Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/02/2009 R April 2, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida April 2, 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 Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (Absent) David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRlL 2, 2009, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMlAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRlTTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRlATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENT A TlONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2009 RLSA, MARCH 2, 2009 SIGN CODE, MARCH 5, 2009 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - MARCH 24, 2009 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3725, Close Up Creatnres, Inc., in reference to NGALA, represented by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RW A, 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.1.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 acrcs, is located on Inez Road S,W., at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Inez Road and Kearney A venue, approximately';' mile south of Keene Avenue, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 1 B. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-1I546, 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 oft~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 loeated on a .5ic 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 Seetion 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 20, 2008 C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture, represented by Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovieh & Koester, P.A., and Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of the MirasuI 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 sobject 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 Dese1em, AICP) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pettion: V A-2008-AR-13977. Tim Chess of MeDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of CPH Engineers, Ine., is requesting a Varianee 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 huffer 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) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19,2009) B. Petition: V A-2008-AR-14017, Merit Petroleum Company, represented by Bert Thomas, is requesting five Variances from the minimum 50-foot front yard setback requirement of Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.05.05, Automobile Service Stations, for two gasoline pump dispenser islands and a canopy in the General Commercial (C-4) and Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) to allow a reduced setback along West main Street to 48 feet and 31 feet for the dispenser islands and 38 feet for the canopy; and along 7'h Street South to 33 feet for the westemmost dispenser island and 41 feet for the canopy. The 0.45-acre subject property is located at 617 West Main Street, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP) C. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo ofChefty Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of WilsonMiller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Agriculture (A) zoning district. The subject property, consisting of 553.67* acres, is located on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP) 2 D. Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13792, Naples Botanical Garden, Inc. and the Florida Gulf Coast University Foundation, Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress LPA; and Margaret Perry, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., are requesting an Amendment to Ordinance Number 03-29, The Naples Botanical Garden Planned Unit Development (PUD), hy amending Section 4.14, Design Guidelines; Section 6.2, Development Parameters; Section 6.4, Permitted Uses and Structures to allow interim or temporary structures; Section 6.5 Development Standards so the interim or temporary structures have a greater setback distance than the prineipal structures; revisions to Section 7.2, Transportation Commitments of the PUD Document: and adding Section 7.6 to provide Deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property (1 71.2clc acres) is located at 4820 Bayshore Drive at the sonthwest corner of the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, Nadesha Ranasinghe represented by Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, PA and Ronald Nino of Vanasse & Daylor. LLP are requesting a PUD rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District to allow a 45,000 square foot commercial development including retail, service and office uses to be known as Singer Park CPUD. The subjeet propel1y, consisting of 5.14+/-acres, is located on Everglades Boulevard south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Tract 128 of Golden Gates Estates, Unit 47, in Section 30, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Planning Department request to schedule public hearing dates for Growlh Management Plan amendments 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 4/2/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bcllows/cr 3 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Vigliotti won't be here today, so will the assistant vice-chair take roll call, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And who's this person in the yellow? I'm -- oh, Mr. Wolfley. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's a ghost. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 2 April 2, 2009 And Mr. Eastman also had other business, he couldn't make it today either. So both him and Mr. Vigliotti are absent for that reason. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Addenda to the agenda. I don't believe there are any changes. Ray, do you have any? MR. BELLOWS: Were you going to move the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's -- thank you, yes. Is David Weeks in the audience? Oh, he's hiding behind the podium. Okay, yes, we'll move David up till right after Chairman's report before the consent agenda items. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is April 16th. Is anybody not going to be able to make it on April 16th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you're going to make it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe I am, yes. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2009, RLSA MEETING; MARCH 2, 2009, SIGN CODE MEETING; MARCH 5, 2009, REGULAR MEETING Page 3 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, approval of minutes. The -- we had three sets. The first one is February 26th, 2009, for the RLSA. Is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make the motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron made the motion, Ms. Homiak seconded. You get another chance. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. March 2nd, 2009. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Homiak made the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wasn't here. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 4 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The March 5th minutes have a couple of small problems. And I credit the clerk's recording office for catching this. On Page 3 of the minutes under item five, it says approval of minutes, and the first one reads January 28th, 2009 RLSA. The second one reads January 30th, 2008 RLSA. That should be 2009. And the third one reads February 5th, 2008, and that should read 2009. So with those corrections, ifthere are none other, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Ms. Caron, seconded by Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Item #6 Page 5 April 2, 2009 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - MARCH 24. 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On March 24th, the Board of County Commissioners heard on their regular agenda the PUD rezone for the Heavenly CFPUD. That was approved 5-0, subject to Planning Commission recommendations. And they made an additional change or modification and that was to Tract B, to reduce the square footage from 20,000 square feet to 16,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been nice if they had done that here. Maybe they could have gotten a better vote, so hopefully next time that will happen. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And we had one other item on the summary agenda, that was a sign variance for Spring Hill. That was approved on the summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Chairman's report. Just to follow up on what I started talking about a couple weeks ago, and that's the issue of Muni. Code, I think it was either last night or the night before, the county attorney's office sent us all bye-mail the Municode contract. I have -- with today's agenda. I did not have time to read that, but I certainly will read it between now and the next meeting. Mr. Klatzkow, is there anything else you want to add? MR. KLATZKOW: We expect to have everything cleared up with Municode within two or three weeks, and we expect not to have any problems after that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good. Page 6 April 2, 2009 Item #llA NEW BUSINESS: SCHEDULE HEARING DATES FOR GMP AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that would be relief. Thank you. Okay, David, let's get into your item of scheduling. The issue is the GMP amendments. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you've got some down here for 2010. We don't really have to look at 2010 right now, do we? I mean MR. WEEKS: Ifwe want to lock in the board room, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Wow. MR. WEEKS: The longer we wait to schedule these, the less availability there is in the board room. That's why we've looked out so far. For the record, I'm David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. In preparing this schedule, there's a few things that we as staff have to keep in mind. We have limitations on the availability of the board room, limitations on the availability of the BCC members, we have spacing requirements we need to maintain between one hearing and the next. For example, roughly a month between your final regular hearing and then your consent agenda. We also, as you know, are asking for hearing dates on two sets of amendments, the 2007 and 2008 combined cycle, and the Immokalee Master Plan amendment. And we need a certain separation between those two from critical points, points where staff is devoting a tremendous amount of time on one cycle, preparing for your first hearing. We would not want to have a critical time point on the Immokalee Master Plan. It would be too much for staff to handle Page 7 April 2, 2009 at one time. And of course we also have many other major work projects in our department which we have to take into account as well and to schedule. Specifically in the memo sent to you for the 2007 and '08 cycle for which there are a total of 10 private sector petitions and a minimum of one county-initiated amendment, we are asking for you to set two transmittal hearing dates: Tuesday, October 20th and Thursday, October 29th of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, could we take those one at a time? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, when we read this stuff in these packages, it's sometimes all read collectively. I'm wondering if, the pleasure of this board, if the 19th and 20th would be better where we do the 19th and have a carryover on the 20th. Might be simpler to handle than trying to spread it out over two weeks. MR. WEEKS: The reason that we've suggested some separation is, as you know, we hope to avoid this but it seems inevitable that one or more petitioners may want a continuance or, based upon discussion -- prior to the meeting, or during deliberations here there may -- it may be apparent that a petitioner wants a continuance or you yourselves are identifying issues that you might think it's best to delay an item. One day doesn't allow an adequate time for either the applicant or staff or whoever needs to make changes or respond to issues enough time. Weare hoping that by providing about a week or so in between that that would accommodate that circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comment I'd like to make is that if you leave it like it's scheduled, from our experience with staff so far, when we have continuances, it's awful hard to get them done in two weeks, you're talking less time than that, including weekends, probably seven days. So why would you think this would work for Page 8 April 2, 2009 that scenario when you -- I don't know how you guys -- you can't get it done, do public notice and get our package to us within the time frames you've got here between the two dates. So if we had a continuance that close together, what good would it do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: For any major changes, you're right, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they're minor, we should work them out here on the floor, to be honest with you. I mean, I don't know what the rest of you think, but I would just as soon the two days back-to-back. What do you think, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this may be self-serving. The 29th I couldn't make it. But the two days back-to-back is really good to start and then wait a week and then finish. I would rather just hammer something and get it done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the general consensus of the committee? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't have an opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, could we try that? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 19th and 20th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, 19th and 20th of October. Yes, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, if you want to keep that open, there may be something that you could pull into the 29th, in case that ever happens. MR. WEEKS: We'll do that. We'll keep that in reserve as a possible carryover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Let's, yeah, make the 29th the alternative. That would be better, so -- MR. WEEKS: And then jumping ahead to the adoption hearing, Page 9 April 2, 2009 which admittedly is far out in time, but we're suggesting Tuesday, July 20th and Friday, July 23rd of2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, looking again -- we're 15 months from now. We don't even know if this country's going to be here in 15 months, well enough this planning commission. But why don't we again do them back-to-back? Because honestly, on an adoption hearing, we're supposed to have all the issues resolved except for the cleanup from DCA. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those meetings should go quicker. I would expect we could get it done in one day if you use the alternative date as the first time we meet and then the 20th as a cleanup, and leave a second alternative for the 23rd, I think you'd be safe that way. MR. WEEKS: That's fine by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of us? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's the 2012 dates on here? I'm sure they're somewhere. (Laughter. ) MR. WEEKS: Okay. Next -- and let me interject something that I did mention in the memo, and that is that we realize that looking this far out it's certainly possible that circumstances could change, and we may have to scrap these dates and start over. Most particularly, if there has to be continuances, if for some reason this body is not able to get through all of these petitions on these dates we've just set forth here, then we may have to push this schedule out. And if this schedule moves, then the Immokalee Master Plan schedule in all likelihood would have to move again, because there's a certain correlation again between those. The other thing of course is we have to see if the Board of County Commissioners might change priorities. We hope not, we Page 10 April 2, 2009 don't think so, but it's always possible that when they discuss the RLSA five-year review later this month, that they could change priorities of the plan amendments and give that set of RLSA amendments a higher priority, which would then disrupt these schedules. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as the Immokalee area master plan, David, all your dates are in 2010. MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objection on this panel whether any of those dates are to be used? None of them are close together, they're all scattered. So David, I don't know -- unless someone knows one of those dates is bad for them right now -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know if we're still thinking in terms of the availability of the board room, but I'd like to see some of those meetings in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. That's a real good point. Thank you for reminding us of that. We did that before with one or two subjects. And if I remember, our enabling ordinance allows that to occur. Why don't we look at moving those to Immokalee? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we can take a look. One of the -- I would say the main reason we didn't even look over in Immokalee is because of cost. There is an additional cost. I'm not going to suggest to you that it's significant, but as you're aware, we've already had a series of staff cuts and we anticipate -- or I'll speak personally, because I don't know that there's any official word out there -- but moving beyond our division, knowing the budget constraints that the county as a whole is under, I would anticipate that we may have additional staffing cuts. And that's one perspective, and a rather selfish one, perhaps. Page 11 April 2, 2009 But I'm just thinking that if staff is being cut, if other cutbacks are being made, yet we're saying let's don't meet here, let's go somewhere else to meet, that's going to cost additional funds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a year, almost two years off. Why don't we just schedule those dates here like they are, but we can always ask the commissioner from the district to explore the idea with his commission. Between now and then I'll certainly bring it up to him, because he's the same district I am, and Mr. Midney as well. We can suggest the idea to him and see if he wants to bring it up to his other board members and see if they wanted to move it like that. Okay, does that work? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, David. Is that all you need? MR. WEEKS: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we do have one public speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Tim Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: I'll waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's shaking his head no. I didn't know this was even controversial, so you caught me off-guard there. Okay, well, that ends that issue. Now we'll go on to the -- and by the way, for the record, that was number l1.A, moved up to after 7, for the convenience of staff. And any time a staff item like that is on the agenda, if we move it up to the front, it's a lot better than having staff sit here all day and wait for it. Right now with as few as there are, the more productivity can be at their offices than be here, so - Page 12 April 2, 2009 Item #8A PETITION: CU-2003-AR-3725, CLOSE UP CREATURES, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda items. The first one is Petition CU-2003-AR-3725, Close-Up Creatures, Inc., otherwise known as N gala. Does anybody have any changes or corrections or modifications to that particular item? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think I'll be able to vote on any -- either -- any three of -- let me try that again. I won't be voting on any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to abstaining because you weren't here when they were discussed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct. In can spit that one out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I saw in the changes on Exhibit D, it's on item three, it says visitors shall be transported to the site using buses, van or limousine. Then the next word, it says, arrival by private vehicle is prohibited. I think one of the Planning Commission members, I think it might have been Mr. Schiffer, suggested we put the word visitor in front of the word arrival, so that the workers can show up in private vehicle. I had a note to that effect, so why don't we make sure that word's in there. There's no cloudiness as to what they can and cannot do then. Is that okay with everybody? (Nods of heads.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that one change in mind, are there any other corrections? Page 13 April 2, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Homiak. Good. A couple of times we heard you today. That's great. Any comment, any 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. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I abstain. I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, two abstentions. Six to zero, Mr. Midney and Mr. Wolfley abstaining. I guess you guys, you're going to be the same for all -- except you were here for Mirasol, were you not? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nodding head affirmatively). Item #8B PETITION: PUDA-2007-AR-11546, LONGSHORE LAKE FOUNDATION. INC. Page 14 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next consent item is Petition PUDA-2007-AR-11546. It's the Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. for the Longshore PUD. And it's a signage issue that was discussed two weeks ago. Anybody have any corrections or changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, except for the two abstentions, so it will be 6-0, Mr. Midney and Mr. Wolfley abstaining. Item #8C PETITION: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, IM COLLIER JOINT VENTURE Page 15 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN; Next petition is PUDZA-2007-AR-12046. It's the I.M. Collier Joint Venture, Mirasol PUD. We were all passed out one correction that was provided to us. And if you recall, under the maximum zoned height there were two inserts about stories. The words not to exceed the 50-foot mark were supposed to be inserted into that. That now has gotten done. Mr. Schiffer, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, they've also removed footnote nine, which I think we were pretty clear on that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, footnote nine was supposed to stay in. So the only change to the maximum zoned height was supposed to have the words "not to exceed" be added. And I think footnote nine was under the multi-family dwelling one, and that was supposed to stay in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is, is the word in it they changed. It's 50 feet. So they give us that. Five stories. That's fine. I mean, the way it is as it was handed out is fine. The meeting tent where somebody tried to bury the removal of9, and not a good move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 9 was under the multi-family dwelling under maximum zoned height, and that needs to go back in. Is that the consensus? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And they've also removed it from the actual footnote, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, they did? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one thing we should do, Page 16 April 2, 2009 let's -- any time anybody puts an exhibit, especially on the day we're supposed to review it, they should really in red or something really explain what they did. Because I guess had I not discovered that, this thing would have gone through without it, and what is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- if number nine wasn't there, the 50-foot, I don't believe -- well, not to exceed 50 feet. I'm not sure they could override that with the exemption for the parking decks, but it's better to have it there for clarity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because there is a thing in the LDC that allows parking under a building, and that wouldn't count as a story. They could essentially have built a seven-story building. COMMISSIONER CARON: We've been there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so number 9 goes back in, and then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it should stay as it was handed off to us over the weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, do you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the maximum zoned height, it says 50 feet. That means something. And it says five stories, that's okay. And then it has footnote number 9. Why say 50 feet, five stories not to exceed 50 feet? The 50-foot's redundant in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem is we at the meeting, I know I made the notation, I brought it up at the meeting that we needed to add that language. It was agreed to. It didn't get in the document. I don't know if we can change it at a consent hearing. Mr. Klatzkow is shaking his head no. I don't know if it hurts anything, Brad, to have that clarity in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. But number 9's got to go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, number 9 was always intended Page 17 April 2, 2009 to be in. So staff will put that back in. W e'llleave the underlined changes "not to exceed" in there as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And can I ask staff a question? Did they know that number 9 was removed, or is this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, number 9 -- this all happened last night, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, somebody physically removed it, so what's happening here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay? How did the number 9 get taken out; do you know? (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. In speaking with the petitioner last evening, she said that she thought that number 9 was what she had put in there and what we had understood that you wanted for that limitation, and that would suffice. And she took it out because once the 50 foot got put in yesterday, she thought that made it clear, so you didn't need that footnote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd concur with Mr. Schiffer, he's exactly right, any little thing that's missed for clarity becomes a real problem. So I think putting the new language in and adding number 9 sure doesn't hurt, doesn't let it -- removes any question in the future, and that's what I think this board recommended and voted on last time. So I think that's the way it's got to stay. MS. DESELEM: I will make sure that footnote 9 goes back in and the 50-foot limitation that was added on this Exhibit B remains. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think in the future, should something like that be brought to your attention, it should not come out until you've come to this commission, and then we can determine whether or not it should come out. It should not be the petitioner's Page 18 April 2, 2009 representative who thinks something should happen. MS. DESELEM: I apologize for that. I should have jumped on that right away yesterday, and stopped that right then -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Been there too. MS. DESELEM: -- and I do apologize for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, would you send us -- when that's corrected, would you send us what is going to go to the commission? MS. DESELEM: Certainly. Is e-mail acceptable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: PDF is perfect. And all it has to be is Exhibit B. MS. DESELEM: Yes. And the footnote will probably reflect today's date. That way you'll know that it's the changed document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whatever, but okay. That was dangerous. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, very. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Considering it's happened in the past, it was a good catch. Okay, are there any other comments on this one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a recommendation -- or is there a motion to approve the consent item? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion. Ms. Homiak? Karen? It's your turn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But I voted against it last time, I can make the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, on the consent item, yes. Consent just means it's consistent with what the vote was -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So do we have to vote yes for Page 19 April 2, 2009 this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have to vote yes for this unless you believe it's inconsistent with what the majority vote was last time. Is that -- Mr. Klatzkow, is that a fair-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The consent item has been made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many abstained? Mr. Wolfley, did you abstain? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's 7-0, one abstention. Item #9 A PETITION: VA-2008-AR-13977, MCDONALDS USA, LLC (CONTINUED) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we can move into our regular advertised hearings. We have coming back to us today Petition V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonald's USA, LLC. It's for Page 20 April 2, 2009 the McDonald's on the East Trail, so it was continued from last meeting. And J.D. is looking around like uh-oh. Those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The attorney for McDonald's had e-mailed me and just to apparently let us know they had made the changes, and I told them at this point I didn't know of any concerns, we'll just have to see what comes out at the meeting. And J.D., you can represent both yourself and the applicant today. MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go into this, Mr. Klatzkow, without an applicant here, can we proceed? MR. KLATZKOW: It's their application. If they're not here, it doesn't go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, now we know they're not here. Have you any communication with them to tell them that today was their date? MR. MOSS: Right, they were aware of that, and they told me yesterday that they would be here this morning. They are coming from out of town and so I wonder if that has something to do with it. They were coming down from Tampa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with the board's permission, why don't we delay this till later today. Page 21 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Thank you, J.D. With that we'll move on to Petition VA -- MR. MOSS: I don't know where they are either. MR. KLA TZKOW: You can quickly disapprove it. Item #9B PETITION: V A-2008-AR-14017, MERIT PETROLEUM CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, wait a minute. You mean Metro Petroleum Company is not here? Oh, yes, they are. Okay. Boy, times are getting tough out there. People don't even show up for petitions anymore. Petition V A-2008-AR-14017, the Merit Petroleum Company, represented by Bert Thomas. It's on 617 West Main Street in Immokalee. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may proceed. MR. THOMAS: By name is Bert Thomas. I'm an architect from Tampa, Florida. We made it down. And we are representing -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That hurt. MR. THOMAS: As an architect, I've got to get in every dig I can at attorneys. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here, Page 22 April 2, 2009 and I want to commend you and your staff here in Collier County for the great job that they've done in assisting us, somebody from out of town not familiar with your procedures. It has been a pleasure to deal with the people over at Horseshoe Drive. And I'd like for you guys to send some people to Hillsboro County and do a quick seminar on how to assist the public. As you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the first time we've-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe's head should be pretty swelled. MR. SCHMITT: Wow, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's nice to hear, thank you. We usually hear a lot of different things from local people, so -- MR. THOMAS: Well, they should come up to my neck of the woods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. THOMAS: At any rate, as you have seen in your staff report, this property was developed back in 1960; remained pretty much the same condition as it has all these years. This process started because my client wanted to upgrade their fueling capacities according to code. They have underground fuel storage tanks and they wanted to upgrade those per code, and the dispensers as well. As we began to look at it, it became obvious that we wanted to upgrade the site, update the site. That would relieve some traffic issues on-site. There are some places where delivery trucks come in around the back of the store, as you've seen the site plan. Sometimes they get trapped in there because of people coming in to fuel their vehicles, the personal vehicles. And so there's some on-site traffic issues that we wanted to relieve. They wanted to get the fueling vehicles, personal vehicles further away from the driveway. Right now people are practically sitting in the driveway off of Main Street as they fuel their vehicles. Page 23 April 2, 2009 And I already mentioned about the loading and delivery vehicles being trapped. As our initial plan started to be reviewed by your people on the planning commission (sic), they wanted us to also bring the on-site parking up to current parking code, which makes a lot of sense. They wanted us to upgrade on-site traffic markings, directional arrows, stop signage, that type of thing. We also want to upgrade the landscaping, which does not comply at this time. And also we're going to increase the pervious area slightly by removing some paving, which will give us more landscaping areas. The building itself will be painted during this project, which will bring it more into line with the CRA of Immokalee. And there will be a new overhead canopy as the canopy and the dispenser pumps both move to a much more conducive area, for the reasons I stated earlier. And we will be upgrading the handicapped accessibility from the public right-of-way into the building by means of pavement markings and handicap ramps, that type of thing. As you will notice on our zoning application, our initial zoning application, we had asked for two variances. It became obvious during the review process that we actually needed five, because that's a corner -- it was determined it's a corner lot. So some of the initial variances we had requested were reviewed and they need five now. What I have is an addendum letter that was sent to us late yesterday by the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency and signed by Mr. Fred Thomas, who is the chair of that advisory board. And I got this yesterday from Bradley Muckel at Collier County Government, and it lists that they do support all five variances. I can provide that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need it for the record. MR. THOMAS: And so who do I give that to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This young lady here. And at least -- Page 24 April 2, 2009 how many copies do you have? MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, I got it late yesterday as I was running out of the office. Can I give this one to her? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D., is it short enough to read into the record? MR. MOSS: Sure. It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you or the staff, someone needs just read it into the record, then give a copy of it to the court reporter. That way we'd hear it instead of having it passed out to us, that should work. MR. THOMAS: Okay, I'll beg your indulgence then. From the Collier County Building Review and Permitting Department -- or that's to the Building Review and Permitting Department, Mrs. Susan Istenes, Director of Zoning and Land Development, concerning this property at 617 West Main Street in Immokalee. Dear Mrs. Istenes. This letter has been drafted as an addendum to the letter sent to you on September 18th, 2008 for the above referenced project. The Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board would like to take this opportunity to address the permitting issues surrounding the above referenced project. This parcel has been engineered for redesign by the owner, Merit Petroleum, to ultimately be operated as a Shell gas station. However, the owner's representative, Mr. Jack Milholland, of Merit Petroleum and his engineer have had written and verbal correspondence with your staff regarding six points of concern with the redesign, which have halted both zoning and building department approvals. Please let this letter represent the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board's support ofMr. Milholland in the following variance items: A 12-foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback along West Main Street, State Road 29, to permit a 38-foot setback for the Page 25 April 2, 2009 dispenser island canopy. A nine-foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback along Seventh Street South to permit a 41- foot setback for the dispenser island canopy. A 19-foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback along West Main Street to permit a 31- foot setback for the easternmost fuel pump dispenser island. A two-foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback along West Main Street to permit a 48- foot setback for the westernmost fuel pump dispenser island. And a 17- foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback along Seventh Street South to permit a 33-foot setback for the westernmost fuel pump dispenser island. Acceptance of the proposed color of the planned fuel pump canopy. The color scheme of this pump canopy has been proposed as yellow and red, which is the standard color scheme for Shell Corporation's pump canopies. Feedback from the Collier County Building Department is that this does not correspond with the county earth tone regulations. The CRA Advisory Board supports Mr. Milholland in his efforts to revitalize downtown Immokalee, and has advised Mr. Milholland to seek a variance for the items outlined above. Please feel free to contact me for clarification, should it be required. Sincerely, Fred N. Thomas, Jr, Chair, CRA Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. And we need to make sure a copy of that gets to the court reporter, because you talked pretty fast, but I didn't think it would be a problem, because she'll have the original document to refer to anyway, so -- MR. THOMAS: Should I give this letter to her now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be fine, if you don't mind. MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions that I can Page 26 April 2, 2009 answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, as soon as you give that letter to her, we'll entertain questions. And Mr. Wolfley, it looks like you're first up. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If! can speak this morning. You had mentioned CRA, and I'm sure you're aware of along Main Street, 1 st and 7th, they call the bookends, creating the -- you know, the CRA for the-- MR. THOMAS: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- for Immokalee. Are you going to be consistent with that on 7th, since you're going to be right across the street from that -- oh, let me just call it a park or public facility that's going to be there and with landscaping and -- well, and I was going to get into the colors, but you've already brought it up. They're going to be quite -- I don't know whether it would be Mexican or Aztec or that type of design. Are you pretty much in synch with what's going on there across the street? MR. THOMAS: Mr. Wolfley, I'm not prepared to answer that question. I might ask Mr. Moss for some help on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're referring to the CRA's work going on in Immok -- they're the ones that just wrote the approval letter. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't they have looked at that, do you think? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I would have thought. But, I mean, it just seem -- they've gone through extensive research, even down to pots, that there are going to be certain pots and colorations that they're going to be using, and I just think it would be -- I see Mr. Midney shaking his head. It would be a shame to not have that be in concert. Page 27 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure what codes we have that -- beyond our architectural code that allows us to enforce private rules that they have in Immokalee for Main Street. But this gentleman having the cooperation of the CRA in this letter he read to us most likely has reviewed this with them. Otherwise-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, it was just a suggestion. MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, they have seen the site plan. We've had conversation with Mr. Thomas and of course planning staff. What was our final determination on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to talk into the mic., sir. MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, she has to write down everything you say, so -- MR. MOSS: If! may, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The applicant was just asking me about the colors. Mr. Thomas in his letter said that the Immokalee community would be supportive of a pump canopy that is yellow and red. But that does contradict our architectural review criteria and so that would not be permitted. We would require earth tones, except for 10 percent of the canopy facade could be in a primary or secondary color. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and when you just said -- in the letter he said that the Immokalee community. I thought he was speaking as a member of the CRA Advisory Board. So he's not really talking for the community, he's talking for the advisory board. MR. MOSS: Absolutely. Thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, we're talking about setbacks for fuel pumps and variances to shorten them. Is there any kind of a safety issue behind these? By shortening the distance from Page 28 April 2, 2009 the road to the fuel pumps, is that a potential safety issue? MR. THOMAS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Paul, to follow up, you'll see that they're closing. Right now it's wide open into the street, which is really a nightmare. You reference a sheet S-l. Does anybody have a copy of that here? MR. THOMAS: S-l would be the existing site plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. THOMAS: You should have had it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question; did you exhaust the variance remedies of the architectural standards? Have you applied for a variance through those? No? MR. THOMAS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is a procedure to obtain a variance, but -- all right, thank you. Does anybody have an S-l, John, in the file? MR. THOMAS: If you have a question about what the existing site plan is, I can explain it to you probably by using this proposed site plan. Is that what your question is, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just really wanted to see the existing canopy. MR. THOMAS: Oh, okay. If you look at this site plan, the existing canopy exists right just due south of where the driveway shows coming in from Main Street. It sits on an angle pretty much like the existing building does, and it encompasses that entire corner. I mean, you're almost sitting on the property line when you're fueling your vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the aerial map help? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The aerial might help. But it doesn't have any -- Page 29 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: No dimensions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, it's in a different location. MR. THOMAS: Can you see now where the exit -- oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, this is Collier County, we have all the modern conveniences. MR. THOMAS: That's great. This is where the existing canopy is. And you see people are pulling in like this. And if you get two cars stacked up here, they're almost to the property line. And that's what blocks delivery trucks as they come in like this. It's right close to the north property line. And of course this parking doesn't even come close to meeting code with the distances that are there right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the dimension to Main Street from that existing? MR. THOMAS: What is the distance to the canopy or to the gas pumps? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The canopy. MR. THOMAS: Currently it's 22 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report, please. Thank you, sir. MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The use is consistent with the commerce center mixed use district of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And as proposed, it is also consistent with the C-4, and Main Street overlay zoning districts of the Page 30 April 2, 2009 LDC, subject to the conditions provided by staff and the final exhibit to the resolution. And I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the signage, I think I heard Shell, I'm not sure of the -- MR. MOSS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're not trying to prevent them from using the Shell sign, are we? MR. MOSS: No, no, this has nothing to do with signage. This is just the canopy that we were discussing earlier. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, which I can understand. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll ask for any public speakers. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other final questions from the Planning Commission before we close the public hearing? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a comment to make about the staff report. On Page 2 and 3 of 9, staff goes on to reiterate a bunch of other variances that have taken place in this district. First of all, what might have been appropriate for those variances mayor may not be appropriate for this one. They shouldn't be used in this manner. Also, there's a real combination here of residential variances mixed in with commercial variances, mixed in with conditional use Page 3 1 April 2, 2009 variances, and I don't see where that's appropriate for the future. That's just a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Does anybody have a motion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would like to move that we forward Petition V A-2008-AR-14017 to the BCC with the recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Subject to staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney made the motion. Mr. Murray, I believe you were the quickest with the second. Do both of you accept them as finally stated? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray too. With that, is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 32 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. Thank you for your expedious (sic) trip down here from Tampa. We'll have to find out where the McDonald's folks come from. J.D., so you can get back to your productive desk, we will entertain -- MR. MOSS: Well, the McDonald's folks are here. Item #9A PETITION: V A-2008-AR-13977, MCDONALD'S USA, LLC CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw them. So with that, we will go right into petition -- back into Petition V A-2008-AR-13977, Tim Chess of McDonald's, USA, LLC for the McDonald's on the East Trail. All those wishing to participate in this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures? I have the one disclosure I had earlier, so I'll leave it at that. And with that, we'll move into the applicant's presentation then. MR. SA TFIELD: Jeffrey Satfield, CPH Engineers. Miami, but that's no excuse. So I apologize for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is a longer distance, so-- MR. SATFIELD: But thank you so much for hearing us. My presentation will be brief. Not a whole lot has changed since the last couple weeks as far as the variance that we're requesting. I want to first of all thank staff again for meeting with us so quickly and for their time and effort in making this project work. The variance that we're requesting is basically very similar if not Page 33 April 2, 2009 exactly the same, I think, J.D., as before. What we have done is worked with staff to make a few minor site changes to allow for the layout that we needed. And primarily what you'll see up there is the drive-through that is facing 41, we've added in a five-foot additional landscape buffer with Type B, like boy, hedges, the five-foot tall hedges and some palms flanking that area to further buffer the drive-through facility. And so now as we're proposing -- the 41 buffer actually exceeds a minimum B buffer in planting material. We've got the tree spacing of a B buffer along 41, we have the dual hedge of a D, like David, buffer along 41 with ground cover. In addition to that, closer to the building to again assist buffering of the drive-through facility we have a five-foot buffer there with a Type B, like boy, hedge line flanked by palms to give some vertical breakup to that building. Other minor -- there's been some minor shifts in the building to make this accommodation. Other than that, the plan remains largely the same. And I'll leave it at that for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The drawing we're looking at shows that you're going to put a five-foot buffer along the drive aisle? MR. SA TFIELD: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the dimension then be for the backup of those angle parking? It really looks like you might not have the geometry you need. MR. SATFIELD: No, we actually have -- what we did to accomplish this over the plan that you had two weeks ago was there used to be parking on the south side of the building. There was about three parking spaces over there. And basically to accommodate this extra five foot and the geometry that we need for parking and drive aisles, fire lanes, et Page 34 April 2, 2009 cetera, we had to eliminate those parking spaces, shift the building further away from 41 and slightly down. And then we were able to accommodate the additional planting and still maintain the fire lane and parking geometry that we need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, now I'm really con -- the plan that I'm looking at in your thing is exactly the same plan you had last time, only you've written the word five-foot buffer required in there. MR. MOSS: Yeah, if! may, Commissioner, for the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. Because we had to return this back to you so quickly, what we did is we went ahead and just depicted the five-foot buffer that's going to be required, but as noted in the staff report, those three parking spaces, two of them are handicapped on the southern side of the building, they're going to be eliminated and the building's going to be shift downward. So they will be able to accommodate both the five-foot buffer and the parking adjacent to U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're not making up that parking anyplace else? MR. MOSS: No. They amended the parking variance at -- or the parking administrative deviation that was part of this application. Initially they were only asking that one space be eliminated from the requirement, and now I think we're up to eight. And staff didn't have a problem with that because of the sea of parking that surrounds this site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what is -- what's going to be in this five-foot buffer? I mean, what is that really going to achieve putting up alongside the cars? MR. MOSS: Right, exactly. In order -- according to the architectural criteria, in order to have a drive-through adjacent to a roadway, you need to have a IS-foot buffer, and it has to be a Type B. Page 35 April 2, 2009 And because they're only having a 10-foot buffer adjacent to U.S. 41, we wanted them to make up that five feet somewhere else. And so they're going to put the five feet adjacent to the drive-through so that it will further screen cars from the roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, if they could put the five feet where you're showing it, that means they could have also put it up by the road. If you run a dimension perpendicular to the face of the building than the road, I mean, why wouldn't they -- MR. MOSS: That's true. Then they would have had to shift the parking down. But because they're working with this site, they're redeveloping the site, we just wanted them to put the buffer adjacent to the drive-through lane rather than adjacent to the roadway. There's a beautiful buffer of sea grape already existing there, if you've ever driven by this site, adjacent to u.S. 41, and so we just wanted them to enhance that buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'd be adding five feet to it. You wouldn't hurt it at all. MR. MOSS: Well, the -- it's a double hedge row that's required with a Type B, so they have one single hedge row of sea grape. We're going to have them add another hedge row adjacent to the parking lot and then the trees that are required, 30 feet on center for a Type B buffer. So that was the design that we came up with. Are you suggesting that you would rather have them redesign the site to move the five-foot buffer adjacent to the roadway? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just curious, if you could fit it where you show it, you could fit it on the road and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So I'm trying to figure out the advantage of this. MR. SATFIELD: The area to the rear of the site -- and I'll walk and point. But if you see the striping up on the board here where we've got the five foot adjacent to the drive-through. And then as the Page 36 April 2, 2009 striping tapers, it gets smaller. It gets -- there's a small conflict there. We cannot get a full five feet for the entire length of the site because of the building and the angle that we've got it on here. So we attempted to get it on there. But basically the striped area is where we can accommodate the extra space. But then as you get to the rear it becomes less than five feet, slightly. I think we could get it three foot in the back, but that was about as small. We couldn't get the five foot all the way because of the building. We'd have to basically camphor (phonetic) that side of the building as it angled around for the drive-through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And this isn't going to-- so everything on this site -- I mean, it really would be nice to have the final site plan. I mean -- MR. SATFIELD: That's the board shown up here for your review here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't see from here, so -- MR. SA TFIELD: And that's basically, though, it's what you're looking at with the parking adjacent to the building eliminated and the five-foot planter directly adjacent to the drive-through area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do me a favor, slide the rendering to the side, and then maybe Kady in the camera can get a good close-up of that. MR. SA TFIELD: Then what's on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, that Kady's good, isn't she? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Brad, actually having the trees closer to the building might actually be more aesthetic than having them all out by the road and breaking up that asphalt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree. MR. SATFIELD: That was our thought as well. The closer that you're -- you know, the closer you can put a buffer to what you're Page 37 April 2, 2009 trying to buffer, the more effective it is from a visual standpoint. So we felt as well, if we're trying to buffer the drive-through itself, putting it closer with that five-foot hedge line would actually enhance the buffering of the drive-through, if that's what we're trying to hide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then -- and this kind of shows it, I'm fine with that. The only other question is up at the road where the parking is, there's a way in which you could have the curb follow essentially the bumper, which would put landscaping under the front of the car. MR. SATFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which would make that area better. Would you be able to do that? I mean, that would -- MR. SATFIELD: We could, but those areas typically don't thrive well because of the overhang. They typically end up dying off and become little dirt areas, if you will. You know, we can put Bahia down there or something of that nature, or even -- you know, if we were going to do that, I probably would want to see maybe a mulch or something of that -- because eventually because of the overhang, they usually don't thrive very much, so that's why we don't have it shown here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, did you still have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, because I think it's now resolved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know, we're here to review your site plan. The package that we have is deficient in the fact that a site plan hasn't been provided. Before you leave today, could you get this copied and at least distribute it to us in the format you have here so we have something to go by? It may not be as official in the dimensioning, but that,d Page 38 April 2, 2009 combined with testimony, I think it completes the record. And we need to make sure one's provided to the court reporter as well. MR. SATFIELD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it only has to -- it doesn't have to be that full size but, you know, I don't know how you can shrink it down any, but before you leave today, we need to have that for the record. J.D., would you make sure that happens? MR. MOSS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just to follow, when we have the consent agenda, we will have the final site plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is that a-- MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were acknowledging something about the consent agenda. MR. BELLOWS: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you'll have to come back in two weeks for a consent -- you don't have to come back, we will just make sure the consent agenda reads consistent with the testimony here today. At that time we could have a final black-and-white site plan that you've shown here distributed to us -- MR. SA TFIELD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that we understand it to be consistent with the colored rendering that you're going to provide to us. MR. SATFIELD: This layout that J.D. has here is a draft of what we submitted in before we colored and landscaped it as well. It's very -- it's conceptual in nature, not dimension, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just use that? If Page 39 April 2, 2009 you can -- you can make black-and-white copies of that in lieu of the colored one quicker, can't you, J.D.? MR. MOSS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we just make copies of that for distribution today for our packets and one for the court reporter, so we have a reference to what we talked about. And then the cleanup of this will happen when it comes back to us -- MR. MOSS: Sure, I'll be happy to do that. Normally with a variance we just submit a conceptual plan. And that's what this was. It's just a little unusual in this instance that they happen to be submitting an SDP at the same time that they were going through this variance process. So that's why you have something that's more definitive there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While you're up there, you want to do staff report? MR. MOSS: I'll be glad to. I just wanted to add that the project is consistent with the sub- district in which it's located. And subject to the conditions included by staff in the resolution, staff is recommending approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, are there any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- remember the conditions of approval for staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend that Petition V A-2008-AR-13977, known as McDonald's Gulfgate Plaza, Page 40 April 2, 2009 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. All the way over from Miami for 15 minutes. You did great. MR. SA TFIELD: Well worth it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, make sure, though, we get that copy of that black-and-white before we leave today. MR. SA TFIELD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting close to 10:30. I'd rather not start the next one until we come back from our -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, it's 9:30. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's only 9:30. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That never got changed, apparently. Page 41 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, I thought I was -- MR. SCHMITT: Time flies when you're having fun, huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought something was wrong, but that's okay. So we don't know what time it is. I understand. Okay, with that, we'll go into the next one, then. I was considering Cherie's fingers. Item #9C PETITION: RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, the Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented by John Passidomo. It's on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. 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 had one or two conversations with John Passidomo regarding the issues today on the agreement from the past. And we will certainly be discussing all those today. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move forward. John, it's all yours. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth Avenue South, in the City Page 42 April 2, 2009 of Naples. Our firm represents Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc. in agenda Item 9.C before you for consideration this morning. Our project team is comprised of Project Planner Margaret Perry, Transportation Engineering Jeff Perry and Senior Ecologist Tom Trettis of Wilson-Miller. All are available to respond to any technical questions in their respective fields of expertise. Olde Florida Golf Club member, corporate secretary and owner's representative, Bill Barton, and Olde Florida Golf Club General Manager Tom Wildenhaus, are also available to address any operational, historical or practical questions you may have concerning the property. The subject property is comprised of approximately 554 acres of land located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, two miles east of Collier Boulevard. It is designated rural fringe mixed use district neutral land by the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, and contains an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, supporting facilities and open space. Permitted uses as of right within the rural fringe neutral land designation include agriculture, single-family homes and golf courses. Back in 1991, prior to the creation of the rural fringe, at a time when Collier County's appetite for golf courses and golfers seemed insatiable, the property was rezoned from agricultural to golf course, and the existing golf course was thereafter built in what was then assumed to be the first of two golf courses on the property. Today of course two golf courses no longer make sense, as changing conditions render the golf course zoning, which only allows golf course, clubhouse, maintenance facilities and a caretaker's residence archaic. The petition before you therefore proposes to rezone the property from golf course to rural fringe, neutral land agriculture to Page 43 April 2, 2009 achieve three principal objectives: First, to align the zoning of a land with permitted uses as of right under the future land use designation for the property. Second, to ensure compatibility with adjacent agriculturally zoned land. And third, while continuing use of the part of the property for the existing golf course, to provide flexibility for a broad range of permitted uses to be able to respond to market conditions as they emerge for the balance of the property. No development plans are proposed because at this stage none are being considered. A standard rezone application that does not require a master plan is therefore presented to you for consideration this morning. We appreciate staffs recommendation of approval and respectfully request your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of approval. I'll be happy to try to respond to any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was short, John. Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, sir. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you be kind enough to illustrate there -- we have that on the computer screen. Would you show us where the houses would be built, if you know? MR. P ASSIDOMO: We don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you know whether or not the golf course will be impacted as a result of this building? MR. PASSIDOMO: We assume not, but we don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is possible that the golf course can be reconfigured, or it could be -- I think there are two golf courses there, right? Page 44 April 2, 2009 MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is one existing golf course. There were two originally contemplated. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I see. MR. P ASSIDOMO: But there's one existing. And there's no market for a second golf course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Well, I was concerned whether or not you were going to reconfigure the golf course and move it around in anticipation of putting housing in. MR. PASSIDOMO: No, Mr. Murray. The likelihood of that is extraordinarily remote. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. And let me see if I had one more question. Oh, yes. In utilities review, I noted that -- okay, the county may not be in a position yet to move out there with sewer and water and so forth. I think they have water, they don't have sewer. How will the -- what is it, one to five acres? Will they put in a septic system now or can they facilitate by also introducing sewer, piping? Is that part of the plan? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is no plan. There's nothing on the radar screen. And they'll abide by the regulations as they're in place at the time when they're prepared to move forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would become an additional expense at a later time. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably considerable as well. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question. It's probably my own ignorance, but why are you going to agricultural zoning as opposed to a PUD? It's not that you're contemplating farming the area. Could you explain that to me, please? MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Midney. Page 45 April 2, 2009 Well, we wanted to do three things, as we indicated: Most importantly to align the uses in the zoning with the uses as contemplated for neutral lands under the Growth Management Plan. And those permitted uses as of right include not only agriculture but also the single-family dwelling units and the golf courses. The existing zoning land only permits golf courses as a permitted use. We want to be able at the appropriate time, when the market can accommodate it, be able to respond to a demand for any of the uses within the rural lands agricultural zoning designation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I had another question, too. Under maximum density, it's one dwelling unit per five gross acres, but for maximum lot sizes only one acre. Could you explain that discrepancy. MR. P ASSIDOMO: You may want to ask staff. That's what the code says. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is the tax burden on that property at the moment, and how will that be affected with a change of zoning? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Kolflat, I don't know what the tax burden is. I think I may have the property appraiser's record somewhere. But unlike the typical kind of situation where you can eventually expect to see when you down-zone -- when the property's zoned agriculture, the amount of uses are reduced. Here the amount of uses would actually be increased. So we have no way of knowing how the property appraiser will look at this piece of property. But the appraisal will not -- the appraised value will not go down because the amount of uses that actually are permitted will go up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the taxes would go down, Page 46 April 2, 2009 would they not, with this change? MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir. No, sir. Because right now the property can be used for only golf course and related facilities. Upon the standard rezone, the property could be used for golf course but could also be used for agriculture and for single-family dwelling units. So there's no reason to believe the taxes would go down. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Access to the site right now is through an extension of essentially lining up with Vanderbilt Beach Road; is that right? MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's right, Mr. Schiffer. There's I think an Existing Conditions Access Management Plan that Mr. Perry may have submitted. I'd be happy to display it, if you'd like to see it. But there's a series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that lead in that two miles from Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And does this property have -- in the extension of Vanderbilt, where will this property be located, on the other side of the canal or on -- in other words, where does the Vanderbilt extension go in relation to this property? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There is also a Future Conditions Access Management Plan that's in this submittal. And I'll be happy to display that, if you'd like to see it. You can see that. I think what you see there is the future condition with the realigned Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and then a connector illustrated in the yellow highlight, connecting that to the existing right-of-way pattern that runs east/west. And again, that's in the materials I think that were circulated to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's in the packet? Anybody else find it? You said it's in here somewhere? Page 47 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: It's attached, Commissioner Schiffer, to a sheet that is labeled excerpt from January 28th, 2009, letter from the agent responding to county questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what's going to happen, the extension is going to hop across the canal, and you'll be on the other side of it, as opposed to running -- why wouldn't it be -- well, I think that's a -- never mind. Logic long gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, can you put that thing that was back up here up there? Ray, or whoever had the overhead on there, could you leave the one that was on the overhead on? I don't know who had it. No, not that one, the original one you started with. Okay. That piece of property is owned by -- how is that -- I think I read the disclosure, 275 different people? MR. P ASSIDOMO: 275 different people are the shareholders in the corporate entity of Olde Florida Golf Club that's the lot holder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And are they divided up into lots so you know what they own, or they just own a piece of that whole thing? MR. P ASSIDOMO: The corporation owns -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the corporation. MR. P ASSIDOMO: The shareholders own the corporation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Mr. Murray, I know the answer, I wanted it for the record from Mr. Passidomo. Thank you. Through their ownership process, when did that corporation -- when was that corporation formed as the owner of this property? MR. P ASSIDOMO: I frankly don't know. I think the property Page 48 April 2, 2009 was acquired in two different parts, one in 1993 and one in 1997. But beyond that, I don't know. Mr. Barton's here and he could give you some historical perspective, if you'd like him to testify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know when the corporation was formed? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the agreement that was signed by this group for the Ordinance 91-16, it says the -- it's on Page 3 of the recorded instrument. On the top on number four, last item said -- it said, the applicant should be advised that future land development activities in the area may be subject to future land use control, consistent with the above regulations. I've heard you talk, and you keep referring to this as going back to ago land. Well, this is a neutral area in the rural fringe. I'm sure you mean neutral area, is that -- it's going back to neutral lands designation? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, it is. It is clearly designated neutral lands right now. I didn't mean to suggest it's going back to the same agricultural zoning it enjoyed in 1991. It's going back to a newly created land use zoning category which is neutral land agriculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a series of other questions, but I've certainly got to get transportation up in a minute. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant shall grant a maintenance easement to South Florida Water Management District/Big Cypress Basin over that portion of this property which lies within the needed 20- foot maintenance easement along the Cypress Canal, measured from the top of bank. Do you know if that's been done? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't. I assume it has been done, but I have no reason to believe it has not been done. Page 49 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a paragraph in this agreement concerning the roadway, and it concerns Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I notice from one of the aerials provided in the package that Vanderbilt Beach Road extends from 951 straight over until it hits your property, and then it has to cross the canal. And I'm not sure after that where it goes, because my maps don't go that far. But based on a reduced aerial, I notice that the other properties to the east have land to the south of them, it looks like enough to fit the road. Yours seem to be the only problem in that extension. And that extension, by going across the canal, has created additional cost for bridges and taken out people's homes. Yet in your agreement that was signed -- and this is more of a question for staff, I don't know how it's going to affect you yet, but I want to make sure I state it for the record so staff can explain it when I get transportation up here. The petitioner shall extend the Vanderbilt Beach Road from its terminus to the project's west property line. Such construction shall be in accordance with county standards as set forth in Ordinance 82-91, in the subdivision regulation's ordinance 76.6. The roadway shall parallel the southern boundaries of Sections 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 26 East and positioned adjacent to the Cypress Canal to the south. And it looks like that's what was done. So transportation will have to explain this, but it's apparent that the road was intended to go straight through, but for some reason they didn't go through your property. I think that's convenient for you. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but I want to understand staffs reasoning on that. So that's why I belabored this point a little bit, to explain to you where I'm going to go next with them. I see Mike Green back there, he's going to have fun with that. The staff report says you intend to preserve the 18-hole golf course and permit the addition of up to 110 single-family homes. Do Page 50 April 2, 2009 you know how that 110 was arrived at? How did you come up with that number? MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's a function of the zoning under the proposed zoning district, one unit per five acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you figure that's five acres for that? Because according to the neutral lands LDC requirements under density, maximum gross density: The maximum gross density in neutral lands shall not exceed one dwelling unit per five gross acres (.2 dwelling units per acres), except that the maximum gross density for those legal nonconforming lots or parcels in existence as of June 22nd, 1999 shall be one dwelling unit per lot or parcel. Now, your testimony was that that was one parcel by a corporation prior to '99. So that means you get one unit. I'mjust wondering how you get around that. MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir, I don't think we get one unit. The parcel is 554 acres. One unit per five acres is 110 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well maybe J -- or somebody at staff can explain that to me. Because if you get more units, I think you'd have to go into some kind ofTDR process or whatever to increase the density through the clustering provisions. But if this was one parcel prior to '99 and that language says that, I don't know how you'd qualify for 110 units. And by the way, John, I didn't mention this to you when I talked to you yesterday, because as I told you when you and I talked, I would have to look at this language last night, and so that's when I read the language. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I didn't have a chance to even bring it up to staff either. But I certainly, from Kay or staffs perspective, I'd like an explanation of that sentence and how it applies to this parcel. And if this isn't considered a parcel that's practical for that Page 51 April 2, 2009 application, then where's the limitation that does say a parcel of such size doesn't apply to that application? Because I don't see it. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I might respectfully suggest that that's a question of interpretation of the code. We're very comfortable with our own interpretation of the code. And the question before the commission this morning is simply whether the property is appropriate to be rezoned from the golf course zoning district to the fringe neutral lands agricultural zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the -- unfortunately the staff report is replete with references to 110 single-family homes. And I think you had a TIS or something provided in other documents that referenced 110. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're in the record. Now I want to make sure that the record's correct. And if it takes an interpretation from staff to do that, I certainly want that interpretation before this -- before I can understand what this means, so -- MR. P ASSIDOMO: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a comment I have to make to you on that one. And when staff gets up here, we can get into that. Another thing, since you -- one of the items in your agreement concerning the future land use -- or future land use regulations that you agreed to abide by, I know you cannot do the Audubon Signature Program, but is there a commitment that the Audubon's Cooperative Sanctuary Program will be followed? MR. P ASSIDOMO: It has in fact been designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there was an item, I guess this is a staff issue, on density blending. Because I now find out that you're not qualified for density blending, so I'll get that clarification from staff. Because that's inconsistent apparently with the report. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Don't need density blending. Page 52 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last thing I think during the NIM, one resident wanted clarification there be no commercial uses. I didn't find an answer in this write-up that we received. Is there any commercial uses being planned for this property? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No uses are being planned for this property, Mr. Chairman. The -- no commercial uses are permitted in the zoning district to which we make application, so the simple answer is that none are contemplated and none will be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to the first question about the 1991 agreement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- for part of that rezone? You may want to make -- what I've done is taken the liberty of showing you the existing conditions. And this is in your packet, so I hope you've had an opportunity to peruse this before. But what you can see is this is the two-mile stretch running east on Vanderbilt Beach Road extension as it exists today from Collier Boulevard. And what you can see from this is that there were a series of publicly dedicated right-of-ways and private easements that led right up to the Golf Club of the Everglades. And what happened upon submission of this, the prior application in 1989 to rezone the property from ago to golf course is there was not legal access all the way to Olde Florida. And those proceedings were suspended until Olde Florida was able to actually acquire that last leg that you see designated there in this kind of yellow color. You see the reference to easement and the recording information to that easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I read all the testimony from November of 1990, I believe, and then the final on February 21st of '91. And that's consistent with everything that reads there. But that also strengthens my argument that the intention of Page 53 April 2, 2009 Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was to continue on. How it didn't go through your property but yet they made every other property prior to yours provide that extension distance is a little puzzling to me. And that's another issue we'll get into in a minute or two. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chair, you're going to want to pose that to staff, but let me suggest to you that in 1991 no one thought Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to go beyond this terminus. And Mr. Barton was here at that time, he can testify to that effect. It certainly wasn't in the contemplation of the Board of County Commissioners in 1991 that they were designating an alignment for a road that wouldn't come to fruition until 15 years thereafter. It was not any plans, it wasn't within contemplation by anybody. The simple references in the agreement to which we refer are an absolute insurance that access was acquired to the property so it didn't -- it wouldn't alter the means of access through the residential lots in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ironically there's some parcels to the east that have a section or portions of their property stopping shy of that canal, which to me they would have only done that so a road was coming through. How it was missed on your propert -- and it's not -- I'm not saying it's through any fault of yours. I just want to find out from transportation where their mindset was and how that, if anything, be corrected through any process here today. So thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to truly understand. I gather that this was -- this is forward planning now. In other words, you made a statement that you're not going to do anything with the property, you just want to rezone. MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So any change in taxation would only occur on the occasion of the first structure being Page 54 April 2, 2009 introduced; in other words, a house. Would that be a correct statement? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Well, you want to talk to the property appraiser about that, but I'm not sure that is a correct statement. The fact is the property appraiser assessed value of land and improvements, and one of the things they consider when they assess the value of the land is what you can do with the land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, I understand that part. In other words, the moment you would get the rezoning, the value of the land increases, effectively, because the taxation rate would be applied; wouldn't that be correct? MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'm not going to acknowledge it's going to increase or decrease, but somebody could come to that reasonable conclusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I too share the concern that I hear expressed, and I didn't express mine as strongly as I would like to have with regard to the changes that were made with regard that road and how others have been impacted by it. And I appreciate that the corporation sees a future, but I see a juxtaposition there that doesn't seem very fair to me. But that's just -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Murray, with all due respect, the only issue in front of the Planning Commission today -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- is the proposed rezone. The Board of County Commissioners made their determination a couple of years ago as to the appropriate alignment of that road. Presumably there was a rational basis for their decision, and we respectfully request it's not appropriate to retry that now when the only issue before the Planning Commission is the rezoning request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. In my heart, though, I had to make my comment. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir. Page 55 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, John. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff report. MS. DESELEM: Good morning again. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning. You do have the staff report, which is revised 3/17 of '09. And you have the -- on Page 1, the requested action explains the geographic location. And on Page 2 is the description of the project that coincides with what the petitioner has explained as well. It shows you the surrounding land use at the bottom of that page. And on Page 3 it goes into the Growth Management Plan consistency review, and that's already been hit on to some extent already. It does identify that it's in the neutral lands. Talks about the maximum density and allowable uses within that, and specifically addresses the golf course or the driving range within that also. And it does talk about some of the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary programs that were identified for this parcel. Talks about the native vegetation and preservation requirements. And there was a question, it talks about the density blending, and no density blending is proposed for the subject site. There was a question posed to staff from Mark Strain, and it has been explained by David Weeks that this parcel is not applicable to have these density bonus units. So that even though it says they're not -- blending is not proposed, they don't qualify for it anyway, so they would not be doing that. There is a transportation element discussion on Page 7 wherein transportation staff finds that the roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the maximum density that could be allowed Page 56 April 2, 2009 by the compo planning. Explains the Vanderbilt Beach Road impacts and the County 951 impacts. Also explains that there are no environmental issues on this particular project as part of the rezoning. Any issues that would arise would be addressed later in the development order process. Staff does provide an analysis beginning on Page 7. And it touches on the transportation review, environmental review, utilities review, and goes into more depth as far as zoning and development reVIew. You have rezone findings beginning on Page 9 and going through to the end of the report that support staffs recommendation that this petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of the petition. And as you've already discussed, Michael Green from transportation is also here to address specific transportation concerns you may have. With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to address them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Kay, I have one, and it goes back to the question. I read the report where it said the maximum density one per five gross acres, but the italicized reference from the LDC that was put in our report was not the complete paragraph that's in the LDC when it talks about maximum gross density. Besides saying it's one to five, it goes on and provides the exception that I read earlier. Do you have any -- do you know why that exception wouldn't apply to this case? MS. DESELEM: This particular portion of the staff report was prepared by compo planning. But I'm not saying that I don't know, I'm just saying that that's where it came from. And I don't know why it Page 57 April 2, 2009 wasn't put in. But my understanding is that this particular site would be reviewed as an overall site. I don't know that it would be limited to one unit for the overall size of the project. In fact, in the staff report it does say that they would be allowed that maximum density of 110 dwelling units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they derive the density from this simple calculation of the first few words in the -- under the neutral land designation, which simply said one dwelling unit per five gross acres, and it didn't tell us if they took into consideration the exception that's there involving the date. And I remember when that happened when -- I was in this county when the Governor put that moratorium in place. And because they were changing a lot of things, they were concerned about the size of some of the lots out there. And I think there was another property to the south called Hobschmits (phonetic) or some -- there was a big lawsuit to the south around a large piece of property over their calculation of density. And I don't remember the name of the owner. It started with an H, Hubsman or something like that. But if that's -- if this is applicable, then that 110 is in question. And since that's on the table here in this staff report, I certainly would like to get an answer for it. And I know David was here. At the time I didn't have the question, because I thought it would be answered by you all, so I should have asked him when he was here this morning, but I failed to do that. Ifhe's listening and could either e-mail Ray or call in or something, I'd appreciate it, so -- MS. DESELEM: Well, I can state that this is information and it talks about a maximum density that could be sought, but in no case does this rezoning approval grant any density. That would all be addressed through the development order process. This is just general guidelines as to what the maximum could be. But in no case are we Page 58 April 2, 2009 approving that density for this rezoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then maybe a solution without a further clarification would simply be that there's no density provided through this rezone process, it will have to come out of any application in the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. DESELEM: Right, that would be -- this is just general information as to maximums that could be allowed. Density isn't by right anyway. You know, you're eligible to seek it, but there are no givens. You don't know what the configuration of the site might be, you don't know how they might design it. It might turn out that they can get, you know, some other number, 52, 47, 75. We don't know. We're just evaluating what the maximum that could be allowed as a general information. But the rezoning is not conditioned upon any density number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your staff report on Page 10, number five. In the future it's just a reference I'd like to mention to you. The second sentence of that answer says, the proposed zoning change is appropriate because its relationship to the FLUE is positive. Well, I think you mean is consistent in what you -- I don't know why you would be the judge of it being positive or not being positive under the material provided here today. MS. DESELEM: Yeah, the term positive is to mean that it's consistent rather than inconsistent. With the understanding that inconsistent would be negative, consistent would be positive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, consistent also -- I mean positive also means there's a plus side to approving this. I haven't seen that yet other than -- I haven't seen it, other than someone's going to make some money somewhere. I don't know, the tax -- county may increase taxes if homes are developed. But I just would think consistent is a better word in the future. Under number seven, the text of number seven reads differently Page 59 April 2, 2009 than what your answer I think says. It says, in the first sentence, whether the change will create, and then the word or, or excessively increase traffic congestion. So if you take out the word "or excessively", because it's saying create or excessively increase, your answer is, the proposed change will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion. Well, we know it will create traffic con -- more -- increase traffic if they put anything on there besides the golf course. And I guess that's the premise under the 110 or any kind of additional housing that they could possibly change with their zoning application. Which if we stipulate they don't get any density, I guess that question goes away, so I've just answered my own question. MS. DESELEM: That was easy for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't know you were going to -- I didn't know my first answer was going to be what it was, so that created no need for the second answer. Okay, that's all-- unless there's more questions of staff, transportation needs to address some issues. Thank you. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I mentioned to you yesterday my question for today concerning the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and you were going to try to do some research. Why was -- if Vanderbilt Beach Road was such an issue, and I read the minutes of the meetings back in '90 and '91, they really -- the board at the time was insistent that this project make sure that road got to the west side their proj ect. And I notice some properties to the east of this project have spacing above the canal on the north side narrow enough to make it appear as though it's a road alignment spacing or something of that nature. Why was this project not considered to have Vanderbilt Beach Road extension run through it? Page 60 April 2, 2009 MR. GREEN: I couldn't find in the LRTP at the time that the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension was planned to go beyond. So much like we're doing today with the LDC 10.02.05(E), we require that the project extend public access to their site. To their site. Not like we did with the school or the church on Canon and Molder off of Immokalee, the same conditions. They're having to improve those roads down to their site, show us that they have easements and legal rights. But that doesn't mean that there's an intent to continue those through their site to the extent of the rest of the network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying when this project came in for approval in 1991, there was no plan that showed the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension going further east than the western terminus of this project? MR. GREEN: I did not see one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go right ahead. I've still got more but-- , COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on, though, and leave that point. Then why in their agreement is there under a transportation commitment number one should the developer or other property owners wish to extend Vanderbilt Beach Road, they have to do it according to your specs. So obviously there was some consideration at the time of extending that road by these people. And at the time they would have to have been using their own property, unless they were going to go out and buy, like you all have, and I doubt that seriously. MR. GREEN: You see the condition under planning in the section above transportation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Page 61 April 2, 2009 MR. GREEN: It's strictly a requirement that they extend the road to their property. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. MR. GREEN: The section under transportation is worded if they choose to. Like I said, today -- and I don't know that this was necessarily in our LDC in '91, but what we use today is 10.02.05(E). It's in our LDC. We request that they show that they have legal access to their property and that they improve to county standards roads that they use to access it. COMMISSIONER CARON: There was intent here, in my Opl1l10n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to my discussion with you yesterday, were you aware of this agreement? MR. GREEN: I hadn't read it personally. I pulled it after our discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of study on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, there's been a lot of conflict on that issue. And some of the people involved in this, I being at time to time one, I don't remember ever seeing this agreement before until it happened to come to us today as a result of the change that the petitioner is requesting. I think it's interesting that the language in the agreement -- and I wish that language had been introduced to the BCC at the time they made the decision to move this road south of the canal and the cost that's incurring to taxpayers of the hundreds of millions of dollars to do this route the way it is now when we had language that may have helped with a different argument back then. MR. GREEN: May have. But this language doesn't undo the eight or so well sites that public utilities has along the north side of the canal that would also -- are an immense cost to relocate, if you were to put the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension across there. Page 62 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have well sites all over the county. Under the transportation element on Page 7, the reference write-up, it says it's got a 6.8 percent significant impact on the roadway. And it says, this segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road is currently in the right-of-way acquisition process to accommodate a plan expansion outside the five-year capital improvement plan. The remaining capacity and level of service are not currently reflected into the adopted 2008 AUIR. What are you trying to say by that sentence? MR. GREEN: Vanderbilt Beach Road east of951 is not a concurrency segment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning? MR. GREEN: There is -- when this project came forward, we had -- we were approaching 60 percent design plans for the BCC adopted alignment. And that is what the right-of-way acquisition is working on this first segment of the new corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they have a 6.8 percent significant impact on the roadway but they're not in the concurrency management plan, it doesn't mean anything. Is that what it boils down to? MR. GREEN: Basically. Their 6.8 percent impact is on the surface volume of only a two-lane road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How bad of an impact will the addition -- would those trips -- well, those are existing trips. Any new trips, how would they have to justify them, should they come in with the more uses if they get this rezoned today? MR. GREEN: There's a commitment that I have in part of the application from Olde Florida that basically says that any additional traffic impact statements would be required to analyze any proposed change in uses, and they'd have to come back in with another TIS with their plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that commitment found? Page 63 April 2, 2009 What page of what paperwork? MR. GREEN: I'm not sure that it's in your staff report. It was in the documentation that has been provided during our review process. If I could put this up on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. So it's the purple language in the second -- the second set of purple language you've got highlighted there? MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a commitment, you're saying. Is it a code requirement? MR. GREEN: Yes. Any time they come in, they're required to provide -- any application is required to have a TIS accompanying it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if you got a -- if they put a house up in there, they'd have to have a new TIS for the house? MR. GREEN: Not for a single-family home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if they put up 110 single-family homes? MR. GREEN: If -- when they come in with the plat, once the plat and TIS that goes with that is approved, then they can build each of those single-family homes without further transportation applications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way you catch them is if they come in with a plat. Are they required to come in with a plat? This property's owned by a corporation, the corporation wants to go in and build 110 homes for their 275 people to use on, say, an interim basis. Do they need a plat? MR. GREEN: I don't know if they need one through our process or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an interesting question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, I'm a little puzzled as to what's going on here with this whole application today. I'm concerned about what was missed apparently. And it wasn't the applicant that Page 64 Apri12,2009 missed it. I think apparently there's some opportunity here that seems to have been missed by that agreement that was in place that seems to be newly discovered. But I would like any commitments that you need to make sure you get a TIS and you get the traffic addressed, that they're stipulated during this rezone process, instead of just relying on platting, if they chose not to plat. So I'll ask the applicant before this is over if they have any objection to platting any future uses that may go in there. And we could require platting as part of the rezone stipulation. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let me just ask: While they have to provide a TIS, what will happen? You just said that they were not part of the concurrency system. So if they're not, it doesn't matter that they prove that they're going to highly impact the road if we can't do anything with that information. MR. GREEN: They're not going to have a negative impact. They have 68 total trips on their -- net new. I'm sorry, they have 68 net new trips that are utilizing under the existing two-lane version of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's not a concurrency segment. The first concurrency segment is 951. They have a less than one percent impact on 951. So it's safe to assume that when Vanderbilt Beach Road is extended as a six-lane road, they will have also less than one percent impact on that road also. COMMISSIONER CARON: The intersection improvements that you're making at 951 are intended to solve any issues there. They're not just, this is the best fix we can have, correct? MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: They are actual solutions. The reason I ask that is going back to when we were doing Growth Management Plan amendments at Orange Blossom and Page 65 April 2, 2009 Airport. Whatever fixes were involved there, commitments were made to -- but they were not solutions, they were just -- MR. GREEN: Unlike Airport-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the best we can do. MR. GREEN: That's correct. Unlike Airport and Orange Blossom, which the proposal is an interim fix and then an ultimate solution, Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 is an ultimate solution that's designed for the traffic assumed to be utilized at that intersection in 2030. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If Vanderbilt Beach Road went through this project instead of going -- crossing the canal, taking out homes and I guess assuming then go back up on the north side of the canal, I don't know where it goes after that, would going through this project have been a less expensive process for the public? MR. GREEN: I don't know the answer to that. I know that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean by buying out the golf course or destroying the golf course, I'm just saying had the process ran straight along that canal and not had this effort to go take out homes, it seems to me it would be a no-brainer, it would be less expenSIve. MR. GREEN: It eliminates some of the conflicts to homes in this section. There are still conflicts, there are still displacements in other areas of this corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process we're asking to approve today for this project is going to open it up for more uses. And they're talking about one of the uses in here was 110 potential residential uses. No doubt in a club of this nature or a property of this nature that those uses would be very valuable. So the project stands to make a potential windfall of millions of dollars through a process of rezoning when they originally right now are just a golf club. They can't sell anything else, they can only sell the golf club. Page 66 April 2, 2009 It seems to me that if transportation may have been in a position to consider some use of that southern tier property, because they're going to have to do a lot of work on that property anyway, and realigning a golf club when they're going to build homes, especially realign it so it's better amenitized (sic) for the homes they might build may not be a bad thing overall for the project. Did anybody from transportation attempt to explore that avenue with the applicant? MR. GREEN: We did. Actually it was explained to us that the existing golf course was going to be left untouched and the new homes were going to be isolated to the areas that were undeveloped that surround that golf course. So there weren't any new roads internal to the project for homes planned between the existing golf course and the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't look at the layout of the course, but every course is changeable. MR. GREEN: I'm not sure, it may be hole number two that runs almost parallel to the canal. There's a tee box in the fairway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see that, but I also see that north of the -- what looks like the tee boxes for hole number two are some vegetated areas, and it would only be able to swing hole number two up to the north in order to leave some space to the south in which a road could go through. Just a thought. I didn't know how far you guys explored it. But I'm trying to understand how this is a benefit. MR. GREEN: Through the -- there was I believe three public meetings during the corridor and alignment study process for Vanderbilt Beach Road. And there were conflict matrices that were put together that identified habitat impact, environmental impacts, public and private residential impacts, socioeconomic impacts. And the board I believe chose the alignment that had the less amount of the -- you know, the fewest amount of impacts to all of that. Page 67 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the board would have done so based on the information it had at the time. So I'm not sure that all this information was on the table, but thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just a quick question. And I'm sure this dye is cast, but at public hearing, did this landowner ever express the fact that they weren't going to build the second golf course? MR. GREEN: During the public meetings for the corridor study? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. GREEN: I didn't personally have any contact, and I don't know that any information was provided from this property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they never expressed the intent to come in at this date with an agricultural rezone? All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just run down -- you did a rundown of a list of considerations during that study, impacts to habitat, impacts to individual homeowners. Can you just reiterate that list? MR. GREEN: It was including but not limited to environmental impacts, habitat, public and private properties, businesses, residential impacts, impacts to utilities, both public and private, and . . SOCIOeconomIC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation while they're up here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am not sure what time it is, but I think it might be 10:10. But why don't we take a -- Mr. Murray, before we take a break then? Page 68 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just help me, what was the socioeconomic issue that you evaluated? MR. GREEN: It looks at the land uses and the potential for change in zoning and businesses and the businesses and residences that may be along that and what impact it may have, if it would increase or decrease property values and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And what did you conclude? MR. GREEN: I don't know. I didn't run that study. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break till-- well, that silly clock says it's 11: 11, so that would be 11 :25, but I think it's really 10:11 and it would be 10:25, so let's come back here at 10:25 from a break. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'll all come back to your seats. At some point the break ended. We don't know yet, because from 10:11, it is now 10:49. And we were supposed to have only taken 15 minutes. That's a result of our electronic technician, Kady, and our architect, Brad Schiffer, and our engineer, Mr. Schmitt, who's Corps of Army, all trying to fix a digital clock. I'm real worried about this. MR. SCHMITT: Electronically challenged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Okay, let's move on. We had just finished up talking with transportation on the issues concerning this action. Are there any other issues of staff at this time before we ask for public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have one registered speaker. Peter Gaddy. Page 69 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GADDY: For the record, Peter Paul Gaddy. Morning, Mr. Chairman; morning, members of the Planning Commission. I'll be real brief. I agree with counsel that the issue before us here or before this Planning Commission is the rezoning of this property. However, the implications of the original ordinance is that the county commission in 1991 set the alignment for the Vanderbilt Beach extension. I think this is one of those situations where more questions have been raised than answers. If we don't ask some of these questions, we'll never know the answer. I want to point out that the original ordinance called for a road with arterial specifications. I would recommend that the county archives be searched and this Planning Commission obtain additional information prior to acting on the rezoning request. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, Tim Moore. MR. MOORE: I was wondering if we could pull that map back up here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to get to the speaker, first, identify yourself for the record, and then we can go forward. MR. MOORE: My name is Tim Moore. I live at 1821 Richards Street. Which is -- if you pull up the map, I can show you where I am. Simplest way is for me to walk over. I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, but -- yeah, you're that road to the north, we understand. You have to be on speaker with everything, unfortunately, sir. Sorry. MR. MOORE: Okay. I'm A at the top of your paper-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MOORE: -- at the end of Richards Road. Okay? Page 70 April 2, 2009 I'm not objecting to the rezoning. What I've asked, and I sent a letter to Jim Coletta, which was sent to this lady. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay. MR. MOORE: Kay. And also to transportation, was that while you're doing this rezoning, why don't we ask for an easement to -- original maps show Richards Road going all the way to Vanderbilt. So if we had an easement all the way through, then some of that transportation that you're worried about would be alleviated. Number one. Number two, where I am all the way to Krape floods every year. Do we have something that we can walk with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes. MR. MOORE: I'm going to point -- on an average -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to turn it on. There you go. One of those buttons. MR. MOORE: It's on. Can we try another one? MR. BELLOWS: You want to try a laser thing? Come to this one. MR. MOORE: Here, let's do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Ray. MR. MOORE: Okay, at the end of Krape Road, this land right here, during the summer months usually holds about two and a half, three foot of water, okay? Now, if we're going to put 110 houses in that area, then we're going to have to fill all that in, okay? Then we create another barrier here, and all this land floods even worse. My proposal is, and I'm not an engineer, and I don't claim to be, but if we had road ditches all the way to the canal at Vanderbilt, then we would eliminate all of this catch basin that you all -- I don't mean you guys. But what has happened is there was a cypress head that ran through here and a cypress head that ran through there that took the drainage out of this area. We don't have that now. Everglades has got a berm that goes across here and this is all Page 71 April 2, 2009 full, okay? So what are you going to do with the two and a half, three foot of water here when you put all these houses in? You're going to have to raise that land up so that it will accommodate, and when you do that, then we're going to be in a fish bowl. So I don't have a problem with the rezoning, I have a problem with not making sure that we get an easement through there with road ditches all the way through to take it to that canal so that we eliminate all these folks being under water every summer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. Are there any other speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. John -- oh, go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you asked a question of Dave, and I have an e-mail and hopefully this may answer your question. Maximum density in neutral is one dwelling unit per five acres, both in the FLUE and in the LDC. So it's Future Land Use Element and Land Development Code. The exception is for legally nonconforming lots. The exception provision at the end of the RMFUD and the FLUE wouldn't apply since there is no prior zoning action or other development order approved that allows greater density. Maximum density using clustering is the same, just allows smaller lot sizes within total project. With or without clustering, this 554-acre site is eligible for 110 dwelling units. Max lot size using clustering is one acre both in the FLUE and LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that does answer it. David probably knows better than anybody, so -- Okay, with that, John, did you have any comments? MR. P ASSIDOMO: Concluding remarks, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 72 April 2, 2009 MR. PASSIDOMO: We'd be happy to stipulate in the question of traffic impact statement at the time of a plat or a site development plan to ensure that the county does in fact have a site development plan in place at the time we know the future development of the property, so that you're assured you have a new traffic impact statement to reflect conditions as they may exist at that time. Appreciate the staffs comments for elaboration purposes, of course. The provision on density applies as an exception for non-conforming lots of record. It's not intended as an exception, it's intended to in no way detract from the underlining zoning on the property. The thought that the best thing to address questions of -- from a historical perspective and especially the questions that Mr. Moore most recently raised about Richards Street drainage, what may have happened in 1991 and what may have happened before the Board of County Commissioners and the testimony in evidence and professional counsel that was in front of them when they made their determination as the alignment of the road, we'd ask Bill Barton to testify before you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barton was here in 1991 in a professional capacity, he was here as a member of the Olde Florida Golf Club, and he has been throughout. He has personal knowledge and he has professional expertise. And with your indulgence, I'd like to ask him to testify, because I think there are a lot of good questions that were raised, and Mr. Barton can respond to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill? MR. BARTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The -- let me start with a couple of things. I made some notes here as discussion was occurring. Page 73 April 2, 2009 On one of the first ones, the Chairman asked whether or not the easement that was required to be granted to South Florida Water Management District was indeed granted. And the answer to that is yes, it was. In addition to that, although it has nothing -- no bearing on this, Olde Florida also granted to Collier County I think four different easements for well sites along that same canal corridor. It was either three or four, I'm not sure, I don't recall exactly. The discussion that we've had some elaboration on was the agreement between Olde Florida and Collier County regarding the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I -- although it's some nearly 20 years ago, I do have some fairly good recollection of that. And that entire agreement was -- became necessary because at the time Olde Florida began its process of entitlement for the golf course areas, it had not yet acquired the legal right to extend Vanderbilt Beach down to its western property line. And that of course was a concern of the county, because obviously you don't want to grant entitlements to a piece of property that cannot be accessed legally. So that agreement came out of that. Obviously at that point in time there was no road constructed. And what we're talking about right now is the property predominantly that runs along the south side of Golf Club of the Everglades, which is immediately west of Olde Florida. We consequently did gain a legal access there through an easement, and the road had to be built to gain access to our property. And Collier County in that agreement required that that road be built to county standards, which we agreed to do. So that agreement had absolutely nothing to do with the extension of Vanderbilt Beach eastward of Olde Florida's west property line. And I can tell you that I was part of those conversations back in those days, and here we sit almost 20 years later saying goodness Page 74 April 2, 2009 gracious, why didn't those people anticipate that Vanderbilt Beach Road will be extended to the east? That question I can't answer, but I can tell you we didn't. That issue was never discussed. Everybody that was involved in the process at that point in time presumed that the eastern terminus of Vanderbilt Beach Road was going to be at Olde Florida. None of us contemplated that it would be at some point in time extended eastward from them. As I say, looking back now, one would say gosh, that was not very forward thinking. But how many of us at that point in time expected Golden Gate Estates to begin to build out like it did? How many of us at that time expected advents like Ave Maria? So there were a whole lot of things that occurred afterwards that changed our perspective. But I reiterate, in 1991 there was absolutely no discussion about Vanderbilt Beach Road being extended eastward of our west property line. In today's world, Collier County had some very difficult processes to go through, and now that we know that road must indeed be extended eastward, what alignment to take. And I assure you, and I know you know this, that Collier County looked at that very, very carefully. Olde Florida actually was not the major part of the problem. And the reason I say that is that although two holes, and it's actually not hole number two, it's actually holes number eight and nine that would be impacted by that roadway, if it were to go along the north side of the canal. But Olde Florida, fortunately as we're discussing today, had other properties. So in the long term, if that decision had been made, Olde Florida could have cured that problem. It would have been expensive, but they could have cured the problem. The real problem was really Golf Club of the Everglades next Page 75 April 2, 2009 door. That property doesn't have any excess property. And Vanderbilt Beach Road, coming through the southern portion of Golf Club of the Everglades, would have taken all of their hole number nine, a significant part of the required parking, and the entire green for hole number eight. And there was no cure. Because Golf Club of the Everglades has virtually used all of its land. So what the county was looking at is the potential of having to buy the entire golf course, since there was not a cure to repairing the damage that would be caused. And in today's world, there simply is no market for a 16-hole golf course. So that's the real expense there was not Olde Florida, it was Golf Club of the Everglades. And I will tell you that the county staff determined that keeping the roadway on the north side of the canal, their estimate was that the cost to the county taxpayers would have been $45 million greater than putting it on the south side. We actually contended that number was probably too low. It probably would have been closer to a $60 million number. And that's basically what drove the issue. I would also add to that that if the roadway had been kept on the north side of the canal, in all likelihood they would have also had to take some homes that are existing in the Vanderbilt Country Club. There's a tier of lots and homes immediately adjacent to what is currently Vanderbilt Beach Road that likely would have been in jeopardy. So yes, they would have reduced the number of homes required to be taken on the south side, but then they probably would have had to increase the number of homes taken on the north side. With regard to Mr. Moore's discussion of Richards Road, that road is aligned immediately north of Olde Florida's west property line. And although this hasn't been discussed today, the rezone that we're asking for continues to keep us as a neutral property in the district. And that will require any development to preserve 60 percent of the natural vegetation that exists within the property. Page 76 April 2, 2009 We certainly would have no reason not to go on record stating that any easement requirement along our west property line, we would be sure to be included in that property to be preserved, so that that easement would always be available if and when at some point in the future Richards Road is something that the county contemplates building. I will tell you, though, that with regard to using that as -- to facilitate drainage for those properties to the north -- and I'll preface this remark by telling you that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. And one of my expertises is stormwater management. And I will tell you, that won't work. The flood waters in the canal reach an elevation that currently Olde Florida is directly tied to the Cypress Canal. We have a direct out fall. When we designed it, we anticipated that in the event of a 25-year frequency storm event that Olde Florida would indeed have flooding occur on their golf course. As it's turned out, we have had three of those 25-year plus events in the last 15 years. And each time it flooded, as we knew it would, as did the property to the north of us, those floods have cost Olde Florida something in excess of $400,000, the collective amount. The one that occurred two years ago, we actually had to shut the golf course down for 30 days because the damage was so severe that -- and we had to resod so much of the property that the golf course was not playable. And fact of the matter is, one should be very, very cautious before making connections to Cypress Canal, for properties to the north of it, because there are rainfall events that could in fact flood properties to the north that would have not otherwise be flooded if the ditches were not in place. One might say, how can that occur? The way that occurs is when the primary rainstorm fall, heaviest rainfall is to the east, which is in the collection basin of the Cypress Page 77 April 2, 2009 Canal. When that then comes down the canal and begins to cause flood waters in the canal, those elevations will climb to a point in the canal where they would begin to back up into properties surrounding that canal. Not unlike precisely what we're seeing in North Dakota right now. The Red River that's been threatening Fargo is not because of rainfall that fell on Fargo, it's because of the rainfall that fell upstream from Fargo and is now causing flood events to occur in Fargo. So one needs to be very cautious in starting to make connections, like roadside swales, to properties to the north, because they could cause more problems than they might solve. So those are just some historical events that I wanted to share with you. And ifthere are any questions, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: If flooding is such an issue out there right now, Mr. Barton, and you've had at least three events here that all surpassed the 25-year storm event, does it make sense then to be rezoning this property so you can put 110 homes with septic systems out there? MR. BARTON: Well, let me answer that question in two parts: First, the issue of how 110 dwelling units might fit on the property or how they would be designed is a question for another day. And most certainly that process would have to be reviewed under whatever criteria and guidelines we have. What we're asking for here today in the rezone is simply taking a piece of property that currently has virtually zero value, because golf course property in today's world, not only can you not sell it, I'm not sure you could give it away, if the only use for it was golf course. We're trying to simply take an asset that has no value and cause Page 78 April 2, 2009 it to be an asset that does have some value. With regard to whether or not septic tanks would be an appropriate use in that location, I don't know the answer to that. However, my -- pardon me, Florida allergies -- my anticipation is that by the time the single-family housing market turns around in Collier County to the point that this property would become attractive, the availability of central sanitary sewer is going to be there. It's already to the corner of951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road. In fact, the new church that was just built there is on central sewer. So we're not that far away. And my expectation is that at that point in time Collier County would require any developer to make that connection, and highly doubtful in my mind that any septic tanks would ever be used on this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the interchange map, there's a road called Douglas Road. Is that Richards Road? Do they line up together? MR. BARTON: No, sir, I don't think so. I think Richards -- now, Richards does not come down to this property. In fact, there's another out-parcel, it's either 20 acres or 40 acres, north of Olde Florida that currently does not have Richards Road on it. In other words, it comes down and terminates at some parcel north of our property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it help, I think the Richards Road aligns -- see the red line on the west side ofthe Olde Florida Golf Club on this map? That's where Richards Road will align with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And where is -- then looking at this map showing the canal on Vanderbilt Road coming down and then coming back up, they show a road called Douglas Road. So the reason I bring it up, wouldn't that be a logical place for Page 79 April 2, 2009 that intersection, such that if they ever did connect that would be a good north-south corridor between Vanderbilt and Immokalee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean you would take Richards Road -- how would you get there from the -- the terminus of Richards from the south over to Douglas in the north, how would you get there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the same way we wish -- they were thinking about, you know, back when this originally -- you know, we had the east-west access that we didn't take. This would just be at this point in time trying to establish the north-south. But where is Douglas Road is really the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's right -- look on your left. On the left side of the screen down towards the bottom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See Richards up on top? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this map we're showing is that this thing is going to transfer -- okay, this is going to transfer well before this property then. MR. BARTON: Yeah, Douglas Road is actually on the west property line of Golf Club of the Everglades. So it's a half mile west ofOlde Florida's property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if Douglas Road ever did-- or Richards Road ever did come down, it would come down onto your access drive? MR. BARTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would they have the ability to access that? MR. BARTON: Yes, they would. The easement there is a public easement. However, there would not be the ability at that intersection to access Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They would have to come down to this Douglas Road then. MR. BARTON: That's correct. Then they'd have to turn Page 80 April 2, 2009 westward and go to Douglas Road in order to access Vanderbilt Beach Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate your time. MR. BARTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, John, I think we have a few issues that were discussed I'd like to run by with you before we go into deliberations. You have no problem with the stipulation concerning the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program, that you'll retain that at all times for the golf course subject -- and that the property would be subject to the rules of the neutral lands for golf courses. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no density being provided as a result of this process today, whatever the outcome is. And you agree with that? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There's no density being provided? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We're not giving you density today. We're not providing density. This is strictly you're requesting a rezone to neutral. MR. PASSIDOMO: Whatever we're entitled to in the proposed zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going next. This whole thing has been somewhat of a mystery. You've got a golf course zoned piece of property, it can function as a golf course. You've got a clubhouse; you've got all the amenities that the golf course has. You want to go to neutral lands and still retain the golf course use, obviously. But at some time in the future you're going to do something else. The difference between '91 and now are some of the benefits that Page 81 April 2, 2009 you can derive under neutral lands that maybe you couldn't have done under the agricultural zoning as it was in 1991. So the golf course has been kind of like a holding pattern until this change has been suggested here today. It leaves a lot of unknowns in regards to what you're going to do with the property and how the density of that property and how the impacts on that property will affect others. Where you put your houses, how many, the road coming in, how you'll connect to Vanderbilt, all the issues that the county generally is worried about. You have by rights in the neutral area an extensive amount of new uses, including single-family residential, mobile home overlays, dormitories, duplexes, group housing, family care facilities, group care facilities, staff housing, sporting and recreational camps, golf courses and driving ranges. It goes on and on for quite a few uses. And that's -- they're all by right. So I don't -- by right you wouldn't necessarily have to come before a public process. And when Mr. Barton spoke he, you know, said you guys would go by whatever process is in place for -- as you proceeded. Well, there is no process in place except going through staff. Would you have any objection that any changes to your property in regards to uses come back before this Planning Commission for review? MR. P ASSIDOMO: After the zoning is in place, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you receive the zoning today to go from golf course to neutral, any further increases in changes or density on that property, whether it be through any type of use come back through the public process through the Planning Commission. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Any changes, Mr. Chairman, that increased the density or changed the use, other than what is prescribed in the Land Development Code right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, other than what is being done Page 82 April 2, 2009 today on that property. So if you take advantage of the new uses and the neutral land that you seemingly want to, and since you're not providing us with that scenario today, I'm suggesting that you come back through this process and provide that now -- provide that then at the time you do it. If you want to come back in and put homes and parcels and break it up and subdivide it into parcels, you come back in for the public process in front of this board. MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we do have to come back obviously administratively to address site development plans or platting. But you're suggesting that rather than have that handled administratively, it be handled by the Planning Commission? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the staff would still have to review it, but the Planning Commission would have to see it, and you'd have to go through a public process for approval. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, would it have anything to do with the -- if the question, if the scope of that review relates to platting or site development plan issues, that's one question. If the scope of that review deals with uses, heights, densities and intensities, I think that's another question. Because those are prescribed by the Land Development Code, and they seem to be outside the proper scope of review for the Planning Commission or for the Board of County Commissioners after the zoning is in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You just said the magic words, after the zoning's in place. Is in place. So in order to get it in place -- Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For clarification, if any plat comes in, a final plat, as you well know, has to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That's on an agenda item and it's approved by the Board of County Commissioners, so it is a public process. Normally it's on a consent agenda. However, in this case if it involves a consent issue or involves an issue that is of interest to the public, certainly we can be directed or the board can pull that item and put it Page 83 April 2, 2009 on the regular agenda. Or they can certainly remand that back to the Planning Commission. So I just want to clarify the process so the public understands: It is a public process and it is approved before the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are -- they are done routinely every week; is that right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many have ever been pulled, changed, modified, sent back to this Planning Commission? MR. SCHMITT: None sent back to the Planning Commission. Probably in my time frame here, which is almost seven years, I believe twice we pulled plats onto the regular agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem I have here is I don't think anybody would go into the process that this applicant's here for today without having some idea what they might want to do in the future. We're not being provided with any of that information. We're basically saying we're going to do whatever our rights are allowed for us to do. The rights that come under the standard zoning, if you were to allow -- and zoning is by the way not -- you can't get a rezone, I don't believe, by right. You get a rezone by process. And if there's reasons why this board feels the process isn't appropriate, it may not succeed. But it would help I think a lot of us to get in if we knew that we had some additional review opportunity down the road when you finally wanted to tell us what you intend to do with this property. And that's my concern with that issue, and that's why I requested of you, do you have any objection if we were to stipulate that any changes to the uses on this property -- and whether those changes are density, intensity, height or whatever, but use changes on this property beyond the golf course uses come back to this panel for review. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I want to be cooperative. I Page 84 April 2, 2009 don't want to be elusive, I don't want to be responsive. If the question is rather than through an administrative process we go back to the Planning Commission for site development plan or platting review, that's one question. If that's the question, I'd be happy to consult with my client concerning that issue. Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you did -- any change you make on this property -- and staffs going to have to help me here. Is there any way they can make a change without coming in for a plat or a site -- or a site development plan? MR. BELLOWS: If you mean can they build a single-family home in there without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can they build 110 single-family homes in there? MR. BELLOWS: You have to go through the platting process to do more than -- MR. SCHMITT: You would have to plat to develop a tract, and then you'd have to come in and probably subdivide that, ifhe's going to build individual homes, single-family homes on one home per five acres or demonstrate that he's in compliance with the code. Ifhe's going to build some kind of multi - family, of course the tract would then come in with a subsequent site development plan, again, demonstrating that he meets the requirements as defined in the rural fringe mixed use development overlay, RMFU, and he would be subject to those review criteria that exist in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Joe, if they had come in today with a request to go from golf course to PUD with a site plan laying out the intensities, densities, setbacks, heights, everything else that would affect the surrounding properties, it would have been more complete for us to review. MR. SCHMITT: And I understand that. Certainly understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically they want to go into an opportunity to make a lot of changes that may not have been Page 85 April 2, 2009 anticipated at the time this was even given its neutral land designation, well enough its conditional -- its whatever, golf course designation back in '91. That all happened years ago. So there's some kind of vesting issue or grandfathering issue already in place. I'm suggesting -- well, first of all, how did this become neutral? Do we even know that? Would it have become a neutral land had they not had the golf course zoning already in place for this property? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you want to talk to him? MR. SCHMITT: Well, the neutral lands are designated as part of the study that -- and all the background and the data and analysis as was performed as part of the rural lands process, in this case the rural fringe mixed use district. And that was determined based on existing conditions on the land at that time when it went through the public hearings. Any more than that, you probably have to bring that catcher in, and David and some others to give you some history as to why or how they designated this neutral. But the -- and understanding also, before they go through the platting process, they're going to have to go through the permitting process, meaning through District permitting, South Florida Water Management District, demonstrate water -- all the other districts permitting processes associated with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I'm trying to make sure that what happens here in the future we have a better handle on than we have had in the past. And that's why I've asked the applicant if they would accept a public process through the Planning Commission for approval or denial of any uses or changes regarding this property beyond those involving the golf course or the amenities to the golf course. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I think it may confuse the purpose of these proceedings. These proceedings are to establish zoning on the land. Page 86 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: You know, when you go through a criteria, Mr. Chairman, there are certain things you have to look at, including does the proposed change adversely influence living conditions. You have no idea what -- the information in front of you to make a decision. You've got another one, will the proposed change create a drainage problem. And we've had some testimony on that, and you have no idea. And there are a number of other criteria here that it's very difficult, given the lack of information you have as to what they intend to do with this. But you can make an educated recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. This is a very unusual request. I don't think I've ever seen a zoning request where they're going from existing golf course use to down-zone, or up-zone, depending on how you look at it, to an agricultural zoning with 110 acres. I don't have an issue if you just make this a condition. And if they don't like it, they can take it with the Board of County Commissioners when -- that (sic) the board wants to keep that as a condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't know whether I should wait until the discussion, but I might just as well say it now. When I was reviewing this, I thought the whole thing was brilliant. What a move. And being on the RLSA committee for a year and a half and then again reviewing it here, if this should become neutral land, they do have the right to just automatically build the homes as they want to, 110. And that's the way I read through this whole thing. That's the way it looked and that's the way it smelled. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think Mr. Wolfley's really hit the nail right on the head. This is really a Page 87 April 2, 2009 process. It's intended to provide some flexibility so we can respond to market conditions, but it's simply intended to align the zoning of the land with the permitted uses as of right under the future land use designation for rural fringe neutral lands. That's all it does. There's no triggering event here that creates anything that the change in the designation to this land as rural fringe neutral lands didn't anticipate. We know what we're going to do. We'll come back to staff, we'll come back if you'd like to the Planning Commission and we'll come back to the Board of County Commissioners. But at that point in time the only thing we're going to come back with is what we don't have now and that is a site plan or a plat. But at that point in time -- and we'll have to go through permitting. And you don't customarily look at that. But you can look at that. And I think that the process will be well served by the Planning Commission looking at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with the County Attorney's recommendation. His counsel is that we can make it a condition, and so I think that's a good move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And the next question I have for you, John, is the easement along the west property line. Mr. Barton didn't think that would be a problem, that you would provide through that west property line an easement. I mean, up to the county to make sure they can get the easement materialized, assumingly. But that for the -- along the west property line for the Richards Street extension down to Vanderbilt Beach -- down to your public access to Vanderbilt Beach Road. MR. P ASSIDOMO: I think Mr. Barton's going to want to respond to that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because that's not what he said. MR. P ASSIDOMO: It's not designated in the future land use Page 88 April 2, 2009 transportation plan. If the county wants to buy it, they can buy it. There's a 60 percent native vegetation requirement. We don't want to do anything to impugn that. But with those introductory remarks, let me just let Mr. Barton respond to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I misheard him then. I thought that's -- I thought you said something to that effect. MR. BARTON: Let me touch on two points. Interestingly, the reason we are here today is that when we initially zoned this property to golf course, the mixed use development district did not exist. That came after us. Next door, in Golf Club of the Everglades, which developed shortly after we did, but after the District was in place. By seeing the District, they did not rezone their property to golf course; they left it agricultural and simply got a conditional use to put a golf course on it. Had we done this golf course in 1995 instead of 1991, we wouldn't be here today, because we would not have rezoned the property to golf course. We would have left it agriculture, asked for a provisional use, conditional use for golf course, just as Golf Course (sic) of the Everglades did. So really all we're trying to do is get ourselves in about the same position as Golf Club of the Everglades is today. Because they didn't have to have the advantage of knowing the District was going to be formed after they went through the rezoning process. That's one thing I wanted to point out to you. The other is what I said on the road easement for Richards Road is that we would simply agree not to build anything within that corridor, that that would become part of the 60 percent natural vegetation area. So that in the future, if that road -- it makes little sense to me to impose an easement in a location that the county has no plan to build a road, it's not in one single part of the county's plans right now. By the same token, I understand the advantage of leaving the Page 89 April 2, 2009 corridor there. We're willing to do that. We're willing not -- to stipulate that that would be part of the -- the other concern I have is that if we grant the easement, all of a sudden there's roughly four acres of land taken out of our property. Now the 60 percent preservation requirement even takes more of the land than it would otherwise. So what I'd like to do is assure you that we won't put anything in that corridor, and then if at some point in the future an easement is needed there, it can be dealt with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think we should do that. I mean, they've discussed how when they were building their property they had to negotiate with the people to the west and then never imagined that the owner to the east would ever want to do that with them. So I don't think that showed the forethought necessary. So I think if we do that, let's do that in such a way that it is the width of a good collector road, or whatever maximum road we think, plus some sizeable setbacks so that we don't find them developing in that area again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And I think something that's changed between 1991 and if you had done this as a conditional use to agriculture in 1995, in '95 if you had done it we may have been further along in some of our master planning of roads in the county, and the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road would have been left alone on this property. The fact you're coming in today is like a second bite at the apple. Although the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension may be too far down the road to bring into this rezoning issue here today, it's still -- I don't put a lot of argument in the fact that it would have been the same if you had done it in '95. I think in '95 we were getting out of some problems we had politically. We might have been a little more Page 90 April 2, 2009 sophisticated to a point where we realized that road extension was needed and we might have requested that road alignment or that area be left alone on the south side of this property and save that alignment to go straight across. So I'm not -- I don't still believe we need to make a second mistake in 2009 by letting this go to a free-for-all from golf course to just open neutral and anything goes. I can't -- that I can't go to. So my intention is to make sure that this is -- any uses or changes to this property, other than those involving strictly the golf course and its facilities, would have to come back to the public process to be approved. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask for clarification? And from a stand -- we have no process to do that. And I just want to discuss to make sure we understand how to proceed with that, if in fact the board concurs with your recommendation. We have no fees for that, and we would have to -- we could identify what that would cost. It would be similar to undergo this process. Do you want to have the required public notice in regards to advertisement, neighborhood information meeting, those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, I would treat it just -- we can't call it a PUD, but I would treat it like a PUD, because that's honestly what this property should be coming in here for today is a PUD. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure we understand so that we proceed and we notice, advertise and do all the other required processes prior to bringing it here so we have clear understanding what your intent is. So I understand what you're saying, it would be treated almost like a rezone again but coming in to review the plat. And I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it would be in the form of a Page 91 April 2, 2009 PUD process I believe is what's being suggested. And I'm not sure that's what everybody's suggesting, but that's what -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I just want to make sure so we understand and we can note that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are you referring to every home at a time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, because they could build these over 10, 15 years by right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They'd still have to put in infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? There's a lot to be said for coming in with a master plan well planned out with densities, heights, restrictions and setbacks. If they want to come in 110 times for a PUD process, then let them come in. I think the county would benefit from it because it gets more staff hired because we have plenty of funds then. But anyway, that's kind of what my thought is. Anybody else have any comments during this discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay-- MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have anything, John, you want to add? MR. PASSIDOMO: If I can just close. If I can propose that on three stipulations, and for your considerations, Mr. Chairman. The first is, as we indicated earlier, we will come in with a new traffic impact statement at the time of the SDP or plat, whatever it may happen to be. Page 92 April 2, 2009 Following up on Mr. Barton's comments, we'll provide a setback along that western property so that you know that there's sufficient land there to accommodate a public right-of-way if the county wants to have a public right-of-way in that area. And then finally, our proposal for your consideration, Commissioners, is that in order to give some direction to the Planning Commission at a future time, to your staff and ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners, when we come back in for a site development plan or a site plan, or before we build the first house on the property, we have to come back before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to have that site plan and that -- and/or that plat approved -- recommended for approval and approved ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that gets us the coverage that we're looking for. You said if the plat or the SDP. Ray, is there anything they can do without a plat or an SDP on this property? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Other than a single-family home one at a time. They don't have to come in for a plat. But once you do three or more units, you have to plat. MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, I'll stipulate that we won't come in for one home without coming through the platting or SDP process. Before we build the first home on the property, we'll come in with an SDP or a plat, and the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission will have the ability to see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, in reference to the process that would be utilized to make this come through, we would implement the PUD process in regards to advertising fees for whatever else was in place for the review process to come before the boards, and then through the board analysis we could adjust setbacks, heights or anything else that would seem inappropriate. Is that clear? Page 93 April 2, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And from here it would go to the board, but it would go to the board. Most likely it will also include the final approval process, similar to any plat approval, which certainly you're familiar with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: It would be part of that final approval plat process with a report from the Planning Commission noting what we'd done. So it would be a combination between -- almost like a rezoning and a final plat approval when it goes to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and ifit went to the board under this new process and it had a dissenting vote from the Planning Commission, it would not be on summary agenda then; would it not? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because all your plats are generally on summary agenda. MR. SCHMITT: Right. They would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it would be an exception in this case. MR. SCHMITT: Right. We'd put it on the regular agenda, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it fairly checks out, subject to staffs figuring it out when they come back with a consent agenda. Does anybody else have any comments, questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was it also your testimony, Mr. Passidomo, that the golf course would not move? MR. P ASSIDOMO: There's certainly no contemplation that it will ever move. Did I make a comment as a stipulation that the golf Page 94 April 2, 2009 course will never move? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. PASSIDOMO: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. P ASSIDOMO: And frankly, I don't even know really what that could mean or why the public would have an interest in that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it was just a statement that had been made and so I wanted to make sure it shouldn't be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: John, just in clarification, I'm sure you meant this, but when you said we'll provide an easement of sufficient space to make a road there, Richard Road, Richard Street, or whatever it is, right, that's what you said? MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir. Thank you for asking for clarification, Mr. Murray. What I suggested is that we'll have a setback in that area. The assurance is given that there won't be any structures there. So if the county wants to come in at some later time and actually acquire that property and create a road there, there won't be an impediment to their ability to do so in the form of a setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I appreciate that. What I thought I heard, though, Mr. Barton saying he was concerned that he would, by taking what is legitimately I think a standard for a road, you're going to reduce it 60 percent, et cetera, et cetera. But that's okay, you're good with that? MR. P ASSIDOMO: If it's a setback then we're not reducing the native vegetation requirement. I think that's the sensitivity we have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to comment at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, are you finished? Page 95 April 2, 2009 MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, I am. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't close it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not doing it yet. That's why I was asking. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask transportation one last question here. MR. GREEN: Michael Green, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER CARON: Looking in your crystal ball, do you see, can you anticipate the need for this north-south Richards Street to become a corridor, an actual road? MR. GREEN: You're digging a trap for me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I am. MR. GREEN: We always try and get interconnections and create a grid. Yes, that would be a benefit. I don't have any tools available to me today in place to provide me the nexus to ask for this under this proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you had a stipulation that provided you the ability for that easement and you wanted to use it in the future, that would be more advantageous than not. MR. GREEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I was going to say, the best thing we can do is keep them from building a golf hole where we need it, as the past has given us. MR. GREEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or a house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Anything before I close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll close the public Page 96 April 2, 2009 hearing and we'll entertain a motion. But let's have discussion first. There's a lot of things that this project entails, and one of them is the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road. As much as I hate what we've done with that extension, I don't believe we can find that as a reason to deny this project. However, I think it's good that we had the discussion today and some more information got on the table concerning that. So that set aside, I also, as this whole board has expressed, this has not been a real clear understanding of what they're trying to do here. The information we got is limited and doesn't provide a lot of clarity. So based on that, I suggest that we consider the following stipulations: one is that the golf course always will retain the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. And once it's rezoned into the neutral land categories, it will come under the rules within the neutral lands for the golf course operations. Number two: There will be no density awarded as a result of today's process. Meaning they may go into the neutral land category, but they don't have any other uses allocated them through today's process, nor are they entitled to them until they come back through the third stipulation, which is: That any uses or changes come back to the Planning Commission and the BCC under this process similar to that of the PUD process for review and approval for all categories that we would look at as though it were a PUD. And number four: That the applicant will not build within the Richards Road corridor or allow -- and allow the county to acquire an easement if needed therefore in the future. And those are the four stipulations I think that we talked out here today. Does anybody have anything that they would like to consider adding to it, elaborate on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is staff clear on the stipulations? Page 97 April 2, 2009 MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I need to know how big of an area you don't want them to build m. The talk was a setback, what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the Richards Road corridor. Whatever corridor width transportation can provide you with between now and the time we get consent. Unless they know now. MS. DESELEM: I heard John Podczerwinsky say the term 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds logical, because that's I think the minimum standard for the county anyway. So let's leave 60 feet as a minimum corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus I would like a setback for a building. So why don't we just say lOO feet and make it easy, that they can't build within 100 feet of that property line. That would give them the full right-of-way. It may be set up where they can only have half the right-of-way. And at the time of the review of the public hearing we'd be able to make a smarter decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with that. MS. DESELEM: So you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't build within 100 feet of the western property line. And the intent of that stipulation is for the future provision to Collier County to acquire that as an easement. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other clarifications you need, Kay? MS. DESELEM: I think I've got it, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion from the Page 98 April 2, 2009 Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-2008-AR-13951, known as Olde Florida Golf Club, Incorporated, with a recommendation of approval, based on the stipulations as offered by the Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I certainly would not have even considered voting for this unless the commitment was made that it come back to us -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a lot closely -- a lot more closely aligned with a PUD process. This is a huge piece of property out there and shouldn't be done to standard zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with you, I would not have voted for it without that stipulation being in place. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Neither would 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the vote, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 99 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. It's now 11 :30. Ladies and gentlemen, we have two to go through. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: 11 :20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever time it is. It's so hard with that clock. I'd just as soon, if it's okay with you, we'll keep pushing. We might be able to finish these two up in short order and not have to take a break for lunch. Is that -- we'll just have to see how it goes for the next half hour or so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, move to approve. Item #9D PETITION: PUDA-2008-AR-13792, NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDEN, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is Petition PUDA-2008-AR-13792, and it's the Naples Botanical Garden, Inc., and the Florida Gulf Coast University, represented by Bruce Anderson. 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 Page 100 April 2, 2009 Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a discussion with Bruce Anderson and I told him that this is like mom and apple pie, I'm not sure what I can do with it. So we'll go forward. Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Law Firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm pleased to represent this community asset today. I was privileged to represent Naples Botanical Garden when this PUD was first approved in 2003. With me today are members of the project team: Brian Holley, the executive director of Naples Botanical Garden, and from WilsonMiller we have Margaret Perry, the project planner, Jeffrey Perry, the transportation planner, and Jared Brown, who is the project engmeer. The Botanical Garden PUD was first approved in June, 2003, and it includes 171 acres. This application is for an amendment of that PUD and the following changes are requested: The Garden is requesting the ability to have interim or temporary structures to house the already approved permitted principal and accessory uses. These interim structures would be allowed for an initial period of three years, and if extensions were needed because of the state of the economy, they could be -- an extension could be approved administratively, using the site development plan approval process. There is one correction that I do need to make on the next text of the PUD. It's in Section 6.4. And you'll see that I have struck the phrase described above in one through six. My reason for doing that is that paragraph refers to these interim and temporary structures being provided for both principal and Page 101 April 2, 2009 accessory uses. However, one through six above are only the principal uses. So it's merely clerical cleanup. The amendment language that we're asking you to approve today provides that these interim structures and the maintenance building do not require architectural and design standard review. The Garden has agreed to provide foundation plantings around these structures. There have also -- we're also requesting revisions to the transportation conditions. These changes have been agreed to by the applicant and the staff. These revisions will help assure that the Botanical Garden does not pay any more than its fair share for improvements at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive. The transportation amendments also address with specificity the obligations of the Garden for construction of sidewalks and payment in lieu for other sidewalks. Yesterday the transportation department staff reworded paragraph I of the transportation conditions to now read, quote, the developer, his successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signal and turn lanes (or alternative intersection roundabout design) at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive at such time that the improvements are constructed. Pavement shall be provided to the applicable public agencies responsible for designing and constructing the improvements, end of quote. My client has agreed to this change. And lastly, the amendment authorizes deviations from the Land Development Code as previously discussed for the interim structures, and deviations are also requested for the fencing in order to provide security to the Garden. The Garden is on a tight time line to get this PUD amendment approved in order to open up more of the Garden to the public by fall of this year, and we respectfully request your recommendation of Page 102 April 2, 2009 approval for these changes. I and the other members of the team will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I made my notes and stuff on the copy of the ordinance, if you just want to follow along. Under 4.41.B (sic). MR. ANDERSON: B? COMMISSIONER CARON: B, as in boy. You are striking the words overflow parking and adding potential future expansion. I don't mind that you use the words potential future expansion, but I think you need to also include overflow parking. I don't want anybody to be misled about what potentially might be going on that little piece -- that piece of property. The -- you know, these euphemisms, those potential future development, just sort of leave it broad and open-ended. And I understand why you want that in it but I think parking, while to you it might seem logical that if you do any expansion there'd have to be parking involved in it, I just want the neighbors to understand. So I think you can use -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay, I don't think the intention is to limit it to just overflow parking. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's what I said. So you can -- MR. ANDERSON: Overflow-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- state it overflow parking and/or potential development. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Page 103 April 2, 2009 Then on the next page, on two, in that paragraph that you have right up there -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you just struck. I'm a little concerned about the open-endedness of these reviews that can be done by staff. I think everybody understands the fact that things may not move as quickly as we'd all like to see them move in this day and age. However, there's got to be some end to these three-year reviews that can just be done by staff and no other consideration has to be given to either the rest of the neighborhood or any commissioners. Can we come up with something reasonable, Mr. Anderson, to -- as opposed to leaving it just open-ended that you can come back for the rest of -- you know, the next 25 years every three years you can come back and get staff to -- MR. ANDERSON: We had originally proposed that extensions would need to come to the Board of County Commissioners through the public petition process. And staff was not comfortable with that approach, and they were the ones that changed it and wanted to put it through the site development plan approval process. We would be happy either way. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I'll leave that question then to staff. Thanks for that explanation. I think maybe the rest of mine may be staff questions. Anyway -- other than to note to you, Mr. Anderson, that on Page 4 under M, it will be that same change of overflow parking and/or potential future expanSIOns. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have anything more for Bruce. No, I think the rest of them are staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 104 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, mine are in that same area. It's kind of word-smithing. But if you go to Section 1, 4.14.A. The first thing in there is you have this last sentence that says, the applicant shall comply with section such and such. Foundation plantings for the interim and temporary structures as well as maintenance structures. Then you add this, which to me doesn't make sense: To compensate for deviating from the architecture and design. I mean, they would have to comply with foundation plantings anyway, correct? So what's this compensation concept? I would just think after maintenance structure you could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like that may be a staff change. Yeah, it's a staff change. We'll wait till staff comes up here then on that one. I just noticed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All of these things will be staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that one is, the one that you referred to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Second thing is number two is kind of a good thing. That was a major part of the first hearing, that they really wanted to do some innovative structures. So my thought is up in the middle of the paragraph that you're adding, it gives the proper sections for the architectural standards of the LDC as amended. And I think it would be smart to insert back in there part of number two, at least the sentence that says to allow for innovative design of structures of the Naples Garden. That section doesn't guarantee that. So I think let's carry forth the intent that they would have innovative structures. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is on 6.2, as it carries over to Page 2. This concept of discussing, you know, the different codes and stuff. First of all, you've left some out. Secondly, there's no way you could ever not do that. And thirdly, the Page 105 April 2, 2009 impression might be is that these are going to be considered temporary structures within those codes, which they will not, they will be permanent buildings. So why do we have that in there really? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you have here, a temporary use permit is not required, and the interim and temporary -- or temporary structures shall be approved through the site development plan process -- that's good. Interim or temporary structures will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act -- they essentially comply with the Florida Statute now -- and the Collier County Building Code. But there's also fire codes. In other words, so why are we saying that last sentence? I mean, first of all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's nothing you could say that you wouldn't. I mean, these things have to comply with that. And they would not be considered temporary structures because of the length of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do that, Bruce, or did staff? MR. ANDERSON: No, I will let staff answer that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I think that's it. Oh, one other question for Bruce, though. Bruce, there's a roundabout in the Bayshore plan. Does this property give the right-of-way so they could build that? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure about that. No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think that's a good idea? MR. ANDERSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Try again. Anyway, we'll discuss it later, I guess. Page 106 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I did have one more-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that would actually be Mr. Anderson, and that's on the very final page under deviation. The chain link fence. MR. ANDERSON : Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Saying that it shall be permitted at five feet in height. But didn't staff also say it has to be black? And should that be in there at that point? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's just not in there. So we can just make that correction, okay, that it's not somewhere in there. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, we'll put -- we'll begin the sentence, black chain link fence shall be permitted -- COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. MR. ANDERSON: -- at a height of five feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. It's been a few months so I'm happy to be back here in front of you again. I just want to read into the record on the Naples Botanical Garden and the location, that the planned unit development is in -- the subject property is in the urban designated mixed use district. And it's also part of the urban coastal fringe sub-district, as well as the Bayshore/Gateway triangle redevelopment overlay. And the overlay allows for unique projects similar to this. Page 107 April 2, 2009 And I just wanted that to be read into the record. Most of it has to do with of course amendments to this PUD document, which I'd like to address for our commissioners. Might as well start with Section 4.14, design guidelines of the proposed amendment. Part of the -- what they're requesting with these interim structures is very -- interim or temporary structures is a unique structure that there is no allowance for it in the LDC. And they could essentially just bring in a trailer, if we just say interim structure, and it could be strapped down. But you want to make sure that the structures -- because what they're being used for are uses that are listed such as restrooms, a gift shop, possibly a restaurant. So what you're wanting to do, though, because these structures are not really listed in the -- well, they aren't -- there isn't any provisions in the LDC to make sure that they would be for the safety of those who are coming to the Gardens, and not to say that the -- those who are managing the gardens would put up a structure that isn't safe. We want a guarantee that there is something there that not only are they going through the site design process or the site development process, and the fact that they have agreed to do and staff has agreed that the architectural review standards are going -- they don't have to follow them. We wanted to ensure that these structures still meet the wind code, they still have to be strapped down if there's restrooms. You know, you have to provide running water. And the site development process you would go through would make sure where the structures are located. But you still want to make sure the building code, that these are built to those standards, as well as the AD -- American Disabilities Act for the residents, as well as those who will be the patrons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you trying to address a particular concern we had? MS. ZONE: Yes. Page 108 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we focus on that. I think you were trying to address the section two, 6.2, the last sentence that Brad brought up about why we have that last sentence in there. MS. ZONE: Well, you're right, I'm sorry, Commissioner. But A brings in the temporary structures. And so I was kind of giving an overview of why we're doing everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we understand why you all do it. We can get more to the point, if you'd like. MS. ZONE: Very sorry. The foundation plantings are not really also part of alternative designs, and they don't really -- would not, because the structures aren't provided for in the LDC, Commissioner Schiffer. That we wanted to let them know that at least to mask these walls along there. And the applicants had -- actually were the ones who when we said if you're going to include these, could you provide something. And the foundation plantings -- though it wasn't us who said they had to be, that was what they brought forward as compensating for. And so we said well, then let's put it into the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and why don't -- and Brad, since some of these are your questions, why don't you just interact directly with Melissa. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Melissa, first of all, they would have to do the foundation plantings anyway, they're a building, correct? I mean, remember, this is the Botanical Gardens. These guys aren't going to try to get away with gravel here. MS. ZONE: Correct. And we understand that. But again, that you could have -- their structures are going to be -- there's no question that they're going to be building the structures. But these are not really permanent structures for that. It could, as I stated before, could become a trailer on blocks. And so how do you mask that? We could eliminate it in good faith, but then if they don't and someone says oh, this awful structure, well, now we have Page 109 April 2, 2009 nothing other than that staff did record it on the record and it was then removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but what if they're behind a fence and it's a maintenance -- and it actually is a trailer on blocks. You really want them to -- where the public doesn't see it, nobody sees it? MS. ZONE: If the Planning Commission would like this removed, I will be happy to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. We're just ensuring because this is not provided for in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what you should do is just remove after the word maintenance building to compensate. I mean, there's no need to prove why you're doing it. MS. ZONE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To kill that I think makes sense. Do you have a problem moving what was stricken in B up to where it mentions the architectural standards using the alternate compliance method and making sure we note what was there in the original PUD is to allow for innovative design? I think that's important. MS. ZONE: So what you're saying is to include the second part of number two under A and include it in 2-B, is that -- do I understand that correctly? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what I'm saying is take the words from 2 -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where it starts to allow for innovative design within the Botanical Gardens, and include that after the words up in the middle of the sentence, section -- the architectural standards of the LDC as amended. And right there say, to encourage. Because one of the major -- we don't -- you know, the ultimate Page 110 April 2, 2009 compliance doesn't -- necessarily isn't there to allow for innovative design, it's to allow for ultimate compliance. MS. ZONE: And so you're wanting that to be included so that you know what their intent is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Those were important words in the original PUD. Let's keep them. MS. ZONE: No problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the second thing is up on the top of 2, that last sentence, these are not going to be temporary structures in the building code. There's nothing anybody can build that would -- you know, in other words, you don't have to put that in there. I'm sure if the building official discussed it with you and the fire code official. Fire code 30 days, that's all you're going to get, building code's going to reference the fire code. So what's going to happen is that there's no such thing as a temporary structure, at least in the length of times you're describing. A circus tent is, but -- MS. ZONE: And we've had long discussions. We said what you're proposing are permanent structures. And they said well, they would like to remove them at some point. So if they are calling these interim structures and the LDC does not, as I stated before, provide for interim structures, we wanted to make sure there was something for them to comply with. You're calling them permanent. I understand. And staff agreed with you there. But if they're wanting to have these in the PUD document to be included as interim or temporary structures, then we want to make sure, because the LDC does not have regulations for those types of structures, they have to comply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the LDC isn't what governs whether a building complies with building code. MS. ZONE: The building code does. But during site development plan it starts the process. And it is -- it's a conflict, and staff isn't disagreeing with you. Again, it's assurance. Page 111 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern -- then let's pretend that needs to be in there. And I don't believe that yet. The way you're describing it doesn't make any sense. First of all, how would you build a building -- it's a civil rights law, the ADA. How would you build a building to violate that? You know, you can't. MS. ZONE: Well, I will say that that's something that you might want to go back and then address to the applicants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just strike that last sentence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let's strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just -- you know, we can drag this on for an hour here -- MS. ZONE: Right, and I've already struck through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine, then let's go on to the next one. Brad, what -- MR. SCHMITT: ADA compatibility is a check through the Florida Building Code, so it's redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you guys -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- proof this stuff -- this shouldn't even be in here to begin with. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just stop being redundant with laws and rules that we have to reference that are already part of laws and rules we have to abide by. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I'd just like to also point out for the record that while we're dealing with permanent structures, whether -- the purpose of providing some additional clarification is the amount of deviations that would be applied to these so-called interim structures from an architectural standpoint. And we just want to make sure architecturally that we're not approving something below Page 112 April 2, 2009 standards without some deadline for them to be removed. MR. SCHMITT: It's no difference than a sales trailer. You come in for a sales trailer -- MR. BELLOWS: But I agree-- MR. SCHMITT: -- those type of things. MR. BELLOWS: -- with what you're saying, they're permanent structures for the purposes of the building department. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it does sound different, Joe, than the trailer. Because the trailer's governed by a different set of laws than a building would be. So the point -- the only thing I want to make sure is you don't in any way consider these temporary in the building codes. They're not, and -- MR. SCHMITT: They're not. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you can't do it with the LDC anyway. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. There's no argument there. They have to come in, they have to go through the permitting process, through the building code process, fire review process. They're not temporary. It's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The sentence is killed. MS. ZONE: It's also to remind the applicant that they are not really a trailer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you want to go on to your next issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I'll continue on to the paragraph that's up there now and let's discuss why the open-ended Page 113 April 2, 2009 review, staff reviews. MS. ZONE: Actually, we had put in there that it was originally the Board of County Commissioners. This was a last minute change. And it was based on Commissioner Coyle's comments at the last BCC hearing where they feel that bringing -- asking for a continuance for a use or some type of structure to go through the public petition process, because they believe that is not a forum for it and they would rather have it either go through staff administratively or through a public petition process. So to not have them to come back in to amend the PUD document, we put it through administratively. They would come in, request through the zoning department if they -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it. MS. ZONE: -- could extend-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it. MS. ZONE: -- the three years. COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it, Melissa. MS. ZONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So this is what I want you to do. I think it's fine that they get their three years, and then they can ask you for a three-year and you can grant that administratively. I have no problem with that. But when does it end? When do they finally have to do something else besides go back to you? Meaning staff. Because right now they can make this a 25-year plan and they can come back to you every three years. MS. ZONE: Right. Well, if you continue, the last sentence says that when they come in through the site development plan amendment process to include temporary restrooms -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm going to make a suggestion here. MS. ZONE: Sure. Page 114 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: That you get two three-year extensions administratively. After that, Mr. Anderson, your clients would have to come back in. So you'd have nine years to get the project completed and -- MR. SCHMITT: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's just one thing, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that seems odd, is they're going to be building these buildings per the codes as if they're permanent buildings. So all of a sudden -- I mean, what is this really giving these people, other than the ability to build a essentially permanent structure for six years without architectural review, right? You want innovative buildings in there anyway. What are we gaining here? MR. SCHMITT: The intent was to try and -- and you'd have to ask the applicant, but the intent -- this is going to be a -- it's a non- profit. It's a long process. It's raising revenue to build the permanent facilities. But they want to begin to open portions of it to the public, but they need the public facilities there to support the opening to the public. Restrooms -- MR. BELLOWS: Food. MR. SCHMITT: -- restaurant or food service, those types of things. And so it is a long process. It's not like a PUD or a development. So that's kind of what this was written as saying, yeah, you can have these interim facilities as you evolve and raise revenue and whatever to build your permanent facilities. That's sort of what they wanted. MS. ZONE: It is. And they -- to prevent them from keeping those structures there once the permanent structures are built, it would then be tied to the certificate of occupancy and that those structures Page 115 April 2, 2009 would have to be removed. So when they come in for the SDP amendment for public restrooms when the structure for the public restroom is built, then the interim one is then removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you're not going to be allowed like six years of Porta-Lets. I mean, there's no such thing as a six-year Porta-Let. I mean, anyway, if they want to do it, let them do it. I just haven't got it. MS. ZONE: It was their request and we're trying to find an avenue to permit it. MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute, you can. If they have purchased a trailer, that's a comfort station -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they can have it there as long as they want. MR. SCHMITT: -- and it's fully equipped and it meets all the tie-down code for the building code, it could sit there -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Forever. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, forever. MR. SCHMITT: -- forever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like the Seminoles have midway on 75. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: So this was trying to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But those all meet codes. MR. SCHMITT: What Ms. Caron did is added a limit to it, which I think is great. Because it says wait a minute, we're not going to let this happen for 10 years. And so -- but it does allow a process for them to at least have facilities in a temporary basis as they raise revenue to build the permanent facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) Page 116 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, can I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, you may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's close the public hearing and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to -- well, Mark, before we do, I'd like to just ask Bruce one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we are here, we are discussing this PUD. Why can't we discuss the turnaround, what the county needs to create that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss it. I'm not saying we can't discuss it. I asked if there was any more questions, nobody said anything. So go ahead. What do you want to know about the turn -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, why can't we start setting that up? What's the reason we can't start putting the radius in the property line right now? MR. ANDERSON: Oh, the roundabout, you mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: I'll let transportation address that. But it's my understanding that the CRA has pretty much decided they can't accommodate a roundabout there because the boat trailers can't get around it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's a good reason. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. Bruce is correct. I've got communication from David Jackson over at the CRA stating that basically the radius for the roundabout design wouldn't accommodate some of the boat trailers that they would anticipate going down to Bayview Park. So it would require additional right-of-way. Page 117 April 2, 2009 Three of the four corners right now -- actually, all four corners are occupied. But one of those is about to undergo redeveloped. Three of the four corners, southwest quadrant, would be -- Naples Botanical Gardens would require additional right-of-way to accommodate that roundabout design. And the larger the radius, the more right-of-way you need. The current design alternative that they were discussing were turn lanes, would accommodate what they need and a possible future signalization at the intersection. So that's sort of the direction that the CRA is leaning in communications towards -- you know, back and forth to transportation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me say, Bruce, what you said then is with the existing, the given right-of-ways, they can't build a roundabout large enough. I'm talking about maybe we should be starting to carve out the roundabout they need then. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That would also require right-of-way on the other three quadrants, which would cost over and above what I think the Bayshore CRA and MSTU are willing to accommodate. And it still creates a problem with the turning radius for boat trailers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so nobody knows what right-of-way would be required for a proper turnaround at that location? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I believe it's been evaluated, but I don't have the exact numbers with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, when you said the turnaround wouldn't accommodate boat trailers, you said because the CRA said it wouldn't. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the CRA an engineering firm? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, they are not. Page 118 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have an engineering firm confirm that statement? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Myself, no, I have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know if it will accommodate a boat or trailer or not. We just heard that somebody said it wouldn't, so therefore we believe that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: That's not the only statement. I can -- but if you want my -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't ever say that. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: All right, this is a conceptual plan that they've included in their study. This is the conceptual design. And as you can see, you can notice on the northeast quadrant of Thomasson and Bayshore Drive, there'd be an impact there, which I believe is affordable housing at this point. The southeast corner, which is Del's Party Store, there would be problems there. There'd also be access management problems there. And you can also see on the Naples Botanical Gardens where there would be issues pretty much with their signage and their parking lot. So the larger the radius would go to accommodate boat trailers -- and I'd have to ask probably our PE -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But John, my point was I don't care if this runabout (sic) is there or whatever you want to do there, it doesn't matter to me. But your reasons for saying no, we can't have a runabout is because someone just told you it wouldn't work for boat trailers and you don't have an engineering credential to tell me that's true or not -- not you but whoever told you that. I don't know why you guys would dismiss the idea for that reason. That was my only point. If you're dismissing it for other reasons, it's not practical, fine,s Page 119 April 2, 2009 then just say that. But to dismiss it because someone didn't think it would work for boat trailers, well, that doesn't fly. A professional's got to say that, meaning an engineer or someone who's a transportation authority or someone of that nature. Anyway, anybody else have any questions on the runabout? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know, that was a roundabout discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Many times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the thing, is you've got four corners you've got to get. Here's a chance to bite at this one. I mean, if you want to walk away from it, walk away, but-- MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, sir, we're trying to stay in line with the Bayshore CRA, this recommendation from the study that they've done that I'm showing you here. And their recommendation was for the roundabout, but for the alternative design was for a signalization at the intersection. And like I said, we've received communication from the CRA from Mr. Jackson that indicates that the CRA and the MSTU are not supportive at this point of the roundabout design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the CRA has abandoned the roundabout. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, can I close the public-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You sure can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing deliberations -- MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're opened up again. Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I have one clarification question. Page 120 April 2, 2009 Ms. Caron, after the second three-year extension, what procedure can we avail ourselves of, if necessary? Can we go the public petition route? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the process like, you know, like would be normal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, can I close the public hearing now? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you, I just needed to know what to add there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I already added that. I figured that's what she meant so that's what I put down. Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a-- well, before we go to a motion, I'll read the notes I made, and if we want to elaborate on them, go from there. Number one: Change 6.4, number seven, to strike out the reference to the -- as we show on the screen, one through six. Number two: Accept the new transportation language as read to us on the record. Number three: Accept staff recommendations. Number four: Change 4.14.B, and 7.5.M to address the -- to include the overflow park parking in the and/or language. Number five: Add the innovative structures language back into 4.14.A. Number six: Under 7.63 put the word black in front of chain link. Number seven: Under 4.l4, remove the last sentence words -- the words where they start to compensate, remove the rest of that sentence after those words and the rest of the sentence. Number eight: 6.2, remove reference to the ADA and the codes, that entire sentence. And the last one, 6.4.7, allow only two three-year administrative approvals for extension and then require public process after that. Page 121 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd make a motion, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would motion that PUDA-2008-AR-13792, known Naples Botanical Gardens planned unit development, as presented here today and incorporating all of the Chair's recommended changes, and according to staff recommendations, be forwarded to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Any comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. By the real clock, or by the close clock, it's a few minutes before noon. We have two choices. We can take a 15-minute break or we can take an hour lunch and come back. I think the next one's rather simple. So what's the preference of the board? COMMISSIONER CARON: Break. Page 122 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Short one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll take a 15-minute break, we'll come back at 12:15, which who knows what time it will be by the clock on the wall. (Recess.) Item #9E PETITION: PUDZ-2008-AR-13048, NADESHA RANASINGHE CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from break. We have one petition left. It's Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-13048. It's Nadesha Ranasinghe -- I can't say the last name, but the people are represented by Richard Y ovanovich, and it's for a Singer Park CPUD. And with that, is there any disclosures? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides me, I did speak with Richard. We had a brief conversation, and I have one issue that I'll be bringing up today. Other than that -- oh, yeah, swearing in. Thank you. The attorney had to remind me to swear people in. Now there's a different twist. Anybody wishing to participate in this hearing, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I see the big guns Page 123 April 2, 2009 from compo planning are here, so something's up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, no. I hope not. I think it's good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant. With me today also is Ron Nino with Vanasse and Daylor to answer any questions that I can't answer regarding the petition. The petition involves a 5 .15-acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road. And if you look up on the -- whatever that's called, the bulletin board, you'll see the property outlined and you'll see Immokalee Road in the east-west direction, and then Everglades Boulevard in the north-south direction. And that's the property. The property is within what's identified in the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan as neighborhood center. And as a neighborhood center, that is where the master plan currently allocates commercial development. The request is for up to 45,000 square feet ofC-l through C-3 residential uses, which is currently what's allowed under the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan. We've identified in the PUD a few uses that are within the C-l through C-3 category. We've also included the prohibited uses as prohibited uses that are also specifically prohibited under the comprehensive plan. We've basically taken what's in the comprehensive plan and put it into the PUD document to make it clear what we can and can't do on the property. Your staff has reviewed the petition and has found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and is recommending approval of the petition. We had a neighborhood information meeting. There were no objections to the petition that I noted -- that we noted at the neighborhood information meeting. And I don't think there are any Page 124 April 2, 2009 objections that have been submitted since or prior to the neighborhood information meeting. The petition is very straightforward. Your staff report goes into great detail, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the petition -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one here. But I noted for 35 feet zoned and 40 feet actual height. And I'm just wondering, that's -- for one story that's quite a lot. What do you intend to have, storage over one -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we simply did was take what's in the Land Development -- yeah, the comprehensive plan and put it in the -- we don't know what the architecture of the buildings are going to look like, so we just mirrored what is currently authorized. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because it would seem 40 feet is a lot of building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't have to build to 40 feet, though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Theoretically we could get to an actual height of 40 feet. Theoretically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, there's a GMP requirement for buildings to be essentially 5,000 feet. There is an exception that if they're submitted in the form of a PUD. Now, that to me means that because in a PUD you'd get to see the size of the buildings. So this has no restriction whatsoever on the square footage of the buildings themselves, correct? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. But it does currently Page 125 April 2, 2009 keep the square footage limitations on the uses that are in the PUD -- that are in the Land Development Code in the compo plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there any way we could discuss how big these buildings are going to be? I mean, there's nothing to prevent you from building a 45,000 square foot building in one big lump. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's true. But the master plan does depict for you the building envelope, if you will, of where that building could be located. We've got the preserves outlined on the master plan, and to our north is a fire station. And as you know, we'll have the 75-foot bound -- let me put it up on the visualizer, if you need me to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you've done everything in the compo plan that you should do to that site. That's not the question. The question is this is also in the compo plan, and -- I guess I can wait and ask comprehensive planning at staff time what the intent of that is. I have a question for transportation later, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, I've got on your development standards table, Exhibit B, under minimum yards you have from Everglades Boulevard right-of-way and then you have from other CPUD boundaries you have 25 feet, and accessory same as principal structure. But yet on your site plan you've got to have 75 feet for the buffer requirements. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't you really have 75 feet then? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you do on two of the boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, and they would trump the 25 feet, Page 126 April 2, 2009 III my OpInIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand. But for clarification, I think it ought to be added to this table. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, if we want to put it 75 feet from the south and west -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then maximum height you have listed as 35 feet, 40 feet and 20 feet and one story. Back to like we did last time, I'd suggest we add the words 35 feet -- or one story not to exceed 35 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we do that in each case, the not to exceed be added in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one question on that height situation. There is a direct quote from the neighborhood information meeting that says here, however, the buildings will be one story not to exceed 35 feet in height when built. That's what was stated at the neighborhood information meeting. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was at the neighborhood information meeting. We talked about zoned height at the neighborhood information meeting. The 35 feet was in the context of zoned height. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right, I'm reading what IS III -- Page 127 April 2, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand what's in the staff report, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- quotes here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I mean, we talked about zoned height at the neighborhood information meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And so we should have some reference from staff on that issue so that we can get that confirmed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. And just so you know, at the neighborhood information meeting we actually did hand out the PUD document with all the uses in it identified. So we went through that with a few people that did take the time to attend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we'll ask for staff report then. Thank you, Rich. MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. And as the -- staff is representing approval of this CPUD. As the applicant previously stated, it is consistent with the neighborhood sub- district of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And at this time, if you'd like to go right into questions, I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, yeah. Nancy, the 5,000 square foot building footprint, what do you think that means in this case? MS. GUNDLACH: Ifwe turn to table -- it's actually on Exhibit A. The 5,000 square feet is a limit for retail uses located within principal structures within this PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yet the GMP calls it a Page 128 April 2, 2009 building footprint? MS. GUNDLACH: The GMP calls it a building footprint? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, look on Page 7. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Third dot -- third bullet up from the bottom. And I guess if you want, we can wait for comprehensive planning, since that's theirs. Maybe let them describe it. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I think they're on their way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right behind you. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. The specific language in the Golden Gate Master Plan we're speaking of provides that if -- that the building permit -- building footprint cannot exceed 5,000 square feet unless the project is submitted in the form of a PUD. If this were not a PUD, this were conventional C-l 2 or 3 zoning, those zoning districts would cap the square footage at the 5,000 square feet for some uses, and even smaller for others. To exceed that would require a conditional use. So they would have to -- if they were just coming in for conventional rezoning and they wanted a building to be larger, they would have to come in for conditional use and have that specific review considered. This allows through the PUD approval process for the size of the structures to be part of this consideration. Does that answer it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's what -- I think Rich thinks it does too. But here's the concern, is that a PUD is essentially a way to do creative zoning, you know creative design, stuff like that. We have no design, we have no zoning, we just have a flat piece of land with stuff outlined where we're not going to build parking and buildings. Page 129 April 2, 2009 MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So do you think that when they wrote that in there, unless it's submitted in the form of a PUD, they really meant at the time you'd be reviewing the PUD you'd understand how they're going to build this thing? Why would you have that requirement any other reason? I mean, the intent is not to -- in other words, I understand what you're saying, a conventional. But are we falling short on what a PUD would normally show us to give us the ability to, you know, approve or accept that layout? MR. WEEKS: I cannot factually answer that. I can say that I think it's reasonable to assume and perhaps even to ask an applicant to either restrict the building sizes or to provide some type of renderings of what the buildings might look at as part of the consideration to allow a building to be greater than 5,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: But I cannot say for certain. Going back in history, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a time when through the PUD zoning process it was an outright requirement to submit building footprints on a master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because, you know, it seems odd that this is essentially a discussion of the scale of buildings why it would matter in the legal format in which it's presented. You would think that there has to be a reason why the PUD -- and I think because this doesn't have -- we have no knowledge of the building, everybody's accepting the fact you could build one large building, that I think we may be missing the intent of that, the wording there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is it appropriate in comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's fine with the Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. Go ahead, Richard. Just so you know, I was chairman of the group that wrote the intent of this language. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I'll defer to you. Page 130 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your interpretation of it is the same one that I believe we intended. Our concern was that if we had massive buildings we wanted them to be reviewed under the PUD format so we could look at heights, densities and setbacks, buffers and things like that, which are all addressed in the development standards table. If they were going to come in with 5,000 square foot buildings or smaller, in like a business park format, that didn't bother us too much. But it's when they'd come in with buildings that were larger than that that we had the issue with, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what's allowed here. The reason -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's why they're in the PUD, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the PUD is not describing the footprint of the scale. They could build a 45,000 square foot building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but it would be 35 feet high and have the buffers involved in it that are -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And listening to your earlier discussion about another petition, you all seemed to be uncomfortable with straight rezone. And I think what you were trying to get to was you can only have a 5,000 square foot building, unless you're willing to go through the PUD review process, have your development standards table in one document, a master plan that depicts your building envelope, if you will, to give certainty to the neighbors. And you can evaluate, based upon this, if you were to do one building, is it okay based upon the development standards table and everything being on the master plan. I don't think it was to get to the specifics of the buildings themselves on the master plan, because there is no master plan with a straight rezone, as we talked about a little earlier. Now you have the master plan and you'll know where the envelope is. Page 13 1 April 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't particularly agree. I mean, there's discussions in the GMP about courtyards, about a whole bunch of things that we have no idea whether you're going to do that or not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have to do that through -- the SDP process will review all of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will capture it, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, since you were there and know the intent, I'll back off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're covered by what we've got in regards to what we intended, so -- Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more of staff. And it's transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I think it's a transportation question, sir. You're in charge of this one. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: John Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, the way they have this designed, they have three lanes of traffic, a pretty wide paved area coming out. Would that be better if they had an island between the incoming and outcoming (sic) traffic? Do you see -- from transportation is that safe or less safe? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, it's something that we would review at site development plan. We do have a Right-of-Way Handbook requirement of a maximum width of 24 feet for a two-way driveway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this doesn't meet it. If you turn around and you could see -- Page 132 April 2, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually in the PUD process we don't measure that. That's something that's looked at specifically at SDP. If there's an additional lane that's required for outbound left-turn or outbound right-turn traffic, it would be something that we would evaluate basically on an operational basis. It's not something specifically we look at during PUD, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But this would obviously be greater than 24 feet. So there would be probably an island somewhere in this design, so don't worry about it, right? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of staff? Any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody, do we have any reason not to close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's think of one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's think of one. Okay, Richard, Bruce isn't here, so I'm covered. We'll close the public hearing. I think there are only two comments, and that is number one, the height limitations, we'll have the words not to exceed added to them. And that the reference to the setbacks of the perimeter of the PUD will relate that the south and west side will have a 75-foot setback. By the way, that's just for the required native vegetation. Any other setbacks required by code, they're obligated to, but that's to be added. Page 133 April 2, 2009 Okay, anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Caron. Subject to the stipulations? COMMISSIONER CARON: To the stipulations you just read-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff recommen -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all. Richard, that was probably the shortest one you've had in a while. Number 10, old business, do we have any old business? (No response.) Item #11 Page 134 April 2, 2009 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any new business? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was -- I just want to bring this up again, because I was really disturbed that staff was once again taking a petitioner's agent's word for the intent of the CCPC. And I really -- we have got to watch that. We have gotten in trouble in this county on numerous other occasions over this, and it's really very, very disturbing. So I just wanted to reiterate that we need to watch that like a hawk, because it's a serious issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't quite follow that, Karen ( sic), could you explain it a little bit? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, what happened earlier was in PUD -- what was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the Mirasol one concerning the asterisk number nine. COMMISSIONER CARON: The petitioner's agent took out something from the consent without interpreting what she thought the intent of this commission was. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was this on his document or was it on our document? COMMISSIONER CARON: On what was presented to us today. And that's why we had to have it put back in. Brad brought the issue up and got them to put it back in. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. Maybe if that ever happens again, it should be done, strike-through, underlined in red. I mean, something that really says we took this out. Because if Page 135 April 2, 2009 we hadn't have caught it, we wouldn't have caught it. So, you know, there's nothing in there to give us a hint that somebody -- not even staff decided something should be a better way. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I just want to point out, I did talk to the planner assigned to that project to find out a little more of what happened. The condition footnote number nine was something that she added and has been shoWfl on the copy sent to you as an underlined. That was her interpretation of the CCPC's motion made at the last meeting. In discussing that with the applicant, Kay was in agreement that she thought that that was redundant, that condition number nine that she had proposed, and therefore was taking it out in favor of this other language that was placed in the footnote. And since it was coming to this board for approval for consent where you would review that, she thought that her bases were covered. But I understand the perception in this case was that you got a document that showed a change and then there was a last second change. I don't think it was presented to you clearly as to the facts of what happened. But it wasn't like it was existing language in the PUD that was removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think in the future, though, Brad's got a good comment, so has Donna, if you highlight those changes -- MR. BELLOWS: Definitely will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it will make it a little easier for us to understand. MR. BELLOWS: And we'll make it explain why you got a document different than what was being handed out or explained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Is there anything else under old business, new business? (No response.) Page 136 April 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, are you here for public comment? Okay, then there is none. There is no public left. So let's motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:48 p.m. Page 137 April 2, 2009 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Page 138