Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/19/2009 R March 19,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 19, 2009 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, Chairman Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Arrived after lunch) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 19,2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDNIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED to MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISmNG TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19,2009 REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 20, 2009 RLSA 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 10,2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13664, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting three (3) Sign Variances. The first variance is from Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.06.04 C.] 6.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet for an off-premise directional sign to allow a 32 I square foot off-premise sign. The second variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.v. which requires a sign to be located within 1,000 lineal feet of the intersection of the road serving the use to allow greater distances of up to 6,000 lineal feet for up to 10 uses. The third sign variance is from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.c which requires a sign to be located no closer than 50 feet from a residentially zoned district to allow a lesser distance of 23 feet. The subject property is located on the north side of U.S. 41 in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 1 B. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13665, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C. I 6.b.i. which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet to allow a 64-square foot off-premise sign at the Port of the Islands. The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Newport Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) C. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13960, Port of the Islands Community Improvement District, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a Sign Variance from LDC Subsection 5.06.04 C.16.b.i., which allows a maximum sign area of 12 square feet, to allow an 18-square foot off. premise sign at the Port of the Islands in the median of Cay's Drive (south of U. S. 41) 18 S.F. in area with sign copy and logo designation the Port of the Islands Cay's Drive. The subject property is located in the Port of the Islands at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U. S. 41) and Cay's Drive in Section 9, Township 52 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pettion: V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a Variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7.5-foot wide buffer on the western side of the property; and to reduced buffer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet to ten feet, the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The 0.86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) B. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3725, Close Up Creatures, Inc., in reference to NGALA, represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting Conditional Uses pursuant to the Land Development Code Section 2.03.0I.A. I.C. The conditional uses being requested are as follows: Number 5, to allow aquaculture for non-native or exotic species subject to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission permits; Number 23, to allow a Cultural, Ecological or Recreational Facility; and Number 25, commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals. The subject property which has a Rural Agriculture zoning district designation and consists of 2 H acres, is located on Inez Road S.W., at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney Avenue, approximately v.; mile south of Keene Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) C. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance No. 93-3, Section 3.2.B. to allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina PUD) in Tract B of the Longshore Lake, Unit 5C Subdivision; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site premise sign to become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to amend Section 3.2.B. to allow an existing maintenance building to remain as an accessory use; to reinsert omitted Traffic Requirements into Section V; and to add Exhibit C, Deviations. The subject sign is located on a .5"' acre property located on the southeast corner of the Longshore Lake PUD, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 20, 2008 2 D. Peti~ion: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of the Mirasol PUD from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to remedy the sunsetted status of the project in compliance with LDC Section 10.02,13.D.6. The number of dwelling units originally approved, 799 dwelling units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance No. 01-20 will be repealed and a five acre tract will revert to Agricultural zoning. The subject 1,543 acre tract is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS II. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA ] 4. ADJOURN 3/19/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bcllows/cr 3 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone, to the March 19th, 2009 Collier County Planning Commission meeting. If we're lucky, we'll still finish in 2009. Please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley is absent. And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Page 2 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Wolfley called, he is at a business meeting, he couldn't make it here, at least this morning. He might be here later. As far as the next meeting that we have, I actually have to look at the calendar to see because I don't remember when it is. It's two weeks from today. There's no interim meetings between now and two weeks from now, is there, Ray? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any of the commission know if they're not going to be here in two weeks? (No response.) Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19,2009 REGULAR MEETING; FEBRUARY 20, 2009 RLSA MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of the minutes. First set is February 19th, 2009 regular meeting. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 3 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- what, have we got, seven of us here? 7-0. We had a February 20th RLSA Meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ray, I know you and I both got an e-mail from the Clerk of Courts. There needs to be a correction on the March 5th minutes. They're not up for discussion today, but when they do come up, in forget, would you please remind me? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I'll put a note. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try our best. Some dating errors need to be corrected on that one. BCC report and recaps. Ray? Page 4 March 19,2009 Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MARCH 10,2009, REGULAR MEETING MR. BELLOWS: Yes, at the last board meeting, the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the Center Point Community Church. That was approved on the summary agenda, so it was subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. That's the only item the board heard from the Planning Commission. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report. I have two items. First of all, I want to especially thank Cheri Rollins for doing a fine job. This is the first substantial package she put together and it was done very well, at least from my perspective. And I like her initiative in regards to the way she handled distributing the packet. Because it was an extra large -- extraordinarily large packet, it would have doubled the cost to send it out to the commission members. So those people that could drop by and pick it up, she let us know. And I think quite a few members were able to get by and pick it up and it did save some money to the taxpayers, so that was a good move and we appreciate that. MR. BELLOWS: I'll let her know. Cheri's been doing an outstanding job in light of the change in responsibilities at the last minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she has. So that's great. The next thing I'd like to bring up is an old festering subject. Page 5 March 19,2009 And we have four cases today. Two of them are rather unique and intense in regards to how much intensity we had to look into our codes and other aspects. Trying to deal with Muni-Code is an absolute nightmare. And Ray, would you put that first sheet up on the overhead projector. I highlighted -- well, you got to -- MR. BELLOWS: Just want the highlighter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, what this says is Municode is only updated through April 4th, 2007. And then if you look at the links below -- if you can slide that up a little bit, Ray -- it says, but not yet codified. And then it lists all these others that aren't codified. So what that means is if you go into Municode to try to find out today's codes on a particular subject or you do a search, none of these come up in the hit. You only get what's in the old code. And so if you're trying to find something relative today or if you're trying to follow the staff report in regards to, for example, the conditional uses, you can't find No. 23 in any of these -- in any of the Municode search, but they're in one of these ordinances. To find out which one it is, you've got to start from the top and you've got to open it up. To open it up you have to download it. And some of these are anywhere from a few hundred kilobytes to five or six megabytes. And so you sit there while the download's occurring and God help you if you've got a modem. When you get it downloaded, then you have to manually go through every page to find out if what you're looking for was modified in that section. And after you find out well, that one didn't have an update, you've got to go to the next one. Now, this is what you've got to do for every issue. It is absolutely unfair to this board; it is horribly unfair to the public of Collier County that this process has to be done this way. And then if you randomly take a few of these, and I've got two of them. One of them, if you look at the first highlighted, 2008-45 and Page 6 March 19,2009 the last one. Ray, could you put the second sheet up. MR. BELLOWS: Fifty-nine? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-five? Look at the title on this one. It's 08-45, it's an amendment to the Terafina PUD. It has absolutely nothing to do with our Land Development Code. But you have to download this and figure that out before you find out it's junk and shouldn't be there in the first place. Could you put the second one up, Ray. And this one is for a Habitat for Humanity project in Immokalee. I think it's called -- well, it's the one where that college was where they used to pick blueberries. Again, nothing to do with the Land Development Code. Yet if you go to the Municode site, it's there posted as though we're supposed to review this as part of the changes to our code. It's absolutely unfair to this board, it's totally unfair to the public. I don't know how any member of the public would know if they can be consistent with our codes when they don't even have a clear access to our codes in any manner or form. I don't know what to do about this. I've been harping on it for two years. And I realize that when you hit people in their pocketbook, maybe there's a reaction. And I'm finding out that you can't hit Municode in their pocketbook, because they don't care. So why don't we consider suspending all code enforcement activities in Collier County until the public has a code in which they know what they've got to do to defend themselves in regards to code infractions? Because right now no member of the public going before the Code Enforcement Board has any way of knowing how to meet the code, because they don't know how to get the code. Mr. Klatzkow, I just need somebody to offer some assistance here in getting this resolved. I know it's not your department's responsibility, but someone has to fix this, it's just not right. Page 7 March 19,2009 MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Municode's the only game in town. It's -- there is no competitor. It's not like if you're not happy with your Ford so you go out and buy a Toyota. It's Municode or it's nobody. With respect to -- and I'm not happy with them either. I mean, I have the same problems as you do. When I have to look at something, I've got to look at our written code and I've got to go through three or four amendments of the LDC to make sure it hasn't been changed. And it is a problem, and it's been a problem for a very long time. And the only solution I can have, and I don't think we have the staff time or money for it, is for us to in essence update our codes ourselves and put that on line. But it's a staff issue and it's a money issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there an agreement that we have in Municode that talks about how much they're paid and how many updates we should get a year? Is there something we can sink our teeth into that we could try to force them to provide the public with what the public needs? MR. KLATZKOW: We continuously harp on Municode. I don't know what to tell you. I mean, the solution -- well, there is no solution. I can't simply fire them. I wish I could, and we looked into it. But they're the only game in town, which is why they're so bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm not -- I don't know what to do. I am getting no offer. But I certainly want to bring it up for the record, and we will continue to bring it up for the record until it's resolved. Richard? MR. SCHMITT: We had success in removing many of the PUD's that they simply put on there as amendments. But they continue to put them on as we send PUD amendments in, as you certainly are seeing here. And we call them and tell them to remove those, because they are not amendments to the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But if you look at the title to what's up there, you're saying that you're amending the Land Development Page 8 March 19,2009 Code -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: -- so when their clerks look at something, they just see that and they say well, they're amending the Land Development Code, so they pop it up there. So perhaps part of the problem -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is us. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a pro -- it's not our fault, it's just what's happening. MR. SCHMITT: Now, also included in that are the Code of Laws and Ordinances. They take our ordinances and then fe-codify those into sections -- chapters and sections into the Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is again another fairly extensive process. Now, we certainly don't -- the extent of amendments to Code of Laws and Ordinances are nowhere near probably as voluminous as the LDC amendments, but we still do that eight, nine, 10 times a year we're amending ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you have some inspiring words? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, just to add to your confusion, for the public, sometimes for those of us who do this basically every day. You not only look at the Land Development Code, you have to have a copy of the old Land Development Code somewhere to really know the rules of the game, because as you know, not everything that was supposed to be carried forward from the 2004 version -- I think that's the right year -- made it to what's on-line. So the public truly doesn't know, even if you read through everything that's referenced here and the Land Development Code on-line. So you've got to find a way to put that old code on-line so the public can access it as well. Because as you know, there's that provision that says you go back to the pre-2004 version for things that inadvertently were left out. Page 9 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you. And I don't know what can be done. I'm just asking somebody to try to bring this to a head. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you put up the sheet that you had up there last? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And just move it up a little bit to where it shows the Harvest for Humanity, which shouldn't be there. Is there a way, however, that under -- let's just assume that Ordinance No. 2008-04 should be there. Is there a way to add a descriptor to that that would -- to all of these to at least know where to look and not to look? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I found out in going through these, that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I've done the same thing. It's hours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have multiple changes to multiple sections. That becomes a problem. So if you try to put a descriptor, you're never going to fit all the sections of this change in, so -- there's got to be a better way. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back when we were going over this, Patrick and I had a long conversation about it. Because I think we should have gotten rid of Municode and done it ourselves. He says we pay money every year for these guys to do this service. So if we're not getting the service -- you know, we brought this conversation up multiple times and we walk away from it. So let's not walk away from it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not going to walk away from it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's figure out what we do --W Page 10 March 19,2009 MR. KLATZKOW: You've got two choices, okay? Use Municode because they're the only game in town, or we do it ourselves, all right? And we're not set up right now to do it ourselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't we get a copy of -- can this board get a copy of the Municode contract? MR. KLA TZKOW: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start there. And it will keep the issue alive. And I want to keep it alive until we get to a resolution. And if Municode is getting enough money that might be offset by a staff member who could do just this, be dedicated to keeping the code current, we might be well and further ahead. Because this board is one of the groups that are going to suffer from not having the current codes available to them. I mean, it was difficult to follow some of staffs reasoning in the staff report. And I think it was for the Ngala one that's coming up. Because they referenced conditional uses by number that were in an ordinance that we recently passed, but it wasn't in Municode. Unless -- now, I found out, but it took a long time to do so. And we shouldn't be going through that. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, is there a reason we use Municode, to essentially keep it arm's length away from the staff or something? Or could the staff post this? MR. KLATZKOW: All I can tell you is everybody uses Municode, all right? Now, if the question is can we get rid of Municode and do it ourselves, the answer is probably yes, all right? But it's something we'll look into. We will get you a copy of the contract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And not everybody in the world uses Municode. There's a lot of communities -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you go through it, pretty much everybody uses it. But again, we will go through it, and if you want to make a Page 11 March 19,2009 recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that we consider doing it in-house, we can go that route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to get some data in order to make a recommendation. MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a cheap contract, I'll tell you that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, and the last time that we brought this up was with Catherine, and she was supposedly working on trying to get things fixed and changed. And at that point there were at least two other sources. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you, we've looked into this. It's really -- I hate saying this, it's Municode or it's nobody or it's ourselves. And I don't why you keep -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jeff, do you have a rough idea of what it costs us a year? MR. KLATZKOW: It's expensive. No, no, I'm telling you, it's expensive. I'll get you the numbers. My problem is I don't know how it breaks down because we pay for the books as well, the supplements. So I don't know how it breaks down between the actual annual cost of the update and the annual cost of the supplements and the annual cost of the books. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, if it's that expensive, it makes it maybe more cost effective for us to do it ourselves. MR. KLATZKOW: It may very well be. We'll give you that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And even if it isn't. Even if it's just close, having an internal staff member who's sharp enough to keep up with this stuff and make it their sole duty, we'd have an asset right there that we could -- it could be very useful, too. Just like David Weeks is kind of the guru of comprehensive planning, we need the Page 12 March 19, 2009 same person for the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: And I'll tell you right now, Municode's not 100 percent accurate either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and therein lies my other point. Do we know if all the ordinances that really went into changing the code over the last two years are listed here? Do we know if one's missing or not? I don't know who's checking that stuff. But it goes back to what I see happening across the board. We use these ordinances to enforce codes. If we can't rely on the ordinances to support what we're trying to enforce out there against the public and the public certainly then can't use them to defend themselves because they don't know what the current code is. I don't know how we can continue fining people. I think it's wrong. And this is the start of it. Next meeting I'll keep it on the agenda, and every meeting we're just going to harp on it until we get some kind of program put together we can make a recommendation of (sic) the Board of County Commissioners. Personally, I like the idea of suspending all code enforcement in Collier County until this is done. That will get the attention real quick. But anyway -- go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted to make one point, is that we do as staffput on the amendments on-line on our website while we're trying to deal with Municode to get the correct version shown on Municode, but the staff is providing those things on our website. MR. KLATZKOW: But what Municode does that we don't do is that they codify it, okay, so we have a compilation of ordinances. What Municode then does is it puts it in a form where you can look at it and find something. We would have to get that in-house somehow. The LDC is actually the easier one than the Code of Law and Ordinances, because the LDC is a single unified ordinance anyway, all Page 13 March 19, 2009 right? It's the Code of Law and Ordinances that will be a little more difficult. But look, I'll come back, I'll give you a full report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is -- a code writer that we hired, his name is Mr. White -- it isn't Pat White, it's some other fellow named Mr. White -- he, in a meeting that I had with him, clearly said that there were other companies out there. MR. SCHMITT: There are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I know there is one in Seattle, Washington that does the similar thing to Municode. And I'll get you the name of it, Jeff, and I'll pass it on to you, try to get their link. Because if we could just find some alternatives, it might be better. And I don't want to belabor the point, I think the point's been made, but at each meeting from now on I think this needs to be discussed until it's resolved. Otherwise it's just going to do what happened last time, we stopped talking about it and for two years nothing's happened. So I'm getting tired of it. Hopefully the rest of us are. Item #8A PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13664, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT And with that, we'll move on with our agenda. Next consent item -- or the next item is consent agenda items, and it's Petition SV-2008-AR-13664. It's Port of the Islands Community Development District. And this actually has three parts. We'll vote on each one individually. But that's the first one up. Does anybody have any changes to the consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve the first petition? Page 14 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Item #8B PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13665, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Second petition for consent is SV-2008-AR-13665. Again it's the Port of the Islands for a sign variance. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the motion. Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 15 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #8C PETITION: SV-2008-AR-13960, PORT OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The third petition is SV-2008-AR-13960. Again, the Port of the Islands community sign variance. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. You guys are a team this morning. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 16 March 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13977, MCDONALD'S USA, LLC Now, we'll move on to our first advertised public hearing for today. It's Petition V A-2008-AR-13977. Tim Chess of McDonald's USA, LLC, for some -- a variance on 2886 Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess just me then. I had a couple e-mails and a phone conversation with the attorney representing McDonald's, Ms. Ellen Chadwell. And the items that I discussed with her will be brought up for discussion here today as well. Hearing none other, will -- the applicant can proceed. MR. SATFIELD: Hello. My name is Jeffrey Satfield, I'm the Senior Vice President with CPH Engineers, and here representing McDonald's today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to talk a little slower. I can tell already, you're going to get her fingers hurting here in a minute. MR. SA TFIELD: All right. Let me just take a break here and set up some boards. Can everybody hear me okay if I don't use the mic? THE COURT REPORTER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you have to use the mic. There's a portable mic. there. Page 17 March 19,2009 MR. SA TFIELD: There we go. All right. Well, for anybody that doesn't know the site, this site's down the road on 41. It's an existing McDonald's. Tim, how long has this one been here? 1968. So it's a very old site, old McDonald's, that we're very interested in revitalizing and basically bringing back to life. This is the existing store here. There's not a whole lot of tree canopy, there's a very minor amount of building landscape buffering, and the building is dated somewhat. This is the actual property itself. There's basically a hedge line out on 41 out there. Again, minor amount of plantings to the rear, minor amount of plantings up here, a couple trees breaking up the property. It's adjacent to the other commercial plaza. There's a commercial plaza to the rear of this property. This site is leased from the property owner, who also owns the parcel to the back, so it's all a leased area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mean to interrupt-- MR. SATFIELD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your presentation, but I have to. I just realized something. I appreciate you trying to put it on an easel for us to see it, but it's equally important the public sees it. That can't be focused on a camera. That board up there, that's a mounting board. MR. SATFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could just lean your display up on that. MR. SA TFIELD: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That way everybody can see it, including the public and the people watching on television. MR. SATFIELD: Perfect. Thanks for the reminder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Kady won't be over there trying to turn these cameras in every which direction to catch it. So thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Just stand over here. MR. SATFIELD: Again, this shows the existing site, U.S. 41 Page 18 March 19,2009 here, shopping plaza to the back. Again, not a whole lot of vegetation on the property. Mostly impervious area; more than 90 percent of impervious area. Does not meet code in most all areas for the new code. This board shows the proposed site layout and the proposed landscape buffering. Basically from a planting perspective this site is being brought up to code. While we are asking for landscape buffer variances and width, we are planting all the required trees, all the required canopy areas and all of the buffer areas. In fact, as you may have read in the staff summary, we actually had to go through a variance process -- administrative process to reduce the parking -- only by one space though, still ample parking here -- to allow for the necessary trees on the internal buffer here. So again, while we are asking for landscape variances today all the plantings, canopy plantings, tree plantings, within the buffers are all per code. In fact, there's going to be -- we plan on an enhancement along 41. This site is -- basically because of the odd shape and the constraints of the property, this layout is really the only layout that's plausible for this building, which leads us to having the drive-through window on the 41 side. This is typically on the right-of-way required for a D buffer planting. We'll be planting it with a B buffer planting scheme, increasing the number of trees, a five-foot hedge, minimum height, again to further buffer this drive-through side of the building from u.s. 41. So within this 10-foot area, all those plants will be there. Also, some of the other improvements to the area. There's an existing access point here that will be closed off, improving the off-site safety points. There's an intersection very close, in close proximity down here. There's an increase in throat depth here. There'll be a 50-foot throat depth here, increasing on-site circulation and safety. And we've Page 19 March 19,2009 got pedestrian connections, bike paths, a bike rack next to the store. And a 200 square foot plaza area adjacent to the McDonald's building with some benches and again shade trees in that area. And just all-around internal circulation is improved, pedestrian circulation is improved and greatly enhanced vegetation and open space. The building itself, fresh from Kinko's. This is the proposed architecture that we're going with. This is a new branding for McDonald's. Greatly enhanced architectural detail. Basically bringing the store up to code and up to the modern era for architecture. Still have some branding items, but really, they're much more subtle. No more truss beams, no more red roof. This building will meet the architectural design standards with a combination of cornices, canopies, glazing, there's going to be some trellis work on there as well, so there will be vegetation actually on the building itself. And this gives an idea of what the site might look from (sic) if you're standing right at the intersection of 41. Showing the buffer trees here, the plantings in front of the building here, and actually how the building will appear from 41. One of the areas I do want to bring up, and I apologize for bringing up something new to the board offhand, is we've had some discussions with staff -- and I want to thank staff so much for working with us in this staff report. One of the issues, though, that we were made aware of upon our site development plan submittal was the fact that there is an issue with having the drive-through adjacent to the right-of-way. The design standards require an enhanced planting buffer in this area. We can only provide, as you know with a variance, a 10- foot wide buffer area here. While we are planting a Type B buffer in this area to increase the buffering of the drive-through, staff believes it's important to have a l5-foot wide buffer here. And this is definitely, because of the constraints of the property, a deal killer for us. Page 20 March 19,2009 One of the things that we will be moving forward with and attempt to, and I want to bring to your attention is that clearly the drive-through will be on this side of the property facing 41, but it will be mitigated for with again the increased planting areas on 41, the latticework with plantings on the building itself and the architectural articulations on that site to minimize the impact visually for folks walking and driving by that area. This site is in an overlay district that encourages redevelopment, and that's what we're trying to do today. And I'm available for any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, are the requested remaining reduced buffering on the north and south property boundaries Type D as they are before? MR. SATFIELD: One more time, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are the requested remaining reduced buffering on the north and south property boundaries Type D? MR. SA TFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: After the reduction, they will still be Type D? MR. SATFIELD: No, actually we're proposing a Type B, as in boy, because of the drive-through. So we will actually be planting more plants than a Type D. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's both north and south boundaries? MR. SATFIELD: No, there will be a Type D on the south, a Type B on the north because of the right-of-way and the drive-through. So we're proposing a lO-foot wide B, as in boy, planting along 41; five-foot wide on the south, D as is David, planting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What about the trees that are in that buffer, do they still remain the same height? Page 21 March 19, 2009 MR. SATFIELD: The existing trees? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, the new ones. Will they be the same? MR. SATFIELD: The trees in this buffer area on the south side, right now we're proposing pigeon plum in that area. They're all going to be the same height per code, space per code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, J.D. may have something to contribute. MR. MOSS: Yes. Commissioner Kolflat, if I may make a clarification here. On the application, the applicant requested a deviation from the buffer requirement to the north. It is a required Type D buffer adjacent to Tamiami Trail East. But there's another issue that's come up since they've submitted their SDP. Because the architectural code doesn't allow for a drive-through on the side of the building that's adjacent to Tamiami Trail unless a Type B buffer is provided in the required buffer width, they cannot get this design that they're proposing unless a Type B buffer is permitted. The director has looked at this and feels that the language says that the required buffer width must be provided. And since they're asking for a deviation -- or excuse me, a variance from the required buffer width with this application, she feels that they can't get this deviation, this Type D buffer along the north side in order to get this architectural deviation. Does that make sense, or have I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me take it a step further. What you're saying is they can't do a Type D buffer there because of the drive-through. The drive-through requires a Type B buffer. And because the drive-through is facing 41, the B buffer cannot be reduced in its width, even through a variance. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we here today? Page 22 March 19,2009 MR. MOSS: Because this application came forward before the SDP was submitted. If you look at the final staff stipulation, number seven, that's the reason it's been included. It says, irrespective of that shown on the site dimension plan, included is Exhibit A. The proposed use shall be required to comply with the architectural and site design standards of LDC Section 5.05.08, which prohibits a drive-through adjacent to a right-of-way unless a Type B buffer and the required buffer width is provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me understand this. The applicant can't use this project if the full width of the Type B buffer is required. Staffs saying it is required. So now you're basically recommending denial for this application. MR. MOSS: Well, initially they had requested just to reduce the buffer width. This issue of providing for a deviation from the architectural requirements didn't come up until just a few days ago when the SDP was reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What kind of buffer is out there on 41 right now; do you know? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not much of anything. MR. MOSS: Yeah, I don't think there's much of anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant's willing to renovate this project, new building, new architectural standards, adding -- add landscaping that doesn't even exist today, make all kinds of improvements, and because they have a window facing 41 that's a drive-through, this whole thing could go down the tubes. I don't think that's a practical solution. So I guess then because this is an advertised variance, how far can we go with this today? MR. KLA TZKOW: I would recommend we continue it at this point in time and then come back when we can clean it up, because you make a very, very valid point. MR. SA TFIELD: Chairman, may I make -- Page 23 March 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. SATFIELD: -- point? The code actually states that a Type B, as in boy, plantings must be planted within the required width. It's our interpretation of that is the required width is a D, like David, 15 feet. However, if this variance were to be approved the required width would be 10 feet. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand what you're saying. From what I'm getting from the staff is saying that they have to disapprove it at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what you need to do is amend your variance request to include a reduction in Type B buffer under the circumstances you have here to 10 feet and then come back with it with that clarification to it. Is that a fair way to approach it, J.D.? MR. MOSS: Ifwe did approach it, I can tell you staff wouldn't be able to recommend approval of that because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. But at least the guy would have a fair chance in discussing it with us in regards to the fact it's on the agenda, it's in the issue, it's part of the condition -- variance request and not something we can't discuss because it's not here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifthere were a half wall surrounding the driveway there -- I guess I'm really asking staff. J.D.? MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. If there were a half wall or a three-quarter wall, whatever, surrounding the driveway as it fronts 41, would that in any way -- that's not something -- MR. MOSS: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that would help? MR. MOSS: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If our code is prescriptive, does it proscribe that? I mean, what's the basis for -- Page 24 March 19,2009 MR. MOSS: Well, as he just told you, the code says that the Type D plantings have to be provided in the required buffer width. The code says that the required buffer width is 15 feet in the circumstances. His contention is that the variance reduces it to 10, so it should be 10 foot. So that's where the difference lies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The predicate for that is that the driveway is there facing, if you will, 41. MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you were to put a wall up, does that not change things? MR. MOSS: It's just not something that our code allows as a deviation from this requirement. That is the deviation, the Type B buffer plantings, instead of the Type D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the problem is the variance that we're supposed to be looking at today simply says, reduce the minimum 15- foot Type D buffer to a width of 10 feet on the property's northern boundary. MR. MOSS: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're hearing is the applicant, after further revealing issues with staff, however recent that occurred, now needs to be asking for a reduction in a Type B buffer in the same location with the caveat that the drive-through is on the north side of the building, or the side facing 41. MR. SA TFIELD: And that's something that we're still not sure about, because the required buffer is still aD. MR. KLATZKOW: Gentlemen, gentlemen. MR. SATFIELD: It's commercial to right-of-way. MR. KLA TZKOW: Gentlemen, this issue just came up, all right? Our understanding was staff was recommending approval. This issue just came up. We haven't looked at this issue. We're going to come back to this board, okay, only if we can give you something that this board can legally recommend to the Page 25 March 19,2009 Board of County Commissioners, all right? So my suggestion is come back, whether it's two weeks or four weeks from now, we're going to continue this thing, you're not going to have to pay for anymore advertising on this, so that we can fix it. This just popped up at the last meeting. MR. SA TFIELD: Would it be unreasonable to ask that the nearest hearing, two weeks, if possible -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to rush this one. MR. SA TFIELD: This is basically as this -- I know this statement's being over-used lately, but we are shovel ready. We are ready to break ground and build and go under construction and improve this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you getting some of the stimulus package? MR. SATFIELD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, everybody else is. MR. SATFIELD: No, this is all McDonald's money, investment in the community. So we definitely want to construct as soon as possible. So -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're not going to sit on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to put on record that we can get this on the next agenda. And we'll meet with the applicant and work out the urban design issue regarding this drive-through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to see ifthere's any final comments. Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, when I brought this question up initially here on this buffer, what I was trying to get through was a comparison of what the code requirements are for each of the four sides and what the new requirement will have, or what the Page 26 March 19,2009 new installation will have. And you're going back and continuing this; will you prepare that for the next hearing? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir, Commissioner Kolflat. It's actually on Page 1 of the staff report under requested action. It has the four different variances that they're asking for, what's required and what they're proposing. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right, but the only thing on that page does not show what they're proposing as a Type D in two cases. It shows Type D to start with but doesn't show Type D afterwards. MR. MOSS: Oh, it doesn't show Type B, did you say, as in Boy? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: D, as in David. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to get it complete so we look at this and -- MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- compare one with the other-- MR. MOSS: I'll make sure that that's clear. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- and not have to jump around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what he's trying to say is on number one where you said you wanted a minimum Type D buffer, but it would still -- make the statement it would still be a Type D buffer in vegetation or something to the effect. MR. MOSS: Okay, very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess you're not going to change that to a B. But regardless, that's where we're getting at. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and one thing is also look at other things in the architectural standards. There's supposed to be a front entry feature on the roadside. We've held a lot of people's feet to that fire. For some reason this one doesn't seem to be -- doesn't have Page 27 March 19,2009 one. MR. SA TFIELD: Actually we're planning it right -- one of the main doors and where the pedestrian connection is, there'll be a 200 square foot front patio feature item. We'll clearly identify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just make sure -- MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- everybody's got everything, okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does that -- do we have a commitment from staff to get this done by the next meeting? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, J.D. is also our urban design reviewer, so he can tailor in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Multiple hats. MR. BELLOWS: -- with the -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to comment before we have a request to see if they -- make sure the applicant wants a continuance on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want a continuance? MR. SA TFIELD: Please do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- approve a continuance to our next regular meeting? Made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 28 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR. SA TFIELD: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #9B PETITION: CU-2003-AR-3725, CLOSE-UP CREATURES, INC. I could probably be assured that the next one may not go as fast. The next petition is Petition CU-2003-AR-3725. It's the Close-Up Creatures, Inc., called -- I know there's a better way to pronounce this than the way I'm going to say it. I'm going to say N gala, but I know there's another way to do it. It's on Inez Road Southwest and Kearney Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. -- go ahead, Donna. Page 29 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I did, too. And I think Richard and Bob were present during my conversation. So -- and everything that we talked about then will most likely be talked about today. Okay, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Bob Mulhere with RW A, who can address planning related questions; Tammy Lyday, with Earth Balance to answer any environmental related questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you go too far, I want to make one thing clear for the record today. We're here to review this in regards to its application to three uses under a conditional use. All the other issues are off the table. It's basically conditional use application issues that we're talking about today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. That was my next -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you were going to say that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was more worried about you than anybody else, but that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, well, I'll skip that paragraph that our request is for three conditional uses to deal with the exotic animals and the exotic fish that are on-site, as well as the conditional use to basically bring the public to the site to observe the exotic animals and other non-exotic animals that are currently being kept and cared for on the property. Donovan and Tammy Smith will be here in a few minutes. They're the actual owners of the property, if you have questions Page 30 March 19,2009 regarding the specifics. It went a little quicker for the first item than we had originally anticipated. The property is on your visualizer; it's 21 acres in size. The yellow area is the excluded portion of the property that our clients currently own. The property is currently zoned agricultural. This -- let me just give you a brief history. I was not involved in this early on. I got involved later on. But there's a question of what is this actual use on the property? If Donovan were here, we would be very emphatic that he believes that this is in fact an agricultural use in an agricultural operation. There's a lot of documentation that supports his position. There are others that don't share that same opinion. When I finally got involved, I said listen, nobody's objecting to what you're doing on the site, they're just objecting to how you're classifying this. The county would prefer that you go through the conditional use process, because that's what they believe you need to do. What I recommended was look, the path of least resistance is to go through and get the conditional use, because nobody's objecting to it, you've been doing it for years, you don't have any opposition to it, let's go through and do the conditional use and just agree to disagree as to what category you fit in or whether you're an ago operation or not. So we started that -- we re-upped that process. If you went back and looked at the materials, you'll see there was an original application for the conditional use that I believe was in 2003. Bob and I got retained and we amended the documentation. The description of the project is essentially the same as it was originally described. So we are here now to address what's going on on-site. As I've already described, there are some exotic animals on-site, there are some non-exotic animals on-site. He does have some small areas where he's breeding exotic fish, those are also on-site. And what he does to fund these operations is he does some not-for-profit non-money-maker work where he brings school age Page 31 March 19,2009 children to the site through the public school system during the school year and also during the summer. They come to the site during the day, he teaches them about the animals that he has, how to properly take care of them and give them an appreciation for nature. To help subsidize both of those ventures and the actual caring and feeding and taking care of the animals that he has, he does corporate events, usually in coordination with hotels in Collier County. He does a lot of work with -- the Marriott, right, Marco Marriott -- and as well as Naples Grande and the Ritz. And so he coordinates these -- it is actually an attractor for these hotels to have these events out on this site. The good thing about this site is it is a large site. And if you look at the aerial, it's still heavily wooded. People could come to this site. It's out in the middle of nowhere, essentially. It's totally surrounded by farms. The farms actually, you know, are basically 24/7 operations with the various things that -- taking care of the farm stuff at night. So the good thing about this site is during the season if you're on the beach you all know that the event has to basically shut down at 9:00 at night because of turtle season. This is obviously not on the beach, doesn't have the same types of issues, so we could have events that go a little bit later than 9:00 at night. So this site is actually a good draw and good mix for the community and a good supplement to what the hotels basically have to offer during the season and the off season, because they can handle larger events. In fact, he used to take the animals, if you will, on the road and go to the hotels and set up his show, if you will. And as part of the experience, he explains to them about panthers and cougars and other things that he has. He used to take it to the hotels. And then he realized, well, I've got this beautiful piece of land, why not do it out here in nature where it makes sense. You can see that he's a good steward of that land by everything's Page 32 March 19,2009 basically pervious, and that he's got tents that he puts up for a period of time, takes down during the summer and hurricane season. So he puts on a nice show and at the same time as he's doing these catered events, he's actually educating people on nature. I went to one of the events. Ironically it was an event sponsored by the TDC, because it had all of the event planners around. They brought them out there so they could see what he does and how he does it, and to hopefully attract events to Collier County. From a compatibility standpoint, your staff has determined that we're compatible. Everybody comes to the site by motor coach or van. There's no individual driving to the site. Bob will get into the details of the site plan and how we operate, but I just wanted to touch on it quickly. Your staff is recommending approval. We went to the EAC, and I believe the EAC unanimously recommended approval as well, thought it was a good idea. We've agreed -- we've worked with your staff on the stipulations. There are a couple that we're still -- we have revised. And one of them is the number of events per week and per year. Your staff is requesting three events -- maximum of three events per week, but the maximum number per year is unlimited, other than it would be 156. We would like to cap it at that same number, but we would like to cap the weekly number of events at five instead of three. And I'll give you an example. He has had four or five events in a week and then had none or one the following week. So to sit there and say I've got five corporations that would like to come in one given week but I can't accommodate that business because it's more than three really didn't make sense, based on the location. I believe staff is comfortable with saying not to exceed -- 150 for the year, not to exceed five in any given week. And with that, we're requesting that the Planning Commission transmit this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a Page 33 March 19,2009 recommendation of approval for the three conditional uses. And Bob will take you briefly through the details of the request and we'll be able to answer any questions you may have. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere, withRWA. I think Rich really went over most of the salient points. As he indicated, we're requesting three conditional uses. Those conditional uses deal with cultural, ecological and recreational facility, commercial production, raising and breeding of exotic animals. And what am I missing? One other one. Oh, the aquaculture, excuse me. So there was some question -- I think Rich indicated that we started, oh, I want to say in 2007 on this project. At least I did. However, the original application was submitted February 7th of 2003. I went back and reviewed the files prior to -- I reviewed them originally and then reviewed them again last night prior to this meeting, just to be sure that the request hadn't changed from the original submittal till now. The original submittal also asks for those exact same three types of uses. We looked at other alternatives. It's not a zoo; it doesn't meet the definition of a zoo and is not licensed as a zoo by U.S.D.A. I believe it's licensed -- and if Donovan gets here he can speak to this issue more accurately. I know he's on his way. But I believe his license is a wildlife reserve, or preserve. Again, a zoo would -- there are specific reasons why it wouldn't be licensed that way. And that discussion was held back in 2003 and again subsequently when we had our meetings with staff. And that's why -- staffs main concern was how people got to the site and making sure that it was safe and appropriate for folks to be coming to the site, and that was the gist of the conditional use, in addition to the raising, breeding of exotic animals in the aquaculture. So going to the site plan for a moment, as Rich indicated, most Page 34 March 19,2009 of the site is wooded. It's accessed from Keene down to Inez. And the activities take place generally in this area here, as you can see on your site plan. By the way, I have larger site plans. I don't know if you got large site plans. I've brought extras with me if that's helpful for anybody. No? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, I would like one. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just you, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll take one, too. Wouldn't hurt. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If you've got another one there, I'll take one. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Based on the county's requirements, there is a preserve area that's located in this vicinity up here. That may need to shift a little bit. And the vegetation's pretty much the same. We have some notations that the site is somewhat flexible because of the 30-foot buffer requirement and fencing. So it may just shift a little bit, but it would only be a few feet. The exact location would be determined when we go through a site improvement plan, which we have agreed to do. Well, site development plan or site improvement plan, we're not sure which. But when we meet with staff we'll determine which is the most appropriate process to go through. The site has been provided. There was -- in your packet, there were a number of attachments, one of which is attachment A, which provides local, state and federal permits, licenses and certificates. It's a, you know, pretty substantial packet. But within there, there is a certificate of fire compliance. One of the questions we had was, you know, could fire trucks easily access the site or safely access the site in ambulances. And yes, they can. In fact, the motor coaches have no trouble getting in there, the larger motor coaches. As Rich stated, all of the guests to the site arrive via motor Page 35 March 19,2009 coach, depending on the event, large or small. There may be smaller motor coaches or larger, but there are no personal cars brought to the site by guests. Day-to-day operations are generally -- generally Donovan has between 10 and 20 employees. I know he indicated to me that business is quite soft these days, as you can appreciate, since the tourism business is down and the hotel business is a little bit down. He has fewer employees today than he typically would. He's had to also reduce his staff numbers. But during an event, additional staff obviously come out, catering staff, and events staff, and they generally will arrive also by motor coach or van, depending on the size of the event. As Rich indicated, they do an awful lot of educational activities for school children, both during the school year and during the summer with summer camps, both public and private. Really, I mean, as long as they're not full with some other event, they're going to provide these opportunities to anyone that requests them. That could be non-profit organizations as well. And then on occasions, they have either groups from the hotels or other groups coming in for non-profit. I know recently there was an event that they held for the Center For Missing and Exploited Children, in which John Walsh was out there. That was a fundraiser. We've had no opposition to this project. There are, as Rich indicated, 24-hour agricultural operations surrounding this. There's one home on a nearby piece of property, but the rest is pretty much undeveloped, with the exception of the farm stuff. I'll go back to the aerial. These are not, you know, cattle grazing operations, these are specialty farms for ornamentals and nursery type products. And there's quite a bit of activity that takes place out there. I did want to mention that the EAC reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended approval. As Rich indicated, we have a Page 36 March 19,2009 staff recommendation for approval. There are a number of conditions attached to that, as I'm sure you saw when you looked at the staff report. And they're actually -- stipulation number 11 -- this is Donovan right here. And so I'm sure that you'll have some questions, and perhaps if we can't answer them, Donovan can. He'll have to be sworn in, he wasn't -- obviously he wasn't here. Condition number 11, I actually talked with Kay Deselem with respect to this, and that was the idea of changing the number from three events per week to five. Their season is about six to eight months long. There's more activity and demand during that period of time. There's less of course during the summer months when we don't -- when our visitors and hotel activities is slower. So we can live with the overall limitation of 150, but want the flexibility of having more than three events in a week. Also, on condition number 13, I haven't -- I did have some conversation with Kay with respect to this, but we really never pursued it. I do want to just raise a possibility on condition number 13, which states, all additions to any existing or new structures or tents shall be set back from all property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet. The Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission actually regulates and provides all of the regulations and licensing that govern the keeping of exotic animals, exotic wildlife. Obviously this condition -- we'd like to modify this condition number one to say, all additions to any existing or new structures related to this conditional use. Because there are other uses that are permitted on the property under agriculture that shouldn't be subject to this condition. There already are setbacks in the ago district that govern those. But also, if you look in the ago district, there is already an existing setback of 30 feet for structures that house animals. And they also can't be located closer than 100 feet to any existing residential structure. And I guess my feeling is that that may be a more appropriate condition if we adopt that condition than the 60 feet. Page 37 March 19,2009 In particular, if I could, I just want to show you that the shape of this parcel down in here is obviously much narrower than in here. And when you take 60 foot off of this entire perimeter here, that leaves very little usable area in the center. And so I believe that a -- the staff has already requested a 30-foot buffer, which is three times what the ago district requires, and which we're willing to live with. And that it be opaque; and we will also agree to that condition. But as far as the setback goes, we'd like to offer that the 100 foot from any residential property, which I believe there's a residential property right here, would be more appropriate. I know that some of you have an awful lot of questions, so that concludes my presentation, and I think probably it's better if we just get to your questions and then we'll try to answer those as best we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Bob, being interested in acronyms, what does N-G-A-L-A stand for? MR. MULHERE: The place of the lion. Did I get it right? Swahili. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not an acronym is what it boils down to. It's a word in another language. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, the original application was to make the existing uses compliant. Have the existing uses expanded since then? MR. MULHERE: Not the -- the uses haven't expanded. We haven't asked for more uses. The uses were always the same. I know there's been some -- for example, there was some -- I think Donovan created a giraffe pen or a rhinoceros pen that didn't exist. It's basically a wall. There's been some improvements to the site. Page 38 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was the request for 1,000 patrons at a single event in the original application? MR. MULHERE: No, well, there weren't any numbers; there wasn't any cap. I think that actually came from meeting with staff when they said, well how many people are coming out here? And what's happened is, yeah, there were -- in 2002, when -- I think it was Vince Cautero with Coastland Engineering prepared the original application. And I actually talked to Vince, now it's probably a year ago, about this when I started working on it, over a year ago. When the events were smaller then -- I mean, that was just because the interest was less. There are no facilities in Collier County within the hotels to do an event for 1,000 people. Now, I want you to understand, 95 percent of the events are smaller than that. They're mostly three, four, 500 people, 200 people. Sometimes less. So there are relatively few events that are that large. But there are a few that are that large. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, I mean, the accommodation of 1,000 people, I mean, just the health and, you know, the welfare of the site, how would you do that? MR. MULHERE: He can accommodate -- I've been to the site. He can accommodate them very well. They bring in the trucks for the port-a-potties when they have that many people. There are facilities. There are restroom facilities, but obviously when you have a larger amount they bring in those -- I don't know what they're called but the large truck. Pardon? Crowd pleasers. And other than that, there's a very, very large tent. That's a good name, huh, crowd pleasers. There's a very large tent and it's very, very beautiful. They do a great job. And they can accommodate without any problem. And all guests arrive via motor coach. They bring them around, drop them off, the coaches leave, come back and pick them up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we can discuss traffic Page 39 March 19,2009 later. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to the question, the report indicates parking for two. MR. MULHERE: No, two parking areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two parking areas. But if you look at the plan, there's a gravel parking. I thought I saw three. Yeah, there are three. Gravel parking, gravel parking and gravel parking. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think this was sort of counted as one when we said two. But yes, there's parking here, here and here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if you're not going to have personal vehicles, you're just using these for buses that would arrive suddenly and -- MR. MULHERE: No, these are actually used really more for guests that arrive via motor coach. If there's a large event, then many of the employees for the caterer arrive via motor coach or van. But these are used for the employees of Donovan and Tammy Smith that work there every day. He has employees that manage this facility. But they may also be used for employees during an event, you know, film crew, something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So how many vehicles will that accommodate; do you know? Is that in -- MR. MULHERE: Twenty. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Here's a perhaps -- it may be -- if you take a look at this brochure here, it will give you a little better perspective of what it looks like. That's the large tent there in the center. This is a picture of the interior. Here's some other photos. Page 40 March 19, 2009 There's another one that shows the interior of the tent. It's an exceptionally well done experience, which is why very discriminating businesses such as the Ritz-Carlton and the Marco Island Marriott Beach and Golf Resort do use this facility, and their guests enjoy it. And they come back. These meeting planners come back here. This is an asset, a very big asset to Collier County. And especially in these very dire economic times. This is a real asset. No one's questioning really the viability of it. It's just a question of being sure I think that it goes through the proper permitting process, at least in the perspective of the county. And by the way, the wildlife sanctuary component is a permitted use. The wildlife preserve or the wildlife sanctuary doesn't require a conditional use. That's a permitted use. In fact, some other wildlife sanctuaries and preserves also bring people out to the site, such as The Conservancy or the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. But in this case, I think the decision was made that we would go through this process and make this a permitted use and address the issues associated with bringing folks out to the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just before you go ahead. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Mulhere, that when the buses come out, they come out and drop off and leave and then come back again and leave again? MR. MULHERE: Depending on the size of the event. In some events they can stage there, it's relatively small. A larger event, they're simply not going to stage there, they do leave. So it's double the trips, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one more. Page 41 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, what kind of control is there going to be with the sound? I used to live near a place like this and it was really nice until weddings discovered it. And then somebody cackling on a microphone at 10:00, 11 :00, 12:00 at night was not that good. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, I would say that, yes, what controls. The number one control is the 11 :00 p.m. everything shuts down. And we've agreed to that. Except on New Year's Eve where it's 1:00 p.m. (sic). The location is such that this is surrounded by, for the most part, nonresidential uses, farm operations. Those operations run sometimes 24 hours. In fact, Donovan was sharing with us that there were some events where he had to actually call up the farm and ask them to turn off some of these large fans that they use which are very noisy during an event when a speech was being made. And of course they have a good relationship so they were willing to do that for him. So there's a lot of noise generated out in this neighborhood from much other than the music that might accompany an event. But I think, you know, we're not bothering anybody, and we're willing to limit the hours. This is -- you know, this is -- again, you know, I don't want to be repetitive. I think it's very well done and I think he's very respectful of his neighbors. He's a very -- and it's also located really in the center of the site and there's a lot of vegetation to buffer, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. We'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's the place of the lion. Do we have any? MR. MULHERE: He died. Page 42 March 19, 2009 We do have large cats. There are some large cats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, and Bob, you both said that this was out in the middle of nowhere. Could you back out of that picture just a slight amount, like a half an inch? No, no, that one, that one you had. The one that Richard started with. I want to be able to see the bottom. Okay, right there. To the north -- Richard, for your lack of direction, that's the top -- there's a building up there. What is that building? MR. SMITH: That is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you're going to respond, you're going to have to be on record. MR. MULHERE: You can come up. You need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to be sworn in and then identify yourself for the record. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Talking here, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're going to go around the whole thing. We're going to start there, though. (Mr. Smith was duly sworn.) MR. SMITH: My name's Donovan Smith, for the record. My wife and I are the co-founders and owners ofNgala Private Reserve. And in answer to your question, the building to the north is a landscape company by the name of Buttonwood Landscaping. It was a house that's been converted into a business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Halfway down your property to the east side there's another building. What is that? MR. SMITH: That is a home that's on five acres with a workshop next to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Towards the bottom, it looks like there's two other buildings. Those two there, what are those? MR. SMITH: They are nurseries, plant nurseries and residences in the plant nurseries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as we move up around the other Page 43 March 19,2009 side, it looks like some -- there's a building there and to the south there's some disturbed property. I can't tell ifthere's a building there. Are there any residences in that area? MR. SMITH: The first one that you mentioned is an oak tree farm with a residence, and the bottom one is a pig farm with a residence. Both of those are trailer residences, but they're residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you do have some residential people living out in that area. But they all seem to be operating a business; is that a fair statement? MR. SMITH: That's the theme of the area. You know, when you farm, it's a life, it's a lifestyle. And it doesn't make practical sense to live outside of your farm because, you know, there's so much work to be doing. Regardless whether you're farming giraffes or oak trees or pigs or whatever it is, it's still -- you're still up all night in the cold and all that other good stuff, you know, so you have to live there. It's kind of just the way it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure who wants to answer this, but -- MR. MULHERE: He does. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your conditional uses that you've asked for are 25, 23 -- 25, 23 and 5. Number 25 involves the commercial production, raising or breeding of exotic animals and other animals typically used for agricultural purposes or production, subject to the following standards. One of the standards is any roof structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any lot line. Now, did you read that? And are you aware of that? Because you're objecting to staffs condition of 60 feet. I'm just wondering -- Page 44 March 19,2009 MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that said any roof structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Do you have any objection to that? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your -- MR. MULHERE: No, no. Our concern was that there's a couple of pens that are located closer. They are not in roof structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what you're -- now, I've got to look at the wording of the staff comment, so just give me a minute. MR. MULHERE: I think we could fix it and make it consistent with that, Mr. Strain. Because I was trying to incorporate a similar condition in -- which was 100 foot from residents. What you read is even more restrictive, but it would be okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to have to meet what the conditional use requires. You don't have -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any objection to that? MR. MULHERE: No, I understand it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You also made a statement that I believe you thought that everything that controlled this property was under the auspices of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission? MR. MULHERE: No, I didn't say everything, I just said that in terms of keeping exotic animals and the licensure process, it's US.D.A and -- well, I'd better let Donovan answer that question, he certainly knows more than I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMITH: In regards to wildlife, Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution vests exclusively the authority to FWC. And I happened to serve -- I just finished a two-year duty for the state. I serve on the task force that reports directly to the commission. I was one of 12 animal experts selected to help provide guidance in that Page 45 March 19,2009 manner. And every five years this process is done just to see how -- make sure it's working. It's a checks and balance system. So I'm very familiar with that part of the state law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any Class I or II animals? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I do. And I've had -- I was born in this community in Naples, Florida, and I've had exotic animals since 1979 and have a flawless record. And just to clarify, the exhibit the FWC manages, the ownership, the exhibition is regulated by the U.S.D.A., which I've been licensed in this community since 1985. And the Interstate Commerce in transit is regulated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. So there's five government agencies that regulate us outside of the county. And once again, we have a flawless record with that, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you come under the ruling of 68A prior to 2008, or do you come under the 2008 ruling of 68A? MR. SMITH: The 68A-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 68A-6.0022(5)(A)(5)(B). FAC, Florida Administrative Code. MR. SMITH: The -- once again, I'm not exactly familiar with the Florida Administrative Code. I am familiar with many of the other statutes themselves. But the -- you know, if you want to enlighten me on what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I want to make sure that when we get through with this that the requirements of the zoning actions that are taken here today are applicable and there's no dispute on it. According to that rule, the Florida Administrative Code, the last line of it says, applicant shall submit documentation verifying that the construction of the facility, its cages and enclosures is not prohibited by county ordinances. And if within the municipality, the municipal ordinance. Now, part of our ordinances are building codes, setbacks and the Page 46 March 19,2009 other things that we're going to be discussing today. And that's -- earlier on it seemed like there was an insinuation that you don't fall under some of our codes. You do. I mean, the fact that you're here today, and if this gets passed, you will. And I don't see a dispute in that point. And I wanted to make sure from your counsel that there wasn't going to be any in that regard. MR. SMITH: We don't have a dispute. You know, I can tell you, there's been some clarity in what you're talking about, because there was appropriate neighborhoods and some language that we worked on clarifying, because it was unclear. And that will be coming out here very soon. And the question I have is what is the appropriate zoning for animals? And to me agriculture has always been the most appropriate place to have animals. And, you know, that's for their mental well-being, the community, the whole nine yards. I mean, it's a no-brainer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your conditional use application will clean up the zoning, and that's what the objective is here today. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I go back -- I have some documentation that indicated there was a lot of structures on-site without building permits. There was some reluctance to get building permits. I'm assuming then if the zoning goes in place, everything will be properly permitted, inspected? MR. SMITH: Agreed to in accordance with state law. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've agreed to go through the -- we've agreed to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the individual buildings. There will be -- Mr. Strain, just to -- there are some buildings that are purely ago related buildings that -- and then those buildings will follow whatever the rules are for purely ago related Page 47 March 19,2009 buildings. The building that I'll call that are in dispute, if you will, we're trying to fix those through this conditional use process, and we agree to be bound by whatever the rules and regulations are applicable to those buildings. If it requires a building permit, we'll get one. And we've agreed to go through the SDP or SIP process, whichever staff requires, to take care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about a large building that maybe a small piece of it's used for a bathroom, would the whole building then be subject to our codes? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it depends what the building is for. If it's a barn that has a bathroom in it, that's an ago use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the bathroom is set up for guests? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Then yes, we will go through the -- we would have to get the permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the entire building? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that point, the building code, the tent's an odd one. How did -- I mean, first of all, tent's really only allowed as a temporary structure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're taking care of that through this process. The tents -- that's why we're going through this. The tent can go up. It's got to come down if there's a hurricane warning, I believe. And it will come down. And during the summer they come down anyway because he does that as a routine part of his operation. MR. MULHERE: And that's been fully inspected for fire compliance and all of the other public safety concerns as part of that Page 48 March 19, 2009 issuance of the fire compliance. They've seen the tent. The fire department's been out there and inspected the site. So that's part of the reason why we're going through this process is yeah, typically, you know, you put up a tent, you only can put up a tent for a relatively short period of time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. MULHERE: Part of going through this process is that we've identified how long that tent can be up. We've talked to staff about it. They put some conditions on it during a hurricane, watched it, be able to take it down within a certain period of time, we've agreed to those conditions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're saying you're keeping it -- the tent is permanently there unless a hurricane makes you take it down. MR. MULHERE: Actually, it's not. It's taken down anyway for maintenance purposes during the summer months. But it's up for about eight months, I'd say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let your building official do that. But I -- if you read the code, it will state that a tent that size has to be considered a structure. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's been inspected. We can have it inspected again, I mean, if that's what the issue is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- one of the disclosures I failed to make was I got an e-mail from Elizabeth at Defenders of Wildlife that included some newspaper articles about I guess interactions with panthers, yet I notice that there were no panthers reported in your EIS, because they weren't observed on the site at the time. And I guess I'll ask staff. Is there an environmental staff here today? MR. D'ARCO: Good morning. For the record, Chris D'Arco, Engineering and Environmental Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Thank you. I didn't Page 49 March 19,2009 recognize you. I don't think I've seen you here before. The panther, because it was observed on-site -- or because it's known to be on-site, it says interaction with the animals on the site. Should that have been included in the reference in the EIS? MR. D'ARCO: I believe the panther issue was addressed. MS. L YDA Y: We never saw it on-site, so I only reported it. MR. MULHERE: You can come up. You need to tell Mr. Strain. MS. L YDA Y: Good morning. Tammy Lyday with Earth Balance. We have been on-site since 2002. I believe October, 2002 was the first environmental survey that had been conducted on-site. And we had done several, I would say a good six to eight surveys on-site again. You know, obviously panthers are most active during the evening and, you know, that didn't include our survey. But so that's why it wasn't included in the EIS. But just from hearsay from neighbors, there is -- and Donovan himself, you know, there has been a cat in the area, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some recommendations from Fish & Wildlife concerning how to deal with this -- MS. LYDAY: Right, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- animal. MS. L YDA Y: And that is included in the EIS, about how to protect his site from panthers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they brought in each night into a secured area? MR. SMITH: Sorry. The cat that was a problem wasn't just a problem for us. We didn't have a problem with it, it's part of farming. But some of our neighbors had a problem. We lost I think it was 11 goats in one week, and some neighbors lost some pigs, some neighbors lost some donkeys. And we had discussion with the Game Commission on what the options were. And Roy McBride, who is the trapper for FWC, Page 50 March 19,2009 called us and said we don't have to worry about it anymore, he was hit by a car. So that animal is dead and we haven't had a single problem or visit ever since. So it was just the way it worked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But the question is, are your animals brought in at night and covered? Do they have covering? MR. SMITH: If you're referring to goats, we have a seven-foot chain link fence with barbed wire and a hot wire on the bottom. And the hot wire was added after we lost 11 goats in a week, and we haven't had any predation since then. So the answer to your question is no, because the goats are on 10 acres. And it would be quite difficult, it would probably take you the whole day to go gather all of them up and put them in a pen. But I do know the structure that you're familiar with, and it has been advised to us if we -- if the methods for security for our animals don't work, as an option. And it's something we would certainly consider, you know, if we have anymore problems. But we haven't had any problems in a long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the -- I have some questions of staff, but the last one I want to ask is aquaculture. We had one other application recently for aquaculture, and the gentleman actually was required to do quite a few things to assure us that that's what he was going to do and not excavation. I understand the nature of your aquaculture is substantially different than his. Yours are in more or less containers, containers either above or below the ground, and they're small in nature. Is there any ability or any ideas to expand the aquaculture beyond what is already on site? MR. SMITH: The law reads if you have -- if you sell fish out of your garage, you need an aquaculture permit. It doesn't differentiate in size or anything. Bottom line, if you sell it, you need it. Page 51 March 19,2009 In answer to your question, I mean, we might get a few more tanks or however the case may be, but we're not -- it's a very small part of our operation. But to satisfy the Florida Department of Aquaculture, which is a whole agency ironically that's doing an inspection at our facility as we speak, we have to be permitted by them. So we may add a couple more fish tanks or whatever, but it would certainly be under their guidance and their -- their Best Management Practice is about this thick. And it's important to me as being a native because, you know, I don't want this stuff in the environment any more than anybody else does. The fish that we keep are really subject to the cold. Even with heat they die. They're very, very temperamental. They're from three lakes in Africa. And they're -- the bass and all that love them, but they're a long way from any -- by design from any natural occurring pond or canal or any of that kind of stuff, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you anticipating digging a lake in which to raise fish? MR. SMITH: A natural lake? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wouldn't be natural if you dig it. But I mean, a lake in the ground. Are you doing any major excavation in which to -- MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- raise fish? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concern if we were to stipulate that there would be no excavation for aquaculture on this property? MR. SMITH: Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think what we talked about was the -- is the concern about the actual digging of the lake, or was it the digging of the lake and removing the dirt off-site? Page 52 -,.,.,--_.'"...._-....-~_.---'_.,,-'-,' _...~'"',~""--_.. March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's my concern. Everything-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's the removal of the dirt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changes in this world and the economy makes a lot of people change. Ifhe got a windfall offer to sell his property and the new owner wanted to dig a lake to sell excavation material, I don't want them saying they did that in the pretense it's aquaculture. And I'm trying to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. And if you recall on that particular petition, which I have some familiarity with, you're capped on how much dirt you can remove from the site without having to go through a conditional use process. So you can't just hide an earth mine through a fish farm application. But we have no intent -- he's already told you that. He's -- the issue is if he wants to dig a lake on-site and keep the fill on-site, I don't think that's an issue, is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not where I was coming from. Then you would have no objection prohibition from removing fill from the site? MR. SMITH: No. No, sir. And I did want to state too that these aquaculture facilities started as alternative water sources to meet the fire code. And we chose to go that route rather than having a fire -- a fire hydrant was going to cost $35,000 and it's going to sit and rot away in time. So we have way, way more than what's required for alternative water source. And quite frankly, I got tired oflooking at water, so we put fish in it and then people wanted to buy them, so 10 and behold, we evolved once again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions before we go to staff report? (No response.) Page 53 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You have the staff report. It is dated at the bottom last revised 3-11-09. The staff report includes the zoning map and location map to show the site location. It has a copy of the site plan provided by the petitioner. On Page 2 there is a description of the project. Both staffs interpretation and some information from the petitioner themselves goes into the surrounding land uses in zoning. The aerial photograph on the next page, similar to the one you saw today. There is an in-depth Growth Management Plan consistency review, beginning on Page 3. I do have David Weeks here with me today from comprehensive planning who can address questions if you have questions regarding that particular portion at the staff report. And on Page 6 of the staff report, there is a transportation element that discusses the traffic -- the impact statement. And we do have John Podczerwinsky with transportation here, he can address any specific questions you have regarding transportation. And you've already met Chris D'Arco, who can address any CCME concerns you have. Staff has included an analysis that begins on Page 7, going into the findings that are required for the approval of a conditional use, in this case three conditional uses. Staffhas determined in our opinion that this particular project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, as conditioned, and it is in compliance with the LDC, again, as conditioned. Speaking of conditions, on Page 10, the staff report begins with the actual conditions that are proposed. Condition one identifies the site plan. Condition one (sic) recognizes the evaluation to this point of 1,000 guests, therefore limiting the use to that 1,000 guests. Page 54 March 19, 2009 Condition number three addresses how those guests will or will not get there. Condition number four goes back to some original discussions where they were going to have a sports and recreation camp, so we wanted to make it clear that you get to come but you can't stay all night. And then condition number five again goes back to some of those discussions to limit this particular use so that it is not open to the general public. Those persons who do come to visit do so by private appointment. Condition number six was touched on by Rich. This requires the tents or any tents removal for anything issued for a tropical storm or higher intensity storm watch or warning. That will help ensure the safety of the tent and everything around it during a storm event, should one unfortunately visit us again. Condition number seven talks about the limiting to parking on the gravel areas, which are identified as parking. And I do believe there are three rather than two gravel areas on-site that are designated for parking. Condition number eight talks about the expansion on the site. Condition number nine talks to the existing single-family home on-site, and what would need to be done, should that be -- eventually evolve into a portion of the conditional use that's being requested. Condition number 10 is that condition that will help get all the structures on-site and the uses on-site in compliance with county regulations by requiring a site improvement plan or SDP plan as appropriate. And it gives the petitioner a time frame within which that must be done. Condition number 11 limits the hours and days of operation for the events that are proposed for this site. And this is evolved over time to what it is now. And then as mentioned, we were told that they now want five events per week, rather than three events per week, Page 55 March 19,2009 understanding that three events per week would allow for 156 events per year. They're willing to cap that to 150 events per year with those five that they're requesting. Understanding that this is a seasonal community and season is when you can make money, hopefully, and sometimes in the summertime it's too hot, people don't want to go out in the evening, thunderstorms are there. Again, people just don't want to be there. So I can see some validity to changing it to five so that they can take advantage of the season. Number 12 deals with the buffers that are being required by staff to help to ameliorate what effects could be bothering the neighbors, should that be an issue. We don't believe as it's operating now there is a problem, but this would address any future expansions of the use. Condition number three, as we talked earlier, there is also a limit of 100 feet in the LDC in the explanation where it talks about the actual use for raising or breeding of exotic animals. And that does talk about roof structures. This is not that specific. This particular condition says, any addition to any existing or any new structures or tents. Therefore, they don't have to be just roofed structures. But we do realize that right now there are some structures that are close to property lines, and that's why we've noted it as additions or new structures. Conditions number 14 and 15 relate back to the EAC requirements when this petition was reviewed by the EAC. As noted in the staff report on a previous page, and by the petitioner, they did receive unanimous recommendation from the EAC. That's the staff report. And like I said, I have several persons here that can help address questions if I can't specifically address them myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we get into questions, Kay, we're going to take a IS-minute break. It's 10:00. We'll give Cherie' a breather and be back here at 10:15. Page 56 March 19,2009 MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, back to the meeting. And where we had left off was Kay had just finished up her presentation from the county staff perspective for Close-Up Creatures. It's easier to say than trying to pronounce that other word. With that, let's ask, are there any questions of staff? Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Kay, why are we restricting this to so many times a year? MS. DESELEM: As a way to control the conditional use so you have some parameters of what the conditional use is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How did you come up with the number of l56? MS. DESELEM: Multiplied three times 52. Was my math okay? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the three came from where? MS. DESELEM: Originally they were talking about three. As you see in the staff report, the original condition was three times a week. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then it was changed. MS. DESELEM: Then they're asking today -- they had e-mailed us like yesterday, maybe the day before, telling us that they wanted to increase it to five times. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So now we're up to 150. Does that include the non-profits and children's events? MS. DESELEM: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MS. DESELEM: This is only the events that go late. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, that's fine. MS. DESELEM: I think it's the ones that -- I have to look at the exact language that -- Page 57 "_,__ ~_.____._^._.~"..._.._.,""~_""",__,_~...__"d'"_H~_<__'".___.,"._.m. _ ______._._______.__ March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I just want to get it clear. And in addition, they can now do five, six, seven a week during season, if necessary, as long as they -- or as many needed during season or during their times, as long as they don't exceed the 150 a year, correct? You're okay with that? MS. DESELEM: Correct. The limitation of the 150 per year is those things that go till 11 :00 p.m. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, any which way they want to do it. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Kay, under recommendation number three it says, visitors shall be transported to the site using buses or another communal transportation method. What is another communal transportation method you had in mind there? MS. DESELEM: They can use limousines, they can use vans. We didn't want to specify that it has to be quote, unquote buses. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Swamp buggies or motor homes? MS. DESELEM: One would think not. It would have to be something that's allowed to be legally conveyed over the roadways. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it would just be either limousine or buses. MS. DESELEM: That was the general intent. The more important thing was to keep private vehicles from going back and forth where you have one person in a car, that type of thing. They have committed that they will use a more mass transit method to get people there and out. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, to make the restriction clear, wouldn't it be well just to say buses or limousines period, without another communal transportation? MS. DESELEM: Sure, if you'd like we can say buses, vans or limousines. I have no problem with that. Page 58 '-'-~--~'-~'<'."-"-~-"""------~<'~'~ March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, for brevity and simplicity, I thought that might be more direct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, on this item number six about taking down the temporary structures and tent, could we change that, or would you have a problem if we added disassembled and secure that site? I don't think we particularly want people driving around with a tent. I mean, shouldn't they have the ability to secure that on-site at location? They probably do anyway. I mean, here you're making them take it off the site. MS. DESELEM: That sounds reasonable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That doesn't make any sense. And then seven, it says parking on the site is limited to two gravel areas unless additional approval is sought and approved through the SDP or SIP process. So what's going to control parking then? The concern is that one of the major points of this is everybody comes in from outside on a chartered vehicle and the way to really control that, the only way, is the parking. So what would keep number seven where somebody comes in and builds a 50-car parking lot? MS. DESELEM: They would have to seek approval. There's no -- as far as I know, I'd have to go back and check, but as far as I know, this conditional use approval, if these are approved, would not give them any approvals to have multiple parking garage -- a multiple story parking garage. And if they did, they would have to seek site development plan or SDP approval to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what would control it? In other words, only the staff at the time; is that right? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would control? Number Page 59 March 19, 2009 seven is giving the SDP process and SIP process the ability to alter the parking requirements on the site, correct? MR. MULHERE: May I? For the record, Bob Mulhere. Couple things. It's a good question, because when we go through the SIP or SDP, we're not exactly sure to what extent we might have to make some minor changes to make staff happy in the process, right? And then -- and my position would be that we don't have any -- what we have there is sufficient. We don't have any intent on building any additional parking areas. You know, if we were to do that, I mean, it's not shown on the conditional use master plan. I would think that that would be deemed to be a fairly substantive addition. I mean, I don't know if you want to opine, but basically conditional use, if you don't show it on there and you were expanding or intensifying your facilities, you have to go back through the process to get them to modify the conditional use to get an amendment to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you're -- I mean, I'm not worried about this, you know, but let's say they sell it to Six Flags, you know, I'm worried about them. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're still capped. Don't forget, we're still capped by the fact that everybody has to arrive by a chartered vehicle. So why would we be doing that? We may have an additional parking area because we have -- turns out that the groups average eight buses and we can only accommodate two or three right now on-site and they have to leave. Maybe they want to expand a little bit to keep the buses on-site. That would be the only reason I could think we might do something like that. So I think we're -- making this a big sea of parking for a Six Flags doesn't make sense, because people are still coming by chartered vehicles. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, number three, the concern I have is how do you control that? I think one way is the site Page 60 March 19,2009 itself can control it by not having parking facilities. Essentially you're saying you have to come on a bus or other communal transportation. Well, if we car pooled, that's communal transportation, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think with the changes that Mr. Kolflat suggested, that would pretty much limit it to bus, van -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or limo. MR. MULHERE: -- limo. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Limo. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's the only way for a patron to arrive. Staff obviously is -- MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make sure Mr. Schiffer is done first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one second. I think I am done, but -- go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, in that regard, you probably need to expand on the van then to make sure it's commercial van. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, and then it says any arrival by private car is prohibited. So we could say arrival by private vehicle -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I don't want to -- MR. MULHERE: -- is prohibited. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't want to make it to the nth degree, but -- MR. MULHERE: That would cover that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, so just let me get this straight. Are we changing number seven to make it clear that if they expand beyond the three they would have to come back through the Page 61 March 19,2009 conditional use process? MS. DESELEM: I don't know that we were expanding condition three. That's the understanding between staff and the applicant, that the LDC would require them to seek additional approvals. Most likely -- I didn't look it up, but I don't think that a parking garage is an allowable use in agricultural zoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't necessarily have to be a garage, it can just be expanding these lots out. I mean, they've got lots of other property here. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Any change to the conceptual master plan shown or that's approved with a conditional use would be deemed an intensification and require them to come back through with a conditional use property. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so there's no way that that can just happen just administratively. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just thought of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, what can they do? They own neighboring property. So that property no way can be used for anything on this, or -- essentially with the right to farm they could do anything they want to with animals within that. MR. BELLOWS: Farm related. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are they allowed to for example take an elephant from one site to bring it on this site for show or something? MS. DESELEM: That might be a question for the county attorney's office. But to my understanding the conditional use that allows the animals and the activities surrounding the animals is only allowed on the subject property that is covered by the conditional use Page 62 March 19,2009 approval. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And any additional uses on properties they own that are zoned ag., they can still use the permitted agricultural activities. Anything falling under the conditional use would have to occur within the boundaries of the CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, couple questions. If they did not get approval to be on this site, what kind of a site would they have to find in Collier County to be approved? MS. DESELEM: I didn't really evaluate to see what else might be available within the county. They're going through-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I don't mean what might be available. What zoning would they fall under in Collier County? MS. DESELEM: Well, they are seeking the conditional uses that are appropriate in the ago If they wanted to seek other areas that are zoned ago and seek those conditional approvals, it would be evaluated on its merit at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're basically limited to ago zoning in which to get the uses that they want. MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're basically limited to ago zoning to get the uses they want. MS. DESELEM: There may be other zoning districts that allow them, but maybe perhaps by right in some other zoning district, I don't know. But they could seek other lands that are zoned ago CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that was my question. MS. DESELEM: I didn't go through each and every zoning district to see if other zoning districts did allow the uses, but I would venture to say that the aquaculture itself would probably only be limited to ago So by that, ago is pretty much where they're going to have to be. Page 63 March 19,2009 MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I think -- are you asking in total or if this were broken up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. MR. SCHMITT: Certainly other uses could be -- for instance, the entertainment venue could be done on a commercial property. But if you're talking about in total what exists now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of the documentation I've read was how these uses are all kind of mixed together, that you really don't have one without the other and they need all three. And I was just wondering, at another -- if they got turned down here, where could they do this at in Collier County? MR. SCHMITT: David's probably ready to answer, but the rural fringe mixed use receiving area. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. It's perhaps a fine point, but I agree with everything said regarding the agricultural zoning. But there may be some limitation under the future land use designation, most particularly the rural fringe mixed use sending lands in which this property is located. Except there is a specific exception carved out in the Future Land Use Element for this property. But if they went through some other properties zoned agriculture but within the rural fringe mixed use district's sending lands designation, we would find this use not consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That excepting out piece that you mentioned, this interim agreement, I've read it. I've read so many pages of so many things, I'm not sure I'm going to keep them all straight, but I do have a question. See the crosshatched area that's on this map right now? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that part of that original application? Page 64 March 19, 2009 MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay. Yes. When it was originally submitted, it was 32 acres. It is now 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They've taken it out of the CU application? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what will be the status of that property as to how it's looked at in the future since it's not part of the CU application here in front of us today? Even though it was part of the one originally submitted in 2003 and now it appears to be dropped. MS. DESELEM: It would have the uses allowed under the ago with the limitations of the sending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it loses its interim posture, it loses the ability to be considered under that interim time period because the application is null and void for that piece. And if they go on to that piece in the future, it has to be regulated by the sending area? MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding. David can probably speak to that. MR. MULHERE: Well, Commissioner Strain, in could, I think that's a very good question, because there was a deadline to have submitted the conditional use application, or any application, rezone, conditional use, right? And it was July of 2003, and we submitted in February of 2003, which made us -- and we're complete -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. MULHERE: -- that's how we got vested. So I think once we've removed this, we would fall out of that condition that otherwise would have allowed us to -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, is that 21 acres, that cross-hatched area? MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, the 21 acres is represented -- it's the outlined area in red. But that crosshatched area is the area that's been removed from the -- Page 65 March 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the cross-hatched area is the 10-acre area then. It's 10.8; is that what it reads? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we're in agreement on is that 10.8 acres, after this is through, no longer falls under the interim rural fringe agreement guidelines, and it strictly goes under the whatever, sending area, receiving area, whatever it happens to be under the rural fringe; is that right? MS. DESELEM: I would say that's true today, because they removed it from the conditional use. So, I mean, that's my thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine, I just wanted it clear. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody here wanting to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will ask for any closing comments from the applicant. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Yes, just wanted to perhaps look at stipulation number 13. Because as you pointed out, the conditional use already has a restriction on roof structures within 100 foot of a property line for the exotic animals. And again, if I just -- pointing out on the map here, this piece down here, a 60-foot setback around the perimeter, there are other types of activities that we can do in here that wouldn't be in a roof structure. We recognize we've got to meet that 100 foot. But that 60- foot setback is very restrictive in that area. Since we already have a required indigenous 30-foot landscape buffer that's required to be opaque. Page 66 March 19,2009 And I would say that you don't even need stipulation 13 because you already have the 100 foot for roof structures as part of the conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you use the tents for? MR. MULHERE: The tents are for display and public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is an animal ever in those tents? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, for display. Brought out, brought back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then you have no objection then to a tent -- the restriction of the tents being 100 feet back. MR. MULHERE: Well, doesn't it say for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, let me read it to you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any roofed structure used for the shelter and/or feeding of such animals -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- shall be located a minimum of 100 feet -- MR. MULHERE: Shelter and feeding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: So don't feed them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or don't put them in there. If you've got a roof over it, they're sheltered. So is that what you're saying? MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't see that as being -- you know, when you bring it -- I'm not suggesting that we want to put a tent within 100 foot of the property. I'm talking about other types of pens and things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the language kind of covers it. MR. MULHERE: I'm saying it's clear, we don't need 13. We'll live by that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you have any -- MR. MULHERE: We don't have any choice but to live by that Page 67 March 19, 2009 stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that language in the conditional use, does that help you with number 13, or do you still feel13's a-- MS. DESELEM: As I testified earlier, I believe 13 is still appropriate, because that particular portion of the LDC only deals with roofed structures. And there's a lot of other things. There's pens, there's all kinds of things that may not be roofed. And I don't know that it's appropriate to put that close to your neighbor. MR. MULHERE: That's regulated by the U.S.D.A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need a microphone if you're going to speak. MR. MULHERE: And again, we put on the record that that's already regulated and regulated quite sufficiently. And, you know, I mean, if the issue is visibility or whatever, we have this 30- foot wide opaque landscaped buffer. All we're doing here by having a 60-foot separation for any structure, excluding fences and walls because they're not considered structures, is basically rendering a lot of that property unusable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Inez Road in or outside your property line? MR. MULHERE: The right-of-way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, is it a right-of-way? Is it a platted public right-of-way? MR. SMITH: No, we own the property. MR. MULHERE: No, they own it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the entire Inez Road is in the right-of-way -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I mean in your property? MR. MULHERE: Well, half of it I think is on his, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're set -- and how wide is that road; do you know? Page 68 March 19, 2009 MR. MULHERE: Sixty foot. I think it's 30 foot on each property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at having a setback of 60 foot from the edge of Inez Road or 60 foot from the property line, which is 30 feet into Inez Road and then you end up with only 30 feet from the road. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, see what he's saying? If you measure it from the property line. MS. DESELEM: Yes, it does state from the property boundary, so yes, it would go to the middle of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at a 30-foot setback. What are you worried about? MR. MULHERE: I'm okay. MS. DESELEM: Now, I could -- MR. MULHERE: Well, no, see, the problem, Mr. Strain, is there's not roads everywhere. Like for example, in here there's no road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but that's up against-- MR. MULHERE: But it's applied as a property line. And that's where we have the problem is mainly down in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why don't we suggest that it stays in place for roads -- property lines where they have roads involved, property fronting the road? MR. MULHERE: That would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't think anybody cares what you do internal with your own internal property line. MR. MULHERE: That would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- Kay, does that-- MS. DESELEM: IfI may, this only applies to new structures or additions. They can still use the structure. It's not like they're going to lose the use of that structure. MR. MULHERE: And I agree with Kay, that that's what it says. Page 69 March 19, 2009 But look, there's a rhino pen right here, or there's some sort of a -- I can't read that, it's very small -- right here. Okay? So round, whatever. You know, anyway, that's for walking animals or training animals, okay? It's got a wall around it. So under this condition, if I wanted to expand that thing, I've got to take the whole think and move it back 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, listen, if we say any additions to any existing or any new structures or tents shall be set back from property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet anywhere a property line borders or includes a right-of-way or a roadway. MR. MULHERE: A public right-of-way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't say public right-of-way, just a roadway. MR. MULHERE: Road right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Access way, let's try that, that's even better. MR. MULHERE: That works. MS. DESELEM: Can I get you to say that again, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. At the end of the sentence we would add, property boundaries a minimum of 60 feet where the property line borders or includes an access way. Richard, you're thinking. That's good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the risk of using directions, that's why I was thinking. So you're basically saying along the east boundary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, there's a road to the south too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's a driveway, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keene. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Keene's along the south? That's the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the aerial you had up there looked like there was a road -- Page 70 March 19, 2009 MR. MULHERE: Kearney. MS. DESELEM: Kearney. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kearney, whatever the name is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I see, Kearney. Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you want to change it to simply say Inez Road or Kearney Road, that's fine too. Does that work better, Kay? MR. MULHERE: I think it does. It's more clear. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At least it's specific at that point. MS. DESELEM: That would probably be clearer because it's more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be 60 feet from Kearney Road. MR. MULHERE: Property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kearney Road property line and Inez Road property line. Okay? We there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good. Did I get my direction right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is you're keeping the word setback in there. And if they ever dedicated the property line or dedicated the right-of-way, the definition of setback in our code would be to that. It's probably to that anyway now. You see what I'm concerned about? In other words, maybe if we just didn't use the word setback in that, it would be clear forever. You can't hear, Kay? MR. MULHERE: Shall not be closer than? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see what I'm saying? I mean, fast forward 15 years from now, there's a dedicated right-of-way. The guy says setback means from right-of-way. MR. MULHERE: I think that's a very good point. If you simply Page 71 March 19,2009 didn't use setback but said shall not be located closer than. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that mess will now read, all additions to any existing or new structures or tents shall not be located closer than property -- than a minimum of 60 feet from Kearney Road -- from the Kearney Road property line and the Inez Road property line. MR. MULHERE: Perfect. MR. KLATZKOW: Center line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: Center line. MR. MULHERE: Which is the property line. MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if they move the road? MR. KLATZKOW: Just do it from the center line of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the center line of the road could change. I mean, I'm dealing with an easement now that was 30 feet each side of the section line. And they -- MR. KLATZKOW: But the point of it is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- put the whole road on the 30- foot side and nothing on the other, so the center line of the road moved over. MR. KLATZKOW: The whole point of this is the road. So if they moved -- you want it set back from the road, right? MR. MULHERE: No, from the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the property line. MR. KLATZKOW: Which is the-- MR. MULHERE: It's not necessarily the center line of the road. MR. KLATZKOW: Which is the center line of the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this case it is, yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's what they're telling us. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but it may -- I mean, we haven't surveyed that. It's not -- Mark is right, in some cases the center line of the road is not -- Page 72 March 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm dealing with one right now on another project that the whole thing's put on one 30-foot side and it's really messed things up. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let's say that the property line is the entire -- MR. MULHERE: And it's a dirt road. We've got a survey. We know where the property line is. We set back from that, we know exactly where it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- and if we leave it from the property line, it's a fixed point. I'd rather suggest we leave it that way, as long as there's no legal objection. Are there any other objections, comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing on that. Why don't you say as shown on the exhibit. Because, for example, theoretically if there's a dedicated road some day in the future, the property line would become the edge of that dedication. It would no longer be the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if it did, they could take that into consideration when they dedicated the road. I mean, I certainly think if the road gets dedicated, that means it's more public. Maybe 30 feet is inadequate. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think when you go through that process, you can reduce the setback, because it's being taken for public purpose. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and we'll have a discussion first so we can go over the issues that were discussed. There has been no opposition here today, so let's walk through the staff recommendations first. On number three, the suggestions, the best I could make notes Page 73 March 19,2009 of, would be changed as follows: Visitors shall be transported to the site using buses, vans or limousines. Visitor arrival by private vehicle is prohibited. Number six, where it talks on the last line where it says -- or second to last line, structures are disassembled and removed from the site immediately, it's going to read, structures are disassembled and secured or removed from the site immediately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Secured on the site, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let them give the option to take them off, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So secured or removed from the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 11 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one more thing on that. Do we really wants to do it if there's a tropical -- I mean, the limitations there might be too much. I mean, tropical warning -- a warning, which is the higher ranking, watch or warning? MR. SCHMITT: Warning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Warning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a tropical watch, do we really want them to take it down? I mean, unless he takes weeks to take down. MR. SCHMITT: Obviously our concern, the structure itself. Now, that's concern certainly up to the property owner. And Donovan certainly knows he's not going to have an event out there, nor will people be going out there. Certainly I would not (sic) think he's going to suspend any type of thing ifthere's going to be a tropical storm. But it's in his best interest to protect his property when he takes it down. That's a very -- certainly a valuable tent to him. But our concern on this naturally is the safety of the surrounding Page 74 March 19,2009 area and flying debris. But also to make sure that the tent is not used for an event during a storm event or a threatening stormy event. That was our biggest concern. Now the other part of this, Brad, you're well aware of, the next piece of this is dealing with the occupancy issue and fire protection and those other issues. Now this has already been approved by East Naples Fire District under the Right to Farm. But there are going to be other issues we need to address on occupancy and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is that we do get the watches. MR. MULHERE: If I could add some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere. Just talking to Donovan, a couple of things. Number one, the tent is engineered to withstand winds of75 miles per hour. Just so that's on the record. Then he typically takes it down three days out of, you know, any event, coming event. Now, I don't know the time frames. I think the-- when is it when it's imminent, do you know the time frames? MS. DESELEM: In recall correctly, a watch means it's possible to make landfall within three days, 72 hours. A warning means it's supposedly imminent, and I believe the time frame is 48 hours. But we were told in discussions that it takes at least two days to take the tent down. And this is just the existing tent. I understand they may have more than one tent on-site. So we wanted to make sure to take the most conservative approach. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one thing, when we change it here, will it also change on the site plan? There's a similar -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- number on the site plan. You'll make sure that they're compatible? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 75 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next item was on Number 11, first line, three events would be changed to five. But there will be a sentence added that caps the total events per year of 150 per year. Number 13 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wait a minute, Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was brought up before was, by Commissioner Vigliotti, is the issue of other children visiting and so forth, not-for-profit events. Is the 150 -- I thought it was said that the 150 was not included in that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't. And that's only for events that go beyond 8:00 p.m. at night. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I think what we have to make sure is that the 150 doesn't cap you for everything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The way I understood it was being read it seemed like it might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was going to be in paragraph 11, which refers to hours, so the cap would be referencing how many events you could have to the hours that are stated in Number 11. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you be kind enough to reread what you said about the 150 then, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't say -- I just said that there's going to be a sentence added to address the cap of 150 events per year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13 -- go ahead, Mr.-- MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'm not going to expect an annual report on that, but I'm going to expect a report if there are code cases, then I'm going to demand that information from the -- from Donovan or from the operator, because that will be applicable and pertinent to any type of code case for Page 76 March 19,2009 prosecution of a code case. So that's when that information will be relevant. So it's not that I'm going to be looking for an annual report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Number 13, we're -- best I can make out of my notes would now read, all additions to any existing or any new structures or tents shall not be located closer than a minimum of 60 feet from the Kearney Road property line and the Inez Road property line. And I think that's it from that page of notes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one -- I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're going to have one more note, there will be no fill removal from the site. That's it. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing we never discussed, number two, the thousand. It just -- I think it was just pulled out of the air. I mean, it wasn't in the initial application. MR. MULHERE: No, we revised our traffic analysis to allow for that number, because in fact the Smiths actually had several events -- several, not a lot, several, that were that large. The great majority are far smaller than that. But some of the hotel events are up to 1,000. The staff wanted a cap, that's the cap we put in. We did the traffic analysis for that number. I'm telling you, though, that you're probably talking about no more than 10 events per year, maximum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you'd have 25 buses bringing everybody out, or 25 trips. The buses are going back and forth. So it would be 100 -- MR. MULHERE: It's still considered to be relatively few trips with no significant impact on the roadway, even under that scenario. I just had that conversation with Nick in the back of the room. Page 77 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying we didn't really discuss it. I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't we discuss it now? Transportation's sitting there, so let's get their -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky for the record, Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want him to spell that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Can you restate the question for me, please? And was there a specific question that you wanted to address with respect to 1,000? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, 1,000 is a lot of people. I mean, there is a large sewage load. And Rich is right, you can get portable equipment to do that. There's the support. I mean, if there's going to be 30 people or something for staff, that's really low support. I mean, that's a lot of people. So it's not just 1,000 people on buses. But don't you think -- I mean, first of all, we don't have 21 buses, I guess, in town, so it's not like they're all going to come out in one big flow and then go back in one big flow. So you're okay with that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, we don't have any objection to it. Essentially what we were looking at was a peak one-hour load on this for the peak event. So we were looking at basically the one-way direction traffic -- directional traffic going into the site and/or one-way directional traffic coming out of the site, what is our peak loading during that one-hour period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your answer's 25. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Twenty-five. Twenty-five buses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that means there's somewhere in town 25 buses. Because obviously the bus has to go back and get more. So that would be two trips if you're not using the Page 78 March 19,2009 same buses. They don't have parking for 25 buses. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, they do not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the trip isn't 25, is it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, this would actually be the 25 -- it would be 25 drops at the site for the buses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And they've got to go back and get more. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. And we're anticipating that that would be about the maximum loading that they could get within an hour, within that peak hour that we're looking at on the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I just think bringing it -- within an hour bringing 1,000 people out there is like a convoy maneuver. It's not -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, we would sort of think that that would be spread out a little bit more than one peak hour. But we were looking at a maximum worst case scenario, what would we have to accommodate for that and do the roadways accommodate that loading. And as far as our analysis goes, yes, they will, all the way out to 951 and Pine Ridge Road, where we took them all the way out to that intersection. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, a question. You've testified that they've had events out there that have had 1,000 people and they've handled it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No Woodstock problems or anything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And keep in mind, the number of employees are related to the day-to-day operations. When he has the events, the caterers also bring staff out there. So it's not 20 people serving 1,000 people. You have the catering staff that also arrive by communal transportation on buses as well. So there's more than 30 Page 79 March 19, 2009 people there at that time from a staffing standpoint. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we have 30 parking places for staff. I mean -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are for staff employees. The catering staff, as we testified to earlier, also arrive by bus on the larger events. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If everybody's comfortable with it, I'll go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question because of what you just said. You said you did your study and you brought these buses to 951 and Pine Ridge. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct, we did-- COMMISSIONER CARON: However, all I've heard are about corporate events that include the Ritz and all of these other things, which are all west of that -- where you took that traffic. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's correct, we did look at-- COMMISSIONER CARON: So what happens to those buses when they reach there? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The distribution that we took a look at at Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge -- and if you don't mind, I'll use the visualizer here. This is the proposed distribution that they show. If you'll take it a little bit further -- okay, you'll see that roughly 30 percent of the trips are distributed down Pine Ridge. That would be to and from the Ritz area, I guess, towards the beach. Forty percent we're looking at coming from the south, which we anticipate that being some of their support staff, the catering staff, whoever they're contracted from, coming in that direction. Not to eliminate buses, there are some hotels down in that direction as well. And there's also an expressway access down there to I-75. So that would cover some of the events that are coming in from Page 80 March 19,2009 the other side of the state. But we assume most of their support staff is going to be local. So this is all of that traffic all combined in one. And we're going to be looking at that peak hour loading from all sources that are going to be accessing this site. So that's not only the buses, the catering staff, everybody that's there for support staff. And they took everything, loaded it all into that hour and came up with, I believe it was 71 worst case scenario trips distributed 30 percent, 30 percent and 40 percent. It works out to be a relatively small number distributed on each roadway. It's less than one percent impact on each segment of Collier Boulevard and also on Pine Ridge, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm a little sus -- because what this doesn't take into account, that if you have an event you're going to one spot to pick people up. The concept of people blending in from the community doesn't make sense because you're -- all your patrons are coming from one hotel. So 100 percent of the patron trips are heading that way. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no way to split that up. But anyway, if the site can take 100 and no one's complaining about it, we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you do, unfortunately every time someone speaks there's some more information that need to be addressed. A thousand guests we just heard doesn't occur very often. Why don't we just look at stipulating how many times you can have that many people on-site? And that would be assured then we don't break any barriers with traffic. If you only do a few a year, and I think you said no more than 10, maybe we ought to look at a consideration of limiting that. Because the way it's open now is they could have 1,000 Page 81 March 19,2009 guests every hour and we could have a regular old train running out there forever. MR. MULHERE: Well, they are off-peak hours. And hey, look, we should be so lucky as to have more than -- or they should be so lucky as to have more than -- it's far and few between. I think a limitation of 10 would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was -- I used to live in California, and there's this little farm up the road called Knott's Berry Farm. Ever heard of it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, they started out small too. They get now what, 40,000 or something like that? MR. MULHERE: They've got an amusement park there now, don't they? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes, they do. Petting zoos and animals, too. We won't go into that, though. Ifwe limit the 1,000 guests to no more than 10 times per year? MR. MULHERE: I think you'd want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what you have to do, Mark, is come up with a minimum. I mean, no more than 10 times a year can the guests be greater than 500 or some number. MR. MULHERE: Probably need a little -- more like 600 would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We are picking numbers out of the air. We're not looking at what the site can hold and all the other things planned -- MR. MULHERE: We're not picking numbers out of the air, we're basing it on our experience there, Mr. Schiffer. We're basing it on what we know over the history of the site generally what size the events are when they occur. They are getting a little bit bigger. And that's because the site can accommodate it and the experience is very desirable to these Page 82 March 19,2009 groups that come in. I don't know that any of those groups are receiving T ARP funding, by the way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern though is that for example you have a sewage flow of five gallons per person and there's no restaurant -- you know, there's nothing in the restaurant category that has that Iowa sewage flow. So, I mean, I'm just -- MR. MULHERE: Because we're not preparing food there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's still nothing that low. I mean -- MR. MULHERE: But that has to do with preparation on-site. We're catering -- we're bringing the food in. So that really isn't germane to the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, from my experience, if I'm there all day drinking beer and all that, I'm good for more than five gallons myself. MR. MULHERE: Oh, but that's why we're bringing in the -- what were they called, comfort stations -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Crowd pleasers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've questioned, we're sensitive, it's okay. So what would be the lower number be, 500? MR. MULHERE: I think to be safe it should be a little bit higher, 600, I think. We discussed that, 600 would be a better number. It gives us a little more flexibility. And that certainly limits us on the higher number, above 600 hundred 10 times per year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you have a 500-person event, do you have crowd pleasers there? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And actually -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the limit that you bring crowd pleasers out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The crowd pleasers arrive when we hit Page 83 March 19,2009 the 250 to 300-person mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Kay, there's going to be one more change to our staff -- to staff recommendations that we're probably going to consider, and that will be number two. It will read something to the effect -- and I've got to ask that you clean it up -- there should be no more than 600 guests on-site at anyone time, more than 10 times per year. Basically what it's saying is they can't have over 600 people more than 10 times a year on that site. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually Donovan is saying the number he would be comfortable with -- and keeping in mind, Naples Grande can only hold 450. So what he's saying is ifhe can get to the 800 number, he'd know he's safe. Remember, there's 55 people per bus. We're only talking about-- I can't do that in my head. Twelve? Whatever 55 into that number goes. Somebody just told me 12, but I'm not good at math or directions. The list is getting longer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern isn't just the transportation. Like how big -- what's the square footage of the tent? If you get 1,000 people out there, nobody's in that tent. I mean-- MR. DONOVAN: Let me -- I'm Donovan again. Let me just give you some synopsis of how -- this facility works almost like a movie set. In other words, we have several components that a client would pick in a menu of services. Their method of transportation -- you've got to remember, we've done parties for as little as six and for as much as 1,000. We've done clientele from 72 billionaires under one roof to 60 Girl Scouts the very next day. So there's huge flexibility. And let me remind you that the concessions, if the sewer or whatever didn't work, would be far greater than anything you could ever impose on us, because they want their money back, they're very disconcerting (sic) citizens that have experienced and done it all and Page 84 March 19,2009 they get mad real easy. But the facility grows and, you know, even regardless of what the septic tank can hold, you know, logistically you can't move more than 300 hundred people through a door anyway. So you have to have -- to be responsible you have to have more than one restroom facility. And we mitigate that with air conditioned crowd pleasers; they have working toilets and the whole nine yards. And we go through great pains to accommodate these people in a manner that they like. As a matter of fact, we were selected as Offsite Venue of the Year last year by a Meeting South magazine reader's poll, which was a write-in ballot, a global write-in ballot, which I'm pretty proud of, to be here in the community. So I understand your concerns, and I really -- I sincerely appreciate them, because you think of those things and we do too, and not everybody does. And that's why we charge what we charge, because it takes a huge amount of resources to pull it off to the level that it needs to be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Describe a thousand-event day. What's happening? MR. DONOVAN: In a thousand-event day -- once again, they're very rare, but they do happen, and it's a great deal, because it's a shell-out for the community, multiple hotels and that sort of thing. But we would use these facilities that you have a brochure on and then other temporary structures would be brought in to facilitate a program like that. And they're brought in with the fire exit signs and the fire extinguishers and all the requirements. And then mobile bathrooms are brought in, and additional tenting is brought in for culinary staff. And usually by the next day it's all gone. I mean, if you go out there, it's like it never was. And these three structures that are in the brochures, really, we throw the word tent around loosely, but the structures are made from Page 85 March 19, 2009 Sunbrella awning fabrics. It's actually a giant awning, if you really want to get technical. They're -- it's much more -- a rental tent is designed to be utilized, quick return on investment and disposed of. It's not meant to last years and years and years. And the fabrics aren't (sic) the same water repellent and all that kind of stuff. So just to kind of summarize that part of it as well. So that's walking through a typical. Now, on the small end, just to give you a perspective, when we do an event for six people, they go by -- and that would be a prime example of a limousine, a bus is inappropriate and, you know, why waste more fuel and all that stuff bringing a bus out when a limousine would work. And they would see the entire location, but -- as far as the structure goes, but they would be confined into a smaller area. And it's exclusive, no matter what the experience is. And the reason for that is we don't want six people swimming in a facility that can accommodate 300. It's just not intimate anymore. And now our animals are done in a manner where they're housed on-site but a client could literally say I want a giraffe, no, I don't want a giraffe, I want a leopard, or no, I don't want a leopard. And in each animal exhibit there's -- once again, it's set up -- for 15 years before we built this place we did events at Disney and all over where we toured with all the foliage and lighting and everything else that went with them. And we just set that up specific to them and then break it down when it's done and the animals go back to their enclosures. And that's good for them because it provides mental stimulation enrichment, which wild animals need. They're nomadic by nature and they need to go and see things. So anyway, I'm sorry to kind of drag on here, but I just wanted to give you a synopsis from a high to low end what you could expect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. DONOVAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard or Bob, whoever, the way the Page 86 March 19,2009 language would be proposed, we're now talking 800. So that means you're going to be limited to no more than 800 people instead of 1,000. And it would be no more than 10 times per year. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that -- where's everybody sit with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why bother? 800,1,000, it's the same. I mean -- MR. KLATZKOW: You know, unless we can articulate a reason for a number here, I'm starting to get a little concerned that we're just being arbitrary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I haven't heard anything from our own transportation that there's a problem, I haven't heard anything from Joe's shop that there's a problem -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leave it alone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, if you could please-- MR. SCHMITT: The only limitation will be the 1,000 number triggers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- be recognized before you speak. MR. SCHMITT: -- requirements for fire suppression and other issues dealing with the Florida Building Code, so -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Then the 1,000 number is just as good as the 800 number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, so let's let it go. MR. SCHMITT: And Brad's well aware of the occupancy issues, ingress/egress, all those kind of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was getting at, Mr. Klatzkow, is the applicant is coming in with a number. If they want to enter a number, why would we want to refuse it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We only did that because it seemed that the Planning Commission was requesting of us a cap and we wanted to Page 87 March 19, 2009 make sure if that is necessary we can do that. We want approval, obviously, and we want to make sure that we have a good business as well. MR. SCHMITT: Well, also, from a zoning perspective, we're concerned, because if it appears to be more of a commercial operation than what it's professed to be other than a commercial. So if you get to 1,000 people, five nights a week, let's call it what it is, it's an attraction in Eastern Collier County. I mean, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's why we're going through this process is to say let's say if you did that, so what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just summarize it up. I've heard a lot of input from all of you. Let's get to the bottom of it on this one issue of guests, the number of guests, where's the Planning Commission's feelings on this? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I stay we stick with the 1,000 rather than, as the attorney said, pull arbitrary numbers out of the air. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir, we have 1,000, let's leave it at 1,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, are you leaving it at 1,000 but not more than 10 times a year? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the suggestion right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that means you could have CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, you could have 999 whenever, so -- you need two numbers. The difference between eight Page 88 March 19,2009 and 1,000 to me is no big difference. I -- just let it go. What would the fallback be? Let's say that they put a stage up and they really are going crazy out there, 1,000 people a day. What would be the -- I mean, if they're not violating the noise, what would ever be the problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look-it, you started the issue on the count, Brad -- you know, I'm -- the key here is we're trying to get on the summary agenda. If we have to meet everybody's concerns -- if you don't have a concern, then let's just back away from the whole thing, because you started it. MR. SCHMITT: Brad, it's only a -- it's an occupancy issue, and that's up to Donovan. He has to -- I'm sure he's insured and other issues, and also it's his permit issue in regards to the Health Department and the facilities he has on-site for public comfort. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I was never against it. I just want to make sure we talk about it. That's a big number, that's a lot of people, it's a lot of ramifications. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any other comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, I think we should remain with the limitation of 10 times a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from a Planning Commission perspective, we have to come to a synopsis on this, because we're going to have to ask for a vote for the stipulations. I think everybody's expressed themselves. Is there a motion for this particular issue? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion with all of the changes that staff and we discussed, and I'd like to leave it up to 1,000 number as we all discussed here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we all discussed a lot concerning the 1,000 number. Can you be very specific? You want to leave the Page 89 March 19,2009 language as it was in the staff recommendation or do you want to change it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As a staff recommendation of 1,000 people, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded it. Boy, you started all that for nothing. Unbelievable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to make sure we all talked about the number thousand. And we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is there any discussion on the motion? And it was pursuant to all the changes we discussed with the staff recommendations, with the exception number two will be left as the staff recommendation initially put it forth. COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Vigliotti, you are not going to limit it to no more than 10 times a year, the thousand events? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So they can have that every time -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Transportation doesn't have a problem with it -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just asking-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it can be any time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, as they requested and the staff recommendations approved it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll-- I'm just -- one comment for myself. I will be voting in favor of the motion, not because I believe we need more commercial activity in the agricultural area, but I'm trying to under -- I don't see anyplace else where this can go. And based on that I think this is probably the best solution for a Page 90 March 19, 2009 very difficult process that started many years ago. So at this point I'll be voting in favor of the motion. With that said, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't want to hear any complaints later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have two other cases to discuss today. And I know there are people watching the meeting to determine when Mirasol is going to come up. Mr. Wiley, you're one of those, and I know you're probably listening to this right now. When I spoke to you yesterday I thought we'd be after lunch before we got to Mirasol. I still think we will. We've got one more case and then we're going to take lunch, maybe -- and the earliest would probably be 11 :30. So that would still put us after lunch for Mirasol. Does anybody have any problem breaking early for lunch and then starting Mirasol in complete after lunch? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that said, Mirasol will not be heard until we get done with lunch. I can't guarantee what time lunch will start right now, though. Page 91 March 19,2009 Item #9C PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION, INC. Okay, the next item up is PUDA-2007-AR-11546, the Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. for the Longshore PUD, for a sign change and some PUD changes at the Immokalee Road and Cypress -- I believe it's Cypress -- or Logan Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the Planning Commission members, on the last item we have to provide -- actually, we have to provide Mr. Vigliotti with our conditional use forms. You'll see there's a form that has to be filled out and signed in your packet before lunch. Please make sure Mr. Vigliotti has that. Now, disclosures from the Planning Commission on this one. The only thing I have is I haven't had any changes since the last meeting, so my disclosure would remain the same. With that said, Bob, it's yours. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, representing the Longshore Lake Foundation, and also G.L. Homes. I have with me Mr. Kevin Ratterree today, who is a senior vice-president of G.L. Homes. I also have Mr. Bill Bates, who's the former president of the Longshore Lake Foundation. And I have the new president of the Longshore Lake Foundation, Sally Kirk here also today. Kevin will be following my brief presentation to make a few remarks to you. Page 92 March 19,2009 My presentation will be very short today. Most of you know that we were continued at our last hearing, principally to address some Longshore Lake related issues. We've resolved those, including incorporating the existing storage building as an accessory use within the PUD. And I think we've resolved a few other outstanding issues we also discussed at our last hearing. My client and I sensed, when we were before you before our last hearing, that there may have been a move afoot amongst some of you that would like to see us reduce the size of our sign and possibly the elevation of it. So we took it upon ourselves to reduce the size of our sign from what used to be 62 square feet to 53 square feet. That was about a 20 percent reduction. That's the fascia of the sign. Staff report notes that it was only reduced from 62 to 59 square feet. That is incorrect. The 53 square feet is what's contained in the ordinance. We also reduced the proposed wall area around the sign from 270 to 210 feet. And we also reduced the elevation of the sign by another foot-and-a-half. I'm going to conclude my presentation with one point that I think perhaps should have been given more weight in the staff report, and I would request that you do the same. The sign that is initially going to be an off-site premise sign for Saturnia Lakes is more than likely ultimately going to revert back to the Longshore Lake Foundation and is going to be an on-site premise sign for them. That -- the size of the sign we're proposing meets all of the requirements of the Land Development Code if and when the site reverts back to Longshore Lakes, with the exception of the elevation, which would still be a foot-and-a-half above the eight foot that is required above the elevation of the roadway. So if you would give that some thoughtful consideration in your deliberation. Also the foundation supports this petition, Longshore Lakes. It's been publicly vetted in front of their board and the community. And Page 93 March 19,2009 we have no opposition from any of our nearby neighbors to this particular petition. So I'll be happy to answer any questions, or perhaps if I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Ratterree can make a few comments and then both of us will address questions, if that's acceptable to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. DUANE: Thank you. MR. RATTERREE: Good morning. For the record, Kevin Ratterree. R-A-T-T-E-R-R-E-E. Double and triple everything, you're good to go. My wife still can't spell it, 17 years. Good morning. A little refresher of memory. We were here in I think September of last year associated with this petition, as Bob indicated. As part of this process, where G.L. has entered into a lease agreement with Longshore Lake associated with us putting up an off-premise sign, several of the PUD documents associated with the original Longshore Lake PUD came into question. And it really had nothing to do with the sign, but because staff was raising those issues, we thought it was more important to make sure that those issues were cleaned up so that the only real issue that was before the Planning Commission hopefully was the off-premise SIgn. Mr. Duane, the residents of Longshore, the Foundation of Longshore had those public meetings. Those particular issues were addressed relative to the PUD document that's before you. It really wasn't fair to them associated with our petition to have some of their previous issues that were probably developer-driven issues kind of muddying up what was going on with the off-premise sign. Let me be clear with what our goal is, and our goal is very simple. As you know, Logan Boulevard does not exist north of the entry to Olde Cypress. The two projects that are utilizing Logan Boulevard would be the Terafina, a/kla Saturnia Falls project, which is Page 94 March 19,2009 a G.L. Homes project, and I will say the prior Ronto Parklands DRI project. The reason I say prior is that that property was foreclosed on by GMAC. The developer obligations associated with the construction of that road required G.L. Homes to build it up to our project entry, which is approximately a mile-and-a-half north of the Immokalee/Logan Boulevard intersection. And then Parklands Ronto was supposed to build the road all the way up to Bonita Beach. Parklands Ronto committed to construct the road and we in turn entered into agreements with three adjoining associations, being Olde Cypress, Quail Creek and Longshore Lake, associated with either monetary or landscape improvements adjacent to the roadway. That is relevant simply because the issue of access and how these projects come on line in terms of timing was the reason that we explored the opportunity of doing this off-premise sign. Based on Ronto having been foreclosed, it is very foreseeable that Logan Boulevard will simply serve as a driveway to the Terafina project for some time to come until that future project north comes on line. So we were concerned about our ability to adequately market our project, because we basically had no visibility from the Immokalee Road corridor. And that's why we discussed entering into the lease. The thought process was that we would come in and do an off-premise sign. And that's why these variances numbers seem so big, because an off-premise sign was really designed to be a small, I think it was like 12 square-foot size sign, and that we needed the sign to be basically a project sign for us while we were marketing and developing the community. And then through the lease, the association has the right to assume that lease. But my thought process is once the residents are there, they know where live, they know how they're getting to their Page 95 March 19,2009 community, that they in turn would cancel that lease, and the option then becomes, to Longshore Lake, to then take the Saturnia Falls moniker off the sign and put up Longshore Lake. And at that point it really becomes a corner LD. sign for their community. As many of you know, the only real signage for that community is a little sign about this big that sits in the median at Valewood Drive/Immokalee Road intersection. So it would allow them to have an opportunity to have some project signage. And I think -- you know, sometimes you say a picture says 1,000 words. This is our concern. This is Logan Boulevard going north and this is the lmmokalee Road intersection. This is the existing project entry sign for Olde Cypress. This is that same sign, which would be on the east side of the intersection. Olde Cypress owns this corner as well. So the project LD. sign or the sign that we're talking about is actually a little farther west. The concern is that because Olde Cypress has such a large sign here on the comer and they own the other corner, that in fact when Logan gets built as just a temporary driveway to our project until it eventually gets built through to Bonita Beach Boulevard, that we have no project identification on this corner. So our accessing and addressing to people, go here, they're going to feel like, in my opinion, that they're going to Olde Cypress when they get to this particular intersection because we don't have snipe signs, we don't have all those other things that direct people to a project site. So we were just simply concerned that we were going to have a hard time marketing the community and directing people there. And that's really the nature of the request. By the way, there was some discussion back in September. There's a mounding berm here. There's actually another one that exists a little farther west, which is where this sign was going. Page 96 March 19, 2009 We reduced the size of the sign, we tried to bring it down in scale a little bit from the prior sign, as Bob mentioned. We tried to really get it into conformance with what would be a comer I.D. sign for the eventual Longshore Lake moniker to go on it. I understand and I, you know, know that it looks like big numbers when you're looking at this, because we're really doing this sign as an off-premise sign versus a comer I.D. sign, which is in reality what eventually this sign is going to be. So I hope that helps explain it. I don't know that it helps mitigate some of your concerns, but I did want to explain to you why we brought in the request and we were bringing it forward to you. Mr. Bates is here to address any questions that come up associated with Longshore. I'm here to address any questions that come up associated with the sign. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. As I understand it, an off-site sign size is 12 square feet. Now, that is the sign copy or the size of the sign? MR. RATTERREE: That's the size of the sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Size of the sign, not the size of the copy. MR. RATTERREE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, prior to when we had-- you talked about a sign with copy that was 62 square feet and a wall size that was 270 square feet. And now you're talking about a 50-square foot size for copy and 210- feet size for the wall. That means that the copy is only 25 percent the size of this wall that will be mounted there. My concern is, to the north there off of Logan Boulevard as you go farther north, there are other developments farther up there. And if they take the same position that you take that you need identification at this intersection because the property is located remotely to the March 19,2009 north, then we could have many monument signs there of this large SIze. And what bothers me is that the size of the copy is only 25 percent the size of the wall, and if the wall was reduced to the 25 percent copy size, it might be a more attractive location, rather than have it that much wall. MR. RATTERREE: Do you want me address as we go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can respond to it or -- it's a statement as well, so it's up to you. MR. RATTERREE: And I understand the nature -- the nature of an off-premise sign is usually directional. And the problem that we have associated with this is we're trying to accommodate basically multiple tiers of issues. Number one is the canal is on the north side of the roadway, so you don't have any property. Plus you have a private owner being Olde Cypress that owns both comers. And then ultimately the thought process was of G.L. and for Longshore Lakes is that that sign would then become the comer LD. sign for Longshore Lake. So we're trying to accommodate what we would want for purposes of having some identification up on Immokalee and then over time as that community sold out, Longshore Lakes would then pick up that sign and it would be their comer LD. SIgn. If the comer LD. sign as 12 square feet became their comer LD. sign, that sign would not provide any type of signage for their community at all. And as you saw from the picture before, we're also dealing with Olde Cypress having a relatively large sign sitting at that comer. So we wanted to make sure that we had something that people knew, hey, if you're going to Saturnia Falls, you need to take a left here. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But going north on Logan Page 98 March 19,2009 Boulevard from Immokalee Road, how many subdivisions or developments are there north up to where you're going? MR. RATTERREE: To Bonita Beach that have access to that road would be Terafina, which is the project we're discussing today, and Ronto, which has the obligation to build it and continue it up to Bonita Beach. Longshore Lake has the ability of having a back door connection to that roadway, but that's not their primary entry. And those are the only two communities all the way up to Bonita Beach. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, those are three communities, weren't they? MR. RATTERREE: Well, Longshore is technically accessing off of Valewood. Their primary entry is Valewood. They have the ability of making a back door connection to Longshore Lake. But the only two communities that will have direct connection will be Terafina, which is the project here today, and then the Ronto Parklands project, which has to extend the road all the way up to Bonita Beach. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So potentially there could be two large wall signs put up at that same location that your sign is? MR. RATTERREE: Well, first off, they would have to enter into a lease with a private property owner to be able to do that. So that would be questionable if they could do that. Longshore Lake was the only property owner that was willing to do that with us. And then number two, because Ronto has the obligation to build the road all the way up to Bonita Beach, my guess is that they're going to have their primary comer I.D. signs up on Bonita Beach, because that's going to be their public roadway connection. And I think we're looking at this as it's a temporary sign for us because ultimately it's going to be their comer I.D. sign. It's not going to be a permanent sign for Satumia Falls, it's going to be their comer I.D. sign. And their comer I.D. sign, it actually complies with code, Page 99 March 19,2009 once it becomes their sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, but you continually talk about I.D. for identification, and the copy here is only 25 percent of the wall size. And if the copy is the important thing, you could have the copy there, the 25 percent that you would like to have it of what the wall size is. MR. RATTERREE: Well, I mean, that's the sign. I mean, that's a pretty typical sign that you see. It's a little smaller than what we would do at our project entry, but pretty much that's a standard sign that you're going to see on any project comer that identifies where a project is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm going by what you report said, and your report said that the wall area was 210 square feet and the copy area is 50 square feet. Now, that's 25 percent. MR. RATTERREE: Well, remember that that sign area is when you're taking the perimeter of the overall structure and the sign copy is boxing in just the letters. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I know that, yes. But that's all you're interested in reading is the copy, you don't read the wall. MR. RATTERREE: Well, we also want to make it attractive. So just putting up the copy without putting up the perimeter structure that makes it a little more attractive I think is -- with all due respect, is defeating a little of the purpose of what the sign is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there in the contract you have with Longshore Lakes, any time period involved there? MR. RATTERREE: Well, the stipulation is that we are obligated to continue the lease until there's a turnover of the association. And the association then has the option of continuing that lease. But as I said before, for purposes of an association, if you think Page 100 March 19,2009 about it and just common sense, I know sometimes it's hard to do that with some of these things, the commonsense side of it is they're going to be living there, they're going to know where they live, they're not going to want to continue to pay lease to have a sign when they're going to have their own project. And I would think by that time hopefully the Ronto project or the former Ronto project would have gone through and Bonita Beach, and it would be a public throughfare. Our concern is it's going to be functioning as a private driveway in the short term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is for Bob. Bob, I'm trying to figure out some of the heights of things like this. One of the concerns is the height of this, the sign above the center line of the road. What do you think the answer to that is? What is the height? Because if I look at Exhibit B-1, it doesn't quite jive with your description before. MR. DUANE: I think the arterial roadway elevation is 17.5 feet. I'm reading under the support documentation in Exhibit C, which is the list of deviations. Number three, the arterial roadway has an elevation of 17.5 feet. The grade of the existing mount upon which it's placed is 18.5 feet. And I think we worked through these various numbers, which I won't drag you through, and the result number is that we're requesting a deviation of 1.5 feet above the eight-foot elevation above the roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at B-1 though and look at your lower left drawing on B-1, those numbers don't jive with the other numbers then. Because I think what's missing in the calculation is the two-and-a-half-foot berm you're building. The -- Page 10 1 March 19,2009 MR. RATTERREE: The berms there, by the way, are actually lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get closer to the mic., please. MR. RATTERREE: I apologize for that. The berm is actually existing. We're actually lowering the berm a foot-and-a-half from its existing elevation to place the sign on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the elevation of the berm going to be? It states 21 feet in your Exhibit B-1. Is that right? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it says two feet. MR. RATTERREE: It's two feet six inches above existing grade. And I think what Bob said earlier is the existing grade is one foot above what the roadway elevation is, when is the measurement standard. Ray, I'm kind oflooking -- the measurement standard as I recall from the code is the median elevation of the adjoining roadway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm looking at note number four on the drawing I referenced, it states 21 feet. So, anyway, I think this -- let's just go through it. The height you believe is 17 feet, six. MR. RATTERREE: Of the roadway, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the existing top of berm is? MR. RATTERREE: Well, I believe that the elevation at the base of the berm is one foot above the 17 -six, let's just say 18- five, 18- five. And then the berm itself is two-and-a-half feet. And then the sign is sitting on the berm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so -- MR. RATTERREE: You can get some pretty big headaches going through this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seventeen-six and one-six. 19 feet is the existing grade. And you're saying you're going to build -- that berm's existing -- Page 102 March 19,2009 MR. RATTERREE: The berm's existing. We're actually -- the previous petition when we were here in September, we were just putting the sign on top of the existing berm. And we had thought that there was some concern regarding the height. We actually were lowering the berm by a foot-and-a-halfwith the revised petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So with the math we just did, the grade to the top of the berm is 21- five, even though your note four calls it 21. So we would essentially -- what will be the top of the sign would be eight-foot-six on that. 30 feet. And that's kind of what you're saying, grade -- I mean, I don't know what grade is. I think you mean sea level zero to top of sign is 30 feet. Which the problem I'm having is the math isn't -- MR. RATTERREE: I think the way to think of this is when you go to the top of the sign, it's 27 feet from grade zero, and the road is at 17-and-a-half. So that's the way to look at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, what about note number two which says it's 30 feet. And the math you just walked me through comes up with 30 feet. MR. RATTERREE: We are -- the sign is -- at the end of the day, the sign is nine-and-a-halffeet above the existing arterial roadway, which is one-and-a-half feet above the eight feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. RATTERREE: It may be that I'm reversed. I think actually the grade that the berm is built on is one foot below the roadway. So let's just make it real clear here, the sign is going to be 27 feet, which is nine-and-a-half feet above the existing arterial roadway grade of 17-and-a-half. I think that's the cleanest way to say that and have it somewhat make sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one little. I don't know if Page 103 March 19,2009 it's important, Bob, but your scrivener -- well, let it go. The math on this exhibit is all over the place. So I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got two. You -- I think you have a hard -- in fact, I believe you have a hardship in this situation with the road not being built. Ronto, who knows when they're going to build it. But I don't like the idea of this going on forever and then having the homeowners association decide they can leave it there forever as long as they want to keep the lease up. Your goal I think would be to get your sales initiated and get your community built. And so I would certainly think it's reasonable that you request this sign for the time -- up until the time which that road is completed to Bonita Beach Road. But once that road's completed to Bonita Beach Road you're then on a main roadway, and I don't know why you would need to have a sign go beyond that point. So I would want to enter a stipulation that this sign would terminate at that point in time. MR. RATTERREE: Terminate -- just for clarification-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For Satumia Falls. MR. RATTERREE: For Saturnia Falls but not for Longshore Lake? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got to clarify one thing on that before I can suggest an answer to that question. When Bob was up here a little while ago, he said that this would have -- once this does stop being a Saturnia Falls off-site sign and it becomes a Longshore Lake sign, then it meets all the criteria of the code except it's one-and-a-half feet higher than it should be. I need to understand that statement, because I didn't know how it -- I can't -- in my understanding from staff, that's not the case. And so while Bob, you may want to clarify your statement, I'm Page 104 March 19,2009 certainly going to ask staff to also address that statement you made. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record again. Well, that was the only -- under deviation number six where it has the heading for an off-site premise sign, that really it notes that we require only really from the maximum height of the sign; therefore, I assume since you can have entrance signs, it can be 32 -- two 32 square foot signs or one 64 square foot sign that we met all of the on-site requirements for the on-site premise sign. And that was my logic right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I need to ask staff, because in my conversations with them, when this sign reverts back to Longshore Lakes, it may not be consistent with a sign that Longshore Lakes could have there. Because they have an entrance sign off of Valewood, I believe, and that they didn't have a provision for boundary signs in their PUD. MR. DUANE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure what this sign then becomes to make it legal. And that's kind of where we'll go next. So thank you, I'll just go back to staff. If nobody else has a question of the applicant, we'll ask for staff report and get into this issue with them. You're up, Nancy. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And if you'd like, I can go right into my staff report, but it sounds like you have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can do your staff report and then just remember, my question is simply to follow up on Bob's statement at some point at the end of your staff report as to -- he believes that this sign would meet all the legal criteria to remain as a sign for Longshore Lakes, with the exception of its height. And I wasn't sure that is the way staffs interpreting it. And I want to get a Page 105 March 19,2009 clarification on it. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, I can do that. Good morning. Staff is recommending approval of the reinsertion of the previously requested transportation commitments that were revised since the last hearing in front of the CCPC back on November 20th of 2008. And we are recommending approval of the insertion of the land use of the landscape maintenance building as an accessory use into the Longshore Lakes PUD. This petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. I, however, would like to invite David Weeks, who's the manager of comprehensive planning, up to make a statement about that consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David doesn't get to comment on sign variances very much. This is unusual. It's like bringing the -- well, it's like a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. But go ahead. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. And Commissioners, the chief reason for my being here to put this on the record is because there is no written memo from our department, as is usually the case. One will be provided subsequent to this hearing so that it is officially part of the record. But that's my reason for wanting to get it on the record today. Short and simple, the Longshore Lakes PUD has a density of less than two units per acre. It is eligible for a density of four units per acre, so it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Both the sign and I think there's a maintenance building involved, those are typical accessory or integral parts of a residential development and recognized also as being consistent with the Future Land Use Element. So from our perspective there are no consistency Issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 106 March 19,2009 MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, to continue with my staff report. Staff is not recommending approval of the sign that's proposed. And the reasons for not recommending approval is the fact that this sign, the off-premise sign, is in excess of the code prescribed size of 12 feet. And as stated previously, it's 53 square feet. It is 1.5 feet taller. That's 1.5 feet taller than the prescribed height of eight feet. And the off-premise sign is not within the code prescribed distance of 1,000 linear feet, but instead this proposed sign is a mile away from the intersection. And the code does not allow for an off-premise sign such as this in a residential district. And to answer your question about once this sign becomes an on-premise sign, it does fit within the code prescribed sign area for an on-premise sign. It's less than the 60 square feet. And it would be -- it is correct that it would be 1.5 feet taller than the code prescribed height for an on-premise sign. And in regards to whether or not we can make this an on-premise sign, by the fact that we are writing it into the Longshore Lakes PUD, that would make it able to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a couple of other things. There were some -- two additional notes here that -- on your staff report. I think that paragraph two just needs to be rewritten slightly. MS. GUNDLACH: Could you state what page that's on? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 1 of your supplemental. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's very difficult to read this first sentence because it's rather run-on and has lots of parenthetical Page 107 March 19,2009 phrases here. But I think it would be better -- is it not true that the traffic signal has to be acceptable to the state only if it's a state road? MS. GUNDLACH: I have transportation planning staff here to answer transportation questions. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. I wanted to address the stipulation number two maybe before the question is addressed directly. This has already been completed, this stipulation. So the Longshore Lakes, I believe they've already completed that commitment. So this was just to amend and add the old text that was in Ordinance 93-3 back into this document so that it doesn't get lost forever, okay. So I guess at some point we could probably amend that to say that they have completed this, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fine. I just wanted to make it clearer, because this is such a run-on sentence that, you know -- but if it's already done, then we don't have to worry about it. Let's move on to number three, though, on Page 2. The next commitment says that the homeowners association, either direct or emergency access shall be provided. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if it's a public safety issue, why is it an option? If it's an emergency access, it's an emergency access. Why wouldn't they be required to do it and -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: My understanding is that the emergency access is not required. They do have primary access through Valewood Drive. There was an allowance at some point to -- this is back in the original ordinance, to have a connection to the future Logan Boulevard extension. Page 108 March 19,2009 But it turns out after the turnover of the project to the HOA, we would now have to go in and amend the HOA documents, I believe, the HOA, you know, their -- what do they call those, the-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Condo docs? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, the condo documents, which I don't think the -- I'm not sure if the PUD can do. I'd have to refer to Heidi for that one. But in any case we've left it up to their option to choose whether it's going to be primary or emergency access. COMMISSIONER CARON: So an emergency access was not provided on their PUD master plan? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: As I recall, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the point is here is that their project as it stands already has the emergency access and needs within the project. This is another option to produce another one if they so desire. I think that's the way -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That is correct. And it only becomes effective for us based on the extension of Logan Boulevard and when that becomes public. COMMISSIONER CARON: Could you just show me where on the master plan the emergency exit is? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Okay, with north being to the top of the page, along the easterly boundary of the Longshore Lake PUD is where Logan Boulevard, the future extension of Logan Boulevard is to be located. There are quite a few optional places there that they could connect with an emergency access. And this is again why it would be up to the homeowners association, because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, John, what I'm asking is you Page 109 March 19,2009 told me that they already had one -- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on the plan right now. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, they have an interconnection to -- where did they have the interconnection? Forgive me, it's been a while since I've looked at this. I want to say they already have their interconnection to a portion on Valewood. Nancy, thank you. But they do not currently have a connection to Logan, the future Logan. If that answers your question, I hope. They do not currently -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, again, that wasn't it. The point is an emergency exit. What I'm asking is they have a main entrance here. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And do they have an emergency exit out of this development? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no, as far as I understand they do not. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So my question to you is: Why is having an emergency exit an option and not a requirement? This is a public safety issue, why is it an option and not a requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe there's another way to pose the question. Is there a requirement in the code for another emergency exit besides the main entrance to this project? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: From the transportation land development code requirements, no, there is not. There may be a code requirement from fire or EMT, you know, Emergency Management that there may be an additional access required. What we're addressing here is the allowance for that and how it would govern that. So I hope I can clarify it with that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. Page 11 0 March 19,2009 MR. DUANE: Robert Duane for the record. Mr. Bates is here. I introduced him earlier from the Longshore Lakes Foundation. Would you like to share with the commission the emergency access point that you do have available? COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Not a permanent type access. But there is one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, when you speak, you can't walk away from the mic., and as you sit down make comments. She's looking at you like, what are you doing? So please don't do that anymore, okay? MR. DUANE: I introduce Mr. Bates for the record. MR. BATES: We do have an emergency access gate now on the west side -- or east side of our property that connects to -- I believe it's called Olde Cypress Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. It is there? MR. BATES: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. That's what I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RATTERREE: And I wanted to just get on the record that the purpose of the language was to allow them not only to have the emergency access but also to have a -- what's called a regular access because there were concerns that the intersection of Valewood and Immokalee would not be a signalized intersection. The chances are very good; obviously Logan is signalized on the other side where it was built. So they had the opportunity, should their association decide to do so, to make a permanent point of ingress/egress, so they'd have the opportunity to get down. But that would require, you know, affecting people who have bought homes that would be across from that entrance, so the Page 111 March 19, 2009 association thought it appropriate that they deal with that internal to their organization. The emergency access is one thing, but the permanent access would affect other people in the community. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of anybody at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll attempt again to close the public hearing. Last time I did it, it didn't work too well. We'll try it agam. Discussion on the issue. I would suggest that the only stipulation besides -- well, staff didn't have any -- is that the use of this sign by Saturnia Falls shall terminate no later than the opening of the Logan Boulevard to Bonita Beach Road extension. Is there anything else anybody else sees a need for? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: One. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolf1at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't really see where they need the foot-and-a-half extra on the sign. I think, first of all it does two things: It brings their sign, plus it brings the permanent sign out of compliance. If you look at their elevation, I really think they could get the size they want in a much lower wall rather than putting that thing up on a pedestal in that mound. So to me the foot-and-a-half is not necessary to achieve what they want to achieve with that sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do either of you want to react to that? Because here's what could happen: It could end up being a split vote or some kind of vote that now takes you off the summary and Page 112 March 19, 2009 puts you in a regular agenda. So you have -- you know, if you want to try to fix this, go right ahead. MR. DUANE: We want everyone to leave here happy today and we'll reduce the size of the sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down to that -- you'll have no need for a deviation in height, is that what you're saying? MR. DUANE: That is correct. MR. RATTERREE: But for the record, Bob's going to have to remove the berm himself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. (Laughter. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, since you're negotiating here, what about reducing the size of the sign and just to include the copy of 50 square feet, since that's what you're interested in, and eliminate that wall sign, which is four times the size of the copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you respond, Mr. Kolflat, I think some of the other -- that takes away the, let's say, amenity of the sign. I mean, really you're just talking about a poled sign, a bunch of letters. The wall is probably one of the nicer aspects of the whole thing. So before we go to try to set that in stone, maybe you might want to hear -- Ms. Caron, do you have -- anybody else have a comment on that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think now that we brought it into compliance with what the on-site monument sign should be when this reverts back, then I have absolutely no issues. It's a beautiful sign, it's going to be lovely, it's going to help everybody. And I don't think we should -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, have you seen the Olde Cypress sign? Page 113 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I've seen it too, and it's a very large monument sign. In fact, it's almost monstrous in size on there. My concern is not only with the Olde Cypress sign, which is already there, then adding this sign, which would be a new sign in that area, same size or large size sign. And then having two developments to the north on Logan Boulevard that could petition for signs at the same location to get the identification, as well as a possibility of Longshore having another connection that would come in there. And there are going to be too many big signs in a cluster there at that intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, the Parklands would not be able to get a sign there without going through the same process that you see here today. But most likely they wouldn't be able to get approved because there would be no hardship for them. The Parklands project, if it were to be built, requires the connection to Bonita Beach Road. Once that's done it eliminates the hardship for Saturnia Lakes and it eliminates the hardship for Parklands, which then eliminates the ability possibly to get a variance. So the idea of any more signs there would be limited. Longshore Lakes already has a number of signs -- or their signage laid out in their PUD. They're now allowed to use this sign once it's free from Saturnia Lakes. They wouldn't necessarily get another sign at their entryway on Logan Boulevard, there's no provisions for it. So I'm not sure you'll see a proliferation of signs other than this one and the one that's already there with Olde Cypress. But that's just my thoughts on the matter. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But we have a code, why not use the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's your prerogative, Mr. Page 114 March 19,2009 Kolflat, so -- anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the way it stands, it looks like there would probably be two stipulations: Use of the sign by Saturnia Falls shall terminate no later than the opening of Logan Boulevard extension to Bonita Beach Road; and the deviation number six would no longer be needed so it would be removed from the request. MR. KLATZKOW: And just to clarify, at the time it's removed, does the sign convert to the other development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's already in here, yes. The only change was the termination of the sign copy for Saturnia Lakes. But yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments, questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ms. Caron. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Page 115 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-1. You're still on the regular agenda. Sorry. With that-- MR. RATTERREE: I'm still going to make Bob remove the berm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's take a break and come back at 1 :00 from lunch. It's a little longer but it rounds it out and makes it easy for everybody to remember. So 1 :00 for lunch. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Midney is present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back from our lunch break. While we were on break, Commissioner Kolflat down at the end broke his computer. So if IT is monitoring this or anybody in IT hears this, could you come in and please try to get his computer up and running for this next item. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I promise never to vote again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, you're the odd man out. That's what happened, see? Item #9D PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M COLLIER JOINT VENTURE Okay, the next item up is Petition PUDZA-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture for the Mirasol PUD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start down at the left side. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 116 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich about this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I met with Nicole Ryan and I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Nicole Ryan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich and to Ms. Ryan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm trying to remember those that I spoke to. It was certainly Richard, Nicole and Jennifer. And I don't remember any others offhand. But if I -- they come to me as we go along, I'll just interrupt and say so. With that in mind, we'll turn it over to the applicant for presentation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Don Milarcik and Chris Claussen, both representing the owner; Karen Bishop, Tim Hall, Rick Barber, Wayne Arnold, Steve Walker and Reed Jarvi, all of which can answer questions regarding the site plan or the master plan for the PUD. Transportation questions -- yes, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember I said I'd remember things as we went along? I just had one of those things. I toured the site with Chris Claussen, it might have been two Page 117 March 19,2009 years ago. So that's another part of my disclosure. And if I remember any more, sorry. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a problem. I'm sure you are all fairly familiar with the Mirasol PUD and its history, but I'll briefly go through the history of the PUD and where we are and what we're trying to accomplish today. The Mirasol PUD was approved on April 24, 2001. The approved master plan is the master plan on the right, this one here. The approval was for 799 units, 36 holes of golf on approximately 1,558 acres. The project then and now is partly within the urban area and partly within the rural area. There were 340 acres in the urban area and 1,217 acres in the rural area. Had we taken full advantage of the maximum densities allowed under the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time the PUD was approved, we could have requested 1,606 units. On May 8th, 2007, the BCC had an agenda item to discuss, the potential extension ofthe PUD, because the PUD had sunset for a lot of different reasons, mainly related to permitting for the project. Also on that same agenda was a developer contribution agreement to address road impacts and to vest 799 units for transportation concurrency purposes. The DCA was approved at that meeting. And the petition for the PUD extension was withdrawn. It was withdrawn because prior to the BCC meetings various environmental groups had been requesting that the manmade flow-way, which is -- may I borrow this, Ray -- which is this area right here on the old master plan had requested that that be removed from the project. And also that the PUD go through a review of the Comprehensive Plan that existed at the time of the sun-setting, because there had been changes to the Comprehensive Plan prior to -- or subsequent to the original PUD adoption. Interestingly, one of the requirements of the PUD sun-setting Page 118 March 19,2009 requirement is to review the Comprehensive Plan aspects of the project. We agreed to go through the PUD amendment process solely for the purpose of reviewing what was approved in 2001 for consistency with today's Comprehensive Plan. We don't expect and do not intend to address whether the original approval was a good idea. We just are prepared to discuss the consistency of that original approval with today's Comprehensive Plan. And I believe that is what the Board of County Commissioners agreed to and wanted to see happen and I believe that's also what the various environmental groups wanted to see happen, was what was originally approved consistent with today's Comprehensive Plan. We submitted the amendment. And the master plan on the left is the PUD master plan that's going through the process right now. As you can see, the impact area is essentially the same. The manmade flow-way is no longer part of the project. The PUD amendment is for 799 units. It's for 36 holes of golf. We removed a few acres from the project that were included in the original amendment. Inadvertently there was a joint ownership of a parcel of property and that individual had not consented to it being included in the original PUD, so that has been removed. That essentially reduces the maximum eligible density from 1,606 to 1,605. So we're still at 799 units and we're still at the same impacts that were originally approved. And when the original PUD went through the review process, everybody knew that the wetland impacts were 582 acres. It was part of the application, it was part of all the discussion when the PUD was approved in 2001. In reviewing the record, the only objections to the PUD that came about dealt with what development could or could not happen in Section 10. Section 10 is the most northern section. And I'm going to Page 119 March 19,2009 -- this is the original master plan. I'm going to slide it down. This is Section 10 from this line north. The original PUD application included development in Section 10. There were objections to development being in Section 10, and the request was made that that development come out of Section 10 and be moved further south into this impact area. There were no objections to the number of wetland impacts. It was where development would occur. We have -- in going through this process under the new Comprehensive Plan, there have been some -- there are some changes in the designation of the property from what was in effect in 2001. Section 22, which is this section here, has always been and continues to be urban area. The middle section, which is Section number 15, was designated rural back in 2001. It's still designated rural, but it's rural fringe mixed use district, you're all aware of that, and it's rural fringe mixed use district neutral. And the most northern section, which is Section 10, was designated rural in 2001. It's still designated rural, and it's also designated rural fringe mixed use district neutral. So under today's Comprehensive Plan both Sections 15 and 10 that are in the rural area are eligible for development under the neutral standards. And as you all know, and for purposes of the record, there were three designations in the rural fringe mixed use district. You have receiving lands, which is where you're supposed to transfer TDR's, which I like to label as areas where development is encouraged to occur. You have sending lands, which you're not allowed to develop, unless you want to do so at one unit per 40 acres. And then you have neutral lands that essential remain the same as what was in effect at the time of the change. Because when it was Page 120 March 19, 2009 originally developed you were allowed one unit per five acres, and that's what neutral lands allow you to do now. However, you do have the ability to cluster under neutral which you didn't have when projects like Twin Eagles were going through and they didn't have the clustering abilities. So the PUD amendment went through when it was originally -- the PUD when it originally was adopted kind of went through an avoidance and minimization analysis. From the county's perspective, we have honored the commitment to stay out of Section 10 in what we're proposing, although under today's Comprehensive Plan we could go through and put development up in Section 10. We have decided to use the density blending provisions within the Comprehensive Plan. Under the density blending provisions there is an increased requirement for native vegetation that didn't apply to the original PUD. When the original PUD was approved, there was a native vegetation requirement of 25 percent basically across the board. And under this analysis, the density blending provisions require a 60 percent native vegetation requirement not to exceed 45 percent of the site across all of the property. Had we not done density blending, we would be required to keep 25 percent of the native vegetation that currently exists in the urban area and we would be exempt from any of the native vegetation requirements applicable to what was in the rural area, because under the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan we were approved prior to the adoption of the rural fringe mixed use district. So we would be exempt from the native vegetation requirements in the rural land and our master plan would be deemed consistent. So the benefit of the density blending provisions to us is we get to transfer units from the urban area to the rural area. And the benefit to the community is that we are required to keep more native vegetation than would otherwise be required. Page 121 March 19,2009 And I'll give you what those numbers are. And Tim Hall will take you through the environmental aspects of this petition and the site. And then Rick Barber will take you through the water management aspects of the site. But I'll just real briefly tell you what we have on-site. From a native vegetation perspective on-site we have 853 acres. We're required to retain 60 percent of that 853, which is 511.9 acres. Weare providing almost 462 acres of that on-site. And as you are all aware, the Land Development Code allows properties in the rural fringe mixed use district to provide some of the required native vegetation off-site. So we'll be providing 50 of those native vegetation acres off-site in sending lands immediately adjacent to the project, which is Section 11, which is right here. So we'll be providing those 50 acres up there. From a wetlands standpoint on-site, we have 1,281 acres of wetlands on-site. Our wetland impacts are 586 acres. And again, it's consistent with what was going through the process originally. Although we don't agree with staffs interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, they believe that we're required to compensate at a one acre to one acre for mitigation to wetlands, and we are doing so. And as you've read the materials, we've identified 515 of the required acres to date, and we will identify the remaining 71 acres at the time of site development plan. So we are mitigating at a one-to-one ratio for our impacts to wetlands. To date, we have both our Army Corps of Engineers permit and our South Florida Water Management District permit. Both permits have been challenged. Regarding the challenges -- and basically regarding the South Florida Water Management District permit, that challenge is over with. The administrative law judge ruled in our favor. So that issue is finally resolved. The Army Corps of Engineers permit is still being challenged. Everything's been briefed and we're all waiting for the judge to make a Page 122 March 19,2009 decision. But as you all know, the Corps of Engineers permit is valid unless and until the challengers prevail. None of the required water management treatment is occurring within the required preserves. As I mentioned briefly, you know, avoidance and minimization is part of the permitting process, and that has been done. It has also been done through the history of this project as well. I want to go over -- very late yesterday afternoon we received copies ofa document filed by The Conservancy. I don't know if you all have had a chance to review that document or not. But we did. We stayed up late, we went through it. We've prepared a response to that. And since that document from The Conservancy is in the record, we would like to put our response into the record. And I'll take you through briefly what our response is and highlight what we saw as the issues raised by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before you go too far, how is the document that was distributed to the Planning Commission by e-mail last night in the record? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You've all received it. I'm assuming it's part of their packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we all would have had to print it, and I think it was well over 100 pages. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It didn't happen. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just want to make sure the record's clean in that regard. Because if it needs to be put in the record and there's a hard copy available, then someone can put it in the record. But if it isn't in the record, and you're suggesting it is, I want that clarified. MR. KLATZKOW: I suggest you put both in the record then. But if you haven't had a chance to read -- I don't know if any of you have had a chance to read that document. Page 123 March 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I haven't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the first 100 pages. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have not read it as of yet. And I don't know how I can even think of reading it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no one has to read it. That's not the point. The point was it was distributed. Richard made a comment for the record that he thought it was in the record. I want to make sure whether it is or is not. Now whether we read it or not, people can submit things for the record, it doesn't have to be read. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me ask it a different way. Can I ask the eight of you, did any of you read, at least the first I believe seven or eight pages of the document, which was the summary of the position? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Midney you read it. Ms. Caron, you read it. Mr. Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I read the first 100 pages. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would have included Nicole's summary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's part of the first 100, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you read that. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I did. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You did. Well, if you'll allow me then, since you didn't read it, I think it's appropriate to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was only trying to clarify your comment that it's on the record. I don't recall seeing it at this meeting it today, so I'm not sure it's on the record. Page 124 March 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me rephrase it. It was reviewed by some of you, and I believe it's appropriate for us to have an opportunity to respond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But Mark, I didn't have a chance to read it. I don't know how to react to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to. There's nothing you have to react to. If you got it and you wanted to read it and you want to react to it, you're more than welcome to. If you didn't, you don't. It's not part of our package. It was something submitted by a citizen, or a group in this case, just like everybody submits things, no different. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm assuming, and maybe it's a bad assumption -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I want to clarify for the record. And thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Chairman. This is not something that was submitted by staff, nor was it submitted timely to be part of the staff package. And it has not been reviewed nor analyzed by staff. And I want to make sure that's on the record. Because it is something that's been submitted, but it's nothing that has come in for us to even review and analyze, nor certainly the response now from the applicant. So at your pleasure, they can go on the record, but they certainly weren't analyzed by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I mean, we can -- and the people who initiated the e-mail, if they've got a hard copy they want to submit for the record, they can do that, too. So let's go just forward. Go ahead, Mr. -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Again, there was a document prepared and some of you reviewed it, some of you didn't review it. We had Steve Walker and Andy Baumann of Lewis, Longman and Page 125 March 19, 2009 Walker go over the document. And Mr. Walker can get into the details of the response, since he's here. But essentially The Conservancy, through their representative, made some arguments regarding the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not this is a natural flow-way. And I think that Tim Hall will get into that in greater detail, as will Rick Barber. But there's certainly nothing natural about this flow-way. And it's our position that Objective 2.1.D does not apply because this is not a natural flow-way. And we've acknowledged in the EIS that it has become a de-facto flow-way, and we think it's important to evaluate the conveyance capacity or potential impact of the conveyance capacity resulting from the approval of Mirasol. But to claim that this is a natural flow-way, wetland or slough as defined in Section 2.1.D is simply not correct and not supported. And a great deal of our memo response is dedicated to that very issue. There are also throughout their position paper where citations to their arguments that they made in the Water Management District administrative hearing. And you need to put that in context. As Paul Harvey would say, and now the rest of the story. Those were arguments that they put forth in the administrative law trial. The administrative law judge weighed their arguments in evidence, our arguments in evidence and issued a final order approving the Water Management District permit. The administrative law judge did not buy or support their arguments. Those issues are resolved; they're finally resolved. There was no appeal taken. So although they've recited to you what their arguments were, it's important that the Planning Commission understand that those arguments lost. They were losers, and they are not the conclusion of law that the administrative law judge determined. They also made statements about the Harvey Harper analysis and what was or was not done. What they didn't tell you was that at Page 126 March 19,2009 the trial Harvey Harper himself did the analysis, based upon the current, what they're citing as should be the appropriate rule or method, Harvey Harper method. He himself did the method as part of the trial and determined we are okay and consistent with that method. That's not in their memo. I think you need to know that, because they're trying to hang their hats a lot on this we failed to properly apply the Harvey Harper method. And I'm sure that Mr. Harper would have pointed that out, had we improperly done that. So we think that there's a lot of statements in their -- their document that they almost represent to you to be fact, but they're not fact. The administrative law judge didn't agree with that. And there was some information not provided I think that is important for you all to know. We have received the Water Management District permit and it is a proper permit and there's no challenge to that permit. And again the Corps permit is proper until we -- or a judge determines otherwise. Your Environmental Advisory Council heard our petition. They included a stipulation that the data that's collected as part of their permitting process be provided to the county. It's not currently provided to the county. They recommended approval 6-2. Your environmental staffhas determined that we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All of our your staff has determined that what we're requesting is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One thing that Mr. Strain pointed out, and I'll show it to you later after Tim and Rick speak, the concern he had was where's the actual location of the golf clubhouse. It's not on our current master plan. We have that located, and I could show you where that's going to be so we can get into whatever compatibility issues there may be, or external compatibility issues related to the clubhouse. And I'll get into Page 127 March 19,2009 that after we deal a little bit more in detail on the wetland and environmental issues as well as the water management plan. With that, that's my brief overview of where we were, where we are today. And again, your staff has determined that we are consistent with today's comprehensive plan. And with that, I will sit down and let Tim and Rick go through their stuff, unless you want me to answer questions now. But I think they probably will answer some of the questions that you may have, if you'll give them the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. We've been the environmental consultant on this project since the original PUD application. And, you know, I personally have been working on the project since 1999, so for the last 10 years. I would say that I have well over 2,000 hours spent out on the site doing the different wildlife surveys and jurisdictional determinations and ERP permitting and so forth associated, you know, with the project so far. I believe Mr. Strain had said he's the only one of the board that's actually been out on the site, so what I tried to do was bring a bunch of photos in of different places on the property to kind of give you an overview of what the habitats look like out there, which will kind of go into some of the later discussions. In terms of location, the property is three miles from north to south or south to north, starting at Immokalee Road and going up to the county boundary. Bonita Beach Road then would be another mile to the north. And then it's a mile wide at its widest point. Rich had given you the acreages associated with the project. There's about 1,280 acres of wetlands and 260 acres of uplands. This drawing here is just a representation. The colored areas are the upland areas, the white areas are the wetland areas, to give you Page 128 March 19,2009 kind of how those layout. You can see that the uplands aren't concentrated in one spot, they're actually spread out across the entire site. As you go through the site, you would see that it has been severely impacted in terms of exotic infestation and hydrological results because of high water levels that occur on the site periodically almost on an annual basis now. The melaleuca infestation is widespread. As you go through from south to north on the property, varying concentrations. But the majority of the property is more than 50 percent melaleuca. And if I'm going through these -- I'm trying to go quick, but if I'm going too fast, slow me down. There are places where it's actually too thick to even, you know, get through. You end up having to almost swim through it. There are some areas that when we first started the project were less infested than they are now. And you can see those with the younger size classes of melaleuca. But the entire site has been affected. Even the upland areas show melaleuca growth, and some of those uplands over the course of time have died off. What you see here is dead Palmetto roots that are left that have been flooded out. Some of the less infested areas, as you go through -- I'm sorry, I got this one out of order when I was talking about those. This is an area up in Section 10 that in 2002, I believe, a fire went through. This photo was taken in 2005. The fire was pretty severe. It killed -- the fire either directly killed or stressed a lot of the pine trees out there. There was a bark beetle infestation and it came in and killed a lot of the remaining ones. But I've got this in here 'cause you can see that the undergrowth that you see coming up there is all melaleuca seedlings. There are still some areas that are more open, have been less invaded. And I wanted to point out that these higher quality areas are Page 129 March 19,2009 those areas that are incorporated into our preserves. We've tried to design the preserve areas so that those sites and those locations that are less impacted are still not going to be impacted by the development. In terms of listed species, the two major species that we talked about or that we coordinated with the Fish & Wildlife Service was the Florida Panther and the Wood Stork. With the Florida Panther, and actually with both of them, the habitats necessary for them, there are no rookeries for Wood Storks on the site. There are no panthers that are utilizing this site, as evidenced by the telemetry. There could be an un-collared panther that nobody knows about, but we've never seen -- in all the time I've spent out there we've never seen any evidence of that. So I don't believe that there are any panthers actively utilizing the site either. The closest one we know about is in Bird Rookery Swamp and Corkscrew Swamp about two-and-a-half or three miles to the east. So the deer population and the ability to support prey species for the panther on this site would be the way that it really contributed to the species. Instead of direct habitat for the panther, it provides habitat for the prey that then they would eat. And the same with the Wood Stork. There are no actual Wood Stork rookeries here. The Wood Storks are over at Corkscrew Swamp. So this site produces fish during the wet season that could be utilized by the storks. Given the feeding characteristics or the feeding methodology of the stork, they need fish to become concentrated in areas that are sufficiently deep so that they can -- you guys, if I'm repeating anything, you know, let me know. But Wood Storks feed by putting their bills down in the water and moving it around, and when something hits the bill, the bill snaps shut. So for that to be effective for them where they can get more food than they expend in energy to catch it, the fish have to be concentrated Page 130 March 19, 2009 so that they can catch stuff rapidly and easily. So you need areas that can grow fish and then concentrate it down to the point where that becomes a cost effective means for them to forage. And on this site, the only areas that we have that can concentrate fish are these dips that form in the actual roadways that go through the site and some ponds. There are four manmade cattle ponds on the site. And these cattle ponds are the only places where Wood Storks have actually been observed foraging on a couple of occasions. They have been seen there, but these are very short term. I mean, as you can see, when the water starts drawing down up there, these areas in terms of the roadways and the little puddles in the roadways dry up very quickly. These ponds do last longer and can support it further in, but eventually over the course of the dry season they do dry out. So the Fish & Wildlife Service looked at the property, looked at the exotic infestation and looked at the restoration mitigation plans that were proposed as part of the project and finally made a final determination. We went through four different biological opinions, so they reviewed the project four different times, writing these biological opinions. And in every case they came to the conclusion that we would not adversely affect the species, either panthers or Wood Storks. The mitigation plan, you know, the question has been raised that we have so much melaleuca out there, can it actually be restored and what will it look like when it's restored. And so what I did was one of the adjacent properties, Olde Cypress, has been in place for a while. This picture was taken right after they started their exotic clearing. This was in 2002. You can see on some of the bigger trees, they girdled them and poisoned them in place. The smaller trees are cut and piled up kind of in a teepee. Page 131 March 19,2009 This picture was taken five years later, and you see that those big piles of debris that you see in this photo have basically rotted down. Most of the bigger trees that were in place have fallen. And you get then a habitat looking more like this with the appropriate native vegetation, cypress and pine trees, and the ground cover is coming back. And in terms of the Mirasol preserve, what had been done was, I showed you, this map shows some dark green areas which are those higher quality wetland areas on the site. See, I'm dyslexic with this machine here, but -- it shows some dark green areas over the -- spread throughout the site, which are those higher quality areas with less exotic infestation, all that I told you about. And then the crosshatching and the blue lines depict the actual preserve boundaries that we will have. And you can see that well over 90 percent of those high quality areas are being preserved as part of the site plan. The -- I talked earlier about the elevated water levels that have occurred on this site and whether it is a natural flow-way or is not a natural flow-way. And when I was doing my analysis of this, I looked to the historical documents first. And I went and looked at the old -- this is a 1952 soils survey for Collier County. I'm just not having a whole-- well, I'm just trying to get so they can see it, essentially. No, that's okay, I think -- what this does -- what it is is the yellow that you see on this is demarcating -- this is Bird Rookery Strand, the Corkscrew marsh. The flow-ways, from a historic sense, when I would look at these, you'd look for those areas where the soil showed depressional type soils supporting that type of wetland vegetation. And when you're talking about a flow-way, there's not really any legal definition of a flow-way. But generally it's a vegetated river or a vegetated stream. It's a lower area where you get certain types of Page 132 March 19,2009 vegetation. And down here it's usually either cypress or saw grass with the marshes. And they're areas that are slightly lower than surrounding areas and where water flows. Similar to a stream. But because we don't have the topography that you have up north, the water moves a lot slower. And generally looking at these soils, you can see where historically that flow and those vegetation types occurred. And this black that I have outlined is actually our property, and then this is a blow-up of that. The other thing you can see on here is that there was an amalgamation or a collection of small upland areas or upland soil types going along there, which would indicate that it was possibly a remnant ridge or some sort of higher area. But there are also wetland indicators in some of these. So looking at this, my take from an historical standpoint is that water would come down into these depressional areas and into these sloughs to the point where it would fill up and then it would fill up to the point where it would then run out to the side downstream or down-slope. In looking at the topography, you can see that the topography does go from higher to lower as you go east to west. A couple of other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, just a minute. Ms. Caron had a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Tim, can you just turn that so that we're looking at it -- MR. HALL: North to south? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- north to south. Thank you. MR. HALL: I was trying to fit it all on there, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Ray, you can back it out for him, right? MR. HALL: I want to get that -- how would I center that so that Page 133 March 19,2009 they could see it? There you go, okay. This is our property. This is Sections 10, 15 and 22. And what you see, you know, off to the side here where that was is how this little finger of that came down into Section 10. And if I go back to the upland map that I showed you, those upland areas that you see outlined on here are pretty well depicted on what's out there now. Those same general shapes and locations are still there so much longer. So if this had been a historic flow-way where water was going from north to south on this property or on this project, I wouldn't expect to see these upland areas there. You'd have flow going all the way through, or that depressional area would have gone through that way. But looking at those old maps, the depressional area was actually further to the east of this property. And as it filled up, you know, either during the height of the wet season or with big storm events, that area would fill up and then that water would spill out of those flow-ways or those sloughs and sheet flow across this project because this was the downhill direction. So in terms of trying to qualify or quantify the native or natural aspect of the flow-way here, this is simply a couple of other flow- ways in the county. This is the Corkscrew marsh coming down. Over here is the Okaloacoochee Slough. Both of those. And you can see, these are maybe even a little bit easier to see because you can -- you see both sides of it pretty easily that you've got higher areas with the depressional, and there's wetland soils going through them. It's a little harder on our property because I don't have the information for Lee County, but it's the same-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, Paul had a quick question. MR. HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sure. You talk about slough. What I'm looking at is CCME Objective 2.1.D. And they talk about Page 134 March 19,2009 natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. So you don't have to establish that it's a slough. If it's a wetland, it qualifies to CCME 2.I.D. MR. HALL: But then it goes further on to qualify that the natural wetlands are areas that are a foot deeper and that -- than the outside edges. And that's not the case on here. This property is simply part of the downhill gradient from that area. You don't have -- if there was another higher area over here, you know, if you had a high area here and another higher area here and the water had to flow through, then I would agree that it was a natural slough or a natural flow-way. But what's happened is the water flows through there now because historically the agricultural fields to the north, the Golden Gate Estates being developed and the roads and some of the logging trams that were built over there, the developments to the west of the project have all created artificial berms, and the only place left for the water -- Immokalee Road as well was built right through here -- so the only place for that water left to go, it has to go that way. So I wouldn't argue that it doesn't act as a flow-way now. But I would argue that it's not a natural flow-way and it doesn't meet that definition criteria in 2.1 of being natural and having the one-foot differences as -- I'm sorry, I can't remember right off the top of my head, but one-foot difference on both boundaries, sides of it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does natural have some sort of a time cut-offpoint? I mean, if it's natural now because it's been that way for years, at what year do you say that it has to have been natural? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would argue I think that's more of a legal question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2007. I would say that this policy requires that the natural area had to be in place in 2007. And these are not natural in 2007. Page 135 March 19,2009 At that time you were trying to protect through the Comprehensive Plan the then existing natural, as it is defined in 2.1.D, flow-way, wetlands or sloughs. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do we have a legal opinion on that? MR. KLATZKOW: I'd like to hear what Compo Planning has to say about it, quite frankly. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because it doesn't say historical. If it said historical, it might be a different answer. But it says natural, and you've got to go on the date of what the regulations were at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina is looking around for David. He's gone. MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning. Actually, I was looking at Bill from Engineering and Environmental Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting a little astray of the applicant's presentation now. And I understand your question. Ifwe-- Mr. Wiley's got quite an extensive background in how this was put together. At some point it would be appropriate for him to come up and, after I guess, I think when the applicant's finished to address the issue, if that's okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be more organized than trying to interrupt any more of Tim Hall's presentation. MS. VALERA: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HALL: I would just say that letting them deal with when it was declared natural or not, I would not argue that water flows across this site now. It does. And to compensate for that, the development had to provide that same conveyance capacity that is there now to ensure that water levels further upstream were not adversely affected. Page 136 March 19, 2009 And that was done. That's been reviewed by both the Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers. And the water that's passed through that site now in the before project condition is still passed through the project after, in the after condition. So they -- my opinion is that 2.1.D doesn't apply. But even if it did, the further criteria in there is that those impacts would have to be mitigated for through conveyance -- increased conveyance have been met by this project. And then the last item I thought I'd put in here is actually -- was an attachment to Nicole's memo to you. And it shows the flow-ways. It's like driving a boat, everything's backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're still not getting us to the point we need. MR. HALL: Well, I was going to show you, this one we might need to blow up. The entire county -- the Mirasol project is located right here off of Immokalee Road. And the dark areas being the flow-ways that were identified in the documents she was referencing, you can see that the project, the bottom two miles of that project are still white. They're not part of the flow-way. And that's actually where our development is. The flow-way that they have identified going across the northern piece of it, with Immokalee Road being up there, is what we're allowing and accounting for with the development. So if this is the map that gets relied upon, you know, when the EIS was coming out and we were looking at this, that was also taken into account. And so those flows that are identified in this are still protected in terms of the way the Mirasol project was designed. I think that was -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Quickly touch on the wetland quality before and the after and the functionality. MR. HALL: Okay. I had showed you -- I guess I went through Page 13 7 March 19,2009 those pretty quickly in terms of the wetland functional analysis. And Rich had told you that we didn't necessarily agree with the staffs interpretation. I don't remember what he said about the mitigation requirements. The part that we had a problem with was that they had said that none of the areas that we used to meet our native vegetation requirements could be used in that acre-for-acre accounting for the wetland mitigation. And my -- you know, my opinion is that there is enhancement activities and functional improvements being done in those areas, and that should count, those acres should count for the wetland mitigation as well. But I'm not going to get too much into that. In terms of the functional analysis, what we had to do was look at the project in its existing condition and determine what kind of functional benefit or functional use was existing on the property. And then using the -- at the time that this project was originally submitted and all, UMAM wasn't approved, so we used the WRAP analysis, which is the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. And basically what it does is assign numerical values to different categories of wetland function. And based on those values, you get an overall score. And then they look at your proposed mitigation activities and the improvements that are being done, and as well as the time and the risk -- or the risk of failure, I guess you would say, to doing those activities are all taken into account. And you generate a post-project score. And for the -- to meet the ERP criteria, as well as the county Land Development Code criteria, the functional analysis has to show that your post-functional value is equal to or greater than your pre-functional value. And that was done for the property. The Water Management District looked at that and approved it. The Corps of Engineers also looked at it and approved it. And part of that Corps of Engineers process, the Fish & Wildlife Service, as well Page 13 8 March 19,2009 as EP A also reviewed the projects. EP A had some initial concerns and wrote some letters to the Corps initially, but by the end ofthe project and as we were finishing up with the coordination and all, they withdrew their objections. So the project we believe meets all of the criteria in the CCME and the Land Development Code. And, you know, we've worked long and hard at trying to make sure that everything was met and, you know, will provide a good project in the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want -- Tim, do you want questions from us now or what was -- MR. HALL: It's up to you. If you want to ask me questions now, I'd be happy to take them. If you'd like to hear Rick talking about the water management and the water quality and then ask them of us all at once, that would be fine also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the more questions we get answered by your presentation the less we'll have to ask. So if everybody else doesn't mind, let's just go ahead and continue with your presentation then. MR. BARBER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Rick Barber, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. I can talk about water management for days, but I'll be kind and try and run through this quickly. This is a LIDAR map of the site. The pink is the outline of the project. Basically the natural drainage occurs through the top of Section 10, from Section 11 to the east. And that drains part of the Corkscrew Swamp down through this project as overland flow or sheet flow. And it concentrates over here on the western side, or blue over here, and makes its way out to a thousand-foot weir that's on the Cocohatchee Canal right below the Olde Cypress development. And -- okay, here's the area of concentrated flow. And it makes its way out here to a thousand-foot weir that's on the Cocohatchee Canal. Page 139 March 19,2009 So that when you talk about the Cocohatchee flow-way, it's really this section that's been constrained by development and really directed towards this thousand-foot weir that Big Cypress basin built. The on-site drainage system, this is a fairly standard drainage system that's -- it's bermed off-site, if you will, with the exception that we have what we call a pass-through system. And our obligation was to keep the water levels the same in a 25-year storm. So when a 25-year storm occurs, there's a functioning pass-through system that's not part of the water treatment system in the project that allows water to flow through down to the Cocohatchee Canal so that the water levels outside the project stay the same. The water management system's divided into five basins, as we show here in the small diagram. And how that functions is there's a system of lakes with control structures that discharge into that pass-through system. None of the water quality that was calculated for the site utilizes the pass-through system. It just uses the upstream parts of that water management system with dry retention and wet detention in the lake systems. The pass-through type system or flow-ways within -- and I'll get north going to the top again -- has been utilized in a lot of projects out in this region, starting at the east. And there's Twin Eagles and Bonita Bay East. They all have these flow-through systems or pass-through systems. And Heritage Bay. And of course the one down here at Mirasol now. And still keeping the flow-way that goes out to the thousand-foot weir. So we're not impacting the regional drainage. This is the bottom end of the flow-way that's out there now. Here's the thousand-foot weir out here on Immokalee Road. And you can see that there's not much natural left about this system. That's why you had to put in manmade conveyance. There's a -- and I can run through numbers. I don't know if you're interested in numbers, but there's a hundred-foot weir at the Page 140 March 19,2009 north end of the project that picks up that collector swale. There's two three-and-a-half foot slots in that weir that allow natural annual type drainage to pass through the pass-through system. That's down at elevation 14. The pass-through system flows through the lakes down to a 175-foot weir at the Cocohatchee Canal. And that keeps the -- that weir keeps the water table up over the project. It's set at 13.4. Are there any questions that I can answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, how are you going to keep the nutrients that you use from fertilizer and from runoff from getting into the Cocohatchee Canal? MR. BARBER: That's a good question. The golf course will utilize a system of dry retention prior to the discharge from the golf course going into the wet detention system. So we've done calculations with the Harper methodology most. We started with the 2003 when the project started, and we've done the 2006 and 2007 calculations. But they take into account the treatment methods, dry retention and wet detention, and the treatment afforded to those nutrients. And based on what is coming to the site in natural conditions, we feel we can treat the water to have a post-development discharge that's less than predevelopment. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Where are the nutrients going to go? MR. BARBER: They're taken up biologically in the lake system in the wet detention and they're put into the ground in the dry retention system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How are they put into the ground? MR. BARBER: Through percolation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All of that nutrient is going to Page 141 March 19,2009 percolate into the ground, none of it is going to run off? MR. BARBER: What does run off goes into the wet detention system and it's treated in the wet detention system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And none of that's going to run off? MR. BARBER: A very small part of it will. But it will be less than pre-development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rick, those lakes, what's the cfs you're expecting to take from off-site? MR. BARBER: In a 25-year storm, the pass-through system is designed to pass 200 cfs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 200. MR. BARBER: The discharge from our site from our project is about 29 cfs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the discharge needed for that flow-way; do you know? MR. BARBER: The -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Cocohatchee -- the flow-way that takes it -- MR. BARBER: The thousand-foot weir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BARBER: I think during our 200 cfs, there's about another three or 400 that goes out that side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're -- I had gotten some numbers from Mr. Wiley about the cfs you expected to take through the project, and he's under the belief you got 286 through the flow-way, through the chain oflakes you're putting in the middle of the project. That's not true? MR. BARBER: I believe it's closer to 195 or 200. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If those lakes were connected by open Page 142 March 19,2009 channels instead of box culverts, wouldn't you be able to have a greater capacity? MR. BARBER: Yeah, but we have to have road crossings. And that's where the box culverts are, at road crossings and those types of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got awfully wide road crossings. Look at your top lake to begin with. You had a whole distance from the north boundary line of where the pink is down to the first lake. That's wider than a road. And some of those other lake connections throughout there are much wider as well. MR. BARBER: Believe me, Mr. Milarcik isn't going to spend the money for box culverts where he doesn't have to. And that would be an open channel at the top. Like I say, the box culverts will only be at road crossings, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you kind of put that up, Ray? MR. BARBER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. So they are going to be open channels between the lakes? MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BARBER: Where that's possible, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The collection swale on the north end, your structure there was going to be how wide? MR. BARBER: A hundred feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In a lot of the paperwork I've read, there was a discussion that it was going to be 1,500 feet, but it was possibly needed to be up to 4,000 feet. Can you explain what that discussion is about? MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. When we modeled the whole system and we modeled this all the way out to Lake Trafford, a fellow named Dick Tomasello did that modeling for us. He has a grid system that allows him to put certain dimensions of facilities in it. He used Page 143 March 19,2009 somewhere around 3,000 feet for that collector swale. Our actual design is about 1,500 feet. But the only time that collector swale will really function is at the low flow conditions. It's really there to get the water into those slots. Because once the water builds up, up to the 1,495, there's a foot, foot-and-a-half of water through the whole system out there. So the collector swale really functions to provide the water to that low flow situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so how do you justify going down to 150 feet? Didn't you just -- when I asked you originally what size structure you're going to have there, you said 150 feet. Did you mean 1,500 feet? MR. BARBER: No, the intake weir is 100 feet wide. The intake weir is 100 feet wide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me read a portion of -- and this is one of the documents that I read last night. Furthermore, the modeling assumed that the two-foot deep collector swale at the north end of the developed area for collecting water to pass into the pass-through lake system was about 3,000 to 4,000 feet long, when according to the engineering design it would be about 1,000 to 1,500 feet long. What is the difference in what they're referring to there from what you're trying to answer my questions? MR. BARBER: Okay, we designed the 1,500-foot collector swale. The function of the collector swale is to provide water at low flow conditions to the slots in the weir. There's two three-and-a-half-foot slots that are down a foot from the top of the weir. That allows water into the project at low flow conditions. That's really the function of the collector swale. Once it gets up to 1,495, which is the top of the real weir, there's enough water out there naturally to have the water enter the 100- foot weIr. Page 144 March 19,2009 The 3,000 foot that you're referring to was in Tomasello's model. But that was only to provide water to that intake weir. The intake weir is really the limit in the hydraulics. The collector swale is a -- just a way to get water to the top of the weir. Dick went back and looked at that, and it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the intake of the pass-through system. Does that answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does, but I mean, I'm not as up on your issues as you are, so I'm not sure I got the answer I needed. Maybe we'll work it out as the afternoon goes on. In your responses the RFI -- RAI's that were issued to staff, under concerning the historic basin storage, you had a response that said, it is noteworthy that these high upstream stages occur, despite the fact that the conveyance part of the system was complete. I know it's taken out of context, but you're talking about the Big Cypress basin improved Cocohatchee Canal system. My concern, and I've reviewed the site. I didn't see -- I mean, the wetlands are severely impacted, they're degraded, I have no doubt about that. You've got a vested right to some density, you have a reason to move the density to the southwest side of the site. But I'm real concerned about blockage of any water that's going to further flood the Bonita Springs area. There are some projects north of this property that -- in Lee County -- that I've got some submittals on from South Florida that clearly show them counting on this flow-way to get the water off of their project and down through the county as it's supposed to. My concern is that your filling of that southern area -- and if you could put the LIDAR map that you had, because I had a similar one. Yours is just as good and shows it just as clearly. If you'd go to the bottom of it. See where the word Immokalee is in front of Immokalee Road? Right there, that looks like it's taking some water from a section of that flow-way down that way as well as Page 145 March 19,2009 to the west where you had indicated most of it was going to go, and I think most of it is. But how are you addressing that water that's coming in through that area there in your plan? MR. BARBER: Well, right now there's about a six to eight-foot berm on the north bank of the Immokalee Road canal, or Cocohatchee Canal. The only water that enters the canal from our site right now is through I think four or five 24-inch RCP's through that berm. So that was really the design of the three-and-a-half, the double three-and-a-half-foot intake weirs or low flow weirs at the top of the system was to maintain that low flow through those 24-inch pipes. So it's a good question, but the only water that enters the canal from this site right now is through those 24-inch pipes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could those pipes be opened up? Could they be expanded and take more water through that area? Because it's obvious that's a lower area and something is -- or would want to normally flow through that direction. MR. BARBER: I believe the pass-through system's doing that. That's what we've designed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's taking it from the north to the south, not from the west through the south through that comer there. So the water -- you're collecting the water way up north. What happens to the water that stacks up down here? MR. BARBER: Within the drainage system of the project itself, that will be collected and directed towards the pass-through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I hear you, I've just got to figure it out. So we'll just go on with any questions. And before this is over Mr. Wiley is going to enlighten us as well. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. BARBER: Thank you. Page 146 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, did you have anymore parts of your presentation? How did you want to go forward at this point with your side? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to show on the master plan where the clubhouse would be located. Mr. Strain, and members of the Planning Commission, the master plan did not identify the location of the golf course clubhouse. It talked about setbacks on the table. And Mr. Strain asked me if we could identify where the clubhouse tract actually would be located so you can identify it for purposes of external impacts. And this is the location of the golf course and clubhouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres is that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's approximately 10 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not consistent with what you told one of those other agencies that you were permitting through, you told them it would be 22 acres. I'll find the exact reference, if you want to wait a minute. That's kind of what we talked about. You were able to give the other agencies all kinds of information, but you didn't seem to want to give it to Collier County. And I think that we ought to be getting the same information they had. Here's what you told in the report that's part of your -- it's the United States Department of Interior. The residential acres would be 234, the lakes would be 148, the road right-of-way 52, the clubhouse maintenance sales buildings, 22 acres, the golf course 222, open space from the development 95, and preserves 941. So clubhouse maintenance sales buildings, that's 10 acres. Where are the rest of it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the maintenance facility, Mr. Strain, is actually still on the visualizer to the right. And the sales facility, is it depicted on there? I don't think we have it depicted on the master plan, but it is on the southern end of the -- near the entry to the Page 147 March 19,2009 project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me understand what uses you believe are going to be going in that box. Is that going to take care of the clubhouse and recreation centers for the residential areas? I'm looking at in your permitted uses, item I-B -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hold on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have a series of them that you and I talked about that needed to be defined. Some of them I agree were in villages, you can't define those, but the common area ones, the big ones for the proj ect wide ones are the ones I was concerned about. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, which I understood to be the golf course clubhouse, not the individual community clubhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. And then the pro shop, practice area and ranges. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would all be part of the golf course clubhouse area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Retail establishments, accessory to the permitted uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again would be part of the clubhouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and others to the extent they are community-wide? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do we have any proposed community-wide? Not. We don't have any ofthose intended to be community-wide shuffleboard courts, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Restaurants, cocktail lounges and similar uses to serve the club members and club guests would all be in that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the clubhouse, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that answers one of the questions. I don't know how we're going to articulate this in the consent Page 148 March 19,2009 agenda, but before the day's over we'll figure that out. Anybody have any questions overall of the applicant? I guess we'll hit all the applicant questions now before we go into staff. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me make sure I don't have any others, Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Yovanovich? Someone stated, I'm not sure, maybe it was Tim, said that the Environmental Protection Agency had withdrawn their objections. Do we have a letter stating that? They issue a letter for everything, so do we have a letter for that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll let Mr. Walker answer that. MR. WALKER: In the federal permitting process, the -- I'm Steve Walker for the record, Lewis, Longman and Walker. The federal permitting process, the EP A is one of the coordinating agencies with the Corps of Engineers. When the initial notice is published, the Corps -- the EP A responds to that notice and they write letters to the Corps. One of the letters you're seeing there is in response to the Corps' letter to the EP A. What the Corps' letter views a parlance, a 3-C letter. At that point in time the EP A is given the option of elevating the decision or withdrawing their concerns or further commenting. The letter that was provided to you was their further comment. But they did not take the opportunity to attempt to raise or elevate the decision beyond that point. They just voiced their ongoing concerns. The Corps of Engineers considered those in their final decision and essentially went ahead and issued the permit. So they did not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but they did not withdraw their -- MR. WALKER: They did not withdraw it directly, but they did Page 149 March 19,2009 not choose to elevate it. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich, back on your PUD. On Page 2, the conservation preserve tracts, A, principal uses. You had -- actually that's where it begins. On Page 3 it continues. Some of the things that are allowed, one is a wildlife sanctuary. Does that mean Ngala can be located there? I probably pronounced it wrong too. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ngala. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ngala, okay. What is the wildlife sanctuary that you think you might put there? You brought it up this morning so I need you to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I brought this up this morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you brought a wildlife sanctuary in here. How many tents you going to have, CEO's and other people dining inside this preserve? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're willing to cap ourselves at an appropriate number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1,000 people? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know. That might be a little bit much for this location. Is that a serious question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the wildlife -- I'm sorry, you opened the door this morning. I'd like to know, now that you've put it here, either you strike it or you tell us how it's going to be limited, because I'm not sure what it means anymore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's for use in preserves. Tim, you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got him tongue-tied for the first time. MR. HALL: There was some conversations with the -- well, with CREW, but also with the Fish & Wildlife Service that the Page 150 March 19,2009 preserve associated with this project would be big enough to harbor a colony of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers. So it's possible that once all of the restoration activities are done that a pair of woodpeckers or more than a pair could be trans-located into the location, and then it would -- you know, it would be not really a safe harbor program, but you could have a colony become established there as a -- you know, in a preserve area specified for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be a native wildlife sanctuary? MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mind if we use native? At least that keeps us out of giraffes and rhinoceroses and other things. Seven, inclement weather shelters in preserve upland areas only unless constructed as part of the permitted boardwalk system. Then it says, the shelter shall be a maximum of 150 square feet. You're plural in the beginning and singular in the end. How many shelters are you going to have? MR. HALL: Again, the intent is to give the property to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Trust, the CREW Trust program. And we were trying to allow for their ability to have some public use of that site. So I couldn't give you a number, but if you want to specify a number, everybody would have to -- it's 150 each was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the last sentence should word plural, the shelter shall be maximum of 150 square feet each. MR. HALL: Okay, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your Exhibit B -- go ahead Ms. -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we go on, can we just talk about the rest of that list -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- there, the boardwalks and Page 151 March 19,2009 pedestrian bridges and the favorite of the year, equestrian trails and pervious nature trails, is what you're intending for the perimeter of the site? Because my conception, and certainly the preserve that I back up to is not meant for humans to be traversing through, because that's where the wildlife live. That's where the fox and the raccoons and they get to finally live. And so we don't interrupt them. Around the perimeter you can walk so that you can look, but what's the -- I mean, what's the meaning here? MR. HALL: Well, again, because the big preserve, the main preserve area was going to be given to in essence a public entity, this CREW Trust, and their -- I guess Steve could probably talk to this, you know, better than 1. But public lands are generally open to public use. They're not prohibited from that. So that's why trying to give the ability for when this property is given to CREW that it can be used according to the management plan and the operations plans that they have, which does allow for public use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all these preserve uses are only to the extent that CREW would need them? MR. HALL: Well, some of the boardwalks may be internal, the internal preserves as well. But in terms of the -- like the structures, there were no structures going to be proposed within the internal preserves. Those were all for the external area. COMMISSIONER CARON: But your boardwalks even on your internal preserves. MR. HALL: On the internal preserves, some of the preserve areas are adjacent to or within the golf course. So the ability to put those bridges and those trails across or through those areas was being left in. COMMISSIONER CARON: It loses -- MR. WALKER: Just to further clarify, all these preserves -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your name for the record? Page 152 March 19,2009 MR. WALKER: Steve Walker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WALKER: All of these preserves are encumbered by a conservation easement. In other words, that -- in favor of the Water Management District. So -- and they're passive recreational conservation easements, which limit the amount of activity that can go on in these preserve areas. And anything like construction of a future boardwalk would require review by the South Florida Water Management District in order to be authorized. So that would I think help deal with the concern that these lands would become overrun with boardwalks and other human uses, when it would not be appropriate in some areas for that kind of activity. But as Tim said, ultimately these lands will be transferred in fee to the CREW Trust, subject to this conservation easement, to be added to the overall CREW program which it will connect up to in Section 10 ultimately. So we felt that that would be the appropriate management agency for the long term for the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not of Tim, actually. On the matter of community and neighborhood parks, do we have any objection to neighborhood parks? Why not? You're the guy. You're the man. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought we specifically allowed those as uses, community and neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we've had at various meetings questions regarding neighborhood parks being appropriate in certain areas. I just want to get it clear that there's no problem for neighborhood parks being located in this project. Is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We specifically have requested that as an allowed use. Page 153 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, if we can move into your Exhibit B, your development standards table. Under multi-family dwellings for zoned, maximum zoned height, you have 50 feet, parenthetical five stories. And then under the clubhouse you have 50 feet, parenthetical two stories over parking. Under both of those I would assume it's five stories, not to exceed 50 feet and two stories over parking not to exceed 50 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know for sure on the multi-family it's five stories not to exceed 50 feet, right? And then on the clubhouse recreational buildings it's two stories over parking not to exceed 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have to make that correction. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rich, does that allow you the -- if you put the parking under the multi-family building to not count those stories, up to stories, a/k/a Moraya Bay? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know, does it? I hear them say no, it doesn't let me do that. We can make that clear, if you need to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because it's silent, then you would revert to the LDC and the LDC would let you, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the -- so Brad, let's get the language straight so when we do a stipulation, we have it right. What do you -- don't push your mic. away. You opened your -- you brought it up this time again, you come back with some idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was actually going to turn the paper, but it's on -- but I would say no -- I mean, we could reference that particular clause and say not subject to that clause. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or we could put a -- I'm not a big fan of Page 154 March 19,2009 more footnotes, but maybe we could put another footnote that says this is inclusive of parking; the 50 feet in inclusive of parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that would do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. On the next page under your accessory structures, asterisk number five, building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of garages. The only place that asterisk appears is distance between principal structures under clubhouse recreation buildings. How does it fit? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that's a typo, Mr. Strain. I believe that that number five is actually supposed to go under multi-family, where it says six. And that six is supposed to go away, will become a five. And that's actually on the previous page, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because you have that asterisk five up on side yard setback under multi-family. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now you want it down there between distance between principal structures? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does that fit a minimum distance? Does that change any? Because we've got to have a minimum distance between the structures. Are you trying to get less than the minimum? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The garage. Just for the garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the garages then can be how close together? Less than 10 feet? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Would somebody do the math for me, please. Okay, so how tall is the garage? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you have a 12-foot-high garage, it's Page 155 March 19,2009 six feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so it's six feet. Six feet between garages. Right, is that what you're asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm asking, yeah. So that's where you were going, okay. Well, then that's where there's a problem. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't say sum, it says half the height. MS. BISHOP: It says half the sum of the height for garages. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, so it would be 12 feet. Mr. Strain, she's right, that's the sum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in no case will you have any structures less than 10 feet together, close to one another? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I believe that's correct. I can't imagine we'd have something less than 10 feet tall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When staff reads this after this meeting today, in whatever form it comes back in, would you make sure that that is the way it reads? And Kay, I'm assuming you will do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, would you have a problem on the accessory structures for multi-family to make it the same as the principal structure? MR. YOV ANOVICH: The which, the side setback you said, or COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The distance between accessory and -- for -- in accessory structures, the distance between them. Accessory structures in the same lot. In other words, if you -- my concern is that if you have an accessory structure that's attached to your principal structure, that would be your distance from the -- again, I'm just trying to keep you out of a fire code issue. Page 156 March 19,2009 You can leave it in there, but what's the advantage to not having an accessory structure? Because essentially in a multi-family, other than maybe a cabana building, you're going to be within the building itself. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we could protect ourselves at building permit stage, correct, by making sure the distance is far enough away? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the way it comes on, you have to defend yourself, not protect yourself, so -- but go ahead, that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Ifwe could just leave it, we'll-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, in your TIS, you have a statement in the introductory part. I didn't find this in the PUD, so I think it needs to be in the PUD, that you -- the project will be 423 single-family and 376 multi-family dwelling units. Since the TIS is based on that mix, I don't know why the PUD should be any different. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, what we need to have is the ability to pay the difference in impact fees. If we convert a multi-family unit to a single-family unit, we would evaluate the impact for concurrency purposes. And I understand what you're saying, you could say you're approving it, but we need to have the flexibility to change between those numbers as long as concurrency is met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or as long as the TIS that's submitted with this PUD is met. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as -- but the DCA didn't get into the specifics. We just need to have the ability to deal with the swapping back and forth as long as there's concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as the TIS that was Page 157 March 19,2009 provided with this PUD is consistent. I mean, if you exceed the thresholds in this TIS, then you've got a problem. Until then you don't. So you could mix back and forth all you want, as long as it reduces less to -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I'm missing, and I'm trying to remember when we've had a residential PUD that we've gotten into that level of detail on the mix of the units within the PUD document itself. I don't remember one. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in this one you all provided the information. You went out and vested your transportation element. And if transportation is here, and I notice Nick is here, maybe he can tell us then what he based his vesting on as far as intensity goes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And what I'm suggesting, Commissioner Strain, is the vesting is based on that number. And what I'm saying is if we decide to go higher on the single-family, because that's the higher trip generator, we would have to do an analysis to make there's adequate capacity on the transportation system to make that switch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And pay the difference in impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Nick. Thank you for -- were they vested by -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were they vested by units or were they vested by trip counts? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you didn't care about the mix of the units? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the time we went with the worst case scenario in the DCA, 799 single-family units in the DCA for vesting purposes. Page 158 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that clears it up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Oh, while you're up here -- I won't let you go that easy. While you're up here, in the TIS, there are five intersections negatively impacted by this project above the threshold. Yet I notice that the DCA only paid attention to the one. Why did we not -- why did the other ones get away with it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All those other intersections were improved with our capital project that we did, Immokalee Road, Collier and Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're considered okay now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're considered okay now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's too simple for you today, but thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll try to get worse. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before you go on, can we go back to Page 4 here in Exhibit B. Back to the development standards table. Under your side yard setback for principal structures, under the zero lot line it says zero or 10. Why isn't it zero or 15 like everything else? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Zero lot lines -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand the zero part. I'm asking you why it isn't 15 between those. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because the product type and has -- and frankly, the last I don't know how many residential PUD's have gone through, the standard for zero lot line product type has been a zero or 10. I mean, that's pretty customary for that product type. COMMISSIONER CARON: The next question has to do with Page 159 March 19,2009 your setbacks from the golf course. Why would it be zero for multi-family and duplexes and -- I mean, why is everything a zero? I'm sorry, I was thinking there was seven feet, but that's an asterisk. Beg your pardon. Why would you not want any setback from the golf course? I mean, I understand being on a golf course, but on the golf course? MR. ARNOLD: Hi. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold. I'll try to address that. I think the question here is one of are we going to put a building on the golf course. And I think you have to keep in mind you're thinking of tracts. When you plat this property the golf course most likely will be platted as a separate tract. So you could have a tract line that would abut the same tract line of your condominium or multi-family building tract. You may have structures associated with your condominium project, for instance in this case, that would push it back to that tract line, but you're probably going to have rough or unplayable area that's part of the golf course tract. So I don't think you're going to end up with a structure that's on the edge of the fairway or something. And hopefully we'll site those in a manner that we're not going to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- follow-up on that. So if! understood that correctly, that means if you have a condominium building and you have a lanai, screened entry and exit, person opens up the gate and they're right on the golf course? MR. ARNOLD: Theoretically I guess that situation could occur, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, the building is the legal line for drive? Well, I'm serious about this question. Page 160 March 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: AND I was jokingly saying my golf ball doesn't recognize any of those tract lines. BUT I think what Wayne was saying is theoretically the structure could be on what is the golf course tract line, but there's going to be a significant distance between that building and the playable area of the golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you may be correct, but I happen to live right on a golf course, and I will tell you that their territory, their line, is about 10 feet from my home, from my lanai outside. So it's not significant. And so that's what I was wondering, if you're not going to have any, if you're saying they go right at -- zero lot line is what I'm interpreting that. Am I wrong? In other words, I can walk right out of this lanai door that we're envisioning and I'm right on the golf course -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you would technically be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm on somebody else's property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. I guess technically the answer to that question is yes, you would be on someone else's property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How can you do that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, why don't you dwell on it for about 12 minutes and we'll come back here at 2:45. Time for a break for Cherie', so-- (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. As we had left, we left so Richard can contemplate his zero set- back on a golf course and provide a reasonable answer, since he was tongue-tied twice in one day. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure it won't be the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today. Page 161 March 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what we would propose is to have the minimum setback for the building be 10 feet from the property line on the golf course lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which would go into that table -- MR. BELLOWS: Principal and accessory? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that principal and accessory, as Ray just pointed out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. I'm looking real quick on the accessory table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like it separately defines it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is that on accessory? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say. Well, yeah, number one, asterisk number one might be it. Setbacks from lakes for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet. Rear yards are -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Rear yard, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's doesn't say it has to be anything. But it's already -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's already 10. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's already 10 on accessory, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can build an accessory at 10 feet back but the building can go back to the golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll add that line to the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to be sure, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The accessory table, so we don't have any ambiguity there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go to staff report, are there any other questions at this time of -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer -- of the applicant? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's the deviations. It's Page 162 March 19,2009 deviation two, which is reducing the cul-de-sac length. Somehow somebody feels that there's no public safety issue arising from that. Then that's why we established setback -- or cul-de-sac lengths. Deviation one is to reduce the right-of-way width. And deviation two is to let these roads go. If you look at -- the site plan is up there, but it's blown up, you would have essentially the potential of a mile long one -- roadway till you get to a cul-de-sac. So Rich, what is the problem? I mean, if you want to make a long road like that, what's the problem with putting a couple of circles along the way so people could turn around? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold again. Mr. Schiffer, is the question one of putting in areas for service safety -- safety service vehicles to make they can turn around or something? Because that could be part of our traffic calming condition that's also a component of this. And that is that not only would we accommodate traffic calming for pedestrian issues, but also make sure that there are provisions for safety service vehicles. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the reason we eliminate cul-de-sacs, at least I believe, is to -- because it's coming out of fire codes and stuff is to limit the length an emergency vehicle could go without the potential to turn around. Especially if you narrow the right-of-way, you're pinching it even tighter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, you've got to have a turnaround at the end of all your roads, don't you? Either a hammer or some kind of cul-de-sac. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoom out on this one, let me show you something. MR. ARNOLD: What I think I'm hearing, Mr. Schiffer, is that not in the situation where we would have a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac, but if we designed something that was an extremely long, lengthy cul-de-sac and an ambulance for instance is driving down that road, they don't have any provision until they got to the terminus of the Page 163 March 19,2009 cul-de-sac to turn around. And I think what I -- I don't know the appropriate distance but I don't think it's difficult to design your project so that you can accommodate a turnaround in interim locations other than the terminus of the cul-de-sac. I don't know what that distance should be, but we can certainly do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the people that established, you know, our LDC thought it was 1,000 feet. MR. ARNOLD: But that standard has been in there for years, and I don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that comes out of some fire codes, too. I mean, that's not a -- they didn't pick it out of the air. But the concern is when you say, oh, let's have a traffic calming device, first of all, traffic calming devices aren't good for emergency vehicles, so I hope you don't mean humping the road or something. MR. ARNOLD: That's why it's written broadly, because it will allow us to work with transportation staff to design the appropriate one. It could be a series of signage, it could be raised tables, could be varying pavement types. It could be many things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the problem though in putting a circle? Working in other communities, they don't have trouble with it. It doesn't look particularly unsightly. I mean, it actually -- MR. ARNOLD: I don't think there's a problem with putting these interim turnaround opportunities. I think we got into the situation, I think it was Buttonwood Preserve PUD, for instance, that had a lengthy cul-de-sac, and that came up where we had a bend in the road. We made it wider, an eyebrow type turn so that a vehicle could make a turnaround there. So that's what I'm saying, I know this can be done, I just don't know if the interim standard should be every 1,000 feet you have that opportunity or do we deal with that at platting or can we come back at, Page 164 March 19,2009 you know, during our consent and deal with that issue? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're requesting though is to waive the requirement for -- and essentially it's not the cul-de-sac we're looking for, it's the ability to turn around. That could be a circle. And if it's a circle, essentially it's the same radius as a cul-de-sac anyway at that point. But if you -- Ray, can you zoom out on this thing here? Okay. If you look at that kind of just a little bit to the right of the clubhouse. If you start taking that road -- I mean, going up to that first cul-de-sac that they show there, that's quite a distance. If the width of this thing is a mile, it's almost a mile. So first of all, we have a requirement in the LDC, Ray, for 1,000 feet. Is that a guess or is that people putting together something that made sense? And nothing's happened in the design of vehicles that would, I think, change that, do you? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yeah, that was established based on the number of homes that could be built along a 1,000-foot distance. I think the concern can be addressed with -- as shown on the master plan, they have locations of various turnarounds throughout the project. I think where that comes into, is if they sell off tracts to a different developer who builds a cul-de-sac that may be slightly longer than 1,000 feet, gives them that flexibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, flexibility sounds good, but also creating a dangerous situation for emergency vehicles doesn't -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's not a -- county's reviewed that before, and there are many developments that have cul-de-sacs that are longer. It's more of a -- as long as there's adequate turnaround at some point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding, the reason for the Page 165 March 19,2009 1,000-foot length, and you kind of alluded to it when you said that's the number of homes. Part of it was so that there's proper use of the water line, so you don't get a lot of dead-end -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, looping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right. Because if your water line gets too long and you don't have enough users on the end of the line, you get a bacterial count that goes up in the end of the line and your chlorination doesn't reach it. So they put that 1,000 foot in. In fact, they've come out now with people who go longer to use these hydro-guards, I think they're called, where they can actually self flush the lines so there's constant chlorination going into the line. I thought that was the purpose of it. I understand where you're coming from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, now we have three reasons for it. But the problem here is they want to deviate from that. So maybe there's -- while I'm focusing on the fire code issues, there's maybe other issues. And obviously you could loop a line, you can loop the road and not have to worry about it. MR. ARNOLD: If the Planning Commission would allow us, maybe instead of crafting some language on the fly, if we could agree that that's one of the items we'll bring back on the consent for you to review. But I think it would -- something would be structured that for any cul-de-sac exceeding 1,000 feet, we would provide these interim turnaround or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Traffic circles is what everybody -- MR. ARNOLD: I hate to get to the design aspect of requiring a traffic circle because, like you said, Brad, a hammerhead design for turnarounds or just stabilized grass with signage sometimes is acceptable to them. I'd like to be able to decide that at the design stage of the project, Page 166 March 19,2009 rather than now to decide that every road that exceeded 1,000 feet had to have a traffic circle in an interim. Because if I ended up with a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac, does that mean now that I do really need one? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We all live with regulations and we all have that problem, I mean. But I would look -- I think the circle -- first of all, in developments I'm sure you've seen the circle I think is a nice thing, because even people who miss an address, they're not whipping around in people's driveways, they can go and come back and stuff, so -- anyway, you can word it, but I'm just against the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they come back with some wording that works, is that a problem then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but how does that mean-- here we're going to vote yes or no on this thing and then it's going to come back, what, in the consent, or what does come back mean? MR. ARNOLD: Why don't we try to write that language before you close the hearing today and we can run it by staff and then -- MR. BELLOWS: I think I would like that better. It wouldn't be right I think to have the board at a consent item try to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. MR. BELLOWS: -- approve language at a later date. MR. ARNOLD: We'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as staff goes, Kay, I know you've got a lot to say, but I'd like to ask Robert Wiley to come up and address the flooding issues first and then -- or the flow-way issues first. Little slip of the words there. MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with the County Page 167 March 19,2009 Engineering and Environmental Services Department. Oh, boy, where do we start? What you see on the screen in front of you is an aerial map shot from satellite. Now, this map is color enhanced through a product through the Water Management District. The color enhancements were used to identify based upon vegetation signatures, things of that nature. So that obviously we know we don't have pink trees. So when you start seeing pinks and things, understand there's some colors out of these pixels to identify what's on the ground. What you're looking at here is Lake Trafford is off to the east. You see just to the west and a little bit to the northwest, you start seeing a real dark coloration area. And that is a huge regional wetland flowage system coming out of the north end of the county, working down. Where the curser is located now is about to point where you start leaving Corkscrew Swamp and heading into the Flint Pen Strand, which then takes off in a westerly direction over into Lee County. And if you want to zoom on out just a little bit further there, Ray, or move the picture, whatever. Actually, you're doing good there, just to slide it around. That gets you out a little bit closer to the coastline. You can then begin to see where all the water backs up. Now, the issue that is coming into play here today has been talked about by various people. The link between Lee and Collier counties just happens to be right in that area. What we know is that we have -- we know we have for Collier County, the line runs right along this area through here. That's where your county line runs, you see it zigzags and gets around up through there. And actually, I think I might have missed the county line by one Section, didn't I? I thought, wait a minute, I'm on the north side of the farm fields, the county line is the south side of the farm fields. But we're within a mile, that's close enough for this scale's purpose right now. Page 168 March 19,2009 But what we're looking at is the flooding that occurred back in '92 and in '95, and is actually able to occur any year that we have big rainfall events, the water builds up in the system and it creates problems in the north end of Collier County as well as in the south end of Lee County. In particular, Bonita Springs really gets socked by the water coming in, with all the outfalls they have up through there, and through the years they've been restricted, lack of maintenance. And we all know the history of how many times out along Bonita Beach Road, in that area the houses have been flooded out for weeks and weeks at a time. They did a study called the South Lee County Watershed Study. That's what I called it. I hope that's the official name for it. But that's the study that was done to try to address this problem. And in so addressing it, there was recognition that there needed to be a certain amount of flow that comes down into Collier County. So where I show the red arrow on the map -- and don't laugh, but I didn't want to mark my map so I just used a red sign it here sticker and cut the sign it off, so this is a removable sticker. But that shows where the Mirasol project is located. Now, coming off from the northeast ofthat and flowing towards that in a southwesterly, almost a due west and then turning south direction, there's a path of water that comes through there. I know there's been a lot of discussion today over is this a flow-way, is this a natural flow-way? What is this? As you look at that policy that we put into the Growth Management Plan, the whole purpose of that policy was to begin to regulate watershed type analyses. We had to put interim regulations in until we could complete these watershed management plans that, as we all know, we were years in arrears and not getting done but which are now started in that process. The purpose of writing that particular policy was to address the Page 169 March 19,2009 conditions so that development does not come in and block off flow. Now, there's been a lot of discussion on is it natural, is it unnatural? If you look at that definition, don't get carried away with what some people think it says. Let's go to what -- the first documentation. As we look at what it says -- and I had put a write-up in the staffs report on how I use it, and since I wrote the thing, I guess maybe I'm supposed to know what it says. But as we're looking at that under D it says, all development located within areas identified on Figure 1, and we had provided that figure, shall be evaluated to determine impacts to natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. First of all, this on Figure 1, we all know, it shows up on that Figure 1. Those were -- that's the figure that came out of the early concepts of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. So that's the background of where we got this Figure 1 identifying areas for regional flow considerations. Then we go to determine impacts to natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. We were looking at wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. And then in the process of the policy getting put through all the committees and reviews, it was determined, well, we want you to really be addressing natural wetlands. I didn't say natural flow-ways, didn't say natural sloughs, this is natural wetlands is what the policy says here. Whether or not we have to rely upon that natural adjective being a precursor to the word wetlands, flow-ways and sloughs, I'll let the attorneys decide that. I'm telling you how it was implemented and how we set the thing up to be considered by staff. Because our evaluation was concerned about we don't want regional impacts on flow from the development of projects. With that in mind, going then through what the policy says, that going to be tentatively identified as continuous wetlands, we had to come up with Page 170 March 19,2009 a definition. So we made up a definition to help people understand we're not concerned about every single little bitty issue, but where the major water is flowing. And so we came up with the concept that we're going to have the wetland vegetation through there, facultative, all these other terms that were put in there. We want it to be about a foot in depth through the center of it to identify it so that somebody couldn't come up and say well, because I've got a two-foot wide by six-inch deep depression on my property, that's a flow -- no, don't use those terminologies. Try and get the broad picture of what was meant by this policy to be used. Using that as the background of it, it goes on then to go down, and it makes the statement that says in here that we're going to require applicants to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs, or when not possible to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity as lost by the direct impact. This was never intended to be used as a wetland impact minimization policy. That's other parts of the law, other agencies do that. The purpose here was to -- if you're going to go and you're going to be in a region where you know reasonable flow is coming through, you're going to avoid it if at all possible. But if you can't avoid it, then you're going to provide a way to compensate for it. So let's look at this property. As you look into it, and we can zoom into it, we can look at other aerials. But basically that whole region through there was a very broad area of flow. Now, through the years, with all the agricultural operations and development that's gone in north of it, east of it and west of it, it's pretty well boxed in now. Whether you call it natural, you call it artificially created, the flow wants to come through there. And I've been with the county for 22 years. Longshore Lake, if you talk to people who have lived there for years, they will clearly acknowledge there's flow comes down through there. It has gone right Page 171 March 19,2009 through Longshore Lake, back in I think it was '92. We had water everywhere. Water, when it hits Immokalee, the big rains on the weekend, by Thursday you've got water pouring through that section of that flowage area. It pours through there. I can remember seeing water actually on the edge of the asphalt on Immokalee Road back when it was two-lane. So that's the concept we were looking at here when we began to evaluate this project for the impact by this policy. In looking at their footprint, what they have done is they have put a development in which accounts for the water coming to it. They provided me with a big notebook of engineering design that they had submitted as part of the application to the Water Management District on how they were addressing from the flow that's going to come down through that portion of the county at the peak stages from the various storms, even running multiple storm scenarios, what was able to pass through there today. Not what passed through there 50 years ago, but what could pass through under today's condition. Now, today being with Olde Cypress in place, without Terafina being constructed, without Parklands being constructed, what could pass through today. Then with the footprint that Mirasol proposed to put in play, what would be the impact of the off-site flows. They then evaluated what would it take to bring that flow through their project so that they essentially had no impact to raise water levels nor lower water levels by the Mirasol development commg m. As we all know, the background of Mirasol, there was at one point the consideration in the PUD for the construction of an excavated, channelized flow-way, whatever you want to call it, to wrap around through the preserve area, come down through parts of Terafina and head towards Immokalee Road. But this one is removing that because of the Corps permitting Page 172 March 19,2009 issues that we've heard talked about before. Now you've got to address it with just the natural ground there. And for them to account for their floodplain compensation, for the volume of water they have displaced by putting their fill on-site, and by the removal of any potential for flow that would want to flow due south, because that's right through their project, they put a weir in at the north end. That weir is designed so that during normal conditions, with just regular wet season conditions, it can receive flow and allow it to pass through their core lake system and come out the south side into Immokalee Road, much as you'd have it today, through those 24-inch culverts that are in the big berm that was built by the Water Management District. But when you go to the peak storm event, the weir then is, being 100 feet long on the north end, is able to take that flow and pass it over the weir and get it to go through that same central lake system passing out -- I think the weir on the south end was like 175 feet long in the conceptual modeling that was done. And again, there's a difference here between conceptual modeling and what will actually get constructed. They all find nitty-gritty details to be all worked out when they come in for their final development order via plat, an SDP, whatsoever is the phase you're going through. So we get to look at it all again at that point to make sure the numbers do match up. We're conceptual at this point with the zoning. They put all the information in. I looked at it. Now, I'm not saying that as an engineer I agree with everything that their engineer did. If we all agreed, we wouldn't need but one engineer. And so we all have our opinions. They train us to have opinions and to evaluate things that way. But what was proposed meets criteria as I evaluate it. Now, they have a collector swale on the north end. That's been talked about today. And the purpose ofthat is to allow water at that low normal flow conditions to be drawn towards the notches, and the Page 173 March 19,2009 100- foot long weir on the north end, to allow it to keep going through to imitate the current patterns going through. That's -- once you reach certain stages, though, and the whole area upstream of that is inundated with water, the collector swale becomes moot. It serves no further purpose because the whole weir crest is at that point receiving the flow and not just the water going through the notches. So with that being said, that's the bulk of the regional evaluation that I did on it to determine the flow-way concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you hear the question I asked ofMr. Barber concerning the cfs he was taking through there? Because that contradicts -- his response contradicted the one you had given me last night. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. And we're talking two different storm events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WILEY: He is talking a 25-year storm event, as he stated here on the record today. The event I was describing to you, since I deal with floodplain issues, was the 100-year storm event, hence the much greater water flow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the size of the box culverts that will feed the north lake at the top end; do you know? MR. WILEY: Double eight by tens, if I recall correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought you had said. But now they're all going to funnel on down through that project until they hit a 24-inch culvert on the south side. MR. WILEY: No, no, no, no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's coming out the south-- MR. WILEY: There's a big difference here. What he's describing right now is, under existing conditions you've got an earthen berm that the Water Management District constructed on the north bank of the canal so that they could regulate flow in points, because they were Page 174 March 19,2009 having tremendous erosion problems. So they regulated it down to a series of 24-inch culverts, okay. That's what's coming through the area of the berm right now that will be along their southern property line. Then off to the west of them is where they have that 1,000-foot long constructed concrete weir. The Water Management District has it right now. Those 24-inch pipes he's talking about, when Mirasol is constructed, you've got a 100- foot weir at the north end. It goes through all these box culverts and open channels connecting lake to lake to lake on the pass-through lake system. Then at the south end you've got another weir. That weir is, from my memory, and I hope I don't quote the numbers wrong here, but in this evaluation I think it was 175 feet long. Rick, is that right, 175? So that is able to take the water which comes across the 100-foot weir, plus it takes the water out of all of the individual water management lake system components of the five basins within Mirasol. Those are all coming in somewhat consecutive, somewhat simultaneous, depending upon the timing of the duration of the water coming through. That it is able to pass over the weir. And the reason you have the weir crest so much longer than the first one deals with passing flow over and achieving certain stage. You can throttle it down, but your stage variation is much greater. So he's going to pass over the weir. Meeting his requirement for his water quality is in his separate water management lake systems. Meeting his discharge rate for the .04 cfs per acre is in his separate water management systems. That all comes into the big master flow-through system, which is just designed to pass regional flow. At that point he's handling his flow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The flow-way that he is -- there's a portion of the flow-way that seems to go through the southwestern comer of the Mirasol property. I think it was up on the screen earlier today during that LIDAR map that Mr. Barker (sic) put up. Page 175 March 19,2009 MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you feel that the Mirasol project is taking a sufficient amount of water through the project to offset the water that is currently going through that portion of the project in the, say, natural or unnatural flow-way that goes across the southwestern comer of it? MR. WILEY: I do, because it picks it up on the north boundary, versus allowing it to come on through their property and then try to swing down that west side. He already picks it up at the north end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you said something else in the beginning of your statement. You said that there -- what they're doing is making sure there's no -- something to this effect, that there's no further detriment to the stacking of the area, or the water in the area, but they could do -- nothing was being done to improve it, something to that effect. Do you re -- can they -- is there something they could do with this project that would actually improve the problems that are being experienced by flooding in Bonita Springs and other places? MR. WILEY: Could you do more than they're required to? Yes. But are they required to, in their analysis to us, is no. They only have to address the impact of existing condition that they're facing right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it that they could do that would be beyond the requirement? MR. WILEY: Well, obviously if you're able to show that you can get more water to pass through the flow-way system off to the northeast of them, it would be at the eastern end of the farm fields that you see on the screen in front of you. If you can demonstrate an ability to pass more flow through there and the desire of the Water Management District to receive that flow into the canal on the north side of Immokalee Road is also there, is it always possible to make the weir length longer, to make the culvert connections bigger? That is Page 176 March 19,2009 possible. But do you want to do that? Well, you have a lot of other issues outside the purview of their requirements for their development to be addressed there. At that point you're beginning to talk regional design, which is outside the requirements they have to address, as I looked at the application. Do we all have desires? Yeah. But can I require them to do that? No, I really am somewhat limited in the ability to require certain things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: As I interpret what you're saying, you're saying that CCME Objective 2.1.D does apply, but not in the sense that this is a natural wetland but in the sense that it's a flow-way, so that it's not something that -- we're not worried about impacts to the wetlands, we're worried only about impacts to the flow of water? MR. WILEY: No, what I'm saying is there seemed to be a big discussion today that it only applies if it is a natural flow-way. And what I'm trying to explain to you is that was not the intention of limiting the verbiage in that statement to something that had to be only a natural flow-way. Let's use an example of what everyone would think of as a natural flow-way, meaning man's not disturbed it, would be the Facahatchee Strand area, right? Yet if I take you to an aerial such as this one here and I had him zoom down and go to Facahatchee, you're going to see all of the old cypress logging tram roads, okay. Under the legal, technical super fine microscope definition of natural, is that now affected by man? That's why I don't even want to go that route. The verbiage was never intended to go that route for this policy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that with the plan that the applicant has submitted that the direct impact to this wetland Page 177 March 19,2009 flow-way or slough is sufficiently avoided or mitigated? MR. WILEY: Well, this is not intended to mitigate for wetland impacts from that particular item that you describe as wetland impacts. That is an evaluation done through the Army Corps of Engineers type permitting. Does it affect the flowage capacity through the wetlands? I think it does, which is the purpose of this policy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So what you're saying is that the conveyance capacity of the wetlands in terms of the wetlands sort of acting like a sponge and soaking up some of the extra water will be compensated for by this system of lakes and weirs? MR. WILEY: Well, once you reach the point of saturation where water's standing on the surface of the wetlands, the sponge is full. At that point it's simply passing it through. This allows the water to stay in the area. And keep in mind, even within their own development they still have all kinds of lake area. They have a huge storage area within the internal lake system within the development. But they already are maintaining that. This allows once the off-site wetlands -- by off-site, I mean off developed site, obviously it's in their preserve area. It's still full, it's still saturated. But once the water reaches a certain stage, better than backing up, because it can't pass on around the project, it can't get through the neck down area to the west of them where you have Olde Cypress and Terafina, all that stuff coming in through there. It is designed to take that volume of water and pass it internally down through this pass-through lake system. So I think it addresses what it's supposed to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do wetlands have any conveyance function, or are they just something that when you reach a certain level they don't help with water conveyance? MR. WILEY: They can be both, depending upon their location. In this case here they are able to convey. And I say that because you could have an isolated pocket wetland which doesn't really convey, Page 178 March 19,2009 just holds water. In this area through here, they actually allow the sheet flow to pass through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Wiley, thank you very much for that detailed explanation. I can't say I understood each and every detail of it. MR. WILEY: We could go through it again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No thank you. Just for the big picture and something for me to walk away with, you feel that what the petitioner is suggesting they're going to do meets all the requirements of the county and any other -- for instance, your SWIFTMUD and all the other required projects and permitting procedures? MR. WILEY: Well, now, you're asking a very broad question there, sir. There are a lot ofrequirements of the Water Management District. This policy was not intended to address all Water Management District permitting issues. The policy that we're talking about here dealt with the issue of regional flow being maintained. It does meet that. It also meets as far as the Water Management District is concerned for that issue, and it addresses the issue of floodplain compensation or mitigation for it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MR. WILEY: So those are the two issues that are Water District related, although they have a lot of other issues. So I just wanted to make it clarified -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: From the county point of view, you're okay with it? MR. WILEY: I'm fine with it, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine, thank you. Page 179 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the point of the arrow and in those areas that are dark, those are all inundated areas, I presume. That's water or watershed area, or whatever you describe it as for me, please. MR. WILEY: The darker coloration was a signature code that was put in indicating wetter type vegetation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the point of the arrow and going down is the property that's in question at the moment, correct? MR. WILEY: Going north as well as south. I sort of put it a little bit south of the midpoint of the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the west and a little higher than the point, you have actually a darker area over some other development that's there. That's a wet area too. What my question is going to attempt to get an answer to is whether or not the future, by doing this, assuming this went forward, whether or not we would have an additional accumulation as a result of this. Now, I recognize what you've said, that the water that is coming down from a 100- year storm you believe will be okay, it will just pass over it. And you believe that the culvert system and the rest will handle it. But once that's developed, that area, in the event of a very strong storm, wouldn't that area that I've been referring to, and I wish I could point at it for you, but that darker area -- yeah, that area right there, will that not grow, so to speak? Will that not become more hydrated as a result of this? I mean, I know we're charging the responsibility of keeping it as it was today. That's right, correct? It's got to take care oftheir water and any excess water, based on today. But by changing the land, would we not effectively preclude any development within that area where the pen tip is now? Page 180 March 19,2009 MR. WILEY: Well, that's an interesting question you should ask, because that's Terafina. This map is pre Terafina. It's already been dug up. Now, this does bring up an issue, and I appreciate the question was asked a while ago. In the same report it is made very clear that this Mirasol project only addresses the impact from Mirasol. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. WILEY: Let's back up a minute. The original concept had part of Parklands, part of Terafina and part of Mirasol jointly working together to construct an increased conveyance capacity channel, or the flow-way channel, whatever you want to call the term, but it was to go through there. And they were jointly working together on that concept. Well, with the constructed portion now being taken away but yet Terafina is still going forward with construction, they bring up a real interesting point in their analysis. They only analyze for the footprint of Mirasol. They did not have to account for the impact of other properties. They went through the effort to show the analysis. And with Parklands and Terafina proposing to construct, there will be an increase in the upstream water elevation. Does Mirasol have to address a Terafina impact? I don't think so. This is where you asked the question could they do more? Well, yes, you can. But do I have the ability to require them? I do not have the ability to require it. This is where it gets to be a bit dicey, and I'm glad you guys get to make the decision and I don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it would appear like it's eventually going to be a plug in a bathtub, so to speak. MR. WILEY: This is the issue of why the policy was written. It would have been very nice had Terafina have been coming in from scratch right now to have also had to have addressed this policy. But they predated it. They're already in place. So now what do we do? This is the issue what I -- personally, what I would like to see Page 181 March 19, 2009 would be so that when all is said and done there is no increase in the water elevations and the conveyance capacity is maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me too. MR. WILEY: But their report clearly identifies they're addressing their footprint, but they really haven't addressed the footprint of neighboring properties that are going to be able to build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know where the -- MR. WILEY: He says yes, they did. So, Rick, please clarify me on that, because I'm reading your report where you indicate that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to do it from the podium, Rick, you can't do it from the seat. MR. WILEY: And I'm glad to hear this, because when I read the report I did not see where they addressed other impacts from adjacent properties. So I hope you did. Come on up, Rick. MR. BARBER: I don't want to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. MR. BARBER: We had the same -- Rick Barber for the record. We had the same concerns. And the predevelopment conditions were run without the other projects involved. But post-development we did include their footprints. So their impact to that flow-way was accounted for, Parklands and Terafina. And that was a requirement of the Water Management District because they had permits that were being reviewed at the same time. So we did account for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you took into consideration their -- trying to think of the word -- their mitigation, if you will. You didn't allow extra in your mitigation in anticipation of additional hydration up north, did you? Did you understand my question? MR. BARBER: I don't, I'm sorry. Page 182 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize, let me try again. The way you're phrasing it, I want to be absolutely clear, because it sounded like you're saying that they took into consideration your issue, you took in consideration their issue, and that would adequately handle all of the potential water coming down for the foreseeable future, for some considerable future? No? Yes? MR. BARBER: We were charged with the obligation of when we put our development in and Terafina was there and Parklands was there, that we did not change the water levels that exist out there today. But that's not an improvement, okay. That's keeping things status quo. But we did account for those other projects being in the flow- way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hate to belabor it, but I have to be clear, because I could -- you could increase it one percent and that's an improvement. That's not what you're referencing, of course, but that's a question that I have in my mind. And you keep on referring to you take into account, but that in my mind is also, unless you tell me differently, you could be looking over at what they're doing and take that into account and say okay, that plus this will be enough to take care of what we have here, what we anticipate, and we're not particularly concerned with what's going to happen up north over time. MR. BARBER: Where is up north? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See where that pen tip is there on the LIDAR? MR. BARBER: I think perhaps -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Up in that area. Right where he's going, eventually if you're all building on there and you're all putting in what is adequate 100 percent of your need plus whatever percentage is adequate for or required to bring water down, and you all do that, Terafina and you, still over time with all of this water, it's going to Page 183 March 19,2009 back up. It's going to continue to hydrate. That's what the gentleman said, Mr. Wiley said, I believe, that it will eventually even further hydrate those areas north of there. MR. BARBER: Please understand -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to. MR. BARBER: -- this is a 314 square mile watershed. The models that we ran went all the way out to Lake Trafford. We took into account all the upstream flow that we could identify, okay? So in looking at what's the predevelopment condition, all that land area was included. The area that you were pointing to used to operate as ago that pumped water directly over the side. As those projects are developed up there today, they have water management systems similar to ours that limit their discharge back to predevelopment rates. So it's actually that it will improve up there. But still, the local development that's there is minuscule compared to the size of the watershed that goes all the way up into the Corkscrew. Now, we were given the obligation not to lower water levels so we don't affect protected species upstream. So the original flow-way that we brought before and was approved had a design criteria of trying to lower stages in the 25-year storm by a foot. We agreed with that, we took that on, we coordinated with all the other developments that that wasn't acceptable to the environmental organizations or the Army Corps of Engineers. They said that was a public project, take it out of your permit, and if the Water Management District wants to come in and eventually permit that, they can. So we had to take that improvement out. And I think that's what you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. BARBER: -- is an improvement. We had to take it out of our permit. And that is a travesty, in my opinion, because you had all Page 184 March 19,2009 those property owners up there willing to contribute money, and the project was going to be done for free. Now it's going to be on the public's back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you've answered my question, much to my frustration, but thank you for your direct answer. MR. BARBER: Much to mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rick, before you leave, another way of phrasing maybe Mr. Murray's question that I might understand it better, you have a -- during a 25-year storm event, you're taking 200 cfs through your project. MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is required for just your project alone? MR. BARBER: 29 cfs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in essence to address Mr. Murray's question possibly, you're taking 171 additional cfs through your project that isn't attributed to your project, it's attributed to maybe Parklands, Terafina or some other development. Is that a fair statement? MR. BARBER: That's really coming from the 314-square mile watershed upstream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somewhere it's coming from. MR. BARBER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I'm trying to understand. I don't know if that helps your question, but that was another way of phrasing I think the same question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But what he revealed is also sad. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, I have a question for you. I've Page 185 March 19,2009 listened to everything you've said, and I asked you this question before, but I'd like it clear for the record. The statement that we're dwelling on, the county shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow- ways or sloughs, or when not possible to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. First of all, this is a flow-way in your mind; is that right? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they have a direct impact on that flow-way; is that correct? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You found them -- I don't know if you, but somebody in the county through the process has found it and determined that they are consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Now, based on that statement, you must have been relying on the words when not possible. So how did you determine that it was not possible to avoid the direct impacts to these natural wetlands and then make that decision -- or natural flow-ways or -- I'm sorry, I shouldn't use the word natural, I know. The flow-way. How did you make the determination that it was not possible to avoid that direct impact and thus allow mitigation? MR. WILEY: When you look at the layout of the land and they show you where all the wetlands are, you look at the vegetation, the flatness of the slope, all the stuff put in place there. As soon as you try to develop that size of a piece of property, you are going to have an impact on where the water wants to flow, if you're going to have a fiscally possible development. Now the question has been asked, and don't take me wrong here, I'm not trying to sound stupid, but could you possibly develop to what they're allowed to do in the Growth Management Plan with the Page 186 March 19,2009 number of units and not affect any conveyance capacity? Well, we don't really have the ability to build the superhero type futuristic cartoon-looking buildings that are real tall and real skinny at the base. That's not reality. We build low to the ground for other design purposes. Once you hit that threshold of you've got to build low to the ground around here, you've got to spread out to make it economically doable, so that there is not the issue of the takings consideration that we don't even want to talk about today. So there has to be a determination made at that point how much is acceptable. I don't make that call. But as soon as I look at this property, knowing that in the 100-year event water covers everything, then you have, as soon as you put the first building pad on there, even if you only build one building, you have technically had some impact. Now, this policy is not the policy to be regulating the percentage of impact that is deemed allowable. That's where decisions are made on your-all's level, on the Board of County Commissioner level, as to what is allowable. The issue came up in developing the policy where you had a clear distinction of a property that had a big percentage of upland areas with a depressional area going through it and waters flowing through there, and to intentionally go ahead and fill in that low area, to go ahead and maximize the full footprint of development. Using this development as an example, had there been the intentional berming of the entire property line, that would have been totally unacceptable to us. Because at that point you are diking off and stopping any flow from coming through. So to look at it and say that you're going to follow what this says here, when not possible, you look at the reality of the property, what it is allowed to have on it from other aspects within the regulations of the county, and you balance that with the fact that is it possible to Page 187 March 19,2009 obtain what they're allowed to have on the land that would not affect any conveyance capacity. In this particular case, you cannot say that. As soon as you start trying to develop what the land is allowed to develop, you have to impact it. So it is not possible. At that point you provide your mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions ofMr. Wiley while he's up here? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you good at stuff in terms of nutrients and getting rid of the nutrients through the wet and dry? MR. WILEY: That's not me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's environmental. MR. WILEY: That's not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Robert, thank you very much. It's certainly been educational. I appreciate it. Okay, Kay, I guess we can go back to your presentation where we kind of left off. Got you a little sidetracked. MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the 25-page staff report with the revision date of 3/4 on it. I won't belabor the issues, since we've had a considerably detailed presentation by both staff members and the applicant, other than to say that we have recommended approval. You do have the PUD document in front of you as part of an ordinance. The ordinance first few pages, that is the text of the ordinance, not the PUD document itself, was an outdated document. I do have the updated one for you. I can give it to you. It's dated 1/7 at the bottom. But the PUD document itself has not changed. But the -- we do offer our recommendations on the application. We have given you the overview of what's proposed, as you've Page 188 March 19,2009 already heard from the applicants. The staff report on Page 2 tells you what the surrounding land use and zoning is. There's a rather involved Growth Management Plan consistency that deals with the FLUE and the coastal management portion. And there is a large portion that has already been discussed by Robert Wiley about the water management areas and issues. The analysis of the application itself begins on Page 13. And in that you'll find environmental review comments, and that has to do with the EAC that did hear this petition and, as already stated, voted 6-2 to approve it. You have the transportation review comments, and transportation is also recommending that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You have the zoning review on Page 14 that tells you some general idea of what the proposed development parameters are. There is a deviation discussion with deviations one, two, three and four, all being recommended for approval. On Page 17 you see the beginning of the rezone findings. Those continue to Page 20 where you will see the PUD findings. And again, staff has provided to you supporting documentation or analysis that supports our recommendation of approval. The recommendation from staff is on Page 24. And as I said, we are recommending approval, finding that the petition is both consistent with the Growth Management Plan and is in compliance with the LDC applications as applicable. And if you have any questions, we also have Carolina Valera with Compo Planning that can discuss compo planning issues. And Summer Araque is also here for environmental issues. You've already heard from Robert Wiley. You had a brief discussion from Transportation with Nick Casalanguida. I believe he has been excused now that his issues have been addressed. Page 189 March 19,2009 So we're here at your disposal, should you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, Nick ran off. That's not excused. MS. DESELEM: That isn't the way he told us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions of staff? Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may, a confirmation that the storm we're talking about is a 25-year storm, correct? 25-year storm? MS. DESELEM: You're talking about Robert Wiley's testimony? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. No, no, what the -- that the developer would be mitigating for, 25-year storm? MS. DESELEM: I'll go back to Robert Wiley, if! may. I don't want to misstate anything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, whoever will qualify it for me. I think Mr. Barber actually was able to -- I think he said 25 year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they had two calculations. You'll need to come to the podium. I think it was 200 cfs for a 25-year storm and 286 cfs for a 100-year storm. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So he did cite two. See, I wasn't sure. MR. BARBER: That's correct. We ran calculations for both 25-year -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And how many cubic feet again for the 100-year storm? MR. BARBER: How many what? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How many cfs, cubic feet per second? MR. BARBER: It's near 300; 285 and some change. But it's near Page 190 March 19,2009 300 cfs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I tried listening hard, but these things don't always work as well as I'd like. That was important to me, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you had some pollution questions you want to ask the environmental -- might be a good time, if you still want to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the environmental representative, if she could come forward. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before we let Kay go? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we weren't going to let her go. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 5 of25, Policy 7.2. Back to the issue of these internal access or loop roads. The only thing I saw in this plan was a possible future interconnection. Is that what you're relying on for this policy? MS. DESELEM: Yes. The -- in the PUD document and in the DCA, they have addressed mitigation that has satisfied transportation element, and transportation staff is therefore recommending approval based on the fact that they can find it consistent with that Policy, 5.1. But yeah, there is a proposed alignment for 951, but exactly where it's going to go, it's uncertain at this time. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, what I was talking about was the proposed connection to the activity center, not to 951. MS. DESELEM: There is a proposed connection. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. It does show as a proposed connection. COMMISSIONER CARON: It shows it as a proposed future connection. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what you're relying on for this policy. MS. DESELEM: Yes. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. Page 191 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Because it's not what you keep saying. And I had this discussion with you one other time, and I can't even remember what the petitioner was at the time. But just having roads within your PUD doesn't get you to this policy. So that interconnection on there is critically important to say that you are conforming to this policy. MS. DESELEM: Yes. Normally on a conceptual master plan you show possible future connections because you don't know exactly where it's going to be. So they don't really -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand that. MS. DESELEM: That's why it's written that way. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, it allows staff to force the developer of the adjacent property when they come in to line up, and allows us that flexibility to get it lined up. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. And on Page 7, Policy 6.1.7 says, the county shall require native vegetation to be incorporated into landscape designs. MS. DESELEM: Again, I'm going to refer this one back to Summer, because this is within the coastal management element. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, before you -- before Summer gets up here, this particular master plan and any like it are very problematic for us to review. The lack of detail is the old style that we try to get away from in this county and -- oh, it's your next one, I'm sorry -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm listening to Ms. Caron's questions, and I went through the same frustration trying to tie the site development standards table to the plan. This isn't the kind of plan that we -- the detail that we like to see. It might be better through any future plans coming through from any PUD's that we get more of the detail showing the elements that impact off-site uses in particular. Page 192 March 19,2009 This one, with just its RG, neighboring properties won't know whether it's golf course or 50-foot multi-family buildings going next to them. And I think they have the opportunity in a public meeting to express themselves if they think that may be near them. So maybe in the future, just as a word of caution to staff, we could look for a little more detail on the master plans that go with these, so -- I'm sorry, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I will reiterate what you said. I couldn't believe that this was the master plan we were getting with this proposal that's been around since 2000. I mean, I find it just shocking. But at any rate, I'll speak to Summer now about my next issue. MS. DESELEM: Thank you for your concerns. And we will keep those in mind when we review our projects as they come in. MS. ARAQUE: Hello. Summer Araque, Environmental Specialist in Engineering Environmental Services. COMMISSIONER CARON: Summer, you heard the portion that I read of 6.1. 7, which is fine. I understand that we shall require this native vegetation. But then in staff comments it says native vegetation and restoration will be encouraged. Are we requiring this? Is this a shall, or are we just going to encourage them? MS. ARAQUE: Well, my understanding is that the LDC provides the specifications for how much native vegetation is required to go into landscape design. So that will be reviewed at site development plan and plat and plan stage. So that should answer your question on Policy 6.1.7, because that is now specified in the LDC, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so we're not just encouraging them, they must do this? MS. ARAQUE: I didn't write this staff report, so where are you referring to on -- are you referring in that same area? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right underneath in italics. Page 193 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer, let me suggest something. When -- the requirement in the GMP or the LDC requires a certain number of plants to be native. But developers can plant more than the mInImum. MS. ARAQUE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get past the minimum, they're not required to be native. And that may be why the word encourage is there, because they're encouraging them to use as much as possible. But it doesn't have to be, once they get past the minimum requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but if that's the case, then that's what it should say here. Because right now it just says we're going to encourage them to meet the requirement. It doesn't say they must meet the minimum requirement and then anything else we'll just encourage you guys to do more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, that's not what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to help clarify it. MS. ARAQUE: We can change that verbiage in the future, if that's an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little more clarity, that's all. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah, it's required by the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else for Summer? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you want to ask Summer the questions you had? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm concerned a little bit about the nutrients going off-site. What is the county's policy regarding the discharge of nutrients? Is it 80 percent retention of the nutrients on-site, or 95 percent, or -- MS. ARAQUE: I'm going to have to defer to Bill on that. Page 194 March 19,2009 MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering and Environmental Services Director. As I understand the question, you asked whether nutrients are required -- what is the county's requirement. The county's requirement simply is that the post-analysis be performed so that nutrients in the post-development condition do not exceed the predevelopment condition. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any numerical? It's not 100 percent. What percentage is allowed to be leached out? Or what deterioration is allowed? MR. LORENZ: Well, it's no deterioration. Pre-- post-development has to be less than pre development through a modeling analysis. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And do you think that the system of the wet ponds and the -- the wet retention and the -- no, wet and the dry was going to be adequate to prevent all of that stuff from leaching out? MR. LORENZ: We're relying upon the analysis that was performed to do that, to analyze that. And then that analysis indicated that the post-development was going to be less than predevelopment. So yes, we're accepting that analysis from the applicant. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That post was going to be less than pre? MR. LORENZ: Correct. Post cannot be greater than pre. I'm not sure -- I don't have the analysis in front of me in terms of where they came in at, but that's the requirement. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because Bill, this is a real concern. Because anything that goes into that canal ends up in outstanding Florida waters at Wiggins Pass in that estuary system. And so I'm very concerned about making sure that this project does not further degrade Page 195 March 19,2009 the system. We're already not conforming. MR. LORENZ: Well, you threw a little bit ofa nuance in there. We are allowing -- we're looking at the project so that the post-development conditions do not exceed the predevelopment conditions. That's the analysis that we're holding the applicant to. There's been no assessment of what that actual discharge would do downstream. That's not part of the analysis. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't it be part of the analysis? MR. LORENZ: That's not a requirement for our analysis. And we're relying on the Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection to perform those types of analyses. We've adopted the pre versus post as the county's condition, the county's requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only comment would be it should be. Because I think Donna's right on, if you have lOO percent of nutrient going down post-development, you still have lOO percent nutrient going down. And that doesn't make for a good situation ultimately. That's probably a bigger job than we have right at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, is it an issue for the county whether these wetlands are, quote, natural or not natural? Do you treat them the same in terms of amount of impact that are allowed to those wetlands? MR. LORENZ: When the county looks at wetlands, the definition for wetland is going to be whatever works out to be the jurisdictional wetland by the state agencies. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it doesn't matter whether these have been like created in the last 30 years because of the sheet flow Page 196 March 19,2009 being directed in from other places? MR. LORENZ: I don't think that there's any -- in this particular situation there would be any recreated or created wetlands on-site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is wetlands is wetlands. MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what about if they're infested with melaleuca, does that have any impact on what the applicant is allowed to develop or not develop? MR. LORENZ: We have -- the requirement that we have in the rural fringe mixed use district is that wetlands that type out at a UMAM score of .7 or above need to be incorporated in our vegetation retention requirements. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the melaleuca lowers the score if they're in there? MR. LORENZ: Melaleuca would lower the score, correct. But there are wetlands that are on-site that are higher quality wetlands and are being preserved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may, just so I can qualify, because I may have caused people to raise their brows. Maybe nutrients is the wrong word in the sense. Maybe pollutants is what I think of, and perhaps what Paul was thinking of. With lOO-year or 25-year storm or whatever it takes to flood an area and bring whatever's going to be brought down, that was my concern. If you had lOO percent of that happening, you still have lOO percent based on what you've told us, that post-development does not exceed what predevelopment would. So I think what I was trying to express was the concern about what we do to our waterways with pollutants, not nutrients, okay. If you understand me now. MR. LORENZ: Yes, our current regulations are pre versus post. Page 197 March 19,2009 The watershed management planning efforts, we'll be looking at total maximum daily loads. Total maximum daily loads will then be established for waterways in the future that would address that particular concern. But that's off in the future, that's not one of our current requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A shame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of county staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have two speakers. The first speaker is Brad Cornell, to be followed by Nicole Ryan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, I know some of you came in late. Were all of you sworn in? Why don't we take care of that right now. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', how are you doing for time? Are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, whoever wants to come first. Ladies should always go first, Brad. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I do have extra copies of not the entirety of the packet of information that I sent you, but simply the memo, if any of you would like to have a copy of that. I also do have a copy for the court reporter and I will hand that to her at the end of my presentation. I would also like to hand out what was Exhibit 4, the letters from the environmental protection agency, in case you did not print those off for this meeting, because I will be referring to that letter. Page 198 March 19,2009 The Conservancy does not believe that the Mirasol PUD amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we're requesting that you recommend denial and direct the applicant to reconfigure the development footprint requiring a decrease in the amount of wetland impacts and providing for additional protection for the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough. I think we need to keep in mind just what the project is proposing. They're proposing impacting directly 586 acres of wetlands, placing 799 dwelling units and 36 holes of golf at the southern end of the Cocohatchee Slough west branch. In addition, this dredging and filling of almost two sections of land in the already constricted Cocohatchee natural flow-way may well trigger flooding and ultimately the need to dig a manmade drainage system likely to alter the hydro-period and partially drain hundreds of additional acres of wetlands. In other words, there's the concern that this development, along with other developments in the area, are going to require in the future a massive drainage project. We just recently had a ribbon cutting for the LASIP project, $62 million. Ifwe can do a better job to prevent the need for those projects in the future, we really should. The project is currently classified as a sun-setted PUD, which must be in compliance with the current GMP in order to receive approval. And yes, this is a PUD, and The Conservancy is not asking that you recommend denial of anything on this site, we're simply asking that you require the developer to minimize the direct impacts to the wetlands in conformance with the requirements of the GMP. New county policies have been put in place since this project was initially approved. And when we talk about the difference between the initial project and the current project, essentially it is the removal of a massive regional drainage ditch. So now that we have new watershed management plan Page 199 March 19,2009 guidelines under Policy Objective 2.1 and its subsequent policies, this is what this project is going to have to meet the standard to. We believe that the project is inconsistent with the conservation and coastal management element Objective 2.l and the policies that it contains. And we've had a lot of back and forth on is this a natural wetland area, is it a flow-way, is it a slough. I believe that Mr. Wiley's testimony has solidified the fact that this policy does apply. But because there could be some contradictory statements to that fact, I do want to get on the record The Conservancy believes that this policy does apply. They're wetlands, they're jurisdictional. We don't have to go any farther than to know these are natural wetlands. It is part of the Cocohatchee Slough system, which at one point was 20 miles wide as it started from Lake Trafford and flowed slowly out to the Wiggins Pass estuary system and the Gulf of Mexico. It certainly is part of that slough system. And we believe, of course, that the policy does apply. It was pointed out in the Southwest Florida Environmental Impact Statement that I had as Exhibit 1 that the natural flow-way actually ended at the Mirasol project. I think if you go back and you look at that, unfortunately the label, the white label they put on that said Immokalee Road covered the southern portion of that project. And I believe that if you looked at it, it would show, as the UDAR map has shown, the flow goes across the project and then circles back and exits at that very southern portion of the project site. And it is true that during the past 40 years the Cocohatchee Slough has been significantly narrowed road by development, which makes protecting and restoring the remaining portions extremely important for both flood protection and wetland preservation, instead of permitting away and further narrowing the slough system. In assessing the compliance with Objective 2.l.D, I would like to point out in your county staff report on Page l2, staff misquotes the Page 200 March 19,2009 wording in the policy. The language used in the staff report reads, the requirements of sub-paragraph D require the proposed development to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs or ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by a direct impact. The actual language in Objective 2.l.D states, the county shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs, or when not possible, to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated. And that is a very, very key part of that policy, when not possible. There's been no showing that avoidance of direct impacts to the Cocohatchee Slough wetland is not possible on this site. Weare requesting that the Planning Commission apply the clear language of Objective 2.l.D and require true avoidance of at least part of the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands on the Mirasol property. One way to avoid significant amount of wetland loss, eliminate the 36-hole golf course, which is at least 2ll acres. And I believe in the ERP it said that it was 300 acres. So that would take a significant impact away from the project's proposed 7l8-acre footprint. This could allow for consolidation of the residential development areas further and go into the eastern portion of the property with less intrusion into the Cocohatchee Slough wetlands. In cooperation with the Big Cypress Basin, it would also be possible to restore some of the slough's flow across the southern end of the Mirasol property in that southern portion of Section 22 that is directly adjacent to the Cocohatchee Canal, preserving more of the slough wetlands, providing for a larger outlet than currently exists for conveyance into the canal. And isn't this the intent of what watershed management planning was supposed to be about? It isn't about no development, it's about smart planning. And remember, if you avoid impacts to wetlands, this benefits Page 201 March 19,2009 your conveyance capacity. If you don't lose conveyance capacity, then you don't have to worry about mitigating elsewhere. And the stormwater conveyance issue and the floodplain compensation is something that the county really does need to look at seriously. The staff report discussed it a little bit. But the current design of the Mirasol project in what the county reviewed and what was submitted, we don't believe really takes into account all the cumulative impacts. And therefore we don't believe it meets the intent of Objective 2.1.D. You heard Mr. Barber say in all likelihood with this project and with the other projects in the area, you're going to need some sort of regional drainage ditch in the future. Well, again, here's an idea. If you don't impact all of the Mirasol site, you may not need that manmade ditch at some point out in the future. When we look at the fairness of it, keep in mind that the property owner purchased this property seeing on a map that it was within this Cocohatchee Slough area. Again, it isn't that they can't do anything, but avoiding impacts, taking out some of the development could be very important. You've heard that the agencies have issued their permits. That's true, though the Corps permit is still under review for its challenge with the judge. I do want to point out, because it was stated that in the Corps challenge, the administrative law judge took a look at all of the issues and ruled in Mirasol's favor. But I do want to point out, and again, this was in the packet of information that I submitted to you, Exhibit 3, the recommended order states that the 2002 permit is not the subject of review in this case. In other words, the judge did not opine or rule on the impacts of the entire project or the flooding issues, just ruled on the removal of the drainage ditch and how that would impact the project. And as was pointed out by Ms. Caron, not all the agencies felt Page 202 March 19,2009 that these projects were suitable. The Environmental Protection Agency in fact did raise significant comments and they did not withdraw their concerns. And I would like to just quote two portions of the EPA letter, and that is what I handed out to you, and that was in your packet of information. On Page 2, EP A states, a development of this magnitude within the historic Cocohatchee Slough has the potential for significant degradation with serious alteration to the distribution and timing of flows in these downstream waters. The secondary and cumulative impacts from the proposed project, in concert with adjacent development, may adversely affect water quality, flood storage, watershed sheet flow and wildlife habitat. And just one more paragraph that I want to read from this letter, because again, I think this is extremely important. On Page 3, the letter states, the applicant should avoid and minimize impacts to on-site wetlands and as feasible enhance them for water quality and habitat mitigation. For example, the applicant could modify the design of its golf course and cluster development to take maximum advantage of the upland portions of the parcel. Reducing the size and footprint of the overall development could also lessen the adverse impacts attendant to construction of the proposed lakes. Experience demonstrates that excavated lakes tend to lower local groundwater levels and exacerbate evaporation rates. This in turn can change the hydrology of and adversely affect adjacent wetlands. Reducing the overall development footprint provides more on-site mitigation and preserving interspersed cypress areas are all measures which will help ensure that the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough and its downstream environment is maintained. So what we're asking you to require is just what EP A was asking the Corps to require. They did it in connection with the Clean Water Act. We're asking you to do it in connection with the CCME Page 203 March 19,2009 Objective 2.1.D. Wetland impacts can be avoided, resulting in more wetland preservation, assisting in maintaining the integrity of the Cocohatchee Slough, protecting upstream areas of the system from increased flooding, and this would result in the proper application of the watershed management plan interim guidelines. Remember, this is really the first test of those policies. So to conclude, we would ask that you deny the application as proposed. It is inconsistent with CCME Objective 2.l.D, request that the applicant reduce the footprint and then bring it back at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nicole, did you get a chance to discuss any of this with the staff or the EAC before this? MS. RYAN: We did bring our comments to the EAC and presented them, and it was a very brief part of their ultimate discussion and deliberation. We had hoped that they would really delve into that a little bit more. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, but you went through this with them. Did you go through any of this before this with staff? MS. RYAN: With staff, we had talked with them early on, and then through our comments at the EAC, we were certainly hoping that they would take a look at that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, the EAC. We know that now. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nicole, recognizing your desire to achieve but at the same time Mr. Wiley's testimony indicated that all of the lake systems would in fact take away all of the water that was necessary. Now, you heard my comments and questions. And I'd like more, Page 204 March 19,2009 if you can, more clarity, because your position is, you know, can we do better, which is fine. But remember, Mr. Wiley said he can only talk about what we're limited to. So can you square that with us a little bit more? Is it possible for you to -- MS. RYAN: Well, we believe that what you're limited to is the application ofthat specific objective that allows the county, requires the county, actually, to make sure that the developer avoids direct impacts to wetlands, and when not possible. So it's really determining what possible is. And we believe that if certain changes were made to the project, it certainly would be a tremendous improvement, making sure that the connectivity of the slough, especially at that south end, were maintained. It certainly -- the watershed management planning provisions were put in place not only as an engineering exercise, as a stormwater plan, as floodplain compensation, but really to allow the county to take a look at the footprint of a project in connection with how it applies to the watershed system. And in this case it applies to the watershed system because it's that final outlet of that portion of the Cocohatchee Slough before it hits the Cocohatchee Canal. So we believe that you certainly are within your right to make a recommendation based on that objective that provisions and changes being made to the project that reduce the footprint, shift development to a more appropriate location and reduce -- and have some of that hydrologic connectivity and restoration be maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just following up just quickly, you mentioned elimination of a 36-hole golf course. So that area then would be in your mind used for water retention or -- MS. RYAN: Well, if the 2ll, 300 acres of the golf course were removed, that would allow the project to be redesigned so that you could compress the footprint down and that area then could be part of a preserve of the natural hydrologic flow-way. Page 205 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've given me clarity, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before the next speaker we're going to give Cherie' a lO-minute break. I need to go across the hall and find out what time we can stay here till, because previously it was around 5:00. So I don't know if we'll finish if that happens. So right now let's break until 4:20, that will be II minutes, and we'll be back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. There is no time limit today. Kady said we can go till midnight, so we will go till midnight. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a goal, is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, next speaker was Brad Cornell. Brad? MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida, which owns Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. And I'm here to recommend denial on this project, this PUD rezone amendment application. And we base this denial on three facts. And the first is that it is inconsistent with Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 2.l, sub-paragraph D in particular. And you've already heard that, we've been discussing that today. Nicole Ryan brought that up at some length. I do want to point out the fact that when you're determining the natural wetlands flow-ways or sloughs, that they shall be tentatively identified. And then it goes on to describe that methodology, including that one-foot lower elevation. However, a more final way to determine that is through a jurisdictional determination by the state or the federal or both Page 206 March 19,2009 agencies. And that's already been done. We know that this site is 90 percent wetlands, so that's not a question. We know that these are wetlands and that there are 586 acres of wetlands being proposed for destruction. So this one-foot lower elevation is not an issue. So we know we've got wetlands that come under the Policy 2.l, sub-paragraph D. And we also know that, as it says here, the county shall require, that's pretty strong language, the county shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. That's pretty clear. I don't think there's any ambiguity in those words. And I would suggest to you that that is a very strong basis for denial of this project as it is submitted. The county shall require to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways or sloughs. Or when not possible, to ensure any direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the same conveyance capacity lost by the direct impact. Or when not possible. That issue of what is possible and what is not possible now is something to consider in conjunction with this requirement to avoid wetland and flow-way impacts. And you heard testimony from Mr. Y ovanovich that originally this project contained development proposed in Section lO. And I would submit to you that the fact that, as Mr. Wiley had testified, that this project appears to be able to pass enough water through it to satisfy the pre versus post in terms of flood attenuation and overland flow and those sorts of issues, the hydrologic issues, you could have done that if you put development in Section lO as well, as well as Section 22 or Section l5. You can basically engineer any amount of -- just about any amount of impact to satisfy that requirement that Mr. Wiley spoke to. So that's not really the test. The test is have they minimized their impacts. Have they maximized the avoidance and minimization. That's the question that you are here to answer. And the requirement under Page 207 March 19,2009 the policy is that it be maximal avoidance and minimization. And have they done that? I submit to you that with two golf courses on this project that they have not. It is not really acceptable in an important slough that there are two golf courses being built to destroy hundreds of acres of wetlands. I don't see how that is avoidance and minimization. And again, I'm not here to say that they can't build anything. This is not a takings question. This is a question of scale and of degree, if you can put it in those terms. Now, I also want to point out that -- a couple of other issues. A second point that we believe this should be denied upon is that it is in conflict with the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. The final comprehensive watershed master plan that has been issued as of February, 2009, last month, shows clearly that this project is part of that restoration master plan. Yeah, this -- that's good. So if you look at the project Group 5, that's the Mirasol project right there. This is the Corkscrew watershed. And all this gray is part of that Corkscrew watershed. Includes Camp Keais Strand, includes the Corkscrew Marsh -- excuse me, Bird Rookery Swamp and Corkscrew Marsh, and it goes up into southeast Lee County. It is one of the 13 highest ranked projects in the entire 4,300 square mile study boundary . So out ofa 4,300 square mile study boundary, this is one of l3 highest ranked restoration projects, including this Mirasol project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you take that map off, that portion of Mirasol that you pointed to, that is the northern portion of Mirasol, not the southern portion. I have a bigger map of what you've got that shows that. MR. CORNELL: That's in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not the whole section of Mirasol, it's the top part of Mirasol, the part they're not going to develop. MR. CORNELL: Right. They are also -- there's another map that Page 208 March 19,2009 goes with this, the tentative selected plan map that does show Section 22 as part of the -- if you look at this, you'll see right here, I believe that's Section 22 and Section l5 and lO, and Section II -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a color key on there? MR. CORNELL: Sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a color key on there so we know where -- MR. CORNELL: No, there's not, I'm sorry, so I can't interpret this in terms of -- the color is essentially the functional groups that they've packaged a number of what are called not mitigation measures but the measures that they're going to employ to effect restoration. Some of them are structural, some of them are just operational. But they're going to be employed in all those different color-coded projects in functional groups that are associated with each other. And this is the Corkscrew watershed functional group, which includes the Mirasol project. Sections ll, lO, l5, and in this case 22. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't know by color coding if 22 is included with number five. You just know it's shown on this map for some reason. MR. CORNELL: I acknowledge I don't know what the management measures are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I approached this the same way you have. I've gone and pulled all kinds of these maps down, I've got a whole stack of them here, and they all say the same thing. They stopped after the northern portion, and I couldn't find any that address that southern portion. So that's the only reason I'm trying to make sure that I at least clarify that with you while you're up here. MR. CORNELL: That's a good question. And I would submit to you that the development in the very southern portion in Section 22 does affect those portions of the flow-way that are above it in some very important ways in terms of the capacity for the entire slough to attenuate and pass flows, as well as the wetland functions for habitat, Page 209 March 19,2009 growing fish, as Mr. Hall had spoken of some hours ago now. That they're -- the wetlands, whether or not the birds are foraging on-site, the wetlands are growing fish and crawfish and forage material for an endangered species, in particular the Wood Stork that nests less than five miles away at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. So there is an effect, even if it's not directly on-site. The third reason that we believe, Audubon believes that this project as it's submitted to you should be denied and sent back to the drawing board is that it's counter to the public's interest in protecting imperiled species and their habitats, particularly Wood Stork and the shallow seasonal short hydro-period wetlands that are contained in this project site and the surrounding project sites, and providing flood and watershed protection and all the existing functions, all of these which are existing functions on this site. I want to show you that these wetlands in particular are unique in the landscape. This is a predevelopment map that again comes from the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study effort, developed by Dr. Mike Duever from the South Florida Water Management District. And in it he has -- this was helped -- developed to help estimate how much lift there would be, what effect are we going to go for in terms of restoration throughout the landscape. Remember, this is a huge effort. This is only looking at the Corkscrew Marsh watershed. Also, it shows the Estero Bay watershed in a great proportion. The colors on this are meaningful to one extent. I want to show you how prevalent in this landscape, in this watershed are the seasonal shallow wetlands. Those are all the magenta colored areas on the map. And if I may point out, the Mirasol site is right here going up to the county boundary, if you can see that. That green there is cypress surrounded by areas of short seasonal -- short hydro-period seasonal shallow wetlands. And obviously they're very predominant in the landscape. The browns are uplands. The greens are deeper wetlands, Page 210 March 19,2009 marshes and swamp forest, cypress sloughs, et cetera, those sorts of more traditionally recognized wetlands that are there pretty much year round. Short hydro-period wetlands are those which are wet six months of the year or less, so they may not be wet all year round, and that's the Mirasol site. This is the same area shown with 2004 South Florida Water Management District land use cover data by FLUCCS code. And it's been color coordinated by Jason Lauritsen, the science coordinator at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary with the same colors. Now, obviously there are added colors for development and agriculture and some things that weren't here predevelopment. But you can see the dearth of short hydro-period wetlands in the landscape now. They're pretty much gone. And this is an important factor for lots of different reasons. The short hydro-period wetlands, the shallow wetlands play an important biological role in the landscape. When they're gone, we have problems. And one of those problems is that the Wood Stork is an endangered species, and a major reason for its peril is the loss of these early season foraging wetlands. They become available to feed in early in the season. That would be November, December time frame. Those are the wetlands that dry up first as the dry season progresses. If you don't have those wetlands, there's a consequence. The consequences that, in the case of the endangered Wood Stork, of which the largest rookery in the United States is at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. So the species, the recovery of the species is very dependent in particular on the success of that rookery at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, as well as other rookeries, but that's the largest rookery in the nation. And we know a lot. Audubon has been collecting data on Wood Storks for pretty near 50 years, and so we know a lot about Wood Page 211 March 19,2009 Storks. And the data that we have now tell us that when Wood Storks begin nesting in November or December, they have great nesting success. They fledge on average over 3,000 chicks, if they start nesting in November, and over 4,600 chicks if they start nesting in December. However, if they're delayed in their nest initiation to January or later, you can see the precipitous drop in productivity. It's a big hit on Wood Storks not to be able to start nesting early in the season. And the cue to nest is availability of forage. If you don't have those short seasonal wetlands then you do not have early season nesting. And let me go back to this map. You will see in this map that the largest concentration in the Corkscrew Marsh watershed is in the Mirasol area. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you need to kind of wrap it up. It's been about l5 minutes, so kind of get to the end, if you could. MR. CORNELL: Okay, sure. Thanks. I'm sorry. The bottom line is that we're not asking that this project be denied entirely of any development potential. They obviously can develop a project on this site that could be very financially feasible and rewarding. But they don't need to impact almost 600 acres of wetland. I submit to you that under Policy 2.l, sub-paragraph D, that that is a very strong grounds for you all to recommend denial and ask that this project to be redesigned without the golf courses, that would be one suggested redesign feature, in order to better minimize their wetland impacts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the first map that you put up that showed like in sections, what was that map? MR. CORNELL: This map? Page 212 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. What is that? MR. CORNELL: That map is the final watershed master -- watershed restoration master plan from the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. It's going to be -- it was just published in the Federal Register in February. It's going to be submitted as part of the tentative TSP, the tentatively selected plan. This is under the federal process for funding and design of restoration projects. It's parallel to the CERP process, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Planning process. It's how you go through getting money. You have to show what your restoration plans are. And this is basically the result of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study. They've been studying for eight years. This is the result. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The county is not under any obligation to abide by this. MR. CORNELL: No, I'm just showing you that we would be wise to acknowledge and try and avoid impacts to these flow-ways. And in fact, as Mr. Wiley pointed out in Figure 1 in our CCME in the compo plan, we reference an earlier version of this map as a way of -- these are places that we want to protect and include in our watershed management planning process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My second question is, the environmentalist for the applicant said that the only place where there was foraging for Wood Storks now was on the roads that go through the site and a couple of cow ponds. Do you agree with that? MR. CORNELL: I don't agree on that, because it's been documented in increasing frequency that -- the foraging of Wood Storks in forested wetlands. This was not acknowledged in even recent years. But Wood Storks do forage in forested wetlands. Now, whether they're foraging, I personally have not seen them on this site. You would have to ask somebody like Jason who is doing a research project right now. He's been flying for three years regularly during nesting season taking pictures of where these Wood Storks from Page 213 March 19,2009 Corkscrew Swamp are actually foraging. And he has been taking pictures of them in forested wetlands like at the Mirasol site. But the more important thing is that the hydrology of the wetlands still remains at the base of the trees. Whether or not the birds are actually foraging in there, they're growing crawfish and forage fish that actually draw down to other sites for foraging off-site even. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I asked Nicole this question. Did you get a chance to bring this up and any other opinions you had before staff and EAC at any time? MR. CORNELL: This is -- a lot of the data and rationale for our arguments here we have presented numerous times to staff, to the Board of County Commissioners, even to this board and to the EAC, and I presented pretty much the same presentation to the EAC when they had their deliberations. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And this is an environmental issue, and I need to rely on EAC and their opinion for this, because I'm a little confused by all the details. MR. CORNELL: If! were you, I would concentrate on the ability to protect wetlands in that Policy 2.l sub D. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, are you familiar with the Terafina site? MR. CORNELL: I am, I have seen it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They have a preserve that's running down their eastern, which is the adjoining property line ofthis thing. Does that preserve go all the way into the Immokalee Road canal? In other words, is that a natural flow-way prior to hitting the engineered canal? Page 214 March 19,2009 MR. CORNELL: That is part of the existing Cocohatchee west slough, yes. And it connects to -- if I'm not mistaken, it does connect to that canal. All the water coming down through here does end up through one means or another in that canal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what you're suggesting is it would be best if there was more preserve along the western boundary of this tied to that and maybe also joining up to the engineered canal? MR. CORNELL: Yes. In fact, the county bought a piece of land, a 19-acre parcel called the Milano parcel for that express purpose. Also to allow for public access and having some schools across the street. But if you look on the map, you'll see that there -- well, not that map, but if you had an aerial, you could see that the Milano parcel is attached to the -- is contiguous to the flow-way. And if you engineered perhaps a weir with an operable gate on the north bank of the berm that the South Florida Water Management District has built, you could have a restored flow going through that parcel as well. As you could do, and we had made that suggestion -- Jason Lauritsen had made that suggestion for the Mirasol site, you could have weirs with operable gates that would increase the ability for pass flows and peak storm events. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad, do me a favor, put the second page, which is the location map. And Brad, could you point to that parcel? MR. CORNELL: It's a different -- here's a LIDAR map of the same area. And this would suffice. This is the Milano parcel right here. Can you see that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can. I got it. MR. CORNELL: Here's Mirasol, Milano. And the flows come down through here through the top part of Milano. Remember that berm goes along the north bank of the canal. Page 215 March 19,2009 There are opportunities for restoration. In fact, that site has been restored by the county, since they bought it. But not hydrologically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that site is actually the access from the Terafina site to the canal that's flowing through there, which is good -- MR. CORNELL: No, that's Olde Cypress directly above there. This is Olde Cypress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right -- MR. CORNELL: And their preserve area is over here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they have a preserve and Terafina connects to that and Parklands connects to that. MR. CORNELL: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, thank you. Ray, do we have any further public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any remaining questions by the Planning Commission of anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's to Rich or maybe Wayne. When I look at -- it's in the packet. It's Turrell and Hall's adjacent development and preserves sketch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your mic. a little closer to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at the Turrell and Hall adjacent development and preserve sketch. Maybe Ray, could you put that up on the -- it's the third page of the application, or our package. Page 216 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: It's under eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second page back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, kind of what Brad is saying, doesn't that make sense? Isn't there a way that this could be designed, redesigned so that you could actually take the water through a wetland and bring it into the engineering, rather than pick up the engineering at the -- where the -- where the project starts, where lO and l5? I mean, it seems like something is setting up there that looks good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't understand the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that could -- have you looked at, you know, in the design of the site where you went down the western boundary line with preserves, like Terafina, Parklands and Cypress went down their eastern, why couldn't you have gone down your western and connected that to the canal? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess the answer to your question is, we went through an extensive review and permitting process by the Water Management District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and they all believe that we have adequately addressed the listed species issues and the water management issues through the permitting process. Could there be other designs? Possibly. But they've all signed off from a scientific standpoint for this particular project and our requested development. Nothing that's been said today by the two public speakers, who by the way I continually request that they actually bring the experts that they're quoting and relying upon, because neither one of those two individuals, and I have a lot of respect for them, they're no different than me, they're advocates and lobbyists. I bring my experts to back up everything we say and everything we present. They don't. Page 217 March 19,2009 Everything that they've said has been raised and discussed through the permitting process, and been rejected. What we're -- what we've proposed is a project that's permittable and addresses all of the concerns raised by the various agencies. I wrote down some quick notes, and if this is appropriate, I'd like to address those or I'll wait -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you focus on the question of Mr. Schiffer's first. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The concern is, is we've designed this where it's appropriate to address. What the question is is flooding. And we have addressed the flooding issue through our design of the system. Weare not exacerbating any flooding, we are accommodating our impact to the flow-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're doing it by picking up the natural flow and then -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And taking it through our system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Via engineering. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not against engineering, you know that. Via engineering you're going to bring it through the property. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other people are bringing it down through a flow-way. I mean, the fear I have is that if that engineering isn't perfect or it doesn't work, it would actually put more pressure on the other. But the question was -- the best answer would have been yes, we really looked at that and we felt that the engineering process was a better way to go. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It accomplishes the same goal. The engineering process accomplishes the same goal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sooner or later it's engineering Page 218 March 19,2009 on Immokalee, sooner or later it's got to hit engineering. So it's a matter of arguing where it is. I'm done. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I hate to let it go so easily, so I've got a question. Based on the green cross slatches on this, how much land that's going to have the flow-way involved in it is actually getting down to the canal? Because it looks like below the words Olde Cypress it stops. And Rick, or Mr. Bob, Robert or somebody who knows more about this area, how is that flow-way continuing to the canal if it stops on this plan as shown? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, that was the plug that Brad said the county bought to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it doesn't show that, it shows it as existing proposed development. That's what I'm trying to get a verification on. I thought that too, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I'm wrong, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, but it's crosshatched in black, which means it's supposed to be development by this map's legend. MR. HALL: I created that map. And basically what I had hatched in green were those areas that were known to be dedicated as preserve areas. So it stops right there because that property was still in private ownership and there was actually a development plan under review for that when I created this map. I didn't know where the boundaries of their preserve or how they were passing the flow through there, so that's not shown on here, just that the property was slated for some kind of a development activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that map back up for just a minute. I understand now. So the map that you created with the Page 219 March 19,2009 crosshatches showing the flow-way basically or the green hatched area stopping, that doesn't necessarily mean it stops there because of the land that was bought by the county. MR. HALL: The water still flows through there. The water still flows into the land bought by the county. Because of the berm right there, it doesn't flow all the way through into the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where the number 22 is? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the green rectangle right next to the 22? MR. HALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way to connect that green rectangle to the Immokalee Road canal? MR. HALL: There's an upland in the way. There's actually -- if you remember my uplands map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any definitive maps from you all in regards to the project layout so I don't know what was planning to go in there. And my suggestion is that would help a lot to retain some flow-way connection from that side of the project down to Immokalee Road. And it may not be that big of a deal for you guys to accomplish that. MR. HALL: But what I'm saying is that the flow -- there's an upland area or a ridge area at the very southern end of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That stops the flow? MR. HALL: That stops the floor currently. Water only flows that way when it is high enough to go over that upland. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the LIDAR map then? Because that map didn't seem to show that If we could put that back up here now. What increments are these colors in? So green to blue is a foot? MR. HALL: Green to blue is a foot. So if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go over to the area that's in Page 220 March 19,2009 question, it's a little bit more to the right of that map. You've got one- foot difference all the way down to that Immokalee canal; is that right? MR. HALL: You see how the blue comes down and then there's green right above the Immokalee Road? There's like a green kind of half circle there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So the water only has to get a foot higher, which in that area isn't unusual. MR. HALL: That's the upland. It's not unusual, no. But I mean, in terms of just flow right there, there would be a -- the water would still stack up there before it would flow through. It's not a -- it wouldn't be a free-flow system until the water got up to those higher stages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the water got up one foot higher it would start flowing across there and get to that canal. MR. HALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of what I was getting at. Is there a way to do that through your project? I don't know what you have on your project in that area. Is there is a way you couldn't accommodate that? MR. HALL: By -- I mean, redesigning the project. I mean, that would entail re-permitting and redesigning. No, they're talking about running it through the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just leave the natural area right through that one area. It doesn't seem to be restricted all the way to the canal except by one-foot elevation. MR. HALL: And the berm. You'd have to take the berm down out of the canal as well, along the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the berm put there by -- MR. HALL: By the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What brain in the South Florida decided that was a good thing to do? Page 221 March 19,2009 MR. HALL: I don't know. I wouldn't answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they dam up all the water so you can't get to the canal that drains the area. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: There are outfalls there. MR. HALL: Yes, there are four two-foot pipes that go through the berm. And I don't know if we have the map that shows where they're actually located or not. But I mean, a two-foot pipe isn't going to pass enough water through there to do -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here we sit in the smart growth position. Wouldn't it be better if these were six-story, seven-story, eight-story buildings and then the flow-way, the wetlands were kept? Ifwe increase the density. And the benefit ofthat would be the fact that we could keep these wetlands together and create a natural flow- way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- I think it goes -- and I was heading in that direction but now I'm concerned if there's this big berm along Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a manmade berm to obviously keep sheet flow from going in in order to control what does gom. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that, you know, Brad says take away the golf course. That's one option. I don't know if I favor that. I say give them more height, increase the density, that's another option. But the reward for both of those options or any other ones that everybody here could come up with is a much better site plan is terms of wetlands. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the real life ramification is you send Page 222 March 19,2009 us through the permitting process again. And in fairness, in 200 l, this project, same master plan, came through, same impact areas came through and there wasn't an environmental group here to say 586 acres of wetlands impacts was a bad thing. They weren't here to say that. Now all of a sudden it's a bad thing, yet it's the same footprint as we had before. And there's this, quote, control about flood -- this concern about flooding, yet the previous plan had a flow-way that was supposed to be a regional solution to this and they tell us to take the flow-way out. And then we get here today to find out that now they're concerned that there's going to be flooding by that footprint. It's -- I don't know how to even respond to some of the comments that they're saying about this flooding and making it better when we've engineered a solution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Rich, you know, we do get smarter. And maybe by giving you all this aggravation we kept you out of a terrible real estate market. So maybe a thank you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Or you put us into it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybe a thank you would be appropriate. I'm just saying is that, you know, talking to Brad, talking to everybody, and even the question Bob Vigliotti asked is how come we haven't got together, maybe there's a much better solution than this. And we're just keeping the legacy solution -- I'm sure the reasons they're here is because they've learned a lot since that time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'd like to believe that. I really would. But I don't think that's the case. Look, their own exhibits that they've shown you today show you that the flow-way is in Section 10, okay? And we're leaving Section lOin a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of anybody before we go into final comments from the applicant? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just in terms of tossing out Page 223 March 19,2009 ideas that may help preserve more wetlands, what's the necessity of having 36 holes of golf? Why not l8 holes of golf? I mean, I've heard Mr. Y ovanovich tell us a number of times that there is no market for golf course communities anymore. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but why overextend it? Why not l8 holes of golf? You've only got 799 units here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, and in the future we'll have 799 homes and we'll have the opportunity to have 36 holes of golf, and I don't think that's an inappropriate ratio to the homes to golf in the future, if that pans out to what it needs to be as far as the golf course community goes. We're looking for flexibility. And the question becomes are we harming in any way any listed species in doing what we're doing? And the analysis has been, contrary to what Brad's saying, Brad Cornell, the analysis has been there's been no harm to listed species in what we're proposing. We're not asking for a bad form or potential form of development in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the cry that it would be so awful if we had to go back for reviews, if you're going back telling agencies that your impacts are going to be even less is hardly going to cause some big uproar that's going to take you 10 years to get through the process. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've been 10 years through the process at this point. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm saying if we're talking about lessening impacts, not increasing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But keep in mind -- right, in 2001 when this thing was approved, there were no objectors, other than get out of Section lO, which we did. We got a Water Management District permit issued in 2002. Page 224 March 19,2009 There were no objectors to that Water Management District permit in 2002. Now, Nicole will tell you that their most recent challenge didn't let them challenge the 2002 permit. Where were they in 2002? They had every opportunity in 2002 to challenge that permit if they thought it was a bad thing for the environment. They didn't do it. They didn't do it. And you know, there's -- to put us through this process with the hope, the hope that there's going to be cooperation is unfair. COMMISSIONER CARON: But Richard, our Growth Management Plan changed between then and now, so there are other issues. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know what? And I like a phrase that Nicole used. She used the intent word about 2.1.D. She said the intent. Mr. Wiley wrote it. Who better to tell you what the intent of that rule was than Mr. Wiley. It was not a wetland preservation or mitigation rule, it was a water flow rule. He tells you of the intent of that rule. You have very detailed wetland impact rules in Policy 6.2. And it requires mitigation for those impacts. And we have complied with all of those wetland impact rules. You have native preservation rules. We've complied with all of those things. Those are your wetland protection rules. This is a water flow rule, and we've complied with that water flow rule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further questions or comments before we wrap this up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Y ovanovich, you have any closing comments? You do have to address the deviation number two issue that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do that. But I would like to have Steve Walker talk about some of the comments of Brad's map, because he's familiar with that, in commenting on that. Page 225 March 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a wrap-up now, remember. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. But we do get to response, don't we, to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty seconds. MR. WALKER: My name is Steve Walker, again for the record. Just two seconds. The -- I wanted to speak just briefly about the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study map that Brad put up. The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study was a study by the federal government to determine federal interest in terms of building a federal project in this area. It wasn't for any other purpose. And what Brad showed you was an overall plan that came out of that process. What he didn't point out to you was the red areas on that plan. Those red areas, out of all those projects on that map, the red areas are the tentatively selected plan. That is the plan that's going to be presented to Congress. That is the plan that the only part of that plan that has any federal interest in terms of actually being implemented. It's important to understand that distinction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want to belabor the point. I think we've presented the evidence in our packet of information that you've all received to prove to you that we're 100 percent consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Your staff, who's charged with reviewing this, has agreed that we're 100 percent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We've done everything we're supposed to do for this project. We've gone through with the review as we promised for our review of consistency. We're asking that you forward this petition with a recommendation of approval of the Mirasol PUD in its current configuration with the flow-way out, as we promised to take it out, the manmade flow-way out. And again, if you've got any further questions of me or the team Page 226 March 19,2009 of experts that I brought to address any of these questions, we'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Deviation two is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, the deviation number two. I'll read it in the record, thank you. What we would propose is for any cul-de-sac exceeding 1,200 feet in length, the roadway must include at approximately 1,200 feet intervals design features which provide the ability of vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design features shall be allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think -- could you put the emergency vehicles? In other words, they have a standard for hammerheads and all those other things different than an -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Emergency vehicles to turn around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that works, everybody else will be happy, including moving vans and everything else. That sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll generalize it, ifit gets to a stipulation, and then staff can get the language directly from you and we can review it later. Ms. Homiak, you were next. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, Rich, did you -- was it ever considered to move that development over from the west, move it over a little so that that would widen the flow-way there with the other properties, other developments instead of -- and using that as the avoidance to impact -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure there were many, many iterations of a plan that went through the process to determine the avoidance and minimization impacts through the permitting process. And this is the plan that the agencies can support regarding impacts to Page 227 March 19,2009 wetlands, impacts to listed species and impacts to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you don't know what different things went through? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And as pointed out, that in 2001 when they were going through the process, you have to remember, there was development up in Section 10 that was forced south into 15,22. So, you know, that gave a little bit less flexibility. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Was that from the BCC? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was from the environmental groups, and the BCC agreed that that needed to happen and we agreed to move the development out of Section 10. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, I thought you wanted to say something. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, if you do go ahead with this plan as it's written, would that require you to get rid of all the melaleuca within your whole project? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we have to clean it up, to the tune of about $5 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and we'll go for discussion before a motion. Does anybody have anything they want to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciated every bit of testimony that's been given here today. But I find I cannot support this project based on CCME 2.l.D. I can't ignore the fact that this would destroy wetlands and watershed excessively. I believe the master plan needs to be more effective for us to be able to qualify. Page 228 March 19,2009 And while it may be very desirable to have two golf courses, somewhere along the line we have to take note of the water needs that we have for the critters that live among us. So I cannot support it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, this is discussion, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If it's discussion, I will be supporting this motion. I'll probably even make the motion for approval. They've went through every possible environmental. They've been jumping through hoops with the environment and every permitting process there is. And I haven't heard anything from staff, who we rely on, to give us any reason not to approve this. So I will be voting for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll say something, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm going to be -- if this was a new application, the points I made earlier, I would really be staying stronger with, but I think because it's the legacy of this, the respect for the fact that a PUD is a zoning and this site did have prior zoning, that it's really not fair to bring it back as if it's a virgin application. So I'll probably be seconding your motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I don't support the proposal. I don't support it based on 2.1.D. Also 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.6, and 6.2.5. I'm also very -- I don't think we should be approving plans with master plans that look like they were drawn on the back of a napkin. I don't think that gives us enough good information on which to make decisions. I'm still concerned, very concerned about what happens when their outflow reaches the Cocohatchee Canal and what happens downstream, which was testified that nobody has to pay attention to that right now. This canal empties into the Wiggins Pass Estuary System and Page 229 March 19,2009 outstanding Florida waters, and we need to show more respect for that, number one. Number two, this is already an impaired situation, and we do nothing to help that by adding to the situation. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, believe it or not, I'm going to be supporting this project. Because even though I don't like it, to me it seems as though it does comply with all the rules. Even though I dislike the way the rules are set that you can take out all those wetlands and still have a project, and that you can re-engineer things so that by a system of lakes and canals that you can control pollution and outflow in terms of leaving things in a more natural state. But I don't see where they're not complying with the rules the way that they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we have had a lot of discussion today on CCME 2.1.D. And I personally started last week as soon as I got these documents and pulled down six inches of data, many, many maps, trying to understand 6.1.D (sic). And what I found out was there is no definition of flow-ways. There are a lot of things that aren't really defined when it comes to this particular application. So I met with staff, and in particular, Mr. Wiley was very helpful. I found out he is the author, just like we have found out other people who have authored documents that we have reviewed. When actually you get to the author, you find how the document should be interpreted, based on what the author feels it has. And we had that example a few weeks ago. Mr. Wiley stood before us today and says that the interpretation of 2.l.D as he wrote it and as he intended it was in line with the way this project was designed. And for that reason, and for the simple reason that I cannot find a logical way to deny it, I will have to support the motion in favor of it. Page 230 March 19,2009 And with that in mind, I want to ask that the following considerations be in any stipulation to approve. Number one, that the referenced site location for the clubhouse and the restaurant and the community-wide uses be added to the master plan. That the word native be put in front of wildlife sanctuaries. That the references to stories in the development standards table be -- list the stories but not to exceed the 50 foot that's referenced. That the multi-family height be inclusive of the parking garages if there are any underneath the buildings. That the golf course lot setback shall be 10 feet for all structures. And that the deviation number two will be modified with the language read into the record that conceptually it's just that anything greater than 1,200 feet and every 1,200 feet thereafter, some form of turnaround be provided for emergency vehicles. And that's the only stipulations that I've made notes of since this started. I don't know if anybody else has any others they think are needed. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think -- I would like the EAC recommendations included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. That would go -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Yes to both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as that goes, is there a motion then? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved for approval with the changes and staffs recommendations and the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 23 1 March 19,2009 Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion will be by acknowledgment and hand-raising. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raise your hand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. One, two, three, four, five in favor. All those against, same sign. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Motion carries 5-3. And with that, we have finished a painstakingly long day. I hope. Is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 232 March 19,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:l2 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 233