Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/07/2008 R February 7,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 7, 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 David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Director of Real Property, c.c. School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 13, LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 20, REGULAR MEETING; 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12384, Enterprise Leasing Company d/b/a 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, Snite 8, Section IS, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I 0 171, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP., requesting a rewne from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Braudon RPUD, for the development of204 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 FROM 1/17/08 1 B. Petition: CU-2007-AR- 11394, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, represented by Matthew Vasilevski of Wedding, Stephenson, and Ibarguen, Architects, Inc., is proposing a Conditional Use of the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-I) Zoning District with a SR29 Commercial Subdistrict Overlay (C-I-SR29-COSD) and the RSF-3 (Residential Single-Family) Zoning District for Church/Place of Worship, allowed pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03, Table 2. The 16.8-acre site is located at 635 State Road 29, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, lmmokalee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12248, Sabal Palm Development, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich ofGoodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for project to be known as Napoli Village. The +/-8.97- acre site is proposed to permit an adult congregate living facility, comprising two four-story buildings. The subject site is located east of Tamiami Trail North (US 41), west of Sterling Oaks PUD, and north of the Community Congregational Church, at 15450 Tamiami Trail North, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) 10. OLD BUSINESS ] 1. NEW BUSINESS A. The CCPC requests to have a progress report be given to them concerning the EAR based LDC amendments pertaining to Policy 6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 2/7 /08CCPC AgendaIRB/sp/mm 2 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the February 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And just before roll call, I wish to welcome our new board member, Mr. David Wolfley. David was here a few years back when I actually started on the board. And it's very good to see you back again, David, so welcome. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you, sir. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, would the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti was here. And Mr. Wolfley, welcome. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. Page 2 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, say here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, he's here. MR. KLATZKOW: It's official. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Full quorum. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Okay, the addenda to the agenda. There are two things I want to discuss. The first one is the Brandon hearing, which is the first one up today. Many of us or all of us should have received yesterday sometime during the day a package from the county that was omitted from our original package. It was approximately 62 pages of concerns expressed by the various neighborhood or adjoining property owners, and some in the Strand and places like that near this project. It was received late. I was able to read it all last night. Actually, after Page 30 it's pretty redundant because it's a petition that is carried through on the balance of the 30 pages. But I wanted the planning commission to make sure that as a whole body we didn't have a concern with the timing of it and all of us had, or at least most of us felt we had enough time with it. So does anybody have any concerns with the receiving it that late, other than the fact it shouldn't happen again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll move -- we'll leave Brandon as scheduled. Next Thursday, the 14th, we're scheduled to have the continuation of the Cocohatchee Bert Harris discussion. I have with me the tentative agenda for the 21 st. We only have Page 3 February 7, 2008 one small variance of2.3 feet to discuss on the 21st. That's the only issue we have. It's our regular meeting day and this room is available for us that day. Plus the strike-through version of the PUD that we've been wanting for the Cocohatchee isn't complete yet, which means we wouldn't get it today as we needed it. And there's been some discussion on the processing of the SDP. For all those reasons, I would certainly entertain a motion from this board to continue the Cocohatchee hearing on the 14th -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the 21 st on our regular agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I won't be here. I'm a member of the ICe. We'll be meeting that day. That is in my district. I'd kind of like to be here for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's our regular meeting day, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I wouldn't be able to attend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell them you can't attend there and attend here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a privilege sitting there, as it is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a privilege sitting here, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, it's a code meeting, we write the international building code, and I have to be there. I wouldn't be able to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the documents won't be available next week that we really need in the format we need them Page 4 February 7,2008 for Cocohatchee. The 21 st seemed like a natural, because it wasn't an empty meeting for us, basically. Jeff, if Brad were to receive the documents as he normally would, could he submit written comments to you for discussion with us ifhe objected to any of them? MR. KLATZKOW: I could bring his objections to the attention of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, basically it's a review meeting of where the project is from our last meeting, a finalization of all the documents and make sure that the items we indicated were included in the strike-through version. I don't know if anything new is going to come up at the meeting, other than what we had already requested and instructed staff and the applicant to modify. MR. KLATZKOW: No, my understanding is that the direction from the planning commission was clear. It's just been my task to get that memorialized for your review to make sure that I got it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, would you feel -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- everything's been scheduled the way it is. I behaved it as scheduled. The fact that that Thursday that I wouldn't be here doesn't have anything on it even makes me feel better, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's --let me get one thing: We're not going to be able to have the meeting on the 14th. Even if we had it, we'd have to continue it because the documentation that we were counting on wasn't able to get completed. So the 14th isn't going to be a productive day to finish it, regardless. So now we've got to look at an alternative date. And you're saying from your perspective the alternative of the 21 st won't work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other issues on that from anybody else? Page 5 February 7,2008 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think it's very important that Mr. Schiffer be here. It is part of his district, and I think he should be here. It's a very important issue, obviously, or we wouldn't have had as many meetings on it as we've had. So I think it's vitally important that he be here on whatever day we pick. So if it can't be the 21 st, perhaps it can be the meeting after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do you know what our agenda is for the month of March in our regular meetings? I mean, I'd rather not see us schedule another special meeting if we have some empty days like we apparently have on the 21st of February. MR. BELLOWS: On March 6th, the planning commission, there are currently four items on the agenda. Three of them -- or two of them are PUD rezones, one's a PUD amendment and the fourth one is a vanance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about further on in March? MR. BELLOWS: The 20th of March there are seven items on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And one of those being the school concurrency COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. BELLOWS: -- update, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern -- I mean, I'm hearing where it's going to be not a whole lot of new data anyway. What is the concern about hitting next week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have the strike-through version done, and the SDP hasn't been -- and there's been no further advancement on the SDP submittal. Mostly the strike through. That's got to get done, and it won't be done in time for us to receive it and review it by next week. Page 6 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When will it be done? What does staff say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- we could have it -- I believe we could have it done by the 21 st. Jeff, is that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's -- I didn't know that it was a problem. Is there any other time frames prior to the 21 st or in the month of February, Ray, where we can meet a morning in this room that you know of? MR. BELLOWS: Let's see. We have the -- we'll have to come back with dates. I have some calendar dates, but they don't show this room's availability on these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what I'd like to do then is out of courtesy to our fellow Commissioner, Mr. Schiffer, ask the motion maker and the second to withdraw their motion and second to the motion until we can bring it up at a later time in today's agenda at the end of the meeting and then rediscuss it at that point. Is that in line? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking if he were to be sick on the very day that we were scheduled to meet and he couldn't come, then to that effect we'd still have to go forward. As a courtesy I'll withdraw it so that we give ample time for him to consider it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the second withdrew it, okay. So the motion's been withdrawn. We'll table this discussion until under old business at the end of the meeting. I also would like to suggest that at the end of the last issue today, which is the Sabal Palm development, the legal representative of that corporation -- or that entity is Mr. Y ovanovich, who also happens to Page 7 February 7, 2008 represent Cocohatchee. After Sabal Palm development discussion, I would like to schedule a new agenda Item D, simply to clarify some direction regarding what this panel and what the staff and what the applicant expected in regards to the processing of the SDP for this project. There seems to be some discrepancy over what we wanted or expected from the SDP. Not from the settlement agreement, from the SDP. So just to get that clarified while Mr. Y ovanovich is here this afternoon. Does anybody have any objection to adding that to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay, with that, we'll move into planning commission absences. On the 14th was our next scheduled meeting. We're now talking about continuing it. So let's just plan on any discussion on that to go on later on today. So the next meeting is the 21 st. Mr. Schiffer, we know you're not going to be here. Anybody else not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we have a quorum. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 13, LDC MEETING; DECEMBER 20, REGULAR MEETING Page 8 February 7, 2008 Item number five on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. December 12th LDC meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. December 13th LDC meeting. Is there a motion to recommend approval -- for approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. Page 9 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. December 20th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Page 10 February 7, 2008 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - JANUARY 29, 2008 Ray, the BCC reports? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on January 29th the Board of County Commissioners heard the Pezzettino PUD rezone. That was approved on the summary agenda. The Chestnut Place PUD rezone was also approved on the summary agenda, as was the Naples Dodge rezone and the Hamilton variance. Those were all approved on the summary agenda. That included the planning commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: We have one more. There was -- on the regular agenda, the PUD rezone for New Hope Ministries that was approved 5-0 on the regular agenda, subject to planning commission recommendations, plus three other changes. They approved a stipulation, except for the fence and wall waiver that was being requested. They also required the church to hire law enforcement during church events when traffic exceeds the county's level of service standards. And they also approved the treatment for stormwater in the preserve stipulation that you provided, but added to the stipulation that the church will have to restore the preserve areas if they die off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I basically -- my comments are all under the addenda to the agenda. Item #8A Page 11 February 7, 2008 PETITION: CU-2007-AR-12384, ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY Consent agenda items. We've all received the Enterprise Leasing Company's corrections. Ifthere's no objections -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I wondered, I was looking at the report, we're just starting this, but the conditions are listed twice, the same conditions. And in order to preclude any possibility of inconsistency between the two statements, could we just have one statement of conditions, rather than put it in twice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was talking to Mr. Schmitt about the process for our consent agenda item. And one of the problems that staff has in the time frames for the consent agenda is reproducing a new executive summary for each consent agenda. And I asked that -- I suggested that I don't know why we would need an executive summary twice, simply just give us the document with its corrections and that would I think cure the problem and then we're off and runnmg. So I think what you're saying is accurate and we're in the process of correcting that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, because it seems a waste of time to have to check the two to be sure that they're consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. And I think if staff doesn't have any objection to not producing an executive summary with a consent agenda, we can just get the document and not be fed an executive summary as well. MR. BELLOWS: I think we can live with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to -- first of all, let me -- is there a recommendation for approval of the consent agenda Page 12 February 7,2008 items? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the consent agenda passes. Item #9 A PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-I017L BRANDON RPUD Next is our advertised public hearing. The first one is Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0171, Eastbourne Bonita LLC, also known as the Brandon RPUD. Will all those wishing to testify on behalf of this issue please rise Page 13 February 7, 2008 to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with the representative from Johnson Engineering regarding this outlining the detail of the PUD zoned area. And that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other disclosures? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also talked to the Johnson Engineering folks, as their representatives, and I talked to Mr. White as well. And our discussions involved the same issues I'll be asking questions about today. Hearing no others, then we'll move forward in the presentation by the applicant. MR. WHITE: Morning, Mr. Chairman. Patrick White, law firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, representing Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, the petitioner in this matter this morning. I'd like to start out by introducing the item and specifically putting onto the record some of the matters pertaining to the actual application, unless I can impose on Mr. Bellows to do that for me. Simply to read off the notice, just the agenda item, so we have it on the record as to the AR and all of the other matters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I read the AR into the record when I announced the meeting. MR. WHITE: Okay. Well, if that's adequate. Then what we have for your consideration today is a PUDZ rezoning from ago and ST to a residential planned unit development. Present today I have with me Laura Spurgeon-DeJohn, Johnson Engineering, as well as the others who are here to answer questions, if Page 14 February 7,2008 we have more detailed inquiries. Chris Hagan, Engineer; Laura Herrero, Ecologist; and Alan Urfali, for Transportation TIS. As well as Mr. Frank Chinnici, the Manager of the Eastbourne, LLC drove down from Sarasota to be with us as well. As an overview, we will have primarily a presentation by Ms. DeJohn involving a power point presentation. The scope of that will include the project location, what the actual request and intended development pertain to, specifically focusing on TIS water management utilities, do the site plan kind of conceptual site plan overview, demonstrating compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. We'll talk about all aspects of the staff report. Also have an overview of our neighborhood information meetings of which we've had two back in October of '06 and in September of '07, as well as a brief discussion about the EAC recommendation and the ultimate staff recommendation today. I will then wrap up with a summary. And at this time I would just like to reserve some time at the end of our presentation to be able to respond to any questions or public comment. We're well aware that there are issues pertaining to access and interconnection. There may be concerns about buffering to some of our neighbors to the northeast. Those are all matters that I believe that we've fully considered, worked with the staff on with regards to the concerns that have been raised, and believe that although we're not in absolute agreement with what the staff recommendations are across the board, in particular transportation, and some of our road interconnections, that we have a presentation for you that is both consistent with the GMP and compatible with the neighborhood and the LDC such that we would hope to have your approval. At this time what I'd like to do, unless you have any preliminary questions, is to ask Ms. DeJohn to come up and we'll begin with our power point presentation. Page 15 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Okay, we're on. And for the record, your application material shows my name is Laura Spurgeon. I did get married in the year and a half that this application proceeded through the process, so you'll also see correspondence with my married name, DeJohn. That's D-E-J-O-H-N. Okay. For your reference, I'm sure you're all familiar with the project location. We're about a mile south of the Lee County line, two miles north ofImmokalee Road along the Livingston Road corridor. This project is an aggregation of individual parcels, ranging in size from two and a half acres, some five-acre parcels and a 10-acre parcel for a total of 51.1 acres. The project fronts on both Livingston Road to the west and Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north. This image gives you a perspective of the surrounding neighborhood. We've highlighted the existing community as it's already been developed with primarily residential development. Some established communities. Mediterra to the north, Pelican Strand to the east beyond the FPL transmission line. Verona Point is a townhouse community adjacent to the south that's under development. And there's also a recently improved PUD named Della Rosa that's adjacent to the west. The future land use designation for the site is urban residential. The site is in the northwest transportation concurrency management area. But I think it's important to note that that location happens to be not in some very usually challenging locations that the county often imposes such as out in the east, the panther consultation area, we're not in that area. The site is not within the coastal high hazard area which is to the west. We're not in the traffic congestion boundary. So the urban residential designation is set up to allow a neighborhood to develop here, and there aren't many of those constraints applied. Page 16 February 7,2008 The site is zoned agricultural at this time. You see from the zoning map the trend is to have PUD zoning much to the northeast and south of the site. And Della Rosa's a new development, so that PUD designation isn't shown. There's also a commercial corner at the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial in close proximity to the site. The request is from agricultural and special treatment overlay zoning designation to residential PUD. The area that's in the special treatment overlay is very slim at corners. The green on that map that you can see, there's not much special treatment overlay on the site at all. It's important to go over the site conditions as they exist. It's an undeveloped site. It's vegetated, but there's heavy infestation of exotics. The general regional flow in the area is from the northeast to the southwest, but that's been severed by the development that you've seen all around the property. That leads to some indicators of shortened hydroperiods, plus the increase in exotic infestation results in so much of the wetlands -- out of39.7 total wetlands, 38 of those acres are at least 50 percent infested with exotics. The county's standards for enforcing preserves on the site is to look at the native vegetation. Native vegetation, based on county definitions, does total 47.2 acres. But again, the exotic infestation of those native areas is at least 50 percent within almost all 43.78 acres of the native vegetation. So when the Brandon PUD goes to develop the preserve area of -- at least 11.8 acres will be cleared of exotics, maintained in perpetuity to improve the wetland conditions on that site. The requested density is consistent with the Growth Management Plan base density of four units per acre. The request is for 3.99 units per acre for a total of 204 units on the site. The PUD is set up for both single and multi-family units. A proportion of how the single and multi-family units will develop has Page 17 February 7,2008 not been determined yet so the development standards table would apply. The single-family zoned height limit is 35 feet. Multi-family zoned height is 50 feet. There's a correction I want to note in the staff report, because that was one error on Page 6. The staff report states that the maximum zoned building height is 35 feet for all residential dwelling units, and that just got missed. The multi-family request was always for 50 feet. The staff report also identifies that the request is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You will notice in the narrative of the Future Land Use Element review on Page 4, the staff had comments about changes to the master plan in order to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, including connections to the properties to the east, as well as pedestrian connection to properties to the west. We'd like to discuss those in the relevance of those comments, because again, the conclusion is that the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and those were not stipulations in the conclusion of our staff report. The site is within the water and sewer service area. The TIS finds adequate road capacity for the development. Water management system will be consistent with district requirements. And also, the wetland mitigation will be consistent with the strict requirements. This is an image that wasn't in your packet. It's the master plan that proceeded through most of the review process with county staff until we got closer to setting of hearing dates. You'll notice the preserve covers a majority of the southern portion of the site, providing a large contiguous area exceeding minimum standards with 13.24 acres of preserve. The plan that you have in your packet is different, and that's on the screen now. The current plan has been adjusted by transportation staffs request. You'll see the interconnection arrow has been drawn in to connect to Verona Point to the south. That did sever that preserve, Page 18 February 7,2008 that large preserve that we were anticipating. The plan would still meet minimum requirements for preserve. However, it gets delineated a little differently to accommodate that interconnection point. This is a blowup of the location where the interconnection would occur. And there's pretty specific language in the development commitments of the PUD, due to the fact that this Brandon PUD only connects to the Verona Point public access easement for a dimension of20 feet. It's a 40-foot wide access easement. And where the Brandon PUD property line is adjacent to that access easement is only a 20-foot dimension. Therefore, the transportation staff has encouraged a connection just going southbound for that portion of the easement that we can control, that southbound exiting lane connecting through Verona Point, and only allowing an inbound right-in turning movement at our desired Livingston Road driveway location. As you can see here, the driveway location was shown to be spaced as far as possible from that signalized intersection at Verona Point and Learning Lane. And the goal for transportation staff is to move all movements of the Brandon PUD south down through Verona Point at the time in which that entire access easement can be completed. And this diagram is shown to give you the information that an access point on Livingston Road for the Brandon PUD would be consistent with access spacing up and down that corridor and should be considered an addition to the interconnection down at Verona Point. We did request six deviations. Those are all addressed in your staff report. I could go over those specifically if you need to. We did have two neighborhood meetings: One in 2006, one in 2007, both at North Naples Middle School. Those are summarized in your staff report. And you have correspondence from the neighbors that we'll be able to go through all the neighborhood issues.n Page 19 February 7, 2008 We had a recommendation at the November 7th, 2007 EAC meeting of denial based on wetland impacts. I tried to go over the nature and the quality of those wetlands earlier in the presentation, and we also have an ecologist here who can elaborate on that, if you have questions. Staff does recommend approval with four conditions of approval. And those are listed here. The applicant is willing to accept those conditions, and we can go over them as well. That concludes the items I wanted to cover, and presentation, and we're ready to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll entertain questions from the planning commission of the applicant at this time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Laura, big concern is we're really landlocking some property to the east. What is the status of that? And isn't it true -- I mean, first of all, the special treatment, that big block to the east is essentially a wetland; is that right? MS. DeJOHN: That's right, it's a cypress head, according to the ecologist. I'm going to get to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously there's the one that's just to the west of the middle of that is landlocked. The north of the special treatment will become landlocked unless they can get access through the FP&L right-of-way. So, I mean, how can we in good faith do that? MS. DeJOHN: Patrick, do you want to -- I'll let Patrick handle that, because that gets into legal issues as well. MR. WHITE: Thank you. And I just -- if I could have you repeat the question, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern is the landlocking of properties -- MR. WHITE: Right. Page 20 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to the east and maybe even the ones to the south or -- yes, the south and southeast. I mean, these people bought these properties. In most communities there's an expectation ofa grid road system. We don't really do that much in Collier, even though our community character plan scolded us for not doing that. But in this case, I mean, can you address that, why -- MR. WHITE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that's a good idea? MR. WHITE: I think that there are aspects of this that are wholly legal in nature, and others that are to some degree part of a proper planning consideration. It's fair to say that with respect to all of the property owners, including the block that is the six parcels to the southeast -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White? Just -- Melissa, your discussions are muffling some tone. MS. ZONE: I'm very sorry, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you guys mind taking it a little way from the microphone? Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: If you look specifically at the six blocks forming an "L" to our southeast, south of the ST colored blue, all of those are Center Point Community Church. We have had extensive and lengthy discussions with them. And in fact I think it's fair to say that there are some still continuing degree of discussions about a variety of different options. Some of them including in fact modifying this PUD to include those lands. We've not been able to come to a place where both parties agree that it was in their mutual best interest to do such a thing at this point in time. But it is fair to say that where -- that they have access as a unified block through the Verona Point interconnection, if not directly Page 21 February 7, 2008 through their own property, the one that's the most westerly. That leaves us to some degree focused on the six property owners who are in the ST, five of whom I believe all but the most northwesterly are represented by Attorney Craig Blume. And we've had communications with Mr. Blume, both with regard to the potential purchase of those properties and also with respect to the status of their potential claim for access over our private road system. There's a very precise set of statutes that exist in Florida about claims for either a common law or a statutory way of necessity. It's fair to say that there are approximately six elements that have to be met, six conditions that have to be met by someone who claims that as a dominant tenement holder. It's kind oflike easements, you have a dominant, the person who's kind of on top, and then a servient estate owner. In this case the Brandon property would be the servient. And what the elements in the statute basically require is that all of those must exist before it can be judicially determined. In other words, before you can go to court you have to have essentially met all six of those elements. We're not at a place, from the petitioner's point of view, that those conditions have been met. An example would be are we in fact going to be approved and established through that process what the practicable nearest route may be? We believe that even if we are approved there may be other routes. We're aware that there are easements, for example, on the most westerly notched piece, west of the ST that has a north-south running easement on it for road purposes. We're similarly aware that along the FP&L easement to our east, at the south there are other holders of significant width of easements where practicable alternate routes could be achieved. So that element is certainly one that's in question. The one that's key to us I think at this point is that we neither have an offer of or a methodology to determine what the appropriate Page 22 February 7, 2008 cost that the statute requires be paid as compensation for using our roads. So we're not yet at a place where we can definitively tell you that there will be a requirement that we have to provide an interconnect and access, because at this point there's no present use of the property. So although the county's rules seem to talk in terms of adjacent developments, and this was discussed I think in great detail as part of Della Rosa, it's clear to say that as to that adjacent development, which is now approved and essentially starting to come out of the ground, there was from their side of our mutual property boundary no requirement to interconnect. As to all other property owners, we are, I believe, in a place where their concerns either have not been raised or will be addressed subsequently in the approval processes for site development plans or plats. So I think we've taken the issue and the ball as far as we can in an effort to try to assure this commission and the board and the staff that we're in a place where we're doing everything the law requires, we will do everything the law requires, and anything that may be determined by a court. To that extent we've had significant and detailed conversations with the county attorney's office, and we're in fact prepared to offer a condition essentially agreeing that we would defend, indemnify and hold harmless the county in the event that one or more of these adjacent property owners would believe they needed to bring suit. And include the county as a party. Certainly we ourselves would have to defend that if we couldn't agree on what those prices should be beforehand for the compensation that the statute says we're entitled to. So I hope that isn't too much information, but I wanted to try to give you both the legal, the practical and, most importantly, the planning aspects of it for your consideration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Patrick, the -- just to help, Page 23 February 7, 2008 I mean, in the six to the south, we'll call that the church; the special treatment, we'll call that special treatment. The one to the west, how big a piece of land is that? MR. WHITE: I think that's also two and a half acres, roughly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's two and a half acres? MR. WHITE: Right. That's the one I believe has an easement on its westerly side for a road north-south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would that easement go through your property? MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, it's on the eastern side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would that go through your property? MR. WHITE: It would touch the corners of that notch at the north and south points. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then where would it go after that? MR. WHITE: It would depend upon the ultimate road network that we're going to build, which is going to be in part determined upon where our preserves are going to be placed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The piece that's to the north of the special treatment, that's again two and a half acres? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are these all owned by the same people? MR. WHITE: No, there are different ownerships other than the six that are held by Center Point. And as to the one that's most northerly, that single parcel just to the south of our northerly portion of the project, I believe that there is an access easement that already exists for a drive there. Plus there is, as I mentioned earlier, the FP&L easement. And we're not aware that there is a specific objection or authorization from FP&L. We are aware, however, that in other portions of that Page 24 February 7,2008 right-of-way other private landowners have been able to secure easements for the ownership. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: That would be in my opinion possible to create, as the statute requires, an alternative practicable route. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, I assume we're going to run down one-by-one the deviations, so I have comments but I'll do it then. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Are there any-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow-up to -- yes, as a follow-up to Brad's comment, that westernmost square that he started talking about, and that I believe you said has a southern easement? MR. WHITE: It's a north-south running easement on the east side, so that it would touch both the corners of the red line where the red and the green lines kind of overlap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you were to take that square and go further west, you have a one depth square of your property there. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one depth square has a similar easement north-south 30 feet on the east side of it as well. At least I have that document in front of me. If you were to provide a connection to your internal road south of your lake number two from either one of those easements or both over to your road, you're only going a very short distance and you'd probably be curing an access problem. Is there at reason why you couldn't do that? MR. WHITE: I'm not aware of a technical or legal reason we couldn't. My understanding is that we haven't had any real interest expressed from that particular property owner about a concern, and we may yet reach favorable terms for purchase. I don't -- we don't yet know. I think everybody is waiting to see whether we're actually approved or not. Page 25 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm trying to get at, if you had a connection allowed to your internal road and it came from that property, then that would give the other properties to the east the ability to connect, if they could come together to make that connection work for them. And if they couldn't, at least they weren't blocked out completely of being able to negotiate a connection. MR. WHITE: That is a distinct possibility. I think that everyone would have to wait and see whether that in fact turns out to be the nearest practicable alternative as the statute requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I saw that Laura and the others shook their head in puzzlement when I gave them the fact that there's an easement on that property. It's OR Book 2026, Page 0511. So after the meeting if you'd take a look at that, you might find it. MR. WHITE: I believe you heard me originally state that I thought it was on the west side and I thought they were correcting me, and there may in fact be both. But my review of the records last evening, I believe your statement is one that I'm familiar with the facts of and is certainly correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those little easements help bring connection. So I just was wanting -- you answered my question on that, so that's fine. Are there any other questions of a nature regarding interconnections from Mr. White, while he's up here, before we go on to other questions? Mr. Murray? I think Mr. Murray had a question. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, Mr. Murray, my apologies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand. How do the landowners to the west, the ones that are in question here, how do they now visit their property, if they in fact they visit their property? How did they gain access to their property on the occasion of purchasing it? What rights do they currently enjoy, if any? Page 26 February 7,2008 MR. WHITE: I'm not familiar with the title of those properties to any degree to know whether there are other additional easements that they may have. I do not know personally how they access those properties. I do know that it is heavily vegetated. Much of it in terms of the access from the west is so thoroughly infested with melaleuca that it's almost impossible to pass through from that side. So I really don't know if ever one or more of those property owners have gained access to it. And if there's someone present who can answer that question under public comment, I'd certainly encourage them to do so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at the bottom of the diagram, there seems to be a road that passes Ravina Way going north from Livingston. Do you see that road that jogs there, takes an oblique? I think it's a road anyway. It's part of what would eventually become an easement as you go north. MR. WHITE: You're talking about the platted Verona Point 40- foot wide access easement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am only if you tell me that's true, because I can't see it from that document. But I do see two lines that appear to represent either a road or a space that leads toward the easement, the FPL easement. MR. WHITE: Oh, you're further to the east. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the one, right there. MR. WHITE: That parcel there that Laura has the curser on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- is in fact I believe a fee simple ownership. And it is held I believe -- give me a second. It's not WCI. I can tell you who it is that owns it, but it was what I was specifically thinking of when I referred earlier to the idea that there are fee simple holdings where routes of access would be possible as practicable alternatives. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah, that was your conjecture and that's what I was trying to establish, whether or not that Page 27 February 7, 2008 was a potential there or whether it was a legitimate means by which either the FP&L people continue to run their trucks through, or whatever. I guess it all -- and I'm not really clear, I thought that our legal counsel gave us good guidance in the staff report here. But it's an interesting question. Good planning suggests that you don't tie up other people's property. On the other hand, if they didn't have right of access in the first instance, then that becomes a second question to reView. MR. WHITE: The ownership in question is one that is held by Pulte. And we are aware of it and have some of the referenced documents, including the deed, if that's something you'd like to know more about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, from my part I think what __ the encouragement from our attorney is what I'm going to rely upon. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Certainly. But in that regard I'd just say again that we have agreed to what I'll just for simplicity sake call an indemnity condition in that regard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm referencing. MR. WHITE: And I'm sorry, I thought there was another question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where do you plan on building your units? MR. WHITE: When? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where. MR. WHITE: Where. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where are they going to be built? MR. WHITE: I'm going to allow Laura to give you a more precise answer. That's something that certainly she has more Page 28 February 7, 2008 familiarity with. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine. MS. DeJOHN: The question was where will the units be built? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. The master plan indicates a symbol "R" for residential. The units would be placed up and down along the road that runs through the property. An "R" has not been placed down near the new Verona Point interconnection, but it would be the request of the petitioner to allow residential units adjacent to the preserve and east of that interconnection drive, if the interconnection drive is enforced. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So therefore you're talking about all the "R"'s where all the "R"'s are, that's where they're going to be built? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. Where the "R"'s are, there's continuity between the "R"'s, and there would be units along those roads, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And how many units are you going to be putting in there, 204? MS. DeJOHN: 204. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And there is any type of building structures you're planning on making or using? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, building-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Building -- you need to keep the mic closer to you, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do you have any idea as to how this is going to be developed? MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, the question was about building structure and how it would be developed. The PUD allows for both single-family and multi-family units, and that including town homes and duplex, two-family type units, that the ultimate unit type has not been determined. It would be determined closer to construction when the market can be best suited for what Page 29 February 7,2008 type of development is appropriate. So there's a flexibility built into the PUD to allow either single-family or multi-family. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You don't really then have a plan for any of those developments. MS. DeJOHN: The applicant has not determined the unit type yet, no. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're finished up on the interconnection questions at this time. There will probably be more later on. And now regular questions from the planning commission on the balance of the presentation by the applicant and the documents in front of us. Mr. Midney then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my first question is: Have you given any thought to what you'll be doing to help the affordable housing crisis in Collier County? MS. DeJOHN: We've given thought to the status of the affordable housing situation in Collier County. The availability of units now in the hundreds and $200,000 range is far greater than it was a year or two ago. So therefore, there doesn't seem to be an imminent need for this development to provide those type of units, since they are on the market under current conditions today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you thinking of making a contribution to the affordable housing trust fund? MS. DeJOHN: If that's deemed to be necessary for this development to be approved, that contribution could be made, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is that a commitment? MS. DeJOHN: It's a strong willing list to consider, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no rules or regulations in the LDC -- Page 30 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, it's not an obligation, I'm just asking for your interest, I guess. The second question I have is what were your thought processes behind deciding to development 75 percent of a property that is 78 percent wetland? And why did you feel that you needed to develop that much of it? MS. DeJOHN: The need to develop that much is based on the inverse of the preserve requirement. We started with a preserve requirement to determine what remaining area of the property could be developed. The water management system takes up at least 15 percent of that remaining area. The road system takes up a substantial portion of that remaining area. And then in order to achieve units on the site in this specific situation of the boundary that we have, it's the most appropriate way to get that number of units on the site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why did you decide to go for four units an acre if you had 78 percent of the land that's wetland? MS. DeJOHN: The request for four units per acre is based on the project's location in the urban area. It's best to concentrate development in the urban area. Those are planning principles, smart growth principles that the project espouses to. And it would be less efficient to what I would call sprawl a low density development on this site in the urban area where stores, schools and services are in close proximity. Given the low, low quality of the wetlands on the site, the opportunity here is to improve at least 11.8 acres of those wetlands to the proper functioning quality that they should be. By doing the development those -- that acreage goes into preserve and gets cleared of exotics and maintained in perpetuity, while allowing people to live in an urban setting where they are close to those servIces. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You talked about the exotics infestation as though that were something permanent. Exotics, there are ways of removing exotics, and in the future there may be Page 31 February 7, 2008 biological controls that will make it easier to keep down melaleuca and Brazilian pepper. That's all my comments, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, could you -- MR. WHITE: May I further respond, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Midney's first question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. WHITE: -- if you'd allow me to, or desire me to. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's his question on affordable housing? MR. WHITE: Affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: Yes, we understand that there was, in the height of the housing market, I guess I'd say a frenzy of activity where prices were certainly much higher, as Ms. Spurgeon alluded to. At that time there was a commitment from any number of residential projects to a dollar amount contribution per residential unit. We believe that that -- given the drop in market prices, and I don't know that we've seen the bottom of that yet, that a dollar figure of 500 per residential unit would be a reasonable suggestion and contribution at the time of building permit for that type of a trust fund commitment for this project. And I hope that that addresses Mr. Midney's concerns and we're able to at this point at least see if that is something that is helpful. As to the specific questions earlier about easements, if I could just take us back a moment, Mr. Chairman, to address your point and my observation about where there are easements and where there may not be, I want to make sure I've corrected the record, because I may have been referring to a different parcel than you are. So if I could just take us back a moment, with your permission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 32 February 7,2008 MR. WHITE: Thank you. To start out, what we have -- if I may use my pen. The property in question that's the notched piece to the west of the ST, and you can see if the color is showing well enough through the visualizer, the ST's are colored green. The one property owner that I know Mr. Blume does not represent and that I was specifically referring to, and I'll show you an aerial in a moment, is the Butler parcel. That is the one that I was aware of that had a north-south running easement. The Meruzziac (phonetic) parcel I believe you may have reference, Mr. Chairman, is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I may have referenced it, but that's the one Brad started his discussion on was the Meruzziac parcel. The Eastbourne parcel immediately to the west of the Meruzziac parcel is the one that I have a document that shows is a 30-foot easement on the east side of that parcel. MR. WHITE: And understood. And by acquisition of all of the parcels I believe to the north and south there's at least a theory that under unity of title they may have -- that the easement may have been absorbed into the fee. I don't have a title opinion that tells me that there still would be access entitled to Meruzziac across that or not, but I understand your point. I just wanted to clarify that the parcel I was talking to, and I'll put the exhibit now on the visualizer, is again the yellow colored Butler, and that is the one that I was aware of that had an easement similar to the one you were describing we have, except ours is on the east and this is on the west. And I thank you for allowing me to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Kolflat, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Could you put on the overhead that site plan that you had previously? The master. Page 33 February 7, 2008 Now, it shows three areas there that I think are water retention; is that correct? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. Three lakes, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Now, in the traffic impact statement you show a site plan that has four lakes. What is the discrepancy or the difference? MS. DeJOHN: The traffic impact statement predates the latest negotiations and master plan tweaks that were done in recent months. Since the TIS was approved early in the process, the specifics of where lakes are located did not get rectified in that TIS drawing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The one on the TIS is incorrect then? MS. DeJOHN: Exactly. It -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: -- predates this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bringing your attention down to where you've drawn in a dotted arrow to a road that is down there where you see PUD, Verona Point, that would be the interconnection point? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There appears to be a bit of a jog in there or a slice or however we wish to describe it. If we were to take the parallel lines from what appears to be Verona Point and place it against your property, it seems to be if you're going to get a road of sufficient width, it looks like you're going to have to cross another parcel; is that correct? MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that parcel within -- do Page 34 February 7,2008 you have an easement for that or do you have an agreement of some sort associated with that? MS. DeJOHN: No. And I'll just move to the little more clearer image of what you're describing. There's a 20-foot dimension that -- there's a 40-foot public access easement on the Verona Point property that is directed toward both Brandon property and Center Point Community Church property. Twenty feet of that access easement connects to the Brandon property. A 20-foot wide dimension connects to the Center Point Church property. We do not have control or do not have an agreement and do not have an easement over that Center Point Church property at this time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How would you solve the problem if transportation desires that you should have that type of access? I assume that county has -- or you have entered into negotiations with somebody along the line. MS. DeJOHN: Well, terms have been written into the commitment language for this connection so that the 20 feet -- the 20- foot width dimension that we have control over would be immediately built as a southbound only one-lane connection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One lane. I heard that earlier. MS. DeJOHN: And at a future time that the church property ever develops or comes to an agreement on this issue, that at that time would the full two-way road system come to fruition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To your knowledge, are county transportation staff satisfied with that as being adequate access for their purposes? MS. DeJOHN: They've recommended this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They recommended it. So they -- okay, that's good. I wanted to have that as understood, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So far you're not giving any actual Page 35 February 7, 2008 height. You've given zoned height but no actual height. So a 50-foot multi-foot zoned potential building with no maximum to that, with no actual height to that. MS. DeJOHN: Right. Only the zoned height is given in the PUD document. So measuring from finished floor to the flat -- the top of a flat roof or the midpoint of a pitched roof. COMMISSIONER CARON: Somewhere I thought I had read that you were limiting multi-family to three stories. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. And that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't see that on your standards table. MS. DeJOHN: You're right. That can be included in the standards table. I mean, a 50-foot height can only allow so many stories. And as it became more of an issue through neighborhood discussions that stories needed to be limited as well, a three-story limit is acceptable to the applicant and can be placed in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a few. During the neighborhood informational meeting you provided some information. Some of the answers have been already supplied, a couple have not. One said -- one thing you said during that meeting is that we'll take steps to protect the cypress head (special treatment area) east of the project. What steps have you taken to protect that cypress head? MS. DeJOHN: The alignment of the preserve on the Brandon PUD -- and I'd like to go to the master plan there. The -- we did have a pre-application meeting at the district and Page 36 February 7, 2008 discussed the best location for preserve, based on surrounding conditions and connection to off-site potential preserve areas. And the location of that cypress head east of the Brandon PUD allowed for an alignment of a preserve on the Brandon PUD that connects it in its natural regional direction of flow from the northeast to the southwest. So that was the opportunity afforded by Brandon PUD to provide enhancement to the conditions there at the cypress head. And I got a nod from the ecologist that that was the -- you know, that's a planner's take on the ecology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During that neighborhood informational meeting, some of the neighbors expressed a concern about the buffer, and I believe it was the one on the east, and said the agents for the applicant stated they will plant the required buffer for county regulations and nothing more. Staff has assured the residents that this concern will be addressed in the staff report and would be requested as a stipulation of approval. Staff is requesting to have an enhanced buffer along the eastern boundary incorporated into the RPUD. I didn't see that in the RPUD. Is there an objection still from your team to supply an enhanced buffer along the eastern property line? MS. DeJOHN: There's no objection. And the staff condition for a 15-foot type B buffer along the -- it's stated the north and east property line, that's acceptable to the applicant and can be shown on the master plan as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the master plan that we're looking at now on the screen is inaccurate then, right? MS. DeJOHN: The labeling of that buffer on the north and east property line would become a 15-foot type B buffer, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got deviation questions, but I'll hold off on those for more or less probably staff. In your application for the PUD, you listed associations, or you were requested to list associations for notification. And you didn't do so. Do you know why? Page 37 February 7, 2008 MS. DeJOHN: Under the associations there are -- the association asked for associations affiliated with this petition. We were asked by staff to include associations that are surrounding the property, not affiliated with the petition. Those surrounding associations are listed in the application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have those (sic) application in front of you? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put it on the overhead then? Because mine doesn't have any associations listed. Those are names of projects, they are not associations. If you go on line, you will find out they are not associations, they are name of projects. I think when the application asks for association names, if you go into the text, the Clerk of Courts site or to the state corporation site, you will find associations named for all of those. From now on in an application I think it would be necessary that if it's asking for associations, that's what we put there and not names of projects. Is that something that staff will be correcting in the future, I hope? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt. Yes, we note your concern. We do have that information. It's easily accessible through the community development staff, specifically the PUD monitoring staff who keeps records -- attempts to contact and keep records of all associations and homeowner associations and the presidents of those associations. And the reason we need that information is because that's how the applicant is made aware of who they have to contact in regards to a neighborhood information meeting. So we will make sure that's identified when we take projects in on the intake team. Page 38 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think as you said, it is readily available. Whether it's provided by the county or the applicant wanted to look it up themselves, it's -- I found it in two different sources, so I know they could have found it. MS. DeJOHN: Is the Collier County Association listing one of those sources? Because that's the one available. And there were not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have Internet access where you work? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. And I'm referring to that. The Collier County Association's listing, the community information on the Collier County website. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. DeJOHN: That was the source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you needed to provide the information and you needed a source of it, why don't you just get the information -- you know that Mediterra's got a homeowners association, and you know that each one of these do. They all operate under HOA's. Why won't you just provide it, regardless of what the source is? I don't -- MS. DeJOHN: Well, I relied on the available sources that I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, did you have a question? And by the way, Tom Eastman is a member of the planning commission, a non-voting member. He represents the school board and will obviously help us with any school related issues. Go ahead. Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Thank you, Chairman Strain. I just wanted to make the applicant aware that the school district is currently constructing a traffic signal at the corner of Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Livingston Road. And we also have in place an interlocal agreement with the county that requires reimbursement from future developers. We believe that you'd be one of those future developers that Page 39 February 7,2008 would benefit from that traffic light, and this would require a traffic study in coordination with the county transportation department to determine your proportionate share impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, I sometimes forget, so you may just have to wave a little bit so I catch you down there. And sorry that we don't have 10 seats up here, but as long as you don't mind, we'll keep plugging ahead like we are. MR. EASTMAN: I don't mind at all. And it's an honor just to be here. And thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. And before the meeting Tom left in front of us a document that was titled Interlocal Agreement by and between Collier County and the School District of Collier County. It's OR Book 4281, Page 1295. And he asked that that be submitted as part of the record. A copy was left with the court reporter. And I don't know, maybe the applicant had received a copy. Ifhe hadn't, I'm sure Tom can provide you with one. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eastman was gracious enough to provide us with a copy and we did have an opportunity before the proceedings began to discuss in particular paragraph five that talks about the reimbursement of projects costs. And my understanding is and our commitment is that we will work with the county under the proportionate share calculations to make those payments at the first of SDP or plat, so that we're covered by the proportionate share umbrella and in fact we're going to make the appropriate contribution pursuant to this agreement. And I thank Mr. Eastman for making us aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And Tom, ifthere's any further clarification needed, just let me know. MR. EASTMAN: Thanks, that's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, I still wanted to continue with my questions. Could you put your site plan back up here, please. Page 40 February 7, 2008 MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the "R" residential district that you have shown on here include the roads? Are they part of the "R" district or are they another type of -- MS. DeJOHN: They are right-of-way -- no, the roads are not "R" residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could turn to Exhibit A under your residential area, Page 2. In the -- under the residential section on Page 2 you have accessory uses listed. Guardhouses, gate houses and access control structures. Were you intending for those to be in the road system? MS. DeJOHN: They may fit adjacent to the road, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MS. DeJOHN: Guardhouses would be adjacent to the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your access control structures or anything that operates in the road system, you don't have any provisions for that. What you have are items that would operate on the residential portion of the property. I just want to make sure that -- this was a little odd to see it placed here. Usually they just have general uses on the property and they list these in that category, not under the residential tract. But if you're comfortable with that, I'm sure staff will have an interesting take on it when it comes through under the process. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think we'll just work with the applicant to get clarification before it proceeds to the board. I believe you are correct, that would be under a general type of category and not accessory to the residential tract, which would be forcing it on the residential tracts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have listed here common recreational amenities. Usually those are on recreational tracts, especially if you have a homeowners association and you establish Page 41 February 7,2008 common areas. Did you intend not to have a separate recreational tract on this property but it's going to be part of the "R" residential section? MS. DeJOHN: The location of the common facilities have not been determined, so it was listed as a use within the residential area, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your development standards table, Exhibit B, would you please -- we need to get an actual height, what your actual height -- your maximum actual height going to be? MS. DeJOHN: Not having buildings determined yet for the site, an actual height would be derived from the actual building. We could provide an estimate for an actual height that can go in this document 55 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Laura, let me put it this way: If you don't provide an actual height, I certainly can't vote for it. So you either provide an actual height like everybody else in this county has been asked to do, or as far as I'm concerned you don't have -- that doesn't meet the qualifications that I see needed for this project. You're looking at 55 feet? MS. DeJOHN: In multi-family units, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your actual height in the multi-family unit is five feet above your zoned height. MS. DeJOHN: Because we assumed that as a maximum and we assume we can fit three stories within an actual height of 55 feet, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Laura, be careful, because, you know, you have elevator overruns and roofs on top of those. You're going to pinch yourself with -- MS. DeJOHN: Well, you know, I'm familiar with building height limits of three stories and 42 feet and where that can occur, assuming that a residential structure can fit within three stories and actual height of 55 feet. Page 42 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. DeJOHN: If you recommend we go higher, we will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I actually wanted to talk about the stories concept, too. I mean, but I don't want to interrupt Mark's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead, Brad. I mean, I'mjust going to move past this once you get done, so let's just stay on it and I'll go to my next -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Laura, one of the advantages, I note the height, but you are going to be remote from a lot of properties. One of the advantages of multiple stories cures Paul's problem of, you know, taking up too much land. So the reward for multiple stories is not just height, it's the ability to use less land to build the units. So I kind of think we should discuss that before we throw that away real quick. Because this site has a lot of nice land on it. I would like to see less, you know, building coverage as one of the things we do here today. And taking the floor off of the building might do that. Now, if it's backing up on somebody's residential, that might be an issue and we could restrict where in that occurs. But anyway, before we throwaway the fourth floor, I think we should discuss the benefit of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you want to comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the only thing I would say is we have again got a PUD in front of us and we have absolutely no plan for it. We have a laundry list of every conceivable housing type in the world. So unless you're going to take away some of those other housing types, you're not going to accomplish what -- giving them extra height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or we restrict where, you know, they can put four-story buildings and then leave the rest of it. I mean, I think there are parcels on here that could have it. And again, their Page 43 February 7, 2008 reward would be to solve less disruption to the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you've got no guarantee with your argument that that's going to happen. And I don't think that this board ought to be encouraging more of something, but less of something is really the goal rather than more of -- we've got too much density and height in this county now. And Brad, I think if she's willing to go with 55 feet, that works. Three stories works. I don't see a need to change that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again my point is that extra floor is not going to disappear. It's just going to go someplace else and it's going to take up more land. I mean, that's -- if the neighbors had concerns over viewing these things, I understand that. And if we could limit where it occurs so that they don't have to, I think it's appropriate to keep the height, again, just to preserve more groundcover. COMMISSIONER CARON: Brad, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Brad, I think that that concept is great if you can then also stipulate -- and if we had a legitimate master plan in front of us, we could do that. Then you could say take another story here and add to your preserves. But unless you stipulate additional benefits to the community, we won't get those benefits, we'll just get more height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, we have to stipulate. For example, one thing Laura said that terrifies me is that if they bring that road down that she actually wanted to put residences, you know, up against Livingston Road. So I definitely think we want to -- MS. DeJOHN: The location of the residences I referred to was east of the connector road. So that would be not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But even in that area. So in other words, I think you'll find me wanting to get multi-family out of an area like that. And I think we could restrict where different types of housing Page 44 February 7, 2008 occurs. MS. DeJOHN: And I'll explain that request as well by putting the residential along that connector road, it's to balance the extra preserve that will have to be placed in the remainder of the site. It's a tradeoff of areas that were going to be developed now would have to become preserve, based on the new alignment of that connector road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks, Mark, for the interruption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. We've got to get it all on the table. Laura, to follow up with that discussion, and Brad brought out a good point along Livingston Road. That strip that is contiguous to Livingston Road between the preserve and Livingston, would you have any problem limiting the product in there to single story? MS. DeJOHN: So you're referring to the -- where the connector road turns south, between the connector road and the preserve area, limiting to a single story? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, between the preserve area and Livingston Road. I don't care what side of the road you put it on. Between the preserve area and Livingston Road, that entire white area south of your main road would all be limited to single story. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, there's a hesitation to commit to that. I think the location we're requesting, which would be east of the connector road, would allow adequate distance from Livingston Road for views of those buildings. Just like Verona Point, you can see where the units line up adjacent to Livingston Road, and those are two-story town homes up to 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would object to using --limiting single story in there? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your development standards table, Exhibit B, you have minimum side yard for single-family at six feet, Page 45 February 7, 2008 but you have minimum distance between structures at 10 feet. How do you get there? MS. DeJOHN: Well, both could be their minimums. If you're interested in matching those numbers, the 10 feet could be changed to 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not matching them. But if you've got minimum side yards of six and you're six and six, how do you get to 10? If you've got one house with -- each house is six feet apart on each own property line, you've got a minimum of 12 feet, so why would you ask for a minimum of 10 feet? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the allowable encroachments in the side yards, like chimneys, bay windows, things like that, would protrude into a side yard and therefore there's a conceivable narrower area than 12 feet. But if you're comfortable with 12 feet, that can be changed to 12 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, under single-family, attached and townhouse you have 0 or 7.5. So wouldn't it be 0 or 15? MS. DeJOHN: Well, the -- so 15 -- I see what you're asking. Zero or 15 at the minimum distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm just matching up what you've said is your minimum setbacks. And if you add two of them together, which is a side-by-side arrangement, how can you get down to the number you're at? That's why I'm -- so I'm going to be going across that entire column in the same manner. Do you have any problem if it matches the minimum side yard as I'm indicating? MS. DeJOHN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one, zero lot line is zero and 12 and you have 10 feet. So your minimum distance would be -- on that one it would be 12 feet. Under two-family you have zero and six feet, so that should be Page 46 February 7, 2008 zero or 10 feet -- or 12 feet. MS. DeJOHN: Twelve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve feet, I'm sorry. Duplex is six feet, so that would have to be 12 feet. MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last two are based -- or the last two are not residential units, so they're not -- the last one is multi-family, it's based on half the building height, so that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Laura, would you mind making that your 20 feet greater than 20 feet? MS. DeJOHN: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to save your fire code -- MS. DeJOHN: We'll just put a greater than symbol. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You bet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more question on the chart. Can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Four, you want to measure yours from the first floor. What's wrong with the way we measure it by default in the county, which is from the flood elevation or something? In other words, essentially you could maybe lift your building above parking or something and start measuring from the first floor. I mean, you might have a story argument somewhere, but -- in other words, number four, I don't know if that's necessary, because we do have a definition in the LDe. MS. DeJOHN: It's in the code. I'm comfortable with going with the code definition, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd strike footnote four to the table. Page 47 February 7, 2008 MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under footnote five, you talk about preserve setbacks, and they've become a hot issue lately in the county. It says, preserve setback of 10 feet for accessory structures also shall apply to any site alteration, although fill may be approved to be placed within 10 feet of the upland preserve but may not be approved to be placed within 10 feet of a wetland preserve. You're asking for a deviation from the code? MS. DeJOHN: No, that was code language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we can strike it all; is that correct? If it's in the code, then why do you need to repeat it in this table? MS. DeJOHN: Because as often as the code changes, sometimes it's a comfort level to know what the standard is being applied for this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in that case, we might want to repeat the whole code then in this PUD, wouldn't you say? MS. DeJOHN: Well, hot issues, like you said. And this being a hot issue, it's allowing some certainty on what the standard will be. And actually, the environmental staff does encourage us to put their, you know, kind of development standards in here, because they must fear they would be forgotten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they change them more than anybody, so I'm not sure there's maybe -- I'm not sure why they do that. The concern that drew my attention to this is especially was the word "may". And is there a criteria in the code that provides, Ray, the word "may" to be qualified? Because having it in a PUD seems to make it even more unqualified. At least in the code we might have a basis for Page 48 February 7,2008 the word "may" being exercised. I'm not sure that there's any basis in the PUD as to who could argue why the use of the word "may" is exercised in any manner here. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. You're correct, there's no definitive way to enforce "may". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just as soon see it removed. If it's in the code and we've been -- this board has repeatedly tried to keep things that have been in the code out of PUD's, because they're consistent with the code. And if the code changes, you'll have to live with it. But anybody else have any comments on that? (No response.) MS. DeJOHN: Okay, that will be stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, back to deviations. And I know, Brad, you had started with some concerns over the deviations. Why don't we start then with you and we'll walk through all the deviations and get a standing on those. And we're -- deviation number one is where we'll start then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think maybe what I'm not sure is I understand deviation number one. What you're concerned about is if we do require this road to connect to Verona Point, that you don't want to put a sidewalk on both sides of it. MS. DeJOHN: Correct. It's a 40-foot wide right-of-way, so space is limited. And the intention is to only have a single side of that road lined with units. So therefore a single sidewalk was considered adequate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way it's written, it sounds like you want that deviation for the whole project. You're saying, you know, oflocal streets. So in other words, if you could rewrite that and aim it to where your justification is, I think it would be a good idea. Otherwise, this community should have sidewalks. Page 49 February 7, 2008 MS. DeJOHN: Right. And the intention was only, as described in the justification, to be applied to that 40- foot wide connector road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the wording is not. MS. DeJOHN: Right. And staff did recommend denial of that, and we were accepting of that. So depending on the board's -- or the commission's action we could narrow that down to just the Verona Point connection road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or scratch it entirely. MS. DeJOHN: Or scratch it entirely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to scratch it entirely, it means you'd be putting sidewalks on both sides of the road. MS. DeJOHN: Right. Or a 10-foot sidewalk on one side, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, you want to go on with your -- anybody else have any questions on deviation one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's move to two then. Brad, did you have anything on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing really on two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't either. Deviation number three? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do on deviation number three. What you're intending to do here is you're talking about the paved edge of the road, not the lot line, the paved edge of the road you want to make less than 25 feet. Yet that would be less than, you know, that's required by fire codes and stuff. So I definitely think you can't do that. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. We can accept withdrawing that deviation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on number three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney Jeff, I've got a question for you. Most of these deviations referred to the references out of the Page 50 February 7, 2008 Code of Laws and Ordinances. And I know through the change from the LDC to the UDC we moved a pile of items that were in the LDC to the Code of Laws and Ordinances. What jurisdiction does this body have involving the Code of Laws and Ordinances? That's a different animal than the LDC and the GMP. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I scratched my head on that yesterday. It's not really an ordinance, it's an administrative code. I'm not really sure what the intent was then or whether or not we actually finished the job then. I do think, given what I've read with this, is that you do have the authority to waive that, if that's what you want to. But I do think this is something down the road we probably should fix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and the reason I'm bringing it up is if we have the authority to make a recommendation in regards to these deviations that involve that code, why then wouldn't we be involved in the amendments and changes to the code of laws, versus only the LDC? MR. KLATZKOW: Because this really isn't the code of laws, it just got put there for purposes of codification. This is really -- you know, I think Patrick probably could explain this better. This looks like an administrative code that they needed to find someplace for and so they put it within the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, but it's really not that. It's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but it is in the code oflaws right now. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's an ordinance that creates an administrative code. And then that administrative code, for purposes of locating it, is located within section two of the code of laws. I don't quite understand why it's there is what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But of course my question is what authority does this board have? And I'm sure that the BCC would Page 51 February 7,2008 welcome our recommendations on it, as they have. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you can discuss this portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's another item to clean up in the future, I would hope. Since you're responsible for all this, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: I'd love to take credit for it. I don't know that I'm responsible for it. But in any event, what I think we're talking about are provisions that were intended to continue to be within the jurisdiction certainly of this body, as are plenty of other sections -- or excuse me, portions of the Code of Laws and Ordinances. Your authority in fact is derived from Chapter 250 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances in part. And so I think it's fair to say that the breadth of your jurisdiction, as does the Board of County Commissioners, extends in many places based upon the subject matter into the code oflaw. So if I understood your point about some future considerations, it certainly would seem to me that it was appropriate for this body to weigh in on those and make specific recommendations, both as to any section that involved administrative code as well as any other area of the code where regulations that pertain to some aspect of development are found. Specifically looking at these provisions, I think that they were intended to be adopted under provision that are in the Code of Laws that authorize administrative codes. And I agree that there is unfinished work. My understanding is that staff is in the process of performing those tasks at this time. And so I think we all look forward to them coming to fruition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And since you were here with the county at the time this process began, we appreciate your clarification. Deviation number four, anybody have any comments? Page 52 February 7, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And lastly, number six. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. COMMISSIONER CARON: They've agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think they've agreed to abide by the code. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. The staff recommendation was for denial of the deviation from fence or wall height, and we're accepting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just for a summary of the deviations then, deviation one you're going to accept that as staff denial. Basically you're going to put this -- so deviation one doesn't exist. Deviation two is acceptable. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation three was withdrawn. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation four was acceptable. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Deviation five was acceptable. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And deviation six was withdrawn. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will take a 15 minute break and be back at 10:15. Thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from our break. We'll continue with the Brandon PUD review. Mr. Murray was next up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Hi again. Page 53 February 7, 2008 With regard to the dashed lined and the arrow, that is the proposed road that you're going to get. Would you tell us why you would cite it there as opposed to, say, citing it closer to the property line, which would be right adjacent to the entrance. Because that angle and that -- that does provoke a problem in terms of -- perceived problem in terms of what kind of residences you would put there and what height, et cetera. Could you tell us why you chose that particular angularity? MS. DeJOHN: That's a proposed connection line, it's not a road alignment. The arrow is put in place at the request of transportation staff and was not a commitment to an actual road right-of-way the way the road is shown throughout the rest of the project. Because of the conditional nature of how that road would be built and the timing of it, it would ultimately be designed with probably a little more thought into how it's aligned through the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I assume then that -- MS. DeJOHN: There's not a commitment there for that alignment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I assume then that you really never intended originally to have a road there and that transportation suggested it, recommended it, desired, required it, et cetera. But I have, and I'm sure many of us have, driven through communities where roads are generally along the right-of-way, you know, just outside the buffer and the housing is interior. Would that in any way be feasible? Because the presentation here with that line strongly suggests that it's not the most ideal, if you're talking about caring about the people who ultimately will reside in those places. So is it possible or feasible that you'll ever have that line moved way over to the west, or is that pretty much where you're constrained to remain? MS. DeJOHN: Well, we're constrained by two things: The Page 54 February 7, 2008 location of the access easement on Vernon Point demands that the direction be maintained and a connection be made at that corner. And then there's intersection spacing that we would have to maintain, provided there is at least a right-in access point along that driveway at Livingston Road. So as long as we're meeting those standards, the intention is to allow that road to be located so that it conveniently provides access that's safe and allows for units to be located along the eastern side. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the predicate is safety is what you're saying to us, that in order for traffic coming from north to south, that they don't get in a mix with any entry traffic at the location of the dark arrow? Is that what you're referencing? MS. DeJOHN: There will be some congestion points down at the location where Verona Point has an entry, this access easement is located. And then traffic may be coming from a third-party church where the easement crosses their property. There's a -- there are tight constraints there. But then as we're moving up into the Brandon RPUD property, the goal would be to again connect to the Brandon access road at a safe distance from the intersection with Livingston and the Brandon access road, and allow -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, just to finish this. One of the difficulties that was cited by Commissioner Caron is that it's difficult for this body to really effectively want to grab onto and assist in trying to help you in your planning if we don't really understand all of the latitude that you think you enjoy and show us very limited latitude. So I have a concern. I could be satisfied, I suppose, with this suggestion here, but I would be much more pleased to see something that provided residences interior and not apparently pushed to the outside of Livingston Road. Ifthere's any way you can make clarity for that with this body, I Page 55 February 7, 2008 would think you'd be doing yourself a favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just to comment in response to what you were saying about the affordable housing difficulty. I think that you can't say that we're not still in an affordable housing crisis, even though the speculation has not been driving up the values or the prices of the homes. It doesn't mean that working people are suddenly snapping up these houses and buying. The reason that the prices have gone down is because the ability of people to buy them is less, both because of credit and because there have been a lot of loss of jobs. A lot of people who are working families in this county depend on two or three incomes, and a lot of people have lost their jobs in construction and in agriculture. So I think that it's more difficult now than it was before for working people to buy houses, and I think that the prices would be even lower than they are if it weren't for the fact that some people are buying up some of these foreclosed houses as an investment in the hopes that later on the price is going to go back up. So I don't think that there is any less problem for working people to afford housing now than there was before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Were you at the EAC meeting? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They voted 7-1 for denial ofa petition; is that correct? MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What would be your comments in regard to that? MS. DeJOHN: Well, my comments in regard to that is that the EAC had a lot of questions about building height and building Page 56 February 7, 2008 placement that were not -- we were not prepared to answer at the EAC or prepared with environmental data at the EAe. So as the hearing went on the conclusion, as you saw by the motion, was that based on wetland impacts and the development proposed, that they did not see that as an appropriate zoning approval when in fact they were hoping for more like SDP level plans. They had questions about specific construction type issues that were not part of the zoning package. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, I had a question about the EAC's recommendation. Since it's brought up now, let me ask it. Let me read to you a staff report on that. The EAC recommended denial. Mr. Penniman moved to deny the petition, asserted that 78 percent of existing wetland in intense development of such uncertain development specifications being put on the site is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind of land. Can you tell me what LDC references or GMP references were provided by the EAC for a basis of a conclusion like that that doesn't provide any environmental information to this board? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think staff might disagree with the EAC's assessment. Having said that, I mean, the EAC's role is similar to your role where you review these applications and make recommendations to the board. EAC felt they needed more information before they would give a recommendation. You mayor may not feel the same way. Ultimately it will go to the board, and that legal issue will come to bear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if this were to be challenged and you have to defend it, it says being put on the side is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind of land. I'm just wondering why we would have let a recommendation come forward without some refinement, probably not the appropriate Page 57 February 7, 2008 way. I'm not sure that tells us much if anything in regards to the environmental concerns that may be attributed to this property. So my comment is I wish that we had gotten some. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would say only, and I'm not saying I think it's the best motion that was ever made, but I believe that it clearly references back to the 78 percent of existing wetlands, so -- and that is their charge is to look at wetland issues, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would have liked to have understood from a wetland perspective what violations there are in the LDC that they're basing their conclusions on. COMMISSIONER CARON: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that said, I think we've exhausted our questions of the applicant and we'll move to the staff presentation. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. We've gone through quite a bit here this morning. Have gotten through. And staff just wants to confirm on the record that this is in a rural agricul -- it is rural agricultural zoning, and they are requesting a residential planned unit development on 51.1 acres. And request to the deviations, thank you for supporting staffs recommendations. We appreciate that. I've been taking notes. One of the things that I want to have clarified, more so than having to present because everything has been presented to this board, is in regards to the Exhibit B, the development standards. And I've been taking notes diligently, and I just want to make it clear, if you are going in this direction with actual and zoned height, that we talked about the actual height for multi-family, but the single family, all the other proposed residential developments, as well as the accessory structures were not discussed. Page 58 February 7, 2008 So if we are going to be going with actual height, staff would request that we can be specific with the others. If not, it will just be another back and forth talking, trying to get the applicants to provide. I know that Johnson Engineering is very good and they will be responsive, but I would like that for the record that we go through with that. Also, when the commission here was talking about the interconnection, the preserves, currently they're showing 75 percent of their preserves, and that was because of the interconnection to Verona Point. And they had originally had that area set aside as preserves area. But the LDC, as well as the GMP, requires that preserves be contiguous. So when we're here working and maybe doing some site development alterations, we want to make sure if part of your stipulation would be, or if we could get them to agree to it today would be great, that the applicants have -- the remaining preserves will be defined not only at the next development order but that they will also be contiguous to the current preserves to meet the GMP and LDC requirements. And staff recognizes it is going to be difficult because of that interconnection, but that interconnection is also needed. So it just needs to be presented here and discussed with the applicant for that reason. And then I wanted to mention with the school, their interlocal agreement, we do have in the PUD document Exhibit F, Item F, which is the developer's commitments, Exhibit F, Item F talks about paying fair share. And if the board wanted to -- not only does the county -- are we aware of this agreement, the standards were put in before the agreement was approved, but we could, if the board agrees, to modify Exhibit F, Item F and cull out that intersection specifically so that it not only guarantees that the school board has assurance that that intersection in itself will be, but it will be in the PUD as well, so there will be no discussions down the road if that is the intersection. So we'd Page 59 February 7, 2008 like to have that incorporated under that. Transportation service had offered that up into that area, and they would like to see it there. If there's any other ques -- oh, I'm sorry, one more. On the master plan they talk -- they show you here, there's the black arrow for -- by Livingston Road. And it says the proposed access, but underneath it says no compensating right-of-way. And that conflicts with the developer's commitments. And what we would like to do -- right, they have on your master plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, would you let her finish her presentation? If you guys want to rebut, you can do so. MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. What we'd like to do is just on that, instead of saying no compensation right-of-way or compensating right-of-way, we would like to just say potential turn lane and leave it as that. They're going to be modifying this master plan, I have a feeling, so we would like it just to have potential turn lane and leave it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you said something that fascinated me. I'm looking at the master plan and I see the preserve, and you were stressing a point about making sure the preserve were contiguous. MS. ZONE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any inkling that they intend to interrupt the preserve as it is outlined right there? MS. ZONE: No, not the preserve that's outlined there. That is the 75 percent that's required for them to illustrate to us on this master plan. But I want to make sure that the other 25 percent is contiguous to this and that it is discussed here, and that they do not try to put the preserves maybe up in the north or into another area. We want to keep Page 60 February 7,2008 it consistent with the LDC and GMP requirements, So that is why we're requesting that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse my ignorance, but the other 25 percent is scattered then, is that -- MS. ZONE: No, it hasn't been determined. And they have agreed to do it during the time of development order. But we want to ensure that it is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I understand. MS. ZONE: -- contiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to slow down a little bit. MS. ZONE: I'm very sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're starting to move a little too fast, so let's -- MS. ZONE: I'm very sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now I understand you. MS. ZONE: You want me to repeat that what I just -- THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to go to the Growth Management Plan consistency issue. Because in discussions with people in compo planning yesterday, unless the two commitments that are made in the body of the second paragraph on Page 4 are adhered to, then it is their contention that this is not consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And both -- in the final paragraph you say that it is as well as in rezone findings. You say that they think that it's consistent. And they're telling me it's not consistent unless those changes are made. MS. ZONE: Right. And I've been in discussions with them, and it's a matter of wording on paper. Staff -- the GMP Policy 7.3 encourages interconnection. The Growth Management Plan does not Page 61 February 7,2008 direct where the interconnection would be, if it's pedestrian or if it is for traffic. As well as the LDe. Working with transportation who reviews for that purpose that policy, they work with the applicants to do the interconnection to Verona Point to meet the Growth Management Plan's recom -- policy for interconnection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, her question might have been a little simpler. The GMP you say requires -- or the staff is saying requires connection. Is that a true or not true statement? MS. ZONE: No, the GMP encourages, it does not require. And in terms of consistency, they do meet the Growth Management Plan and they have done an interconnection to Verona Point. We have Tom Greenwood, who is with the Comprehensive Planning Department. If you would like, he's willing to come up here and talk further, as well as Nick Casalanguida, our Transportation Planning Director. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's talk to Tom. MR. GREENWOOD: Good morning. For the record, Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning. The memo that was distributed September of last year, five months ago, pointed out that -- in fact, the recommendation in the memo was that unless the interconnects are provided to east and west, the plan would be deemed inconsistent with comprehensive planning. I think the word inconsistent at that point in time was perhaps overkill. The reason for the staff report that way was to get a dialogue going between the developer, Brandon, and the property owners to the east and west to provide -- what really is a goal is to provide public access of pedestrian and/or vehicular to the surrounding properties. The property to the east, as has been discussed earlier, is essentially landlocked. But again, I would say the best phraseology would be is Page 62 February 7,2008 encourage. And that's the way policy 3. -- 7.3 reads. I'll just quote it. All new and existing development shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, regardless of land use type. And again, I think that's something worthy for this group to consider and address. And it wouldn't necessarily be specific to this. It's probably specific to any other similar situation where there are properties that are being isolated. Is that in the public interest? I think that's a question that has to be answered. COMMISSIONER CARON: But to that point, in the public interest, if you are suddenly going to landlock somebody, it becomes more than just a public interest. And encouragement is good, but the whole point of our using the phrase in the Growth Management Plan of encouraging people to do things was to provide the maximum amount of flexibility for people. Not that they could avoid doing certain things, unless there were some overriding reason not to, but to provide flexibility. So I would say that your phrase of inconsistent is absolutely correct. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, it is. And again, the word encouragement is in the growth management -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: -- Policy 7.3. And this is a situation that maybe occurs, I don't know how frequently it occurs, where there's a property that's being isolated by a development that's being proposed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Almost never. It is happening, so -- MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, can you tell us if the word encourage in the GMP means shall and is required? MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't mean shall and it doesn't mean required. But I would have no objection ifthe planning commission Page 63 February 7, 2008 was of the mind to require interconnect as a condition. Now, whether or not the petitioner would object to that would be up to them. But that's your prerogative, to require that as a condition of your approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The inconsistency part of the GMP then, is staff now changing their mind that the staff report we have in front of us is again wrong and that it is inconsistent, or is it consistent? MR. GREENWOOD: I would say the word inconsistent is inappropriate in the staff report, okay, based upon the phraseology of Policy 7.3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have more to go on that, but I see others have questions so I'll defer to them first. Mr. Kolflat then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, then we could argue that term about consistency or inconsistency, but still the consequences of landlocking some landowners to me is a very serious matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's -- I want to talk to Melissa. Melissa, in the review why can't we show an easement into these? Especially these two, two-and-a-half acre properties. I mean, we know that if we go with what we do today there's a problem. The reason I know we know it is recommendation number three is they have to the pay for any legal challenge. MS. ZONE: Certainly. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why put those homeowners into the position that they have to have a legal challenge to get access to their site? I mean, why don't we just show the easement and be done with it? They could build at least a single-family home in there. And maybe based on today they could put a 10-unit, you know, apartment or something in there. Page 64 February 7, 2008 MS. ZONE: We -- staff would definitely welcome that they put it in there. There is nothing that specific in the LDe. I know transportation service division reviews and looks for those easements. Staff is always in there. But, you know, it's very difficult to require something that isn't spelled out. But you also don't want to spell out every minute thing. And you can encourage -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. When staff is analyzing a project and we have a growth management policy that says encourage where feasible, staff is to explore that. And if they feel the conditions warrant, then we can make that recommendation. And if the applicant disagrees, then that's something we'll bring to the planning commission and board. But if our staffs professional opinion it's warranted, we can put it on there and recommend it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, one thing is, that policy, I think the intent of that is to connect developments to avoid using public streets. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's not to overcome landlocking somebody. So that's a totally different legal issue and an issue that I think we have we need to address here because we know it's happening. So my concern is why aren't we showing on this site an easement into those two properties that are definitely going to be cut off? MR. BELLOWS: For the record again, Ray Bellows. It's my understanding that these properties to the east aren't completely landlocked. There are options that was spelled out by the petitioner this morning. But if staff feels and transportation feels there's a reasonable need for an interconnection, then we should be able to make that recommendation. Page 65 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the next topic, the preserve. In the original design that whole area is preserved. MS. ZONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially what they did is to make this interconnection they took a big area of it off. Now they're talking about even developing on it. But they took it off and you still don't know where it's going to go and that's your concern. MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they put the road through the preserve a' la nice country lane, wouldn't that not be considered contiguous? MS. ZONE: Well, I mean, there is some language that eludes to that, but it's not something that staff would like to support. Because you're separating the preserves, and that isolated preserve might not have a strong of a chance to survive. Where they could go that roadway network, there's certainly some property there where they could go to the east of that connection to Verona Point, as well as some of area just west of the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Melissa, let meet interrupt a second. MS. ZONE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that, you know, the road could be nice going through the preserve. The preserve also is alongside Livingston Road, which means all of us in the community, all of us, get to enjoy the nature of the preserves. So to do a scheme like we're proposing that would take that away to me is, you know, a bad answer. So I don't mind getting access through the preserve. And why wouldn't you then -- you could count both sides of that. Even count the right-of-way. Just, you know, consider it country lane and part of a country preserve. You've already testified that the water flow's been ruined in this area. And we could recreate it anyway with culverts and things. Page 66 February 7, 2008 MS. ZONE: I would like to ask Susan Mason from environmental services to come up, because I know she's very strong in terms of not -- to making it contiguous and not to split it up. And I think it would be important for her -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has a comment to make. MS. ZONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just -- I don't think that putting roads -- and this would not be a country lane; I mean, it would be a road to serve this PUD -- is allowed in preserves. Susan, maybe you can comment further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the question was, are roads allowed in preserves. And I guess Susan, you're the answer person on this one. MS. MASON: Goods morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Collier County Environmental Services Review. Roads are not an allowed use through preserves, so it would effectively -- and all functionality of that area would be disrupted. There wouldn't be an ability to -- it would restrict the ability of wildlife to cross. There's potential Big Cypress fox squirrel on here. That would not meet the definition of trying to increase continuity and connectivity. Originally their proposal was with the interconnect going to the south towards Verona Point, that was going to be included in preserve, and they actually exceeded their minimum requirement of the 11.8 acres, I believe it is. And when transportation issues came up, that was removed, and that was why they were going to designate that later. But that was actually the area that both staff and the applicant agreed upon as meeting the requirements. And it would have been one large contiguous preserve. And we try to avoid any interruptions unless it's unavoidable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying is they were willing to have a preserve all the way to Livingston Road, but because Page 67 February 7, 2008 transportation would not allow a left and right turn at that location where they want their main entrance, the preserve now had to be trashed and an access lane has to go down and tie into Verona Walk (sic). Does that sum it up? MS. MASON: I don't know ifI'd use those exact words, but there was a conflict between the transportation requirements and the application of the environmental, and compromises are made to fulfill both as best as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Nick in his pristine road seems to still be dominating this whole argument, now that we're getting down to the bottom of it. I guess we'll have to debate that in a few minutes with Nick. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me still have the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concept of what this road is going to do now, as you're coming out of the development, you would have only a right-in and right-out without this extra access point; is that right? MS. ZONE: Can you clarify which road you are referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The big black arrow is only going to be -- you can only go in that, obviously making a right to go in the development, and then coming out of the development you can only make a right. MS. ZONE: Right-in, right-out. And it's a temporary access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What do you mean temporary? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa. MS. ZONE: It has it in the PUD document that once the connection to Verona Point is complete, then that will be removed. That's why we wanted just potential turn lane and nothing else there. But I also want to put, before Nick gets up and speaks, the Page 68 February 7,2008 applicant has said they will agree to contiguous preserves. So they have agreed to that. And they will also mention that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, Melissa, let me stay with you for a second. So if that's the case, then the only entrance to the south into this project will come through the Livingston Road entrance at Verona Point. That will be their essentially main entrance, put their sign on it. So it can't be 20 feet one way at that point. I mean, obviously you're building -- you're taking the easement that you now show coming out of Livingston. Why aren't you just running that along the southwestern edge of the property then? MS. ZONE: I think that Nick would probably be able to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ZONE: -- answer your question. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. Interconnection is recommended. And where feasible is that idea that we have in the LDC. And it does take traffic off the roads, it makes projects function better, it makes the road function better. The arrow that you see on Livingston Road, we don't want them to have a driveway on Livingston Road. We compromised. We said if you're willing to go to an access point that was predefined in a prior project that has an access easement, because we planned for it, that's where you come in. The agricultural piece that's south of their preserve, eventually we'll want access as well, too. So we're with (sic) agree with the applicant to say make that a 20-foot wide driveway coming out only. When we work out with the neighbor that extra little sliver you need, that would turn into full access for both of you. And then Livingston right-in only would go away. And that was a fair compromise that they've agreed to and we've Page 69 February 7, 2008 agreed to and it provides for better circulation in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Nick, but look at the design of that down there. Does that have a light on it, or it's just a -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Signalized. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that's a great place for everybody to go in and out? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if you took that right-of-way -- and right now the way it was laid out with half being on the church and half being on this property wasn't, you know, good forethought, I guess -- and ran it -- well, I guess I'd cut the preserve in half. Never mind, the testimony that you can't cut a preserve in half -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not the preserve, it's that corner where you see that arrow at the bottom of that. There is a 20-foot missing strip that you can't get past. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now, I guarantee you, when that development comes in they're going to be seeking access. They have the same problem these folks have. So it's a matter of time. And I think in the next 90 days transportation will approach that developer or landowner and say it's in your best interest now to facilitate that. Hopefully by the time we go to construction that Livingston access won't even be there and we'll have worked this whole thing out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then where do you think -- is the road where it's shown where you think it should be? I mean, that's a good location because of cars coming in off of Livingston and people cutting across them to go south. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And there's a couple -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But once you close that off, that's not necessarily a good location. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The one at Verona Point is not a good Page 70 February 7,2008 location? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the one coming into our project. This project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The dark arrow? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The light arrow. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Dotted line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, when it's first built, it will only be southbound. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Southbound only -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Therefore you have to pull it back from Livingston Road so that it's not dangerous. MR. CASALANGUIDA: When it's first built it would be southbound only coming out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it would work okay. The dark arrow would be an in only for their project coming in off Livingston Road, so you wouldn't have conflicting traffic there at all because of the width restriction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you would have traffic that's going to go southbound crossing that lane to get into the southbound 20 feet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's signalized. And if you're talking about that throat depth on Verona Point, you have enough there you'd probably stop control of Verona Point traffic coming out so you wouldn't have any conflicts there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm just -- I'm talking about the southbound road. Everything is on this site -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that you have to -- as you're coming south on the stem road in this project, you have to cross the traffic that's coming in to get to the southbound road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, you're coming southbound on that Page 71 February 7, 2008 road right now. You take a right and then approach the signal and go wherever (sic) direction you want it to go. That would be an internal stop control or just traffic control internally. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if we did not have the temporary thing and we pushed that road over more towards Livingston again, you know, creating more preserve, I mean, why don't we just do that now, or is it totally because we don't have a good interconnection at Verona Point? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You couldn't physically make that work, what you're suggesting. In other words, that temporary access, by eliminating it and sliding it left over the southbound road, you couldn't do that. This scenario has probably been worked out with transportation numerous times to make it the best possible scenario that's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I've got a couple of questions now that you're up here and being so helpful, trashing the preserves. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be in the paper somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation trashes preserves, Nick. In our LDC -- let's forget about the GMP, I know the word encourage now can mean all different kinds of things. But in our LDC we have a section -- and I know that in one of the letters that was provided, and this is what got me looking at this, by the neighboring properties who were concerned -- they referenced that they were told Section 4.04.02(B)(3), and they quoted (B)(3) as applicable requirements for interconnections, but actually that doesn't apply to this project because that's only for mixed use activity centers. So wherever they got that information, it's wrong. Page 72 February 7, 2008 But in doing a search on the LDC, I did find Section 4.07.02, design requirements under PUD's. (J)(4). And I want to read it to you and tell me how you feel it fits this project or it doesn't. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to encourage smooth traffic flow and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic merging in turn lanes and/or traffic dividers shall be required where existing or anticipated heavy traffic flows indicate need. The interconnection of collector and local streets within the PUD to adjacent lands or developments shall be required except where determined by the county manager or designee that interconnection is not feasible or warranted due to existing development patterns, transportation network needs or the like. Now, in reading that it seems to be -- it says shall be required. And that seems to apply to this internal road connecting to adjacent properties. Is that a reasonable assumption? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where feasible. And I think if you're talking about the landlocked parcels -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- we've spoken to the gentleman that represents all those people. You can provide interconnection. What we've said all along to the developer, he's entitled to be compensated for that. Compensated in many ways. For the road he's building, for the loss of the land use. It's in Florida statutes that he can do that. And I think they're willing to do that. I believe the landowners to the east are. So providing interconnection. The only thing that comes into play that the landowner that's developing the property brought to my attention is what kind of development that I don't control is now going through my neighborhood? And that's a legitimate concern I think he has. And I can't address that as part of transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me read another one. Under 6.06.00, transportation system standards, 6.06.01(B). The street Page 73 February 7,2008 layout of all subdivision or developments shall be coordinated with the street systems of the surrounding areas. Adjacent properties shall be provided with local street interconnections, unless topography or other natural features or other ordinances or regulations do not allow or require said connections. Is that applicable to this development? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We think it is. I think the Florida Statutes covers that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 6.06.02, sidewalks and bike lane requirements. (B): All developments required to provide interconnections to existing and future developments must dedicate sufficient right-of-way or easement for all required roads, sidewalks and bike lanes. I guess that helps understand the size of it. And now where I'm leading is if an interconnection were to be provided to the lands to the east, it would seem to me that south of lake two, adjacent to that northern property line of that parcel they don't own, a 60 -- a 50 or 60- foot wide dedicated easement through there would actually provide the access to anybody to the east that worked their conveniences out or their needs out to get there. And then we're back in the game as far as having the interconnection provided. It's a very short piece of land, it's not one that interferes with any residential properties, and it's along a lake edge that is being unused for view amenity. I don't know, it seems like a logical way to resolve the issue. Has anybody suggested that, or do you see any concerns with that offhand? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could work. Again, you get into property rights that transportation doesn't get involved in. I guess reading the Florida Statutes, I looked at it when this project came up. It says you can petition and require access and you have to compensate the landowner for the access that you're Page 74 February 7,2008 petitioning for. It gets into all these legal requirements that are way past me and what it would mean or how it would applied. Again, the concern they've expressed to me, which is not my department, would be you're providing access to a project you don't control, and depending on what they develop there and how it would affect their property values. And I don't have an answer for that. Would make sense, and I think it's required by the statutes and our codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick. We're back to Melissa. And she had finished her presentation and we were questioning on issues involving her report. Does anybody have any comments further for Melissa? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, I do. The rezone findings. By the way, they're written much better. Huge improvement. MS. ZONE: I keep trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're much better than -- they weren't boilerplate, so that's good, and they were very well thought out, so I wanted to let you know. MS. ZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The access issue, though, didn't seem to be addressed in any of the answers to the rezone findings, and I was wondering why, if staff feels so strongly about it. MS. ZONE: This was -- this has been through several discussions with our county attorney's office, transportation, compo planning. They had multiple questions. They have met the interconnection intent of the GMP. Where staff would like it, you know, is a matter of difference. And this is Page 75 February 7, 2008 what is the basic questions and so it was not culled out in terms, but it was discussed in the staff report. And so for just terms of meeting the LDC and GM -- and the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code requirements, which are in the findings, staff wrote the responses to meet that. And then the issues we put in the analysis of the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, at the time this was being reviewed as well, too, there were multiple landowners. Now they're saying today that they're unified in providing a cont -- you know, requesting an access point. At the time we looked at it, even comprehensive planning staff Melissa or myself says we can't address those concerns if you have seven landowners that aren't speaking to each other and trying to all seek access. So what I'm hearing today is they're unified and they're trying to work with a developer on that. That may be a different story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. But Melissa, in this 4.07.02(J)(4) section that I read a little bit earlier, basically it leaves the determination by the county manager or designee whether an interconnection is feasible or warranted. You seem to have indicated to us that staff has indicated it's warranted. Is it not feasible? MS. ZONE: Well, if you're asking me, I believe it should be feasible as well as warranted. But again, we defer to a division that reviews these and has a much stronger knowledge in this area, and so with transportation, we relied heavily on their analysis for that interconnection. I addressed my concerns. We met many times once this petition was brought to me. But again, we always defer. Unless there is some compelling reason why we would be different, then that would be culled out. Page 76 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the opportunity for the county manager or designee to express their concerns in this issue, you deferred to the transportation department; is that a fair statement? MS. ZONE: That's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, could you come back up for just one -- I need you to answer a question for the record. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, as the designee for the county manager in this regard, provide us with any information regarding whether or not an interconnection pursuant to Section 4.07.02(1)(4) of the Land Development Code is feasible or warranted due to the existing development patterns and transportation network needs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be feasible only if we could determine and evaluate where that -- you give me a specific location now. So that section of the code talks about where feasible, ifthere's any land impediments, if there's preserves or things like that. So if you want me to evaluate an interconnection, I would ask that it be a specific location and so that it would meet all those requirements. But I would say if you put an interconnection, it could be considered feasible if it didn't impede or conflict with those restrictions that were in that section of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you feel it's warranted? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's warranted. It's -- I'm dealing with private property rights, not one development to another. I'm dealing with a development and five different landowners. So asking me if it's warranted is a tough question to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, I know I'm putting you in a spot and I know it's not the best thing to do. But I'm in a position here today, and we all are, that we're relying on the interpretation of the Land Development Code which relies on the county manager or his designee to make determinations prior to getting here today -- Page 77 February 7, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll answer the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I need the determination. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you the determination. If it was a unified access request from five landowners tying it into this roadway, it would be required. We would say that that's a justification for an intersection. If it was five different landowners petitioning for all single access points along that roadway, I would say that that doesn't meet that requirement, that they'd have to become unified, requesting a unified access point sharing in that access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And prior to today you've had no positive request of you by unified landowners then that you felt was either feasible or warranted? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Nick, let me ask a question. We use the word interconnect, and I'm not even sure what interconnect means on this project anymore. Essentially what that was is you had two projects side by side that had access to public roads. Interconnect is what connects those two projects. So we're not talking about connecting these little landlocked landowners using interconnect as a cure, are we? I mean, that doesn't make sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not that you're using it as a cure. You're using it to facilitate the transportation network. To me the idea behind interconnection is you reduce the amount the driveways on a roadway, you bring them to locations such as signalized access points where they can be metered out appropriately so you could have the main arterial function properly -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the ability for a project -- Page 78 February 7,2008 you know, prior to interconnection that project would also have to satisfy access to a public road system. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The interconnection is a secondary means of transportation between those two things, not the prImary . MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can be. I mean, it can connect to another development that has access to a private road system through an easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be the most convenient. But it's really -- you wouldn't have interconnection unless you had the first, which is connection to the public right-of-way. So I think the word interconnect doesn't apply to these, quote, landlocked parcels. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they're not developments. That's the problem, you get into single-family lots. That's where you get into a little bit of a gray area what we're talking about. It's not a unified project. It's getting into trying to solve access issues for single-family lots that are abutting. I know, I dealt with this in Immokalee area where there was a person that bought a landlocked parcel and couldn't get to Immokalee Road through the Collier lands. And there are provisions in the statute that you can petition them and then provide fair compensation back to that. That's why it becomes an issue when you're dealing with single- family homes. When you're dealing with one development to another it's more clear cut. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what I'm thinking is that legacy, most communities develop grid road systems. We've since then have encouraged the use of PUD to, quote, make creative developments. And so maybe what we're looking at here is that this is not an Page 79 February 7, 2008 area where a PUD will work; we should go back to a different road system, one that would focus it at lights. And, you know, to have a PUD choke off access to other people may mean this is not a place where a PUD makes sense. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if you look at some of the landlocked parcels, they're choked off by their own nature. They're just landlocked parcels, period. It would be whether this PUD was here or not that they'd be seeking that same access out to a public road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, paying taxes and waiting for some day a road system like every other town would have, a grid system will come by the front of their property. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is nothing contemplated on the short-range plan, the long-range plan to deal with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can wait a while. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- access. Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Melissa's presentation at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, thank you. MS. ZONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. First speaker is Craig Blume, to be followed by Ray Martinique, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Blume, would you come up to that speaker there. And if you could, try to limit your discussion to five minutes. But we do have latitude, so -- MR. BLUME: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- go ahead. MR. BLUME: As stated earlier, my name is Craig Blume, I'm Page 80 February 7, 2008 with the law firm of Craig D. Blume, P A here in town. And I represent five of the landlocked owners that are to the east of the proposed Brandon PUD. Specifically my office represents the Forszpaniak landowners, identified under Folio No. 00149040002, that's tax folio number. The Haleakala Capital Partners, Ltd. under Tax Folio No. 00150720007. The Govig owners who are identified under Folio No. 00150240008. The Harazian owners, who are identified under Folio No. 00148440001. And the Rahmans, which are identified under F olio No. 00148360000. Each owning a two-and-a-half acre parcel located to the east or a combined 12.5 acres with a current ST, special treatment, overlay designation of their land. Essentially these property owners are in agreement that -- to provide amongst the individual property owners private easements to travel to and from their individual properties. You'll note that there was a comment earlier by Mr. White that access may be provided through other potential sources. We've explored those other sources already. We have contacted a Mr. Mark Zewig (phonetic), who is in the real estate division for FP&L. FP&L has an easement running to the east of my property owners that runs north and south, and although FP&L does not oppose an east-west right-of-way access across the easement, it does strongly oppose any north-south traveling of vehicular travel along the easement. And their stated reason for that and reliance on that is a recent case that was resolved apparently in district court in Fort Myers which prohibited -- where the judge found access for a private landowner to go through a gated community and found it was in the public's interest not to allow private vehicular traffic to travel north and south on an FP&L access easement because of the risk of an accident to a power line that could cause severe damage to the greater public. We have had some limited discussions with the developer and its Page 81 February 7, 2008 legal representation, both concerning purchases of the property as well as proposed access points. Essentially these property owners are landlocked and we believe that the Land Development Code sections 4.07.02, as well as 6.601, as referenced by the distinguished Chair, are on point here, and that the county should consider the choking off of these landlocked owners. There's no question that when they purchased this property that they were landlocked. But as Mr. Board Member Brad Schiffer had indicated, they are taxpaying citizens and they can wait and would wait for the future development of the parcels. And there is an expectation at some point in time that neighboring parcels would be developed and the interconnectivity or the access points to roads would be available to these landowners at some point in time. This proposed PUD, however, chokes off these landowners with an enhanced buffer on the eastern boundary. And with the preserves and the lake locations where they are identified here on this proposed master plan that is doing nothing more than hindering their potential access. Florida Statute, section 7.04.01.2, the Florida legislature allows access to these property owners. There's no question, or there should be no question that these property owners will have access some day. So all they're asking this board to consider and address today is what's the most practicable route for them. Let's not plan to make a route less practicable than it is today. With that I'll entertain any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions of the gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got one. You represent five or six people? MR. BLUME: Yes. And I can identify these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you already -- you mentioned the folios, that's close enough. I know the general area you're talking Page 82 February 7, 2008 about. Do you know if any of them, when they bought that properties (sic), had mortgages? MR. BLUME: I'm not aware if any of them did have mortgages on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any of them had title insurance? MR. BLUME: Some of them do have title policies. I have not had an opportunity to review to determine whether or not legal access was insured or not. We are in the process of still gathering. My office was recently engaged in this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where my question was going is what you just answered. So the title policies then, until you review those -- you didn't bring anything to submit today that could help us understand whether or not your landowners were aware of the situation or if they had other accesses that may be shown on title policies then? MR. BLUME: I am aware through conversations with one of my clients that they were aware that their parcel was landlocked at the time they acquired the property. However, I'm not -- and I'm not in possession, nor is my office, of any title policies to determine whether or not that was insured over or missed by a title company. That's something we will be exploring in the coming weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, thank you very much. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time, thank you. Ray, would you call the next public speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Ray Martinique. MR. MARTINIQUE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Ray Martinique. I am -- my wife and I are one of the landowners with her family of the Harazian parcel that are one of the now Page 83 February 7,2008 infamous landlocked six. And after I went to the last meeting, I believe it was in September of last year, I didn't get a lot of positive response from the petitioner as far as how we were going to gain access to our parcels, so I took it upon myself to contact -- actually, I tried contacting -- there's a total of eight parcel that are back there. But I was and am in contact with seven of the landowners. Five of us had decided to hire Craig to represent us in this matter. I'd just like to make it public record that we are pro development. You know, all of us have been paying taxes at a certain amount of value that the land had. And to some of us, I know the developer came in and offered a sum that, you know, just wasn't acceptable, based on our tax rate. And so some of us had a hard time accepting, you know, ways to make a settlement. I think there's been a little change of heart. We do understand that -- you know, the value of our land in this ST treatment. But we're here basically to answer any questions you may have for the five of us. But with all my conversations in the last four or five months, we'd like to help these people out as much as we can and at least if we can't get access, you know, to do something else. But first and foremost, thank you for considering our dilemma and recognizing our problem. We certainly appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I have a few. When you bought the land, did you know it was landlocked? MR. MARTINIQUE: No. This -- my wife's family had owned the land for about 40 years, 50 years. And I can't remember exactly what they paid for it, but -- so my father-in-law is now deceased so I can't answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't -- did you ever mortgage it? MR. MARTINIQUE: No. Page 84 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have a title policy on it? MR. MARTINIQUE: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you got the tax bill, did you inquire through the tax assessor's office whether or not the value was based on landlocked land or developable land or ago land? Or what valuation were you paying taxes on; do you know? MR. MARTINIQUE: We just assumed, as we seen the property values escalating in the area -- my wife and I are fairly new to the area, and we just accepted what the assessors was, you know, basing their value on and paid the taxes accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the value was based on your -- it would say so on your tax card. Did you study that at all or tell us -- because you can appeal the value. If it says developable land or it says it has entitlements, your value for tax bases will go up. If you don't have those or your land's restricted, you could argue successfully a lot of times with the tax assessor that the value is wrong, based on the fact that you don't have the land he thinks you have. I don't know what your tax assessment says. Is it ag., do you know or-- , MR. MARTINIQUE: Yeah, it is ag., but other than the fact on that 1-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just ago MR. MARTINIQUE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ag.'s about the lowest I think you can get anywhere, so -- okay, thank you very much, sir. MR. MARTINIQUE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- before we go, and it's on the school. It was pointed out that the high school is overburdened right now. Page 85 February 7, 2008 Is that something we should have a concern about, or -- it says that the Gulf Coast High School has a capacity of 1,900 and there's 2,100 there now. MR. EASTMAN: I believe the appropriate time for that would be handled once concurrency the state mandates for the concurrency program were adopted and put in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there was a -- the applicant asked for a short rebuttal. And Mr. White, before you get into the rebuttal, why don't we solve a couple of the remaining questions raised by staff. One was the contiguous preserves. I understand you already agreed to that? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The change of the language in the north part of the master plan to go from a compensating right-of-way to a potential turn lane. Is there a problem with that? MR. WHITE: No. Accepted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other issue on the height. Correctly so, we had actual height, we only talked about in the PUD of the multi-family. Staff is suggesting that we put an actual height for the remaining elements, since they're all 35 feet. Do you have a standard that you're looking at for all those 35-foot designations to have an actual height of? MR. WHITE: For the single family? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be all 35 feet, whatever you want to do. If you want to do them individually, I don't care. But we ought to fill the blanks in. MR. WHITE: That would be actual height max of 40 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all the 35-foot zoned height Page 86 February 7,2008 would have a 40- foot maximum actual. MR. WHITE: I understand this commission's desire for that, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you do. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the single-family residential, what's the concern with actual height? I mean, they have a roof -- the zoned height's going to limit the size of the roof. So all's your doing is -- I mean, do we have somebody, you know, doing excessive cupolas or something? I mean, why would -- the only thing that's going to be on a single-family house above a roof is going to be a cupola, maybe a bumped skylight. I mean, what are we controlling? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can give you a real life example. I had a project come through. I do design review for a village HOA, and the project comes through and it was a 25-foot maximum height, no actual, they had a steeple on top that was about 50 feet high. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On a house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It didn't make any sense. It was one of these ornate large sprawling homes and they had to have this signature steeple. It didn't make -- well, I don't think they called it a steeple, but that was my terminology. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They probably called it a cupola. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it didn't make sense. And I just thought that staffs right, why don't we just -- it won't hurt to limit it. If they say they can do 40 feet, what's wrong with putting 40 feet in there as a maximum? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, ifthere's cupola abuse, then let's get it. Let's nip it in the bud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all the 35's will have an actual Page 87 February 7, 2008 height of 40 feet. Thank you. Now, Mr. White, did you want to rebuttal? MR. WHITE: Yes, if! may. I guess I'll start with the thing that we I think all need the most help with first, and that is some clarity about the differences between interconnections and access. We understand that there are folks who were landlocked before these parcels were assembled and they will to some extent continue to be. Some of them may find that they have property that's very difficult to develop regardless, because of the ST designation. Our challenge has been to be able to find the right balance between providing some clarity and direction to this commission and to the staff, because we don't have that from the adjacent landowners. Mr. Blume was here representing five of those property owners, but at no point did I hear a commitment from him that they were going to act in a unified manner as to attempting to meet with what the staff has today you they would need some clarity on and some commitment to in order to assure that, quote, interconnection provisions in the LDC and to the extent encouraged in the GMP are something that they could make an adequate determination about. We are similarly challenged. Not only in that regard by those five property owners, but by the fact that there are other property owners who although they've put comment into the record about their concerns about being landlocked, we cannot solve their problem for them. Weare looking to this process to assist us to the degree possible to provide some type of access, but there is no clarity as to where to put it. And to litter the master concept plan with multiple arrows of potential interconnectivity doesn't really in my opinion help. There may be some belief that we can find a more focused solution, and if that is ultimately this commission's recommendation, then so be it. But my point is that all of this turns on what the courts and the Page 88 February 7,2008 general law of the state have called reasonable practicable routing. There's nothing that yet tells us we are there in terms of using the Brandon RPUD roads for all the parcel owners that are out there. There's no development per se of those parcels and, hence, it is difficult to, quote, interconnect. As was the issue between Brandon and Della Rosa. But even in that instance it was determined that interconnection wasn't appropriate. So I just want to make sure that we're not in a rush to protect folks who I agree that they should be given every right they have under the law to not only petition you to assist in some of the problem solving, but they themselves have to more clearly define the solution before any of us can help them. (Electrical power outage.) MR. WHITE: I'm not going to comment about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a powerful speaker, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Electric. So just in sum, we're not objecting in any way that says we won't. And in fact, I mean, if you look at what the statute says, that's what activates it is if we do object. So at this point we're not objecting except to the idea that we may not be properly talking about interconnection in the pure sense that I think some of these provisions would mean. That's something this I think commission's going to have to deal with more clearly going forward. Not only in PUD's but perhaps in the LDC itself. Moving from that to the concerns about the EAC. The Della Rosa project was very similar in terms of percentage and percentage of infestation and degree of infestation in its wetlands. The concern there was one that was I believe adequately addressed by what is understood to be the subsequent permitting through South Florida Water Management District. We know that to the extent we will be creating a contiguous preserve to the south and east of the project that we are going to Page 89 February 7, 2008 provide the best historical flow for that cypress head that the landlocked owners own. That is the direction of the sheet flow; that is the direction through our preserve; those are the things that we're anticipating through south Florida permitting we're going to do to protect that wetland. To the extent that roads may be required based on some determination that that's the most reasonable and practicable route, it may harm that water -- that wetland. We don't know. But I just need to make sure that you understand that there have been very similar circumstances where the EAC recommended unanimously in favor. I think Laura was perhaps a bit more kind than I'm -- to observe about what the EAC motivations were, not withstanding the actual motion itself. It's fair to say, and I think it's still the case today, that environmental staff believes that this is a project that meets environmental requirements. Notwithstanding the position taken by the EAe. And I would -- if you've looked at the detailed minutes, in fact the discussion on the record is one where the chair himself is the dissenting vote, based upon his belief that that body was to some degree intruding more into this planning commission's area of concerns and straying perhaps a bit from the pure discussion of environmental concerns. So I'm not saying that those discussions were not within the scope or jurisdiction of that body, I think that they can have a dialogue about them. But I believe that it's the purview of this body to talk more about the actual property development regulations, building heights, building placements, and consider those things as part of your recommendation. I think lastly in that respect as to the environmental, we are a rezoning request for a PUD. We are not seeking site planning today. Page 90 February 7, 2008 This is a project that is just under the GMP density cap. It is consistent in that regard, with the exception of the discussion about interconnectivity, as to all other matters of the GMP. We believe that it is at a type of density and a type of product that is consistent with and compatible with the developments that are in the area. And unless there are any specific questions, I'd just like to start -- or excuse me, end sort of where we started when we were under the discussion about addenda to the agenda. In the 62 pages you received, some of you received yesterday, are letters from many of these individual property owners. And I think one of the things that from my reading of them that rings out clear is that they were concerned about their property being purchased. And so I just want to make sure that we're not somehow going to create through this process an outcome that the market itself should be allowed to find the proper value for. And with that, I would just like to conclude that with respect to Mr. Midney's concern about our offer to address affordable housing, I've had a discussion with Mr. Chinnici and we believe that consistent with other applicants, we feel that $1,000 per unit is something that we're prepared to offer to address that concern, and would have no objection to it being included as a condition or stipulation. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, I have one question before Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Vigliotti. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to start pronouncing your name right. I'm sorry for all the past mispronunciations. Mr. White, the enhanced buffer that was supposed to go along the eastern side and those northern edges, we discussed that one was going to be there, and it was simply said well, it's going to be 15 feet. MR. WHITE: Type B. Page 91 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. So it's Type B, 15 feet. MR. WHITE: Right. The master plan for that northeasterly north-south running portion of our property that abuts the FP&L easement would be a IS-foot, Type B buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And Mr. Vigliotti, and then Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I really wish that you could have worked this out with the other property owners long before you got here. It would have this whole process a lot easier. At this point Mr. Blume was just hired by his clients. MR. WHITE: If I may -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go right ahead. MR. WHITE: -- provide some additional information. Mr. Blume and I have been having conversation about these properties for I would say at least six weeks, closer to perhaps eight. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you feel at any point in the future you'll be able to work something out with Mr. Blume and the clients, or are you just at an impasse? MR. WHITE: I believe that it is possible we may. Certainly if this petition is ultimately approved, it puts the property owner in a position to be able to I think more effectively negotiate not only potential acquisitions but arguably to the extent that there may be some unified posture taken by the individual owners that an access point could be located. So I think that there is potential, great potential in that regard. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just a suggestion. Do you think more time between you and the other property owners would help or MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. I think we've adequatelya Page 92 February 7, 2008 discussed the various issues of potential access points of value of the properties. Although that's not part of what my specific representation includes. But I'm aware that there have been significant discussions, as there were with Center Point. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you're very confident then. Okay, thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick question. When you went to the EAC, were they looking at the plan when the preserve was some 13 plus acres, or did they have this -- MR. WHITE: They saw essentially this plan. We were delayed a month in getting to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay. That's all I needed to know. And I am very much inclined to agree with Mr. Vigliotti, that it seems like more time is needed for you to be discussing this with these other property owners. And if truly you can't come to an agreement, then that's an issue for us to decide, but -- MR. WHITE: We had encouraged -- in may respond, Ms. Caron. We had encouraged them to even offer some methodology by which we would be able to calculate how we could cost share for use of the roads, the private road, in what the statute itself asks and tells us that the judge would have to decide, or a jury. And so I appreciate your perspective on it and I respect it in believing that it could get the parties, if you will, to some place where there's an outcome. But my belief is that that's more likely to occur if we're in a position where we believe that there's a likelihood that we're in fact going to be able to create the very roads that they're looking to use for access. Until we're at a place where it's a possibility or a probability, let alone a certainty, it is far more challenging for both sides to try to Page 93 February 7, 2008 understand what may be an appropriate value, both for the land and for the actual costs for compensation for the servient landowner. But I appreciate your perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, do you own the land -- the dark arrow on the screen, do you own the land that that -- MR. WHITE: That -- yes, we do own the land that goes out there. There's just a little notch of one of the parcels to the north that we don't. We have significant frontage. And I may be misspeaking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you see that little triangle? It could be part of the fire station site. MR. WHITE: That's in fact part of the right-of-way I believe the county owns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second question: You know, what you just described, and I share the problem with Donna and Bob is what you're saying is that you want to work out the money and then you'll come up with the need. But I think the problem you're going to have with me is I can't really let it leave here until you show the need; in other words put the arrow on the drawing. You guys -- MR. WHITE: We're happy to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You guys can figure the money out later. MR. WHITE: We're happy to do that, Commissioner. We just -- like the transportation staff, because there is no unified point that makes it simpler or actually achieves what the goal of the regulation is, which is to provide essentially a kind of unified access point, we would literally have to litter that easterly boundary with the interface between each property owner. I mean, we have some suggestions that I believe Mr. Strain may bring forward that, if that's the direction of this body, that we may find acceptable. In particular, I think the idea of an access point on the Page 94 February 7, 2008 south side or potentially the east side going north bound, those to us seem to be potentially viable solutions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we could do -- I mean, you give me that thing with the owners and we could draw some arrows and it's done. But the point is, is right now this is open land. If we let this go as it's shown, we strangle these people by that action. And-- MR. WHITE: But I guess the question is whether you're causing them harm. We believe that by allowing the rezoning to go forward, we're actually assisting in providing the solution and removing the harm that they already face, because we're going to be able to assist. That's the most practicable route -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, one -- MR. WHITE: -- providing access. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thing that -- the special treatment area, that's not developable land, is it? MR. WHITE: I wouldn't want to comment on its potential developability. It is ago with an ST. It is, from the lidar maps we've seen and aerials, cypress head, there will be in my opinion, I think it's safe to say, significant environmental challenges. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what if you just put access into the -- we called it the westerly side. That's an obvious one. You put it into that northern one, that's an obvious one. And then what about the three guys hanging out behind the fire station? Don't they -- your road is right alongside their southern boundary . MR. WHITE: We have -- there's only one property. The two to the north are, if you'll recall, Della Rosa. Those are going to be preserve. The Armartheo (phonetic) properties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the ones -- MR. WHITE: The more southerly ones, Perchinni (phonetic) and -- at this point I believe he may very well have a right of access. Page 95 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To you or to another? MR. WHITE: To both. But we're not objecting, if the conclusion again comes to the place where somehow that has to be provided for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's why I like that, Patrick, is first of all, the ST sites are still landlocked, but they can go through one of these other sites. So we can pass that problem on to the other sites. I mean, and then you guys can fight over the money, and then we can in good conscience realize that we haven't locked these people in. MR. WHITE: There's two valuations that are of course in question. One is the acquisition of the properties in fee. And the other is any offer from them, which we've had none, to assist in some way of calculating how they pay a portion of the road costs and maintenance. It's difficult, because they aren't like a true property openers association of five homeowner owners where you have one entity to deal with. So I understand Mr. Blume's challenge. But we're not opposed to any legally required access being a condition of or being shown to some degree on our master concept plan. And I don't want to be seen as somehow objective, because we're not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then let's show it. Move on. Because here's the thing, Patrick, we don't want to do is we don't want to landlock them. And that may give you an unfair edge on negotiating price to them. MR. WHITE: I don't believe so, because the court is the one who's ultimately the arbiter of that, if we ourselves can't come to some better determination. But my point is if the zoning is either a probability or certainty, then we're not dealing with an if come (phonetic) to buy something that we may never be able to use. Page 96 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's show them on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Brad, are you done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick, I'm assuming you're done? MR. WHITE: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody got any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, we've heard everything and everyone; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll close the public hearing. And the recommendation of one of our planning commission members, I'm going to suggest that we have a discussion before we go to motion as a process to see how that works. If so, it maybe it will save some unneeded motion or something like that. So on that basis, let's just open the floor to discussion amongst the planning commission members on where any of us have any ideas on where this should go. And I do have -- just for the record, I've made notes. There are at least 16 stipulations that I would want to voice in regards to this project as we go forward. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, Ms. Caron and then Mr. Vigliotti. Did I say it right again? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Perfect, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm getting there. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. Page 97 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, this is a very difficult situation. But I am not sure that we are not here too soon. I think I agree with Mr. White that for us to arbitrarily put access points on here may in point of fact harm his client in some way. Conversely, if we don't put those access areas on there, then we landlock people and we should not be doing that. It seems to me that these parties need to get together; that this PUD has come before us too soon. I haven't heard a lot of objections from anybody to the basic concept of the PUD, but there are these overriding issues. And so I'm not so sure we shouldn't be thinking about sending these two parties back to, you know, put on their gloves together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think they had plenty of chance to do it. I asked Mr. White if he thinks they should go back and do it. So I'm going to have to vote no against this, that we do not send it up for approval. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm struggling with is if this assembled unified parcel, that Brandon parcel, if that were not to go forward, would those other parcels that are in question, would they still not be landlocked at this point? If nothing happened, would they not be landlocked? Would they still not have a problem that they'd have to deal with somehow, some way? And by pushing it back in time, this development, whether it's appropriate or not, but simply by pushing it back in time have we helped to solve a problem or to perhaps institutionalize a problem for another 10 years or so? I'm not sure -- I mean, if the purpose of the land is to be utilized here in a district that allows for this particular density, they're not exceeding it. I recognize it's an irregularly shaped parcel. Perhaps it is so because owners of those landlocked parcels were disinclined to sell it until they could drive a price up. I don't know that. That's a Page 98 February 7, 2008 possibility. But it troubles me that if we don't take some action, we haven't helped to solve a problem either. There'd be no motivation on the part of those owners to go any further with it. So I will proceed on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to, before -- I'm going to take a turn out of sequence, if you all don't mind, because I asked Nick specifically questions pertaining to the Land Development Code's requirements of staff. And I did that very carefully to get it on record because we are here to abide by the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code does require interconnections at certain -- based on certain actions, standards and opportunities. Nick, in his representation as designee of the county manager, had the ability to make those recommendations. He is standing by. And when I asked specifically the recommendations here on this project today, which means that as designee of the county manager, he went through the aspects that I read on the record. I also am concerned that how can we impose on one landowner the lack of action and foresight that other landowners didn't have? It's like saying the same thing could apply anywhere at any PUD in the county where someone adjacent to it decided they wanted to have an access exit or (sic) through that PUD. They could have thought of that years in advance. They could have made those negotiations before this one owner assembled all those properties. They didn't have the foresight to do so. Their tax base, from what I understand, seems to be ag., which is a low tax base. It's not necessarily a great tax base. So I'm not sure that there's any reason why this shouldn't go forward at this point, along with a series of stipulations that have been developed out of today's discussion. But that's my thoughts on it. And Mr. Schiffer, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern, Mark, is that Page 99 February 7, 2008 this is an open area of land. There's no guarantee that a PUD like this has to work. I mean, we're going in, these guys have a geometry they're playing with, and that geometry I think hurts other people. It landlocks other people. So I don't think that's the appropriate geometry . I see that they could easily get rid of me by putting three access points to three sites and I'd be a happy guy. They can locate the access points later. All's they have to do is just provide access to these people. Other than that, I'm going to vote no. And maybe this is a part of the county that gets developed with a grid road system, not a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments before I ask for a motion on this particular project? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, I'll ask for a motion -- Mr. White, this is discussion amongst the planning commission, you've had your time. So thank you. MR. WHITE: It's just ifthere's a possibility that we could assist you in your decision-making, I think that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have something to contribute? MR. WHITE: -- Mr. Casalanguida may make a recommendation that we'd be willing to agree to in terms of whether you call them interconnection or access points -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, ifit helps-- MR. WHITE: -- shown on the master concept plan. If that is possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's try it then. I'd rather get us moved forward in a positive direction. I just don't want any more debate on the issue. I'd rather -- MR. WHITE: No debate, sir. No, we're prepared to make a commitment. And I think we'd just prefer to have Nick make the recommendation so that we're meeting what you see as the LDC Page 100 February 7, 2008 requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What Commissioner Caron said, if they're willing to compromise and show a bunch of potential future connection points on their PUD master plan, say subject to the petitioners coming forward and seeking legal access and paying their fair share, that's a pretty good compromise. That eliminates my concern and I think everybody else's concerns. Putting it off to a later date, I can tell you negotiations don't go well because everybody's trying to leverage it. Putting those arrows on the master plan allows them not to have to come back for a PUD amendment later and then the petitioning landowners on the sides would just have to compensate him for whatever they would lose. And so I think that's a pretty good compromise to solve this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, could you articulate that in a manner that we could put as a stipulation, should we want to consider it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: With a little help, I guess. Ifwe show, maybe take our master plan and put the arrows on there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All these negotiations are happening right now as we speak? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They haven't happened yet. But now if these people put potential connection points on the master plan and say to the people who are seeking access, if you pay us for the road we're going to build and you pay us for the land we use then, you know, that process through the legal requirement for interconnection through the statutes, we'll provide it through our property. That's a pretty good compromise. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 101 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just have one question on-- in that regard. So essentially approving this PUD is giving this developer the right to hold a gun to these people, though, too and say this is what I want for the access. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, the language that you would say would be, you know, just and fair -- pursuant to what the statute says is you're entitled to compensation for what you have to expend to provide that access. If they lose a building lot, they would have to be compensated for the building lot. If they lose -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we need to have some official legal language before we do this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they're going to propose some language and we could always weigh in on it after they propose it. So let's hear it first. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you show the -- you'd have to show the con -- because you're going to have to reference those on the master plan. MR. WHITE: If I understand correctly what Mr. Casalanguida and the prior discussions was referencing, that an interconnection arrow would be shown on the southerly side of our mid lake. Similarly, a southward pointing arrow would be shown on the easterly side of our mid lake. And along the westerly side of our property boundary, an interconnect arrow showing to the south to the west of our southerly lake. I think that those are the ones that we believe would best assist the most number of property owners. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And if the language was to read that the developer would be duly compensated for any loss of land that's required to provide that interconnection and the people that would use that interconnection would pay their fair share towards what the developer has built into the roadway network and agree to pay the fair Page 102 February 7,2008 share towards maintenance, I think that solves your problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then we'll move over to Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Vigliotti. Mr. Adelstein, did you want to say something, too? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, let them go through-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just didn't know if you did or not. So you'll be fourth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, could you put that back up a second. Rather than bring it in where you show it up at the top, I'd rather see -- see the "A" on that one site? We've called it the northern property. I'd rather it -- if you draw it in where it went into that "A". And the reason being is that it keeps it out of that special treatment area. We would not want access to the "A" site to be via the special treatment. It does make it maybe difficult for the special treatment to be developed, but I think we're doing the ecology benefit if we do even cause that. So I'm saying do a -- you know, head east into the "A". MR. WHITE: If I understand correctly -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right there. MR. WHITE: -- you would want it to come south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can go any way you want, but get to "A". You could come from, you know, head east or you can head south to get to it. MR. WHITE: As opposed to using this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then kill that. And you only need one of those, you don't need two. MR. WHITE: Well, I think we may actually prefer to leave both on there and make an election. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. That's fine. This could have been done verbally, but that's fine. Page 103 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: In looking at that same map that you've got up there, that center connection point, maybe I missed it, but did we discuss the owner of that parcel? MR. WHITE: I believe that Mr. Strain had indicated that we had an easement along our easterly side. But our belief is that that would provide access on the -- provide access to this property owner. Am I correctly pointing to the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, that's the one. MR. WHITE: Right. This would be an access that we would anticipate would be on the southerly edge of our lake. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. WHITE: And that's non-ST. So it has some greater potential to be developed for single-family or whatever might be appropriate under the existing or changed zoning. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What we're doing now by throwing these arrows, we're going to again put the developer in the negotiating position with the people that live there and are landlocked. They couldn't come to a conclusion in all this time and couldn't resolve it. Now all of a sudden we draw a few lines on a piece of paper and they're going to go back to resolve it? MR. WHITE: I think what happens is that it puts us in a posture where we're talking about what are then on the regulatory side, on the PUD and land development regulation side, in a place where there's the potential for a resolution. Up until now we haven't had anything that focused where the solution may exist on the ground. With that regulatory side coming into focus we can deal with the real property issues of valuation more precisely. Page 104 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So you're saying now, now within the last 10 or 15 minutes? MR. WHITE: Probably within the last five -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Over the past -- this is going on for years, so within the last 10 minutes now is a possibility? MR. WHITE: Well, I believe so. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MR. WHITE: What I need is simply to have Mr. Blume or someone else tell me that those are acceptable points for them and then we can get down to the methodology which I think Mr. Casalanguida has clearly put on the road is the typical way that homeowners associations and other developments, when they have to use each other's roads resolve these types of issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, this is getting very complicated. Mr. Blume, could you come to the microphone for a minute. Can you -- you represent these six people and you can speak on their behalfs? MR. BLUME: If we could put that illustration back up, I can clearly identify who we represent and I could speak on their behalfs, yes. I respect the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the mic. Yeah, the mic's not picking you up very clearly. MR. BLUME: I represent property owners two, three, four, five and six. And as far as an access point, and that's all we're really looking for these property owners is an access point, I think it makes more sense to run an access point along the northern boundary of this proposed preserve area, which would provide access to this parcel here and this parcel here if we were to within these five property owners develop private easements. Page 105 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We can't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the pointer on that overhead projector. It works for you on that one, but nobody else. MR. BLUME: Okay. We're really addressing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're high tech here, by the way. MR. BLUME: These are the property owners that I respect: Two, three, four, five and six. This is the proposed area by Brandon for a preserve. If there was an access point granted here, it would provide access to this property owner here, whom I don't represent. But it would also provide access to these unified group of owners to develop private easements within their land to access this area here. An access point here leaves my group of owners one more private party to negotiate with as far as to developing another private easement similarly situated with this owner as well. So I would just suggest that we have an access point along the northern boundary of the preserve or proposed preserve area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And would your clients commit to give access to the property owner number one and the other property owner that you don't represent, who I believe is above number two? MR. BLUME: I believe, if! understood the testimony earlier, property owner number one has an existing easement, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to come back here again with a vo1canization. We're giving you potentially an access -- this one access I want to take care of everybody. And you represent two, three, four, five, six. And you're saying that one access point will grant it and you'll have reciprocal easements. And all I'm asking is will you commit to the planning commission you'll also give reciprocal easements to property number one and the one up on top. MR. BLUME: It's not been discussed amongst my client, so I Page 106 February 7,2008 cannot commit to -- MR. KLATZKOW: So we could be still-- we could still be landlocking then two people here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Blume, are you in touch with your represent -- the people you represent? MR. BLUME: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's close to lunch time. Ifwe took an hour break for lunch, could you and Mr. White and your people come back with a better plan, better language, and a way to wrap this up? Because if you don't, it doesn't look like it's going to survive the day. So we probably need to get some time for you guys to get together. We're going to be here past lunch. Maybe we'll just come back at 1 :00 and talk about it. Does that seem to be an idea that might -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- relish some results? And Mr. Adelstein still wants to ask his question, so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, a little bit different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The question I have now is who is going to decide the amount of money that's going to be put into this? Are the two of them going to do it together or are we going to have them tell you what it's going to cost you -- cost them? MR. BLUME: I think there's an agreement on this issue. If the two parties can't privately decide on the compensation, there is a judicial procedure where the court would decide the just compensation to be awarded for the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's to be determined. MR. BLUME: -- use of the easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let them have the hour right now to work this out and come back to us so we don't get any more Page 107 February 7,2008 convoluted than it currently is. Mr. White, does that seem something you can work with Mr. Blume on, or at least try? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. We just have one concern about where he's suggesting it. Because we're going to have to put out preserve there in order to have it all be contiguous. So I'll talk with Mr. Blume off the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's some people from the county staffhere, maybe they could work with you. Melissa, what did you want to say? MS. ZONE: Commissioner, that's exactly -- I wanted to remind that, they need the 25 percent contiguous preserves, which that -- where Mr. Blume was showing the arrow will affect the preserve, the additional 25 percent that is not a good access point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they could also get more out of Nick, too. So let's adjourn till 1 :00 and hopefully come back with a resolution, and we can get back into the rest of our cases. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Lunch recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from your productive lunch, I hope. During that time -- just before we left for lunch the planning commission was discussing the parts of a motion that may yet to be made. In that discussion we asked that the applicant and the adjoining property owners who were having some lack of uniformity come together and see if they could come back with something that would actually strike a balance. And Mr. White, I'm hoping you were successful during your lunchtime with the other gentleman? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yes, we were. And I thank you, both on Mr. Blume's behalf and mine and my clients as well for affording us the opportunity to do so. Page 108 February 7,2008 I will be brief. We have agreed to the addition of access points for interconnection at the points shown conceptually on the master concept plan being provided for the record, which is on the visualizer and I will be giving to the court reporter at the conclusion of the proceedings. And that the costs for providing such access, as well as maintaining such access, will be determined by the developer and such landowners as may be desired to utilize anyone or more access point or points. Or in the alternative, as provided for by general law. And I believe that your staff is agreeable to that. I had spoken with Mr. Casalanguida while we were on the break. Rather than going through and trying to define some methodology today, we've agreed amongst ourselves that we pretty much know how we want to determine that. And if we can't agree, we've agreed that we'll seek a court determination. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? MR. WHITE: So with that and the points that are shown, if there are any questions about where they are on the master concept plan, I'm prepared to put that on the record and ask that Mr. Blume would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Blume, if you could come to the microphone and acknowledge that you two had met and came to this conclusion that would be helpful. MR. BLUME: Yes, we did meet and I do agree with Mr. White's summary of the agreement that's been put on the record. And those are the access points that are directed on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, the only thing I would like to happen is that this document be given an identification as an exhibit so that it can be clearly located in the records as we go forward, because it is one of many that are flying about. Page 109 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, that document you put on is the one you're going to give to the court reporter? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion by the planning commission to accept that document into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Mr. Murray, seconded by Ms. Caron. All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. MR. WHITE: For the record, I'm identifying it as Exhibit Z, just because I have no knowledge of what the other exhibits of the application may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Close enough. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, now we're still in discussion before a motion, but let me suggest the stipulations that I wrote down before we left for lunch, to make sure if there is a motion of recommendation we could possibly Page 110 February 7, 2008 include these. The first one being basically what Mr. White said, that the Exhibit Z showing three potential interconnection arrows conceptually will be accepted and the cost for those connection points will be determined by the developer and the landowners who want to use those, and/or as provided by general law. The other stipulation -- I'll go into the regular ones now. We're looking at a three-story maximum for the multi-family, in addition to the 50-foot maximum. The north and east property lines will have a 15- foot, Type B buffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman did you say 50 or 55? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty. It's as the table shows. You mean the height? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the 55 is the actual. We're going by zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't gotten that far. All I was talking about was the three stories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was talking about, because that's what I remembered, multi-family, 55 actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That, and then we're talking about a 15- foot B buffer on the north and east property line. We're talking about the multi-family actual being a height of 55 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minimum principal setbacks will change, as we discussed on the record. Strike footnotes four and five of Exhibit B. The preserves that are to be added to complete the required minimum will be contiguous. And the interlocal agreement between -- that the school board has Page 111 February 7, 2008 presented as into evidence will be added as a part of Exhibit F, Item F. We will accept staff recommendations. Deviations that we would recommend for approval are deviations one, three and six. The turn lane designation on the top of the master plan will be referenced as a potential turn lane. We'd be adding actual heights to the development standards table, as we discussed at the meeting. There will be a hold hannless provided for any legal challenges that may come about on the interconnection issue. A $1,000 contribution to the affordable housing fund will be accepted -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Per unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as a contribution. Per unit. And I believe that is all. Is there anything that anyone knows that I missed? MR. KLA TZKOW: Would you restate the deviation one, please? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only deviations that this board is recommending for approval are one, three and six. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had the opposite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, the only deviations we're recommending for denial are one, three and six. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Glad you caught that. Appreciate it. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, the affordable housing payment will be made at issuing of building permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Typical to others that we have in the same category in the same manner, yes. Any other questions, comments? Mr. Schiffer? Page 112 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing that's still not clear to me. During Laura's presentation she mentioned that we would put an "R" over where the preserve used to be in the plan. Laura, maybe put up the last -- the one that Patrick just entered, Exhibit Z. I'm not a big fan of -- you know, is that a -- there's a white area. You took away the preserve once you put the road in. And I guess it's because you can't have a country road like I want it. But is the intent to build units in that white space? MS. DeJOHN: Yes, there's a request to put units east of that connector road. I don't want to draw on Exhibit Z, because that's part of the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there are wide -- I mean, I'm really not happy with that at all. And I think the sad thing is that it's because we need to put this road in that we can't leave it as preserve and we run the potential of having three-story buildings or something up against it. So I think it's something that's still unresolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I suggested that we drop the -- we limit the area between the preserve and Livingston Road to single story, but I didn't seem to get any support for that. The applicant didn't want to do that. What does this board want to do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and here's really what they're saying is that the preserve has to be contiguous, but not on their site. When they mean contiguous do they mean to another preserve off-site? MS. DeJOHN: No, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then your only location is there. MS. DeJOHN: Actually, the potential for expanding the preserve contiguously would be up -- I'm going to point to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, point to it. MS. DeJOHN: Northward. Visualizer. There you go. Page 113 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I would rather see -- I mean, we have a beautiful -- Livingston Road's a pretty road. We're going to take down the trees on Livingston Road to satisfy the interconnection? Why don't we run the interconnection like Mr. Murray was describing at one time, alongside -- which I think is really dangerous. Living around Trail Boulevard in North Naples, that is a dangerous driving situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think we had testimony from Nick that this is the viable solution to that interconnection. I think we also have resolved that we're going to have to put the interconnection to that Verona Walk (sic), or whatever that place is down to the south m. All that's already in place. To come back now and say we want to the undo all that and make it all preserve to Livingston Road, we're talking at starting all over again. I don't know if that's something we can do here today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the original proposal showed they wanted to put preserve in there, and Nick's the one that made them chop it with the road. Can't the road, Nick, be further towards Livingston, let them get their preserve in there? Look what they're going to do: They're going to put the preserve in the middle of the site, which doesn't benefit the community . MR. CASALANGUIDA: How much closer would you want it? I think we did this with environmental staffs discussion. I think it was one of those where we honestly, Commissioner Schiffer, we spent a lot of time going back and forth trying to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the location? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- please everybody. Yes sir, on that plan there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So environmental came up with the conclusion that it was better to remove all of the vegetation rather Page 114 February 7,2008 than move the road? I mean -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. And you had said if we put the road closer, you'd have to clear for that road anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what they're going to do, Nick: They're going to see the road, they're going to put housing in there. In other words, see the white? You put a road in there and you got rid of the preserve. The gray space went away, it became white. And now they're going to put residential around that road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's conceptual. If you want-- and I'm not doing their site design. If you wanted them to wrap that connecting road around the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Around the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bring it to the property line. Then they can -- you know, I'm really -- you know, the community right now has a beautiful part of the road. The road turns into there, it looks nice. That's going to be gone. It's going to be housing just because you needed that road interconnect. So, I mean, their original designs in the packet showed preserve up to Livingston. And that's -- for the benefit ofthe community, I like that even better than what you're making them do just to get to the light. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, getting the light's a pretty valuable -- I mean, the Verona Point PUD, when it was contemplated, contemplated that interconnection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying don't get there. But I'm saying, you know, because you put that road through the preserve and we get testimony that you can't have a preserve on both sides of a road, I don't quite understand that. But I'll bow. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have a problem if the applicant can design it adjusting that road as far west as possible to put the housing on the back side of the road, if they can design it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I want to put the preserve Page 115 February 7, 2008 back on the back side of the road. I think that -- their original design had preserve there. Now what they're going to be doing is they're going to be connect -- actually wiping out really good developable areas for them just to get more preserve up by that notch in the middle, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know if it would have to go back to the EAC, but I can tell you that the environment staff worked with us on this to get to the design we have now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I watched it. I mean, they were more concerned about the height of the buildings than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we're talking about a corridor that's in the urban area, and it's already got a project to the south and to the north. I understand your concern, Brad, but we could go on like this all day. Maybe we ought to take a consensus as to how many planning commission members want to bother seeing this changed and reworked at this point and we can get past this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it all boils down to do we put the letter "R" in that white space over there or not. So I'm in favor of not putting the "R" in that white space. And then Laura's going to push that road as far as she can to get the preserves she needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if you can't put the "R" in there, then they lose -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, because they have "R" right here now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if we did this, in talking to the applicant, if we asked them to where feasibly put that road as far close to Livingston as possible so that you're putting development on the other side of it, is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I want preserve. The original design for this in the packet shows that all preserve up to Page 116 February 7, 2008 Livingston Road. You came along and said whoa, whoa, whoa, you've got to connect down to the other road. And at that time that's when they lost the preserve. That gray area turned white on this plan. So what I'm trying to fight for is to get the gray back into that area as best we can. I mean, I personally would be happy with their road going through the preserve, but we've determined that you can't do that, that wouldn't count. So I think that if we not allow the use of residential in that white area, then Laura will move that road over as far as she can, get the preserves as close to Livingston as she can so she doesn't eat up the good residential sites in the center of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. My thought is a little bit different. I'll wait till you're finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are you addressing your question to? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the people at the podium. And I'd like to get that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're okay with what you just said. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me pose an additional item, if! may, please. Where the heavy arrow is, okay, that's where I'm starting my point. I would like to see a road as close to that and going along the property line. If a road is needed to go out, fine. I'm not as much interested in having it preserve. I think Brad's idea is very nice and good, but if that's not plausible, and I don't think we want to change everything right now, what occurs to me is that at the black arrow, that's a temporary entrance, and at some point you're going to close that up. So it would be even more logical to have that road to the westernmost portion of the property line. And if a preserve is to be preserved, that would make logical sense. And I don't recall then the recalculation would be up to the Page 117 February 7, 2008 northerly section of the preserve, but I'm not even necessarily wanting to go there. But if it makes sense to do that at the minimum, put the housing then -- if we're not going to make it preserve again, put the housing on the other side of the road, the eastern side of the road. I offer that for whatever -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let me -- go ahead, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've agreed to that. They've agreed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's -- we've just had two different things said, though. They've agreed to whatever's been said, but there's been two different things said. Brad says move the road as far west -- the connection road as far west as possible, and whatever land you end up with, put your additional 25 percent preserve there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray says the same thing about the road, but whatever land you end up with, he doesn't care if it's residential or preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's go from the planning commission perspective. I think obviously Brad's idea of preserve is probably the best. Is that a -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, moving the road to the west, the applicant agrees to -- you agree to these issues? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So another stipulation would be to move the access road as far west as possible and the lands between the preserve and Livingston would go preserve to the extent possible Page 118 February 7,2008 except for that road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you talk about minimum distance between structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: You had changed that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I didn't get that in my list here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I said change minimum principal setbacks. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good, perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other stipulations that were missed? Because if there aren't, I need staff to repeat them to me. Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Under your number 13 for the hold harmless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: We had agreed with Mr. Klatzkow on a condition that if put into the PUD we believe would then allow you to implement bringing -- us bringing forward a hold harmless, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said -- well, didn't I say that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. WHITE: We just had some specific text we agreed to on as a condition that we would use as the means by which to bring forward the hold harmless agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that in our packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, could you help me? MR. WHITE: I mean, if you don't want it, that's fine. Page 119 February 7, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: We have a hold harmless clause we've agreed to for a stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And what I said is that we would -- that the applicant would provide a hold harmless for any legal challenge. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. Put it on the viewer, Patrick. MR. WHITE: The actual text? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. WHITE: That will take me a moment here to locate it. I'm not sure I have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, for staff, there's no doubt this will be on the consent agenda. MS. ZONE: We've already pushed their BCC hearing date back two weeks to ensure that this being on the consent -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good idea. MS. ZONE: It was already anticipated. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's your staff report with the stipulations. Is that what he wants? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what he's trying to find. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, we have to be careful now, we're on the record. So she's trying to write everything we're saying. Mr. White, did you find what you were looking for? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I have. The condition that I suggest and that I believe the county attorney's office has agreed to is that the property owner will agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harn11ess the county in the event of the county being named in any suit brought by adjacent or nearby landowners of undeveloped property to establish lawful access, including defending the county's interest at hearing or trial; except that the property owner will not be responsible for any expenses for outside counsel that the county may otherwise seek to retain in such matter. Page 120 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that acceptable, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then unless there's not any objection from the board, then that's the language that would be stipulated. Okay, I think we're finished with stipulations. And now I know Melissa, we need you to read them back. MS. ZONE: No, that's not what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you have, another one? MS. ZONE: During discussion, Commissioner Schiffer had requested that the minimum front yard with the 20 feet to have no greater than, and the symbol which Johnson Engineering had had in the table, staff had asked to have it removed because the symbol itself could mean -- be construed one way or the other. So that ended up not being part of the stipulations. But I know that Commissioner Schiffer had wanted the greater than symbol in the 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How was that -- you guys don't like the use of the greater than 20 feet? MS. ZONE: You know, even I caught it and looked at it differently. And maybe have an asterisk that just says what it means is a little bit easier than putting the greater than or less than symbols. If that is a problem, we'll keep it as a greater than, less than. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're having trouble with the Boolean logic symbol, I mean, which way it goes? MS. ZONE: You know, even I've been confused on it. But, you know, is it not safer to just have it as a footnote and there is no question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just use the English language. MS. ZONE: Or that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so we're looking at the distance Page 121 February 7,2008 between principal -- are we on principal structures? MS. ZONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be not greater than. MS. ZONE: Well, instead of the symbol greater than-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No less than, I'm sorry. MS. ZONE: -- not less than 20 feet. Or just have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. MS. ZONE: -- an asterisk at the 20 feet and then to state what Commissioner Schiffer had said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't say not less than. That's different. Greater than. MS. ZONE: Greater than. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or go to Wikipedia, type in Boolean logic and it will all become clear. MS. ZONE: Again, but to be consistent with how staff reviews, the asterisk would -- in the footnote, if the commission does not wish to have that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'll figure that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in yada land here. Let's -- you guys just come back, because this is -- come on now, that symbol is used -- my son is 13, he's doing mathematics and he uses that symbol. Everybody knows that symbol. MS. ZONE: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come back with something for us and we'll tell you then if we disagree with it. As far as the stipulations go, before you read them all back, let's make sure there's a motion that they be -- that approval is recommended subject to those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray made the motion to recommend approval, subject to the stipulations that were read. Page 122 February 7, 2008 Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Any discussion among the planning commission before we have Melissa read the stipulations back? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa, could you read them back to us. MS. ZONE: Very good. I have the stipulations as: Number one, that the document which would be labeled Exhibit Z, which was given to the court reporter, that shows the three potential access points. That will be for the first motion. Number two -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, before you go further-- MS. ZONE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the cost will be determined by the developer and the landowner -- landowners who use that connection provided -- or as provided for in general law. MS. ZONE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can go on to number two. MS. ZONE: Thank you. Number two would be that the -- for the multi-family, that the maximum height will not exceed three stories. Number three would be that the 15-foot, Type B buffer will go along the eastern and northern boundary of the property. Number four will be that the actual building height for the multi-family will be 55 feet and -- for the principal structures. And we have number five: The setbacks for the principal structures, it will reflect the side yard setbacks, which were the 12, the -- under two-family was zero and 12, 12 for duplex and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we discussed -- February 7,2008 MS. ZONE: As discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're going to put that into a table correction that we'll review. MS. ZONE: Correct. So the table will be revised. Number six: That Exhibit B will have -- of the PUD document, the tables, that footnotes four and five will be removed. Number seven is that the remaining 25 percent, the 2.95 acres, will be contiguous and will be shown at SDP or plans and plat submittal. And we will have -- number eight is that the Item F in the developer's commitment will reference the interlocal agreement with the school board. Number nine is staffs recomn1endations. Number 10 is deviations one, three and six will be removed from the PUD document. Number 11 will have on the master plan the potential turn lane that shows over on Livingston. Number 12 will be that the actual height for all the other principal structures will be 40 feet. Number 13 will be the hold harmless agreement and the language that Patrick read into -- and the board approved, as well as county attorneys. Fourteen will be the affordable housing agreement. And we will use the $1,000 per unit, which is the standard language that we've been using for all affordable housing trust funds. Then we have number 15, which is to revise the master plan for the residential portion to be shown, and that the guardhouse and those accessory uses to be culled out onto the master plan. Number 16 will show that the access to Verona Point will be to the far west, and that the master plan is conceptual. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go further on that one, besides showing that access point to the far west, the stipulation would Page 124 February 7, 2008 also include that the remaining lands other than that road and access area that is contiguous to the preserve, the preserve would continue that direction instead of moving into the center of the site, as the applicant had suggested, to the extent needed for the 25 percent. MS. ZONE: Correct. Preserves will-- very good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. MS. ZONE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that comfortable with everybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded for the stipulations as read. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just one comment before the vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to be voting against the motion because I feel that the GMP discourages intense development of wetlands, even if they aren't in the best condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 125 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-1. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Two. I was opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you opposed, too. Okay, 8-2. MS. ZONE: 7-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, 7-2. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Greater than. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to eliminate your vote one way or another here, Bob. Okay, with that, we end that case. Thank you very much for your cooperation today. Mr. White, Mr. Blume, thank you, appreciate your participation. I know it's been enlightening and fun. Mr. White, the court reporter needs Exhibit Z. MR. WHITE: I will provide that. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who has Exhibit Z? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, let's get things together here. Exhibit Z needs to go to the court reporter, whoever has that. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2007-AR-11394, THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS So the next item on today's agenda is Petition CU-2007-AR-I1394, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It's for a conditional use. State Road 29. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this project, please rise Page 126 February 7,2008 and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any disclosures on the part of planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- disclosure, but I would call to your attention that in my packet at least there was no member CU document, conditional use document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mine, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just in case somebody was looking for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures on my part. During the break Mr. Royal spoke to me. We really didn't talk about the project, we just said hello and that was it. Okay, applicant's presentation. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get the mic a little closer to you. That bends so you just move it up. I know you're taller than most, so -- thank you. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, Matthew Vasilevski of Wedding and Stephenson, Architects, agent for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its representative Mr. James Bible. This petition is for a conditional use on a 16.75-acre parcel on State Road 29 in Immokalee. The parcel actually had a small -- it's zoned C-l in RSF-3. And it previously had a conditional use for a house of worship, which has since expired on the RSF-3 portion of the land. Page 127 February 7, 2008 There was a typo in the Land Development Code where we had thought the house of worship was permitted in a C-l zone land, so now we are trying to get a conditional use for the entire property. The church itself is going to be about 11,000 square feet with 107 parking spots. And -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was 108. I could have sworn it was 108. 106. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We actually have that document in our package, so if it makes it easier, we can talk over what we have. There we go. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Like I said, the development's going to be confined to mostly the C-l portion of the property. The only thing outside of that that's going to be constructed is the retention area. That's why we were asking for the conditional use on the entire parcel. The wetlands have been identified and we have a 1.03 area of permanent preserve in this corner here, as identified by the environmental staff as the optimum location for the preserve. That's pretty much it. If YOll guys have any specific things that I would like to -- that you would like to address, we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions on the part of the planning commission? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my edification, the retention area or detention area, that's dry detention? MR. V ASILEVSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And so that's sloped? That's what that's indicating, sloped? MR. V ASILEVSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sloped in the center. So in other words we have a slope sloping down and then we have another slope toward the what, a culvert or what? MR. V ASILEVSKI: Yes, sir. Page 128 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, is that what that is? I just want to be clear in my mind. Okay, that was -- that was also the actual height of the structure. I see 35 feet. It says maximum building height. That again is what -- pardon me. Is that zoned height? Because later on it does talk about actual height. MR. V ASILEVSKI: The zoned height is 35 feet. The actual height of the building is going to be -- the midpoint of the sloped roof is going to be just over 18 feet. But the actual building height with the steeple is going to be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 67. MR. V ASILEVSKI: -- 67. And that steeple qualifies for the exemption. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to be clear on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In this area, what is the permitted sign size? MR. V ASILEVSKI: I'm not sure the exact permitted sign size. Basically the only signage on the building is going to be a stone sign about three feet by five feet, which is inset into the masonry of the building. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But you don't know what the permitted size is? MR. V ASILEVSKI: I don't know, no. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What I don't understand is why wouldn't you take the permitted size, if you're allowed a larger size, rather than take a small sign like you've taken. MR. V ASILEVSKI: It's a standard church design on their site. They don't have any larger signs that they'd like to put on their building. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, that doesn't mean you have Page 129 February 7, 2008 to use it. I thought you might want that as a backup. If sometime in the future you would want a larger sign, it's already permitted. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Sure. If you want me to permit a larger sign, then -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's up to you. I just had a question as to why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, wouldn't it be easier then, or staff, Ray, on this sign issue, rather than him asking for a sign that's less than code, if we just el iminated the request for a sign and he just abided by code, wouldn't that cover it? MR. SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That seems cleaner to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with that. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant? MR. V ASILEVSKI: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the restriction on the sign, the request for the sign will be eliminated. Number five. Anything else from the planning commission? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had one quick question regarding adjacent parcel holder, the property owners. You said that there was a -- this was a church designation prior to or a place of worship prior to and expired. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Have you had any discussions with property owners within a distance of your piece of property regarding any future uses for their property? Are they giving up anything? In other words, are they not being able to do certain establishments or anything that they may have planned for and this Page 130 February 7, 2008 will be stopping them from -- MR. V ASILEVSKI: Yes, sir, it has been brought to my attention that not an adjacent landowner but a landowner within 500 feet of the property line -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Five hundred, yes. MR. V ASILEVSKI: -- would no longer be automatically permitted to have an alcohol serving establishment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Has that been resolved or are they smiling, or -- MR. V ASILEVSKI: I'm not sure at this point. I know that the church is willing to sign some sort of document or agreement saying that they would have no objection to it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Collier County does. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Another thing that may be taken -- I know that the statute says that if it's a shopping center, in which I understand that it would be, the 500 feet only applies to the exterior wall of the building, not to the property line to the property line. And unless that shopping center's built right on the property line, it wouldn't be a problem. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. You're spared for a few moments. Okay, we'll have the staff presentation. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioners. John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I don't have anything to add to Mr. Vasilevski's presentation. He did say that the church was going to be about 11,000 square feet. I just wanted to make sure that you all were aware, they're also seeking permission for a 2,800 square foot addition. Page 131 February 7, 2008 This project is consistent with the GMP and compatible with LDC requirements. I wanted to also bring your attention to condition number four. County attorney's office wanted to change that condition after the staff report was published to strike offer to services in the first sentence there, just limit it to saying, the facilities shall have services between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. They didn't want to specify a certain number. Also, as mentioned earlier, we're going to eliminate stipulation number five. And staff is recommending approval of this conditional use, subject to the remaining stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, why don't you want to allow them to have services after 6:00 in the evening? MR. MOSS: Well, for the neighbors. We just didn't want it to become a problem to the residential neighbors in the area. So that was the primary reason. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what about the five clerical and five non-clerical staff, why do you care how many people are working there? MR. MOSS: Because we didn't want it to be operating like a business. They were seeking a conditional use for a church. But the Mormon Church does offer genealogy services, and so they said that they would have a library there with people coming in to trace their genealogy, and so we just wanted to make sure it didn't become a problem. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: To me that seems too restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a question that maybe can be answered either by the attorney or perhaps Mr. Schmitt or you, Mr. Moss. Good afternoon. Page 132 February 7, 2008 In the old conditional use there is a set of stipulations, number six, and I thought it was really interesting that we no longer do this, and maybe there's good reason that I'm aware of. But I'll read it, if! may. Number six: Prior to approval of the site development plan, the petitioner shall submit the following: Stormwater calculations signed and sealed by a Florida professional engineer; legal proof that the adjacent property owner to the west will allow stormwater discharge from the proposed project onto his or her property; evidence that the maximum allowable discharge rates shall be per Ordinance 90-10, as amended; and a copy of the South Florida Water Management District permit. Now, I presume these things as components do fall into the package. But I wondered why we -- you know, we've been looking to tighten the documents up and make them a little bit more effective and making things clearer for folks. And I just wondered if that wasn't a good thing to have in there and why we stopped doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the conditional use area of the first application the same as the condition -- MR. MOSS: No, it's different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the property to the west that Mr. Murray's eluding to that had the concerns is now owned by the church. MR. MOSS: Exactly. It's now part of this petition. And all the other requirements there are just all LDC requirements. They're going to be handled at the development order. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I understand that that's the case, and you made that point and I appreciate that point and I knew that. But I was talking about more so the phrasing of this, the more clear phrasing of it. But if it's not impacting on anybody else as it hit me, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you had brought up an issue that you felt was -- I forgot your terminology, but did you have a Page 133 February 7,2008 suggestion to fix the concern that you had? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if it was up to me, I would just strike stipulation four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, me too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is stipulation four in there as a result of some kind of request by the public, or how did that originate? MR. MOSS: No, no, it wasn't any request by the public. So it's something that could be stricken. We just wanted to make sure we had all our bases covered. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That would make me happy -- MR. MOSS: But if that's something that the board would like to strike. It wasn't a resident that asked that it be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- I mean, staff just included it? MR. MOSS: I did, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a basis for the code? MR. MOSS: Well, like I said, Ijust -- a lot of times there are problems associated with churches and neighborhoods because of the tendency to have and services on days other than Sundays, and it just becomes a problem. So rather than encounter that in the future I just thought I would nip it in the bud and include that there. They were amenable to it and so it just seemed like it became a non-issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the issue that he's probably referring to is some inadvertent generated activities and noise that have been occurring a lot in the urban area for unexpected uses that operated outside their building and -- like Stevie Tomatoes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, but in Immokalee we like church services. We probably will come in and start dancing and singing along with it. We're not going to be mad about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, 1-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The other thing that I don't like is you can only have 170 persons in the service? What if more people Page 134 February 7, 2008 show up? I mean, why are we putting that in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably parking, wouldn't it be, and facilities? MR. MOSS: Right, the parking was based on that. And also, the church itself said that that was the maximum number of members that they would have, and if it became larger than that they would seek another site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is the consensus from this panel that number four is not needed as well? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Four is out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they don't want it, why should we want it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically four and five would not be needed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only thing, I would like to ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- Mr. Midney a question. Do the people of Immokalee concern themselves with it becoming a meeting hall, should that be a problem? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't see why it would. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Then that's fine. Good for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is there any -- do we they intentions of putting a school there at any time, or is there going to be? MR. MOSS: No, it's not included in this application. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I was wondering if! missed something, because -- Page 135 February 7,2008 MR. MOSS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any others of the staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. Six. Now, this is an existing conditional use, it's always been approved in the past, and it's expired. Now it comes back in and we're asking them to spend the money on soil sampling for something that they could have built a few years ago. And I would just like to know, is that a requirement or could that be struck as well? MR. MOSS: It was a request that was made by the environmental services department, so maybe if someone is here from that department that could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I doubt if know as much about soil testing as needed for that answer anyway. MR. MOSS: I included that under the direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a needless expense for this location. I would just as soon it be struck as well. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the future, if the staff decides to add this situation, could they provide this panel with the type of testing they want, which elements they're testing for, the thresholds that they're looking for and the state guidance that requires them to look at each threshold. And if they can't provide that, they need not put such stipulations in documents anymore. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: For new business, can I suggest that planning commission provide direction to staff to look at that section of the code and come back with a recommendation to amend that portion of the code in the next LDC cycle. If! get direction from the planning commission, if that's your direction, we'll do so. Page 13 6 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think that you need to tighten it up, and I think that would be a great one to look at, Joe, so that you're not asking someone to test for 40,000 compounds out there that are going to cost them a fortune. Be very specific and everything would be much better. MR. SCHMITT: No argument from me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the planning commission like that idea, to recommend to staff to suggest after LDC review? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think you have a consensus on that, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we have one speaker. Scott Royal. MR. ROYAL: For the record, my name is Scott Royal. My family has the 27 acres, and it's located right there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Turn it around. MR. ROYAL: Immokalee and 29. We've been in Immokalee since 1952, with continuous businesses in the Immokalee area there. Immokalee has so little commercial zoned property that is available. Our commercial corridor is very small for the geographic area that we have down there. We bought and developed and paid taxes on these parcels to be able to do what is allowed in the C-3 and C-4 zoning district. By approving this conditional use, it devalues our parcel, takes away one of our highest and best uses we have, and puts a use that is not compatible with our commercial corridor, which we have so little of. Page 13 7 February 7, 2008 This is also our main gateway into the community from State Road 29 from the north. Most importantly, according to you all's Section 100800D-3, the Collier County conditional use requirements, conditional use must be compatible to the surrounding properties. And there is no economic compatibility here by approving a church in our main commercial corridor. Why take some of Collier County's most valuable potential tax base off the tax roll and let a non-taxable entity be placed there? We need productive commercial properties in Immokalee that create jobs and tax base for our community. A lot has changed since they had their conditional use in '02. There's been a lot of commercial building done down there in the last five, six years along that corridor. Their use has expired. I guess I'm kind of old-fashioned. I have a problem when I have a vested zoning right today and the right which I have been taxed on, C-3, could be removed by this conditional use. Look, churches can go into most zoning areas in Collier County, but commercial can't. I appeal to you to make the fair and best decision for our community. Thanks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could you point out again-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- now that it's right side up, where your property is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. ROYAL: We have this piece and these two pieces. It's a total of 27 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of that is within 500 feet of the church? MR. ROYAL: This parcel here is within 350 feet of where Page 138 February 7,2008 they're located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your southern two parcels would not be within 500 feet of the church? MR. ROYAL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've only got one parcel that would be affected by the alcohol restriction. MR. ROYAL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The main intersection, though, could still benefit from a grocery store or the like that could sell alcohol; is that -- MR. ROYAL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I need to explore that a little further with staff and the county attorney. Anybody have any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is this culled out for in the new master plan work they're doing out there? MR. ROYAL: It's in an over -- I'm not that familiar. It's in an overlay district, but I'm not sure which one. It keeps changing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can attest to that. It's been eight renditions so far, I think. MR. ROYAL: It is the main intersection in Immokalee, and yeah, we have commercial on both sides. I know we were concerned back years ago because there was an Episcopal church across and catty-corner down the street. It's been there since there was cows around it. It's been there all my life. But, you know, I'm not against churches, I'm just against it being in certain areas. And this is our biggest commercial corridor there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: IfI'm mistaken (sic), I believe that the petitioner said that they would be willing to sign an agreement that alcohol was not an issue for them. Now, obviously this goes against what our code is, though, so how is it -- Page 139 February 7, 2008 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm looking at the LDC right now in Section 5.05.01.7 has some exception. And it says, any restaurant deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages shall be exempt from the distance requirements. So a restaurant would not be affected by a church if they have 51 percent of food sales. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a plan for that property? Do you know what you'd be putting on that one parcel that's going to be affected by this? MR. ROYAL: We're in the process -- we're under contract on a piece which would not -- on there that would not affect it. But the other piece, it's slated for a restaurant/ -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you're right in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other piece you're referring to, the southern two pieces? MR. ROYAL: It's one parcel, but we're in the process of replatting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Now, from staffs perspective, if this is replatted as one large 27-acre parcel, does the zoning restriction for alcohol prevent the whole parcel, or is it just the building the alcohol's sold out of? MR. BELLOWS: If! understand the -- could you repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a 500 distance (sic) separation between the church and the sale of alcohol. Is it to the property line of the property, the building in which the alcohol is sold, or the building that the alcohol is sold in or the unit of the building that the alcohol is sold in? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's building to building, but I'm double checking that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if it's -- Page 140 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From my experience -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Mark, I've done liquor surveys, it is building from building. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially as a drunk would walk, I mean, is the way they -- MR. KLATZKOW: That would be 1,000 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, in some cases it's door to door, but I think in our case it's building to building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if this was approved, it would go from this church building 500 feet south. Ifhe did a C-3 use and the C-3 use was a restaurant, it wouldn't be affected by it, as long as it wasn't a bar. But mostly restaurant, if you sold 51 percent food, which most of your restaurants qualify for. And your two southern parcels wouldn't be affected. And then if they were to plat it as one parcel, the only portion of the parcel that would be affected is that area within 500 feet of the church. Is that a fair statement from -- anybody from staff know? MR. BELLOWS: I'm looking. MR. MOSS: I just wanted to add, it's my recollection that it's from the property line of the church to the building, not building to building. But I could be mistaken. Hopefully the county attorney's office can verify that with the LDC. The other thing too I wanted to say is there is a provision in the LDC that says the shopping center could apply for a waiver, and as long as there is some sort of buffer separating the two uses, it could be requested -- or it could be granted, rather. And there is a shopping center or some commercial use between these two uses, so there would be a manmade buffer. And then there's also a natural buffer separating the church itself from that property. Page 141 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but how is it fair that a property owner who's been there for all these years, has had a zoning for all these years is now going to be not compensated and harmed by a zoning request that's going in away from him by 300 feet. MR. MOSS: I understand. I'm not saying it's fair, I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the reason -- where I'm getting at is why should he have to be forced to go through a process that -- MR. MOSS: Right, I see your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- his property had entitlements for all along? Mr. Klatzkow, can you shed any legal light on this, or is there none? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, I had the same question. I didn't think it was fair, but that's what the ordinance does say. It's lot to lot, by the way, not building to building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. So that means this entire lot would be restricted from the sale of -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's lot to lot. MR. MOSS: What about for shopping centers, though, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there's a procedure where by resolution the BZA can waive it, depending upon a certain criteria. I know the church has agreed that they would join in on such a resolution request. But it's a problem as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. MR. KLATZKOW: But I will note that this was a conditional use before it expired, and that 500 feet would have been there then. This isn't a new problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, or it may not be, but it may be one that was just realized too for that matter. So are there any -- MR. MOSS: Mr. Strain, may I -- Page 142 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MOSS: Yeah, it's in 5.05.01, number two, it does say, the final sentence, except that establishments located in shopping centers will then be measured from the outer wall of the establishment. So that would be lot line to building, the outer wall of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but does that mean the entire building then is restricted, or just that outer wall? MR. MOSS: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, at the end of the day it's going to be the staffs determination. I mean, I read this as lot line to lot line. Though I don't know why, building to building would make more sense, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look at, this is a substantial issue. We may be better off if the church continued this until in they came back and the staff came back with a conclusion on what this affects with an arc starting from the outermost point of the property southward to show whose properties are going to be affected by it, so we can see if there's a resolution of Mr. Royal's concerns. That -- because right now I'm not inclined myself to think this is a good thing to do unilaterally against another property owner. It just isn't -- I don't see how it's fair. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, is there a way we can waive that requirement on a case-by-case? MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can't. The BZA is the one that has the power to waive the requirement, not you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, can we recommend that they waive it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Mr. Schiffer finishes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, could we recommend Page 143 February 7, 2008 that they waive it then? MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have an application for the waiver in front of us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor advertised. MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray next, then Mr. Adelstein. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Another thought. May seem cruel, but the gentleman who represents the church indicated that if we had more than 170 people we'd find another site. So maybe we're really working a hard line right off the bat. Because if you're successful, you should probably find 170 people out there pretty quickly. I don't mean to be prophetic about how well you'll do, but if that's the case and you're willing to move to another site right away, it takes away opportunities the other person has had to pay for all these years. MR. V ASILEVSKI: What actually happens with the church is not that they find another site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said that, that's the only reason. MR. V ASILEVSKI: I didn't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you did. MR. MOSS: No, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let him finish a little bit, Bob. MR. V ASILEVSKI: But anyways, first they expand and then they split. What happens is the wards are a certain size and those can only hold so many wards -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, different story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you had a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. Could it be possible that the church itself could say no, we don't want to do that? Page 144 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do what? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: On this particular issue we do not want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do what? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Because these people have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, do what, not build the building? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, no, that they would allow the -- they would allow the alcoholic product in that space because the church is authorizing them they can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, this is an ordinance. They can't waive an ordinance. We have -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you've got to use your microphone. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about the fact that they cannot -- the church has nothing to say to that at all? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's an ordinance of Collier County. They can't waive a county ordinance. The applicant who is concerned would have to file for a waiver to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners. That's the only way it seems it can be done at this point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any suggestions from the board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could go for a continuance that makes sense, if they're open to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the church's benefit, what you have is a -- we don't have a lot of clarity on how far of an impact this 500-foot radius might take and then where it begins and stops. You might be better served if you came back to us with a little more detail after researching, and staff did, as to the impacts ofthis on the adjoining properties and maybe meeting with Mr. Royal to see if it has Page 145 February 7, 2008 any -- on his plan that he has, maybe there's a way that it could be worked so it doesn't affect his plan after staff tells you what it does impact. Based on that then you may want to come back. And if you do think that's viable, you should ask for a continuance now and that could be granted. If you don't, you're more than likely going to go forward and you may receive a negative recommendation to go next to the next step at the Board of County Commissioners. That's up to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, here's the -- but he's going to come back and he's going to be in the same condition with the southern boundary. So alls we're going to maybe discover is the people up north have the same problem. Is there a way we could go ahead with this as it is, yet ifhe does want to put an establishment that this would violate -- that the church obliges to go in with them on that application, essentially be party to it, to allow him relief in that case. Similar to what we kind of did with -- I don't think they -- maybe they shouldn't pay the fees, but in other words, I think that if in a future commission they were looking at the church and the applicant discussing the 500 feet, that would be a powerful team to probably guarantee success. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what you're asking is then we should tell the applicant of an entitled piece of -- tell the person who owns an entitled piece of property for a number of years that he's now forced into a process because of a zoning allowance of a conditional use on a property 500 feet away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or we're telling a property owner who, because their thing expired, now finds himself in the position to allow liquor that he couldn't have done prior to that expiration. In other words, I think the two of them have got to become Page 146 February 7, 2008 neighbors on it. The church has got to promise that if he really wants to do something where you're in the way, you'll help them out of that problem. Then I think that's better than what we had before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust had one. Who owns the property directly attached to your -- between is it Mr. Royal -- Royal's property and yours? MR. V ASILEVSKI: I'm not sure the same the property owner. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is it zoned commercial also, or residential? MR. ROYAL: Yeah, I talked to them, they just couldn't be here. It's Bill and April Oquin (phonetic). They're farmers down there. And they've got it in a trust I think for their kids. But it's -- they didn't have enough information on it to be here, and they were out of town. But they didn't seem too enthused about it either. The church has a large piece there. I don't know if there's some compromise here. Could the church building be pushed back towards the back of the piece, keep the commercial out front and have an access road out there? You know, I see you all are able to do a lot of compromise here, from sitting here this morning, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that if they were to move from that commercial piece, could they get -- is the conditional use for a church? Yeah, I think a church is allowed in residential zoning districts as well. They could move to the north side of the RSF-3 and possibly be further away from any properties. That's another option. But that's something they'd have to come back and reapply for. MR. V ASILEVSKI: Then you would be getting into the wetland area that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, get closer to your mic. Page 147 February 7, 2008 MR. V ASILEVSKI: I said at that point you'd be moving into the wetland area and causing a whole 'nother bunch of issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could it be as simple as a condition that the church would join any landholder in getting a waiver of the 500-foot requirement? Could that be in there, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that was my recommendation. But the issue is you still need -- Mr. Royal will still need to have to go to the BZA and ask for a relief. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the time that he needs it. I mean, he's discussing construction that wouldn't require it. In other words, he hasn't come here and said -- he just wants to keep that door open. But quite frankly, that door was closed up until their expiration anyway. MR. KLATZKOW: That's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So he wants to keep that door open. I think if the church came with him with an application, they would definitely carry a lot of weight and probably guarantee approval. MR. V ASILEVSKI: I think the church is agreeable to that, as is the property owner's attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, boy. You might just -- MR. V ASILEVSKI: I got a nod from him, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's everybody's attorney. So I think adding a condition that can move forward. But Mr. Royal also brings up a good argument, do you want a church on that street. Mr. Royal's vision of the future is that that street is businesses, not churches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe they're compatible. Page 148 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they've applied for a church. It's our job to either grant it or not. We've beat it pretty much to death. David? MR. MOSS: Oh, I just wanted to make one suggestion, is if this is possible, Jeff, you can weigh in on this, but that they apply for the waiver now and that these two run concurrently before the board so they can hear them at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they'd have to continue then and come back with a waiver in conjunction with this or put the waiver through after that. I'm puzzled. MR. MOSS: Just do them concurrently, yes. We'd probably have to continue the board date in order to do this. Jeffs shaking his head no so-- , MR. KLATZKOW: This criteria that the board has defined, and we don't even know where the business is going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it doesn't look like it can happen simultaneously. Thanks for trying though, appreciate it. Any other discussion, comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing and have discussion first and then we can entertain a motion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you actually give the petitioner the opportunity to continue this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I offered it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you ever get an answer on that, yes or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't say anything. I offered it -- I mentioned it twice. MR. V ASILEVSKI: We wouId prefer not to continue this. We've Page 149 February 7, 2008 been dealing with this for over a year. And like I indicated earlier, in the LDC a church is listed as a pennitted use in the C-l district. So it's been over a year that we've been dealing with this. And we also had a conditionaI use, so we wouId definitely prefer not to continue this at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion before we ask for a motion? Anybody have anything they want to say? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on this matter? Anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion to approve with the conditions and the added condition that the church be -- I guess how wouId I word this, friendly -- MR. KLATZKOW: Co-applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A co-applicant on any need by Mr. Royal -- I don't see any reason to go north -- but by Mr. Royal in the waiver of the 500- foot requirement from a church for an alcoholic -- and the only thing we're talking about is bars, aren't we, Ray, from what you read? In other words, anything that had an SRS license wouldn't be required, it's only the four COP guys that are going to -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to be voting no on the motion. I think to take an entitlement away from a property owner that he has Page 150 February 7, 2008 is not fair. I think something could be worked out, given more time, but that's -- they want to go forward, so at this point I can't see the basis for approval from my own perspective. Any other comments? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to vote the same way. Can't support it because I do agree that the church did move, things have changed, the gentleman's been paying taxes. I think enough said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to you two guys. I mean, our legacy board, Ken Abernathy was stilI on it, I don't know exactly what the date was, I was going to look it up, they felt that it was okay. I mean, this man didn't have these rights up until the expiration, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was on that board too at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How did you vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember but I don't -- I honestly don't recall. I don't remember this issue coming up, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it was unanimous in favor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may have been. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So the point is that when that vote occurred, those rights disappeared. Now that they're here due to expiration, I mean -- I mean, I want -- you know, obviously we did that condition to protect him and able to do whatever he wanted to do. So we're not taking his right away. In other words, we didn't diminish his rights at all, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to vote with Brad, because it seems like the onIy right that's being taken away is the right to put a bar, which is not a very common use. And, you know, I don't see how it's going to be a really big imposition that he wants to have a Page 151 February 7, 2008 bar right there. But, you know, I guess he should have the right to do whatever he wants, but I'm going to be voting with the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney, if it was that simple, I certainly wouldn't have any probIem. I just don't know that it is, because we haven't got a definition of where and when this setback starts and ends, what's involved, if it's the building that's got to be within 500 feet and all that. And untiI I got clarification, which I had asked for and it isn't readily available, I just don't feel comfortable going forward. Mr. Schi ffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, if it ever is a problem, the church is going to join him in the solution. So it's not a fatal problem for him. If he has to bring the church -- it would be fun to watch a church and a bar come in here and have that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a gentleman sitting in the audience right now who's a land use attorney in the county. If you were to ask him that public hearings aren't a problem, I think he would probably disagree. Any time you go before a public hearing it becomes a probIem. Any other discussion? Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going to withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to withdraw your second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second's been withdrawn. The motion was for approval. Is there another second for the motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now the motion for (sic) recommend approval has been seconded by Mr. Midney. Mr. Schiffer had made some stipulations in his motions. I'm Page 152 February 7, 2008 assuming that you're seconding those as well. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion of approval, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three approved. All those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five. So motion-- I mean six. Motion faiIs 6-3. So it will go forward with a recomn1endation of denial. Is that a fair statement, Mr. Klatzkow? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we still have to fill out our conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mine says I'm chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. Lucky you. They all say that. Cross out the word chairman and just leave it, if you want it. Doesn't matter. Item #9C PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12248, SABAL PALM Page 153 February 7, 2008 DEVELOPMENT, LLC Okay, with that, the next -- we're going to take a break at 2:30. The next case for today is PUDZ-2007-AR-12248, the Napoli Village commercial pIanned unit development. Represented by Mr. Y ovanovich. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this particular project, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. I'm sorry, I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too, very briefly. And I think our discussion mostly centered around the easement that the church had referenced in the neighborhood informational meeting. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I aIso spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich about questions I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. AdeIstein as well. Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behaIf of the petitioner. With me today, an owner's representative, Dave Mulla; Bob Duane, the Professional Planner on the project; Mario Lamendola, the Architect for the project, and Jerry Neal for the project; and Rob Price, Page 154 February 7, 2008 if you have any transportation questions. The project is a nine-acre parcel located on the east side of U.S. 41, almost to the north Collier County property line. It's the old Szabo Nursery. You can see it on the aerial that's up on the -- over by the bulletin board. We have I guess a church to both the north and the south, as well as to the east is Stirling Oaks. The current compo plan designation on the property is urban residentiaI and the current zoning is agricultural. The request is to rezone the property to CPUD for an adult community for individuals over 55. The permitted uses would be independent living units, as well as assisted living units. The Future Land Use EIement basically provides that these types of uses are allowed to be requested anywhere within the urban area. The number of units that we're requesting is 225 units. However, of those 225 units a maximum of 175 of those units can be independent living units. The maximum zoned height is 50 feet. The actual height is 67 feet. We have required a minimum buiIding separation from Stirling Oaks of 150 feet. We've requested one deviation and that's the deviation for the floor area ratio. The Land DeveIopment Code currently provides for these types of communities for a floor area ratio of .45. Recently I was involved in a comprehensive plan amendment for an approximately eight-acre parcel on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and that comprehensive plan designation allowed for a floor area ratio of .6. When we went through that hearing process we explained that back when the .45 floor area ratio was established the leveI of amenities and the unit sizes commonly found in these types of facilities were much smaller. Over time people have expected a greater level of amenities. They want wellness centers, they want swimming pools, they want Page 155 February 7, 2008 entertainment areas, they want bigger units, because it's hard for them to accept that they shouId no Ionger be living in their condominium but they want to -- they do want to move into these areas and they want, you know, units that feel more like home and not a small apartment. So that was the rationale for that comprehensive plan amendment. It's the rationale for this project as well, and the basis for the requested deviation. And I will have a few other petitions that will be coming through the process that we'll aIso be asking for a deviation for the floor area ratio, based upon that rationalization. Our request is consistent with the previous action of the Board of County Commissioners on that compo plan amendment, as I said. We've met with our neighbors at a neighborhood information meeting. The only real issue that came up was with the church to the south. They already had an existing access easement across our property. They wanted to make sure that however our site was designed that their access would remain as good as it was that exists today. The master plan has been -- to my understanding has been reviewed by the church and they're comfortable with our PUD master plan and they're comfortable with our access that we're providing to them. And that's to -- in this area right here, this is the access area to the church to the south. And we met with church representatives regarding that access. And in the summary of the neighborhood information meeting you'll see that the church was concerned about that access. But we've accommodated that on the master plan. Staffs recommending approvaI and we're requesting that the pIanning commission forward our rezone request to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. If you have any questions regarding the project, I or anybody eIse on our team will be happy to answer those questions. Page 156 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was looking at Page 5 of 9 of the staff report reIative to emergency management and the commentary that was made there. And the thought came into my head that it'd probably cost a whole lot more, but I wonder if that building was going to be hardened. Because I was thinking about the evacuation of all those people who might be in the assisted living portion of it there. I presume that it would not be -- you're not intending to harden the building against hurricane or treat it as a shelter in some form? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we would treat it as a shelter. I think a Category 3 I believe is what the staff report says, for a Category 3 storm we -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Get out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- would have to evacuate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's pretty -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a rare -- a fairly rare occurrence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. Just a thought that came through my head. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Mr. Adelstein then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, as a matter of fact, it's going the other direction. When I looked through this and read it and discussed the situation, the idea of them having a beauty shop, dining room areas to go with and have an illness (sic) also there will give them a lot better time and a lot better feeling when they're there. And I think it was a very extreme -- a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer then Ms. Caron. Page 157 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just to kind of follow up what Bob said is I know working on the mitigation team that it costs about $500 per special needs person. Could you guys heIp emergency management with funding the shelter that these people would obviously have to go to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess the question is -- Mr. Schiffer, what do you mean by special needs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, these people -- a Iot of these people will have special needs, won't they? I mean, essentially four percent of every apartment building has people with special needs. This would probably have a higher ratio. Anyway, my thought is we don't want to work it out here, but could you meet with emergency management and help them make sure that the shelters that this facility would have to go to have the equipment for the special needs? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, we'll obviously meet with emergency staff. They did not ask us for any form of mitigation based upon this proposal. And the initial proposal and a -- is for basically independent units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So it wouldn't be 100 percent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, so it would not be -- it would not be an assisted living facility, 100 percent assisted living facility, I guess IS -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I guess I'm bringing it up, because one of the things I'm becoming aware of is that there is not money to do all the speciaI needs that we really do need. We really shouId be seeking in any kind of condo project some help for them. And maybe the reason they're not asking is they're shy. But I think it would be because you're bringing a concentration of people that might be -- that might have special needs that you really should work with Page 158 February 7, 2008 them and make sure that they are covered in an evacuation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: One thing the county, in my experience is, is they've never been shy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was being polite. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We could talk to them. But I don't want to commit to a dollar figure right now, because I don't know what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not asking -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- if any dollar figure they want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm just saying, just make a commitment that you will work with them to make sure that the people here are covered when they go to the shelter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we spoke on the phone the other day about the water management issue and you were just going to follow up on that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. The water management -- and I forgot to, to be honest with you. The water management plan says it's for 168 units, but the impervious area is not changing. So whether we have 168 units or we have 175 or up to 225, the impervious area will remain the same, so the water management system will be abIe to accommodate what we're proposing. And any changes will be accommodated through the site development plan process. COMMISSIONER CARON: And, you know, I certainly accept that. However, as we talked about on the phone, there is no way for me to know that your -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- impervious area is no greater or is the same, no matter what. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And for the future, once again, wei Page 159 February 7, 2008 need to make these changes so that everybody is aware. So if you're going to talk about 168 units and -- you need to make sure that it's clear for everybody on this board exactly what it is that we're -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- talking about. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One thing that is absolutely clear, there is a monthly fee for everyone that is in that operational hospital. So it's a one -- it's not at go in and get a surgery, it actually gets done by a monthly fee. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. There's no medical treatment occurring here. This is basically independent. It's apartments, essentially, for older people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let me start. The easement that you're providing to the church, have you written that up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's there on the -- it's on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're showing an interconnection, but do they have the right to go onto your property in the format of an easement, and is one needed to make sure that they have that in perpetuity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: They already -- Mr. Strain, they already have an access easement across the property. We will have to modify it, with their permission, obviously, to make that little jog. So we cannot interfere with their access because they already have it. So we will have to modify it to make that little curve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and you're telling us contrary to the neighborhood informational meeting this is now -- this is in Page 160 February 7, 2008 agreement with them? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's what I've been told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, is there any documentation or something that we would need at this stage, or is it okay based on on the verbal comments made? I haven't seen the easement, I mean, so I don't -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think Mr. Yovanovich is committing or representing to you that there is this easement access. And if there isn't, I think there will be repercussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you have any problem getting the easement formatted and done before the Board of County Commissioners' meeting? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my understanding is that if we cannot modify the easement, we may have to shift a little bit of our -- I'm just saying -- the answer is I don't know. When you're dealing with a church board, I can't commit that I'm definitely going to get it modified before the Board of County Commissioners. But what I'm saying is the worst case scenario for the church is if it doesn't occur, we'll do a minor shift of the location of the interconnection to where it currently exists. So there's no downside in letting us go forward to the Board of County Commissioners, because the church already has its access across our property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, they have an access across your property -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's already constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's not in the same location shown on that plan; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. So if we want to move it, we have to get their permission. If they don't end up giving us our permission, we'll end up making a minor modification to our site plan to accommodate their current access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 161 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: It was my understanding in our conversation that you had already had that discussion and they were in agreement with you moving that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we have been told, they are in agreement. But the question I was asked is do I -- will I have the revised easement before I go to the Board of County Commissioners. And I can't say emphatically yes, I will. But I was trying to assure the planning commission that the downside is if I don't obtain it is it's going to stay exactly where it is today. So there's no downside to the church and there's no downside to the county if you allow us to go forward without having that document in our hands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, what easement where are you going to give them as a substitute? The one that's in our packet or the one that's on the wall? Which master plan are you going to use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the master plan right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's not the one in our packet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. And John-David will talk to you about that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are we going to get a master plan that we're approving today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the one that my understanding is -- this is the one we submitted to the county and this is the one we're requesting approval of. You have the large copy in your backup is what I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one I've got doesn't show the connection as you're showing there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The larger one, not the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- the larger ones go into the trash can. They should match the one that's in the packet. If they don't -- the one in the packet gets recorded. I don't need the larger ones. And if staff never wants to send them to me, that's fine. Page 162 February 7, 2008 But as far as the one that's recorded, that's the one I focus on. I'm focusing on the PUD that you submitted for recordation. And I don't find that plan in it. So is that plan -- what material differences are between that plan and the one we have in our package as far as the PUD document? MR. MOSS: I'm sorry about that. We don't know how this happened, but the application, the only thing different is that access. It's a curved access instead of a squared off one like in your packet. That's the only difference. And this is the one that's going with the resolution that's to be recorded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's on the wall. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a better master plan, so that's fine. MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're going to -- our stipulations will be you're going to use the master plan that's on the wall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Somebody taking a picture of the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess then if it's okay, I'll continue with mme. Exhibit A, Richard, Roman numeral I and then B, accessory uses and amenities. The following uses shall comprise a minimum of 20 percent of the total amount of the gross floor area. And then under C, accessory uses and amenities. The following uses shall not be counted towards the minimum 20 percent of the total amount of gross floor area. And it mentioned signs, water management areas, essential services, covered parking, van transportation areas, nature trails. When have we ever counted those as gross floor area, and how does that factor into gross floor area? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The question wasn't the gross floor area. This was a clarification that staff wanted to make sure that we couldn't argue that any of those things we could say met our 20 percent gross Page 163 February 7,2008 floor area requirement for amenities. The intent was to clarify that they -- not that we ever could in the first place, but it was extra language in there to clarify that that could not happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm glad you clarified -- I hope you're around as the years go on to clarify that for anybody that asks. Under your preserve tracts, Roman numeral II, you have 1.36 acres. And you have, under environmental requirements, the very last page of Exhibit F, you have 1.35 acres. That's a minimum there, so I guess it works. Both of them say minimum, though. Which is it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we have a minimum of 1.35, but we agree to 1.36. So we have given an extra one-hundredth of an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want the documents consistent, because you'd be the first attorney to stand up and cry foul. So 2-A will be 1.36; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Principal uses, structures. You have passive recreation areas and recreational shelters. Do you have any development standards for your recreational shelters? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is too much fun. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bob? What page are you reading from? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your preserve tract, Exhibit A, second page. Mine doesn't have page numbers on it. I think you were afraid to give them to me. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, the Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A what? I don't have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's for people like me who say eh? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you make a good point. We don't Page 164 February 7, 2008 clearly say, but we should say that they have to meet the accessory use development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's -- you're going to love this one. What are the passive recreational areas? What are they? What's uses are -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What are the uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you thinking? Yeah, what's the uses? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it says under A-4 such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's about it then, that's all you want? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have some of the other -- would you like to give us some more? I mean, we -- I'm kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, didn't we work this out on Cocohatchee? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The property wasn't big enough for us to have that expansive use of passive recreational uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't you think that you could pull some of the uses from that list that would fit on this property, if that's what you want? Otherwise, let's just go with something definitive instead of we worked it out there. Passive recreational uses are pretty broad. Do you know what you want there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I mean, honestly, the nature trails and the boardwalks is probably all we will ever want to put in those preserve areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have a problem with that? And I'll let it go if you all want to go. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last one you've already answered, which is the 1.36, that will be the minimum. Thank you. Any other questions of Richard? (No response.) Page 165 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Staff presentation. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I just wanted to say for the record that this proj ect is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the LDC. I also wanted to explain the justification for that 20 percent. Since the applicant was saying that he was going to require a larger FAR, because he was going to provide all of these amenities, I just wanted to make sure that he was going to provide all these additional amenities. And we had all of those accessories uses listed together. And so I didn't want him coming in and saying that, you know, a stormwater management pond was going to count towards 20 percent of his amenities, and so that's why I had him separate them. So I'm sorry if I made it confusing, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. The explanation works, it just -- I needed the explanation, so no, I appreciate it. MR. MOSS: Very good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And thank you, Mr. Moss. MR. MOSS: Sure. So that's all I have, unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question. Cherie', we might wrap this one up before we go on to the next one in about five or 10 minutes. Is that long enough for your switchover? You didn't know she was behind you, did you? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Surprise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want to mention something to you, and I'm not going to labor the point because I have in the past and staffs well probably aware of it. These rezone findings and PUD findings were not written very well, because it was boilerplate stuff. But just to be clear, I disagree Page 166 February 7, 2008 not with the intent of the rezone findings but the way the following ones were written. One, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17. And the PUD findings one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight. And my basis for that is what I've expressed in other elements when we've discussed rezone findings. And that's all I need to say on the matter because I know staffs cleaning it up, but I wanted my position -- MR. MOSS: And this one was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clear on the record. MR. MOSS: -- already done by the time all these changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, fully understand that. MR. MOSS: -- were -- okay, so I just wanted to make you aware, it won't happen again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we do a better job, it all helps everybody. And then the other thing I want to mention, and it probably wasn't you that took this in, and I think Mr. Schmitt clarified it this morning. When they did the intake they didn't check the master homeowners associations. I did. They're not viable associations as they're listed in the application, but there are the viable ones, you can find them on-line. So that being said, I don't need to belabor that point. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Thank you, sir. Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will -- of course there's probably not a rebuttal. Mr. Y ovanovich doesn't want to take another chance at coming up here. Is there any further questions on behalf of the planning commission? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Page 167 February 7,2008 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than the fact this looks like a pretty good project. So anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for approval, pending your stipulations that I'm sure you have duly noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made by Commissioner Vig -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Vigliotti. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vigliotti. I'm going to get that right after all these years. And seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. The stipulations would be that they would obtain an access easement with a church by the time it gets to the Board of County Commissioners' hearing; that the master plan that's going to be used is the one that was shown to us on the wall here today that apparently was in the larger blowup in our package but not in the smaller blowup; and that the preserve area minimum will be 1.36; and that the recreational standards will be the same as those of the accessory standards. Now, anybody else have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wish there was some way we could make sure they mitigate the evacuation of this building. It is in a Zone 3, there will be people that are going to need sheltering. Is there any way we can do that? I mean, we ask for money for, you know, affordable housing. Can we ask for money to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, I mean, I know we've had Page 168 February 7, 2008 things come through and we've asked for contributions that have been site related. I don't know how we can do things outside of the impact fee ordinance and the other things that allow us to take site-related impacts like a road system. And I really think if we need such contributions, they ought to be labeled out in a format that is above -- I mean, in the front, not extracted. I think we -- I think if you want to suggest we look at a fee for this on a standard basis that's put into an ordinance, I think that's a great idea. But it would be vetted through the public process and be more I think fair. So that's my position. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern, though, this is a large amount of people. This could be burdening the sheltering system and that's, you know, something we should plan for. We're planning for everything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe the suggestion will be taken up by emergency services and they'll come back with an impact fee resolution or something. That should be the way I think to do it, though. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would staff -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, my only issue, if it's okay, in may, is the timing of the easement. I don't know that I can get that done prior to the board date. I hope I explained there's no downside to either entity if I don't get it done by that date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. And the only reason I put it in there is because I'll let you argue that with the board then. If you can convince the board that it's not needed, then that's fine. But at least this board did the best they could to get it to them in a timely manner. So it doesn't matter to me that you go to the board and express to them your concerns. And if they feel that your concerns are justified, then I'm sure that they'll work with you on it. Page 169 February 7, 2008 My position is I don't see why you couldn't have gotten it by now and you could still get it by then. So I don't -- and again, I don't -- it wouldn't matter if the board said fine, they'll go along with your process. But from my perspective, I thought it would be a good thing to highlight to the board. And if they wanted to waive it, they certainly don't have to accept all of our recommendations. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I understood it, and I want to be clear in my mind. In understood it correctly, there were two options here. One is that there is an easement in fact. The other is that there is intending to be a modified easement, if possible. Failing that, the other easement remains in place. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It does. They have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So our stipulation, which I don't recall your phrasing of it, but the stipulation, the way I'd put it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What the church said to us is we want the easement we have today, unless you can show us it's a better easement. We think we've shown them it's a better easement. But if their position changes and I can't get a document signed by the church, they'll have the access they have today and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you said you would change your master plan. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll make the modifications to our master plan -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to accommodate their current easement. I don't -- I think it's a better access, but if they decide for whatever reason they want to leave it like it is, I hope that's not going to be the reason this project fails. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would hope not. Page 170 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you made a good point, and so I would suggest we revise the stipulation to read that, provide a revised access easement for the church or to revise the master plan to be consistent with the current easement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. That's what we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way. Then you're covered either way it goes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? I thank you, Mr. Murray that was a good point. Anybody else have any questions or concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Call for the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. And with that we'll take a IS-minute break and be back here at 2:50. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back from our IS-minute break. And we wore out Cherie'; we now have Terri, so we're going to -- but for the next little bit of time, I don't think we're going to wear her out. Steve, before you're up, we're going to talk about Cocohatchee, Page 171 February 7, 2008 so -- MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich wants to get out of here, and he's dying to get out of here now that he had his win. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hard fought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First thing on the Cocohatchee is the date. We had it scheduled for this February 14th. We were thinking of going to the 21st, but that wouldn't work for Mr. Schiffer, and to be honest with you, since it is the district that Mr. Schiffer and Ms. Caron are in, I think it vital that both of them be at the meeting. And if we can accommodate, we should. The dates -- I've gotten one date from staff, is February 25th, and that would obviously be the best date because it's as close to this month -- it's still in this month, and it would be -- we have the room for the whole day if we have it on the 25th of February. How does that work for everybody else? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, what I said, Mark, is I'm coming in on a flight scheduled to be at nine o'clock on the 24th, so I would prefer it in the afternoon on the 25th, but -- uh-oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing there, Brad, is if we get into some convoluted discussion, it would be nice to know we had the whole day to resolve it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think we'd be here today till this time, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what other dates do we have then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're back into March, and I don't really -- I don't see the need for this -- I really wish this board wouldn't have to push it into March. Page 172 February 7,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, whatever we have to do. I mean, if everything got in fine, yeah, I'd be back to my house about 10:30, 11:00. Ifnot, I've got a problem, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start at 10 o'clock then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten o'clock would be -- would help me a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only thing I ask is, I've got people I've got to ask about their schedule. So I mean, I can't commit to you right now that I can have my engineers here and I can have my client here on the 25th. I can -- my client's out of town today. I'll do my best to get in contact with them to get back to you on the 25th, about the availability on the 25th. What I'm asking is, if there's an issue on our side -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, do your best. And if you can't on the 21st (sic), we may have to reschedule again. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I just wanted to let you know that I hope that would be accommodated if we can't rearrange our things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll do that. So on the 21st (sic), but please try to make it work. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. And I had -- in could say, I have a meeting that day at two o'clock. Ifwe can -- do you think there's any chance that we can -- I'd hate to reschedule that, but I will if you're telling me there's a substantial likelihood we're not going to be done by two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you can stick around for a few minutes and hear the rest of the conversation, you may find that out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You said it's 25 or 21? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-fifth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-fifth. Page 173 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-fifth at 10 o'clock. Mr. Schmitt, would that -- that's what the -- that's on the schedule you gave; it's acceptable; is that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're locked in unless on the 21st (sic) it changes. MR. SCHMITT: For the record then the meeting that was continued to February 14th is now continued to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: February 25th. MR. SCHMITT: -- February 25th at -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Ten a.m. MR. SCHMITT: -- ten o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Mr. Klatzkow, do we have a -- do we need a motion to that effect, or can we just -- can you just acknowledge -- can I acknowledge as the chair that it's continued to February 25th at 1O? MR. KLATZKOW: No. We're continued to February 25th, 10 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next item I want to discuss is involving the same situation, is I've been trying to coordinate the paperwork for today on anticipating the 14th being the date for Cocohatchee, and in asking different entities for different paperwork, I was getting different conclusions as to what paperwork was to be provided. And the issue that is at question is the SDPs. The settlement agreement is contingent upon three acceptable SDPs. Staff has reviewed the SDPs numerous times, rejected them, got responses. Most, if not all, of the remaining responses or lack of information on the SDPs are issues that I believe are due to the settlement agreement. Now, ifI'm wrong, I hope someone from staff can correct me. But that was where I thought we left it. And I understood -- the Page 174 February 7, 2008 applicant believes that we weren't -- we had instructed last time that our review of the settlement agreement and the SDPs gave you what we needed for that review, that we would complete the corrections to the settlement agreement through a final reading and through a strikethrough version of the PUD, and all the other information we asked for at our next meeting, which is now the 25th, but that the SDPs would later on follow subject to all the terms of the settlement agreement which staff would then be able to apply to the SDPs and move it to the BCC, and we wouldn't need another version of the SDP issued to us because it would have to come after the settlement agreement was finalized. Is that what this board saw as the direction that was to be -- that was provided at the time? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two. And Ms. Caron and Brad, it's your district. Are you in agreement with that or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna? You can go -- I mean, my impression was, is that we were going to get a -- I mean, we struck off a lot of stuff in the settlement agreement and we were just going to get that back. I don't know -- we can't -- what's happening that's holding it up from even being available next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of the settlement agreement was to be an attached strikethrough version of the PUD. Remember we all talked about that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the document that isn't completed yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why it's still taking up some time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- but what we're going to have is two documents, the strikethrough of the PUD and the settlement agreement? Page 175 February 7, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have a settlement agreement in which the PUD is an exhibit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the settlement agreement, and then that would be a complete package, and everything would be incorporated through exhibits, and then we're done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless -- and the confusion was, some staff members thought they were getting a new SDP package for us to review, and I didn't think we were going to go there again because we had already done that, and the items that we looked at wouldn't necessarily be any different than what we'd seen before because we hashed those out at the settlement discussion. I just want to make sure this board's in conformity with that thought so we make -- we have everything we need to finish this on the 25th. Anybody in disagreement? Anybody not clear? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Let me just say, one of the issues though was we got removed from the settlement agreement any modification to how the distance between buildings are going to be measured. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I saw the strikethrough version so far, and it does remove that -- those two sentences, or whatever number there were there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then it's up to staffs professional judgment as to what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When will we receive the copies before the 25th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a week before is what the object has always been. That's why it had to be delayed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- any other clarification on the part of this board as to what they're going to receive for the 25th Page 176 February 7,2008 meeting? Okay, good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Who do I communicate with ifthere's a problem, with staff or do I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest -- who's the point person for Cocohatchee, Ray? Is that your department or legal department? MR. BELLOWS: The settlement agreement is through the County Attorney's Office, but coordination of Site Development Plan information would be Ross Gochenaur. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm talking about the hearing date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The hearing date. MR. SCHMITT: Let me know. I'll coordinate between me and Jeff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll just email them. The only thing that this panel needs to know, that on the 21 st (sic) we have to have another session for rescheduling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since I'll be out of town that week, who would I give my address so they can forward a package to me out of town? MR. BELLOWS: You can provide it to me and we'll make sure that whatever packets or information goes out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that does work, because they've done that a couple times with me, and it's worked fine. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did we take off the table any kind of discussion or exploration of the distance between the buildings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't -- the only things that we were asked to discuss were those issues involving the settlement agreement. Page 177 February 7, 2008 The distance between the buildings, I believe, is part of the -- it's listed in the settlement agreement, so we can still talk about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we took out-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we took out the -- I'm not sure. We took out a section, but is there anything left, Richard, in the settlement agreement? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought we voted on to be taken -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What you took out is, we had asked for clarification on how the PUD would be implemented. The PUD talks about reducing separation of buildings. We had put some language in the settlement agreement that would clarify how that would be applied, and you recommended that it be struck from the settlement agreement. And the version that I've seen so far struck any references to building separation. So it will be what's currently in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that no longer is in the document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's no longer in the settlement agreement. It's in the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: You can discuss it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as far as the PUD is concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're not -- this isn't an amended PUD. We need to clarify this because if we're going to have an opening up of all the issues in the PUD, that's fine, but I want to know it now because we certainly are going to have a lot longer meeting on the 25th than anybody may expect, so we need to get all this on the table if this board is not in agreement on what we're actually reviewing. It.ain't up to me. It's up to all of you. We saw the tape of what Commissioner Coyle and the BCC sent to us. I thought I understood it. I certainly could be wrong. Page 178 February 7, 2008 So Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, as far as I know, attached to that settlement agreement are the three SDPs and the PUD and the Bald Eagle Management Plan and everything else. They are all part of the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the terms of the settlement agreement do not change all parts of the PUD. So we're only looking at a strikethrough version of the parts of the PUD that are amended by the settlement agreement. If you believe that our goal or our task was to amend and review every section of that PUD, then we need to -- we need to address that because that's a really different change, and it requires a whole different approach to the meeting on the 25th. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I just want to make sure we're all coming back here on the 25th with the same intention in mind. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: IfI'm not mistaken, the direction we got from the board was not to change the whole PUD but see how the PUD is -- if it's consistent with the LDC, or am I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the settlement agreement? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Settlement agreement. I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't disagree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I think that you may be trying to exclude discussion of things that the petitioner has laid out there, and by us just wiping them away, I'm not sure that that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. First of all, I want to back up. I am absolutely, without doubt, not trying to wipe away anything. In fact, I'm going to an extreme in the opposite direction. If this board has any concern about what we should be reviewing, Page 179 February 7, 2008 put it on the table now so that we can, on the 25th, know what to expect. But it's got to be something this board feels was part of our duty to do. If any of you are unclear on that, review the tape, review the minutes, talk to the county attorney, talk to staff. But let's get it resolved. I don't want -- the last thing this board needs to do for its credibility and its task is to have the meeting and afterwards say, oh, I thought we should have been discussing this. We didn't. We didn't do what we were supposed to do. Don't go there. Let's do it right the first time, get done the 25th if we can, but we've got to go into that meeting knowing what we're going to do. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mark, so far you're the only one I know, beyond staff, who has seen what this strikethrough and underline has in it. So I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were given one for the last meeting. That's the only one I'm going on. It's in my -- it's the last one we got at the last meeting where they -- we had just drafted it. COMMISSIONER CARON: The last meeting is open for discussion? Whatever's in the strikethrough and underline in the last meeting is open for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The settlement agreement that Jeff sent us a draft of after our first meeting in which he struck out a bunch of things, and at that meeting we provided him with a whole pile of consensus from this board as to additional things to change in that document. Those things all got changed and I haven't seen the final version yet. I'm still -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's what I'm saying; I haven't seen it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my assumption is, if our directions were followed, are we -- are we going in a different Page 180 February 7, 2008 direction on the 25th? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When will we obtain it, a week ahead, did you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any comments? I mean-- MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then on the 25th --let's just hope we can get done on the 25th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hope we can restrict our discussions to what the board intended. And if any of you talk to the board members and they express a different intention or a clarification, please let us know. Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, on the 25th, we will review the settlement agreement, we will review the strikethrough and underline of the PUD, and you would want staff to have completed its review of the SDP resubmittal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to the extent-- MR. SCHMITT: If we get the SDP -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. To the extent that it's not -- only the issue -- the only issues on the SDP you can't review are those that are contingent on the settlement agreement. MR. SCHMITT: Well, We'll review them based on the settlement agreement language, but they will not be approved until the settlement agreement is approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, is your client going to be resubmitting SDPs between now and the 25th for further review? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- I don't believe so. Just so I make sure what I'm telling my client we're doing, and I think Page 181 February 7, 2008 I do, is what the strikethrough and underline version we're all referring to about the PUD is, as you will recall, the settlement agreement had included in it certain development standards, list of passive recreational uses. Instead of putting all of that into the settlement agreement, we wanted it in one document which was the PUD document. So all we're reviewing is the PUD document to make sure that everything that we -- was formerly in the settlement agreement -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Settlement agreement. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- found its way into the PUD document. We're not renegotiating anything else. We're just making sure that it was properly transferred from the settlement agreement to the PUD document, and that's what I believe we're prepared to discuss. And I don't believe we're going to be making any more SDP submittals until we get through this board as far as what their recommendation is as far as the development standards are going to be, then we'll submit. And we understand that Mr. Schmitt's staff will be reviewing it for consistency with the settlement agreement/PUD document that's going to the board, and hopefully the board will approve the settlement agreement, which would mean the SDPs would also be approved at some time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments? Any disagreement with what Richard just laid out? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not so much Richard. It was what Joe said. We are not going to have graphic SDPs in here that we are going to have to accept as compliant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think we were, but that's why I brought it up today is because I've heard different staff people think that another SDP submittal was going to be coming before we heard this again. MR. SCHMITT: I need -- because that's why I'm clarifying. It Page 182 February 7, 2008 was my understanding you wanted staff to at least look at the documents to assure that the documents reflected what the settlement agreement was proposing, or what the final settlement agreement will propose to the board. And I thought you wanted assurance that both the SDPs were in compliance with the settlement agreement and the settlement agreement and the PUD document were -- were both -- were, frankly, in agreement. And then --then and only then would it be sent to the board. So I'm kind of misdirected here. So there is no requirement for an SDP, or actually it's three SDPs, for staff to have reviewed those SDPs to assure compliance with the settlement agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, prior to the board meeting, yes, but prior to our meeting, I didn't think the need was there because we've already gone over all those SDPs, and the only things remaining was for staff to take the interpretations of the settlement agreement and make sure they're interpreted properly in the SDPs. I don't know what the board members on this panel are feeling. If you all want to sit here and review 24 by 36 pages of SDPs, then say so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, the opposite, Mark. In other words -- and let's just go to the issue that concerns most of District 2, and that's the distance between the buildings. In the -- some form of the settlement agreement there was verbiage in there that Richard says makes clear -- I say change -- the way the distance between buildings are measured. We've got that taken out of the settlement agreement, so we don't have to discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifwe have to accept the interpretation of staff in the SDP, we're going to have a problem. So I would -- you know, staff has looked at that, staff is the professionals, staff has made their judgment. The PUD says it's up to staffs Page 183 February 7,2008 judgment. It would not be the same judgment, I think, as mine. But the point is that they did that. So we don't have to do that. In other words, we -- I think at the last meeting, we got that out ofthe way. So, Joe, if you bring an SDP, you're bringing that issue back up to the surface. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think the instruction was to bring in the SDPs again, and I thought it was clear that we wanted the settlement agreement completed with the exhibits, including the strikethrough version of the PUD reflective of the settlement agreement discussion, which would mean it wouldn't be opened up for complete rewrite or amendment. It's strictly those issues involving the settlement agreement. And, again, I'm just telling you all my interpretation of what I heard, what I thought the BCC direction was. And if you disagree, that's quite all right. That's what we're here for. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't agree. In fact, I agree with everything that Mr. Y ovanovich indicated. That was my recollection as well. I thought we had whittled it down to the point where it was the issue between the settlement agreement and the PUD, and that -- those functions that didn't belong there got over here and that when it went to the board, the SDP will have been reviewed by those people who understand how to do that. I know that the issue of angularity of buildings and measurements was talked about, but we came to the point where we were not able -- in my recollection we were not able to either have a consensus or even grasp it adequately to be able to determine that. The only thing I thought we talked about at length was the question of whether it was inhabitable, second story -- or second structure -- story, yeah. And I don't -- I really think that we whittled it down to where what you have said, Mr. Chairn1an, is what we were intending to do Page 184 February 7, 2008 what you have said, Mr. Chairman, is what we were intending to do and as said by Mr. Yovanovich. So that's my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on this panel then have any different recollection or any need to review the SDPs again on the assumption that the settlement agreement does have the strike-out version -- language that we talked about in -- regarding the separation of buildings? Because other than that, then we're all -- we're good for go on the 25th, no SDPs, just the settlement agreement and the strikethrough version of the PUD with the exhibits or whatever that we asked. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's my understanding you already have the latest settlement agreement; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've gotten -- I don't know if it's the latest. We were given a draft a while back that we all received, but I can't -- I think there's been more modifications to it. MR. SCHMITT: We will-- so the only thing that will be sent will be the -- the final settlement agreement, because I think there's still some language tweaking between the attorneys, and the PUD document showing the strikethrough and underline that reflects those items out of the settlement agreement into the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With any revised exhibits that are applicable. MR. SCHMITT: And the revised exhibits that we discussed that were on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have no comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you had your hand up there for a minute. Okay. Nothing else? Then we'll leave that one lie where it is. Thank you for staying, Mr. Y ovanovich. Item #11A Page 185 February 7, 2008 NEW BUSINESS And next item up is the CCPC request to have a progress report to be given them concerning the EAR-based LDC amendments pertaining to policy 625 of the conservation and coastal management element. This was a request by Mr. Midney several meetings ago. MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Specialist with Engineering and Environmental Services Department. I received several correspondences with some of the questions, and there are a variety of questions I received in relation to policy 624 and 625, and I just wanted to go through them as best as I understood them. What I wanted to start with is policy 624. I just wanted to read subparagraph 4, which should explain some of it. Within the Immokalee urban designated area there may exist high-quality wetland systems connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. These wetlands require greater protection measures than wetlands located in other portions of the urban designated area and, therefore, the wetland protection standards set forth in policy 625 shall apply to this area. This area is generally identified as the area designated as wetlands connected to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map and is located in the southwest Immokalee urban designated area connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais system. Within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the county shall adopt land development regulations to determine the process and specific circumstances when the provisions of policy 625 will apply. We -- I had a meeting with the Environmental Advisory Council, EAC, LDC subcommittee, which was set up to review all the Compo Page 186 February 7, 2008 Plan related amendments due to Compo Plan changes which occurred in May of last year, and one of those requirements is this one here. What we did is we went to the Future Land Use Map, and I have it on the visualizer, and it shows -- it identifies the area where the system is. You had questions at one of your meetings in relation to a petition, which I believe was located in this area outside of that boundary. This is the boundary that was adopted on the master plan for Immokalee. I do have some other exhibits. I just want to explain some of the differences which might have caused some of the confusion. If I can just back up here one minute. Just as -- point as a reference, this would be Immokalee Road, and this would be -- this line here, I believe, is Sanitation Road. And we -- can you see that okay? This is an exhibit produced by our technical staff, Mac Hatcher. We wanted to get an idea of where the wetlands occur in the area, the connected wetlands. And what he did is he did this diagram for me showing, outlined in blue, green -- I don't know how it's showing up on your screen -- the connected wetlands within the system. And you can see there's a little bit of discrepancy there in relation to the adopted line on the map. And, again, as a reference, there's Sanitation Road right there and this is Immokalee Road. And the other boundary ended right about here, and I'll put that up again. See that? See it right here. So you can see there's a little bit of a difference, so that might have been some of the confusion. In addressing this amendment, staff is going to use the adopted line as you see on the future -- the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. If we were to adopt another line, it would have to be changed on the Compo Plan and on the master plan here for Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, do you have that diagram that you used during the meeting in which you questioned this to begin with? Page 187 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Now that diagram wasn't an official map either. I've seen this map numerous times, but in discussing this more than once, we've said that this map is not an exact map of the wetland and that it would need to be ground-truthed. And the first map that you showed, which showed the actual wetland, is a more accurate picture of what the wetlands that are associated with this area is. And in the EAR-based amendment, when David Weeks was presenting this, he said that what we were talking about was the areas that were hydrologically related. So I think that when we go through this and the Immokalee master plan is considered, we need to look at the actual areas that are hydrologically related to the slough. And the diagram that you showed is really a very arbitrary cutoff, but it doesn't really make much sense hydrologically. And I think that on more than one occasion, when asked about the dimensions of those maps, I was told that it's to hydrological reality, and that also is what the EAR-based amendment was based on. It doesn't reference any particular lines on the master plan, but they're talking about the areas that are hydrologically connected to Lake Trafford. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last project that came through, the concern was its relationship to this particular area. It doesn't appear now as that project -- although it has got some wetlands for sure on it -- is a wetland area. It doesn't appear though -- is it connected to this slough at all? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's not. MR. LENBERGER: It is adjacent to the diagram you have on your screen now, but not within the boundary identified on the Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is it adjacent or touching the green line that's on the map now? Page 188 February 7,2008 MR. LENBERGER: I don't -- I just briefly talked with Susan Mason earlier when I came in here, and she pointed about where it was. From what she told me, it was right next to this boundary, but I don't know for sure the exact lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's -- I think it's within this area on this map, not the other map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Have all the questions you asked about the slough been resolved? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think it's a work in progress, and that's what, I think, you've come to report to us, that you're going to be doing some research and refining the boundaries so that they don't just refer to some arbitrary lines, but that they refer to reality on the ground; is that not true? MR. LENBERGER: I had spoken with David Weeks actually yesterday about this topic, and right now we would be using the line as shown on the Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. If this board wanted to make or direct -- make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to have staff reevaluate that line and address it through the Compo Plan amendment, which is underway right now, then that would be up to you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How was that line -- who drew that line? How was that line arrived at? MR. LENBERGER: I spoke with Mac Hatcher about this topic, and that was an older line that he didn't actually do, and I think he didn't have the historic data on it, but after he came onboard he drew those later lines. But that was an older version. I do have a Lidar map that kind of shows it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's prettier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I wanted to get Page 189 February 7, 2008 unconfused. The flow that you showed us, the excerpt from the FLUM, is what you're going to go by but it ends just, I think, before Immokalee Road. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we have an apparent -- what is that, a slough? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have an apparent slough that goes beyond that. Why did we end it? I may have missed that in the course of your explanation, but I'm confused. MR. LENBERGER: It was an older line established on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map, and it hasn't changed. And I talked to David. If anyone at the committee level when they met with the community regarding this have any -- anybody wanted to change those lines, and he said not that he could recall or was aware of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So further then, the Immokalee Area Master Plan is intending to use the map that's in the FLUM, or intending to modify it with anything like this? MR. LENBERGER: There's no intent now to change that line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that's a misrepresentation of a natural flowway, isn't it, if we don't -- if we don't include it? MR. LENBERGER: It appears that it doesn't encompass the whole flowway, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, perhaps, from a planning basis, perhaps this body might have an interest in bringing awareness to it. I recognize there's some budgetary constraints, et cetera, but it seems to me we should have a representation of a flowway that's real. And if it -- if the boundaries, as indicated, are not even as real as Paul says they need to be truth proven, then so be it. I mean, I recognize it's a limitation in terms of staff time and all the rest of it, but that sure says a lot about the flow of water. Page 190 February 7,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- with the time Mac Hatcher came on -- he's been here quite a while, hasn't he? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If that diagram or that outline was done before his time, it certainly was done with not as modern technology as we have today. And what we're looking at right now is pretty modern technology. I think it would -- we would be remiss in not recommending that the BCC consider updating the flowway master plan while they're doing the Immokalee Area Master Plan as well, based on the fact we have new and better technology and it's needed. Is there anybody that would disagree with that? Why don't we move that forward as a recommendation to the BCC? Is that something you guys can do with the consensus you hear today, or do you need another avenue to do it? Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I believe that's a request the Planning Commission has in its purview, and we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's important to note that the Immokalee Area Master Plan is under consideration right now, it's not been finalized. In fact, they seem to be making a career out of it. So while they're at it, why don't we just throw this in, then they can make their careers even longer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Justify it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Now they can have justification for the length of time they've been taking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Making friends all over the place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we just -- why don't we ask this to be incorporated, then before they come out with a plan, this be part of it? MR. BELLOWS: I'll forward that to the comprehensive planning department and make sure that -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would think we should make it Page 191 February 7, 2008 a recommendation to the board, not just simply to the comprehensive planning organization. MR. BELLOWS: Well, they're working on the Immokalee Area Master Plan. It would be forwarding to the board any plan, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's what I don't want to see happen is that this board makes a recommendation, you give it to compo planning, and they say, well, that's just a CCPC. We're not going to pay any attention to that because it didn't come from the BCC. So I think Mr. Murray's correct. Why don't we take that recommendation you have from us, request the BCC to allow compo planning to implement that as part of the Immokalee Area Master Plan review? And then it's done officially and no one can question the authority for it being done. We're simply recommending. Is that an acceptable way to go? Okay. Anybody on the board disagree? Then you have it by consensus so that should take care of it. Thank you, Steve. Appreciate your time. Mr. Midney that was a good catch. I think this needs to be updated and I think it's a good thing we do it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: IfI could just make one final comment. Right now the land is not developed, and Immokalee will be a much better place, especially as Serenoa town comes in. If this slough, which separates the two areas is developed -- is not developed, or is kept in its natural state, it will make both Serenoa and Immokalee better places to live when they finally are built out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what we've seen here, I would highly agree with you. That's a good move. Thank you, sir, for especially your patience today. It was a very short meeting, but we're glad you stayed for the whole thing. There's no public comment, so I guess I'll look for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 192 February 7, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Weare adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:24 p.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 COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM and TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 193