Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/18/2007 R October 18, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 18, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION at the Horseshoe Drive Government Complex, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff Bob Murray (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie M. Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning Ray Bellows, Planning Services Tom Eastman, School District Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18,2007, AT THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (CDES), CONFERENCE ROOM 609/610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS 1NTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMM1SSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ SEPTEMBER 6, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; SEPTEMBER 6, 2007, LDC MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CPSP-2007-7. Petition creating a new Public Scbool Facilities Element with support document, and amending the Capital Improvement Element and Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Growth Management Plan to establish a public school concurrency program. This is a companion item to the School Concurrency Inter-local Agreement between the Collier County District Scbool Board and Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the cities of Marco Island, Everglades and Naples. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) CONT FROM 09/20/07 B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374. Gulf Coast Development Group, LC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., requesting a PUD to PUD Rezone Amendment for project known as the Naples Reserve Golf Club RPUD. The petitioner proposes to add 602 residential units to the existing PUD, and eliminate the commercial acreage and 18 boles of the 36 hole golf course. The subject property, consisting of 688 acres, is located one mile north of US 41 and I 1/2 miles east of CR 951 at 10097 Greenway Road, in Section I, Township 5 I South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) CONTINUED FROM 10/4107 1 C. Petition: CU-2007-AR-11970. American Dream Builders, represented by James McCord, is requesting the continuation of Conditional Use for an existing model home/sales center, which has been in existence since 1997, but will expire November 28, 2007. The property is located on the southwest corner of 13th Avenue, SW and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Golden Gate Estates, on Tract 119, in Unit 26, of Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648, Naples Motorcoacb Resort Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of HoleMontes, Inc., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Mobile Home, Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground, and Heavy Commercial Zoning Districts (MH, TTRVC & C-5) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) for a project to be known as the Naples Motorcoach Resort CPUD. This project proposes to allow development of up to 200 motorcoach lots as well as various amenities such as a boat ramp and boat slips. The subject property, consisting of 23.2 acres, is located on the soutbwest side of Tamiami Trail, East, approximately three quarters of a mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS Comprehensive Planning Dept. request that CCPC select Transmittal Hearing dates for 2006 cycle of GMP amendments. Available dates for Boardroom are March 17 (Mon.), ] 8 (Tue.), 28 (Fri.), and April 1 (Tue.), 2008. There are eight private sector petitions in this cycle and likely one County-initiated. Staff suggests three dates be selected. (David Weeks) I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 2007-1 PUBLIC HEARING 1. To review and take public comments on the proposed Amendment to Chapter 10, Application, Review, and Decision- Making Procedures (Coordinator: JeffKIatzkow, Assistant County Attorney) 2. ADJOURN 10/18/07 cepc Agenda/RB/mklsp 2 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mikes are on. We're live. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday morning, October 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This meeting was scheduled to start at 8:30 at the other location. It was renoticed to start at 9:00 here at this location, and that's why we're starting a little bit late. We certainly have a lot of issues to discuss about our agenda that may help some of you in our audience to know when things will actually happen today. But first let's all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, will you do our roll call, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's absent. COMMISSIONER CARON: He's absent. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 2 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll explain Mr. Eastman here in a minute. He's a new face, I know. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. We have -- we're going to start out this morning with the school concurrency issue and then we have three items that were on our regular agenda. We will be then closing that meeting, opening up a continuation of the cycle one LDC amendments after that. Now, in regards to the agenda, I know -- I don't know what all of you are here for, so I'm going to try to, the best I can, to tell you when things may occur. The first thing that has to be held this morning is the discussion of school concurrency. That document is not a few pages like most of the ones in this. This is that document. We have to walk through every page of this book and discuss it and talk about implementing a new system in Collier County for school concurrency, and that will take some time. I don't know what you're all here for, but that has to be done first. So I would like to turn to the rest of my board members and try to get a handle on what you think the minimum amount of time it will take to get through this document. I don't think we can do it in any way less than two hours. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. Page 3 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If our board stays like it is, maybe we could do it in two hours. If our board has more opportunities to discuss things, it may expand to three or four hours. So what's the opinion of the board in regards to hearing this before lunch or after lunch? Because here's the situation. Ifwe go forward and we get done in two, two and a half hours, we could break for lunch and then come back, but if we make a commitment to the public, we have to come back when we tell them we do. So we may either be -- shorten or lengthen our lunchtime. Any thoughts from the rest of you? I'm assuming everybody has read the document. Tom, you've memorized it. You sleep with the thing so -- we may have others who are either as well versed or not. I know -- you know me and my tabs, I've only got about a hundred. So mine alone will take a couple hours, but I think that at least that's the minimum amount of time we'll need. Any thoughts? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think you're correct, it will take at least a couple of hours to get through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is Tom the only one here for the -- from your staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll take care of -- I'll explain Thomas in a minute. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The reason I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of people here for the school board staff, there's a lot of people here from the county staff. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they will all answer questions. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why don't we devote this morning before lunch to this, if we finish a little earlier, we'll break earlier and come back at like 12 or one at the latest? Page 4 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only flaw in that is, if we tell the public we're going to do this morning and take lunch, we've got to give them a time that we're going to start back up again to which they can expect to be here. We can't say we might finish early, have lunch early, come back and start early. We've either got to say 12 o'clock, one o'clock, or something like that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How's one o'clock sound? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that sound like-- COMMISSIONER CARON: One o'clock. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Twelve o'clock lunch, we finish up by 12 hopefully, then be back at one. If we're a few minutes late or after one, they can wait a few minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we don't finish at 12, we will still break at noon and come back at one and have to continue school concurrency until we finish it. But at least that would give the public the opportunity to realize that we're going to run all morning just on school concurrency. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I was going to say, what if we finish at 11 :30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we take an hour and a half lunch. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what that means for all of you here today, if you're here for school concurrency, then we will be talking about that exclusively this morning, and we will not talk about anything else to at least one o'clock. So if you're here for the Collier's Reserve, if you're here for Gulf Coast Development -- well, that's Naples Reserve, I'm sorry, Naples Reserve, if you're here for American Dream Builders, or if you're here for Naples Motor Coach Resort, those three things will not start before one o'clock today. So if you want to sit here till one, if you're involved in those, fine; if not, I recommend you come back at one Page 5 October 18, 2007 o'clock. AUDIENCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What about the amendment cycle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will have to -- that's last on our agenda. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that will be way in the afternoon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. There are people waiting for that too, so we'll have to do that afterwards. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENSES Okay. Now that we've got the agenda kind of figured out, Planning Commission absences. I think our next meeting is 26th of October at 8:30 in the morning at this location. It's a continuation of the AUIR. It's supposed to be discussing the EMS report that we're supposed to receive sometime next week. It will begin at 8:30. I think we'll probably dedicate part of the morning to it, and then that will end up the -- that will finish the AUIR discussion. Is everybody -- does anybody know if they can't make that meeting next Friday? Mr. Midney cannot? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The 26th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 26th at 8:30 in the morning here in this room. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, one, two, three, four-- we'll still have a quorum, so that's fine. Page 6 October 18, 2007 Okay. The meeting after that, by the way, is our regular meeting. It will be the 1st of November, on a typical Thursday. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 2007, REGULAR MEETING; SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 LDC MEETING Approval of minutes. The Planning Commissioner -- well, let me -- when we get to chairman's report, I'll explain Mr. Eastman. Approval of the minutes for September 6, 2007, regular meeting. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, certify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Approval of the LDC meeting of the same date. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Page 7 October 18, 2007 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 REGULAR MEETING Ray, do we have any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The board had their meeting on October 9th. They heard the variance for the Lucart (phonetic) variance, that was a carport. That was approved on the summary agenda. They also had the sign variance for the La Quinta Inn. That was approved on the summary agenda. And then the conditional use for the Fawzy earth mining in association was the fish aquaculture, that was continued to the October 22nd board hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was, I would imagine, that continuation because there were only four board members there on the date that all this happened. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 8 October 18,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report, and the first thing, I'll answer your questions about Mr. Eastman. For a long time now there's been a Florida statute that allowed the local municipalities to appoint a nonvoting resident member of the Planning Commission to sit in and -- from the school system who would participate to help us understand any school needs that may be relevant in the issues that we are reviewing. That hasn't happened too much in the past. Mr. Eastman is now going to be attending our meetings and offering his recommendations or comments during our discussions on all the various, hopefully, mostly residential and commercial components we have to discuss. Is that a fair statement, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Yes, thank you very much. And the school district looks forward to working with the county for better coordination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start -- that will be evident when we go through this document this morning, so thank you. Now, on another matter -- and unfortunately not everybody's here today, but I'll still have to discuss this, and at least everybody else knows. Over the -- since our last meeting there have been a lot of concerns raised about some developments in the county where the items that we make motions on and/or the items that the Board of County Commissioners make motions on are not accurately transmitted into the documents that are recorded. And I have spent a lot of time looking into the minutes and actions taken by this board and by the Board of County Page 9 October 18, 2007 Commissioners on some of those issues. And one thing that I saw that was real relevant, and it was hard for me to understand what our actions were sometimes because we would go and make a motion, then -- not recently, but in the past a lot -- we would discuss the motion. We would discuss it and discuss it and discuss it, and then in the end we would vote on the motion, but we would never reiterate the fine points of that motion. And that has become a critical flaw in the process. And at the same time, even when we say a motion that -- and I -- I watched it, I saw it in this particular example, someone makes a motion, and I'll make a motion we approve it with all the recommendations made by so and so or made by so and so or made by staff. That doesn't fly, because if you look at the minutes, stafftalks in response to us, and not all of the stuff that staff says may be what you may mean as part of the motion. So from now on, I'm going to ask that we make motions in one of two ways. I know not all of you are comfortable with making all the detail to the motion because you have to be writing the whole time you're thinking during the meeting, and it's hard keeping track of all that. So I've got to ask, if you want to make a motion -- which I encourage everybody to please participate in the motions -- and you want to make a recommendation for approval, start the motion out that way. Say, I'd like to make a recommendation to recommend approval. We'll get a second, then we'll have discussion, then we can pull out our notes, and during that discussion, we can list all the stipulations we may want to amend the motion by, and then the motion maker can decide, yes, I'd like to amend that motion and go forward and we'll get a second, and we'll have the stipulations listed at the time the motion's made. And I think if we were to do that and send a clear and concise snapshot of our articulated motion every time we do it, we can avoid Page 10 October 18, 2007 the mistakes like are occurring right now in the community. And the Board of County Commissioners has the same problem, I've noticed, in their minutes. A lot of time their motions are just referring to the discussion, and hopefully maybe that will get clearer as a result of what's been happening lately. But it isn't all a problem of staff. It certainly is a problem by the way the motion is made, and I will be striving for that. The second way a motion ought to be made is if you feel comfortable with stipulations, put them in your initial motion and we can either build on them or not during the discussion. But from now on, we will try to get a lot clearer than we have in the past. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, is there a way in the process where the conditions could be voted on? Essentially I think there is, in Robert's Rules of Order, a submotion. In other words, let's say somebody makes a motion for approval of something, and we start going through the conditions, and there could be controversy on the condition. Rather than leaving it up to the motion maker to accept it or not, is there a way that the panel could vote on the condition if it fails, move on to other conditions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think once you have a motion on the floor, you have to act on it. And I think if we're looking at conditions to the motion, the only way we can act on the motion is if the motion maker wants to amend his motion to either accept them or not, and if he didn't, then we would have to defeat the motion and then re-open it with another motion, possibly with the conditions you're talking about and see if that flies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Margie, are you the Robert's Rules of Order expert? Because in some boards I'm on -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's a fine point, and I'd be happy to check into it and report back about the submotion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Submotion is -- Page 11 October 18, 2007 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way he's saying it though, Marjorie, is we would entertain a submotion during the discussion of the motion that's already on the table. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And I tend to agree with you, Mark. I do want to double -- that would be a fine point in Robert's Rules, and I do want to check and see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to muddy the waters any more than they already are, so whatever the clearest way to do it is what I hope we would be doing. And Brad, I'm not saying yours isn't clear, but I -- you know, we just need to get our motions very concise, very down to the point, and maybe when staff reports them, they will be so fine-tuned that it's just a paragraph that can be easily transmitted to the BCC, and then everybody is running from the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let Margie research it. Just in past process that's a way to not cause a motion to be denied, to be rebuilt just over one little issue. It's resolved and you move on. But Margie will do the research. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is all I have under chairman's report. Item #8A PETITION: CPSP-2007-7, PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT Now with that we will move into the first issue ofthe day, which is petition CPSP-2007-7, and it's a petition creating a new Public School Facilities Element, and we have representatives from both the Page 12 October 18, 2007 school staff and the county staff here to discuss the issue. Margie, is this a disclosure issue? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: No. It wouldn't -- it's not quasijudicial. The Compo Plan amendment is legislative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- and Interlocal Agreement is an agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then from there we will go straight into the -- how about swearing in; is that an option or is that not -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: We have sworn in. I believe it's an option that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We have sworn in folks before for Compo Plan amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to do so again. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this particular Compo Plan amendment, please rise to be sworn in by the court recorder. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm assuming you'll want to -- someone will want to start with a presentation or discussion. It's up to you all. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the county's Comprehensive Planning staff. As the chairman stated, this is the first item -- the first public hearing item on your agenda this morning is CPSP-2007-7. This is the transmittal of the Growth Management Plan amendments to the county's capital improvement and intergovernmental coordination elements. A new Public Schools Facilities Element and Data and Analysis Report, and Interlocal Agreement for the state-mandated school concurrency program to the Page 13 October 18, 2007 Department of Community Affairs. This hearing is the first of four public hearings. As with most Growth Management Plan amendments and additions to the plan, this petition and all related documents will be heard by this hearing body and the Board of County Commissioners and then will be transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment. After the department has provided their review and comment to staff, staff will revise the school concurrency documents as needed and present the petition again to both the Planning Commission and the BCC in the early part of next year. It will most likely occur January or February for adoption. Today the commission will review and provide recommendations on five documents; the Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency Interlocal Agreement; the Public School Facilities Element and Data and Analysis Report; and amendments to the county's capital improvement and intergovernmental coordination elements. Before we begin reviewing each document, I would like to provide a brief history and overview of the statutory requirements for the implementation of the school concurrency program. In 2005 the Florida Legislature in Senate Bill 360 enacted legislation requiring the implementation of Public School Facilit -- I'm sorry -- Public Schools Concurrency Program. The implementation of this program requires coordinated planning among the county, the municipalities, and the school direct. Pursuant to state requirements, Collier County must adopt a school concurrency program that is internally consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan no later than March 1st of2008. The general statutory requirements for school concurrency include the adoption of consistent Public School Facilities Elements by local governments. The element must include provisions for the Page 14 October 18, 2007 application of concurrency. This could either be done district-wide, which is the preferred application by the state, or less than district-wide, which would be smaller geographic areas; a uniform level of service is also required; adequate school capacity for the five-year and long-term planning periods; coordination of school development with residential development; options for proportionate share mitigation; and provisions for supporting infrastructure concurrent with development. Updates to the local governments' interlocal agreements are also required by statute to ensure a uniform school concurrency system throughout the district. Local governments and the school district must agree on the following: A level of service standard. This is similar to the establishments of level of service for other public facilities such as water and roads. Concurrency service areas. These are geographic areas in which the level of service is applied to measure capacity. Maximum utilization of capacity. This means that school capacity must be maximized in each concurrency service area. The annual adoption of the Public Schools Capital Facilities Program, options for proportionate share mitigation. Proportionate share is a requirement of school concurrency. This could include land or monetary contributions to add capacity to support a residential development. And finally, we must all agree on the implementation procedures. Finally, Florida Statutes require that local governments amend their Capital Improvement Plan or element, rather, to include provisions for incorporating the school district's Financially Feasible Public School's Capital Facilities Program and the level of service standard, and also amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to include provisions for coordination. The documents before the commission today contain county staff recommended revisions to the Interlocal Agreement, the Capital Page 15 October 18, 2007 Improvement Element, the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and the Public Schools Facility Element. Additionally, there are some outstanding policy issues that county staff would like to address with the commission and discuss a recommendation. These include the level of -- the level of service standard proposed by the school district. The district is proposing 95 percent of permanent FISH capacity -- FISH represents Florida Inventory of Schoolhouses for both elementary and middle schools -- and 100 percent of FISH capacity for high schools. It is my understanding -- and the school district can correct me if I'm wrong that -- both middle and high schools, the capacity figures are adjusted by 10 percent and 5 percent respectively for operational purposes. So just keep that in mind as we go further with the discussion on level of service standard. The incorporation of the school district's capital plan by reference into the county's Capital Improvement Element. That's also another outstanding issue. This inclusion, most likely, if not properly addressed, will cause the county's Growth Management Plan to be internally inconsistent and, perhaps, cause the county CIE to not be financially feasible. And, again, we can discuss that as we go through the documents. If there are no questions at this point, we can proceed with each of the documents, beginning with the Interlocal Agreement. Both county staff and district school staff and their consultant is here to answer the questions. I believe for the most part the school district and consultant will be answering the majority of the questions related to the program, the school concurrency program. And then I want to mention one more thing, if I may. I've also passed out a single sheet. It's two sided, and those include additional deletions and additions to the ILA, public facility element, and CIE. And most of those changes are minor edits, and we can review as we Page 16 October 18, 2007 go through the document. There are exceptions to that, number 8,9 and 12, which were requested changes by the district that I received last night or yesterday afternoon rather. And with that, we can go ahead and proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele-- MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as we go through the document, when I -- and what I'd like to do, ifthere's no objection from the panel, is proceed through these documents as we have others, page at a time, for the ones that are here to review. Now, a lot of these documents -- and I'll tell all of you, the three-ring binder that you all received, the meat of it -- I mean, the bulk of the document is backup material that is for our understanding of the issues, not a lot of stuff we can do anything about. There are only three documents in here -- I believe there's three, maybe four -- that we have focused on. One is the ILA, and the other is the ICE, the Public School -- PFSE, Public Facilities School Element, and then, I think, the CIE. MS. MOSCA: And then also the data and analysis report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those documents are ones that we can have input on and maybe have an impact on. There is a large amount of background data that we don't have to spend a lot of time on unless we want clarification from the school staff, so -- MS. MOSCA: And Mr. Chairman, if! may, those documents were provided as support documents to assist you in your review, such as the 9J-5, the Florida Statutes, and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, as --like I said, as we go through this document, when we hit a page -- before we ask questions, clue me in on what corrections on that page occurred, then we may end up making it a little shorter in that regard. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Page 17 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first document, everyone, would be under the tab titled ILA in your book. Of course, I'm making the assumption that the other actions, that our other documents written by staff are just information only and we don't have questions on those, but feel free to ask them if you do. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just so I make sure that everybody is reading from the latest iteration of the documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: On the bottom in the footer, the document should read 10/18/07 CCPC transmittal hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very bottom, left-hand side, and that should be -- MS. MOSCA: The only -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a document which -- it's titled Interlocal Agreement on the first page, and that's on page 1. So if you go to page 1, it's past the index. Go to page 1 of the document, you'll see that reference. MS. MOSCA: The only page -- the only document that will not contain that date is the Public School Facility Element Data and Analysis Report. Staff did not change that document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, we will start out on page 1 of the Interlocal Agreement. Are there any concerns or questions on page I? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure where to put my questions in because I have some general questions, but let me just start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is in response to the 2005 law passed by the legislature that we invoke this. Is it -- would you say that it's an add (sic) tax or a reorganization of our present impact -- impact fee structure? Page 18 October 18, 2007 MR. COHEN: Mr. Midney, I probably can answer that with respect to Senate Bill 360. It's really unrelated to impact fees. The intention of the legislature was to, I guess -- and Mr. Eastman can help me out maybe a little bit on that -- is to ensure that adequate school concurrency existed at the time of the development, making sure that the children were adequately provided for at the time the residential units came on-line, so the state wanted to make sure that transpired in addition to some of the other actions that they took. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no -- this review is not a tax type of review. You've got to -- the best way I've found to compare it, Paul, is transportation. Every time you put a car on the road -- put a development in, they request a TIS, Traffic Impact Statement, to see how the cars will impact the road system. And if they do, then you have -- then the developer has to address that impact, if it's too much or, you know, if they have to mitigate it. This is exactly like that. What happens here is, when a developer goes in with a project, they have a formula in here that tells the school system how many students might come out of that project. The developer has to produce a document like a TIS, and that shows the impact on the school system in that area, and then through that analysis and review of that, say, school TIS, then the school comes back and says, we either have the capacity or we don't. And if we don't, here's what we need to do to get there. And there's a variety of ways to do that. So it really isn't a tax or an impact fee. It's really how to make the system work like traffic does, and it may lead to mitigation or requirements, but on the surface -- yeah, on the surface it does not, right off the hand because the capacity right now in the school system is still there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, but there is still a monetary or potential monetary impact to developers who want to put something in if the capacity is not there? Page 19 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So to me, as a layman, it sounds like an impact fee in a way. Maybe an indirect sort of fee, but it amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I don't see it that way. I see it as a method to understand if an impact -- well, first of all, if an impact is needed. We all pay impact fees, but we don't know each time a development goes in if there's enough to cover what's being requested. This document more -- is supposed to kind of ferret that out and determine if there's more than the impact fees needed. And if there are, then the mitigation comes into play. So it can -- yes, it can potentially have a financial impact, but this just tells you -- tries to measure that impact is what it does. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, for an example in Immokalee, right now our schools are full. If a developer comes in and wants to put in a new development with 2- or 300 housing units and obviously the capacity is not there right now, is that going to have a financial impact on that developer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The school staff can probably answer that, but the way the document's written, the school areas are broken down into what are called CSA. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then those CSAs can benefit from adjoining CSAs that don't have as much capacity taken up. Maybe one of the members of the school staff can -- MR. DeYOUNG: Sure. David DeYoung with Kimley-Horn & Associates. You said it exactly correctly. Each area of the county has been designated into a concurrency service area. If there is no available capacity within that concurrency service area, a developer is permitted to use adjacent concurrency service areas to look for capacity. If no capacity is available in those adjacent concurrent services Page 20 October 18, 2007 area, then yes, that developer -- there would not be capacity for that development and that developer would be afforded an opportunity to provide a proportionate share mitigation option to offset his development, the impacts -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm thinking ofImmokalee where, you know, we're kind of geographically isolated. There really wouldn't be too much sharing that you could do with a lot of -- without a lot of extra busing. So it would be a monetary impact in most cases, wouldn't it? MR. DeYOUNG: If there was no available capacity and the developer did, you know, come forward with a proportionate share mitigation option which was acceptable to the local government and to the school district, yes, there would be a financial contribution of some kind and that would be offset by the credit of impact fees that they would normally pay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One very important factor that you need to factor in is you have five years from which to develop that capacity through improvements to the local system; is that fair? MR. DeYOUNG: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three, okay. I'm getting mixed up with some of the transportation. We have -- so, Paul, what the means if they've got a fix already scheduled in for construction of school additions, those fixes, if they're within the three-year window, then the developer who's coming in can rely upon those as part of meeting the concurrency capacity, so that will have a beneficial impact in that regard. It's not immediate. It's-- you're looking three years down the road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess I'm thinking -- because, you know, you have facilities A and B and schools are right in there with roads and, you know, the A facilities. So it reminds me or gives me that association of an impact fee. And I'm just wondering why it's not considered to be an impact fee. Page 21 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This school thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. See, I think you're -- the philosophy of this is to add the schools as an element of our GMP so that they become factored into the AUIR and they become part of the planning effort. Impact fees are not really addressed in here, other than the fact that they exist and that they're helping cover some of the concurrency needs for capital improvements. But this doesn't talk about how impact fees are established or raised. It's more how we use them through capital improvements to make sure concurrency's in place and what happens when we don't. ME EASTMAN: Mr. Midney? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out -- I'm trying to break it down into a very -- MR. EASTMAN: I think one important-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- understandable thing to what we do. Go ahead. MR. EASTMAN: One important distinction is that an impact fee is mandatory for the development of the unit. And concurrency would just require that a developer delay until the additions are on -- within our plan to be built in the next three years. So it's more of a -- instead of imposing a tax or an impact fee, it's more of a governance on development so that development is paced with public school seat infrastructure and we'll be able to meet their demand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's not designed to make the developer or the development or the population that will be coming in pay for improvements that will have to be made in order to give that extra capacity? MR. EASTMAN: It is not designed for that. It is designed for them to go forward where there is capacity and delay where there is not capacity, and the school district would be making capacity wheres Page 22 October 18, 2007 needed, so it's really a matter of timing. It's a governance on the rate of development as opposed to saying an extraction, as an impact fee would be, in order to develop, you need to pay this. That's not -- that is an impact fee, but that's not concurrency. MR. COHEN: And Mr. Midney, if! may, it's very similar to the same exercise that you just went through with the AUIR and the same exercise that you'll go through with the CIE. Our public facility -- when we do it, our public facilities are in place or planned within a two-year window or three-year window. This is doing the same for schools. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, we're -- Paul-- and a different response to Paul's questions, you do have paragraphs in here that talk about the utilization of impact fees for it to meet the concurrency demands. And I think where he may be heading is, that either you actually have a paragraph that says, if the impact fees generated by a particular proj ect are not enough to meet the mitigation needed for that project to move forward to meet concurrency, the developer's got to pay the difference through a series, or come up with a difference, through a series of mitigation efforts. And I think that's where the cost's coming in. And we'll get to that page. It's further back in the document, but that is a flag that I think all of us should be looking at and understanding what it really means, because it will have the impact that I think you're alluding to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's what I'm hoping to get to. Which section would you say that best belongs in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. We can talk about -- it will be brought it. It's -- when we get to it, Paul, but we will certainly -- you'll hear the discussion on the impact fees come up and the fact that -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That was my confusion, exactly where this item goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's a -- there is some Page 23 October 18, 2007 paragraphs in here that need to be discussed for sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on page 1. Anybody have any questions on page 1, because I -- MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: You asked that I direct you in the event that there's a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. MS. MOSCA: There is a change on page 1, fourth whereas clause, add the word potential before the word deficit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my question. I will take my tab off that page. Oh, by the way, as a general add-on to this document, would you consider adding a list of acronyms to the front of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, but I want to remind you that you forgot one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: SBR is not on your list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. You're right. That was one of the basic ones, too. It should be there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I mean, if you're going to be an acronym activist, you've got to get that right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will follow in your footsteps, sir, thank you. Okay. On page 2, more whereas clauses. Any questions on page 2? I'd like the -- everyone to notice that on the second whereas in page 2, the second to the last line, it -- the line reads, demonstrate that Page 24 October 18, 2007 the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to section 163. That needs to be a focus of discussion because the greatest extent possible, in my understanding, has always been 100 percent. This document doesn't have 100 percent; it has 95 percent. It's one of those built-in buffers that, while it may be legitimate, we certainly will need to understand a legal opinion on whether or not 95 percent is considered the greatest extent possible, consistent or inconsistent, with Florida Statutes. And I don't know if you want to address that now or where it occurs multiple times in the document. We also have the same language in the CIE, I believe, in reference to how the CIE's multiplied, and one of the other documents as well. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I could probably briefly explain it and then, perhaps, defer to school district staff. I believe, or my understanding, why the school district is looking at a 95 percent for both elementary and middle is because of programming needs, and there might be additional needs as well, and that's why they chose to go with the 95 percent rather than 100 percent. What that means is not all of the classroom student stations are being used at one time during these special program type classes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When -- I have met with school staff, and they provided the explanation, and I understand theirs and I understand what you've just said. And I -- that's fine. I don't have a problem either accepting or not accepting it. My concern is, does it or does it not meet Florida Statute, and I think that is the legal conclusion that we would certainly need an answer on. I can have all the staff opinions in the world on it. I need a legal opinion that's going to tell me, does 95 percent meet the language of Florida Statute that says to the greatest extent possible is to be maximized. Margie, you want to -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I've always understood that the Page 25 October 18, 2007 level of service standard is the policy decision that is to be made. To the greatest extent possible is not a precise numeric calculation. I think it does allow, you know, a little bit of room. But level of service standard a policy decision to be made. I don't know that between 95 and 100 percent -- I don't know that to the greatest extent possible is necessarily 100 percent. I think it allows you some wiggle room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, the statute says, to demonstrate that the utilization of school capacity is maximized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to Florida Statutes. Now -- and it references the statute section. If your reading of that section is telling me that when something is maximized to the greatest extent possible, that allows flexibility to be not the greatest extent possible, maybe, that's fine. I just need you to say that so the record's clear. And that's where -- yes, ma'am. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, if! might, Susan Trevarthen with Weiss, Serota, Helfman, as part of a consulting team for the school board. I'm an attorney who's working on the drafting of these documents. I think Margie is right with what she has said, and I will just add a little more detail to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. TREV ARTHEN: It is a legislative decision for the local governments and the school boards together to come to what is the proper level of service for their community, and I think the state will defer to that local judgment. The primary constraint on that judgment is what is financially feasible. But if you've done the math and you can show that you can forward your proposed level of service, there's going to be a great deal of deference to that adopted level of service. What this maximization language relates to is, okay, we've made a decision. Essentially if we adopt 95 percent ofFISH as our LOS, Page 26 October 18, 2007 then that's our 100 percent, you know, with regard to a developer. And what the maximization obligation relates to is, what have we done to make full use of that 95 percent? Are we making appropriate use of the public investment and school facilities and maximizing what's available to us? But it's within that universe of the 95 percent which was our policy choice of our level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have you used less than a 100 percent in other jurisdictions in this state? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Other jurisdictions have talked about it. The question has always been financial feasibility, not a maximization component or concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has any other jurisdiction adopted a CIE or an element or an ILA at less than a 100 percent? MS. TREV AR THEN: That I think is easy because no one has adopted yet. You're in the phase of transmittal right now, and the first deadlines for adoption are January of next year. You come a little bit later than that. So there's a lot of activity around the state, but I don't think anybody has adopted under the new statutory scheme. Palm Beach County has had a school concurrency scheme in place for some time. They were over 100 percent, but they were operating under different rules. They -- the system that's on the books there is, in significant ways, different than what the statute provides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that you do this for more than just Collier County. You've done it for other jurisdictions in the state? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I have. If you like, I can just briefly explain my involvement. I have worked with the state on the technical assistance documents for the implementation of this mandate. We prepared a series of documents that are available to anyone who needs them in preparing their Interlocal Agreement and their plan amendment. I also worked on the pilot communities as well as David Page 27 October 18, 2007 DeYoung, and the Kimley-Horn team worked for pilot communities. That was a program whereby funding was made available for those who volunteered to go early and come up with proposed interlocal agreements and Compo Plan amendments as a demonstration project for the rest of the state. So between us we worked for most of the pilot communities. Currently I'm representing local governments in Broward County in negotiating and developing this product, as well as representing Miami-Dade County School Concurrency Task Force, which was charged with setting the policy for Miami-Dade County to get this going. There are additional jurisdictions where David is active, and he may want to mention that as well. MR. DeYOUNG: Yeah, we're -- Kimley-Horn is active working with the Town of Miami Lakes in Miami-Dade County, Charlotte County, Clay County, Putnam County, Okeechobee County, Brevard County, and we're mixed between -- some of them we represent the school district, some of them we represent the county, and some of them we represent both as a team. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in Charlotte, Putnam, Ochopee (sic), Dade, Broward, are any of those working at below 100 percent? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Broward and Dade ruled it out because they couldn't afford it. It wasn't even really a discussion that they could talk about because of the available funding. So it's a different issue than you're faced with here. You could, perhaps, address the other. MR. DeYOUNG: Actually one of mine is, it's Pasco county, and they're, I think, middle school; 95 percent at the middle school level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about Charlotte? That's a coastal county. MR. De YOUNG: Charlotte is just starting up, and they haven't even determined concurrency service areas yet, so I can't speak to their future level of service. Page 28 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So really by taking 95 percent, we're doing so because we're a wealthier county? MS. TREV AR THEN: In away. I also should address -- I neglected to mention. One of the pilot communities was Sarasota County, and that was one of the ones that I worked on, and they were one of the few around the state that looked seriously at the concept of using a different definition of capacity. And the only reason I bring that up is, these are numbers, but they only have meaning when you understand what's behind them. And 100 percent ofFISH might be equal to -- 120 percent of program capacity might be equal to 80 percent of another measure, so there is a relativity here that it's not -- it sounds like a magic number because we're all used to dealing with 100 percent is all. But the devil's in the detail just as it is -- and you're more familiar with from transportation; how you count things is really important. So 100 percent per se is not a magic number. It doesn't say in the statute you have to be 100 percent, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm belaboring a point here, and I know for the rest of the board members, but I'm hoping it will save time later on into the document, and it is a basic point. So if I go a little longer on this one, it doesn't mean the whole document's going to be this way. Mr. Midney's concern is a very good one, and it's the cost in Collier County that it takes to build anything and to get people into homes. By going to 95 percent, we lose 5 percent counting 5 percent of the available buildings. That 5 percent then, because it's not counted, is still then more or less recounted to re -- to calculate impact fees and to keep impact fees sustained at a higher level; whereas, if you used 100 percent, your needs would then appear -- would appear to be less because you're doing more utilization of your facilities. And it's kind of like the jails. We learned Tuesday that the jails can really take 20 percent over the 100 percent that they're designed Page 29 October 18, 2007 for and still comfortably operate and still be within the law. Schools have an additional capacity that they could actually use that we're not counting. And by not counting it, it seems to artificially inflate a need for impact fees or other expenses to drive that number higher when it already is higher. And I noticed, young lady, you came to the podium, and maybe -- you're going to help me with this? MS. LaBUTE: Thank you for the young lady. I'm Michele LaBute. I'm chief operational officer with Collier Schools, and for many years I was principal at both middle and high school levels, so I think I can address the program capacity issue, hopefully clearly. The Class Size Reduction Amendment, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with here, has really tied our hands in terms of actually meeting FISH capacity. When the state sets FISH capacity, they look at a classroom, for example, a fourth grade classroom, and they'll say 22 students, I believe, is the number, because 22 students is the cap. When we get to the year 2010 and we have full Class Size Reduction Amendment fully implemented, the cap we can put in a fourth grade class, for example, is 22. Well, that works all well and good if you have, for example, 88 students. You can put 22 students into every one of those classrooms and you can staff at 100 percent of FISH; however, what happens when you have 75 students? Remember 22 is the cap. We still need four classrooms but now we're staffing that classroom in terms of students at much less than 100 percent or at less than 100 percent of FISH. That will happen at every grade level across the board. So the FISH level, once we get to the year 2010, is going to be-- the FISH capacity is going to be far beyond the capacity that we actually can staff classrooms at because there is a cap there. So when we look on our actual program capacity then, it's hard to estimate, but we could be actually down 80,85, or even -- you know, in that range. It's really hard to estimate because it depends upon how many students are in a given grade level. Page 30 October 18, 2007 So that's our dilemma in planning classrooms for class size reduction when you have that cap on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've certainly got to admit, you have a lot better handle on what you all need than we would. I think our goal is to try to understand it a little bit better and then get forward with this. There is talk in here about utilization of mobile units, and they're to be used on a temporary basis, and I believe there's even a time frame as to how long they can be utilized for, but I don't know if they're counted in your efficiency capacity, in your 95 -- I think they're not. And because they're not, they're kind of like this floating mechanism out there. So if you run into the problem that I think you started talking about with the 75 and you're not utilizing everything, you can bring in the portables for a period of time while you figure out how to plan better to more efficiently operate at the capacity you're supposed to without using the portables. Is that a fair statement? MS. LaBUTE: You can bring in portables to offset your needs, certainly, and we've been doing that and probably will continue doing that; however, that is not permanent capacity. And it's not a matter of planning. It's a matter of how many students are at a given grade level or in a given course, algebra one at the middle school level, for example. We may have six -- or, you know, 75 students sign up for algebra one. Again, the number is 22 at the middle school level. So all the planning in the world doesn't offset the problem of having -- not being able to exceed the state cap, and there are financial penalties to us if we do have classrooms exceeding that cap in 2010. Right now we're on school average, so we still have some leeway, but once we get to the maximum capacity per classroom, it really does present a dilemma that will require us to actually have more -- have empty student stations in some classrooms as we fill another classroom with student stations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why then did the one category -- I think Page 31 October 18, 2007 it's high schools -- retain 100 percent efficiency or cap or maximum use and the others be dropped to 95? What was the difference that allowed one to get there and the others not? MR. DeYOUNG: That high school level, unlike element --let's use elementary and high schools as our two examples here, because when you're in an elementary school, kids stay in the same classroom pretty much the whole day. At high school level there's a lot of movement between classrooms, so it's easier to accommodate those categories where, if you have 77 students and you have to have 25 per classroom in a high school, it's easier to move those kids during periods and incorporating lunch to, you know, account for that difference in the students. At the elementary level, you don't really have that movement. They stay in their class. They don't go to computer labs and all kinds of other classes during the day like high school students do. So that's the main reason for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I appreciate the explanation. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: If I may. I know this is probably unorthodox, but I have a question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unorthodox coming from you, Michele? Never. MS. MOSCA: I would like some clarity, perhaps, on the adjustments to FISH capacities that are built into FISH. In some of the documents that I read there was a 5 percent for operational purposes for high schools and 10 percent for middle schools, so I would just like to understand how that fits into the capacity issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to answer you, but I think they could probably answer you better. MS. LaBUTE: There are adjustments based on the pupil stations Page 32 October 18, 2007 as designated by the architect when the school is designed, and the FISH capacity is -- I believe those are the correct percentages. I'd have to look them up. They're the same percentages we've always had and -- forever. And they have adjusted it -- adjusted -- what I am trying to say -- student stations with FISH capacity for the programs as we've always known them. Class size reduction further exacerbates our need to adjust the FISH capacity, so that's the problem. And I keep repeating it, but that's -- the issue with us is that cap. If the state -- we've had legislative proposals, all school districts -- or most school districts have, for a number of years to adjust class size reduction to be a school average rather than a cap for each classroom, because we can function much better, as we are right now, with school average. But it's when we get to that cap that we're going to have to have further adjustment. So I guess, Michelle, to answer your question, we already adjust for those 90 and 95 percents ofFISH. We're going to have to further adjust with class size reduction. MS. MOSCA: If I could -- if I could just get some clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little confused now. MS. MOSCA: Okay. What -- my understanding, when I went through some of the documents that I was able to retrieve from the DCA site is that, for example, for middle school, if the FISH capacity, for example, is 1,000 student stations, they're reporting FISH capacity to the local district as 900 to account for the operational needs; is that correct? MS. LaBUTE: I believe it's 10 percent, Mr. Hardy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Hardy, you weren't-- MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry. MS. LaBUTE: Okay. Yes, that is correct, Michele. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Page 33 October 18, 2007 MS. LaBUTE: That is correct, right. And that basically is saying, instead of filling every classroom -- every seat in every classroom every period, which literally is, you know, mathematically impossible, they've already -- we've already -- always worked on 10 percent adjustment. The class size reduction further, you know, increases that need for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so I can understand it in simpler terms, if you have a classroom that's dedicated to be 20 students, FISH is already figuring there will only be 18 in that classroom? MS. LaBUTE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at our 95 percent capacity, we're figuring how many would be in that classroom; 95 percent of 18 or 95 percent of 20? MR. De YOUNG: You do it -- we do it on a school-by school basis in terms of figuring out the overall capacity. You could -- if you said there's 18 -- it's broken down by grade level. K-3 -- K-2? MS. LaBUTE: K-3. MR. DeYOUNG: K-3 is 18 students per classroom. K-5-- MS. LaBUTE: 4-8 is -- MR. DeYOUNG: 4-8, thank you. MS. LaBUTE: -- is 22. MR. DeYOUNG: 22. MS. LaBUTE: High school, 25. MR. De YOUNG: Thank you. MS. LaBUTE: 25. MR. DeYOUNG: High school's 25. MS. LaBUTE: So it would be -- if you did it by classroom, you are correct, Mr. Strain, it would be 95 percent of 18 on an average. MR. COHEN: Which is .9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's kind oflike -- so we've got a -- FISH has a small buffer built in, and by going to 95 percent, you Page 34 October 18, 2007 have another additional buffer built in? MS. LaBUTE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. LaBUTE: Which we believe is needed because of the Class Size Reduction Amendment. In reality, our actual program capacity-- in fact, we are figuring that for our schools now. We are going over the layout for every school now. Our actual program capacity, I estimate, is going to be even considerably less than that, but we felt the 95 percent at the two levels and the 100 percent at the high school level was something we could live with. But in reality it's going to be less than that, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got a lot more to learn today, but I appreciate so far the introduction. That's been helpful. Thank you. Are there any other questions on page 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about on page 3. Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes. We have a change on page 3. The definition of applicant, we're capitalizing Residential Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 3? I have one on -- and I asked this when I was talking to you, but I certainly would like it again clarified for the record. Under available capacity, you talk there about available capacity within a CSA, but really the way the document reads, the available capacity can be attained not only from within the CSA but with adjacent CSAs as well. And I think I asked this question, and maybe you need to reanswer it. Do we need to add that potential into that definition? MS. TREV ARTHEN: No, we do not, because the way the statute looks at it is, there's always going to be a preference to assign the impact of that development to the concurrency service area in which it is located. Page 35 October 18, 2007 So it's a two-tier thing. It's not like overall capacity. The first step is to see the available capacity and the effect to concurrency service area, and that's what this definition relates to. And then by statute there's a second step if that fails. If the affected CSA doesn't have the classroom space on the ground or planned within the first three years of the five-year plan, then you're going to look at those adjacent CSAs and their capacity, and they, too -- this definition would then apply to the available capacity of each of those adjacent CSAs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know a guy named Nick Casalanguida? MS. TREV ARTHEN: We've heard of him. We've even spent time with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have the same philosophy and the same concept. I think if you would compare notes, we'd be reading from the same documents, so -- and nothing wrong with that. Nick does a good job, so. Okay. Are there any questions on page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you didn't tell me about this one, maybe because I didn't ask it before. Governing body. The word chief? I've just never seen a chief governing body. MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Strain, as we had discussed -- and I went back and looked at the statute -- that is the statutory text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MS. MOSCA: And I'm just at a loss of how to change that, what we could use instead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, as long as it's -- I don't know what they consider chief, but that's fine. As long as we know it's there for that reason. Page 36 October 18, 2007 Page 6, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7? Page 7, staff working group, and it's made up of four staff level representatives from each local government. Now, you have Everglades City, Marco Island, City of Naples, Collier County, and then, of course, the school district, so that means you've got supposedly a working group made up of 20 people. MS. MOSCA: It's kind of a hefty number; however, past staff working groups, the Everglades City, there's been one representative, and that's true of both Marco Island and Naples. We wanted to provide for additional staff members for all municipalities and counties in the event that we need to bring other areas of expertise into the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, that meeting that I attended, the first one with your group, was that a similar -- was that this kind of group? MR. EASTMAN: That's a separate and distinct group. It's-- you attended the Land Acquisition Committee, and the Staff Working Group Committee is a separate and distinct group. They both are designed for better coordination between the two entities and better planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I noticed there were multiple staff members from Collier County at this one, and it would have been even beneficial to have others from like, when we talked about, utilities and places like that. So as long as the county is feeling that four provides them with the ability to participate wholly, that's fine, but I think another concern would be, are those four people capable to make recommendations and decisions needed at those meetings to efficiently move the meeting forward, or is it a higher level staff person that might be more beneficial? MS. MOSCA: It will depended on the meeting and the content Page 37 October 18, 2007 of the meeting, the discussion items, and then we may need to, in fact, pull in an administrator and so forth. The meetings that I've attended primarily have been managers and a staff level representative from the county . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you, in regards to your meeting, get posted agendas? I know it's probably not under the sunshine, is it? MS. MOSCA: I don't know if it operates under the sunshine. Margie, would you know? Sorry to defer to you, the staff working group. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that we probably would post. It's, just as a staff, we don't have to have a sunshine type hearing, but I think as a matter of course, we may post some type of notice. MS. TREV ARTHEN: In might, Margie. Amy's just advised me that the school district does routinely post. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern was that if staff makes a decision on who to send to the meeting based on the agenda, then if there's not a reference for an agenda to be issued early so that they would know who to send, I would want -- unless -- if you're comfortable the way it is, that's fine, but if you feel there's any needed language to make sure that an agenda's posted earlier enough for you all to assign the right player to the meeting -- MS. MOSCA: Actually I think that would be a good idea. Typically we receive the agendas maybe a day before or three days before, so that actually would be helpful to include that language to provide an agenda a week in advance of that staff working group meeting, at a minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any opposition from school partici -- to anybody doing that? I don't see -- MR. EASTMAN: I would defer to Amy Taylor. She sits first chair on that committee, and since she's responsible for running it, I think she should weigh in on any changes to how it operates. Page 38 October 18, 2007 MS. T AYLOR: The -- oftentimes the group sets the agenda, and it -- we work as a group. The school district houses the meetings. We volunteer to coordinate the agendas. I would prefer that, you know, we have some flexibility in noticing. We have routinely noticed put up on our district building the -- regardless of the sunshine rules, have posted three days before. We just -- it's a little bit more detail in the Interlocal Agreement than we think would be necessary. It kind of ties our hands a little bit in order to maybe -- you know, we have called special meetings often and so forth to kind of bring everybody together quickly, and it would be -- just be a little bit of a -- too much detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amy, what led to the question was when I researched this independently -- and I can't remember if it was when I was meeting with school staff or the county staff -- there was a concern expressed that the working group had difficulty sometimes because the parties who could make decisions weren't always there. MS. TAYLOR: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the reason that was occurring was because the county didn't have enough notice on what might be on the agenda, then that might be a viable -- a conclusion to come to. Why don't we just simply post an agenda seven days in advance. Even the remote private business does that a lot. Is there -- MS. T AYLOR: We made that comment, I think, at our meeting not because of -- we actually post and send out to multiple people that are not on the staff working group. Officially -- we're actually not sure who's our members or not -- but we post to all the administrative staff here in community development services and higher level transportation staff and so forth. The issue that we have is that at -- particularly with going through, it may not be that as we get these processes in place, but we have had just general difficulty in staff that are assigned to attend Page 39 October 18, 2007 meetings, that they are able to make -- be the decision makers, and it has caused a number of additional meetings so that we can work out issues and coming back and so forth. And, you know, that was our only concern, not necessarily when the meeting was posted or when a person -- when a meeting time was decided and an agenda was sent out, but just that staff to be available from everybody's perspective that can make the decision. For example, the cities -- the cities send their community service directors and so forth to the meetings. We have our executive director of facilities attending the meetings. Staff, myself, coordinates the meetings and shapes the agenda, draft agenda. So that was our concern, not necessarily the timing in which we send out a notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think we understand the issue. MR. COHEN: If! may, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. COHEN: One of the concerns that I know Collier County has -- and it's one of the items I think that's a benefit both to the school board and to the county -- is, is that, do we have the proper person there? And Amy's point is well taken, that a lot of times even though we do have the proper person there, then we have to come back and actually vet it internally, as do members of the school board. So it may run a little bit longer, but at the same time, if we do have adequate notice -- a lot of people have things scheduled on out. We want to make sure that we have the adequate person there or the right person there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Randy. On that same page, under student generator multiplier, the last line refers to new residential development. Are you referring to a defined term by the reference to residential development? MS. MOSCA: Residential development is a defined term, so yes. Page 40 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to capitalize that. Page 8. Are there any questions from page 8? Under subcounty planning sectors, I know why we use it and I understand the T AZs and all that. Has there ever been any attempt to allocate according to the type of residential community involved? You have student multipliers for every type of product, whether it's multi-family, single-family, things like that, yet in a lot of communities, in Collier County especially, there are some retirement communities, there's a lot of seasonal communities, there's a lot of second-home communities where residents come down here and are more or less semi retired here and semi retired in their old residences. How are you taking that into factor when we apply the same multiplier to every type of community in the county and based on a -- it would be based on TAZ then? MR. DeYOUNG: If I understand the question correctly, the first part of the question was, how do we determine where the students -- which communities the students are located in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you determine -- in your multiplier, how do you take into -- into effect the fact that we have a high population of retirees down here and not every community is a community that may be containing as many students per unit as your multiplier uses? MR. DeYOUNG: Okay. I'll try to explain it as simply as possible. When we came up with the student generator multiplier, we took every student in the county, public school student in the county, by address. We geo coded it, matched it to the county address files and had the unit type for each student, so that's where you get the breakdown of students by grade level by unit type. Now, to come up with that generation rate, you don't just take the -- you take all the single-family units in the entire county, not just the ones that the kids are occupying. So we use the entire county's housing data base, applied the students by address to each type of Page 41 October 18, 2007 housing, and came up with a multiplier. So it's a -- it's an evenly distributed multiplier, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. MR. DeYOUNG: There's a lot of housing that doesn't have kids in it, so that's taken into account. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was all diluted by the mass that you use basically for the thing. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I have a similar question, or on the same thing. Does the state law mandate that there's a cookie cutter approach where all counties basically take the same multipliers, or how much leeway does each county have in determining what the rates are? MR. De YOUNG: Each county can determine its own multiplier, but it has to be applied evenly at each level. So your multiplier for elementary school, middle school, and high school, that generation rate you have has to be applied evenly throughout the county. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I noticed -- the thing kind of jumped out at me was trailer parks, which I know serve the lowest income levels of the community. We have a lot of people who live in trailers in Immokalee, and basically what you're doing is estimating how many children are likely to be living in trailers and use that as a multiplier in terms of how you generate what you're going to have to build, right? MR. DeYOUNG: We actually took all the students that are currently living in mobile homes and applied that to the -- you know, countywide. So if there's a student living in a mobile home, it was counted as a student in a mobile home. You take all the mobile homes in the county and you come up with a multiplier for the students for mobile homes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If the county is -- if the school system has a cushion above the capacity, any new development, say a Page 42 October 18, 2007 Habitat development or a new trailer park that would be going in our new low housing --low-income housing, you know, tends to generate more students also. And what I'm wondering is, the school system has a strong financial incentive to have as little over capacity as possible, but when something does come in and if the capacity isn't there, could this conceivably serve to be a tax on children or a tax on families with children or education indirectly as opposed -- since that development will have to find some kind of mitigation to come up with? MS. TREV ARTHEN: There's been a number of statements made about, is this a tax on development and how does this relate to impact fee, and I'd just like to add my perspective to that. There's a very significant difference between taxes and impact fees on the one hand and the program that's before you today. Impact fees, not to be circular, but they're like death and taxes. It doesn't matter when you're building, it doesn't matter where the unit is, if there's a school impact fee on the books, you're going to pay it. And the school could be empty. The school could be at 50 percent of capacity. It's a structural way for growth to participate in the funding of public schools at a rate that is supported by a study that shows that it's the proper rate for them to share in that cost. You have to do all the numbers, and you probably saw that when the county came up with its school impact fee. It may have come through this body. But there's a lot of data and analysis that goes into determining what is growth share, and then once it's on the books, it doesn't matter who you are, you're paying it. It's just like clockwork. This is completely different. This program is not designed in any way, shape, or form to lead to a tax or a fee. I would say, if anything, the way the legislature has implemented school concurrency here is development friendly and provides a number of options to avoid finding that there's a lack of capacity, and that's that whole shifting component. That's a very significant buffer that's provided. Page 43 October 18,2007 If you do end up in that situation -- because there are always worst-case scenarios, obviously, and that's what people worry about-- where there's not capacity in the affected concurrency service area or any of the adjacent ones either now or in the first three years and you're in that discussion about mitigation, the nature of that mitigation is fundamentally different. It is a -- it is a fee that's related to the fact that you want to go now, not the fact that you want to build at all. And it's always, in a sense, avoidable by the timing of the development. The background factor then also needs to be recognized, which is not always apparent when people first look at this system, is that part of the overall statute -- and it's reflected in the documents before you -- is that there's a greater demand and a greater level of accountability placed on the school board in the system as well. They're now being committed to this financially feasible five-year plan that will achieve and maintain an adopted level of service. That is different from the way things have been run in the past. And so implicitly, if you've got a system that meets the statute, by year five everything has to meet LOS anyway. The developer can count up to the first three years for all those potential schools. The only gap is really year four and year five. And if they haven't achieved level of service by year five, then they're out of compliance with the statute. So it may not be black and white very carefully linked, but when you trace it through, there's a number of indirect assurances and -- that act to prevent the need for mitigation. You're absolutely right that there will be cases where mitigation is probably the only way to go ahead and build something at this time. But I want to make sure that this body is aware of the overall context within which that is occurnng. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I know over and over again we're told, you know, by developers timing is everything. You know, Page 44 October 18, 2007 I have to do this now. And in terms of low-income housing, it could be that funding is available now or that there's deadlines and grants and different things. So there may not be flexibility for the developer with regard to timing, and that concerns me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 8? Page 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10? MS. MOSCA: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. What page you on, Michele? MS. MOSCA: Page 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: 5.2, growth and development trends, under C. We've revised the text for clarity and that's shown on your new page. And it will read now, the number of building permits issued for new residential units, the number of units authorized, and the location of such residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any others on 10? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, I'm not really-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The numbering's kind of confusing because my pages aren't numbered, and she said page 10 had 5.2, but my page 11 has 5.2. So am I messed up or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You may be using the wrong document. Let's see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the one dated 10/18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, page 11 doesn't have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't this what she just referred to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I see. The numbers varied Page 45 October 18, 2007 here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on-line. I was afraid there was a third version out there. MS. MOSCA: No. I hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would really be trouble. Okay. Anything on page II? Oh, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, is the -- in 5.2, essentially it's the government transferring data to you. Has that been coordinated with the building department on the way they, you know, gather their data, their -- MS. MOSCA: It has in the past years. This won't be the first time we've provided data to the school district. We've been providing if for a few years anyway, to my knowledge. So yes, we do coordinate with the building department, we do also provide CO data to the school district as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is other data like homestead exemption and, you know, your lease program where you have to register units you're renting, houses you're renting, is that provided also? MS. MOSCA: I don't believe so, and maybe Amy will let me know. I don't believe that it has been in the past. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think -- MS. MOSCA: If they need that -- if they need that additional data, staff would certainly provide that to them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because a non-homesteaded house that is not registered for rental probably doesn't have children in it. It's a seasonal home. But anyway. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page II? MS. MOSCA: Staff has two corrections on page 11. Page 11, under 6.1, just the spelling of capacity. We've corrected that. Page 11, we've added paren B after 10.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is paren -- oh, down -- that's on Page 46 October 18, 2007 the bottom. Oh, okay. MS. MOSCA: Oh, I'm sorry. 6.2(A). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MS. MOSCA: After 10.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions or corrections on page II? Page 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 13? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a whole -- question on the whole timing issue. Staff is comfortable with the timing set up? MS. MOSCA: Most of it is timing, according to the statutory test COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. MOSCA: -- so we have to be comfortable with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. TREV ARTHEN: But if we might go back to page 11, 6.2(A), I think there was a suggestion to delete some text that may not have been caught. In A, at the end of the new A, it says, such as the public facilities itemized in subsection 10.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa, you're 6.2(A). MS. MOSCA: Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: It was just the correction that I made under 6.2(A). After 10.1 -- oh, I'm sorry, before -- it's public facilities itemized in subsection 10.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is the cross-out that's not -- that's in question? MS. MOSCA: It's not the cross-out that's in question. It's the actual itemization of the public facility that are found in 10.1(B). Page 47 October 18, 2007 MS. TREV ARTHEN: I apologize. We had a misunderstanding on our team. We'll move ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't want us back on page 11. MS. TREV ARTHEN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go back to 12? Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: We're just doing our part to make it a long meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, someone's got to be blamed besides me when this gets all done. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Put some of the blame on me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 13. Ms. Caron had a question that was, I believe, responded to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a question on the --7.1 in the -- it's been struck through, rewritten, and underlined so many times, but the middle section talks about a joint determination for the need for timing of on-site improvements to the public facilities necessary . What happens if you don't jointly agree? I mean, it says you've got to have a joint determination, but what happens if you don't? MS. TREV ARTHEN: In might, it's an interesting question, and when you think about it, the whole document you're reading, the same question could be raised. The statute says there shall be an agreement, and there's this sort of philosophical question of what it means to be mandated to agree when you don't agree. But it's just inherent in the way the state has approached doing school concurrency and coordinated school facilities planning. They're trying to bring together these very different legal authorities and without them, they can't implement the program. So you're mandated to agree. So you've got to find some way to get to something that everyone will agree upon. Page 48 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, that's interesting because I can see the county digging its heels in and I can see the school board digging its heels in, and I'm just wondering how you break the backlog. Margie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Further on, I believe -- I've got a cross-through. I think it's on page 35. It's hard to read my page numbers. But anyway, there's a provision for alternate dispute resolution, and that's in the statute as well. CHAIRMAN STRArN: Okay. So it should be assumed that where there's joint participation needed, at any point where they can't come to a joint resolution, that paragraph then would fall back to the dispute resolution paragraph? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It states, if the parties to this agreement are unable to resolve any issue relative to this agreement, et cetera, such dispute will be resolved in accordance, and so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page-- MR. DeYOUNG: Excuse me. We have one other correction to 7.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeYOUNG: Under the new text, it says, in conjunction with the preliminary consistencies determination described in section 6, the school district and the affected local government will jointly determine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit. She's got to type as fast as you talk. MR. De YOUNG: Jointly determine the need for -- need for and timing of on-site improvements, I think, and off-site improvements was inadvertently taken out of the text. It was supposed to be both on-site and off-site improvements. Page 49 October 18, 2007 MS. MOSCA: And staff would agree to that. That's an oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 14? MS. MOSCA: Staff has a correction. Under 18 -- I'm sorry, under 8.2, this text was revised for clarity. We removed the word affect and added increase or decrease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes care of my question. Page 15? Any questions on page 15? I have one. You are required to issue a SCALD (sic). And I don't know if you want to -- SCADL, I'm sorry. Do we want to try to phrase that so I haven't got to say those -- acronym each time? You want to call it a SCADL? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, people have been calling it a SCADL, but I agree it's not a very good acronym. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're required to issue a SCADL every -- like within 20 days. What happens if you don't? Now, this isn't between you and the county. This is between you and the applicant. So now what does the applicant's recourse become if you just don't do it or if you take a month or you could take six months? I know it says 20. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, I'm not finding the language that you're referring to on page 15 where it requires it to be issued within -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's in another part of the book. The question came up in my review of the first whole paragraph on page 15. You're talking about the planning re --level review. I understand you're going to do all these reviews, but at the same time I recall having read further in the book that this SCA -- SCADL, or whatever you want to call the thing -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can wait till we get there if you want to bring that up. I will have the question though, so maybe you can think about an answer. Page 50 October 18, 2007 MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think a general answer is that this is an Interlocal Agreement, and it's not a new thing for school boards and local governments to have Interlocal Agreements. And just like anything else, you're agreeing to do this. And if you don't follow through, at a minimum there's an issue of not complying with an agreement that you've approved. Potentially, depending on the level of the issue involved, it may also involve lack of statutory compliance. There's not a statute that says 20 days, and so that probably wouldn't be a statutory compliance issue. It would be more an issue of -- and, you know, there's a whole range of issues there. Does it rise to the level of default or can you declare it a default? What kind of issue are you going to have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm used to seeing language at times that says, failure to respond within the 20-day period will be deemed approval, and then we go on from there. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And I think that really wouldn't be appropriate here because the whole purpose -- and I think it would be inconsistent with the legislative intent of school concurrency, which is to make sure that the impact of new development and development that increases residential impact is captured, and a deeming of approval when there is no capacity available potentially could be not in compliance with the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will explore that further when we get to the right paragraph. I just kind of wanted to touch on it. Amy? MS. TAYLOR: I had some -- a question about the 20 days. This is the first time that we've seen that. That wasn't gone over with us before whether we could meet that time frame. Is this similar to -- this is a question of county staff. Is this similar to the review periods that the county has for similar traffic impact statements and so forth? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick was here and he's gone. I don't know how long he takes for review. October 18, 2007 MS. TAYLOR: Or any other kind of impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't -- we could hold that until he gets back to find out, because that is a good comparison. If a TIS can be reviewed in 20 days, you should be able to review your plan. We can see. MS. TAYLOR: And also, we are also concerned about the time frame in which we receive the document and when it would -- it would -- we would date stamp it when we receive it in that office, and that would be the time in which the clock would be ticking, not when it's turned in to the county. So we would be concerned that that be clear as well. We often -- like I haven't received a packet from this meeting yet, so that's -- we kind of tend to use it, get documents a little bit later, and we want to make sure that it's our date stamp when we receive it in our office, that that time began. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, if I could address Amy's question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. MOSCA: What we've added with discussions with staff and also with Chairman Strain, we added the addition of 20 days, but what we've done is changed the language to read, after the school district receives the sufficient SIA application, so that is when your 20-day period would begin. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And we can talk with Nick when he returns about the time lines for other applications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There he is. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't believe they need to meet any traffic concurrency. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind going to the microphone for just a minute. Page 52 October 18, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wasn't sworn in. I don't know if we need to be for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we do. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, with Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question was -- and school board thinks, looking at a time frame to review the S-C-A-D-L, SCADL, whatever you want to call it, they think that maybe it could be matched to your review of the TIS. And we know how efficient you are and you'll come back with a short time frame. How long will it take you to review -- does it generally take you to review a TIS? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would have to qualify that. It depends on the size of the development applying, if you get a DRI coming in, if you've got a small commercial development. So what we do is we hold a methodology meeting, we debate -- we discuss and negotiate the time frame of the review. Initially they might provide model numbers to us, and then we go back and provide, you know, review comments and move forward. So it would depend on the size of the development applying would be the time they would need to review that development impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a small--like that development that we just reviewed two weeks ago, that 100-unit development on Livingston Road. How long would a TIS take you to review on that? Just out of curiosity. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Personally, an hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But something like that, a review time where we could go through it and compare everything else that was involved, you'd probably want to allow yourself a couple weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. We're getting a ballpark. Thank you. Appreciate it. Page 53 October 18, 2007 Okay. Nick has provided the incentive for a break, so why don't we take a IS-minute break and come back at 10:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would everybody please come back and take their seats so we can resume the meeting. Okay. We left off on -- finished page 15, and we're onto page 16. Are there any comments on page 16? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had another one on 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Under 8.5, subheading F, it says, other transportation is added. Could somebody given me an example of what transportation would include? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which staff wants to take a stab at that? MS. MOSCA: I'll go ahead and take a stab at it. Perhaps a turn lane. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that about all? MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that about all, just a turn lane? MR. DeYOUNG: Striping. MS. MOSCA: Striping was another one. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to page 16. Are there any questions on page 16? I have one question that may pertain to this page. We have communities in Collier County that are 55 and older, and I thought under some tax law that some of those communities were exempt from school taxes; is that true? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I believe you're asking about ad valorem taxes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I am. I know it's about ad valorem Page 54 October 18, 2007 taxes, but I'm just wondering, does that -- do those communities have any bearing on the multiplier being applied to them if someone comes forward and -- because that would be 8.5 review criteria actually then. MS. TREV ARTHEN: If they are deed restricted, they won't be exempted. To the extent that they're out there, they're part of the 100 percent sample that the researchers used in deriving the student generation rate, and so they're deluding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. TREV ARTHEN: -- and lowering the overall student generation rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a new -- say someone was to come in with a new community that was 55 and older and they met the criteria, would they be basically then not subject to this document? MS. TREV ARTHEN: If deed restricted. Some 55 and over will not be deed restricted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. TREV ARTHEN: So it has to be enforceable and ensured that it is 55 and over, you could not hit them with a school review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. To save my poor memory, I don't remember if that was in the exemption items or not. We haven't got to those yet, but we will. MR. DeYOUNG: It is. MS. TREV ARTHEN: !think it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Thank you. Anything else on page 16? Page 177 Top of page 17, we have a strike-out talking about shared uses. Now that, I'm assuming, is struck out because it went in the new paragraph below; is that -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 18? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make a commentu Page 55 October 18, 2007 about this whole shared use issue. Every time shared use comes up, it ends up that the schools tell us they can't possibly do that because of Jessica Lundsford or some other situation. So I'm just -- I wanted to know the real value of this because I think we should be able to use the schools a lot more than we seem to be able to. MS. MOSCA: In some instances, it's not going to be possible to have that shared use, but I will defer to the school district staff for their comment. MS. LaBUTE: We have many instances of shared use, most significantly with parks and recreation where they use our facilities after school. Jessica Lundsford kicks in during the school day when students are present, and that's when we have to be sure that anyone with a contract with us -- although it's loosened a little bit now -- but basically anyone with a contract with us is cleared and fingerprinted. I'm not sure -- if you could give me a specific example of when the county wanted to share a use and Jessica Lundsford was an issue -- I'm not sure what you're referring to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, it may not just be Jessica Lundsford, but I know there have been instances where the county has wanted -- for example, the parks people have ball fields and whatever, and for some reason we haven't been able to get on campuses, and I would have to go back and look at minutes of meetings where that issue has come up. But I know when -- before the BCC, in particular, when they were talking about levels of service for the various ball fields, softball fields and baseball fields and whatever, there had been times when the county had thought that they might be able to use a school, and schools have come back and said, no, I'm sorry, you know, that's just not possible for -- and one of the reasons cited was Jessica Lundsford. I don't know if that's particular or not, but -- MR. EASTMAN: We work together very well with parks and Page 56 October 18, 2007 rec. We have a natural synergistic relationship. Many of the kids that go to our school are the same kids that want to play in Little League after school. Barry Williams is the Director at Parks and Rec, and Marla Ramsey, the Administrator, we have meetings frequently to discuss how we can utilize district facilities to the benefit of the community in the nature of parks and rec. We have an overlying Interlocal Agreement with them and also many site specifics. For example, we would require a site specific agreement if they wanted to install lights and actually extend the time up until 10 o'clock in the evening that it could be used. We're in the process of opening several new schools, and as part of that process, we're sitting down with parks and rec and rolling out site specific Interlocal Agreements, the most recent of which, which is just approved by the school board and also the Board of County Commissioners, involves Veterans Memorial Elementary, and that's an example of where the field will be lit and we'll be working together and extending the use of the facility. COMMISSIONER CARON: Great. Thank you, Tom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 18. Any questions on page l8? Margie, on 11.4, organization, the CAG, it is subject to the sunshine law. Is there -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not sure how we're helped by the reiteration there. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think the two alternatives are fine, just to refer to the sunshine law, period, or if you wanted to keep the list, say, including but not limited to, and I would add, meetings must be open and accessible to the public. But either way, I think if we just refer to the sunshine law, that's fine, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a preference by either staff? Page 57 October 18, 2007 Because I think the -- you don't want to restate something that's rewritten a different way in the Florida Statutes, so I would -- MS. MOSCA: I would prefer just the statement, Florida government in the sunshine law, and strike through A through C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objections from anybody on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 19? I don't know --let's see. Strikethroughs, CCPC. What is the strikethrough, the next sentence, why was that struck through? The school district, a developer, pursuant to section 163, Florida Statutes, shall be subject to the county's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as amended for site development plan review. Isn't that a true statement? MS. MOSCA: The county believes it is a true statement. There's some discrepancy between 10 -- chapter 10.13 and 163. We were somewhat at an impasse when we discussed this SBR, and this was done at upper level management. I believe this is the -- under B, under B, this is the alternative that's been recommended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if the whole point of the statutes -- and I've found numerous references that say the facilities shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that they will be internally consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I don't know what this language would hurt. Why wouldn't we -- it just adds further clarification. Is there a negative to leaving it in? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, if! might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. TREV ARTHEN: This was resolved, as Michele has said, through negotiations at the higher levels of staff between the school board and the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you go too far, just so you know, they don't resolve issues that are subject to public meeting and discussion. The boards, like ourselves -- MS. TREV AR THEN: In terms of staff recommendation. I Page 58 October 18, 2007 understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wasn't resolved. It was recommended by upper management to proceed with this language, but my question still remains. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And that was the second part of my response, which is, that the county believes that this is an accurate statement. I can make a number of arguments that it is not, in fact, accurate under the statutes. There's a great deal of gray area in the statutes on this point, and all across the state, local governments take a different view of it than the school boards do. So it is not a black and white issue, and that's why it's appropriate for there to be negotiated language to be address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what the negative is from the perspective of the school system then as to why you should not be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Because school boards are -- and I don't know if -- do you want me to continue? I don't know if anyone else wants to also address this issue. But the way the statutes are written, school boards are not just like any other developer in the community. There's a specific set of statutes in 10.13.33,10 through 13, that apply, and they say that-- about the clearest thing they say is that the land use map designation for a school is something that the school needs to be consistent with. And then there's a lot of contradictory language about the extent to which school boards have to fully comply with code. School boards would definitely argue and show you all the ways in which school boards -- or schools themselves -- are facilities. They are not developers per se. They're more akin to a county administration building or a county water plant or -- they're a public facility that's preserving a public need. They are not a private developer. But in a strictly legal sense, the statute itself draws these Page 59 October 18, 2007 distinctions between levels of compliance and does not, I believe -- and most people looking at the language would see that there's a gray area there -- fully require the school board to comply with all aspects of the plan and the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you were to drop out the language, a developer pursuant to section one-six-three three, et cetera, and leave in the language, the school district shall be subject to the Collier's -- to the county's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as amended for Site Development Plan review, do you have any objection to that? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes. That was specifically discussed at length and rejected. As I understand it, your existing agreement between the county and the school board already is not full code compliance. There are negotiated ways of complying with certain aspects of the county code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the first objection of yours was that you're not a developer, but if we strike that language, you still object to the other language that requires consistency. Can you give me an example of where it would harm the school system to be consistent with our -- let's start with the Comprehensive Plan. What condition would be detrimental to you guys to be consistent with our Compo Plan? MR. EASTMAN: I think one explanation would be that currently we have an SBR Interlocal Agreement in place that dictates how schools are built and it is adopted as part of the Land Development Code. It's actually officially part of the Land Development Code. Upon that agreement's expiration, we would be subject to the same development provisions as, for example, a Target. And there are advantages that the county and the district have agreed to to make school development less onerous than, for example, a Target. One of those involves expedited review. And certain standards are Page 60 October 18, 2007 made less to accommodate schools so that the community can have them at lower cost; whereas, with private development, the standards would be more onerous. So with the passing or the expiration of the school board review provisions, we would be subject to those same standards, so that would be the objection from the school district's point of view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you -- if the passing of the review standards -- if they did pass, what then would dictate how you're reviewed? MR. EASTMAN: There would be state statute, and that-- MR. DeYOUNG: And I think that's the crux of this whole conversation, is 10.13.30 of the Florida Statutes outlines that we're subject to review but for specific standards, and it even exempts school districts from local landscape ordinances. Now, I think currently in your SBR agreement the school district does do landscaping. But if you read the statutes verbatim, school districts are not subject to local landscape ordinances. So by agreeing to be subject to your Land Development Code, we'd be agreeing to your landscape code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, a long time ago we were putting up a lot of utility buildings, and during that period of time, it was before our current utility manager, Mr. DeLony, was there. Now, there was an attitude that seemed they're just going to put buildings up in neighborhoods and that's the way it was going to be. Jim DeLony has been -- reached out to try to be more neighborhood friendly. He has made buildings that are compatible with neighborhoods. He has built-in buffers and walls. He has done a lot of good things in that regard. They recognized that on their own as a need, yet they do have to apply now to our Land Development Code and our other codes. I don't know why you would want to take out landscape buffers. Why would you want to put it -- drop yourself in a neighborhood and Page 61 October 18, 2007 be incompatible when you're trying to service the very neighborhood you're being dropped into? MR. DeYOUNG: Actually, compatibility is a requirement in the statutes for schools. I think there's some opposing -- there's some opposing language. You know, there's -- what is it? ET-SEP-TED (phonetic) requirements and -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think the major point is that, it's not, is there a landscape buffer or not. Usually it's how much and how much it's going to cost and how wide is it and how lavishly landscaped is it and do you have to plant specimen trees every 20 feet or not. Those kinds of things tend to be where you find the disputes. And I'm sure that school board staff can address for you the process they go through and -- to assure that the sites are properly landscaped and buffered. I don't think it's a consideration that's ignored. MR. EASTMAN : Well, one small example would be a light pole that would light a parking lot. By the code, it's not allowed to be in a landscape island in a parking lot. We have facilities here prereviewed from you that have a light pole in an island parking lot. I mean, it just becomes minor things or maybe cost saving things or space saving things, but it's not -- certainly not a matter of us wanting to go and do something that would be an eyesore in the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that particular item that you used as an example isn't because of an eyesore but because of the practicality of spreading of the light. Light needs to be able to be defused. You can't do that with a bunch of trees growing up around it and blocking it in the parking lot. That's part of the practical application of the code. And our code in Collier County, I would tell you, is, I think, unique and very detailed in the sense that we require a lot of things that other communities don't because we have a higher standard in Collier County. We require it of developers. We require it of Page 62 October 18, 2007 government buildings. I didn't know until I've been hearing this conversation that we didn't require it of the school buildings. I thought it -- I mean, I know schools had a little different rules, but I thought they always were supposed to come under our rules and the rules of the community they lived in. It doesn't sound like you're telling me they do. MS. LaBUTE: Buffers are required, sir, and there is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to -- you did know -- have her name for the record? Okay. Thank you. MS. LaBUTE: I'm sorry. Michelle LaBute, again. We do buffer our schools and we are very careful about compatibility with neighborhoods. I think where the landscaping kicks in more, once you're on a campus -- and we don't have to meet every landscape code on the campus. But in terms of safety, in terms of where we put our lights -- you know, we wouldn't have a light in the middle of a parking lot because of safety and so on but -- we always watch all of the safety Issues. But as Susan has said, the statutes are contradictory in areas, and I think that's the key in trying to reach an agreement on this particular sentence and why we went to the dispute language in lieu of that. And Marjorie might be able to add to that as well. She was in that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Marjorie, while you add to it, I would like you also to -- there has been in the past discrepancies between codes, and I understand -- and maybe statutes don't apply the same way, but they might -- the most stringent then is supposed to persevere, and maybe that should factor in on this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, the more stringent standard has application when you're construing a statute as -- in other words, you construe it against the local government and in favor of the property owner if it it's a zoning regulation because it's in derogation of property rights. But I just want to state my opinion here. My opinion is that the Page 63 October 18, 2007 school should comply with our Compo Plan and our Land Development regulations with the exception of the architectural standards because they have their own standards. The landscaping, I haven't been pointed to a specific statutory section to construe, but I would state, as I stated at the meeting, that I understand the argument that the school's a public facility. Well, so is a water treatment plant, so is the sewage plant, so are state facilities that have offices here, and they all come in and follow our Compo Plan and our Land Development Code. And a private school would also follow our Land Development Code, and I don't see the difference functionally, you know, between a public or private school. They're both in the business of education. And I don't believe that public schools are exempted under the definition of development in Chapter 380 either. So it's my contention that they do have to follow it unless there's an absolute and specific exemption that's detailed in the statute. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And Mr. Chair-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And therein lies our disagreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think that's why you're seeing that we have agreed that if -- I think the parties really do, in good faith, want to work together to make this work, but because of the concerns you've raised about, what if it is not possible to agree, that's why this language says, if we're really at loggerheads, we'll go to a neutral third party and have them tell us what the law means. You know, it's a common problem to have this issue of interpretation in all school boards and all local governments, and maybe the legislature will do us a favor and clear it up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're an attorney. MS. TREV ARTHEN: -- absent that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're an attorney; you just used the word all. You know, that's -- in deposition, that's devastating. It's a Page 64 October 18, 2007 pretty encompassing language. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, in my experience it's just predictable to the extreme that you're going to have these issues around the state in siting and developing schools where local governments want more and school boards are trying to make it work for their needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this is going to pop up again, so we'll move on. I do want to make a note that we have a process in Collier County called Planned Unit Development, PUDs. Every PUD in Collier County has its own ordinance. It's outside or, I should say, part of the Land Development Code. It implements and supersedes Land Development Code language, but in certain cases PUDs are silent. They don't address every single facet of the code. And where they're silent, the Land Development Code then kicks in. And I see the SBR as a similar document. It's like a PUD. It has a series of terms and conditions, but where it's silent, something has to kick in, and to me that would seem logical that the regular -- the local code would. So be that as it may, we'll move on and we'll bring this back when we get into the CIE and other portions of this document. Michele, did you have something you wanted to add? MS. MOSCA: Well, I was just going to add, for the record, under 10.13, we discussed the differences in opinions regarding 10.13 and 163, and I just wanted to point out that the county, with the statutory language, is allowed to impose reasonable development standards and conditions in accordance with 10.13.51, Florida Statutes. And it goes on to talk about the Florida Building Code. But I don't want to rehash everything. I think that the recommendation that the managers came up with is something that staff would recommend as we move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think, like I said, we'll get into it a little bit more as we go further on. Any other questions? Margie? October 18, 2007 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to point out that that process set forth there would get us into a forum that would hopefully settle the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 20; any questions on page 20? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess it's, you know, the applicability -- and first of all, I think in the carryover of A above, shouldn't that read, residential plats, comma, site plans, "or" functional equipment, and it's not "of' functional? Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Explain exactly what that is. That means that this will apply to any residential platting, this will apply to site plans, which I assume would be our PUDs, or any functional equivalent. Would that apply to conventionally zoned property that is now coming in to be developed, an SDP process; would it apply to that? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I would just start by saying that this language mimics the statute, which is sort of the common denominator. Final subdivision, site plan, or something that is the functional equivalent of those approvals, and then on a county-by-county and city-by-city level, people are going to look at this and decide what is a functional equivalent. I don't know if the County Attorney's Office or county staff can add more as to what they think are functional equivalents or how this would apply within their local development process. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, from County Attorney's Office, we have a platting process and we have a site planning process. Site planning, generally, you would find for industrial and commercial uses. And planning staff can correct me if I'm wrong. Platting could be for the larger parcel, for a larger commercial parcel Page 66 October 18, 2007 or industrial parcel, and then as those are broken out, you would have a site plan for the industrial/commercial use in that smaller parcel, and then if they were residential lots, there would be no further site plan. They would just be some kind of drawing that's submitted at the time of building permit. I think functional equivalent was used by the legislature because Florida has so many different local governments; they have different types of processes of approval, so that was to catch everything. And I would -- it would help us to leave it as it is because if we ever changed anything, it's sort of a catchall, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, did you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer. You want to finish up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that didn't quite answer my question. You gave me the legacy of the wording. But would that include a conventionally zoned residential piece of property that is now coming in to be developed? MS. TREV ARTHEN: If it needs a site plan under your county code, it would. And that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everything-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: -- question is for your county staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everything under our county code with conventional zoning requires a Site Development Plan. MS. TREV ARTHEN: That would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would it be caught in that? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes. That's the point-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So all the property in Collier County pre zoned will -- do you have any kind of like ghost -- you know, in traffic, one of the problems we have is they've taken all of the prezoned and they've established traffic counts to it. Have you Page 67 October 18, 2007 done that for our conventional zoning? MS. TREV ARTHEN: You mean the ghost student issue; is that what you're trying to say? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Let's say that I have a five-acre tract that's zoned RUMF for six. I could put a multi-family building on that. It's been zoned like that for years. Do you count the students that are -- the potential of those students now? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, the first question is, the zoning is not really going to be determinative. The question is, now that you want to put that apartment building on there, is there any basis for any kind of plat or plat amendment or site plan or similar approval? And examples of functional equivalents we've seen elsewhere -- sometimes communities have design review that is very much like a site plan and looks at flow on the site and the compatibility surrounding it, and they've deemed that to be functional equivalent. But that's -- the factual question I have is, what approvals would be required. And the zoning itself doesn't tell you whether or not it's covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I'm still not clear. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: A single-family lot -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is exempt. So the only other thing I could think of is if somebody came in for a building permit for a single-family lot, but that's exempt, and the other things would have been caught by site planning or platting. And then there's other exemption language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you can only talk one at a time, so just hold till she finishes. Okay. Go ahead. MR. De YOUNG: Just to back up a second. DRIs, developments of regional impact, Compo Plan amendments and rezonings of property are exempt from school concur -- school concurrency. It isn't until the time that they come in for that site plan approval that you're talking about that we would apply school concurrency. Page 68 October 18, 2007 So there could be, yes, a property that has been zoned in the past for multi-family for 100 units, and now they're coming in for subdivision approval or site plan approval. They would be caught by concurrency and they would be reviewed for available capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's -- I think that's the closest, but let me just say it again just to make sure, and I'd like Margie to give me a yes or no, is that conventional-zoned piece of land, that's a parcel that has already zoning on it up until this date, residential zoning, comes -- before that can be developed in Collier County, it has to go before a Site Development Plan. Not all counties do that, but Collier does. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At that time it would be determined whether it's concurrent or not. Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in your data you don't carry the potential of the site as the, quote, ghost potential for your classroom counts for your seating counts. MS. TAYLOR: I think I'm able to answer your question. In our annual update of our Capital Improvement Plan, we account for the developments that are -- that are on the books and that are coming that have generated units over time so that we know we can calculate how many students over time will be generated by that development. So we include in our analysis, in our capital plan update, the potential, as you were referring to as a ghost residential, in our updates. We update our capital plan, like you all update your capital plans, with a five-year, lO-year, and 20-year time frame. So that would not change just because we know that there is -- in the future this zone development or this PUD will be coming in with X and -- X through Z SDPs. We would -- we would incorporate the numbers that the county gives us on an annual basis in terms of the number of units that have October 18, 2007 been generated over the years over that -- over the course of that year, and base our projections on that current year of the county's development units that have been built, historical levels, and then project out and associate it with our student projections so that we are capturing the potential development based on history, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So with my hypothetical vacant lot, you may have figured that someday somebody's going to develop that -- MS. TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it has a density, so you are already allocating my units. How does staff know that when it comes through the process? In other words, if I send it in this application, you would have -- you would not be able to turn it down because you've been banking my potential anyway. MR. DeYOUNG: It's captured in the enrollment projections. All those -- when the county gives the school district the population projections, the enrollment projections are done by the school district. It accounts for growth. So there's already an enrollment projection that's being calculated into the system for those parcels that are not necessarily built yet. MS. TREV ARTHEN: This question gets into the difference between the fact that the school board has been and will continue to be planning for growth of the community independent of the pace of, I'm coming in and asking you for a concurrency approval. That's going on in the background and relates back to what I mentioned earlier about the obligation to have a five-year financially feasible plan that achieves the level of service. The kind of things that Amy just talked about will assure that you get there by five years. Concurrency is a timing question, and maybe your lot that wants to have, I believe you said, 100 units on it, it may be that that's in an area where projected growth was at a certain rate, but at the moment in time that this lot is applying for its Site Page 70 October 18, 2007 Development Plan, there's a sharp increase and a lot more development happening than was projected. There is the possibility that when that person applies for concurrency review, the seats are not going to be there despite all best planning and intentions to the contrary. Projecting is not an exact science. We all know that historically, and they do the best they can to guesstimate where we're going to be, given the fact that more than five years out, you're projecting whether or not people will have children. It really does get into some kind of fuzzy stuff in terms of demography. They do the best they can to make it as predictable as possible. But what concurrency addresses is that that's never going to be perfect like any long-term projection, and I want to look here and now at your particular project where you're building this apartment building tomorrow -- or not tomorrow, within three years, are the seats available for the schools that would be impacted for that development? And even with the best projections and even with a five-year plan, ifthere is a spike in development, they may not be available and you may have an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I think that's enough, just to close it back. So essentially every conventionally zoned residential property in this county has the potential of not being able to be developed by not being able to meet school concurrency? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes, but only because you're looking at the wrong point in the process. Zoning is not the relevant question. Land use is not the relevant question. The relevant question for concurrency is, is it a platted lot? And that's what Marjorie was starting to get into. If you've already had your platted approvals or if you already have your Site Development Plan, then unless you're coming back for changes you're not going to be caught by school concurrency. Page 71 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm just talking about a vacant, high-density lot. And Mark, I wonder why the room isn't -- doesn't have more people in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder why there's not more people watching this. I mean, I think that there's a lot of developers that own platted lots that -- or not platted lots that are going to be affected by this. MS. TREV ARTHEN: It is important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. I agree with you. Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just to divert on a lighter subject. On item 13.2 on page 20, it talks about level of service, LOS standard. Now, we've just finished the AUIR and our level of service standard acronym is LOSS. In the spirit of Interlocal Agreement, could we arrive at one that will satisfy both areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to staff, but I think they would take the word standard out and they would use, the adopted LOSS will be achieve or -- to be consistent, but that's -- the word standard in this case was spelled out and in our case it's been added. It's a grammatical thing. Nobody cares. Okay. We'll get it cleaned up. Thank you. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. We've always had an incentive to adequately -- or accurately guesstimate what will be the projected, you know, population of school children, but yet when we look at recent history, we've seen a multiplication of portables, we've seen overcrowded schools in -- you know, certain schools overcrowded, other schools are at less than capacity. And this law or this agreement that we're trying to institute is trying to aim to prevent that type of thing from happening. How does it do that more than what we've already -- I mean, the school system Page 72 October 18, 2007 has already been doing its best to guesstimate. What more is going to happen now? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, in the past the best efforts were made to guesstimate sort of from the whole world of department of education and educational statutes, and it just sort of proceeded in its own world. What this new mandate is doing is linking that now with land use, and as part of that linkage and as part of the overall structure, there's a greater level of data and analysis and accountability that's built in on the part of the school board. So if -- they're going to have to plan for this five-year plan, and if they don't provide the facilities and they're not able to pay for them, they potentially have an issue of compliance with statute that wasn't there before. So that's why I'm suggesting there's a greater level of assurance if you're looking at this through the lens of local government, who's concerned about whether the schools are going to be delivered. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the threat of carrying this on too long, I've got to go back to Mr. Schiffer's question. He alluded to something that may not have gone thoroughly answered. I just want to reiterate it. We have a base density in Collier County in the urban coastal area. It's four units per acre. Transportation in their designs of the urban coastal area road system always uses that base density as the given, and then anything that's rezoned above and beyond or different than that is reassessed. And I think what Brad's question may have been part of is, is that base density of four units per acre throughout the entire urban area and likewise the rural area of one through five in any way factored into the existing facilities that you have? And I would think, based on the multiplier that you're using that Page 73 October 18, 2007 it probably is not because your multiplier is more -- very unit specific. But that may be, Brad, part of the question you were trying to get to. Hi. MS. HINES: Hi, good morning. I'm Linda Hines (phonetic). I work with Public Pathways. I'm a consultant to both Kimley-Horn & Associates and the school district for the development of their demographics and their Capital Improvement Plan annually. When we do the enrollment projections for the district, we factor into that process not only historically what's been happening with enrollment in Collier County, but also birthright information. We take into account the county's population data when they look at overall population data, and the breakdown of that population data as it relates to what percentage of that overall population are school-aged children. Overlaid with that then is taking a look at all residential development in Collier County not deed restricted to senior citizens, 55 and older, and look at the units that are left remaining to be developed and the impact that the school district may see in that five or even 10, 15 -- depending on how large that approved development is and how long it's projected to take to build out. We factor in the impact of those units that have yet to go developed. So if you've got residential development on your books that you have already approved, it is being factored into what the school district has right now in their capital plan for student enrollment, what they project as facility needs over that 5-, 10-, 15- and 20-year time frame, and annually we keep rolling it forward and updating as new data becomes available. So when concurrency kicks in, we'll be looking at that residential development that now comes through your process because of a requested change that might impact the number of dwelling units, increasing or decreasing, as well as if they're changing zoning on the property, things of that nature. Page 74 October 18,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you all are consistent in what you're doing so far. But the question was -- and let me give you an example. You have a new school off the east/west link of Livingston Road. It's on a two-lane road that was put in to service that school. It's a fairly undeveloped area right now in Collier County. On the intersection of Livingston Road northwest, north/south and east/west there's a lot of these, and there's a lot of agricultural zoned land there. That agricultural land is not developed. There is no development requests into Collier County at this time that are approved. For that bare agricultural land that's full of trees, how many students are you calculating to hit your system from that land? Just-- can you give me an idea of -- without a long -- MS. HINES: For that we would take a look at what the county has on their books in terms of the maximum number of units that could be potentially developed on that piece of property times the standard generation rate that's currently being used by the school district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for all that empty agricultural property, you have four units per acre factored into the school system already on the books for that property? MS. HINES: It would -- it would be reflected in the out years. More than likely it's probably not reflected in the current five years, but it would be captured in those future out years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is important because if you've already factored in the entire urban area of coastal Collier County, in the capacity of your schools already existing, then we never better see a rejection of a report sent to you guys for concurrency because you've just now admitted on record that you already figured it all in. Now, the only time you would have deviance from that is if we approve something greater than the four units per acre. And if I'm hearing you right, that's a pretty encompassing statement. Page 75 October 18, 2007 MS. TREV ARTHEN: Let me --let me try to address this in a way that will relate back to what you've already been working with. I think that you look closely at transportation concurrency in this county, and it's not guaranteed that there will always be a concurrency approval, even though you have been planning all the way along for four units to the acre. Concurrency is a timing mechanism, and it only is going to come into playas a restraint on development if the pace of growth is getting ahead of what was predicted. And you're talking about a level of perfection that I doubt you have achieved in transportation, I know you haven't really achieved anywhere else in concurrency and really is not fair to think that schools could have achieved it. The projections aren't going to be perfect and they're going to hit -- and come on-line exactly the right time and there will never be a shortage of students. That's precisely why the legislature saw the need to create this program because they saw that there is inevitably going to be a gap. You try to make it as small a gap as possible, but inevitably there can be one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I expected you to say was what you've been saying all along, that you're only predicting school enrollment based on the zoning that's in place for the platted areas or potential projects coming up, not that you've allocated school space for agricultural emptiness at four units per acre. That surprises me. But if you have, that's a great thing to have on record. MS. TAYLOR: Yeah, that's a speculation that if we were given a project -- and I think it was just misunderstood. If we were given a residential project with four units per acre and it was to be anticipated to be developed with a buildout year of that development say in three years or five years or however it was typically given, that's how it will be calculated. We are -- and what you're basically talking about too is generally a buildout understanding. We're not at -- we're not looking at a buildout Page 76 October 18, 2007 calculation for the county because we have an understanding that there are certain rates at which certain developments have been building, and/or not building. You know, there could be -- there could be -- there's many large developments, and I'm not going to pick on any -- pick out any particular one, that say they have 1,000 units that have been sitting there for quite a while. We would not incorporate those 1,000 units into our 20-year time frame. We would look at -- are they starting to build and at what rate are they starting to build, what commitments do they have within their PUD -- the PUD table that's provided by the county on a monthly basis. What's the rate at which, in that geographic area or that PUD, the rate at which developments are coming on-line from the current year to historic to be able to build out, just as your -- your county does -- your county's community development services does the same thing, your transportation department probably has a typical methodology. So we're looking at a -- not a buildout, which is what you're -- I think what you're kind of getting at, but at a rate at which it's typically historically built. And if -- if -- and we're all kind of facing this now. If we -- if history can be counted on, we're going to be accurate, but if there are blips and changes in that history, as we're experiencing now, or from a geographic perspective -- because we're so sensitive to geographic impacts. If a -- if a number of units be started -- started coming up that we hadn't anticipated in a geographic area -- in a smaller geographic area than we'd analyzed before, then there will be surpnses. But we have demonstrated through the data and analysis and our capital plan that the concurrency service areas that we have defined, we would be able to maintain within our five-year capital plan, I'm 95 percent for elementary and middle, and 100 percent for high school. If we were not able to demonstrate that through our capital planning Page 77 October 18,2007 and through the rest of the data and analysis, we would not be putting those out there. It would be, hopefully, if we are all on the mark and there are no anomalies or changes and this -- in the marketplace or in the birth rates or in the -- there's so many various factors that there would not be a time -- there would be very few times in which we would say to a developer, we do not have capacity in either the area of the concurrency service area that development is occurring or the surrounding areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, it would help me understand something a lot better if you could provide me with an example, or an answer to a question that I know you can't do standing there now, but this is obviously going to go past lunchtime. Maybe you could find out over lunch. Can you tell me at some point today before we close how many units you have reserved in the school system for the Pelican Bay DRI PUD remaining. MS. TAYLOR: At this point we don't -- we don't reserve units-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said that if a project-- MS. TAYLOR: -- in the context -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You just said, if a project is approved, platted, et cetera, for Collier County, you count the units. Well, the DRI for Pelican Bay is a '77 document. It was platted one of the very first in Collier County, or DRI very first. So it has a certain capacity, and I'm wondering how much of that remaining capacity you have allocated for the school system saved on your books for Pelican Bay. MS. TAYLOR: We -- it's just the terminology that you're using. We do not -- in -- in the concurrency service -- well, under concurrent -- under schooling concurrency, there would be a -- there would be a reservation of capacity at the time at which the developer comes in and applies. In the capital planning process, there is no reserving of capacity. Page 78 October 18,2007 There is planning for capacity. And it's because of -- and that's why it has to be annually updated. It's because of the changes in which the growth rates occur. So we would not reserve capacity for Pelican Bay. So in that context, there would be really no answer, but we plan for and look at and evaluate it on an annual basis at the rate at which they're developing, at the rate at which those developments generate students. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know-- MS. TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- transportation does have to reserve capacity, and that's why I -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, that is exactly the point. I'm glad you said that. Transportation has had concurrency for 20 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. I know. MS. TREV ARTHEN: School concurrency is just now being created. So the master checkbook on which all those trips are being calculated and have been for 20 years, this mandate is the first time the master checkbook will be created, you know. And its difference between planning level function and permitting level function. Sure, they've been planning for decades. They've been, you know, projecting population, they've been looking at the stuff, and you just heard a lot of good detail about at the planning level, they've tried to provide. But there's never previously been an occasion for creating the checkbook and having somebody come in and write a check and say, I want 50 students and then taking it off the ledger and reserving it for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the questions, and the reason I asked mine and maybe Brad his, we want to understand how you establish that bank account, and I think you've made it clear. So that helps, so thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 79 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- and this is -- I'm not going to rehash that. I know planning and concurrency are different. The -- and your testimony is that when they wrote the statute they used the words, or functional equivalents. Can't we tie that down in Collier? In other words, I know why the state did it, so that the local governments who have different names for things wouldn't be penalized, it would be obvious. But, for example, is that going to be the SDP process? Ifthat's the case, why don't we put what our function equivalents are for the county. And the reason that's important is someone who has a previously approved PUD is expecting to be able to build that. This is now going to add this concurrency on top of that. So rather than have his attorney waste a whole lot of time arguing that he already had the prior approval, let's list in here what he -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, regular PUDs aren't exempt. Your exemption -- you list the exemptions. That's not one ofthe exemptions, so they wouldn't be expecting that based on the reading of this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't think they're exempt either. Well, okay. So you're -- so -- well-- so you see no reason to list what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you list everything that does apply, then why do you list things that don't? So I think what they've done is taken the reverse. They've listed the exemptions and they're a real finite grouping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that might have been a simpler way to do it, but -- MR. DeYOUNG: I would also like you to keep in mind that there are other local governments signing this exact same document, and we could list out all of the county's functional equivalents, and then we'd have to list out all of Marco Island's functional equivalents Page 80 October 18, 2007 and all of Everglades City's functional equivalents, and you'd have this long list of documents because each local government may call their process something different. So it's up to the local government. And I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's for the local government, and this is the up-to time, that's why I'm saying it. Is that --let me ask you a question then. When somebody applies for a PUD, essentially that's zoning, he will not have to deal with this at all? MS. TREV ARTHEN: There is a planning level review that was earlier in the document, and the reason for that is there's a separate statutory provision that's been in place since 2003, and that was the mechanism by which the school board had a non-voting member on this body and received the packets of residential development and was able to comment on those. That has not been touched by school concurrency. So that level of coordination at land use and zoning takes place, but not a concurrency reservation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And it will occur, therefore, at the time of SDP in our community? MS. TREV ARTHEN: And just as a comparison, all the other governments that are looking at this are uniformly looking at that level of detail going into the implementing regulations rather than in the Interlocal Agreement that all these different governing bodies have to sIgn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We had been on 20. We're on page 21. Any questions on 21 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 22? Any questions on page 22? 23? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There's a change. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. Change on page 23. Item I, remove Page 81 October 18,2007 "oversight" to make consistent with the text in the section 11 of the ILA, citizen advisory group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michele. Page 24? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think we have a comment on that. At the top under subsection C, it says, 30 days in the draft, and the change is the two weeks, and we agree with the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had asked you all to check something before the meeting when I had met with you, and that's under the amendment, section E, about the concurrence of a majority vote by its board members, and it's referring to the school board's vote on the five-year Capital Improvement Plan. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a supermajority. That a majority was the right language to use in this document, if it needed to be there at all. I don't know, I just think you really would want to be in concurrence of a vote by the board members how they do it, whether it's by majority, majority present, or supermajority might be up to them. Do you want to tie them to that in this document? MS. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Could you show me where you're referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was something you needed to research. I brought it up at our meeting. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think it's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You either leave it or don't. That's up to you. I was just trying to help. MR. DeYOUNG: It can be just concurrence of a vote. Majority can come out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the top you draw -- there's some double strikethrough language, and it was involving the CIP, which includes a five-year capital plan for review and comment. Why was that struck out? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Looks like it was just moved, because it Page 82 October 18,2007 says it right before it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That runs on two pages so I didn't catch that. As long as there's a -- if that's the reason, that's fine. That's what I was trying to verify. On page -- any questions else on 24? Ifnot, we'll move to 25. Questions? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Staff has a change. MS. MOSCA: And I will defer to district staff. They had advised me that the Tentative Educational Facilities Plan cannot be reviewed at the same time as their CIP. So I defer to them if they want to provide us with a recommendation. The statute allows for municipalities, counties, to be involved in that Tentative Educational Facilities Plan, both the review and update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, how do we put that in here then? Alvo (sic), if you're going to speak, I notice you didn't stand when I asked people to be sworn in. MR. HARDY: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you? Okay. I didn't -- didn't look like you had. Go ahead. MR. HARDY: I even said I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do? No thanks. MR. HARDY: Okay. The Tentative Educational Facilities Plan, which we call the work plan, is required for submittal to the state DOE by October 1 st. At that deadline we take it to our board in September for their approval prior to transmittal by the state Department of Education. The capital -- the work plan is basically a recitation of the Capital Improvement Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan that we do, starting in spring and workshopping with the board in April, is a more easily read and understandable and digestible document than the format of the Department of Education mandated work plan. So I don't have the work plan in April. It's -- the work plan is Page 83 October 18, 2007 based on the Capital Improvement Plan, and they are, in fact, one and the same thing as far as the data that's contained within them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the -- does either one meet the statute requirements? MR. HARDY: I don't understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there was some requirement of either one being reviewed. Michele, I thought I heard you say that. MS. MOSCA: Yes. Both the Capital Improvement Plan and the Tentative Educational Facilities Plan, both the districts plans, local governments, by statute, are allowed to participate in the update and review of both those documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: How we get there, we'll accept a recommendation by school district staff how we can participate in that process. Whether the document is transmitted to local governments for our review and comment within a 30-day time frame, as long as we have that opportunity to review and comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the school staff have any objection to Collier County reviewing and commenting on that? MR. HARDY: No, of course not. It's a question of April and October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HARDY: So it would be more like in August. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then as long as we put that kind of language in. We amend that with that language for timing. Does that work for county staff too so there's an agreement? MS. MOSCA: Yes, because that is, in fact, prior to its adoption. So if we reviewed it in August and were able to provide those comments, then that would work for county staff. MR. HARDY: September is better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September? Page 84 October 18, 2007 MR. HARDY: This is a very laborious document that the county -- that the county -- that the state has its website base. It's just rolled out a new process. And again, we'll be happy to get it to them in time, and we can work out the language for when that's going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele? MS. MOSCA: If the district is adopting at the end of September at the same time as the CIP, which is typically the 30th of September, we would just ask that we have ample time to review and provide any necessary comments. So September 1, I think -- MR. HARDY: The school board sets their meeting calendar in November of every year. It's changed every year that I've been here in three-and-a-halfyears. Date certain scares me because we're at one meeting now. Whether we go to two or not in the future, I don't know, so I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a certain period, like 30 days MR. HARDY: Prior to adoption? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- prior to -- MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work? MS. MOSCA: That will work. MR. HARDY: Or two weeks, like we did the other one. MS. MOSCA: I think this would require a more extensive review. We would prefer an extended-- MR. HARDY: It's a much simpler document -- document than the -- MS. MOSCA: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 30 days prior to adoption, and the county staff will allow two weeks to review. Is that what's coming out of this? Twenty days or whatever. MS. MOSCA: They would transmit the document to county staff within 30 days. Page 85 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within 30 days, okay. Then how long will county staff end up reviewing it for? MS. MOSCA: We would distribute it, two weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the language that will be entered into that paragraph appropriately; is that correct? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 25? On item 13.7(A), we have an issue where we're probably going to have the Compo Plan amendment and then the LDRs followed by a period of time. Marjorie, is there any need for a cap document, or is the SBR that exists today going to fill that need? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think -- let's see. I thought I saw something in here that there's a provision for a gap between the county and the cities; agree to adopt the following Compo Plan amendment -- wait a second. There was something in here that I thought covered the gap between when we do the Compo Plan amendment and the LDRs, and I have to look for it but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you, when you get a chance, look for it -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I will, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and before we're over today, at least verify that it happened? Page 26; any questions on page 26? MS. MOSCA: Staff has a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Page 26, section 13.8(B), we are changing that text to read, the county and city shall adopt public school facilities elements which are consistent with each other. Just, again, for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had a question on that same sentence. You talk about, the county and city shall adopt, but then it said, with those adopted by other local governments within the Page 86 October 18, 2007 county. We don't have any other besides counties and cities, do we? MS. MOSCA: No, and that would be struck through, that language, and replaced with that I provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't -- I wasn't reading off your sheet. Up in the A section, you have some double strikethroughs. Was that omitted because it's restated somewhere else? And the part that is about -- the biggest part. It says, provided such adoption does not affect the local government's ability to maintain a financially feasible CIE for the current five-year planning period. And the reason I think that's important is, if you guys put a school on and that's contingent on our services getting to you, we've got to financially be able to do that. And so your stuff drives our stuff. And I don't know if that sentence should be removed or not. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think the reason it came out is because-- this is an awkward process and it goes back to what I said earlier about, we're taking this universe of land use and trying to merge it with this universe of public schools, and it's not always a perfect fit. The state -- the statute is clear and the state agencies involved have been very clear in interpreting over time. The five-year plan remains the sole province of the school board. The five-year school facilities plan is ultimately their constitutional responsibility and obligation to adopt, and they are ultimately the ones who decide what goes in it. And the way this language was written is it made the local government's incorporation of the five-year plan conditional, and there's really not the power in the local government to be able to do something different and implicitly try to change the five-year school plan. You've just spent a lot of time learning about how we have these intricate processes where we're going to be working together and coordinating and there's this whole calendar, and there's lots of reasons Page 87 October 18, 2007 to think we'll be moving forward hand in hand. But when you get right down to it, the school board has sole authority over the five-year plan, and the statutes don't contemplate local governments really being able to disagree about what is in the five-year school board plan in an enforceable way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- and I understand what you're saying, although I didn't read it like that. I read it that what you put in your plan that has to be put into the CIE that we have to live with and abide by can create a condition where Collier County now has a deficient plan on their part, not by yours, but by theirs. For example, transportation. You put a bunch of schools where we never plan to put road, but because they're in your plan, we're obligated now to make sure the roads, the sewer and water get there, but we haven't put those capital facilities in because our Compo Plan doesn't anticipate you putting a school, let's say, out in the middle of nowhere. So now we're stuck having to supply facilities without the financial ability from the surrounding properties to get the tax base needed to pay for them or the impact fees needed to pay for them simply because we had to accept your plan that now obligated us to something we can't do without going into the hole substantially. That's how I read that sentence, and that's why I thought it being in there was a good idea because it protected the county from just that kind of occurrence. I mean, are you disagreeing with that? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I understand that that's the concern that's been raised by county staff. I think it just goes back to, ultimately, this is a shotgun marriage of school boards working with local governments, and it's a process-based solution. And there's numerous opportunities to comment on each other's planning documents and have input into each other's planning documents. If there is a live dispute, there are procedures in this agreement for addressing live disputes. But to preordain that the county is going to say, now wait a minute, we mayor may not adopt the five-year Page 88 October 18, 2007 school plan, I don't think DCA will find that in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I also think that DCA would have to think about forcing us to accept something we absolutely cannot meet with our impacts from our utilities and our roads and the other services we have. And so maybe that is a contention that will get to DCA for resolution, but it certainly is a concern of myself, and I'm not sure about the rest of the board, but it is an item of grave concern. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And I would also suggest, it's not just those two outcomes. I mean, obviously if there's a live problem, there may be a number of different ways to address it. It's not a just yes/no, black/white situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions about page 27? Page 28? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29? MS. MOSCA: Staff has a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Page 29, section 14.2(A), number 2, the text is being revised for clarity. The new text will read, the school district representative shall review a sufficient SIA application within 20 days of receipt, and then it goes on -- everything else was struck through. And then it goes on, each SIA application shall be reviewed in the order in which it was reached. We needed to establish some sort of time line for that review. If that's not adequate for the school district staff, then we would look for their recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comments from school district? MS. TREV ARTHEN: Michele, I think it's really close, but if we said within 20 days of the school district representative receiving the application, we want to make sure that the 20 days are not measured from the county's receipt of the sufficient application. It's from the Page 89 October 18, 2007 school board's receipt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, agreement. The top of that page continues the vesting -- or the exemption provisions, and it talks about those that don't apply and it references developments of regional impact. Some developments of regional impact, Margie, have automatic updating language in them. Does this -- does this apply to those as well or to all DRIs? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it applies to all DRIs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. TREV ARTHEN: May I? I'm sorry. I may have missed the beginning of your question, but there is a vesting procedure or a provision of the statute. All developments of regional impact that were approved prior to July, 2005, are vested from school concurrency, and what that means and how that plays out on the ground and specific circumstances, Margie and I have already started some discussions, and people all over the state are mulling that over. But it very clearly says in the statute that DRIs approved as of July, 2005 are exempt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- I mean, is that reference out of chapter 380? MS. TREV ARTHEN: It's actually not codified. It's cute. You know, you've got to look at the adopting bill to actually see that. It didn't make its way into the codified statutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm comfortable either way. I just want to make sure that we apply it appropriately. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just want to add a little clarification. Yes, I think all DRIs that exist prior to the amendment are vested. Then there's a series of declaratory statements that DCA issued about that and how the Compo Plan would apply. And, again, the public school facilities is another element of the Compo Plan. Page 90 October 18, 2007 So if you come in to do a substantial deviation or there's a new DRI, then they may be caught, but those that exist, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 30? Page 30 -- and I know that we talked about this in our meetings. I believe it was cleared up, but I'd like the record to reflect the outcome of that discussion. And basically under 4(A) and (B) it talks about utilizing the CSAs and the contiguous CSAs for meeting the level of service. And you guys aren't paying attention, so I'm going to hold off until you finish talking. MS. TREVARTHEN: I apologize, Mr. Chair. We're just consulting on the matter we were just discussing, the DRI vesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: And I just noticed -- I think the county made some changes to the Interlocal Agreement, but at the top of page 29, C5, under 14.1, it says, development that has been authorized as a DRI as of the effective date of this agreement, which will be 2008, not 2005. I'm not sure where that came from. I think the statute says as of July 2005, and I think that's what we had originally written. So I would question whether that's where county staff wants to go. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it came from us, and I have to check that statutory section then that you referenced in 2005. MS. TREV ARTHEN: It's in SB 360 itself at the very end. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you check that, Margie, and get back with us. Thank you. MS. TREV ARTHEN: I apologize. What was your questions, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wasn't a question. It was a restatement of what -- you provided an answer to me when we met before. I talked to -- and it was 4(A) and (B). The CSAs have a Page 91 October 18, 2007 capacity, and if a developer comes in and the capacity's utilized, he can move and take some of the capacity, if it's available, from an adjoining CSA. When that CSA adjoining is utilized, well, then you've got a problem if there isn't any others in the area that have -- are adjoined capacity as well. My question to you in our meeting was, if the original that the CSA developer built is expanded sometime outside the three-year window but later on expanded the capacity in that original CSA and now that capacity became available, does the level of service fall back to the original CSA so as to open up the contiguous CSA for a potential for the next tier over to be utilizing that new available capacity? And the response from you all was that you would simply reallocate the boundaries of the CSA to cover that scenario. Is that a true statement? MR. DeYOUNG: As a part of the development review table process and moving those kids into either one CSA or another initially when the development is approved, if capacity did become available, they would shift that development back into its correct CSA, re-opening the capacity in the adjacent CSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's different than the answer we had -- I had gotten when we met, because then you were just going to shift CSA boundaries to accommodate the new configuration. MR. DeYOUNG: Right. Yeah, no. You will not need to -- after thinking more about what you said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like what you're saying. I think that's the smarter way to do it, shift it back to the original CSA. It's less confusing. MR. DeYOUNG: The table's -- yeah, I'm sorry. I'm talking over you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. Page 92 October 18, 2007 MR. DeYOUNG: The tables will be adjusted accordingly-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. DeYOUNG: -- as time goes on and capacity becomes available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 31? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First one, 13 -- or 14.3(C). In there you say, for non-exempt residential development. Do you need to really say that? Because if you're an exempt, you wouldn't be reading this anyway, correct? MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think that this is the kind of statement, even if it's surplus, you want to be surplus because the beginning of this statement says, no building permit. So you want to be perfectly clear about who you're denying the building permit to. It's for those who are affected by this program. It wouldn't affect building permits for exempt development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. I mean, it's -- and then the other thing is, the development table, since we're going to create it and I realize -- have you actually created one yet or modeled one up yet or -- MR. DeYOUNG: There are draft models out there and there are also companies out there right now that are developing actual software to handle this type of situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this will be a publicly available, hopefully Internet-available document or-- MR. DeYOUNG: And we do have a change based on just what you're saying. 14.4, the last sentence says the DRT table will be available for public viewing on the school district's website. Since we do not know exactly what form that's going to take right now, we Page 93 October 18, 2007 would prefer to have that rewritten to say the DRT shall be available for public viewing at the school district. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Website. MR. DeYOUNG: At the school district, not on the website. It may ultimately eventually become part of, you know, incorporated into their website and be able to -- you'll be able to, live, go on and see what's going on in the concurrency service area, but at this time we're not sure that that's going to occur immediately. We don't want to -- we'll put it on the website and not know how often it's going to need to be updated, if it would be accurate on a daily basis. I mean, certainly that causes some issues by putting it on the website. MS. TREV ARTHEN: We're deep into that process in Dade, I don't think we anticipate having a live view on the website. You might have somebody consult it and get wrong information because it's constantly being worked with and updated, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I do think that maybe you should take the extra effort to make sure that it's accurate on the website because essentially what you're saying is the guy who just went to the school district, reviewed it, as he's driving home, you could change it and he wouldn't know that. MR. De YOUNG: I think what I'm trying to say is that unless it's updated daily, depending on the number of applications which are coming in, it might not be accurate. And a new development walks through the door, it gets -- it gets approve, it gets added to the sheet, if the web site isn't updated that day at that time, a developer may take a look at it and see that there's available capacity, actually go and apply, and find out he doesn't have capacity. It's better to talk to a staff member at the school district who can give him the most recent update versus the website until it is interactive and live and -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: I think that's the concern, that people would use this as a substitute for the application process, and there might be additional information that's needed to interpret the Page 94 October 18, 2007 information. And there should be a process potentially to ask for just information, and I'm sure school board staff would be willing to talk to people about information. But it shouldn't be a self-service concurrency determination. There's more involved than just looking at the table. MR. De YOUNG: And I don't think the concern is that it's not available. Certainly the tables will be available for viewing and discussion with the school district staff. We just don't want to commit to having it on the web site and not having correct information on the website. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Staff, you know, accepts their rationale. What we felt is that we just wanted to make sure that it was available to the public. If it's not available immediately to the website, that's okay with staff, as long as it is available for the public to review it daily, weekly, or whenever they deem appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- a comment before I move on. I think you should make it instantly current on the website, like a lot of other businesses and things do. My question -- could I go to the next page because it's really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think what we have to do is take lunch because -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right now it's noon. We promised the public we'd be back here at one. They're going to be mad enough when they realize they're going to have to listen to this for probably another two hours. So I think right now, let's just take a lunch break, try to mellow out a little bit. When they get back here, we'll deal with it. So we'll be back at one o'clock from lunch. (A luncheon recess was had.) Page 95 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will everybody please take their seats. We'll resume the meeting. Mr. Adelstein? Okay. I know you're all back and anxious to jump right into the regular hearing, but I have some bad news for you. We only got through 31 pages of about 300 this morning. So when we've -- what I'm hoping the board will agree to do, we'll finish up seven more pages or six more pages that are part of the very first document we started with, and then after that we'll look at continuing this issue till next week at the AUIR meeting, then move right into the public hearing so that the public that are here and the projects that are here, we can address those. So-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made to get through the balance of the ILA right now and continue the further discussion of the school concurrency item till next Friday after the AUIR meeting. Approximately 10 o'clock in the morning is when we'd start. The meeting would be in this room, and that's when we would continue the school concurrency item only, and that's being done to accommodate the public for the public hearing issues that we have left on the agenda for this afternoon. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 96 October 18, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. So we'll finish up the ILA right now, and then we'll move into the public hearings. We were on page 31, and we've only got five pages of this document, so I'm asking everyone to bear with us for a little bit here. On page 31, 14.3(A). The first sentence, the local government shall not issue a COA for a residential development until receiving confirmation of available school capacity in the form of this SCADL. And I brought the original question up in the beginning of this document, how long does that take, and of course the answer was 20 days. And at that point I said, well, what happens if they don't respond in 20 days. I understand that this agreement is between the county and the school board, but what kind of process is the public and applicants put into if they can't get a response within the 20 days from the school system? Does anybody know? MR. De YOUNG: The only way that someone's going to be coming through and getting a SCADL is if they've been put into the system as part of the site plan approval, subdivision functional equivalent process through the county or one of the local governments. The county is going to be transmitting that to the school district. The school district has the 20 days that you mentioned to respond, and it is part of the county's process. There's going to need to be an answer given by the school district. And the school district should follow this procedure. I can tell you from experience, working with the school district that has implemented school concurrency that it took us -- it took us between 14 and 20 days to actually run through that process. We always did respond. If there was a delay and it was causing a delay as part of the overall development review process, the county staff or the city staff would call the school district and tell them that they needed the letter Page 97 October 18, 2007 and the letter would be issued. So I don't foresee this being a huge problem for the process. I'm sure it'd be the same way as if the county was waiting for a letter from one of its other public facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- well, first of all, there is a different. If one of the other public facilities has a problem, the applicants can appeal that decision to the BZA or a number of parties to get something moving. And I don't doubt anything you've said is probably going to be the case, but I always try to figure out what if. And if we don't have a response from you and this document doesn't say what happens if we don't, what are the alternatives for the citizens of this county to make sure that they can get their processes done and be forced to get it done? And that's my question. And if -- does anybody have an answer for it? Because if you don't, we will be continuing this meeting till next week anyway. Between now and next Friday, I suggest you bring an answer back to us, because that will -- I'm not going to let that issue go. I think it's too important not to address the needs of the public in regards to having a response if one isn't provided. The county has processes for themselves. If staff doesn't respond timely, any citizen can appeal their application at the BZA. You need something like that in here as well, so. MR. DeYOUNG: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to page 32. Any questions on 32? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's with B. What you're saying is that you're going to take the fall attendance, and then you're going to actually subtract a number based on the 12 months Certificate of Occupancies, but wouldn't they be in school already? MR. DeYOUNG: I'm sorry. I-- Page 98 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, if you subtract from the fall attendance the prior year's Certificate of Occupancy people, which meant the people moved into those houses, wouldn't the students be there already in that fall calculation? MR. De YOUNG: That's the reason to take them out of -- the whole purpose of doing that, in getting the COs, is if the COs have been issued, the kids should be in the school district, and you've been projecting your enrollment. You want to take those kids that were in there so they don't end up being, if you will, ghost trips or ghost children in the system. It's a checks and balance. You don't want to double count the kids. So you have to get the COs for houses with the generator for students, take the ones out that should be in the school system so that it relieves that capacity that's been vested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean -- all right. I mean, wouldn't it just be easier just to take them out of the vested -- MR. DeYOUNG: Well, that's what happens is they-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- essentially maybe? All right. As long as they're not double counted. MR. DeYOUNG: The purpose of that section is to make sure we don't double count. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 32 up on the top, under the vesting it says, students generated from residential developments approved and receiving a SCADL. Now, I had asked this in our meeting, I asked if a COA would be more appropriate there. I believe your response was because the SCADL is school related, it stays like that. Is that a fair assumption? MR. DeYOUNG: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't make a note on it. I wanted to make sure. Towards the bottom under B, when you get into proportionate share discussion, when a school addition is created, it's created for the Page 99 October 18, 2007 life of the school. When we -- when someone mitigates and has to pay fees, are they paying for their pro rata share of the life of that facility, or is the mitigation based on the whole cost of the facility of whatever portion of the mitigation they're addressing? How do you -- how do you determine mitigation as far as the lifetime use of what's being created by the mitigation? MR. De YOUNG: The mitigation is determined on a case-by-case basis. It could be any number of things. It could be an additional wing on a school that the developer is offering up as proportionate share. It could be building a school in advance of the five-year -- you know, the place where it is in the five-year capital plan, so it could be a monetary contribution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know -- I understand now. It's too varied to apply like I was thinking it. Page 33? The top of page 33, third line starts with the word toward. Toward a school capacity project for the impacted school types. This seems to indicate that the mitigation contribution then could be used in -- anywhere in the district for the school types that were impacted. And I'm wondering if you really want it to benefit the impacted school types within the CSA that's being deficient; does that need to be clarified? MR. DeYOUNG: It is clarified. I'm looking for the section that clarifies that. But mitigation has to be directed towards the impact created by the development. So it would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's addressed in the document? MR. DeYOUNG: Yes, it is addressed in the document. If you go down to section 7 on page 34, any proportional share mitigation must be directed by the school district towards a capacity improvement identified in the five-year Capital Improvement Plan. I think it continues to go on and say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I want to make sure. If Page 100 October 18, 2007 you're mitigating for the CSA that's deficient, it would seem to me that mitigation has to apply within that CSA area, and that's all I want to make sure that it does. MR. DeYOUNG: Statutorily, it's required to offset the impact fee of development MS. TREV AR THEN: Yeah, it needs to be for the impact of that development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you can add number 7 to clarify it if you can't find it elsewhere. MR. DeYOUNG: If you can't find it elsewhere, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 34, any questions? MS. MOSCA: Staff has one change, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: The removal of "improvements" and replace with "mitigation," just the one word -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MS. MOSCA: -- to cover everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 34? This is one that, Mr. Midney, you might be interested in. The number 5, it now says, mitigation contributed by the applicant shall receive school impact fee credit. In number 6 it says, if the proportionate share mitigation required is greater than the impact fees -- first of all, that means they could require mitigation above and beyond what impact fees would pay for. The greater the impact fees generated by the development, the difference between the applicant's proportionate share and the impact fee credit shall be the responsibility of the applicant. So a developer coming in has an impact greater than what the impact fees would provide; the exaction that could come out of that process is arbitrarily some more mitigation to bring it up to whatever that mitigation process would equivalate (sic) it to for the density that the developer's proposing. Page 10 1 October 18, 2007 Now, we had that proportionate share amendment for the statutes, which I thought had something to do with exactions to a point where if something was exacted it had to be compensated for, either monetarily or through impact fees. This seems to do something different than that. Now, I don't know how the two are linked, but I'm just wondering why we're going back to maybe an open book and how we exact things from the development process without having it in writing per se. Do you have any -- MS. TREV ARTHEN: The way this works is the statute requires that the cost of mitigation be something that is credited against your school impact fee. And so the second paragraph is simply saying, what ifthere's a difference between the two? And the reason there can be a difference between the two, as we've talked about earlier, is they're completely different. I mean, you have the same person paying the impact fee and it's a standardized -- no matter what, if the school is undercrowded or overcrowded, here's your school impact fee. You're always going to pay it, but then the value of mitigation is going to be far from being more arbitrary. It's much more exact. It's looking exactly at your situation. You need 20 student stations. This is the school you're affecting. This is the schedule that already had a programmed improvement and we're going to modify it to add an additional classroom or -- you know, whatever it is, there's going to be a million different specific stories of what those mitigation projects are going to look like. And the value of it is what it is. And because classrooms cannot be provided on a student-by-student basis, they're not always going to match up exactly. The other thing I wanted to mention is, you're probably familiar with prop. share for transportation because that's something that came earlier. Very significant differences in statute for proportionate share mitigation for transportation as opposed to proportionate mitigation Page 102 October 18, 2007 for schools. So they use the same term, but they don't necessarily work the same way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, in that proportionate share, I think it was House Senate Bill 360 or -- does this language fall consistent with that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, the proportionate share in 360 had to do with the -- are you talking about transportation prop. share? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I didn't know if it went beyond that. That's all I'm asking, if it -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There's different -- it's a different -- it's from different tracts for -- but I just want to add this, that I believe this is okay because under case law if there's a rough proportionality between the impacts of your development on the facility, in this case schools, the courts will uphold the exaction, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything on page 35? And the last page of this document is on -- is 36. Anybody have anything on page 36? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With the end of that document, we're going to continue this item, as the motion previously was made, to after the AUIR hearing that begins at 8:30 next Friday in this room. Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just had two comments on questions you asked me before we terminate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe the language in 13.10 is sufficient in that it talks about the fact that the programs described in the agreement commence on March 1 of '08, so I'm satisfied with that. On the language about vesting of DRIs -- and Ms. Trevarthen may want to hear this -- I don't read the statutory section she alludes to in Senate Bill 360 -- I have it here -- that way. To me it seems to vest Page 103 October 18, 2007 DRIs from some sector planning provisions in a later part of chapter 163, so we can resolve that between now and Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly what I was going to suggest. If those items that are obvious through this discussion we've had today, if there's going to be some outstanding items that you might feel we could have better clarification on between now and next Friday, this will be the first thing we visit again next Friday. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, neither one of us are available next Friday morning. We have other public hearings that we need to be at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hope the school staff is ready to take care of your cause then. MS. TAYLOR: Is it possible to continue or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just did. We continued till next Friday. When are you-- MS. TREV ARTHEN: She means continue with this now. MS. TAYLOR: Continue with this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We had told the public to be back here at one o'clock. We're going to service the public as we are committed to. And then if we're done with them before five, we may have time, but I don't see that happening, to be honest with you, plus the size of this document's going to set us back quite some time. If you have an alternative date that we could consider, we certainly are not trying to lock you out. We're just trying to find a -- MR. DeYOUNG: Yeah, but we're going to need to come up with an alternative date. I don't think any of our team members will be present on next Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem you have is that determination has to be done today to be legal. We have to legally continue this meeting. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, we also have Page 104 October 18, 2007 reserved for the AUIR November (sic) the 29th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you were going to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 29th doesn't work for you either? MS. TREV ARTHEN: No, November 13th is your county commISSIon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not the commissioners. MR. COHEN: October 29th, I meant. MS. TREV ARTHEN: No, but I think -- I mean, you all decide, but I would imagine they would want your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they have-- MR. COHEN: Actually it's October 29th. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're talking about October. MS. TREV ARTHEN: Oh, you said November. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, October. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I couldn't figure out-- MS. TAYLOR: We just heard November. We're sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay. MS. TREV ARTHEN: So what time on October 29th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'd probably -- I don't know what room's available. MR. COHEN: Well, it's scheduled for this room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'd start here at 8:30 in the mornmg. MS. TREV AR THEN: I've got to be in Miami at 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'll have some time then. MS. TREV ARTHEN: It will be -- I'll have to leave in half an hour. MS. T AYLOR: Can we make it a little -- I was going to say -- MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, my concern is, if we did it on the 26th and didn't finish on the 26th and still had to go to the 29th. I Page 105 October 18, 2007 mean, obviously I want to, you know, have adequate time before we go to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, I would expect three to four hours should finish this up. I mean, we have -- there is a lot of questions and documents to go through, but the most intense one was this one, and there are a lot of issues that aren't going to work in this one that will have to be ferreted out a little bit further in our motions, and I'm sure that will take time, but I would think three to four hours could finish this item up. We can't do that today. So I need a date. Everybody pulls out these great little things. MR. DeYOUNG: Tuesday the 30th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tuesday the 30th? I don't have a problem with that. How about the rest of the panel? Now you've got to remember -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the day of the 30th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a Tuesday. MR. DeYOUNG: Tuesday, October 30th. MS. TREV ARTHEN: In the morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would start in the morning, I would assume, at 8:30, and this room probably is the easiest to schedule right now and -- rather than have to fight over whether or not the other one's available. How does that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can't make it on the 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Do you have an alternative day just in case? MR. DeYOUNG: We're looking. MS. TREV ARTHEN: The problem we're facing is all of the school element deadlines are coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collier County's the most important. Page 106 October 18, 2007 MS. TREVARTHEN: Of course it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no -- then cancel the rest. MS. TREV ARTHEN: We just all have hearing dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about next week; do you have any openings next week? MR. DeYOUNG: November 2nd? I am out of town all next week from Wednesday. Could be the 23rd. MS. TREV ARTHEN: We're here on the 23rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 23rd is next Tuesday? MR. DeYOUNG: Next Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we could do it then. MS. TREV ARTHEN: 23rd would work as long as I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that work for everybody on the panel? MS. TREV ARTHEN: It would have to be over by 3:00. COMMISSIONER CARON: One of those Tuesdays has got to be a board meeting, correct? MR. COHEN: It is a board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be in this room. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't matter about the board meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just concerned about the staff, not -- MR. COHEN: I think both of us are okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you were -- if we were to start 8:30 on Tuesday the 23rd, I would imagine we'd be done in the morning, that would take us all the morning? That work for everybody? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I can't make it that date. That's just one. Page 107 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, our most valuable member. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Russell, we may have to live without you, but if you can make it, if you can change your schedule, tell your employer that's too bad. Okay. How does it work for the 23rd? If there's a motion to continue the school board concurrency discussion to October 23rd at 8:30 in the morning in this location? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. We'll see you on the 23rd. It would be nice if you could straighten out some of your issues with the County Attorney's Office and staff before that meeting. Okay. We'll move into our regular meeting, our public hearings. Those people wishing to speak outside, if you could move your discussion outside, it would help quiet the room down. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374, GULF COAST Page 108 October 18, 2007 DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC First petition is PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9374. It's Gulf Coast Development Group, LLC, otherwise known as the Naples Reserve Golf Club, RPUD. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this applicant, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosure on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I, too, spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. We discussed the density of the project and the impacts on the local roadway. With that we will move into the presentation by the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the applicant. With me today are Bob Mulhere, Dwight Nadeau and Emilio Rebow from RW A, and Reed Jarvi from Vanasse and Daylor, as well as Eric Strickland from Kite Development, and Anthony Salce, who should be here shortly. He's the principal and the applicant. You are basically going to hear two items concurrently with each other. One is the request to amend the Naples Reserve PUD and then we've brought forward to you the Developer Contribution Agreement for certain improvements to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41, and that's an agreement that's comprised of several property owners to address transportation deficiencies in that area of the county. The Naples Reserve PUD is an existing PUD and was approved Page 109 October 18, 2007 originally for 552 dwelling units, 36 holes of golf and three-and-a-half acres of commercial to serve that project. The request today is to revise that project to include 1,154 dwelling units and 18 holes of golf. The property is located in two Comprehensive Plan designations. About 311 acres of it is in the urban residential fringe subdistrict, and then the balance, approximately 377, acres, is designated rural fringe mixed-use district, and in this case, receiving lands. As you all will recall, the Comprehensive Plan also provides that the urban residential fringe is also a receiving land, and that's the basis under which we are requesting an increase in density. The requested density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because we will be acquiring one TDR for each acre in the urban residential fringe subdistrict. So for the 310 acres that's currently in the urban residential fringe, the base density is 1.5 units per acre. If you buy a TDR, you can get two-and-a-halfunits per acre on that property . And as far as -- so we'll be getting three -- I'm sorry. And we'll be also acquiring TDRs for the receiving lands. The base density on the receiving lands is 75 units. So the difference, 302 units, will be acquired through TDRs. So overall, we will be acquiring 613 TDRs to address our requested density. So basically what this project does, it begins the implementation of the rural fringe mixed-use district process. As you know, certain properties were designated receiving, and that's where development was supposed to occur. Certain properties were designated sending, and the receiving lands were the market for that sending lands. So we will be fulfilling the county's promise to sending land properties, that there would be a market for those people who lost their development rights on their property. In addition, we'll be utilizing the density blending provisions so that the better areas within the urban area will be preserved and the Page 110 October 18, 2007 lesser quality areas in the receiving areas will be impacted. I was asked by Commissioner Caron, what is the impact on the overall preservation requirement of the -- of the conditional obligation to convey to the county some right-of-way for an alternative corridor to 951. We commonly refer to it as Benfield Road. That's about a six-acre area that we would gift to the county if we ever decided to go forward with that alternative corridor. Our preservation requirement is approximately 40 acres. We are currently preserving 63 acres. So we're exceeding the minimum requirements under the Comprehensive Plan. There was one other comment that Mr. Strain pointed out to me when I met with him. In the Development Standards Table, one of the heights -- of course I can't put my fingers on it right now. One of the setback standards, it says 12 feet or one-half the building height, and it should be the greater of 12 feet or one-half of the building height. And I will find that for you in the table in a minute. The -- I guess the most -- and that is in your -- it's under the multi-family section and it's the minimum distance between structures, which would be the greater of 12 feet or one-half the building height. I would guess that the major issue for this project is density and what does that do to the presentation system. According to your staff, U.S. 41 is not operating at its adopted level of service. I think part of that is due to the banking of trips that have not yet been permitted. But be that as it may, we are proposing to enter into a Developer Contribution Agreement with Collier County to address transportation issues. And Reed Jarvi and Eric Strickland can get into much greater detail about what that -- those improvements are, but I will generally describe them. The consortium is comprised of 11 property owners who have agreed to construct the at-grade ultimate intersection improvements at the intersection of 41 and Collier Boulevard. That is essentially Page 111 October 18, 2007 triple-throughs and triple-lefts. It's all based on a PD&E study that's being done by FDOT. In addition, as you're heading further east on U.S. 41 from that intersection, about a quarter mile from the intersection will be a six-lane area. Once you get to the end of that six-lane area, it will go down to a four-lane, which will be extended about two miles past the Naples Reserve project entrance. And then once we get past that entrance, it will go back down to the two lanes that's currently out there. So we will be constructing those improvements as part of the Developer Contribution Agreement. I'll point out to you that even if this project doesn't get approved and none of the other projects that are in that area that are already zoned go forward, you have a deficit out there. You have two vested DRIs in that area that are not subject to concurrency requirements, so they'll be able to continue to put their units on the roads in the already-failing situation. So this consortium will not only be addressing their impacts but will be addressing the impacts of existing developments that will be able to continue to go forward. The estimated cost of these impacts, according to the county's consultant, who we hope are wrong, is $55 million. We believe the number is probably closer to $42 million, but we'll take that risk. We're going to agree through the DCA to build all the improvements I generally described, and in return for that, we will get impact fee credits for our individual projects. That totals about $27 million. So there'll be a deficit of anywhere between 15 million and $28 million, which will be made up. We're told that the state DOT has about $3 million programmed for the design of this road, so 3 million will come off of that 15 to $28 million deficit. The balance will be funded by the consortium members. So they will, in effect, be paying a super impact fee for their projects to address, again, their impact to the transportation system as well as Page 112 October 18, 2007 other projects' impacts of the transportation system. The DCA has a phasing schedule. About -- we get about one-third of the residential and retail intensity upon posting the bond of 55 million, or whatever the county's estimate will be for the cost of constructing that road; another one-third would be allowed once we commence construction of the improvements; and the final one-third would be held back until there's substantial completion of those improvements. We believe that we are more than adequately addressing the transportation-related concerns of not only this project, which is going through the rezoning process and you're considering today, but the other projects that are already approved as well as another project you'll be hearing about in a few months that's going through the rezonIng process. We think that this public/private, mainly private, solution to this is needed in the community. It benefits the community. The reason we need some density and intensity now is because, frankly, $55 million is a lot of money to have to pony up, and to -- we would like to get some cash flow back to help fund that obligation. Bob Mulhere's going to take you through the master plan for this particular project, and then we'll be -- unless you want to answer questions now, we'll be available to answer any questions you have regarding the project or any specific questions you may have regarding the Developer Contribution Agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we hear from the master plan details, and then that might solve some questions. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A. There is a -- we're a little short -- we're a little deficient here. I thought we'd have the visualizer. We were told it would be down here, but it's not here. So I do have an exhibit here? And I think you have copies of the master plan in your file. And Rich really Page 113 October 18, 2007 went over most of the issues. I do want to hand out one exhibit. I think I have enough copies for everybody. I just wanted to provide that exhibit to you because it shows a little larger perspective or view of the area within this project or wherein this project is located, and it also shows the off-site area that will be put into a conservation easement, and we will be taking the transferable development rights off of that property. That doesn't provide us all of the transferable development rights that we need to entitle the property, so there will be other properties that will be required to also be placed into preservation in order to totally entitle the property with the amount ofTDRs that we're proposing. And I think that's important. And if you look at the property, you can see that the subject property is predominately cleared and has been in agricultural production, and that's the same with properties directly to the east. Interestingly, this particular property, the higher quality existing native vegetation, as I think Rich indicated, falls within the urban area, and we are preserving that. You can see the farm access in the southwest corner. And also if you look at the master plan, you'll see that we have designed the property to actually utilize that access so as to not impact or further impact that -- those wetland areas. And there will be drainage flowing between the two as well as a small mammal underpass underneath the entry road. I did also want to mention -- I don't know if Rich mentioned it, but at the EAC we did receive unanimous approval. The importance of that off-site preserve and other off-site preserves is really underscored when you look at things like panther telemetry points, which are significant to the north and to the east, and of which there are none in this property. So this is the way it's supposed to work. This was the way that the rural fringe mixed-use district program was written, and this is the Page 114 October 18, 2007 first proj ect of any significance that I'm aware of that's gotten this far in the process that's actually gotten public hearings. There are, obviously, a number of other projects that are working their way through the system, but I think this is the first one of any significance that's come through. If you take a look at the master plan, you can see that it's designed -- it's a residential project. We've designed it to provide appropriate level of buffering from our adjacent property to protect, as I said before, the most viable natural resource area. System of lakes and residential pods. I want to -- I want to reiterate the importance of the Developer's Contribution Agreement, because as long as I've been doing this, or at least over certainly the last five or six years, you know, we've heard the message loud and clear that there isn't enough money for all of the roadway projects that need to be taken care of available through local and state or federal tax dollars or public dollars and that the development community needs to step up to the plate and work together. And no small amount of effort went into putting together Developer's Contribution Agreement, you can imagine it's certainly an interesting process to put together 10 or 11 landowners and come up with something like this. And this is what we've heard we needed to do. And I believe we have stepped up to the plate in doing this. And so I think that the importance of that should not be underscored. As I said, I think Rich really dealt with all of the other details that are of any significance. I'm sure you do have some questions, and I'm more than happy to answer those as they come up or, perhaps, some of the other experts that we have with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions ofthe applicant from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, I guess the first thing is, we don't have a drawing that -- well, we do have a drawing that shows Page 115 October 18, 2007 roads, but they're going into the neighboring property and everything. Is -- do you have a document that actually shows -- and if you look at -- I don't see the page number, but the only drawing we have that actually shows the roads on it is this one. And it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's hard to use the mike, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look at the last drawing in the -- and the concern is that one of the requests you're doing is for cul-de-sacs, and it's difficult to figure out the lengths from this. Do you have this drawing? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, no. Excuse me. The utilities facilities interface exhibit, I think it is, label at the top. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. The other drawings we have don't show the roadways. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I believe -- and maybe if your question is, do some of the lengths of those cul-de-sacs exceed the minimum lengths established in the Land Development Code -- rather, excuse me, the maximum lengths, and we've asked for a deviation from that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But is -- I mean, the drawing I show, it shows your project going over the neighboring land, so -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. Well-- I think we generally use the GIS information that's available. I think this is an off-set section. Where's Dwight? You want to come up here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know the maximum length of your cul-de-sacs? MR. MULHERE: Do you have any idea? I guess we'll try to find that out for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, when you address items on the record, you need to get close to the mike and make sure -- MR. MULHERE: I don't know that we have an exact answer, but I'm sure we can -- we can scale that off and let you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is on Page 116 October 18, 2007 the development table, a couple items. The -- and it's really going to focus on the multi-family. MR. MULHERE: Okay. You're on the development standards? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. The -- shouldn't that minimum side setback be one-half the building height and the distance between structures to be one-half the sum of the building heights, as it was on the old -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're asking for one-half the building height as a separation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Between buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Between structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would be half the setback of the prior PUD then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It could be. I didn't compare the two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the minimum side setback would still -- because here's the difference, is that if you plat these lots, then the distance between structures wouldn't apply, would it? That's only on a single lot. MR. MULHERE: No. It would still apply. Distance between structures still applies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's going to be the greater of the setback from the tract boundary or there's still a distance between structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that would apply throughout the PUD? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though you're going over -- all right. Anyway, I think that the side -- minimum side setback -- first of all, you know, back to the fire code problems you're going to cause yourself. I think it should be -- the side setback, I think, should be greater than 10, and that one should be one-half the building height, and the distance between structures should be greater than 20 or Page 117 October 18, 2007 one-half of the sum of the buildings heights, like the old PUD had it. MR. MULHERE: So on multi-family you're suggesting minimum side setback should be 10 feet, and the minimum separation should be 20 feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm saying -- MR. MULHERE: Or I'm saying half of the height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the old PUD had one-half of the sum of the building height, so that's pretty common for all our PUDs, not one-half of the building height. But that's up to the rest of the board. The -- let's go to the notes, the footnotes. And I don't -- the footnotes really aren't noted on the table, so I guess they apply to everything on the table. MR. MULHERE: They're general, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You want to be able to put buildings that have no setback from the lake maintenance easement, so that would mean -- what about steps and awnings, decks, and stuff like that? Nothing would be -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, nothing can encroach into the -- there's a 20-foot lake maintenance easement required around all the lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And so you already have a setback. And we're suggesting nothing can encroach into that setback; however, you can go up to that setback, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, nothing on those buildings -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- even below 30 inches -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- would not be measured by setback? MR. MULHERE: That still would be allowed to encroach onto Page 118 October 18, 2007 the lake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you have a patio deck, steps, a window sill, all of that stuff -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is beyond that line. Okay. And that actually goes down to -- number four has the same thing, that you're right up against the landscape buffers. So that means that if these units have a back door on the back wall, you can't have steps or anything coming off of that door? MR. MULHERE: Well, you just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your design. MR. MULHERE: You have to set it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The side yard thing, I'm having a little trouble figuring out your number 3. Can you explain exactly what that's describing there? MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about the exhibit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, item number 3. In other words, it's side yard, between units where more than one of those units is a single structure, so that means -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's he reading? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- since there's only going to be between two, one of them's a single structure at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean two, don't you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it says no side yard shall CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. What -- you mean item 2? We're all looking at -- you keep saying 3 . You mean item 2, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean three. I'm not -- 2 is a lake maintenance easement on my book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 119 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I only got 5. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm assuming you're looking at the most recent documents that we sent to staff some time ago that we were told was forwarded to you. And in that case, that is item number 2, side yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may be. Let me just check and see if we -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. The old one reads like he has. The new one is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't know why I wouldn't have gotten it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have it either. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It was continued so that we could resolve these issues and get you the new information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Has that been reworded? Is doesn't look like it, so -- MR. MULHERE: No, we can still -- I just want to make sure we're all on the same number, page. I think we all are already on the same one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm confused as to what you're achieving with your now number 2. MR. MULHERE: It's really talking about -- it's really talking about multiple units in a single structure, multi-family, but depending on how many units, it may not qualify as multi-family under the county's code, two, three -- three units or more is multi-family under the county code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you guys go too far, we've got to be on the same page, and I don't know how many of us are not, so let's find that out first. What -- how many notes -- how many notes are you Page 120 October 18, 2007 supposed to have on the page you guys are reading from? MR. MULHERE: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have five. You have seven. You have five. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have five. Midney's got seven. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm a seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kol -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. It appears as though the new information was at least sent out if some of you have it. So it would be hard for me to say why some of you have it and some of you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because once a package is sent to the Planning Commission, any changes should not be sent out at the -- the item should be continued and a new package sent out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was. MR. MULHERE: And that's what we did. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what they did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's exactly what we did. MR. MULHERE: And then we provided new information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we have a new -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the very reason we continued two weeks ago was to make sure we didn't have this situation where we were discussing revisions to a document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the three Planning Commissioners who have the wrong pages actually got the right pages and didn't use them in their book, that's a different story. But I think we all -- do you have copies of the right pages so they -- Page 121 October 18, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just gave Mr. Schiffer my copy of the document. I could ask staff to make a copy of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The right pages would look like this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we need three sets? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, it looks like Ms. Caron's got hers after all, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I found it. I only had ended up with like four different sets, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've actually found it in my stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've found it, too? Okay. It looks like -- the only person who hasn't got it is Mr. Midney. He's probably got it, too. Okay. So now, from Planning Commission perspective, the applicant apparently submitted it right, continued the meeting like they're supposed to, and we need to be reading from the one that has five notes on it. So now that everybody's on that page, Mr. Schiffer can continue his questions, and you can just compare them. MR. MULHERE: I have no objection to deleting note number 2. It's a clarification, but it's already taken care of in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then it looks like number 4, you -- which is the old 6, you did clear up that wording, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. We worked with staff to get that clarified. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me see, Mark. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I found mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Paul. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. When we discuss Page 122 October 18, 2007 deviations, I'll be back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll be discussing them soon. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Well, guys, let's start on page A-I. You're asking for a commercial excavation on this project, and that's a pretty intense use. That's a pretty intense use on an intersection that's not going to be improved when you do the excavation, and I also haven't seen this in too many PUDs. Usually the excavation material's used on-site, and for a site that size with a golf course and with that many parcels, you shouldn't have that much excavation, or if you are, you're digging too deep. So why do you need the commercial excavation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it doesn't take much. I believe the threshold is 20,000 cubic yards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Off site. MR. YOV ANOVICH: To remove off site before you've got to be a commercial excavation. We're going to have more than 20,000 cubic yards to remove off site when we dig all of our required lakes for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to need at least a million, a million-four for your golf course if you're building any kind of contouring on the course. So I mean, that plus the lakes in between all the parcels, I just think that use is going to intensify this project substantially, and it's no -- there's no reason to. Second of all, I know that the formula has changed to dig lakes deeper. It was done as a convenience to supply on-site material. It doesn't need to be utilized to use commercial off-site material. MR. MULHERE: Let me see if we absolutely need that or felt that we absolutely needed that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Well, no. We're going to need to remove some fill and, frankly, we're going to be using some of that for part two of this, which is the construction of U.S. 41, the Page 123 October 18,2007 improvements we're going to make. So I mean, we'll be using the excess fill we have. The 20,000-cubic-yard threshold is so small that our preliminary calculations indicate we're going to have more than 20,000 cubic yards in excess of what we need on site. So we need the ability to remove that off site and be able, frankly, to utilize it in the construction activities we're going to be doing for U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only use you'd use that commercial excavation category for is for the U.S. 41/951 improvement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: My answer, my client just said, was, yes, we -- that's what we would commit to utilize that excess fill for is the U.S. 41/951 improvements that are contemplated as part of the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not if. The only time you'll use it then is limited to there. You don't do the improvements, you don't need the fill to be taken off site then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or we'll have to come in for, you know, another excavation permit to take it off site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The number nine, any other principal use which is comparable in nature. Do you have any problem having that stricken? Oh, wait a minute. That's going to be -- that just says you'll take it back to the board. Never mind. MR. MULHERE: Typical language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your Development Standards Table. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minimum front yard, we've always used 23 as a standard on advice from the engineering department for sidewalks. You don't have a footnote indicating that the 23, as we typically see in PUDs, will be applied in a different manner, so -- MR. MULHERE: The reason we didn't put the footnote in is we're under increasing pressure to make sure that we're in no way repetitive as to something that's already required by the code; Page 124 October 18, 2007 however, I agree with you that because we have setbacks that are less than 23 foot, that would clarify. We're happy to put that footnote that we typically put in into this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, in a case ofa PUD where it has language that specifies, it dominates. So then you fall back on the code when it's lacking that language. So in this case, by putting the 20-foot in without a clarification, you would survive with the 20 feet, and it would end up being a battle between staff and you every time you came in for an SDP, so I -- MR. MULHERE: We'll put the standard note that the front of the garage must be at least 23 foot away from the back edge of the sidewalk or separated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your single-family detached and your patio and home villas. You have patio home and villas, which are generally small structures, at 40 feet minimum lot width, but your single- family detached, which tend to be the larger structures on a project, are only 25 feet. Is that your real intention? I'mjut wondering how you're going to fit a -- you've got setbacks at 25 feet of 6 and 6, so you're going to have a 12-foot wide house? I've just never seen that design in Collier County before. MR. MULHERE: No. I think the intention there was 40 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 25 feet's an error? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correspondingly, the patio and villa homes are at 1,500 square feet minimum, and that's single-family detached. That is now up to 40 feet; why? As 1,000, you're looking at 1,500 there instead? Is that affirmative, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, I think the -- it should have been 1,000 across the board because they are minimums. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, which way you going to go? Just so the document's right. MR. MULHERE: One thousand square feet. Page 125 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just go back a minute to the lot width. Did you decide it was 40 across the board? MR. MULHERE: No. It -- 40 -- I had patio and villas at 25 and 40 for single-family attached and townhome and 40 for single-family detached. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about the multi-family? MR. MULHERE: Multi-family -- multi-family can stay at 25, should stay at 25. I think the concept was -- I mean, there was -- there certainly was a conflict there, but we were thinking that these are minimums, and this allows for flexibility. But if it doesn't even make sense as a minimum, as Mr. Strain pointed out, we need to correct it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your patio homes and villas at 40 feet -- first of all, you're at 40 feet now all the way across for minimum lot width, did you say? MR. MULHERE: No. I said -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty? MR. MULHERE: I said 40 for single-family detached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Forty for single-family attached and townhomes, and 25 for patio homes and villas and 25 for multi-family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure you want your townhome to be minimum 40? I mean, you may want to tighten that one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That one's at 25. I was just going to correct Bob. It should be 40 on single-family, and the remainder of them are 25. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now the patio homes and villas you're saying you want 25? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we just -- that's what Bob just said, I think. Page 126 October 18, 2007 MR. MULHERE: As a minimum, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are development standard tables that hard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we do this at every meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: They shouldn't be that hard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minimum side yards, I notice you've got three and nine and you're using zero and six, or six on the others. How does that work at three and nine? You looking at -- what's the -- so you'd still be 12 feet building to building, right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Under your multi-family, maximum building height not to exceed. Now you didn't -- in the last PUD, Richard, you brought forward you were -- you realized that it would be smart to use zoned actual because we're only going to ask the question. So now what is the 75 feet -- what is all those footages; are they zoned or actual? MR. MULHERE: Those are zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is actual? I'm only -- more particularly concerned about the multi-family. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me -- we'll check on that one. I'll get back to you on that one in a second. Keep going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today? Okay. MR. MULHERE: I think you'll not find too many projects that come forward without that information right now. I think this preceded the staff requiring it. They are requiring it on every other petition that I have, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're under the new format of the PUD, so-- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand that. Yeah, I agree with you. Page 127 October 18, 2007 It should be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the notes -- there's a note here that I found odd. And that's going to pique your interest quite a bit. Number three, LDC standards for clustered residential design as set forth in rural fringe mixed-use district shall apply to residential land uses in the RPUD. I pulled that section of the code up, and this is that design. It's five or six pages. MR. MULHERE: I've got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What in there are you trying to attain that's different than your Development Standards Table? MR. MULHERE: The reason that we put that note in there-- that's a very, very good question. There was some question on the part of staff as to what clustering provisions would apply. There's a section of the code that applies to more urban-type developments that take advantage of clustering. It is completely different from the clustering standards that were developed in the rural fringe mixed-use district. So we put that note in there so that there wouldn't be any confusion as to which clustering standards apply. For example, the rural fringe is a -- provides a little more flexibility -- you're going from a base lot size of five acres in the ago district, and then you're going under the clustered standards to a maximum lot size of one acre in the rural fringe mixed-use district. Now, we're going to be much smaller than that, but that is the maximum lot size. That was to allow more flexibility in the rural fringe mixed-use district, and it's not the same as the urban clustering provisions. Does that answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. I'm trying to -- I've got the section in front of me. Do you know of any item in the clustering provisions that provide less minimum standards than the development service standards table that you presented? MR. MULHERE: I don't know. Is it a trick question? Page 128 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it isn't. I haven't had time to digest it all. MR. MULHERE: The answer is no. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. MULHERE: No. I mean, I think what you're saying is, are we going to be able to comply -- are we taking advantage of anything that we should be providing under the clustering through this PUD, and the answer is no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The layout has nothing to do with clustering anyway. You're just doing a linear -- another one of Collier County's zipper developments. MR. MULHERE: Except to say that the whole concept of allowing higher density through a reduced maximum lot size from five acres down to one acre -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- was deemed to be clustering largely from the landscape scale through DCA during rural fringe mixed-use projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And this is not that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, it's still-- you're still-- you're still clustering a development compared to five-acre lots, ranchettes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you expecting that the clustering residential design standards that you're referring to will apply for the entire section of land or just that portion that's in the rural fringe? MR. MULHERE: I don't know if we have any problem ifit applied throughout the project. We're taking advantage of the density blending because we are -- we're straddling the urban boundary and Page 129 October 18,2007 the rural fringe mixed-use receiving boundary, which allows us to -- allows us to shift the levels of density even if we were to exceed the allowable density in the rural area, but it requires us to adhere to the more restrictive standards, and I believe this is designed to comply with those standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess the answer to my question is yes then? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. On the master plan in the -- this one's fun to see. In the lower southeast corner, you have a reference to the Greenway Road, and it goes up, and then you show a potential future access point about an inch up on your master plan. Are you intending to utilize Greenway Road? Because your TIS that I got doesn't-- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- address Greenway. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. The intention there is for that to be a secondary -- just required interconnection. We're not intending to use it. If we do, it would be gated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then when Nick comes up, I've got to ask him, ifthere's any potential of using Greenway, whether or not that road needs to have improvements or whether or not it was considered in the TIS process of his review, so I'll just give him a little heads-up. Under the RPUD master plan notes, within the PUD boundaries there will be a minimum of -- and I can't read. I think it says 60 -- MR. MULHERE: Sixty percent open space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Is that -- I thought you were looking at 70 percent open space in your document. Are you at 60; do you know which one -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we're exceeding 70. Page 130 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's just a minimum then? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That note isn't really necessary. I would suggest we strike through it because it's code required anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So note number 1 on the master plan. MR. MULHERE: Doesn't matter. We don't need the note. Take if off. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a minimum of 60 percent in the urban residential fringe and 70 percent in the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's already in your document and it's part of the code, then we don't need it there. Okay. On that same master plan you have a reference. It says LDC provisions from section 5.06.02.A.6 are applicable for off-premise signage. And I'm not sure what that is. I haven't had time to look it up. I want to make sure staffs aware of it so there's no deviation needed for that reference. And if, Ray or Joe, if you're looking it up, I'll come back to you on it after I go forward with the rest of them. It's up on the upper right-hand corner, Rich. It points to that locational sign or map. MR. MULHERE: The question is, the code provides for off-site signage but is not clear as to whether it applies to residential off-site signage. It does a lot for commercial off-site signage, and it restricts it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we want to live with that restriction, but we want to make clear that -- and I think Dwight indicated that he talked to Margie about placing a note on the plan, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, the note's there, so that means if you place it there and it's interpreted that way, it not only then would apply to you, it would apply to anybody else that seeks that interpretation. I just want to make sure that's consistent with the Page 131 October 18, 2007 county's reading. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: There's also a provision in the Exhibit A that has a sign provision as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you in agreement with that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page F2 of your document, list of developer commitments. This project has a requirement for 100-foot-by-100-foot well easement, in fact, four well easements. Am I reading that right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I assume you're getting impact fee credits for that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that's a good assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody else wants land from you guys, you willing just to give it away, or is that something you felt you had to give away to get to this meeting today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Going back to a recent Planning Commission meeting on a different department, we are -- unlike -- your utilities department has pointed out to us the need for wellsites to meet the obligations to provide water for their -- for the treatment plants. And we've worked with them. They have -- I don't know if we were able to persuade them to do less than they originally asked for, but we did work with them, and they did persuade us that this was beneficial to the overall community and related to some of the impact of our development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't doubt that a bit. Ijust wonder why you wouldn't have gotten impact fee credits for it since you are providing it. I thought that would be a fair thing to do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be a fair thing to do, and this has been fairly standard operating procedures for the last, I don't know how many, PUDs that have come before you, at least the ones that Bob and I have been involved in. Page 132 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we try to bring it up each time. Thank you. That's most of the questions from your PUD. I think we're going to have questions from the rest of the documents that are in here and the traffic issues. I don't know if the panel wants to wait and get into that when Nick comes up or you want to ask the applicant that. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question, but not about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you guys going to do anything for affordable housing? I know you don't have any housing on site, but for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will do the -- what has become the customary donation. And I will -- I will admit that I can't recall if the Board of County Commissioners passed the resolution they discussed about doing that separate and apart from PUD documents, and that is why you will not see it in this PUD document. I believe there was going to be a resolution to keep that all separate. I mean, we believe in that concept and the need to do it, but there was different opinions on what's the proper forum. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, thank you for putting that on the record now. MR. MULHERE: I guess we can get that determined prior to the board meeting and either it will be in the document or a separate document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have a question on the EIS. It says here that, on page 21, you're impacting panther habitat, so for compensation, you've bought 320 acres. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, we're not talking about this Page 133 October 18, 2007 acreage, are we? MR. MULHERE: That's part of it, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're pointing outside of the PUD, correct? MR. MULHERE: Yes. She's pointing to the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can't see that far. MR. MULHERE: Let me -- there's -- let's see if I can clarify a couple of things. We are in the process of modifying the water -- there's an existing Corps permit and a South Florida Water Management permit. As a part of the existing permit we have mitigated for panther impacts, which is where that acreage comes from, or part of the reason that that was required. The rural fringe mixed-use district allows for you to take off your TDRs but also to use that for mitigation. That's part of the incentive for the program. Weare going through a modification permit. As part of that modification permit, the agencies will be reviewing that modification, and the Corps will be reviewing that modification, and we mayor may not have additional mitigation, although we do have an initial response from the Corps that additional mitigation will not be required. I can't swear to that because we haven't fully gone through the process. Having said that, we still -- that doesn't generate all the TDRs that we need, entitled to this property, so we will be getting more property, it will be in the North Belle Meade area, and it will create more panther habitat protection. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you get to mitigate two things on this -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- property? So we get to double dip for both the impacts to panthers and also the fact that you need TDRs in order to get your density? MR. MULHERE: Yes. In fact, arguably you could triple dip if Page 134 October 18, 2007 the quality of the habitat was such that you could also get wetland credits. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you -- I think the rest of the questions of mine are of staff. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time, because they'll probably come back up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a full scale exhibit of Exhibit 9 that I could look at? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll get it for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you proceed, we do need finalization on the heights. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was just about to tell you. I didn't forget. I was just going to offer up. The -- I know you told me I'm not allowed to use tippy top, Mr. Schiffer, but I'm going to use it anyway. Eighty-five feet on the multi-family, which would be roughly 10 feet above the zoned building height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- and again, you know I'm not a big -- you know, we made a definition. Now we're using it as a requirement. But your elevator overrides and stuff like that are not going to be happy with the 10- foot difference. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, the concept of how to determine roof structures, to me, has never been a zoning issue, but I don't think that would be a good number because that would limit the height of your building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a solution. They can just lower their building then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the reason we come up with the definition of actual was to get rid of tippy top, so Page 135 October 18, 2007 that didn't work, but it wasn't also to create flat roof buildings everywhere either, which is what's going to be the solution if you do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you -- MR. MULHERE: I'm just trying to make sure I understand what exhibit you're looking at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exhibit 9 is -- it's in this package of stuff. We don't have a full-scale version of it. It's titled preserve maintenance and monitoring plan, mine. MR. MULHERE: Oh, it's in the EIS? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I don't know that I have-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, can you give me a full-scale version of the thing with the roads on it? The drawings we have don't have the roads. The one that does have the roads has them about one foot into the neighbor's property, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Schiffer, I only get to play architect every other week, and is it -- would a 15-foot difference be better from an architectural standpoint? And then we'll get to the other issue, Mr. Strain, about the building height. I'm just looking at what would be a general -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, there's function of elements on the roof structures. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously the tallest one probably would be the elevator. In the definition of the code, we have exceptions from height -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which, the actual height, the non-tippy top height, includes, and some of those things are cooling towers, some of those things are, you know, stuff you really do need some height on just for the practicality of what they are. And then on Page 136 October 18, 2007 top of that there's the adornment of those items that you don't want to not be able to do because of this definition. So I mean, I think if we really do, Mark, want to make it a requirement in the code, let's study it, see what, you know, different components are and come up with a number. You know, the building code doesn't give us any guidance because -- and, you know, you could build up to 20 feet high with essentially any kind of building construction. The type one building this would be, there's no limit on the height from that. There's a limit on the percentage. You could only do 20 percent of the roof area. But 10 feet wouldn't be good. You're going to at least have -- I don't know what your floor-to-floor height is, but you'll at least eat up five, six feet of that with elevator overrun, and then the room on top of that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, I think we have to get to the point that the zoned height is a height not to exceed, so they don't have to build to that to begin with. What they can't build beyond is this actual number that he just gave you. So whatever they need to get in elevators and all of that, they're going to have to back down from that. This is a golf community. It's not going to have flat roofed buildings, or I don't think they'll be able to sell them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think the people buying the unit care what's on the roof. It's the rest of us that have to look at it that I'm worried about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we ought to be worried about overall height. That's real simple. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's get back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said that, Brad. That's a good point. We all have to look at this when we drive by it, and if it's 75, 85 feet high, we're all going to see it. Maybe that's a bad premise Page 13 7 October 18, 2007 to begin with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a mile off the road, so let's remember that. It's not right on U.S. 41. And, you know, I get -- I know at least a couple of people -- because I spoke to you and -- have an issue with the 75 feet. Is that a -- is it appropriate if I were to ask, Mr. Strain, if that's a shared concern of your colleagues or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can ask. What do you all think of the height? I mean, I think 75 feet is too high. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So do 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's -- and I told you that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, and one other person did, too, but I didn't get to talk to everybody, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I personally don't. I think, you know, height is -- first of all, it's nice to live at height. It's also an efficient use ofland. And this thing is far away. I mean, if you did the sight of line graphics, you're not going to -- this is not going to be an intrusion on any road system. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have a problem with the height either based upon its location and it will give them more flexibility in the design. I'd rather see it looking nicer than shorter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the height that is being discussed right now is zoned height, so that's not going to be -- the niceness of height is when you go to an actual height that gives you more time to fluff up the foot. So I mean, the 75 feet is the zoned height they're looking for. That's seven floors or eight floors of building, or whatever they can build per floor, so that's a lot of building in a rural area. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm a little happier with 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- and, you know, if the 75 feet Page 13 8 October 18, 2007 was taken as the actual height, then that might be more palatable because then you fit everything in below 75 feet, including the zoned portion of the building, but -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is -- I think it's -- that's workable, if that's our actual height, because that will give us enough parking below the building and to -- I mean, we -- again, if we could have everything, that would be great, but if that takes away a major issue for people on the Planning Commission, we'd rather take that approach of 70 -- Mr. Strain, what did you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-five. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- seventy-five feet actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The number you put there, but actual instead of zoning. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be the actual height, and then we wouldn't have to worry about zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure you want to do that? Actual height is measured from the average elevation of the center line of the road. The concern was standing in the road. Any kind of parking underneath? Anything like that's going to be included. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand that, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I did want to -- I don't have a large exhibit ofthe EIS. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have a large exhibit with the roads on it? MR. MULHERE: The only one I have is the one in the master plan set. I did scale that off, or actually Dwight scaled that off, and the longest cul-de-sac is in -- you know, this is within a couple feet, Page 139 October 18, 2007 it's about 2,800. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what's drawing did you use, that one I was looking at that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- shows the road system on the neighbor's property? MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. I mean, that's just a -- that's a graphic issue associated with the GIS information that we get, you know. It should have been corrected, it needs to be correctly. Actually we're not going to build on the neighbor's property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. MR. MULHERE: But yes, 2,800 feet. And that's a deviation that we can also ask for as part of the subdivision process. But typically we ask for it at the PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Let's hear from county staff at this point, and then I'm sure you'll be back up here agam. Would you please give one to the court reporter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far with this, has the applicant had all -- this document? MR. MULHERE: No. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what you're referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just was handed out to us. I want to make sure it's one that everybody's seen. MR. BROWN: Okay. Willie Brown, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, Mr. Brown, before you go too far, let's figure out what it is you've just handed out. Have you given this to the applicant prior to today's meeting? MR. BROWN: I've not given it to them, but it's information that's been discussed with them in the recent past. Page 140 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it included in the documents we've been reviewing to date in any manner or form? MR. BROWN: It is information pertaining to Exhibit F, developer commitments, and I will discuss that a little bit further. MR. BELLOWS: Just explain what it is. MR. SCHMITT: This is in response to your -- at the last Planning Commission meeting you asked for specifics on staff requirements and the backup on those -- what attempts to justify those staff requirements, or the exaction. So you already had these documents, and this is just a handout to follow up on what you had asked for at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You realize to be effective for us, it's good that we can read it. We can't read it being handed out at a public meeting. So I like the idea, Joe, and I think it's a great idea and I know we asked for it. Could we get these before meeting from now on, or could we try to? MR. SCHMITT: It would be in the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, they will be in the future. There wasn't enough time for Mr. Brown to get it to you in the packets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Understood, because we'll have a break before this one finishes, and so we'd probably be able to review it during break. Thank you. Willie, it's your turn. MR. BROWN: Okay. All right, sorry. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application on file with the department of zoning. Only thing I haven't heard is that -- but it is precisely stated in the staff report -- that the number of holes in the golf course is going from 36 to 18 holes. The golf holes are being reduced from 36 to 18 holes, and also the commercial tract is being eliminated from this project. The project complies, in staffs assessment, with the appropriate Page 141 October 18, 2007 regulations of the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan of Collier County. Essentially the petitioner is requesting an increase -- is requesting to increase density from 0.8 to 1.67 dwelling units per acre. And compo planning is here to discuss the density bonus or density blending program. It is also, as you've already gone through the residential Development Standards Table, repealing the old ordinance and replacing it with the one before you, and there are those changes in the development standards that you've already gone over. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD rezone amendment, an analysis upon which conclusions can be found in the PUD and rezone findings behind the staff report in your handout. Staff is recommending approval of this petition subject to the agreed upon developer commitments in Exhibit F of the PUD document with the following exceptions: Public utilities and transportation are both recommending the following corrections: Letter H under transportation, I'm told, can be deleted. Letter I is intended to be its substitute. Again, I'm referring to the developer contributions (sic), Exhibit F. Letter H under transportation can be deleted and letter I is intend -- because letter I is intended to be its substitute. Letter A -- oh, and letter A under transportation can be deleted. This is information already found in the LDC per transportation, my conversation with John Podczerwinsky. Letter A under utilities and engineering -- under utilities and engineering, letter A should be substituted -- excuse me -- by what's in the handout I just gave you. Only the last two or three sentences is different than what's in the developer contributions, and the developer's agent has been made aware of that. There has been an agreement to incorporate the new language. Lastly, no letters of opposition have been received. And at this Page 142 October 18, 2007 point I'm happy to entertain any questions you may have, if any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions of county staff? Did you say you had some? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Willie, I'm confused about one thing. This project's a PUD and therefore we create zoning for all these sites within it, correct? These will be individually platted sites, thus could be sold to different individuals. When the side setback is measured, it will be measured to that individual's property line, correct? And I'm really concerned about the multistory more than anything. When you measure the distance between buildings, will you go over that property line and measure to the building on the next site? Because in conventional zoning, it would be buildings on the same site. In the building code, it would be buildings on the same site. But in a PUD, is a building on the neighboring sites? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you have to put an SDP through showing all the multi-family buildings on the parcel before you can get approval on anyone to go forward? MR. BROWN: You're correct, and those are -- Ray, would you care to elaborate? You've been here longer. MR. BELLOWS: If I understand the question correctly, you're wanting to know how the petitioner shall proceed with the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Schiffer's concern that if you build a building -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes or no? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how do you measure to the next building on a multi-family case? MR. BELLOWS: It's always depicted on the Site Development Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in this case, within Page 143 October 18, 2007 PUDs, when I'm designing a project on a site, I have to consider the buildings on the neighboring site for distance to them? MR. BELLOWS: There's two issues, one is the separation between structures within that parcel or subject to the SDP, and then there is a setback from parcel boundary lines where there may be a different use or different development type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See what -- those tracts on there, those fingers? Each finger will be submitted as a separate SDP. In order to get the tract approved as an SDP, you've got to show the footprint in detail right to the inch of every single building, parking space, trash dumpster, mailbox, everything else that goes on that particular finger. So when you're asking, will they measure from building to building, it's one SDP. They'll measure -- all the distances between buildings will be shown on that SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I believe that the developer could come in and take one of the sides of the streets on the fingers, he could buy three lots and another developer could buy four lots. So when they're designing their projects, are they concerned about the distance to the neighboring building? MR. MULHERE: Could I maybe -- I think I can clarify exactly what Mr. Schiffer's asking for. He's suggesting two parcels under different ownership, different SDPs immediately adjacent -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- a building on each. Does the separation between structures apply in that situation? Is that your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my question, which is a yes or a no. MR. MULHERE: Well, I know what my answer is, but I'm not on staff anymore, so I'll defer to them. I believe it does apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: If there isn't a separate setback requirement from a tract or boundary lines, then it would apply. You would have Page 144 October 18,2007 the distance between structures measured from any structure on that street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we do have a setback. In other words, the term setback applies to the property line. But if you're saying that when you make a PUD arrangement like this and you note distance between buildings, what you're telling everybody is, nowhere on that PUD can the distance between buildings be less than what you're saying. MR. BELLOWS: Well, for the record, I think you need to realize that if they're platting tracts, then they're going to be developable tracts where individual SDPs would apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'm getting at. MR. BELLOWS: Ifthey're not platting the tract, then that whole area is subject to one SDP, and then that's how staff verifies that all buildings within that SDP meet the distance between structures. If they're going to create separate little tracts, as you -- in your example, then that has to be platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, during the platting process, don't you require that typical lot setbacks be -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- supplied? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Setbacks? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But not separation between buildings on adjoining lots? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, but they would be showing -- on a plat you'd have your buffer and setback between tracts, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, okay. Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Brown, on page 4 I think this is a typo. It says, increase from 1.5 units per acre to a maximum of 1.677. Wasn't the prior PUD .8 units per acre? Page 145 October 18, 2007 MR. BROWN: It was 0.8. You're reading from page 4? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Top of page 4, first three words. MR. BROWN: Yeah. That's a typo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure the record's clear. So we need to get that changed to -- for the one that goes to the BCC. On page 7, about the -- one, two, three, four, five, sixth paragraph down, it starts with the word refer. Then it says, refer to the analysis of density blending provision above. Then parentheses, the entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the rural fringe mixed-use district. These preservation requirements shall be calculated upon and applied to the total project area. Now, then you go down to a couple more below, and it says, open space conservation. And then the minimum open space requirement is 70 percent for the portion of the project located within the RMF -- RF-MUD, and then they're looking at 60 percent for the rest of it, but those two paragraphs seem to contrast in their intent. Am I -- can you clarify it? MR. BROWN: Well, it -- Mr. -- Commissioner Strain, this entire subsection of the report is under the growth management consistency, and I really have to defer to compo planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, do you have an answer? Rich may have an answer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. One's an open space requirement and one's a preservation standard. We meet the preservation standard throughout the project. The open space is different based upon which designation you have, urban or rural fringe. But the overall preservation number has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the same for the whole project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Willie, under the rezone petitions -- rezone findings, I'm sorry, Page 146 October 18, 2007 number 11, whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. And basically you had no pro or con. And you -- I guess you believe there's reasonable assurances that the zoning will not result in a deterrence to improvement or development of property (sic), and I'm reading that to you now because when we talk about the DCA, I believe that this -- if the DCA is approved, it's going to kick in the negative for number 11, and we'll come back to that when we get to the DCA. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- can I ask you question? I just want to ask a comment, because I asked Mr. Y ovanovich about the preservation acreage because I'm concerned, and this is something that I'd like to see in the future. Apparently, according to what he has testified, they remain within that 70 percent that they're supposed to have for preservation even after giving back six acres to the county for a potential road, if you take it. If not, then they're way over. My -- what I'd like to see in the future is to make sure that there is a breakout of that because as much as I don't want to see Mr. Y ovanovich and any of his clients double dip on anything, I don't want the county doing that either. In other words, if they're required to give you a conservation easement over something, they still should have to meet their conservation number in total, and so I want that broken out so that I can see that it's still -- they're still fully meeting the conservation requirement. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Willie, I've got one other question before -- we're going to take a break as soon as this question's finished with, because next up will probably be transportation. Environmental Advisory Council. On the second page of the Page 147 October 18, 2007 meeting that was supplied to us under project description, it says, SDP 2000-025, Naples Reserves Golf Club, was approve on December 5, 2000. The SDP is determined to be vested by the engineering services department. Well, I'd like to know what they believe is vested in regards to that SDP and how that determination was made and if there's a VRD on this property, so -- MR. BROWN: I'm sorry. Which -- are you referring to the staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the Environmental Advisory Council's minutes that were supplied to the Planning Commission, page 2, last paragraph. I'll tell you what, Willie, if you want to take a look at that during the break -- MR. BROWN: Okay, let me do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Adelstein has a question ofMr. Y ovanovich before we go to break. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the amount of floors you're trying to put in on that 75-foot height? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Before or after you took away -- you made that as actual? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, actual. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think right now we're probably looking at four or five over parking within that -- within that 70 -- and I haven't renumbered the -- or recalculated that, but I think we're probably in that range of four or five or parking, five over parking. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the ceiling heights of each floor is what? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ten or 11 with -- and you need the slabs in between. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Page 148 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll take a break. We'll be back here at -- let's come back at quarter of three. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would everybody please resume their seats. Everyone, we're going to bring this meeting back to order. Okay. Willie, did you find the response to my concern over what they were trying to reference when that statement was made at the EAC? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I've been looking at that language, too. And without having the environmental planner who made that statement here -- but I think I understand what he was talking about. An SDP by code in the LDC has two years for that SDP to be commenced or the SDP expires. And I believe from reading that language, the infrastructure was built so the engineering department would deem the SDP to be validated and would not expire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is it that they're vesting by that validating -- MR. BELLOWS: I think that word is inappropriately used in this case. It wasn't vested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're saying is, an SDP was obtained, it was installed, and what was installed is okay? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. It's a lot different than vesting. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That was a poor word by that individual during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trying to think of any -- oh, I think the next thing, Willie, is going to be transportation, unless there's any more anybody has of Willie at all. Page 149 October 18, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. This will be the most fun part of today's meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For who? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Every time I come up here, Mark, I take a deep breath. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. If I could put the exhibit up, the overall site map exhibit, the large one. And we provided you a copy of the exhibits for you to look at as well, too. I'll first provide a little bit of history of the area. I started here about three years ago and concurrency was just going into place, and when you looked at that area, this is one of the places we said was a de facto moratorium. We don't call it that. It was a concurrency restriction. There wasn't available capacity based on traffic, service volume, and vested trips. So I learned to say no to people quite often, and what happened repeatedly was they'd come into the office and we'd have to explain the whole concurrency system over and over again. Most of the people that are in this consortium have heard that spiel. There isn't capacity. The project's not programmed. It's a state road. You can't go. What they've seen in the past year or so is seen transportation work with other developers such as on Davis Boulevard, and more recently Summit Lakes where developers have taken on the responsibility to build the road or provide the infrastructure to move forward. Working with the County Attorney's Office, we've kind of moved more towards that kind of planning function where the developer actually takes on the full responsibility and the county takes less of the risk. So that's a little bit of the history of the project. As we moved forward, we have sat down and we reviewed the PD&E that was done by DOT. It was determined that the intersection Page 150 October 18, 2007 did not warrant or wouldn't meet grade separated, the cost was too high. The right-of-way impacts was too high, and that an at-grade full blow-out of the intersection was what the PD&E was going to propose. We agreed with that. The impacts to do grade separated and the cost, you were getting maybe three or four more years of capacity, and the cost almost tripled. So it wasn't -- it didn't justify doing that. So in meeting with the consortium, we went back and forth several times. What was the best alternative to move forward on? We chose the intersection to start with. It's to do the intersection at ultimate buildout, and then we worked our way east. We said, let's do the intersection ultimate buildout and let's do the approach so we never have to come back again to that intersection. I believe at on point Commissioner Henning said, don't do this piecemeal. Do it all at one time if that's what you're going to do. From there we took it as a capacity issue. We worked our way down about two miles and kept it as a four-lane. Transportation's comments were, we never want to have to come back and permit that section for water management, so let's do the ultimate six-lane water management, which we have. We also don't want to redo the bridges. So in that four-lane section, you're getting the ultimate six-lane bridges in that area as well, too. And then let's transition it back down to an area that makes sense where the capacity can be used, so we've done that. We told the developers, we need to do a public meeting, not required. As part of their development approvals, we've asked to advertise, and we did, DCA, and we took comments from the community. Some of the comments were, what is coming on-line, and the map kind of gives you an idea. All the projects are located around the intersection and on the East Trail. It's a mix of commercial and residential, and I explained to the public that it will get worse before it gets better, but one thing you Page 151 October 18, 2007 have to understand is there's enough vested development in the area that no matter what, this traffic will increase. There's Lely, projects that are east of this concurrency link that can develop that can use this link. There's Fiddler's Creek, and there's a project west ofthis link that put trips on this link as well too, and there's nothing programmed. And I said, you're not going to see the improvements for three to five years. There's two years of design and permitting, there's two years of construction, and hopefully by 2012/2013, you've got a project that's open. Generally the comments we had were positive. The people have said, we understand that. We want to see what was proposed in that area, we want to see the Lowe's, you know. People are kind of picky. They'd rather see the commercial, not the residential. I said, but they go hand in hand. So the public comments were, they supported the project. There was only one negative comment, and I think the comment was based on the petitioner or the public person didn't like the fact that there may be a Target there, that he wanted another store, but I think it had nothing to do with a road project. With that, we started to put together the DCA, and Mr. Klatzkow and I are pretty good at deferring the risk. In this document, the county assumes minimal risk. The applicant pretty much has an open-ended contract to do what the PD&E and the design says. They're going to provide the design, the permitting, land acquisition, and construction all at their own risk. The construction estimate that's in your packet is approximately $55 million. It was done by URS, which is the firm FDOT hired to do the PD&E. We had the developer pay them to work for us, which was an interesting concept. They report to us and they deal with us, but the developer paid the bill because it's not in our budget to do things like; we're even pushing it that way. Page 152 October 18, 2007 The developer thinks he can build it for about 42 or $45 million, but the bond will be tied to the URS construction estimate. And if they can work out any discrepancies in numbers, we're okay with that. We talked about the six -lane structures and the water management. There's a phasing schedule that goes with this. It's in three phases. Your initial phase is on posting of the bond, your second phase is on commencement of the project, and your third phase is on completion of the project. I think most of the questions come, why won't you have the project built and then let them go? I think, quite honestly, it's a financial -- it's impossible for a development to come onboard and spend 40, $50 million up front without getting some approvals, and we explained that to the community, at the public meeting, and they understood that. The idea is, how much can you take before this project starts to overload the existing system? We had Mr. Jarvi do an analysis. We had that analysis checked by URS, and the consultant I use on staff from CH2M Hill. In the year 2010, when you're going to get your first increase from traffic -- or actually, I'm sorry, your opening year, you're not going to have any failures that are un -- let me pull out the exhibits so I can walk you through it. And I don't want to go into the minutia of the intersection analysis because a lot of that's going to be subjective. In the year 2008, you have a total overall intersection of E. In the year 2010, it's E. You have some failing movements. About the time 2013 goes back on, you're back at an acceptable level of service. So I think the question that you're going to face the most is, how do we review this phasing? I think we've looked at the phasing as staff and said, we can live with that based on the intersection analysis that's there. This is all peak season analysis, so you are going to experience some delays, higher than normal, but within reason, I think we're comfortable with this. Page 153 October 18, 2007 So with that, we'll answer some of your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions; Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You had said that with the fly-over it would have solved the problems till 2025, and with this plan it would solve it maybe to 2021, and you say that this is the ultimate improvement in drainage and in traffic and everything. What happens in 2021 ? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing the Benfield Road corridor study right now. As a matter of fact, we had a public meeting with the Estates residents last night. Weare looking at a parallel facility to 951 as part of this development. They've agreed to reserve 100 feet of right-of-way if that roadway corridor is right there. Your solution in this area is not just that intersection. It's going to have to be a parallel facility. Now, whether we can permit that, you have to go through part of the state forest, or along the edge of it. That's yet to be determined. But you will need 2015,2020, we should be in a design stage of a parallel corridor to the east of 951 that will tie in to somewhere along that 41 stretch you see right there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you calculated what their share of it would be, did you take into account that it was a gated community that was putting all of their traffic onto the -- onto the main roads? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation? Nick, Rich, in his presentation to us earlier, indicated that intersection of951 and 41 is failed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Failed based on vested trips. Not failed based on actual trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Functionality, it's not failed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. Not all the movements, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many units are involved in the Page 154 October 18, 2007 total consortium contribution? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in one of the tables we provided you, and I don't have that off the top of my head, that exhibit; 1,750 units and 600,000 square feet of commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 1,750 units, out of which this current development is taking 1,154, so you've got very little residential overall in that entire corridor? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've -- this has been advised and included with everybody that wanted to participate. I want to note that it also includes Habitat for Humanity as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- so it's the commercial that looks like it's getting a bigger benefit than the 1,750 residential? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And commercial, to be honest with you, is not necessarily bad in this area when you've got some of the projects that want to come on-line, is like the Lowe's, potentially a Target, and I know they can't use that. I think this area is starving for commercial and those uses and it would take some of the farther-away trips away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to go through the entire document, but let's start with the second whereas clause. In the last sentence it says, the effect of the development agreement shall bind parties pursuant to the terms and conditions of the development agreement and their Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy in order to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to serve the proposed development concurrent with when the impact of the development occur (sic) on the public facilities. How does your phasing plan meet the intent of that whereas clause? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioner, to be honest with you, when you look at that, they're going to be doing the construction. What they're tied to as far as their COs, is tied to -- so that we release COs at certain phases. And I think this is to cover the whole agreement, that when it's -- when this improvement is done and Page 155 October 18, 2007 this full impact is realized, they'll have mitigated all their impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's when it's all done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's when it's all done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you say they're going to be-- you're suggesting that in the phasing they get one-third upon posting of the bond-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're saying that they get COs upon posting of the bond? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can get one-third of COs, which they won't do; in 270 days these developments won't be through permitting, practically speaking, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when can they apply for a building permit? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They'll be able to apply for a building permit concurrently right now if this gets approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is approved, they can immediately go in. So we're going to have one-third of 1,200 units, 400 units, in there for building permits theoretically. I know the market doesn't dictate that right now, but that's what could happen. And so all that construction traffic and everything else is on the intersection that exists today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And I got to tell you, not -- I don't poke light at this, but Anthony Salce and I are both two strong-headed Italian guys, and sometimes it was a scene of Good Fellows in a room, us negotiating back and forth. And I recognize that in order to get approvals and raise this kind of money, you have to be able to present yourself to a final institution with some sort of development rights. And so while I agree with you, I would like to have had this structured so there was less up front; I also, from a practical business side, see that they can't do that. Page 156 October 18, 2007 And when you look at a $27 million impact fee credit that -- I got to point out, as impact fees go up, their credits do not increase. They pay at the time, the rate of what their development is. So if our impact fees go up another 30, 40 percent in the next five years, they will pay that balance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you surprised me with some of those statements. I thought you were Irish. Page 2, the whereas clause, the first full one, whereas, the county is willing to enter into this agreement in order to accelerate the improvement of this intersection and road at a cost which the county believes is less than that at which the county could otherwise obtain, yet I thought you told me you guys were doing the work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not doing the work. They are doing the work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're taking charge of it then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We are going to get the right to review it, comment on it, provide the CEI, inspect it; they're going to have to do public meetings. This will be like any other road project you see. They will hire a design engineer, they will hold a public meeting to determine access management. This will go through FDOT review, county review, and then upon completion of the 30,60, 90, water management and mitigation permits, they will build this road. And we will do the CEI through a county-approved inspector, and then the road will be turned over to the county. And to give you an example of the Wal*Mart approval, they wanted to pay us almost $2 million. We said, no, why don't you do it. They ended up doing it -- if we would have taken the check, we would have been short $1.4 million. They stepped up and they paid for it. So using that model, we're doing the same thing. If they believe they can do it cheaper than we can and -- go for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under developer commitments, Page 157 October 18, 2007 page 3, number 4, county will condemn whatever parcels cannot be otherwise acquired in a reasonably expedient manner. In the beginning I thought I heard that they were paying for everything. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are paying for that, the land acquisition cost. We will use our condemnation powers, which we can do if it's consistent with a PD&E and design. And that condemnation won't occur until 60 percent, and it will be minimal. Most of your right-of-way on 41 is existing. You may have to buy a water management pond, which we would have to do otherwise, and you may have to acquire some right-of-way at the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who pays the legal cost for the condemnation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They pay for everything except for staff time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you're going to farm this out, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: We have some very good people on staff that, I think, we'll probably utilize for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then the taxpayers are paying for it. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's going to be very minimal, but we can consider farming it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under county commitments on page 4, number 9. This is the one that bothers me the most. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can I read in, for the record, a change to that before we move forward, and it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might solve the problem, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. The county has determined that the road project is an interim improvement consistent with the FDOT PD&E that provides capacity for the consortium developers and already vested adjacent developments for a portion of the study area. Accordingly, no additional development approvals that directly impact this segment of U.S. 41 will be granted outside of this Page 158 October 18, 2007 agreement until the road project is completed. Upon completion of the project, the county shall evaluate the roadway capacity, background traffic and vested trips to determine if any additional approvals may be granted. And what we're basically saying is, these people have stepped up to do the project. The project is going to be under design and construction for a period of two to five years. And until then, you don't want to see any more development approvals come forward. At the end of the five-year period, the developments that have gone through a vested rights determination are allowed to capacity, and then if there's any capacity left over, they'll be happy to let other people come on-line. But ifthere isn't any, I would assure that under the concurrency management system, you wouldn't want, or I wouldn't want, any more development approvals to occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not that I want. I mean, I would be just as happy if this one never came before us today. But my concern is the language that you've got in that item. And I had spoken to Margie about this in how it impacts the rezone findings, number 11 that I read earlier. Basically one of the findings is, is that the project that is before us, by approving it, we're not going to have a detriment on any other project in the area. By the language in the DCA, it would seem that if the -- by approving this, the DCA gets approved. Once the DCA's approved concurrent with this, you had just said that all of the project would be basically stopped until this intersection gets done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, they're stopped now. There is nobody going right now. And under the section of our code -- and I don't have the code numbers with me -- the board is allowed to change the CIE and bring a project in ifthere's an enforceable Developer Contribution Agreement to let certain projects go. And so I think between now and the day this comes before the board, if there is additional people that want to work with the Page 159 October 18,2007 consortium, and as long as that doesn't really go above 10 percent -- because I think we've got 10 percent of play in capacity -- they can -- they can join the consortium as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to stop projects that don't have a significant impact on that intersection? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think right now you are at 110 percent based on the capacity to background traffic and vested trips, so you are stopping them today. I think, just as you noted in the phasing schedule, you will see increased traffic based on this, so you don't want to let anybody else go. And I think it's fair to say that when the project is completed, we'll evaluate the capacity, and if it's available, they can go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far-reaching is your ability to stop projects? This intersection is used by all projects on the island, Marco's island. Is this going to shut Marco Island down? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, we're not. Marco Island is not subject to our concurrency system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any projects -- they can just go ahead and flood this intersection all they want; we have no control over it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can do that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about projects -- how far to the east? Basic is one that I know was in the recent small Compo Plan amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe he's a member of the group as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is he? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about anything past that? Any area -- any other project in that area can't go forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Up to where our link breaks, and I could -- I have the area of our link break. Under our two two three, if Page 160 October 18, 2007 there's a project to the east and it's not above 2 percent ofthe service volume, they'll be able to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you really do have, in number 9, any other project that goes over the 2 percent. So if they're a small project, if they have below a 2 percent impact, they can go forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. This link in our concurrency link, anything that impacts that will not be able to go until this is done. But if it's outside this link and it's less than 2 percent, under our current rules, it can go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far does this link go? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can give you that. I need my binder. I should know them by heart. I just did the AUIR. I apologize. I think there's 140 links now, and I don't know them by heart. It's Collier to Greenway, and then Greenway to SR 29, so it would be projects that were east of Greenway would still be able to go if they were less than 2 percent of the service volume. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about in all other directions? What's your -- how far does the link go to the north and the west and the south? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your link to the north is going to be on Collier Boulevard, and that's going to run, I believe, to Rattlesnake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to the south, we'll be reevaluated this year because we opened up that six-lane section, but it will probably run to Manatee when we redo it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to the west it's going to be from Triangle Boulevard to Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what's going -- what this really means by this DCA is, you're virtually -- you have a moratorium right now by what you've said but you've not admitted it, Page 161 October 18, 2007 and now you're going to put a moratorium in place for everyone but 1,750 of the units that are part of the consortium and 600,000 square feet that is part of the consortium? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not a moratorium. I'm sticking by my words. It's a concurrency restriction, and right now you will still get growth coming on-line from the vested development around there that will impact this intersection with no hope in the next five or 10 years of doing anything there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any new development coming in that's out -- that's not vested and outside the consortium will not be approved to move forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As they would not be approved today, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so -- and I don't know of any definition different than a moratorium than the one you just said, so -- I just wanted to understand that. MR. KLATZKOW: And just to be clear, these are state roads, and the problem we're having is that we're not getting the state funding; we're not having the state doing this work. The state should be doing this work. The state should have done this work years ago. And the decision is whether or not we're going to allow this to remain in an area that you can't develop or to allow the developers to build it for us because, frankly, we don't have the funding for it. But at the end of the day, this is a state failure issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand the principle. I'mjust -- it's just an interesting way to keep everybody else out and let a few m. MR. KLATZKOW: Everybody's welcome to join. I mean, without being facetious, this is like, anybody wants to step up to the table and help out on the roads and help build out the roads so they can get the traffic on the roads is welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other Page 162 October 18, 2007 questions of transportation, on transportation? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Nick. On page 5, number 13, the developer may transfer or assign all or a portion of the approved density or square footage to another project on the same roadway link. So it can't go outside of the footprint of the roads that you just spoke about; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can't go outside of that 41 link; in other words, if they're going to buy capacity on there by building the improvement itself, that -- if a neighbor next door said, I would like to come on-line and they have capacity to give because they couldn't build as much, they could use that next door, and that's reasonable. COMMISSIONER CARON: But would it all fall within -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All what? COMMISSIONER CARON: It will all fall within the links that he just talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other restrictions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. It won't be -- you won't be putting traffic from this area someplace else. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be here. So it has to be adjacent to this link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on those -- from Greenway to 951, from Rattlesnake down to 41, from the triangle down to -- of 951, and from Manatee north to 41, those are the areas that will be more or less be affected by this non-moratorium? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are the areas that are affected now by this non-moratorium. Those are the areas that will be affected in the future by this non-moratorium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Interesting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I have to tell you -- and I've been Page 163 October 18, 2007 cautioned not to say this -- in worked for these guys, I'd say, you guys are taking a big risk, but they're willing to do it, and this is -- this is a big contract. This is a major roadway improvement and I'm surprised they're willing to do it, and kudos to them. You know, Anthony, I give a lot of credit to, and Kite for stepping up because this is one of the biggest contracts of this county we'll see where they assume all the financial responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, one last question. During construction, what is the minimum number of lanes that will always remain open in any direction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could vary, but they're going to try and maintain -- most of your MOT has to maintain consistent lanes that are open, especially in the peak hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it doesn't -- consistent, what do you mean? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, there are times when you might do a utility crossing, and they try to do that in the off-peak hours where you shut down a lane with a project this size. But you've got to consider right now on 41, you only have two lanes. So it's pretty easy for them to do work outside of those, and the intersection at times, you're going to have to probably impact some of those hours. But the intersection improvements, I think, based on the design, is -- it will be pretty quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on. I think that brings us to the end of staff and applicant and transportation. Next question will be, are there any public speakers wishing to speak on this item? (No response.) Page 164 October 18,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. We've kept all you here for something else, and this wasn't it. I thought this was it. Okay. With that, Richard, do you have any comments? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, Mr. Strain, although I do want to address one, I don't know if it's a concern or not. We went out and solicited all the property owners we knew of in this area and said, please join us as part of this consortium. So I don't want anybody to think that we didn't try to get more players in this group to make sure that someone may not inadvertently (sic) get cut out. So we went above and beyond to make sure that we did that, including holding this public information meeting, in the paper -- advertising in the paper so that there's no question that we wanted to be as all-inclusive as we could. It was in our financial interest to be as all-inclusive as we could. So everybody who wanted to be in the consortium has been allowed to be in the consortium, and if anybody else wants to come up between now and going to the Board of County Commissioners, we'd welcome them to join that. So I don't want it to appear as if we're somehow excluding somebody from the ability to develop their property for -- because of our own selfish interest. It was not that way. They couldn't go forward today. We were trying to give them an opportunity to allow their property to be developable. If they chose not to be part of the consortium, they should wait. And with that, we think the project's a good project, combined with the Developer Contribution Agreement. We would request that the Board of -- I mean the Planning Commission, recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of our PUD rezone. I don't know if you also make a recommendation to the DCA. I think this may be the first one that has actually come to you all as part ofa review process. We'd like you to make a recommendation of approval to the DCA as well, if that's appropriate in your -- Page 165 October 18,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, that issue is interesting because the DCA is not on our agenda, and I feel reluctant to make a motion on something that hasn't been advertised in a full public hearing before being on the agenda, so I don't think that's the right thing to do at this point. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The transportation review of this PUD rezone addresses traffic impacts, and the DCA can be a condition of approval associated with the review of the PUD. So I think you're not approving the DCA, but you can make a comment on the DCA as part of the review of this rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, okay. There is no public speakers so with that we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I would move we approve the PUD-AR-9374. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, as we talked earlier, we need to be very specific. We did talk about stipulations. I've written some down. Do you want to hear the ones I've written down? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There were some changes recommended to the Development Standards Table. There was -- under the multi-family, we're talking about a separation of greater than 12 feet or half the building's height. Another one concerning -- well, there are two of them. Another one was greater than 20 feet or half the sum of the building heights. We also talked a minimum side setback at 10 feet for the multi-family. The applicant said they would delete note number 2. Number--z Page 166 October 18, 2007 item number -- the other item is, the commercial excavation that does occur that will be for material to be taken off site will only be for that use for the U.S. 41 and 951 consortium work. They will add an additional note to the Development Standards Table to address the 23-foot front yard setback. The 40-foot single-family homes will be noted as 40-foot wide lots, and the patio homes will be noted as 1,000 square foot minimum. On the master plan, they agreed to strike note number 1. The reference on the master plan to the off-site signage will be struck. That's a deviation that's requested. That was required by -- or suggested by staff to be denied. The utility well sites. Well, I think we've been -- had those re-explained. They're in -- let me finish, Richard, then I'll come back to you. No comment about the utility wellsites. They agreed to make the customary donation to the affordable housing issue. The actual height for the multi-family will be 75 feet, and that the whole project is subject to successful approval by the Board of County Commissioners of the Developer's Contributions Agreement -- Developer Contribution Agreement that we've reviewed. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Mr. Casalanguida also read new language into the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that should be noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New language that Mr. Casalanguida read for the DCA, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it important to stipulate maintaining the lanes open during construction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think that's -- Nick will take care of that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Page 167 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into approval of those, let's see what Mr. Y ovanovich has got to -- Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. The devi -- the sign issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That deviation was actually related to a sign within our own project on one of our buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the one they recommended denial on not, not the off-site project signage. That was a clarification because it wasn't sure whether you could do that for a residential project or a commercial project. I think staffs okay with our having off-site signage for our residential project. They were opposed to our having signage on a -- what was that? Clock tower. I think that's really the issue. They opposed the clock tower signage. I wanted to point something else out if I can regarding Habitat and this agreement that I should have -- should have pointed out when we were talking about the DCA and what we would like -- we'd like to get some credit for this against our donation. Habitat for Humanities (sic) is paying their impact fees in the DCA, but they're paying nothing towards the shortfall. We're absorbing their portion of the shortfall that will occur, and that can be, on our estimates -- if we're right on the $42 million -- that's a half-a-million-dollar subsidy to Habitat's traffic issues, and it could be higher if we're wrong on our guess. We would like whatever that portion of the subsidy that we're giving to Habitat so they're not paying towards the DCA credited against our affordable housing donation that we've agreed to. So by way of example, we have 1,154 units. If we did $1,000 a unit at closing, that would be a million-one. If they were normally going to pay another half a million dollars under the DCA to cover their portion of the shortfall, we'd get a credit for half a million, but we'd still pay another 600 or so thousand for affordable housing. So I think Page 168 October 18, 2007 we just wanted to get credit for what we're helping them not pay under the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the panel feel about that; any problem? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be -- the customary donation to the affordable housing will be included but they'll be credited by the amount that the consortium is covering for the Habitat project. Okay. And then the other item we would want to add is what Ms. Caron said, the new language that Nick introduced for paragraph 9 in the DCA, and then I'm assuming we'd want to support staff recommendations, which includes the rejection of deviation number 4. I believe that's all the notes that I took during the process. Does-- anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Deviation 1, which is the cul-de-sacs, the confusion I always wind up with the cul-de-sac is there's the width of a cul-de-sac, which is essentially the stem of the cul-de-sac, and then there's the turning radius of the cul-de-sac. Does this deviation in any way affect the turning radiuses? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that the fire department -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- turnarounds would be exactly what would be in here. Because the turning radiuses in the subdivision part of our LDC is not the same as the fire code. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We have to do -- we actually have to get approved by the fire district, so we're not asking for any deviation from whatever the required turning radius is for fire trucks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other thing, Page 169 October 18, 2007 Mark, some of the standards in the development table. The minimum side yard, I think, should be 10 feet or one-half the building. Have actually greater than 10 feet or one-half the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. We're going back and re-discussing the Development Standards Table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you listed what our conditions were. We never discussed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had asked for these -- I listed what I thought you were asking for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's go -- can we just go back on those just to make sure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think the minimum side yards should be 10 feet -- or greater than 10 feet or greater than one-half the building height. And the distance between buildings -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take one at a time. You're bringing up -- Bob, you want to respond to the first one? MR. MULHERE: Well, my concern is, we're establishing a minimum side yard setback, and we're saying, as the building height goes up, that's going to be greater. And so you can't -- I mean, what is greater than, 10.0001 inches; is that greater than? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's exactly right. And the reason I'm saying that is there's some charts in the building code that, you know, are, you know, five feet to 10 feet and then greater than 10 feet to 15 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I appreciate your trying to help us, but can I -- I just have to ask a question. Just because the PUD says what it says, it doesn't stop us from doing 10.0001 to take advantage of the chart you're referring to, so we understand your point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you want six feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll leave it like it is, but I'm going to encourage my client to listen very closely to what you're saying when Page 170 October 18, 2007 he does his actual design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, so what would it be? The side yard would be six feet or one-half the building height, whichever's greater? MR. MULHERE: No, we agreed for multi-family to go to 10 feet, and I think Mr. Strain had it right in his motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm fine with that. We're just talking about a nanometer, so -- and then the -- Mark, what do you have for the distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Greater than 12 feet or half the building height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. That one I definitely think should be 20. MR. MULHERE: And we have no problem with 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is it one-half the sum of the building heights, SBH? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just had building height. Whatever the flavor of the day is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The old PUD had similar building heights. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we felt that -- we felt that given the height, and now particularly given the actual height at 75 feet, we felt that one-half of the building height was certainly enough. The real purpose of this is, you know, both aesthetic and fire. You know, life safety issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MULHERE: So if you've got a 75-foot tall building, you're going to have a 37-and-a-half-foot minimum separation between structures; that's really sufficient, and that's why we changed it to one-half. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Page 171 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- as long as the greater than 20's there, I'm happy. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we're okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really don't want to read this all again. I would hope we could have these elongated minutia discussions during the debate with the presentation rather than during motions like this. But does anybody -- is there any question on the part of staff, on the part of the applicant, on anybody, as to what the standards are we've made changes to? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Strain, I just wanted to state for the record that what I typically do in a situation like this -- and I think Ray will attest to it -- is we're going to get back to the office, whether it's today or first thing tomorrow morning, and we are going to write each of these stipulations or correct the PUD with each of the stipulations, and we're going to send it to staff and they're going to review it. And if there's any discrepancy, we'll discuss it. But I think that's how you avoid having future discrepancies if you do it as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know if, but I'm going to -- from now on this is going to be as clear as mud to get this thing done properly. MR. BELLOWS: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to have what happened recently again, if we can help it, so -- okay. With that, I'm trying to think if there's anything else we've got to throw in. Oh, the motion maker and the second accept the listed stipulations that we read into the record? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those include the support of staff recommendations? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Page 172 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody is in agreement on that, except me. I'm not. I'm concerned that the density here is unnecessarily high. I don't know what it should be, but almost 1,200 units in an area that already has known problems in it, I'm just not -- I just think is too high, so I'm going to have a problem with that when we come to the vote. With that, I'll ask for -- call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? I'm opposed for -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two oppositions. My opposition is based upon the rezone findings in regards to generation of traffic and the timing of that generation versus the intersections involved, and also number 11, that I believe this will be a detriment to the -- any other remaining properties around because we've been told that it certainly will hold up other properties from moving forward. So with that, the motion carries, one, two, three four, five, six, to two. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to ask that you take your conversations out in the hall. We still have a meeting to continue. Thank you. Item #8C PETITION: CU-2007-AR-11970, AMERICAN DREAM Page 173 October 18, 2007 BUILDERS The next agenda item is petition CU-2007-AR-11970, American Dream Builders for an existing model home sales center at the southwest corner of 13th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard in Golden Gate Estates. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this issue, please raise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosure on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Okay, sir. It's all yours. MR. McCORD: I just have a short statement. We're, of course -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to state your name for the record, and then -- MR. McCORD: James McCord with American Dream Builders. We're requesting a continuation of a current -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me. Bob, would you shut the door, please. Thank you. Sorry, sir. MR. McCORD: No problem. I just want to state this is our 11th year in business. It's almost our 11 th year with our model. I believe we're -- the only builder older than us is Kay Homes in Golden Gate Estates, and I believe the only other affordable builder with model, builders, excuse me, is Kenmark Construction and Waterways Homes, both of which are right behind me with this same process. I just want to say, we build our homes on high-traffic roads and we depend heavily on passing traffic and our signage for our sales leads. The locations that we choose for our models, in my opinion, are not desirable and not safe for single-family residences. We simply can't pick up ship and move every five years, as has Page 174 October 18, 2007 been suggested recently. Even if we could move every five years, who would want to buy our model and how much would they want to pay? We would take a sizable loss in our investment every time we had to move, and I don't think there's a business model that exists that would even work. All of us that are on 951, we keep our homes in top shape. We do the best to keep our neighbors happy, and I don't believe we cause any problems with code enforcement or any other governmental agency. Every time we renew our permits, it gets more and more difficult and more time-consuming and more expensive. In order to continue building affordable homes in Collier County, we need to be able to stay in our current locations, and we need help from you to streamline this process to make it faster and a little more affordable. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are there any comments from the staff? MR. BROWN: Afternoon. Willie Brown again, Department of Zoning. The petitioner's description of the project, again, is consistent with the application submitted to the department. The project complies with the appropriate regulations of the Land Development Code. It does not, however, comply with the Growth Management Plan of Collier County, particularly the Golden Gate Area Plaster Plan. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan amendments approved on October 10, 2004, require the following for model homes: A temporary use which may be allowed anywhere within the Estates mixed-use district, and this project is within the Estates mixed-use district. Page 175 October 18, 2007 Temporary use permits for model homes have a duration of three years from the date of approval, after which a conditional use may be applied. The total time period for temporary use and conditional use permits together shall not exceed five years. No subsequent issuance of a conditional use permit shall be for a duration exceeding two years. Language prior to October of 2004 did not place a limitation on the duration of model homes. Pertinent to this project, it's important to note the following historical occurrences: A temporary use permit was issued in 1997 expiring three years from the date of issuance; two conditional use petitions have been approved, CU-2000-12, and CU-2003-4799. First conditional use expired September 28,2005. The second petition expired November 25,2006. Lastly, conditional use extension granted a one-year extension will expire November 28th of this year, 2007. The zoning director advises that in her opinion if this petition were approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals, this approval to lawfully extend the life of a model home beyond the initial five-year time frame is outlined in the GMP. The comprehensive planning department disagrees with that position, as outlined in your staff report. To date there have been no letters of opposition. The applicant and owner of American Dream Builders is one of only four affordable housing developers in Collier County. Others include Kenmark, Waterway, and Kay Homes. American Dream Builders has, as I'm told, 14 units for sale and three under construction. The existing model home services an area 20 miles in radius. If language remains unchanged in the GMP as presently written, this could possibly lead to the extension of affordable housing within the counties, is department of zoning's position. The Board of County Commissioners recently directed a Compo Page 176 October 18, 2007 Plan amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to extend the life beyond and/or clarify the language in the plan to allow model homes located in certain areas of the Estates, mostly along CR 95, to exist for longer than five years. And that's the department's statement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of staff? Willie, if I'm understanding it, the zoning director has taken the position that this can be amended through the -- specifically for this project at this time, through the BCC's approval. But the zoning -- the planning -- some other department disagrees; is that -- MR. BROWN: Comprehensive planning department disagrees, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've read the staff report thoroughly, and I fully concur with the zoning director's position on this. And I think that in the times that we have and the marketing that we have, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to work with the business community like this is suggesting. It doesn't put in any long-term solution for everyone because that certainly wasn't the intent. But if this gentleman's coming forward, needs a solution for now, I think that's a positive way to handle it, and so I see nothing wrong with it. I certainly wouldn't want to see the GMP change unilaterally because that wasn't the intent of the community when the GMP was put together, and the only way that should be vested or vetted is going back through the community process. But to solve the problem here, I see this as a good solution. I don't see anything wrong with it. So I'm in agreement with the zoning director on that issue. Any other comments? Hearing none, yeah, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I mean, I just want to point out, of course, the comprehensive planning director, specifically in this case, Mr. Page 177 October 18, 2007 Weeks, who opined as far as the application of the Compo Plan did so based on his knowledge of what has happened in the past. Both Ms. Murray and I have -- or Ms. Istenes and I have discussed this as well. I concur with you. We just wanted to point out that there are, shall I say, differing interpretations. One who is responsible for the Compo Plan, one who is responsible for the LDC. We want to make sure that that is pointed out to the Board of County Commissioners, and we will certainly do that and point it out. If they so rule, they so rule, and we deal with what -- we will bring your recommendation forward and let them make a decision based on that and we'll consider that as a policy decision of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're -- the solution that the director offers is a very practical solution -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the situation that we have, so I personally see nothing wrong with it. I know in the past, because I was on the last planning committee in Golden Gate, I was one leading the charge against such things. But times have changed, and to have the little flexibility on a minor issue like this, I think that's a positive thing, so -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, since you mentioned it, that's why we were very cautious about this because we knew that you were on the committee, and we -- and we know what the committee's position was, what was that, five years ago, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was very strong, because that was the -- we were being flooded at the time, and market and the conditions were different. Everything's calmed down now. We have a whole different set of circumstances out there, so I think staffs flexibility here is very applaudable, so -- MR. SCHMITT: And the board kind of gave us a clear signal, they kind of look at that as pretty much -- because it's being widened to four and six lanes, it's pretty conducive to just about what it is right Page 178 October 18, 2007 now, and that's models along that road -- roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody out there on this issue here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that AR-1 -- AR-1190 (sic) be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Tuff, the stipulation was, consistent with staff recommendations, or subject to staff recommendations. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Please sign your sheet and turn it in to Mr. -- oh, Ms. Caron. When I can borrow your pen, I'll Page 179 October 18, 2007 do the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to note for the members of the Planning Commission, you'll probably see about three more of these coming forward. They're on -- they're scheduled for future hearings, just so you're aware of the same situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I kind of figured that was going to happen, sir, but thank you for the reminder. Item #8D PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-1 0648, NAPLES MOTORCOACH RESORT INC. Next item up is petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10648, Naples Motorcoach Resort, Inc. It's on the south side of Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here, I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich, we talked about the impacts on Henderson Creek and the density and not much else because I hadn't read the whole packet by the time I spoke with him. So with that, we'll go into the presentation by the applicant. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me is Randall Henderson, who is the principal and the petitioner; Bob Duane; Page 180 October 18, 2007 George Hermanson and Sherry Neal from Hole Montes & Associates are also here to answer any questions you may have. Beth Brooks is also here to address any landscaping questions you may have. I'll try to cut this short and to the point because -- this is the former Graystone Park. It was a lot of travel trailers and mobile homes and a mishmash of a lot of things that totaled 314 different types of units. What we're requesting is an RV resort of no more than 200 RV units, which your staff report acknowledges is under the maximums allowed under the Land Development Code and is a reduction over what formerly was on that property. The property is located near the project we just talked about before, Naples Reserve. It's along that segment of U.S. 41. So in reality, this project will be giving back some ofthe transportation trips that are currently on that corridor, so it results in a benefit to the community . I think, in reading the staff report, staff had one issue with our project -- and maybe I'm wrong -- but the one issue had to do with the boat storage facility. Staff didn't like the fact that we had a 35-foot boat storage facility adjacent to the outskirts of our project and near the church. They thought we should internalize that impact and not have it on the exterior of the building. Staff recommended a couple of different things to address that. One, change the mass of building or, two, relocate the 35-foot boat storage structure. They also didn't like the thought of a forklift carrying the boats to the water to the ramp that's on our property. We decided to cry uncle and not argue with staff over that issue anymore, and what we propose is that we reduce that building to a one-story, l5-foot building. We would do the same landscaping we anticipated, which was the wall and plantings, and I think there's 16 to 18 -- 18 feet -- 18-foot trees at planting. So between the wall and the trees at planting, they'll be taller than Page 181 October 18, 2007 the structure when it's built, which will only be 15 feet actual height. That will result in a reduction of the boats. Previously we had 36 boats in this structure. We're down to 32. We'll no longer have the 10 boats on the trailers that we had originally requested. So that is a reduction of 14 boats that could potentially use the water in the area. We believe that will address -- we hope that addresses staffs concern regarding the boat storage facility and that we can leave it in the current location on the master plan. There was another question about the deviation. This is the master plan that you have in front of you. I promised Kay I would not hand out any new documents. There's no portable mike, so I'll have to -- sorry about that. The master plan you have in your pocket -- packet we had to, I think, better explain to Kay what the deviation was. Weare a -- we were granted a deviation to allow our parking basically for our various amenities to back into the road. As you know, the code requires that you have a lO-foot buffer along the roadways for your various facilities, your -- obviously since we have parking here, we can't have the lO-foot buffer to go across that parking. So what we're asking for the deviation is to relocate the 10-foot that we've put here to this side of the parking. So we're still giving the buffer. It's just on the -- I guess the wheel stop side of the parking instead of actually on the street. So hopefully with that explanation, staff can now support or better understand our requested deviation and the intent of that deviation. And if we need to make any notes on the master plan to make that clear, we'll be happy to do that. If staff has any questions regarding the level of plantings we want to do for the one-story, 15-foot boat storage facility, we'll be happy to work with them between now and the BCC hearing. I think that addressed the staff concerns, and there's the staff -- and Bob pointed out to me one other thing, that on the boat storage Page 182 October 18, 2007 facility, the reduced height IS-footer, we're requesting from our own internal street, a setback of 10 feet versus of 20 feet that's in the code. And with that, I think we're okay with the staff stipulations other than what I explained regarding the parking, landscaping associated with that, and with the boat storage facility. This is a vast improvement over what was previously there. They're going to be high -- very expensive R V s. They're not going to be here during hurricane times. We've got provisions in the PUDs -- in the PUD to make sure that you cannot leave your RV here. You've got to take it with you when you leave. So I think we've addressed any concerns that there might be related to any hurricane evacuation issues with our own project. And in this part of town, it's probably a good idea to not have permanent structures, but to have an RV resort, so it addresses those concerns. And then I'm available, Bob's available, Mr. Henderson's available to answer any questions you may have about the operations of our facilities or the requested proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Richard. And I think it's interesting, every time you bring a project in here, you start out by saying it's a benefit to the community, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. Didn't you bring in Pebblebrooke? Well, we won't go there. MR. SCHMITT: Come on. That was February 2002, Ray? Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it was a while back. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was a long time ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Brad. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, Rich, this is a gated project, correct? The public can't wander around? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. Page 183 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only concern I really have is that the streets, you want to bring it down to a 24-foot right-of-way yet you really want the people to be moving around with golf carts within it. Now, I know the motor homes aren't going to move that much. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially they'll come in. Do people have cars with them or what do they -- how do they get to Planning Commission meetings to watch and stuff? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, we have a deed restriction prohibiting them from going to Planning Commission meetings, but -- we -- they will have their own cars. Mr. Henderson has a lot of experience in operating these RV resorts, so the requested reduction in streets has been implemented throughout many, many projects, and it's really not an issue. But yes, they will have their own cars. They will also have to do their day-to-day traveling that they may need to do outside of the RV park. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how wide is a typical lot? I'm not sure what the depth is or -- you know, nowhere did you discuss or show a picture of the bus, maybe a car in tow. And the question would be is if somebody went to visit these people, where would they be parking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll show you -- in your staff report under your Exhibit A, I believe, about the 7th or 8th page in. It looks like this, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I didn't notice that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a typical lot, but Mr. Henderson will explain to you how they typically operate. MR. HENDERSON: Hi. My name is Randall Henderson. I represent the Naples Motorcoach Resort. And in response to that question, essentially the lot is on a parallelogram configuration, but it's approximately 40 by 90. Page 184 October 18, 2007 The good news is, they finally put a limit on motor homes, so we can anticipate the absolute maximum size of a motor home on the site. They now are having to comply with trucking laws and things of that nature. So the largest motor home that can be manufactured and put on the road is 45 feet long. Our pad or the parking area for the motorcoach is 20 by 65. What that really does is provide for parking of the towed vehicle, which they do bring cars with them. They don't use them on site very often at all. They walk, ride a bicycle or, perhaps, a golf cart. I don't think I have ever noted anybody driving an automobile around a property this small to go from point A to B on the property, so we don't see much in the way of vehicular. They do tow it. They do, when they go out into the community or go shopping or something, obviously take their car. And in response to the question about the parking, the only parking that is permitted when someone's visiting -- and we do hope they have visitors -- is on the pad in front of the patio section. There's enough width off the roadway. Parking on the roadway is prohibited, and we also have a 10-mile-an-hour speed limit, because as you noted, the people are, in fact, walking in the roadways and riding their bicycles and driving their golf carts. That represents probably 95 percent of the traffic, pedestrian, bike, and some golf cart. Not as much golf cart because you can't tow them and you can't haul them around, so really it gets down into pedestrian traffic and bike traffic, which a small property like this, that's what will get you there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. And then the utility building, that will be limited in size, but -- and you say you want bathroom facilities in that? MR. HENDERSON: We do have bathroom facilities. It's gotten to be almost a thing of the past. These motor homes have gotten very Page 185 October 18, 2007 large, very nice bathroom facilities that are the entire width of the motor home, and sometimes they are like eight by 10 within the motor coach itself; however, if they -- I would say mainly for the laundry. There's a small laundry at each bathhouse. They do use the bathroom facilities when they're at the pool because our bathhouses are also there in conjunction with the swimming pool. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Well, I got quite a few. And you may want to let Richard suffer through. MR. HENDERSON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's used to me. Might as well turn -- Exhibit A of the PUD. Number 1, under the definition paragraph it talks about the motor vehicles. You're talking about having a minimum length of 25 feet. I don't know any class A's that are 25 feet that are modern today. I mean, I think maybe 30 or 31 is the smallest they make now. Do you really -- and you were told in the neighborhood informational meeting 35 feet would be your smallest class A. And I can read that to you. Type of project, class A, 35 feet and longer motor coaches. So do you really mean 25 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thirty-five is what we mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-five, okay. So we'll change Al to 35 feet. You have a length, a maximum length of 55 feet. I think the gentleman just said the maximum length is 45 feet made. Do you really want 55 feet? MR. HENDERSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll have to answer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What size do you want? MR. HENDERSON: Forty-five. Page 186 October 18, 2007 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Forty-five, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on AI, 45 feet. Under accessory uses, number 22, you reference a small utility building. I know you probably mean the personal utility buildings, or what do you mean by that? Because the word small doesn't carry the day. What is a small utility building? Is it 70 by 70? MR. HENDERSON: It's the one described on the plan. The utility building -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What size are they? MR. HENDERSON: It's on the side, and it's similar to the ones at Crystal Lakes and Silver Lakes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's the general size? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, I can help you. The plan calls for personal utility building, 100 square feet max. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why don't we say, small utility buildings not to exceed 100 square feet as may be required? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for the operation and maintenance of the park; is that what you're intending? MR. HENDERSON: No, sir. The utility building is when the people who are there -- which is sometimes only three to four months -- when they buy some outdoor furniture or lawn furniture or something of that nature, when they leave, we do not permit them to leave anything out on the property. They have to put that up. So that utility building, or maybe it should be called storage building or what have you, but that's for them to put things up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the confusion is that your number 2 and number 6 are similar. Number 6, I think, is the one you're referring to. Number 2 is some different type of utility building, and all I was trying to do is peg a size to it. Page 187 October 18,2007 (Commissioner Midney left the hearing room.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're talking about the maintenance buildings for the park, I think, is what we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, what's the largest facility you're going to have there? How many square feet? We'll put a number in -- MR. HENDERSON: The maintenance building, which would be in the maintenance yard, would be a building 20 by 30, and that would be for your lawn mowers and your maintenance equipment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about utility building as may be required for the operation of the maintenance of the park -- MR. HENDERSON: That's the one I'm speaking of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not to exceed 1,000 square feet? MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your proposed docks, docks, number 3, I just want to make sure the clarification. You're saying 27 proposed docks? And the only reason I'm bringing it up is because in your NIM you said plus or minus 15 new boat docks. How many were existing? MR. HENDERSON: There were 15 existing on the property when we acquired it. There are, I believe, 20 waterfront lots so -- if I'm wrong I can -- I'd ask Bob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's where the 27 comes from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. I just wanted the clarification. On the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's right. No more than the 27 we're talking about, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the minimum setback table, you have a side setback for your motorcoach slabs of zero and nine. Now, the slide-outs are going to go out 24 to 30 inches outside the -- past the outer edge of the coach. I mean, I've got one and mine does that. So if you're at zero setback, you're going to have this pop-out Page 188 October 18, 2007 going into your neighbor's. Is that what the intent was? MR. HENDERSON: No, sir. That's the reason for asking for the zero setback is so that we can require the person with the coach to keep the entire coach, meaning the slide-outs as well, on the pad. They cannot protrude out over their neighbor or over their property line. So what we've done is, in our specifications, in our rules and regulations that are internal, is require that the motorcoach owner and the CC&Rs has to put the entire coach and it's entire width -- because if you have a coach, you know, they have slide-out boats on sides now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, that's why I was asking the question. You'd be over the property line with the one side if you're up on -- right on the line. MR. HENDERSON: Well, generally speaking, we really require them to move it about two foot away from the line so that even when their slide-outs are there, they can actually have access to them and walk around the entire coach without getting on someone else's property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got an II-foot slab, so I mean, that's -- MR. HENDERSON: No, sir, we -- I hope it's a 20-foot slab. I apologize. I have given the information to the engineers long ago, and I haven't looked at it, but we have 20-foot slabs by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your diagram shows motorcoach within an II-foot area, but the patio's nine feet. So actually you could move that motorcoach around within that slab area if you wanted to. MR. HENDERSON: They're one and the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it. Maximum building height, the boat storage one, Rich, I'm assuming is going to change? MR. YOVANOVICH: To 15, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. On your master plan, you're-- Page 189 October 18, 2007 aren't you required to put a decel. lane in on u.s. 41? MR. YOV ANOVICH: George, do we need a decel. lane on U.S. 41? MR. HENDERSON: I can answer that. Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't see one on your master plan. I'm assuming that -- MR. HERMANSON: Can I ask you to repeat the question? George Hermanson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. On U.S. 41, aren't you going to have a dece1. lane onto U.S. 41 ? MR. HERMANSON: We will from the west going east. From east going west, no. Traffic is predominantly from the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just wanted to make-- because the map didn't look like there was one there. Now, this is south U.S. 41, it's near Henderson Creek, and I can tell you from my knowledge of the area, there's a lot of saltwater interface going on there. We're demanding a well easement from you guys. I mean, that's just so hard to believe. Is that -- okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think he understands. MR. HENDERSON: I understand. And we have set it aside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one is -- that one's beyond reasonableness. Exhibit E, under -- actually Exhibit F, the utility requirements -- well, that's your wellfield. I'm just -- in some places it may be more valuable, but right here it doesn't make any sense. Number 3, your landscape requirements. Ray, is that a deviation? Because I don't believe it was -- I don't know if it was -- it's not labeled as one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit F? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exhibit F, item 3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Number 3? Well, it's greater than what's required under the code, so I don't know if you need a deviation if Page 190 October 18, 2007 you're going greater. It's obviously a deviation if you're going smaller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under dumpsters and trash removal, if you look at number 4 it says -- first of all, you're going to have it occur twice daily and it's going to be from the maintenance area. If you look at number 7, and it continues on the next page, it's located in the boat storage area and it's on an as-needed basis. You're going to have two dumpsters? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal with Hole Montes. There are two dumpsters, yes; one's recycle and one is trash. And when we said twice daily, we're talking about individual site pickup will be twice, once in the morning, once in the afternoon. The actual time that the garbage truck itself will come to site is depending on the loading capacity that is needed in the dumpster. If in -- say in the summer now, he may only come once a week versus, if he's in the winter, he may come once every two days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure what the two word stated for and that you intended two. That's what the purposes was, so. On number 5, hurricane protection, and number 6, permanent location of motor vehicles. I read that thing and I can't find the difference between those two paragraphs. They're the same. MR. DUANE: We agree. We agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can we take one of them out? Which one would you like to take out? MR. DUANE: Five? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five, okay. Under 8, boat storage, boat docks. That's changed now, I believe, because you've -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changed the number of boats? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will become a 32 -- Page 191 October 18,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 10 go away? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- with parking spaces. And the 10 go away, yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at Henderson Creek -- the Henderson Drive access, the only thing you're going to have in there is deliver -- only for the trash pickup? Nothing else is ever going to use that entrance? I mean, that's what it says. It just seemed -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your map, the first one titled Naples Motorcoach Resort office site, usable area exhibit, you have a dotted line for a 15-foot setback. What is that -- that's off -- I'm just trying to figure out where you're -- what that's supposed to represent. MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal. Which exhibit are you looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the first one titled office site. It's after Exhibit F. It's on the back of Exhibit Factually. COMMISSIONER CARON: EH1. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: EH1. See the dotted 15-foot setback line? MR. NEAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that there for? MR. NEAL: Okay. The actual right-of-way, Trout Lane, as you can see, is consistent with coming in, and then where you're reading the 15 feet, that is inside the actual tract for the office and the check-in. So actually the paved area you see there is similar to having a parking lot inside your own thing, but instead of a parking lot, it's where the motorcoach would stop and then walk to the building. So your setbacks are from the right-of-way, and that's where it would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this case you actually have the asphalt going out beyond the right-of-way, but the right-of-way doesn't go out to the edge of the asphalt because it's a pull-in area. Page 192 October 18, 2007 MR. NEAL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On the north pool tract, usable area exhibit, EH3, it's a couple past that one, Jerry. You have a 25 pool house -- 25- foot pool house setback, and I believe this was one of the concerns that staff raised in regards to setback from U.S. 41. And that -- what I'm trying to understand, that 25 feet comes from the right-of-way line? MR. NEAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. NEAL: Are you comfortable with what this is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable with what the plan says, the 25 feet versus what's standard for a setback from 41 is a little concerning. But let's see where the rest of this goes today. MR. NEAL: Because we do have a -- an exhibit that shows you actually what we're planning, but you don't normally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute now. I thought what you gave us is what you're planning. MR. NEAL: Weare, we're just -- more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need any more detail. I'm fine with it. MR. NEAL: Okay. But yes, we're planning to have the pool deck between the right-of-way and where the building's going to be. So the building is going to be set back from the right-of-way more than the 25-foot minimum. Actually it's almost 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. That's what I got. I've got staff questions, but that's all I have of the applicant, so thank you. Anybody else have a -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got a question on the thing you noticed, the hurricane protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think that last sentence Page 193 October 18, 2007 definitely means that the motorcoach has to be removed during the hurricane? I mean, it does state, no one occupied, so obviously they'll leave, but it appears to look like you can't leave it there during the hurricane season at all unoccupied. So do you think instead of killing 5 we may add in there that it has to be removed during a hurricane watch or warning or something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 5 is 6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know they're both the same paragraphs, and it's the last sentence of that that we're relying on the thing to be removed during a hurricane because of the fact that essentially you can't leave it there during the hurricane season unattended. Do you think that covers it fully enough? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 6 it recovers (sic) it by the same last sentence, so I didn't see a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, nobody in their right mind's going to leave an expensive coach sitting on a slab in a hurricane area, especially -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I think this unequiv -- in my mind, clearly states, you've got to take it out of here during hurricane season. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what it states is you can't leave it unoccupied during a hurricane. But my concern was, if that means you've got to take it out of there, everybody's happy with that, that's fine. I would rather see something that says during -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's not what it means. What it means is, you can ride out a hurricane in your vehicle if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys wait a minute. Jeffs talking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's a good point, what Jeff just said is, you could stay in it during a hurricane. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We mean -- what that meant was, you've got to get out, okay? You don't get to stay. Whether you want to stay with your RV or not, it meant, you've got to leave with it. You can't Page 194 October 18, 2007 stay here during a hurricane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we write -- keep 5, kill the paragraph that's repetitive -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then just state that it has to be removed during a hurricane watch or warning. We pick it, you know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine with us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that way if you -- you know, you have to make sure it's out of there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. That's fine. If you want to put it in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeffs right, you could stay in it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're keeping 5? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we'll make that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're keeping 6. We're just adding some language to it. We're keeping 6, actually, just adding language to it, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Either one, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'd like to do is keep 6 the way it is, erase the paragraph in 5 and write something new in 5 that states it's got to go during an evacuation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: During a hurricane. MR. BELLOWS: Mandatory evacuation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That it's out of there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine with us. We would like that, frankly, because it's a lot easier to force someone to do it if it's in the zoning document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant? If not, let's get into the staff report. Just so everyone knows, we'll probably take a break in about 10 minutes, and then it will be a coffee break and a break on -- I think we Page 195 October 18, 2007 can finish up tonight with this one as well as the noise ordinance before we have to leave, so. Kay, go ahead. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem with Zoning. And you have the staff report in front of you. I assume it's been given to you. And there are, as you can notice, and as we discussed, many exhibits to go with it to explain the applicant's proposal. And he has explained what he's proposing to do, why he's requesting the action. He's explained where the site is located, the purpose of the request. And you can see on the aerial photograph that was provided both in the staff report and on the bulletin -- the easel, the surrounding zoning. As I note in the staff report, the only aerial photograph we have at this time reflects the Graystone Mobile Home Park that is no longer there. The site is now cleared. Speaking of the Graystone Mobile Home Park, I did get an email correspondence this morning from one of the residents that used to live in that mobile home park. And in may, I'd like to give that to you now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. DESELEM: I got it this morning. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, you said this is somebody who used to live there? Where are they now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'll see. MS. DESELEM: I had to wait till I got back to the mike to respond. They were evicted, according to their language. I don't know where they live now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Okay. Now that you have that, like I said, the aerial photograph shows that it was there and obviously it no longer is. You have the growth management analysis within the staff Page 196 October 18, 2007 report, and we tried to make the distinction between the different definitions and uses of the word density to make it clear that this is a commercial development. It's not a residential density. So density in the true sense to the Growth Management Plan is not applicable, but that term is used in the LDC, and we did try to explain that, finding that this particular project is, as Rich noted, consistent with that designation in the Land Development Code. It does have the direct principal access noted in the GMP requirements. And item number C is the compatibility issue. And as you are aware, the applicant has made some concessions and has revised what they're proposing to address the concerns that staff raised in the staff report about the scope, size, and orientation of that boat storage facility that's being proposed for this project. They are now proposing a one-story maximum actual height of 15-foot boat storage facility. They are proposing to keep it in the same place, but staff believes that given the smaller size as far as the height, it does help to take care of the compatibility issue that we had raised. I understand in going to the two-story (sic), they are now going to have it on both sides of that internal road so that where was -- I'm sorry -- where it was boat storage, the 10 trailer units, that will also be used for the boat storage facility. It is to be covered boat storage, and I don't know ifthey made that real clear, but it is covered boat storage. Several issues have come up in my mind as part of that. One being, I guess they're going to keep them now on the trailers in that storage area, which -- I don't know how that's going to affect deviation number 6, because deviation number 6 in staffs approval indicated that the reason why it was okay, so to speak, to have the reduction in the trailer parking at the boat ramp was because they were going to use a forklift so they wouldn't be parking the boat trailers at the boat ramp. However, now I understand they're going to be moving the actual boats on the trailers, so we'll have to make some modification in that Page 197 October 18,2007 deviation number 6 to address that such that there's some way that those boat trailers aren't left at the boat ramp. They'll have to be returned to the boat storage facility. And I think we can come to some agreement. I've talked to Rich. I think we can come to some agreement between the board -- between this meeting and the board meeting if you're comfortable with that. In addition, we have narrowed down, I believe, the proposal for the landscaping such that we do have it to be 18 feet tall, not 16 feet, or what was proposed in their artistic rendering. And, again, the applicant has indicated that they're willing to work with me to come up with some language that's understandable and meets the intent of what they showed in the artistic rendering so that we will have some comfort level in what's being proposed for a buffer. In the analysis and the staff report, you have reports from environmental staff, transportation staff, utility review whereby your well easement issue arose, and you have emergency management staffs recommendations and parks and rec's recommendation, along with the zoning review analysis, and that goes into considerable discussion about the deviations. We are recommending approval of deviation 1,2,3, and 4 with the recommendation that stipulations be added into the documents -- mostly it relates back to Exhibit F -- to make sure that the commitments made by the developer regarding those deviations are actually incorporated into the commitments. And we get to deviation 10, again, the petitioner has met with staff, and initially what they wanted to do, in my understanding, was to eliminate that 10- foot buffer that would be required. And in retrospect, that made sense. If they were going to have back-out parking but -- and we had recommended approval of the deviation for the back-out parking, but we were not necessarily comfortable with reducing the buffering. Page 198 October 18,2007 The applicant's agent is now indicating that rather than eliminate that buffer, they will put the required buffering that would have been in that street buffer somewhere else in each and every tract of the recreation areas and the clubhouse tracts. And with that change, staff is comfortable with that. And, again, like I said, with deviation 6, we're going to have to fine-tune the language, I think, so that we can address what we're going to do with the boat trailers now that we're not going to use a forklift. But -- and you did have the neighborhood information meeting synopsis and you have staffs recommendation. Initially it says that we were recommending denial, and that was based on a compatibility issue, and I believe the applicant has adequately addressed that with the changes that they've made since the staff report was submitted to you. So we are now recommending approval subject to the arrangements that we need to make to the documents to make the commitments happen. And that's all I have. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'll tell you what, I'll ask Rich that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got questions of staff, so before Rich comes back up -- first of all, let me make sure I understand what staffs saying. You need to modify deviation number 6 to accommodate the changes to the trailers the way that was talked about and you're recommending denial of deviation number 5, and the rest you're recommending approval of; yes or no? I mean-- MS. DESELEM: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we start again. MS. DESELEM: We have changed our recommendation on Page 199 October 18, 2007 deviation number 5 because the applicant has changed their proposal for deviation 5. Initially they wanted to eliminate the buffer requirement for the areas identified, the recreation tracts and the clubhouse tract. They are now saying, rather than eliminating that required buffer that would go along the roadway to allow their back-out parking, they will move that buffering somewhere else within each and every one of those tracts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So deviation number 5 is going to be rewritten to accommodate the discussion that you and the applicant have had, and it's going to be done before the BCC meeting, right? MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: U.S. 41 setback. The diagram that they show for their needs along U.S. 41 differs from the Development Standards Table. They have over 50 feet to the bathhouse yet they're asking for 25 feet in the setbacks table. In order to be consistent with the plan that they've provided and talked about earlier where it says, possible bathhouse, I don't know why we couldn't put 50 feet in the setback for that bathhouse in U.S. 41. Do you -- and I know you've been ask -- you've been requesting that. George? MS. DESELEM: I'm obviously agreeable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, you want to comment on that? MR. HERMANSON: Yeah, George Hermanson. Just to give us a little flexibility before we fine-tune everything, can we go with 40? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, George, you gave us a plan. We're voting on this project based on the plans you gave us. If you don't feel these are the right plans and you've got a different one you want to submit, then let's see it. But you're not supposed to be making too many changes consistent with the plans you're putting in the public meetings. So-- MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal with Hole Montes again. I may have misspoke when I said it was about 50 feet. I didn't say it was exactly Page 200 October 18, 2007 50 feet. I was just looking at the rough distance between the points we had and estimated if it was double that, and that's where I came up with the 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, you guys are -- I know your company. You do really good, accurate drawings, and based on the scale and this accurate drawing that you provided me, I mean, it is 50 feet. MR. NEAL: We have moved the building back five more feet to accommodate the extra. MR. HERMANSON: We'll go with 50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now that makes it even more consistent with the purpose of what staff was trying to get to, and I think that their comments about 41 were correct. We have standards to be set back from six-lane roads, and 50 feet is not much. Okay. I think that's the only other question I had of you. Thank you. Anybody else got any questions of Kay? And Ray -- or Richard, Brad had a follow-up question of you, and so does Ms. Caron. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I don't forget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On what Kay was talking about, we have no intentions of leaving the trailers by the boat ramp. We will take them to and from the boat ramp while -- we'll load the boat, take the trailer back to the boat storage area. So that basically is how we were doing it before in that deviation, so it's really not a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you'll have to have a special vehicle to do that anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not going to be doing that with your motor home. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. We'll-- Page 201 October 18, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, my question is borderline smart remark. Are you going to -- this is a beautiful building for your boat storage. Is the new one going to be this good looking or are you going to punish us by a tin shed? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're not punishing anybody. We're basically -- you know, at the risk of -- it's going to be like a carport for boats, and that's -- it's going to be 15 feet, roof structure. It's going to be like a carport, and there's going to be plenty of landscaping along Henderson Drive to where you'll never even see it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I -- you know, this is a good building. I think a beautiful building like this, even two story, would be better than an ugly one-story building, but that's not the trail we're gomg, so -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad is the, let's have more height and more density guy on the panel, so -- if you haven't figured that out by now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We need eight more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the name of aesthetics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that was -- quite honestly, that was our original thought was, we thought we were doing a nice beautiful building. It's not hurting anything, but we give up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, maybe we can bring reality back to the picture here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just wanted to talk about boat docks on Henderson Creek. You told me that these boat docks are permitted? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are not asking for any boat dock extensions under the code. We will live with the code requirements for what we -- what we can do to get boat docks on that property. And it's my understanding, as long as we don't exceed a certain distance Page 202 October 18,2007 into the water, we do not have to get -- we're allowed to do it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So essentially you maybe, maybe have 40 feet here? MR. YOV ANOVICH: In width? I've never scaled it. How wide is it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, at least half of it is mangroves. MR. YOV ANOVICH: How wide's the creek? MR. HENDERSON: Fifteen maximum. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know the answer to how wide the creek is there. We're going to meet whatever the code requirements are as far as boat docks go. We're not asking for any boat dock extensions. MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal. We have the cross-sections of the creek every 100 feet, but off the top of my head, I don't remember exactly what it is. The easement is 100 feet, but the actual waterway is not 100 feet. The actual right-of-way may be 80 feet of actual water versus the 100- foot easement. Yes, you are correct that closer to 41 you do have some mangroves that overhang the water. And that area in the north half of our property, the adjoining on the other side of the creek is a preservation area. It's a preserve, so there would be no development of any sort there. So the only area that is presently being used for docking on the opposite side is the one on the very southern end of the property. So the one that you're referring to with the trees, they'll never be developed. It's already a conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The narrow part of this stream is all fronted by property you guys control and own; is that correct? So the only traffic in this section of this creek appears to be your own? MR. NEAL: That is it because just on the other side of 41 is the weir, so there is no other property. So we're the only users, yes. Page 203 October 18, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, are there any public speakers? MS. DESELEM: If -- for the record, Kay Deselem. IfI might jump in for just a moment. On the dev -- on Exhibit F, items number 5 and 6, unfortunately we had made a change to that with the applicant's agent and myself, and we had actually combined those at one time just having a hurricane/permanent location of motorcoach vehicles number so that you don't lose either one. You just combined them. And I'm going to have to get some clarification exactly what it is you wanted those -- that to say if, in fact, you do recommend approval. So I might have to jump up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you right now from what Brad had discussed, the suggestion was to remove the current language in item number 5 and replace it with language that strengthens the requirement to physically remove the unit during hurricane periods, so -- MS. DESELEM: And you said hurricane -- hurricane season or -- I heard reference to a warning -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Evacuation. MS. DESELEM: -- or a watch, so I need to know exactly what's required. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I believe the -- we were shooting at -- or at least my intention was that they be evacuated when there's a mandatory evacuation issued by the emergency management staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think they need to be out before mandatory evacuation. They're just going to clog the roads, and nobody that owns one of these is going to want to try to get on the road with that narrow of a time frame. And the wind, as soon as you Page 204 October 18,2007 reach 45, you don't want to be on the road with a coach anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't a watch come before a warning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a hurricane watch, then a warning, I believe. So why don't we get it at hurricane watch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Watch. MS. DESELEM: And are you saying the units themselves must be removed or the occupants must be removed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Units. MS. DESELEM: Units, okay, that's-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Units must be removed at warnmg. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hit the road, Jack. And we're doing them a big favor because they'll beat the rush if they leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a hurricane watch? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whichever's earliest, the watch or the warning, we'll confirm. Whichever's the earliest one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public who's here wishing to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seeing none, are there any other questions before we close the public meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. Mr. Adelstein, you had indicated? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that PUDZ-2006-AR-I0648 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff Page 205 October 18, 2007 recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have some changes. I'm sure whatever I didn't pick up, I hope you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The height ofthe structure's going to be 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's actual height? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The boathouse. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The boathouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You said the actual height, so you want to use the word actual. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Actual height, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Actual height's 15 feet. We also spoke about minimums and maximums on the motorcoach lengths of35 and 45. You-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. The accessory building was -- or the maintenance building, I believe, was that on number 6, was going to be a maximum of 1,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You mentioned 27 boats at one point. I don't know where that was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the document. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Docks, okay, boat docks. We just went through the deviation -- I'm sorry -- item F, number 5, units moved and evacuated during the watch. 6, I guess, then stays? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to modify deviation 6 to Page 206 October 18, 2007 accommodate the new language in boat trailers to the extent that it's necessary before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Number 5, okay. And all other staff changes and recommendations. I'm sure I missed some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got some others. I can read them in. In the beginning Richard mentioned that the -- that the dry storage will now be -- house 32 boats with no trailer parking other than what those boats are on, and that the trees at the time of planting will be 18 feet high. Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's also a wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't talk about a wall other than what's on the plan. Whatever's on the plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The wall in the plan stays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The wall. The buffer where the parking spaces are will be moved to the outside of the wheel stop side of the parking area. We're going to recommend removal of the well easement. We're going to accept staff recommendations except item number 5 and item number 7, and the reason for that is, item number 7 is a deviation that's being fixed, and item number 5 is the boat storage facility that's been repaired. And they're going to -- staff and the applicant, before the BCC meeting, will rewrite deviation number 5, and the boathouse (sic) setback from US. 41 will be 50 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bathhouse. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bathhouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bathhouse, yeah, I'm sorry. Glad you said that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I like that term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are the balance of the comments I Page 207 ----. -.----~,.,- October 18, 2007 had. Does anybody have any others? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: There was some conversation about the decel. lane. Does that need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be included. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's there, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's there. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We also, for the new boat storage facility, there was going to be a 10- foot setback from our internal road versus the 20- foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on the deviation table, isn't it? No? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's in the Development Standards Table. We didn't make any change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. The development standards table, yeah. So it would be under boat storage facility, it would be the front setback of 20 feet is now 10? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ten, I believe. MS. DESELEM: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll change Development Standards Table for that -- with that recommendation, front setback of 10 feet for the boat storage area. Okay. Now are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker accept the recommended changes? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I do also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? Page 208 October 18, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And we're down to 7-0, so thank you. And with that we'll take a 10-minute break and be back here to finish up with the noise ordinance. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will come back to their seats, we'll try to resume this meeting and finish up. Item #10 NEW BUSINESS When we left I said we'd jump into the LDC cycle. I've got to hold off on that for just a minute. We have one new business item. David Weeks had a request to review some dates with us in regards to upcoming transmittal hearing dates. So David, it's all yours. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. David Weeks, for the record, Comprehensive Planning Department. Commissioners, if you'll look on your agenda on the second Page 209 October 18,2007 page, item number 10, that specifically explains the request, and that is for the 2006 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, the transmittal hearings are -- we are attempting to schedule those hearings for the spring of next year, of '08. Now, I've identified on your agenda four hearing dates that are available, that is when the boardroom is available, and staff is recommending that you select three of those dates, and that's just based upon past experience, most recently -- just earlier this year with the 2005 cycle. We want to play it safe and set aside three hearings. And obviously if we can complete the process sooner than that, that's great, but we don't want to be caught with -- scrambling trying to find a room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 17th is a Monday in March before the Thursday meeting of that week. That's the -- that's the -- there's two dates that are somewhat further from our meetings that might be useful for us. The one is the 17th, and it's -- because it's three days ahead of the 20th, and the other one is the 28th, because on April 3rd we have another meeting. So if we go April 1 st, we'll be only two days from our other Thursday meeting. So I would think to space them out, the best we could do is the 17th and the 28th of March. How does that sound for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. I think us having a meeting on April Fools Day might not be a good idea. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it would be a perfect idea. COMMISSIONER CARON: Too much. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, one other consideration that would fit in with your suggestion, and staff had thought of as well, is that if you only select two dates, and because you have a regular hearing on April 3rd, if there's any -- one or two lagging petitions, you could just continue them to a regular date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 1st -- or the 3rd. Yeah, that's Page 210 October 18, 2007 fine, David. I think that's a good idea, so let's log it in on the 17th and 28th for now. MR. WEEKS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. With that, we need to adjourn this meeting and open up the LDC cycle meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This meeting is adjourned, and we'll move into the LDC amendment cycle, 2007-1, public hearing, to review and take public comments on proposed amendment to chapter 10, which is our section of our noise ordinance and how to move forward. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair (to move into the LDC meeting). COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 211