Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/05/2007 S (GMP Amendments - Cycle 5) June 5, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 5, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION for GMP Cycle 5, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Administrator for CDES David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Page 1 ~ AGENDA June 4, 2007 9:00 a.m. 2005 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments Transmittal Hearing James Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, BCC Vice-Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1 Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner District 2 Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT All LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD 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. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABiliTY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. June 4, 2007 1 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Plan Amendments A. CP-200S-2, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan lGGAMPl and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and MaD Series to expand "Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center", 10 allow neighborhood commercial of approximately an additional 60,ODO square feet, for property located at the SE comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and I" Street SW, in Section 9. Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of7:!: acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP.2005.S. Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan lGGAMP) and GGAMP Future Land Use Map lGGAMP/FLUM) and map series to amend the Golden Gate Estates Commerciallnfill Subdistrict, to expand the Subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses and allow residential use.s at IS dwelling units per acre, for property located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18:!: acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] C. CP-200S-6, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan fGGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and tbe Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically. Tracts 43. SO, 59, and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3:!: acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] D. CP-2006-4, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Transitional Conditional Uses provision, to alluw a church as a Transitional Conditional Use for the subject site abutting a residential use, for property located on the south side of lmmokalee Road and :!:300' east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. consisting of 2.6:!: acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] E. CP-2005-7, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to modify "LivingstonIPine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict" to add retailuse.~ and increase building square footage from 40,000 to 70,000 feet, for property located at the NW comer of Pine Ridge Road and Livmgston Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of I 0.47:!: acres. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner] 2 June 4, 2007 F. CP-200S-9. Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 9O,ODO square feet of retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the NW comer of Immokalee Road and Platt Road. in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8:!: acres, [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] G. CP-200S-lO, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to establish the "Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict", to allow up to 88,110 square feet of general and heavy commercial uses. consistent with the C.4 and C-5 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, for property located at the NW comer of US-41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 5 I South, Range 27 East, consisting of 9.79:!: acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] H. CP-200S.ll, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use MaD lFLUM) to change the designation of the site from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands to "Rural-Industrial District", to allow for approximately 500.000 square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses, for property located on the north side of USAI East and I,DOO' west of Trinity Place, in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 42.5:!: acres, [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] I. CP-200S-12, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use MaD (FLUM) and Map Series to create the "North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands and North Belle Meade Overlay, to allow earth mining, oil extraction and related processing, asphalt and concrete batch-making plants and their related uses, and all Sending Lands permitted uses, conditional uses and rights as permitted uses, and requesting an amendment to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to reduce the Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards from 80 percent to 40 percent for this Subdistrict, for property located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 950:!: acres, [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] J. CP-200S-13, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUMl and Map Series to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Services Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,ODO square feet of church-sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non-church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 296 market rate and Essential Services Personnel Housing units, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR-95 I), one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69:!: acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] K. CPSP-2005-14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map fFLUM) to re-designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral 3 June 4, 2007 Lands or Receiving Lands, for 90 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section II, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, and Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13, 14,22,27,29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections IS and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :t3.606 acres total. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] L. CPSP-2005-15, Petition requesting amendment to the Transportation Element (TEl to add new Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Don Scott, Transportation Planning Director] 3, Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383, 4 June 4, 2007 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the continuation of the June 4th Growth Management Plan amendments BCC hearing. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's going to be our objective today to try to cover as much of the people's business as we possibly can in the time allotted. Any comments from the commissioners about today's meeting or agenda? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, be brilliant, be brief, be gone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow, I love that. Any other commissioners got any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not me. I'm all set. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Take it away, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to turn this -- good morning, I'm Joe Schmitt, your administrator for Community Development/Environmental Services Division. We're here for comprehensive plan amendments, actually amendments dealing with your 2005 and some of the 2006 amendments. I'm going to turn it over to David Weeks, the comprehensive plan manager, and he will give an introduction and describe how we're going to go through today's business and describe what this process will entail. David? MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. As Joe has just indicated, these are the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, not rezonings, not conditional uses, not those other land use petitions that you deal with on a much more Page 2 June 5, 2007 frequent basis. And specifically, this is the first of two sets of public hearings on these petitions. This is known as the transmittal hearing. For those petitions which you choose to transmit today, that is, you approve, if you want to think of it as preliminarily today, they will be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other state and regional agencies for review, and then they will come back to the county for the second and final hearings, the adoption hearings. So if you choose to approve a petition today for transmittal, you will have a second bite at the apple at the adoption hearings. If you should choose not to transmit a petition today, however, then it is done. It is denied. You're -- you've concluded your review of that petition. As this is a -- the actions today are legislative, not quasijudicial, it is not a requirement to swear in the speakers nor is it required that you make your typical public disclosures. The Planning Commission held hearings on these petitions on March 5th, 22nd, and 29th, and also April 19th, depending on the specific petitions. Their recommendations are reflected in the executive summary. And for those petitions which they recommended approval of, the language they recommended is reflected in the Exhibit A's to the resolutions within your binders. You did vote yesterday, or it was mentioned yesterday, and we want to mention again today, that there is one time certain item, and that is petition CP-2005-13. That is for property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard. It is the site of the First Assembly of God PUD. And, again, that's at three o'clock today, time certain. Also at yesterday's hearing, regarding petition CPSP-2005-14, pertaining to the redesignation of sending lands in the rural fringe mixed-use district, you continued until your June 22nd hearing one batch of properties identified as map parcels 3 through 11. These are located in the northeast quadrant of the North Belle Meade overlay, Page 3 June 5, 2007 and I believe it's in Section 13, Township 49 south, Range 27 east. Properties are owned by Symphony Real Estate, Limited. We have one change in recommendation for petition CP-2005-6, which will be specifically noted when we get to that petition. It is, I'll say, in the applicant's favor, so they're not particularly concerned about, at least broadly, the recommendation. Next to the last item is data and analysis. Commissioners, if you've looked at the staff reports, you've seen that adequate data and analysis has been a consistent theme that staff has raised in these amendments. More particularly, most of these petitions before you, staff has recommended denial of, and one of the issues raised has to do with adequate data and analysis. And this is a requirement that has existed in state law for in the neighborhood of 20 years since the Growth Management Act of 1985 was adopted. The burden is on the applicant to submit data and analysis that is adequate to support the petition. It is not staffs role, it's not county's role, to tell an applicant what to submit. The burden is on the applicant to submit the data and analysis that he or she believes supports the petition, and then, of course, coming before all the hearing bodies to defend that petition, including defending that data and analysis, making their case before you and the other hearing bodies as to why the data and analysis that they have submitted does, in fact, justify approval of their petition. Finally, Commissioners, if we meet our ambitious goal of completing the hearing today, staff would, as usual, ask that you leave your set of three binders available for staff to pick them up to reuse to send to the various state agencies. And Commissioners, with that, we're ready to begin with the first hearing item. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need a supermajority or simple majority? Page 4 June 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Simple majority, 3-2. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And one more question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've written all over my book. It's okay that you send it up with all of this writing and marks and colors and everything? MR. WEEKS: We'll still take it. We do make a cursory review, and if we find those pages, we'll replace them with clean pages. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, there's lots. MR. WEEKS: That's fine. Because certainly they're yours for your using while you have them. And again, we'll make the changes as we find them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Item #2A PETITION: CP-2005-2 MR. WEEKS: And Commissioner, as is your typical protocol, unless you change it today, the petitioner will go first followed by a, as brief as possible, staff presentation. Commissioners, your first item is petition CP-2005-2, petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series to expand the Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard neighborhood center to allow neighborhood commercial of approximately 60,000 square feet for property located at the southeast comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and First Street Southwest in Section 9, Township 49 south, Range 27 east, consisting of approximately seven acres. And the agent is Michael Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez representing Michael Quarter (phonetic), the applicant for Page 5 June 5, 2007 the project. This originally was an expansion of the existing commercial quadrant at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It was an expansion of approximately seven acres of general commercial, and as staff has said, an estimated 60,000 square feet. As we started going through the process, which started in 2005 -- it's been a little over two years now -- we've got -- we received a significant amount of community input relative to the proposal that we were making and also an enlightenment that we received about what the needs were of the community, and specifically the neighborhood that this land exists on. The revision that we ultimately made after the Planning Commissioner meeting was one that would -- would -- converted what we had proposed as a commercial development to an office development, the majority of which would be medical use. This was a finding that we made over a period of time, both in respect to community interest and input and also relative to end user input into the process. To this end, we had a number of meetings, post the neighborhood information meeting with the civic association, civic association leadership, meetings with the neighborhood that exists that's in close proximity to the property. We also went the extra mile in soliciting input from the neighborhood. Our client and his family went out to some of the neighborhood areas, for instance, like the library, and took petitions looking for support and actually received -- and we have submitted signed petitions of 227 signatures. More than that, we sent a letter requesting support to what we called our service area, which was approximately 2,800 residential addresses of which we estimate about 50 percent of those actually have homes on them. So approximately 2,800, about 1,400 acres actually occupied, the balance of which are landowners that are either Page 6 June 5, 2007 going to use them as a future residence or for sale. We received a very significant response over a period of time, and what we received were responses -- we call them response cards. We had sent, in addition to information with the proposed project, a card basically allowed the individual or the family to provide us some input, some guidance, on what they were looking for. To date, as of a couple days ago, those cards had to be returned to the chairman's office, and it was approximately 632 post cards had been received, 95 percent of which supported additional commercial at this location, 75 percent which supported the proposed project, specifically medical, medical-related, and office uses, 33, or about 5 percent, elected to tell us that they didn't want anything or they wanted something else at the site. So we've had -- we've gone really, I think, the extra mile, and that was a lot of work our client undertook to get some good feedback. What I put up here is a quick graphic that shows the relationship of this property to other properties for commercial. Again, it's located at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. It's approximately three miles south ofImmokalee Road where there's no existing commercial. There's -- it's approximately five miles east of 951, and you'd have to travel an additional mile either south or north to get to commercial. It's about three miles to the west of Everglades, and it's five miles north ofI -75. It's one of the most centrally located -- in fact, this was arguably the most centrally located neighborhood center that exists for the Golden Gate Estates area. And, in fact, it's the only commercial center or node that is identified in the Golden Gate Master Plan within this area. Currently, there are -- there's four quadrants at this intersection. The southeast quadrant is under construction right now, and it's being developed as a commercial retail center with restaurants. The southwest comer has been approved for a rezoning. It's now owned by Walgreen's. They've submitted an SDP and we would assume that Page 7 June 5, 2007 the Walgreen's is going to go forward. They're in the process recently, as of last week, made a second submittal. I'm on the northeast comer is G's Store with some accessory uses, and they have approximately two additional acres that they have available to them to expand those uses. So although in your staff report under information about market analysis it says that there's 16.3 acres, really the only quadrant that has land available to them is the northwest quadrant, and that's 5.3 acres, of which one acre of that is right-of-way. So there's about 4.2 acres. Market conditions would suggest that the highest and best use of those properties will be expanding the commercial out there and not as an office or a medical center, which tends to be less intensive. Probably the most predominant concern that we heard from the very inception of this submittal to -- as late as last week, is concern that this was going to be just the first step in expansion of commercial in the area, and it's a legitimate concern; however, we found a way that we believe has addressed that. Specifically, this land, as it exists today, is already designated with the opportunity for conditional use. So because there's an adjacent neighborhood center that's zoned commercial already, we're able to go and seek conditional uses both to the west of that property and also to the south of the property. What we've done in revising our text is eliminated that opportunity and substituted it with the text that we've proposed, and that text that we've proposed would allow just a limited number of uses; an urgent care center, medical and medical related, and general office. Those uses are approximately 40 percent as intensive as general commercial as far as transportation. We submitted additional documentation to staff from our traffic analysis consultants, and you can see the difference. And 45,000 square feet would have produced a little over 4,000 trips. The proposed, if it's 100 percent medical, Page 8 June 5, 2007 would be a little over 1,600 trips. So that's a significant reduction. Now, you also note that that analysis is based on 45,000 to 45,000. If you considered that the original proposal of 60,000, as staff had indicated, we're about 30 percent of the traffic generation that had been originally proposed. Therefore, we would suggest to you that this is essentially a very good transition to the neighborhood. And in fact, what it is is a recognized transition in that the office uses are consistent with the C-l zoning district uses, which would essentially be uses that have been found to be transitionary from more intensive commercial to residential neighborhood use being an appropriate transition. As we've met each succeeding meeting with the neighborhood, I think we've garnered additional support. And as of last week, we had one last meeting with the immediate neighborhood, and in that immediate neighborhood that were a few additional items that they requested or that we discussed and committed to. And we have provided a copy of that text to staff. And I'll go over those minor changes to you right now, all of them which are more restrictive than had been originally proposed. Essentially, the added additional language was that there was some concern that although we're saying this is going to be a medical and office center, there was a concern that there was not a commitment to that medical, that it could be 100 percent general office. The neighborhood has told us, our cards have told us that there's a need for medical, and so we made a further commitment saying that the majority of the office space that's approved in the zoning would have to be medical related or -- medical or medical related, so that over 50 percent of it will be in that land use. Second, we were discussing it as a transitionary use. And as appropriate for transitionary uses, we made a commitment that we would not use pole lights. In other words, right now the Golden Gate Page 9 June 5, 2007 Master Plan allows for pole lights of 25 feet, which is -- creates a light cloud. And essentially what we've agreed to is the utilization of bollards. Those -- one additional use that they asked us to remove from that list of uses, and that was surveyors, because of the truck component, and that was reviewing a list of C-I uses for general office. And then finally, we made one additional commitment that's not in the text, and that is that we would hold an additional non-required neighborhood information meeting. Because that language has changed over a period of time, they believe, and we believe -- we agree with them -- that it would be appropriate to hold another neighborhood informational meeting. That neighborhood informational meeting would be held prior to the adoption hearings that would occur this fall. That would give an opportunity for them to hear -- the neighborhood to hear and make sure that they're apprised of these changes that have been proposed. In addition to that, keep in mind -- and, David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Planning Commissioners will also see these petitions once again. The Planning Commission, of course, did not have the -- didn't have the review of this particular text proposal, which is significantly transitioned to a less -- more restrictive, less intense use. And that would -- and then it would come again before you. A couple other points that I wish to stress. We have in our submittal, for support to the neighborhood, given them a site plan, a conceptual site plan, of the proposed uses, and we've shown the adjacent Walgreen's. We have shown them how that would interconnect. And we've received additional feedback. And, of course, we're willing to work with that once we get to the rezoning stage of the project. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have relative to the proposed project, its intensity, any of the support Page 10 June 5, 2007 documentation that we've provided over a period of time, and address any questions that staff may have relative to our proposal. We'd also like to reserve the ability to come back to you here shortly to discuss any input that comes from either staff or from the general public. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: With that, any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. What I'm going to suggest to my fellow commissioners is that we may want to listen to staffs presentation, outline our questions, and then come back at one time and ask the questions and have them bounce back between you and our own staff. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir? Thank you very much. Commissioner Henning, is that all right with you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's absolutely wonderful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Good morning, Commissioners. Tom Greenwood with Comprehensive Planning, for the record. I was the staffer who attended the neighborhood information meeting in January on this particular issue, and the issue had to do with expanding the neighborhood center, as Mr. Fernandez has stated. If you look at page 12 of the staff report, it's a summary, bullet point summary, of the comments that were received. Sorry about that. The -- this is a capsule or a summary of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The midterm and the long-range plan for Golden Gate somewhat represents what has happened in the past. The area's platted out at 2.25-acre lots, which is a very low density. The decision to create neighborhood centers was established back in 2004 when the plan was adopted. Neighborhood centers, by definition, are intended to serve an area within a two-mile radius. There are basically -- this was not mentioned by the petitioner. Page 11 June 5, 2007 There is a neighborhood center at the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate. There's also another one at Everglades and Golden Gate. That center is three miles east of the center in question. The two-mile service radius of those two centers obviously would overlap, okay. There is also existing and committed development at Orangetree, which is approximately three and a half miles to the north in the Immokalee Road area. To give you a sense of that two-mile radius, which full buildout would be -- and this is using the existing density -- it would be approximately 3,500 dwelling units, and that might be on the high side because part of that two-mile radius goes south into the lower density North Belle Meade area. At a 2.39 population per dwelling unit, about 8,500 people. Again, there is an overlap between the services provided and that will be provided at Orangetree and services that will be provided some day at the Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard center. This is a very generalized layout of what the center might look like. And, again, I say it's generalized. It's not to scale. The -- the area that's in red, the bold line, represents the current boundary of the center, and as the petitioner's very clearly indicated, the southeast comer is under construction and it's under construction within the existing boundary of the existing center. There were no changes made for that center. And again, as the applicant has indicated, the southwest quadrant is owned by Walgreen's. The crosshatched area, which is about seven acres, the other one crosshatched is the area that is proposed to be expanded. How the text is changed, if it is changed, the bottom line when the day is over with, the center will physically be expanded if this project proceeds. The executive summary is fairly clear. Quite frankly, I received personally -- and I think Mr. Weeks did as well -- probably about, I don't know, maybe 100, 150 pages of unsolicited emails. We made Page 12 June 5, 2007 copies. Many of those pages include signatures of people that are apparently in support of commercial or office. We're not quite sure which, what their intent was when they signed the petition, and that information I have as a matter of public record. The text amendment that was submitted to you as a part of this hearing is different than what the Planning Commission heard. And as the petitioner indicated, staff has received his most recent proposed text amendment. By most recent I mean I received it at 8:55 this morning, about five minutes before the meeting started. I have not had a chance to review it. Obviously the petitioner would know that. The real issue -- and I'll just very -- touch on a few points, a few points. One of the things in the executive summary was the fact that there was an application in the 2006 cycle for some mixed development on the north side of Golden Gate, again, in an area that is in the master plan for low density residential. What is decided eventually to -- whether to expand or not expand this center will and could have an impact on future decision making is the boundary that's proposed there, a good permanent boundary. I guess that's a question we have to ask. If that boundary is changed as proposed, what impact will it have on future decision making? The applicant indicated that the northwest comer of this quadrant's available for development. It is. And it appears there's some acreage available for development in the northeast quadrant of this intersection as well. In closing, staffhas not received anything from the applicant that would alter its recommendation, and that is not to transmit. I don't know if the Planning Commission, if it reheard this, if it would change its mind and vote in favor of this amendment. We have not had any further discussions with any of the property owners in the area. In conclusion, basically, our staff report and recommendation stands and it represents the feelings and wishes of the Planning Commission when they heard this matter in March. Thank you. Page 13 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Greenwood? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A question, sir. Now, if this is transmitted and it -- it would still have to come back to the Planning Commission and it would still have to come back to this commission? MR. GREENWOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At that point in time, would -- if it did go to that particular phase, would staff be able to weigh back in with the new data that they got? MR. GREENWOOD: I think we would certainly consider that. That's new information that was submitted after the application was filed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I have some questions, but mainly for Mr. Fernandez. But Mr. Greenwood, while you're there, the Golden Gate Master Plan allows for transitional conditional uses? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This quadrant of commercial designation, does that provide for that transitional conditional? MR. GREENWOOD: The language that's being proposed-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in general in the Growth Management Plan. MR. GREENWOOD: It does, it does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in the Growth Management Plan it says adjacent to. This property here, what I would consider would be adjacent to. That would be the transitional conditional. Would that be a loss of opportunity for that conditional use? Since it's -- or would you expand that conditional use application further out? Page 14 June 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, you're correct that the opportunity for transitional conditional use, as proposed by the applicant, would be lost. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they can't expand on the other side of the road then, I think that's -- what's that, First? Whatever that road it going north and south. MR. WEEKS: You cannot cross a street. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right, all right. MR. WEEKS: So by expanding the activity center as being proposed, the subject properties presently would be eligible for transitional conditional use but would no longer be allowed if this is approved as proposed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One thing that the master plan committee, I thought, was -- done wisely, was provide a shared interconnecting road to get away from that -- that interchange, kind of like a loop around the activity center. What would -- would that be a requirement under this condition or this proposed amendment? MR. WEEKS: It is not. That would only be if this commission requires it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What would be the requirement for buffering? Because you used to have more intensive uses at the intersection with a conditioning down with less intensive uses such as churches and day cares and that. What would be -- since it's such a deviation, what would be the softening effect to the neighborhood? MR. WEEKS: The properties adjacent to the south of the subject site would still be subject to the 75-foot setback and the buffering requirements that apply to all neighborhood centers. I believe the -- to the west that would not be the case, I believe, because it's abutting a street, not abutting an -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- Estates property. Page 15 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- my last question, what would you consider the access for this -- if the board adopts, what would be the access for this increase of intensity? MR. WEEKS: That would be -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be on First or would it be, where? MR. WEEKS: That would be determined at the time of zoning typically. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But you'd still have to go by the intent of the Growth Management Plan, correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because really you're throwing everything out the window because -- the language provides that conditional use transformation, which is now lost, and in that transformation it was supposed to be a shared interconnection, a shared parking. MR. WEEKS: Those requirements would not exist because the -- the only abutting property, that being the one to the south from this expanded area, would be limited to single-family residential use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Of course, you would not have interconnections or shared parking, that's true. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just had some questions for the -- Mr. Fernandez. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Fernandez, you say you started the process in 2005? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that the application? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What month was that? Page 16 June 5, 2007 MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that's April of2005. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. When did you start working on this proposal? MR. FERNANDEZ: We started working on that proposal, I believe, in the fall of 2004. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that was just after the board adopted the new amendment to the Growth Management Plan? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There was no thought at that time to go to the -- commit to that whole process, which the board agreed to reconvened that committee, to ask for the consideration that you're asking today? MR. FERNANDEZ: We weren't hired at that time, sir, but we have since then, of course, gone through a fairly rigorous process of public involvement relative to both civic association -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and neighborhood. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your client never participated in the hearings, the public meetings that the committee, Growth Management Plan Committee, took place in the -- I believe it was 2002,2001? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. But I believe some of the supporters that you'll hear from were a part of that effort. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I won't find any -- find any sign-up sheets during that process of the owner or the previous owner during that public hearings, public meetings? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not that I'm aware of, no, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're welcome. Commissioner Halas? Page 17 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is for staff. I'm reading the information that was provided to me. Some of the things that came up was the intensity that's going to take place presently if we don't go through the rezone, and that is the four quadrants. How are we going to maintain an impact of this nature in this particular area without even thinking about the rezone as far as sewer and water? It presently isn't out there. So how are we going to maintain -- how are they going to be able to maintain those type of facilities? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, the area's not served by potable water, municipal sewer, and that will stay the same. I guess the longer term question is, is will this type of change to the master plan result in other changes? And the same issues will come up, potable water, sanitary sewer, for that intersection. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially now that the petitioner has changed his venue in regards to what he's going to put there. Now he's talking about medical. And I'm concerned about medical waste and putting it into a septic system, and then from there, leaching into the ground. And, of course, there's a number of wells out in that area. So I have some concerns of that magnitude. So -- and I'm trying to figure out what the overall density is going to be just in this quadrant of neighborhoods. I think we've got about, what do they say, 16 or 18 acres there that presently is -- could be possibly developed or is under development, and now we want to increase that area of development to impact even -- the area more with commercial, and we don't have the adequate facilities to take care -- to address the concerns that we have there? MR. GREENWOOD: Staff agrees, that is an issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: And seven additional acres may lead to additional acreage in the future at that intersection should this be Page 18 June 5, 2007 transmitted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's my concern is the -- is potable water and sewer lines. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if you'd leave that map there, please. I'd like to clarify something with respect to the transitional conditional uses. Do I understand you correctly to say if this petition were to be approved then the transitional conditional opportunities would be lost to anyone in the property north of Golden Gate Boulevard? MR. GREENWOOD: The document that you received, it indicates excluding the southwest quadrant from conditional uses. Is that your read, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Southwest quadrant only-- MR. GREENWOOD: Only. MR. WEEKS: -- would be prohibitive for transitional conditional uses. Those properties north of Golden Gate Boulevard or east of Wilson Boulevard would still be eligible. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Still remain, okay. Then I misunderstood what you'd said earlier. I would just like to express a brief concern about some of the staffs comments here. One, you say that the market study -- the concern the staff has about the market study is that it apparently fails to include 16.3 acres within the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants. That's fairly equivocal language. You should be able to determine whether it does or does not. The first question is, is that a weakness of the petitioner's submittal or is it the staffs failure to clearly identify? And then the staff goes on and says further in this paragraph, staff suspects the trade area should be larger than the stated two miles. Page 19 June 5, 2007 I mean, is it -- should it be two miles or should it not be two miles? I guess I'm looking for a specific statement with some proof or substantive justification for making those kinds of comments. It just leaves me with a feeling that either the late submission -- well, no. Let me withdraw that. That can't be the case here because this is the executive summary that was prepared some time back, so you had adequate opportunity to review this. I'm just a little concerned about the equivocal language here. I would like to see something a little more clear. But that having been said, I also am concerned that this particular proposal has not been heard by the CCPC and that there hasn't been a neighborhood information meeting concerning this. And I understand that the petitioner would be willing to do that if we forwarded this for approval. What rights or opportunities are forfeited if we do forward it to DCA with the intention of bringing it back through the CCPC later? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, as stated earlier, this would come back for that second bite of the apple. In your case, you'd be seeing presumably the same petition for the second time. For the Planning Commission, they would be seeing it for the first time. I don't think they -- I don't think any rights are lost. Everyone does get -- I mean, that's the policy decision for this body to make. Do you wish to say, this is not appropriate to have such substantial changes made post NIM, post CCPC, or alternatively to say, well, because there will be that second bite of the apple, nothing is really lost, everyone will get that second chance, most particularly because a second NIM will be held and, in fact, is required to be held. The Land Development Code says if substantial changes are made to the application after transmittal. Well, this isn't after. These substantial changes occurred prior. But as a staff member, I would say that we require that NIM to be held prior to the adoption hearing. So in short, I don't think any rights are lost, Commissioner. Page 20 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then the final question is to ask you for a general appraisal of the concept. We have always talked about the shortage or concern about commercial opportunities in the Golden Gate Estates area. Is it the staffs position that no additional acreage is necessary in the Golden Gate Estates area beyond those neighborhood centers that have already been designated? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Staffs position is that we believe it may be premature to be approving additional commercial east of 951 while we are in the process of conducting the East of 951 Horizon Study. The end result of that may well be, yes, we need more commercial within the various areas east of 951, including specifically within Golden Gate Estates. Our position is we should wait to find out what the results of that -- that study are. And if we do, in fact, need more commercial, where should it be? What magnitude should it be? For example, they're proposing office type uses only. Should that be the case in certain areas? Should higher intensity zoning such as all the way up to C-5 be allowed in some areas? We just don't believe we're there yet, we're ready to make that decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that same response apply to most of the petitions that are in our packet today? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, and you'll see that same comment in the staff report about the prematurity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, in may briefly respond to the first two points you made. First regarding the apparent lack of inclusion of certain acreages. I think it was 16 or so acres. The reason for that is because the additional market study information provided to staff did not include the inventory, did not include the specifics of what properties were included. It was more of a conclusion, with some explanation certainly, but we did not have the specific inventory, that's why staff said it appears that those properties were not included Page 21 June 5, 2007 based upon certain statements made and what was submitted. Secondly, staff did not do a detailed analysis of this revised submittal. That's why we've made -- I personally made that comment. I suspect that an additional larger trade area should be included. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Does that conclude what you have, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Greenwood, a couple questions. It was brought up about the lack of sewer and water, utilities in the area. At the present time such places as G's, I believe the school on Golden Gate Boulevard, a couple of other locations out there that are commercial are using package plants; is that correct? MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not sure of that. MR. WEEKS: G's, I believe, is on a septic tank and well. The school -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, well-- right. But still, they have a way of processing it. And also too, I know the school system, which quite surprised me, was the Max Hasse Park, in the back of it, I looked over at the -- what is that, Big Cypress, the school that's over there? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Big Cypress. I seen a package plant back there. I thought for sure they were on the sewer and water. So obviously there's ways that they do handle this. One of my concerns is, is if we ever make it a requirement for any commercial going out in that area that they have sewer and water hookup to utility, my concern is that that -- if we do that, we're going to force everyone along that utility line to have to hook up under our laws and ordinances. And so, of course, I don't think at any point in time we're ever going to be supportive of forcing a particular area in the middle of Golden Gate Estates to have sewer and water and then forcing every Page 22 June 5, 2007 single residence that's on the transmissionallines to have to hook up. So I mean, it's not a goal that I ever want to see that we're going to require sewer and water to these facilities to be able to make that a criteria for any kind of development. Ifwe did that, we'd be doing great harm to the people that live out there in Golden Gate Estates. That's my own take on that. I do think that there's package plants out there that they put together that do an adequate job of handling -- it's expensive. I mean, you have to devote a tremendous amount of land to it, which has a side benefit, what they -- when they have to do that, that there's going to be certain green areas that would not be present if you did have sewer and water, so that's something we have to keep in mind at all times. The East of951 Study, Mr. Schmitt, I'm going to address this to you. You know, we're not talking about a master plan. We're talking about a survey that's taken place over a period of time. Is this something like a master plan that's supposed to be put together to be able to give us guidance as far as growth management rules go? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, it will be basically two phases. This first phase is nothing more, as I'm sure you're aware, but for the other commissioners, an assessment of what the residents are looking for out there and what they believe they want and how they want to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, now wait a minute. Be careful, because this is one of the things that the Horizon Study takes great offense with, because when we keep referencing to Golden Gate Estates, the Horizon. It's not. It's east of 951. It's a global effort that covers the whole area. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, the rules that we're talking about with this, if we were to apply it, we, in effect, would say, no new development till the Horizon Study's done east of951. Would Page 23 June 5, 2007 that be a clear assumption of where we're going with this? Immokalee should put everything on hold as far as their particular growth management plans go as far as everything that's taken place there. They've got a master plan underway. They should wait also until the East of 951 Study is done? MR. SCHMITT: That is not our intent, and that's -- our only concern in this one was explaining that certainly the preponderance of the issues that they're addressing out there are dealing with the Estates. But as you've just said, this is not only the Estates. It's everything east of951. And the other piece that we're also working on is the interactive growth model, which we hired a consultant to look at land use, land use activities, and supporting facilities to support population growth east of 951, and that includes, of course, all the way to Immokalee, the special districts -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When would that study be done? MR. SCHMITT: We -- it's evolving, but certainly the Horizon Committee, I do not believe you'll see anything until sometime in the spring when they come back and actually make their first report back to you. We're looking at the fall, but we've also hired a consultant to do -- basically to go out and canvass residents for input on what they believe and to provide that information to the committee as well. It's moving along and there are meetings, but this is in control that have Horizon Committee. It's something that staff is not really -- we're pushing it, but we're only pushing it so far. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure, I understand. And it's doing -- it's a great -- MR. SCHMITT: They're doing a great job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got out there to be able to come up with something that interconnects everything together and makes total sense. Commissioner Fiala? Page 24 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As everybody's aware my major concern is always the road system. And it was quite alarming to me to read here that the growth rate on Golden Gate Boulevard has exceeded 10 percent in the last three years and is -- and Golden Gate Boulevard is expected to be deficient in 2008. It is anticipated that the completion of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension will possibly, I guess, mitigate some of that. But the conclusion is that the additional 45,000 square feet of commercial is not consistent with policy 5.1 of the transportation element of the GMP. And right now, as I'm fully aware, Golden Gate Boulevard is a mass of transportation issues mainly because of the congestion on that road, and I'm concerned about increasing the congestion on that road by additional commercial. So I'll just put that on the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You touched briefly on this, Commissioner, in regards to the East of951 Study. I think we need to find out what's going on. I think this is way too premature. The other thing that bothers me is where this was heard by the Planning Commission, and then what we're hearing here is basically a change of spots on the leopard. And I have some concerns on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many speakers do we have? MS. KENDALL: We have 12 speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go to the speakers at this time. MS. KENDALL: Okay. We'll begin with Jon Irwin, followed by Paula Bonar. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, do you know how to work that machine? MS. KENDALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a three-minute time for each person. And when you come up, please, if you'd be so kind to state your name for the record. You can use either podium. Page 25 June 5, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: And speakers, I would ask the second speaker announced, would they be ready to come up and start speaking. MS. KENDALL: Paula Bonar. MR. IRWIN: Good morning. My name's Jon Irwin. I have three acres just -- Immokalee Road and Wilson, 2680 2nd Street Northwest. Haven't really built out there. We've owned the property for about four years. We're kind of waiting for more stuff to be happening out there that's closer to us, retail, medical. Just more -- we have two small children, and it's out there. It's a drive. If they need any medical attention, with all the traffic on Immokalee Road, we were just -- like to see more stuff going on out in that area, and I think a medical facility closer in that area will benefit a lot of people. That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. IRWIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can call the next speaker also so they're ready and on-line. MS. KENDALL: Okay. That would be Linda Hartman, followed by Mark Teaters. MS. BONAR: Hi. I'm Paula Bonar. I live off of Webber, and part of my concern was the fact that traffic won't be coming so close to 9511Collier Boulevard, Immokalee, because the more commercial places that you have out in the Estates, the less traffic it will create for people having to come into town, this far into town. My son goes to Big Cypress. And having a medical facility that close to his school for the next five years would be something I would -- definitely be positive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Ms. Hartman? MS. HARTMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Linda Hartman. I was the vice-chair of the Master Plan Committee, and I'm also the vice-chair of the Horizon Committee. Boy, you guys confused me. You threw me for a loop with that Page 26 June 5, 2007 Horizon, what you think we're responsible for, because we didn't think we were changing any master plans. MR. SCHMITT: That will eventually come, but as part of the process. The first piece is looking at where you want to go, and it depends -- if it does involve a master plan change, that certainly would have to take place. MS. HARTMAN: But we're for the whole east of951, not just the Estates. MR. SCHMITT: That's right. MS. HARTMAN: It's all the growth. What we're trying to do, we thought, was assess the -- what the growth's going to be out there and what the needs are going to be -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MS. HARTMAN: -- is what I come up with. So -- just so, you know, don't throw more at us than we have said we're going to do out there. While I was on the Master Plan Committee, we tried to -- actually we were thinking of putting more neighborhood centers in because the people out there kept coming to us and saying, we need more things. You know, we live way out there. We don't want to go all the way in town. But any -- anything that we plan to make, any new neighborhood centers, was always put down because, you know, it's a really beautiful residential area, and they didn't want anything near their houses. We want it, but not next door to me, issue. But -- so what we came up with was that on the side of the commercial -- you know, the neighborhood center, we had this transitional use which, at the time, I don't know if any of us even thought of medical. And that is low impact on transitional use. And everybody I've spoken to has thought, wow, wouldn't it be great if I could take my kids to the doctor during the day instead of going out -- all the way out in town. And then they were talking about -- we thought medical, wow. Medical would be wonderful out there. Page 27 June 5, 2007 And I find myself, that that seems to be less impact on the neighborhood than even a church might even have. And I love the idea that they're talking about -- they've been talking to everybody out there in the Estates. I've never seen a developer -- and the other ones have -- some of them have worked with us, but these developers seem to work with us far more than most of them have. They've really made an effort to get in touch with the neighbors. And I've attended many meetings on it, and I like the idea of -- transitional use to me is low impact and it seems to me that that medical fits in there, and it saves road trips, which -- and -- because people are going along the Boulevard all the time anyway because right now it's the only way to go, so they're out there anyway, so it'd be easy to zoom in there and take care of your medical. And so, to me, it is low impact. And, personally, I'm really in favor, and a bunch of people that I know also, also feel the same way, so-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. HARTMAN: -- that's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Teaters? MR. TEATERS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for having me today. As you know, Golden Gate Estates-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name for the record? MR. TEATERS: Oh, Mark Teaters. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. TEATERS: I, likewise, am on the East of951 Horizon Study, and I was confused as well, but we'll deal with that later. As you know, Golden Gate Estates is growing, and many, many people out there want services in the Estates. My situation is a little different in that I'm directly impacted by this property, by this project, proposed project. I live almost right across the street from where the lot is -- where land is going to be -- there's an L shape. Part of the Page 28 June 5, 2007 land goes between First and Wilson Boulevard, and I can see it from the front of my house. There's some benefits to this project for our neighborhood. Now, we had a neighborhood meeting; a bunch of us that have had a group in the neighborhood for the last couple years got together last Wednesday. And I have some information here for you on the attendees who showed up. We actually had Linda Hartman come to ask -- answer questions on behalf of the Master Plan Committee. We had the petitioner and his engineer there, and we had a group of people from the neighborhood. It was advertised. We put out fliers to the people that lived there that were immediately impacted, the folks that live on Wilson and the folks that live on First because we wanted to know for sure what everybody's thoughts were. We didn't have 10 residents, 10 actual residents show up, which is par for the course. Those are the people that normally show up for those. The benefits for this is the buffer that's going to go across. The bottom's going to be 100 feet, the bottom, the L shape between Wilson and First, that will not be developed. It will be either water retention or buffer, and it's going to protect us, not only from this project, but we won't be able to see the back -- as a neighborhood, we won't be able to see the back of Walgreen's either or what they're doing. So it's going to protect us all the way across. Local services for residents. Low impact businesses. Reduce trips going into town. The one lady said earlier, you know, the people going into town. I talked to Commissioner Henning many times about the need for more business to the east so that people would go to the east instead of the west. The concerns the folks had were the water issues. We're going to have three major projects in the area that we're going to have to deal with the water. You know, we have flooding in our area with our neighbors. Our houses have been -- look like moats around the house. Page 29 June 5, 2007 Roads, the traffic. Commissioner Fiala, to your point. Landscaping buffer that's going to be dealt with in the future. The lighting was addressed by the petitioner, and also getting rid of the things such as surveyors with truck fleets and things like that. I think that the uses for this property, it's -- from what I heard from the neighbors, the uses for this property being a conditional transitional property, the uses that they're proposing are much, much better for our community and for our neighborhood than would be a church who would be open who knows when, and I think that there's a benefit here for us as a neighborhood. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Teaters. MR. TEATERS: Copy of this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Leave it right with the court reporter. MR. TEA TERS: Absolutely. MS. KENDALL: The next speaker is Pat Humphries, followed by Winnie Apperson. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates since 1992. I live three miles from the subject project. I was on the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association board of directors for 10 years and served on all the committees that addressed shopping centers in the Estates. The owner of the property has gone to great lengths to make his project compatible with the neighbors and the Golden Gate Master Plan, so I do not have an objection to it. A medical facility would be an appropriate addition to that location. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. APPERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Winnie Apperson. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates and I'm also a realtor. Being a resident, my desire to have other services, medical especially -- I have a grandson with asthma who spends the night with Page 30 June 5, 2007 us all the time because we love him to death, and we have had to take him to North Collier Hospital which, in the panic of asthma, is very frightful. Being a realtor, I sell -- help a lot of residents sell homes or buy homes out there. And one of -- a lot of my complaints are, I have people listing their houses to sell because of the inconvenience and the cost of living so far out for goods and services. And I find it discouraging because -- the Estates is beautiful and I love it out there, but I also feel that living out there, we shouldn't be kind of -- I wouldn't say punished, but neglected from goods and services that we could really use. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. KENDALL: Next speaker is Meghan Bedell followed by Jeff Polen. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jeff, if you position yourself to be ready to go, we'd appreciate it. MS. BEDELL: Hi. My name's Meghan Bedell and I'm a homeowner on Wilson Boulevard, and I support this project because I have two small children and I think it would be a great benefit for us to have the medical services close by, and I think it's a great inconvenience to have to drive far out into the city, and I think this would be great for the area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker would be after the gentleman that's up there now. MS. KENDALL: Mary Ann Glatt and Scott Barham. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. POLEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Polen. I'm a resident of the Estates. Everybody that preceded me pretty much said exactly the same thing I was going to say, so I'm not going to take time repeating everybody. I do believe that I can -- I can't understand how it could not be anything but a positive for our area. Personally, I've had three heart Page 31 June 5, 2007 attacks. I got a defibrillator, and the sooner -- if something happens to this machine, the soon I get to a doctor, the much more comfortable I feel. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. MS. GLATT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Mary Ann Glatt. I am here today to support this project because I believe it is a benefit to this community for the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. BARHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Scott Barham, and I'm a Collier County schoolteacher and long-time Golden Gate Estates resident. I believe that this project is beneficial and very much needed by our community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. KENDALL: The last two speakers, Tim Nance and Christina Farlow. MR. NANCE: Commissioners, Tim Nance. I'm the current president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. The petitioner's representative attended and presented a proposal before the Estates Civic Association. The membership in attendance there were sharply divided of whether they supported or opposed the development. The ones that supported it obviously supported it because -- ostensibly because it's been presented as offering some healthcare benefits. The ones that had objections had objections because they thought that it was a portend badly for additional commercial development in the Estates. Golden Gate Estates represents about 3.7 percent of the area of Collier County. And although -- the individual commissioners mayor may not know it, but in the past year, there have been 12 public information meetings proposing plan amendments that would have suggested more commercial in Golden Gate Estates. Page 32 June 5, 2007 So I hope regardless of the way the commissioners vote, please be aware that the Golden Gate Master Plan was a study over 20 months, many, many meetings, and there are many concerns that Golden Gate Estates remain rural and residential. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Nance, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I was at that meeting, and you took a count of what that vote was, and that may be helpful, and also there was suggestions of where would be what they thought was a more appropriate location for this. Would you share that with the commission? MR. NANCE: Well, there was a little discussion. There was only about -- I think there was 35 members in attendance at the time. I think 14 people, including the representative of the petitioner, voted in favor of it, and 21 members voted against it. And those were the reasons. I think one thing that was brought up was that there was a Naples community healthcare proposal of 40,000 square feet of medical that's currently being advertised at the corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, what I was trying to get at is, one of the proposals was -- is that they thought it might be -- a more appropriate place would be Belle Meade? MR. NANCE: A proposal -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whoever stated that is the fact that they thought it would be more appropriate, that a medical center should be in Belle Meade. I just wanted to get that on the record. MR. NANCE: Well, I don't remember that, Commissioner. But, I mean, it could have been. Could have been. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Smith, who isn't here today -- Richard Smith, and there was a couple other people that commented. Page 33 June 5, 2007 MR. NANCE: Yeah, I thought Richard was going to come, but I don't see him today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He might still get here. MR. NANCE: Yeah, he might. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, we thank you very much for your time and your service that you give to your community. MR. NANCE: Thank you. MS. FARLOW: Good morning. My name is Christina Farlow, and I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates. I, unlike most of the other speakers, live in the northeast section on Randall Boulevard off of Immokalee. That neighborhood consists of six gated communities with more coming, four schools within three miles of my house, and thousands of homes. We all clog up your roadways driving into Naples to go to doctors' appointments, dentists' appointments, and emergency rooms. Also, we have these schools in our area, and the idea that we have thousands of homes and schools with no medical area whatsoever in that area is remarkable. I would like to see medical care available if a child has an accident at school, I mean, sports or something like that, or ifthere's a traffic accident on our streets, which are clogged with dump trucks, or if there is a heart attack, which my family personally experienced not long ago. My second reason for wanting this facility closer to my home-- it's not in my exact neighborhood, but closer -- is that these -- as Commissioner Fiala mentioned, the roadways are very clogged out there, and everything that we can stop coming from the far east in towards Naples will free up your doctors' offices, your dentists' offices, and unclog your emergency rooms in your hospitals. And every road trip we can take off will mean we have to build fewer megaroads out there, and we'd be grateful for that. Page 34 June 5, 2007 And finally, the last reason that I'm in favor of this is because -- a very personal reason. Not long ago a very dear family (sic) of mine had a medical emergency, a very severe medical emergency. And I drove into the hospitals here in Naples. And I will tell you that it may only be 10 miles, but when your loved one is between life and death, it might as well be a hundred, because it feels that way. And we would all like to not be second-class citizens out there and have opportunities and services that people in here in Naples have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And I thank you so much, and I appreciate the audience participation. I don't know if we're going to -- probably only one other issue we're going to have come before us today is going to spark so much interest. And I feel very strongly about this too. I think it's a facility that meets the needs of that particular area. I like a lot of things that have taken place. I'm sorry about the fact that they didn't get on the stick a little bit sooner with the medical part of the -- portion of it as far as the Planning Commission goes. It would have been great to have them weigh in at the beginning. We had the public information meetings. And I'm going to chastise you a little bit about that. In the future, make sure when you're going to bring a product to us it's a final product. However, with that said, I don't want this delayed a couple of years more in the process and not be able to go forward with it. I-- the petitioner did everything that you could possibly expect him to do. In fact, I asked him to write a white paper afterwards whether he's successful or not explaining the process he went through. His outreach has been unbelievable. He even incorporated something that we may see more of in the future where he -- excuse me one second. And I can't possibly grab them all, but there's 600 some of these cards back there. What he did was, to try to keep this survey being as non-biased as possible and nobody'd be able to pre-sort it, he took the liberty of Page 35 June 5, 2007 addressing it to my office, which impressed me, you know. I kind of thought this might be the thing that would sink the ship because nobody's ever done an effective survey of Golden Gate Estates at this point in time as far as the -- their personal feelings as far as commercial, especially medical. This has overwhelmingly been in favor by a large majority of the medical facility. And with that, being in mind the fact that we have this going back before the Planning Commission and we have it coming back before us, I'm going to make a motion for transmittal to also include what the neighborhood information meeting that they had a couple days ago, the requirements that they put into it be included in that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, I'll second your vote, I'll second your motion, because I was impressed with the fact that the transportation issue was brought out repeatedly and that it will take pressure off of 951 by people being able to get to medical facilities closer to home. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. This is a case of the public benefit far outweighing the letter of the suggested directions that we received in the past. And I think even Joe Schmitt will agree that it's been a soft rejection based upon what the actual law was itself and that he -- do you want to comment on that, Mr. Schmitt, just so I don't go and put words in your mouth? MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, we -- as -- as directed by this board, we're looking at every aspect of growth east of 951. We were concerned about premature plan amendments somewhat derailing some of that process, but the needs outweigh some of those aspects of the -- in regards to the planning and some of the work that that committee is doing in looking at what is needed as far as east of 951. And, of course, they're looking at all aspects of 951. So it's a policy decision we throw to the board in regards to -- and we discussed this in the past in front of this board regarding Page 36 June 5, 2007 commercial activities and these type of facilities in the Estates and the need for it. And, of course, it does have the potential to reduce, as was stated by many of the speakers, reduce folks having to transit into Naples for those same services. So, again, throw the ball, it's in your court. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just hope that if this does get transmitted that this petitioner isn't going to come back at a later date and change the color of the leopard so that he can put some other commercial in there. I also have some concerns that -- and I think this is a thing that the people all realize, that I believe that Ave Maria is also building an infirmary out there, so there will be some medical facilities there. The other thing I have concerns of is medical waste getting into -- leaching into the water, but that's something we can address at a later date. So I understand the concerns that the citizens have out there, and things are happening rapidly out there. But as I said, there's an infirmary that is going to be also out there. And I would hope that the petitioner understands that we're not here to play games. When you bring something before the Planning Commission and then turn everything around, I don't -- I'm not too happy about that, so -- but I probably will vote in favor of this to have it transmitted to DCA only because of the fact of the outpouring of concern by the residents. And I hope, as I said earlier, that this petitioner better not come back here and try to change the colors of the stripes again, or the spots. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. In support of that, I would Page 37 June 5, 2007 suggest that we include in the motion that it includes specifically medical uses, because it appears that this is the overwhelming desire, and if it -- and restrict it to medical uses. And if that is the case, then the approval will not be effected if there's any other attempted use. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, at this point in time -- and I've been through this particular issue with the petitioner. There's no way that there's enough of a population there to support 100 percent medical. And there was tremendous support for other commercial type of things, especially the -- what do you want to call it? Such trades that generate -- what do you -- professional buildings, was the -- was 50 percent medical, was it? How were we -- Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. The commitment that the neighborhood asked us to make was that the majority of the square footage that gets approved be medical, and we agreed to that. And also we made an agreement that 100 percent of the parking would be designed -- for instance, the southeast quadrant right now has 36,000 square feet. Unfortunately it doesn't have the parking that would support medical. A hundred percent of the site will be developed at a medical ration so that it can accommodate 100 percent medical in the future. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. You just lost me on that statement. MR. FERNANDEZ: The majority of the square footage would be medical, and in addition to that, it would be designed so that it could accommodate 100 percent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But what is the percentage of medical that you're going to absolutely irrevocably -- MR. FERNANDEZ: The majority, which would be 51 percent, say, or you know -- essentially, if we're 45,000 square feet, we're talking about 23,000 of it being medical. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think when you bring it back, you may want to look at 60 percent as being a more realistic number. Page 38 June 5, 2007 MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think if you're going to impose a percentage on it, we should do it at the time of approval now rather than -- rather than telling him to come back with some change in the future. I'd like to get as specific as we can about this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you agree to 60 percent, sir? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Just the overall -- these petitions on the agenda to change the Growth Management Plan, I just have a concern about -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. Could you -- just a little bit closer to your mike. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a concern about relying on government. Just a short process, a few years ago, that went through the process of changing the Golden Gate Master Plan because there were concerns of commercials in certain areas, and so the board adopted it. And now the East of951 Horizon Committee will be dealing with similar issues again. I personally think that government should be relied on, on what it's saying, or just don't do any more of these committees and let the landowners come petition the board. But we have spent some money and the citizens spent the time, and I just can't support it for that reason. But I understand the comments of the constituents in Golden Gate Estates, the need for that. Don't disagree with that. Should have did that three years ago. Don't know what the Horizon Committee's going to bring. And I just can't support the motion because of that reason, and others, on here. Page 39 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you have to vote your conscience, Commissioner Henning. Of course, when this comes back to us, I think if you see an approval from the Planning Commission and other neighborhood meetings, you might be more receptive at that point in time? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm always open. Try to stay open. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You do a good job at that, sir. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in -- okay, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Just a quick point of order. I believe there was a change from a majority of medical to 60 percent, and it's implied that the motion maker agrees, and does the second agree? And that's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion maker agrees. Does the second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second does. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second agrees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Margie. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of a transmittal with the additions that we added to that, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 40 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show Commissioner Henning voted in the opposition. Also, too, in the back of the room we have Mr. Mudd who's one year older today. I want everybody to turn around and recognize him and say Happy Birthday, Jim Mudd. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, you've been such good boys and girls recognizing Jim Mudd, I'm going to give you a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) MR. WEEKS: You have a live mike, Mr. Chairman. Item #2B PETITION: CP-2005-5 Commissioners, the next petition is CP-2005-5, petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to amend the Golden Gate Estates commercial infill subdistrict, to expand the subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses, and allow residential uses at 15 dwelling units per acre for property located at the northwest comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, consisting of approximately 18 acres. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with your Comprehensive Planning Staff. The petitioner/agent/owner is not here today. Staff has had several communications with the agent or representative in the past, and they were questioning whether or not to continue with this Page 41 June 5, 2007 petItIOn. I asked for a formal withdrawal if, in fact, that's what they were going to do, and I have not yet heard from them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to deny. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this item? MS. KENDALL: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for denial by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion for denial, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was quick. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good presentation, Michelle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Item #2C PETITION: CP-2005-6 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next on the agenda is petition CP-2005-6, petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map Page 42 June 5, 2007 and Map Series, to create the Golden Gate Parkway institutional subdistrict, to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and to allow additional institutional and related uses for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically tracts 43,50,59, and 66, unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, Section 29, Township 49 south, Range 46 east, consisting of approximately 16.3 acres. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioners. With me today are David Shimmel with the David Lawrence Center, Margaret Perry, Jeff Perry, Tom Tradis (phonetic), and Jared Brown with WilsonMiller if you have any questions related to the petition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In may, I've been following this with the greatest of interest for some time. It's a needed facility out there. It's got the support of just about everyone and his brother from one end of the community to the other. I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers? MS. KENDALL: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Comments from anyone? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, do you like to hear something from staff, even if for brief? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A very brief presentation, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The less the better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry? Yes. MS. MOSCA: Again, for the record, Michelle Mosca. I'll be very brief. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask if the motion is for transmittal as recommended by the petitioner or the alternative recommendation by staff. I just need some clarification, and then if you have any questions. Page 43 June 5, 2007 What the petitioner has presented, I'll put that on the visualizer. The petitioner has removed all of the uses, as you can see on the bottom of the Exhibit A. And the uses will be limited to those identified in the top portion numbers -- I'm sorry, A through F. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eliminating C, right? MS. MOSCA: The strikethrough portion in green will be eliminated, and that was as presented by the petitioner in their resubmittal. Staff also -- in red you can see the elimination of nursing home facilities. The uses that staff had proposed were those uses associated or affiliated with the church or the David Lawrence Center. Staff could not see the connection with the nursing home facility, and the petitioner may want to address that and include that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Henning may have some comments or questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The David Lawrence Center, in my opinion, has been housing -- or overnight stays, if you might say, some recommended by the law enforcement officers. Are you saying by strikethrough, that that will not be able to take place? MS. MOSCA: No, sir. What I'm saying -- under the group care facilities, one and two -- categories one and two, those would accommodate the inpatient care, I believe, unless the petitioner says otherwise. The nursing home facilities would be for eldercare and so forth. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nursing facilities, wouldn't they call that adult living facilities also, would that -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is there any other category covered by nursing homes that is not covered under adult living facilities? Page 44 June 5, 2007 MS. MOSCA: I may have to -- I believe categories one and two, was that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe Mr. Y ovanovich can just address the question. We definitely -- I mean, David Lawrence Center is an asset to the community. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, and we put that in there specifically because we do deal with some older clients who will need those types of service-related and operated under the David Lawrence Center. So we would like to have the nursing center -- I mean, the nursing home and the assisted living facility stay in. We agree it needs to be related to the David Lawrence Center, but we would like that use to stay in. And I think maybe there might have been a misunderstanding of what we agreed to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask the motion maker to allow C. And now, is it your understanding that you'll have to come through a conditional use to actually restore the uses and the facility due to taking of government for the roadway expansion? Do you have to come back through a conditional use? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Under the present text that's being proposed, they would have to come in for another conditional use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the time that those issues should be addressed with C. In my opinion, we just want to keep David Lawrence whole. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stay with the David C. Lawrence Center's recommendations and that we address it later. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I include that in my motion. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments that you need to add for the record? Page 45 June 5, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you just -- did you have something else you want to add? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Would it be clearer if we included item C and just added, in relation to David Lawrence Center? That's the problem here. This is property that's used for two different purposes. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And it would not be our intent, I believe, that a separate nursing home or assisted living facility be established on this property, but we certainly want the David Lawrence Center to be able to provide those kinds of services. So I would suggest for better clarity that we say that nursing home and assisted living facilities associated with the David Lawrence be an approved use; would that be okay? MS. MOSCA: Excuse me, if I may. As would all of the other uses that are listed. In the lead-in paragraph it talks about related uses. So staff would request that all of those uses be affiliated, associated with either the church or David Lawrence Center. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but that doesn't get where I'm going to. I don't think I would -- if I had my preference, I would rather see David Lawrence Center operating a nursing home and assisted living facility than to have the church operating the nursing home and assisting living. MS. MOSCA: Yes, I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it would be really good if we were to specify that in these uses so that David Lawrence Center has the maximum range of flexibility with respect to providing the medical care they provide. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Page 46 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And restrict it with respect to any other organization's use for that purpose. Does that make sense? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: David Lawrence Center is fine with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That won't in any way impede your mission? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I include that in the motion. Commissioner Fiala -- we'll have to wait until she gets back to include that in her second. Okay. Now, while we have the floor here and no lights on, does somebody want to say something or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell a joke? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. How about -- oh, there we go. We just included the language in the motion that the David C. Lawrence Center would be the one to offer the assisted living -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I heard that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, good. And you agree? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No -- any speakers? MS. KENDALL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry? MS. KENDALL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes or no? MS. KENDALL: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 47 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously. Wonderful presentation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, Michelle, you're doing good. Item #2D PETITION: CP-2006-4 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next petition is the last one pertaining to the Golden Gate Master Plan. That is petition CP-2006-4, that is correct, a 2006 petition which this board had previously directed staff to move forward into the 2005 cycle. It is a petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to modify the conditional uses subdistrict transitional conditional uses provision to allow a church as a transitional conditional use for the subject site abutting a residential use for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately 300 feet east of Oakes Boulevard in Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, consisting of approximately 2.6 acres. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wayne Arnold, for the record, representing First Congressional Church. And with me today are Roland Pandazi and Reverend Wicker associated with the church and Dean Smith from our office, who's a civil engmeer. You all had moved us into the 2005 cycle from the 2006 submittal that we've made because we've been working with the county trying to establish a north/south road corridor to alleviate some Page 48 June 5, 2007 of the issues associated with Oakes Boulevard. We've been out there working with the county staff, we've been working with our neighborhoods. Staff ultimately changed its recommendation to support the transmittal of this because I think we demonstrated through the data and analysis that there aren't an unlimited number of sites located in the urbanized portion of Golden Gate Estates that would support a church, and this one, clearly with the support of the neighbors and the Oakes community and our immediate neighbors, staff was comfortable in recommending that we could come back through the conditional use process on this specific tract for a church and church related facilities. I don't want to belabor the point. I think we've got good community support, staff support, Planning Commission support. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have related to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve for a transmittal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go with Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I guess this would be under conditional use, and I was just wondering if this would fall under the guidelines of spot zoning. Can staff answer that for me? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners -- Commissioner, I would say no, though I will acknowledge this is a specific provision applicable only to this property. Spot zoning usually is in reference to a rezoning of property to be totally unrelated to the surrounding area and very small in size. But in a broad sense, perhaps one could view it that way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The staff supports it, but with Page 49 June 5, 2007 the double strikethroughs, referring to tract 122, unit 97, and I'm not sure exactly what we're seeing through the strikethroughs. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. I can address that, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt. The strikethroughs simply indicate the staffs revisions to remove this as a transitional conditional use and place it as an exception to conditional use requirements. In a previous iteration, the specific conditions couldn't be met as transitional location. So it simply fit better at another location in the document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, we have a second. Do we have any speakers on this? MS. KENDALL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning to transmit. With that, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously. Thank you very much. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #2E Page 50 June 5, 2007 PETITION: CP-2005-7 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is petition CP-2005-7, petition requesting amendment to the future land use element to modify the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict, to add retail uses, and increase building square footage from 40,000 square feet to 70,000 square feet for property located at the northwest comer of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road in Section 12, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, consisting of approximately 10.47 acres. Bob Mulhere is the agent for this petition. I don't see him in the room, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He was here earlier. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll wait just a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think he's standing right outside the door there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tall fellow with the mustache. There he is. MR. MULHERE: You're so efficient. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we are. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I apologize. I didn't think you'd get to me this quickly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to deny. MR. MULHERE: I kind of thought that was coming. Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A, here this morning on behalf of the property owner, Paul Heffke and R&H Properties, LLC. Now, this is a relatively minor comprehensive plan amendment. The property presently is permitted to develop up to 40,000 square feet of office, medical and general office, and that was approved in 2001. At the time Livingston Road was not improved north of Pine Ridge, and there were also several changes relative to properties Page 51 June 5, 2007 surrounding the subject property that have occurred in the ensuing years. The property owner came to us and asked us to take a look at the property and ascertain whether or not more than 40,000 square feet could reasonably be developed there. And we met with staff early on in the process. We were looking at early on coming in and requesting about a 100,000 square feet. Staff suggested that we do some conceptual site planning, which we did do. We went back and conducted several site planning exercises. And there are some significant constraints on the property which is located at the northwest comer of Livingston and Pine Ridge. There is an FP&L easement that runs through the western portion of the property for the length of the property and consumes about six acres of the slightly larger than 10-acre parcel, leaving just four acres of developable land. Even with that constraint under an office scenario, we were able to develop two concept plans that would yield about 65- to 70,000 square feet of office. Now, presently no retail is permitted, and our request is to increase the 40,000 to 70,000 square feet, of which 20,000 may be retail. And if the site is developed with any retail, as the amount of retail developed in the site increases, the total yield on the site is reduced because of the parking requirements associated with retail. So if some retail was developed on the site, then you wouldn't be able to achieve the 70,000. It would be 60- or 50-, depending on the amount of retail that would be developed. The access is also fairly well constrained on this site. There is presently -- and I'm sure you're familiar with it. It has a nursery on it right now, kind of a blue painted nursery. There is an access point on Pine Ridge Road that we have talked with Nick Casalanguida in transportation services, and there is, in fact, a notation in the staff report that that access point at the time of rezone would need to be Page 52 June 5, 2007 modified or eliminated, and we do understand that. In fact, I talked with Nick yesterday and also this morning, and it's likely that Pine Ridge would be limited only to an egress. There would be no ingress on Pine Ridge Road. Now, we do have the opportunity to attempt to negotiate with the property owner immediately to our left, which is a ballet dance studio -- thank you -- and they do have access on Pine Ridge Road, and so if we're able to negotiate leading up to the rezone petition, which would be in the future, then we would be able to access this property from Pine Ridge through the adjacent property. It's kind of long and narrow, but we have worked with FP&L on several other projects and been able to utilize a portion of the easement property on these other projects for stormwater management as well as landscaping. They have some restrictions, but those restrictions are not insurmountable, and that would allow us to utilize the balance of the property for development purposes. And staff recommendation was not to transmit, and in inquiring as to, you know, why that was, I think staff felt that the board had already acted on this in 2001, had established a 40,000 square foot maximum, and I think our position is that a lot of things have changed since 2001, and there's really no reason to sort of artificially limit that to 40,000 if reasonably 60- to 70,000 square feet of office could be achieved on this site. The Planning Commission heard this petition and did support the petition by a vote of 6-3 for recommendation to transmit. We had a neighborhood information meeting, which no one showed up except staff and ourselves. We did wait the requisite period of time before concluding that meeting. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. It would be sometime down the road. Presumably about a year before we could come in for a rezone. Maybe a little bit longer. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner Page 53 June 5, 2007 Henning and go to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The reason it didn't happen in 2001, the requested -- for changing it to a mix of -- I think medical and retail. MR. MULHERE: Correct. General office, medical office, and retail. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The owner of the property called me up during the transmittal and the adoption and just chewed me out. And he is no longer the property -- MR. MULHERE: I was just going to say, that's not the present applicant. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. He's no longer the property owner. And in fact, the property owner's a local gentleman, couple. I told the agent, if your client shows up after that tongue lashing that I received, he'd be lucky if he gets agricultural. So I just thought it needed some respect of the seat. And my colleagues supported me at that, just kind of a refresher of the ones that were here at that time. And I'm glad we're talking about interconnection of the ballet. I mean, that's going to be an enhancement to that comer intersection, so I'm glad you addressed that. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I think it will be mutually beneficial. We do have to work with them on that, and we would bring that forward at the time of rezone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, before-- do we have any speakers, just out of curiosity? MS. KENDALL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some concerns increasing -- I think it would -- we should just leave this where it was in 2001, the reason being, I've got a multitude of concerns. Page 54 June 5, 2007 We're in the -- presently we just recently increased the commercial density in the Naples Boulevard area, which is commercial. We have got some commercial that's coming on-line down the road at Goodlette-Frank and Pine Ridge, and here we want to put more additional commercial on Pine Ridge. We just got done recently filling in all of the commercial along Pine Ridge where it's -- I think it's called the Mission where the church used to be. And I realize that people are saying, well, we're going to lighten the load of traffic on Pine Ridge with the opening of the new interchange, but if we keep throwing commercial on this thing, I've got some real concerns. And I don't think that at this point in time we really know whether we're going to have an interconnect onto Pine Ridge, and I have some concerns. I just as soon see this left with what was approved in 2001. I believe that was 40,000 square feet. So I'd like to make a motion that we not transmit this, that it be left the way it is at the present time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Halas to trans -- not to transmit, and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Coyle, you're next. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Commissioner Halas covered my Issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm in pretty much agreement with them except I had some concerns, and I wanted to know what other commercial is approved in that area. I want to know what kind of a traffic impact is already happening in that area. And then from our transportation department, I'd like to get some kind of information, because everything they can see here just does not support -- as far as I'm concerned, does not alleviate my traffic Page 55 June 5, 2007 congestion concerns. MR. MULHERE: Well, if! could -- and I'm sure Nick will come up and speak the specifics on the traffic. The Baldridge PUD, which is across the street, across Pine Ridge on the southeast comer, is approved for 125,000 square feet, and on the northeast comer is Cambridge Square PUD, which is approved for 115,000 square feet. You know, this request is for an additional 30,000 square feet and to allow for some retail, up to 25,000 square feet. It's a pretty small amount of additional square footage from the existing 40,000. The fact is, the site can handle that. And we understand that we're going to have limited access and that we may not have any access on Pine Ridge Road, and if we do, it will only be an egress unless we can use the existing ingress and egress adjacent to our west. So, I mean, we do understand that. But this development could actually have a beneficial impact depending on the uses. I don't know what those are right now. We'll know at the time of rezone, but this comprehensive land use designation is intended to provide for services for the residents in the area and the passing motorists, and I think that office employment opportunities as well as some retail could actually have a beneficial impact. You're not going to be able to easily get from those other commercial activities at that intersection if you're heading southbound on Livingston, but if it's an office use, I really don't see that as having a major impact at the requested additional 30,000 square feet. Now, retail could, and at the original hearing, there were some concerns expressed relative to service station use and fast food uses, and we have no objection -- I assumed that that could be handled at the time of rezone, but we would have no objection to limiting those uses if it was a concern at this period of time. I really don't see this as having, in any way, a significant impact. I think that concern was that that access point is simply too close to Page 56 June 5, 2007 the intersection, the existing access point, and we understand that. I don't know if Nick wants to speak to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'd like to hear from Nick, please. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. I want to be consistent with the analysis I put forward here. There are concerns about access. We have met with the applicant, discussed things that we could do with shared access. The impacts to the northeast comer are not on-line yet. The impacts to the southeast comer are not on-line yet. You've got a reduction in traffic from the interchange opening up of roughly 6 percent, maybe closer to 10. I'm getting more current numbers as time moves on. We have a concern about the access restriction. Obviously having only one driveway on Livingston can be a problem as well, too. Having them interconnect would be critical to making that driveway a more functional driveway. So consistent with my -- you know, my review that's in front of you, we have concerns. It is consistent with 5.1, but there are operational issues at that intersection we would be concerned about. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? Any other questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's what I wanted to hear. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in could, my question is, Pine Ridge and Livingston. I guess this would be for staff. Wouldn't we want to be -- if we're going to ever put development in anyplace, commercial development, wouldn't we want to locate it at some major intersection? I mean, what kind of -- what other use would be there? It certainly wouldn't be residential. I'm sure that wouldn't be an appropriate use for the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that's true. And -- but your Page 57 June 5, 2007 problem always with being located at an intersection is access, the amount of turns and what's involved. I mean, if you could -- when you saw earlier today the petitions in Golden Gate Estates, I believe it was either Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Coyle that pointed out, what would your access be like? You want to see those things but you want that access to be away from the intersection. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you're saying that the biggest problem that we have with this is the access -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as far as transportation goes. And Mr. Mulhere, is there any way you could address our concerns on that? MR. MULHERE: Well, we certainly can -- we've put on the record that we understand that we would have limited or no access on Pine Ridge. In fact, we'll have no access to the property on Pine Ridge. There's a possibility of an egress. We're going to work with the adjacent property owner to see if we can get interconnection. I can't tell you that we definitely will have that, but I suppose when we come back for rezone, if we don't have interconnection, that would have a bearing on the Planning Commission or the board's position as to whether to approve that rezone. Right now we're just at the compo plan stage. And I think the second thing is, there's also an opportunity for interconnection at the northernmost portion of the property, in this vicinity right here. And, you know, we'll explore that feasibility, and it's feasible to have actually one or two right-in, right-outs on Livingston based on the length of the property. But certainly there's an opportunity for interconnection at this point as well. So we understand. I mean, I think we hear very clearly that your concerns are, and the staffs concerns are related to access, and we will work diligently to provide for interconnection. Page 58 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To work and to agree are two different things. In other words, you want to be able to keep your option open for the access to Pine Ridge regardless? MR. MULHERE: No, no. We're not asking for that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We understand that's going to be closed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But would that make sense to have an access all the way to the north end? I mean, that's quite an area you have to transgress before you get into the project. MR. MULHERE: I'm talking about potentially an access right here you could actually go into the project just through here for the northern terminus of the project. There is an access there. We don't control that. I think it goes into The Community School. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, I'd like to hear ifthat was the premise where Pine Ridge was not on the table and if it was just that access to the far north end, would transportation still have those concerns? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd still have concerns. It would help alleviate that, but we still have concerns with access. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what my question was. Let's see. I'm trying to remember the order, I guess it's Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. As I said, my motion was that we retain what's already been approved there, 40,000, and I think that should be adequate. I'm very concerned about all the other commercial that's already been approved on Pine Ridge. And as Nick said, that we may have a traffic drop of about 10 percent. But I'm sure with the added commercial that's going to be not only in these two quadrants, but all along the roadway of Pine Ridge that hasn't been fully developed yet, I think we're going to impact that road immensely so I'm still -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? Page 59 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, slide that sheet to the north. I want to see the -- no, the other way, the other north. Let's see. What's the Baldridge property designation? How many square feet? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, did you say Baldridge? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Baldridge. MR. MULHERE: On the acreage in the square footage? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, I mean, how many square feet? MR. MULHERE: Well, Baldridge is -- got 10.8 acres of commercial and 125,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hundred and twenty-five, okay. And the one to the north. MR. MULHERE: Cambridge has 115,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, yeah. And you know, I think it's -- in my opinion it's about being fair. The adjacent properties enjoy the designation of having quite a bit of retail, and you're asking far less. And I just don't think the motion is fair to the property owner, myself. So I mean, I can't support it. You always want -- my understanding, whether right or wrong, is activity centers of retail, commercial, office. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, the idea was, if we had a little bit of retail, that would provide for a mixture of uses -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- which actually would have a beneficial use. But I mean, ifthere's a concern about the request for up to 20,000 square feet -- no one really has objected to the rezone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you had a medical-- I mean, you had a doctor there and you also had a drugstore, you can actually enhance? MR. MULHERE: Or perhaps a sit-down restaurant that doesn't compete with the office use, you know -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Page 60 June 5, 2007 MR. MULHERE: -- in terms of the timing of the uses. I don't know if it helps, but if there was a concern about the amount of retail that we've asked, we could certainly reduce that. I think if -- even 10,000 would help the ability to provide flexibility on the site, I think that would help. So rather than 20,000, then we could reduce the request to 10,000 if -- we know we're not getting access on Pine Ridge, so we won't be directly impacting Pine Ridge. I don't know if that has any bearing on the board's position. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'd have to ask the motion maker. But I just see it as -- I mean, the application is being fair, myself. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me pursue that a little bit better. If you take the Baldridge PUD, you've got 125,000 square feet on almost 17 acres. That's -- you know, that's roughly 8,000 square feet per acre. On this particular project, they're looking for 20,000 square feet per acre because they only have 3.8 acres of usable land. So it's -- and I've rounded off there, but that's -- those are approximate figures. So there's a huge additional density in square footage in this particular property as opposed to the others. And I also am concerned about the small acreage. Because of the FP&L easement, there's only 3.8 acres of usable property there. I would much prefer to see these arrangements and coordinations made with the adjoining properties so that we could have a more cohesive development or redevelopment process here; otherwise, we're going to wind up with probably two or three strip-type developments that are not going to be in the community's best interest. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the whole thing is, you're hearing the concerns of the commissioners, and I kind of agree with Commissioner Henning, you know, that this is only the first part of a long process. Page 61 June 5, 2007 And Commissioner Coyle, the objections that he brought up and suggestions that he brought up, if you ever did get approval to be transmitted, when you came back, would you be able to consider -- would you be able to make those kind of changes? Would it have -- would it raise problems with the process after it's been transmitted once more? MR. MULHERE: I think we could certainly work with that adjacent property owner and hopefully to come back with a more formal position for you to consider relative to that interconnection, both north and west. And Commissioner Coyle, the one thing that's unique about this property and the reason that you can get some more square footage is you can uti -- that FP&L easement is under their ownership, but restricted. We can use some of that FP&L easement for some of the infrastructure, which allows us to develop a little bit more. But the other thing is, in terms of office, this allows 50-foot in height, so you can get three floors of office in here. The other projects are all retail and they're spread out across the site, which actually reduces the amount of square footage. So because you can go three floors, you really can. And we've done a site plan, and we did get about 65- or 68,000 square feet of office in there, and I'm not -- I'm not suggesting -- I thought maybe the retail might have been more of a concern for the board here, and that's why I suggested reducing that. But, yes, I think we could come back at the time of adoption if we were transmitted, and understanding the board's concern, maybe even provide a site plan that's more specific, which would go to Commissioner Coyle's concern that we work with those property owners. And then, you know, there's really no harm or foul because you haven't adopted yet. You're only transmitting, and I think that gives us the direction to work with those adjacent property owners. Page 62 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm somewhat confused, Bob. We have petitioners that come before this board and tell us that commercial generates less traffic than offices, that office creates more traffic. So I'm really kind of befuddled here. I guess it's all in who the petitioner is and what he's trying to -- who they're trying to pull the wool over their eyes. One day they're telling me that commercial isn't as intense as office space, that you get more trips with office space, and yet you tell me that office space is going to generate less and -- less than the commercial, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. Well, Commissioner Halas, I mean, perhaps you want to ask your own staff, because I wouldn't want to make a statement here that was subject to some sort of disbelief. But my professional experience is that, in general, office uses generate lower trips. Now, they do generate some higher trips -- they do generate higher trips in the peak hours because people are traveling to work and leaving work and traveling from work. But -- and retail generates higher trips throughout the day. But overall, generally retail is a higher trip generation. And I have Reed Jarvi here from -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just made a comment, and all I did is want to make sure -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, no. I understand. Maybe some people make an argument that favors them. I'm trying to suggest that, from a professional perspective, using the ITE trip generation manual, retail generates higher traffic. But you're right, somebody could stand here and say, during peak hours, office is heavier. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we've got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion is not to transmit. All in Page 63 June 5, 2007 favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Let the record show, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta were in the opposition. And the motion passed. It won't be transmitted. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Item #2F PETITION: CP-2005-9 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next petition is CP-2005-9, petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as rural fringe mixed-use district neutral lands, to allow up to 90,000 square feet of retail, office, and personal service uses for property located at the northwest comer of Immokalee Road and Plat Road, in Section 27, Township 47 south, Range 27 east, consisting of approximately eight-acres. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'd like some clarification from an environmental staff on all these petitions in the fringe, which I think the balance of it is. Mr. Y ovanovich, is this in the fringe? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is actually designated neutral land Page 64 June 5, 2007 right now, so yes, sir, it is in the fringe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we don't have any environmental staff here, I guess. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's always something environmental, everything you deal with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, the whole basis upon the governor's order and the challenges was, we wasn't protecting natural resources. But I guess I'll have to wait for my questions later. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, your environmental staff didn't raise any objections to this particular petition, if that helps, which -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't matter. I'm not going to get an answer right now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, did you want to go now or did you want to wait? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got some concerns about houses and retail being developed in neutral lands. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- ifI can-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Especially the density that you got here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. IfI can, just briefly, for the record, Richard Y ovanovich -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this going to be commercial or is this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me put a zoning map up, if that will help you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, let's go ahead and make the presentation, and then we'll come back with questions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll do that. What there -- the first aerial was the location map. And as can you see, the property is an eight-acre parcel. It's located on the west side ofImmokalee Road, Page 65 June 5, 2007 just before the bend as you're going towards Immokalee. Half of the property, as you can see from this exhibit, is already zoned C-2. Thanks, David. And that's the portion of the property that fronts Immokalee Road. The rear portion of the property is currently zoned mobile home. So it's in the neutral lands, but it's already authorized for half the property to be commercially developed, and the rear portion of the property could have up to 19 mobile homes on it. What we're proposing is an eight-acre subdistrict that would allow retail uses up to the C-2 type category. We went to the neighborhood association to talk about our proposal when we first submitted it. We requested 90,000 square feet because it was our understanding that there is a need for retail uses out in this area, and when we requested the 90,000 square feet, there was -- there was a vote, and the vote was 22-4 that the association not oppose what we were requesting. If you look at your staff report, I think staff agrees, there is a need for more retail out there, the question is, where should it be? We thought, common sense says, since half the property can already be developed as commercial, you might want to develop the rear portion of that property as commercial as well. We can do a better job of providing a mixture of uses on that property, thus that's where the request came from. When we got to the -- when we finally got a staff report and got to the Planning Commission, there were a couple of Planning Commissioners who reacted the same way you did, Mr. Halas, was, perhaps 90,000 square feet on eight acres might be too intense. At that time we went back and did a site plan in a couple different scenarios. One site plan with a restaurant, one site plan without a restaurant. The range of square footages we're coming up with because we have to do septic tank systems on this property ranges from 50,000 square feet if we do a restaurant to 70,00 square feet if we don't. Page 66 June 5, 2007 So we -- we had told the Planning Commission we were -- we would reduce the request from 90,000 square feet to 70,000 square feet. The specifics would be addressed obviously when we do the rezone. We did not -- again, we didn't have any neighborhood opposition to what we were proposing. There was one woman who lived-out -- lives near the Corkscrew Swamp, and she had raised concerns about noise. And I believe if we were to develop this as a mobile home park back behind the commercial, you probably would receive more noise if -- than if we were to do a retail use that essentially wouldn't be open late at night. So that is the genesis of that. That's a quick and dirty overview in response to your question. I have both the property owner, Bobby Williams, here to address any questions, and Mr. Arnold, who is the planner on the project, to address any specific questions, but that tells you, you know, the brief history of where the property is, the existing zoning on the property that is allowed today by zoning. Even though it's in neutral lands, we could do those uses on the property already. I don't think there's any question that you need some more retail out in that area. Your staff report agrees to that. And with that, you know, I'm available to answer any more questions you may have regarding the petition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I'm going to weigh in on this a little bit. First, do we have any speakers? MS. KENDALL: No speakers. Or actually there's one gentleman that -- Bill McDaniel, that had to leave, and he asked that what he wrote on the back be read into the record. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you read that into the record, please, because Bill McDaniel's an important part of that community. MS. KENDALL: Yes. He says, as chair of the East of951 Committee, this item is not being specifically determined by this committee. As president of CINA, we voted in favor of not opposing said expansion of commercial area. As property owner next door, I Page 67 June 5, 2007 think it's a good idea. W.F. McDaniel. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if! may, Bill McDaniels (sic) is -- that organization he's referring to that he's president is the Corkscrew association. Very, very outspoken. I've been to a number of their meetings, and this has been a project they've been totally supporting for the last four years or so, and it was -- they were just trying to get it off first base. It seems to take forever. They recognize the need for an improvement like this. They would rather see this improvement than a -- the original intended use of mobile home. It still has a commercial component to it. With that -- and I would like to have Commissioner Fiala here before we take a vote -- I'd make a motion for approval for transmittal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think a second is most appropriate. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I have a motion from myself, Commissioner Coletta, and second from Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Coyle -- Commissioner Halas, excuse me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Some of my concerns, again, is the -- how far away is this from Ave Maria, roughly, in miles? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: About seven or eight, I believe. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to say seven to 10 miles. It's a long way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I know there's a huge amount of commercial that's going in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're three miles away from the commercial that's even in the Orangetree development. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing that I have some concerns about -- and again, that is, we don't have the public utilities out in that neck of the woods. So staffs report says that development would use a private water well on-site treatment system, and an on-site system with the capacity exceeding 5,000 gallons per day required by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Page 68 June 5, 2007 The fine sand soils underlying the property are described in the petition environmental assessment as poorly drained and nearly level. The soil characteristics will make finding a suitable site for septic system here difficult, particularly one designed to serve 90,000 square feet of gross leasable building area accompanying an array of commercial uses. So I have some concerns there, and maybe staff can enlighten me a little bit on what was written in here as public facilities impact. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioner. That was one of the concerns that staff had with this request. For the record, Corby Schmidt. And the observation about the underlying soil types was made and the comment given about a difficulty of siting a septic system here based on the square footage proposed was to give you a heads-up that it would be problematic. Here's a situation that, I think, characterized by the Planning Commission comments or their comments, septic system of this size would be like burying a house. I'm not so sure I can concur with the characterization of that because you have a number of locations in the county where the soil types are restrictive and the mound systems, the engineered systems, whatever the style of the septic system is that's required to be on site is somewhat problematic, and those difficulties could be overcome with design. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you think that when they put in a well system, do you think that's going to have a large effect in regards to the surrounding water table in the amount of water they may use? MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, I think it may. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: You're looking at a general request for commercial land uses and the intensity of90,000 square feet could have quite a bit of impact and could draw down that water table, yes. Page 69 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich, what's permitted now versus what's going to be permitted? I mean, you already have an approved use for this land. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We already have C-2 use on 3.25 acres and we have a mobile home use on basically 4.75 acres. With all due respect to Corby, these are engineering questions that will have to be addressed when we do our Site Development Plan. We're comfortable from our engineering analysis that we can design an appropriate waste treatment system as well as addressing the freshwater issues. Those will all be addressed through that permitting process. If we can't get adequate freshwater, we won't be able to build the project. I think we're jumping out into speculation into some of those questions. But we have an engineer here if you want to ask those questions of an engineer to confirm what I just said to you, but -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I can. Let me cut to the short of it. I'm going to ask staff, have we ever had a case in recent history where we have gone through the whole process, approved it, and the wellfield has failed or the septic system is proved to be inadequate and public health has served notice on them or whatever process takes place? MR. SCHMITT: I'll answer that question, no. And in fact, just for the record, Mr. Y ovanovich is correct, any type of septic system would have to be approved by -- of course, by the health department and go subject through any ofthe other permitting criteria. So it would have to meet the standards in order to proceed through construction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the other thing was mentioned, the fact that there isn't utilities out there and there probably never will be if! have my way. The sewer and water, the nearest one would be what, would be probably Orangetree, which is how many Page 70 June 5, 2007 miles removed? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Boy, I don't know how many miles. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At least three miles, at least three miles. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At least three. MR. SCHMITT: At least three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in order to run the pipes out to this one thing, you would have to service everybody in between, much to their displeasure, because of the hookup for systems they do not need. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And our engineer calculates that the uses that are already permitted are more intense uses as far as water and septic than what we're requesting. So to answer the question, is, it's a less of an intensification on the water and sewer issue, based on what we're requesting versus what's already allowed under the existing zonmg. MR. SCHMITT: And given the -- what's going on right now, Orangetree would not be able to deal with at least a sewer portion of -- because of the demands on the Orangetree facility right now with the growth in that area, they would never be able to support this regardless. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, specifically when the rural fringe amendments were adopted, this neutral area that encompasses the subject property was not included in the water/sewer service area. So it's not eligible for county service. They would be limited to well and septic or to a package plant. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that would be addressed in the-- in the final PUD stage? MR. WEEKS: Or even after that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Permitting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas. Page 71 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that's okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like the staff to expand upon their finding that certain land uses are not authorized in the rural fringe mixed-use district neutral lands, particularly commercial development. Could you please explain that to me in a little more detail? MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's commercial zoning there already. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 9. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. There are commercial uses in the neutral areas and the rural fringe mixed-use district, and where those commercial uses are planned and accommodated for, they would be conforming when gone through the process. There are locations, however, that during that process and before, because of their existing zoning, here the mobile home district and the commercial district, have that right to continue as a nonconforming zoning on the land and have that right to continue through that process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And your conclusion also is that if we were to permit an expansion of development on this neutral land, that it would likely lead to other requests for increased density or non-residential uses on new properties? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I presume that also means neutral lands. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Neutral land property. Page 72 June 5, 2007 MR. SCHMIDT: The observation was made, and I think correctly so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to expound upon that question, if I may. Do you think that if this was denied, that you will not get any more requests for commercial zoning on the land around there? Do you think this would be a deterrent for anything taking place in the area? MR. SCHMIDT: No to the first part of your question. I don't think it will stop requests from being brought in front of you, but as a deterrent, perhaps, because there's a number of planned locations on these areas, whether it's in the Estates almost adjacent to this, the neighborhood commercial centers, the mixed use activity centers, the yet to be developed nodes of commercial already planned, that you'll see and you'll have requests to continue the development in them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but the limitation of commercial in Golden Gate Estates is vast. And you know, we keep on saying we need more commercial out there. This was always planned as part of -- what community is this out there? What community is it? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Corkscrew. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Corkscrew. It was already planned for that. I don't know why we're designing it. I would ask that the board transmit this and address our questions at the adoption hearing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: In can just briefly respond to the last comment from Corby. Up there on the visualizer is the aerial. There are no proposed commercial developments near this property. The closest one is three miles away, which is at Waterways at Orangetree. There was a reference to the villages that are encouraged under the rural fringe mixed-use district serving this purpose. The closest Page 73 June 5, 2007 village to us or eligible village to us is the one that Bonita Bay's talking about doing. That's seven miles away. So there really is -- there is no commercial in the area to provide these services. The whole purpose of a comprehensive plan amendment is to point out deficiencies in the comprehensive plan and address these situations. There's no question your staff has said there is a need to provide this retail. The question is where. And since we already have commercial, it would seem to make sense on this small acre parcel to allow retail there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can appreciate that, meanwhile we do have a little bit of a problem here. Commissioner Fiala got called away on a medical emergency. I have no idea what it is or how long she may be gone. That leaves four commissioners up here to make a decision that could sway one way or the other with the other commissioner being here. With that, I'd like to have due consideration that we take an early lunch hour so we might be able to get Commissioner Fiala back here to be able to take this vote. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that sound all right? We'll continue this item after lunch. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Just out of curiosity, if she doesn't come back, are we going to continue the other items -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no idea-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- for a full board? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what we're going to do. I'd like to try to appraise the situation first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When we're dealing with something that's been in the works for so many years -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to try to make a decision with only Page 74 June 5, 2007 four-fifths of our commission here, it's troublesome. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree. We have no objection to that continuance. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just to briefly remind you that your concern obviously is, I believe, warranted, but it takes a 3-2 vote, just so you know. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I understand that. But the whole thing is is that everyone that came here today is under the assumption there's going to be five commissioners and that it will be determined by three of those five rather than three of four, and that's a concern. So we'll take a lunch now. We'll plan on being back here at 12:30 or 1 :00. What do you want to do? COMMISSIONER HENNING: One o'clock. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Want to go to one, make sure-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's -- no. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 12:30? COMMISSIONER COYLE: 12:30's okay with me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 12:30 we'll be back here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get started early. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That only gives me 55 minutes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, 12:35. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Fiala is still absent from the hearing room.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll continue with where we left off. Before we go on, point of order I'd like to bring up. We have four commissioners here. Obviously we don't have Commissioner Fiala with us at this time. We don't know what point she mayor may not join us. What I'm going to suggest -- and we'll take it at the value that it is in order to keep the people's business going forward. When you have a commission seated of five people, you need three votes. When you Page 75 June 5, 2007 have a commission of four people seated, you still need three votes to be able to continue or deny. My suggestion would be, is that we go ahead, we hear the petitioners, we take a straw poll to see if we have a consensus on any one item to be able to vote it up or vote it down. If we don't, then we can have a motion made by one of the commissioners to have that item continued to the 22nd so we can get a full review, okay? How about you, Commissioner Coyle, you want to weigh in on this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. I don't like that idea at all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What's your idea? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It essentially means we're going to hear the arguments twice. So if we're going to hear them twice, why not just postpone it all till the next meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we could do that, but I wanted to give you another alternative. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that just means we're going to go through the same thing twice, and we'll do it the second time for Commissioner Fiala's benefit. She certainly should be entitled to the entire presentation. So I don't see the point in doing it. I don't know that it saves anybody any time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the same -- I have the same concerns that we're going to be hearing this twice, and I feel that we need to have Commissioner Fiala here, so I think we need to do -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. I'm just offering you an alternative to try to keep it moving forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And by the way, I should -- in could, I should add that you're absolutely right. We should not try to make these decisions with four people on the board. I think it's unfair for the petitioners, and I would -- my preference would be just to postpone it until the next meeting, and I think we can get through it all Page 76 June 5, 2007 in that one day. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. May I make an alternative suggestion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. We're open. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Since it is petition by either the public or the landowner, why don't we leave it up to them whether we hear their petition and move on it? You understand what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I hear, but then it gets a little more complicated in that I don't think there's one of them here that's going to -- well, I don't know why they wouldn't agree to it one way or the other. Let's go ahead. How do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's fine. That's a little dicey for the person who doesn't have a good feel for what the commission's looking for as to whether or not they want to postpone it, but I think that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the idea that the straw poll could kick in at the beginning, if we got a split one, we could continue it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you're going to have to hear some portion of it before you can even take a straw poll; otherwise, we're being unfair. We can't have our minds made up before we hear the argument. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. I'm talking about the end of the argument. We're right back to where I was with my original position on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think Commissioner Henning's idea's a good one, it's just a little dicey for the petitioner, but I don't mind proceeding under those circumstances. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, clarify that. Your suggestion would not allow for a straw poll for the Page 77 June 5, 2007 option to be able to -- continuing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Basically ask the petitioners, starting with this man up there, and ask him ifhe'd like for to us hear it today or postpone it until the 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just go down the line, because there may be something here that is simple that we could get out of the way. I don't think so. And -- but at least we get through the process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with you, Mr. y ovanovich. You're sitting there as an innocent bystander. What would you like to us do? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would like to have the full five members present for this particular petition, so we would request that this be moved to -- here's an issue though for two petitions that I'm involved in. We had blocked yesterday and today to be here. We have all our consultants available for yesterday and today. Due to circumstances beyond our control, there was a problem with the advertising. Unfortunately a continuance to January (sic) 22nd means a couple of my experts can't be here on January (sic) 22nd. COMMISSIONER HALAS: June. MR. yaV ANOVICH: June 22nd, I'm sorry. It's one of those J months -- to June 22nd. We would -- we would like, if it's possible -- I believe you have a regularly scheduled board meeting for July 26th. We would like to see if we can move those petitions to a regularly scheduled board day because, frankly, it really wasn't our fault about the advertising snafu, and it's -- and we all-- you know, Commissioner Fiala, you know, sure didn't plan this, so it would be -- it wouldn't be fair to us to say we're going to force you to go to June 22nd when -- or you have to have a hearing in front of four. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would you come up here, please? Page 78 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got an alternative. Why don't you just ask David Weeks for a discount. MR. YOV ANOVICH: A discount? COMMISSIONER HENNING: A discount. I mean, your argument is you're paying staff to be here and it's costing you money. Just ask him for a discount. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. It's not staff that I'm worried about being here. I'm worried about my professional consultants. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're paying your professional consultants money, right, and you're concerned about, cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching, it's costing more and more money. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no. I'm worried that I can't get them here for June 22nd. It's not-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't get them here. They've got conflicts those days. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Mudd. The 26th, I assume that we've got a pretty dam full schedule to be trying to be put anything on for -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If you're going to do as Mr. Yovanovich suggested, then you're going -- the meeting will be the 26th and the 27th. MR. SCHMITT: Jim, can I correct, the 24th and 25th. MR. MUDD: 24th and 25th, thanks, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Just to correct the record. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, July. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You were talking July, weren't you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: July. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In July. MR. SCHMITT: 24th and 25th. MR. MUDD: No, hang on. The next meeting of the board is on Page 79 June 5, 2007 the 12th, okay. Fourteen days is 26th and 27th of June. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I understand. MR. MUDD: Okay. Are you talking about July? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was talking -- the July meeting, which I understand is the 26th, but I could be wrong on the date. MR. SCHMITT: The July meeting is the 24th and 25th. 25th is Tuesday, Wednesday's -- 24th is Tuesday, 25th is Wednesday. We do have a June 26th meeting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: He said specifically July. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The July meeting is what I was talking about, whatever day that happens to be. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, if we do this, we're going to have to allow the same for every other petitioner here, which means that we may get into serious trouble come those two days trying to fit everything in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have to do that. The other petitioners can possibly be here on the 26th of June. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-second of June. MR. MUDD: Twenty-second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-second of June. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this is the only petitioner that's asking to go to July. So we don't necessarily have to do all of them in July, but it's entirely possible that some others will make the same request. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be -- it would be this petition and I'll get up again on a later number when you keep going through the cycle of asking the questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well-- go ahead, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: I just want to interject, Commissioners, that if any consideration's given to continuing meetings to July, please don't do that today, rather continue the meeting to June 22nd, and then on that Page 80 June 5, 2007 day, continue to July. The reason is, we will exceed the five weeks allowed for continuance. We would have to readvertise. These are very expensive legal advertising? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we'd mess that up and it would be sometime in September or October, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Considering we started this in 2005. I mean, we're not going -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's get this moving forward. Do I hear a motion on this particular one for continuance to the June 22nd meeting with the idea at that point we'll weigh what we have and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it, hold it, hold it. We got a -- MR. STUDENT -STIRLING: I believe -- is the 22nd that you're doing on this one, or is it the 26th? The 22nd, the Friday one? MR. WEEKS: Yes, June 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the petitioner's request for a continuance. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: To June 22nd. COMMISSIONER COYLE: June 22nd. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's in my second. MR. SCHMITT: Which on the 22nd, it will be continued again, just for clarification. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If need be. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas for a continuance to the 22nd of June. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct. Page 81 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: For this petition? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For this petition. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At your suggestion, we're going to take each one of them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Great. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And by the way, Mr. Chairman, maybe it might help you somewhat if I give you at least my philosophical position on a number of these. Whenever the staff and/or the Planning Commission recommend that it not be forwarded, I am generally going to support their recommendations unless there is a very clear reason not to do so. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now you got me. In other words, you want the staff to make a decision whether to even -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, no, no. I'm just saying that for your guidance and the guidance of the petitioners who are here who expect to be heard today, that my philosophy essentially is that whenever the Planning Commission and the staff are recommending that something not be forwarded, then that is the position I'm likely to accept unless there is a very, very strong argument-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I hear you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to the contrary, okay. So if that is helpful in any way at all to the petitioners who are here to decide whether or not they want to postpone things. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't agree with that. I think that we give everybody equal consideration on that. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. He's just saying his personal view. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that they'll know -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, personal view. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, so they'll know what their options are. Page 82 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: What they're up against, yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I don't want them to walk into a trap and find out that they get something disapproved here and then they have to wait until when, next year? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I understand. In other words, if they do want to be heard and they get denied, they can't bring it back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't want them to walk into a trap, so I just want to be honest with them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have one motion before us at this point in time. Let's -- go ahead, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: I apologize, Commissioners. But unless I'm mistaken, prior to the break there was already an active motion on the floor. I believe a commissioner made a motion for approval, and that was seconded. That, I believe, should be withdrawn as a point of order. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Who made the motion; do you remember? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You made a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Deny. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Deny, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you need to remove that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You withdraw that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I withdraw the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. Now that's put to bed, and we've still got the active motion on the floor for the continuance to the 22nd of this month. Any other discussion? Page 83 June 5, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Next -- call the next one and we'll see if they want to go with a continuance. Item #2G PETITION: CP-2005-10 MR. WEEKS: That's petition CP-2005-10, and I believe the agents are -- there we go. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Weeks. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Patrick White, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur for the petitioners on this item. And, in fact, we would, as the preceding, request -- also like to be continued, if you would please, to the June 22nd meeting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second to continue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning for a continuance to Page 84 June 5, 2007 the June 22nd. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Item #2H PETITION: CP-2005-11 MR. WEEKS: Next petition, CP-2005-11, Tim Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: For purposes of the record, Tim Ferguson. Thank you very much for your continuance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve to continue -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to the 22nd of June. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion for a continuance to the 22nd of June by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, Page 85 June 5, 2007 indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Item #2I PETITION: CP-2005-12 MR. WEEKS: Petition CP-2005-12. This is the Hussey petition, and I believe Rich Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Like the previous petition that I was up here before, my consultants cannot be here on the 22nd, so I'm requesting that you continue to the 22nd with the understanding that it will be further continued on the 22nd to a meeting in, I guess, July. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't guarantee you that, but I can -- consideration on the 22nd will be given to continue it to July. We would have to bring it up at a point of order at that time. I don't think we can make a motion to go from one meeting to another with a motion from here. Am I correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just out of curiosity? How much are we talking about on the ad? Because it's really -- you know, are we talking about that much money that you're going to say to a petitioner that you've got to run the risk of being here on the 22nd? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to vote for your continuance on the 22nd. If you can't have your people here -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it's only fair that you -- okay. Page 86 June 5, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I just wanted to make -- I get a little nervous when I hear those comments. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might want to poll some of these others here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wouldn't object to it being moved at that time to the next meeting, to be honest with you, Mr. Y ovanovich. Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the request for a continuance. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the 22nd. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To the 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Second? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning for a continuance to the 22nd of June. All those -- any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Item #2J PETITION: CP-2005-13 Page 87 June 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next on the agenda, CP-2005-13. This was your time certain for three o'clock today, and I do not -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, my. Oh, dear. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We have to come back at three. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have to -- someone from the County Attorney's Office please inform us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We announced that it will be heard at three. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question about this one, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do -- both the staff and the CCPC have recommended approval for transmission of this particular item, 5-13. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't see any opposition here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's no opposition from me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could probably -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we -- can we just approve it? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry? Disapprove it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Can we just approve it? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yeah. Make a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my question is, it's advertised for time certain. Can we -- can we support the recommendations of the CCPC and the staff without violating any laws here? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think -- for the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I think the safest thing to do is to move not to hear it at three o'clock anymore, but now, and then do your motion to approve after you do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'd like to move that Page 88 June 5, 2007 we hear this petition at the present time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you need a second on that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I got a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, got a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's seconded. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Henning, question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I got on a due process issue with this. We don't know who was in the audience this morning when we said that we were going to hear this at three, and it may be somebody that wants to speak in opposition or in favor, but we're not giving the public due process to speak before their elected officials. You know, three o'clock is only two hours away. What's the problem with adjourning this meeting? And I have several questions, maybe I can bum that up until three o'clock. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go for it, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I just have a problem -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The floor is yours at this point in time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a problem with due process and supporting the motion, though I have no problem with the petition to move it forward to the DCA. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to have this place at three clock with about probably 60 people that are going to be coming from distances all over, and every one of them I know of is speaking Page 89 June 5, 2007 in favor of it. It would save them a tremendous amount of time and effort if we could expediate the process. I'm sure they don't want to have to travel here just to hear themselves talk. I don't know. How do you commissioners feel about it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's my point. I have to believe that the people who are coming here are coming here because they've been asked to support the petition. You have a better feel for that than I do. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if you tell me that these people are coming from a long distance to support this petition and the Planning Commission says they approve the petition and the staff recommendation is to approve the petition, then I'm certainly not going to vote against it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you want to save those people a lot of inconvenience to drive in here and take their time when everybody seems to be in agreement that it's something we should do, I'm happy to go along with it right now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the motion on the floor right now is just to hear it at this point in time? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is there any other comments to the motion at hand by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 90 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show Commissioner Henning was opposed to it. Now, the actual hearing begins. Did you have a motion to make? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, but I have a question first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the church sponsored residential uses -- well, as a matter of fact, for both church sponsored residential and non-church sponsored residential uses, which are affordable housing, how is the property going to be managed to retain its affordable housing status? In other words, how do we keep -- how do we make sure this property isn't purchased and then flipped and sold at the market value? MR. SCHMIDT: The staff has offered you three options. The one which was written specific for the board was to enter into an agreement to make those guarantees at a later point in time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute, not to a later point in time. We need to do that before we approve this. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, your agreement to enter into an agreement to make those -- or to have those guarantees in place -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, for both the -- MR. SCHMIDT: -- happens now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- church sponsored and the non-church sponsored residential units. It would apply to both categories? MR. SCHMIDT: It does not. It does not apply to the church sponsored housing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now is the church going to build market rate housing and sell it to make a profit, or what is the intent there? MR. SCHMIDT: The intent is that there is housing being provided by the church and by the service facility operators for those Page 91 June 5, 2007 participating in it. There's no sales involved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's sale property. It's just -- I guess it could be considered rental property perhaps. Maybe they don't charge a fee for it at all, but they're providing lodging for someone and they're not expecting that the properties be purchased by the person residing in them. Is that essentially right? MR. SCHMIDT: I think it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then you answered my question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Now that Brad Cornell left, can we hear the Hussey property. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let's do that. Has he gone already? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I have a motion to approve with the staff recommendation that the appropriate agreements be put in place to assure that the essential services personnel housing units, will be managed and remain in the affordable housing inventory. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas, to transmit with the notes that's stated by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? Commissioner Henning? Or is that the light from before? COMMISSIONER HENNING: From before. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor -- I'm sorry, did have you something, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just clearing my throat. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You know, I'm very responsive to anything that comes up. I never miss a point to make Page 92 June 5, 2007 sure you get a chance to talk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're right on. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't forget that, someday when you're sitting here, okay? With that, everyone in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Forgive me. Someone on staff, if you'd be so kind as to go into my office and make sure that they notify Jessica from the Chamber of Commerce so she can get out to everyone that was planning to come to this meeting by phone, email or whatever, to save them the trouble of -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Traveling. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- of showing here. I would appreciate it very much. Would you see to that, Mr. Mudd. Thank you. Please continue. Item #2K PETITION: CPSP-2005-14 MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next petition is CPSP-2005-14. That's a staff petition or county petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map to redesignate rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands to either neutral lands or receiving Page 93 June 5, 2007 lands for 90 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 south, Range 27 east; and Section 3, Township 48 south, Range 27 east; and Section 11, Township 48 south, Range 36 east; and Section 25, Township 49 south, Range 26 east; and Sections 13, 14,22,27,29, and 32, Township 49 south, Range 27 east; and Sections 15 and 22 (sic), Township 51 south, Range 27 east, consisting of approximately 3,606 acres total, with the exception of map parcels 3 through 11, which, as previously noted, have been continued to June 22nd. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a correction, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Weeks, you misread Sections 15 and 21. I think you said 15 and 27. So I'd just like to make that-- of Township 51 south, it's the second line from the bottom of the petition description. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just wanted to make sure it was read into the record correctly, okay. MR. WEEKS: Thank you for that correction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, very briefly, the history of this, why we're here. As you'll recall, when the rural fringe mixed-use district was created in 2002, June of that year, the rural fringe amendments, you had many property owners appear before you telling you that the county was about to make a mistake, that their property did not warrant sending lands designation, that it had been cleared or otherwise not appropriate for that designation. In response to that, at least in part addressing some of those property owners, you included a provision that allowed for properties that are right along the fringe or border of the sending lands such that either abuts receiving or neutral lands could have the opportunity to submit environmental data to the county to back up what they were Page 94 June 5, 2007 telling you, to demonstrate that, in fact, their property did not warrant that sending land designation. The provision also gave a particular time window in which the property owners could submit that data. That has occurred. That information is in your packets. Staff has reviewed that information. We have also reviewed the same information that the county used back in 2002 to evaluate properties and make our recommendations for sending land designation. And as a result of those reviews, we have made the recommendations that are reflected on the spreadsheet of these properties that's included in your binders. And you will see that the majority of these properties we have not recommended approval of, but a -- executive summary tells how much -- but for a dozen or 15 or 16 or so that we did recommend approval, that the data did show that the property warrants a change from sending lands to either neutral or receiving and, therefore, our recommendation is as such. Also, the Planning Commission, when they reviewed the properties, their recommendation was to concur with staff with the exception of five parcels which were listed as recommended for approval by staff and that were listed as being represented by Don Lester/15 Coalition. The total acreage is reflected on the spreadsheet that staff is recommending approval of, and that correlates -- the spreadsheet shows approximately 307 acres recommended for redesignation out of approximately 1,867 acres that were requesting the redesignation. And there are maps accompanying the application that shows those properties. And with that I'll ask for questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we suggesting to hear this now; is that why you're giving us a lot of information? Page 95 June 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. See, I have a concern about that. But let me ask you a question. It was my understanding what the board was told in 2002, that the staff really was going by mapping. That's what their -- the reason of recommendations for -- for that. And we want to give the -- the property owner the -- the chance to provide the analysis and data to show whether their property was properly designated. MR. WEEKS: I would -- I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So in reality, most of the property owners in this case, especially this case, they didn't ask for you to designate. In fact, if I remember right, most of the property owners say, well, wait a minute, we don't like the whole program at all. So it's whether it's properly designated, period, sending, receiving, agricultural, whatever, that was the premise that I understood. It's not from misdesignation from sending. MR. WEEKS: The specific provision that was adopted was only for the sending lands themselves. That's what you had property owners standing before you saying, I don't want my property designated as sending lands. Subsequently there were amendments to the comprehensive plan that allowed the -- for the same provision, if your property's designated neutral and you don't think that's appropriate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WEEKS: And also if it's designated receiving and you don't think that's appropriate based on the data. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding, again, that it was -- because we didn't do the data and analysis, we might -- we might have missed something, whether it be neutral sending or receiving or whatever. So why can't it be fair to -- to somebody to say, well, I think my property's worth -- it is sending. It was Page 96 ______M'._____.._.....______~...__.__ June 5, 2007 designated as it. Here's the data and analysis that that's wrong, and I want receiving? Why can't it be receiving? Why can't the board consider receiving? MR. WEEKS: Because under the specific provision that this board adopted into the comprehensive plan, it only allows the property, subject to the data to show that it's warranted, change the land from sending to either neutral or receiving, whichever it's abutting. If it's not abutting, for example, neutral, it's only abutting receiving, it could not be changed to neutral. It could only be changed to what it is abutting. That's the specific provision that was adopted by the board. Now, a property owner always has the right to file their own comprehensive plan amendment, pay the fee, go through the process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is the process. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. That's through a separate, privately initiated amendment. This was the county initiated amendment that this board specifically allowed for the property owner not to have to pay the fee. All they had to do was submit to the county the environmental data that showed that the sending lands designation was not warranted, and we have to, of course, demonstrate that the property was abutting either neutral or receiving. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So let me give you an example again -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that's fine if that's what we did. I just don't agree with it. If the government changed somebody's property based upon what they can see in the aerial-- but, you know, we don't know ifthere's any listed species on there. We're just -- we're just assuming. MR. WEEKS: If! may. It's more than just looking at aerials. There's a significant amount of data. The point I was agreeing with earlier, Commissioner, was that staff did not go out and do on-site visits. We did not evaluate personally these properties, but we did Page 97 June 5, 2007 look at aerial maps, we did look at forested habitat maps, we looked at panther telemetry points, Red-cockaded woodpecker data, et cetera, et cetera. I want to impress that we did a lot of work. What we did not do is the ground truthing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me ask some questions that was asked of me, and I couldn't answer, and I thought they were very good questions. In 2002, what was the source of the criteria for the evaluation? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. The question, Commissioner Henning, was in 2002, what was the criteria? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. What was the source of the criteria for the evaluation. MR. LORENZ: The source of the criteria. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What sources did you use? MR. LORENZ: The information and data sources that we used in 2000 -- for the 2002 amendments included the 1994/1995 South Florida Water Management District land cover data, the -- for listed species information, it was the -- at that point it was the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission's listed species information, the biodiversity hot spots data. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission? MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead. MR. LORENZ: We used soils maps. I think, as David indicated, some panther telemetry point information. I'm not sure whether that came from the state or the federal agencies, but we -- but that was Page 98 June 5, 2007 information that was utilized. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LORENZ: We had -- I'd have to look back at the report in terms of the full documentation, but those were the types of data sources that we used. And as David Weeks had indicated, those were -- those were map data points, and those were -- those were used to try to determine where the environmental sensitivity of the lands were located. When it eventually came down to actually establishing the lines for sending, for receiving, for neutral, that was part of a public hearing process utilizing the committee, utilizing the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing process, to make various changes to look at where it would be appropriate to cluster rural villages -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- to provide for sufficient data -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate it, but I have some more questions, and -- MR. LORENZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I appreciate the board's indulgence. So was that source of criteria adopted by the Board of Commissioners for using -- for the designation? MR. LORENZ: It was -- it was data and information that the board accepted through the data and analysis report that the recommendations were based on. If you -- your question was, did the board establish criteria and then have staff to go -- go forward evaluating against the criteria, no, that's not the case, but we -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LORENZ: But we generated the criteria utilizing, along with the advisory committee, to come up with the information that we then presented to the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What was the standard -- Page 99 June 5, 2007 what were the standards for the designation? MR. LORENZ: Well, the standards-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you were about to answer that when I interrupted. MR. LORENZ: Well, the information was pulled together, both environmental information, I'm going to call it planning land use type of information in terms of where it's appropriate to have rural villages or cluster development. A variety of information such as that was all pooled together and then assessments made through advisory committee recommendations, obviously the EAC and the Planning Commission, to then fashion a final recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, of course, eventually transmitted and adopted as being the land use designations for the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What was the specific criteria for each of the standards? You gave me -- you just gave us the standards in my first question. What was the specific criterias -- MR. LORENZ: Well-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for each of the standards? MR. LORENZ: There was not a quantitative criteria, if you will. The information was taken together and looked at as a total body of information to then make recommendations -- develop a consensus, make recommendations, and the board eventually adopted those designations based upon the data and information presented. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. What was the evidence -- once the evidence was set for the criteria or the evaluation for the criteria, what was then the ranking of it? Then you go through the ranking of the designations? Is that what it was? MR. LORENZ: No. I think it -- I think it's essentially looking at layered information, environmental information, planning considerations, taking that information, putting lines on a map as to what would be the most environmentally sensitive areas, the least environmentally sensitive areas, those in between would be the neutral Page 100 June 5, 2007 areas, that a consensus was emerged through the public hearing process as to where the land use designations should be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. For these petitions that we have in our agenda today, what was the sources of criteria for the evaluation? MR. LORENZ: For the petitions that you are looking at today, you are looking at essentially whether the boundary line is drawn properly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The information -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you, since you answered that, what listed species travels on boundary lines? MR. LORENZ: Well, no listed species travels on a boundary line. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No Cypress trees either, right? MR. LORENZ: Well, you could demark a boundary line with vegetation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What other sources for the criteria in the valuation for these petitions were used? MR. LORENZ: Okay. Well, I'm going to have -- the staff member who actually performed these evaluations is here, and he can provide you that kind of information at the detailed level. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. HATCHER: For the record, Mac Hatcher, environmental services. In addition to the data that was provided by the applicants, which kind of ran the gamut from no data at all to aerial photographs to essentially environmental impact statements, we also looked at whether or not there were buildings on the property, residences or commercial buildings, and we also accessed the property appraiser's aerial photography to see whether or not the property had been cleared. Page 10 1 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Did you use any federal data to make your evaluation? MR. HATCHER: Yes. We have data from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listed species -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. HATCHER: -- and for panther habitat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Lorenz said in 2002 they used the state Fish and Wildlife. So you're saying in this one you used the federal? MR. HATCHER: There was new data that became available in about March of 2002, and that was considered in this go-round. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What else -- what other criteria -- what other sources for your criteria for evaluating these properties? MR. HATCHER: Some of the same data that was used in the rural fringe assessments, the strategic habitat conservation areas from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you use that in 2002? MR. HATCHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. HATCHER: You want me to list all of them? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I do. I really do. MR. HATCHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because what I just heard is, one of the evaluations we didn't use in 2002. So the question is, did the board really adopt receiving or lands in this wide sweeping amendment; did we use correct data in 2002? MR. HATCHER: We used the data that was available. Whether or not the Fish and Wildlife Service data was presented to the board, I don't remember right off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. HATCHER: There was listed species data for Florida scrub Page 102 June 5, 2007 jays, panthers, for bears, for Red-cockaded woodpeckers. I don't recall any other particular listed species data that was available. There was the strategic habitat conservation area, which are basically species models that were prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to try and identify gaps in conservation land that was used -- utilized by listed species that needed to be acquired. There was land use and land cover data from the South Florida Water Management District from 1994 to '95 time frame. We also used the national wetland inventory from U.S. EP A and Fish and Wildlife Service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you use any criteria for vegetation clearing? Did you look -- MR. HATCHER: Only as it was registered in the land cover -- in the rural fringe assessment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There was -- one of the things that we adopted, if you cleared your land, you cannot petition the government for changing of the designation for 25 years. That was part of the adoption for the fringe, correct? MR. HATCHER: I'm not sure about that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true? MR. LORENZ: There was two standards regarding utilization of the land and clearing and the 25-year value. One was, if you were in sending lands and you were to come in with a -- with clearing your land for agriculture, there was a 25-year -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prohibition. MR. LORENZ: -- prohibition for coming in and utilizing TDRs. So you'd have to wait 25 years for the TDRs for clearing within the sending lands. There is also a requirement that if you clear your -- if you clear-- if you clear your lands, you have to wait 25 years -- a 25-year period must elapse before you would have to -- when you come in to have a Page 103 n.___..._..._.._...._..'._.....__."'._..___ June 5, 2007 development of those lands, you would have to retain the native vegetation that was on your property and apply the standards that was on your property at the time you cleared them within 25 years. Once you pass 25 years, then whatever native vegetation that is on your property -- let's say in the 26th year we would apply the percentages on that property at that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So it's not a prohibition of use. It's a way of accounting for how much vegetation is on your property for preservation requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that standard apply to any of the applicants here today before us? In other words, did anybody receive a clearing permit prior to the adoption in 2002 after the provisions that the board adopted in 2002? Did you take a look at that? MR. HATCHER: I did not review the clearing permits. I did look at the aerials to see if the property was cleared, but I didn't review the permits. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So if somebody had a permit prior to 2002 but didn't exercise that permit till after that, shouldn't that -- part of that criteria be evaluated? MR. HATCHER: If it had been brought to our attention, we would have evaluated it. We would have -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because there's 90 properties here. MR. HATCHER: Correct. They submitted data. If anybody had submitted data like that, it would have been considered. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if! may interject. I just want to impress one point. The critical date was June 19,2002. That was the date the rural fringe amendments were adopted. When the landowners were before this commission and Planning Commission, so forth, speaking and objecting to their property being designated sending, Page 104 June 5, 2007 they were asserting that their property did not warrant the sending land designation, and in doing so, they were talking about then. They weren't talking about sometime in the future. They were talking about at this point in time, you're about to change the designation on my property. You're making a mistake. And that's why when staff received the information and when we reevaluated the county's own information, we only looked at that same time period, June 19th of2002. We did not look at subsequent years, because our regulations do allow, even in sending lands, for agricultural uses that are consistent with the Right to Farm Act, which means that a landowner, after June I 9th of2002, could, in fact, obtain permits to clear their property for an agricultural use consistent with the Right to Farm Act. And, of course, if they went through that process and obtained the permit and, in fact, cleared their property, then unquestionably the habitat value of that property would have been altered. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's correct, but let me tell what you I'm told, but is not verified, that some landowners did receive permits prior to the adoption of these amendments and then subsequently after that cleared their property. MR. WEEKS: And my response would be, is that the decision that -- staffs recommendation and ultimately the decision of the Planning Commission and then this board was based upon the habitat value at that time, not the fact that there was a -- while there was not a clearing permit in hand, it was, what is the habitat value today, and a decision was made that it should be sending lands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if you had a permit prior to and you exercised that right, shouldn't that be reevaluated as the vegetation that now exists? I'm not talking about the ones that cheated. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even in 2002 I'm not talking Page 105 June 5, 2007 about the ones that didn't get a permit to clear their lands. I'm talking about the landowner that did the right thing and got a permit and exercised their right. That's what I'm talking about. MR. WEEKS: It sounds like, Commissioner, that you're -- that you're, I don't want to say suggesting, you're asking about, should a landowner have -- that obtained the appropriate and required permits to clear their land, should not they have -- then as a result of that, should their land use designation have been different? And I could only say that that's a policy decision that this board either was not aware of to make at that time or chose not to make. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I don't think the board was aware of it. MR. WEEKS: Because the question would be, how many other property owners -- properties might be similarly situated that lawfully cleared their property -- excuse me -- lawfully had the permits in hand to clear their property as of the date that this board adopted the rural fringe amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WEEKS: And then again, to me it's very much a policy decision. Do you want to view those properties that have the same habitat value, theoretically, the same habitat value as X number of other properties, yet treat them differently because that landowner obtained the necessary permits to clear their land. I would ask you, is that different from the landowner that came in one day after June 19th of 2002 and obtained the same permits? Because either way they're lawfully allowed to clear their property, but the overall objective of the county was not to see those lands cleared. We wanted to protect those lands. But as you'll recall, based on counsel from out -- counsel from -- the outside legal counsel -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. They have the right to farm their land. MR. WEEKS: Correct. Page 106 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- but the legislation spoke. The legislation made law on that day, and you must have a starting and an ending point. You know, my concern about these -- these petitions was, Commissioners, does not set the same criteria as we adopted in 2002 where some of the landowners in the rural fringe received a substantial benefit. And I don't know much about the criteria, but what I heard today is, we didn't use the exact criteria as we did in 2002, and I just have a problem with that. I don't know what the effects will be. But why -- if it was fair then, why isn't it fair now? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, I know what you're coming. There's always a question of property rights and how you keep everything balanced, and I know that there's been a sincere effort on the part of staff and the committees working on it and the commission in past rulings to try to come up with an element of fairness. Now, whether we're there or not is open to question. I don't disagree on that. You know, whenever you separate people from certain rights of their properties without adequate compensation, or in this case here, you got compensation they may not feel that it's adequate in some cases. It's always going to be left to question. That's one of the reasons we're going through this process today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But the concern -- the concern that I have is in 2002, you know, maybe it was a best data to use. And I think it was -- it's fair today to use that same data. And besides, I mean, in 2002, we -- you and I were fairly young in this process, and it's something that we said that we had to do. But I'm not sure -- I mean, we had landowners that had square property that received designation of receiving and, I mean, I just -- you know, thinking back, we should give the fair -- same treatment to these petitions today. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me ask a question, if! may. Page 107 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have anyone here today to be speaking on these particular petitions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, I think, has one in the hopper. On this one? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'm just curious. All together, there's how many? I see you, sir. Yeah, one, two, three, four -- four people. We have how many items here all together? We've got -- MR. WEEKS: There's a total of 12 groupings of properties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's 90 properties, right? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And so obviously the people that are here are here either in support or to oppose. Probably either four different things or all the one thing. And so possibly we might be able to get down to identifying where there might be some elements of contention that have arisen to be able to clear the slate of the other ones where everyone's in agreement. Would that be a fair assumption or no? MR. HATCHER: I think that would be a good place to start. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My whole issue is about fairness. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I can understand, Commissioner Henning. It's always a concern, too. And the only way we can get to the fairness is through the process itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate your indulgence of my questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, and that's what we're here for. Okay. Is there any other commissioner -- Commissioner Halas, you want to weigh in on this? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've heard the arguments but Page 108 June 5, 2007 __ and I'm -- but I think we did due process. We studied this very thoroughly. We had outside people -- excuse me -- that were involved in this process in 2002, and I was on the board, I think, at this point in time. No, I wasn't either, excuse me. But I believe that this was transmitted up to DCA. They studied it. And I believe they approved what our -- what we wanted to do here. This went through the process with the CCPC, and they came up with some recommendations, and I would just like to say that I think that we've researched this property. I think we did due diligence on this, and I'd like to make a motion to approve this with the CCP (sic) recommendations that was passed down to us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would second it, but I need to hear from the speakers first. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, but you want to -- why don't you second it, then we'll go from there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Second it for discussion purposes only, but I really want to hear from the speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do, too. So we have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle, to approve this for transmission; however, we have to hear from the speakers first, and then we'll make our final decision on which direction we're going to go. Am I getting in front of you, sir? Is there something else that you left unsaid that needed to be covered at this time? MR. HATCHER: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you be so kind as to call the first speaker? MS. KENDALL: Yes. The first speaker is Nancy Payton, followed by John Vega. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I'm surprised no one requested this one to be moved forward. Of course, it would have to Page 109 June 5, 2007 be a staff action. But we'll come to you in a minute, sir. I'm sure you're signed up to speak, right? MR. VEGA: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I'm here to support the Planning Commission's recommendations, specifically the ones that pertain to the petitions that were put in by Don Lester without proof that they were -- that he was doing it on behalf of the landowners. And I also wanted to speak briefly about section 25, the Hideout Golf Course, which is one that the Planning Commission said shouldn't be transmitted, should be denied, and that is the golf course in section 25, abuts the golf course in section 24, they're seeking neutral designation for the part of the golf course that is on -- in section 25. When that golf course was approved, we were on a comprehensive plan that was one house on five acres, so you put a golf course in, you can't put a house on the same land that the golf course is on. So I viewed that request, which I think was invalid because Don Lester submitted it and not the owners of the Hideout Golf Course, that is gifting density. They knew that they lost that density when they had that golf course approved way back before June of 1999. So we shouldn't be gifting density back into a -- onto a golf course. And also section 24, the whole issue of what the proper designation is is under debate, so I hope that you stand strong on the Planning Commission's recommendation. This is kind of deja vu listening to about -- the data and analysis. All that was debated in great detail over days and days and days at a hearing that the county successfully defended how the original designations were done. And my recollection was that the judge agreed that you've got to draw the line someplace. And so the judge recommended that what the county had done Page 11 0 June 5, 2007 was proper and that stood. It's data and analysis that drives this. And the issue today is those lands that abut receiving lands, as to whether they -- or sending -- receiving or neutral, that they should be redesignation. it's not lands anywhere throughout the sending designation. And I think my time is about up, so I will say, thank you very much, and I urge you to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle's got a question for you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Nancy, when you made reference to section 24, you understand section 24 isn't in here right . .? now, IS It. MS. PAYTON: Well, I'm referring to -- there is a request in there to designate -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Section 25. MS. PAYTON: Section 25 neutral that abuts section 24. Well, we don't know what section 24 is. Furthermore, I don't think you should deal with that one anyways because it's a golf course. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something about section 24 embedded in here that I hadn't seen. We're going to be taking up 24 next week, ifl remember correctly. MS. PAYTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. PAYTON: Hopefully we'll get it resolved next week. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. So your position is that you're supporting the CCPC's recommendation? MS. PAYTON: Absolutely yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. As it's stated here in the executive summary? MS. PAYTON: Yes. Page 1 11 June 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Good. MS. KENDALL: Next speaker's -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker? MS. KENDALL: -- John Vega. MR. VEGA: Good afternoon, Commission. John Vega on behalf of Francis D. Hussey, Jr., and Mary Pat Hussey. I have requests. The first is to continue this item to the June 22nd agenda and the second is to consider -- and I know this is a staff petition, but the reality is, is it's my petition. I filed it years ago. I have over an inch worth of supporting data. I cannot possibly address it in two minutes allotted to a public speaker. So I am requesting -- I don't think I need more than eight to 10, but when we do hear this, may I please have more than two minutes? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, comment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- I mean, we afforded the opportunity to everybody else. You're representing a property owner in this petition. I don't see why we shouldn't support the recommendations -- or the request to continue, just like we did everybody. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, now continue this item or all the items in this package? We have a motion on the floor though, but go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Vega specifically represents map parcels 25 to 31. That's on pages 2 and 3 of your spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If nobody else is going to make the motion, I'll make the motion that we approve the petitioner's request. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll remove my second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll retract my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I'll make a motion -- Page 112 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got to retract the second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll make a motion to approve the petitioner's request for postponement until June the 22nd for those parcels. And Mr. Weeks, if you'd please name those parcels again. MR. WEEKS: Map parcels 25 through 31, the owners' listed as Hussey. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my motion would include those parcels only, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle, and I'll second it to keep it moving forward. And second by myself, Commissioner Coletta, to move these items forward as so noted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue them to the -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue them to the 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue to the 22nd. Thank you, Commissioner Henning. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Thank you, sir. MR. VEGA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker? MS. KENDALL: Next speaker is Tim Hancock, followed by Rich Y ovanovich. Page 113 June 5, 2007 MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the county commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, here today representing parcels one and two, respectively, under the ownership of West Florida Agro, Limited, more commonly known as 6 L Farms out on the east trail. We do support the staff and CCPC recommendation with regard to our two parcels. And I wanted to offer for the record just a visual clarification. The two areas of these two sections that are being redesignated to receiving are impoundment areas. They have six- to eight-foot berms and steel pipes that shoot water into them during the extreme wet seasons. And so upon site visit and further information, staff has agreed that those areas do not warrant a sending designation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. What was it -- it was sending areas? Was it designated in 2002 as sending? MR. HANCOCK: 1t was designated as sending, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which properties? MR. HANCOCK: Well, on this particular aerial, it's the area outlined in red that you see on the monitor. From an aerial perspective, it appears to be vegetated; however, four, when you drive out there and you drive your four-wheel-drive vehicle up on top of the six-foot berm -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: -- around it, you see that it's willow and it's -- there's actually furrows from past agricultural activities. So I can see how the mistake was made. The one exception to this is, this whole piece is not being redesignated as receiving. The small triangle to the south and east as you look at your monitor, the bottom right, that area has not been impacted by farming, and we take no exception with staff recommendation to leave that as sending. I just wanted to offer for clarification -- because we really don't Page 114 June 5, 2007 have metes and bounds descriptions of these areas, that it is the southeast triangle that is below Tomato Road and is inside the existing drainage ditches. I don't want the drainage ditches that are used for farm conveyance to be confused as being part of that sending area. I would hate to see those encumbered in the future. But the actual vegetated area in the southeast corner will remain as sending. And I just wanted to make sure the ditches themselves are free to continue to operate as necessary for farm operations. Beyond that we support staff recommendation. I thank you very much for your time today. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, staff has no objection to that change. What Mr. Hancock was referring to is, on his exhibit, he showed Tomato Road, the northern boundary of that triangle, and there's a drainage ditch immediately on the south side of that roadway. Staff has no objection to his clarification. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was this brought up in the -- with the Planning Commission also? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, it was not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. That's interesting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I just wanted -- I didn't hear the introduction of the item. I just wanted to make sure that the Symphony parcels have been continued until the 22nd and that -- that's correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And then I do have a -- I represent the owner of Hideout Golf Club, and obviously we prefer staffs recommendation, which is to redesignate the property. The -- I disagree with Ms. Payton that the golf course automatically loses its density just because it develops a golf course. You don't lose the density. Twin Eagles is a perfect example that you don't lose the density when you develop a golf course. Page 115 June 5, 2007 And I did provide Mr. Weeks the letter verifying that Mr. Lester was authorized to make the application and that I have taken over that application. So I would, again, request that you follow staffs recommendation and not the CCPC's. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, are you saying that you're representing Don Lester? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Hideout Golf Club. Mr. Lester applied on behalf of Hideout Golf Club. What Ms. Payton said was he authorized, and I said I verified to Mr. Weeks that, yes, he was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have taken over since then, but be that as it may, we would like you to follow staffs recommendation and not the Planning Commission's. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have another question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page is Planning Commission's recommendation on? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 7. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seven? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bottom of page 7. MR. SCHMITT: it's part of the executive summary under-- behind the executive summary tab. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I go up to page 4, and then I have a draft. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. it's page 7 in the very beginning of the book under petition 2005-14. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fourteen. Yeah, I go to page 4. One, two, three, four, and then I have a draft which is a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Beginning of the book. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: it's at the very beginning, Page 116 June 5, 2007 Commissioner Henning. Go to the front of the book. Page 7 there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other comments, questions, or -- Commissioner Henning, I'm jumping ahead of you. You go ahead and read it, then you can ask questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's fine. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go ahead. We've got a-- still have a motion on the floor, don't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we don't. Okay, gentlemen. Where do we proceed from here? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I make a -- I'll re -- I'll make __ redo the motion, and the motion is that we pass this forward with the -- again, with the CCPC recommendations less the two properties that were brought to our attention that were not discussed on the -- by the CCP (sic), to take those two properties out of the -- out of the equation. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, correct, the two series of properties. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two series. MR. WEEKS: They were continued. MR. SCHMITT: That were continued to the 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. SCHMITT: Then for the record, that's properties 3 through 11, and then properties -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a-- MR. SCHMITT: -- 25 through 31. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have the motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle. With that, is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Page 117 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The Planning Commission's recommendations is the same as staff except for parcel 43, 56, and goes up to 79. What's -- where can I -- how can I follow that? Is that the map properties? Maybe we should have a brief description of what they're saying. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe it was in our material that was given to us, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I get a brief description of what the Planning Commission is saying to make a determination? MR. WEEKS: They're -- the Planning Commission's concern as expressed at the hearing was related to whether or not Mr. Lester had the authority to be representing any of the properties that were listed under his name. The reason, I believe, that only five of them were specifically mentioned by Planning Commission is because those are the only five listed as represented by Don Lester/15,000 Coalition, that had a staff recommendation of approval. The others were recommended for denial, so they didn't take issue with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, yeah. I mean, it's all about the data and analysis. So why aren't we supporting that? That's what you went by, right? MR. WEEKS: The staff recommended approval based on the data and analysis submitted, correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WEEKS: In recommending approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the motion doesn't support that. MR. WEEKS: The present motion on the floor mirrors the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. MR. WEEKS: And that is to disagree with staff on those five properties represented by 15,000 Coalition, Don Lester. Page 118 June 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, it just doesn't support the data and analysis, but I'm -- so I'm not going to support the motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fair enough. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show Commissioner Henning is in the opposition. Does that conclude our business? What have we got, one more? Item #2L PETITION: CPSP-2005-15 MR. WEEKS: We have one more, Mr. Chairman, and that's CPSP-2005 n CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- 15, petition n that's another staff petition. Petition requesting amendment to the transportation element to add new policies, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, introducing thoroughfare corridor protection plans, the acronym, TCPP; transportation corridor preservation maps, acronym TCPM; and associated tables and ordinances to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. Page 119 June 5, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nick Casalanguida, for the record. We worked with the County Attorney Office, and they were truncated a little bit to 3.5 and 3.6 within your packet, and also in the Planning Commission. I've been here approximately three years, and about a year ago we worked with Mr. Schmitt's shop to do an increased setback ordinance to protect some of the roadways we were going to be widening, and I was told at the time, you must do the what first, which is the GMP, not the how. And what I'm bringing you forward right now is the what, which is protect the right-of-way, allow for property acquisition in such a way that it's consistent with the GMP, but allow for reductions consistent with the board's review of those reductions and improvements. Bringing this forward, your Productivity Committee reviewed this and was very much in favor. Your Environmental Advisory Committee supported the project as well, too, the initiative. When we went to the Planning Commission, we got hung up on the how again. They wanted to see the details and I expressed at the Planning Commission that the details were done through the ordinance and there'll be plenty of time to work out how we're going to do this, but it was important to get the what we're going to do. What we're going to do is define roadway corridors in the future so we don't have as many issues similar to what we've had with the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. We are going to define those corridors, and if those corridors are in a way -- in a manner such that they impact a whole parcel, we'll have to put that in the ordinance that it will either have to be paid for at that time or compensate the landowner. But those are the how things that we'll deal with later, and we'll make sure we do that correct. What we're doing with this GMP amendment is to say that we are, within one year, going to come back and tell you how we're going to do it, and at that point in time we'll get into the details. But it's very Page 120 June 5, 2007 important that we get this established first. In policy 3.6 that's in front of you, we've also identified a way that if we can work with a landowner, if they're in the process of developing their land and then we identified that they're at, say, a corner and we need a corner clip of their property, that they can work with us to do a reduction in, say, parking or a buffer or landscape, but we take it to the board, and we stress that throughout this whole process. it's not a staff decision. it's a board decision, that we'd come to you and explain to you what we're doing, how we're doing it, and ask for such reduction. And if you felt it was appropriate, you would allow that to happen. All of this takes into consideration that it's not staff making decisions, but the board. We fully intend that when we bring a corridor forward that you get to review the corridor, determine the merits of that corridor in the detailed time we spent on it, and you can make that decision as if it should be protected or not. So with that, I'll answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Nick, I'd just like to make sure that I understand how this is going to work. You're not -- you're not talking about the how at the present point in time, but does this particularly -- particular amendment have any affect until such time as you have presented to us the how? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of this would have to be brought back to you either through the ordinance or through -- if there was a reduction of buffer brought back to you for decision and discussion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this is probably nothing more than a statement of intent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it should not effect anyone in any meaningful way until we develop the how part of what you intend to do. Is that -- Page 121 June 5, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commission Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. Were you through, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- do we have any speakers on this one? MS. KENDALL: No, we do not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I make a motion for approval of the staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle for approval of staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a legal question. Once you have a policy set in the growth plan, you must follow that policy; is that correct? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Generally speaking, but it's not always correct, because if you need additional information to flesh it out, such as the ordinance that Mr. Casalanguida alluded to, then it's not self -- what the lawyers call self-executing because something further needs to be done, so it couldn't be done until the ordinance that was adopted in furtherance of the plan amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But really what you're saying is, if you're in a roadway corridor, you have limited rights once the board adopts an ordinance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would have to identify in that ordinance what those rights would be, and that would be the public debate discussion. We envision it similarly to look at increasing the setback. You now have a 75-foot setback in the Estates. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you know of any community Page 122 June 5, 2007 that has adopted any language like this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Pasco County has one, and I believe several other counties are in the process of or working on them as well, too, in various stages. Some of them are more stringent than others, but I would imagine Collier County will have its own nuances as we go forward that we'll work out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show Commissioner Henning was in opposition. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move for adjournment. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, that concludes our business today. All of the petitions or components thereof have been continue to June 22nd. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, before we adjourn, just a brief note. Commissioner Fiala said to tell everyone that she is -- she was taken ill, but she's feeling better and that she appreciates everybody's concern. Thank you. And with that we're adjourned. ***** Page 123 June 5, 2007 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:56 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL nMc~&t ", ATTEST: DW!GHT E. eRpCK, CLERK ~ . , ;,;,' .,' . ' . 'I,' ' t,t:,,~t n 6)', ,!l"<lU^ll 'if""~' en 1 ~ These minutes approved by the Board on l.41~ r)l , as presented ..........- or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 124