Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/28/2008 GMP March 28, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP AMENDMENT MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 28, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein (Absent) Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Bob Murray Brad Schiffer David 1. Wolfley Robert Vigliotti (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney David Weeks, Planning Manager Page 1 REVISED AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA. NOTE: NO LA TER THAN 3:00 PM, THE CCPC INTENDS TO ADJOURN THE HEARING, THEN RE-CONVENE A T 6:00 PM TO HEAR ITEMS 4.8. AND 4.C. NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CP-2006-1, [RE-ADVERTISED FOR 5:05 P.M. ON MARCH 24, 2008 AT THE IMMOKALEE CAREER & SERVICES CENTER, 750 SOUTH 5th STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142.] Petition requesting an amendment to the 1m okalee Area Ma ter Plan an Immok I e Area Master Plan Futur Land Us Ma and Ma Series (IAMP/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use District/Low Residential Subdistrict to Urban-Commercial District/Commerce Park at Silver Strand Subdistrict to allow Business Park zoning district uses; Industrial uses; select uses from the General Commercial (C-4) and Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts; and uses allowed within the General Office (C-1), Commercial Convenience (C-2) and Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, not to exceed 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, on property located on the East side of Immokalee Road, approximately Yo mile south of Stockade Road, in Section 15, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, consisting of 164.87% acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, A1CP, Principal Planner) B. CP-2006-2, [HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER] Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Mast r Plan includin the olden Gate Ar a Master Plan Future Land Use Ma and Ma Series (GGAMP/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Residential Estates and Neighborhood Center Subdistricts to NEW Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict, to allow commercial land uses consistent with the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code at a maximum intensity of 225,000 square feet, for property located at the NW corner of Golden Gate & Wilson Boulevards, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 40.6% acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) - 1 - C. CP-2006-5, [TO BE HEARD AT 6:00 P.M.] Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), to change Conditional Uses Subdistrict by adding subject site as an exception to locational criteria so as to allow expansion of the existing church use on the adjacent property onto the subject property, located on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, 1/3 mile north of Golden Gate Parkway, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 3.54% acres. [Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) D. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinG the Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to the (NEW) Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, to allow a clubhouse not to exceed 20,000 square feet and up to 26,000 square feet of commercial uses consistent with the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5% acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] E. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinG the Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to the (NEW) Airport/Orange Blossom Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, to allow up to 50,000 square feet of commercial uses consistent with the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road, 330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drive and adjacent to south of Italian American Club, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5% acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] F. CP-2006-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinG the Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Open to Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for property located west of Lake Trafford in the RLSA, in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 191.80% acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) G. CP-2006-10, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinG the Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Open to Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for property located east of Immokalee in the RLSA and within the Area of Critical State Concern, in Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27, Township 46 South, Range 30 East, consisting of 2,431.80% acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) H. CPSP-2006-12, [TO BE CONTINUED] Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use MaD (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use District/Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Conservation Designation, and make correlating text change to reference a new map of the site, for the County-owned Mar-Good Park property located on Goodland, adjoining Pettit Drive, Pear Tree Avenue, and Papaya Street, in Section 18, Township 27, Range 52, consisting of 2.5:t acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) I. CPSP-2006-13, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series IFLUE/FLUMl. CaDitallmDrovement Element. TransDortation Element and MaDs. Recreation and ODen SDace Element. Economic Element. and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use MaD Series. to change the allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates; to extend the Transfer of Development Rights early entry bonus in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; and, to make corrections of omissions and errors and other housecleaning revisions so as to harmonize and update various sections. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) 13. ADJOURN 3/17/08 CCPC AGENDA TO CONSIDER 2006 CYCLE GMPAs DW/MK -2 - March 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There you go. Kady, you must be watching. Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to the March 28th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a continuation of the Growth Management Plan amendments. We have two ofthem today, Items 12 and 13. Before we get into the meeting, if you'll all rise please 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 KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. As far as addenda to the agenda, we're simply going to address Page 2 March 28, 2008 the two GMP amendments today. David, I don't believe there's anything else that needs to be added. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next meeting will be next Thursday. The packets went out yesterday. I don't know if you've received them yet. But is everybody that's here today planning on being here next Thursday? Anybody know they're not going to be? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will not able to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray will not be. Anybody else? (No response.) Item #4 H PETITION: CPSP-2006-12 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will move into the first item. It's CPSP-2006-12, and it's the Mar-Good Park Growth Management Plan amendment. It's on Goodland. We don't do swearing in or disclosure today, so we'll start off with staff presentation. Or David, if you want to have any opening comments from the comprehensive planning section? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department for the county. Just to mention, as I usually do, this is a transmittal hearing; as Page 3 March 28, 2008 you've already stated, a continuation from the March 17th hearing for the 2006 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments. After the transmittal hearing for those petitions that are approved by the board for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, it will come back in a few months for adoption hearing. And there is a sign-up sheet out in the hallway on the table outside this room. That is for the purpose of any interested person to sign it. And by doing so, the Florida Department of Community Affairs will send a courtesy notice advising of when they have issued their notice of intent to find the adopted amendments in effect -- excuse me, in compliance or not in compliance with state law. I think that's enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. And whoever is representing staff, if you want to proceed with your presentation. MR. SMITH: Good morning. For the record my name is Murdo Smith from the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department. I have along with me Tony Ruberto, who's our director of project management, and Vickie Ahmad, who's the project manager for this site. As David had mentioned to you, this petition request is a change of the Future Land Use Map designation of the property from urban designation, urban mixed use district, urban coastal fringe subdistrict to conservation designation. What we can do is we can go through and give you a demonstration of where the site is. It's on Goodland. It's on Pear Street. And Tony Ruberto can come up and we can give you a short overview of what the plan is for the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RUBERTO: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, sir. MR. RUBERTO: For the record, my name is Tony Ruberto, Page 4 March 28, 2008 senior project manager for parks and recreation. I just want to start with just giving you an outline of the site the way it is right now. Basically the black lines represent the fence, which is to secure the -- mainly the buildings. And actually, all we've done to date is we did install a new playground on the left side of the building, which will become a museum. As you see, up on the right side is one building right to the right by itself. Keep going, Murdo. Yeah, that one there. That would be one. Then directly north and to the west there's a group of four more buildings. And then -- those ones there is four more. So it's basically eight buildings plus the one we just shown. Museum, which is now attached to a group of toilets, restrooms. Basically the -- I guess with budget restrain, what we're looking at right now is going into phase. So the first phase would be -- if you don't mind, Murdo, just bring the conceptual plan. As you see right now, this will be the conceptual plan where we're going to have parking to the right of the museum building. The building to the right mayor may not stay there, depending again on funding. The group where it says homestead to the top, right now we're looking to keep the four buildings. The ones to the -- directly to the south and to the west of that, right now we're looking to either move them or possibly don't have them at all. The four that we are keeping has some historical data on it. The other ones, depending on the cost to renovate them, et cetera, we might keep one or they might all be eliminated. As far as along the water itself, I think it will be the second phase where we're going to have a couple fishing docks, pavilions; we're going to work to give them a little beach area. And then the rest will be just new pavilions. We're going to have some -- I believe some bocce courts, some kind of low profile type of games for people to Page 5 March 28, 2008 use. And it's basically going to be a passive park. And that's about it, as far as the conceptual -- proposed conceptual plan. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain to us why we're here today on this issue? Meaning parks are generally allowed in the urban area. This is a comprehensive plan amendment. I understand what the staff report said, but it would be nice to have it on the record verbally, too. MR. SMITH: Yes, with the agreement or the grant and so forth that we got from the Florida Community Trust, it is in there that this is a requirement of that grant application that we go for this conservation designation. Because we purchased this property with the grant from the Florida Community Trust back in 2005 from the Combs (phonetic) family. And as part of that stipulation in the grant, that was one of the requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a few. So let's -- are you familiar with the staff report that was written? MR. SMITH: I have read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 7 of the staff report there's a discussion under remarks, concerns and questions vetted by the public. Major issues and contentions. Number one was short-term security of the existing buildings was a concern voiced, currently fenced and locked. What is the status of your short-term security solution for the Page 6 March 28, 2008 public down there? MR. SMITH: Right now, like as mentioned in the report, the site has been fenced. We've got the buildings secured. Facilities management went down there and secured all the buildings. What they did is they barricaded the doors and the windows and so forth. And can I say that's been an issue with some vandals? Yes, they have gone down and done some, you know, damage to the -- in trying to get into the facilities. But there again, we have park rangers and we have maintenance people who go down there on a daily basis. And if there's any damage, if we can repair it we do it. Ifnot, we get facilities to come down and repair it. But there hasn't been any significant damage. Just like, you know, trying to get in the buildings, busting some of the wood and that off the doors, and we put it back on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The playground that you mentioned that was already improved on the property, is that accessible? MR. SMITH: Yes, it's accessible from two locations: One is the Papaya Street and also Pear Street. You can get into the playground from Pear. There's a fence with a gate that goes into the playground and then there's a gate that goes out of the playground into the park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's no locked fence around that, it's open to the public. MR. SMITH: Yes, that part is open to the public. And also on Papaya Street. It is locked at night by residents down there who go down there and lock it for us from the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Community also asked to know when the timing for development of the park was. And I -- again, I know your answer was July, 2010. Is that still the date that you're expecting? MR. SMITH: Yes, that's the date we're shooting for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then they asked for the protection of -- the artifacts currently stored in the former Mar-Good Store was of concern. How is that being handled? Page 7 March 28, 2008 MR. SMITH: We had our park naturalist and Amanda Townsend, who was instrumental in getting us the grant from the Florida Community Trust go down there and meet with the -- Alhan (phonetic) and his wife, Mrs. Combs, and they went through all the artifacts that were in the building, made a -- what should I say -- a list of all the artifacts. And we are in the process of getting our staff to go down there and take the good artifacts that they designated and remove them to a different site at the present time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you found a -- according to the staff report, you were looking for a good temporary place, so you found a place for them to be stored? MR. SMITH: Well, we're looking at a place, but it's basically going to be up here where we have some storage units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ability to have concessions was an issue that was raised. I know you're restricted by your grant, that concessions have to be controlled by Collier County. MR. SMITH: Yes, but that was a concern they had, that they just wanted to know if we could have a concession there. And I believe Tom answered the question, that it would be feasible within the grant application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number six, I guess they -- several present asked if the county would allow overnight boat parking, to which staff responded by saying that the county code would have to be changed to allow that. Your grant specifically prohibits that, so how would you change a code to change the grant? MR. SMITH: We normally don't have overnight parking, and at the time that this was mentioned, I don't believe the person, which was me, had gone through the whole grant and looked at the application. I did realize that after I did read it. So we would not be having overnight boat parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Two persons asked about the ability to allow temporary docking space for canoes, dinghies and Page 8 March 28, 2008 sailboats and similar small craft to permit those for use along the stores in Goodland. Again, I think you would be restricted by the grant only to kayaks, canoes and non-motorized vessels; is that correct? MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got a few more. I'mjust taking off the ones you've already answered, so -- MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the grant, you were supposed to have an SDP submitted by July of 2006 and a completed to be by July, 2007. Where are you with that? MR. SMITH: Tony? I'd have to ask Tony Ruberto to answer that question. MR. RUBERTO: Well, whatever late in the past, we should have -- we actually fell behind with whatever the scenario was in the past, Mr. Chairman. Right now we're looking to hire a civil engineer within possibly next month. The scope of work has actually been changed to -- you know, I guess to accommodate the fund that's available to Parks and Rec. right now. So right now we're looking once the engineer's on board, probably going to have a preap. and then the SDP should be submitted probably by the middle to the end of summer of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your agreement expired on June 1st, 2005, unless extended by a demonstration by you that significant process is being made toward the project plan approval. Do you have any evidence that this was extended from the June 1st, 2005 expiration date that's in the grant that was sent to me just recently by your department? MR. RUBERTO: That, I don't. I would have to find that information for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like you to do that before Page 9 March 28, 2008 the adoption hearing. If that would -- if you can. If you can't, then it will probably affect my vote on the adoption hearing for sure. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Strain, I believe that there was an extension to it, but we will definitely get it for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. You also were supposed to create a series of deed restrictions on the property in line with the grant that had to be enacted at the time of completion of the improvements. Which obviously the time frames lagged on. But in anticipation of that, have you created the deed restrictions yet, or drafted those? MR. SMITH: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll have to get back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you find out before the adoption hearing? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I understand that according to the grant you're going to have a staffed nature center. So I don't know if your budget allowance has included all the various items. And there are 17 of them in the grant that you have to meet in order to use the funds from the grant. And I would hope that maybe by the adoption hearing you can confirm that we're certainly going to be able to budget those and meet those? MR. SMITH: Yes. It says in there the park naturalist will be in charge of running the museum and so forth. We have a park naturalist on staff right now that we will be having run that facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you run into problems with funding the improvements, because you've got a nice conceptual plan for a series of improvements, they exceed the value of the grant. How do you intend to fund the balance? MR. SMITH: We would have to take a look at that and come up with a budget plan. Right now I don't know how that would be done. Page 10 March 28, 2008 Possibly we could use 346 Fund, which is impact fees for growth related issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that something you could look at and report back to us before -- MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the adoption hearing? MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll leave these items open on my sheet so I'll be sure to ask them when we come back. MR. SMITH: Sure. Could you tell me when that meeting is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you know approximately? MR. WEEKS: Probably August or September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got -- in fact, by then you may have your SDP plan somewhat gelled up and we can see it. MR. SMITH: Hopefully we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We look forward to that. Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, mine is on what is the boundary. The drawing you're showing up there, the survey, that has a property to the south that's not showing up in the subject site drawing that's on the monitor. Is that part of this change in -- MR. RUBERTO: The overflow parking I don't believe is in the MR. SMITH: This area I believe was -- this was a plan that was drawn up to submit for the grant, and I don't believe that this overflow parking 30 cars is in the location at the present time. We do not have the ability for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Kolflat, then Ms. Caron. Page 11 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: About how many people attended the neighborhood information meeting? MR. SMITH: The first meeting we had was approximately -- there was 35 people there. The second meeting we had, there was probably 17 or 18 people. A lot of them were the same people who came to the first meeting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just you said that that overflow parking area was part of the grant application. So is it contingent, since it's not part of the -- MR. SMITH: No, I don't believe so. That was just a preliminary plan that was brought up. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this transmittal issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. David, is there any public speakers registered? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything else; does staff want to add anything else to it, or we're at the point of all the input we need? MR. WEEKS: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a recommendation to support transmittal to the BCC? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion to move Page 12 March 28, 2008 Petition CPSP-2006-12 with a recommendation to approve for transmittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'd like to ask, gentlemen, is that you please respond to those questions I put on the record when the adoption hearing comes through. MR. SMITH: We definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Item #4 I PETITION: CPSP-2006-l3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item is -- I've got to find the page -- Petition CPSP-2006-l3. This is an internal request from staff for a variety of different changes to the GMP. Some of them Page 13 March 28, 2008 scriveners error, some of them cleanup, some of them actual changes. And David, it's all yours. MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. Commissioners, many of these changes, as noted in the staff report, are truly cleanup changes; changes that are necessary to maintain internal consistency within the Growth Management Plan. In some cases during the EAR-based Growth Management Plan amendments we inadvertently deleted some text, or I think in one or two instances retained some text that we should not have. And that goes back to the nature of those amendments where if you make one change in one place it affects some other location in the plan. In some cases we just simply did not catch that coordination. And so this is to rectify those circumstances. Other instances, I noted two particularly in the staff report which I would definitely say are of substance. Of course this commission may disagree. You might think more of these are. But those two particular ones that I've identified are found on Pages 11 and 12 in your staff report -- excuse me, 12 and 17. I'll mention one on 11 as well as a third one that might be viewed as a change of substance. At the top of Page 11, this is under the density rating system, the traffic congestion area, which is a boundary identified on the Future Land Use Element -- Future Land Use Map, excuse me -- that is subject to long-range traffic congestion. That is in the very long-term view, no matter what improvements that the county is able to make, it's viewed that that is an area subject to congestion. Due to physical and social constraints, there's just so many new roads that can be built or road widening projects that can occur. And there's a defined -- it's both mapped and it's also stated, as you can read here in the text, what that boundary is. As you know, the coastal urban area, that big yellow area on the map, essentially runs from about a mile east of County Road 951, Page 14 March 28, 2008 Collier Boulevard, over to the west, to the Gulf. But there are some outlying urban areas: Copeland, Port of the Islands, Chokoloskee and Plantation Island. All of those are several miles removed from the Collier Boulevard and westerly portion of the urban area of the county. The density rating system nonetheless does apply to those outlying urban areas; that is, both the bonus provisions and then arguably this traffic congestion area reduction. In staffs opinion, it is not appropriate to apply this reduction factor to those outlying urban areas. Again, they are many miles removed from the balance of the coastal urban area, they are not subject to the same types of traffic constraints. Social and physical constraints for improvements, but also the traffic congestion that we typically experience over here in the coastal urban area. For that reason, staff has proposed this language that explicitly states that those outlying urban areas are not subject to the traffic congestion area reduction. I would also note as an aside but relevant that these outlying urban areas are not areas that are experiencing a lot of rezoning actions. As you well know, that's typically over here in the coastal urban area along Collier Boulevard and westerly. These areas for the most part are zoned and simply developing per their existing zone. So that's one area of potential substance. On Page 12, this is one of the two areas staff identified as being a substantive change. Middle of the page, this is text that pertains to the transfer of development rights program in the rural fringe mixed use district. And that program includes a variety ofTDR bonuses, one of which is the early entry bonus. Due to the current economic conditions that the county and for that matter the country is experiencing, there's far less participation, I won't say none, but far less participation in the TDR program at Page 15 March 28, 2008 present. And it was requested of the Board of County Commissioners, under a public petition, I believe, that the early entry bonus be extended. And the County Commissioners gave staff direction to initiate this amendment to extend that early entry bonus by five years. And that's what this text provides for. And then on Page 17, now we're under the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Similarly an item that went before the Board of County Commissioners, and they gave direction to staff to initiate this amendment. This pertains to the provision for model homes in Golden Gate Estates. Right now the way the language reads is that a temporary use permit can be granted for a model home for no more than three years, and that coincides with the Land Development Code provision. And then after that period a conditional use has to be requested for the model home to remain. The Land Development Code has no time limitation. That conditional use could be granted for whatever time period that the county commission should find appropriate. However, this provision in the Golden Gate Master Plan provides that that conditional use could be granted for no more than two years. So a total life span of a model home in Golden Gate Estates could be no more than five years, period. What this provision does is carve out an exception for model homes that will be located adjacent to Collier Boulevard. And again, that was a board direction. And with that, Commissioners, I'm available for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions ofMr. Weeks? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, on Page 15, under affordable housing, it's that last sentence you want to add that establishes the 150 percent. Is that necessary? Wouldn't it be best just Page 16 March 28, 2008 leaving it up to the ordinance itself, the density bonus? In other words, why did you add that in there? For example, in the bonus we might drop that. I don't think we'll raise it, but -- MR. WEEKS: First of all, this provision is being added to be consistent with the same language that was adopted in the Future Land Use Element. This is new to this element, but it's not new to the GMP. So it's simply to be consistent with an existing provision in the Future Land Use Element. As to your question about changing it, if we don't -- whatever change we make here, that is, if we choose not to, then we'll need to go back to the Future Land Use Element and change that as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that last sentence is in the FLUE, so -- MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of David? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a general question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This doesn't pertain to any specific in here. Well, it does, but I can't remember where it is right at the moment. But the question came to mind, this board -- and I thought it had been completed that we would -- that the coastal high hazard area, that we would not have affordable housing. It appeared to me in something I read here that that's -- that never got through, huh? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. During the EAR-based amendments to the GMP, both this body and the Board of County Commissioners recommended and enacted at the transmittal hearing that we do just as you stated. And in fact that we impose a cap of four units per acre with no exceptions in the coastal high hazard area. And the board's vote was 3-2, which is all it takes at transmittal. When it came time for adoption hearing, which requires a super majority vote, Page 17 March 28, 2008 or 4-1, the county commissioners realized that there was no change in anyone's position, so the vote was going to fail. That is, to try to adopt the same language that was transmitted. So what happened is the coastal high hazard area cap did not get imposed. The density rating system for the urban coastal fringe subdistrict, which is a portion of coastal high hazard area, remained the same. So that density bonus for affordable housing is still available. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because I didn't remember seeing it in an ORC report so I -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Under that same subdistrict, is the transfer of development rights that's being added based on whatever page you were just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. COMMISSIONER CARON: 12. Is that where that's coming from? MR. WEEKS: No. The -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have two different exhibits here. I have something that's headed Exhibit A. And on Page 6 of Exhibit A is urban coastal fringe subdistrict. And added language three quarters of the way under that paragraph under paragraph three that says, except as allowed in the density rating system to exceed four units per acre through provision of affordable housing and transfer of development rights. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And in the staff report, that's found on Page 10, starts on 9 and runs over to 10. These are two exceptions that goes back to the EAR-based amendments where the board did not impose the cap. Staff then should have not stricken the language that you see being added back in here. Because the two go hand-in-hand. So if they impose the cap at four units per acre with no Page 18 March 28, 2008 exceptions, then this language that you see underlined should have been removed. Well, they did not impose it, but yet staff did not catch that and it went ahead and got struck out and removed. COMMISSIONER CARON: So TDR's, transfer development rights, was in the original language that -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes. And -- yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Well, the -- I want to make sure it's clear that the four dwelling units per acre is the cap. The only way to exceed it is the affordable housing density bonus or the TDR bonus. And this TDR bonus is the -- I'll call the old or the pre rural fringe TDR bonus. We have two separate TDR programs: One for the rural fringe area and then this one here that is a component of the density rating system in the urban area that has been preexisting since plan adoption in 1989. COMMISSIONER CARON: And is it -- can they -- are they cumulative? Are they added on top of one another? MR. WEEKS: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So it's whatever your base density is plus whatever you can get for affordable housing, plus whatever TDR's you can get? MR. WEEKS: Correct. And on that point ofTDR's, since the plan was adopted in 1989, the TDR bonus has been used only once. COMMISSIONER CARON: On that next page, Page 7 of this Exhibit A, I just wanted to make a correction. At the top of the page under where you've said, but exclusive of outlined urban designated areas. And then if you go down two lines it says, if their only access is to a read. I think that's supposed to be a road. MR. WEEKS: It certainly is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything's else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 19 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. And I apologize, I seem to have lost my notes here. But regarding the model homes, specifically along Collier Boulevard, I read this, what you said, that model homes can exist along Collier Boulevard infini -- forever? The same model home? MR. WEEKS: They can unless the county commission in approving the conditional use imposes a time limit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. It just looks to me as though we are kind of coming in the back door and creating a whole commercial corridor there, since model homes are essentially a commercial entity. Many ofthose homes have already been sold off, and then -- but that's what concerned me. And I don't know if the neighborhood realizes this. MR. WEEKS: I believe that was the very reason that the restudy committee for the Golden Gate Master Plan back around 2003 or so recommended the limitation of the five-year total. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, right. Two years, then three. MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So now you're saying that the model homes that are left along Collier Boulevard can stay forever? I mean, I just want to be sure. I read that and it almost seemed like you're opening up commercial along there with no permitting -- or no conditional uses. MR. WEEKS: That's true, that it would be opened up. And just as a point of information, Golden Gate Estates is the only area that is treated this way presently that has a time limitation. At any other location a model home has no time restriction. So this is -- in that sense it's putting the 951 corridor in line with how other areas are dealt with. Another distinction is that most model homes are placed within a particular development or subdivision, and it's of a much smaller size Page 20 March 28, 2008 than Golden Gate Estates. You put your model home and your PUD or whatever your subdivision may be, and you achieve your build-out of "X" number of units, a few hundred or so, and you're done. And of course you have no reason for a model home to remain there. Golden Gate Estates of course is different. It's a huge subdivision, and a lot -- the build-out for that subdivision of course is over a period of decades, not the normal circumstance for a subdivision. But you're absolutely right, this is going to allow model homes along the 951 corridor, unless the board again on a case-by-case basis imposes a time restriction to remain there for an unknown -- an undetermined -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Unlimited. MR. WEEKS: -- open-ended amount of time. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. It was just -- my segue into that, is this opening up the door for Golden Gate Boulevard to become the same? Because there are model homes up and down there. MR. WEEKS: That's certainly a possibility. I mean, it could occur along any corridor, if the board so chooses. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And going back, were there any neighborhood meetings on this? I mean, do the neighbors down those one-mile roads know that this is occurring, that they're becoming permanently commercial? MR. WEEKS: No. Neighborhood information meetings are only required for site specific plan amendments. And so -- due to the broad nature of this amendment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So every time one company comes in and wants to put a model home there, then there would have to be a NIM? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Well, when they come in for the conditional use -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, yes, yes. Page 21 March 28, 2008 MR. WEEKS: -- once they've exceeded the three years of the temporary use permit, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to follow up quick, Dave, on that. If another builder bought the site, can he tear down the home down and put another model home there, or would he have to go through the process from the beginning? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow, good question. MR. WEEKS: You're referring to the 951 corridor or outside of COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The corridor here, what we're discussing. Or even that same developer, could he tear down the house and freshen his model with a new version? MR. WEEKS: Well, on the 951 corridor, if this is adopted, there would be no time limit at least imposed by the plan. Again, I have to keep saying that the Board of County Commissioners has the discretion when they approve a conditional use to impose a time limit. So when they do not then yes, a model home, once it's there, could change hands and continue its life, or you could tear the model home down and build a new one. And again, it could be there in theory forever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially it becomes a model home site in perpetuity. MR. WEEKS: That's possible, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to add to that. I observed that meeting where the petitioner happened to be a Page 22 March 28, 2008 model home -- a person who sells homes. And that was among the questions that were asked by the commissioners were whether or not the person -- the company would be responsible to maintain the premises and to modify it, et cetera, et cetera. And that was included in that, that they would be able to modify as long as they stayed on the footprint, as I recall, and bring it up to date to today's standards tomorrow, whatever. So it really was intended to allow them to be there for a long, long time. So if that helps anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on any parts of this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I just can't let you go that easy. MR. WEEKS: I was waiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with Page 4. Travel demand. The intent here seems to be add five years to the financially feasible plan, needs plan. How do we add five years to a transportation plan but the money remains the same? It's on Page 4 of the staff report under -- all the way to the bottom. It says that, while the total -- and it used to say 2025 -- and the proposal is to go to 2030, needs are estimated to require funding of approximately $1.7 billion. The cost feasible plan reflects funding of approximately $1.5 billion. Well, if we can go for five years without spending another dime, why don't we start that process now? Do you know why transportation would have that discrepancy in there? MR. WEEKS: I think I do. And I think it's going to fall back to our department. I think we failed to catch that. And obviously you have an excellent point. We need to check with transportation division and find out what that revised number should be. Because you're right, there's no way you could change a time period without changing the funding requirements. With the Page 23 March 28, 2008 presumption that with that five-year addition there's going to be additional road needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I know that if you go back and tell them that gee, we want to see more money added for the initial five years, let's make a deal, Nick will jump for that. So I'm sure he'll come back with a greater number, but maybe they could find a way to save money, if it's possible. I wonder if Nick's listening. On the top of the page they're talking about developing measures to close a $.2 billion shortfall. I would like to understand, because it dovetails into this increased cost that another five years would have, is how feasible DCA's will be when DCA's are dropping out a little bit. Now, for example, we just saw bankruptcy notices in this paper this past weekend for TOUSA, T-O-U-S-A. I believe they have a DCA connecting Whippoorwill to Livingston Road, upon which other developments were approved by this project. Those kind of things are concerning. And I hope that when they give you a number that we start looking at what happens when -- or how we're going to apply for things like that. On Page 5, you have a future traffic circulation map series. And David, if you turn to the back of the follow-up text, the supporting text, there are two maps provided. And they are titled 2030 long-range plan transportation plan. And one is a constrained financially feasible plan and the other's a highway needs plan, both for the year 2030. I don't know about roads in all parts of the county, but I certainly know about roads coming close to home. And there are two roads in here. Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, going all the way out to DeSoto, and Green Boulevard going all the way out to Everglades Boulevard. Now, I looked on the aerial maps before I came here, and I can't Page 24 March 28, 2008 see a corridor for those road systems that doesn't take out homes. So before I could support approval of a transmittal like this, I would want to make sure -- or I want to know what the feasibility of these are in regards to removing houses. And also what it means to approve this 2030 plan in light of the corridor thoroughfare plan that we approved -- or that I know some objected to, but Nick was successful in seeing it approved the last go-around. And if this is the intent by submitting a plan like this and saying these are now your thoroughfares or corridors, I'm not sure this was properly vetted in the public, and that would be my concern on that one. On Page 12 you brought up the issue of the TDR bonus. And I know 2013, eight years, we're going from three to eight because of the economy. Yesterday morning's paper, it didn't seem like the economy was affecting us too much by the fact that we're one of the boom areas of the country. I don't think eight years is an appropriate timeframe; I think it's way too long. So my suggestion would be to reduce that to a max -- to two more years instead of five more years. But that's just one person's suggestion, and I'll certainly withhold my vote and -- as an acknowledgment that I don't agree with it. On Page 16, you're talking about essential services, conditional use provisions. And these are in Golden Gate Estates. The former section of the code was 2.6.9.2. When the code changed it got moved. You're referencing Section 2.01.03. I don't believe that's the right section. I think you need 2.01.03(G), because the former section, 2.6.9.2 pertained only to conditional uses. 2.01.03 pertains to essential uses with a follow-up as G of conditional uses. And I would rather not change the intent of that paragraph by opening up that entire new section, but minimizing it to the exact same Page 25 March 28, 2008 section that was referenced in the old code. You would need to add a G on the end of .03. MR. WEEKS: We'll certainly check that, Commissioner. Our intent is as you stated it should be, and that is to make sure that it's just taking apples to apples. Here's what the old code provision said, find that exact same provision in the new code and reference it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went through your backup documentation that you supplied, and a lot of it mirrors some of the stuff I just said, so I won't repeat it. But you have -- on Exhibit A you have Page 7, which again refers to this early entry TDR bonus. And there's one -- and it's the same language you had previously. I don't know why I didn't catch it in the other one. But the way it reads is an early entry TDR bonus shall be available in the form of one additional TDR credit for each base TDR credit severed from sending lands from March 5th, 2004 onward for a period of eight years after the adoption of the LDC amendment implementing this provision or until September 27th, 2013. Now, why do you have a date in there? Eight years from March 5th, 2004, the date that you provided is longer than the eight years. I'm just wondering how we got there. MR. WEEKS: I'll have to verify this, but I believe the March 5th date, I believe that's referring to the effective date of the GMP amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the word onward, though, seems to tie to the March 5th, '04 date. MR. WEEKS: Right. Whereas, the five-year -- I believe the GMP amendment went into effect in March. Again, I'll have to verify that. And then the LDC amendment would have occurred sometime after that. But I think what was attempting to occur is to go back to the GMP effective date and carry forward. But I'll have to verify that. I know the -- and that's not your question, but I want to make Page 26 March 28, 2008 sure it's clear, that the September 27th, 2013 is reflecting an extension of time period from the LDC amendment date. That is, the LDC amendment would have been in effect on September 27th of an earlier year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MR. WEEKS: But I'll check on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the way this reads, it would seem like it would stop on March 5th, 2012. And so that's why I couldn't figure out how you get to the 27110/13. On Page 8 under the Future Land Use Map you added language that says, most subdistricts are depicted as representative so may not be to scale. The Future Land Use Map series depicts these subdistricts to scale. So that means that only -- those are the only ones that are to scale, or are all subdistricts to scale? MR. WEEKS: On the Future Land Use Map, the county-wide map, definitely some subdistricts are not to scale. The reason for that is because as you know, some of these subdistricts, these site specific ones, are tiny. Down to -- I think we have one that's two and a half acres. And that would be a pinhead or almost a pinpoint on the Future Land Use Map. It would barely if at all be visible if they were drawn to scale. And so they're drawn larger than scale so that they are visible, so it's representative. We've never stated that before and it could be deceptive for a person to look at the Future Land Use Map and see this big blob, this big color representing a subdistrict and think that a significant amount of property is encompassed by that, when in reality it's a much smaller property. So that's to alert the reader that on the Future Land Use Map the subdistricts identified may be just representative. But if you go to the inset maps, the map series, those eight-and-a-halfby 11 maps at the end of the text, those are to scale. That's where you can see exactly Page 27 March 28, 2008 where the boundaries are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So only the sub-maps are the ones you could qualify. That's what this is intending to say, only the series that backs up the FLUE, that backs up the main map? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because it doesn't say that right now, David. MR. WEEKS: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 8 of the backup documentation. MR. WEEKS: Okay. The language being added says, most subdistricts are depicted as representative, so they may not be to scale. This is referring to the county-wide Future Land Use Map. It's alerting the reader that on the county-wide Future Land Use Map most subdistricts may not be to scale. Some are, some are not. But the Future Land Use Map series depicts the subdistrict to scale. That's a factual statement that all of the map series maps are to scale. Conversely, on the county-wide map some are and some are not. And rather than try to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you just need to clarify that and say in the first sentence, the county-wide map. MR. WEEKS: This is a map -- this is a note on the county-wide Future Land Use Map. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, all right, fine. I get it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, may I make a suggestion? If you wrote that as most subdistricts as depicted may not be to scale. Because the as representative is confusing to me as what that means. And then the second sentence does steer everybody in the right direction. Page 28 March 28, 2008 MR. WEEKS: So that would read, that first sentence, most subdistricts, as depicted, may not be to scale? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just wondering, if you were done, I just had a comment on your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not done, but you can go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it doesn't make any difference, I can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. That's fine. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had a comment. I read that article too yesterday in the paper. And it was pretty misleading. It actually showed our growth rates, maybe we're number four and slipped from three, of 2000 of (sic) 2006. So it wouldn't really show the slowdown. But regardless, I think -- did you make a comment that you don't feel that the TDR's should go beyond five years, early entry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we add another two years, everybody is predicting the market's going to be better at the end of this year, or in '09. Eight years seems like an awful long time to keep providing early entry bonuses. It's not early at eight years anymore, so COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I understand that. I think the problem in that program, the TDR program, is the receiving lands. No one's buying. And so I feel that we do need the eight years to get the whole thing to work. Because I don't think it's working right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm not debating it, I'mjust making my statement. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to make mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, I just -- and this in this corner. Page 29 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, nothing like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David you've got a bunch of numbers that appear to be crossed off under the list of maps. Was the intent not to have any number referenced to those maps? MR. WEEKS: You're on the resolution? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 10 of the backup documentation. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 14 of the backup documentation, the essential services conditional use provision. In the text of the summary you actually showed the new reference to the new section of the code. On this page you didn't, you left the old section of the code but didn't show the new reference. Was that intentional, or -- MR. WEEKS: No, if we -- you're saying in the staff report section we've changed it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the staff report section you've changed it. That's the one I referred to earlier -- MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 2.01.03 that needed to have the G added to it. On this page, on Page 14, which is a backup to that page, it didn't show the change. MR. WEEKS: It needs to be changed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those are my comments, sir. Anybody else have any more comments or concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I will not be able to vote for-- we provided -- I provided you and others have provided you with Page 30 March 28, 2008 comments and changes, some of which are practical. But there are three that I'm uncomfortable with, so I'm going to not vote for those. How do you want to do that in regards that this is a conglomeration of many changes? I'm not saying the whole Item 13 is wrong. I think there are particular items that I personally have problems with. MR. WEEKS: I would say that's where the motion maker could exclude or modify in whatever way those three items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I probably won't be the motion maker. I usually defer that as Chair to someone else. So as a voting member can I, during my vote, acknowledge the areas that I'm not including in my positive vote? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Then staff can convey to the board -- if it turns out that your position is different than the motion that is made and approved, or any other member of the planning commission, that we can present that information to the board to understand why the split vote or why the denial or whatever the circumstances may be, they'll understand what the concerns of the planning commission are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. I just wondered, I don't know if other members have issues that they're not going to vote on, but if it might be easier to break out those three and take a motion on everything else. And then the three that you're not comfortable with, break them out, identify them and take a separate vote on each of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody else may have problems with this, it's just my way of looking at things, unfortunately. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I understand. It might make it a little easier to -- and it then would show what you could vote for and, you know, you could do that and then break out those three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have something you wanted to add? Page 3 1 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted you to articulate them as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did you? Okay. Well, I don't mind, during discussion I'll certainly tell everybody where I'm going with my ideas. And not all of them involve all of you, so you may -- you certainly don't have to follow along on this. The first one I would not be able to vote for is 2-A, and that's the one on the road maps, without an explanation as to the impact of those road maps. On the -- we had another amendment come through not too long ago talking about corridors and how we were going to establish these roadway corridors for the future. I'm now very reluctant about accepting any map that adds anything to the road system that doesn't get fully vetted in the public and may represent an argument for transportation down the road to say remember 10 years ago at the planning commission we showed you those maps and it was right there in that map. Because that's what happened with Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. And I just don't want to go there again. So I'm going to -- as a problem I have with it, I'm just not going to be able to support it at this point. Under 5-L, the TDR program. I don't think eight years is appropriate. So I think -- and if the development doesn't happen because they can't get an early entry bonus in the next five years, well, you know what, I don't -- that's not going to break my heart any. So I think five years is plenty -- two year additional time, which is a total of five years is plenty. And for the models along the 951 corridor, Mr. Wolfley was right on the money when he said that it could be a long commercial corridor. It's unique in the county in that it's a subdivision that's going to last for decades more. Someone could put a model out there or a resale model out there and it could sit there forever. So I think if we put an eight-year time limitation on those Page 32 March 28, 2008 models for any conditional uses, that would certainly be a more than generous time frame. So that's where I'm leaning with 2-A, 5-L and 7-F. And of course I'm sure subject to all the back and forth clarifications that we just had with David, assuming no one objects to those. So those are my concerns. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm certainly in agreement with you on the transportation issue and the TDR bonuses. I'm not in agreement about the model homes. I think for the most part what came out of discussions on that was that the model homes that are out there are really good neighbors and keep their properties in good order and that the people out there are not displeased with those model homes. So that's not an issue for me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- based on the discussions that I heard happen both here and at the county commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I -- Mark, I agree with you on 2-A and 7-F. I just don't think, with regard to the corridor, 951 corridor, I agree with the eight-year maximum. And I don't think the neighbors realize what's going on. Because right now what they see are mobile (sic) homes coming up, mobile homes getting sold, the road taking the front yards of the model homes. And they just see them being sold. I don't think they realize why they continue to -- some of them continue to be there. So I think it's lack of information on their end, the reason they feel everything is just great. So I do agree, there ought to be a maximum of eight years. And you know my feelings on the TDR, I think it should be extended because -- and that's my feeling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I share your concern over Page 33 March 28, 2008 the models, and I want to mention something. Ms. Caron, if you were to drive out to the area now, you'll see some models that are no longer models I guess in the sense of the word because the builders are no longer builders. And they have weeds and Brazilian pepper and everything growing up. The models are in absolute ruin in some cases and they look terrible. I don't know how they'll get those out of there if we have an unlimited time frame. And also, it's like a virus, it spreads. And my concern was another one that Mr. Wolfley indicated, that we have some other major corridors in the Golden Gate Estates area, Pine Ridge Road, Golden Gate Boulevard, soon to be Wilson and others, maybe the Vanderbilt Beach extension. If this habit of unlimited models starts becoming a row of commercial, it could happen down anyone of them, because what one can have the others are going to argue they have a right to have. So I understand your position, Ms. Caron, but mine, having living out there and been on that master plan -- chairman of that committee, I think a time limitation, although the one that is currently there is too short, I think longer is warranted but not unlimited. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Weeks, did you say that nowhere in the county do we have a limitation? MR. WEEKS: Outside of Golden Gate Estates, that's correct. Unless -- in the Growth Management Plan. The only limitation that would be imposed anywhere else would be on a case-by-case basis by the board. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any subdivision as big as Golden Gate Estates elsewhere in Collier County? MR. WEEKS: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the world? MR. WEEKS: Well, at the time back in the Fifties and Sixties, Golden Gate Estates subdivision was purported to be the largest Page 34 March 28, 2008 subdivision in the world. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's probably a rarity to find one as large and as big as Golden Gate Estates. And therefore, the time span to build-out could be exceptional. That's where I'm coming from. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Strain, I have no intention of trying to make that corridor something that it shouldn't be. I was merely basing it on discussions that were held both here, where those were not raised as issues, and at the Board of County Commissioners. Same thing, that was not raised as an issue. Mr. Wolfley has raised an issue that probably does need to be vetted. I don't know what the Golden Gate Area Master Plan people have said on this issue, but if they -- they certainly weren't here at any point during discussions to say that they wanted it -- that they didn't want it changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think as chairman of that group I've been here for all those discussions. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, you're doing great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on the corridor situation where we show the roads, one of the reasons -- there's a virtue in that, and that's that the people in the planning can start to keep houses out of that corridor. I don't know what the status of development of that is, but by drawing that line it shows that a road is needed. Does it really show where it's going to go? I mean, you know, that would be through a public hearing process, that would be -- you know, I mean, I can understand the problem we had with Vanderbilt. But maybe the problem was we didn't have these corridors delineated way ahead of time, and people were building in what would ultimately become a Page 35 March 28, 2008 right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I remember was objecting to the corridor thoroughfare proposal that was put forth. And I was assured that all these things would be vetted in the public and everybody could talk about them and all this grand scheme of how this public involvement's going to be because they never wanted to take anyone's home again. And that may be true. And that may be what's going to happen. But right now I haven't seen it happen. And I know what's happened with Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and don't want to leave the door open for it to happen with Green Boulevard. And to be honest with you, the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was thrown up to me a couple of times by the mere fact because I was chairman of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Committee and that during that process they had shoved these multiple maps under us saying, oh, there's these corridors. But they never told us that the corridor meant homes are coming out. We never perceived that on that little tiny map. You don't know that that's not following the line. So now I'm going to approach things a little differently. Unless I'm specifically knowledgeable of that, I don't support it. And until they show me what it means to put that road there and how many people's backyards and homes are going to be -- and lives are going to be ruined, I can't go there and I'm not going to. But I understand your position, Brad. And that's why I told everyone it was maybe going to be my position, and I don't expect any of you to necessarily want to follow it. But I'm -- I've just got to draw the line somewhere and this is kind of where I'm doing it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just to reiterate, I think that had 20 years ago they established the right-of-way for Vanderbilt, they would have saved that heartbreak of people losing their homes and their backyards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I don't doubt it a bit. I wish we Page 36 March 28, 2008 could go back in time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point on the TDR's, though, maybe we could extend it a smaller amount of time. Obviously we're extending it, so if two years from now it appears that the market has not picked up, they could extend it again. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what Mr. Strain suggested, right, extend it a couple of years? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was at. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Could we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, before any motion is taken, I didn't know what you meant, Brad. You wanted to extend it to a certain -- other than five years or other than eight years? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we established three, and now we're extending it before the three expires the year before. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- obviously if we extend it two or three now we could extend it two or three years from now more, depending on the economy. Obviously how do you predict five years out? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. I'm just trying to -- if we could just all vote or all get on the same page here, we wouldn't have to deal with those three, because I'm certainly in full agreement with Mark on the one and three, but it's the TDR program. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- we can come up with something on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I'd like to do is let's take -- as Margie suggested, let's vote on the CPSP-2006-13, except Items 2-A, 5-L and 7-F. Then let's separately vote on those so everybody gets their feelings on the motion appropriately. Page 37 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good idea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is there a motion for CPSP-2006-l3, excluding 2-A, 5-L and 7-F to transmit to Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, before we go? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah. And that's with the corrections and changes that you noted; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- does anybody object to those corrections or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does someone want to make that motion? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat has made the motion that we recommend approval for transmittal for CPSP-2006-l3, with the exception ofItems 2-A, 5-L and 7-F, with the caveat that the corrections that we asked about be made. Is there a second -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 38 March 28, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Let's start now with Item 2-A, which is the transportation maps. Is there any further discussion on the maps? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion regarding the maps? Mr. Schiffer, then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion to transmit as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made to transmit Item 2-A for the road maps as submitted. Is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going once. Okay, motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Make a motion to recommend denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's a motion to recommend denial of 2-A for the maps. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, how -- I mean, it's not like we want to deny the whole map, it's just certain portions of it that you have a concern with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and my two concerns are those two corridors showing the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and the Green Boulevard extension. Those are the two that stand out the most, from the ones I can -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From where to where? Why don't we just -- your motion should be to eliminate those two segments. Page 39 March 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Green Boulevard would be from its current terminus out to Everglades Boulevard. And Vanderbilt Beach Road would be the same, from its current terminus out to Everglades -- to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: DeSoto. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- DeSoto. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, can I suggest something? Because the actual amendment that's before you is not to change the map other than to change the time period from 2025 to 2030. I would suggest it might be more appropriate to simply take an all or nothing approach. Either just put forth the position we think -- just leave it as 2025 or vote to change it to 2030. As opposed to go in and start removing roads from the map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That wouldn't be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this map that you say is in front of us today is already locked in? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. That map is in the plan today in effect. The only change we're proposing is to change the date from 2025 to 2030 to coincide with the time periods of the maps and transportation plans adopted by MPO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In that case, then it certainly changes what we have to do here today. However, it doesn't change our concern. And I think that we need to get transportation in here and have a discussion at a separate time about this concern. Because this is very concerning to everybody. And we need to have that discussion. Because we are very concerned that these things get publicly vetted and thoroughly publicly vetted before they get set in stone and nobody has a chance to change their minds and/or make changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, and transportation may argue that these are the right things to do. But that argument needs to be had, Page 40 March 28, 2008 and showing that there are no alternatives but these needs to be clearly disclosed and proven. And that's where I feel my level of discomfort IS. But I understand now through your clarification that this map and this change is only to change the date on top from 2025 to 2030. And that the map itself is already part of our GMP and no matter what we do here today it's not going to change that. Is that your statement? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish we had known that a little bit earlier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would have to ask that the second and the motion maker withdraw their motion. And that would be Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now, that motion's withdrawn, so I guess 2-A would be lumped in with CPSP-2006-13 for a recommendation to transmit, because there's no reason not to change the date that I can see. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't change the prior motion. You could still approve it based on the individual motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we just need to make a motion to transmit 2-A as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to transmit as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? Page 41 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now let's go to the TDRprocess. David, is there anything you want to say about that before we make a motion on that one? Or is our intentions on that one something that could be realized? MR. WEEKS: I'll just make one comment. This is text amendment only, unlike what we were just discussing where you're changing a date on the map and there was a misunderstanding. I would say one thing, though, about the TDR program. The commission at one time, I think it was in 2004 when they first adopted two additional density bonuses, that was the restoration and maintenance credit bonus and the conveyance bonus. So if you agreed to restore the property and then if you go the next step to want to convey it to an acceptable public entity, each of those would give you an additional bonus. When the board approved those, they said that's it, we don't want to touch the TDR program again, at least for the foreseeable future. The reason was because they were concerned that those sending lands property owners and perhaps purchasers in the receiving lands might think well, if this process is going to keep changing why should I participate now? I'll just sit back and wait. Maybe they'll add some more bonuses, maybe they'll do some more things that will make it even more to my advantage. So the board made that statement, we're not going to touch it. Well, now they've given us this direction to make a change. You all Page 42 March 28, 2008 had discussed a moment ago about well, maybe if we just extend it for two years and then if the economy's not picked back up then maybe we'll come in for another two years and make continuous changes. And that's the cautionary note I would make. The board's already given direction to make a change, but if we make incremental changes and then come back again and again, that may send that message again to the public, I'll just wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, you know, this is the early start bonus. The longer we make it, isn't is that contrary to the incentive? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, theoretically, you know, you guys got six months, you know, hurry is better than, eh, take eight years. You know. I mean, the name of this thing I think should establish a short time period which we could always extend later. But we -- means we can't extend it, we may not extend it and thus get an early start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that the Board of County Commissioners' initial reaction was probably right on. If you set up this program, you've got to leave it alone. Because if they think you're going to change it every other year, people will wait until they think they've maximized whatever they're going to get out of it. So I think the commission was right in their first reaction to this. And I think that it may potentially be an overreaction to this unanticipated downturn in our economy currently, and that we ought to take a deep breath and let it happen on its own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Am I correct that most of the sending land has been used for -- well, let's just pick -- for a Page 43 March 28, 2008 development company's internal use? In other words, they bought the sending land and then used it on their own property in the receiving areas? I mean, 1,000 acres here and there? MR. WEEKS: I can't quantify it that way, but I can certainly say that's been some of the occurrence, that the developer has control over both properties as opposed to buying it from -- buying credits from a separate entity. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. There may be 25 percent of the sending lands left to send, if that. My concern is those are mostly owned by individuals, I mean, not by a major corporation. And that's where my concern is. There's no real place to send them. So that's just where I'm coming from here. Is it -- right now there's no place to send them and so they can't do anything. But I think maybe we can come to an agreement on that, that, I mean, five years may be plenty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had said earlier, this came about because an individual made a presentation to the Board of Commissioners? MR. WEEKS: Yes. I was not at the hearing, but I know Bob Mulhere had sent an e-mail or a letter asking for the extension. And I believe that he also appeared before the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a roomful of supporters for Mr. Mulhere? MR. WEEKS: Not that I know of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So one person or one client decides that this needs to be extended and the board gives it eight years? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or a group of clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever he was representing, yeah. Any other discussion on 5-L, which is the TDR process? Page 44 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What have we decided? Have we decided to add two years or is it a go or no go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's the motion maker's -- I was going to ask for a motion to see if we can approach it that way. Is there a motion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I move that we forward 5-L with a recommended to transmit with a time period of two years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is that in addition to the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An additional two years, I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion's been made by Mr. Schiffer to add an additional two years. That would leave a total of five years, because three's already there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Wolfley, did you second that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray did you second that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay, Mr. Murray seconded. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So does that mean two years -- what does that change that date to, from September 27th, 2013 to what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I think the language refers to the March date. So '04 plus five would be '09. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it wouldn't work like that then, Page 45 March 28, 2008 would it, David? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Mark, for some reason everybody's giving us this September date. I knew that for some reason in September of this year they were going to expire. That's been stated many times in many hearings. So somewhere that came from something. So I like the idea of keeping that date and adding the two years to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I don't have a problem with it. I just want to know -- David was going to come back and verify where that date came from. And if that's the right date then, we ought to be using that date on the addition -- or changes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we use that date arbitrarily anyway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs to be tied to something, doesn't it, David? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm asking? MR. WEEKS: Yes. And the date -- to answer the question, since you're talking about a two-year extension, not a five-year, it would change from 2013 to 2010. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that keeps the motivation of early start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Why would you buy a TDR credit -- why would you buy a piece of land to then re-sell or use those credits? I've got an issue with it. If you don't have -- what's the incentive to use those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a use, it's a creation, isn't it, Page 46 March 28, 2008 David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The land's already there. It's created. This is where the sending areas are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You get an early entry bonus if you buy -- if you cash in in the next two years from September. That's what -- it's not a use, it's how much you receive. You receive more by incentiviz -- the plan is being incentivized by an early entry bonus, that's what this is all -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It went from a half credit to a whole credit, I understand that. But I just -- okay. MR. WEEKS: Well, you have a base credit for sending lands of one unit per five acres or one unit per legal nonconforming lot. You know, it might be less than that. And if you participate during this early entry window, then you get a second credit per parcel or five acres. And then there's other bonuses that could accumulate as well. But you're right, it's that the sending lands are already identified, the base credits are there, the early entry is available simply by participating within this time window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And your use of those TDR credits is whenever you want to use them. MR. WEEKS: Correct, correct. The severance has to occur within this time period. The use could be any point in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, that's-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's the point. The severance is what I -- as he put it that I'm concerned with. I don't think much is going to happen in the next two years, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's a motion, it's been seconded, we had discussion. The motion was for adding two years onto the program, so it would be September of20l0. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 47 March 28, 2008 MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 5-1. The next item is Item 7-F, which is the model corridor along 951 and Golden Gate. The proposal that's in front of us was for an unlimited time frame for those models. The suggestion so far has been an eight-year time frame. Is there any discussion on this matter? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would have supported this until I heard you indicate that there were model homes where the grass is growing way up and the places are falling apart, et cetera, et cetera, however you described it. And that certainly suggests then that perhaps the direction given by the BCC didn't have the benefit of that information. So I'm glad for knowing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think -- and I think I saw that BCC meeting. The intent is -- that is a huge subdivision, there is a lot of lots in there. And to keep these models for that subdivision on the edge of it, which is essentially 951 was I thought a good idea. I think the thing you're talking about, the weeds and all that, I think that's a code enforcement issue, that's not a planning issue. So therefore I think -- this is a small slice of the community. I mean, if it becomes a huge row of these things, maybe that's unsightly. But the intent is to expose the units, the price to people. And it is on the edge of a huge subdivision, which I think needs a lot of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 48 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- differs from a small slice. It's the largest slice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, there's a series of conditional uses out there currently for model homes. Do you know if they're limited to a time frame other than that stated in the GMP or the LDC? MR. WEEKS: There's a mixed bag. There are some that have been approved years ago that have no time limitation, and there are some that have been approved with this limitation from the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it easier to give or take away? MR. WEEKS: Give. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. And that's what I'm worried about, if we give someone unlimited time frame and we try and take it back later, they would maybe claim damages. Where we could always, as we could do in one of the -- similar to the TDR, if eight years turns out to be problematic, we could always amend the GMP at that time just like we would the TDR program and add more time to it. I am concerned about the size of the development. I mean, Golden Gate is a big subdivision. But when we started out with this whole process on the Golden Gate Master Plan committee, if I'm not mistaken, we went to five years because it was shorter than that to begin with. There was some discrepancy of the time where every two years, or you had a -- there was some reading that. I remember speaking to you about it, David, where it could be interpreted that we had a shorter period in that area because they're temporary model homes or something to that effect, and we set it at the Golden Gate Master Plan committee for the years we did, which we thought was actually more generous than what was in the code at the time. So anyway, I think eight years is plenty. I understand if you all don't. But that's just where I'm going to have to go from. Page 49 March 28, 2008 David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree. And I think it was every two years the owner of the model home had to reapply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was something like that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yep. And it was an every two-year situation, which I don't have a problem with. Because at every two years we can -- but if we can put it at a maximum of eight, I would certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're getting four times the time they have right now. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be what this says, David? If it's two years now, let's make that assumption, and they get eight years MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they really have four times the amount of time now in which they've got to come back in for renewal on their model home. And then that time we could assess if they're maintaining it properly or whatever. MR. WEEKS: Well, no, not exactly. Because the two years refers to the time period of the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: But they have, prior to that, three years for the temporary use permit for a total of five. So if you change it from five out to eight you're extending -- you're changing the two years for the conditional use time period to five years, or the total time from five to eight. It would be a change of three years, an extension of three years. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do they have to come in after that to reapply, or is it over, they're done? MR. WEEKS: The way this is written, it's done. And I believe that was the intent, going all the way back to the committee's recommendation originally, that we'll give you a five-year Page 50 March 28, 2008 window. After that you're done, it's over with, period. It's now going to function as a single-family home, not a model home. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, but, I mean, I've seen people come before when I was on this thing before where they came in and reapplied for another two years. So I guess that's where I'm confused. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, I'm not certain of that either. I know the -- two things I can recall. One is just a few short years ago when this provision was originally adopted, this limitation for model homes was adopted into the Golden Gate Master Plan, I will blame staff that we muddled the language. It was not clear. And as a result of that, the county -- and it may have come from this commission even, a suggestion, but that the county was adopting -- excuse me, approving these model home conditional uses for a period of two years. At some point not a code provision, but it was something the county initiated. Whether it was staff, this body or the board initiated this two-year time period for conditional uses. Going over to the Land Development Code, I know it has this three-year time period for temporary use permits. I believe that's the extent of it. I don't know ifthere's a two-year temporary use permit extension that one could continue to come in for. That I'm not aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, as far as it being eight years or whatever, that's not a magic number, if some of you think there's a better number. I was just concerned that an unlimited time frame in a subdivision as big as Golden Gate Estates is a long, long time. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Dave, maybe we just change the wording of this. If you look at the end, you describe how it shall permanently cease after five years. Why don't we add except that it may be -- an additional continual use may -- or the continual use Page 51 March 28, 2008 may be renewed for those properties abutting Collier Boulevard. What that does is that gives the commission a five-year window. They can look at it, if something's going wrong, they can fix it. And if something needs to be adjusted to the properties, they can fix it. For example, if we gave, you know, 20 years ago an unlimited use, then we'd have trouble making these upgrades for handicap accessibility and stuff like that that's come since then. So I think if you just eliminate the permanently cease for that Collier Boulevard and let them every five years, you know, come before a public hearing and discuss how they need to be there still. MR. WEEKS: Okay. We would need to also change the earlier sentence that says, except no time limit applies to property abutting Collier Boulevard. Both places would have to reflect that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- that cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- all that does is say that every five years you come in, restate your case and you get an automatic extension. That means it still could go on forever. Again, I think that they can end at some point. What happens about resales? If someone wants to build a model for resales in the Estates, then it still goes on forever. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But with the conditional use process they're coming before a public hearings hearing. At that time they could discuss, you know, landscape improve -- they could discuss whatever they want to discuss, put whatever conditions they want to put on it or deny the extension. MR. WEEKS: You're talking about the difference of being granted a conditional use of an unlimited time period versus a duration. You're discussing five years and at that time period the applicant would have to come in for another conditional use, it would be just vetted through the public hearing process, be approved, denied Page 52 March 28, 2008 or approved with whatever conditions would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't that what we have now, they come back in for a new condition -- or renewal of their conditional use every so many years? And isn't that what the problem -- everybody was objecting to? MR. WEEKS: The way it reads now, and there's some difference of opinion. The way I read the language now, existing language, to me it says your five years and it's over. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, it ends. MR. WEEKS: That is not how the board has recently applied it. They have in fact had the model home that -- they've gone through the full five years and they granted a conditional use for additional time period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So the intent here was to clarify that, number one, if you're not subject to this exception along 951, you've got five years and you're done, period. But if you're on Collier Boulevard, exact opposite, you have no time limitation at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what -- Brad, are you trying to say that every five years if you're along Collier Boulevard you've got to come in for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- renewal of your conditional use, but you can get it renewed, but you have to go through the process to get that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I do, too. I think that gets it's back on track. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then it gets it back on track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would we be able to say no to the Page 53 March 28, 2008 conditional use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure, yeah, like any other ones. MR. WEEKS: Yes, based upon those four conditional use criteria in the Land Development Code: Noise, air, glare, odor, economic impacts, traffic impacts, compatibility. COMMISSIONER CARON: Compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there you go. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think that's a good suggestion. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it would come before the planning commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. I just want to make sure. Okay, yeah, that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- Brad, do you want to make that into a motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for number 7-F? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To move 7-F forward with the removal of the last sentence and replace it with, except it may be -- well, David, you know how to get the wording right. I don't want to do that. MR. WEEKS: And let me mention that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about shall be? MR. WEEKS: -- as you know, you have a relatively new procedure of your consent agenda. Granted, April 3rd is going to get here real fast. And that's next week. This and all of the -- and the March 17th hearing items we'll be Page 54 March 28, 2008 bringing to you at this point, it's probably going to be Monday, couriered to you. So you're going to get it late, certainly later than you wish to. But that's the only way we can get it to you prior to the board's hearing on the 15th. Because your next hearing after the 3rd is the 17th. So you'll get a chance to look at this and the other GMP amendments as to how we've crafted the resolution to reflect your motions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion that Mr. Schiffer's going to sponsor would be that 7- F would be changed to reflect that a conditional use could be renewed after five years. Is that in summary COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where you're heading? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: For another five years; is that what you're going with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now so she can take it. No, he just said they can be renewed for five years -- every five years. Is that correct, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Shall be subject to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to say, we're changing the language to state that after five years anyone along Collier Boulevard must come in for a conditional use hearing in order to be extended. I think at that time we can determine how long. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Let me ask for clarification. Three-year temporary use permit, two years of conditional use gets us to five Page 55 March 28, 2008 years. So is the intent that at the end of that five-year period the model homes on Collier Boulevard would have to come in for a new conditional use; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: And then when that applicant comes in for a new conditional use, are you suggesting any particular time period at that point that it would be an extension of a maximum of five years, or is it at that point it's open-ended? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My opinion would be is that they can renew it again. Again, this is a huge subdivision. It has a lot of lots in it. And this is the edge of it, which is kind of where we want the model homes. In -- let's say they come in for their second five-year renewal. The commission may decide that, you know, 95l's no longer the center of activity and may allow this someplace else. But -- and can stop it on 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be renewed every five years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or up to renewal every five years. Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Because if it's a problem, it will be cured by the commission at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion is -- Margie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I'm unclear, because people are talking about every five years and -- so after the time initially expires now, you come in for an extension. And the extension won't necessarily be for five years, it will be for a time period to be determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the extension. Or is it Page 56 March 28, 2008 five years or -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, that's two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, just a minute. Okay, Mr. Schiffer, I think what she's trying to say is that it's a five-year -- after five years they've got to come in for renewal. Then whatever comes out of the renewal, they get. But they have the opportunity to come back in again after that period of time so that they're not automatically deadlocked into a drop-dead, no matter what. I think that's what the whole objective here is. So that there's no permanent end, considering they come back in for permission every so many years that they're renewed for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I guess, Dave, let's go back to the word. Let's just do it, because it's not going to work. Let's just scratch off that last sentence and then say, except for properties abutting Collier Boulevard, additional five-year conditional uses may be applied for, or whatever. And that doesn't mean only one, that means -- additional means many. And it's up to the commission in the future to decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you want to tie the commission's hands to five years? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, that's what it sounds like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I think that's what Marjorie was trying to get at. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, is it five years or do they get to decide how many years to extend it for? Because if you say come in for an additional five years, that means they get five years. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, may I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Two suggestions: One, let's not try to wordsmith it today. Give staff the flexibility to do that. Most particularly, now that you're going to have to chance to see it again on your consent agenda. Page 57 March 28, 2008 Secondly, I -- let me try one time for clarification. I think what you were saying is after the initial five years, three years temporary permit, two-year conditional use, that the applicant would have to come in for a new conditional use for a maximum time period of five years, not open-ended but you were going to set a maximum of five years. And that is what could continue. So each time they come in for a new conditional use, it could be for no more than five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we're trying to get at. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion would be that 7-F would be recommended for moving forward, subject to the discussion we just had with staff that allows for renewal of conditional uses. Is that a fair way of putting it, David? MR. WEEKS: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, does that work for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does. Except David, one thing, I'm seeing this also on -- it looks like it might be 7-E, but look on Page 17 on the bottom of that. Isn't it also that same wording, or is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Page 17 in the staff report should have identical language to what's in the resolution Exhibit A. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just don't want to beat this horse, but there are two permits here. There's a temporary use permit for three years. There is then a subsequent issuance of a conditional use permit for two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what we're saying is that they can come back in and ask for an extension of the conditional use for up to five years. Page 58 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But then where does that leave the three-year temporary use permit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have expired at the time they got the two-year conditional use to add to it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, so it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was gone two years in the past. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I understand. All right, there's no -- okay, all right. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Schiffer, your motion -- I guess we -- do we need to rearticulate it? Cherie's shaking her head no. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought David did a good job of articulating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you concur with the layout of the motion, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only confusion I have is you keep saying F and I keep seeing it on an E paragraph. What's my confusion there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go to Page 3. They're all summarized on Page 1, 2 and 3 of the staff report. And that's where I'm pulling these numbers from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7-F is on Page 3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm actually looking at the wording on the -- okay, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 7-F does get moved forward with transmittal as we've discussed, Mr. Weeks. And there was a motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. At the pending demise of my mind, which all of you may be happy to have. Is -- any discussion? Page 59 March 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And David, if I'm not mistaken, we have ended the transmittal hearings for the GMP for this session; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we can adjourn the meeting, if they're so inclined. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER CARON: Adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of hate to. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By Ms. Caron, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 60 March 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:06 a.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 61