Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/17/2008 R January 17,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 17,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 Ph, ,c AGENDA Revised III COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A,M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 17,2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM, INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING, IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR 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 COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28, 2007, LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 6, 2007 REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 4, 2007, SCHOOL CONCURRENCY AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL HEARING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (NOTE: Item 9-A , CONSENT AGENDA ITEM to be heard prior to 8-A) A, Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-lOI76, Craig T. Bouchard, manager of Tennis Realty LLC, represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning Development Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD to revise the site development plan approval process for the transient lodging facilities accessory use and adding development standards for transient lodging facilities, by amending the development plan cover page; by amending Section II, Project Development, Subsection 2.3.B.; by amending Section IV, Tract B: Recreational Club Development, Subsection 4.3.B,3); by amending Section IX. Development Standards, adding Section 9.12, Transportation Improvements and any other stipulations or regulations that may result from the amendment process pertaining to transient lodging facility units within the 20x acre Tract B of the 153.7 acre project. The subject property is located on the west side of Airport- Pulling Road, between Pine Ridge Road and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 14, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) 1 B. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12384, Enterprise Leasing Company dlbla Enterprise Rent-a-Car, applicant and owner, is requesting a Conditional Use pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03 for a rental car agency within the C- 4 zoning district. The subject property is located 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 8, Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) C. Petition: RZ-2007-AR-12044, Barry Goldmeier, represented by Shaun Mularkey, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a rezone trom the Estates - (E) Zoning District to the Residential Multi-Family-16 (RMF -16) Zoning District for a multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 15 units per acre or 140 dwelling units on a 9.33 acre site to be known as Immokalee, LLC. The property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of County Road 846 and School Road in Section 9, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10171, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Arty. of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP., requesting a rezone trom the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The subject property, consisting of 51.1 acres, is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) CONTINUED TO 2/7/08 E. Petition: LDCA-2007-AR-12695, R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, requests a Land Development Code Amendment for Section 1.04.04 Reduction of Required Site Design Requirements. This request for the 2008 Special Cycle Ia. (Coordinator: Catherine Fabacher) 9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-9127, Myrtle Woods, L.L.C, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc., requesting a rezone trom C-4, and PUD to CPUD for a project known as the Myrtle Woods CPUD. The existing PUD sunselted in 2003 and provided for a maximum of 45 residential units and commercial development on a 5.66+1- acres of land. This rezone request will revitalize the Myrtle Woods PUD on the 5.66+1- acre project and add a 1.38 +1- acre parcel currently zoned C-4 to create a unified commercial development on the now 7.0+1- acre site. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Myrtle Lane in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) To be heard first 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN ]/17/07 cepe Agenda/RB/sp 2 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. I'd have to ask that you take your seats and we're going to bring the meeting to order. This is the January 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'd all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the loudest and most vocal pledge of allegiance we've ever had. Thank you. Please remember, too, we all get the opportunity to vote between now and the 29th, so that might be a very beneficial thing to do. Roll call by our secretary, please. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. Page 2 January 17,2008 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the addenda to the agenda. And there is a substantial issue I want to talk about. But before we get into that, I want to make sure there aren't any other items that may want to be added to the agenda. Mr. Kolflat, you had indicated you wanted to mention something. Did you want something added to new business? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll put your name down under new business and when we get there, you can fill us in. Okay, yesterday afternoon around 3:00 everyone on this commission, as well as the applicant's representatives, got an e-mail from the County Attorney's Office. An e-mail with a little different direction than we previously had received in regards to today's meeting. Previously we were told in our executive summary that we received in November, and it repeated itself in the one we received last week, said the County Attorney Office's opinion is that the proposed PUD amendment should not be recommended for approval by the CCpc. In response to that on Tuesday night I asked the County Attorney's Office Wednesday morning how to proceed with this meeting, if we weren't allowed to have a recommendation of approval. And this is supposed to be a board that doesn't predetermine its outcome before the meeting. We're supposed to come to these meetings with what information we can gather, listen to all the testimony at the meeting, then make a decision on all that testimony collectively and not come here with a pre-set or pre-determined mind. In asking the County Attorney that question, the County Page 3 January 17,2008 Attorney's Office went into consultation on the matter and in the afternoon yesterday they called me and basically told me what their outcome of that was. And I'll read you the e-mail that went out: Dear Commissioners, with respect to tomorrow's agenda Item 8-A relating to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD, it will be my strong recommendation that the Planning Commission does not hear this item. I believe that Judge Brousseau's order dated January 29th, 1997, which was affirmed on appeal and a copy of which is in your packet, bars the building of a hotel at this location. It is my further belief that the proposed amendment to the PUD could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent this order. And I cannot in good conscience put this commission in peril by hearing this matter. It will be my recommendation that this matter be continued indefinitely. Should the Planning Commission elect not to hear this matter, the applicant could request a declaratory judgment from the circuit court that notwithstanding Judge Brousseau's order, the proposed hotel could be developed by admitting the PUD as requested by the applicant. Should the applicant be successful in obtaining such an order, the matter could then proceed in accordance with the guidance provided by such order. Signed by Jeffrey A. Klatzkow; Chief Assistant County Attorney. Now, based on that memorandum or that e-mail that we received, this commission has to make a decision on addenda to the agenda. We have basically two decisions to make: We can accept the County Attorney's recommendation and continue this indefinitely, or we can continue it to a date certain if we disagree with the County Attorney. Out of fairness to both sides, I'll ask Mr. Klatzkow first ifhe has anything to add, and then Mr. White has asked for a moment to address us as a matter of record. And other than the two attorney's Page 4 January 17,2008 statements, and I'm going to ask that the statements not be issues involving the tax on any individuals, but simply trying to make a matter for the record. Other than that there will be no other discussion on the matter, once the Planning Commission makes its decision. So Mr. Klatzkow, do you have anything you want to add? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Patrick White with the Naples office of the law firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, on behalf of the petitioners. Briefly and for the record, if the Planning Commission elects to not hear this matter or to continue the matter indefinitely, based on the interpretation being offered by the county, my client will be irreparably harmed and have few choices on how to have this request ultimately heard. I'd ask that the e-mail opinion you were provided late yesterday be provided as a copy into the public record. Specifically as to the Judge's order, that's the subject we're talking about. But more correctly, the writ of certiorari we were granted -- that was granted by the Judge's order, legally speaking, it did not do anything more than simply quash or nullify the prior Planning Commission's action from 1996 approving the site plan for 48 hotel units. Once the action of the Planning Commission was quashed, the court could only legally act to remand the case for further proceedings. The writ has no continuing legal effect thereafter, thus it cannot bar the subsequent application and request from being heard. That's consistent with a long line of Florida cases. An opinion that does not appear to be consistent with those is not one you must follow. Regardless, it's the late appearance of the opinion offered on the eve of our previously continued hearing that's a cause for most serious concern. Page 5 January 17,2008 If that direction is followed, it will severely prejudice the applicant's procedural due process rights and deny the landowner the most basic and fundamental property rights. So does the recommendation that our application should now be continued indefinitely without any closure unless we force our government to allow us to be heard by further judicial order. Without question, the landowner's constitutional right to petition its government under that government's own rules of procedure is also being ignored and denied all in the name of protecting the county's interest. Thus any action approving an indefinite continuance would appear to put the protection of the government ahead of the rights of the very citizens it derives its power from, we, the people. It is also most disturbing that on the eve of our duly noticed and advertised public hearing where residents and members have flown in from out of town for the second time in some instances just for this meeting to support the request, for the some hundred or so that you see here today to be told that the Planning Commission, and I surmise that the Board of County Commissioners as well, do not have jurisdiction or the power to hear our petition is most troubling. That the county reaches this conclusion about the most basic aspect of being able to conduct its own business in a proper and lawful manner occurring at the very point in time where it would cause applicant residents the most harm is difficult to understand. We have relied on the county to do its job and process the application we paid to have reviewed. To be denied the opportunity to have this heard this far along in the process is not only highly inequitable, it is the height of prejudice. In the most practical way, there's nothing in the Judge's order that places any commissioner in peril of any kind. Because even if Mr. Klatzkow's opinion is correct about the order, merely approving a rezoning request would not authorize or approve those hotel units to Page 6 January 17,2008 be constructed. So logically and legally the PUD amendment, even if approved as requested, cannot and would not now act to offend the Judge's prior order. In fact, it is only through our attempt to have this request now heard that we could and we now are seeking our action that is consistent with that prior remand to you. The fact that it is 10 years later does not change anything about that order. Even under Mr. Klatzkow's assessment the rezoning isn't something that's a problem. No construction would occur unless and until the site plan request would be filed and approved, which will not occur until some time in the future. Actual construction of the units would not occur, if ever at all, until building permits were approved. Clearly that would seem to get give the county plenty of time to get its own answer to what appears to be a problem the county alone sees. We should not have to prove we are entitled to be heard by you as to the PUD amendment. It is our right to be heard, and it is what the Judge's order says. That's especially problematic whereas here if the PUD is approved, that will not approve the site plan or building permits needed to begin the construction that the county sees are barred by the Judge's order. Stated more pointedly, why does the property owner now have to seek a declaratory action when it is the county that is in doubt? If the county feels you need to be protected against a judge reaching out in some manner and causing you peril because the county would do something unlawful, then why hasn't the county staff been directed to at least seek the board's approval to file a declaratory action and then be assured you are protected one way or the other. Even now that can still be done in a timely manner to assure all concern that there is no harm to you or the county and without causing this landowner and the community residents harm now. Page 7 January 17,2008 The applicant agrees to not have the site plan considered and approved until that declaratory judgment is final. Then there is no harm to the county for doing what it is that we've already received -- that the county's already received the fee to do and the landowner will not be harmed either. We have no such doubts about what we seek. My client filed on paper a proper petition, and if we cannot have that heard here and before the board, then there will be economic damage to the applicant and community in the tens of millions of dollars. Not being able to have a request heard is a failure to allow the most basic state and federal constitution protections to be granted. Accordingly, it is perfectly proper for the Planning Commission to hear this matter consistent with your mandate under the LDC to evaluate such petitions under the -- solely under the criteria set forth and that the staff had provided you. That is also what is consistent with the Judge's order remanding this case to the Planning Commission. Please allow us to be continued to a date and time certain in the future that will allow us time to be prepared to present this case to you III a proper manner. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter and allowing me to make these brief remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions any of the commissioners have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. Now, I want to mention to the planning commissioners, this is a discussion under the addenda to the agenda. It is not opening the case up for discussion. Are there any questions or concerns that the Planning Commission may have? We have a decision to make whether to take the advice of our counselor take the advice of the applicant's counsel. One would require us to set a time certain and continue to that date. The County Attorney's advice to us is to continue it indefinitely. I'm Page 8 January 17,2008 looking for a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I need to know what motion you Item #8A PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-I0176 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course I will tell you. That it be on -- let me do it more formally. PUDA-2006-AR-10176, Craig T. Bouchard of Naples Bath and Tennis Club, be continued indefinitely. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I'd like to say to the people in here who have come today for this meeting, I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience. I know that won't make it better for you, but we have no choice but to follow the advice of our attorney, as you would follow the advice of your attorney. With that, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the indefinite continuance, signify by saYIllg aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 9 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1. With that we'll take a 10-minute break so the room can be cleared and we'll go on with the rest of our agenda at 8:53. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'd all take your seats, we'll move on with the meeting and hopefully the rest of the meeting will be a little more typical of what we get into. One other addenda to the agenda I'd like to finish up with. The consent agenda item was listed as the last thing on the agenda, as you'll recall. We had wanted that to be always first on the agenda. It has been -- it was made first by notation. In future agendas it will be listed first, if any are carried over. So with that note I'll let you know when we hear the -- we'll discuss the consent agenda items right from the get-go. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: If I could just point out, as we do with the Board of County Commissioners, if you wish to have it first, but normally consent is listed at the end. But once the agenda is accepted, then the consent items are summarily or legally accepted as well. Is that correct, County Attorney? Normally the-- MR. KLATZKOW: That's board procedure. They can do-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather keep the procedure we just set. MR. SCHMITT: All right, just put all the consent items first then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That way the applicants coming in know that it's just a formality if it's okay, and they can come and leave quickly instead of having to sit through the day. MR. SCHMITT: So we just list it as review and approval of consent agenda or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Page 10 January 17,2008 MR. SCHMITT: -- words to that effect. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would probably be eight from now on, and we'll move the advertised public hearings to nine. Okay, are there any other addenda to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to Planning Commission absences. That's a good -- I think our next meeting is our regular meeting for a change. We have no interruptions in between. And the date of that one is the first Thursday of February, which would be what date, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: February 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 7th. Is everybody planning to be here, or does anybody know they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum then. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 28,2007, LDC MEETING AND THE DECEMBER 6,2007, REGULAR MEETING Approval of minutes, November 28th and December 6th. Let's start with November 28th. Any comments, questions or clarifications? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a recommendation for approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 11 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The minutes of December 6th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray approved again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded again. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #6 BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 4,2007, SCHOOL CONCURRENCY AMENDMENT TRANSMITTAL HEARING Page 12 January 17,2008 BCC reports. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on January 15th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Gene Salavi (phonetic) variance. That was on the summary agenda, so it was approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendation. The Kalvin variance was approved on the regular Board of County Commissioners -- board of zoning appeals agenda, and that was approved 5-0, subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations, except that they did not approve the Planning Commission recommendation to reimburse the applicant's funds for the variance application. There was also a summary agenda item for scrivener's error for De V oe that was approved on the summary. And the rezone for Lane Park was approved 4-1. Motion approved subject to the Planning Commission recommendations stipulations one through three, but revised stipulation four to require compliance with the Land Development Code amendment addressing outdoor seating or whatever it may be titled if such amendment is adopted. Additionally, the Board of County Commissioners denied the proposal to permit drinking places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had -- I watched that show, and I was concerned over the way the characterization of the Planning Commission -- or lack of characterization of the Planning Commission's position on the Lane Park one was presented. I notice that when staff supports the Planning Commission's position, they're always going to the level of detail needed to tell the commission the reasoning behind our position. But yet when staff does not support our position, or individual staff members don't support our position who are making the presentation, they tend not to explain why we may have done something when questioned by the BCC. Now, I watched that meeting. Commissioner Coyle got it exactly January 17,2008 right. He said that the Planning Commission was probably trying to tell us, I can't quote him verbatim, that this motion, that this language can be added into this PUD subject to any clarification to the LDC. Which is all we were trying to do. And when he made that, instead of emphasizing to him that was the intent, which I believe was the intent of this board, there was dead silence. And even some commissioners couldn't figure out that's what we were trying to do. I thought we made it very clear, we wanted to show them there was an opportunity, should the LDC amendment for example not pass, that this particular project and any others like it could have paragraphs added to protect the public. And if something doesn't pass, you've now covered one PUD that may not have been covered at all for any reason. That never came out in the discussion between staff and the board. And I think it would have done justice to this board if staff had relayed that reasoning, because it wouldn't have made us look like we were foolish for saying -- for coming out of context for something the board was hearing the following day and evening on an LDC Amendment Cycle. So I didn't think that was the right way to present things. I wouldn't have shown that disrespect to staff in their presentation, and I don't expect it in the future in the Planning Commission's presentation. So somehow if that could be made across I would appreciate it, Ray. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could comment. I believe that the board was well aware of the intent of the Planning Commission, even though it may have not been discussed on the record. They were well aware of the intent of the Planning Commission and your desires. I spoke to three commissioners individually, certainly conveyed that. They were understanding. They were -- the issue was of course that that was very premature, meaning the language was -- and the language in the LDC amendment had now morphed or gone through several iterations from Page 14 January 17,2008 the date that that language was included in the PUD. And they were well aware of both the -- your intentions. I believe at least the majority of the commissioners were aware of exactly what you said. And there was -- the issue really became the -- and the PUD, when the PUD was signed and once it's signed, that becomes the language in the PUD and that's the language that we would have had to enforce. And I think was that the issue, both from the County Attorney and from the staff. And I think that was the matter we were trying to present or the position we were trying to present to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not at one time during the discussion did I hear anybody say on behalf of the Planning Commission that one of our purposes for entering that language in was that if something didn't pass there would be nothing in this PUD or nothing that this PUD would then fall under for that particular kind of issue. And I saw that as a priority in any PUD, to make sure we're covered, whether future language passes or not. MR. SCHMITT: I believe both Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta made that point clear. So again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just ask that if your -- MR. SCHMITT: We will do that, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Try to do a little bit better in the way our things are explained, even if you disagree with them. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ray, that -- the sheet you have there, could you send us a copy as you did previously in our next packages, the recap? MR. BELLOWS: That would be great. I'd love to do it. I printed it out nicely for you guys-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, we got one once, and I just want to make sure they continue. MR. BELLOWS: No problem. Just for the record, I'd also like to point out that we are looking Page 15 January 17,2008 at improving some of the sections of how we organize the staff reports. We're going to have a meeting with the zoning director and we're going to look at these issues of when staff has a disagreement with other staff, reviewing staff, or when the public expresses disagreement with a staff condition or when staff and the planning commission disagree, to make sure that it's all adequately explained. And either we create a section in the staff report that talks about disagreements of any sort, instead of having it maybe haphazardly explained throughout the report, I think maybe creating a section where we deal with these discrepancies may be a way to go. But we're looking into that. I just wanted to let you know that we noticed this coming up on several other petitions in the past where there are disagreements, and we need to explain those disagreements to the board. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd appreciate that, thank you. Okay, we're on to the next item on the agenda which is Chairman's report. And I do have one issue. And would the members pass this over to Ray so he could put it on the viewer? Like probably many members on this Planning Commission, I use Municode constantly day in and day out. And it's a great resource. The issue that you're going to see on the screen in a minute is something I've seen growing on Municode, but I don't know why. If you look at the areas where the question mark and the blocking is, on Municode in the beginning of the section under the LDC now they list all of the recent ordinances that I don't know why they list them. If you were to click on any, like Ordinance No. 20078138017 A, you bring up, it's a GMP amendment for a church in Page 16 January 17,2008 Golden Gate Estates. Why is that on Municode under our LDC section? And why is the Baldridge Planned Unit Development PDF under Municode under the LDC section? And if you go through there, I have the same questions about every one of those, practically. Rarely you'll find one that may be a true LDC amendment that didn't get incorporated into the text. Then I would see why you need that up there. But why or how is this done? How are we getting all these GMP ordinances or individual rezones located on the Municode? And if those are, why aren't all of them? How is that selectively handled? Does anybody in the county know? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, could somebody in the county find out? And if this is inappropriate, could it be removed? I don't know why a GMP amendment has anything to do with a Municode LDC Site. And they're basically -- the TIF files are pictures of the amendment. So I'm not sure what good it does, I'm not sure if it adds more confusion to everything, but if it's something that's being done in error, we ought to get it corrected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I always assumed when I saw that that this was stuff that's not yet incorporated into the LDC. Are you saying some of this stuff is already incorporated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you wouldn't incorporate it. You wouldn't put a GMP amendment -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And you wouldn't put the Baldridge Planned Unit Development in the LDC. So I'm wondering why they're even there. And I agree with you, any amendment that's not yet recorded -- or incorporated should be in Page 17 January 17,2008 there, but those are the only ones. So if you guys could check it out and try and get it corrected, it would be helpful. I'm sure maybe other people like myself that use this a lot are finding problems with it as well. Item #9 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Okay, with that we'll move into the advertised -- well, no, we'll move into our consent agenda. This is a new issue for us, so we're going to have to kind of go along with it and see how it evolves. We have a petition we heard last time called Myrtle Woods, LLC, PUDZ-2005-AR-9127. The purpose of the consent agenda was to assure us that the language we had recommended for changes was incorporated into the PUD language, and the consent agenda was supposed to be able to simply say yes, it was by consent and no discussion needed, or if we feel there was an error on the part of the consent agenda we need to bring it out and point out what that error is. There's been a revision to the language in the consent agenda item. And Mr. Nadeau, I think you have that revision with you, or have you already passed it out? MR. NADEAU: Commissioner Caron has the stack of paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is not the way it's supposed to happen. And just out of curiosity, why didn't staff distribute this to us earlier? Can I have an answer from staff on that? MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. When the PUD revisions were sent to staff, I was advised by our County Attorney's Office to -- they needed to go over all of the Page 18 January 17,2008 changes and that it would be presented to the Planning Commission today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said when the changes were presented to staff? MS. ZONE: The applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The direction from-- MS. ZONE: The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait just a --let me -- I started. MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The direction from this board was for staff to make the changes. Can you explain to me why staff did not make the changes? MS. ZONE: I was instructed by the applicant to make the changes, give it to staff, staff review them. If we find any changes that needed work with the County Attorney's office, go back, have them to make those changes, bring it back to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who instructed you to have the applicant make the changes? When we instructed you and the staff at developmental services department, is the staff of the Collier County Planning Commission. So now can you tell me why that directive was not applied and changed to where an applicant does exactly what occurred in the Stevie Tomatoes affair? If anybody is changing things on behalf of this Planning Commission and the citizens of this county, it ought to be the people working for the citizens of the county. MS. ZONE: I completely agree. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have been working with the applicants in some cases to revise the documents in conjunction with the sign-off at the attorney's office. It depends on how we get control of the document when the application is submitted. If they submit it in a Word document then we Page 19 January 17,2008 can modify it. If it's not submitted in a Word document, we have to work back and forth with them. We had a discussion with the County Attorney's Office the other day, and I think we're going to set the policy to make sure that everything submitted with the application is in a format that we can modify. Then we gain control of the document. MR. SCHMITT: Regardless, it's still our document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How can it be your document if you don't have control of it? MR. BELLOWS: We have control of it -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me explain. It's still our document. Once it -- whoever makes the edit, it's still our document that we forward. Regardless of who made the changes, it's still our document. I don't know what the issue is here as to who did the edit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I don't want another situation like Stevie Tomatoes. I don't want the applicants making the edits of what this board recommends. That should be what staff is doing. If staff doesn't want to do it; these amount of changes are not that much of an effort. They should have had a working document that they could modify, made the changes right then and there and be done with it. I'm just shocked. I thought that staff was doing these things. I'm not trying to -- I'm trying to get to a way we can make this -- MR. SCHMITT: Could I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that way in the future. MR. SCHMITT: The issue is it's a cooperative arrangement -- or it's a cooperative effort between the applicant and staff. Regardless, once it's published in the record it's a government document and it's a county document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, that's what I'm afraid of. That's exactly what happened with Stevie Tomatoes. MR. SCHMITT: It's on the record. Once we publish it on the Page 20 January 17,2008 agenda, it's our document. So if it's wrong, then it's staffs responsibility for being wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When can staff implement the policy from now on they will receive all changeable documents, documents they can make the changes to from now on here on out? Can that be implemented immediately? Is that something you're against or for, or got a problem with? MR. SCHMITT: No, it's our document. They forward to us the PUD. It becomes the government's document. It is our document. We're the ones responsible for making the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what I'm trying to say is, Joe, if you get a PDF, you can't make changes. So what I'm trying to suggest is can you by policy demand documents that you can change, like a Word document or whatever -- MR. SCHMITT: That's been our policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have a PDF on this and not a Word document? MR. BELLOWS: I believe we've been trying to work with -- work with applicants. And some of them we get and some of them we don't. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray. MR. BELLOWS: -- just say no one goes further from now on and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's real simple to work with them. They either give you what they're required to give you, they give you what your policy establishes, or they don't get before this board. I mean, it's just cut-and-dried. MR. SCHMITT: And I don't argue with that. That's exactly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It comes to us as a Word document. It's our document. It's no longer the petitioner's document. If they don't send Page 21 January 17,2008 us the document that can be modified, then it should not appear on your agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. SCHMITT: If that happened, then we were wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, from now on that won't happen. MR. SCHMITT: I was not aware of that happening, I thought this was our document that we reviewed and forwarded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if we can keep that straight in the future, that will fix the problem. And as far as this particular document goes, I would like a commitment on the record right now from the applicant when the county staff will receive a Word document. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Dwight Nadeau, Planning Manager for RW A, representing the petitioner. And before noon today I'll be forwarding the Word document for Melissa for public record. If I just might make a very brief statement. The reason why it's easier to have the applicant who originates the document make changes is because there's formatting issues with the county's Word programs such that if they took my formatted version, typically with up to 10 or 12 megabytes of picture information in the documents, if they were to make changes in it, there's the possibility that page numbering may be off, pagination, just the quality of the document itself. I submit Word documents with our transmittals. The original changes were made on the 10th of January. I provided those changes in both word and PDF form to staff. On the 15th I had a conversation with the County Attorney -- Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student and Planner Zone, and we made these additional changes that were requested. And they were provided for expediency sake as PDF's for this public hearing to be Page 22 January 17,2008 distributed to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have any problems with your software and formatting between yours and the county's, I would suggest the burden is on you to make sure it comes out; you use the right software and you get it to the county in a format that they can modify. MR. NADEAU: And potentially I would take the county's document with their changes, ensure the quality of the instrument and then provide it back to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, before we get in the substance on this thing, is there some way we could start dating these documents? All of these documents come to us undated. Look at these -- this Exhibit A. There's no date. And I mean date and I guess the time also. Because, for example, you're not crossing through some things that were on the other document, and I think having non-dated documents, it happens in the LDC amendments, it happens in everything. That's got to stop. That's really dangerous. MR. NADEAU: I completely agree with you, Commissioner. I had been putting footers in PUD documents so you could track them. But again, the County Attorney's Office found that the footers indicated that they were proprietary to the applicant and not to the county and the footers were requested to be moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, put the time and date. I mean, all the other -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That can't be real. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's don't -- talk one at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is I really think, Ray, and we've discussed it in new business, I think when Catherine gets up here I want to discuss it in LDC. Everything, everything, everything, has to be dated, time and date. So even if you fix it in the Page 23 January 17,2008 afternoon, we know that. Because we waste a lot of time with documents and we waste a lot of time with two documents side by side, which we're going to do right now again, trying to figure out what's different and what's not. The other thing in format, Mark, is that Melissa sent a bunch of stuff in the beginning. I don't think that's necessary in the consent stuff here, unless there's a reason for it that I don't know about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know ifthere is or not. I mean, basically our goal was to make sure the language in the PUD document met the intent of what this board intended last time. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I'm thoroughly confused. Are we talking about your e-mail that came to you, or are you talking about the document that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look at the-- MR. SCHMITT: -- in your book? Because the document in your book is the one that's in the record. The one that was e-mailed to you is not a document of record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, today we're looking right now -- good example, we have two Exhibit A's. No date. How do I know which one's ahead of the other one? For example, look at the one on Exhibit A that came from Melissa in the packet. It's striking through an L that's not been struck through on the A. So which one's first, which one's ahead? And the other problem we have is with the e-mail and stuff now. And we get things e-mailed courier mail. The same document could be sent out three times and I wouldn't know which one's the most recent unless you put a date and time on it. Why would you not want to put a date and time on these documents? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the point's been made about the date and time. Staffs conceded the point, it will be done from here on out. So I don't know if they need to answer that question Page 24 January 17,2008 because it's going to be resolved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we've had this conversation before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from now on it will be done. That's what -- the indication I'm getting. However, we do have a concern in that the Exhibit A that was received bye-mail has been modified. The Exhibit A we've got in front of us is different. It's really going to be up to this board whether or not they feel comfortable enough with the changes to go forward with it. The consent agenda item was supposed to be something that we review and recommend and approve -- not recommend, but approve on a consent item. And if we are pulling it for a specific discussion, we're going to need a motion to that effect and then get into the discussion of that particular language. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Before that, do we need to make a motion to bring this into evidence and Cherie' needs a copy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not yet. Let's just see where we go with it first. I'm not sure which version is the right version to use. So let's figure out what we're using. That is confusing, unfortunately, because MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've had two versions. MR. SCHMITT: -- I'm going to -- if I could suggest, because you got a new document, my recommendation is just to -- we will put it on the consent for the next meeting. I did not know another document was handed out today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we got one today that's red-lined and it's got numerous changes in it that go -- I'm not saying they're substantive changes, they're probably minor ones. MR. SCHMITT: Then I recommend we-- Page 25 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather not see us have to continue this again. I think the problem squarely lies in -- MR. SCHMITT: I have no idea why a document was not -- and it's my fault. You got a document that I was not aware of that was handed out. There were changes that were made. It's on the consent agenda. Was it a consent agenda item? And it was published as part of the agenda and now you're getting something different? So my recommendation is just -- we will get it straight and bring it back to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, the new document's not a strike-through/underlined version either, which is what we intend to happen. So you'd have to go back and again-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's struck through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. I mean, look on page -- first of all, it's missing some stuff. But on Page 1, 11 was struck through, 11 has now been moved up. MS. ZONE: Commissioner Schiffer, now that it is a set policy and staff now has that authority to take the Word document and modify it, not only will it be dated, timed, but every strike-through/underlined will be put in for you to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It appears that what happened is that staff produced a strike-through and underlined version as we had requested. It then went to -- from what I am hearing, to the County Attorney's Office and to the chairman who made additional changes. It appears that the red-lined copy that we have now was the clean version with those additional changes made to it. And the point of the consent agenda actually should have been just to make those changes on the original strike-through and underlined version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, let me tell Page 26 January 17,2008 you something: The original version, Exhibit A, where it says commercial bank with drive-through facilities was obviously an error. We did not intend to limit commercial banks to only drive-through facilities. So when I saw that, just at the same time that all you got yours, I simply called the county up or e-mailed the county and said hey, we didn't mean just drive-through banks, we meant all banks and drive-throughs shouldn't be excluded. Now that was my involvement. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that was totally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was intentionally trying to help solve today's problem. So that had to be done in order to be consistent with today. And I can't imagine the record would show that anything was different than what I instructed staff they may want to look at to make sure the correction was made. Now, as far as the rest of it goes, the other red lines, the comments, the changes in the numbers, the capitalization, I hadn't seen those until today. I didn't know that they were even in the hopper until Mr. Nadeau approached me at the beginning of this meeting. So I guess it's at this board's discretion what they want to do with it. Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would hope that we can have a little bit of indulgence, since this is the first time we're going through this process. I agree. What we did is we submitted a strike-through and underlined, because we were asked to, that implemented the motion. It was then reviewed by staff and there were some changes to that. It probably wasn't done the easiest and smoothest way, but I think there were two substantive changes. One, instead of referring to banks with drive-throughs the way you described it, it says including banks with drive-throughs. Which I think you would have pulled it from the consent agenda, we would have had a one-second conversation about that to clarify it. Page 27 January 17,2008 And there was a change to the reference to one of the SIC codes in the reference to miscellaneous general stores. Again, that might have been pulled, it may not have been pulled, but it would have been a couple of second conversation. The remainder of the changes are non-substantive and they're capitalization changes. I would hope that we wouldn't have to go back and continue this to address those non-substantive changes and we can move forward and establish a process which we now believe has been made abundantly clear. We'll give staff a document in a format that they can play with and make the changes and they'll be totally responsible for that to make sure that it gets to you all on the consent agenda. And if there are corrections that need to be made, we can pull it off and have the quick correction and move on. But I would hate to lose another two weeks because this is going through the process for the first time and there were some glitches that are not in my opinion significant glitches that couldn't have been addressed quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we may have the solution to it, but I'll -- Mr. Murray wanted to comment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you have a solution to it, then I'll defer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, we're going to take a break at around 10:00. I would like the Planning Commission during the break to review the changes. That means you're going to have to hang around here a little bit, if you want to. But next time maybe we'll get your act -- not you, but the act will get together before this meeting and we won't have this problem. So the best I can offer to this commission is let us look at these non-substantial changes during the break. I can assure you, from what I've seen there may not be any kind of consequence to them, and out of fairness to the applicant, and this is the first consent agenda item, Page 28 January 17,2008 let's defer the consent agenda item until after 10:00. Mr. Anderson, you're raising your hand for something. You're not even involved in this, but go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'm involved in the process question. There are times when the applicant and the staff are in disagreement about a provision in a PUD document. I'm reluctant to give them the property owner's PUD document and then only deliver to you what they're recommending. And I'm wondering how we can deal with that when there is a disagreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Simple. You don't give it to them, you don't get before us. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I'm getting tired of developers continuing to refer to these PUDs as their documents. These are going to be county ordinances; they are not your documents, okay? At the end of the day, your application is yours, the staff report's is staffs and the ordinance is that of the Board of County Commissioners. Now, what goes to the Board of County Commissioners, what goes to the Planning Commission, that document needs to be in their control. If you want to go back and forth with staff on changes before it gets there, I don't care. But once it hits the record, whatever development order is in that record has to be in staffs control so that they now control the changes, all right? Now, they should consult with you on the changes to make sure everybody is on the same page so we don't have discussions like this before the Planning Commission or the board, but it is not your PUD document, all right? These documents are ordinances of the Board of County Commissioners. And part of the problems we've been having is that developers have been making these changes, staff doesn't catch all of the changes because it's impossible, and we get situations like we have up in Pebblebrook right now. And that's not going to happen again. Page 29 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Anderson, you work your dilemma out with staff before it gets to us. But if staff doesn't have a workable changeable document from you, then they've been instructed by this board not to bring it forward, and it's not going to happen. MR. ANDERSON: How do you want to see it ifthere is a disagreement about some language with staff? How should we present it to you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got an opportunity to make your presentation, as every applicant has in front of this board. Staffs document is the one we'll be reviewing off of. MR. ANDERSON: But should staff include our written language with what they give you, instead of us passing it out on the day of the hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope that you're not going to pass things out on the day of the hearing, because we'll probably not be very happy. MR. ANDERSON: Right, I want to avoid that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: As I mentioned earlier about the staff reports and how staff is going to approach disagreements with reviews, we will be putting that -- creating a section of some kind that deals with where staff disagrees with other staff or staff disagrees with the applicant or there's a disagreement with the Planning Commission. All of that will be in a central area where the disagreements can be noted. That way when the reviewing agency, whether it's the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, has it in advance when they review the staff report or executive summary what the disagreements are, so there won't be any last minute handing out changes. I agree, that is not the intent of what we were trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: My point is as far as anything on the consent Page 30 January 17,2008 agenda, there absolutely should be no handouts. If it's on the agenda, it's on the consent agenda, it's published. If there are changes made the night before, then it gets continued. End of story. MR. KLATZKOW: I absolutely agree. MR. SCHMITT: My position, I did not know this took place. And I apologize to you all for that. If I had known about it even 10 minutes ago, this item would not have been on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Because I didn't know what you were talking about. Now I have the two documents. And that is not consent then. Now we've got it on the regular agen -- it has to be moved to the regular agenda and now it's under discussion. So it's no longer consent. So I don't understand. Frankly, from my perspective it won't happen again. And if there's going to be a hand-out, it's continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Bellows, I appreciate what you just said. As far as I'm concerned, that's an acceptable way to start. We will just move forward under that premise. This board needs to see what staffs recommending. And if the applicant is so against staffs recommendations, let them take their chances with us and we'll go from there. With that being said, is this panel content on reviewing this during their break and after break, or if we're in the middle of a case, after that case then have that next on the item? Is that preferable -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: May only suggestion is can we take a break now, just do it now and get it over with, rather than get into something else? I mean, let's -- we've disrupted the meeting enough with this issue. Why don't we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- it doesn't matter to me. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, let's do that. Page 31 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, look, instead of 15, let's take 10 minutes. We'll be back here at 9:35, then review this document. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we'll try to finish this consent item up. Now, the purpose of the consent agenda was for us to review the changes, and if we don't have any significant concerns over the changes and that they seem to meet the intent of what we originally implied, then we simply vote to recommend approval of the consent agenda, which we're at that stage now. It's like we're on a new slate. Let's take a look. This is a consent agenda. The document we just read is a brand new document, we just got it, we like it or we don't like it. I'd rather not see it pulled unless there's a substantial reason to pull it. So with that in mind, does any member of this commission have any concerns over the item on the consent agenda that requires pulling? If not, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as submitted to us this morning in the red-lined version in front of us? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 32 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. And hopefully we've learned a lesson from this. Everybody involved, let's not do it again this way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I just say one thing is CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The format of the second exhibit didn't have full underlined and strike-throughs. I don't want this to give the impression that we don't want underlined and strike-throughs. So the format of the first is the right format. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're saying is you take the first document you gave us with the strike-throughs and underlines that existed there, modify that document with anything new that we stipulated or added, and you give it back to us with the original strike-through and underlined, as well as the changes we made so we can see the progression of those changes. That's what we're asking for the future. Thank you. Mr. Klatzkow, did that get put to bed well enough to move on to the BCC? MR. KLATZKOW: God, I hope so. Item #8B PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12384 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anymore, I've got to ask. Okay, now we'll move into our first regular hearing today. It's Page 33 January 17,2008 Petition CU-2007-AR-12384, the Enterprise Leasing Company, d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite A. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant can make their presentation. MR. ELLSWORTH: Good morning. For the record, I'm Jon Ellsworth from Enterprise Leasing Company, doing business as Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity this morning to have our application heard. Enterprise Leasing Company is requesting conditional use for an automobile rental agency at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite A, in Naples. Currently Enterprise has been operating for over the past 10 years at the property immediately south of here. And through course of growth and different things, we have made the decision to relocate our facility. We have found and been able to work up a lease agreement with a property owner to the north and we are requesting conditional use in order to be able to put our automobile rental agency at that property at 13560 Tamiami Trail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's short and to the point. You should give lessons to some of the attorneys we get in front of us here. Okay, are there any questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is that the old Rec Room building? MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, sir. Page 34 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You're taking the entire building? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. Rec Room Furniture is still going to be there. There's been a consignment shop that's been operating out of the 2,200 square feet at the north end of the building that is relocating and they're moving out. So we would be occupying that north end of the building. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it would be on the other side, Okay, that's good. MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, it would be at the very north end of the building. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, Ms. Caron, Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a quick question. Is the landscape buffering up to code as we speak? MR. ELLSWORTH: According to the conversations that I've had with the staff of Collier County, yes, that has been resolved between the property owner and the county to get -- they replanted, they pulled out a bunch of the wrong stuff and put in the right kinds of trees. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I'll double check-- MR. ELLSWORTH: I believe that that is -- the landscape planner, reviewer actually did say that we were okay, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, this would apply also for commercial use. Why did you select the conditional use? MR. ELLSWORTH: Per the terms of the LDC, automobile rental can only go into a C-4 zoning district with conditional use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Page 35 January 17,2008 This south exit that you speak about in here, that's going to leave the property on the south? MR. ELLSWORTH: There's one entrance and exit off of the property currently that comes out onto 41, and that would be the entrance and exit that would be used. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But aren't you also proposing another entrance/exit just through due south? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. I believe that in the staff report that they did mention that that could be done, that the way the properties are situated that that could happen, but that's not something we are propOSIllg. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You're not proposing that, so you don't feel that's necessary. MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, that was part of my question, that very item. And I would ask one further point: Are you in a position legally to modify the property to facilitate such an interconnection? MR. ELLSWORTH: I mean, we would obviously have to do that. It would have to be up to the property owner as to whether or not he would allow that, and then obviously it would be up to the adjacent property owner as -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So in other words, you would have to secure permission from the property owner. You're not in a position yourself -- MR. ELLSWORTH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- to do that. MR. ELLSWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to know.wThank you. Page 36 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, are you going to continue to store vehicles on the southern property? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. We -- actually what you currently see in there, probably if you're looking at storage, it's closer to the road, is some of that property has been leased to Germain that actually has stored cars there as an overflow. I don't know whether or not they're still doing that or not, but they had done that in the past. But no, our intention at Enterprise basically, this store specifically, is that the fleet at its peak time of the year would be somewhere between 125 and 150 cars at a 91 percent occupancy. So we would be looking at no more than 10 to 15 cars on the lot at any one time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have no use of the southern lot once you move? MR. ELLSWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. ELLSWORTH: That's a different property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: One final question. Somewhere in this report it talks about parking cars on the side of the building. That is not going to happen-- MR. ELLSWORTH: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- correct? MR. ELLSWORTH: There is no parking available. There's 92 spaces that are shown on the site plan and they would be parked in parking spaces. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of -- Page 37 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the applicant? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That made me think of something else. The issue of some detailing in the back. MR. ELLSWORTH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I notice that the statement from the staff report said rear wash rack. MR. ELLSWORTH: We have a covered portable canopy that we pull the cars underneath to vacuum them out and just clean them up prior to renting. We have it currently behind the property where we are where we're sharing the property with Circle K. We're just planning to move that over there and utilize that in order to continue to do what we've been doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Explain to me if you would, please, then it's also indicated that you will be fueling and cleaning off-site. Are they two different things? MR. ELLSWORTH: Basically we're talking about if we're going for a full-blown car wash type thing, then fueling -- I mean, obviously we wouldn't have fuel on-site, but we'd go to an on-site facility to do that. But cleaning up, doing the vacuuming and so forth, getting the bugs off the car, things like that is what we're talking about doing on-site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where you're going to be situated now where that rear activity would take place, how far is that from the nearest residence? MR. ELLSWORTH: There's about 10 feet of property and then a wall that's actually behind that, that buffers us and the property to the east. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What kind of vacuum cleaner are you using, a household type or are you using a commercial type? Page 38 January 17,2008 MR. ELLSWORTH: Just a ShopVac is what we normally use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bellows, would you mind putting on the aerial of the site. I have one question. It's one that was in our packet and its called -- it's yellowed out. It's actually from the county appraiser's office. It's this one here, Ray. I can pass this one down to you, if you want. There were two aerials on the site. The one I'm passing to Ray is the larger of the two, but the second one provides the same information I'm going to talk about. You notice on the second aerial, you'll see that the property next door where they moved from was adjacent to a Stop-And-Go. Behind them is their wash rack. And it's not shown on the one on the screen, but the one in our packet. If you look at the one on the screen, that same wash rack, when it goes in the back of this one, instead of being up against a street, it's up against residential. Now, wash racks are going to have probably laborers out there vacuuming and Shop V ac'ing. And I've been to plenty of places and sites where the laborers love to put on their boom boxes and listen to loud music or turn on the stereos in the car while they're doing their thing. And in your bays -- and the bays do face the residential in the back, they likewise might be expected to have music in those bays blaring while they're working on the vehicle or do whatever they do. We need to stop that. MR. ELLSWORTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, we're getting into a situation where the current ordinance that's going through the process may be applicable here. However, it's written more for a residential. I'm not Page 39 January 17,2008 sure it applies to mobile home sites. So I guess we're in that same problem that we had with the Lane Park one where we introduced language to be included into the PUD that would give the county staff ability to regulate any additional noise coming out of this place. And because that application got kind of lopsided when it went to the BCC, I'm looking now for a recommendation from county attorney's office or staff or somebody on how we could put language in this PUD to assure that the neighborhood's not going to have to listen to any noise generated by the workers in the back of this facility that is above the noise they would need for their equipment that they use to clean the vehicles with. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I guess we're looking for a no amplified sound condition to this conditional use. No music, no amplified sound of any nature of any kind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There shall be no amplified sound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I would think -- do you have -- I mean, is that -- is it said as simply as that, or do you have language boilerplate that we could throw in here? Do you have any idea? I don't want to do something and have it such a confusing issue when it gets to the BCC it ends up going down the tubes, when this to be is such an important issue for those residents behind. It's the same operation, so -- but there's a difference in the distance and the separation of the structures that the people live in. That's where I think this is going to have a little bit different impact. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the only question I have for the applicant is are you going to have a P A system at all? MR. ELLSWORTH: No, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. Then no amplified sound of any kind or nature permitted. Page 40 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you have any objection to that stipulation being added to this conditional use? MR. ELLSWORTH: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the stipulation -- and I'll get the language exact, Mr. Klatzkow, because then maybe we don't need to have to come back with us -- no amplified -- MR. KLATZKOW: Sound of any kind or nature permitted, including but not limited to radios. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that point, Mark, you have it normally on the other side up against the building. Would you have a problem bringing it up against the building on this site? Because that would give about the same distance. MR. ELLSWORTH: Currently what we've actually been working out with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Freeman, who's actually here, is a representative for the owners of the mobile home park, is because of visibility the preference was that we would put it to the east just south of the dumpster enclosure that is currently there. So that when you drive on Sunrise Boulevard, which is the entrance into the mobile home park, it would be the least visible to the people driving in and out of there. For the record, I would like to say that where we are currently has just a wooden fence. There is a street there, but it's just an old wooden fence that separates us. Here we're looking at about 10 feet of property and a concrete block wall that separates us from the property owner. Not that the distance is any greater or further than where we were before, but there is a lot more between us and the neighboring -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on the plan that's on the overhead right next to you there where you intend to put that wash rack canopy that you just mentioned? Page 41 January 17,2008 MR. ELLSWORTH: It would go right here. There's a dumpster enclosure that's built and it would go right there, and the entrance would be to the south. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll see if there's any comments on that from the public, and if none, we may incorporate that location into the language of the stipulation and that might be sure that we get it where it's supposed to be. In the general area, at least. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear from the staff then. Thank you, sir. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Willie Brown, Principal Planner, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application on file. The 1.87-acre site complies with the original approved SDP. SDP 99-06, in terms oflandscaping, parking and the building footprint, remains unchanged and not proposed to expand. The proposed Rent-A-Car is permitted as a conditional use by the LDC and is supported by the mixed use activity center sub-district of the Growth Management Plan. There is adequate parking for the existing and proposed use, leaving in excess of 60 spaces. Sixty spaces for leased vehicle and four for employee are proposed. A neighborhood information meeting was held on December 4th, 2007. None of the abutting residents showed. No letters of opposition have been received as well. Finally, staff recommends approval of the CU request, subject to the agreed upon conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Mr. Brown. MR. BROWN: Good morning. Page 42 January 17, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to that same issue that was raised earlier by both Commissioner Klatzkow and myself having to do with interconnection, I see that was a recitation based on what we have in the code and so forth, but did you have an expectation that this conditional use applicant was in a position to make that happen? MR. BROWN: The interconnection exists. It's staked off with wooden stakes, and I believe their trees have been planted. Transportation will be recommending approval of opening that southern access at development -- the first development order. It's up to the property owner, LHD Properties, who's not here to make that happen. But a C.O. would not be issued until that access has been opened. I believe again transportation will be requiring it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have -- maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought that we would be addressing ourselves then to that party who has the power and the authority to perform. This party has no authority to perform. Am I not right? This is a lessee of a store, has a store in a development. MR. BROWN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How can we inhibit his action to go forward by something that his landlord has sole authority to grant or fail to grant? MR. BROWN: A certificate of occupancy wouldn't be issued until that rear access has been opened. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's a legal issue that I don't understand, but I thought that was interesting that that was put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only way that you could hold up a certificate of occupancy for that entrance not being open is if the entrance was required by the Land Development Code or some subsequent action. Are you saying that that has already been established as a required action for this site and it's not been done? Page 43 January 17,2008 MR. BROWN: The language is in the GMP. Perhaps I should let transportation elaborate on what they will be requiring or not requiring. Per my discussions with the project manager, John Posarinski (phonetic), I'm told he will be requiring opening that access at the first development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There's transportation right behind you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. Whatever is in the Land Development Code will be applied at SDP. There's not going to be a C.O. withheld if it's not required by the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So -- to make the clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then the removal of those wooden stakes and the plantings that are in the way of this connection won't occur unless we add it to it as a stipulation to this conditional use; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't add it as a stipulation if it can't be controlled by an abutting landowner. So the Land Development Code says when an SDP comes in, if they have to modify that site, interconnection is applied where feasible. If they don't control that property to the south and they can't do that, then we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Willie, I don't believe this location is open seven days a week. Why are you allowing them to do on-site cleaning seven days? Your recommendation calls for on-site cleaning from the hours of 8:00 to 6:00, seven days a week. Does the applicant need seven days a week? MR. BROWN: No, sir. It was a standard stipulation we've used Page 44 January 17,2008 for other conditional uses for similar uses. It doesn't have to stay in exactly the way it's written. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Maybe this is a question to the applicant. What hours do you really need to be able to clean and detail your cars? MR. ELLSWORTH: The store is going to be open Monday through Friday. We're open from 7:30 to 6:00 Monday through Friday and then 9:00 to noon on Saturdays. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we put those hours specifically as detailing, or do you want to -- MR. ELLSWORTH: The only thing I would ask is that when we're talking about Saturdays, that if at some point if during season or so forth if there's more people here and we choose to stay open a few more hours on Saturday afternoon. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then let's just reduce it to six days. So now you have all day Saturday. MR. ELLSWORTH: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one other stipulation would be the operation will be a six-day week. Any other questions of the staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- little confused. Willie, where is this access we're talking about? We have one off of Tamiami Trail, we have one off of Sunrise. What's the southern rear access you're talking about? He called it rear, that's what is confused me. MR. BROWN: I can't see here. It's here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right through that guy's trailer? Page 45 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I see. No, he wants to go out that way. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, no, that's not right. MR. ELLSWORTH: I believe that the access that was talked about was the one that's actually to the north of Sunrise. That access does not actually exist. The access shows that it was originally I guess put in when the property was originally built. But Sunrise to the north is private property, and that was I guess put in strictly for emergency reasons. So there's not an actual access that is there. The only access currently to the property is the access on the west side on 41. MR. BROWN: One correction. That access does exist. It's been landscaped over and there are trees and stakes there, but it is there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was built properly, it just evolved wrong from that point. So the two accesses are going to be the two that are shown on this plan, nothing to the south? MR. BROWN: Unless we require them to reopen that southern access, or actually it's to the east at the rear of the building, they won't be required to open it -- I believe your transportation planning director said unless it's in the LDC, they won't be requiring it to open. I'm having different discussions with other members of transportation planning that tells me otherwise. But we'll go with what the director says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And for now we'll call it the Sunrise Boulevard access, right -- MR. BROWN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we won't get it confused with commercial to the south. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then I think I am confused. I thought that the intent was to interconnect with the retail to the south. MR. BROWN: You're correct. Page 46 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And you would do that from the rear of this building? The interconnection with -- MR. BROWN: It's in the GMP consistency review that the rear access be made available. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. GMP says a rear access? You got me -- are you sure, it says only a rear access? MR. BROWN: Let's see if! can find it. MR. SCHMITT: It's a statement that encourages interconnectivity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It doesn't say it has to be front, rear, north, south or west. So you're referring to a GMP statement that says we encourage interactivity. The location isn't part of that GMP statement. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where you're trying to go, I think. COMMISSIONER CARON: I sure am. MR. BROWN: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwe're talking about future connectivity, we're talking to the south to the gas station next door. Bringing people out the back of this location onto Sunrise towards the residential, I don't see how that serves anybody. I'd rather just keep bringing everybody in off 41 rather than through the residential access road into your property. I can't see how making access to the north helps anyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've confirmed that's kind of off the table, because it goes into a private development. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you recap the actual accesses that will be in this project on the overhead? Identify where Page 47 January 17,2008 they are in the accesses. MR. BROWN: There's an access from 41 -- this isn't the clearest map. This is the access from 41. This is the existing access from 41 here, if you're following my pointer. There is also an emergency access here. Access from Sunrise Boulevard that's been landscaped and staked, so it's currently not open. In the GMP we do encourage interconnection between properties. And the -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Both of those accesses-- MR. BROWN: Both of those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, let him finish first. MR. BROWN: Your Comprehensive Planning Department is encouraging this interconnection here between Sunrise -- the Sunrise property and this property owner here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Those two are the only accesses that would be open on this property? MR. BROWN: Well, right now there's only the one from 41, unless you require the interconnection here to Sunrise Boulevard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that would require a stipulation by us? MR. BROWN: I'm sorry, repeat your question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That will require a stipulation by us that that access be open? MR. BROWN: Based on the conversations that have taken place, I would agree with that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No, sir, you're missing the point. That's an emergency access. Transportation just testified that you cannot have that interconnection unless both parties on both sides of that interconnection agree. We have one applicant here under conditional use application. We don't have an agreement from the party to the north to open that interconnection up. So I think that's what Mr. Kolflat said, is it going to be an Page 48 January 17,2008 exercise working exit or could we stipulate it to be such, and I don't think we can. MR. BROWN: In may, let me elaborate on what's in the staff report under the neighborhood information meeting where the research has been done by transportation. And it says transportation has researched the emergency vehicle access closure and found that the existing interconnection between the mobile-home park and Sunrise was not required by the Transportation Department. However, interconnections are encouraged by the county's Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. The transportation department also supports the existence of the interconnection and would require it to be operational above an emergency use status at the development order application stage. Because there are no trips proposed at the rear emergency access drive, no impacts are noted in the transportation's review. So again, I'm taking this from a statement that was made by transportation where they say they will require it. And your GMP is encouraging it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, will you please -- sir, I don't know who you are, but when we call for public speakers, you'll be more than welcome to speak. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to clear up anything, we always would like to have projects interconnected. It's an existing site. It's been there. When we can, when it comes in for an SDP, we'll look at that opportunity. But we're not going to withhold a C.O. if they can't interconnect. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's clear. And it goes back to the point that we are not in a position where we can stipulate something that you cannot enact because the code and the property owners and different property ownerships don't allow you to. Is that a fair statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair statement. When we're Page 49 January 17,2008 doing an SDP we could have them provide a stub-out on their side and then the opportunity arose another time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is already there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, I think that gets to the answer to your question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there's one access point off of 41? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sunrise Boulevard is a private road; is that correct? MR. BROWN: You're correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of county staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. This is a facility that is looking for a conditional use in the C-4 and it moved from the project next door to it. Project next door was also C-4. Did they have a conditional use for that property? MR. BROWN: That's a very good question. I don't remember researching that issue. Do you know, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, they're in the same C-4 district on the tax zone and the zoning maps of Collier County. They're moving from one building to another within the same C-4 district. My question is why are they even here for a conditional use if they already existed? Under what premise? MR. BROWN: I can tell you they've been there since 1977. And there's continuous LDC amendments that may have required it down Page 50 January 17,2008 the road. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. If there was a conditional use on another parcel, it may be site specific to that parcel and not transferable to this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but we don't know how they got to the first location at all at this point. Okay, it just seemed logical that we would want to know that. But okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, that was my original question, why not stay with C-4 now, rather than go for a conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, nobody researched that. So it's a standalone application based on the location that they're now asking for. Okay, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: None have registered, but there appears to be a gentleman who wants to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to speak? You can speak. Please identify yourself for the record and -- MR. FREEMAN: My name is Ronald Freeman. THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in previously? MR. FREEMAN : Yes, I was sworn in. Freeman, F-R-E-E-M-A-N. I'm the general manager for Caribbean Park. Enterprise has been our neighbor for 10 years, as long as they've been there. Just for the record, they've been an excellent neighbor. The wash rack is currently in a position where it is now not very much farther than where it's proposed to be. And I personally have no recollection of any issues we've had with them. But what I will say for your interest is that if there are any issues, we've had absolutely no problems with Enterprise as far as calling them up and saying we have an issue. We meet on-site, we Page 51 January 17,2008 work it out. They've been exceptional neighbors. And we did in fact meet to discuss where this wash rack might be and how it would present to our people coming into the mobile home community, and we've had very good success with them as far as what kind of neighbor they were going to be closer to our main entrance. So for the record, Caribbean Park has no issues with them. We have met and discussed how things are going to change with them being a little bit closer to our clubhouse and all that good stuff, and everything seems to be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. We certainly appreciate your comments, they do help us get to our conclusions. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CARON: We wish we heard that kind of report more often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of either the applicant, staff or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that Petition CU-2007-AR-12384, Enterprise Rent-A-Car be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, with the stipulation that no amplified sound of any kind or nature, including but not limited to radios be made a part of this. We had a note here about location issue, but I'm not sure that that's necessary. And also, that operations shall be limited to six days a week, Monday through Saturday, from the hours of 7:30 in the morning to 6:00 p.m. in the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion? Page 52 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to talk about that location of that minor detailing facility. Bob, did you include that as part of a stipulation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had it as a note here, but I thought it went away as an issue when it was focused that it was over here where it -- not far from where it had been and there's a wall. I can include it if there's a need, if it's felt there's a need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might want to suggest that the location of the wash canopy will be generally south of the dumpster location, with the opening of that canopy facing south. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I find that to be acceptable, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN: That's an arrangement that has been worked out between the applicant and their abutting property owner. I think they wanted it to remain between them, according to earlier conversations we had. In the event for some reason they needed to relocate the wash rack, I'd hate to stipulate they'd have to remove it or move it to someplace else and then they have to come back to the board to remove the stipulation we've added. So you may want to talk about that yourself. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Better late than never. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you can -- state your name again, I'm sorry. MR. FREEMAN: Ronald Freeman, Caribbean Park, next door neighbor. We have had that discussion that if it was not stipulated to an exact location that would give us the flexibility as neighbors to adjust Page 53 January 17,2008 it as necessary, you know, after seeing how it's going to work out for a while. And we've very good success with that, so I would hope that, you know, that would be taken into consideration. We go to Enterprise and we have an issue and we resolve it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You okay with that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm must asking Ms. Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I'll ask you, for the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Yes, sir, I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm trying to keep decorum, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mark, and I do have concern with testimony over this, because essentially we're wiping out parking spaces, you know, the way the site plan coming from the south would eliminate a bit of parking. So I think we should -- I mean, I don't think we should first of all fix it in that location, I think we should be concerned about testimony that would alter the site plan that's given to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the way it's been left is that's not going to be added to the stipulations and we remain with the two stipulations Mr. Murray reiterated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion made with two stipulations: The stipulations about the amplified sound and the operations are limited to six days a week. Is staff clear on the motion? Page 54 January 17,2008 MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and hearing that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. And we have slips that you need to sign and pass into the secretary. Item #8C PETITION: RZ-2007-AR-12044 Okay. Next item up is Petition RZ-2007-AR-12044, Barry Goldmeier. And it's the -- represented by Shaun Mularkey of Coastal Engineering. It's for the Immokalee, LLC. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this amendment -- this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll proceed with the presentation by the applicant. MR. MULARKEY: Good morning again, I'm Shaun Mularkey Page 55 January 17,2008 with Coastal Engineering. With me today is Robert Andrea with Coastal Engineering, Rob Price from T.R. Transportation, and Barry Goldmeier, the applicant, representing Immokalee, LLC. My client wishes to rezone 9.33 acres from the Estates zoning district to RMF-16 residential, with a maximum density of 15 units per acre or a total of 140 residential units. Just as a side note, Mr. Goldmeier has previously developed the Main Street Village in Immokalee at Main Street and 11 th Street with ECA, who now owns and operates that facility. The property location is at the southwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road, or First Street and School Road, shown on the aerial in white. The property is approximately 30 percent wetland, which is primarily along the southern, western and northern edges of the property. The eastern edge of the property and the majority of the center of the property is not wetland, which lends itself to be developed without wetland disturbance. The surrounding zoning and land uses to the north, across School Road, that property is zoned VR, village residential. There's currently a Farmworker Village there. To the east is the Seminole Reservation. You can see the casino further to the northeast of the property. To the south, that land is zoned estates and is currently vacant. And to the west, that land is zoned estates as well. This is the current Future Land Use Map for the Immokalee area. We're 10 -- the property is shown with a small white box to the northwest of the map. Our current future land use designation is neighborhood center, which allows a mix of uses, one of them being residential at a limit of 12 units per acre. Also permitted within this area is up to three additional units per acre, if you're designated as an infill site, which we are in this case. It does stipulate, however, in the neighborhood center district Page 56 January 17,2008 that overall residential development cannot exceed 80 percent of that neighborhood center. There's currently 110 acres of developable property left there, so there's no fear of going over that threshold. The property rezones are also consistent with the proposed Immokalee area master plan update, which shows our property as commerce center/mixed use, which is basically a major activity center allowing residential units also up to 20 units per acre. The proposed rezone is also consistent with policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element of the GMP, and the surrounding road network will operate acceptably after the addition of the proposed development traffic. There's been some discussion about where access for the property might be. Originally we wanted to put access onto Immokalee Road to be able to avoid the wetlands. After further discussion with transportation staff, they would like to see the access on School Road. It's impossible to get the access on School Road without avoiding any wetlands, due to proximity to South First Street. So what we're proposing, and I'll show another aerial here, the blue lines here are a little faint, but what those represent are the wetlands on the site. What we're proposing is the access as far back -- as far west on School Road as possible to negatively impact the wetlands as little as possible. So the proposed access location is going to be about here. There was also an environmental -- I'm sorry, no environmental impact statement was required as part of this rezone, but a protected species survey was done by Earth Balance. No protected species or evidence thereof was found on the site. There were a few, a couple of protected plant species, but those will be relocated to the preserve areas prior to any construction of the site. In addition to what I previously mentioned, we think this property is uniquely suited for a rezone from a low density to a higher Page 57 January 17,2008 residential density district for a few reasons. One of them is that it's in an area planned for mixed use. It's very close proximity to the casino and Ave Maria. This will be a great location for residential with such close proximity to job centers. It's located on Immokalee, which is an arterial that's proposed for expansion at some time in the future. And we believe this would provide additional quality housing stock in Immokalee and bolster the values of the surrounding community. That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there questions of the applicant? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why don't we have any drawings that show what you intend to actually do here? In all the time that I've been on this board, I can't ever remember where we didn't get any sort of conceptualization of where you want to have your entrances and exits, where you want to put your buildings, where you want to put your preserves, where you want to put your open space. Why don't we have any of that? MR. MULARKEY: Well, we don't have a defined development plan yet, and we're requesting a standard zone from Estates to RMF-16. The LDC doesn't require a site plan for standard rezone. Again, we're not asking for PUD. We're not trying to get extremely creative here as to what we're proposing. All the rules and regulations of the RMF-16 and the LDC are fine for what we're proposing. And that's primarily the reason. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How tall do you expect the buildings to be? MR. MULARKEY: Well, the RMF-16 allows 75 feet. I don't know exactly what we're going to be dealing with here. We're likely to put the building on some sort of a -- you know, this site is a little bit lower. We're not sure, the ground floor will likely be elevated. We haven't decided. It all depends on how much -- where we can put the parking and where we can put the buildings. But again, for the record, Page 58 January 17,2008 RMF-16 is 75 feet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason that I'm asking that is we don't know how tall the buildings are, how many buildings there will be, how they'll be spatially oriented. This is at the entrance to the Immokalee urban area. This is the first thing that you'll see. Right now our highest residential building is only three stories. And for us to sort of give a green light to this, not knowing what you plan to do, I feel very uncomfortable with it. Right now the three-story buildings that we do have are the Immokalee projects, and they're pretty ugly. They're also a high crime area. I don't really know what this is going to look like. I'm not against the idea of housing in this location, but I need to see what it's going to look like, have a better idea than what you've given us so far. MR. MULARKEY: I understand that. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's going to meet your current code for RMF -16 and all the other development regulations in the code. I know when a PUD comes forward, there's usually some creativity involved and some mixing of uses, and there's a good reason to see a site plan and how things kind of fit together, where the access points are. I did show you where the access point is. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's going to satisfy all of the current code requirements that are present today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that may not be enough. I mean, of course it has to satisfy the code, but as the planning body of the county, we want a better idea about how it's going to fit into the neighborhood. Especially at 15 units an acre and with only two-thirds of the site developable, you're actually going to get an actual density of about 22 units an acre, and that is a very intense development right near the main entrance to Immokalee, and in close proximity to this wetland also, which I'll be getting into a little bit later. But I think that, you know, we really need to have a better idea Page 59 January 17,2008 about what you're going to do. I had another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. When you're finished, just let me know, and then we'll move on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's going to be a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Paul, you speak so rarely, it's kind of a break for us. So go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. The next question I have is, is there going to be any affordable housing in this development? MR. MULARKEY: Is it okay if the applicant gets up? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Of course. MR. GOLDMEIER: Barry Goldmeier, with my offices in Coral Gables, Florida. Depends on the market. Right now if I were to make a decision based on this market, there's no decision to make, because nothing would work in this market. The densities of a project depends on market forces, and what we're trying to do is to take a two-step approach. One, the second step would be to come in with the specifics in the form of a site plan approval when we know what we're going to build. We don't know what we're going to build yet. We're just taking this next step in order to get closer to be able to begin our planning. Without the ability to zone it, we can't begin our planning. And without knowing what the market will be, I can't tell you the product. If the market would permit us to do a more expensive product, we would of course then do a higher, more dense product. If the market is for a much less expensive product or an affordable project, then -- which is not our first choice, but is an option we want to be able to exercise if it's possible, then it would be for a less dense project. And just basically at our stage of planning, and we've -- you know, we've developed other projects in Immokalee and other projects Page 60 January 17,2008 elsewhere in the state. To give you an honest answer, I don't know, because I don't know what the market is. I know that across the street the casino is -- there's a second casino planned to be built. I know that Ave Maria is growing and will produce additional employment, and that would be positive aspects related to more expensive future development. But in were to develop it today, it would be for a less expensive development, given the state of current housing, housing availability in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why do you feel that you need 15 units an acre? MR. GOLD MEIER: Because the economics of developing a site of that type require that we have a certain amount of units in order to make it economically feasible. It's going to be a relatively expensive project to develop. We do have soil conditions that would require more than spread footers. And it's -- and it's appropriate, being across the street from I think the largest employer in the area, which is the casino. And that's what the Immokalee comprehensive plan permits. And that's one of the reasons we bought that project in that area -- that property in that area, in order to do a project of greater density than you could do elsewhere in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, I'd like to put this on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can pass it down this way, if you want to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it in our packet? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. And I'd like to direct our attention to the EAR, which we approved about two years ago, Policy 6.2.5, which talks about within the rural fringe mixed use district and that portion of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, which is contained within the Immokalee urban designated area. Page 61 January 17,2008 There are a bunch of criterion standards that are supposed to be followed. One of them is that -- well, let me just sort of go in order. The original thing is that this piece of land is within this slough, the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. And this is by aerial. This has not actually been delineated by an ordinance where they've actually drawn out the exact lines where this is. But when this EAR amendment came up, and I asked Mr. Weeks what exactly was included within this system, he said whatever areas are included hydrologically. And I know that this subject property, the wetlands on that site, are hydrologically connected to this system. So that I think the standards in this EAR amendment pertain to this proposed development. One of the things that the county is supposed to have been doing is on -- let's see, 5(6), B-3. Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, Collier County shall adopt specific criteria in the LDC to implement this incentive program and to identify other mitigation priorities. But going back up to Roman numeral V(5), they specify a minimum of 25-foot vegetated upland buffer adjacent to any wetlands that would be developed. And another relevant aspect of this is that on (6)B-1 it says, Collier County shall encourage certain types of mitigation by providing a variety of incentives in the form of density bonuses and credits to open space and vegetative retention requirements. Density bonuses shall be limited to no more than 10 percent of the allowable density. And since the base density here is 12, 10 percent would be just 1.2 additional. So instead of 15, you'd have 13.2. I think that this petition that's before us today has not taken into account the conservation requirements of the Immokalee area master plan, and I think that it needs to be looked at more closely. Page 62 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney, thank you. The next two speakers will be Mr. Murray, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to make mine very brief. I share Commissioner Midney's views and concerns. And I would say that with a building height of -- zoned building height of 75, more likely 95 feet in actuality, when it's finally done, if it were to build that high, that whole area would be radically changed. And he's brought out some points that are absolutely right on target. I also -- maybe this is inappropriate, but I was curious. I noted that Mr. Goldmeier and Ali (phonetic) Goldmeier each own 50 percent. I don't know what the implications of that are. I don't know, usually you think about somebody owning a slight percentage more to be able to make a decision. I saw nothing in the documents indicating that it was an agreed upon decision to rezone this land. So those are my thoughts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Shaun, in your testimony you mentioned that this is an infill project? How did you come to that conclusion? MR. MULARKEY: Well, the way infill is defined, it's defined a certain way in the Immokalee area master plan. If I can find the page quickly, I can show you what that means. Basically it's less than 10 acres in size, it will be served by essential public stormwater, compatible with surrounding land uses, no common property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stop right there. That's really the problem. This isn't surrounded by estates and residential uses of low density. Why-- MR. MULARKEY: Yeah, but's it's in an activity center. It's -- I guess in both the current master plan and the future master plan this is seen as an area where it's going to be a mix of uses in an activity Page 63 January 17,2008 center, sort of a hub of intensity in Immokalee. That's where we're coming from with compatibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're requesting is essentially the highest density residential, not mixed use. MR. MULARKEY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, I kind of think the intent of the master plan has great potential on this site as a mixed use. And also, I -- MR. MULARKEY: Well, one of those uses is residential. One of those mix of uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not worried about the one you got, I'm worried about the ones you're missing that you don't have. And then I really agree with Paul that this is something, because of the fact that it's surrounded by the lowest density, that we should be looking at a PUD to determine something of this -- the highest density. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. By the way, your statement about this being an activity center on the current growth management plan, I have that with me. It is not. MR. MULARKEY: What I meant, in the Immokalee area master plan it defines neighborhood center as an activity center. Not the same way it's used in other parts of the GMP as the red circle or the red square, but it uses the words activity center in the plan, describing a mix of uses and so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the current master plan for that area, which I have in front of me, shows it as estates. So I'm not sure why you think it shows an activity center there. Maybe the new one might. I've got a copy of the new one right here, and unfortunately it's too hard to read. MR. MULARKEY: The current master plan shows it as a Page 64 January 17,2008 neighborhood center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I pulled one off of the site last night. For some reason, it certainly doesn't look like yours. MR. MULARKEY: Well, maybe we can get some verification from staff on what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not necessary. It's a side bar discussion anyway. Is there any other discussion, questions of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to add to that, and you're using neighborhood center to generate it as acceptable as an activity center. Neighborhood center by definition is low -- I mean, rather limited use, so I just wanted to add that little piece to it. But yes, it's a side bar. MR. MULARKEY: Well, the future -- the current plan says up to 15 units an acre for infill. And the future plan that has not been yet adopted for this area says up to 20 units an acre in this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It hasn't been adopted. MR. MULARKEY: It hasn't been adopted, but we're well within the range of what's proposed and envisioned for this site. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, quick question. Would you consider coming back with this whole thing? MR. MULARKEY: That's up to the applicant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's who I was waiting to come to the microphone. MR. GOLD MEIER: Of course. Of course. But can I just clarify some things? First of all, we did not intend to do the type of detail engineering and planning to do a site plan and bring you product. I can't predict the product because I can't -- because Page 65 January 17,2008 the market's not ready for the product. And this is an expensive site to develop because a lot of things that have been mentioned. But can I just show you something? I've never seen this exact aerial before, but I saw something similar to that which was a proposed district being proposed by FEMA but not adopted. And it had similar -- and it had a similar configuration, but it was again not adopted, only proposed. But is this the same thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, that came from a prior presentation in front of this planning commission on probably an environmental impact statement, I would assume, by Passarella and Associates. So I'm not sure that -- we wouldn't have any knowledge where they got their information from, but I can tell you where we got that picture from. MR. GOLDMEIER: Okay. I believe this has not been adopted. But let me just show you about the densities in the area and what I know that is going on around there may be helpful. I'll try to do this. Our site is here. Behind our site are two commercial uses. We have a school and then we have an office building occupied by Collier County government. Those are the commercial uses. The mixed use element -- the mixed use element of the Immokalee master plan has already been partially accomplished by the commercial uses behind our property. And I believe the property on the other side of Schoolhouse (sic) Road from us is supposed to be a mixed use property with residential and retail. And according to the master plan, our property is supposed to be exclusively residential. Because we are part of a larger -- you know, a larger area in which commercial surrounds us. And we're supposed to be the high density residential. As far as comparable buildings, look, I don't want to build a seven or nine-story building today in Immokalee. It's not going to be Page 66 January 17,2008 economically viable to do it. That's something that may be viable down the road with future developments. However, the Seminoles, as part of their reservation right back here where I believe I have my pen right now, are building a similar sized building as a casino/hotel, which will not be a Hard Rock but will be modeled after the Hard Rock in Fort Lauderdale which will be -- I don't know exactly how many stories it is, but yesterday I met with Fred Thomas and he showed me the site and explained to me what the Seminoles were doing there. And it's going to be a high-rise building with a casino below it. And so this will hopefully not be the only building of that density in the area. And also Mr. Thomas made me aware that the area immediately to the south of us, which is indeed wetlands, which is indeed part of a slough. Our land is not -- you know, we have wetlands along the buffer, but we don't have a parcel, which -- we have, you know, what is it, 70 or 80 percent uplands? MR. MULARKEY: Seventy percent. MR. GOLD MEIER: Seventy percent uplands. But Barron Collier Company owns the land immediately to the south of us and -- well, immediately to this side of us and behind us as well, and wraps around us. And that part of their wetlands area will be part of a sending area to send density further down the road, further down 846 to allow much more intense development further down 846, as well along with the big box retailers and other commercial that will serve Ave Maria, which is in that same general area. We -- you know, I hope we're not crazy to want to build a large, nice, you know, new apartment project in Immokalee, because -- but we feel that we're in a better end of Immokalee toward where the commercial and future growth is. We know that we only have a certain amount of wetlands on our site and that we're across the street from the largest employer. And the economic incentive to develop residential there would be because we are across the street from the Page 67 January 17,2008 largest employer. And I don't believe that the Seminoles are providing service-worker housing or any of the sort on their property. And that is the incentive. And as far as the density goes and the height goes, if soil conditions dictate, we'll have to go up. But it's much less expensive not to go up. And that would be our preference. But the economics of the site are dictating that we have a minimum base number of units and that we do what economics dictate when it comes to developing the site. I hope I've clarified some things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to clarify, I think you've done a really good job on Main Street Village. And I'm not at all against, you know, the basic overall idea of providing more quality housing in Immokalee. I think it's wonderful. But I think the idea needs to be polished a little bit, especially with regard to the wetlands and the slough. And I think we all have to bear in mind that a wetland system, it's not just only the places that are wet all the time but there's uplands and there's buffer areas, and it's sort of an interconnected ecosystem. You can't just say well, this isn't wet all the time so this isn't a wetland. They're all related. And when the EAR was adopted, the county agreed that it would start doing a more -- a comprehensive assessment of which were the wetlands and which were the places that should be developed. And whatever we decide to do with this issue today, I would like the planning commission to go on record to ask staff to speed up a little bit this process so that we can have a better idea about how everything fits together with what we want developed and, you know, what should be preserved. Page 68 January 17,2008 Immokalee will be a much better place in 30 years if the places that should be preserved are preserved and set aside and development take place in the places that are most appropriate for that. And a system, a slough which is -- as you can see on the map, it's a whole integrated thing. Keeping that as a system will be preferable, and not just sort of nibbling away at the corners of a piecemeal. But that's something that's not the applicant's fault. I think it's just something that the county needs to clarify. But at this time it seems a little bit premature to me, the scale and the intensity that this applicant is requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question: Are these condominiums or are these apartments? MR. GOLD MEIER: We don't know yet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Because I heard you refer to both. MR. GOLDMEIER: We don't know what the market will require. I mean, today there is a different market. If we were to do something today, it would be different than what we foresee, you know, down the road. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I make a suggestion? MR. GOLD MEIER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You repetitively use the word whatever is economically feasible, economically feasible. That's something that we usually don't take too much weight into. We need to do what's right for the community, not what's economically feasible. MR. GOLDMEIER: I'm just trying to give you a straightforward, honest answer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just giving you my opinion. Any other questions of the applicant at this time?e Page 69 January 17,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have a he -- is there a staff report, I would assume? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. BROWN: Good morning again. Willie Brown, principal planner with the department of zoning and land development review. Perhaps I should have attempted to answer your questions when the questions were raised. I'll go through my formal presentation. If you have questions for me afterwards, I'll do my best to answer those. The petitioner's description of the project is consistent with the application on file. The project complies with the appropriate regulations of the Land Development Code. I will say at this point that a site development plan is not required by the LDC for a standard rezone. The proposed use is supported by the Immokalee area master plan. The site is within a designated neighborhood subdistrict where multi-family dwellings, along with a variety of other housing types, are encouraged, including this parcel of land. The project complies with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element of the GMP. The future Immokalee Road expansion from two to four lanes intersection improvements and interconnections between lots will be worked out during the SDP process. And I'll make a side note here: Your wetland permits will not be required until the SDP process is as well. So that is something that will be considered, but not unless and until the rezone is approved by this body and your considering the highest and best use of this property. The wetlands permits would be considered at a later time. There is sufficient space to meet landscaping requirements. Environmentally the site would be developed in a way to preserve existing wetlands and interconnect habitat areas. A neighborhood information meeting was held on October 9th. Page 70 January 17,2008 There was no opposition to the project at the meeting and no letters of opposition have been received. Finally, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, subject to the agreed upon conditions of approval. What was considered was not the future proposed Immokalee area master plan but the present one. And that would limit density to 15 dwelling units per acre and not the 20, as suggested by the applicant. The property is within a currently designated neighborhood center subdistrict, which encourages again a variety of housing types, including multi-family. The -- whether the applicant knows what he's proposing at this point are not apartments or condominiums, it's what the RFM-16 zoning district allows at the time of the development order. Site plan is not required, again, until the development order, and the -- I've had a conversation with our environmental services department, and you can bring them to the podium to answer the question. But the aerial here that you have I'm told will not be considered again until the SDP process. And that's of course if the rezone is approved. I'll do my best to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the staff at this time? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. You knew about this EAR rule, didn't you, about the Lake Trafford system, that it's getting the same treatment as the rural fringe mixed use district? MR. BROWN: I don't myself do those reviews. The environmental services department does those. And Susan, she can address that for you, if you'd like. Would you please come and address that issue for me? MS. MASON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Susan Mason, environmental services review section. Page 71 January 17,2008 We are aware of that portion of the Growth Management Plan that refers to the Camp Keais slough and that portion in particular on the Immokalee land use plan as having the rules that are required basically in the rural lands. For projects like this, without a site development or any kind of conceptual plan, we don't really have a whole lot of review comments at this time. Until we have details, we can't state whether or not a proposed preserve location is acceptable. The -- most of the information that was given by the reviewer was reiterating what the requirements are going to be, that they're going to have to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC when they come in. But until we see a plan, we can't make any specific comment on whether or not it's consistent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about the increased density that they asked for of three instead of 10 percent? MS. MASON: We don't evaluate on density. That's really a planning issue. If the density is allowed under other planning rules, we would evaluate for impacts only. Our -- one this size parcel our requirement for preservation is really 15 percent minimum. In certain circumstances we may tell them they need to preserve more, but a lot of times they do fall back to that very minimum. They would be required to get Corps and district permits on a site like this, since it is connected to off-site wetlands, and those agencies would have input on their impacts as well. But our requirements sometimes could be more if there's a buffering requirement to a wetland that's not required by a Corps or district permit. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: According to 6.2.5 it wouldn't be 15 percent, it would be 25 percent. MS. MASON: I'm sorry. MR. BROWN: Pertaining to your question about density, if you turn to Page 5 of the staff report, second paragraph down, it talks Page 72 January 17,2008 second sentence, neighborhood center shall be permitted a maximum density of 12 units per gross acre. And if you come two paragraphs down from that one it says, to encourage residential infill, three residential dwelling units per acre may be added, based upon the following criteria. So staffs recommendation is written into the recommendation section of the report, that only 15 dwelling units per acre be allowed. Of course that would be based at the time of SDP review that it meets all of the other criteria that staff has to consider. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But this says that it can only be 10 percent. So three dwelling units per acre is more than 10 percent. MR. BROWN: And that would be taken into consideration at the time of the SDP review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. MR. BROWN: Ray, would you like to chime in? MR. BELLOWS: The density bonus would be subject to the 10 percent limitation, so they would not be able to get that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. My error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Ms. Mason, would you intend to retain outside consultants to interpret the Land Development Code on any ofthose issues you mentioned? MS. MASON: Oh, no. Staff applies the Land Development Code. If there's ever a need for an interpretation, that's directed to the zoning director, if we have questions on how to apply a code. But no, we don't -- we don't contract with outside employees, it's all county staff that make the -- do the reviews. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Page 73 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Willie, I'm having trouble getting my arms around this infill concept. Again, it's essentially mostly surrounded by our lowest density of residential, and yet they're requesting essentially the highest density of residential. No buffering. I mean -- MR. BROWN: Well, landscape buffering is proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't mean -- I'm sorry, I mean in terms of planning, like density buffering, you know, where you would slowly creep up to this kind of density. MR. BROWN: Yeah, the density bonuses, residential infill requirement is in the Immokalee area master plan. It's a part of your consistency review written by comprehensive planning. Compatibility is left to the zoning land development review department. And my recommendation is essentially that Immokalee Road is in the 2030 transportation plan to be expanded from two to four lanes. In my view, low density residential uses are not the highest and best use for this property at this intersection. And the high density is preferable. But that's my viewpoint and the viewpoint of our department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A concern I have is any residence on a road like that. I mean, it's not a desirable place to live, tome. But what about the mixed use things that are really -- you know, the overlay zonings and stuff are really encouraging mixed use in this area. I know in your report what you've done is gone around and find office buildings and saying, you know, that's part of the mixed use area. But isn't the intent to develop projects that are mixed use, or is the intent to within an area mix up a bunch of uses? MR. BROWN: I'm not absolutely certain how the neighborhood Page 74 January 17,2008 center sub-districts are derived. There is an analysis in the staff report on Page 5. The first paragraph elaborates on what's expected within a neighborhood sub-district. And it's felt by your Comprehensive Planning Department that this parcel and this area in general applies. I would say that this project in my viewpoint fits within the scope of the neighborhood center sub-district concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you get your question answered about infill? Because I'm not sure you did. And let me read something out of the code. Infill should refer to property implementing any of the infill sub-districts identified in the Future Land Use Element or Golden Gate Area Master Plan element of the GMP, or property sharing at least two common boundaries with parcels that are developed. Does this property meet those infill criteria? MR. BROWN: On Page 6 -- again, I'm referring to the consistency review written by comprehensive planning. It says, under conclusion, staff deems the subj ect RMF -16 rezone request consistent with the IMP based on the following findings: Site qualifies as a residential refill project which is eligible for the three dwelling units per acre, and the IMP allows 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if anybody from comprehensive staff is here? And they can answer. You don't know why they came to that conclusion. So really, Mr. Schiffer's question can't be answered here today. MR. BROWN: I could only answer-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish they could. MR. BROWN: -- what they wrote in the staff report -- where they contributed to the staff report. And I apologize for not knowing more. Page 75 January 17, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. I don't think you can anticipate every question. But I share Mr. Schiffer's concern. Now, is there any other questions of staff? Because I need -- I have a few. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Brown, if you could turn to Page 1 of 6 of your rezone findings. MR. BROWN: One of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 1 of6, we start with a series of questions. The second question, the existing land use pattern, you provide a pro, a con, and a findings. The findings concern me. I need to understand your reasoning. It says, by approving this use in accordance with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, this proposal will further the goals and objectives of that plan and honor the intentions of the residents of the area. How did you come to that conclusion that this will honor the intentions of the residents of the area? MR. BROWN: I think that sentence was taken out of the applicant's application. In the last sentence is really my comment where I agree with the comment made by the applicant which says, staff agrees that the proposed use is complimentary and compatible with the surrounding uses. And I kind of spoke about that earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, from a legal perspective, are we supposed to be utilizing the comments provided by the applicant to justify the application, or is staff supposed to come to their own conclusions and analysis and provide that to us? MR. KLATZKOW: This is supposed to be the applicant presents his position and staff presents their position and then you weigh both positions, not a mixture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the rezone findings then, Mr. Brown, then we should be striking the first sentence. Your position is that you agree the proposal in complimentary and Page 76 January 17,2008 compatible to the surrounding uses. Is that fair to say? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, Ray, you and I talked about this. I think that overall staff needs to understand that ambiguous statements in these rezone findings can be very problematic. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think this is a good time to mention that based on -- after the last Planning Commission meeting, I initiated an LDC amendment. I'm working with Catherine Fabacher to revise these rezone and PUD findings to combine into one basic list for staff to utilize and eliminate those questions that don't seem to be germane to the process of compatibility and analysis. And we are also working with staff to help them write some guidelines to answer the questions more directly instead of these general type of answers that are -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is it your expectation that staff will be answering the questions or the applicants will be answering the questions? MR. BELLOWS: No, staff is answering the questions. As the County Attorney mentioned, we are -- we take into consideration the facts that the applicant presents and their reasons and justification, and staff looks at the code and looks at the comprehensive plan and makes their own analysis. And we present it to the Planning Commission, where you may agree or disagree. MR. BROWN: And I'll just add that the same questions posed in the rezone findings are the same questions that are in the application. And the applicant answers those questions. And I'm merely agreeing with him here, that I feel the use is compatible and consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure that the applicant would write that was in the manner that best favors him (sic), and I'm sure he'd write them in the manner that if he ever has to take them to court and Page 77 January 17,2008 they're proffered by staff, it would be to his benefit as well. I would think that staff would want to make a clean and independent response to these questions, independent of the applicant's in staffs language without ambiguous statements. And that's what I'm -- the point I'm trying to make. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. I could have been a lot more elaborative there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number six -- and I'm cleaning these up basically for the record -- whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. First of all, I didn't find the responses responsive to the question. But the second sentence says, proposed use would add affordable newer housing in the area and possibly provide affordable workforce housing, particularly for Ave Maria employees. We have no evidence of that. We have no testimony here today that says it's going to be affordable. We have no idea whether Ave Maria's ever going to want to put people in there or if any ever will. Those speculative statements again are not necessary and even I don't think it answers the questions to begin with. Nor does the findings on the following page. MR. BROWN: I think the term affordable here is used more so than in a general way. I don't think it was meant in terms of it being affordable housing in the way we typically term it when we speak of affordable housing. I could have chosen a better word instead of the one I chose here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have, Willie, is that we have an affordable housing program. And if it's not part of that program, then as far as this board's concerned, it really is not affordable. We can't guarantee the affordability of it in a long-term basis. So that word may want to be carefully used in the future. MR. BROWN: I think I meant market rate apartment units instead of affordable. Page 78 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5, number 14, whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. And the findings says, second sentence, the proposed project would provide an array of housing choices in this area of the county where choices are limited in an area close to local goods and servIces. We don't know what they're going to provide. Testimony today very clearly says they don't even know what they're going to provide, which is part of the problem we're having here today. So I think that statement is pretty difficult to have in this finding. So -- MR. BROWN: Yeah, and I guess I've been handling this application for the past three or four months and, quite frankly, what was presented at the NIM and what's been presented today are two different things. It's been an evolving project. It's not entirely different. Again, what would be allowed is what is permitted in the RMF -16 zone district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 16, the physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable in any of the range of potential uses on the proposed zoning classification. The finding says the degree of site work would be minimal. We've been heard (sic) testimony that two-thirds of the site, six out of nine acres is going to be virtually developed. Which means at the intensity they're talking about -- and Mr. Midney's probably right, in 22 units at a maximum or whatever they could come up with -- that isn't going to be minimal to put that kind of density on the remaining six acres. That's going to be substantial. And I think that number 16 needs some clarification for future reference as well. MR. BROWN: And there I think all I meant was that the habitat areas would be preserved as well as the existing wetlands on-site. And Page 79 January 17,2008 those would be minimally impacted. And again I could have made that a lot more clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that brings us to the end of my questions. And I had asked everybody else if they had expressed theirs, and I think everybody had. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two things that need to be understood. And I think by the tone of the Planning Commission, the applicant might get the hint that this may not succeed with a positive vote. The applicant has the ability to continue it at a request -- I mean withdraw it or continue it and come back with something more refined, or we can vote and it can go on to the BCC. Now, regardless of how it comes out on the vote, if it goes to the BCC, as chairman of the Planning Commission I have the ability to remand this to the EAC for review. It doesn't say it has to be done before us or after us. But I certainly am going to exercise that authority if this continues on. If this comes back, I'll exercise the same authority, thus giving you a heads up that you may want to do that before you waste time getting here to be sent back again. So with that, do you have any statement before we close the public hearing? MR. MULARKEY: On that note I want to address, if we come back again, if we continue this and come back with a refined site plan or some kind of a site plan, is it possible for us to do a concept plan that somehow is tied as a condition to the approval of the RMF -16 zoning district, or does it necessarily need to be in a PUD format? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure. Staff, we had this come up before with the gentleman from Marco who tried to do those homes along Barefoot Williams. You remember that? Yeah, there was some issue there where he said he Page 80 January 17,2008 was going to do certain things, but because he was asking for standard zoning, there seemed to be no way to assure us that that could be done. And I believe we rejected his project because he didn't come in with a PUD that we could control. But I'm not absolutely positive of the facts, but I'm just -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There is no requirement to submit a PUD, even for the infill criteria. However, when there are issues that -- with density and mitigation requirements, it's probably a wise idea to do the planned unit development where you can address compatibility and density Issues. It becomes a little more problematic trying to create a lot of stipulations and conditions on a standard rezone where there is no real document for staff to review. We'd be forced to deal with a standard zoning district calculation and pulling the resolution from that, and it's not typical of a PUD document where we can provide more criteria for mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from the applicant's perspective, if you go forward with this today and we vote for a recommendation of denial, you still got to go to the BCC and on to the EAC. You're going to need a super majority vote from the BCC. That might be difficult to survive with a recommendation of denial from this board. You might be better off withdrawing this petition and coming back in as a PUD, providing the information we're used to seeing and going through the process that we normally are expected to go through to see how improvements are going to be made. That's your call. MR. GOLD MEIER: Well, would it be possible to bring you a site plan? And by the way, in knew the mood of the board, we would have had a site plan. But we don't -- we haven't even given the thought to the product yet ourselves. But would it be possible to give you a site plan and not go through the whole PUD process? Because we're doing it on other Page 81 January 17,2008 properties and find it extremely lengthy and cumbersome and expensive. I don't mind giving you what you want to see, but there are other aspects to a PUD that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what I'm hearing from staff and from past history, I don't know how we can control it, especially with the statements that you've told us today. So much is dependent on the market outcome. Out of deference to that, I certainly don't know why you would want to get tied down to something unless you did it in a planned unit development where you had some flexibility uses and you presented some of those uses to us in a more organized manner. MR. GOLD MEIER: PUD's expire. And -- PUD's expire and the site plan may not. And my reference to the market, I mean, you're all familiar with Immokalee. And by the say way, I just want to thank Mr. Midney for recognizing the job we did on Main Street Village. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's wonderful. MR. GOLDMEIER: Thank you. And, you know, that we try to do a good job. And all I'm saying is if all of you think about Immokalee today and think about Immokalee with all the developments in the future and the fact that our site is sort of well positioned, there are two different entirely different types of use and two different types of qualities. Ifwe were to do something today, it probably would be affordable, but if we were to wait a number of years, it probably would not be. And that's all I was trying to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think we're at a point we're going to take a vote, unless you withdraw it. It's strictly up to your side at this point. MR. GOLD MEIER: Well, if we withdraw it, how long would it take to come back? MR. MULARKEY: Well, we'd have to develop a PUD, staff Page 82 January 17,2008 would have to review it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to speak, you're going to need to be close to the microphone, because you have to be on record. MR. MULARKEY: What I was saying was that -- well, if it's continued, it's not on the same thing. We can't continue it and then hear a PUD. We have had to have an original traditional rezone. So it's got to be withdrawn if we want to entertain the PUD option. I have one more question about the EAC Meeting. You're saying that if we go the PUD route, if we withdraw this and come back, you're going to want us to see -- to go forward and through the EAC as part of the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As chairman of the Planning Commission, at my discretion, I can direct you to go to the EAC if you haven't already been there. MR. MULARKEY: And that's what you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am giving that direction for this piece of property for as long as I'm chairman. MR. MULARKEY: I just needed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you come back and I'm here, that's going to have to happen. MR. GOLDMEIER: And we do not wish to proceed with a negative recommendation or with any opposition from the planning board, and thank you very much for recommending the process that we should proceed, and we will withdraw and resubmit as you suggested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any motion on the part of Planning Commission for the withdrawal? MR. KLATZKOW: If they're voluntarily withdrawing, we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir, we appreciate your time. MR. BROWN: May I just add to the discussion that there was an Page 83 January 17,2008 exchange at the pre-application meeting about a PUD. And the only reason the applicants didn't submit a PUD as opposed to a standard rezone is because the acreage of the site is less than 10 acres. And that's how we arrived at a standard rezone. And also, I think there's been testimony by the environmental services director that a lot of the issues pertaining to the wetlands would be addressed at SDP. But again, the project would not have to go to the EAC, because it's less than 10 acres and an EIS is not required. I just wanted to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand it wouldn't have to. As far as from the PUD application it being less than 10 acres, if it's considered infill it's available for a PUD, is it not? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. The LDC does allow for infill projects to be PUD's less than 10 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we just had this project withdrawn, so this -- sir? MR. GOLDMEIER: Ijust wanted to clarify, because we were told we couldn't do a PUD without less than 10 acres. Are you informing us that now we can do a PUD with less than 10 acres? MR. BELLOWS: For the record again, Ray Bellows. The land development code has a minimum size for PUD of 10 acres. However, there is a provision that if you're deemed an infill property, it can be reduced to less than 10. MR. GOLDMEIER: And can we respectfully request the planning board's recommendation that we be able to be considered as a PUD with less than 10 acres? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Maybe the best way to do this is rather than withdraw it, continue it. And then you can get with staff, we can get clarifications that are well reasoned rather than simply trying to off the cuff figure this one out. Page 84 January 17,2008 MR. GOLD MEIER: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. GOLDMEIER: -- can we withdraw our withdrawal and request a continuance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you can, sir. Is there a -- hearing that request from the applicant for continuance, Ray or Joe, do you guys -- MR. SCHMITT: I just want to point out for the applicant, there will be additional fees based on converting this to a PUD document. And as far as continuance, we are not continuing this straight rezone, it will be -- it's actually going to come back in a PUD form, so it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think you're continuing the case right now to see for sure that the PUD opportunity is open. Mr. Bellows has provided information that I believe is accurate, but apparently something different was supplied at a staff meeting a while back and they've got to make sure that one or the other is correct. Pending that, then the staff may accept a withdrawal for the application independent of this board. And then this will go into another process, if it's so determined. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And just to note, there was some concern by the Planning Commission whether or not this met the infill requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's going to have to be, you know, figured out before we can even figure out if the PUD is going to go forward. MR. MULARKEY: I'd like to make one last comment, if we could, before we wrap up. The way infill is defined generally in the LDC is one particular way. But in the neighborhood center district, the way infill is defined is completely different than how it's defined in the rest of the LDC. Page 85 January 17,2008 There's certain criteria that have to be met just for the neighborhood center district as to what's deemed infill. The way infill applies to the PUD is completely different. We're not an infill parcel, so we don't meet the requirements of infill under that scenario. We do under the neighborhood center master plan district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think either way we're not going to sort this out here today. I think the best you can get out of this today is a continuance, and I think I would urge you to do that route. And then when staff works it out, you can either withdraw it when -- MR. MULARKEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- firmly say to you yes, you can apply for a PUD, or you can then come back at your discretion with more detail for this board to consider, if that's what you so desire. MR. GOLDMEIER: We just don't want to be caught in purgatory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we realize that now. And I think that's going to be cleared up before we make a final-- you make a final determination on what you want to do. Okay, there's been a request for a continuance, and we've had discussion. Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion, Mr. Schiffer (sic) seconded it. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 86 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you for your time and cooperation today. Hopefully we'll get a little further next time. Let's take a 15-minute break to 11 :22. (Recess.) Item #8E PETITION: LDCA-2007-AR-12695 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone please take your seats and we'll resume the meeting. The Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10171, Eastboume Bonita, LLC was noted on our agenda to be continued to 2/7/08, in case that wasn't available to everyone in the beginning. Right now the petition we're going to hear is LDC Amendment, LDCA-2007-AR-12695, Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, reduction of required site design requirements. This is a special 2008 Cycle I-A. County Attorney, is it required for disclosures and swearing in under this one? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Anderson or whoever is going to make the presentation to start with, it's all yours. MR. LEWIS: Good morning. My name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. And I'm here with my partner, Bruce Anderson. This amendment is something that Bruce and I have worked on with county staff. And I'm also here with Nick Casalanguida, representing county transportation, and their division, who are also Page 87 January 17,2008 supporting this petition. Although the amendment was filed by my client, Florida Rock, the Board of County Commissioners approved at a special Land Development Code amendment cycle at the request of staff in an act to -- basically to proceed with this amendment. Because Florida Rock is working on a road project, the Wilson Boulevard extension project, with county transportation, our client was asked by transportation to file for the amendment as transportation staff was short-staffed to handle this amendment. By way of background, for many years the Land Development Code has had language in Section 104.04 that if someone conveyed land to the county, whether it's voluntary or involuntary, the remaining land owned by that person is recognized as legal nonconforming. Otherwise, such a lot would become illegal and nonconforming because of things like lot size, lot width. In addition, Section 104.04 provides that other nonconformities caused by right-of-way acquisition such as stormwater, landscaping, parking buffers, preserves areas, are deemed to be legally conforming. These provisions limit severance damages and reduced right-of-way acquisition costs, and are very helpful, especially in today's market, in reducing cost of acquisition of right-of-way. This amendment does two things: First, it extends the existing nonconformity language to address TDR rights. For example, the county allows one base TDR credit for each eligible five-acre parcel or lot. If the county or someone acting on behalf the county, in this instance our client, acquires one acre of a five-acre parcel without this amendment, the remaining four acres would be deemed a legal nonconforming lot, ineligible to participate in the TDR program. If the county had not acquired the one acre out of the original five-acre parcel, the property owner would be able to sever one base TDR credit and any potential TDR bonuses that they would be eligible for. Page 88 January 17,2008 This amendment seeks to put the property owner in the same TDR legal position as the owner was before county acquisition. In this way the county can avoid paying severance damages for destroying TDR rights. The second thing this amendment does is to extend Land Development Code language on legal nonconformities to apply to a situation where a private party, as in our client, is acquiring property for the county under an agreement with the county. For example, under an agreement with the county for acquisition of right-of-way for the Wilson Boulevard extension, Florida Rock is responsible for requiring the right-of-way. As the county could end up paying for the remaining 60 to 80 feet for right-of-way for rural cross-section road, in its agreement with our client, this amendment can result in substantial savings to the county for the Wilson Boulevard project. And it also goes beyond that project, as it significantly reduces acquisition costs for road projects in the rural fringe. In today's market it's reducing market acquisition costs for right-of-way is a good thing and it's a wise thing to do with taxpayer funds. The amendment that's before you today was unanimously approved by the EAC and DSAC. EAC provided recommendations to strike an earlier reference to public purpose and add a county ownership reference. The amendment before you today addresses EAC comments and is supported by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with questions from-- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to note for the record that this is a special cycle, that it was a special cycle approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and the dates were also approved by the Board of County Commissioners. So just for the record. MS. F ABACHER: And it has been duly advertised. Page 89 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, other questions of Doug at this point? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doug, explain one little concept here. There's a concept of a private party for parties under agreement. What exactly is that, that a private person would buy a right-of-way, and then -- but he'd only be part of this group ifhe had a contract or something that he would ultimately sell that or -- I'll tell you what, say that back to me. MR. LEWIS: Sure. This amendment applies to a private party under an agreement with Collier County, in this instance our client has an agreement with Collier County, and that agreement contains provisions for acquisition of right-of-way and the future transfer of property to Collier County. Now, in our agreement with the county we are obligated to approach the property owners to try to put these properties and acquire these properties under contract. If we're unsuccessful, then the county would come in and condenm the balance of the right-of-way needed for the extension in the corridor. So this agreement would allow us as a private party to proceed and allow the owners in which we're acquiring these parcels from to be in the same position as they were before we acquired the properties they were after. And that's the intent of what we're trying to accomplish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you transfer these to Collier County, the cost of that, you'll be reimbursed for all expense? MR. LEWIS: Our agreement; are you referring to with county, the way that works? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, essentially what this is establishing, the ability of a private party to get between the county and the landowner to acquire right-of-way. MR. LEWIS: Well, that's happening now. That's happening now. That's a method in which the county uses to acquire right-of-way. Page 90 January 17,2008 We're actually doing the acquisition; we're fronting the acquisition voluntarily, interest free, to get the road built. So it's a win/win for both the county and our client. There is a provision that -- to the extent that the county elects to acquire our property, we have an option to buy I think 140 feet of width. Then they would have to pay us the difference between the 180 and the 100 feet that we're paying for. So there's 80 feet of right-of-way that the county would have to pay for. And what we're looking to do is reduce the total cost of right-of-way acquisition. There are severance standards that occur. And what we're trying to do, as we've done with landscape buffers, as we've done with parking, we're trying to reduce the severance damages that occur. We just want to pay for the cost of the road. If we're buying an acre, the county must pay for the acre of road they're buying. Or if it's the private party on behalf of the county. So we're trying to reduce those severance damages on the remaining land that they would retain ownership of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow may have something to contribute. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, and Nick may want to chime in. Just Brad, so you get a full understanding, one of the things we're doing is trying to shift the burden from the road construction to the developers. And what's happening to the developers will be purchasing the right-of-way and doing the construction, and then when the roads finished they'll be deeding that to the county. Now, sometimes they'll be reimbursed for the work, sometimes impact fees, sometimes cash sometimes. Not at all. It will depend upon a particular deal. What we're trying to do here is to decrease the cost to the developer to get what really would have normally been something that the county would have been doing at the county's cost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not set up where Page 91 January 17,2008 somebody's profiting by running the head of the roads and buying up right-of-way. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is since most of this stuff is out in the rural area, don't we essentially measure the lot area to be a gross lot area, which would go to the center line of the road? We don't? We -- pure property line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of them are platted. Some of your main corridors are already on the books out there, especially in the Estates and along the rural areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. So it's only -- in other words, because if that was the case, then you wouldn't be affecting the area by taking the right-of-way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. That's not the case. One item to consider, too, is if you're considering just running your lot line evenly on both sides of one lot line, if we didn't have an ability to do this, which is to leave the line in the same position it was prior to the take, you may consider only going one property line and avoiding that middle lot line and equal take because of severance damages and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick question here. Who are, quote, another government entity or entities, unquote? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That would be Florida Power & Light, that would be FDOT. Any government entity in reference to what the EAC said. They just wanted to make sure this was for public use. So anything that was being acquired for right-of-way didn't -- wasn't similar to that Connecticut case where the government came in and acquired people's property and then turned it over to a development. The final landowner would be public, the person acquiring the right-of-way would be public, or in a contract with a Page 92 January 17,2008 private entity for public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along that same reasoning, do you consider a stewardship area -- I mean, a community development district or similar district like the Reedy Creek improvement district to be a governmental entity? Because then what you're saying is Ave Maria could exercise this authority, and that's a developer. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good question. I think a determination like that would be considered public use. But in the end is it publicly owned land? Because in a CDD you'd have a private landowner who owns that individual lot. So if they're buying it for that purpose, I wouldn't see that that would apply. Because the underlying landowner for this acquisition in the end has to be the public. So that private lot in that stewardship receiving area, that CDD, would not apply to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But say you've got --let's say one that's not already in here yet. Say Big Cypress. Say Big Cypress is coming in and we know they're going to need a lot of new roads. Not all of the roads may be needed for the county's purposes. Some may be needed for theirs. MR. LEWIS: In may just comment. For the record, in may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. LEWIS: -- I just wanted to clarify what Nick mentioned. I don't -- we maybe may want some clarification from your County Attorney's office on that question. I would -- in my experience with CDD's, I would think that's not the intent here, and out client is -- that's not what we're trying to do here. But if that's a concern, we can look at that. But I would think that a CDD is a governmental entity. And I would take that position if a client came to my office. So I think that's something -- you know, depending on where the policy is on that. But I think it would arguably critical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's -- it's like the Reedy Page 93 January 17,2008 Creek improvement district, Disney. I mean, under that improvement district they became a government entity and they were allowed to do things that government authority can exercise. While like the Big Cypress, I'm not saying what they're doing is bad or good, but if they want more roads than what you feel they need and they want to exercise this agreement for the purpose of getting there, I'm not sure that works to the benefit of the taxpayers. MR. LEWIS: My only comment I would make on that that you should be aware of is that we currently have a 104.04, which I think there may be some things coming down the pipeline to look at maybe clarifying what's there. Again, this amendment seeks to do a couple of things: One is it seeks to extend the provisions to the TDR program. The second thing is does is it does for our client's purpose, we want to make it very clear that we are talking about a private party under an agreement with the county and we are per that agreement declaring these parcels. And so we want to make sure this applies to our client. The current language does state that if it's acquired for purposes of setbacks and other things, this does not extend to the TDR program, but for purposes of native preserve, open space, landscaping, parking, it says if it's acquired for a public purpose. And so there may still be an argument based on the current language on the CDD that you may want to look at and consider going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you know the entities that you're talking about -- and so far I've Collier County, Florida Power and Light, South Florida, why don't we just list the entities and not get into something that could trap us later on. And then if it needs to be amended later on because a new entity arises, we can add the entity through another special cycle. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then for purposes of the Page 94 January 17,2008 agreement with the county, we can specify in agreement what powers they had as well, too. So if you want us to identify those entities, that would be a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the board feel comfortable with that? Anybody not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think that's where we need to go in that direction. Second question: You talked about the five-acre tract. And your assumption was you take an acre and leave four. What if you had a five-acre tract and you're coming in to it perpendicularly in the center and you took an acre out and you have two two-acre tracts on each side, do you have a new TDR created for each one or do you have fractional TDR's, which I don't believe, or you we have a provision that allows fractional TDR's? How do we do that? MR. LEWIS: That's a great question and we talked about this during the vetting with staff. If you look at the way this was worded, it starts with a parcel of five acres that is conforming that was -- existed as of June 22nd of 1999. So you have that parcel. So it's a five-acre piece in this example that you mentioned, Commissioner Strain. And then we acquire a strip right through that five acres. So that reads if it's later reduced in size and it talks about reducing size for purposes of acquisition, condenmation, purchase, then it says that the resulting lots or parcels not so acquired shall be deemed legal nonconforming lot or parcels of less than five acres entitled to severance of base -- and bonus credited to the rate of one TDR credit. So your question is ifthere's two parcels that are created? I think we're starting with an original parcel that existed, if we need to clarify the language. But I think the idea is if you have a parcel that works, that's eligible and then we do something to take a part of that parcel away, what we're saying is you're treating that parcel that was eligible. Page 95 January 17,2008 Because the two -- let's say it was a five-acre and you have two on one side and you have maybe an acre in the middle and then two on the other side, those two two-acre parcels are created well after 1999. Those are new parcels that are newly subdivided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LEWIS: So what we're saying here is if you had a five-acre that existed as of that date and it was eligible, then you can get one TDR for that five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. But if you now split that five-acre parcel because of a road going through the middle and you create a two two-acre parcels, nonconforming parcels, are you looking for a new TDR for each one, or if someone comes along and buys just one of the two two-acres, do they get the TDR, or what do they get? MR. LEWIS: The intent is no. It would be one TDR base for the five-acre parcel that was eligible before the acquisition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not getting where I'm trying to go. Say you split the five acres, you take an acre out, I come along and I want to buy that two-acre parcel. How much TDR do I get with it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That same one TDR that you started with. We went through this with compo planning. And the idea was when they do a split, and there's a history now that staff reviews on a parcel. So they would come up and say you get one TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before you go too far. So I bought that first two-acre site on the east side of the road and I got my TDR. Oh, Nick Casalanguida comes along with all his knowledge of where the road corridors are going to go and he buys the extra two-acre piece on the west side of the road down the middle. Does he get a TDR credit? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. When they go to sell or try to sell Page 96 January 17,2008 that TDR, that parcel would get one TDR. So only one person would be able to take advantage of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the first person to buy gets the TDR and the second guy's out in the wind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If that was in the contract, then they would have to let the people know. Because staff would only give them one credit for that parent five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was trying to get to. So the first buyer is going to be the most fortunate. MR. LEWIS: And that's clearly the intent. If there's any recommendations or enhancements, we'll clarify that. But that's clearly the intent, one TDR for that eligible parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this issue? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a way -- I mean, is there a way -- essentially if you did exactly what Mark was describing, it would be nice ifboth sides of that road were left in natural state. So, you know, somebody wouldn't really be able to develop that anyway. Isn't there a way to make sure that the parent side stays together and is dealt with in the TDR program together? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You wouldn't have to. I mean, depending on how much right-of-way take you would have. When we do a right-of-way take on a -- aside from TDR's. You have to have enough land to meet the development code requirements to build on that lot. So if you take three acres of that and you leave a sliver on one side and a larger piece on one side and that side was developable, you're still -- with the intent of this code is the day we acquire the right-of-way, whatever state you're in, you have those rights, as long as you can conform. Now, what right-of-way does is we take so much that you say to Page 97 January 17,2008 us it's no longer a building lot, we pay the severance damages for a building lot. But they may still be able to keep that TDR right as a parent parcel, the whole piece. So we've gone through this, because we've been doing right-of-way takes for a while. When we wrote this original amendment, we just left out TDR's. It just wasn't a concept thought that was in there when we talked about right-of-way acquisitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think my point is can we take advantage of this -- those nonconforming lots to push them into the not just the one but the two and three, the early bonus I think is going to be gone soon. You know, we push them into the three TDR's right away and then give the county something -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We wouldn't have that ability. That's up to the -- we're trying to keep the property rights consistent with the property rights before and after. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other questions is that yesterday we were sent a new version of this. I asked Catherine to color it just to save us from going through and figuring out what was different. But the one prior to that was revised January 10th. This one is December 20th. So what is the version that's going to be the final? MR. LEWIS: In may, and I will defer to Catherine on that. But what we were attempting to do was to, in an expedited way to get before you the revisions that incorporate EAC's recommendations. And in that effort we prepared a -- we worked on together a draft that was being -- it was really a draft document. And that was circulated on Friday. That was an internal document that we had worked on with staff. And yet we were just trying to finalize language that we all agree on, staff and our client, to address the EAC's comment. That was something that should not have been transmitted to the Planning Commission. Apparently it was on Friday. Page 98 January 17,2008 Tuesday, the document you were provided on Tuesday was the document that staff, our client, we all agreed on and it's really the final format. And that's what you have today. And that was delivered on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that if you look at the version date down right above the line, the older one has a newer date than the one we got this week, so -- MR. LEWIS: That's really Catherine -- I'm not sure. I just know Tuesday is the final. MS. F ABACHER: I had added the revision date in on the one that I had sent you. But this one has now been transmitted by Mr. Lewis, and the revision date was not placed on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the one we got most recently, the one that has purple color in it, is the most recent one, even though -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this particular issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the only change that we're recommending is that the language referring to other governmental entity or entities be stricken and that after Collier County they actually list the entities that they're referring in this particular case. Is that fair with everybody? Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. We raised an issue about clarifying the one TDR for the parent parcel, but you don't want to do that in this CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if any language was suggested for clarification. I think it ended up being clarified by the way they talked about it. Because the lot split would occur after the date, and that the TDR would go with the person who bought the first parcel. It -- Page 99 January 17,2008 MS. FABACHER: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wouldn't be two TDR'. MS. F ABACHER: That's fine. You had just mentioned that and I just didn't know if that was the direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval on LDC Section 1.04.04,2008 special cycle I-A? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray, Mr. Adelstein, it is subject to the stipulation of the strike-through and adding the governmental entity? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As discussed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor ofthe motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 100 January 17,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Nick, every time you come up here, I'm a little suspicious if it's another corridor thing, but I'm glad this one ended up simply. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, before the meeting ends, if! could take a minute to introduce a new staff member, if that's possible. I don't know if you want to do it in new business, old business. Item #10 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're actually going to old business now, so why don't we do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. Joe left. I think he didn't want to hear it. Lisa Koehler started with us a couple weeks ago. She will be representing transportation on -- I'll tell them the bad first and the good later -- impact fee assessments, GMP changes, LDC changes, corridor management ordinance that will be coming before you. She'll be handling all the transportation's LDC Cycle Amendments coming forward in the next calendar year, so I wanted to introduce her. You've seen her before working for Joe and she's going to be a welcome addition to our team. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lisa, thank you. You jumped out of the pot into the fire, I think. But that's your choice. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. Is there any other old business before we go to Mr. Kolf1at and his new business? Paul, did you have something? Page 10 1 January 17,2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, new. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business, Mr. Kolflat was first, and then Paul after him. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, I also have some new business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll after Paul. So we got three of you now. Mr. Kolflat, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yesterday's Daily News reported a zoning dispute in Olde Cypress. My daughter owns a house there and is involved in the dispute. The editor quotes a report by Mr. Lawrence Forizzi (phonetic) that the community development staff, and I quote, staff spent a whole lot more time than they had to, closed quote, because I was a member of the Planning Commission. He goes on to say, and I quote, I could be wrong, closed quote. Well, he is. He implies that as a member of the Planning Commission my daughter and I receive more community development staff time than others. This false allegation reflects on all of us, and I would like to share some facts with you to better understand the situation. For the past seven months my daughter's neighbor has had a house under construction. During those seven months I have had on her behalf only four occasions to meet with staff. Allegations that four meetings with staff over a seven-month period for a single-family home is more than normal is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. Regarding my rights to participate in this matter State Law 112.3143 clearly lays out what I may do and what I may not do under these circumstances. State law prohibits me from voting on this Page 102 January 17,2008 matter, should it be presented to the Planning Commission. However, the law expressly permits me to participate in the matter as long as I first disclose my interest. I intend to continue to follow the law in this matter and not the opinions ofMr. Forizzi. For your information I have prepared and submitted to the county commissioners a letter report of my involvement in this matter on January 9th, 2008, which is available for further questions and is part of the public record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, thank you. I appreciate your clarification. I think we all do. So thank you very much. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, and this is new business. Kind of getting back to the thing we were discussing in Immokalee. I'd just like to mention that I'm a little bit disappointed that staff, when they prepared this, did not seem to reference Policy 6.2.5, the Lake Trafford/Camp Keis wetland, which this property was involved with. And I'm sure that in the future they will reference that and take that into their consideration. And with regard to that, I would like to ask this planning board to make a recommendation to the BCC, 6.2.5 said that within a year the county would -- let's see, where is it -- within one year the county shall develop specific criteria to be used to determine when wetlands having a wrap score of greater than 0.6.5 or -- well, they're talking about numbers. But basically that the county staff, I'm assuming environmental staff, will start to survey this area in Immokalee and start bringing forth some sort of guidance so that when similar projects like the one we saw this morning start come before the board will have some basis for deciding how they fit into the scheme of things. And would it be possible, Mark, for me to ask this board to request the BCC to direct staff to expedite implementing developing these preservation criteria in Immokalee for this wetland system? Page 103 January 17,2008 We're going to be having a workshop, the Planning Commission will, about the Immokalee Master Plan. But I think that this isn't something that should wait until that to come forward on. I don't know what the feeling of the other members of the commission are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, I certainly think you could ask the Planning Commission to do that. I think that from the planning commission perspective, or at least mine in particular, before we would want to make a recommendation to the BCC, I would like to get staff to come back to us next meeting, after they've had time to understand your question and find out what they actually have done to date and the status of what they've done to date, versus the budget and other things that that would entail. Because we may find out that something's been going on that not everybody knows about and we just need to be -- we just need to ask the question, get the answer before we make a recommendation. So I would certainly personally like to see staff respond to you first, and then depending on staffs response make a recommendation after that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wonderful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that consistent with the rest of the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a different idea they'd like to see? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, I know you've been reading the screen, but I don't know if you heard what we said. Mr. Midney has brought out an issue involving 6.2.5. We've asked that staff come back with a report in response to Mr. Midney's concerns, giving us a status of where the staff is on it, so that if we feel the necessity then to recommend to the BCC to either accelerate or change the progress or the outcome of that we can do so, after we have Page 104 January 17,2008 the information from staff. And maybe you might want to get together with Paul and get firsthand information. I know you were tied up in something else at the moment. So is that consistent with everybody's wishes? COMMISSIONER CARON: And that will happen at our next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, and that will be an agenda item that needs to be added to our next meeting. Okay, that gets us through new business. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Strain, I had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Ray. Yes, sir, I had your name down here and I talked to you and I forgot. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Schmitt wanted me to relate to you that the Board of County Commissioners has selected a replacement for Commissioner Tuff. It's Paul Wolfley, a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David Wolfley. MR. BELLOWS: Or David Wolfley, a former CCPC member. And he's been selected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. David sat on this panel when some of us started a while back. Good, excellent, thank you. That will help give us a quorum. And I assume he'll start in February? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. And we're setting up an orientation as soon as possible with him to get him reacquainted with everything to make sure he has all the documents and codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fortunately for you he's been here before, so that might make it a little more expeditious. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent, thank you. Anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I can see there's no public Page 105 January 17,2008 comment, so motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at II :52 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected. , as presented Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 106