Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/07/2006 R December 7, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 7, 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 Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff Paul Midney ( absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 19,2006, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-2006-AR-9962, Wal-Mart Stores East L.P., represented by Boice-Raidl-Rhea Architects, requesting a variance to Section 5.06.04.C.a. to allow 13 additional wall signs in the Wal-Mart Supercenter. The subject property is located at 5420 Cormorant Ave, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) B. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-l 0 150, Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P .A., request a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 zoning district (RMF-6[ with a limit of 4 homes/ per acre]) for a 4.61::1:: acre project known as Scenic Woods. The property is located on the south side of Wolfe Road approximately VI mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 11/2/06 1 C. Petition: SV -2006-AR-9400, David Torres, of Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC, represented by Robert 1. Mulhere, of RWA, Inc. requesting an After-The-Fact Sign Variance for the Swamp Buggy Races/Florida Sports Park. The Sign Variance requested is to allow the existing non-conforming (Location, Size and Height) off premise sign to exist at its existing location for a period of not more than a maximum of three years. The subject property is Collier County public Right-of-Way (ROW) Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Big Cypress Basin easement along Collier Boulevard is located on the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) D. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-64 17, Ronald Benderson et ai, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzill & Andress LPA, requesting to rezone 1- 75/Alligator Alley from PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD. The proposed PUD amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the preserve/water management area from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to I 1.4 acres; to delete residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a new list of commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-] through C-4 Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD Master Plan to depict the footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to modify the circulation system; to establish a maximum number of square feet allowed to 265,000; to relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to reduce the 50 foot perimeter setback to 25 feet. The property, consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 1-75. The subject property is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) E. Petition: PUDA-2005-AR-78 I 8, Freeland and Schuh, Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, are requesting an amendment to the Pine View PUD to permit automotive sales within the PUD and increase the allowable building height from 35' to 45'. The project will provide a driveway connection between the Pine Ridge Center East and West PUD's and Whippoorwill Lane. The property, consisting of 15.58 acres, is located on the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS I 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12/7/06 eepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the December 7th Planning Commission meeting. If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please provide the ro II call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER 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? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are addenda to the agenda. Mr. Schiffer, I know you have an issue that's come up. How would you feel about adding it to new business, number 10? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will be an LDC discussion. Certainly in the last LDC amendment cycle; is it not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We also received -- I received it yesterday and I really haven't had time to go through it -- a suggested new methodology for population that's being provided to the Board of County Commissioners. It's in response to DCA's objection to the EAR. It theoretically, I imagine, isn't responding to our comments about the A UIR. This was something that was generated prior to those. So I'm not sure if we'll be discussing or not or if it was provided just for our information. Let's see. If anybody has read it and wants to discuss it, we can do so under old business later today, otherwise -- I mean, it's just informational at this point. It hasn't changed anything from what I could see. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Next item is Planning Commission absences. And Ray, there were a series of dates set aside in the calendar for finishing up AUIR and the EAR, and I'm wondering how many dates are really valid. Our next real meeting is 21 st of December. So first off, let's see if everybody -- do we have -- anybody know if they're going to not be here on the 21 st? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will not be here. Page 3 December 7,2006 Anybody else? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then at least we know we have a quorum. Ray, I think one of the dates I had down was the 15th. Was that -- is anything happening on the 15th? MR. BELLOWS: On the calendar that I have, it doesn't show any meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any meetings scheduled between now and the next regular meeting on the 21 st? MR. BELLOWS: I don't see one on this calendar, but I will verify with Mr. Schmitt and send you something if there is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other thing is is staffhad sent out Marcia Kendall earlier this week a requested date change for the '05 GMP cycle amendments, and they asked if we could respond to the various dates for the change. I thought since we're all here today we -- anybody -- if everybody's received it, I'll read basically what it says, and then we can respond today and have it on record. The GMP cycle hearings will begin on February 20, 2007. Now, this is in lieu of the 19th. They were going to begin on the 19th. The 19th is cancelled. They're going to begin on February 20th. They would -- and they're asking if we could check our calendars for March 5th as a continuation date. So with that in mind, how are the rest of us sitting on March 5th? Is anybody __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did respond positive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else -_ COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I did too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm good. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So March 5th works for all of us, so -- and then they listed other dates if March 5th wasn't any good. Page 4 December 7,2006 We can bypass those. So the GMP cycle amendments for '05 will be February 20th and March 5th. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 19,2006, REGULAR MEETING Okay. Approval of minutes from October 19,2006, Regular Meeting? Anybody want to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries . Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME Page 5 December 7,2006 There are no BCC reports or recaps available at this time. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Next would be the chairman's report. And I had a couple of things. I'm trying to talk slower today. Terri has provided all of us with an incentive to talk slower, her homemade buckeyes. These are a delicacy. Probable during our break we'll try to participate. Thank you, Terri. And Kay has a new toy over in video, and wish -- when something's on the screen like this, they can have a sub picture of us on that -- or whoever's speaking on the screen at the same time. So, Kay, I hope we provide you with ample opportunity to enjoy your new toy today. And I'm sure that was a result of the approval of the AUIR from last year. And Terri, I will try real hard to talk real slow, as I'm sure all the rest of us will. Now, as far as advertised public hearings today, for those members of the public who aren't here, there were three petitions that were scheduled. Last week they were announced to be continued. One is the -- and I'll read them off. Petition SV-2006-AR-9400. That's David Torres of the Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC. It's the one involving the small buggy races and the Florida Sports Park. That has been continued. The second one was PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417. That's with Ronald Benderson, et aI, Trustee. That's for the Alligator Alley PUD commercial area. And the third one that was continued was petition PUDA-2005-AR-7818, Freeland and Schuh for the Pine View PUD. Page 6 December 7, 2006 This was the one that was in yesterday's paper announcing it was going to be heard today, but it was continued last week. So that one, again, is not going to be heard today. So for anybody watching or anybody in the audience that may be interested, those last three items on our agenda have been continued. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, do we have a date for those yet or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we've got a date for all three. Some are being continued to the 21 st, but I'm not sure if all of them are. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. I have been in contact with the planner and he indicated that they're all going to be rescheduled to December 21 st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You need to pull the mike a little MR. BELLOWS: They will all be continued to December 21st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the objective there is, we're probably supposed to be in better moods because it's closer to Christmas. Be forewarned, it isn't going to do any good, so -- okay. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2006-AR-9962. W AL-MART STORES EAST. L.P. With that, we'll move into our regular advertised public hearings, the first of which is petition SV-2006-AR-9962, Wal-Mart Stores East LP, that's for the Wal-Mart SuperCenter at 5420 Cormorant Avenue. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this proj ect, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any disclosures from the Planning Commission? Page 7 December 7,2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll go straight into the presentation by the applicant. MS. COVINGTON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. COVINGTON: My name is Chelsea Covington on behalf ofWal-Mart. I'm with the architect firm that represents Wal-Mart. Do I need to state name and address or anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You stated-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you pull the mike a little closer, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You stated your name, that's-- MS. COVINGTON: The address doesn't matter, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think -- Marjorie; the address isn't required, is it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, just a name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a name's fine. MS. COVINGTON: Okay, thank you. And I did have a chance to look over the staff report, and I just have basically gone over each question that they had answered and come up with a rebuttal answer to their questions. So basically letter A of the staff report says, the planner indicates that the LDC provides provisions that allow extra wall signage for buildings. That's basically different increments between buildings from 25,000 square feet in area all the way up to 60,000 square feet in area, and that that should be sufficient for our amount of square footage and number of signs on our building; however, the Wal-Mart Supercenter store measures 210,384 square feet in area, and that's quite a jump from 60,000 square feet. So to be held to the same provisions as a store that's over three and a half times smaller than the W al- Mart Supercenter basically kind of puts us at a disadvantage, one of those reasons being that a smaller Page 8 December 7,2006 store is allowed to have less parking; therefore, with less parking you're located a little closer to the road, and then also, if they're allowed the same number and square footage on their wall, and their wall's that much smaller, it's basically a greater percentage of square footage on that wall than would be on the Wal-Mart store. It's going to look a lot smaller on a Wal-Mart than it would on a building that's over three and a halftimes smaller than the Wal-Mart store is. Let's see. Under letter C it says, will literal interpretation of the provisions work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? And it says, there are different provisions for buildings of a much smaller scale, but these are greatly out of proportion when applied to a building the size of Wal-Mart. It's only evident that the smaller businesses allow a much higher percentage of wall signage -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, you're going to need to slow your speech down so that we can understand you better and so that she can properly record it. MS. COVINGTON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. COVINGTON: So basically what I did was I did calculations on the two sides of the building that we are requesting to add more signs to. For instance, the south facade of the building currently is 18,703 square feet, the entire area of that wall. The existing signage is 229 square feet; therefore, W al- Mart currently has 1.24 percent of the south or front facade covered in signs. So it's less than 2 percent right now. Adding the proposed signs will only raise this to 2.467 percent of wall area taken by slgnage. Additionally, the east facade of the building makes up 11,477 square feet. That's the total area of the wall, and the existing signage over there is only 11.34 square feet. So currently it has .099 percent Page 9 December 7, 2006 of the square footage in signage. And if we add the proposed signage, that would only result in the number being raised to 1.07 percent, so it's not raising it very much at all. Now, for instance, if you look at an average 60,000 square foot building and an average facade would measure, let's say, 250 linear feet times 29 feet in height that would give it a total of 7,250 square feet in wall area. And the permissible area on that wall would be 250 square feet in signage. That would give them 3.44 percent of area covered in signs, and that's about two times as much as we have on either side already. The proposed signs do promote safety and convenience to the general public by providing direction and identification. For instance, the signs over the vestibule entryways would indicate to commerce whether or not they would be entering on the food center side of the Wal-Mart or the general merchandising side of the Wal-Mart. Additionally yesterday I made a trip to the store, and I spoke with the pharmacy manager, and she indicated that several of the customers are not aware that there is a pharmacy drive-thru. We do have directional signs saying enter and exit on the drive-thru; however, it does not say pharmacy drive-thru anywhere on that drive-thru. People could be under the assumption that maybe it's a bank or something like that. I'm not sure. But basically until customers come into the store and actually see, you know, the little tubes that the medicines come in and out of and ask if there's a drive-thru, they haven't been very aware that there is one there, so that would help identify that for customers that maybe don't want to walk from the parking lot into the store. In response to staffs concern about the incompatibility with properties to the west and south side of the site, W al- Mart is not proposing any additional signs to be added to the west, and I believe that that was a concern. I think she -- I think the report said something about residents to the west of the building. Page 10 December 7, 2006 And the south facade does have additional signage proposed, but it is being designed to be directional, informative in nature to those looking for W al- Mart while driving along Cormorant Avenue and to those already navigating the parking lot. Basically it faces -- it does not face Immokalee. It faces Cormorant Avenue, which if you're on that road, from the looks of it when I was there yesterday, it looked like you would already be going to the Wal-Mart store there. So it's basically to let them know, like I said before, orienting them as to where the food center side is and where the general merchandising side of the store is. So does anyone have questions for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there will be questions. Mr. Kolflat, let's start with you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On drawing A2.2, do you have that available? MS. COVINGTON: I do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And can you see this signage schedule up there at the top? MS. COVINGTON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That signage schedule indicates that there are two pharmacy drive-thrus. Do you see that? MS. COVINGTON: Those are proposed signs. One of them would be -- basically the way the pharmacy drive-thru is, it juts out on the side of the building. If you're facing the Wal-Mart, one of them would say pharmacy drive-thru above, like the part that faces -- that would help. They're going to put that up on the screen, I believe. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let me ask you another question first before you answer it. There shows to be two there, yet on the drawing A-2, which is the drawing, there is only one shown. And I'm curious as to reconciling the discrepancy. MS. COVINGTON: You know, there's actually -- there are Page 11 December 7,2006 several architectural sheets that go with these drawings. I believe there is a sheet named PH2, which is a specific pharmacy drawing that I did not include in this package, that shows the pharmacy drive-thru from several different points of view. Normally they don't go into that much detail on the A2 sheet. As you see, they kind of break up different facades and show details of them but not the pharmacy drive-thru. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, one of the pharmacy drives is shown. MS. COVINGTON : Yes. And that is, I believe, the one that I was getting ready to just explain -- it is -- that you could see from the front of the store. The other one would be, if you imagine driving around the side of the store where that pharmacy drive-thru is attached, it would be on that side of the pharmacy drive-thru that sticks out a bit. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I circled the site yesterday, and I only saw one site also, which confirms there's only one in the drawing. MS. COVINGTON: Correct. Yes, there's a front, and then also the side. I believe that's the east side of the store. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. There's nothing on the east side, but I -- will there be one or will there be two? MS. COVINGTON: There would be two, sir. That's what we had proposed. There's nothing now. All that's there now is enter and exits signs, as I said earlier. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. Let's --looking again at that same schedule, if you total them up there, there are nine existing signs plus 13 additional. MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did you check with that? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. Let me-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That gives a total of22 signs, Page 12 December 7, 2006 correct? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right. Now, do you have that letter of 6/15/06? You have it, don't you, Ray? Would you put it on the -- no, that's not the one. It's the letter. I gave you a copy of the letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say June 15th? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: June 15th, that's it. Oh, I see, yeah. Okay. Now, this letter lists seven existing signs plus 13, which totals 20. Will there be 20 or will it be 22? MS. COVINGTON: I've got that letter actually right here in front of me as well. Let me just look for a moment. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. MS. COVINGTON: I do have that letter right here. Let me just look at that again for a moment here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They're showing that to be two at the south, plus one west, plus four East, which totals seven as existing. MS. COVINGTON: Okay. So there are two signs on the front of the building, and let's see here. One sign on the side of the building. Well, I know that the A2.2 sheet is accurate. I'm not sure if I made a mistake in my letter, and I apologize if I did. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there will be 22 signs then instead of 20 total? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. I just double-checked as well, and that is the correct number. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Now, do you also have drawing C6 that you submitted? That's a plan of the facility. MS. COVINGTON: I don't -- unless it's in Ms. Valera's package here, I do not have that with me, no. That would be the site plan that Page 13 December 7, 2006 was submitted? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't know if it's a site plan, but it's a plan. C6. I have one here. MS. VALERA: Yeah, the site plan. MS. COVINGTON: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, looking at that drawing, which side of the building is the longest facade? MS. COVINGTON: The front side of the building which is-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Why don't you identify that, yeah, front side. Now would you also identify Immokalee Road? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me -- yeah, speaker. MS. COVINGTON: Thank you. Here's Immokalee Road here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. MS. COVINGTON: And this is Cormorant along the front. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. Now Cormorant -- the facade that faces Cormorant, it is the west side; is that correct? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that is the west side of the structure. MS. COVINGTON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Now, would you return to this letter, please. This letter refers to the front side as being something other than the west. It says the south front facade is the long one, which is 600 feet. MS. COVINGTON: It's a mistake. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So this letter has the wrong total signs as well as having the wrong direction on where these signs will be located; is that correct? MS. COVINGTON: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the correct one then is what Page 14 December 7, 2006 is shown on the drawings? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And we should disregard the information in the letter? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Looking on what I think is the south elevation, it's the side elevation, you have the word Wal- Mart above pharmacy. That's not in any of these as existing or as new? MS. COVINGTON: If you look under -- on the A2.2 sheet, under section that says Wal-- I'm sorry. It says pharmacy drive-thru slgnage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. COVINGTON: The very first sign listed says Wal-Mart, and it says quantity, one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait a minute. I'm on 2.2 MS. COVINGTON: In the sign schedule, I'm sorry, sir, at the top right-hand corner of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the graphic for sign 18 is incorrect not showing the word W al- Mart? MS. COVINGTON: Let me see if I can see that one here. Yes, that's correct. I believe the only one shown for some reason -- it does show the five-foot letters of the Wal-Mart that exist on the front of the building, but you're correct, it does not show the smaller ones that measure 48.20 square feet, which would be above the pharmacy drive-thru on the east side of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was that in all your calculations Page 15 December 7, 2006 you've presented or -- MS. COVINGTON: It was in the calculations that I presented, . yes, sIr. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other issue, what's behind some of these signs? For example, obviously food center, I assume the grocery store is in there? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Wal-Mart Supercenter, the main one, I assume that's the main entrance of the store? MS. COVINGTON: Wal-Mart Supercenter is actually kind of centered on the store between the two vestibule entryways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you're right. Low prices, what's behind that? MS. COVINGTON: Low prices is actually a sign that -- some jurisdictions have requested that we change the wording to retail center to better reflect what is in that side of the store, and we are more than happy to do that. It's actually the general merchandising area of the store, and if we changed that to retail center, it's a two-foot, six-inch tall sign, and it measure 54.53 square feet, so it is a little bit more square footage than the one that says low prices. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's -- what is the need then to have words like meat, deli, produce, bakery? People know what's there, correct? MS. COVINGTON: Basically those signs are to let people know the uses offered with that side of the store; however, many jurisdictions have found that the more directional in nature signs are, the low prices and the food center signs, that basically just lets people know which side of the building, and then they can figure out what's in there after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So like bakery's kind of an advertisement? Page 16 December 7, 2006 MS. COVINGTON: Well, bakery, deli, meat and produce, it does -- it does go with the order that it's located, and it tells them which uses are offered within the store, so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you still go in the food center door? MS. COVINGTON: Absolutely, you are correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pharmacy, wouldn't everybody know -- well, you're going to have the pharmacy drive-thru sign, which I think's good. MS. COVINGTON: Ifwe did get that sign, yes, that would inform the public there's a pharmacy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the straight pharmacy, optical, one-hour photo, don't the Wal-Mart shoppers know that by now? MS. COVINGTON: It might be as well as the pharmacy drive-thru, that they're not aware until they go into the store, and then once they go in and see those things, then they will know for their next visit that they're located within the store. But yes, it just basically let's them know which side to enter the store for those uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the garden center sign, let me find out where it is. Is it right at the garden center entrance? MS. COVINGTON : Yes, it is, and there is currently no sign over that entrance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. Thank you. MS. COVINGTON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this the first time that Wal- Mart for this building is coming forward to gain any signage whatsoever? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, it is. When I first worked on this, it was actually a little over a year ago, and we decided at that time to go Page 1 7 December 7, 2006 ahead and put what the county allowances were on the building, and we worked with staff to do that, and decided to, at a later time, proceed with a variance after the store had been open. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the staff did inform you at the outset that the county code indicated what was permissible? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I think it was just -- Commissioner Schiffer brought it up. I mean, I think of Macys, and I think many people who might go to Macys know there's perfumes and there's pots. So I -- when I looked at this I wondered, Wal-Mart is pretty well-known. Now, I do know there's a technique in marketing, that in retail, aisles are frequently changed so as to keep shoppers sharp by finding new things to buy on a spontaneous basis. So you want to direct people right into that area where they want to go and so -- so they won't use any marketing techniques, of course. I'm being facetious. I shouldn't be, but I was. What I'm driving at is that I am surprised that Wal-Mart has chosen to come back when it accepted the signage. Now, I recognize you're entitled to go for a variance, but I am surprised. And I will tell you one final thought. When I read the documents here, or attempted to read these, I found these very, very difficult to follow -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So did 1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to try to see where the signs were and all of what the signs were. It took too long and I gave up. But I recognize I do have an understanding of what you want, but it's an enormous amount of signage, and I'm just surprised that Wal-Mart is here on that. Wal-Mart is so well-known, it has gained the attention of just about everyone, and I'm just surprised, okay? Thank you. MS. COVINGTON: Okay. Page 18 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many actual lobbies do they enter into the building? MS. COVINGTON: Well, there is a garden center entrance, and that doesn't go -- I believe that's an outdoor center, but it is a separate entrance, and then there's an entrance into the retail center and the food center. So that would be a total of three along the front facade of the store, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, do you have any signs on the inside of those lobbies? MS. COVINGTON: I can't speak as to the interior of this store. I'm sure they do. I know that when I've shopped at Wal-Mart, I've seen signs. Now, I don't know exactly what they say. I work specifically on the exterior signing of the Wal-Mart programs. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But the inside signs would probably explain to the people what's in that area. MS. COVINGTON: You would assume so, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's not satisfactory? MS. COVINGTON: Well, if you think about, perhaps, sayan elderly person who's handicapped and needs to park as close to the entrance that they need -- if they need to go to the pharmacy or something like that. It helps people that are in the parking lot be directed as to the correct entrance so that they can be as close as they need to be for that entrance before they get into the store. It's actually a pretty long expanse as well. So if you go in the wrong entrance, you've got a little bit of a walk to get to the correct side. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. The only thing that bothers me most is the signs on the residential area. They live there. By now, they know it's -- what is there. There should be no real reason for them to have that type of signage on any part of the building. MS. COVINGTON: And I do believe that -- the side that was in Page 19 December 7, 2006 question as far as the residential, was that the pharmacy drive-thru; was that that side? And the only sign that would actually be facing them was what I was trying to explain earlier, it was the one that would read Wal-Mart above it and then pharmacy drive-thru below; however, we had spoken about maybe just putting the pharmacy drive-thru along the front facade of the building, and then that would not affect the side that faces the residential at all. Ifwe omit that one but put the one that's covered along the front facade, that would still alert people that are driving in front of the store that there is a pharmacy drive-thru there without putting any signs to face the residential side. So that might be a solution to that problem. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. MS. COVINGTON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you directly enter into the pharmacy or the -- MS. COVINGTON: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- optical or the photo? MS. COVINGTON: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you have to go in either the food center entrance or the retail -- MS. COVINGTON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- entrance, correct? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And all of those other ancillary departments are centered somewhere -- MS. COVINGTON: Yes. I'm not sure exactly how the placement is, like I said, on the inside of the store, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Pretty much the same in all of Page 20 December 7, 2006 them. MS. COVINGTON: There are different variations of the Wal * Marts and how they're designed, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I follow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the pharmacy that you're showing on the front facade to the far left, the pharmacy's not behind that sign? Because the drive-thru's way on the other side of the building. MS. COVINGTON: I know, and I found that odd yesterday when I was in. But when you walk in on the retail center side, it is to the left. And I'm not sure exactly how that was because I walked in and it was over there, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- but the drive-thru is on the other comer of the building? MS. COVINGTON: I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's maybe two pharmacies, I guess. MS. COVINGTON: Perhaps, I'm not sure. But that was where I spoke with somebody at the pharmacy. I walked in the entrance, and it was immediately to my left, so I did speak with a pharmacist over there. And I'm not an architect. I work for an architectural firm, so I'm not going to try to entertain that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, on the sheet, A2.2, which signs there do you consider directional signs? MS. COVINGTON: On the A2.2 sheet, I would definitely say the food center and low prices. And as I said before, you can change the low prices to read retail center. So food center and retail center are directional as far as what entrance you want to use. I would say the pharmacy drive-thru sign, at least one of those signs, would be helpful in directing the public that there is a pharmacy Page 21 December 7, 2006 drive-thru to use. And the others are ancillary signs. They help inform the public, but I would not say that they are directional in nature. They are more informative in nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Low prices is a direction? MS. COVINGTON: As I said, low prices indicates the general merchandising area and it can be changed to read retail center. Many jurisdictions have found that more directional in nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you selling wholesale in there anywhere? MS. COVINGTON: I'm not sure. I'm assuming they do have low prices and that's why they have that for their general merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I mean, you could put that anywhere and it would apply to the same, and so would the word retail, right? So any door they go through, they're going to be encountering retail prices? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing you're trying to do by referencing the pharmacy and the food center is show what part of the store the retail food is at and the retail drugs are at or whatever? MS. COVINGTON: Yes, food as opposed to general merchandising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know who designed this building? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. The architect's firm that I work for; BRR Architecture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the owner has paid to have this designed. I mean, I know the answer is yes. I want you to tell me for the record. MS. COVINGTON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you guys designed this building? MS. COVINGTON: Yes. Page 22 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report then? Thank you, Miss. MS. COVINGTON: Thank you. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. As noted in the staff report, we have done an analysis of all the guidelines that are listed in the LDC to grant variances by the board. In summary, we believe that there are no ameliorating circumstances in this case, in this variance, and that there are -- there's __ the objectives of design in the LDC, there's no special circumstances that ameliorate those. And as noted in the staff report, we recommended a denial of this petition. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a set -- a minimum setback that this building could have been set back from either Cormorant Drive (sic) or Immokalee Road? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that? MS. VALERA: It's a PUD. I don't know for sure. For C5 is 25 feet. But it definitely will be much more closer to the Cormorant Road esic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The fact that they've placed their building way, way in the back of the lot and put all their parking our in the front, was that a choice that they made, or was that a demand by county regulation that it be that way? Page 23 December 7, 2006 MS. VALERA: There was a -- there is a requirement to have -- not to have all the parking on the front, so actually they had to split the parking between the parking that's fronting Immokalee Road and Cormorant Road. They could have chosen to even move further, the building, to the west and locate some parking on the east side or south. I mean, there was -- essentially there was room to move the building and have parking in other places, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they could have moved the building closer to either one of the roadways if they wanted to rearrange their parking? MS. VALERA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the LDC, section 904.00, the various conditions that they're asking about, I reviewed number one, and it talks about special conditions and circumstances. They point out that they wanted to provide adequate direction within a development as one of their reasons, but I notice there's -- basically after hearing some responses here today, there are only two or three directional signs requested out of all the ones that they're requesting for. The rest then, to me, if they're not directional, they seem more advertising in nature. Number two talks about special conditions and circumstances that do not result from the action of the applicant. And they're talking about the shape and the size of the structure and development conditions -- or special development conditions, but yet it seems that placement of that structure, the shape and size, is more from their doing than regulation; would that be a fair statement? MS. VALERA: Yes. Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, where literal interpretation of revisions of the zoning code work unnecessarily an undue hardship on the applicant and create practical difficulties on the applicant; again, they go into saying that it's a directional issue of which I only see a small percentage of the signs directional. Page 24 December 7, 2006 Then they go into saying that the building signs is not -- for the potential that customers will not be able to easily identify the development and the uses within if they don't have this signage. I guess that would apply to every single use within the building then and who needs what. And I don't know if we -- I don't know of any building in our county that advertises all the uses within each building. MS. VALERA: No. And let me clarify that directional signs are not counted as part of the signs that are permitted by the code, so they are in addition to what we permit. So the enter and exit signs, we don't count them as part of the amount that we already restrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They have a statement that says, the variance requested will not confer onto the petitioner any special privilege that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. Did you understand what that meant? Maybe you can explain it to me. I'll read it again. It's number six. The variance requested shall not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. I'm -- it seems to be talking -- says is not -- any privilege that is denied to other lands. Have other -- are we denying something to other people? MS. VALERA: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just didn't make sense. Number seven, they're talking about it being safer to have those signs -- this signage, yet I've read numerous articles on the Internet by the National Transportation Safety Board in the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute where 85 percent -- or 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near crashes involve some form of driver inattention, and they listed the uses of -- the causes of inattention. Obviously the most prominent is cell phones, and that's a whole separate issue that ought to be regulated. Page 25 December 7, 2006 But they also say that reaching for a moving object inside the car or looking for an object outside the vehicle were far more likely to cause an accident than talking on a cell phone. And then the objects outside the vehicle they're speaking of, they list things such as signage and things like that, and street signs even was one. So I really think that the argument that there's needed signage is more safe, I think actually is less safe to have the public distracted by so many signs. I don't know if staff weighed in on that when they reviewed this document or not. MS. VALERA: Definitely on the side that the LDC -- you know, those are the considerations of the Land Development Code, health, safety and welfare of the people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number eight, they believe __ they have acknowledged there are no natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of a regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, or golf course, et cetera, meaning that there isn't anything there created by nature that caused them any hardship, so I would have to agree that there isn't, so they don't have an excuse in that regard. And number nine, will granting the variance be consistent with the GMP. They believe it is due to the information and the directional nature. I have -- based on the testimony here today, it seems that only three of those signs could be considered directional. And as far as the informative nature, the Growth Management Plan is a document built around public safety and welfare. And if more information on advertising and signage creates a less safe environment, as some studies have indicated, I don't see where that is consistent with the GMP. MS. VALERA: And again, the provisions we have in the Land Development Code are based on the GMP, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? Any questions of staff? Page 26 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one argument they have that is kind of true is that this building is essentially three and a half times -- I mean, this is a big building -- the minimum code. So essentially someone could build three buildings out there and have three times the signage that's existing now, correct? So the argument they make -- that they do have a very large building and they have the signage of a building quite a bit smaller. MS. VALERA: That is correct. And, again, the provisions of the Land Development Code are, you know, for all buildings in the county. Any changes will require an amendment to the code. But within the requirements of our code, we -- you know, through the amendment process, we considered all those issues, meaning, you know, from very small buildings to very large buildings. And the result of our sign code requirement is, you know, based on what was approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the threshold is 60,000 feet and above, and this thing's, again, like three and a halftimes the size of that. MS. VALERA: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to take issue with my commissioner friend Mr. Schiffer, but it occurred to me that when a circus comes to town, they may have 19 tents, but they use one identification, circus. So I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Carolina. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. Page 27 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any closing comment requested by the petitioner? MS. COVINGTON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see the head movement indicating the negative. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Open for motion and discussion by Mr. Kolt1at? Do you have discussion or motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: A few things I wanted to reiterate. The number of signs that are requested are 22, which we established earlier in the questioning, and the permitted signage is number three on our Land Development Code. This is six times the number of permitted signs that are in the code presently. The display area requested is 690 square feet compared to 250 feet that is the -- permitted in the LDC. This is about four times the area of permitted that is requested. The petitioner contends that this signage is necessary to provide external identification and direction to services and goods within the building. This is not necessary as evidenced by other mega merchant structures such as Home Depot, Costco, Lowe's, Coastland Mall, et cetera, which do not have external signs identifying internal services of goods. The petitioner also contends that the additional signage provided an equivalent opportunity to be identified as a merchant compared to other businesses. In light of the universal name recognition ofWal- Mart and services and goods, this argument lacks merit, in my opInIon. In reviewing the matter of the case, I concur with many of the issues, items, that the chairman developed as far as criteria necessary to grant the variance. I would also add that as far as the literal interpretation, our Page 28 December 7,2006 county attorney, Jeff, has written, and I quote, for purposes of supporting a zoning variance, a legal hardship will be found to exist only, only, in those cases where the property is virtually unusable or incapable of yielding a reasonable return when used pursuant to the applicable zoning. This level of hardship is not reached since W al * Mart has been and is in commercial operation. Granting the variance will also confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures of the same zoning district to obtain the amount of signage they are requesting. That's all the comments I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Oh, I'm just ready for a motion if you're ready. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That sounded like a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein had indicated he's ready as well, so let -- Mr. Adelstein doesn't get a chance to say many motions, so let him start, and, Mr. Tuff, if you want to second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-9962 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. Marjorie, do you have a comment? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Commissioner Adelstein, if you would just state for the record what provision or provisions that motion's based on for the record. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Each of the items that was said by Mr. Strain just before I made that motion. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Page 29 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I would have comments if we have a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get into that, yeah, because I have comments as well. Go ahead, Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, just that, one, I don't think it's just a -- go with denial. I would venture to say that we should approve with some of the four signs that they'd mentioned, garden center, food center, retail center, and the pharmacy drive-thru, because it is a service to people. You walk in there, where do I go? And like we did with the hospital, we had many directional areas, and I believe four of those are legitimate, and it would be a disservice to this community, one, to not allow some of those. And two is, you know, we can sit there and -- you know, we don't have a good reputation of letting people have good commercial and exchange, and I think one more example is where we just said, no way, we're not going to do anything. I believe the purpose of four of those signage is appropriate, so I'd like to have it approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I kind of go along with the same thing. I think if this motion fails, I'd like to make a motion that would go through and actually pick some of the signs that are necessary. I think one, the "pharmacy" over the drive-thru is necessary . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my objections, as I stated earlier, were in regards to the majority of the signs. During the motion phase I was going to indicate that, through the questioning of the applicant, the directional signs, I think three of them make sense. I don't think there's any need for a sign that says retail. Every store in the county is going to be assumed to be retail. Now, ifit was a wholesale store and they wanted to say wholesale, then I would think that might be a little more appropriate, Page 30 December 7, 2006 but to have a retail sign on a retail store when 99 percent of the stores are retail means everybody in the county should be able to put up one that says retail on it, which would be a waste of our energies and time. So I -- Mr. Tuff, I concur with all but one of yours. I think that the food center and the pharmacy drive-thru and the garden center are appropriate designations based on the size of the parking lot so that the public can generally find their way into the building without having to park on one end and have to walk to the other, and that is -- would be difficult for some people who have trouble moving that way. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will accept those three on the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to make sure we had all the discussion done just in case there was any more. But Commissioner Adelstein has accepted as an amendment to his motion that we accept the direction signs titled food center, pharmacy drive-thru and garden center. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Can you except on a denial, on a recommendation of denial? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Except -- except for those items, the denial. COMMISSIONER TUFF: But you've got to do it the opposite way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, what he's doing is recommending denial except for those three. Do we need -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think what would be better would be to make a motion to approve what you want to approve and then a motion to deny the rest. I think it's clearer that way -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- and you have a clear action of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Adelstein, in order to clean this up and try to work with what's been started, your motion to Page 3 1 December 7, 2006 deny then would be deny all the requested variances with the exception of the one for food center, pharmacy drive-thru and garden center? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we would have another motion after that for those three. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That makes it clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to accept the motion maker's change? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd like to make a comment on the standards and deviations, if I might? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's the first. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I was the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you make the comment, can you COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You were the second, weren't you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get a second -- we need to acknowledge your second on this. Can you do that or not? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Acknowledge? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein is trying to amend his motion, and basically his motion would say he's recommending denial for all the elements of the signage except for the one titled food center, pharmacy drive-thru and garden center. As the second, would you accept that amendment to the motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that puts us-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there another second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say that. Is there another COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. Page 32 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now Mr. Vigliotti's seconded the new motion. Now Mr. Kolflat, your discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what bothers me on this whole thing, this is a continuation of deviations that we've been looking at in the past meeting. Now, incorporation and utilization of sign standards in the LDC include the knowledge that was researched during development of the standards. Employment of standards also eliminates extensive debate and deliberation by staff and review boards to determine the number of e sic) sizes of signs for each and every petition. Standards also ensure uniformity and consistency throughout the county; therefore, deviations should only be accepted if supported with strong and compelling reasons. If we aren't going to enforce standards, we should eliminate sign standards from the LDC and have staff spend time and effort to design the acceptable signs for each and every petition. So I feel strongly that we ought to enforce the standards as they exist now and take action to amend them if they should be expanded to cover other situations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. The motion that is currently on the table is a recommendation of denial of all the variance requests except for the ones involving food center, pharmacy drive-thru and garden center signage. That's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for a vote by-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Before you do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: -- I heard that we weren't supposed to vote it that way. And if I'm correct -- we were supposed to deny his Page 33 December 7, 2006 and make a new one for approval with just these, is what I heard. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, that's correct, and that makes it clear in the denial what you're excepting out so you can approve the rest of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go to the second -- we've got to go to two motions basically. The first motion is a denial of the ones that are unacceptable. The second motion will be for recommendation of approval of the three or four that are. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're still on the first one denying those that are not acceptable. With that, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is just a discussion, and it's down to the retail center one. Unfortunately, the way the building's designed, they have a really grand entrance that doesn't have an entrance, and to the sides of the building is where the entrance is, so I wouldn't mind if we just put the word enter or something on that one just because there is a tiny little door under the big grand portico, and I see nothing wrong with putting something on that wall. It doesn't have to be low prices, certainly. Retail center could be too big, but just enter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure Brad that we are here to review or redesign their request other than to either accept or reject what they've provided. And if they want to come back in with another variance request for another item there, then maybe that's something that would be cleaner to take through staff review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're going against staff anyway on everything because staff recommended denial of the whole thing, so -- anyway, my thought is that -- and we don't have to do it -- it's up to the motion maker -- that we add the word enter where they show the word low prices. You can say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is for Carolina. Didn't you tell us Page 34 December 7,2006 some of the directional signs are not part of the sign ordinance, so they could -- MS. VALERA: Right. Directional signs are not counted towards the maximum allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean enter the building. You know where they have low prices? MS . VALERA: Right. The word enter is a directional sign and it wouldn't be counted as part of the signs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, they can do that. Okay, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Mr. Adelstein, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. The motion I made was to deny all of these items except. I don't see any reason for two motions. Except the three that we are approving, so it is one motion. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, it just leaves it up in the air. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What's up in the area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute. It's not going to hurt for us to take two minutes and make a second motion, so let's just get done with this one and make the second motion and get over this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It may be a bit conservative, but the record's clear then. And I think it's -- you know, nothing's lost by it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Now, with that discussion, all those in favor of the motion that's going to recommend denial with the exception of the three stated, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 35 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three -- five, six in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: eRaises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against. Motion carries, 6-2. Now, is there a second motion regarding the remaining three signs that were excepted out of the first motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, are you making a motion to approve or deny? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Making a motion to approve what you've just stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you're making a motion to approve the three signs, food center, pharmacy drive-thru and garden center; is that correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I would second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff seconds that one. Now, is there any discussion on the second motion? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. I'd like to ask Margie, we should follow, as I understand it, section 9.04.03 in the LDC in granting a variance, and unless we do that, we're not in concurrence with LDC; is that correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, but it's up to the board to make its findings based on the testimony here and those criteria that are listed in your staff report, and the board makes the finding of whether those criteria are met or not. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'd want to reiterate then, I Page 36 December 7, 2006 might even restate, what our chairman gave as reasons for denying the motion and these identify -- are identified in 9.04.03, A through H. Under A, there are no special conditions peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of land or building involved. The LDC already includes provisions that allow extra wall signs and sign display areas for different size of buildings. That also was cited by the chairman. Item B, there are no special conditions resulting from the actions of others, such as the county, that support the variance request. The maximum allowed number allowed in displayed areas in this LDC are the same as when the existing building was permitted and built. C, a literal interpretation of the LDC will not work an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. In judging what constitutes an unnecessarily hardship, I gave you a recital of that from our attorney. Granting the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege that -- such as more signs than what is permitted that is denied to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district. This also was mentioned by our chairman. Granting the variance would make the structure incompatible with the other commercial or residential surroundings. The majority consisting of 13 signs of the 22 will be on the sole west facade along the park roadway and give the appearance of a consolidated strip mall. I feel that all of these support denial rather than approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as my position on this, 9.04.03 has the following language: Before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission shall consider and be guided by the following standards in making a determination. They are not absolutes. And in the case that I'm -- my reasoning behind this is that those Page 37 December 7, 2006 three directional signs will benefit the public, especially the public that may be elderly or handicapped from parking in a right direction and getting into the store with the least amount of distance to have to be traveled, especially a store that's as big as this. That, to me, is a unique circumstance. If every big box in this county was laid out the same way, had three or four different openings and wanted to put a sign above each opening to be a little more specific, I think that's an advantage to the public in that parking lot, not a disadvantage. So I do appreciate, Mr. Kolflat, your concerns, but I think for those three signs, this is a unique exception and I think it is allowable, and I'm going to go along with the motion to allow it. So is there any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those -- signify by saying aye and raising your hand, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five, six, seven. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Motion carries, 7-1, okay, thank you. Appreciate it. We're all finished with that one. Item #8B PETITION: RZ-2006-AR-I0150. BUCKSTONE ESTATES. LLC Page 38 December 7, 2006 We will now move on to the second item on the agenda. Petition RZ-2006-AR-I0150, Buckstone Estates, LLC, for a project known as Scenic Woods along the south side of Wolfe Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard. Will all those raising -- wishing to have testimony in this regard, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter, court recorder. eThe speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, are you a reporter or recorder? THE COURT REPORTER: Court reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a reporter. Thank you. Anybody have disclosure items? I met with Mr. Yovanovich and discussed this issue. We went over the size of the project and the density that's involved and its relationship to other proj ects in that area. Okay. Hearing no other, Mr. Yovanovich, are you going to be making the presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're walking away. You don't know the routine here yet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't know you were going to be that quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you were really short in your conversation. I don't remember too much of what we said, but that's about the sum of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. Also with me are Bill Hoover and Jeremy Sterk with Hoover Planning that can answer any additional questions you may have regarding the project. On the visualizer is the location map for this small rezone. It's actually a straight rezone and not a rezone to a PUD, which is just a little bit different than you normally see. The parcel is 4.61 acres and will front both Pristine Drive when it's completed and Tower Road Page 39 December 7, 2006 when it's -- not Tower Road -- Wolfe Road when it's completed. It was formerly part of an application to amend the Wolfe Creek PUD, but due to delays we had in going through the county process, we ended up losing the contract on the Comcast parcel so withdrew this 4.6-acre parcel from the Wolfe Creek PUD and are going it alone on this particular rezone request. It's a rezone request to go to an RMF-6 with a density cap of four since it's in the -- that's the maximum density you can get under the comprehensive plan without asking for any bonuses, and we're not asking for any bonuses, so we're asking for a cap of four units per acre. The anticipated development on the property will possibly be either nine single-family homes or 18 twin villas, but we want the flexibility to do multifamily if we have to on that property. The density is four units per acre. It's similar in compatibility to the Alias Brothers proj ect to the north and the overall Wolfe Creek project to the south and surrounding us. The entry will be off of Pristine Drive. And that's the general overview . Your staff is recommending approval. It's a small little infill project that's not going to generate a lot of traffic in the area. The roads are all contracted now for construction. And by the time we probably get going, they'll either be completed or real close to completion, especially Vanderbilt Beach Road. And with that, we'll answer any questions you may have on the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is the square footage of the homes that you intend, especially if they're -- I guess there would be, what -- the two-family homes would be what? What do they call those, coach homes or something? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the -- if we do twin -- it'd be twin Page 40 December 7, 2006 villas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the word I'm looking for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, we have not gone that far into the design of how big will the buildings be or how -- you know, we don't know the footprints right now at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my concern was, is that since you indicated it was a small, little infill project, I was hoping that we would, you know, keep the community up there with adequate space for folks and not have small little homes in a small little infill area. That was my only concern. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be compatible. If you'll notice, the individuals who are developing Wolfe Creek are also the individuals who will be developing this little infill parcel, so we would want to make sure that we didn't do anything would hurt that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my central point. And the other question that I have is, in the area that's marked as retained recreated preserve, is that -- is it the intent to have water be placed into that as well? Is that going to be a -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, good. Thank you. Those are my only questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: I must have missed it somehow. I thought I read that the square footage would be 550 or 750 square feet in the units, when I went through this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't recall seeing that anywhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a minimum square footage for the zoning district, but they can be anything above that. I think that's where Mr. Murray's concern was. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's why I caught it too. Page 41 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is unusual, Richard. You're going to go through this smoothly. Is there a staff report? MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land development review. Hopefully you do have the staff report in front of you. And we are recommending that this project be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, compatible with the neighborhood, and we are recommending approval. If you have questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, my only question is, the calculation of native vegetation, they take the gross area of the site, they reduce from it an existing house. What is -- is that how we do that, or what is that from? MS. DESELEM: That sounds logical, but to be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't recall right off the top of my head. I'd have to go back to the LDC and see exactly how it's to be calculated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't it a percentage of the remaining natural vegetation? MS. DESELEM: That's what I'm trying to come up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why they would take the house out then. MS. DESELEM: Yes, it's -- for native vegetation it's if and where it is, so they can only count it if it's there. So it wouldn't include a house or a building pad because that's not native vegetation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're taking the gross area of the site which is totally vegetated, subtracting that portion of it that isn't vegetated and then coming up with 10 percent of Page 42 December 7,2006 that. Obviously there's Wolfe Road in there, too, but Rich can answer that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Since there's an existing house, we're entitled to clear one acre for that existing home. Apparently the previous owner cleared more than one acre, so we will actually be revegetating because there was extra clearing done by that property owner. And that actual calculation will happen at platting or SDP through your environmental staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the 10 percent is not 10 percent of the lot; it's 10 percent of the natural vegetation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 10 percent of the existing native vegetation. But since this particular homeowner cleared too much, we're going to have to recapture some of what was cleared. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Kay, I have one, and I should have checked this. I didn't get time. In the RMF-6 district, what is the max -- how is the maximum height defined? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-five. MS. DESELEM: How is it defined? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Is it-- MS. DESELEM: It's not defined any differently in that zoning district than it would be in any other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How is it designed (sic) in any other? Is it by feet or by stories? MS. DESELEM: I believe it's by feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the applicant's transmittal response to questions said they were going to limit it to two stories, but it's actually 35 feet. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It also states so in the staff report, a maximum building height of 35 feet. Page 43 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- the applicant's response of two stories, I wanted to make sure we were consistent with the height restriction of that district. That's fine. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there any difference between RMF-6 and RMF-4? MS. DESELEM: What they're doing in this case is they want to use the property development regulations of the RMF -6, which gives them more flexibility on the site, but they've agreed to limit it to four units per acre. COMMISSIONER CARON: What are the differences? MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go, again, and look specifically at the LDC to tell you exactly what they are, and I don't have it in front of me. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, there is no RMF-4. There is only RMF -6 and up so -- but they want to limit their density to four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Kay, if they had come through as a __ say they had combined this with enough acreage to come through as a minimum PUD, would they qualify for the four units per acre? MS. DESELEM: Yes, that's base density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just wanted to -- I wanted you to say that for the record. Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that -- Ray, are there any public speakers -- Mr. Vigliotti, you -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Nobody has registered. Page 44 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any rebuttal needed by the applicant to all the negative things said about the proj ect? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I just wanted to clarify. The reason we want the RMF-4 (sic) is so we can do the twin villas. If you went RSF -4, you couldn't do the twin villas. That was the reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a comment. The reason that I asked about RMF -4 versus RMF -6, I knew that there was no RMF -4 however-- , MR. BELLOWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I don't understand the point of not having an RMF -4 when the base density is limited to four units an acre. And we should have that category because what happens 20 years from now when this site is -- or 25 years or 30 years from now, they come back and the applicants will say, well, but I have a base density here of six. I may have only built -- somebody 20 years ago may have only built four, but I have a base density here. I'm entitled to six. And we've seen it happen -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, I can tell you-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- before, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you for sure, if you go onto the county zoning maps and the website, this annotation will change to an RMF -6 with a little notation above it -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That it's four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will have a little numeric and that numeric is on the recorded documents, will always tell everybody what the zoning is there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood; however, you've seen it happen on more than one occasion when it's been actually RMF-16 when it was only built out to four or eight or six or whatever it was, and people have come back and said, but I really should be entitled to Page 45 December 7, 2006 more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- after the fact. And so I'm just saying, you know, I think we should have a category that says RMF-4 if that's what the base zoning in the district is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In those instances I think people would come back and say 16, may have not been processed as a lower density reference, which this one is specifically being processed this way. Ms. Student, did you have a response? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I was just going to offer a bit of history. These are zoning categories that were carried over from ordinance 82-2, but when the new land code was done in 1991, there was a specific reference in each zoning district that the density was governed by the density rating system in the compo plan, so it be would rather disingenuous for someone to make that argument under that district, because in each district it refers back to the density rating system. And again, I think the reason the six is there and some of the other numbers is because it's a carryover from 82-2, and it probably would be a good idea just to have the numbers match to make the change. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Now we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there amotion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Page 46 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will go down as Richard's easiest case. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's getting close to Christmas, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to refer to you as Scrooge earlier because of your earlier comments, but I wanted to wait till we were done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other three cases for today have been continued. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under old business we have nothing, but we did receive a distribution by staff of what's being presented to Page 47 December 7, 2006 the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday regarding population methodology. I notice Mr. Weeks is not here, since he was the one that wrote this, I would assume. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. Mr. Weeks did the initial draft. I modified it as well, and I'm here to address his executive summary as well as go over some additional items for you which you addressed in the AUIR and to explain to you what's in the executive summary, go through it step by step, as well as some additional items that could clarify for you where we're going with some items with respect to seasonal population. I would like to do this fairly slowly and deliberately as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: First of all I wanted to start with page 1 of the executive summary that was provided to you. Just to let you know that what has transpired is that the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the existing population methodology which is set forth on page 1 in paragraph 3, which deals with an October 1 permanent population, the peak season population. And the way it was calculated was 67 percent of the October 1 permanent population plus 33 percent of the peak population. What, in essence, that did, just to give you an idea of how that kind of translates, it takes 67 percent of the permitted population, but when you use that formula -- and this is where DCA had its little problem with what was going on -- all it did was account for 11 percent of the seasonal population that existed in Collier County. They looked at the formula and said, it doesn't make any sense. Why aren't you just giving us an absolute figure with respect to seasonal population? This formula has no merit. Where did it come from? We found it kind of ironic that that statement was made because Page 48 December 7, 2006 it's the same methodology that was proffered to them in 2003, which they accepted as a sound professional, accepted professional methodology; however, as part of the EAR-based amendment process and future CIEs, they had the right to revisit it. They've chosen to do so this time, which is their right under chapter 163 and also 9J-5 of the Florida administrative code and determined that it wasn't a professionally accepted population methodology, which is their right to do so unless we challenge it. To be very frank with you in looking at the formula, myself and Mr . Weeks, even though the methodology has been utilized since 1989, we looked at it and said, well, it really didn't make a whole bunch of sense to us either in terms of the numbers that are out there. The high BEBR numbers that we're using don't reflect what's out there today in terms of what our actual growth is, and also from the standpoint of seasonal population, we've got a methodology in documentation in our compo plan that says that our seasonal population is 33 percent. What's the rational basis for discounting it to 11 percent? We just couldn't see it. So what transpired out of that obviously, is we took a look at what's in the compo plan, and we realized that that methodology's adopted by the board, and as a result of DCA's concern with this and the fact that they're not going to accept the methodology, where do we go from there? And we had lengthy discussions with the Department of Community Affairs, at first trying to get them to stick with the methodology as it existed because it seemed to generate numbers that were right in sync with what we were projecting long-term. They backed off of that and said, no, that's not going to be acceptable. And it took -- that took about three or four months. What we went ahead and did -- and I guess the best way of doing this is, if you look at page 2, David did a breakdown in the first three or four bullet points that are on that that kind of talked about the Page 49 December 7, 2006 increases in the units for different years and what it reflected in terms of population. And to be very frank with you, you know, those numbers came about right on point where the estimates were, where the projections were, and we were doing pretty well. And then we take a -- took a look at the 2005 building permit data and also the stuff that's transpired in 2006, and DCA looked at that as well, too, and we realized that those high BEBR numbers for the future were not going to work, and the medium numbers more or less reflected what was transpiring. And I guess the best way to explain that is, whenever you start using BEBR methodology, they use a straight line type of extrapolation methodology. And what ends up happening in high growth periods, you start going up in high growth periods like that, and at some point in time you reach a point where it starts to straighten out and flatten out, and then it completely kind of goes at, near build-out, to where it almost flattens out completely. So when you're in a high growth period, that line's going to continue to go on up. When it starts to kind of flatten out a little bit depends on -- you know, usually it depends on build-out, or in our case, we've had a downturn in an economic market. So we need to take that into consideration, which we have done and we realize that the numbers do reflect the need for some type of change. As a matter of fact, the estimates from BEBR for this year, based on the projections from last year actually reflect a decrease in 4,000 people in population over 2005. So that kind of shows you the change that's occurred based off their projection to what's actually occurring. So we need to take that into consideration. On page 2 you'll see an existing methodology and a proposed methodology, and I want to -- I want to kind of do this with a caveat because you're going to see on page 3 two graphics that are there. In the first graphic is the existing population projection. I think you Page 50 December 7, 2006 probably ought to put that on the visualizer for the viewing audience as well, too. And you'll notice an increase that occurs, you know, a differentiation between the permanent population and the seasonal population. And then the graphic below that, if you take a look at that with the new methodology which would include a medium BEBR population compared, you know, with the 33 percent seasonal adjustment and you compare that to the existing methodology, you have a huge gap or increase in population. To be very frank with you, in looking at those numbers, we as staff have a lot of problems with those numbers. And I guess I can explain it in this way. That's a worst-case scenario. We're not going to experience that worst-case scenario. And we realize that those particular numbers, in looking at that seasonal adjustment, need a lot of work. If you go to page 4 of the executive summary, you notice under the recommendation that it says, use the BEBR medium range proj ections for permanent population. As a staff, we don't have a problem with that as a starting point, okay. When you go to the second point, it says, use peak season methodology only, discontinue weighted average methodology. That statement, we don't have a problem with that either, okay. When you go to three, that kind of gets to the general crux of the issue. It says, further evaluate peak season methodology for accuracy and appropriateness. Once the needed data becomes available and if a change appears warranted, bring to the BCC for direction. Right now the methodology uses the factor of 33 percent per the compo plan. And as part of the EAR-based amendment and as part of the CIE, which you're going to see again, if we were to use that number and the numbers that you see in that graphic that's depicted up there on the visualizer, that's going to generate the need for capital Page 51 December 7, 2006 facilities a lot sooner than under the existing methodology. It's probably a little bit out of whack, probably a lot of, lot out of whack. And what I wanted to do was show you a few things of where we're going with this methodology in terms of where we're going, because I want to make sure that you understand that this is just a starting point for us. And as part of the EAR-based amendments and CIE, you're going to get another bite of the apple, and we don't want you as an advisory board, one, recommending a flawed population methodology and, two, recommending a CIE as part of the EAR-based amendments that's based on something that's going to cause us to either overbuild, build too soon, okay, or provide, you know, levels of service at a level that's way beyond what this community needs. So we need to give you a comfort ability factor with the methodology before we get into that year EAR-based amendment process and adjust those CIE tables. And what I wanted to do today was kind of give you an idea of where we're going first, and what DCA proposed. I'm going to run through a few things on the visualizer, and I have some handouts I'll give to you later. But just to give you an idea of where we're going to show you how these numbers are flawed. Some of this is based on some of Commissioner Strain's comments pertaining to the City of Naples and Marco Island. And I also wanted to talk about some other jurisdictions just to give you an idea of where they're at even though, apples and oranges, it doesn't matter, but just to give you an idea of how they've kind of grappled with the problems of seasonal population adjustments and where they've gone. So the first thing I wanted to do is I wanted to put up on the visualizer for everybody what DCA provided to us, which is a very generic statement. And what it says is, the county shall utilize -- and Page 52 December 7, 2006 it's outlined in red. It says, the county shall utilize for planning purposes the BEBR mid-range population projection as adjusted to account for seasonal population. These projections may be adjusted annually to reflect new BEBR projections or more recent information regarding seasonal population rates. Our first question was, well, DCA, what does that mean? You know, not in terms of a medium range, but in terms of seasonal population range. I mean, their comment back to us, well, you can use the seasonal population rate, you know, that you can justify. And currently in your compo plan it's 33 percent, but if you can justify something else or something else is more appropriate, then show us. I think it's incumbent on us as a comprehensive planning staff, I think it's incumbent upon you as an advisory board and it's incumbent upon the Board of County Commissioners to use the best available data in providing them a seasonal population that doesn't reflect a worst-case scenario, which is that 33 percent figure that's in the compo plan as it exists today. And that's kind of where I'm going with this right now to let you know kind of the track that we're on in moving forward. The next thing I wanted to show you -- and I'll put it on the visualizer -- deals with a starting point for countywide population figures. And, again, this is just a starting point, because starting points have a tendency to skew data a little bit. And we need to be really careful when we talk about countywide data because we're talking about a large geographic area as opposed to small geographic areas that are served by our public infrastructure. And it's very important to be careful. If you go down to the bottom of the -- of that particular page and you see the bold item that says, housing occupancy that's capitalized and under that you'll see under vacant housing units you'll see a total that says for seasonal, recreational or occasional use, and you'll see the Page 53 December 7, 2006 number 23.8 percent, okay? That's a starting point. That's a countywide figure. It doesn't take into account -- just as a caveat, it doesn't take into account hotel/motel units, which is a figure that we'll have to factor in as well too. So for us that's a starting point. And we looked at that and said, okay, it's a countywide figure. Is it skewed in any particular manner, and the answer to that is, yes, it is. So what I've done -- and obviously because we have some services that are not rendered in the City of Naples and City of Marco Island, I obtained the data for the City of Naples and City of Marco Island, which is on the visualizer right there, which provides, first of all, the total units in both those cities. And not only that, the number of seasonal, recreational, occasional use numbers as well too. And if you look at the number just from Marco Island, you'll see there's 14,826 units, and you've got -- almost half of those are used for seasonal use. And when you go to the City of Naples, there's almost 17,000 and 52 hundred (sic) of those are used for seasonal use. So I took that a little -- a step further, and this is just the preliminary analysis to give you an idea of where we're going because that 33 percent number, obviously, that we started with is incorrect, to say the least. So what I -- what I ended up doing is in the graphic that you see up on there right now is we started with the total housing units in Collier County. And what we decided that needed to be done is, one, we needed to discount and take out of the mix City of Naples and City of Marco Island housing units, which gave us a total housing unit figure of 112,754, and this is based off 2000 census. At the same time, you know, subtract out the seasonal housing units that are in both those jurisdictions, and come up with what I call an adjusted seasonal population for those particular areas. And you'll notice that dropped that 23.8 percent countywide percentage down to Page 54 December 7, 2006 19.4 percent. That's a significant decrease of 4.4 percent. It's obviously reflected when you look at the percentage of housing units that are seasonal within the City of Naples at 30.9, in the City of Marco Island at 48.8. That's going to definitely lower that number. So now we've obviously chopped off a good amount of it, and this is preliminary. Now we have another factor that's not -- that's shown in the mix there that needs to be brought in and that we're going to have to work in prior to bringing to you at your EAR-based amendments. The problem with that seasonal unit percentage is it assumes 100 percent occupancy. We all know from a seasonal percentage -- the seasonal unit percentage standpoint, when we looked at the total units that are out there, that 100 percent of those units aren't occupied all the time. The question is is, well, what is that factor? And I spoke to you earlier, you know, at a previous meeting, and my discussions with Dr. Smith with the Bureau of Economic Business Research, and I asked Dr. Smith specifically, I said, you know, how do we best go about doing that? And his response back to me was that the best way to do it is to do a sound statistical sample, a geographical sample of an area that's representative of your -- of your county and come up with an idea of what that vacancy rate is. I looked at my own street, you know, and I've got 22 houses on there, and, you know, three of them are pretty much seasonal units that are occupied some of the time, you know. And -- you know, they're not occupied all the time, and that just gives me an idea right away that we're sitting at a percentage probably somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. January's usually our peak month. And you look at that somewhere -- that 19.4 percent's probably -- it probably warrants being discounted another 10 or 20 percent. Page 55 December 7, 2006 That's something that we're going to have to work on to come up with. Mayor may not be able to do that before the EAR-based amendment process, but I needed you to be aware of that. The next step in the process -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before we go too far -- MR. COHEN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may, please, thank you. About five or six pages ago you used the term recreational uses, and you said in that same document it said that hotels and motels were not included. I was trying to figure out what are recreational uses that a person is here for, what -- and what does that mean if you're -- MR. COHEN: You know, it's -- you know, to be very frank with you, Mr. Murray, it's always read that way ever since I've dealt with census data back since 1983, and whenever I've asked the question, you know, of dealing with people with the U.S. Census and dealing with the Atlanta office and DC office, it always came back to, you know, well, that's primarily just our seasonal factor -- our seasonal population factor adjustment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like fudge. MR. COHEN: Yeah. I really don't know why they include it in there like that, except from the standpoint that maybe it includes in it R V s, R V parks that are seasonal, along those lines, and that was an explanation that I got at one time out of the Atlanta office back in, I think the early 1990s when I posed a similar question to the Atlanta office. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what my question was, if that was inclusive of that, it would be counted again or seem to be counted again, or, perhaps, discounted -- I'm not really clear anymore now -- in the second set of numbers. So I think that needs clarification. It may be a small matter, but it may not. MR. COHEN: And I don't believe it's counted in the hotel/motel, but we'll check to make sure. Page 56 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, that's an interesting point, that it's kind of like fudge, because we have some up here for our break, which we'll take right now . We'll come back at 10: 15 to resume this conversation. Thank you. Break till 10:15, everyone. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll resume the Planning Commission meeting. We left off in Randy Cohen's presentation of the new population methodology. Randy, it's back to you. MR. COHEN: Okay. Mr. Chairman. Again, I wanted to reiterate that, again, this is just coming off of a starting point that's in the comprehensive plan and a method that we find to be flawed. In going back to the sheet that's on your visualizer, you know -- and this is an initial seasonal unit percentage adjustment. And, again, I wanted to reiterate that this has to be some type of adjustment factor that's going to be made to that 14.9 percent to take into account the fact that 100 percent of the seasonal units are never occupied. On a side note, I wanted to point out that -- another issue that we have to deal with. There was another approximately 5 percent adjustment that occurred on top. Well, let me stop there. One of the things that transpired in the past when we dealt with the 33 percent factor, for whatever reason, rather than using the seasonal units that was on the one sheet -- let me go back a sheet. Put that back up on the visualizer. Going down some, Ray. All the way down to -- let me see if that's the right one or not. That's the wrong one. Let me give you a different sheet here. Okay. Under housing occupancy, and move that over a little bit to the side there. Okay. One of the problems I think that originated when coming up with the original adjustment rate, for whatever reason, rather than using the Page 57 December 7, 2006 seasonal factor, the 23.8 percent that you see down there, I believe in coming up with the 33 percent that's in the compo plan, they started with the 23.8 percent, and that's totally inappropriate because it doesn't take into account vacant housing units that are both for rent or for sale, among other vacant housing units that fall into the category that may be dilapidated, or whatever the case may be. So that mechanism was flawed as well in the inception, and I think that's an improper starting point. I wanted to point that out to this body as well too. Something that I don't have for you that we're working on is hotel/motel units within this county. We've been able to obtain a current list of hotel/motels within the county from the tourism bureau; there are 8,060 within this county. And in the past, in coming up with the total number, in coming up with that 33 percent, they factored in all the hotel/motel units. Well, we know from experience within this county, and particularly like with our water/sewer district, among other facilities as well, too, the majority of those units are in the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island. So what I have my staff doing right now is a detailed analysis of breaking down the percentage of those particular hotel/motel units and going to factor those out of the equation as well too in coming up with an adjustment factor that takes that into account to reduce that 33 percent accordingly, because it's inappropriate to include units that are not being served by capital facilities within this county. On an aside, I kind of wanted to talk to you a little bit, well, what do other jurisdictions do? Because it's kind of apples and oranges. And I just wanted to kind of point this out a little bit in terms of seasonal population. If I go up to Lee County -- because I know this body asked us, well, take a look at what Lee County does. Lee County Parks and Recreation, they don't factor in seasonal population whatsoever, for Page 58 December 7, 2006 whatever reason. That's their board's policy decision, but that's contrary to what our Board of County Commissioners has decided to do. Water and sewer up in Lee County is a totally different animal than what exists in this county, because we have a large water/sewer district that exists in this county. Up in Lee County, they have private providers all over that particular county. And what they've done in that particular instance is they use their planning communities and they actually do detailed analyses within the water -- the planning communities based on how those communities are served by those particular private entities, and they'll do a seasonal adjustment within each planning community itself. They can do that because that's their accepted methodology that DCA approved for them going back to 1989. Their concern that they have right now in talking with Paul O'Connor, who's their planning manager -- and I talked with Paul again yesterday -- is that they're just part -- they're just going through their EAR-based amendments right now, and their concern is, well, now do we have an acceptable professional, you know, population methodology? And what's DCA going to do with ours? And are they going to ask us to tweak it as well, too? Because they have different methodologies within their compo plan. And if you recall, as part of our objections, recommendations and comments report that was associated with our EAR-based amendments, they came back and told us, Collier County, you can only have one methodology. So the question there becomes, are they going to be told the same thing, or will their existing methodology be allowed to continue? And that's a concern they have. What you'll find statewide is that the majority of the communities that use seasonal population, what they'll start with is the permanent Page 59 December 7, 2006 population figure provided through BEBR, whether it's low, medium or high, because that's the entity that's charged with the responsibility of coming up with the permanent population calculations. Some communities have challenged the use of medium. Some have used low, some have used high. In some instances DCA's accepted those methodologies just based on trends that exist within those communities. And then what they've done is they've taken a look and they've adjusted based on seasonal population within those communities. Some counties, some cities, they don't have any to speak of, and obviously we have some coastal communities that are affected, you know, across the board in a lot of ways. And in many instances, a determination has to be made by the governing board, and particularly if it's a county. When there's very large cities in there, you know, how do we factor the cities out of the equation? I think it's been the direction of this body, and probably from the Board of County Commissioners as well, why should we be factoring in seasonal population and hotel/motel rates for the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island if we're not providing services to them? As a result of that direction, you know -- you know, the staff is actually trying to factor those out of the equation and come up with something that's viable. We have to provide to DCA data and analysis that supports a reduction and something that's viable, that's tangible, that we can grasp onto. We may know something's wrong beyond the scope of what we can provide to them initially, and that's why it's very important to go back to that language that they provided to us, and that says, we need to look at it on an annual basis and we have the right to adjust is annually. Because I think what's going to transpire is that as we get into the depth of some of the questions that you've had in the past and we can't Page 60 December 7, 2006 undertake some of that data and analysis immediately, there's going to be additional tweaking that needs to be done. And if we can tweak that data, okay, then we can adjust the capital improvements element on an annual basis accordingly and come up with numbers that are justified. And if we need to push facilities back in terms of that construction or timing, we can do so accordingly because we obviously don't want to build beyond the scope of what's necessary. At the same time we need to exercise an extreme amount of due caution to make sure, and particularly with respect to our public utilities, that we don't fall behind the eight ball where we run into a situation like we did in 2000 -- 2001 or 2002 where we have a sewage capacity problem and we're not able to actually address the needs of our community with respect to providing facilities that are vital for public health, safety and welfare. So there's a fine line that we need to walk, we need to err on the side of caution a little bit. And pardon the pun, a little bit of a fudge factor involved possibly in there to make sure that we don't have a problem with water and sewer in particular because it takes seven or eight years to bring a plant online. And I guess the best way -- and Mr. DeLony's not here, but ifMr. DeLony was going to talk to you, what he would say to you is, well, right now the numbers that we're showing are medium, and I've got to use medium, and I've got the seasonal rate. Well, in two years all of a sudden we have a building boom again and I've got high numbers out there, and it takes me seven or eight years to get a plant online, and I'm planning based off of medium numbers. I'm not going to be able to get that plant online if that population comes onboard sooner all of a sudden because the population has increased at a faster rate than we anticipated. So that's the concern that our public utilities people have. They have a very difficult job of making sure that they've got those plants Page 61 December 7, 2006 online to make sure that they address those public health, safety, welfare issues, and it's population driven for them. Yes, it's also driven by other factors as well, too, in terms of the use of water and sewer. Also there's other factors involved as they come up with alternative sources of water, gray water being one. But they need to make sure that there's a safety net involved for them. From my perspective as a professional that's dealt with seasonal population in the past, in looking at what was in the compo plan, I don't know where those numbers came from in the beginning, I don't know where the adjustment factors came from. That's something that happened in 1989; it's been used ever since. If you look at the methodology, for whatever reason it worked, just by chance more than anything. The seasonal population adjustment factor, obviously, is nowhere near what exists, but then again, the high BEBR numbers are not what exist. So what we're at a point in doing is, you know, we have to look again at reality, the reality being, what are those trends, and adjust them annually. And that's what that language in DCA allows us to do, at the same time, continue to tweak the seasonal numbers based on additional factors, some which we can do now, some which require additional data and analysis and go down the road. We're going to have to figure out what our peak month is. And when I say that, we talk about peak months in terms of occupancy of the seasonal units which are our housing units in conjunction with our peak month of what our -- it is for our hotel/motels. We know normally the peak season for seasonal units is January, but if I look at the data for seasonal use of hotel/motel as provided, you know, by our tourism staff in the past year, February and March were our peak months where we were about 91 percent in February, 92 percent in March, yet we only had 73 percent in January. Why? I can't tell you why, but those are the numbers, which Page 62 December 7, 2006 differentiate from what the trends are in terms of what seasonal units normally transpire with respect to housing units. So that's another thing we need to take a look at and figure out why in coming up with a percentage of what actually that peak season is in terms of total impact on our capital infrastructure. So from our standpoint, I guess what we need from you is two things: Obviously I've provided you with some information to kind of get you on the right track and get staff on the right track of adjusting that 33 percent number because we want the board to know that that 33 percent number is an incorrect number as well too and it's a worst-case scenario based on that graphic that was in the executive summary . We want some additional direction from you before we come back with the amendments as part of the CIE to tell us basically, yes, staff, go ahead and continue to make those adjustments and tweak that number in terms of seasonal population based on the fact, as you've shown us, and if you've got additional factors that you want us to consider, and if we can get that data and analysis, to tweak it further, we'll do as much as we can to get to the point. We know this is a moving target, but we don't want something out there that's pie in the sky out there, that high number, that 33 percent, when we know that that's not accurate. We need to get something that reflects as closely as possible to an accurate number knowing that at the same time we need to do some additional data and analysis but that may tweak it further. But what can we provide to DCA at this point in time? Because they're stuck on that 33 percent figure right now. We need to provide them something that basically says, we've done some data and analysis. We can bring it down to this amount right now and, I guess, get as close to those other numbers based on the previous methodology as possible, and that's the intent of our staff. We want to be as realistic as possible at this point in time based Page 63 December 7,2006 on the data and analysis that we have. Because as the county attorney will tell you, we can't give them anything that's not supported by data and analysis. But the stuff that I've shown you today, that's adequate data and analysis based on occupancy rates and factoring out seasonal units from those particular cities that we don't serve. So it's easy to discount that factor. The hard part is me coming up with a number in terms of discounting, well, what is the percentage of those units that are occupied at one time? And I know that I need that number. And we'll try to work on getting that number, you know, before the board hears that in January. It's vitally important to this community that we deal with that number because otherwise we're going to have an inflated factor, and I don't feel comfortable moving forward with that, and I'm sure Mr. Weeks would not feel comfortable moving forward with that as well too. With that, what I'm asking you to do today is the same thing I'm going to ask the board to do; one is, consistent with DCA's recommendation is to ask us to basically verify, yeah, please use the medium BEBR numbers for permanent population, use the peak population methodology only, and more importantly to further evaluate PCs and methodology for accuracy and appropriateness. That ties into what I've just shown you there. We've started doing that. And then further, the statement is, once the needed data becomes available and if change is warranted, bring it to the BCC for policy direction. This is a starting point. The starting point being that 33 percent which is a really poor starting point but it's what we have to deal with with what's in the compo plan to begin with. As a staff, I've taken a look at stuff, well, what can I do immediately that I know where I can get some data and analysis and I Page 64 December 7, 2006 can bring that number down and I can go to DCA and say, here you go, we've adjusted this figure down and this is why, and here's the data and analysis to support it. And this type of information straight from the census is a viable source that we can use to do just that. My understanding is that you may have some additional concerns of things that you would like us to look at in addition to these things, and I'm here to hear that as well too. And if we can determine those factors and get adequate data and analysis for them as well too and tweak the number even further, we'd be more than happy to do that as well too. And I know timing is very tight with respect to the EAR-based amendments and the CIE. But we'll dedicate the staff to do so accordingly and try to meet your concerns as well as the board's will. And with that, I'll turn it over to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, let's say that we have a number that we feel more comfortable with, and we can't quite back it up yet and the DCA's saying, well, we have this number and this has been used, and you say, well, we're going to disagree with you this year because -- here's why and we'll prove it later, what's the ramifications of you just saying, that's what we're going to do, sorry? MR. COHEN: Ifwe provide to DCA a population methodology that is not considered to be an acceptable -- professionally accepted methodology which is required by statute, by 9J-5, we'll be -- we'll more than likely see a notice of intent to find our compo plan in noncompliance, and the CIE as well. COMMISSIONER TUFF: But that would give us a year to get it fixed? MR. COHEN: Basically it would stop us dead in the water with respect to compo plan amendments, and we'd probably -- unless we entered into an agreement with them down the line, we'd end up in an Page 65 December 7,2006 administrative hearing, and the county attorney can correct me if I'm wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That would be right into an administrative hearing, and then once they filed the petition for the administrative hearing, then we could enter into some kind of compliance agreement with them, and then the hearing would be abated. But that's something that I would not want to go head to head with the agency on if -- unless we have pretty solid data and analysis and a professionally accepted methodology to back it up. Because my experience in these matters, the administrative law judges usually go with the agency, and legally their interpretation of things is given great weight, that being the agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Tuff, does that-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, I just think that's what we ought to do. Show us wrong, you know. We've got some time. We'll have an administrative hearing. By then you can collect your data and then say, here it is. Now, you show us ours ( sic) is better than ours, and I'll bet you they can't. MR. COHEN: Well, the ramifications are, is that if we do end up with a notice of intent to find us in noncompliance, during that period of time we cannot adopt any comprehensive plan amendments because I would anticipate that anything that affects the use of land -- and the county attorney can kind of weigh in on this as well, too -- would more than likely have impacts on our public infrastructure, and it would be the CIE that would also be found in noncompliance, and we would be dead in the water doing any future comprehensive plan amendments until the issue was resolved. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. And we would want to have that information going into the administrative hearing. We don't want Page 66 December 7,2006 to go in there and say well, gee, give us time to develop this, and we want to continue it and this and that. That's -- you know, there's a lot more to it. I mean, there are serious ramifications if you end up before the governor and cabinet and they tell you what to do, and if you don't do it, there's sanctions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, why shouldn't our objective be to get the best data we can and prove our point now instead of going through a court battle? I mean, we can do that. That's what I think we ought to be working towards, and I think that's what staff is going to get to eventually. Although I see that data in this presentation today is severely lacking, I think that's been admitted that they have to get more data. Maybe when that data comes forth, it will put all the concerns to rest. So I'm not sure we need to challenge DCA yet. We need to see if we're right by data, and data is pretty attainable. MR. COHEN: And I think what we've tried to do today is hit on the major data that's out there, okay, where we can -- where we can try to reduce that seasonal population rate as much as possible, and then there's a lot of secondary sources of data that are out there as well, too. For example, I would want to look in the water/sewer district in particular, okay, and break that block data down in terms of looking at what that seasonal population rate is within the water/sewer district itself, which is a more labor intensive thing because we do it by T AZ. I would like to take a look at that and see if that number would be even discounted further. And I would have liked to have had Mr. Weeks do that, but he's been out for about nine days now, and as a result of that, you know, I have been unable to undertake that. But that's something that, if it's possible to do before the board's meeting in January, I'd like do that to see if we can further reduce, you know, that 19.4 percent factor even further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You asked for some direction. Page 67 December 7, 2006 MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I, for one, have some needs to understand this better. I don't know if it will -- going to be the needs of this board, but I certainly can express to you where my issues are. And I need -- first of all, I think we've said -- you're using BEBR? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The statistics you just showed on the screen for most of this meeting though were from the U.S. Census. MR. COHEN: That is correct, sir, but the Bureau of Economic and Business Research starts with using the 2000 census data, and they extrapolate from that data itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I would -- I would like to see that physical extrapolation. I would like to see their spreadsheets. I'd like to see how they compile the data from the electric companies in which they state on their web site that they do. I'd like to see the compilation of the county statistics used for actual housing units, HU s, that they claim they use. That data would be invaluable to understand how much of this county and how they're counting it and how to compare it to the records that I already have from the building department to see if they're consistent with what really is on the ground. Is there a way to get that? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And I think what would be appropriate __ and I have Mr. Schmidt back there for me taking notes. I think it would be appropriate not only to look at it from the year of 2000, but to extrapolate the data going back to each bulletin that they've issued for Collier County starting with 2001 up to the latest one, and that way we can take a look at that data from each year and see how it's been adjusted accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I know that data is not readily available to the public. I've been to their site many times, and Page 68 December 7,2006 apparently you've got to log in and have some access to it that I can't seem to get to. MR. COHEN: I believe we would probably have to specifically request it because the type of data that you're asking for in terms of the spread sheets and stuff is not stuff that's readily available from their website, and we would have to ask them for the -- not only the methodology, but probably the complete runs of what they've done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into it further and we add on our seasonal population, in the past we've used statistics for hotel occupancies, for gas tax and sales tax, and things like that. In my review of those items, for example, hotel occupancy rates are highest in February and March, the gas tax collected is highest in April and May, and the sales tax collected is greatest in January and April. There is no common denominator there as far as timing goes, so I'm not sure how that is really reflective of the true seasonal population when none of them are focusing on the same time frame, proving that there's a spread, maybe not necessarily a peak as we've been trying to point it out. And I certainly would want to look at how -- the factor that would be -- have a more common element to it time-wise. MR. COHEN: And that's a problem, you know, that exists in looking at that data, and, we realized that when we provided it to you. And that's why we -- in our conversations with BEBR, you know, in terms of statistically from a professional demographic perspective, in asking the experts statewide, what is the peak month in Florida, and that answer coming back is, your peak month is January, okay. And traditionally that's what it is. Well, that being said, you know, we've got hotel/motel rates that differ from that, but the question then becomes, do our seasonal units in terms of housing units, is that where we're peaking? And we don't know the answer to that. And that goes back into discounting that Page 69 December 7, 2006 number as well too, and that's where surveying's going to have to transpire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would also think it's necessary to understand the multipliers used by BEBR on the various base data that they get for not only vacancy, but also PPH. And if that PPH is based on a -- each individual CDP that we have, or is it countywide? Because even the U.S. Census is a countywide one and it has a huge bearing on what's left for the unincorporated area of Collier County. MR. COHEN: And I'll ask Mr. Schmidt to make a note of that to determine whether or not the projection from BEBR is countywide, which is that 2.39 PPH or whether or not they actually do break it down by geographic unit, and we'll ask them that question as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.39 is actually from the U.S. Census -- MR. COHEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from the sheet you had on here. The breakdown ofCDPs, are provided by the U.S. Census at the time they did it. The city statistics has it broken down. They do provide them at the U.S. Census, and I need to know ifBEBR -- how they developed each city statistic as well, just like we need to know the counties so that we know what was included and what was excluded from the city so we then know how it applies to the county. I think that would be important. As far as the occupancy rates of the hotels, at some point we were using that. I don't know if that's going to be one of your future factors, but I'd certainly like to see how that correlates to the new housing -- now hotel units that come on each year, because we have a minimal amount of hotel units developed each year, but we seem to have an increase in seasonal population. It should correlate to occupancy, which means if you have a higher seasonal population, you're going to have a higher across-the-board occupancy rate, even though you have more hotel units coming online. There's got to be Page 70 December 7, 2006 some correlation there. I'm just going to give you things -- I know you've got people here taking notes. I don't expect an answer today, but you asked for concerns. These are some of them. The Immokalee statistic, we just -- lump sum 15,000. I'd certainly like to see how that lump sum became a lump sum. Now there's no basis for it, how it happened. I also notice that in 9J-5, DCA specifically says that if you want to see how other jurisdictions have been professionally accepted by DCA, upon request they'll provide them. Why don't we ask for those and get a-hold of them and take a look at them and see how they work out. Now, that way we'd have a basis when we go back to DCA if we want to modify something that's consistent with another jurisdiction, we'd have the right and the basis to do that. MR. COHEN: Yeah. And your point there is well taken. The hardest part that I've got now with DCA is that in discussing with various jurisdictions their methodologies, what was acceptable in the past -- for example, our 2003 methodology was deemed to be professionally acceptable and now it's not. I think the -- Lee County's methodology more than likely is going to be found to be not professionally acceptable. Over at Sarasota County, which uses an across-the-board seasonal population adjustment on top of their permanent population, DCA will have no problem with that. In my discussions with DCA, their preference in terms of what is acceptable to them is Collier County, other counties, what we want you to do is come up with a permanent population figure, either based on low, medium or high BEBR numbers, and then apply some time ( sic) of justifiable -- some type of justifiable seasonal population adjustment to that so you can support it with data and analysis, and that's what we're going to accept. Page 71 December 7, 2006 In my conversations with them -- and I don't mean to be kind of, you know, to the point, which is kind of a little different from the standpoint of what's in the compo plan, they said, if you take your medium BEBR numbers and you factor in the 33 percent seasonal population rate based on your current comprehensive plan, we have no problems with that, and we'll find that professionally acceptable right now. Those are words straight from DCA. I don't think this -- this particular advisory board and I don't think our board, based on what you see those numbers are on that particular chart, want to see us going with something that we know the DCA says that's fine yet we know doesn't reflect what currently exists in our community. That would be totally uncalled for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice that in your executive summary, you're relating the population statistic back to use within the AUIR. And as you know, the last A UIR review that just occurred last week, our recommendation was pretty consistent, and it seems to be similar with the Productivity Committee too, in that we're uncomfortable with using that same statistic in the AUIR, that there's other elements that might be more accurately reflective for capital improvements, such as ERCs in regards to utilities, traffic counts in regard -- as transportation uses, recalls for service for possibly fire and medical, things like that. I would think that we may want to -- that it should still be considered and that the AUIR based on population in this methodology may not be the best course of action. And the motive basis for that is that I understand that every county in Florida is encouraged to show high population, and that's inherent in the system because the higher the population we have, the greater our share of federal and state revenue sharing funds, the greater our share of HUD funds and grants and the greater our ability to elect more representatives to the federal House of Representatives. So from a statewide perspective, we want to show high population, and that's fine. And if we can statistically show it -- and Page 72 December 7, 2006 as you've stated, there are some elements that add onto seasonal population, and if we need to show that that's higher for those statistics, I don't necessarily have a disagreement with that. But I do strongly disagree that the same statistics be used across the board in the AUIR. I think you've acknowledged that there are other ways to look at it, and I'm glad to see and encouraged that staffs going to start looking at that, and that's the only point I want to make in regards to that issue is that I would hope that we continue to look at other statistics for the AUIR rather than population. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, it is a double-edged sword in that regard. For example, with -- as we add on -- and next year we add on the public schools facility element. And you saw the problem that the school system recently had with school occupancy rates and their increase in their enrollment and that building schedule. Everything seems to be inextricably intertwined, and obviously they've had to give back money based on enrollment that was anticipated and didn't transpire. So we need to be very careful with how we -- how we provide our numbers. The AUIR this year obviously is based on the older methodology, which we know is flawed, and at the same time, we don't want to be put in the position recommending anything to the board which may result in them having to build something beyond the scope of what's necessary and before its time. And I think that's very important. And I think if we can make some adjustments as part of the EAR-based amendments and make sure that we have some foundation and then build upon that knowing that we have to have a sound, you know, professionally accepted methodology, but if we can find some other sources of data and some other things out there, that it may allow us to even tweak it further, you know, down the road, that that's the route to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you can get any raw Page 73 December 7, 2006 data, that would be most valuable to understand how the base BEBR numbers started this whole mess, and then, of course, what we end up using for our seasonal population if we need to. That's going to have to be looked at just as closely. Are there any other questions from the Planning Commission on the population issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, could you send us, you know, the documents you had there? Could you help me out? MR. COHEN: I have copies for you here, and I'll hand them out at the end of the meeting to everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that -- I think that suffices for this discussion? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And if there's a recommendation that comes from this body -- obviously, the Board of County Commissioners hears this on the 12th. They hear this next Tuesday. They'll get a similar presentation along those lines. And what we're going to be doing is asking them for direction. And the direction that we're going to ask them for, because we know the tight parameters that exist for the EAR-based amendments and the CIE, is the direction to do, one, to change the population methodology based on what the recommendation is from DCA, that policy 4.88 change that I showed you, as well as those three things that are in the recommendation there. And just letting you know that number three is not static, and I think that it's incumbent upon us as a staff to continue, on an ongoing basis, to analyze our peak population as well as other methodologies, making sure that we move forward with population that actually reflects what's impacting our capital infrastructure. Page 74 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a couple general statements about the executive summary based -- a lot of it actually correlates to what you've provided to us here today in your discussion. And I am very -- still concerned about the use of the population statistics for the A UIR, and I have a concern in regards to the A UIR for two reasons. The statistics rely on a permanent and seasonal calculation that so far has not been reasonably explained in sufficient detail to feel confident with the outcome. And by that I mean, I've not seen the backup and I don't think this board has seen backup, nor have we based it even on your acknowledgement that the 33 percent is still problematic. And number two, the use of the population statistics that justify increases in capital expenditures may not be the most accurately available methodology for that use, especially since we don't have the basis of those sorted out. So those are my two comments in regards to a reaction from this document you've provided to us today. I don't know how that helps or hinders you with the BCC, but if you want a reaction, that's mine. And I don't know if I'm speaking for the rest of the board. You all can weigh in any comments you may have. MR. CO HEN: What I can tell you is, is that you're echoing the sentiments that the staff has, that we have a problem with that 33 percent figure that's in there, and I think it would be appropriate for this board to state that on the record, that you have a problem with it, and not only that you looked at some of the adjustments that we suggested, but you think that it even needs further refinement as it moves forward in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got a question for Margie then. Margie, if this methodology that's being proposed to the BCC Tuesday is accepted by them, in order to move forward with the EAR and the CIE element, does that mean we're locked into that methodology then? Because if that's the case, then what's being prepared for Tuesday, has Page 75 December 7, 2006 been admittedly not accurate enough to be utilized for that purpose. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it depends upon what the board's direction is on Tuesday. MR. COHEN: And the language that's in there, that's in 4.8, doesn't tell us we're using a 33 percent figure. What it's telling us we're using is seasonal adjustment, and that adjustment still is yet to be seen by that body and whether or not you accept -- comfortable with it and making a recommendation to the board as part of the CIE, and also by them when they see it as -- and they take final action on it, they're going to have to feel comfortable with what that seasonal rate IS. And I can tell you that I don't feel comfortable with going forward with the 33 percent. And we're going to be working to modify that downwardly to truly get to a point which is something that reflects as close as possible to seasonal population of trying to tweak it further down the road when we get additional data and analysis. But I know what I can get right now, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you be better off going to the board on Tuesday saying that this is your research to date and that you're still uncomfortable with the following elements and that you need direction from -- you need their direction to allow you to further pursue those before a methodology is locked in? MR. COHEN: Exactly what I've just asked you for which is the further direction, is the exact same thing I'm going to ask them for in letting them know that we're going to move forward and that that policy 4.8 allows us to do that on an annual basis. And that's why we like the language that DCA provided because it says that it allows us to come up with the seasonal population variation in the fact that we are allowed to adjust it on an annual basis. And that's why when we first got the language, we looked at it and said, what does this exactly mean? And we looked at it and said, we can live with that because it allows us, on an annual basis, to continue Page 76 December 7, 2006 to take a look at it and continue to refine it. And I think that's the appropriate way to go as we get additional data and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern was that in the executive summary, both your recommendation that's in bold on the top and the objective, seem more definitive than what you now told us has provided more flexibility. And then when you go into the document and you find the very specific tables talking about what the existing methodology would produce for values and then what the proposed methodology would produce, it would -- it indicated to me that if the BCC accepted this, this is the outcome they can expect. That's what concerns me. And if that's not what you're saying is true, then what I would recommend then, that maybe you phrase this executive summary a little differently so the BCC knows that the flexibility they would hope to see based on recommendations from two advisory boards now may be able to come forth more easily than locking in the numbers, as this document appears to have done. MR. COHEN: And what I would do is -- and you know, this executive summary was done last minute -- David did this from home __ and I tweaked it a little bit in adding to the bullet points to try to provide a little bit more flexibility in there. I guess what I would recommend is that when you see the recommendations that are on there and you get to number three, you may want to modify that number three there in terms of your recommendation and maybe add a number four, number four being, obviously, upon recommendation from the CCPC, you know, in terms of, you know, it being a sound population methodology, but three, from the standpoint of take into account data that's been gathered to date that would support a reduction of that 33 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, here's where my concern is with number one and two. Number one, if you come back with spreadsheets with -- explaining the very base source data that BEBR Page 77 December 7, 2006 uses and we find that something in number one is already inclusive of things that could have been in number two and we didn't know it because we never saw that data before, then number one and two become in question, which then means three can apply to the adjustment, which can't -- we don't -- we couldn't accept one and two until this base data is better defined. That's what my concern is. MR. COHEN: Yeah. And you know, from my own perspective, you know, in dealing with the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, obviously them charged statutorily with, you know, the methodology to come up with the rationale for, you know, whether it's low, medium or high, and they use two basis, you know, for determining whether or not your housing unit could count as accurate. The initial point being the U. S. Census and looking at housing units themselves and, two, whether or not they factored in as a major factor electrical connections. If they did -- and I'm sure that's where your concern is coming from because people don't turn off their electric in this county, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your house would be all mildew if you did. MR. COHEN: You've got a permanent population that's inflated; however, we're looking at permanent population factors based off of 100 percent units at 71.2 percent. Then the question becomes, is, if you use electrical connections and you had a lower number of housing units initially and you brought that number on up, then you've artificially inflated that, and that's a concern that's well founded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the things that we need to sort out before the recommendations that I feel can be supported. MR. COHEN: You know, in talking with Dr. Smith, his indication to me was, in some counties they use electrical connection data quite a bit because they don't see much of a seasonal population. But in a lot of the coastal counties, that type of data becomes irrelevant where, in terms of how they weigh it in, because they used Page 78 December 7, 2006 to rely on it exclusively because when people left, they turned off their electricity. Now when people leave -- one, they're here longer, the seasons have gotten longer and, two, people don't turn their electricity off. They leave it on for humidity reasons and other factors as well, too. But we'll check into that data as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is all very good expository, but I think what you want is a motion; I think you want a motion for us to urge you to obtain all of the necessary information for both this board and the BCC. That was where you wanted to go, if I'm not mistaken; am I correct? MR. COHEN: I think it would be appropriate that this board make a motion along the lines that the existing 33 percent seasonal population factor that's in the compo plan, more than likely, does not reflect the accurate seasonal population in this county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we can concur with the staffs determination of that. We don't have to make that as a single offering. You obviously have agreed to that. MR. COHEN: Yes. And not only that, but you would like us to provide to the BCC some detailed analysis with respect to seasonal population which truly reflects what that seasonal population is in this county -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CO HEN: -- and also provide to them hotel/motel occupancy rates that truly reflect what their capital infrastructure serves. And beyond that, Commissioner Strain said, to verify the reliability of the BEBR methodology as a starting point to assure that starting point is correctly reflecting how population is calculated into the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. We've capsuled it now and the record is rife with a repetition of those statements, so I think we've got it clear. Page 79 December 7, 2006 Now, when chairman -- after Ms. Caron, if the chairman would like, I should make a motion or another can make a motion so that we can bring this meeting to a conclusion with all of those needs adjusted, and -- or requested, because I suspect he's going to have to make -- one of the things you would do besides attempting to get the BEBR documentation, the supporting documentation, you also will have to make some kind of a survey to come to a conclusion about usage for those condos and other -- and then you have the motel and hotel question that mayor may not be applicable. MR. COHEN: And the survey is the timing issue that's difficult right now for me, and I realize that because of the fact that normally that would be something that would be undertaken by either a private entity -- unless I have the staff do it in particularly, which I may end up doing it. But the question then becomes, is the validity of the survey and whether or not I can verify its accuracy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's justifiably -- legally justifiable. And a question, too, do you have time? MR. COHEN: For the survey portion? That's questionable, and that's where the adjustment factor in terms of occupancy comes into play. I may be able to work something out with DCA with them to basically assume a certain vacancy rate. Because, for example, the assumption in the fiscal impact analysis model for Twin Eagles and Immokalee Road south, they assume a seasonal vacancy rate of 20 percent. Well, I asked them, well, what's that based on? And they -- well, that's based on their experience. Okay. Well, what experience? And it's like, I think it's the experience within communities that developers have that they've experienced in other places, that usually during the season, about 20 percent at one particular point in time, those people just aren't there, and they know that based on usage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those particulars you have to Page 80 December 7,2006 either obtain and use them as supporting documentation that they are justifiable to whatever points are possible (sic), and the rest of it is -- we've established. MR. COHEN: And otherwise-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would now defer to commISSIoner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you done, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. My only point was that under your recommendations, they just should be further clarified with the things that have been discussed. And I'd like -- I, for one, would like to see the revised summary, just if you could email it to all of us before it goes to the BCC. MR. COHEN: Well, the summary itself actually has been provided to the BCC and it wouldn't be revised, but it will be supplemented by the information that I provided to you today via presentation as well, too, with the same recommendations. And what I'll have Mr. Schmidt do is to write up a summary of what your recommendations are and also provide them in verbal form as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt's going to write up summaries? Maybe he's going to ask you to write the summary up. MR. SCHMITT: That's my twin brother back there. The other -- MR. COHEN: With a D, not a T. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. That's S-C-H-M-I-T-T. He's a D-T. Just for the record, so you know, the executive summaries for Tuesday's board meeting went to the printer yesterday, so it's already at the printer. The books are dropped off in the morning. This has already been locked and it's already being printed. Any modifications of this will have to be given verbally, which they will, to the board when this is presented as an item on Tuesday's Page 81 December 7, 2006 agenda, or probably Wednesday, given the length of the board meeting's agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. And then Randy, your survey issue, I know, is timely concerning a suggestion. The county's broken down into a dozen to 15 CDPs. Those CDPs have huge variances in seasonal occupation. For example, the Golden Gate CDP is seasonally vacant at 4 percent. The Lely CDP is 19 percent. Maybe to help with your -- until you get a survey, you could take a look at all those CDPs as some assistance in order to understand the vacancy rates throughout the county, especially in populated areas like Golden Gate. I mean, 4 percent just skews everything in a whole different direction when you get to those numbers. So that's my last comment on the issue. I am reluctant myself to go along with any recommendation that supports the recommendations in the executive summary. I understand what you've said. The summary doesn't read that way. I wouldn't want to mislead the BCC to think that we support those recommendations. Actually we support getting to those recommendations, but the recommendation as stated now isn't -- as from what I can see, isn't accurately reflected based on the data that's lacking. MR. COHEN: And you're correct, sir. You know, when David wrote the executive summary, obviously he was using it based on the existing data and analysis. And subsequent to that, during his time being out, I felt it was incumbent on us as staff to take a further look at some of the data that was available and provide that to you as a collective body, as well as the BCC, to get us started in the right direction in our interfacing with DCA and coming up with a methodology, which I think is more sound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you wanted to make a Page 82 December 7, 2006 motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll take a stab at it. I would attempt a motion. Inasmuch as the CCPC has found that the supporting documentation offered for -- offered in the EAR and the AUIR are subject to question and staff has acknowledged same, it is the direction of this advisory board that staff take whatever action is necessary to address the various segments, and particularly the issue -- the 33 percent, the DCA number, and come up with a correct number and provide that information to this board and to the BCC. Will that cover it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only -- motion's been made and seconded. The only thing, just for clarification, that you said direct. I think you mean recommend. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I said direct, that was probably because of my state of mind. Recommend, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're more of a recommending body than a direction body, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I said advisory and I meant that such, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that that's a conceptual enough summary so that it doesn't lead us in a bad direction. I -- the record's pretty clear in what we've said today so I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I was going to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- there's been a motion and second. It was seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any other further comment on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we'll signify -- all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 83 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. We will look forward to a lot more data. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, the only thing I hear a lot is that -- well, to do with the -- we put it into the record, and then hoping that people will see it and hear it. Does that stuff ever -- you know, they get this big stack of stuff. Do they see that -- or you know, if it's in the record, that doesn't mean it gets applied or used or heard or anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We cannot take the entire record and put it into a motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I see, the value in what's in the record is that if someone wants to understand the intent of our motion, they could go back in and look at our discussion. That's the same way that if you look at Florida Statutes, if you ever look at the references in the bottom, you can go back and you can track how the legislature's actually discussed the statute so you know if the intention of the statute as it's being interpreted by a body is what they intended when they discussed it and passed it in the House. Well, the same thing happens here. You can go back and look at the intent of all the motions we make by our discussion. So that's the value of the record, but'it's only of value to the extent someone wants to research it and find it. We can't predict that and we can't control Page 84 December 7,2006 that. So hopefully everybody that's interested, if there's a question, they have a record, they can go back and look at it now. So anything else? (N 0 response.) Item #12 DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move into the last number item on today's agenda. Mr. Schiffer, you want to -- it's a discussion involving the LDC amendment issue you brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And what it is is I went through the website last night and looked at it. And as these things come through, we kind of take special interest in one, and I found out that the definition for lot width has been altered from what we voted. First thing I noticed was that the illustrations, which incidentally are reversed, when they refer to nine, they should refer to 10, and when they refer to 10, they should refer to nine -- shows a measurement coming out of the cord, which we discussed and we stated that while that's the way you draw the parallel line, it's moved to the setback. But I think maybe that can be explained by what's a bigger problem, is they've attached a revision to the definition of setback or lot line, which never came through the public process. Ironically this was a definition that we discussed in the cycle prior, so if we wanted to talk about it, that would have been the time. And the danger of it is, it's actually allowing setbacks to be measured from the cord. Now, to explain that quickly is, if you remember in the City of Naples, they had that zoning variance where the building was close Page 85 December 7, 2006 because the people measured from the cord, and yet their code says it doesn't measure from the cord. So now riding along secretly behind this is a code that would allow Collier to measure from the cord, essentially bringing the building closer. They do, in this poorly written thing, provide a maximum -- or minimum length of a standard parking space, which is 18 feet, so that means you can only essentially bring it 18 feet closer, but never in any testimony that we have ever heard have we, you know, discussed bringing buildings further forward than the front setback. As a matter of fact, in the Naples thing, testimony was read in that Joe Schmitt states that we don't measure from the cord. We measure setting back from the front property line. So I think that's a serious problem. And what I'd like to do is cure this by making a motion that we recommend to the commission to not vote on this amendment tonight. If they want to bring it back like this, they can. But I don't think it would be fair -- the commission was presented this as if we had no objection to it, that we approved it 7-0. So the commissioner's -- and this is usually at the end of the agenda, they're blowing these things offby then. Staff never pointed out that they're adding the ability to measure from the cord, which is a serious thing. The community should discuss that if they want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you have any information that would help us understand how this got to where it is? MR. BELLOWS: Only, I had a -- for the record, Ray Bellows. Only, I had this conversation a few days ago with Brad and I hadn't had a chance other than a slight conversation with Catherine Fabacher, who coordinates the LDC. She didn't have any information at that time, but I will follow up with Mr. Schmitt and Catherine and Susan Murray, and we'll find out what happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's -- if you knew about it Page 86 December 7, 2006 a couple of days ago, and the gravity of -- is, it is an important issue, and especially since now, I mean, it's coming up timely tonight before the BCC, I wish that there had been someone that could have come back with at least some superficial response to us on this today so we would have known something. But I certainly think we ought to honor Mr. Schiffer's request to the board in regards to stopping this until it's clarified. I thought it -- even a one-day notice could have given us some clarification. But if you guys were wrapped up in other things, especially getting ready for the board meeting, I understand that. But in regards to that, I don't think something should go forward that any member of this commission questions to the depth of knowledge that Mr. Schiffer has in regards to the issue. So I certainly think that's well founded, Mr. Schiffer, at this point to ask that that vote be suspended until staff gets back to us with a thorough report as to what's -- how this came about, and if it isn't -- if it isn't a reason that was based on a finding of this commission, then it needs to come back to us again. MR. BELLOWS: No. I didn't have any direction from Brad to do -- to pull it, but I will now with the Planning Commission recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there a recommendation from this board or a motion from this board to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pull this from the Board of County Commissioners' agenda for -- to request it be pulled? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. That would be my motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any further discussion? (N 0 response.) Page 87 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those signify by saying aye (sic). COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MR. BELLOWS: I'll follow up with Catherine and Susan Murray Istenes and I'll -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Will somebody recommend-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you've got to be recognized first. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please put this on the 21 st agenda for report and a discussion by staff as to how this should be resolved. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would think we should have somebody making a statement about this today for tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staffs heard the concern and we've made a motion that if -- you know, if any member of the Planning Commission -- I only think the member that's most knowledgeable is Mr. Schiffer. If you're going to attend, I have no -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't attend, but -- and here's the thing is that, first of all, I don't think -- the commission was never presented that they were causing a new way to measure front setback. Page 88 December 7, 2006 I don't think they would ever agree with the way that's even being proposed. So I think there's actually a bigger issue here. And, you know, every morning we pledge allegiance to the flag, we mention that it's a republic we're alleging to. Republic is something that's run by the citizens. I think if we go through these public processes and staff just patronizes those by doing whatever they want to do after it leaves us and at the threshold of the commission meeting, hide a whole bunch of revisions that they want, that to me is a serious misdemeanor. And I think what we really need to do now is, you know -- I personally lost trust that things get -- go from here and are carried forward honorably, and I'd like to come up -- we have to come up with a way to prevent that from ever happening again. And does it happen a lot? I mean, do we have to audit all of the stuff as it leaves us to make sure that they're not tricking the commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, unfortunately, it's like everything else that we deal with here, if you've got the time, you need to follow up on it. It's kind of what I have to do on the issues that I bring up. In the evenings I sit there and I try to research it. And I don't know of any other way, because we can't appoint a staff member to come up with different things by -- so it's us that's got to do it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, there's two things staff can do. They can steal the money from the republic or they can steal the trust. This to me is a trust issue, and do we have to come up with a trust police to keep an eye to make sure that when the boards review it __ staffs allowed to have concerns different than the board, but they should say, look, the planning board wanted to do this. We believe this should be done -- they are a professional staff -- but not just sneak stuff in on an amendment like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far with the accusations, let's simply get a report back from Ray -- Page 89 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as to how this evolved, why staff -- or how they justified the changes, and they will do that through the actual transcript and testimonies of our meetings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get that data back. And then if that proves there's been a grievous injustice done to this board by the way it was handled, then we can deal with it at that point. But let's first find out the facts before we go too far. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree. I don't know the history of the facts behind this, and I just need to do some research, and I'll work with Catherine, and we'll report to you as soon as I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, you've sat with this board ever since I've been here and since all of us -- most of us have been here, and your credibility is very good as far as I'm concerned. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would appreciate it if you were the one coming back with the presentation and discussion to us instead of somebody else. If that -- if you don't mind taking that responsibility . MR. BELLOWS: I will work with the director and will do my best to be the one presenting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, when you go through the process and find out how this happened and what actually happened, can you find out if someone can go back further and find out if anything else was either slipped in or changed or any other mistakes had happened? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I mean, that may be a second solution -- a second issue after the first one, but with the two weeks and the amount of workload and vacation time coming up, let's Page 90 December 7, 2006 see if we can get this one done before we spend time on the rest, is that -- MR. BELLOWS: That would be a monumental task. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm -- I know time-wise it would be because you'd have to go back and review all the records and make sure the language was written correctly. And I'm not saying it isn't worth it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just saying, let's do that as a second stage if the -- if it's justified. Let's just get through this first one first, because that's something I think we can handle in a two-week time frame. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. If timing's a problem, then fine, we'll take one issue at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the commission? (No response.) Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public comment? That's going to be simply said; there isn't anybody. With that, we will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Page 91 December 7, 2006 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11: 14 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 92