have a great job. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You mean we actually would open our units to unlegal element -- people, not legal, you mean? MR. GIBLIN: When you say our units, I'm not sure. I mean, again, Collier County doesn't own any units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know, but any of the units in Collier County, some of them could be used by people who are not legal, a legal in the state? MR. GIBLIN: Some -- some could depending on the restrictions that come with the funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to make a comment about that. The reason for that is that the reality is that there are a lot of farm workers who don't have legal documentation. And if they don't -- right now they're just being crowded, horribly crowded into any kind of living conditions at all. And it's a -- it's an improvement for the community that these people have somewhat decent housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I just respond to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under no circumstance should it ever consider that I am negative toward the humanity. I just sometimes try to square off what the law represents and what we intend to represent. And I just want to have it clear. Sometimes I'll provoke issues just for the purpose of reminding ourselves about where we are. MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, especially after the Hurricane Wilma disaster in Immokalee, I attended several meetings out there. And of course the primary housing agency or the primary funding Page 155 March 16, 2006 agency after a hurricane is FEMA. FEMA will not house or pay for housing for undocumented or illegal residents. And so there was a huge unmet need in Immokalee of people who are here who couldn't be helped using those programs. So, you know, it is a dual-edged sword. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 13? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I had a -- not on that -- not on the issue we've already done, but on 8.6. The last sentence, The county anticipates that 100 farm workers per year will become homeowners. For a planning document, I don't think it's really correct for us to use what's going to be anticipated. It almost seems like we're trying to brag about what's going to happen. I don't think that the intent of that would be diminished if you just remove the last sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works for me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Planning means something that we're actually going to do or promote. It doesn't really matter what we anticipate is going to happen. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that sit with you, Cormac? MR. GIBLIN: I -- I understand the comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's it sit with the rest of the board? Anybody have a concern over that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I might want to do 120. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 13? I have one up on top. Cormac, the last sentence, you have the word "observed." Why? MR. GIBLIN: That -- that deals with the housing survey. And so it was talking about things that were observed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But couldn't you just say the program is to correct conditions and leave out the word "observed"? I mean, Page 156 March 16, 2006 what if they don't observe the condition. Doesn't it have to be corrected? MR. GIBLIN: No. It would be, but we wouldn't know-- necessarily know about it if we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or someone could have reported it and it wasn't observed by the person making the inspection. That's the only reason I'm bringing it up. Okay. I think that wraps up the housing element. Thank you very much. Ms. Ford, I think I'm going to prove that I misled you earlier. I think we're going to be here longer than we thought. We can take a break now before we get going on the parks and rec or we can come back -- or we can go for the next parks and recs element. Anybody? Why don't we take a 15-minute break, give the court reporter a break and come back in 15 minutes from now, 3:41 -- 2:41. I'm sorry. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Okay. We'll resume our meeting and we'll be starting with the recreational element, recreational open space element. Unless staff has an objection, we'll just work through the pages like we have the rest of it. MR. SCHMITT: No objection, Mr. Chairman. But I'd like to note one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your name for the record, I bet. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Corby Schmitt, senior planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: In your summary under Recreational and Open Space Element is a comment from staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you bring the microphone closer, please. MR. SCHMITT: I certainly can. Page 157 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And that misdirects you to some extent. The change or the correction has not been made in the recreation and open space element. It's actually been made to the numbers that appear in the capital improvements element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you refer us to specific language on page 1 that you're talking about? MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry. It's actually page 4 in the summary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the summary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summary? We're working right off the elements. Your summaries are nice, but I think the elements are more accurate. Do we have a need to go back to the summary when we're going to hopefully revisit the issue -- MR. SCHMITT: If it doesn't become an issue, there's no need now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. You could have really had us going down a dark path leading us back there. Let's start with page 1, then. We're on the recreation open space element. Does anybody have any comments on page I? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have -- I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a question on -- golf is a very significant recreational activity in Collier County from what I read. There are many, many golf courses per capita. Is there any thought of addressing that subj ect as to the preservation or the encouragement of development and perpetuation of golf courses in the community as a recreational facility? MS. TOWNSEND: Amanda Townsend, operations analyst with parks and recreation. At this time -- I'm -- let me ask you to clarify -- clarify your question. Would that be public golf courses or golf courses available to the public or -- Page 158 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Golf courses as a recreation that they would be looked upon favorably. MS. TOWNSEND: At this time the position of the parks and recreation department is that there are many privately owned golf courses in the community, some open to the public, some not. And that the need of the community is met through private ownership at this time. The parks and recreation department has at other times looked at publicly owned golf courses, but currently there is nothing in our planning to. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But even if they're privately owned, they are subj ect to zoning -- zoning requirements, aren't they? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on page I? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just a question. Lands that are purchased through Conservation Collier, do they show up in this element? MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So-- MS. TOWNSEND: Conservation Collier lands are currently not included in parks and recreation, either community or regional park inventories. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're just pure conservation and -- MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with public access to them? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Page 159 March 16, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we'll move on to page 2. Any questions on page 2? I guess by information, that 270 per capita was actually voted in Tuesday, wasn't it? MS. TOWNSEND: I know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For parks and recreation? MS. TOWNSEND: -- I know that it was improved -- approved in the AUIR process. Tuesday -- Tuesday the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Impact. MS. TOWNSEND: -- the impact fee was approved. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Any questions on page 2? MS. TOWNSEND: I'll note one small change on page 2. Policy 1.1.1 (C 1) will end county population, end parens, weighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had circled that and asked -- my question is, what population and you've just answered that single question. Thank you. Any questions on page 3? MS. TOWNSEND: I have one small revision for page 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: In addition to the list under Policy 1.4.2, Rookery Bay National Estuary and Research Reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Policy 1.4.1, you -- it says, Through the land development review process, Collier County shall continue to encourage developers to provide recreation sites. Are you referencing public or private sites? MS. TOWNSEND: Private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, how are you establishing a level of service for those? I mean, how -- MS. TOWNSEND: There is no level of service established for Page 160 March 16, 2006 neighborhood parks which is -- is what this would refer to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And how do we hold the developer to require them? MS. TOWNSEND: The parks and recreation department participates in PUD document review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But if a ten-acre unit comes in, do they say they want nine acres in parks versus a 4,000 acre unit, do they want one acre in parks? How do -- where's the -- how is that getting worked out? MS. TOWNSEND: I apologize, but I don't participate in that review process. And so what exact formula is used as far as acres per population within the -- within the PUD, I do not know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm concerned about that policy especially with the word" encourage" not having anything tied to it. I'd like -- I'd certainly like on the 30th that to be clarified. MS. TOWNSEND: Most definitely. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CO HEN: -- for the record, in -- in reading the second sentence of that particular provision which has the tie-in to the capital improvement element, obviously, the intent of that policy as written is not to provide just for -- for private parks. I think parks and recreation needs to take a look at the -- the policy in it's entirety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my second comment was leading up to that, Randy. And I was hoping someone would answer in a more leading response then I would have a -- basically, if you're requiring these parks, if they're public, then they need to be included in the AUIR capacities established for how many park acreages we have. Because that certainly will reduce the amount of parks needed and save taxpayers substantial amounts of money. MS. TOWNSEND: Most certainly if they are public, they will be included in the inventory. Page 161 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I think that on the 30th if we could get clarification on that paragraph, that would certainly help. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that same point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When a private developer establishes a park within this community, does he get a reduction in impact fees both for parks and rec or -- MS. TOWNSEND: Not that I am aware of. MR. COHEN: For the record, I think it depends. If it's a private park, the answer would be no. If it's a neighborhood park because that's not included within our impact fee network, the answer would also be no. If you're dealing with community parks and regional parks, then they would be looked upon from a credit perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time if they're being required to create them, they're being created because there obviously is a need, if that need is met or helps reduce -- MR. COHEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the need for those people to leave that area and go to another county park, then by all means, those neighborhood parks need to be included in all of our recreational elements in the AUIR calculation. MR. COHEN: And -- and Ms. Townsend earlier indicated, there -- there is not a neighborhood park criteria within the AUIR. All we address is community parks and regional parks. And there's -- there's no -- there's no calculation for neighborhood parks, whether it's in the impact fee network or in the AUIR itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. That's kind of where this paragraph is leading to. If you're going to encourage someone to do something, you need to establish the criteria. I'd like to know what that is before we go ahead and recommend this as okay. That's the only where -- that's the only thing I'm trying to find out is some Page 162 March 16,2006 clarification on the ultimate intent there. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me try the same thing simpler, though. The county has, let's say, tennis courts so much per capita. If the development itself provides it, do you reduce it from the per capita? In other words, can we assume that the people within the development are taken off of the population for that per capita -- MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Yes. I -- during the AUIR process, Marla Ramsey developed a matrix that I don't know if she shared with this board, but I know she did with the BCC. And it basically looks at a -- we have a set of guidelines. We use the statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide as a tool. Also the national standards from National Recreation and Parks Association as a tool to establish for each different type of facilities. Say, tennis courts or shuffle board courts or Bocce courts, et cetera, a number per thousand of population that would be appropriate. And we do adjust those recommendations that come from the state and national standards in accordance with our community trends. So, for example, if there is a state or a national suggestion of a level-of-service guideline that is considered -- that is met within our community through -- through what is offered privately, then we may reduce our guideline for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other questions on three, let's move to four. Mr. Murray and Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In Policy 1.5.1 you end the second sentence with, On an annual basis. Would an inventory be appropriate more as a continuous basis? MS. TOWNSEND: I do believe you're correct. This is an initiative that the parks and recreation department will be beginning in earnest very soon to -- to keep that kind of inventory so that the Page 163 March 16, 2006 matrix that I just explained to you on a facility-by-facility basis becomes more meaningful. Up to this point it's been very difficult for us to inventory all the recreational facilities that are privately owned or privately offered. And -- and, yes, that will be an effort that we will start to do on a continuous basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you can either use continuous or continuing? That's what you would change it to? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was actually my question too. My suggestion was is kill the last sentence and then up at the front, Collier County shall maintain a current inventory of recreation. And then I think that, should we start putting these things on web sites and stuff so -- so that everybody can have access to it currently too? Is it on a web site somewhere? MS. TOWNSEND: No, it is not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, could the GMP make people put stuff on a web site or is that an LDC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think from what we've seen and the elements reviewed it doesn't make people do anything because most of the deadlines haven't been reached. But I think you can probably request that there be some kind of language in here that allows some public dissemination of information. We've done it. We just got off discussing that with solid waste, for example, where they are going to have public recommendations or whatever. Maybe there's some language that could be added here to open up the statistics of our park system to the public through a web site? MR. COHEN: I think -- I think a more general direction, you know, from -- in recommendation from this body as well as the board to -- to the parks and recreation department to maintain, just like we do on our web site, you know, an updated plan or an inventory on Page 164 March 16, 2006 their web site would be more appropriate rather than putting it in the plan itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure direction or request is how much strong of a policy that would we help, but why don't you find out if it's possible and have someone get back to us and let us know. MR. COHEN: We'll-- we'll take a look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I have my balance of question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on Objective 2.1 it says, By the year 2010 the county parks and recreation department will develop a neighborhood park plan to identify general areas where neighborhoods might request sites for future neighborhood parks. Now, it's not in the level of service. It's essentially intended to be in developments or communities. I -- I don't understand what this will get you or what you are trying to achieve, then. MS. TOWNSEND: In fact, that was the change that I was going to mention to this board. I believe that we will be taking out a reference to a neighborhood park plan in both Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.11. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you take out Neighborhood Park Plan in 2.12, then it would read, To provide an open space area that is suitable for use -- how would you read that or is the whole paragraph going to be deleted, 2.1.2? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry. I'm not seeing a reference to a neighborhood park plan in 2.12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see. The reference is just a neighborhood park. You're not -- you're not taking out the words "neighborhood park. " You're taking out the reference to a neighborhood park plan. Page 165 March 16, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's start back up on 1.5.1. It says, Collier County shall maintain an inventory of recreational facility commitments made by developers. The inventory going to be of public or private acreage? MS. TOWNSEND: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're going to keep -- now you're maintaining the inventory. And on the bottom one, 2.1.2, County shall amend the land development code to require the developer of a PUD having a residential component to provide an open space area that is suitable for uses in a neighborhood park that is compatible pursuant to Policy 5.4. So an inventory's going to be created whether it's public or private. You're going to keep a tally of that inventory. You're going to require basically every development coming through to have such an inventory. Then are you going to include that inventory as part of the acreage to meet the level-of-service needs of the -- in the AUIR for both community and for your park system as a whole? MS. TOWNSEND: To clarify, we are going to create an inventory particularly more than acreage. Recreational facilities are what are important to -- to inventory those privately owned ones so that we know we're meeting -- that -- so that we know need is being met throughout the community whether by private or public means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: If the acreage in a PUD were to -- were community or regional park acreage, the acreage within a PUD would not be regional park acreage. I don't think that -- that one would dedicate land that large. Then if it -- if it's publicly offered, then it would be included in the inventory. If it's not offered to the public, then it would not be included in the inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're going to keep track of these inventories and now we're talking facilities then so we don't get Page 166 March 16, 2006 mixed up with acreage. You're going to require this to be from every residential component. You've got an inventory. You've got a requirement. Why wouldn't you want to use that inventory to offset your facility's capacity needs in the AUIR? People will be going there and using those facilities in lieu of going somewhere else, will they not? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a suggestion. I think a way to do it might be, for example, if the community provides tennis courts at the level above, which would probably be the case, the state, then you could take that population off of the calculation for tennis courts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that's happening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's not an acreage issue, it's if population is being provided someplace else, then they should not have to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why-- MS. TOWNSEND: And now -- now let me -- let me clarify one thing. We -- the -- we keep track of a number of tennis courts to make sure we're meeting community needs. We need to know both what's available publicly and what's available privately to adjust the number of tennis courts. However, when we're talking about the AUIR, then it's not the number of tennis courts but facilities-value conglomerated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know that there's a level of service established that the AUIR is based on. And I know it's a facilities document. And that if you don't meet the level of service through that document's analysis, then either impact fees or taxes have to be created to bring the level of service back up. Page 167 March 16, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: Precisely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm trying to find out is if there's a way that that level of service can be helped by utilizing the counts of facilities within private communities because they are the ones using the residents within those communities. I want to make sure we're using them. That's where I'm trying to go. MS. TOWNSEND: We -- we use those counts to then determine which facilities to put in the publicly owned parks. However, I believe the facility's value needs to come -- to meet AUIR standards, needs to come solely from that which is available to all of the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not getting my question answered. Maybe, Mr. Murray, you seem to want to talk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm concerned now with the flip side of that issue. If you have tennis courts and these are essentially all designated in private areas. You've got tennis courts in there and you use that to offset the need in the community for tennis courts, then the community is essentially deprived of that amenity and that opportunity for that recreation. Then they would be forced to go elsewhere or further away from their community to have that benefit. So I'm -- I'm struggling with this. MS. TOWNSEND: The -- the -- the number of private tennis courts would reduce the level of service or number of tennis courts in -- that are -- that are available to the public, but it certainly would never completely eliminate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think it's a matter of quantity that can play into this. I'll use an example, Bocce court. Okay . You have a Bocce court over in one community neighborhood rather and it's surrounded by walls. And there are a whole bunch of people that want to play Bocce but because you already have one here, you got to travel nine miles to get to the next one. And I use that expressly as an absurd example, but maybe not so absurd. So I'm concerned about that. I don't -- I'm not happy with the Page 168 March 16, 2006 idea of counting private items owned and operated. We don't -- we don't facilitate, we don't maintain and we're counting so that we can reduce externally what the community needs. MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. I don't think it's a reduction at all. It's simply a shifting of which facilities are provided. Because the AUIR and perhaps this comes to Mr. -- Commissioner Strain's comment. The AUIR is still going to require a certain facility's value in publicly available facilities. The issue then only becomes which facilities those are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or which population is used to contribute to the need of those facilities which goes to where my question was coming from which is the part that I didn't finish explaining, but Mr. Adelstein had a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah. How often do you go back to older units to find out what they are developing? For example, we have a condominium association next door called The Glades. In this last two years we put in eight more golf -- tennis courts, one Bocce ball court. We don't know if you ever come around to decide -- to see what we have done. MS. TOWNSEND: That point is very well taken and -- and I believe that will be part of that continuous inventory that we -- that we specified in the language of 1.5.1. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I mean, as long -- it should get into this somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, where I was trying to go with this is if a private community as a population that generates a need for tennis courts and they within their community provide those tennis courts, that's great. The county doesn't need to control them. They can require them and that's fine. When a county goes to calculate its need for its population for tennis courts, are we double counting the population within the community that already has their own tennis courts? I'm not saying short the public any. I'm saying Page 169 March 16, 2006 let's not require tennis courts for double -- double counting population. If you already have tennis courts provided in the private sector, why are we providing them in the public as well? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. My concern rested with the notion that the possibility exists that the county would utilize the combined numbers to modify the need to provide adequate facilities. And I'm looking for something that will make certain that we don't use it as a form of denial in any way. MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to get any further with this one today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5. Is there any questions on page 5? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In Policy 2.1.3 I noted here "shall be designed." Is the county responsible for the designing of that? When we say designed, is that just in the general sense of the word "design"? MS. TOWNSEND: Any neighborhood parks that the parks and recreation department retrofits into existing communities would conform to this criteria. How much responsibility the parks and recreation department would have for the design of a neighborhood park within a PUD is probably somewhat limited. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: It would, of course, have to conform to code, but I -- although we have review to make sure that the facilities are available, I'm not sure how much leeway we would have to specify how they would be designed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got you. What brings up the next question for me, it says, Where appropriate and economically Page 170 March 16, 2006 feasible. Suppose it is appropriate but not economically feasible, what then? Just looking at it from the question of, you know, where you put it where it's appropriate and then you tie economically feasible to it, it can put yourself in a box. Maybe you ought to look at that language a little bit. Would anybody agree with me on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question -- MR. COHEN: Can I clarify for the record with -- with -- with Ms. Townsend. I believe it's a two-pronged approach there. Where -- where you're looking at, one, it needs to be appropriate. And, two, it also needs to be economically feasible. So taking one out would -- would not be the case. I think there's been some examples countywide where locations were appropriate, but when they looked at the land value of some of those particular areas, it just wasn't economically feasible to put a neighborhood park in those areas. So I think that's why the two are tied in -- in together -- in together. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. But it strikes -- strikes me that if it's appropriate, it's not economically feasible, why would -- you know -- MR. COHEN: I think the word "appropriate" -- I think the word "appropriate" pertains to location more than anything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe-- MR. COHEN: And maybe it needs to say where the location is appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think you're better at least extending it out that -- at that level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wrote this policy -- this particular element? Is that written by your staff? MR. WEEKS: That was written by our former staff member. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of this is written-- Page 171 March 16, 2006 MR. WEEKS: I won't throw him under the bus this time by mentioning his name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I've got to go back to Policy 2.1.2. David, I know that you know how to write these things so that they are more implemental -- more able to be implemented properly. If you read that paragraph, it's extremely ambiguous. It's going to require a developer of a residential PUD to do a -- to provide a suitable neighborhood park. I'm just concerned about we've had some ten-acre residential or twenty-acre residential PUDs come in here and we've had some massive PUDs come in here. How suitable -- there's just too many ambiguous terms in there. Could someone clean it up by the 30th so that we can look at it a little bit harder. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any questions on page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the first policy, what were we trying to do when we rewrote that? I mean, the old one seemed fine is that we were going to give people who wished to dedicate land incentives. But now we're encouraging. So is that trying to accelerate that or what is -- what is -- why was that rewritten? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just looking here at that language and it seems to be written again by a previous staffer and throughout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it means two different things. The first -- the old way meant that we were going to give them tax credits and other incentives for those people that wished to dedicate land or to -- yeah, to dedicate land. This one seems to sound like we're trying to be more proactive in that. Is that the intent or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a lot of this element, Page 1 72 March 16, 2006 maybe others that we've had a lot of questions on that weren't written by the staff standing before us today. I can ask that, you know, you share -- you understand our concerns. Could you go back and look at this and get us a new draft before the 30th? I think, Mr. Schiffer, that you've made your point. Does that sound adequate to you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. And then the next one, I'm not sure why we crossed that out. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Regarding 3.16 it's similar to another entry in the document. We just avoided duplication. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which one is it similar to? I'm sorry. I couldn't find it. I'm sure it's there. MS. TOWNSEND: I believe it's in two other places in the document. MR. COHEN: For the record, the language is exactly the same as in Policy 2.1.5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will end the recreation open space and look forward to a red draft by next Thursday. And then we'll move into the intergovernmental coordination element. What's that? What do they call things when it's -- is that an oxymoron, intergovernmental coordination element? We're going to talk about the coordination of affordable housing between the cities and us. With that, why don't we move right to page 1 of that tab, Introduction. Anybody have any questions on page I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make sure, public safety includes the fire department. True? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 2, basically a listing? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Should Bonita Springs be up Page 173 March 16, 2006 here in the top? MR. COHEN: No, sir. It's in Lee County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's a shared boarder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It says shared borders with the following jurisdictions. The city -- we do share a border with the city, don't we? Yeah. Bonita Beach Road. MR. COHEN: Yes, we do. I'm trying to -- just trying to think going up Livingston we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are they going to include it? MR. COHEN: Well, I think his question was, should it be in the first part which was Bonita established within Collier County and the answer to that's no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. COHEN: And then it's listed as the first bullet point of ones where we share jurisdictions and that's the appropriate location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that David picked up on me, maybe he made a note, East Naples Fire and Rescue District. It's in that listing. MR. WEEKS: I recall your comments, sir. Yes, sir. We'll check on the correct name. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to page 3. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. (N 0 response.) Page 174 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be like a home run, you know, page 6. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you must have wrote this one. Well, we got through the ICE. That was the quickest element of this whole bag here today. MR. WEEKS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. The next element since we've done the CCME, the flue and we finished Golden Gate, we're on the Immokalee Area Master Plan, it's lAMP in your book. It's towards the back, third one from the back. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon. Again, for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Michelle. MS. MOSCA: -- the record, Michelle Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to provide a summary? I know you've kind of deviated. Would you like to just start on the first page of the element? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like the process we started unless the commission feels the need to change it. We seem to be able to focus on the areas that interest us and it might save some of your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 1. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Clarification on the Golden Gate one. Since I missed that is there a -- is that coming back yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The final. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Coming back because you weren't here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There was a whole lot of stuff Page 175 March 16, 2006 in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was? I would suggest-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've only got two things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to get together with Dave Weeks before he rewrites that and things that are relevant, he may want to know before the meeting next week for the rewrite next week. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the board -- if we have time today, we can go back into it, but that'll be at the discretion of the board. I don't mind going back into it if we finish up. Immokalee master plan, we're on page 1. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Objective 1.1, why has that been eliminated? MS. MOSCA: I believe it's been eliminated. My understanding is that we have population standards methodology that we follow in-house. I was -- again, my understanding is that it's more -- I guess it's -- it's a better way to do population than what's being provided for in the objective. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So we have another way of doing it? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Maybe if you referenced how it -- where it went, it might be helpful to me. MS. MOSCA: Well, we provide population estimates and proj ections for Immokalee on an annual basis as well as the seasonal population and it's distributed countywide. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Including the housing units? MS. MOSCA: That's how we come up with the population figures. I might have to defer to David with the dwelling units. For the population, do we provide those as well or -- Page 176 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm familiar with the population. I see those figures a lot. But an inventory of the housing stock, I think it's important to maintain that so that we know where we are. How much we're losing. How much we're gaining and the population changes. MS. MOSCA: And that may be accomplished with the housing element. I think this policy's related to that in the housing element. We discussed that earlier. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we can move to page 2. Any questions on page 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we move to page 3. Any questions on page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused at something. I'm looking at what came over the Internet. And I see at page 3 here -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're not using those today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're not bothering with this at all? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean, Mr. Murray, I haven't had time for any of that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I either. I just -- I got confused because they didn't correlate. Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffs going to include what was sent out last night in the rewrite that's coming to us next week. Page 1 77 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 4, Michelle, I have one on Policy 2.2. Collier County staff in cooperation with various Immokalee community groups. And the word is "shall" seek partnership opportunities with the local redevelopment agency. Now, I'm wondering if that "shall" ought to be "may." I'm not sure-- I don't know what the community redevelopment agency is in regards to how it operates in Immokalee, but is it something that we want to make as a mandatory partnership with the county or does the county want to be able to have -- do things on its own or with other agencies? MR. CO HEN: Mr. Chairman, for the -- for the record, right now the community redevelopment agency by -- by law in Collier County is the Board of County Commissioners. That's how it's set on out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: It -- well, the agency itself. In Immokalee it's the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board. So when we talk about the agency in this context, in essence at this point in time we are talking about the Board of County Commissioners serving in that capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if I read that, then, does it mean staffs currently not cooperating with the Board of County Commissioners? I mean, honestly, why are we putting it in here that staff has to cooperate with the BCC? Aren't they -- I mean, isn't that what they're supposed to do? MR. COHEN: I think what it probably should read, because I think the intent was for the cooperation to occur with the Redevelopment Area Advisory Board -- correct me if I'm not -- wrong, Michelle. MS. MOSCA: The advisory committee I would suggest is that. MR. COHEN: Okay. We'll go ahead and we'll rewrite that policy accordingly. Page 178 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any questions on page 5? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. Policy -- I'm sorry. It looks like Roman numeral II, three, two, why was that deleted on the second paragraph on page 5? MS. MOSCA: My notes indicate that the board already has the ability to do this. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. The last paragraph where it says that the BCC recognizes the need to support the agricultural industry shall ensure an adequate number of decent, safe, affordable housing units are available. How in the world are they going to ensure that? That sounds like a very difficult task. MS. MOSCA: Actually, we're proposing to rewrite that paragraph. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I wish it could be possible. That would be great. MS. MOSCA: And the housing department had some questions about that as well. So we'll be rewriting that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Any other questions on five? I just want to go back just for a minute to Policy 1.2.2 on page 4. If it indeed should have been the Community Redevelopment Advisory Committee, then I think it makes Mr. Strain's suggestion of may rather than shall even more important. Because you don't want to force the Board of County Commissioners to have to rely on this group. They will. So I think "may" is a better word there. MS. MOSCA: I have no objection to changing that to "may." COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, not that they wouldn't, but MS. MOSCA: Right. I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't want to put any encumbrances on them. Page 6? Page 1 79 March 16, 2006 (No response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven? Oh, sorry. Seven? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm back. Are we done yet? COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven -- page seven we have a question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: First paragraph on the last two lines. Collier County will collect data resulting from the Immokalee Housing Initiative Program survey, respond to the housing needs identified to identify the current housing documents in order to address the affordable housing in the area. In the housing study of Immokalee by county which will reduce the cost of housing development for very low and very low income individuals, why was that last sentence removed? MS. MOSCA: What we've done here -- actually, there's a change to this language as well. The -- let me first address the phased study that has been completed. So we'll be changing that to Collier County has collected and will use this data. And then if you look at the newly proposed language, will use a catchall "affordable work force" which would include those categories. So we've deleted that last line. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 7? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to back up to page 6, if you don't mind. I had one question on Policy 2.1.2. It refers to blighting influences. Do we know what those are? MS. MOSCA: We do, but how do you describe them? Someone help me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm wondering if there's a better way. It's -- I don't know how -- how that -- what's that -- how that's going to play out in implementation? David, who wrote this? Page 180 March 16, 2006 MS. MOSCA: This is existing language. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, it's existing language and I'm sure the rationale for it is because of the redevelopment area that exists out in Immokalee and the reference in the redevelopment statute to urban -- to the blight is one of the reasons for establishing a redevelopment area. That's why it's there. I have a problem with the language because the state is changing the meaning of the words "blight" in terms of that statute as well too. So I think we need to take a look at that statute and rewrite it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are going to be a lot of things to be considered by a lot of people as blighting influences so... COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a vague term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My pickup truck by some. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're on page 8 now. Anybody have any questions on page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now page 10? MS. MOSCA: The staff does has -- have a correction on page 10 under that policy. Amanda had mentioned previously about the neighborhood park plans. So we will take a look at removing that as well as Objective 2.1 which refers to the neighborhood park plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page II? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 13? Well, if I'm going too fast, say something. I'm assuming that if anybody had an area they were going to question, they would have had it highlighted or circled by now. Page 181 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're not shy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're not shy. Don't worry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 14? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to get this straight, what are the densities going to be since you're rewriting the density chapters. Essentially there's going to be a base of four. You could get up to four more in some cases by right by building affordable housing and then that's it. It's capped out at eight in Immokalee? MS. MOSCA: By right, no. You're allowed up to 16 units per acre unless it's capped. If it's not affordable housing and it's capped within the subdistrict. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. MOSCA: So with the affordable housing, that would get you up to possibly the 16. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And transient lodging -- lodging you've increased to ten. That's on page 14, like, in the middle. It's from eight to ten. MS. MOSCA: That's for the recreational tourist subdistrict, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's like hotels or is that -- RT is generally a residential tourist. So it can have hotels or does it have a conversion if you go to -- MS. MOSCA: Hotels, bed and breakfasts, those types of facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In Immokalee, who's living in RT units, Paul? MS. MOSCA: RT is around Lake Trafford area. We're actually talking about the subdistrict -- oh, I'm sorry . We're just talking about the subdistrict. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But why did you Page 182 March 16, 2006 increase it just out of curiosity? MS. MOSCA: Well, the board had sanctioned a group similar to the Golden Gate Restudy Committee. There was one also sanctioned for the Immokalee area and that was a proposal by that committee to raise it from the eight to ten. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are all these changes suggestions from that board? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: That's my understanding as well as staff recommended changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On that same density rating system, I know that at the meeting that I missed affordable housing by right was voted down pretty strongly by the board. But in Immokalee we have a peculiar situation in that we have a severe need for very low-income housing. And I would like to see affordable housing by right in Immokalee. I mean, you may not want it in the rest of the county, but we desperately need it. And I would like to see that recommended as going into the -- this element. MS. MOSCA: And we have that on page 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't got -- that's on -- we are getting to that page and I understand what one you're talking about, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. I put it in the wrong section then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: -- for the record I know in the past when counsel's not here when we talked about doing things for certain parts of the county and not other parts, you raised equal protection Page 183 March 16, 2006 questions, so I would ask my staff to actually check with the County Attorney's Office if that's the intent of the board to go in that direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the absence -- the county attorney's not here, that's what we got to do. So Paul, you're -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm ahead of myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk on page 15 and then we'll get to your issue on page 16. Any issues on page 15? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Well, its reference is also on D, the last sentence where it speaks about density achieved by right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yup, sure is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we could tie that into the discussion when you get to 16. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: On page 15 under the continuation of Item A, third line -- second line -- third line from -- from the end of A that is above paragraph B starting on the right-hand side, it says, via -- via conditional use is referring to the mixed-use development. And as you recall in the future land use element we deleted that phrase. I would think we'd want to do it here for consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. MR. WEEKS: And, likewise, I know we didn't discuss it in the Golden Gate Master Plan, but I would assume that would be the commissioners' desire that we check and if that same language is there to delete it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. I think we just missed it. Now, as far as affordable housing by right in Immokalee, has the committee that's out there, Michelle, commented about these particular elements of this plan? Page 184 March 16, 2006 MS. MOSCA: This -- the -- well, the plan itself or are you just talking about the affordable right question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The right of affordable housing with additional density, is that something the committee is endorsing? MS. MOSCA: I don't believe they've seen this language. This was recently proposed over the last, I'd say couple weeks or so. I might be wrong. I might have to defer to David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- is there any way that they could take a look at this and get back to us by the 30th? MS. MOSCA: I will e-mail it to all the committee members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you would do -- if you would do that paragraph and the paragraph on the following page -- we talk -- at least -- or this whole element, but especially the paragraphs referring to these density bonuses, if I was one of those committee members like I was when I was in Golden Gate, this would have this kind of a doubling of density in my community, I certainly would want to know about it. MS. MOSCA: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, go on with what Michelle was saying, we can e-mail that to them, but they will not have a committee meeting between now and then. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: So we cannot get formal action from them, but we certainly can contact them individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, just that you had said that they were opposed to it unless I heard that wrong. But I thought you said, well, they were -- the committee was opposed to having that by right and that it -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think it's been discussed. COMMISSIONER TUFF: -- or else I misunderstood that and you said you didn't agree with what that committee said. Page 185 March 16,2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. That's not what I meant to say. I meant this committee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't count me in. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Except for Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't think this committee weighed in on this -- these elements in the Immokalee master plan. And actually I would have wanted to have you here for that discussion which you are. All I'm saying is Paul's here. And you had indicated the committee reviewed this, but if they didn't review these, it sure would be nice to know what their thoughts were on it. MS. MOSCA: Again, they reviewed the changes to the master plan, but did not review the affordable-by-right provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I know some of those committee members. They're vocal enough. They may want to respond before the distribution of the data by next week or even by the 30th if they can so... MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Margie, we had-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But -- that's good. But really it should go before the whole committee so that it's not just certain members, you know, who may be against this. It should go before everybody, you know, and get a balanced view of the whole thing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They're not having a meeting now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The meeting -- next meeting won't be until April. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Midney, what I'll do is send it to the CRA Advisory Committee as well as the Immokalee Master Plan and Envisioning Committee. They have been meeting jointly. So I'll make sure that it gets to all of those members. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: One problem with that Immokalee master plan committee is that they haven't had broad Page 186 March 16, 2006 community participation up to this point because all their meetings have been on Wednesday mornings. And their first meeting of that committee that's going to be in evening hours is not going to happen until April. So I don't think that the people who are on that committee are necessarily representative of the entire community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who in the community -- see, Paul, when I got the Golden Gate master plan element, I sent it to the Golden Gate Estates Association right away because I knew they'd be concerned. Was this forwarded to anybody in Immokalee besides you when you got the element? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know. Was it forwarded to anybody? MS. MOSCA: I don't believe so. But we could also forward it to the civic association out there and maybe -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would be a -- I think you need to have -- this is a huge, huge issue. This will double the density if it's implemented or it could. And I think because of that, everybody that could weigh in on it might want to. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, counsel has a few comments she'd like to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I was informed by Mr. Cohen when I was out in the hall taking care of a message that the proposal was to allow, I believe, density by right for affordable housing in the Immokalee area. I have two concerns with that and probably have to consult with staff further. Again, equal protection concern and also the growth management laws require that our comprehensive plan be internally consistent. And we have an existing problem 1.4 in the housing element that has a bit of an amendment to it. But it states, Collier County shall seek to distribute affordable housing equitably Page 187 March 16, 2006 throughout the county using strategies which if you change it may include but are not limited to density bonus agreement and impact fee deferrals. So my concern would be if you allow it by right in Immokalee and not other places, that that may result in undue concentration of affordable housing in the Immokalee area in violation of this policy of the comp planning rendering it internally inconsistent which is not permitted by the growth management laws. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think that the people of Immokalee are going to complain if there's enough affordable housing out here. We need more. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I understood DCA might complain, however, because they're the ones that review it for consistency with the growth management law. So I just have to put that on the record as a possible problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it currently available to have affordable housing density bonuses in Immokalee just like they're applicable everywhere else? MR. GIBLAN: Commissioners, yes. For the record, Cormac Giblin, again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short answer. Can you just say "yes" so I can finish my train of thought or "no." Whatever you want to say. Is the affordable density housing bonus by application through a public process available to Immokalee like it is to the rest of the county? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, let me -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think this is by right, though, and I think by right -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you just wait till I finish-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- my question, please? Page 188 March 16,2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's available in Immokalee like everywhere else and, Paul, I guess my concern is why does it need to be by right if it's so wanted in Immokalee? Why don't people just simply bring it forward and go through the process and get it approved? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, because anytime that you have something where, you know, you have lower-income people, there's going to be certain people who don't want it. And the need is so great that if we were to have this affordable density bonus by right, it could improve the supply of desperately needed affordable housing in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm -- I understand what you're saying. I think we need to weigh in with some groups. And, Margie, did you have something you want to finish up saying? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My only point was -- I think I said it already, but if it's by right, then it would probably result in more there than other places in the county and have a concern about that equitable distribution language. Now, I'm not finished yet -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's not been recognized to speak. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We can show the need -- we can show the need there and then it differs from other parts of the county, perhaps DCA wouldn't have a problem with it. And, also, if we could show that it would lessen equal protection issues so, you know, we could give it a shot. I'm just raising the issue because it is an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I agree. That's a very valid point. And ideally we would want affordable housing equally distributed in the county. I agree with you completely. But in Immokalee we have the agricultural industry. We're the hub of it. Page 189 March 16, 2006 So we have a much greater need for affordable housing in Immokalee because our work force, the people who work and live here are different from the composition in the rest of the county. That's why I think something that's different for Immokalee could be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to support Paul on this too. Anytime we isolate an area for a special study, I think, Margie, doesn't that give us the right to do things differently in there? For example, we provide multi-use in Bayshore differently than anyplace else. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That was part of my point that I made when I said if we could justify it by showing the need there being greater than other parts of the county -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's done. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- difficulty the individuals have with travel issues -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's done. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- and having vehicle, it may very well not be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I did put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you can't talk over here because the young lady here is having -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know that, but I'm just saying CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, but you just did it to me. Let's all talk one at a time, please. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those are the points Paul's making and I think we should go ahead and do that. Leave it in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And one comment, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan when we wrote it, we wrote it very specific to Golden Gate and we changed a lot of the rules in the county for Page 190 March 16, 2006 Golden Gate. Immokalee Area Master Plan is doing the same thing supposedly for Immokalee. That might be one way to implement this program specific to Immokalee just like we did in Golden Gate. And, now, Cormac, did you have some comments? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. For the record, Cormac Giblin. Listening to your discussion in the back of the room, quite frankly, I had the same concerns that the county attorney first -- first brought to your attention about internal consistency, concentration, allowing density by -- as much in favor as I am of providing affordable housing density by rights, I see it problematic if you start to identify only in certain areas of the county because it may be at odds with other elements of our comp plan or the fair -- the Fair Housing Laws. That said, though, there could be mitigating factors that could be presented to allow it in certain areas. But I just wanted, again, to caution you along the same lines as the county attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron and Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: As Mr. Spring said with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan we've made exceptions. In Bayshore we just did it, for example, in the coastal high hazard area. We now have twelve units an acre there when it's supposed to be no more than four. So I think are -- you know, well -- we make exceptions all the time for specific needs of specific areas. MR. GIBLIN: Again, not here to talk you out of it, just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. And I would just like to add one other thought. And that is a lot of people think look -- look at Immokalee and they sort of feel sorry for us. Oh, you know, those poor people out there. They live in this community. But, actually, most of us in Immokalee like being a working-class town. We don't Page 191 March 16, 2006 feel anything bad about it. You know, there are some people who aspire to be, you know, more middle class or more upper class. But I think the majority of people are happy in Immokalee the way it is and they wouldn't mind more housing to serve the people who really need it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments on page 15? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixteen I'm on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments on page 16? Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's -- it's in the section on affordable housing by right. The last sentence, I'm not exactly sure what that means. Does -- does that limit somebody from going over eight units or it says a density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved through the rezoned public hearing process. So if I have a parcel that by right I would have eight units, if I go in for a rezone, what does that exactly mean? Does that -- do I jeopardize that eight? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It sounds like it. MR. WEEKS: That's -- that's to make sure that someone doesn't do -- I'll say do exactly that. If you're going through the rezone process, that public hearing process, then you can ask for the total amount that you qualified for. That is the base of four and then the maximum bonus of eight for a total of twelve or if you qualify for more from the base. But you can ask for the total amount of density that the site is eligible for. What we would not want to occur is someone come to the county commission through the hearing process and, let's say, have approved four-unit per acre bonus plus their base of four, if that's what it is, for a total of eight. Then come back and say I want administratively another four units added on top of that. I think that's Page 192 March 16, 2006 inappropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Administratively? MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but-- MR. WEEKS: After you've gotten -- excuse me. After you've gotten the public hearing -- through the public hearing process, you've gotten a certain density approved, then go through an administrative process to add even more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I understand it now. In other words, the public hearing would come first and then I'd come in knocking on the door versus the other way around. MR. WEEKS: That's -- that's the chief concern. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 17. Questions on page 17? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way they're worded at the top, using PDRs, I could actually get a site above 16 residential units then? MS. MOSCA: That's a percentage. David, I'll have to defer to you for this, the existing TDR program. MR. WEEKS: Right. We discussed this with the flue as well. It's the -- the prerural fringe TDR program. The TDR ratio is based upon the receiving land zoning and it can only be a percent, either 5 percent or 10 percent depending upon that receiving land zoning of that density. My example, again, is if you had a piece of property receiving land zoned RMF 16, then it's a 5 percent cap for the TDR that is 0.8 dwelling units per acre. So the maximum density you could achieve would be 16.8 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 18? Page 193 March 16, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page, well, with the exception of the graphic is page 19 . No questions there. Do we have any questions on the graphic page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of do. Has anything changed on the graphic? You handed out a new one today. Is that because there was a change? MS. MOSCA: There was a change. It relates to the CCME policy that talks about the wetlands connected, the Lake Trafford Cam Key Strand System. And it states in the CCME that it will be delineated on the future land use map. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So quickly. MS. MOSCA: That was handed out today as well, but I put it up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Paul, you can have an impact. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It does work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But where is that on the map? Can you point to it or something? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: See here it's in the light line? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Okay. I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michelle, I think we're done with the Immokalee element. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask you just to hang around for a few minutes while we finish up. We may go back and revisit some Golden Gate issues. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Is that okay? Are you -- were you -- or are you in a hurry to leave? MS. MOSCA: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 194 March 16, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, we left in the affordable housing by right in this; correct? We didn't vote it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. They're going to -- they're going to distribute that information to the civic associations or groups in the area and get the best feedback we can by our next meeting. And let us know any comments that come in. MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michelle Mosca. What I'd also like to do in addition to sending the e-mails to the various committees that we spoke about, we'll also put it on the agenda for the first meeting of the joint committees and that's advertised as well. So at least we'll have that information to bring forward to the BCC. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that would be a real good idea. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. That'll be good. Because the BCC will get the benefit of all that weighing in even though we won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. David, did you have something else you wanted to toss in? She got it. Okay. The last element we have is the economic element. It's the very last one in the book. I was wondering why you were hanging out. By the way, Nicole is leaving us to go to Tampa. MS. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're sorry to hear that. We keep losing good people within the county. So good luck in Tampa. MS. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, you skipped the Marco Island Master Plan and though it's very straight forward, we'd like to have your comments there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's two sentences and there's Page 195 March 16, 2006 nothing there. It says, Deleted in its entirety. Okay. MR. WEEKS: I just wanted your acknowledgment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- does anybody want to acknowledge that the Marco Island master plan is not here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the chair -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's duly noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's duly noted. Page 1 of the economic element. Does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2 is real useful. Everything's been renumbered. So why don't we move on to page 3. Questions on page 3? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just -- just almost for fun here. Under 3.14 and A, little A, in impact fee payment assistance program for either new or expanding targeted industries. Are we concerned with that word? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are a couple times it's in B as well. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray, I believe that language is exactly-- exactly mimics the economic incentive ordinances and that's why it's present there, accordingly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem. I know somebody else did so I brought it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 3? Because if we go back to the same Item A that Mr. Murray was touching on, now this economic element is there to entice new business and develop local work force for such businesses. Now, we have this big need for affordable housing. All this work force means new businesses that are coming in, we have no housing for them. Yet under this policy, we're giving them an impact fee incentive credit to come here, create new buildings, add to the Page 196 March 16, 2006 congestion to the roads and work force, but yet we have no program to house them -- provide adequate housing. So I'm not sure why an impact fee payment assistance program is needed to entice new business. I'm not -- I don't understand the reasoning behind that. It seems contradictory. MR. COHEN: The only answer I can give to you -- to you, Mr. Chairman, is approximately two years ago the EDC in concert with the policy direction of the -- of the Board of County Commissioners directed its staff to look at economic incentives. And those are the four economic incentives that were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. And, therefore, that's why they were included in the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, even more strange is C. A property tax stimulus program providing payments to offset the costs associated with the relocation and/or expansion of targeted industries. We have so much here now we can't handle it. I'm wondering why we keep looking for more until we are at a point we can work with it. MR. GIBLAN: Commissioners, if I may, Cormac Giblin, again, for the record. Not to say that I'm an expert in this -- in this area, but the economic development programs used to be located in our department. And to take advantage of those programs, you must meet specific criteria as set forth by the county and the EDC, meaning that 51 percent of the employees of your business are paid a wage higher than the county's median wage. So, in theory, businesses taking advantage of these types of incentives would not be creating a need for additional work force housing because they're paying their people basically what they need to be paid to live here. And that's -- that's the reason for trying to attract these high-wage-paying-targeted industries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Cormac, if they're paid a high wage, that means they buy a higher priced home. That means they hire somebody to do their lawn, fix their air-conditioning, take care Page 197 March 16, 2006 of their disposals, whatever they got to do, wax their cars. Who only knows. And, in essence, they're creating a bigger need for affordable housing by the fact they don't do most anything themselves. They have other people do it for them. MR. GIBLAN: I agree. It's a -- it's a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know too many executives that cut their lawns. MR. GIBLAN: It's a continuing cycle and, you know, other incentives that we have. To get to your question about the need for affordable housing and how does commercial and -- and private industry create or address those needs. Again, we talked the other day about an inclusionary zoning type ordinance that would help alleviate those concerns on the development of new residential development. The county's also working to institute a linkage fee ordinance that would assess a fee to commercial type endeavors again to address those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with those policies here, it looks like these particular businesses might end up being, what did they say, they might have assistance in how to pay those or be exempt from paying those. So while I'm on that page, Policy 3.15, it talks about an impact fee deferral program for owner-occupied single- family homes and structured within the Immokalee enterprise zones. Are those all affordable housing homes? MR. GIBLAN: Commissioner, those are affordable in terms of the parameters set forth for that program which are slightly different than the parameters that we used elsewhere in the county. There's-- they are -- since they're not using grant money or federal or state money, the county developed its own criteria for those incomes and home prices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those prices outside the affordable housing categories we have in Collier County? MR. GIBLAN: Right now with the inclusion of GAP, probably Page 198 March 16, 2006 not. They were until we had GAP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we actually had an impact fee deferral program for more than affordable housing? MR. GIBLIN: We did in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Tuff and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Let him go first. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, just for the record, I'm not agreeing with you on those just for the fact that one is -- some -- a lot of this is directed towards Immokalee, the aerospace and all these things were -- I think there is a need. You know, what maybe is needed downtown Naples isn't the same thing that may be needed in Immokalee or Everglades City or Golden Gate Estates, things that are comIng up. So I think, one is it diversifies an area and brings a boost to possibly Immokalee. But then also as we keep going, real estate builds and grows and all of a sudden the real estate's all gone and done, these are too -- say, we don't have to have a crash 20 years from now, because we have a different source of income provided to this county. And I guess I -- I like these a lot in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't suggesting any language changes. I was trying to understand it so I could write a good story about it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Excuse me, then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as we're writing stories, I'll get involved. Quite frankly, I agree with Commissioner Tuff. These are economic stimulus attempts. And I recognize that the affordable or any housing will follow it. At least it brings the future potential for it. And I -- I realize you are bringing it out because of the kind of crazy condition that it will initially spur. But over the hump, it'll be very, very effective particularly out in Immokalee Page 199 March 16, 2006 where the trade port is intended to bring a lot of -- a lot of economic stimulus. So I know you know that. And I recognize what your statement is absolutely true given the lag time we have from appreciation when we permit it to when it's built, but maybe that can be accelerated in the future and we'll do better in building the housing. My little piece of change there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments? Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have two recommendations both with respect to 3.14 and 3.15. I would recommend striking the words "and shall maintain." The rationale for that is all these ordinances were adopted by ordinance and the board may want some flexibility in modifying those ordinances or may eliminate one of those ordinances. And if it's in the comp plan, they're going to be bound by the comp plan and they won't have that flexibility if they see a program's not working or they want to modify it in some manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objection? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's virtually nothing on page 4, but I'll acknowledge to David that it exists. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else at this point? If not, we're done with the -- with this particular element. Thank you, Nicole. I appreciate it. And as I said, good luck in your future job. MS. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Mr. Tuff was not here when we hit this this morning. He had some Page 200 March 16, 2006 comments to make. If the board would like to indulge him, we can go through his comments and try to limit it mostly his or follow-ups to his and we might get through it in a reasonable amount of time. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Russell. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. Ifwe go to page 3, I -- I say we're encouraging the use of working with the water company out there since they changed the name of it and the community wants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What policy number are you on? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Sorry about that. Policy 1.2.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, when staff -- ifhe gets to an element that we've already discussed or trashed, could you just let him know and then maybe that'll save time too. 1.2.4? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, I -- we want to encourage expansion of that, but -- by naming that company by name, they have been very unresponsive, uncooperative and very disgraceful for our community. And I -- yes, we want to encourage that to happen, but maybe not saying them by name. Whether the county would take it over or -- or -- it's saying that we're going to work with these folks to make their water so they -- to have more capacity and they can't handle the capacity. They're doing a poor job with what they have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the current authority. -- the current utility's authority? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you understand where he's trying to go with this? MR. COHEN: I -- I think, you know, and maybe I can intervene here. Because that -- that -- that meeting actually occurred this week, the annual meeting with -- with county staff. I think maybe it's appropriate to -- to leave the name of that authority there or with some additional language, "or its successor." In essence, if it's bought, you know, on out by somebody else or it changes hands, Page 201 March 16, 2006 which it has done in the past, I think it is appropriate to name them at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we add the words "or their" -- "or their successor," that would cover it, Russ. Is that what you're indicating? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be fine. COMMISSIONER TUFF: My -- my big questions were on page 6. And now we have a new sheet to go with it, but they were both the same. These came out of the -- to me or else I wasn't paying attention, but they came out of the blue. And way back when the Golden Gate Master Plan had met way back when, a lot of these things -- unless you've already discussed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Item B on page 6-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- was recommended deleting -- being deleted. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Got it. Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on page 6 that you may have hit? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Sixteen dwelling units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't -- we talked about rewording some of the first line, but -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's what I had, okay, circled on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's going to come back to us on the 30th with some rewording. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. And then the next one on 3 by right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER TUFF: On page 7. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. It's a strike. Page 202 March 16, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one was struck out as well. COMMISSIONER TUFF: You guys are good. All right. That's all I had. Yeah, you got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Wait. Wait. Let me double-check that. No. On page 8 I have highlighted for employees who worked within the Golden Gate City or Golden Gate Estates -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where -- where are you at? COMMISSIONER TUFF: On the part -- the part that was crossed out under the four for the downtown commercial center. And I was just wondering why that was crossed out because that was the whole intent of what we've talked about. And then it kind of disappeared there. MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michelle Mosca. You're referring to for employees who work within Golden Gate? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. MS. MOSCA: This has been changed to reflect the changes in the land development code for the actual zoning overlay district. It was changed to promote or intended to promote resident business ownership. That was a discussion by the committee, the ad hoc committee. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER TUFF: And then on the top of page 11 I saw the 16 residential units per gross acre, again, there. Maybe you already discussed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any markups on that page, Russ. You might want to bring your issue out. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, just that I didn't see how that could fit in with the -- that was for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a mixed-use activities center. That's consistent with the other mixed-use activity centers in the Page 203 March 16, 2006 county. So I think it was added here just to make consistency with the others in the county. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm learning, David. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And then on page 15 I have a little circle here. Single-family residential available -- on the very bottom residential estates subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We struck the second paragraph in two. COMMISSIONER CARON: He needs to slow down so she can hear. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Oh, sorry about that. All right. Okay. That's got it. Then on page 16 and I just had how and why and who determined that on -- on the interchange activities subdistrict center. And I have to remember what I wrote. Oh, just was taken out of the Golden Gate Master Plan and that was -- was a proper thing to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Interchange? We're not -- I'm not sure it's taking it out. It's in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan section. MR. WEEKS: We simply relocated it. That's why it's shown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And on page 17, I just had a question. It says two point question mark acres I have right in the middle of the page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We fought for hours on that one. MS. MOSCA: I decided we were going to keep the question mark in there. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. That's a good idea. But, otherwise, we got it then. You guys did good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think that wraps up today's issues in regards to the -- we still have agenda, gentlemen -- in regards to the EAR. And I think the next thing that's going to Page 204 March 16, 2006 happen -- David, is it sometime late next week we'll get a draft of the changes for our discussion on March 30th; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What time in the morning is the March 30th meeting? MR. COHEN: It's -- you need to continue the meeting to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not -- we've still got an agenda to MR. COHEN: The other -- the other -- yeah. I believe it begins at 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30. Okay. MR. COHEN: The other -- the other question I have and -- and David can weigh in on this as well, too, is it the board's preference when we complete an element in terms of its changes to have that particular element sent to you individually or do you want to see them all at one time? MR. WEEKS: Well, yes, please let me weigh in. Certainly we could e-mail them to you individually as they're completed, but for your packet delivery that would only make sense to do it altogether. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather see the packet delivery unless if you could e-mail me a new printer, that would work. MR. COHEN: Is that old one wore out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know whatever the board's feeling is. If you want to e-mail them out, but I'm not sure we'll all be able to benefit from that. But certainly we'd like the new packet as we talked about by the end of the week. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd rather have the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it comes in an e-mail and you want to ignore it, then just do so and then we'll still get the packet out as David has indicated. Is that okay? And, Margie, when we finish the meeting I was going to request a continuance of it. Do we want to continue the meeting before we finish it? Page 205 March 16, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, you're done with this part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It was part of to day's meeting so we didn't -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So I think when you're done with this particular piece of it, it's appropriate to continue it until the 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: At 8:30 or as soon thereafter as it can be heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to continue this meeting on the EAR amendments to 8:30 on March 30th in this room? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's been made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Caron. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #10A and Item #10B TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC DATES FOR THE 2006 AUIR SPECIAL MEETING. POSSIBLE DATES WOULD BE OCTOBER 11 TH AND 2ND, 2006; REQUESTING APPROVAL FROM CCPC FOR HEARING TO BE HELD ON OCT. 5, 2006, WITH CARRYOVER TO OCT. 19, FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS New business, to discuss specific dates for the 2006 A UIR Special Meeting. Possible dates would be October 11 th and 2nd Page 206 March 16, 2006 (sic), 2006. Whose ball of wax is that? COMMISSIONER CARON: And would it really be the 11th and 12th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute now. Whose in-- who from staff is bringing this up? Is that your bag, Randy? MR. COHEN: That would be my item in terms of asking you to set specific dates with regard to the AUIR. That consideration would be done and a target date is October to allow you ample consideration, obviously, and the board as we have to have a CIE adopted by March 1st of the following year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when we did this last AUIR, we were told that the new one's going to have to be done much earlier. Looks like it's not going to be done much earlier, is it? MR. COHEN: Yeah. What transpired was is that originally by statute the Department of Community Affairs had a December 1 st date for all governmental entities to submit their AUIRs -- I mean, the CIEs. Obviously, getting CIEs from every governmental entity in the state at one time to review would be a task that they couldn't undertake. So they came out with a schedule. And our scheduled date for Collier County with respect to the CIE now is March 1 st. And it will be -- it will be there after March 1 st from then on. And we'll adjust the AUIR accordingly when it comes to this body as well as the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, you're looking for the October -- let's start talking about your dates. You got October 2nd for the AUIR, which is going to be a rather intense meeting. You've got -- you're suggesting October 5th for the adoption of the EAR based amendments, which are the book we're going through today, but in final format. October 5th is also our regular meeting. And the alternative dates right now are in between. You got one on the 11 th, but on the 19th that's our regular meeting which is another suggestion by you for the EAR based amendments for the adoption cycle. Page 207 March 16, 2006 October is going to be a pretty packed month. It doesn't make a lot of sense to hold the AUIR on the 2nd of October with the EAR adoption amendments going to be on the 5th with a regular meeting. I think we're going to be maybe overwhelmed with several three-ring binders. David. MR. WEEKS: Just one point to stress, Item B under New Business, the EAR based amendments. I really want to stress that those are tentative dates. It all depends on exactly when we transmit these amendments, that is when the board takes their final action on them, starts the clock ticking as to how long DCA has to review them and then when they come back to us with their obj ections, recommendations and comment report. And then we hold the adoption hearings. So there's -- there's -- we -- we cannot definitively control that date, whereas, the AUIR, that is within the county's control. So those -- those dates are tentative. They mayor may not be held in October or on those dates specified. I would further say that because those are regular agenda meeting dates, I would suggest to you that you direct us not to include any other items on that agenda, no rezones, conditional uses, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, yeah, I -- I having read Mr. Schmitt's report that he puts on the Internet every week. He had in here GMP amendments adoption on that date. And I put it into my PDA because of that. And is that -- is that a little different than what we're talking about that we want to do or is that the same thing? I mean. The EAR, GMP, AUIR, tell me where we are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The AUIR is not the same as the EAR. MR. COHEN: I would imagine that Mr. Schmitt's reference was Page 208 March 16, 2006 to the EAR -- EAR based amendments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Amendments. And that's what Joe meant when he put in GMP amendments; right? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So he had already planned that was a date that was likely. MR. COHEN: We understand that's a target date. But as David indicated, you know, with respect to, you know, when -- when it's actually transmitted in -- in the work that we receive back from DCA that it is subj ect to change based on the substantive aspects of -- of that order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. First of all, rather than the way this is scheduled, I'd rather do one to two dates and then finish it and do another one. This leapfrogging from one to the other, I'm not comfortable with. And, also, why are we planning something seven months in advance? Can't we wait? You know, David's saying these dates might be nowhere near it. Why don't we just wait till we get near it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that, but if staff doesn't. I think the AUIR issue was more of a coordination with the productivity committee that we now are linked with for that issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't mind holding off unless the staff has a reason that they need these dates early. Maybe ask us during the summertime in two months, three months ahead of time might work a lot better. Some of us may not even know if we're going to be here or not. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Perhaps once we receive the ORC fee, ORC report back from -- from DCA, then we will know definitively what Page 209 March 16, 2006 our time line is for adoption of these amendments. So perhaps at that time we can come back to you for dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good suggestion, Mr. Schiffer. Thank you. Let's just defer these decisions until we get closer to the dates on it. If anybody objects, please say so. Otherwise, we'll follow through with that. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'm hoping the public's here to comment. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I had a telephone call from Mr. Schmitt. And he said that he gave some incorrect information concerning Enzo' s Pizza to the board. And he was concerned that that may have affected your decision. And he found that it was proper to have the owner/builder apply if it was for $25,000 or less of improvements. Which it was. It was for $15,000 worth of improvements. So long as that was the principle business of the owner, which it was, and he wanted me to ask you if you would consider reconsidering the item and then setting it for the actual reconsideration, you know, at a later -- later time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order to reconsider, what rules are we following? Who can make the reconsideration? It takes one member to make it. Is it a member of the assenting or descenting position. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's a member that voted with the majority, so that would be someone that voted against. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That voted against the majority? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. That would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Against the-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the majority voted against it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As the majority voted against as Page 210 March 16,2006 part of the majority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm asking. So that means -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everybody but you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody but me. You know where my heart is so you guys -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't see any reason to go back and do it again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me state one thing. He's basing that on the $15,000 that they put on the application. So if that was the accurate piece of information on the application, that would be a really inexpensive building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure we ought to debate it unless we're going to reconsider it. So let's just decide if we're going to reconsider it or not. Does anybody here want an offer for reconsideration in Enzo' s Pizza's application that we heard this morning? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Thank you, Margie. We have no other discussion. Do I need a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move you adjourn. The meeting be adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded and we're over. Thank you all. Page 211 March 16, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:04 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY DANIELLE AHREN AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 212