Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/01/2007 S February 1,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 1, 2007 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Tor Kolflat (absent) Russell Tuff (absent ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 ,,-..--'-. - -,-",---"~''''''''~-''''_.'''"''''- ,-,.'~---'-,",- ~ AGENDA P.M Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1,2007, 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 MAYBE 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - None at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - None at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-7445, Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division represented by D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A requesting a rezone from the Conservation zoning district with an Area of Critical State Concern and a Special Treatment overlay (CON-ACSC/ST) and the Village Residential zoning district with an Area of Critical State Concern and a Special Treatment overlay (VR-ACSC/ST) zoning district to the Village Residential zoning district with an Area of Critical State Concern and a Special Treatment overlay (VR-ACSC/ST-4) zoning district for the continued use as single-family homes. The property to be considered for this rezone consists of approximately twenty-nine existing lots of record which lies immediately north and west of the Copeland community west of S.R. 29 and Janes Scenic Drive, in Sections 12 and] 3, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida and consists of94 + acres. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) 1 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 02-01-07 P.M. Meeting eepe AgendalRB/sp 2 February 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome to the second meeting on February 1 st for the Planning Commission. The first one was this morning at 8:30, and this one is now at 5:05. This evening's meeting is very subject specific. It's involving one advertised public hearing for the community of Copeland. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK Before we go into the details of the meeting, we'll need to have a roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Tor Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: 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: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since we only have one item on the agenda, I hope there's no addenda to the agenda. Page 2 February 1,2007 Planning Commission absences, we discussed that this morning. Approval of minutes, there are none. BCC reports, there are none. Chairman's report, there is none. So with that, we'll move directly into the advertised public hearings. Item #8A PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-7445 - COMMUNITY OF COPELAND First public hearing, or the only public hearing tonight, is petition RZ-2005-AR-7445, and it's the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division represented by Wayne Arnold for the Village Residential Conservation Zoning District and area of critical state concern special treatment for the community of Copeland. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke with Mr. Arnold today, told him my concerns after reviewing this document so he'd be prepared to respond appropriately tonight. And hearing none others, Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Great. Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates representing Collier County tonight. Mike DeRuntz has some PowerPoint materials that might be helpful as we go into this. And if there are any questions, Marco Page 3 February 1,2007 Espinar from Collier Environmental Services is here, who prepared the Environmental Impact Statement for the project and is here to respond to any questions. We did have a hearing before the EAC, and that vote was split, I believe, 4-2, was it? MR. ESPINAR: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: 4-2. So I don't believe that carries with it enough votes to be an affirmative one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What was the abbreviation, before what group? MR. ARNOLD: EAC, the Environmental Advisory Council. And as you can see, this was a conventional rezoning application that sort of is in conjunction with the zoning overlay that you all heard back in, I believe it was, October and November during your Land Development Code amendment cycle. An overlay was established for the Copeland community that incorporated certain other restrictions on VR zoned property. The action tonight proposes to rezone a little over 90 acres to a new zoning district; in effect that would be really the village residential, but it comes with a zoning restriction of four dwelling units per acre on it. All the property that's the subject of the zoning change tonight is within the urban area of Collier County, and there is a separate exhibit as an exhibit to the Future Land Use Map series that identifies the Copeland area urban area. So the subject properties are within the urban boundary and they would be subject to a density limitation of four units per acre. And it -- and it would seem that going from conservation zoning to VR with a unit restriction of four units per acre is a substantial increase, but I think in -- when you look at that in relationship to the area of critical state concern requirements that are still in effect for this and the ST overlay that's still in effect, you have limitations on Page 4 February 1, 2007 clearing for parcels of land that limits them to 10,000 -- or 10 percent of their site area, and I believe the number's 2,500 square feet. So with that I believe there's safeguards in effect. Properties that would be further subdivided would have to go through the Collier County subdivision process. The overlay restricted and prohibited any multifamily development from occurring within the village residential zoning district, which is -- which is different than previously authorized. The one thing I would say, too, is if -- I don't know how much any of you have researched this, but the conservation zoning district that's in effect for this property, I don't believe, was really ever intended to apply to private properties that were in the urban boundary. When you read the description of the conservation designation, it clearly says it was meant to apply to Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Delnor Wiggins State Park, et cetera, and wasn't really intended to apply to those private parcels. We've been working with the civic association that was formed down in Copeland for, it seems like, almost two years now. And between Marco, Mike and myself -- and I know Ray attended some of those early meetings -- working with their civic association, there seems to be overwhelming support for the actions that took place for the overlay and now the subsequent rezoning that is going through the process. I don't know what specific questions some of you may have. It's a fairly straightforward application that stems from the issue that is -- as you see on the zoning map, there were several lots that were actually separated by the conservation zoning district and the VR zoning district. And after the various hurricanes, there were problems in obtaining permits from Collier County for those folks to put back whole their properties because some of those properties that had Page 5 February 1, 2007 conservation zoning actually had mobile homes on them, and that's a prohibited use under the conservation zoning district. So the VR zoning district would allow those people, presumably, to go back and make improvements to the mobile homes that are there. And I think, as Mike and myself -- Mike, myself, Ray, and others have talked, there's probably a dozen other ways we could have gotten to this point and maybe several other ways we could have achieved it, but this one was deemed to be the one that was the most expeditious and the least problematic for those involved. And with that, I'll stop and answer any questions there could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On page 6 where it says site alteration near the bottom of the page, the second bullet, it says a minimum of 2,500 square feet on any permitted site. Did you mean to say a maximum? MR. ARNOLD: I didn't write that, but I do believe that should be a maximum of 2,500 square feet for clearing. That's on page 6 of 10 of that staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The Florida Statute -- Florida Administrative Code, section 28.25006, that is actually language right out of the Florida Administrative Code, so I'm not sure it would mean more than what the code says. It says in that code right -- and I have a copy of it -- however, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that's correct, on any permitted site. It is a minimum of 2,500, but it can't exceed 10 percent of the site itself. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that means that you have to alter at least 2,500 square feet? I must be misunderstanding it. What if you want to make a smaller alteration? MR. ARNOLD: I can't answer for the county, but I do know that there are other lots down there that have less than 2,500 square feet. I Page 6 February 1,2007 think the way in which that was worded was to ensure that somebody could clear a minimum of 2,500 square feet. I don't think it means that you have to clear a minimum of 2,500 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way -- Paul, some of the lots, if you looked at the folio numbers we received -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- were very, very small, and if you required only 10 percent allowed to be cleared on those lots, you may not have enough to clear for a single-family home pad. But I think this basically allows even the smallest lot to have at least 2,500 square feet cleared and used for a pad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. The way that it's phrased it confusing. Maybe it would be a threshold of at least 2,500 feet would be permitted, something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't -- that's our Florida F AC. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's in the Florida Administrative Code for this area as well as -- we're not putting a stip. on this, I don't believe, where it would be crafting language, but this is just quoting from the Florida Administrative Code as well as how it's been placed in our compo plan and our Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Another question is, my understanding was that we were supposed to have heard this in the summer but it was delayed because someone decided that there needed to be an Environmental Impact Statement. And could we see that? MR. ARNOLD: Certainly . We -- just for clarification, Collier County, even though they are the applicant, required of themselves to do an Environmental Impact Statement, which is required for any ST overlay property in Collier County. So Collier Environmental, Marco Espinar, was hired by Collier Page 7 February 1,2007 County to go out and ground truth and create flux map listed species survey for all of the area of Copeland. And he was on, I wouldn't say every single lot, but a good majority of those properties and has created a piece of information that will go with Collier County, which will actually help other private property owners in obtaining permits because now there is a record. Instead of requiring each and every property owner down there to go and conduct their own Environmental Impact Statement, we now have a record case that's updated as of 2006. And I do have an extra copy if anybody would care to look at that. I'd be happy to. The EAC did review the Environmental Impact Statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, I received a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement, but that -- I received that when we did the LDC amendments back in the fall. It would be the same statement. We did LDC amendments for Copeland back in September/October, the package then included an EIS. I don't know if that helps or not, Paul, but I just happened to -- I knew this was coming up, so I saved mine. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'd be happy to present Mr. Midney with a copy, ifhe would like to see one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And also I would like to see the minutes or the notes or something about why the EAC, there was some objection to this plan. MR. ESPINAR: I think it might be most appropriate if Marco Espinar addressed the EAC discussion. MR. ESPINAR: For the record, Marco Espinar, Collier Environmental Consultants. Let me start first by answering one quick question about the EIS. The county required that, like Wayne said, specifically so that each individual property owner would not have to do an EIS at the time if Page 8 February 1,2007 they ever came in for any permits or modifications or anything; they wouldn't have to do it individually. There's a master file here. Now, as to your specific question, one member did not like one of the specific exhibits on -- in this EIS which was the panther telemetry report. He didn't -- he just didn't like the exhibit despite the fact that the exhibit comes straight from Department of Natural Resources from Collier County, and it was the most updated telemetry point report that we had, but he just did not like the way the exhibit was. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how was the vote by the EAC; how did it come out? MR. ESPINAR: 4-2. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 4-2. That was the only objection? MR. ESPINAR: Yes, sir, that was the only objection. And yes, here's the revised drawing. After the meeting, Bill Lorenz -- what they tried to do is simplify it because the original exhibit had panther, black bear, but also panther and black bear mortality data points, and I guess it was just too busy for them, or for that, that specific individual. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to try to look at this EIS quickly, but -- MR. ESPINAR: If you care to also, anybody who cares for additional copies, I'll be more than glad to mail additional copies to any member who requests to have one on file. I'd be more than glad to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one question. On page 7 of 10, the fourth bullet from the top, if you would explain to me, please. The fill areas and related dredge or burrow ponds shall be aligned substantially in the direction of local service water flows and shall be separated from fill areas and ponds by unaltered areas of Page 9 February 1, 2007 vegetation. Unaltered; I thought that was kind of curious. Exotics are usually eliminated when one does the -- so is that a contradiction or is that standard language or what? MR. ARNOLD: No. That is standard language that follows, and it's probably exactly out of the state statute that Mr. Strain referred to. That language also appears in our Growth Management Plan and the future land use element. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Unaltered? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. It applies to all of the area of critical state concern, and that portion surrounds Copeland as well as that area that lies around the Immokalee community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I accept it, I just -- it doesn't make sense to me, but fine. There must be greater skill and knowledge than I have on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: How did mobile homes get approved to begin with? MR. ARNOLD: I haven't researched that as far back in the records, but as you're aware, Copeland's fairly remote, and I think that a lot of the development that has occurred there over time has probably not been legitimized with building permits. A lot of those permits could have been pulled in the Immokalee community as well because it's a direct shot up State Road 29 to Immokalee, and it was part of the more rural area of the county. But I don't have a good answer for you because a lot of those exist. People have been residing in them, we know, for at least a dozen years, but we don't know -- I don't know the permit history of them individually. COMMISSIONER CARON: This area's part of Big Cypress, and isn't -- isn't the density in -- either in Big Cypress or around the Big Cypress area of state critical concern, aren't there much lower Page 10 February 1, 2007 densities? If you're in Big Cypress, it's one unit per three acres, and if you're somehow on the fringe of that, it's one per five acres? How did we come to four units an acre? MR. ARNOLD: Four units an acre would be the basic density that would be applicable for this area because it is not subject to the coastal high hazard designation, so it is part of the urban area. So it falls to the same base density that other areas outside of your coastal high hazard designation do for the density limitation. So you have a cap of four essentially that we would be establishing for this VR portion. It doesn't mean that through your discretion if somebody wanted to come in and alter that cap of four, you might put a restriction on that property of two, for instance, if that were to occur. This sets a limitation as a maximum of four, unlike the rest of the urban area that could carry with it density bonuses in addition to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why, when it's in an area of state critical concern, wouldn't the more strict apply? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it does. If -- under the present zoning for this property, the majority of it is zoned conservation, and portions of these lots are zoned VR. The portions that are zoned VR technically could qualify for, I believe, up to 16 units per acre, and the portion that's conservation would qualify for one dwelling unit per five acres under that zoning category . Because it's technically in the urban area, it's encumbered by an area of critical state concern overlay. That overlay itself doesn't carry with it density standard. The density falls back to the underlying base zoning in this particular case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the restrictions within the area of critical state concern would make it unlikely to be able to utilize the density that's provided? MR. ARNOLD: You are correct. I would agree with that. Page 11 February 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know where you're trying to go. I just wanted to help Wayne get you there. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. You're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you want to try now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I may cough a little, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's what I was wanting to ask you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your review, item number 17 is discussing utilities and impacts. What are the utilities that are in this area? I'm sure these would be on septic tank probably and-- MR. ARNOLD: Some of these areas that are subject of the rezoning are -- would be on septic tanks. Some of these areas are -- don't support any structures currently but the structures that are on the northern and western perimeter -- northern and eastern boundary of the proposed zoning line are on septic. The majority of the Copeland community is tied into water and sewer. There have been some issues with that, but a majority of the urbanized area of Copeland has water and sewer availability. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just curiosity. What are-- the yellow dots on that panther thing are what? MR. ARNOLD: I'll let Marco address that. MR. ESPINAR: Those are radio telemetry report data points for panthers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that means it was there at one point in time? MR. ESPINAR: Yeah. Those are collared animals, and they periodically fly and try to pinpoint -- I don't know if you saw just -- Page 12 February 1, 2007 what was it, a week ago, they pinpoint that one on Keewaydin Island that had -- that's the same way. They have them collared. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. BELLOWS: The swimmer. MR. ESPINAR: Yeah, the swimmer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question about the neighborhood information meetings. You had one June of last year. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. We had a neighborhood info -- or our neighborhood information was June 15th, 2005. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, two years. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What's been revolved since then? Has there been another meeting? I mean, what came of the issues brought up at that meeting? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, the -- a lot -- a large extent of the time was spent in the -- getting the approval and the development of the Environmental Impact Statement. That was -- that was -- that took a large majority of the time since that neighborhood information meeting. We were proceeding without it, then it was -- made a determination by the environmental staff that the statement had to be __ had to be prepared as a part of the application, and -- so that's what transpired. The overlay has been -- which was a part of the concern that the people have of not only trying to get a sense of community by having the same zoning classification throughout the urban area, which would be VR, village residential, which would allow the replacement of mobile homes to occur throughout that community, which is the Page 13 February 1,2007 majority of the makeup of the community. But with the overlay, the -- which was approved on December the 7th of last year, the -- they are able to get -- to advance the concept of a sense of community where they have uses that are permitted, such as allowing, you know, the trucks or the storage of crab traps in their front yards and other things like this that are occurring down there, and that is the character of the neighborhood, of the community, that they would not be cited as having a violation on their property. Also they incorporated the concept of a commercial strip of -- providing convenience along Church Street, convenience facilities, also churches as a permitted use in that overlay. So these are things that the community identified in -- early in their questionnaire that was prepared and sent out to all the residents in the community. And, you know, that I believe that the rezoning and the overlay is going to help them achieve that goal that they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On page 8, the last paragraph, there was something about a 10- year exemption from the management plan. What does that refer to? MR. DeRUNTZ: The -- I was unable to find out what Don was talking about, but I believe it was more a reference of the Isles of Capri that was bleeding into -- in the discussion. I think in the Growth Management Plan there was -- there was a settlement of some sort, but it didn't really apply to the community of Copeland. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the Environmental Impact Statement, was there any concern that you're going from a permitted number of dwelling units, from 34 to -- if you had four an acre, you could go to as high as, I think, 394. Was there any thought that that could impact Big Cypress? MR. DeRUNTZ: You want to answer that, Marco? MR. ESPINAR: No. We didn't feel there was a major impact. The way we felt about this is that this item was more a housekeeping Page 14 February 1, 2007 item for -- sort of like for the Land Development Code. Environmentally there's no proposed impacts. Most of the impacts are -- already existing out here. Part of the EIS documents, through historical aerials from the '40s to today, show how the town has transitioned and grown, and most of those impacts are on old fallow farm fields, okay? So basically the impacts are existing, and the existing area of critical state concern rules or ST rules are still -- those layers are still basically there. This is more, like I said, more of a -- we felt more of a housekeeping item for land -- for the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would you say that Copeland is increasing in population or decreasing or about staying the same over the past, say, 50 years? MR. ESPINAR: I couldn't answer about the population exactly because I don't know that answer. What we did was, we're looking at physical structures out there, and I think it's -- all the lots that have mobile homes are taken up. There's few, very few lots still available that I would say can still be -- you know, put a mobile home on, very few. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are there any new houses being built out there? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I don't -- was there? There's one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to talk on the record if you're going to carry on a conversation. MR. DeRUNTZ: To answer that question -- Mike DeRuntz. There is a new home that is being built on one of the existing lots in the area that's already zoned VR. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As far as you know, there's no plans to do any kind of a PUD or any organized type of development on the land out there? Page 15 February 1,2007 MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir, there is not. And that is one -- one of the other elements in the overlay, that under the VR, multi-family is a permitted land use, and in the overlay, they took that out. They wanted to keep it as low density and the character of the community that they have out there presently. And they have no objections to reducing, you know, the density to four units per acre because that met their intent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd love to hear -- if there's any of the community members here to speak, I'd love to hear their comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get there. Okay. Any other questions of either staff or the applicant at this time? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few. And Wayne, I think they're going to be more directed at you than anything else. I was under the impression that this whole effort in Copeland was being done to, more or less, legalize the development that's occurred there that's questionable in some people's mind; is that a fair statement? MR. ARNOLD: I believe that's where this idea started, that we had a number of lots that were bisected by zoning district boundary, and in order to make the necessary improvements, we needed to make that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not getting picked up too clearly. MR. ARNOLD: I apologize. I'll move a little closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was -- in reading this, I seemed to get the impression that the owners of the land or the people involved weren't coming in and trying to build massive developments and get higher densities. They basically like what they've got and they wanted to make sure it wasn't going to be disturbed. Is that -- MR. ARNOLD: I think that's a fair assessment, yes. Page 16 February 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because what we're doing is we're taking property that was, at one point, considered to be one unit per five acres in a lot of areas, or in a lot of people's minds, and providing a four-unit-per-acre density to it. That's going to take 94 acres of property and create 94 units, or four times -- three hundred and -- what's four times 94 acres, whatever that comes out to, almost 400-unit potential. Right now the potential, based on the subdivided lots, was 30 lots plus three lots over 10 acres at four additional lots, so you had 34 units possible, according to the documents you provided with us, which would produce 340 trips per day. The amendment would produce 3,760 trips per day, 94 units times four dwelling units times 10 trips per day. Now, if that's not something that is being desired, they don't really intend to put 94 times four dwelling units, say close to 400 dwelling units on this property -- and I know the restrictions in the overlay won't allow the clustering and producing of multi - family, but they could have zero lot line, they could have small single-families popping up, and a lot more than what was anticipated -- why wouldn't we want to limit this development to a density much lower than the four that's being put upon them by the urban boundary, that it doesn't seem to be something that's desired? And you know, I'm just wondering, is there a need to go to the four? Has someone expressed a desire to develop Copeland to four units per acre? MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe there's been an expression by any person that we've heard from at either the neighborhood meeting or the various civic association meetings that we've attended. I think most people like the fact that they're semi-rural, they're remote, and they want to keep the flavor of single family. I don't know that it's been expressed, honestly, Mr. Strain, in the form of a density. I don't think that's how they equate development like you and I might talk in terms of density. I think theirs is more in Page 1 7 February 1, 2007 terms of single family, because when you look at what's happened in Copeland all of the urban area of Copeland qualifies right now for 16 units per acre. It was exempted under the old zoning reevaluation ordinance as improved property, and the VR zoning district allows 16 dwelling units per acre, and that can be in the form of multi-family, mobile home, single-family, et cetera, subj ect to areas of critical state concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is what's happened to a lot of us in the urban area here. Your neighbor decides he wants to sell out. He sells out, looks at the rules, and a new owner comes in and says, huh, I don't have to live with this one house. I can build four units on that property. And if I have more than just one acre, I can build 20 units, maybe I can put a bunch of little homes all together at real -- less expensive prices and sell a lot of density, and that could happen to anybody in Copeland, just like it's happened to us in Collier County. And I don't think that's a desirable place or situation to be in. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to look at some language that says the density be limited to one unit per five acres except those existing lots under five acres that existed prior to this implementation of this code, and those particular lots could have one unit per the lot. And then you've got what you've got today. You've got what people bought in there for, I would think. And I'm just suggesting that and -- to see how it plays out in the discussions with the public members here, and maybe we'll see where it goes at that point. Mr. Vigliotti? MR. ARNOLD: I'll look at some of my notes too, because I'd just like to look at some of the property records we have. I'd hate to put somebody in a position where we went backwards in terms of their ability to even be where they are, because we did impose other restrictions with the overlay. So I'd like to at least, when you're hearing from other comments, look at that. Page 18 February 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: When we keep saying the people of Copeland want to keep it the way it is and we've had one neighborhood information meeting almost two years ago, you mentioned civic association meetings. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What's the feedback? It's not in here. What are we hearing? MR. ARNOLD: I would say the feedback -- and I won't say that I attended each and every one of those, but I attended almost every one where this item was on -- a discussion on the agenda. I know that the housing department sponsored a portion of this and that is because of the rehabilitation effort that they have and some of the economic conditions on Copeland, and there were -- there were other things progressing at the same time, some water and sewer improvements, street-lighting improvements. The sheriffs department's been involved. So it has been a civic effort. And thanks to Commissioner Coletta, there's -- in great part to his effort, there's a civic association that is small but fairly active. And I think that a lot of this discussion occurred in those monthly meetings as opposed to having another neighborhood informational meeting of sorts, because the whole community was invited to those meetings, and those who chose to did attend. I think what you see before you has been endorsed by those who participated. We think it achieves that goal. As I said early on, I think there are a whole bunch of different ways we could have achieved the same result. This one seemed one of the most expeditious and one that gave people what they wanted. I won't say that there's not another way to get there, because I think there is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. For now I'll wait till I hear from the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. Page 19 February 1,2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Arnold, can you put up a map that will show us those properties that are in dispute because they cross the line from VR to con.? It's the -- the lots just up here to the northeast. MR. ARNOLD: As you'll see, that's the existing zoning map boundary, and you'll see where that VR line goes east/west and then again north/south. That's the point at which the greatest number of lots separated by both VR and conservation zoning. And I think that we've looked at this a couple of different ways. And I think had the conservation designated lots not been in the urbanized area, I think we would have taken a different approach at this. And I think the easier solution at that point, had we had an issue with the conservation designation, potentially could have grown the conservation zoning to incorporate the balance of those lots that were separated, and then maybe have an amendment to your conservation zoning district that would have made a provision for mobile home lots to be in the Copeland community in some fashion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't you have just incorporated those lots that straddle into the VR district? Why did it have to be all of this con. district? MR. DeRUNTZ: Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I'll let Mike go for that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Chicken. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz. When this -- when this area was zoned recreational and open space, it was RO classification. The area -- this section right through here, you see where this line is here, this section line, up to this bound~ry, that area was improperly classified as conservation. Originally it was -- it had different classification. And when they changed that line -- changed it from RO to conservation, that area got changed to the -- to the conservation zoning classification. Also that -- because the Growth Management Plan had this -- this Page 20 February 1, 2007 area of Copeland identified as an urban area, that the conser -- the village residential classification throughout the urban -- that urban area of the Growth Management Plan made a lot of sense to the people that lived in Copeland. They wanted to have one zoning classification for the residential area, not a split zoning. There are 13 lots presently that are split by dual zoning, and they've -- many people came into CDS wanting to have an improvement on their property and there's -- and they're saying, well, you know, we can't -- can't follow through with what you're proposing on doing because part of your property is zoned conservation. So this is going to clean this up. And there's also situations where the structures are straddled by that line, and they -- and these people have been living with a lot of -- a lot of conflict because of this dual zoning situation in their community. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. DeRuntz, my only point was, I can count the 13 here that straddle the line. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: And my question was, why didn't you just incorporate those into village residential, which would have made them -- MR. DeRUNTZ: And as I tried to address that question also, that the Growth Management Plan has the entire area identified as an urban area. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I attended a few of the meetings with the Copeland residents, and the property owners outside the 13 that are bisected also wanted to be part of the VR district, so they were included in the application as a result. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: This is just -- planners can weigh in. But it would seem to me that, perhaps, the conservation zoning designation would not -- the LDRs in the zoning's supposed to be Page 21 February 1, 2007 consistent with the compo plan, and to have a conservation designation in the urban area maybe be inconsistent with the compo plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know if the planners agree with that or not. That's just a thought that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you finish your questions, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, the chairman brought up a very good point before, and I thought about it, too, in terms of Goodland. MR. DeRUNTZ: Pardon? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I'll repeat. MR. DeRUNTZ: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. Chairman brought up a good point before concerning that many lots, and Mr. Midney did, too. And I watched the activities for the Goodland changes for the village residential there. They wanted to hold true to their way of life, and because of the language being deemed in- specific, they're going to have a mega-house there. They're going to have a, what effectively is a duplex. And I'm just wondering if you're going to go ahead with this, whether the language that we have in there, especially when you look at the statement where it's a minimum of 2,500 square feet -- I don't know what that really means relative to that. I'm not clear on that. But I'm just wondering, if not -- certainly not today, not next week, not next month, but sometime not too far in the future suddenly we see a whole change, and those folks lost their dream. And is the language structure sufficient to keep that clear with all those potential units? MR. DeRUNTZ: The overlay of the area of critical state Page 22 February 1, 2007 concern, I think, is the trump card throughout this. And I hope you could -- you can grasp that, because only 10 percent of the property can be developed, and so you're not going to get a mega-home on a little bitty lot unless you have, you know, this -- you know, where you could clear the 2,500 square feet on the lot. When you look at the village residential in this area, there -- that __ I looked at each of the lots, and there are -- the number of lots in this area that are less than 6,000 square feet in the subject area were zero. So there's no -- in this area there are no small lots. They're all over 6,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size of the village residential for a single-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, not to interrupt you, but I hope you're right. I know that in Goodland what happened is the lots were joined, two lots were joined, and there's nothing to preclude the building of this structure because it was deemed to be a single-family structure even though clearly it's a duplex. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so what I'm really saying is that while I can't prophesize the future, there are some things there that lend themselves to questions that I think need resolution and to protect the folks and their way of life, their chosen way of life. It would seem reasonable that whatever language is necessary to be included, that that should be given due consideration. That's all I'm really saying. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And if I may -- for the record, Ray Bellows. I worked on the Goodland Zoning Overlay, and the issues involving Goodland are different than the issues affecting Copeland. They're almost dramatically different in certain ways. The waterfront nature of Goodland has raised the property values to such an extent that there is tremendous pressure to get the bang for the buck on the lot to build a mega-home; whereas, the Copeland residents, when I talked to them, they had a thought of concerns for just survival, to keep the community going. Page 23 February 1, 2007 They're looking for ways to attract people to come to Copeland. They're also looking at ways to save their existing dwellings, and finding they wouldn't get permits through the county because of the existing conservation zoning. Those properties outside the 13 that are bisected by the zoning line were also wanting to participate, that's why we were looking at the larger whole of the urban area. And the other reason we were looking at four units per acre per base density was because -- the reason was, they weren't looking at keeping a fishing village type neighborhood. They were looking at future growth of the community. So four units per acre seemed like a reasonable base to start from. That is our base density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that differs then from the statements provided earlier that these people were trying to retain what was already there, because four units per acre's going to have a dramatic change if someone wants to come in and build that four units per acre. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's also -- and the reason the zoning overlay was created for Copeland was to create -- keep a certain type of atmosphere, but it was not to restrict growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But when the public -- in the information meetings, were the people told that at four units per acre, you're going to have a lot more homes in that 94 acres than you have right now? I mean, because that's the potential that they face, and that's a potential everybody in this county has faced time and time again. I'm not saying that's good or bad for them, but do they know that's what the four units per acre could buy them? MR. BELLOWS: I don't -- I wasn't at all the meetings. At the meeting I was at, we had talked about density of -- a base being part of it. But it was no specific development plan. There's no developer out there willing to build anything. It's just that seemed like a reasonable base to start from. Page 24 February 1, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There weren't any around in the urban area -- rural area too, but there are now. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I keep hearing that the people in Copeland want this or they want that. Is there anybody here from the civic association here that's going to speak today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, there are. We're going to get to them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to finish with our questions of staff first, and then we're going to open up to the public. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Because I think that will clear up a lot of questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And we've just got to -- we've got our steps, you know. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I interject one thing? Just to follow what Mike DeRuntz and Ray both said; I think that looking at this area, there's another side to this too. And I think if you look at the conservation zoning district, and if you look at what its intent is supposed to create in our Land Development Code, it doesn't fit with the urbanized area. But by the same token, it is unique because it allows the full range of conservation, it allows agricultural, and it allows some other processing-related uses. But under the area of critical state certain, the only exception you have to the lot clearing requirements of 10 percent is for agricultural uses. So I mean, the flip side potentially that's the environmental benefit of this could simply be that by taking out the agricultural component under the conservation zoning -- and the limitation is like Page 25 February 1,2007 you have in Golden Gate Estates with the overlay where somebody can have a small number of, you know, their personal animals or horses or a couple of cows or chickens or whatever they may have -- you've -- the potential for somebody coming in and saying, I'm a bona fide agricultural use and I'm going to clear my 35-acre parcel and I don't have to adhere to your area of critical state concern requirements, I think goes away. So I mean, that's something that hadn't been said, but I think it is important to note that that -- while I haven't heard anybody saying that they're willing to go and clear-cut their property either for agricultural uses, it is something that gets taken away as a result of this zoning action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one comment about this whole issue of it being in the urban area and so maybe conservation is not appropriate. I think that that is absolutely stretching things the way they shouldn't be stretched. This area is surrounded by conservation, it's surrounded by Big Cypress. So conservation is more than appropriate for the area. Now, I don't have any problem. I understand what these people are trying to do in being -- not being nonconforming, and that's certainly a reasonable expectation. I just -- I question, including all of the conservation area, I question why we couldn't have isolated out those that were essentially nonconforming. And I certainly question the four units an acre in an area that for sure wasn't going to get more than one per five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think Mr. Vigliotti had summed it up, we probably -- if we have speakers from the public who have -- actually live in Copeland, it would be handy to hear their opinions on this. Is that okay with the panel at this point, we'll move into public speakers? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Please. Page 26 February 1,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that you in the audience may have come here not knowing that we have a sign-in sheet, so don't worry about that. If you want to speak, you certainly will have the right to speak here tonight. The first thing we have to do is ask you, if you do intend to speak, to please rise to be sworn in if you weren't sworn in earlier. So how many of you wish to speak here tonight, members of the public? Just you, sir. And were you sworn in earlier when the court reporter -- MR. MESCE: No, I wasn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you, ma'am? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'll, Terri, do your thing. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Adelstein will like the way you said it, because you probably heard what Cherie' got into this mornIng. Okay. With that, the speakers -- the first -- MR. BELLOWS: We have one registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One registered, and then we'll do the second person after the one registered. MR. BELLOWS: William Mesce. MR. MESCE: Mesce. MR. BELLOWS: Mesce. MR. MESCE: Hello. I'm William Mesce. I'm a property owner out in Copeland. I really wasn't prepared to speak today, but a couple of things that were brought up, maybe I could shed some light on. First thing I would like to address is the density. The density where we're at right now, three acres, not five acres, for a house. We're in what's called the Copeland cutout. The Copeland cutout is part of the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, but it's not part of the Big Cypress preserve area where they are calling for five acres per dwelling. Where we're at presently is three acres. Page 27 February 1, 2007 I want to go on further to say that most of the acreage that is going to be opened up with this -- with what we're trying to do here, a lot of that acreage is wetland. It's classified as wetland under the new map that we had to have drawn up, so that's going to take away from the ability of putting in so many homes like Mr. Strain had mentioned. Also there's Cypress strand in the area. No homes are being built in the Cypress strand. No matter what we do here today, it's not going to change what the land is there. And if it's Cypress strand and wet area, no homes will be built in that area. What we're talking about is a much smaller overall buildable area that has already been previously disturbed, and it was part of the Copeland residential cutout. Somewhere along the way somebody arbitrarily drew a red line and said, we've got a supersensitive zone on this side and village residential on that side. Village residential had their small areas that they could build their houses on. On the other side, they wanted the three acres. The point is, is we can't find out where that line came from, what the exact date was that it was implemented, who implemented this red line, and how come we have to be held to three acres on the other side. The land is exactly the same as it is in the McBeth area or the presently populated area. It's all disturbed, it's filled. It's just that someone drew -- and if I may. This line right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to -- Ray, would you help him with the remote speaker. Thank you. MR. MESCE: This line right here coming right down was just drawn right in. There were people living -- there were people living in that area before that line was drawn. They had mobile homes set up on it. That line was drawn right through some of the homes, right through many of the parcels. After the hurricanes when these people went and tried to get Page 28 February 1, 2007 permits, they said, oh, well, you're not even supposed to be there. As of when? When was that line put in? Was it even -- I don't even want to open the bucket of worms of whether it was even legally done or not. We can't find out. So we're trying the option of moving it back to where it should be, which is at the end of our properties rather than down through the middle so that if something happens, we can repair the roofs, we can get a permit to put a house right next door on property that was filled long before any of us lived in the area. This is previously disturbed land. The density's not going to go sky high because we had -- we had something drawn up, an environmental -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Impact statement. MR. MESCE: -- bill drawn up which they made us do, of course, and we presented it. Anything outside of that, we're not going to be able to put in all of these homes that the numbers say that we can. Just because the numbers are there doesn't mean it can go on in reality. And it's not going to happen in reality. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problems with limiting your density to what you want rather than what the numbers on this staff report indicate? Because contrary to what you said, the staff report says -- and I'll read it, conservation district limits single-family residence to a minimum lot area of five acres or greater. Now, I know you're saying three -- MR. MESCE: That is incorrect. I don't know how it has to be addressed. And believe me, if we go up to zoning or whatever and we say we want to do something, the first thing they tell us is, oh, no, you've got to have five acres. But after we sit down with them and we go through all of their bookwork -- I've done it two or three times now __ we find that statement in there that says, except for the Copeland cutout, Big Cypress area of state critical concern where it will be three acres. So you'll even get misinformation right from the people in Page 29 February 1, 2007 zoning and in code enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, let me rephrase my question. If this was limited to one unit per three acres with the exception of lots that are less than three acres in size, subdivided or platted before this meeting -- MR. MESCE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you could still retain the right to have one unit of density. Is there a problem with that? MR. MESCE: This is basically what we've got already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MESCE: And we've wasted thousands and thousands of dollars and all of our time being here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your objective is not as Mr. Arnold had indicated early to retain what you've got. You want to expand on what you've got; is that a fair statement? MR. MESCE: To a certain degree, that is a fair statement. Right now I have five and a half acres -- one parcel that I have is five and a half acres. I would like for my son to build a house next to me, on previously disturbed property. I mean, totally filled. As a matter of fact, property's a little higher than the house -- the property where my house is standing, but I've only got five and a half acres. Presently my son can't build a house next to me, and I've got plenty of land to do so. Now, I also own two other parcels down there, one 13 acres and another one that's one acre. And I would like to see -- I honestly feel that four houses per acre is not going to increase, and it's going to give other people a chance to do something with their property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got about 20 acres total? MR. MESCE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you had four units per acre, you'd have 80 units. If you have one unit per five acres, you've got four. If you have one per three, you've got about seven. What Page 30 February 1, 2007 number is it that you think you'd want to develop that 20 acres to? I'm just curious. MR. MESCE: Just off the top of my head, if forced for the most development that I could put on it because of the way the land is laid out, I could probably put maybe six or maybe seven depending on the setbacks on the lakeside property. Maybe seven houses on that acreage without having problems because of the way the land is laid out, because of the way the Cypress strand runs through parts of it, and because it's deemed wetlands when it gets out in the back part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MESCE: So the density -- it would be impossible to come up with numbers of hundreds of houses or even a hundred houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of this gentleman? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would you object to changing the density to one dwelling unit per one acre? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 13 units greater than what you just indicated -- MR. MESCE: Right. I understand what you're saying. And I bought most of the lands -- I put an environmental assessment easement on my own property. I bought most of the land because I want to keep it just the way that it is, but there's other people in the community that would like to do a little bit more. And I would hate to stand here and say, oh, one house per acres is just fine with me while possibly stepping on the toes of other people in the area because I know that they may want to do a little bit more. So I -- we've really kicked these numbers around a lot. And when we came up with four houses per acre, we felt that that was -- that was a pretty good figure, really, that it wouldn't really hurt anything. There's no way that one house is going on every quarter acre out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 31 February 1,2007 MR. MESCE: Nowhere near that can be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What kind of store -- I mean, do you have a food store down there in the community? MR. MESCE: No. We have no stores at all there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So to go shopping, you have to leave the community? MR. MESCE: We go to Everglades City. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For everything? MR. MESCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MESCE: We do have community water that everyone is on. Everyone out in Copeland is part of the municipal water system that we have. We're all on the main water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but those are still going to have the S T overlay. And so the state regulations control as well as our own. And as I understand it, you are limited to what you can clear on a site. So if your site is 10 acres, you know, I believe you can only clear a certain percentage, and those site alteration standards in the critical area may, you know, make this not such an issue. You'd probably have to work it out for each lot, but it -- or it is a site area, and the state, I believe, looks at the site as, you know, the tract that you own and plan to develop on. So if you own 20 acres, you can only clear a small percentage of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think staff and Wayne made that-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clear to us earlier. Let's take your example. You have a 10-acre site. You can clear one acre, that means you can clear 43,560 square feet. That is a lot of Page 32 February 1, 2007 space. And I'm not saying it's bad or good for Copeland. I just want to make sure that the people in Copeland understand the parameters that they're getting into with the densities they're getting, because in that 10 acres, instead of fitting two houses on five acres each, under this program you could fit as many homes that you could squeeze into, on individual single-family lots, and they could be 40 feet wide by 150 feet deep or something like that in that 43,560 square feet. That would be a lot more than two units per 10 acres. So I mean, it's the Copeland community's decision. If that's what everybody down there is looking for, then that's an option they need to know about. I just didn't know if all that was discussed. And if it was, that's great, and maybe I wasn't clear on that. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, wouldn't they be able to subdivide this down to smaller lots? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. You could subdivide it, but I'm not sure how small a lot could be. MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay. Mike DeRuntz, principal planner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on zoning. MR. DeRUNTZ: They were very aware of the density and how the property could be developed, but they -- they live with the fact that the property is in this area of critical state concern and that they cannot develop on wetland -- areas that are identified as wetlands, and they're limited to 10 percent -- they can only clear 10 percent of the property to place a house on that. Now, if they would come in and do a subdivision, then, you know, they would submit a plat just like everyone else would, and we would -- the staff would look at this and -- be assured that the environmental staff would look at this and, you know, use the criteria that's right in front of them that, what is the area of critical state concern, where is your -- where is your Environmental Impact Statement, where are your wetlands, where are your wetland habitat, Page 33 February 1, 2007 and they're going to restrict them from developing on that property. And so you can't have a house on that property . You can only have single-family houses or attached single-family houses. No multi - family houses on here, so you're not going to get the density. And the minimum lot area is 6,000 square feet for a single-family house. So you're limiting your space, you know, for, you know, development of this property because of the physical constraints as was identified and the parameters of the area of critical state concern. The three ( sic) units per acre came from David Weeks as -- when we were looking at this, that is an urban area under the compo plan. This is your base density. And limiting this from 16 units per acre to four units per acre was fine with the people in Copeland because this is the -- because they know what they have to -- the limitations they have there, and they took no exceptions to that reduction and that ceiling of four units per acre. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. And we have another -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me finish. Mike, I have a follow-up on that. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on the conversation with Paul when he was saying the 2,500 minimum, essentially you could have a 25,000 -- or you could have -- that's 6,000 square foot of lot. You could clear off 2,500 of that without any problem? So it's really lots that exceed 25,000 that you start to kick in the 10 percent as being the denominator on that. MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Our next public speaker. Ma'am, if you'll come to the microphone, identify yourself. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Actually he addressed the issues Page 34 February 1, 2007 that we were concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're declining to speak? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. That's the last public speaker. Are there any other questions of the applicant, staff, at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. Now, Mr. Adelstein, you indicated you wanted to make a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that AR -- let me get that -- AR-7445 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be an awful quiet motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, Let me talk about one thing. I support the density. I actually think it would be nice if this area developed enough people living there where they could have a food store or something where it became a town where they're not driving all the way to Everglades City to get a hoagie. So the -- keeping the density down, to me, I think, is counter to our traffic issues and all of our other issues of urban sprawl. So I really like the four units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Paul, my -- I mean, yeah. Paul was grabbing the mike so I was going to say his name next. But Brad, my objection initially to the density was that I was concerned that the people in Copeland weren't aware of what the Page 35 February 1, 2007 density could mean to their community. The testimony we've received from both staff and the resident of Copeland make it clear I believe they are aware of it, so I no longer have a concern with the density myself, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I feel the same way. It seems like the people of Copeland are behind this. No one is against it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree. Any other -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have to add to that also. I thought there was -- the density was kind of high, but if the people of Copeland are okay with it, and I don't hear anything else, I'm okay with that four units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So four units with giant mega- homes is the way it's going to go, right? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's not my choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Enough discussion. I'm calling for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much for attending tonight's meeting. We certainly appreciate your travel distance for coming here, and your testimony certainly was helpful, so thank you. There is no old business on the agenda. There is no new Page 36 February 1,2007 business. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 37 --_._,-,._",.._,_...._~_._-'-~--