Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/25/2008 S February 25,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 25,2008 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 10:00 a.m. in SPECIAL 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 (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Asst. County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 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 A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - Not Available at this time 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Board of County Commissioners (BCe) has directed that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPe) review and comment on a proposed settlement agreement with Lodge Abbott Associates, L.L.c. (owner of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) project) to settle alleged claims arising from a denial of an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. These claims are: (I) A petition for writ of certiorari, Case No. 05-962-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and (2) an alleged Bert Harris Private Property Rights claim. (Coordinator: David Weigel, County Attorney; Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney) CONTINUED FROM III 1108 1 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS II. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 2/25/08 eepe AgendalSVsp 2 February 25,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Special Meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Thursday, February 25th. It's 10:00 a.m., a late start for us, but we will move forward as the -- hopefully the final meeting for summing up the issues that we started on the Bert Harris review for the Cocohatchee Project. If everybody will please stand for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is not here, and neither is Mr. Wolfley. I'm not sure; I had thought that Mr. Vigliotti was going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, David said he wouldn't be, so he Page 2 February 25, 2008 couldn't make it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I knew David and Paul were not going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we do have a quorum today; six out of nine. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. The only item on today's agenda is hopefully the summary meeting for what we previously gave instructions to the staff and County Attorney's office regarding the Cocohatchee Bert Harris claim that was remanded back to us. The next meeting we have is March 6th. We have a couple of items on that agenda. Just to double check, does anybody here know if they're not going to be at that March 6th meeting? (No response.) Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no minutes or BCC recaps. Chairman's report. I have a question. When we start this meeting -- when we start into the issue of the meeting, we have several documents in which were distributed to the Planning Commission members prior to today. And I -- in order to expedite our process today, I wrote up a summary of a draft report that I would like this Planning Commission to accept to send to the BCC as part of this process. And the reason I thought it Page 3 February 25, 2008 would be important for us to do it is that this was remanded back to us, not any specific department of staff. So I don't know when we can intend -- my intent is today that this be reviewed by everybody here and there be a consensus. Otherwise, obviously I wouldn't forward it to the BCC. So we have three or four documents to discuss today: The settlement agreement; the amended PUD; and then this final review, which is about three pages of the major issues of discussions that we had had over the last two or three meetings. Item #9A COCOHATCHEE BAY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT And with that, I guess we'll move right into the advertised public hearing. As I've said, it's the summation of the Bert Harris claim direction we had given staff prior to todays meeting. And I don't know any better way to start, unless Mr. Klatzkow has a suggestion, rather than just work our way through the two documents, three documents. Mr. Klatzkow, did you have any procedurally process in mind? MR. KLATZKOW: No, your suggestion works as well as any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let me tell everybody what we're working off of. We should have been distributed to us a settlement agreement and release that is in multi colors, red, blue and green. The date on that is 2/08/08. And it says in the lower left-hand corner 2/08/08 revision. That document has three exhibits -- or four exhibits: Has the original PUD as an exhibit; has the amended PUD as an exhibit; it has a golf course phasing plan, should the golf course not be utilized, to go into a conservation easement as an exhibit; and it has a pathways plan as an exhibit. Those are the four exhibits that are part of the settlement agreement. Page 4 February 25, 2008 Part of the amended PUD includes an amended master plan and an amended Bald Eagle Management Plan. So just so you know, those are the documents that we need to work our way through and then we'll get to a summation at the end of those. And as we have other documents in the past, if there's no objection from the panel, I'll just -- we'll move page by page of each one of those and get concurrence on the pages, or majority concurrence. Okay, and with that we'll start with the settlement agreement. First, Page 1 has some changes both in red and green. Does anybody have any concerns with Page I? These are items for the most part that should have occurred in the last two meetings and that we gave direction to staff and the legal department to change. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, does anybody have any issues on Page 2 of the Bert Harris settlement agreement? Now, Richard, I know you represent the applicant, so if you have any -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll chime in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, just speak out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer on Page 2. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On Page 2 it says that the settlement documents will consist of the original PUD, plus the amended PUD. Well, the amended PUD incorporates all of the original PUD information, as well as any changes. Is it necessary to have both documents? It's a question for the County Attorney. You put both of them in there and I'm sure you had a reason. MR. KLATZKOW: The reason is just for historical purposes. People can go back and see what -- just see everything. Page 5 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question was on three. It says that it's contingent upon three site development plans being approved. That was just after they're approved then this thing starts, correct? This doesn't require the county to approve the site development plans, does it? MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Page 3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's true, its contingent upon our SDP's being consistent with the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, is there a-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Their question was what was just said. Let me paraphrase back what I just heard said was -- the question was the county's not required to approve the SDP's. Well, the county is required to approve the SDP's if they're consistent with the amended PUD document. Once they're approved, consistent with the amended PUD document, then the agreement is done essentially and all the obligations we have and all the obligations the county has go in place. (Commissioner Vigliotti enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, is that your concurrence as well? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm going to be overly careful here to make sure that if anybody says anything, somehow legally it's concurred to. Because I want this to get done on the record as clean as possible so when it goes forward it is as clean as possible. So I will be asking the County Attorney to agree to all the comments made. On Page 3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Page 6 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments or questions on Page 3? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on number six, the -- let's see, two, three, four, five six, seven, eighth line down where we speak of county provides evidence that all parties have spent -- I wrote my note committed. Is it committed or spent? Does it have to be spent before, or is committed more appropriate? MR. KLATZKOW: This language has been here from the start. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. I don't have a major issue with it. I just had a question that popped into my mind that I wonder if committed were more appropriate. But I guess it becomes moot anyway, because they can get all their money back now, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under certain conditions, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, let the record show that Mr. Vigliotti has arrived. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good morning. Sorry I'm late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That was my only question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I guess this is to Jeff. Jeff, ifthere's -- and this is down at the bottom, in terms of the government not allowing commencement of construction. If that was an issue over a building code issue, would that be considered what they're referring to there? I think the intent of that is that if they can't build it, then the money's refunded, right? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the intent was that if for some reason they can't build their project, then the money can be refunded. I don't know that a holding of a building permit falls under that. I think the petitioner was more concerned about running into problems with the Page 7 February 25,2008 feds or the state than anything else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, move on to Page 4. Any questions on Page 4? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have one revision that was in the e-mail I believe you all received of paragraph seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you for the record restate the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. If you look on paragraph seven, fourth line down. Yeah, fourth. Starts with, that point. The five-year sun-setting provisions, I put recently adopted in the LDC, since that was recently changed through this last go-round. Instead of now in effect. Everybody is subject to a five-year sunset now under the recently changed LDC. The reason this was in here is, as you know, there used to be a three-year and a five-year revision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the three words now in effect would be struck out and replaced by recently adopted. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then the information in the parenthesis would be struck as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody on this panel have any objections to that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now in effect seems to be more clear than recently adopted. Why would we choose recently adopted? I mean, there's no data associated with it, but now in effect is clear -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't want there to be any confusion that the old five-year provisions applied instead of the current five-year provisions. That's the only reason I changed it. So if you want -- it's six to one, half dozen another. If you want to attach the recently adopted LDC amendments, that's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you look at something like, Page 8 February 25,2008 at that point the five-year sun-setting provisions in the LDC shall govern? Why do you need to reference now in effect or recently adopted or anything? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody as well? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Works for me, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, is there any problem with that? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I just want to make sure we're clear. What is the language you want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At that point the five-year sun-setting provisions. And then you strike now in effect, do not add recently adopted. And then you go in the LDC, shall govern, and strike the parentheses. MR. KLATZKOW: Done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's clear that it will -- the timing starts upon this approval. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, upon the agreement becoming -- yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because my thought is you could add shall commence and govern, just to make sure. Because I read it and I wasn't sure that you weren't going to get into any trouble with the old kind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the effective date of the settlement agreement is the date that the SDP's are approved? MR. KLATZKOW: It's the date that the board's going to adopt the settlement agreement. Which my understanding would be after the site development plans have been approved. That's my understanding of the timing on this. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, my understanding is, is these Page 9 February 25, 2008 basically will go to the -- this document will go to the Board of County Commissioners when all the SDP's have gone through the process and are ready to be approved, subject to the settlement agreement. So it should work to where as soon as the board approves the settlement agreement, the SDP's are released and we're all set to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but that still doesn't give us the effective date. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The effective date is when the county signs it. We will sign it first, and the county signs it second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they would provide an approval of this document, the county staff would then re-review the SDP's, say okay, now they're consistent with the approved settlement agreement, and then the county chairman wouldn't sign it until those SDP's are approved and the effective date would be the date of his signature; is that the way you're looking at it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I look at it this way: Is they'll be approved subject to board approval of the settlement agreement. Now, if the board makes some changes to the settlement agreement, then there would need to be a re-review. But ifthere are no changes to the settlement agreement, there would be no need for staff to re-review it. The chairman would sign the settlement agreement and we would be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-three is outlining that, and I think it's exactly what Richard said, that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, number 23, Page 9. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's the date that the chairman actually reads it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 4? (No response.) Page 10 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a minor point. In the red underlined at the top of the page it says, shall be completed upon the issuance of the first C.O. Do we also have to say temporary C.O. as well, or temporary C.O., as we have done in paragraph eight? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't know. I didn't know if it was a consistency issue or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long could they have a temporary C.O. without a C.O.? Is the time difference much to worry about? It's a couple of months. Is that anything to worry about as far as a pathway construction goes? Maybe that's all it would be. MR. KLATZKOW: For consistency, I don't mind putting in the TCL, if the petitioner doesn't mind. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to add the first issuance of a T.C.O. or a C.O. Any other questions on Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to Page 6. Any questions on Page 6? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had one minor revision to paragraph 12, the second sentence, which starts on the third line. It says, the development standards for the "R" parcel are as set forth, and then strike the high-rise multi-family portion. Because they're in table two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but table two in the amended PUD now has two sets of standards. You've got accessory structures and multi-family high-rise. Maybe that was being referenced here to assure that you're looking at the right column. Page 11 February 25,2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is -- table two applies to the "R" parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but it also applies to the accessory uses there. You're saying -- okay, you're saying it applies to everything in the "R" parcel, regardless of whether or not it's the high-rise. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The mark in the new PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the new PUD you have table three, which is the GC single-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay, so we'd strike out set forth in the dwelling -- no, in the -- in table two of paragraph. So the words high-rise multi-family dwelling portions of, all that comes out. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: So just for clarity, Mr. Chairman, how do you want this sentence to read now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The development standards for the "R" parcel are as set forth in table two of paragraph 3.5 of the amended PUD ordinance. And go on with the rest of the sentence as is. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 7? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 15, it says that it's the release, and --I'm sorry, not on Page 15, on item 15. It says, it's present forum or elected. I'd like to add maybe/appointed officials. The way this is written -- MR. KLATZKOW: We can give you cover. Page 12 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's everybody but us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Its present forum or elected-- MR. KLATZKOW: Or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or appointed officials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They forgot us on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're usually so harmless, Brad. Okay, so on paragraph 15, the second line after the word elected, it will be elected or appointed officials. Anything else on Page 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 8? Anybody have any concerns on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 9? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just want to talk about -- I'm sorry, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 8. It's stating in here that the SDP's are incorporated in the document. That's not what was stated in item two. So Jeff, is that a concern? I mean you say the settlement documents consist of and then we're adding something that's -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's always been -- and maybe this is just me. It's always been my idea to give the board a package with a bow which would include the settlement agreement, the amended PUD and the finalized site development plans so that they were all approved at once. Now, the site development plans would be contingent upon approval of the board. But once the board signed off on it, they were ready to go. That's been my concept of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're not -- in other words, Page 13 February 25, 2008 within your bow there could be the illusion that we approve the SDP's. So could we kill as incorporated in this document? You'd still have your bow, only there won't be the impression that we helped you tie it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about referenced in this document? Because see, Brad, I think the problem with this sentence is if you don't reference to what you're saying they need federal permits for, the potential claim then, the lack of permitting for anything in the future might be there. So if we use reference instead of incorporated, would that work? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That works. Is that okay, Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Page 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nineteen has the same, elected or approved officials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's figure out where we're going to put that then. We would put that right after the same former -- present/former appointed or elected -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Elected or appointed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Elected or appointed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's on Page 9. Last page of the settlement agreement is Page 10. Are there any changes or questions about Page 10 before we go into the amended PUD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 14 February 25, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, Mr. Yovanovich, are you okay with all the changes that we've made in the settlement agreement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney's Office equally okay with everything? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first exhibit to the settlement agreement is the original PUD. And I guess there's not really any changes to that, it's just a document for historical reference. The second amendment to the PUD -- I mean, to the settlement agreement is an Exhibit 2. It's the planned unit development, a strike-through version, then on the lower left-hand corner it's dated 2/13/08 revision. Now, that document also contains the amended site plan and the amended Bald Eagle Management Plan. So we can walk through that whole series of documents right now, if everybody's comfortable. So just for the sake of not having asked it, I'll ask it. Do we have any questions on the cover page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have an index and title page, Page Roman Numeral I, or capital I. And we have a list of exhibits in the tables page that had a couple changes to it. II. Any questions on those first three pages? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And on the list of exhibits, the II page, Exhibit B should be the Cocohatchee Bay Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan, instead of the Amended PUD Master Plan with the Eagle overlay, as revised. That's not correct, it's the Cocohatchee Bay Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan is the correct title of the February 25, 2008 document that's attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be -- Exhibit B would read: Cocohatchee Bay Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Cocohatchee Bay PUD Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan, which should be the title of the document attached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objection from the County Attorney's Office? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem with the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no other questions on that page, we can turn to Roman Numeral III, which is your Statement of Compliance. And the second page of the Statement of Compliance is Roman Numeral IV, and there's been some changes on the second page. Any questions or concerns of those changes from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we go on to Page 1.1, section I. It's a rather long legal description. Takes us all the way to Page 1.6. 1.6 is more physical description of the project. There's been no recommended changes. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a spelling error. Delnor is incorrectly spelled under l.4(A). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, I thought about that. I wondered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine's -- any reason we shouldn't clean that up while we're -- I'm just wondering from the County Attorney's Page 16 February 25,2008 MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the question is, I'm guessing that's what was in the original PUD as well. Let me just check. Yeah, that error was in the original PUD as well. I don't know if you want to go back on non-substantive issues. I'll leave that to the discretion of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Doesn't matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if it's not that important, let's just leave it then. 1.7 has one small change on it referencing the amended PUD. We go on to Section 2, 2.1. A few changes referencing the amended documentation. Any changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.2 is a revised table one, taking out the R-1 and R-2 references, making it an "R" reference and correcting the acreages. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The use of the term intensity, that's generally applicable to commercial, but I certainly understand it here. But is that the more appropriate intensity, or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may have been part ofthe original table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maximum land use intensity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the same as the original table. We're only changing things that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pursuant to the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I am correct, right, it would normally be referred to as density? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this is giving you developable Page 17 February 25,2008 acreage. I'm not sure that's the way to describe density. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but its intensity is referenced as something to do with commercial, so -- no big thing, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on two 2 -- Mr. Kolflat? I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 2.2 on table one, I'm confused on the numbers there. It has 90 plus 480, which I come up with 570. But it shows 590. Should not 590 be the addition of 90 plus 480? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You also -- the golf course 20 also moved over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Oh, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the golf course down below. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That makes up the difference. All right, I didn't understand it was related too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2.4. A lot of this, by the way, is cleanup of old section references. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have one on 2.3, if! could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The 2.7 paragraph there, it talks about property owners association. Will there be one association for both the "G" and the "R" factions here, or will there be two separate associations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's beyond the -- that's not an issue on the settlement agreement, Mr. Kolflat. That's existing language in the existing PUD. We're only focusing on the changes in the PUD that came about as a result of the settlement agreement that we just Page 18 February 25, 2008 reviewed. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I was curious what the intent is, though. Just a matter of interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, Richard, you can answer the question if you want to. It doesn't have any -- we're not asking for any changes, though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The answer is I don't know. We don't know yet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2.4? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'd like to bring something up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know we discussed this before and I recognize that the implications on number six in 2.9(A), community and neighborhood parks, and it comes up again later on. I will point out later on when I do see it that there may be an issue associated with it. But it's clear that if the property is not used for a golf course, that one of the potential uses could be either/or both a community and neighborhood parks? Or community or neighborhood parks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're in the section titled general permitted uses, the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- area that you're asking about that could be used for if it's not used for a golf course. Would be the section under the golf course section. And in there we added all those uses we went through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. And that's where that relates to as well. When we get to that, you'll see that part of it. But all I'm trying to establish is does he want to leave it open for both community and -- because community park is considerably Page 19 February 25, 2008 different than a neighborhood park, I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this is historical language that's always been there. So anywhere in the PUD we could -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- put community park or neighborhood park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would, for consistency, because when we talk about it later, it does come up. Okay, that's fine. If you're happy, I'm happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2.5. Anybody have any questions on 2.5? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, 2.10, the open space requirements. There were approximations given, and those approximations have been taken out. Where do we stand approximately for open space? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where do we stand approximately? COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to see if table one refers to it or not. Open space, under table one, if you add golf course and open space together, that would be 478.39 acres, which is far in excess of -- I believe it's a 60 percent requirement. I don't even know if it's that high. But if it's 60 percent requirement, it's far in excess ofthat number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand that, Mr. Y ovanovich. However, the original PUD was prefaced on a 90 percent open space. And that has come down for a couple of reasons. And I'll ask the County Attorney whether it should just be left out entirely or whether what is being committed so far, which is 478.39, should be included in that paragraph. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure that the amended PUD master Page 20 February 25,2008 plan contains 483 acres. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, what he's telling me now is it's 478.39. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just adding up the numbers that have always been in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Richard? Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even within the residential tract there will be open space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of course. If you looked at the numbers, and I was just giving you numbers based on the table. The table, if you -- none of the numbers have changed. They just -- the 9.7 that was in the R-2 went over into the R-1. All the other numbers were the same. So I was giving you the numbers for a golf course and open space, and that's 478. I don't know where the 483 came from originally. I thought they would be the same out of the table, but apparently they're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, interestingly enough-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We haven't taken anything away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the 483 is only 81 percent of the 590 anyway. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you weren't at the 91 percent to begin with. It just said that. It might have been a typo. 483 is 81 percent of 590. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, but it's 532 is the acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's percentage of acreage. If you look at the total acres, it's 532.09 acres. So it should be closer to that 91. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're right. It will be. COMMISSIONER CARON: What does it come to? Page 21 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you in just a second. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good one to know. 532 -- what is that, four -- what is the first one, four something? COMMISSIONER CARON: 483 was what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be 90.7. So now he's at 532, and what's the new number? COMMISSIONER CARON: 478. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate these tiny little calculators. That's 89.8. So we're about a percent or so different. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, you're within -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within two percent. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- reason of the 90 percent that had been discussed and was voted on at the original BCC meeting. And that was my point. And should we keep some reference in here to that approximate figure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the table do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I thought part of the reason we did it this way is because they're some ownership dispute over some of the submerged land, where they've taken -- the petitioner's taken the tact that they own the land and the state says no, you don't, we own the land. And so we're trying to finesse that dispute with this language. Because I'm not entirely sure they have the acreage they say they have. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But who are we finessing it for? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we're removing it from the discussion of the PUD since with or without that acreage they meet the open space requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the acreage that is allowed is in the table on table one. And if table one defines the acreage and it is the Page 22 February 25, 2008 approximately 90 percent, wouldn't that cover us for any 2.1 potential fallback? If they wanted to reduce the 90 percent, they would have to reduce table one, which they couldn't do now without a PUD amendment. Isn't that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it is locked in to what's in table one, even though it may not be physically restated in 210. So does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine by me. I'm looking to the County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I'm okay with the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.6. There were no changes on 2.6. 3.1 ? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just had a question. Why wouldn't we bring this section up to current standards? Because are we not for trees and shrubs -- MR. KLATZKOW: We are. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at 100 percent native vegetation west of 41 ? We just passed the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the landscaping requirements 212 part of the settlement agreement discussion? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think if we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so we don't need to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ifwe go back in to redo the PUD, we've run into problems with a lot -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's too bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.1, anybody have questions on 3.1 ? Page 23 February 25,2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 3.2. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what my -- hold on and I'll wait. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We caught an inconsistency on re- reviewing the document, and don't want to get into trying to amend the PUD document. But if you look at the description -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: 3.1. I'm sorry. Under 3.3, it lists adult living facilities as a permitted use, yet it doesn't appear in 3.4(A). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I think if you're going to have a question about that interpretation and it's outside the settlement agreement, this is not the forum to discuss, unless you want to open the entire PUD up for discussion today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the question becomes would there be an objection to adding that as a permit -- adult living facilities as a permitted use under 3.4(A). We're not asking if -- if it's going to create a problem, then we understand the answer is no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you go beyond the settlement agreement here at this meeting and you want -- if you want an interpretation of that, I think you need to refer to the zoning director. But if you go beyond that and you want to open this entire PUD up, we're going to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have a different kind of meeting today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3.2? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we go beyond that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 24 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I just had a question for my own edification. What is a non -- what is a compatible nonresidential use? What does that mean to you all? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where are you reading from? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: It is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right after you referenced -- the ACL reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 3.3, general. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're talking about a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: 3-3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- any other principal use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right after adult living facilities, it says compatible nonresidential uses. And I wanted to know what your interpretation of that term is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Parking. Parking structures. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Parking. And I'm assuming it would be reference to accessory uses like pools and things like that are not residential but they are compatible with the residential uses. If you want to have tennis courts or a tot lot or something more elaborate as far as that. COMMISSIONER CARON: The reason I'm asking, if you continue to read the sentence, it incorporates all those things that you've just listed. Because it says, a full range of recreational facilities, essential services and customary accessory uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just add such as a full range -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, please-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron's got the floor. Page 25 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming your trash dumpsters and things like that would probably go into that other non-compatible. I mean, it's -- sorry, other nonresidential but compatible type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless of what would go into that, if you were to propose a use, it would still be up to the zoning director to make sure it was consistent with the general description requirements as in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand that, Commissioner Strain. I was asking, and I made it clear that I was asking for my own edification. I just wondered what their -- I had no idea, I've never seen the term before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think anybody has. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I don't think anybody else has either, as can be stated here now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3.2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The reference to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, 3.5(A), the table reference should be to table two, not table one. It was something I sent out earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think you're right on that. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only question, it's a small one, but up in the titles we have, for example, multi-family dwellings, there's an asterisk after that. And then over by non-high-rise, other structures, there's an asterisk. What is that referring to? Page 26 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think those are the reference to the footnotes that you would find after the table, below the table, to let you know that there are footnotes there. As well as if you look on the left-hand column under development standards, they're numerically referenced. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. That's harmless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on 3.2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did have -- no, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, just the only notation, the correction on 3.5(A), table two instead of table one. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.3. Any questions on 3.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're -- section four is the golf course development areas. Page 4.1. Any questions on 4.1 ? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had sent out an e-mail regarding how we came up with the preserve district provisions applicable to the GC district, and I thought we would add a new use under the permitted use, which would be any use allowed in the "P" district, subject to the development standards set forth in the "P" district. That would become a new number five, and then the old number five would become number six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what that would do is if everybody were to look at the "P" district, the "P" district is where the passive recreational list came into that we went over at the last meeting and we struck out the items that didn't seem to be the passive recreational area. I think the suggestion that is being applied here is that any of the uses in the "P" district, should the golf course be reverted back to conservation area, would then be what would be utilized for that Page 27 February 25, 2008 conserva -- would be able to be utilized for that conservation area. Anybody have any questions about that or thoughts? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: My sense from reading -- well, I'll have Mr. Y ovanovich state -- restate it. What is it you want to put in under the golf course? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under the settlement agreement, we said if we don't build the golf course we could have all of the uses in the "P" district. Where we don't say that in the actual golf course district. So instead of retyping every permitted use that already exists in the "P" district and retyping those development standards, I thought we'd add a reference that we can have any of the permitted uses in the "P" district, subject to the "P" district's development standards in the GC district. And that's what the settlement agreement said. COMMISSIONER CARON: But only ifthere is not a golf course there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or -- yeah, ifthere's no golf course or the golf course -- if we do a golf course and then we decide the golf course wasn't working, we could have any of the "P" uses. That was the intent and we just didn't catch that in the list of permitted uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me -- I want to get the language right. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, you need to talk to the County Attorney on the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to read the language and see if the County Attorney would agree with it. That's how we've been doing it. Okay, five would be then any of the uses of the "P" district, subject to the "P" district standards, should the golf course not be developed. Page 28 February 25, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: This is going to be under section-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.2(A) (5). Any of the uses of the "P" district, subject to the "P" district standards, should the golf course not be developed. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Any of the uses of the "P" district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the "P" district standards, should the golf course not be developed. MR. KLA TZKOW: Should the golf course not be developed or discontinued? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or if discontinued. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a permitted use on the golf course district, regardless. We may never build a golf course. We may just go to the "P" district. We may build a golf course and the golf course goes away. We could default to the "P" district. That's my understanding, was they wanted to make sure that the preserve district uses would be on the golf course, subject to the two homes. MR. KLATZKOW: So it will read, any of the uses of the "P" district, subject to the "P" district standards, should the golf course not be developed or discontinued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or if discontinued. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think you need that qualifier. I think -- I don't think you need to reference a golf course. It's an allowed use in the GC district. We could go right to an equestrian center. MR. KLATZKOW: So you want these uses in addition to the golf course? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason for that is because in the settlement agreement, we -- should the golf course be abandoned or discontinued or not happen, remember the local residents -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. But what he's saying is heo Page 29 February 25, 2008 wants to use that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In addition. MR. KLATZKOW: -- in addition to the golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the way it was supposed to be is if the golf course doesn't prevail, then you fall back on the preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe decide that a golf course will not be a moneymaker for us, they wanted to make sure we were limited to the uses that were in the "P" district. I don't think we're obligated to go build a golf course, have it financially fail, then go to the "P" district. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. So the language-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that was ever the intent. MR. KLATZKOW: So the language would be, should the golf course not be developed or is discontinued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Six to one, half dozen another. I mean, if you feel like you need the qualifier to say should we elect not to do a golf course, that's fine. But it's -- I think that's repetitive language, but that's okay, it doesn't affect us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I do. I think that is a problem. Because again, we're giving uses that were not approved in the original PUD. What -- this was supposed to only happen if for some reason you build that golf course and you can't make a go of it, not so that you can avoid building the golf course, which is what the entire community believes and how you got your approval to begin with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we can -- I don't know, I wasn't in the meetings. But what I understood was that the community wanted us to move all the residential development off of the east side of the project to the west side of the project. And in return for that, they wanted to make sure we would always have open space -- golf course open space and passive uses on that side of the road. I don't Page 30 February 25, 2008 know that the community said build a golf course first, have it fail, then we'll give you these other uses. Their concern was you need -- remember we had the "what does green open space mean"? That's really what they wanted. COMMISSIONER CARON: According to your PUD, you were supposed to have already built that golf course, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: When was that? COMMISSIONER CARON: The nature of this whole thing, and let's be perfectly honest about moving all this density over to the west side. The simple fact of the matter is is that you want to move those units over there as much as the community wanted them moved over here. It was 90 units that you didn't want to build on the east side and it was mutually agreed that they would get moved to the west side. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So let's get back to what we're talking about. This PUD was based on a golf course development. That's how it got BCC approval. I don't think we should be changing that now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the settlement agreement was based on the -- the residents I thought wanted the option, should the golf course not be there, to make sure that it didn't get to have another intensity use on it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and it was a passive use. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what we're talking about, but if the golf course fails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what we've been trying to say. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's not what Mr. Y ovanovich -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, what he's saying is that we don't have to build it. Page 31 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have to build what? MR. KLATZKOW: A golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Golf course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't build the golf course and you get the passive uses under the "P" district, how is anybody harmed by that? That's a good thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's less intense than a golf course. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- it all works together, because we have to do the one/fifth, one/fifth, one/fifth, one/fifth, one/fifth -- I think that's five/fifths -- deed restrictions concurrent with each building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This was all -- that was what the people wanted. They wanted passive uses or a golf course on that side. I don't think they said we had to build it and lose money and then go ahead and convert over. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's kind of to Donna. Donna, I'm trying to see, what's the downside if the whole thing went "P"? In terms of the neighborhood, I think it would be -- there's a lot of nice uses in there that the district would enjoy. Is something in there sleeping that I don't see? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I'm just saying, the-- I'm trying not to make changes that because this is what we're all concerned about is making changes that we aren't supposed to be making changes to. And this PUD was approved as a golf course development. And if that's going to go away, then I guess we just need to make sure that the BCC is well aware that what they approved is not going to happen. To me it makes no difference. Page 32 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you have -- okay, if the settlement agreement has a provision in it should the golf course fail to work out as they proposed and the neighborhood wants it to go to a more passive recreational use and they've committed to doing that, how would you see that language fitting into this PUD strike-through? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just as you said. That's the way it's supposed to be. But what they're saying is they don't even have to consider it to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Donna, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to get a language. Suggest language. What language would you suggest? We've thrown some on the table. If that isn't the right language, can you give us what language you think works, then we can chew on it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think all they have to do is add should the golf course fail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way you would get passive recreational uses or passive uses on the property is should the golf course fail. So that would be an added permitted use, but only under that condition. Since you didn't have it as a use in the first place there, I don't know why that hurts you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why would you force us to build a golf course? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we wouldn't be forcing you. If you were to build one and if it failed, then you would have to replace it with passive recreational -- the passive uses in the "P" district use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, what happens if! never build -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't build the golf course, don't you have to come back in to amend the PUD to get yourself a different use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the settlement agreement said if the golf course area ever is discontinued or the golf course is abandoned. So the golf course area we're saying is what we're giving up in Page 33 February 25, 2008 exchange for passive uses. It doesn't say I had to build a golf course. We're looking at the settlement agreement. Obviously we're making a change to portions of this document by this settlement agreement. We said if we give up the golf course area or the golf course is discontinued or abandoned, then we're limited to these passive uses. And that's what we're saying, we may give up the golf course area in exchange for the passive uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- Mr. Klatzkow, is it the position of the County Attorney's office that they have to build a golf course on this property? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm just not sure what they would do with the property if they didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they didn't touch it. Say they -- it's zoned -- first of all, in the PUD it's shown as golf course property. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a choice of putting the uses at 4.2 on that, all of which are either golf course related or limited sales centers. So if they didn't use any of those items, they could leave it all natural, couldn't they? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, they could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so I think what we're back to is if you were to develop it as a golf course and if that golf course fails, then you could revert to the passive recreational uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not what the settlement agreement says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mr. Kolflat was next, and then Mr. Murray. MR. KLATZKOW: He's right about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MR. KLATZKOW: If you go to paragraph eight-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's stick to the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the settlement agreement. Page 34 February 25, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: If you go to paragraph eight of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 4 of the settlement agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: And this is old language. This language was put in at the very beginning of this process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you're going to -- do you have anything you wanted to add to this? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had more questions. I don't want to cloud the issue anymore, but there's no definition of size on this golf course. Could be an 18-hole golf course, 27-hole or 36 or anything else, all of which varies with the intensity use of the area. Is that a factor in this question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they have an area shown on the master plan that has to have golf course use on it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But it doesn't say whether it's 18 holes or it's 27 holes or it's 36 holes, all of which could be put on the same area of land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But whatever they do, they can put as much or as little as they wanted there, but that's all they could use it for. And so the land is dedicated a golf course. They could put one hole or 50 holes if they want to fit that many on there, but it's got to be golf course. And so I think that's what the PUD master plan's going to force them to use that land for. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keep in mind, in exchange for this we've given up -- by doing the deed restrictions and things like that, we're giving up the ability to come back later. Say the high-rise market is a bad move. We can't come back and amend to put our units on the east side. And that's what the neighborhood also wanted to make sure, is we couldn't come back in the future, change the plan to say okay, the high-rise market isn't what's going to work, we'd rather Page 35 February 25, 2008 move our units over to the east side of the unit and build more units but at a lower scale. So we're giving up that flexibility. And if you look -- and I think Mr. Klatzkow agrees with my reading of paragraph eight of the settlement agreement. It didn't say I had to build the golf course first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you -- you're next after Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'm reading it and I don't see that it does say it. I would prefer that it would say what you've asserted, but I don't see it saying that. These restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned. Well, for that to have happened you would have first to have had a golf course. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Only the golf course use, not the golf course development area. We could abandon the golf course development area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got a -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in exchange for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I have a solution. And Mr. Murray just started out on it. Why don't we on number five, under permitted uses, start out with the paragraph on Page 4 of the settlement agreement that says, if the golf course development area or golf course use is ever discontinued, and use that exact language out of the SA, all the way down to where it's referenced in paragraph 5.3. Wouldn't that take care of the whole thing? Then you're using exact language in the settlement agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: I had the same thought. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. MR. KLATZKOW: I had the same exact thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to have 4.2(A) (5) Page 36 February 25, 2008 is going to change. So that language just discussed in the settlement agreement. And number -- current number five would be number six then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I want to just make it very clear that that language doesn't mean I've got to build a golf course first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It means what the settlement agreement says it would mean, Richard, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let's get it on the table right now. Because if that's -- I don't want to get -- the reason we're settling this is so we don't have ambiguities in the future. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is what we think it means -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it does-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and so why do we need that language? If we think it means we don't have to build a golf course first, why can't we just list it as a permitted use? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you have that language already. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Yovanovich, I absolutely agree with the interpretation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're right. I don't think you ever have to build that golf course. I think that is the intent of the settlement -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, if we agree to that, then why do we need to put that language in the PUD document? Because I don't want a different person sitting in that chair interpreting those words differently. Because Mr. Murray and I disagree with what that language means. It could be that me and whoever else is sitting in that chair in the future may disagree as to what that language means. I don't think anybody would disagree that what I've said as far as it becoming a permitted use means I've got to build a golf course. So Page 37 February 25, 2008 I'm just asking to avoid an ambiguity in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, does this mean in total area? In other words, when they say the golf course, does that mean all the golf course area, or could you decide to take a portion of that and make an equestrian center? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think we would be required to build -- how many acres is it, Mr. Schiffer? It's approximately 170 acres of golf course area. I don't think we have to build a 170-acre equestrian center. We can do a portion of the equestrian, a portion of what other uses are allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree with that, but I'm just concerned the way it's worded, it looks like it's talking about the golf -- like that's one big chunk, and if it happens, it has to happen to that one big chunk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and what we discussed I think when we came up with the list that's actually in the "P" district was that the thought of what happened if. And Ms. Caron pointed out, are you really going to have a three or 400-acre community park? I don't know if that was the example that -- and we said no, that wasn't the intent. So we took some of the uses out that were on the original list to make sure we didn't have that. But yeah, we -- theoretically, we could, but we're not obligated to build that big of an equestrian center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially we could cover the same thing if we just allowed the "P" district to enlarge into any of the areas of the golf district and we could get the same thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what I thought my language was doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're doing it with use, I'm doing it where you can expand the "P" district. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I guess you could put GC/P on the Page 38 February 25, 2008 master plan. Or "P". GC or "P". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What it boils down to is you're objecting to the use of the language in the settlement agreement to be added as number five under the golf course development areas; is that correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I am. Because I didn't see it as being ambiguous. But clearly during this discussion it has been pointed out to me that it may be ambiguous and there could be other people sitting in that chair, and I'd just as soon eliminate that issue. MR. KLATZKOW: I would eliminate the issue when we bring this to the board, Richard, in the executive summary. We'll put a notation that this is what it means, and you'll have cover then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, the whole -- and I understand. But the purpose is for someone to pick this document up and know what it means, not have to look at an executive summary to go back and say, well, this is really what it meant. And that's what we're shooting for here, is that we have one document that staff can pick up and the owner of the property can pick up and say these are everything I can do on the property. We're not trying to go outside of the four corners of this document to figure out what some of that language means. So I would hope that we could just, you know, do it our way, because I think it avoids the ambiguity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe there's another way to consider it. Basically he's asking to add a -- let's pretend this settlement agreement didn't exist and they were coming in for a golf course development area PUD, and they were listing their uses in the PUD. Would we object to passive recreation uses as defined as an additional use under a large chunk of land noted for golf course, if they could theoretically come in and level it from end to end, fill it with mounds and put golf course on the whole thing. So is that a -- is this a problem? Because if we're caught up on Page 39 February 25,2008 this and we need to fix it, which obviously if it's a discussion like this, it should be fixed. Do we want to really object to it if it's -- is a "P" that bad of a use for what could be golf course. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I actually think that would be a better use, the passive uses he has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on this panel have any comments on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's go back and consider language. If the settlement agreement is not as clear as it needs to be for this issue and the amended PUD is here to clarify the settlement agreement, maybe then we ought to look at five as going back to the original language that we first talked about. And I would have to ask Mr. Klatzkow or if Ms. Student then repeat that original language, if they made a note on it. Richard, did you write it down? And let's just make-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wrote down any of the uses allowed on the "P" district, subject to the development standards set forth in the "P" district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So number five, and let's -- we're going to say it again: Any of the uses of the "P" district, subject to the development standards of the "P" district. Does that work for this panel? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I was voting yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we okay then? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And number five that's there would be number six. And that would get us past Page 4.1.a Page 40 February 25,2008 Okay, Page 4.2. Anybody have any suggestions or changes to 4.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4.3? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure if it's -- I think it might be a little bit of an error. I can't be sure. Under -- near the bottom under B where it reads, if the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of the curb, FI, and then curbed. I'm not sure what that's supposed to be. Unless mine was cut off and nobody else was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it means if curbed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's definitely a typo. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was too easy. Okay. And I know that Mr. Y ovanovich had an issue under 4.4(B) about the 200- feet issue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we discussed adding an exemption for gates, fences and non-habitable gatehouses from that 200- foot setback requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state the language that would be added to the end ofB then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess we need to sayan exemption to this requirement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we say fences, gates and non-habitable gatehouses are exempt from 4-B, 4.4(B). MR. YOV ANOVICH: Gates, fences and non-habitable, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, are you clear on that? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, I just note in table three, it's the development standard for front yard. It looks like it has 20 asterisk, and I think should be 20 feet and perhaps an asterisk, but I just wanted Page 41 February 25, 2008 clarification on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're right, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 20 feet, then asterisk. Okay, so there were three changes on that page. And Ms. Student, did you get all those? And then Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question on C. Would you just explain that to me, please. I don't understand C. It says single-family dwelling which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirements to five feet for the garage and 15 feet for the remaining structures. So the more parking I add, the less setback I have to have? It should be the opposite way. I mean, that doesn't -- I don't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on. I didn't draft this. I'm trying to figure it out myself. I think we agree with you and let's just delete C. COMMISSIONER CARON: Take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, did you follow that? We're going to delete item C on Page -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 4.3. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Paragraph 4.4(C) is deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that gets us to page -- oh, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I don't understand after these numbers here in the column in table three, this little line that looks like a footmark. What does that mean? For example, 10 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is a footmark, 10 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Why are those marks necessary, Page 42 February 25, 2008 when down below it says, all distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. The first notation under the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably isn't. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think it might be confusing to have that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have which one, the notation or the footage? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would leave the notation and take the footage off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem. Any objection from your side, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So where we were going to add 20 feet, we're going to leave the asterisk and take the foot back out and take all the footmarks out all the reference -- all the other numbers on that page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a good thing we're here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You need a magnifying glass to read it, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4.4. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under DA V, the quest house, you might want to change that to guest, unless that's a fancy G and I don't read it right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, gotcha. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay? Little thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was it, little thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next page gets us into the Page 43 February 25, 2008 preserve district, Page 5.1. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think you want to also re-Ietter that from -- since C is going -- that D will become C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good point. Okay, Page 5.1 ? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, this preserve district. The original preserve district set aside for the most passive of uses is now incorporating some more intense uses than might normally be allowed in preserves. I think there needs to be some sort of delineation here between the golf course as "P" district and the rest of the preserve area in this PUD. I mean, this list was only created because of the golf course area, not for any preserve area that's on, for example, the western side of the property where the high-rises are intended to be. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, it came up because we had an undefined term in here called passive recreational areas. And there's no LDC definition of that. And we were asked to come up with a list of what we thought passive recreational areas meant, and we came up with this laundry list. And we would through each of these the last time to say would this be an appropriate passive recreational use. I mean, I remember it real clear because Ms. Burgeson got up here and said it's in the LDC and it wasn't there. And that's why we needed this defi -- we needed a list of uses. So it came up in relation to that. So that's how we came up with the use. And we talked about would this be appropriate in those areas. At least that was my understanding of the history of this provision and the discussion we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, from your understanding Page 44 February 25, 2008 of a passive recreational use, would any of the uses we have limited here not be considered something the county would allow under a passive recreational use; do you know? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I just identified some that don't seem passive to me. That would be a golf cart path, an equestrian use and trail, a playground, guard houses and gatehouses. I believe I've seen where you have restroom facilities in a preserve. But those are ones that looked to me to be a bit more intense. And I don't know if Ms. Burgeson might wish to comment on that, if she had some involvement in the preparation of this list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Susan is here. Susan, in your -- could you come up and address this issue for us for a minute? And Susan, what I'd like to understand is from your experience involving passive parks or passive recreational areas, are any of these uses -- or would staff or you all, would you think you would not consider any of these uses under such a heading? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, for the record. Let me just take a quick second to review them. No, I don't -- from a zoning director's perspective, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about these proposals. They're all .. . . passIVe, m my opmlOn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. On that second Page 5.2 page, under 21 Roman, I believe that's Roman, community and neighborhood passive parks. By definition, the community park is not passive. I know the intent here. I'm trying to make sure we don't run into a snag later on. And neighborhood parks are generally like tot lots anyway. They're not passive. MS. ISTENES: Right. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that Page 45 February 25, 2008 comment, only the fact that the word community might lead somebody to refer back to a particular type of park that the county develops -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my point. MS. ISTENES: -- on a larger scale, and that might be a good point to clarify. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that was what I was eluding to earlier on this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are you suggesting? How would it be clarified? MS. ISTENES: Well, I mean, I don't see why you couldn't just take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be number 11, or 21? MS. ISTENES: Just take the word community out. Or even take community and neighborhood out, if you want. But I think neighborhood probably implies just obviously a small-scale facility that's intended to serve the immediate neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What you're not privy to is the earlier discussions where we got to this listing was it may be the intent of the parties to open up that space to the public and, therefore, the thought was potentially have a community park or, I thought, or a neighborhood park. But if passive parks are the intent all around, I would agree, I think the community and neighborhood should be struck, if that's legally possible, and then have it be passive parks. MS. ISTENES: Everything here is very passive, unassuming uses. So when you're talking about community parks, I think you're kind of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Soccer. MS. ISTENES: -- the way we know them in this community, you're talking about a different animal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, community park would be Page 46 February 25, 2008 soccer, baseball, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Richard, is there any objection from your part if we strike the words community and neighborhood? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before you go, Susan, what about playgrounds? Specifically playgrounds were discussed with regard to the golf course property. They were not discussed for property on the western part of the development. MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure I understand the concern. Could you -- are you concerned that playgrounds -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Do you consider it passive recreation? MS. ISTENES: Generally speaking, yes. But I suppose it could get somewhat out of control. I think they've attempted to limit the size. Two acres is a pretty big playground. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is pretty big. Which is why it came up under discussion of the golf course area, not in discussion of the rest of the preserve area, which is supposed to be protected on the western part against the backwaters -- against outstanding Florida waters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you need playgrounds in there? I mean, do you want to make this simple? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. So let me try -- I'm going to keep up with you all. We're deleting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Community and neighborhood -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- roman numeral 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we're taking-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Playgrounds goes away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're taking -- well, if we take out playgrounds, we're going to have to renumber all the rest, but -- Page 47 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's a given. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that number goes away, and Roman numeral 21 goes away. Well, I guess just community and neighborhood -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- becomes passive parks only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I think. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Susan, go ahead. MS. ISTENES: Joe suggested, and I don't disagree with that, that it ought to be clarified in here that this area is limited to the east -- is it the eastern side, Joe? Yes, the eastern side of the development and not the western, so that it's clear. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, under the general description, is that where we would propose the limitation? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The area designated as preserve on the -- well, it's on the amended master plan, so it's already -- isn't it already -- let's just check, does the amended master plan limit it to the MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Because remember we had that whole discussion of "P" on the west side and "P" on the east side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the area designated as preserve on the amended master plan that is east of Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. I don't think you want to limit boardwalks and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 48 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I think there needs to be a separation here of this laundry list. There are some uses such as potentially a boardwalk -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why don't we do this -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- along the edge of your preserve on the western side that would be acceptable perhaps to the entire world. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Why don't we do this: Can we go down the list and then I would suggest golf cart path, that should be east of Vanderbilt Drive only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so what we'll have to do is put a parenthetical -- Richard, we'll put a parenthetical after whatever item is strictly limited to the east side. And if it's not strictly limited to the east side it could be used anywhere where the "P" is shown. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is a good way to go. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, he makes a good point of golf, because we do have golf course on the west side. COMMISSIONER CARON: But not in a preserve area. So that would not -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, I hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- affect any of your uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start right from the top. Where's your first one that you want to see east of Vanderbilt Beach Road only? Is it Vanderbilt Beach Road or Vanderbilt Drive? COMMISSIONER CARON: Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vanderbilt Drive only. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we put just an asterisk by them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, then we'lln MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- and say east of Vanderbilt Drive only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. Page 49 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would say probably again Roman numeral V. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Pathways and bridges, of course okay before. COMMISSIONER CARON: Equestrian trails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just say the ones you want an asterisk after, otherwise -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't particularly need an asterisk by any of them. I want to see what you guys are saying you have an objection to that can't be west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then Ms. Caron, since you started this discussion, which ones do you think shouldn't be west? Let's start with that, then -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm beginning to go down the list here now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Just tell us which ones you want an asterisk after, we'll see where it goes. COMMISSIONER CARON: We've done golf cart paths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Equestrian trails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's get done, Richard, then we'll go back over them again, you can tell us which ones you have problems with. COMMISSIONER CARON: Parking lots that are -- well, no, because you'll have parking under your buildings and your clubhouse, so there's no need to have parking in preserve areas. MR. YOV ANOVICH: East only. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, east only. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just doing the things that will Page 50 February 25, 2008 be limited to the east. MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right, I hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sidewalks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sidewalks? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, they're not in preserves. Remember, we're talking about preserves, not the development itself, not the building area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know. They've got a lot of preserves on both sides, but that's -- if the sidewalks were problematic, I guess. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're going to build a pathway on Vanderbilt. They don't need any other sidewalks within that western portion other than what go to their buildings, which again are not in preserve areas. We still have that word water parks, I love that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You took the sidewalks. So far I've got golf carts, equestrian uses and trails and sidewalks, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, let's finish it up. Let's get through it, then we'll go back over it -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just want to make sure I'm with you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Parking lots. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Parking lots, which -- okay, got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, I think that boats and dock -- canoe docks and kayak and fishing piers, were they -- well, not the fishing piers potentially, but were they not -- that discussion came up with respect to creating lakes, again on the eastern side of the property, not on the western side. Lakes large enough to kayak and canoe in? I don't think you're going to have those on the west. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, keep going. We'll have to talk amongst ourselves in a minute. Page 51 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Guard houses and gatehouses. Again on the western part of this property you'll have them in your development area, not in preserves. Gazebos, picnic areas. You know, the picnic areas -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these -- you want -- these are the ones you want asterisked? That's where -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want gazebos asterisked? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just say the ones you want-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I did say that out loud and I didn't mean to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asterisking a lot of things here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When she's finished, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, again, I'm not sure how motorized devices required by physically impaired individuals gets in here. Or restroom facilities should be on the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said two things. You don't think that wheelchairs with motors should be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just not sure. I mean, I guess maybe you're saying that they would be able to go down the boardwalk. So works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now you're -- you didn't want to asterisk that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm down to restrooms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, you wanted to add something to it as well? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to give consideration to it anyway. Fitness trails and shelters, I had -- I was thinking that those would be more likely to be on the east. COMMISSIONER CARON: On the east. Page 52 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that they were added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll ask them if they object. That's the best way to approach it. Anything else, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the issue that was just raised. But I can see where guardhouse to protect the property at the entrance of the property, which is all preserve, if it becomes so. If I'm correct, it's all preserve then. They might need a gatehouse or guard house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She asterisked it for the east side of Vanderbilt? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about for the east side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm asking -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's saying that's where she would want it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then fine. I missed that. Thank you. And those are the only ones for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have any you want to throw in before we ask Richard -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't even know what we're doing here. So I was just wondering if I could just quickly run through the list so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying. Okay, Richard, let's start from the top. Do you have any objection to limiting the following on the east side, and we'll go one by one. Page 53 February 25, 2008 Golf cart paths. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Equestrian uses and trails. Just say no objection or objection. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fitness trails and shelters. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Parking lots. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sidewalks. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boats, non-motorized kayak and canoe docks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that is a nice backwater area to kayak and canoe in, so why would we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'd want it on both sides. COMMISSIONER CARON: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you had it asterisked, so you don't want it. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I had it asterisked because it came up in discussion of creating lakes. Again, if the golf course went away. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they didn't have lakes and they wanted to use it on the west side, there's no objection -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to that. Okay, we'll take that one out then. Guard houses and gatehouses would be only on the east side of Vanderbilt Beach Road for the preserve district uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. Page 54 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last one would be restroom facilities, only on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive for passive facilities, for passive recreational uses. We're at restroom facilities. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, hiking and nature trails -- I'm sorry -- stayed on both sides of the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're on restroom facilities. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know, sorry. I don't think we object to restrooms coming out, that they can only be on the east side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let me summarize one more time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Golf cart paths, equestrian uses and trails, fitness trails and shelters, parking lots, sidewalks, guard houses and gatehouses, and restroom facilities would be those types of passive recreational areas limited to the east side of Vanderbilt Beach Drive. And they'll be so noted by an asterisk, and the asterisk will be at the end of that long list of items. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does everybody have that? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, in addition to that, since the list has gotten long, let's duplicate whether we have duplications. For example, under Roman numeral VI, it shows pathways and/or bridges. Then if you go to the end of the listing, you'll see that as designated as item five, pathways and/or bridges. So we only want one of those and not two of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a suggestion would be why don't we drop off number five, pathways and bridges and leave it under the list of passive uses. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. And then if you'd also CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Kolflat, let me get Richard's Page 55 February 25, 2008 concurrence first. Is that okay with you, Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's fine. And anticipating what Mr. Kolflat's about to say, number four should go away as well -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- because that's also on the list. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to take four and five, and number six will actually become number four. Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We probably don't need three anymore, do we, Jay? Because we say golf cart paths. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Referencing bald eagle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the only thing left then is-- well, we have one, two and three. Three would be what is now number six on our current sheet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Margie, has that been fun to follow? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It certainly has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I wanted a clarification, though, because we did talk about the playgrounds. Did we agree that playgrounds were going to be allowed on both sides? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're eliminated. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, they're out. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so is under 21, community and neighbor, the words community and neighborhood were eliminated. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I got that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Mr. Lorenz, if you have something that's going to not Page 56 February 25,2008 further confuse us and contribute to getting to the end, that would be great. Otherwise, please don't interrupt. MR. LORENZ: I just want to be able to point out that preserves on the east side are Gopher Tortoise preserves, very specifically. And a lot of these uses we would not allow to go in through a permitting process. So that's the one thing, that if those preserves are set aside for gopher tortoises, the conservation easements are set aside for purposes of managing for that listed species, then uses that are incompatible for that purpose of the preserve I think should be excluded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the sections that you're talk -- Bill, the restrictions you're talking about are all in the Land Development Code; is that correct? Using Gopher Tortoise preserves or structures and things, you're quoting something pursuant to the Land Development Code, right? MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm not sure that the Land Development Code is explicit in terms of identifying which uses are allowed within Gopher Tortoise preserves. But if we were to establish a land -- a preserve management plan for Gopher Tortoises, we could identify very specifically what can happen within those areas through that preserve management plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. LORENZ: But there's nothing explicitly listed in the LDC for that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't they have to do that, come up with a management plan for gopher tortoises? MR. LORENZ: Yes -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a requirement for them. MR. LORENZ: Yes, they do. I just want to make sure that this list doesn't guarantee that the permitted uses would give them that guarantee within the Gopher Tortoise preserve. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we probably should state that. Page 57 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm thoroughly confused. I thought all of that property that we're now referring to was originally allocated to be golf course property. Would there not be permits for taking or relocation associated with that if in fact they were determined as Gopher Tortoise property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we have to look at the master plan. If you look at the master plan, east of Vanderbilt Drive there are two designations: "P" for preserve and now GC. There used to be three, but the R-1 went away, or R-2, whichever one it was. So there are two uses that can occur, two zoning districts east of Vanderbilt Drive. This PUD, if you look at it, originally said passive parks, passive recreational areas, boardwalks, biking, hiking and nature trails were all permitted uses within the area designated "P". We were then asked, what does passive rec -- what are passive recreational areas. And we came up with this list of uses to define that, because the Land Development Code doesn't do that. So any of these uses could go in those areas designated "P" that are east of Vanderbilt Drive. They're obviously is a much smaller area designated "P" than GC on that side of the street. But anyone of these uses to could go into that "P" area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, let me understand clearly. I'm looking at something on the visualizer here, right? I see two areas where it says "P". And what you just said would have or should apply to those two pieces where they're designated "P" as preserve. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, and then across the northern portion of the property is another area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine, thank you. But my point was, now, were we aware that there was Gopher Tortoise in Page 58 February 25,2008 those areas? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I haven't heard there wasn't, but I don't know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be treated as a preserve, so therefore that would not be an issue for you because it would be treated as a preserve; is that a fair statement? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be a preserve, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But let's broaden it now, because that's what we're talking about. This whole area would be then possibly converted to preserves, correct? All of this area that is designated golf course? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will stay GC, but it will have limited uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it will remain as GC. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It stays as Gc. That's why I added these uses to the GC district, it will stay Gc. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. So the only ones that we're talking about that Mr. Lorenz is talking about that could possibly be impacted then would be the two that are designated "P" and the one above; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that's correct. For the record, Joe Schmitt. If you recall what happened, was when we had the golf course, we made an agreement at the last meeting that if they didn't build the golf course it would become "P". What we don't want to confuse is the two different "P"s. There's preserve, which is actually preserves -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Real preserves. MR. SCHMITT: -- and then what Rich said, what is now zoned or on the master plan identified as golf course, if they do not build a golf course would become -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Passive. MR. SCHMITT: -- passive recreation. Page 59 February 25, 2008 So to clarify it, it would be only those areas identified on the master plan as CG (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing has changed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me -- MR. SCHMITT: GC, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I just wanted to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point was, and I just want to be absolutely clear, that whatever Mr. Lorenz brought up would be appropriate to the designated preserves that on this map and not relative to any of the other areas known as GC; is that correct? Or is he introducing an argument about all of that area being subject to gopher tortoise? That's what I want to understand. MR. SCHMITT: It would actually be subject to actually the SDP. When the SDP comes in, which is in for review, those areas are identified in more detail on the SDP. What you have in front of you is the master plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I think we're making this more confusing than it needs to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are. Thank you, and I appreciate it, Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Lorenz, we understood you have rules to abide by. They're going to have to abide by your rules when they come in for an SDP. Any endangered species or threatened species, they'll have to adhere to the rules. What we've done here today has not changed any of those rules. So let's not suggest that we have. Okay, we're done with Page 5.1 and we're on Page 5.2. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. I just had one other clarification that I want to be clear on. Because in the description of having certain uses only on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive for the Page 60 February 25, 2008 guard houses and gatehouses and the restroom facilities, the additional phrase was for "P" uses added. And I'm assuming that it only is for these two items, because the other items would be part and parcel of a "P" use, and these would sort of serve the "P" use. So that's what I wanted to make sure of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have completely lost me on your statement, Ms. Student. Now let's start all over again. Before we do, Cherie', we're probably going to break at noon for an hour, which is 30 minutes from now. And normally we give you an hour and a half. Would that be okay with you? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, start all over again. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify, make sure we have this exactly right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, let me tell you what we did do. We listed the various things that need an asterisk. The asterisk says they're limited to the east side of Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Do you have a legal problem with any of that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to 5.2. Anybody on Page 5.2 have any further questions on Page 5.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really no changes on 5.3. On 6.1 ? General development commitments, starting with Section 6. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6.2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I raise the question just to see if you all-- paragraph 6.4(A) is clearly outdated. Do we want to update that or just leave it alone? Page 61 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, is that something that as a result of the settlement agreement and the amendment of this PUD subject to the settlement agreement that we should mess with, or -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'd prefer just to leave it alone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objection? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We clearly missed it, so just so we're all comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, I just want to go back to 6.1, Page 6.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: 6.3(B), all necessary easements, dedications or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. Ms. Student, does this include any conservation easement dedications? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It could. The service utilities would be like a public utility easement. All common areas -- MR. SCHMITT: All conservation easements have to be recorded prior to release of the SDP. It's current LDC. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. So we don't need now, as we did in the past, a date certain? MR. SCHMITT: No. The SDP will -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: -- not be approved unless the -- it has to go through all -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: -- conservation easement has to be recorded. COMMISSIONER CARON: We know past issues are not that way, so-- Page 62 February 25, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah that was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- thank you. MR. SCHMITT: --language in the PUD, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 6.2? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just to point out, the conservation easement issue is actually addressed in paragraph 5.5. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on Page 6.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 6.3? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems to me, and I may be in error, but when I read B-1 and 2, they appeared to be -- well, no, I just saw something different, 50 feet. No, I didn't. They appear to be the same. I couldn't see a difference. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I -- my client has asked, because I don't know. But I really would like staff to show me the Land Development Code provision that says we have to record the -- they don't have to do it now, but there was a statement said that it's required under the Land Development Code that in order to get your site development plan approved you have to record the conservation easements. I just would like someone to cite me to the Land Development Code provision that says that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in my -- I have it in my truck, I'll get it after the meeting. And it also references that if you apply for an early work authorization, you need it at that time as well, so -- but anyway, let's go on. Mr. Murray brought up a concern. But B-1 and B-2 are not items associated with a settlement agreement. But we can -- if you want to ask the question, we can always get it answered. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What section are we on now? Page 63 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6.3, item B-1 and B-2. Mr. Murray believes they're redundant. Was that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there is a reference to 1,000 feet, but then it says all other cul-de-sacs. So I don't see where it really impacts and says anything different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's something we couldn't change today as a result of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. If that's true, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie, Ms. Student, is this open to the settlement agreement discussion today? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6.4 has no changes on it. Page 6.5 has one reference to an amended PUD master plan. Page 6.6 has one small change on it. Page 6.7 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on, hold on. Never mind, my bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6.7, I believe you had questioned Item F being left in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that should be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the settlement agreement addresses now how the Bald Eagle Management Plan is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Specifically the Bald Eagle Management Plan itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So F I believe should be omitted. Does anybody have any comment or concern? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, comment, I should say. 6.8. Any questions on 6.8? Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Sorry, to go back to 6.7, paragraph Page 64 February 25, 2008 6.11(A). I do believe now that the excavation permits are covered in the code of laws and not the land code. We'll double check and fix that reference accordingly. You see division 3.5 is stricken, but it says of the Land Development Code, and I believe it's the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. They are two separate codes. So I just wanted to double check that and fix that reference -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you have any objection to that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever the correct code is is fine with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 6.8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6.9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Student, if you were referencing on your prior page, you might under 6.16 (A) and (B), the references to the Land Development Code there, we may need now go to the code of laws -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, we will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- since 04-41 has been in place. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- look at that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page is the master plan exhibit. Are there any comments, questions or concerns on the master plan? (No response.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we put it on -- I didn't get the exhibits as part of my e-mail. Can we put it on the visualizer so we can all say yes, this is the same document? Because I believe the Bald Eagle Management Plan that you may have gotten could be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that -- Page 65 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- master plan first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that's why I'm saying, I'd like to see the master plan to make sure we're all looking at the same document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully the one that Mr. Schmitt is bringing up is the one that we all read off of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be revision date 1/25/08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. Let's see. Yes, that's the one that Mr. Murray just cited as the revision date. That's correct. That's the one that's in our packet. MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, I want to make sure, this is -- the Planning Commission approved this change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're aware of the change. MR. SCHMITT: You're aware of the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The way it was discussed at our last meeting, it didn't seem there was a lot of options, so -- MR. SCHMITT: That's the original, of course, showing that preserve line, and now that preserve line, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problems with that master plan? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think there are concerns. This is what was discussed last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Now, I don't know which one you're -- hopefully Mr. Schmitt's got the one that was distributed to us. No. At least not the one I saw. Yeah, now that's the one. Mine had a crossed out Exhibit B on the top. Page 66 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yours should say -- you'll be able to tell the difference. This is Exhibit 2 that we had prepared and sent to you. And it says, as amended on February 6th and February 27th, 2007. That's the document that revised, you know, the sequencing based upon the biological opinion issued subsequent to the original Bald Eagle Management Plan. And that's the document that we prepared and handed out to you all prior to the beginning of all of this discussion, and was discussed specifically at the second meeting that we had. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, it may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that that didn't print, that Exhibit 2, the settlement agreement. Because it's certainly not on my documents. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's why I wanted to specifically go through this, because what you got is an outdated Bald Eagle Management Plan. This is the correct one that we did -- you've seen this. This is the one you've seen. I just wanted -- again, we didn't get that exhibit and we're just pointing that out, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the one that I have has all the cross-outs that I'm seeing so far, it just doesn't have that bold language on the bottom. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. So the footnote changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's proceed with reviewing it a page at a time, though. Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The packet we received last week from staff did not include that; is that right? Because mine doesn't. And I -- so we have the old one in our staff package? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do you know? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All came in one binder. Page 67 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Which I was just going to say, came from the County Attorney's office, so obviously you don't have the correct one either. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I got handed this one I think this mornmg. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, this has been provided to -- this was provided to you all weeks, probably as much as months ago now from us. Just the wrong one got put in the packet. So we want to go through. You've seen this; we went through this at the last meeting as far as the changes. I just need to make sure that the right version is attached to the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we get a copy of that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just going-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to suggest, Richard, we're going to take a lunch break. Why don't we just have a copy. In case there's any differences we can quickly review it over lunch and compare it to the one in our packet and that would help us through it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not a very long document. MR. SCHMITT: Here's the only change that he has -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifthere's only one exhibit -- MR. SCHMITT: -- a strike-through where it says Exhibit B. But all the other simple -- there were only a couple of changes during that meeting. And Jeff has in that project description that you have in blue is exactly matches what was stricken (sic) -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, just for my record, I wouldn't mind having a copy of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, can someone-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got it. So whoever wants to -- controls the copier around here, if they -- MR. SCHMITT: We'll get a copy. You need to look at it. Page 68 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We would need it -- Mr. Adelstein, we'll need it before we go to lunch. We'll be going to lunch in 10 minutes. MR. SCHMITT: And hopefully this -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the same, I believe. MR. SCHMITT: That's the same. That's the attachment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan that you -- you identified that -- yeah, that's where we put the circles on, the concentric circles -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- at the different dimensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any concerns over that page? Because if there isn't, then what will happen is during lunch we'll get three pages to cross check against the Bald Eagle Management Plan that we received in our packet. When we come back from lunch, we can go ahead and resolve any issues with those three pages. And before lunch I'll pass out the summary that I put together. Remember, please, it was a draft. But when you get back from lunch, I'd like to ask you all for your concurrence on each item in this draft and we'll modify where necessary so that the BCC has something in our -- from our review as to what happened in these last three meetings, or last two meetings, as least. So let me pass that out now. MR. SCHMITT: You want to go through the last two attachments, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second, sir. I have some for the County Attorney's office and for the clerk, too, so -- the last two attachments were the Exhibit 3 to the settlement agreement, which would be the phasing diagram of the takedown of the conservation areas, should the golf course not be utilized there. MR. SCHMITT: Exhibit 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any problem with Exhibit 3? It's the phasing diagram that we went over before. And Exhibit 4 is the pathway diagram along Vanderbilt Beach Page 69 February 25, 2008 Road that we went over -- Vanderbilt Drive that we went over before. Does anybody have a problem with either one of those exhibits? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just give us one second. We've got to find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. That's the right one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant says it's the right one. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have a problem with any of those exhibits? Okay, then how fast can we get those copies made of the -- can someone -- is there someone here who could take the copy from Richard and take it next door to the BCC chambers and ask for 10 copies? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we go to lunch now and beat the crowd and get back here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying, as soon as you take this with you. That's what I'm -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can read it when we get back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll, I'm not sure everybody might agree with you. So rather than have a dispute over how long we need to read it, we'll give it to everybody before we go. Yeah, those are extra copies. And Margie needs one, Jeff needs one and the clerk needs one. The summary that I handed out is just my draft ideas of some of the higher points that we got into over the last few meetings. I know there's a lot more, but that's all the fine text of the various documents we've been reviewing. So I tried to highlight the big points to the BCC. I tried to do what I thought was as fair manner as possible, Page 70 February 25,2008 reflecting everybody's thoughts. It's certainly subject for debate and change. And if you all will hang around here for a few minutes before you leave for lunch, why don't we just break for lunch now and then we'll be back here at 1 :00. Does that work for everybody? Okay, let's break for lunch and come back at 1 :00. And I ask the Planning Commission just to hold off to leave their seats until we get the copies being made for us. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Adelstein is not in the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back. We had a hopefully productive and working lunch. We left off on two different documents. The Cocohatchee Bay PUD Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan. The one we received in our packet was revised and we should have been looking at a different one that was handed out to us before lunchtime. So it would be working off that document as the one that will be actually part of this package. And that is a few pages. We'll start with the first page. First page of that document reads Exhibit B, which has been crossed out and which I think needs to be reinstated. Then it's titled Cocohatchee Bay PUD Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan. Does anybody have any -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Up there on top where it says project description, on the second line it talks about a golf driving range. Where is that driving range located on the golf section there on the map? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was in the western section. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's on the west side of the road, east of tower number five. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that close to the eagle's nest? Page 71 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's on the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Closer to the eastern side of the west property line. The east property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like on the plan it's between 330 and 500 feet is where your -- your back tee. But you've got a forward tee up by Vanderbilt Drive. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. Next question I had was down on the bottom ofthat paragraph it talks about that you shall purchase and preserve suitable habitat for nesting bald eagles in the vicinity of Collier County and Southwest Florida. What's the maximum distance away from Collier County that you expect it possibly to go from Naples area, or from the project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We haven't found the habitat yet. So Mr. Kolflat, I can't tell you exactly where it's going to be. We have to find bald eagle habitat. And our first priority is to try to get it here in Collier and then work our way as close to Collier as we can get it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So the criteria is basically to get some property that's suitable but as close to Collier -- to this project area as you can. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're still on the first page of the Amended Bald Eagle Management Plan. I suggest that we reinstate the words that were crossed out Exhibit B, because this is Exhibit B -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, when we originally prepared this document it was exhibit to the settlement agreement. So we would go back to -- Page 72 February 25,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions on the first page? If not, we'll go to the second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to make a comparison. I'm not sure how we're going to proceed with this. But on the newest one, under B-2, and it's logical, it says, however construction of this 20-story. We're going to treat this one as the only appropriate one; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. This one actually had been passed out to us prior, and it just got missed going into the packet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So this is the one that should fly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. So then I withdraw that, because that was something already understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move to Page 2. Anybody have any questions on Page 2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- an item. If you'll look on Page 2, for number seven, and then look on Page 3 for number two, I believe those, at least a quick reading, appear to be the same. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, could you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The difference is -- I just discovered, the difference looks like 19-A is the point of -- on Page 2, number seven. There is no other identification in number two on Page 3. So I'm in error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was looking for a distinctive difference and I've now seen it. Page 73 February 25, 2008 Other than that, it appears that they are the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions about that issue or others on Page 2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if them being similar in context is a problem for this document, because one is laying out the criteria for the other, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll just go ahead and leave it like it IS. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3, anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My question is the description of the location of this tree. It's 5,000 feet northwest of the existing tree. Is the existing tree being referenced in 19 or 19-A? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nineteen. The original tree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you put like a parenthesis and say 19, just to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's down at the bottom of Page 3, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, in D, the first sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be 5,000 feet northwest of existing nest tree 19, C.O. 19; is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page, Page 5, has two paragraphs on it, up on top. Any questions for the remainder of the document? Page 74 February 25, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray, you may be right. Timing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's not jinx it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we've gone through the settlement agreement, the amended PUD, the exhibits to both the settlement agreement and the amended PUD and the Bald Eagle Management Plan. And before lunch I passed out a summary that I would like to accompany this review to the BCC. I wrote it under the intention of just explaining our processes and what we went through and what our bigger issues were in regards to these discussions. And I'd like to walk through the items on that so that if anybody has any recommended changes or corrections. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you do that, we have no zoning staff here, and I did have a question for zoning staff, but I will also address it to the petitioner as well. This entire agreement is prefaced on the SDP's that are going through review now. Is there anything that you are aware of that would constitute a substantive change to what is on the plans as they exist today? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not that we're aware of. And we've asked, frankly, your staff to tell us the same from their perspective. That's why you'll see in the settlement agreement itself the references that each party is not aware of anything, any facts that would prevent us from being able to finalize, you know, the settlement agreement. We're not aware of anything that would, from our perspective, prevent that from happening. Are they not coming back? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, but I would certainly like to have them on the record. Page 75 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they just went on the record, there's nothing substantive -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, if they're coming back, do you think -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that they're coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Mr. Schmitt, if you're within range, please come back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Drop by. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe the environmental staff could say that they don't know of anything. At least we could get some of it done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking in the Bald Eagle Plan, one thing we didn't look at is there's an attached drawing in the Bald Eagle Plan showing distances. Attachment one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we -- well, we had talked about it before lunch but we can go over it again. Is there any concerns with that page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what is the real intent of that, just to show -- what's the importance of these radiuses? Maybe Bill can tell me that quickly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll put it on the visualizer and make sure we're all reading from the same document. Is this what you're talking about, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, you -- the commission had asked us to add all of those references. I think we had the 330 and the 660 -- or is it 500? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And then the Planning Page 76 February 25, 2008 Commission asked us to add the old guidelines onto the same drawing. No? MR. WESTENDORF: For the record, Jay Westendorf, Vanasse-Day lor. The exhibit that's included in this actually came from the biological opinion that U.S. Fish & Wildlife issued. And it had originally pertained to the phasing of the buildings. So we had to show all the buildings and which one gets constructed first. That already had concentric circles on there. The distances were just to get a range or a bearing of actual distances on the plan. They had no other relevance whatsoever. At one of our previous gatherings here, staff asked us to add 330 foot and 660 feet to the exhibit. Other than that change, it's exactly the way it is in the biological opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, in the meantime let's go over the summary, and then any corrections or changes needed to that. And by then if the staff is back here, fine. If not, we're probably going to see this come back on a consent agenda with all the tweaking done to refine it so that we can give it our final consent like the policy we put in place a while back. So with that in mind, let's go to the first page of the summary. And item one, anybody have any questions about the statements made on item one? This is what we would send to the BCC as a summary of our product, as well as the documents that we've got listed here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, referencing a thought that where possible, wherever possible, when we reference amended PUD's and so forth, any exhibits that have dates or other identifications, if they were in there it would be really good. Because there's so many documents floating around that hopefully we'll have it all clear. But it's not an absolute critical factor, but it might help. Page 77 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good idea. And Mr. Murray, what I'll do is I'll add the dates to every line item on here that has a document that is specifically dated, and we'll include that as part of our reference. That way we're not mistaking what document it is we're approvmg. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything on item two? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, I didn't hear you. On number D, II-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I think you were referencing both amendments. There's an amendment to the -- the amended master plan probably should be referenced as well. You referenced the amended Bald Eagle Management Plan, but there's also an amendment to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you look at D, D, of the exhibits to the settlement agreement. The master plan is an exhibit to the amended PUD, not to the settlement agreement. I was simply clarifying what the amended PUD was, that it did include the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Because if I hadn't, I was worried that someone would think we're not including that. So I simply relisted it there. But your Exhibit A is the master plan. It was in the original PUD and it is in the amended PUD. And it's also referenced up on B above, so it gets in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted everyone to know, I had not forgotten the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Okay, number two? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three on the next page? Page 78 February 25, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four talks about our passive recreation issue, but we've refined that again today. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number five? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- not Mr. Klatzkow, Mr. Kolflat. I had to catch myself there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In there you say the project is utilizing two stores of primarily under-building parking. I think you meant two stories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely right. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, this brings to light a question that is not necessarily in this document, but we discussed earlier. And that is the earlier document said that the elevation, the base elevation would range in the project from 1.5 to 11 feet difference through the area. And my question is in ascertaining the height of the various buildings, these tall towers, ifthere's differences there, one building is graded at .1, the other's graded at .11, why there will be a difference in height then at the top of the building if they start it at the lower elevation or a different elevation. And should that be addressed in the other document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the code allows them to start the measurement from FEMA, which is your flood elevation code -- your flood elevation height. Or if you have two floors of underground parking, you can start at the finished level of that top second story of your underground parking. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But doesn't the base elevation come into play someplace as far as where these are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With actual height. But I don't believe actual height's addressed in this PUD. I can't remember offhand right now, but it wasn't brought out in the settlement agreement that I know Page 79 February 25, 2008 of. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What would concern me was that the difference in elevation that would go from almost zero or .1 up to 11 feet, there's about a 10-foot difference. And if you're going to build five different structures, why if you stagger that, you could have 10 feet difference in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Of course you've got to understand, the buildings will be several hundred feet back from Vanderbilt Drive and they'll be 200 feet high. I don't know if a 10- foot COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm not saying there's a significant difference, but there is a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I honestly don't disagree with you, but I think the measurement that we have in the code requires them to use FEMA for your measurement basis. How they get there and what they do below that is up to them. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and Mark on this one, actually the PUD set it up where they're measuring from the first habitable level. So yes, they do have the ability to playa little bit with that habitable level, but there's nothing we can do about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I would tend to agree with you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item six is lengthy. I tried to relay what everybody talked about for that second big meeting we had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have to talk about six? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean, now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, do we have to -- no, do we have to in this thing put in a conversation about six? Page 80 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we -- I mean, I put it there because I thought you'd be the one to ask for it if I didn't, so -- I mean, you know, six is more there for your benefit, Brad, because you were the one that made the issue of it. And I was trying to be more courteous to you since it's the district you live in, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. But I mean, first of all, the outcome isn't what I would like, but the concept was is they were trying to bring in something into the settlement that would lessen the separation between buildings, and I thought we kind of left that look. The PUD says what it says, it's up to the staff. I didn't want the CCPC to get involved in endorsing something that I didn't think was correct. So do we have to discuss this at all? Is it something that was in the original agreement that the commissioners know about, or is it something that they brought in and we took out? In other words, will they be missing this if it's not there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I -- Brad, I was trying to be as thorough as possible to get everybody's strongest feelings on record. If it's not needed, if -- and you were the one primarily questioning this, you and Donna. If you guys -- I don't need it there. Again, I was trying to make sure I got as much of everything everybody wanted to say on here. We could leave it with the first two sentences and note that the Planning Commission decided to let the language of the PUD remain as the interpretive language for this particular issue and leave it at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, we could have a shorter thing, I'll agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, thank you. And I think I understand Brad's comments, because there will be some discussion, I submit, with regard to the issue of angled or skewed buildings. But I think this works to the benefit of the elucidation that comes from it. February 25, 2008 The issues that we faced and qualified and that with all of that, nevertheless it ends up with the fact that it can be administratively dealt with. And we've edited it pretty well. I think it gives the commissioners an opportunity to realize the extent of what we went into this. So I would be an advocate for keeping it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm definitely an advocate for keeping the discussion in there. I believe that it absolutely defies credulity on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the development standards table means that 251- foot buildings can essentially be built with zero lot lines. (At which time, Commissioner Adelstein enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER CARON: In fact, during the 2000 BCC hearings, Ron Nino, who was presenting at the time stated for the record that this project -- and he went into great detail about this to be visual for the entire room so that those people who just didn't understand feet and inches could also have a visual idea of what was being discussed. And he stated for the record that the project would have the same development standards as Pelican Bay relative to spacing ability. The development standards are exactly the same, he said, one-half of the sum of the height of the buildings. Neither the petitioner nor his agent bothered to correct this fact, so the board accepted it at face value. I believe, as the County Attorney said -- stated on the record, that both staff and this commission have every right to exercise good planning judgment when it comes to this matter. And I'd submit, based on my last statement, original intent as well. And I think we should exercise that right in any recommendation to the board. I am absolutely an advocate. I think if anything, I would make this six a stronger statement than what's there. But at any rate, I am Page 82 February 25, 2008 definitely in favor of keeping it in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- just briefly make a statement. The Pelican Bay PUD has provisions for the reduction of building separation when there is a common architectural theme. So Mr. Nino was correct when he made that statement. And if you were to read the Pelican Bay PUD, you would see that for common architectural theme you don't have to meet the one-half the sum of the building height. So I think to put in context what Mr. Nino said, that was true, there was a footnote to allow this to happen. I don't think it's fair to characterize those conversations that the developer or whatever staff said means that there was not the possibility for there to be a reduction in building separation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And again, what we discussed was that absolutely, Brad went into great detail about what skewing those buildings would do and how it would change the setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, I think. Brad, then we'll go to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I endorse that 100 percent. I think we should put a statement in there, and I would agree that -- I would even favor a stronger one. But we were told we could not go only so far as far as changing what had already been in there. But I certainly think expressing our opinion as to what we feel is in order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Rich. I don't know how familiar -- at the original hearing, was it pointed out that the drawings people were looking at, that the separations in the table were not met? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't there. Page 83 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use the microphone. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. I was not involved in this project during the original hearings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there anybody in the room who was there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The original 2000 PUD adoption hearing. Mr. Griffin was there. MR. GRIFFIN: There were no buildings. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But there were no buildings that I know of, or what I'm being told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD in the back of the original-- I mean, the master plan in the back of the original PUD I think was one of those typical blank PUD's that just shows "R". COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then when did the first plan that showed buildings, when was that developed? For the Bald Eagle Plan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The SDP's -- is it about three years ago? I've lost track of how many years ago we submitted the SDP's. Four years ago? When those SDP's were drafted, they were consistent with the Bald Eagle Management Plan. That's when five buildings were identified with the building separations that you see in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a consensus on whether or not we want to leave this as written or if we want to make a change to it. I'll start with Mr. Kolflat. You want to leave it in? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you want to see it altered, or do you care if it's left in or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I wanted to pull this away from the Planning Commission. I did not want them to deal with Page 84 February 25, 2008 dealing with what this footnote meant and what the other plans meant. If we do leave it in, then I certainly would like to be involved in the writing of it and would certainly be a lot stricter than the one you have in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I don't -- a lot stricter. You want to get into the debate on the meaning of the intent in the PUD. That wasn't an issue that was presented in the settlement agreement. I simply was trying to express your concerns in this. If that isn't going to work, we shouldn't be opening up a new subject that is not addressed in the settlement agreement. If this goes to that, that was never the intent. I was trying to be -- honestly, I was simply trying to make this discussion simpler by putting some reference in here that we did discuss it at length, that we had different thoughts on it, so that if the BCC wanted to consider it and it would be highlighted to them, they could further do so. If you all think this is an opening to get into items that were not in the settlement agreement, I think that's a mistake and I think we need to back it back out then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought an unbiased discussion is all I was trying to get across. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, let me ask you this: Where this became a discussion for us is when there was a version of the settlement agreement that included reducing this dimension to 100 feet. Is that something that was in -- what the commissioners were looking at originally? When they handed it off to us, was that in there? MR. KLATZKOW: I thought that was new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't matter. Page 85 February 25, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the reason this went to you all in the first place is we added that language to the settlement agreement to clarify building separation. And when that language was added, that's when it was sent back to you. That language is out now. So I would assume had we not put that language in in the first place, we never would have found our way to the Planning Commission. Because that was the language that was added that basically sent us here. So you guys have recommended to this point take that language out, leave whatever the PUD language is. Staff says that our SDP's are consistent with the PUD. And I believe, although you may disagree with that, Mr. Schiffer, you've said that's a staff decision, let's move on with life. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I didn't get an answer to my question. Was that wording looking for a reduction in the separation between buildings in the version that the commissioners had that they sent to us? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. That wording was in that version -- MR. GRIFFIN: It was taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And see, Brad, if you read the dissertation here, it leads up to the conclusion that we said drop the language, take it out, leave the interpretation up to the staff and the PUD. My discussion here was not to take sides, but simply to tell the BCC our reasoning for requesting that that sentence be taken out or that reference be taken out of the settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the answer is yes, before the commissioners' eyes that was in there before it came to us, then we have to respond to it. If it wasn't, if it's something that you put in after that and then we took out and they're not aware of it, then we don't have to respond to it, in my mind. Page 86 February 25,2008 So if we know for sure, Jeff -- do we know? Is there a way we could see for sure? MR. KLATZKOW: Rich was in this process before I came here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we have to answer it. We have to write a paragraph that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Schiffer, they saw that language, and then we did delete it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then we've got to talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have a transcript of Commissioner Coyle's remarks at the November 27th meeting in which he put forward the charge that we should do at this Planning Commission. And basically there were five points that I could summarize that are in there. One is are there any disadvantages to the county contained within the settlement agreement. Two, what are the potential impacts of the settlement agreement on our Land Development Code and its interpretation. Three, what are the provisions in the settlement agreement likely to do both positive and/or negative. Four, a look at larger issues. Seems to me that those guidelines and those directions offer us the opportunity to make an expression of how we feel about these building heights, even though it wasn't out of the previous PUD. And I would certainly endorse the comments made so far that we should address that issue, since we were asked to comment on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember seeing Commissioner Coy Ie make his statement as well, and remember his -- what locked into my mind was that his intent was to find out Page 87 February 25,2008 everything we could about everything we could so that they would have a better vetted document to work with and be a better conclusion. Now, as to expressing our opinions, the problem I perceive is that we may very well all have different opinions and it's difficult to express that unless we want to do a point counterpoint. My view is that this was a summary, this language that was prepared was a summary that we went through and the conclusion that was reached, whether we particularly liked it or not. And I would be just as happy leaving it the way it is. If we could find another way to make it stronger, we might be doing another two or four hours. Because I think this is what we spent most of our time on -- well, perhaps not most -- but an awful lot of time on the last time and never was able to reach a good conclusion because of the -- we were stopped by the simple statement where buildings with a common architectural theme, da, da, da, da. So that's my statement. I don't know whether it supports everybody, but that's my view. I think we ought to stay with what we have here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent of this statement for all of you again was simply to try to express to the BCC how we got to the last sentence which says basically remove the reference to the separation from the settlement agreement. And that was the conclusion I thought we had all come to at that point. Having that in mind, number six, does the majority of this commission feel it needs to be changed or left as it is? And I would like to propose that in a straw vote. I mean, I don't know how you call -- I guess you could call it whatever you want. Those of us that can accept it the way it is written, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. MR. MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) Page 88 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three four. Those who wish to see it changed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we discuss what we would change, Mark? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. But the point is that I think we want to keep a dissertation leading to a conclusion here. Not get in-- not necessarily get into the merits of whether or not the PUD's language is correct or incorrect. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd be happy with it if -- in the lower paragraph on the first page you get into a discussion about the accessory buildings. I would like you to strike that. That has nothing to do with the issue. So where it starts in addition and go down to, you know, the accessory structures are less than two stories in height, just kill all that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that goes down to the word however? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go down to the word do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. Oh, okay, so from the word in addition -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the word do. You're suggesting we strike those two sentences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that basically is a discussion about accessory structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 89 February 25, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't have a problem with that. Again, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep them focused on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then that last thing is the alternate redesign of the site plan, that's nothing to do with us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now where are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Turn the page on the last this. I would recommend striking that. That's something they can discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it doesn't matter to me. Anybody have any problem striking that? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought that was a good comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too. I thought it helped explain why we made our decision, Brad, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't remember us ever discussing that, but did we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, maybe we didn't then. Ifwe didn't want to -- it doesn't matter to me whether it's in. It's up to you guys. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leave it in there, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One in. Donna, in or out? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should be in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there is other alternates to the design of the site, that's what's not fair about it. Better alternates that would not cause moving the towers towards the street. Page 90 February 25,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's -- that's probably the one thing -- paragraph that Brad should write, if there are other alternatives to doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they could do the spacing. I mean, but anyway, in other words, I don't think we should be designing the site plan for them alternately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think it -- this wasn't an attempt to do that. It was just to suggest a solution if the BCC wanted one, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Rich I'm sure will point it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if it's in or out. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd leave it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want it in. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat's-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're going to want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you've got everybody but yourself wanting -- I mean, I personally don't care, so you got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, leave it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The commissioners want more information, not less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'll strike the two sentences on the reference in the accessory facilities, and then I'll move on to paragraph -- then paragraph seven. This is the one about submerged lands. That's been taken out. Paragraph eight talks about the single-family homes and how we had to add standards for those. And paragraph nine is the standards needed to -- because accessory structures had to be addressed. And that's the major bullet points that I had thought were -- Page 91 February 25, 2008 needed to be highlighted, in addition to all the strike-throughs and changes we're going to be recommending to the BCC. Is everybody sufficiently comfortable with that at this point? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, if! can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- keeping it in context with what Mr. Schiffer said. The board never saw the submerged land paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That became an issue after the BCC delivery to you all, if my memory's correct. That came up after it was sent to you all and someone raised the issue of doing the recalculation. So I don't know if you want to put -- that may just confuse the issue on that paragraph, since it was never raised to the BCC through a version of the settlement agreement that they've seen. I just bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It wasn't raised in the settlement agreement itself until -- and I don't know who it was asked that it be put there. However, there was long discussion about it at the BCC during that public hearing. So I think the commissioners are well aware of it and I think leaving it in there is -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just when they go to compare, what did they originally see versus the strike-through and underlined you deliver. They're going to say why is this struck through on the later version when we never saw it on the earlier version. That's the only reason I bring that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you could explain it away too, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd be happy to. I'll try to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to follow up on? Page 92 February 25, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just that it shouldn't be precluded because of that. And I grant you, it might make it a little more difficult for you, Richard, but I think that they asked us to vet it, and if we found things, even though they hadn't seen them, I'm pretty sure that's what Commissioner Coyle stated he wanted done and the rest of the commissioners agreed with him. So that's my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I've made notes on this document as we've gone along and I'll make the changes to it and forward it to Mr. Kolflat -- I mean Mr. Klatzkow. And I can do that within the next day or so. And Mr. Klatzkow at lunch said that he could get most of the other documents completed by the end of the week, he could send them back out with the changes so that we could have it well reviewed before our consent agenda item. The consent agenda, as you recall, is simply to acknowledge that the changes made were consistent with today's meeting. So we need to vote on what we've decided on here today or what we've talked about here today. And the vote would simply be an acknowledgement that the changes that we've received on the settlement agreement and those on the amended PUD, subject to those directions given to the county legal staff today, and as well as the summary discussion presented you, subject to the changes you've asked me to make, is approved to be recommended to the BCC for their review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now, is there discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're recommending for their reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're sending it to them. They asked us Page 93 February 25, 2008 to review it, we're sending it to them for their further review with our comments. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all. And I think that's all we have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: March 6th, yeah, we'll have a consent agenda item like we have set policy for. It will be an acknowledgement that the corrections were made and then that will be done. So with that, does anybody else have any closing comments to this meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti made a motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 94 February 25,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you all. ****** There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:36 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 95