Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/01/2008 R May 1, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 1, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Koltlat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. W oltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 1,2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MA TERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRlTTEN 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 MATERlAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WH1CH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- MARCH 17,2008, GMP A.M. MEETING; MARCH 17, '2008, GMP P.M. MEETING; MARCH 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 24, 2008, GMP MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - FEBRUARY 26-27, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 11,2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 25-26, 2008, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: V A-2008-AR- I 295 I, Irvine Dubow, requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a 10.7-foot Variance from the required IS-foot front yard setback of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.02.03, Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, to allow a 4.3- foot setback in order to rebuild a pool cage that was destroyed by Hurricane Wilma. The subject property is located at 5901 Almaden Drive in Section 8, Township 49 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) [TIME CERTAIN: 8:30 A.M.] 1 B. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12359, SS Naples, LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Inc, is requesting a Conditional Use for a maximum 98,000 square foot self-storage facility to be located on a 2.4+/- acre site in a C-4 zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.03 D of the Land Development Code (LDC). The property is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and the south side of Floridian Avenue approximately 230 feet northwest of Martin Street, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) CONTINUED FROM 4/17/08 C. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwasse PUD to revise existing development standards, transportation requirements and property ownership information. The +/- I 2.52-acre subject property is located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) CONTINUED FROM 4/17/08 D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9486, Charles S. Faller, III, of FFT Santa Barbara I, LLC and FFT Santa Barbara II, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq. of GoodIette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from C-2 and C-4 zoning districts to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Freestate CPUD. The 16.8'" acre site is proposed to permit 150,000 square feet of commercial development. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) CONTINUED TO 6/19/08 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of the 5- Year Review (Phase I-Technical Report) of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA), by the Rural Lands Stewardship Review Committee. (Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) [TIME CERTAIN: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITEM 9-A] 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 5/1/08 cepe Agenda/RB/mk/sp 2 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. And now that one of the most important pieces of our equipment for this meeting is here, we can proceed. And if you'll all rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to the May 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY And with that, we'll ask for roll call by the secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 2 May 1, 2008 Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. We have some changes this morning. There's been two items that will be continued. One is Petition CU-2007-AR-12359. It's SS Naples, LLC. It's for a self-storage facility on the East Trail. It's been asked to be continued indefinitely. The next item that was up for continuance is Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9486, and it's the Charles S. Faller, III, FFT Santa Barbara, LLC. It's known as the Freestate CPUD. And it's going to be continued to June 19th, '08. We have two items that I want to make sure everybody knows the scheduling of them. Item II-A, the rural land stewardship presentation, will be followed by Item 9-A, Mr. Irvine Dubow, in regarding a pool cage. And then after the rural lands we'll go to the remaining item on our petition, which is the Livingston Professional Center, LLC, also known as the Hiwasse PUD. So those three items will be on today's agenda. And we'll be starting in a moment or two with Mr. Dubow. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as suggested? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved -- second. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 3 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning commission absences. Our next meeting will be the 15th of May. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I may have a problem, if it's okay to be late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, then I'm not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll have a quorum then. Ahead of time, so staff knows how to schedule things, on July 3rd would be our first meeting in July. There's a question from staff if we intend to meet that day, since it is not the holiday and the 4th is actually a holiday, but some people may have plans, I'd like to see if we have a quorum. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on July 3rd? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't know at this point, but I probably will not be able to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we then -- we need five, so it looks like we'll have at least seven or eight then, so that will work. Thank you. Page 4 May 1, 2008 So from staffs perspective, July 3rd is a good date, Ray, to schedule things. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Look how happy he is. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 17,2008, GMP A.M. MEETING; MARCH 17,2008, GMP P.M. MEETING; MARCH 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 24, 2008, GMP MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have a series of minutes that were in our packet, or at least on line to approve. I'll go through them one at a time. The first one is March 17th, 2008, the GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 5 May 1, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The March 17th, 2008 GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein again. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. March 20th regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 6 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And the last one, the March 24th, GMP meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 Page 7 May 1, 2008 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - FEBRUARY 26-27, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 11, 2008, REGULAR MEETING; MARCH 25- 26, 2008, REGULAR MEETING Okay, Ray, your recaps? MR. BELLOWS: On April 29th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. That was approved on the summary agenda. The variance -- the Sulke (phonetic) variance, that was the pool cage and wall with the steps, that was approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on their regular agenda subject to the CCPC recommendations and including an additional stipulation that the applicant close in and remove the steps that weren't being utilized. That was the westernmost steps. An earth mining petition, a conditional use was also approved by the -- on the summary agenda. And that was subject to the planning commission recommendations. And lastly, the board heard an appeal of the Koendorfer (phonetic) boat dock extension that was denied. The board did approve that appeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Appreciate it. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. Nothing specific. I'll be getting into the various issues when we start the RLSA. I'll wait for that point. Item #8 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Page 8 May 1, 2008 Consent agenda items, there are none for today's meeting. Item #9A PETITION: V A-2008-AR-1295L DUBOW VARIANCE And that gets us to the first advertised public hearing. The first hearing is Petition V A-2008-AR-12951, Mr. Irvine Dubow, concerning a pool cage that was destroyed during Hurricane Wilma. Would all those wishing to testify on behalf of this application please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, Mr. Dubow, if you'd like to go to one of the speakers and identify yourself for the record and the floor is yours. MR. DUBOW: It's a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Strain and fellow commissioners, or planning commissioners. I don't know what I'm doing here, to be very Frank with you. My cage is up. After 26 months it's finally up. And it was placed -- put up in December of last year. And -- but I think that you guys like me so much that I'm here again. I did meet Mr. Strain once before, and we recognized each other. Now, that is an amazing fact. But I bet $1,000, if! had $1,000, because the government took it all away from me the first time around. But I'm doing them a favor now. They forgot, and I'm saying this deliberately, to cross the I's and dot the T's. So therefore, I'm here as a favor to them to rectify their, should I say, continuous problem of making mistakes? That's what I'm here for, I think. But I'll let John-David explain what the problem is. Page 9 May 1, 2008 Thank you very, very much. It's nice to see you guys again. And every one of you looks very familiar. Nice to see you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good to see you too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Dubow. Is there any questions of Mr. Dubow? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We'll see what develops with staff. Thank you. MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. As you read in the staff report, there was a discrepancy between what Mr. Dubow thought was getting approved with his initial variance request and what staff and what you all had actually recommended at the previous planning commission hearing. And so the intent of this variance is to actually straighten everything out so that there is no longer any confusion surrounding Mr. Dubow's variance. As he mentioned, he's already rebuilt the structure. And the reason that he was able to rebuild the structure in the location in which it stood before the hurricane was because between the initial planning commission hearing and this one, Mr. Dubow was able to obtain an easement use agreement from stormwater engineering that allowed him to build in the drainage easement. Initially Stormwater Management had forbidden him from rebuilding the structure in this easement. But now that he has this easement use agreement, they have no objection. And so we're trying to move forward now to get this approved with a 10.7-foot variance, rather than the previous variance that was requested. So staff is in support of this variance request, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Page 10 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before you do, I just -- I had one disclosure I forgot to make, and that is I had spoke with Mr. Patrick White who represents some people within the area, and I just told me him -- he asked about the meeting today and I told him he'd be first up and he's not here, so be it. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, do you happen to know who the contractor actually was? MR. MOSS: It's included in the staff report. I don't remember offhand but that information is in the staff report. Coastal Construction is the original contractor in 1990 when the structure was first built. That is what you mean? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: John-David, do you know the reason that Stormwater Management changed their mind? MR. MOSS: I -- they struck an easement use agreement with Mr. Dubow which said that if they needed to remove the screen cage enclosure for any reason to do any sort of maintenance that they would be held harmless. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And they weren't able to do that the first time around? MR. MOSS: I don't know if they were unable to the first time around, but it was a condition that we put on the original approval. And we thought Mr. Dubow was okay with it because he didn't express any sort of objection to it, but I think he just didn't understand actually what staff was stipulating. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 11 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, just out of curiosity, who paid for this application? MR. MOSS: I think the county did. We didn't charge Mr. Dubow agam. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, one question. The resolution, this is a variance request. If it gets blown down again, does that mean Mr. Dubow's got to come back here again? MR. MOSS: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The variance will allow him to rebuild it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this is a one-time thing. He isn't going to come back in every time it gets blown down during a hurricane. MR. MOSS: Oh, by a hurricane, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it's destroyed for any reason, he can MR. BELLOWS: The variance will allow for it be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it goes with the land, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve Petition Variance 2008-AR-12951. Page 12 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Let me double check to make sure there's no staff recommendations other than approval. That's all there is. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Dubow, it's a pleasure seeing you again. Maybe we'll see you in another month or so. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He's having a party at his house. Item #llA 5-YEAR REVIEW (PHASE I-TECHNICAL REPORT) OF THE RLSA Page 13 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item up is a presentation of the five-year Phase 1 technical report of the rural land stewardship area, RLSA. And it will be -- I guess Mr. Greenwood's going to make the presentation. We have a power point handout that was provided to us. And -- maybe it's not Mr. Greenwood. Whoever's going to make it, it's your turn. MR. HAMEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Ron Hamel, and I am the chair of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee. And it's a real honor for me to be here this morning and represent the committee and introduce the presentation that will be made by the staff. The Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee was appointed by the Collier County Commission under Resolution 2007-173, which also spells out the details regarding this ad hoc 13-member committee. The committee is comprised of individuals representing many different stakeholders from the community, including agriculture, the environment, the business sector, and property owners. Several members of our committee are here this morning. We have Dr. Neno Spagna, who's our vice chair; we have Tom Jones; we have Brad Cornell, if you all could please stand. And let's see if there's -- Mr. McDaniel are here along with me this morning. And as you can see, the names of the other individuals serving on that committee. The committee is -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I stood up. I stood up. MR. HAMEL: Oh, I'm sorry. Member of your commission. Sorry about that, David. Major faux paw here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, Ron, that's fine. MR. HAMEL: The committee is staffed through the county's comprehensive planning department, its environmental services Page 14 May 1, 2008 department and the county attorney's office. The mission of our committee is also spelled out in this resolution: Is to facilitate the public participation phase of the mandated five-year review of the rural lands overlay as adopted for Eastern Collier County. During the past several months our committee has been holding several public meetings related to the Phase 1 report, which is going to be presented to this commission here this morning. This report is somewhat of a look at what has happened since the rural land stewardship program had been adopted, and so it's kind of a status report as our committee has reviewed it, based on the program. It's also -- our effort will -- or this report will serve as a basis of making recommendations, any recommendations or changes to the existing program. These proposed changes or recommendations will be part of our committee's deliberations under the Phase 2 process, which we've begun I think two meetings ago. And we've been meeting once a month. As you can see from the slides, we have a pretty rigid meeting schedule to meet the mandated deadlines to make these -- to do the review and to make the recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, this group, and DCA. So to emphasize, the Phase 1 technical report that you'll be discussing or getting the presentation also was sent to the Environmental Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. And staff will go over many of the details of the report under the Phase 1. Please remember that this is an initial report, and it serves as a basis for what we call -- what we're calling Phase 2 where we get into a lot more details or recommendations and these kinds of things. So we've begun that process and we're just kind of in the initial stages of Page 15 May 1, 2008 that phase of what we've been mandated to do with our committee. I believe staff has provided in your packets some of the -- some of our initial language, which is intended as a kind of a working piece and a discussion paper, which you all can review and provide input into the process. Also, this commission will have several opportunities to provide input into this review process. Our committee is meeting monthly. The meetings are open to the public. And then as mandated, we have to bring various sectors of this review back to the various advisory committees and commissions, as well as the Board of County Commissioners before it moves up to DCA. So with that said, our committee spent several months going over the report that you have, and working on language. And staff is going to be presenting that. And at this time I'd like to introduce Tom Greenwood, who is kind of the staff leader on this to present the power point and go from there. But at this juncture, if there's any specific questions for me as kind of chair, without going into all these details, I'd certainly be happy to entertain any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions ofMr. Hamel at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got one. MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some questions circulating out there from various individuals or groups. MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I provided a list. MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir, I -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the Conservancy's got some and so does Florida Wildlife Federation. Page 16 May 1, 2008 MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it the committee's intention, before you're finished, to respond to those concerns? MR. HAMEL: I think that the committee certainly discusses these in detail as they present them before the committee. So we're getting into a lot of the discussion regarding protecting ago lands, protecting more environmentally sensitive lands and these kinds of things as far as our effort is concerned. So the answer to your question is yes, we want to review these things, we want to get the input. And then the committee, just as this committee votes, is on a majority vote. We've had very strong majority votes, almost unanimous votes on everything that's come before our committee. So we certainly want to look at the input and do it in an objective basis as we move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically rather than go into listing-- going through my -- I have about 20 questions -- MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in a three-page report that I know you've seen. MR. HAMEL: We've seen, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than go through all those today, because it sounds like it's more appropriate, that will be a Phase 2 issue, I can rest assured that you guys will be discussing those to a point where there will be some response or some input provided so at least I know if we have to bring them back up again on a Phase 2 report? MR. HAMEL: Yes, sir. And again, if when we're going through the process if these questions still exist, you're going to get more than one bite at the apple, so to speak. And we certainly want this to be -- you know, this is a model program as it was developed, and I think the Commission and DCA knew at the time of this that it's a novel, creative way of looking at Page 17 May 1, 2008 some of these issues, particularly protecting a lot of the lands that are valuable resource lands. I certainly -- I get paid by the agricultural -- my real job is I'm executive director of the Gulf Citrus Growers Association, representing most of the citrus industry in the five-county region. And I want to do everything I can personally to assure that we have a sustainable agricultural industry in the region. So we -- I know some of the things that are getting picked at. And we certainly are -- we spent probably a lot more time than I thought we were allowed to get into a little more detail on some of these things. So I think the process has been good. There's a lot on the table. But I think most of these considerations will be discussed under Phase 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you intend -- I don't know what your time frame is. When's your committee's deadline; do you know? MR. HAMEL: Well, we're up against what's on the chart there. And we've got to try to -- well, we finished Phase 1, and of course it's got to go back through you guys and then over to the Board of Commissioners and then over to DCA. But then the Phase 2 part where it's tied into these other, I'm -- they want -- you see what the mandated time line is up there. But we're trying to work on that and keep that as our target. But, you know, if we get into some discussions, we might have to make some adjustments on that. But I don't know legally at this point -- we haven't discussed that in the committee if we need to get an extension of time to cross T's and dot I's before this moves forward. But we certainly want to do everything we can to sustain this program. Because we feel it's extremely valuable. It's being discussed all over the state, different types of programs that are related to rural land stewardships, so it's an innovative and a novel program to address Page 18 May 1, 2008 a lot of these issues, so we're going to do our best to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The time frames you have on here, are they mandated by the GMP or a code requirement, or are they just internally mandated by the county commission; do you know? And the reason I'm asking is, is because the commission routinely -- MR. HAMEL: That's a very good -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- extends committees that need more time. They've done that for most of the committees that are master planning in the county. MR. HAMEL: Why don't I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HAMEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. GREENWOOD: The time frame that's -- Tom Greenwood, for the record, with Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department. The Policy 1.22 in the rural land stewardship area overlay requires a five-year review. And a project management plan was developed to try to get this processed through within that time frame there. Mr. Hamel stated that the committee meets monthly. And quite frankly, I think this Phase 1 report basically is data, very little analysis. That's maybe 20 percent of the total product that this committee's going to be responsible for. And I believe in fact on May 6th, next Tuesday when they have their meeting over at Ave Maria, one of the things we're going to talk about as a committee is whether they wish to meet twice monthly. Because the Phase 2 product is 26 pages, and there's a lot of detail, a lot of impacts on Collier County and the rural land area. I don't know if that's answered your question, but yes, we are taking input, we have speakers at all of our meetings, wildlife, environmental. We've had two ago speakers, we have speakers -- we Page 19 May 1, 2008 have a speaker, Clarence Tears, who will be speaking about the Southwest Florida Water Management District from the standpoint of hydrology and hydraulics. So they're trying to gather all the information, both written, such as the DCA report from December 31 st of last year, and other reports, such as a report that was done by Florida Gulf Coast University. And those people, those professors spoke to our group, trying to get as much input. And really, quite frankly, when I go through this presentation, the commissioners all have copies of the hard copy. But I'm going to make some comments that perhaps will generate some questions, perhaps some positions. I think the committee and staff are certainly interested in hearing some of your thoughts and ideas and concerns and try to address those today but probably more likely bring those back to the committee, let the committee address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point I was trying to make with my question was now that we've got -- the committee has accepted the fact they're going to try to respond to the questions that have been posed by these groups and myself, I wanted to make sure that you guys didn't get close to the end and say, you know, darn it, we just don't have time. It's important that everything gets addressed is what I'm trying to say. And so -- MR. GREENWOOD: And I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- time needs to be kept into consideration there. So thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: I agree, there's a lot to be addressed, a lot of things to be concerned and to address. Again, I have copies which the planning commission has, of the Phase 2 report. Anybody would like copies, I'm going to give those to Michael DeRuntz with Compo Planning. I also have some copies of the limited number of the power point presentation, which we'll be giving shortly. And also copies of the portion that relates to Collier County from the rural land stewardship Page 20 May 1, 2008 area program 2007 annual report to the legislature dated December 31st of2007. Okay. And again, if you'd like, you can ask questions, make comments as we go through these. One of the things Ron Hamel mayor may not have mentioned, I don't know that he did, but as chair he actually was involved -- he was involved in the original process to create the rural land stewardship area. This slide -- let me show you first the goals of the rural land stewardship area. There's actually just one goal, and these are components of the goal. And the goal and the components really was developed based upon an administrative commission decision back in I believe 1999 which required something like the rural land stewardship area to be created for Collier County and eastern lands to -- as the goal states, to protect agricultural activities to prevent the premature conversion of agriculture to non-agriculture uses; to direct incompatible uses away from wetlands and upland habitat; to enable the conservation of rural land to other uses in appropriate locations; to discourage urban sprawl, and to encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques. Just a general statement. I think that anybody that's familiar with land use regulations, and they're not perfect, and quite frankly, it was very wise to have the five-year review when the program was first established back in 2002. This next slide is the -- outlines the boundary of the rural lands. To the east is Hendry County, to the north is Hendry County, and to the west is Lee County here, and this is the Golden Gate Estates area. And to the south adjoining to the south in Collier County are state and federal lands, which are basically habitat lands. This map also shows in green habitat sending areas -- I'm sorry, stewardship areas. In blue, water retention areas, and -- I'm sorry, and Page 21 May 1, 2008 blue is flow way stewardship areas. And then the water retention areas. The areas in open are in pink, and those are typically the areas that have the least amount of environmental sensitivity, the lowest natural resource index. Policy 1.22 again is the policy that directs our five-year review. And it also directs that the review include the eight items that are listed there. I won't read through those, but we have some slides that addresses each one of those in your power point presentation. Again, as Ron Hamel has stated, the process, and this is the beginning of the process, has been broken down into two phases. One phase is just looking at the data history of how the program has been operated and how it's done. And Phase 2 again will be to look at the some 26 pages of goal, objective and policies. Each of the products that's produced by the review committee will be presented to the Environmental Advisory Council. And by the way, one or two of their members regularly attend the meetings of the review committee; also to the planning commission, one of your members is a member of that review committee; and to the Board of County Commissioners. The policy 1.22 also directs that these reports, as approved and presented to the Board of County Commissioners, be presented to the Department of Community Affairs. Because that was the department through the administrative order that directed this land use regulation. This land use regulation, by the way, is really something that was approved by the state. In the rural land area -- and again there are two options for land use development. One option is for the property owner to develop under the ag., which is the underlying future land use. And ago allows ago uses and related uses and also allows residential at a density of one dwelling unit per five acres. Page 22 May 1, 2008 The other option, which is a rural land stewardship area overlay, allows for stripping away development rights primarily in areas that are very environmentally sensitive. In exchange the property owner receives stewardship credits that can be used, either sold or traded, for development of land areas within the rural land stewardship area that are not as environmentally sensitive, typically open lands. And that exchange is eight stewardship credits for every acre in the stewardship receiving area. And by stewardship receiving area, I'm referring to areas that would be developed as towns, villages, hamlets or compact rural developments. The first question is identify amount of land designated as flow way stewardship areas, habitat stewardship areas, water retention areas and other stewardship sending areas (SSA's). This graphic, actually table, shows that there is a total of 182,400 acres of land within the stewardship area. I should say in the rural land stewardship area. Those are privately owned lands. Does not include publicly owned lands. If you include the publicly owned lands, that acreage total goes up to close to 193,000 acres. And only the privately owned land is available for placement into stewardship receiving areas. This graphic also shows -- in the center column it shows the stewardship areas approved and pending. You can see the stewardship areas approved are SSA's 1 through 9. And pending right now is SSA's 10 through 16. Actually 16 has not been filed yet, but the others have been from an application standpoint. If sometime late this year, early next year all 16 stewardship areas are approved, about 31 percent of the eligible area would be within stewardship areas. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Going back to the last slide, why Page 23 May 1, 2008 are the percentages of the lower -- of the WRA and the open lands so much less than the other percentages? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, the habitat stewardship areas, the way the program is set up right now, any SSA that contains habitat stewardship areas, those SSA's qualify for an early entry bonus, okay? And depending on where the habitat stewardship area is located, it would either be one-half credit per acre or one full credit per acre. That bonus is due to expire on January 30th of2009. And that's in the Land Development Code that way. So there is a definite period of time where that will end. The flow way stewardship areas, habitat stewardship areas and water retention areas, but the flow way stewardship areas and habitat stewardship areas in particular are the ones that generate the most amount of credits per acre, because of the high level of environmental sensitivity. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So the bottom two -- the fact that open is such a small percentage is actually probably a good thing, since those lands are less valuable environmentally anyway. MR. GREENWOOD: Exactly. In fact, in the first nine SSA's -- I'm just trying to remember the number -- there was very, very little open land included in those SSA's, with one exception. And I think it was an SSA-7 or 8, I don't remember which. But the amount of land it opened will very likely be very small in the future. In fact, I was surprised that it was three percent. But that particular SSA that had the large acreage, and I think it was 2,400 acres in open land, that open land had a fairly high natural resource index. So it was to the benefit of the property owner, I believe, to basically -- and I think they brought the land use available to either -- I think it was R-1 or R-2, I forget which, uses. Okay? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The pending, is that mostly going to go towards Big Cypress, or is that still going to be going to Aveo Page 24 May 1, 2008 Maria? MR. GREENWOOD: The -- there is available -- well, when Ave Maria was developed, it used a portion of the available stewardship credits. There's still a remaining amount there. Big Cypress, which is presently in the development of regional impact review, just in the beginning stage, it is intended to use credits from SSA's 14, 15 and 16. And I have a slide for that, too, I can show you that. Those credits from those districts will be used primarily, at least that's the proposal, to enable Big Cypress to occur, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, out of deference to the rest of the commission, I didn't know if it was best to let you go through your presentation and then ask questions afterwards, or would you prefer interruptions as we go along? MR. GREENWOOD: It's up to the commission, whatever you'd like to do. And I'll go through these fairly rapidly and make comments and then you can come back if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just like to get consensus from the board then how we want to proceed. Because I don't want to -- if anybody has questions and they want to ask them as we go along, out of fair (sic) to everyone we should be able to. Otherwise, let's all wait. Does anybody else have a preference on when questions are asked? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we ought to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney obviously does. Anybody else? No, I didn't mean that bad, I just meant that's fine, but we'll just go along and -- so let's just back up -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's easier for me to sort of know where I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's just back up to the beginning page. And we normally walk through these documents page Page 25 May 1, 2008 at a time. And if that's the way we want to approach it I have to ask the commission, then as we go along if they have any comments between Pages 1 and 5 so we get past these towards the end. Anybody else have any comments from Tom at this point from Pages 1 through 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tom, I have one. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your table 1-C, we recently had two GMP amendments come forward requesting additional stewardship area SSA's be created that generated some additional credits. Or they would. How is that fitted into your program, into your pending and approved? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't think it's in there yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a reason why they wouldn't be, since they have been in the cycle at the county. I think one applicant said he'd been in for a year and a half or two years. And the other one is even larger than that, which is the Scofield facility. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager. Mr. Chairman, neither of those properties would be included in the slide, and the reason is their request is to amend their map designation from open to habitat stewardship area. This slide that you refer to, that table, identifies properties that have been designated or pending a designation as stewardship sending area. So the plan amendment does not change the designation to sending area. That's why it would not be shown on that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plan amendment changes the designation to I think HSA? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: HSA on this table 1-C is at 40,000, but when the GMP amendments come through, I thought we increased Page 26 May 1, 2008 that to somewhere around 42,000. MR. WEEKS: More correction -- or clarification. Of those two comprehensive plan amendments you're referring to, the much larger of the two, the Half Circle L Ranch, that property has already been designated as a sending area, so in fact is included within that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the GMP amendment coming through for the larger one, what is it coming through then, if it's already designated a sending area? What do they need the GMP amendment for again. I'm sorry if I'm redundant here, but now I'm wondering why it even makes any sense. MR. WEEKS: Sure. The reason they would want the designation changed to habitat stewardship area is it would then qualify for additional credits beyond what they could get as open. For example, if they wanted to come in for restoration credits, that would be eligible under the HSA designation, but not eligible under the current open designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Tom, I guess my question is, in the analysis the committee does on these SSA's, will they be taken into consideration the additional SSA's that could be generated from the two GMP amendments? While one I understood was withdrawn and one is in place, the bigger one, will they be taking those into consideration as far as their overall totals go? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's the only -- anybody else have any questions through Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll move on then. Thank you, SIr. 1'11 just ask the commission every few pages if they have any questions, and maybe that's the best way to proceed through. Page 27 May 1, 2008 MR. GREENWOOD: This is table 1-C, and we've covered that. The approved stewardship -- this may not be very legible on this map. The approved stewardship sending areas are shown in red. And since I'm partially colorblind, but I know there are some in the slough area, which is in the eastern side of the rural land stewardship area. And there are some in the Camp Keis Strand. And there are also some that are in the south end adjoining the state and federal land, our south end of the rural land stewardship area. The pending ones also are -- generally you're going to find these in the highly environmentally sensitive areas, again in the slough on the east, in the Camp Keis Strand on the west. And you're also going to see some coming in on the south end, as shown on this map. And again, these are highly environmentally sensitive areas. The next question is the amount and location of land designated as stewardship receiving areas. There is 4,000 acres designated for the Town of Ave Maria. It's under construction and will continue to be under construction probably for several years. There's also 1,027 acres which are public benefit acres, and that also includes the university out there. Town of Big Cypress, that is again in initial DR! status and that is at 2,798 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray had a question, at whatever point's convenient for you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just a question on that 1,027. It may be picky here, but public benefit. And we speak of it for the university. Inasmuch as that's a private school, how is that represented as a public benefit? MR. GREENWOOD: The stewardship receiving areas -- let me just explain. The stewardship sending areas are handled through the comprehensive planning department. The stewardship receiving areas, that is the development is handled through zoning and land Page 28 May 1, 2008 development. And Mike DeRuntz who's here with comprehensive planning was involved in that, so I'm going to let Mike, if you wouldn't mind, address that. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning. The question about public benefit. In the Land Development Code it identified that universities, schools and parks, some parks, I believe, were identified as uses that would -- and qualify as public benefits. And the acreage that those land uses occupied would not be counted against the maximum for Town of Ave Maria or any town 4,000 acres. So it didn't distinguish between private and public there for the universities. So that acreage was exempt from the maximum area allowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, before you sit down, as a follow-up to that question, the term is public benefit. A private university doesn't seem to be public. Does the document -- and I can't recall the GMP specifically, so does the language in the GMP specifically say public and private are included as public benefits, or just public? MR. DeRUNTZ: It's public and private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's a -- do we know then how many government functional buildings are within the Town of Ave Maria? So we really could have an idea of what maybe regular people would consider public. MR. DeRUNTZ: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else? (No response.) MR. GREENWOOD: Next slide. This slide shows in yellow the existing -- in fact, the only stewardship receiving area. And in red, the proposed Big Cypress. Page 29 May 1, 2008 I might point out, just for the record, that -- and we'll talk about it a little later in the slide presentation -- Town of Ave Maria has an average dwelling unit density per acre, per gross acre, of2.19. 2.19. Big Cypress, as it's proposed right now -- and again, it's in the development of regional impact status, which is very preliminary -- is proposing 8,968 dwelling units on 3,699 acres. Average density of 2.42. So it gives you a sense of what the density pattern has been, at least during the first five years. Any questions on this slide? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Big Cypress coloration there the first phase or all phases? Because I understand it was larger to begin with, and then they reduced it to different phases. MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not the best to answer that. But I believe there would be in the future some addition to the north. I believe to the south is going -- and I think we have a slide that will show that. Let me just pull that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: In yellow -- well, let me just point. This is the -- right here is the area. It straddles either side of Oil Well Road, which runs east and west. This is the area of the -- right here of the Town of Big Cypress, as proposed. The areas around it here, which are going to be basically stewardship sending areas 14, 15, 16 and possibly some credits for this. Credits from these areas will be used to -- or at least proposed to be used to enable the development of Big Cypress as an SRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Okay, you have to excuse me, I'm not really familiar with using this. But any other questions on this slide? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it may be premature, but I Page 30 May 1, 2008 noted that the hotel rooms that are projected for Big Cypress, even though the overall scale of the project is considerably lower than Ave Maria, are those hotel room numbers higher? When the projection is made, what is -- how is that reached that way? I understand it comes from development somewhere along the line, but -- MR. GREENWOOD: Those are the kinds of issues that will be reviewed when the application is submitted for stewardship receiving area. And -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I shouldn't have seen it in the first place? Because I -- MR. GREENWOOD: Well, no, I don't know where you saw it. I guess it was included as a document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's in your documentation. MR. GREENWOOD: Sure. And it was shown there basically to show what may be coming in and may be approved for Big Cypress and nothing more. But we have not gotten into an analysis level that we'd be able to answer that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was trying to understand, because Ava Maria at least has an attractant, so to speak. It has a university. I was trying to figure out what they're going to put in Big Cypress that would provide such an interest to have that many more rooms. MR. GREENWOOD: Those are good questions to ask the applicant when we get to that stage on that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A little late when we get to that. But okay, thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Anything else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I also have another question, maybe a little dumb on my part. I might be confused by reading what the state wrote, but we talk about eight credits. Somewhere else in here it says seven. And I was a little too tired to go back and look for where it was. Am I in error in that? Page 3 1 May 1, 2008 MR. GREENWOOD: I don't know if you're in error, but it is eight credits. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eight credits confirmed? MR. GREENWOOD: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: You're welcome. Okay, the next slide. And there's a total of 16, I believe, and we're on number 10. Number 10 addresses the third question, the number of stewardship credits generated, signed or held for future use. And on the left-hand side, stewardship credit summary, you have the number of acres, total credits assigned, and R-2 credits. And the reason R-2 credits are set out aside is that those credits do not become available until the actual restoration work has been done. And the only stewardship sending area right now as we speak that is close to that level of approval is SSA-6. And that's flow way restoration. In fact, I think the environmental staff were out there yesterday or earlier this week to do ground truthing with the applicant. But again, I wanted to point that out is that those R-2 credits do not become available for use until the restoration is actually done. The R-1 credits which are included in the credit total, that's basically credits that are received by the applicant if they submit a restoration plan. And the restoration actually doesn't have to be done in order to get the R-1 credits. And that's the way the program is set up presently. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: IfI may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was trying to understand that. It seemed curious that we get a credit simply because they applied without having to perform anything. What was the logic or the basis for that? MR. GREENWOOD: I think the -- I think it was done in order to encourage restoration. Page 32 May 1, 2008 And I might also say, by the way, when SSA's are submitted the applicant is required to submit the most current information and the applicant typically has a consultant. In this case it's been WilsonMiller, who actually do ground truthing. They actually go out and recheck the data in terms of the FLUCCS maps and the habitat characteristics of the area and so on and so forth. But I can't answer that. That basically goes back about five years. But again, the intent was to encourage restoration, and that's a good thing. My conversation with Clarence Tears, for example, yesterday with the Southwest Florida Water Management District, they encourage that. And so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the value currently of credits? MR. GREENWOOD: The R-1 credits I believe are two. If you have -- for the plan, two credits per acre. And the actual completion is four credits. You get another four credits per acre. I think it also varies, depending upon where that restoration is occurring. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the extreme, of course. I recognize this probably wouldn't happen, but -- would you like to share that with us? MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, I stand corrected. You actually get four credits for the plan and two I believe for the restoration, actual restoration. Two or four, depending on where the restoration occurs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's what I was trying to get at. In the extreme it likely wouldn't happen, but it's possible, I suppose, the owner of the property could achieve credits without having to do anything and then could transfer that property and benefit from that simply by application. MR. GREENWOOD: With the restoration plan, yes, approved as part of the stewardship sending area. COMMISSIONER MURRAy: Is that -- to your knowledge, is that something that was going to be scrutinized as -- Page 33 May 1, 2008 MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, yes, I think everything in the goals and policies will be scrutinized, absolutely. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a follow-up question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When something is restored, like say they clear the Brazilian peppers out of it, the Brazilian peppers could be back worse than before in five years. So at what interval is this stuff rechecked and -- MR. GREENWOOD: I always defer to people that know a lot more about that than myself. And this is Laura Roys. MS. ROYS: I'm Laura Roys, Environmental Services. It's -- the -- we do a site inspection per whatever the approved restoration plan -- that would all be laid out as part of the restoration plan so long after they're done. And at that point if staff agrees that they've achieved their success rate for the restoration area, then they would be eligible to receive the remainder of the credits. And further monitoring would all be up to the applicant or the plan on that, the way the plan -- that plan is set up. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So once they get the credits, that's it. There's really no incentive for them to keep it clean anymore. MS. ROYS: If the restoration plan states that they will do that-- keep the exotics at a certain level, then they are required to do that. And it's part of their stewardship credit agreement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what is the level that is mandated by our Department of Environmental? MS. ROYS: There are no standards set forth through the LDC for restoration. They -- it is basically whatever the applicant proposes to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That doesn't seem proper to me. Because just living in Florida and knowing how fast exotics take over Page 34 May 1, 2008 areas, something could be perfectly clean or, you know, it could be less than one percent today but if you came back in five years it could be totally overgrown. Especially when you disturb the land and you clean it of exotics, that creates a foothold for them to come back twice as fast, because the land has already been disturbed. MS. ROYS: I agree. And that's something that we will be commenting on for the Phase 2. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that is going to come back to us in Phase 2? MS. ROYS: (Nods head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Any other questions on this slide? (No response.) MR. GREENWOOD: Next. Okay, the -- again, the red are approved SSA's. I might make a few statements about the SSA process. Application is filed following the Land Development Code. And once the application is complete, final review is done, public hearing is scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners. The primary documents the commissioners look at and review is the addition of the executive summary is the stewardship credit agreement, which is fairly standardized, but it's also tailored for the specific project. And also a stewardship agreement. And the stewardship agreement is a legally binding document that is signed by the county, by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Community Services and -- I should say Consumer Services. And by the property owner. And that is recorded against the property. It's a permanent elimination of certain development rights on those tracts of land. So most of the stewardship sending areas remove development down to either ago one or ago two uses. Ag. one being active farming, ago two being pasture and that sort of use. Page 35 May 1, 2008 The bottom line is that I would suspect it would be very difficult, if not impossible once those agreements are approved by those three parties, unless the state decides to take their blessing or approval off them, along with Collier County, that they will be permanent records. Once this -- these documents are approved, the stewardship sending areas actually get posted or placed on the zoning atlas maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So in other words, with these easements nothing can be altered on those easements without all parties or two out of the three parties agreeing? MR. GREENWOOD: I think all three would have to sign off on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: All three would have to sign off. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. The property owner and whoever that property owner is in the future, as well as the county and the state, Department of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of these lands, especially over on the eastern side and all that are part of the states area of critical concern. Aren't they protected anyway? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, they're more protected than the other areas outside of that. And that's why the credit system takes that into account. You don't get as many credits if you have an SSA within the area of critical state concern than if it was outside the area of critical state concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, it's going to be a very interesting process for the committee to go through. There's a lot of information on those 26 pages. There's a lot of decisions that have to be made, and it's not going to be an easy thing. And I think the discussion we're having this morning is excellent. Page 36 May 1, 2008 Next slide, number four, comparison of the amount, location and type of agriculture that existed at the time of study and time of review. And again, at the 2002 base line there was about 94,498 acres of ag., ago type use. With the rural land stewardship area we had 5,058 acres taken out ofag. and basically put into an SSA -- I'm sorry, an SRA, Ave Maria. Without the rural land stewardship area, there was a reduction of acreage again through change of land use not affected by the rural land stewardship area but more by the economy. And then we had some new ago added, 427 acres. So the bottom line is there's been a reduction of ago by about 5.4 percent over the five years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Inasmuch as the goal is to preserve, at least from the state's point of view anyway, to preserve crops, crop land, farmland, is this something that we had expected, something we just learned because of the way the program worked, or is this projectable to the future that we're going to continue to see loss of those lands? MR. GREENWOOD: An opinion is is that I think the way the program was originally set up, obviously the lands that would be developed, okay, that are in say your Ave Maria's and Big Cypress, is typically they're going to be lands that have the least amount of environmental sensitivity. Although within those stewardship receiving areas you're going to have some flow way areas and you'll see it in Big Cypress. You'll have some water retention areas. But I -- that is one of the things, the committee, when they started discussing ag., they are looking at, and it's very preliminary, of providing some incentives to permanently retain ago land -- that being active ago land, ago one -- and providing an incentive system there perhaps and maybe reducing incentives in certain areas. But it's all Page 37 May 1, 2008 speculation. I think that's something the committee is wrestling with right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to add a comment to that. From what I was able to understand from the readings that I've made of this, it would appear if one were to stack it that according to the state, the preeminent need is to preserve farm land, secondarily it would be environmental. I'm not quite certain from our readings that the committee has really determined which one it wants to conserve. If we're attacking the issue to conserve and preserve environmental needs such as watershed and the rest, that I would think should be a superimposed pattern over this. And I wonder if that's been reflected in the committee's current work and whether that's part of the technical review of Phase 2. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, and it is. And just -- I wasn't here seven or eight or nine years ago when this program was first developed. I was told, and this is secondhand information, that the review committee or the committee at that time was more involved from an environmental standpoint as opposed to agriculture. This committee right here has, in my opinion, a fairly good balance of agricultural interests, environmental interests, as well as development interests. And there's going to be some very interesting decisions made that will affect this program and how it proceeds into the future. Again -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I like you were not here. But reading the state's commentary, they're very strong in their notions about it, and I wonder whether that will impact on how -- MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, I think the committee's already aware of that. And I think they're going to be look -- opinion is they're going to be looking at providing some incentives to retain the prime ago land, the ago one lands. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir. Page 38 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Where did the new ago -- there are 427 acres. Where did this new ago come from? MR. GREENWOOD: Again, my -- this slide shows in green the conversion. And again, I don't have a real good view, but there's a conversion in green patterns or ago to conservation. And there's been some conservation, I don't know exactly where it is on this map. The blues represent Ave Maria and the yellows are ago type changes. I guess that's in tan. But there have been some changes in ago uses. Again, ago to conservation. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it says there is new ago There are 427 acres of new agricultural land. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: How does that happen? When you start with a pie, it's 100 percent. We've accounted for everything in terms of the types of crops and the amount of habitat and the amount of flow way and the amount of everything. Where did the new land come from? Did we expand the RLSA? MR. GREENWOOD: No, the ago was a change ofag. type of use from one type of use, perhaps from pasturing to active ago or vice versa. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so it's actually not new ago That is misnomer. MR. GREENWOOD: The yellow is actually a change in the type of ago use. The green is actually a change from ago to conservation. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, I'm going back to your chart, table 4-A. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says there are 427 new ago acres MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Page 39 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- here. And that is incorrect. There may be a change in what's being farmed, but there are no new ago acres. In order to have new ago acres, you would have to convert conservation to ago or habitat to ago or flow way to ago or water retention to ago Has that happened in any case? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't know. I have to apologize, I was not the author of this report. I kind of assumed this project about two months ago, and I don't know how to answer your question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, I would just think we started with "X" number of acres, no matter what they were. In order to add ago acres, we would have to have either expanded the RLSA and/or converted something, either habitat or whatever, flow way or water retention -- MR. GREENWOOD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to that. MR. GREENWOOD: You're correct, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So there are -- this is incorrect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom or Mike, just by Phase 2 -- by the time we get to Phase 2, could you clarify it? MR. DeRUNTZ: I think I could provide a little more insight in this. As you can see on the bottom of there, this information was gathered by working with the property owners within the fUralland stewardship area. And they had possibly a better calculation from what they had in 2002 when we requested this information in 2007 to get this acreage. So that's why this shows this a plus 427 acres. So that's us working this information with the property owners. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. MR. GREENWOOD: Questions? (No response.) MR. GREENWOOD: Next slide. A comparison of amount, location and type of ag., we've covered Page 40 May 1, 2008 that. Number six, the extent and use of funding provided by Collier County and other sources of land -- I should say of local state, federal and private revenues described in Policy 1.18. There are 15 acres that have been purchased under the rural land stewardship -- in the rural land stewardship distributed by South Florida Water Management District. And then Conservation Collier purchased 367.7 acres. And there's information on the purchase price. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Number seven. The amount, location and type of restoration through participation in the stewardship credit system since its adoption. And again, SSA's 3-A, 5-A, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all have -- they all have R-1 acres, which is about 900, plus or minus. And then R-2 acres, 2,444, for a total of 3,344 acres. It appears, in fact, the pending SSA's have a lot more acreage in either R-1 acres or R-2 acres. So you're going to see SSA's 10 through 16 come through that there will be more credits generated by restoration. This is what, you know, we've experienced during the first five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do me a favor briefly. Would you go back to what is on Page 12, or I'll read it to you if you'd like. MR. GREENWOOD: This one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's beyond that. It's actually part of seven. And it's the -- if you want to go to that. Well, not the table, no, but the verbiage. I'll read it to you, if you have no objections. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The proposed restoration Page 41 May 1, 2008 activities often require lengthy time frames for the detail restoration, design, data collection -- example, water table data -- obtaining of state and federal permits for restoration. And my question focuses on that. Two things: How difficult and how time consuming are -- or is the act of obtaining those permits, and who all pays for those permits? What's the motivating factor? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, the property owner, I assume, or the applicant pays for the permits. And I don't know the timing on that. I'd defer to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the basis for my question I hope was evident. But if not, I'll qualify it for you. The concern I would have is if the property owner gets in their mind Phase 1 and they run into a snag and they give up essentially and they're in perpetual no motion. And then I think that impedes the progress of the program. So I would think that you folks would take on a little bit of that issue to determine more about whether it needs to be incentivized, whether it needs to be a partnership for that. If you're going to require, which I agree, you ought to make sure that it happens and that it's timely for it to be functional. That's my suggestion. MR. GREENWOOD: Good point. Yeah, I agree personally. And that's something the committee will have to address. Again, the red is approved SSA's, yellow are pending, and the black are restoration areas. You can see those on your maps. Any questions before I leave that slide? (No response.) MR. GREENWOOD: The last one, No.8, the potential for use of credits in urban areas. That's an interesting -- the RLSA program, as adopted, does not allow for the use of credits outside of the rural land stewardship overlay area, nor is there any existing method to use such Page 42 May 1, 2008 credits in the urban designation of Collier County Growth Management Plan. Such a change would require thorough analysis and an amendment to the GMP and RSLA overlay area goals, objectives and policies. And already the committee has talked about that concept of -- that's a very preliminary fairly of taking credits and perhaps using them in a manner that could be applied either within the rural land stewardship area or within certain areas within the urban designated area. And again, that's just a concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wasn't there something that went through recently that if something in the Immokalee urban area was adjoining to a stewardship area that it could be extended into the Immokalee urban area? MR. GREENWOOD: I believe there's some language presently in the Immokalee master plan that allows for properties that are contiguous or within -- I should say just outside of the Immokalee urban area to be used credit so to speak. But it's a different system, I think, to be applied for within Immokalee. This program cannot take credits -- pardon? I'm told there is the ability to do that right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you then amend this slide to reflect that? MR. GREENWOOD: We can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Tom, early on you said these credits are either traded, sold, transferred. Has there been a dollar amount associated with each credit as yet? MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not sure what the market is on the credits. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Value? MR. GREENWOOD: No. Page 43 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Dave? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Regarding this particular slide here, the particular provision that exists right now that was referred to as the density blending provision in the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and it's actually the opposite. What it allows is for development from the urban area to be sent out into the RLSA. And the rationale is where you have a property that straddles both the rural and urban boundary and where the best habitat is within the urban area, then that urban habitat could be protected and then the development rights shifted into the rural area. We have the same exact provision applicable to the rural mixed use district over here in the coastal area, and which in fact which has been used before. So that slide actually is correct, it does not allow for development from the RLSA to be sent into an urban area, or otherwise outside of the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, last slide. The last slide is really a summary of a two-page I call it a working paper. It's something that the review committee has not yet reviewed, but it will be used at our meeting next May 6th. It's kind of a segue document between the Phase 1 and the Phase 2. And what this summary on this slide indicates is -- I'm just going to tell you that these are based on the assumption that the program will not change, okay, it will stay the way it is. And the other assumption is that every property owner within the rural land stewardship area will participate in this program. And again, those are assumptions that are probably not going to happen, but they were done. And the reason for trying to determine what the potential so-called holding capacity or population holding Page 44 May 1, 2008 capacity might be within the rural land stewardship area, if you have full development under this program. And again, the options are to do ago development or to go into the rural land stewardship area. And my guess is long term it's going to be a little bit of both. The document basically says is the potential SRA build-out development in the RLSA under the current rural land stewardship area overlay. SRA's are enabled through the assignment of SSA credits per one acre of SRA development in accordance with the LDC. Estimated existing and potential SRA's, first bullet point, total potential acreage and SRA's under the current rural land stewardship area, and again that's potential, is 30,096 acres. And that's basically 240,766 SSA credits, which is the existing and potential divided by eight credits per acre. The second bullet point is the total potential dwelling unit holding capacity. And holding capacity is different than a population estimate. The holding capacity basically says, you assume a density for development. In this case I assumed, in this working paper, three dwelling units per acre. As I mentioned earlier, Ave Maria was at 2.19, and I think 2.45 for Big Cypress, as proposed. So I used three dwelling units here. Could be higher, could be lower. And that would generate about 90,287 dwelling units, which is 30,096 acres times three dwelling units per acre. The potential population holding capacity under the current rural land stewardship area is estimated to be about 215,000. And again, that's using the current county average household size of 2.39 times 90,287 dwelling units. Assuming 100 percent occupancy. So that, you know, in my estimation is a high end. In summary, and again, under this assumption, these assumptions, a total of 49 percent of all privately held land in the RLSA would be within SSA stewardship easements. And that is FSA's, HSA's, WRA's and limited open land would be permanentlym Page 45 May 1, 2008 protected again through the stewardship easements. 34.6 percent would be outside of SSA's and would follow the ago land designation and zoning, and 16.4 percent of all RLSA land, privately held land, would be within SRA's. About six -- one-sixth of the total rural land stewardship area would be urbanized in some fashion, whether it be towns, villages, hamlets, compact rural development. And again, 67.7 percent of the original 93,100 acres of open land or 34.6 percent of the total acreage -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can read that. MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't think we need to reread it all for us, and it's on the screen. So why don't we just go into questions. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, you said that the density is about three units per acre. But couldn't that density be increased in the future? MR. GREENWOOD: It could be increased, it could be decreased. It really depends on how the rural land stewardship area overlay district is changed and how the LDC is changed. The other thing I might mention is that the credit system, how the credits are achieved, that will either increase or decrease. And then on the other side is the SRA, whether the number of credits that's needed to develop an SRA will be either increased or decreased. So it's going to be a balancing act and there's lots of unknowns as to how the program will evolve after the review committee and the planning commission and the environmental advisory council and BCC react to the proposed amendments. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I can just imagine that once an area is urbanized like a Town of Ave Maria, that in the future there's going to be pressure to increase the density within the town. Page 46 May 1, 2008 MR. GREENWOOD: That is very possible, yes. And those are things I think that have to be addressed as we go into Phase 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in addition to that, the way we've established it with the ranchettes, they will then become the urban sprawl around -- surrounding the new villages and towns. And that will certainly impact negatively on the purpose here, the way I understand the purpose, anyway. I hope that the committee takes those things into consideration. It's a balancing act, as everybody understands. MR. GREENWOOD: And it's fortunate. I think the committee is a fairly balanced committee with environmental, ago and development interests involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to be taking a break here in a few minutes. I want to make a couple comments on this page -- well, actually one. Your 30,096 acres, because the following are not counted as needing stewardship credits, I don't believe that your 30,000 includes public facilities for parks, government, municipal golf courses, schools, universities, roadways, excess open space and WRA's that can be used for water management. If you were to include those, you'd probably look at close to 24,681 acres, based on standard percentages, which would increase your 30,000 developable more or less or acreage used for development substantially. I tracked this in 2003. The numbers you've produced actually match the numbers I came up with in 2003, with the exception of those I just stated. So I think that's interesting that we ought to take a look at all the free acres that are included in the RSLA program for the SRA's as well. It's just that's required by simply the credits. Before we go on break, I thought I'd pass out something to the Page 47 May 1, 2008 commission. And then when we get back we'll finish up with any kind of further staff presentation and public comments. I have here a list of questions that I have produced since 2005 on the RLSA. Attached to the list are also questions The Conservancy recently has produced, as well as those produced by the Florida Wildlife Federation. These are the questions I was asking earlier in the meeting if the committee would consider. Just for the committee's sake and Tom, for your benefit as well, in discussion since my list was finally read, I've learned -- I've come to learn that there's been -- I wasn't clear enough in some of my questions. Staff, in their responses to my questions missed what I was really asking in most cases. I have clarified the questions. So this is an updated version. I have copies for the planning commission and a few extras, so I'll pass those out now. And I'll leave the extras up here for those that need them, and I want to leave one for the court reporter. And with that, unless there's anything else right now, why don't we take a IS-minute break and be back here at 10:25. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If everyone will please resume their seats, we'll continue with the meeting. We left off with I believe what was the end of staffs report. Is that true, Mr. Greenwood? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had asked questions throughout the process. I think what we ought to do now is listen to any public speakers that are registered and then come to a conclusion. Ray, do we have any public registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker, Nicole Ryan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ryan, I think you know the routine, Page 48 May 1, 2008 huh? Okay. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I appreciate all the discussion that you're having around this Phase 1 technical report. I think that it has been established that this is a status report. It's very narrowly focused on answering those eight specific questions in Policy 1.22. The Conservancy had suggested at the beginning of the Phase 1 process that this report be a bit more encompassing and be all-encompassing with new data that had come up that would provide that launching pad for Phase 2. But that didn't happen. So I just want to make sure that it's understood that while Phase 1 and the technical review is going to be helpful for recommendations and changes in Phase 2, it can't be the only basis, because we have lots of new data and lots of new information. Certainly appreciate your including The Conservancy's questions and comments and recommendations as part of your discussion, because we do believe that those 20 questions that we brought up need to be discussed during the Phase 2 goals, policies and objectives discussion. The Conservancy was generally supportive of the RLSA program, but even at its adoption we did have some questions and concerns that we wanted addressed. We were told the five-year review would be that time to have those addressed, so we have brought those forward and we do hope that they can be addressed. Some of them are fairly simple. And I appreciate Mr. Murray's comments on some of the issues that we actually have concerning whether parks, private/public institutions, schools, should be allowed to be exempted from the maximum acreage. We believe they shouldn't. That's an easy fix to make in the GMP. Some of the other issues where we look at the natural resources Page 49 May 1, 2008 valuing indexing valuation, how you classify lands for their status as open, HSA, FSA and WRA, though WRA's not as much, that is an all-encompassing program-wide issue. And we believe that with the new maritime map, with the panther habitat, with the least cost pathways report from the wish Fish and Wildlife Commission, those are some of the really big issues. And those are going to take more time for the committee to review. So we appreciate your being acknowledgment of that and we look forward to working with the committee and with you in the future to make sure that this program, which is a good program, can be even improved upon in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this plan? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and this would be for staff. And obviously this thing's working out well, because we have two huge projects consuming and driving this system. Are there any other small people playing in this? MR. GREENWOOD: Please, your question is whether there are any smaller properties owners that are involved in this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, we obviously have the two new towns. And this thing is constantly centered around that. But are there anybody -- is anybody else doing anything smaller, like some of these compact rural developments that are referenced, are they being -- MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not aware of any. And Joe Schmitt is indicating that is the case at this point in time. Just these two towns, the one that's been approved and the one that is being considered May 1, 2008 initially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's going to happen between the two towns? There is some developable land in there. Is that where these small guys are going to do their compact work in the future? And is that the sprawl the state's worried about? MR. GREENWOOD: You mean between Big Cypress and the Town of Ave Maria? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GREENWOOD: Much of that land will be in stewardship sending areas and it will remain open and preserved, protected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, we'll see. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess we're sort of -- we're done with the public speakers, we're sort of in the summing up phase. I'd just like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I was going to ask some staff direction before we get to a point of motion, but absolutely, make a comment, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems like, you know, we are protecting the conservation lands, but I don't think we're doing the same for the ago lands. The town seemed to be located in prime ago area. I see that ago that was in Ave Maria is being shifted over to Hendry County. I'm interested -- I'll be very interested to see what incentives you're going to come up with for retention of agriculture. I think agriculture is very important. It was for a purpose that the Governor and the cabinet recommended that that be retained. One of the things about ago is that it's sustainable, as opposed to the construction industry, which is not sustainable. Eventually it's going to have to end. And so I'm very interested, as an Immokalee resident, seeing the number of people that are employed in agricultural, that that be Page 51 May 1, 2008 conserved. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point, Tom, I'd like to suggest a couple things. One is that when this comes back with the Phase 2 report, that we make sure to schedule the day by itself. I'm not sure it will take all day, but the Phase 2 report is obviously where the intensity of the questioning is going to be. We have nine pages of concerns that were passed out here this morning. My intention as a minimum at that meeting would be to make sure that those nine pages of questions were somehow responded to. So it would take time to get through that. And then my second point is what does the staff suggest from the planning commission they need at this point for this to move forward to the BCC, or was this just informational with no action required by the planning commission? MR. GREENWOOD: The action taken by the Environmental Advisory Council was to receive and accept it. They had a couple of minor suggestions. And if you would be willing to do that, we would have a briefer review, I hope, with the Board of County Commissioners on the 27th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be improper to include a recommendation with our review and acceptance of it to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. GREENWOOD: I think that would be appropriate to whatever your recommendation would be, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was going, for the benefit of this committee I think it is very important that the nine pages of questions get addressed. And I think since the BCC is the body that dictates what committees do and the parameters of those committees, so that there's no uncharted territory in regards to what the committee Page 52 May] , 2008 thinks it should be doing versus what the board told them to do, I would suggest that we recommend to the board that it ask the committee to also address those nine pages of questions. So it's clearly on the record that everybody intends to see those addressed. That would be my suggestion to any motion that is made. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sounds like a motion to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but as a chairman I tend to try not to make the motion. I hopefully defer that to my -- and Ms. Caron, would that be from you? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would be more than happy to make that recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made and seconded. And I'm assuming the motion was made than as Ms. Caron indicated, with a stipulation that those questions be sent to the BCC and request that they ask the committee to address those as well; is that right, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It is that we receive and accept this report with the stipulation that the questions presented to us today, the nine pages of questions, be addressed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 53 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. I appreciate the time the committee has been here today. And if we can be of any assistance in the future, we stand ready. So thank you all. And staff, appreciate it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you, Ron. Good job. Item #9C PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, HIAWASSE PUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will move on to the one remaining hearing for today, and that is Petition PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, also known as the Hiwasse PUD. It's on the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road. All those wishing to participate or testify on behalf of this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning commISSIOn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a phone conversation with Tom Taylor. And since I hadn't got the packet, essentially he was introducing the architectural concerns. Page 54 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a conversation with Tom Taylor concerning this project. I went over a few points, all of which I will be going over again here today. And with that we wi11100k to the applicant for a presentation. MR. HERMANSON: Good morning. I'm George Hermanson. I'm a partner with Hole-Montes, representing the Hiwasse project. We've got some people with me I'll introduce. Tom Taylor, who's President of our firm. In this case he's the applicant for the petition. And Bob Duane's our Planning Director. We have others with us that may introduce themselves if they need to answer questions. I wanted to go through a -- just a brief overview of what the requested changes were. There is a compo plan amendment issue that's come up in the very recent future that we'll discuss and I think we have a way to handle that issue also. The project is 12 and a half acres on this aerial photo. It's on Livingston Road. This down here is the entrance to Kensington. North of the drawing just a little bit is Pine Ridge Road. Across Livingston, I believe this is Brynwood and this is Positano. So does everybody know where we're at on this? About 60 percent of the project is in the FPL easement, which makes the -- most of the development area will be required to be put on the east 40 percent. It was a PUD that was approved in 2004. It's really a commercial infill project which has certain standards. There was a compo plan amendment approved prior to this. And we're requesting a number of changes to the PUD to allow development to proceed. The staff report summarizes them pretty well. There's five of them. I'll just go through them myself. The first one -- and I'm going to start at the north end here. The first one deals with an access point which was contemplated way back when this was approved. This is an apron that the county has Page 55 May 1, 2008 constructed to allow access to lands to the west. This property, by the way, is now owned by the county. This used to be part of the related group PUD, which was the LaCosta Apartments, which is to the west here. The first change is that the -- there was a condition that if a bank was to be put on the north end of the project there would have to be a traffic signal at this location. The county has since decided that a traffic signal will probably never be there. There is a restricted movement here there will never be a full median opening because of the proximity to Pine Ridge Road. So this restricted left in only will probably be here forever. So the county has no problem with our request, and that is to delete the condition that a traffic signal would have to be here for a bank to be located at the north end of the property. So that's the first change. The second change is in the same location. There was a requirement in the PUD that this access would only be allowed if a shared access agreement were reached. The reason for that, that stipulation, was the property used to be owned by LaCosta Apartments, or a related group. The county has purchased this property as part of their right-of-way and detention for Livingston Road. So as owners, they do not have a problem in granting that access point, and we do not have a third party to deal with for an agreement. So we're asking that that restriction change. This will be a shared access. The third change is -- regards a self-storage building. If you've looked at the permitted uses generally they're contemplated to be office, professional offices, office commercial and so forth, plus a self-storage building. We're asking for a change that would allow a building for self-storage to exceed the 1 50-foot maximum north-south dimension. Page 56 May 1, 2008 The PUD requires right now that all buildings be a maximum of 150 feet in the north-south direction. That would apply to all the other buildings. We're asking for a longer allowance for the storage building of 270 feet. I've got a rendering that Bob's putting up there. There was some concern about the character of that building, the appearance of the building. We've had some architectural work done. I believe staff is pretty happy with it. There was a concern raised by a Kensington resident who was also a local architect, and he's reviewed the drawing and I believe he is okay, too. He issued an e-mail withdrawing his concern. The main features to point out is that we are not only going to comply with the architectural guidelines but we're going to provide a more prominent break in the building line from north to south. Not just an offset but a building break with color changes and an architectural feature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your voice is getting muffled when you turn away from the mic, so somehow we need to kind of be closer to the mic so we can hear you. Thank you. MR. HERMANSON: Okay. Anyway, that is another change. The fourth change is to allow some more uses to be allowed in the FPL easement, subject to FP&L's agreement, of course. But we're asking for driveways and landscaping and stormwater management basically to be allowed in the FP&L easement. No buildings would be in the FP &L easement. The last change would be to allow some flexibility in the -- to meet the sidewalk and pathways requirement. The request to change is to allow some alternatives. The one being of course which would be the usual requirement is to put a sidewalk on the frontage on Livingston Road. That is probably not going to happen. The county really didn't acquire enough right-of-way. There are no sidewalks on Page 57 May 1, 2008 the west side of Livingston Road in that whole stretch. But the other alternative would be a payment in lieu in to the sidewalk fund. The third alternative would be to utilize the FP &L easement for construction of an alternative pathway, bikeway and walkway. That is the alternative that we've been in discussions with county staff. They prefer that. So that is probably what's going to happen. But in any case, we'd like the alternatives to be in the PUD. I just want to make some comments about the master plan. The -- this is the old master plan, this is the new one. The main changes that we're showing on the master plan to reflect some of the things that I've said is to show that water management will be in this area, which is the FPL easement. We're showing this pathway that we intend to build in the FPL easement. Some minor changes, which I think are a little more specific to how the project would be built. This roadway that comes in here would be in all likelihood a reverse frontage road which will run along the west side. You really can't build this road close to Livingston. So this roadway and the parking will be here. Also, the main issue that came up during the review was the design of this building for storage. I mentioned that we provided some breaks in the building, some color changes, some architectural features to break up the building. We've also agreed to a number of other things, including the enhanced buffer. So that if this building was built there will be an enhanced buffer along Livingston Road. It will be a Type B buffer, instead of a D. And we've further added density to it by spacing the trees closer and requiring higher trees at planting time. That would have been my presentation, but I do want to address an issue that just came up very recently. I don't know how it was missed, but it was, and it was pointed out just a while ago. And that is the language in the compo plan amendment which was approved prior Page 58 May 1, 2008 to this. The compo plan amendment indicated that there would be on this old master plan a choice of two alternative entrances. One would be the north entrance here, which would be a shared entrance with LaCosta. That being private property at the time, it wasn't known whether that shared agreement could be reached because we were dealing with a third party. The second alternative was to do a second entrance at approximately the midpoint of the project, which is shown here. We've sort of duplicated that on the new master plan, although we've spaced it to meet the spacing guidelines. County staff has indicated that their opinion is that the compo plan dictates at this point that we only have one access. It would either be this one or this one. And this is indicated to be the preferred access point. And since the county now owns the property, acquiring that access really is not an issue at this point. So they've indicated that at this point based upon the compo plan wording, not subject to some changes that we could make in the future, but based on the present compo plan wording, this is the entrance we got. Not this one. So we're going to agree to delete this entrance. We may come back with an amendment for that later, but at this point this is the entrance that we get. We'll agree to indicate that this entrance would only be approved subject to a compo plan amendment. There might be some internal changes to the development plan. This roadway that comes in from the shared access might have to run along the FP&L easement for a short period of time. That's subject to FP&L's agreement. We can indicate that on the master plan. And there are some stipulations in the PUD that were -- amended PUD that we're proposing that deal with that turn lane. Those would not be applicable, so we would delete those items. Page 59 May 1, 2008 So anyway, that's the way we propose to handle that issue on the compo plan wording. So that's really all I intended to say at this point. We'll be happy to answer questions as you -- as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the planning commission at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I seem to be unable to find the standards for setbacks and heights and so forth, so maybe you can help me with that. I was looking at the ordinance, but I don't seem to be able to find it. I keep on missing it, apparently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 9. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 9. Maybe it's because I'm looking at Page 5 of 5 as the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the PUD, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HERMANSON: There are standards on Page 9, which is Section 4.15. There are also standards for setbacks that are shown on Page 14, and 5.5. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My apologies. They were there all along. I knew they had to be. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. We have an e-mail from Dallas Disney, and I assume that's who you referenced. But he's not supportive of the change in length. I mean, you kind of gave the impression he was happy. Is he happy now and we don't know that, or MR. HERMANSON: He issued an e-mail subsequent -- I don't know whether we have a copy of that -- indicating he is satisfied with Page 60 May 1, 2008 the changes to the building design. I think his issue was with building design. I might mention something, that before we got into this issue about this entry, this building was intended to be at the south end of the property, next to the Eatonwood entrance. And we designed it specifically with some concerns that he had in mind. Now, we don't intend to change the building design, but if this entrance is not put in here, this building will likely be built more toward the north end of the property. Because the users of this building need close proximity to access. They were willing to put it here if this entrance was here. So this building is likely to be up in this area now. The building design will still be pretty much as depicted. We had promised also to increase the setback to 50 feet from Eatonwood Lane, if this was a larger building. We could leave that in, even though the building probably will be here. But those commitments would remain. But it looks like that building will be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, does that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm not through yet. What do you plan to really do, build multiple versions of this or -- because you've got 200,000 square feet of mini storage you can build, correct? So is that going to all be in one building? MR. HERMANSON: That building right there contemplated is, I'm going to say is between 80 and 85,000 square feet in that area. I don't think there's going to be any intent to use 200,000. The plan is to build more offices, and that building would probably be limited to about 80 to 85,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you have the potential essentially to build two of those. MR. HERMANSON: That, if that -- no. If that building were built, the PUD request that we have is that you only get one building Page 61 May 1, 2008 of that size. If you're less than 150 feet, which is the normal building limitation, which has always been in the PUD, yes, you could build more than one. But if that building is built which is greater than 150, there will only be one building. And that's pretty explicit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what is that explicit in? Because I have the PUD here. Can you show me that on the page? MR. HERMANSON: Okay, it's in Section 4.17. I'm still looking for it. MR. KLATZKOW: Page 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does it say that? MR. KLATZKOW: Page 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The version I have describes the building height. It doesn't limit you to one building though. John-David, one thing while they're looking, we got an e-mail that had a strike-through version. I looked at it on the computer, but you pointed out in the e-mail you'd be bringing copies today. Do you have copies? MR. MOSS: I didn't say that. Margie-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind, if you don't have a copy. MR. MOSS: I can make copies if you'd like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no, no. MR. MOSS: I have one on me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you're going to have to be on record if you're going to start communicating with a member, so -- MR. HERMANSON: It is in 4.17. I'm not sure it's in this version here. But it states that it's 4.17, paragraph C. Indoor south storage building shall not exceed 150 feet in either direction except that one such building will be allowed with a maximum north-south dimension of 270 feet in length, if accompanied by the following. And that's -- that talks about the architectural and landscaping that we're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I know where the confusion Page 62 May 1, 2008 is. If Mr. Schiffer's asking for a strike-through version, that only shows up in the strike-through version. So that may be why that was a strike-through -- that was strike-through add on Page 14, just as he read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. HERMANSON: I agree, I don't see it in my other copy. But it is an underlined addition to the strike-through and underlined verSIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be in the ordinance that was provided to us originally without the strike-through. It should be. I haven't even looked at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's there, it's there. Architectural standards. This building will require, you know, grade plane changes and everything like that. And you're going to meet those standards. I mean, it doesn't quite look like this building does. There's a requirement of no more than 60 percent of the facade and the same plane and within 10 feet of another facade. So I think you'll have to push back some of that. I'm not so much against it, because the distance in the original PUD between buildings is 10 feet. So essentially you could have two 150-foot buildings 10 foot apart which would look worse than one building meeting the architectural standards. So this seems okay with me. And I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to be absolutely clear. With regard to the maximum height, it says 35 feet. That's zoned height, right? MR. HERMANSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I guess that's an illusion, because it sure as heck looks higher than 35 feet. MR. HERMANSON: Well, the zoned height definition does allow for slanted roofs to -- Page 63 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that. MR. HERMANSON: -- exceed that. It does allow certain architectural features to be a little bit higher. I believe it's up to 15 percent of the building to be higher than the 35 feet. But all those criteria have to be checked off when those building plans are submitted. But there are some allowances for exceeding that height. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's three stories, is it not? MR. HERMANSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going to put elevators, I would assume. MR. HERMANSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be part of that. MR. HERMANSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The appurtenances. It's just I guess the way the illusion is, especially with those palm trees having the length that they have, certainly gives the impression than it's Los Angeles palm, okay, monstrously long. Interesting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to follow up on something that Mr. Schiffer just said. Or I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand what he said. This 270-foot building could have a ISO-foot building beside it, 10 feet apart. MR. HERMANSON: If this building is built -- first of all, I can tell you, if this building is built, there would be no second building. And I believe there's -- I believe the spacing is higher than 10 for a higher building. The actual distance between buildings is half the sum of their height. So there's -- for the -- the higher a building gets, even if it's just one of the two, the further apart they've got to be. Page 64 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, let's start on Page 3 of your strike-through version. In paragraph 1.2, the fourth line down it starts with the word feet. It says feet of indoor self-storage area and buildings containing a maximum of three stories and a maximum height of 50 feet. Same paragraph -- or same section, 1.2, second paragraph of that, fourth line, starts: Self-storage area with a maximum height of three stories of 35 feet. Now, I did look at your standards and your standards say 35 feet, but your statement of compliance in the beginning seems to have a discrepancy in it. And even I know this is not part of your strike-through, while we're at it, we ought to clean it up. MR. HERMANSON: I think what that means is that would be the height permitted in the infill commercial. All we're saying is we comply with the maximum height of that standard. We're actually going to be lower than that. Is that correct? That's correct. So the 50 feet merely references the maximum height that would be allowed in that district. We're not going to go that high, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Throughout this document -- and I asked you all for a strike-through version. I have no idea why staff didn't provide it to us as a standard procedure, because this board has so many times beat that home. But you did provide it. In reviewing the strike-through version, I find that correctly so the county attorney's office noted that in the strike-through they provided current references of our current 04-41 LDC. Yet all 14 pages of this document, every other reference is to the old 91-102 LDC. Page 65 May 1, 2008 Now, it's going to be very difficult for anybody reading this PUD to figure out what version they're supposed to be applying the standards to, because the strike-through goes away later on, and we're going to be left with a PUD that has all kinds of references to two different eras of our code. Do you have any objection -- well, I shouldn't say objection. This needs to be cleaned up by a consent agenda. MR. HERMANSON: Yeah, the reason I think is we changed the code numbers where the paragraphs were changed. The others -- rightly or wrongly, that's the way it was done. Ifwe have to come back for ratification of changes, we can make those number changes, too. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I need though -- I need them made in time so that staff can review them to make sure that by the time we get our consent agenda, staff concurs that you have picked up the right corrective references. This should not be done this way. We cannot have changes to a PUD referring to one section of a code when the rest of it refers to other sections that aren't with the current ordinance. So if you can get that cleaned up and staff needs to schedule a consent agenda timely in order to make sure they can verify that all the right corrections were made. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like just to clarify a procedural point. This PUD amendment is not a PUD to PUD. We're not adopting a brand new PUD document. It's not repealing the currently approved ordinance, it's only amending the ordinance with a new ordinance attachment. And it only shows the changes in strike-through and underlined that goes hand-in-hand with the currently approved ordinance and PUD document. So there's not going to be a whole new PUD document attached to this proposed ordinance, only the changes shown in the Page 66 May 1, 2008 strike-through and underlined format. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I still think-- MR. BELLOWS: So what you get back on the consent agenda is just this three-page or four-page ordinance, not the entire -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I will be voting no on this amendment then. Because if this isn't going to get corrected so future generations of staff members can know what consistently to read as far as a code reference goes, then I'm not satisfied this is protecting the best interest of the public, Ray. I don't know why it would have gotten through the system incorrectly in the first place. I can cite you, and I circled them all, repeated sections of the code referring to the old '91 code, when you've got new sections referring to the '04 code. How do you expect staff in the future to sort that out? MR. BELLOWS: I think it's a process that was created for-- originally intended for PUD's that are mostly built out. And if the change is to be made, you can't -- it would be difficult to start revising the entire PUD document when most ofthe project's already developed under the old standards. So this strike-through and underlined format would apply to undeveloped tracts of a PUD or to address real minor changes to a PUD without having to revise the entire PUD document. So it was kind of a limited amendment process, especially if a PUD had a lot of different ownerships. While that's not the case with this particular one, it's an undeveloped tract still under unified ownership. Given the change was minor, we felt that we could handle it as a strike-through and underlined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is an amendment. I don't know if it's minor, especially with some of the things. But if they want to live by the old PUD, then I'll turn your attention to Page 6, 3.3(B). Because it says, the anticipated time of build-out for the project is Page 67 May 1, 2008 approximately four years from the time of issuance of the first building permit or 2006. That means the project's completed or they have a sunsetted PUD. I guess it's their choice how they want to proceed then, if they don't want to change that. Are we still thinking that this PUD doesn't need to have other -- MR. HERMANSON: No, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- areas of it corrected? MR. HERMANSON: It has been extended, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do you have the extension? Because when I looked in the county documents, this is the only reference I -- MR. HERMANSON: I'm sure we have it. I don't have it with me, though, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a-- MR. HERMANSON: I don't have a problem changing every page that has a code reference to it. You know, that's a procedural thing. I don't know how you want to handle it. But we don't mind changing all the pages if it's still going to be called a PUD amendment, and recording all the pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any idea how we could get this PUD updated to the correct Land Development Code references throughout the PUD, considering what we've heard staff state as far as wanting to just approve the ordinance and only those corrections in the ordinance? I'm not sure what legally is the most appropriate, but I feel it's necessary. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think that both legal approaches -- I mean, our office is comfortable with either approach. If it's your direction that this be done, it's your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm concerned now that if the staff wants to limit this to an amendment listed in a separate ordinance in a strike-through version and not modify the PUD as a whole and make the changes in the PUD, we may end up no better off than we are with Page 68 May 1, 2008 the amendment. That's where I think I'm hearing this could be a concern. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there any changes other than simply the change to the numbers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean, other -- I've got numbers on almost every page that need to be changed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So my though is could we not have a parenthetical showing the old and in parenthesis showing the new references, so that both are possible? Because Ray makes a point that I think is certainly valid from a going to do the work job. But if -- and I certainly agree you want to reference everything. But ifthere's no substantive changes, then something -- a reference might solve the probable. MR. BELLOWS: We work with old PUD's all the time, and staff is used to looking at the citations and the wording of the document and can find the criteria as required by the language in the PUD document. We have many PUD's that have amended ordinances attached to the original approval, and you just look through both the amended ordinance and the original ordinance. Like I said, the reason that we do this approach is for those projects that have multiple ownerships and you can't really do a PUD to PUD amendment that opens up the PUD for an entire review. And you can't do that if it's not under that same ownership. Now this one could have been done both ways. But I guess during the preapplication meeting we felt that the change was minor enough and is simple enough we could handle it directly, as this type of strike-through and underlined amendment, given that the PUD wasn't that old in the first place. It was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But changing the code references to the right ones in today's code has no impact, no change to it other than a numeric change so that anybody reading it gets to the right section of Page 69 May 1, 2008 the code. For example, if you look in environmental subsection 3.9.5.5.3 as culled out in one of these -- this older PUD, who in the world could find that? We don't even have the availability for the general public in 99 percent of the population to pull up an old PUD because it's not on-line and it's nowhere. So why would we want to leave this in here when the opportunity to clean it up for the public and everybody involved? I don't understand the resistance to that. I'm puzzled by it all. MR. BELLOWS: I don't think it's resistance, it was just a process that is in place and the petitioner qualifies for that process. Now-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not taking it away from the petitioner. He's not going for any more intensity of change. It's simply citing the right reference. MR. KLA TZKOW: Just to cut through it, Ray, is there a substantive change that's going to be made if we just update the code references? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we can do that, too. MR. HERMANSON: Mr. Chairman, ifthere's no delay as a result, we could add the code updating as one of the changes and then we'll just change those pages, too. It won't be every page in the document, but it will cover all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I definitely want to see this document referred to the right code sections or just to say to the updated Land Development Code, wherever there's a reference. I don't care where, but it needs to say something so that we're not looking at sections that don't exist and trying to hunt them down on a document we can't find. MR. HERMANSON: We'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page -- I mean Item 6.2, Page 18 of your PUD. It's not part of the strike-through, but it certainly is relevant. And Ray, I'm going to need you to listen to this. Page 70 May 1, 2008 It says, the road impact fee shall be as set forth number in the Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, and adopted in January, 2003 and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. I want to know, does that limit them to the impact fees effective only through January, 2003 and any of the changes since then are not MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it reads that way. MR. SCHMITT: They're impacted by that amendment or that ordinance and any future amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says as amended and adopted in January, 2003. Doesn't say as amended and adopted in 2003 and any amendment thereafter. It just says stops in January, 2003. So I know this isn't part of their strike-through, but I want it made clear, their process is for impact fees or whatever the current level of impact fee is. Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that that isn't the case? Mr. Klatzkow, are you comfortable with that? MR. KLATZKOW: There's no doubt in my mind. MR. SCHMITT: No doubt in mine either. MR. KLATZKOW: Would the petitioner verify there's no doubt in the petitioner's mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: State it on the record? MR. HERMANSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George, do you have any problem recogmzmg -- MR. HERMANSON: I took my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that that statement doesn't limit-- MR. HERMANSON: -- hat off, but I'll say no, there's no doubt Page 71 May 1, 2008 that it's as amended means the current rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I notice in the PUD in the strike-through language there's no reference to a 24-hour manning of your facility. Do you know why that wouldn't be? MR. HERMANSON: 24-hour manning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. HERMANSON: You mean as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The indoor self-storage, you're going to have someone on there 24 hours a day? MR. HERMANSON: No, there are operating hours that are mandated in the PUD. I think it's from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you at the neighborhood informational meeting? MR. HERMANSON: I wasn't, no. Other of our staff were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read a quote from that. Finally one resident was concerned about noise coming from the self-storage warehouse, since based on his experience contractors often use self-storage units as workshops. To assuage this resident's concerns, the applicant stated that the self-storage would be indoor only and manned 24 hours so that no one would be able to utilize a unit as a workshop. If you said that to the public, you have to do what you say. Do you have any comment on that or what your intentions were there? MR. RICHARDSON: Dennis Richardson. I'm with United Stor-All Centers, the prospective user of the self-storage facility. There would be no electricity applied to the individual units. And, you know, specifically stated in our contract, there's no such activity that goes on in terms of, you know, working any kind of a commercial or industrial type use in those units. It's strictly, you know, kind of dead storage. Page 72 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you at the neighborhood informational meeting? MR. RICHARDSON: No, I wasn't, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd just like to know why in response to the public if the answer was what you said that wasn't provided in lieu of telling them something that obviously is not going to come to pass. MR. RICHARDSON: Yeah, and I think maybe just at that point, you know, Tom and I probably weren't as far along in negotiations at that point where we had that dialogue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know -- Ray, do we have any public speakers here today? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two public speakers: Dennis Richardson and Tom Taylor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll certainly talk -- Tom Taylor, he's the applicant. If Mr. Richardson is from the neighborhood and ifhe was at the meeting, I'll try to understand if there's a concern after what you have just said. So you're not going to have any electrical to the units. MR. RICHARDSON: Well, we will, I mean, for air conditioning purposes. But we won't have electrical outlets where somebody could plug into to do any kind of woodworking, you know, those type activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time before we go to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Do you have a question of staff? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, just a comment. That it is on Page 73 May 1, 2008 Page 15 of the current PUD, it does state that the hours of operation of the self-storage buildings shall be limited to the hours of7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I have seen that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The difference in manning and hours though is what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- caught my eye, so-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., it's all yours. MR. MOSS: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I just wanted to state that this project is consistent with the Livingston Road, Eatonwood Lane commercial infill subdistrict which is a site specific subdistrict. It's also consistent with the provisions of the PUD document and the LDC, except the applicant is requesting one deviation from the LDC, which is already mentioned, is to put the bike lanes in the FP&L easement rather than in the right-of-way. Staff did receive one other letter of objection from the community. But we did receive one letter of retraction from Mr. Dallas Disney, and I have a copy of that, if you'd like to see it. I think the issue about the access has been resolved, is it not? With the access removed, the applicant did state that they would remove the direct access to Livingston Road. So with that change to the master plan, it would be consistent. And I know that Nick from transportation would like to make a comment before I take any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick. Look at Nick. I got to tell your mom. And Connie, if you're watching, we do not pick on Nick at this Page 74 May 1, 2008 meeting. We like Nick. He's just got a very good sense of humor and he takes it well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Don't trust him, Mom. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. As John-David Moss pointed out, the access issue has been resolved, and we just want to clear it with the applicant that they are willing to do the lO-foot multi-use path along the FP&L trail easement, which they've agreed to do. And other than that, they would enter into an access and maintenance agreement prior to approval of the first SDP. And that's all we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: The PUD, Nick, doesn't say that that is a requirement. Do you want that changed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They were asking for a deviation. They've agreed to build that pathway. MR. KLATZKOW: Or they agreed to give you money in lieu of. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's to build the pathway. They're going to build the pathway. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, what I'm saying it's their option on the PUD. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've eliminated that option in our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But have they eliminated it in the PUD I think is what the county attorney is trying to ask. MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. Maybe to simplify that, we'll just change it to say we'll build the pathway. Take the sidewalk payment in lieu options out. The pathway will satisfy the sidewalk requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. J.D., is there any more that you had to say? MR. MOSS: No, that's all I have. I'll be happy to answer any Page 75 May 1, 2008 questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: J.D., are you comfortable with the strike-through version two, that it really states that you can only build one building if you build it larger? Because the way I read it, it says that you -- you know, let me read it out loud. Indoor self-storage dimension shall not exceed 150 feet in either direction, except that one such building will be allowed with a maximum north-south dimension of -- and it goes on. So it really says that you could build multiple buildings, one of which could be the larger building. MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are you comfortable that that says that if you build that you can't build any other buildings? I think that's their intent, but -- MR. MOSS: No, I don't think it does say that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it does say that either. I think it says one of them could be big and you have a bunch of little ones. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but wasn't that how they get to the square footage? MR. KLATZKOW: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, in the presentation they stated if they built a big one they wouldn't build the other ones. So shouldn't we wordsmith that a little? MR. KLATZKOW: I think what he said was they're only intending to put one storage building on the property. But they intend to put other buildings on the property. Page 76 May 1,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is under indoor storage dimensions. So I mean, they're allowed 200,000 square feet of storage building. Their testimony today is they'll probably only build 90, but that still leaves a huge potential late in -- MR. HERMANSON: George Hermanson. We'll agree that the -- to wordsmith it if necessary that if a storage building is built to the longer dimension, there will be only one storage building on the project, period. That's what was intended. If it doesn't mean that -- or doesn't say that exactly, we'll change that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll just accept that only one such building will be allowed? No, wait a minute that still says the same -- MR. HERMANSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I think we should wordsmith that to mean that if they build the big guy, they'd forfeit building any other indoor storage. MR. MOSS: We'll make sure that that's clear when we bring it back to you on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other question on this C, the way this was written in the resolution, it has C Building -- and then it has this symbol dot, dot, dot, dot, dot, which tends to mean that there's other text not stated here. But I don't think that's the case. Jeff, I guess it's kind of a legal thing. In other words, that symbol where you put all those little asterisks means that there's other text that you're not copying here. MR. KLATZKOW: It just means there's no changes in those texts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think this is wiping -- I think -- aren't you eliminating everything in C? MR. MOSS: I'm sorry, Commissioner. Which page are you on of Page 77 May 1, 2008 the ordinance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking on -- if you look at the original ordinance 11 -- MR. MOSS: Oh, the original. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then you look also at the resolution, Page 3 of 5. I think what you're doing in there is you're taking C and you're eliminating everything in the current C and replacing it with this; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That's not correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what -- then how do we know by the numbering system what stays? MR. KLATZKOW: What stays is everything after C stays the same. It was not changed. And then you go to -- start with the language in addition to, and that's where the changes are made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but look at the numbering then. What's going on then? Okay, so you're down -- all right, I see what you're saying. Well, okay, there really -- it was just poorly numbered in the beginning. So you're going down to that first paragraph that says in addition to and changing everything after that. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I guess just the numbering in the original thing should have had a number on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., let's start on Page 3 of9 in your staff report. It would be the third line, starts with the word professional. And it says, professional medical or office use, including a bank. And then it says and/or up to 200,000 square feet. The PUD just says "or". And your and/or is repetitive throughout your document and your findings answers. Page 78 May 1, 2008 There is a difference between and/or or just the word "or". So I'm wondering if what you intended was and/or, or when if you look on the PUD Page 3, 1.2, statement of compliance and everywhere else where it talks about these two mixes, it simply says or 200,000 square feet. Which would mean if they have the medical facility at 91,000 or whatever, they don't get the 200,000 square feet. But your and/or would -- MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make you think they get both. MR. MOSS: Um-hum. It is misleading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So "or" would be the right-- MR. MOSS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- substitute-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- not and/or? MR. MOSS: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOSS: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thought that they came in with the possibility that if they didn't get the 270-foot building, that they might have a bank or an office building and a smaller -- and so that might be the basis for your and/or. MR. MOSS: Well, if you're reading the compo plan language, it says that they're allowed 91,000 square feet of professional and medical uses and buildings, or 200,000 square feet of indoor self-storage units. And then there could be a mix of the two. And if there is a mix of the two, then the self-storage has to be reduced. Comprehensive planning is the one who did this review, and I actually just cut and pasted their review out, so I'm not sure what their intent was when put and/or. But it seems -- I agree with Mr. Strain, it Page 79 May 1, 2008 seems to be misleading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it also seems to be moot inasmuch as we've established that the one will take up all the room anyway, I would think, so -- but it's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., if you go to your rezone findings, on number one you've got to change or correct what we just talked about. MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven, it asks if the change would create or excessively increase traffic. Findings: The proposed change will have any impact on traffic congestion. MR. MOSS: Should be a "not" there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to say, put the "not" m. Number eight, whether the proposed change would create a drainage problem. And it says it should not create a drainage problem. Wouldn't you be more definitive in saying it will not create a drainage problem, since you're not going to allow it if it does? MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And under your findings for a PUD, number one, you need to correct the and/or again on that one. Then I want to read to you something that was issued in November 16th of 2004. And I saw David Weeks here and he's disappeared, right when he was badly needed. I'm sure this got cleared up, but in going back and reading the old records on this Hiwasse, here's what it says. It says, under growth management impact, with regard to the list of permitted uses the comprehensive planning staff has concluded that the proposed bank and financial institutional uses are not consistent with the intent of the subdistrict that limits the uses to professional office. The BCC has previously determined that banking is classified as Page 80 May 1, 2008 a financial service and not professional office. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes proposed rezone is consistent with the FLUE, subject to the elimination of banking and financial institutions. They are not putting a bank or financial institution on this property now? MR. MOSS: They are. I don't know the history of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. I read that and it confused me. That's why I'm -- and unless I had to read all the minutes to all the meetings, which I didn't get time to do, I wouldn't know the answer to that. I was hoping someone might. Could you take a look and find out how that -- MR. MOSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- between now and the consent agenda? I'm sure it got cleared up; otherwise, we wouldn't be here today. MR. SCHMITT: My recollection, when this first came in it was going to be -- and I would have to turn to the applicant. But the proposal was originally for a bank on the southern end of the property and a self-storage to the north. That was the original intent when they first came in with the compo plan amendment and later with the original PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And there was going to be a bank and there was going to be access. That is what was debated, hotly debated, from the excess on -- what's that road? Eatonwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to make sure that the problem had gotten resolved. I didn't find in the record where it had, and I so -- and that's all the questions I have. Is there any other questions of staff before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, would you call the public speaker, please? Page 81 May 1, 2008 MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker, Dennis Richardson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the only speaker, right? MR. BELLOWS: The only speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's the petitioner as well? Oh, Mr. Taylor, you're going to speak, huh? MR. TAYLOR: Just for a second. Mainly because I had conversation with some of the neighbors this morning in the hallway. They're here and I don't want to speak for them, but I did tell them that I would go on the record with a couple of items today. The Eatonwood Lane, part of their drainage discharges to the very south end of this parcel. I believe a drainage easement exists for that. But they've never received a copy of it. They indicated that to me this morning. So I've indicated that if it exists, we'll provide it. If not, I want to go on the record that we will accommodate that drainage that was intended with the original approval. So again, just stipulating on the record that that will be dealt with appropriately. Also indicated with some of the dialogue that came up this morning and the deletion of the southern entrance that's shown on this master plan, the -- we told the neighbors that we would be meeting with them and we would -- they've -- I don't want to again speak for them, but they've indicated that they're okay with the changes that we've suggested, subject to seeing some drawings that would support that. And maybe just to also clarify the financial institution. I believe, and this is best of my knowledge from looking at the historical records also, was that the resolution of that was indicated that the financial institution would be acceptable if it were limited to the north end of the property. And that's how that was resolved, I believe. And that was resolution between, I think county commission and the neighbors, et cetera. Page 82 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But now the intent is actually to change that and move this storage building to the north. MR. T AYLOR: Just to clarify that, there's likely to be a bank building or a financial institution building that would be on the extreme north. Immediately adjacent to that would be the self-storage. Then offices would be south of that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, is there any final comments from the applicant? MR. BELLOWS: No other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No other speakers. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there in motion from anybody? You guys got to say something. Come on now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to approve, subject to numerous changes which I'm sure you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a list of six so far. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's what I figured. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we can get a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded the motion. Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. I'll read my stipulations that I think we discussed, in case anybody wants to say yea or nay to them. Number one -- well, I guess this one wasn't discussed, and it's my Page 83 May 1, 2008 fault, I should have -- I had a note to bring it back up. But I heard the applicant indicate the FP&L easement will be modified to -- for the uses they're contemplating that are on the master plan. So that would be one stipulation, that they will modify that FP &L easement. Number two, that the new master plan will be supplied with the applicable accesses per the Growth Management Plan, in particular deleting the southernmost entry. Number three, that the PUD itself will be cleaned up with the correct and updated code references. Number four, the pathway in lieu of -- there will be a pathway supplied and the reference to the sidewalk in lieu of -- payment in lieu of a sidewalk will be struck. Number six, if there's a storage building larger than -- there can only be one storage building larger than 150 feet, and there will be only one such storage building. I'm sorry, I don't know if that came out right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a suggested rewording of that. Maybe that will clean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. What is it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We would reword that where it says except that, and I would add this: If in only one building it will be allowed to be a maximum of. In other words, strike out between -- if you're looking at that section two, strike -- except that and strike out one such building, and add if in only one building it. And that makes it clear that if the indoor storage is in only building it will be allowed to be larger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will that work? If there's only one building, it would be allowed to be 270 feet, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the sixth would be the Eaton (sic) Lane drainage easement, there will be an easement provided for the Eaton (sic) Lane drainage within this project. As the applicant Page 84 May 1, 2008 actually volunteered that. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. I'd like to add one more, that there is no significant change from the architectural drawing of the building that you're submitting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only concern I have there is as Mr. Schiffer stated, that probably hasn't gone through architectural review with county staff. And if it did, it would probably only enhance the building, so there may need to be some changes done. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I said significant. So they're going to have to meet the -- okay, so let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the eyes the beholder, you know? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then they'll just have to meet the architectural standards and everybody will be happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which they've got to do because of the Land Development Code. Okay, so there are -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we need to include too that on the record Mr. Taylor said that he would be meeting with the neighborhood with a revised plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we -- that would be a PUD stipulation. I mean, he said it on the record, so I'm sure that by the time -- ifhe got to the BCC and he didn't get to them I'm sure they would have some concerns over that. I'm not sure how to -- if that's an ample part of the PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that leaves -- we have six stipulations then. We've talked about them. I just want to make sure there's absolutely no question from staff as to what they are. And if you've got them down accurately. And we will get a consent agenda that reflects what we said here today. Ms. Caron? Page 85 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one other thing, and that's that we need to confirm the business with the bank, that it is actually allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did a check on the PUD, and it is, as Mr. Taylor said, it limits it to the northern piece. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it does limit it there. As long as staff verifies that was a solution, that's -- by the consent agenda, that would be fine. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And I have one other question. I just want to be clear that staff understands how the code references are to be shown. I was thinking we could just highlight those areas in the current code that references the old section numbers and just replicate it in the ordinance being generated now showing the current correct citations. Instead if copying the entire PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I don't know why you keep wanting to -- I don't know why -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, because we started this process. It really would open up the entire document for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you could do it even broader. You could simply say all the specific code references in this document should be changed at -- it will be pursuant to the Land Development Code. MR. BELLOWS: That would be even-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it says anyway. And I don't know why we keep specifying individual pieces of the code. Because in a lot of ways that could be hugely detrimental down the road. MR. BELLOWS: I agree with that method. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just do that, then it cleans it up quickly. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. Page 86 May 1, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got six stipulations. Staff clear on all of those? Okay, everybody else -- does the motion maker accept the stipulations? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both have. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Well, that was the most fun we're going to have today, folks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The only fun we're having today, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any old business. New business was the RLSA which we just discussed. Is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Page 87 May 1, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :32 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Page 88