CCPC Minutes 05/20/2010 R
May 20, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
May 20, 2010
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
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. W oltley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, GMD Deputy Administrator
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page 1
**REVISED**
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010, IN
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, Fl.ORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WIl.l. BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE,
WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ April 15, 2010
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - May 11, 20IIJ
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. LDC Amendment 2,03.07 G- Immokalee Deviation Process [Coordinator: Susan Istenes]
B. SV-PL2009-242I T AC Holdings, L.P., represented by Jeff Riggins, of Riggins Associates, is requesting a
variance from Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 F.!. which requires a
minimum separation of 1,000 lineal feet between ground signs to allow a sign separation of 603 ::l:: feet
between two ground signs. The subject property, American Momentum Center, is located on 8625
Tamiami Trail North in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach]
1
C. PUDA-PL2009-1499 Lennar Homes, LLC, represented by David R. Underhill, Jr. of Banks Engineering,
and R. Bruce Anderson, of RoetzeI & Andress, LP A, is requesting an amendment to the Heritage Bay
Planned Unit Development (PUD (Ordinance No. 03-40) to add additional development standards for the
AC/R3 designated area on the Master Plan to allow townhouse units, by amending Section 2.24, to add item F
and by adding Table 2A, by allowing deviations from the land Development Code (LDC) Sections 6.06.0 I.B
and 6.06.0 1.0 I (0) regarding standard road section and road width; by allowing a deviation from LDC Section
4.05.02.F to allow back out parking; and by allowing deviations from LDC Sections 4.05.02.J. and 4.05.03
regarding same-lot parking facilities to allow parking within easements dedicated to all residents; and by
adding Exhibit A-I to show the layout; and by adding Exhibit A-2 to reflect thc area wherein the amendment
is effective; and by adding any other stipulations or regulations that may result from the amendment process
pertaining to the 261.-acre AC/R3 designated area within the 2,562 acre Heritage Bay PUD project. The
AC/R3 subject property is located in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. Florida.
The subjcct 2,562cC acres (the entire Heritage Bay PUD) is located on the north side of Immokalee Road
(SR 846) east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Sections 13, 14,23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselcm]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LDC Amendment Manatee Protection Plan - Shoreline Calculations [Coordinator: Stephen Lenberger]
B. CP-2008-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area
Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to
commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density; elimination of some existing
designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, addition of
approximately 103 acres presently designated Agricultural/Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area as Identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal
Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
I I. NEW BUSINESS
A. Adoption Hearing schedule for GMP amendment petition CP-2008-5, Immokalee Area Master Plan
[Coordinator: David Weeks, Planning Manager]
B. Conversion of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) to the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) [Coordinator: Susan Istenes, AICP, Manager, Special Projects]
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
51l Oil 0 CCPC Agenda/Ray BeIlows/jmp
.
;
2
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody just dropped off the
cliff here in this little hole.
Good morning. Welcome to the May 20th 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 BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the
roll call.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Woltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Page 2
May 20,2010
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Addenda to the agenda. There was a revised agenda sent out I
think earlier this week just changing the schedule. The first thing up
under the regular hearings today will be the shoreline protection
amendment to the LDC. Then after that we will get into the
Irnrnokalee Master Plan.
For people trying to gauge their time today, I think both items
will take a bit of time. Right now I'm thinking we're going to be here
for most of the day. So just to give you all a heads up.
Ray, we still have a meeting on June 1st for the adoption of the
GMP. Is that still on schedule? CCPC -- it's according to the schedule
you sent out. I just want to make sure, because we have a June 1 st
meeting shown and a June 3rd, our regular meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: Let me double check my calendar.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody know if they can't
make it to the June 1 st meeting?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll be away that week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that gets us a quorum.
The June 3rd meeting would be the typical meeting. Does
anybody know if they can't make it?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
Page 3
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti won't. Okay.
Ray, when you get a chance sometime today, confirm -- right
now the adoption hearings are set up for the I st, the 15th and the 21 st,
according to the agenda that you handed out last meeting, or the
schedule.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll have that verified before the end--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you? Because I know some
things may have gotten delayed, and I don't know if all the ORC
Report responses are completed or not.
Okay, that takes care of the addenda to the agenda, the Planning
Commission absences.
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 15,2010 REGULAR
MEETING
Approval of minutes. The April 15th, 2010 Meeting Minutes
were distributed. Anybody have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms. Homiak.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: I just was -- 11.B needs to be continued.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, thank you. I forgot completely.
Susan, thank you for reminding me.
Page 4
May 20,2010
11.B was a new business item to discuss the use ofNAICS,
North American Industrial Classification System, in lieu of the SIC
Code we are currently using. Staff needs more time with that. That
will be continued to a future date. So 11.B will be continued.
And back to the approval of minutes. We have a motion made by
Ms. Homiak, seconded by Mr. Woltley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - APRIL 27, 2010
Recaps, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on May lIth, the Board of County
Commissioners heard the variance for PL-09-1220. That was a
variance in the Estates for a metal shed. That was approved on the
summary agenda.
Item #7
Page 5
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. We're just
going to have a long day, that's all I've got to tell you today. We'll just
have to get into it.
Item #8A
LDC AMENDMENT 2.03.07 G - IMMOKALEE DEVIATION
PROCESS
The consent agenda items. The first one up is 8.A. It's LDC
amendment 20307G, the Immokalee deviation process.
There were some corrections to this process from the County
Attorney's Office. I believe they were going to be incorporated. I
want to thank the County Attorney's Office for a thorough review that
they did on this. It was greatly appreciated. It's good to see these
kinds of reviews coming forward, so thank you.
And I guess Susan, are you still here? Or who's going to walk us
through -- oh, Robert, okay. Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Bob Mulhere for the record,
representing the CRA.
I think you summarized it. We did meet on several occasions,
Heidi and I and Susan, and we did a lot of work through the Internet.
We incorporated the changes that the County Attorney's Office
wanted. I think the product is better as a result. And that's really all
I've got. Maybe Heidi wants to add something.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't really have anything further to
add other than I think the final product is -- I'm happy with the final
product.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good, thank you.
Page 6
May 20,2010
Okay, this is a consent agenda. The changes that the County
Attorney's Office wanted to make are not substantial; they're just more
or less housekeeping changes, so I don't see how that changes our
prior vote.
Based on that, is there a motion to accept the LDC amendment
20307G with the changes recommended by the County Attorney's
Office and supplied in our consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
The next one that you have won't go that easy. Just thought I'd
prep you for the rest of the day, Bob.
MR. MULHERE: This is decaf.
Page 7
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the high test.
Item #8B
PETITION: SV-PL2009-2421, TAC HOLDINGS, L.P., AMERICAN
MOMENTUM CENTER
Okay, 8.B is consent agenda SVPL-2009-2421, TAC Holdings,
LP. And that's for the signs at the American Monumentum (sic)
Center in Pelican Bay.
Is there a motion or discussion on this?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. And I'm slowing
down.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Page 8
May 20, 2010
Item #8C
PETITION: PUDA-PL2009-1499, LENNAR HOMES, LLC,
HERITAGE BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The last item up on our consent agenda is PUDA-PL-2009-1499.
It's Lennar Homes, LLC, with some changes to the Heritage Bay
Planned Unit Development.
Discussion or motion.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a discussion earlier with
Mr. Anderson on a couple of places here where I think the ordinance
needs to be clearer. And one where it's not corrected at all.
If you go to Section 3, tables 1 and 2 are development standards
for the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 area. Tables 2 and 2-A are to be used
only by the AC/R3. And Mr. Anderson was in agreement with that.
And I think we can just separate it out by creating a second sentence
that delineates that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce? I don't have table 2 in front of
me. I understand about 2-A. Would table 2 -- is table 2 solely for
AC/R3?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They could be used
interchangeably, do you remember, 2 and 2-A?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. One's for commercial, I think,
and the other's for -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Additionally, in section four, that
gets into the deviations, section four and section five. And those
deviations only relate to the AC/R3 districts, and that needs to be
culled out in both of those sections.
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
Page 9
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good catch. It's certainly what
we discussed and recommended. It's just a matter of clarifying it.
Do you have any problems with the clarifications?
MR. ANDERSON: No. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does staff understand what the
clarifications are enough so that it hasn't got to be continued for
consent?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- comfortable with you, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a -- any other changes or
corrections?
(No response.)
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion consistent with
the recommended changes?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion to approve
with the changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made.
Seconded?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 10
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you, Ms. Caron, for catching all those.
Item #9 A
LDC AMENDMENT - MANA TEE PROTECTION PLAN -
SHORELINE CALCULATIONS
The next item up will be our regular hearing, advertised public
hearing, and it is a continued item that we've gone around with before.
It's the LDC amendment Manatee Protection Plan, shoreline
calculations.
And I'm not sure who from staffs presenting this. Steve? Okay.
I'll check with the County Attorney's Office. We don't need to
swear in for this, do we?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, you don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Steven
Lenberger from the Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive
Planning and Zoning Services Department.
The amendment here is with regards to the shoreline calculations
for the Manatee Protection Plan, specifically as they relate to shoreline
within conservation easements. You had heard this I guess about a
month ago at one of your meetings.
Since that time we had worked with the County Attorney's Office
Page 11
May 20, 2010
and they were very helpful with reviewing the minutes from the Board
of County Commissioners' meeting back in April 22nd, 2008.
And apparently there was some confusion. And looking over the
minutes myself, I can see where the confusion occurred. There was
lots of discussion.
But there was a motion made by the Board of County
Commissioners on how to proceed with this amendment, and the
amendment you have before you is consistent with the board's
direction on what they wanted.
Since that time we also took the amendment back to the
Development Services Advisory Committee, as well as the
Environmental Advisory Council, and their recommendations are
included in the narrative portion of the amendment for the board's and
your consideration.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them, but that's
the sequence of events since we last met.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to -- I know we have
public speakers on the matter.
Is there any questions before the public speakers from the
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what -- go ahead, Ms.
Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'd like to hear I guess a little
bit more from the County Attorney's Office on what their feeling is on
this. Because this is different than what had been stated in our last
meeting. And it's also different in terms of the directions as a result
that we gave to staff. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go there, it might be a good
idea; there's been a lot of versions of this tloating around. Could you
put the version that's under discussion today up on the overhead while
we speak?
Page 12
May 20,2010
MR. LENBERGER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that
everybody's on the same page. I saw a lot of e-mails that were coming
in about some version. It surprised me the e-mails that I saw, because
it didn't fit to where -- what the people that previously spoke on when
they were present in this room, so I'm not sure everybody's got the
same version. So I want to make sure we're all reading off the same
page.
And now that that's up, go ahead, Heidi, you could --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. In April of2008, I believe it is,
the board directed that the language that's before you come back in the
LDC cycle and that it be taken through the various stakeholders for
their input.
The prior draft that went through the process was different than
what's currently being proposed, which is on the overhead.
We'll need a vote on that language. You'll need to make a
recommendation for approval or denial, so forth.
Some of the issues that we discussed last time were whether or
not an LDC amendment would be required and whether it could be
handled in a different manner.
So we sort of have two issues, if you'd like to make a
recommendation, in addition to your vote on the language.
We talked about whether it could be done on an administrative
level or without an LDC amendment. Because whichever language is
adopted, I expect that there'll be problems with the administration of
it.
As you know, the county conservation easements don't currently
address the calculation of the shoreline. And the position of our office
is that if you place the property in a conservation easement, you're
giving up all rights. And that's typically what happens through the
rezone process. Unless you retain specific densities over the
conservation easement, you've given it up.
Page 13
May 20,2010
You also look at the shoreline when the boat docks come before
you. We already have an LDC amendment that does look at the
shoreline when you're calculating the boat docks when you've got 10
or more slips and it protrudes 20 feet out, you look at it. But there are
going to be instances where it's not captured.
Either way, if we go forward with our conservation easements,
we'll need to specify -- that's a whole separate process. The
conservation easements that are processed through staff are a standard
form, and that will also have to be amended to address whatever the
outcome is.
I think the simplest process in my opinion, is that the board direct
staff that if these come in on a staff level that you have the ability to
approve boat slips on the staff level where a conservation easement is
excluded.
So -- and in those instances where the conservation easement is
not addressed and you're not going to exclude it as the staff process,
those need to come to the board, if it's not specified in the
conservation easement. It seems to me that's the simplest process, but
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that get to your question,
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, sort of. Sort of yes and no.
The direction that this board unanimously gave was that we
wanted to use the County Attorney's language for this amendment.
And the County Attorney had stated on the record that -- just what you
initially said, which if it's in conservation, that's it, it's conservation
land, there are no more rights. You've already gotten rights to density
and other things in your PUD process. And so whatever is in
conservation is genuinely conservation.
And we said at that time that what we wanted to have happen
after that was that knowing that everybody has the right to appeal to
the board if they disagree with something, that we should set out some
Page 14
May 20,2010
criteria for the board so that they weren't just left there to make any
judgment, depending on the whim of the day or whatever, that perhaps
things like if slips were made for the public or that that would be a
reason to approve -- may be a reason to approve wet slips.
But also conversely, if there are things like mangroves or sea
grasses or other reasons not to do that, we would list some things that
would allow the board to say really, this is not appropriate. And that's
not what I see coming back to us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Steve's introduction about
the direction the board gave, meaning the Board of County
Commissioners, was probably more on point. We had an opinion and
we expressed that and we suggested the stakeholders go back and look
at our suggested process. But we can't direct them to do anything.
They basically disagreed with us and sent back language that now
they would like, and now we have to deal with it and send our own
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
I think in the end the BCC's going to have three separate
recommendations: One from the DSAC, one from EAC and one from
us. I don't right now think they're all going to be on the same page.
I know I'm in disagreement with the language in front of me right
now, and I don't -- I think it goes further than it needs to. I think this
whole process and whole system is going further than it needed to. It
could have been handled simply through administrative level, not
meaning approval, but with a process that would have opened it up to
an 0.1. which opens it up to appeal on a case-by-case basis and going
forward from there.
By changing the entire code to accommodate a concern over
what apparently is one project I think is not -- our code shouldn't be
tailored to a specific piece of property, it should be tailored to
everybody in the county.
And I'm not really liking what I see in front of me here today, but
we'll get into more discussion on that as we go forward.
Page 15
May 20,2010
I think, Steve, it would be helpful for us -- and I understand your
staffs position because of board direction. You did what you had to
do. The stakeholders looked at it as they were told to look at it, and so
did the other boards.
Can you tell me what the purpose of G is? And I don't mean in
the reference to counting slips. The quantity of slips impacts
something. And I know the answer, but I want to understand it and
see if my assumption concurs with yours.
This overall process being added to the Manatee Protection Plan
is to do what? Protect manatees? Is that the ultimate goal?
MR. LENBERGER: Well, the ultimate goal would be for
protection of manatee, the whole section of the code and the Manatee
Protection Plan, of course, as far as within conservation easements.
The reasons behind it were not actually conveyed to me. That was by
management. And -- but it was the issue of the conservation
easement, whether they severed that right or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand all that.
MR. LENBERGER: As far as the broader picture regarding
sensitivity of habitat and the Manatee Protection Plan itself, the state
as you know recently -- well, at the end of 2007 adopted their Manatee
Management Plan. And in that management plan, I had a chance to
look at it, not all of it but a good portion of it. They're going to be
looking at existing manatee protection plans, Collier County included,
for possible revisions. They'll also be looking at speed zones and a lot
of other issues. So that's something staff will be working with Florida
Wildlife Commission and stakeholders in the future. Probably latter
part of this year and into 2011.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a lot of times in order to
understand a law or a rule, it's nice to go back and figure out what the
intent and purpose was. When you look at statutes, you go back to
legislature and see what their discussions were, what was their intent
and purpose.
Page 16
May 20,2010
And obviously there wasn't a history on this other than the board
discussing it, sending it back through a couple of times as they have.
So I went back to the Manatee Protection Plan, tried to find the intent
and purpose of how this would fit into that plan and how it may be
judged based on that intent.
I'm going to read a paragraph or two. It will take a minute. But I
think it might help maybe for those of us who are not familiar with the
prelude to the Manatee Protection Plan.
It starts out: Boating related accidents are a major cause of
manatee mortality. Furthermore, much of the resultant development
from the increasing population is occurring in the coastal zone which
may affect manatee habitat.
Shoreline development brings with it concurrent increase in boat
traffic to the area. According to the Marine Mammal Commission's
'88 report, the principal threat to manatee habitat is increasing levels
of boat traffic in essential travel corridors, in feeding areas, resting
areas, warm water refuges and fresh water sources.
Increased levels of boating traffic are a threat to manatee habitat
because they increase the probability that manatees will be killed or
injured by collisions with boats and because they disrupt normal
behavior patterns. While this is not a threat in the usual sense, if so
altering an area that it no longer meets the species' needs, the hazards
created by high-speed boat traffic in areas preferred by manatees
clearly reduce its suitability for the species.
And under purpose: The purpose of this plan is to provide
county-wide protection for the West Indian Manatee.
The objectives: Manatee objectives for county manatee
protection plans by the FDEP include reducing the number of boat
related manatee mortalities.
Now, I think the connection between the number of boats on the
water and the mortality rate of manatees is clear as the intent of the
Manatee Protection Plan.
Page 17
May 20, 2010
Now, if you follow that reasoning through and then take a
reasonable look at G, how are we helping the manatee protection
mortality -- manatee mortality rate by providing a conservation
easement that unintendedly allows more boat traffic to be concentrated
right next to it? I'm not sure that meets the intent of the Manatee
Protection Plan, from the way I just read it.
I think the Manatee Protection Plan; part of it was to limit the
number of boats and boat traffic. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all the
shoreline restrictions.
And so if you take that into consideration, I think G is a little
broader than even it needs to be in the way it's written in front of us
today.
And as we go through today's discussion, my suggestion was
going to be the fourth line up from the bottom where it says, pursuant
to the Manatee Protection Plan, just putting a period and crossing off
the rest of it.
Now that I've thrown that on the table, we can go through the rest
of the meeting and we'll hear comments and discussion and hopefully
have a decision by the time we're done here today.
Any other comments from the Planning Commission before we
go into -- ask for public speakers?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I have comments on this
wording. Is that what we should do now, or wait till --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. If you want to hear the
public comments first --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd rather hear them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then have your discussion, it
might be more relevant, but it's up to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd rather hear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, Ray, we'll start
Page 18
May 20, 2010
with the registered public speakers and then anybody who's not
registered, will have an equal opportunity to speak. So let's start out
with the first one.
MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Rich Yovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich for this first presentation on behalf of Signature
Communities. I registered twice, I have two different clients here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to get up and down twice
or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I am, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are you going to kind of mix them
altogether here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I am. I need the exercise, so I'm going to
do that.
As you know, this has been a pretty intense and it's a detailed
issue that needs to be discussed.
Commissioner Strain, you're right, the Manatee Protection Plan is
there to protect manatees. And in the Manatee Protection Plan there
are sighting criteria and how you calculate the number of docks the
shoreline will result in, as you know. Depending on whether you're
preferred or a lesser category you get more or less docks based upon
the 100 foot of shoreline you have. It goes from one to I think 10.
Tim Hall is more familiar.
This particular -- so if you have 1,000 feet of shoreline in your
preferred site, you would get 100 docks, because you get 10 per 100.
If you have 1,000 feet and you're in a lesser category, you get one per
100, so you would get 10. The Manatee Protection Plan addresses that
already in how you calculate the number of docks.
This particular amendment is designed for one project and one
project only, and we all know that. It's the Dunes project and the
concern about how many docks can the Dunes project generate. And I
bring that up because I think we need to put it in historical context.
Page 19
May 20, 2010
And then I'm going to explain how what you're doing today will have
absolutely no impact in the future.
So it's a retroactive application of a staff interpretation that this is
always what the Manatee Protection Plan provided for. And if we
look at the Dunes project and the Dunes minutes for when that PUD
was adopted, you will know that it has never been the official board
interpretation that if you place a preserve or a conservation easement
on that property you gave up your ability to use that same area for the
number of docks you can ask for.
Because it's just like residential density. If you put that area in a
preserve, you don't lose the residential density, you just don't put the
residences in the preserve.
Similarly, just because you say you're not going to put docks in
the preserve -- and I don't think you'll ever find an easement that says
you can put the docks actually in the preserve, so the language there is
already telling you you're never going to have it happen. But you use
that area for calculating the number of docks you can ask for.
Now, there was a detailed discussion about the Dunes project and
the dock issue during the PUD phase. Because we never calculate the
number of docks at the PUD level. We always include, if you're
waterfront, the provision that you can have docks or boathouses as an
accessory use. But we never put number there, because we know we
have to go through a boat dock extension process in the future.
In the Dunes PUD it specifically says as a permitted accessory
use is boathouses and boat docks. No number.
There was discussion at the adoption how many are you going to
ask for in the future. We had miles of waterfront. And under any
calculation, how many docks would you get for miles, you would get
hundreds to thousands.
The developer committed on the record to ask for no more than
60. He then had his PUD adopted that showed the shoreline as a
preserve. He shows in his PUD he's going to have docks, he'll come
Page 20
May 20,2010
back in the future, he wants to ask for 60.
This language, if applied retroactively, will result in zero docks
in the Dunes project. Yet it was discussed specifically that there
would be docks and that we would come back in the future to go
through a process to address docks.
And specifically the calculation issue came up during the
minutes, and it said with the PUD master plan right smack in front of
their face showing preserve, it says you get to come in with 10 per 100
feet.
So we know for a fact that it was never retroactively applied that
once you put that preserve designation on there, you've got no docks.
Because it was specifically discussed on a particular project and the
calculation issue came up.
And I believe Mr. Bellows was involved in that discussion, I
know Mr. Mulhere was involved in that discussion when that PUD
was going through the process.
So what you're trying to do with this language is retroactively
take away the docks for Signature Communities.
Now why do I say you're doing nothing in the future? Because
people like me and others who are going to come through with a
project that's on the waterfront, we usually have more than the
minimum required preserve that's required under the LDC. Weare
going to make sure that our preserve doesn't touch the shoreline. We'll
make sure it's back, it's not identified as preserve, so this language will
not apply.
The true language that's to protect the manatee is the language
that says how you calculate the number of docks you can ask for in the
first place, and then the process that we go through second, which is
the actual location of those docks. That's how the Manatee Protection
Plan is intended to work. That is how it has always worked.
And I -- this came up from an historical standpoint with the
Cocohatchee Bay settlement. Because I had been told by a former
Page 21
May 20,2010
staff person that it was her opinion that if you had a preserve or an
easement on it you could not ask for any docks. I said well, if that's
really your interpretation, I want to resolve it now and I want to
resolve it as part of this settlement with the Cocohatchee Bay.
And she could not tell you, and your staff can't tell you of a
specific example of where they have applied this provision to an
applicant the way they're now trying to apply it and say it has
historically been done.
So you're not going to get any future relief based on this
language, because we'll know how to deal with it. All you're going to
do is address a retroactive application in a specific situation where
docks were discussed. So now you're going to try to take away that
property right. And I'm sure you all know that the value of 60 docks
is a significant number and a significant exposure to the county for
taking away valuable rights.
Now, the County Attorney and I disagree as to what an easement
is, apparently. An easement is a document that I convey to the county
where I say I'm going to limit -- I'm going to give you certain rights on
my property. A utility easement, I give you the right to put utilities on
that property. I don't give up any other rights, just because it's for a
utility easement. I retain all other rights.
And I never gave up my riparian rights in a conservation
easement or a preserve. I kept those rights. And now you're trying to
take those rights away through this very language.
And that is one, wrong; two, compensable if you're going to do
that, and shocks me that we tout in Collier County that we're a
waterfront community and you should enjoy the waterfront, yet this
regulation is trying to stop people from enjoying the waterfront. I
don't understand, it just seems to be intellectually a challenge for me
to understand how we could be a waterfront community and tell a
waterfront property owner you're not allowed to use the water for one
of the most riparian rights of all, which is boating access.
Page 22
May 20, 2010
At this point I would prefer that the language be the language that
the DSAC adopted, and that's the language that says if you
specifically gave up the right to calculate the shoreline in that
easement for boat slips, then you've given it up. If you didn't, as I
understand the law, you didn't -- if you didn't give it up, you didn't
give it up. You have to specifically give up that right. So the DSAC
language is correct.
And I will tell you that the EAC, and I know your staff report
doesn't talk -- they talked about this issue for hours. They were
struggling with the retroactive application of this language. They
punted. They said we'll let the board deal with it but we're struggling
with the issue of should this apply retroactively or should it apply
prospectively.
If you're going to adopt this language, it should be prospective
and not any apply to any PUD's or any projects previously adopted.
We'll go through the normal boat dock process.
And interestingly enough, on both of these projects that I'm
referring to, The Dunes and Cocohatchee Bay, we've been trying to
get a conservation easement adopted that specifically allows the use of
boat docks.
So we knew we never gave up those rights. You have a form that
doesn't specifically address the issue. We want to address the issue in
that conservation easement, so we're expecting that our draft
conservation easement that includes language that says we specifically
can count that area will in fact be approved by the board. Because we
don't have those conservation easements recorded yet.
So we would hope that if that's the true measure, what does the
conservation easement say, you'll give us the opportunity to address
this situation.
And let's get down to the real issue at hand: Is the number of
docks we're asking for and in the location we want to put them
appropriate for that particular project. Not this language that's clearly
Page 23
May 20,2010
geared to address with only one project that I'm aware of.
And that's my comments regarding the application from
Signature Communities' standpoint, and I'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have regarding --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- the language.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just wanted to clarify a statement that
Mr. Y ovanovich stated earlier as to the status of the easement for the
Dunes project.
At this point it's a developer commitment, and we have not
received the executed easement. And he started to allude to it at the
end, which is of his statement, which is that I've specifically requested
that the number of docks for that project be specified and reserved in
the conservation easement. And that will subsequently go to the board
for their consideration and approval. But he earlier stated that they -- I
think his statements might have led you to believe that the
conservation easement was already recorded.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no, it's not been recorded.
And in fact we agree with your comment, because the state has
already limited the number of docks. And there's a state easement that
says -- I think the number is 49. Is that right, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's my understanding as well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're in limbo here on actually getting
the county easement recorded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but from what I just heard, if you
specify the number of docks that I'm assuming were somehow
acknowledged, then that's going to be part of your conservation
easement. So you're really not going to have a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't know, because I don't have
an approved conservation easement that -- because anything that
varies from the standard form goes to the Board of County
Commissioners, I understand is the process we're going to go through;
Page 24
May 20,2010
is that correct, Heidi?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're going to go to the Board of
County Commissioners, then I'm going to get into the fray of should I
be allowed to ask them for (sic) in the first place, based upon this
language that references preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why didn't you from the very
beginning approach this in that manner? Why didn't you just submit
your conservation easement when staff rejected you, as apparently
they did. Why didn't you request an 0.1. and then appeal the 0.1. to
the Board of County Commissioners if the 0.1. didn't work for you
and go that process instead of attempting to change the Land
Development Code --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not attempting to change the code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but why are we here today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The reason we're here is because when I
asked for the interpretation, that's what started the chain reaction of
amending the code. It all came up, Commissioner Strain, in reaction
to the Cocohatchee Bay project, where I wanted in that particular
project to include in the settlement agreement the number of docks.
And I was told by staff you can't do that, we deal with that later
through the boat dock extension process.
And then we talked about it in front of the Board of County
Commissioners and the Board said staff, come back with your
interpretation of what are the rules of the game. And then that's how it
went. It was -- was it technically the official interpretation process?
No. But we went to the decision makers, which were staff and the
board regarding what the interpretation is. And as you know, it's a 3-2
vote as to what the interpretation is. So what is the interpretation
when you have a 3-2 vote on a land use issue that requires four?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all I want to make it clear,
this meeting is not about the Dunes.
Page 25
May 20,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is about -- but the Dunes is the
example that we have to talk about only to get the points to be
understood.
You said during the meeting in which you talked about the docks
for this project, someone said that the measurement would be --
calculation would be 10 docks per 100 feet. Is that on record?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the record with you?
MR. YOV ANaVICH: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you mind putting that on
the screen?
MR. yaV ANOVICH: This is near the end of the hearing on the
PUD amendment to add this 100 acres that had about a mile or so of
frontage on the water.
And as you can see, Commissioner Mac'Kie at the time starts the
question about there. And then you have -- you get down to Mr. Nino.
Earlier they had said how many can they have, and that's when he
comes back and says, got it, 10 slips for every 100 feet of shoreline.
And then that's was the -- and then it was put in the reference, oh, my
God, you've got miles of shoreline, are you really going to put in
thousands of docks. And the answer is no, no, no, if you want to see
the rest of the record where the developer got up on the record and
said we'll cap ourselves in coming forward and asking for 60.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ron Nino I believe was one of
the planners here at Collier County at the time, he was not a member
of the environmental staff?
MR. yaV ANOVICH: That is correct, he was one of the
planners at the county. And your environmental staff was there at the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which members of staff?
MR. yaV ANOVICH: I do.
Page 26
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they here today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: She no longer works for the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said earlier in your discussion that
if this property could not use the conservation easement that they
would not be able to have one dock; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If -- this language says preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And we've shown on our master
plan this shoreline as preserve. So the answer would be if the entire
shoreline is in preserve -- and we're not building the docks in the
preserve, as you know, we're building the docks in the water -- we
would end up with zero.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: And again, we're arguing about one
particular development here now --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- rather than the Land Development--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get off it, but I don't know
how.
MR. KLATZKOW: It has always been my recommendation that
you do this in a prospective manner, okay? Apparently there's some
disagreement between the development community and staff as to
what a conservation easement means.
Okay, the development community, as Mr. Yovanovich has said,
we don't give up our rights for the docks. Staff has said you do. Okay.
My thought was to do a bright line that once you pass the LDC
amendment on a going forward basis, and just a going forward basis,
okay, if the developer is going to give a conservation easement, that's
the end, no more docks, unless the developer specifically reserves the
right in that conservation easement.
So everybody knows how many docks are going in, just like
everybody knows what the density of a PUD is going to be when we
Page 27
May 20,2010
set up preserves. Okay, we're taking the density out of the preserves
and we're putting it into the upland generally. It's the same concept.
As far as everything from that day where the LDC amendment is
enacted and then prior to that it would -- is whatever the deal was at
the time, okay, which is why when I went through this record and
talked with Heidi, I said give them 60 docks as part of a conservation
easement and we're done, because that's what the board looked at and
voted, okay.
There may be another PUD who comes in or another developer
comes in and says wait a second, when I did my deal, this was the
understanding. And whatever that understanding is, we're bound by it,
okay.
I'm not trampling on anybody's vested rights here, but you need a
bright line going forward. I personally don't care what that bright line
is. That bright line could be they get the docks unless otherwise
specified. It could be they don't get the docks unless it's specified, but
you need a bright line, which we don't have. That's the only point of
the LDC amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree exactly with what Mr. Klatzkow
said, the bright line needs to be prospective, not retroactive.
Because I can only tell you from my personal experience that
when I've had shoreline PUD's, I've been directed by staff not to
address the number of docks in the PUD. That is done through the
boat dock extension process. So I relied on that by not discussing it as
part of the PUD process.
I will now know in advising clients if it's a bright line forward to
make sure I address that during the rezone process.
And all I'm asking you is for my clients and me to know what the
rules of the game are so I can properly address them at the right time.
Page 28
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not all those rules though are clearly
understood to be needed at the time of a PUD. Look at Moraya Bay.
Who would have thought that we would've needed to say something;
that the land out in front of the Dunes is public and that you can't
block it off. But that's exactly what happened.
There are unintended consequences of things that are not said,
because no one images them even being applied. That's another
example.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The toss out at the BCC hearing by
Mr. Griffin of 60 docks had -- was based on nothing. So to just grant
him or them 60 docks in their conservation easement because they
mentioned that as a toss out figure to get through the process seems to
be a little disingenuous.
I think that if there is the possibility that they are allowed docks,
that they have to calculate them based on the shoreline that they have
available to them to actually put docks on, not some -- not this
weaving around and up into little tributaries that scope around their
project and into Water Turkey Bay where they promised that nothing
would come out of Water Turkey Bay over and over again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We promised no docks would go in
Turkey Bay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, though, the conversation's
going too specific to a project that's not here under a hearing today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we need to back away from that.
And I understand it's the one that triggered the issue, but we've got to
be careful, we're not here to discuss the Dunes today.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But if we're going to do
bright line, that's fine from here. But the county attorney just tossed
out, well, just give them in their conservation easement the 60 docks
and we'll be done with it --
Page 29
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what he was--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and I think that docks are a
separate --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he wasn't saying that. He was
saying that you would take the prior actions on a case-by-case basis
and go back and look at the -- for example the transcript to see if
there's any discussion about docks and quantities of docks and apply
that into things happening before the bright line. That's the only
reference I think he meant by bringing in the Dunes as an example for
the number of docks that they brought up in public discussion.
But I don't want to debate the Dunes here today, that's not the
purpose of this amendment.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, but the only way I
knew how to give an example of previous application of the Manatee
Protection Plan was to bring you a real life experience of the Manatee
Protection Plan. And that referenced a 10 per 100 as a reference to the
Manatee Protection Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, just going back to the
language that's been presented and the DSAC language that's been
presented.
The DSAC language still goes about the code the wrong way.
We have a prescriptive code that says we tell you what's allowed, and
if it's not allowed -- if it's not stated as allowed, it's not allowed. So--
and the DSAC language is backward on that, still to this day. So we
need to read our code correctly and put language together that
correctly states what we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, my point, and
maybe -- when we do building codes, it's very clear that we're not
doing building codes for the buildings that were built already. So I
think the vested rights issue should be totally -- if we want to address
Page 30
May 20, 2010
it like this one line does, we should only discuss it there.
I mean, I'm really getting confused with the Dunes. I don't know
the history of the Dunes. I don't know what this has to do with the
Dunes. This is an ordinance from this point forward, why don't we
just focus on that and purely that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what I'm asking is to put the
date in from this day forward, this is how it will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to move--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we at this hearing decide
how many docks go to the Dunes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not asking you to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why are you wasting time
on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not asking you to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, we'll move on to the
next speaker.
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: David Galloway.
MR. GALLOWAY: I'm going to pass.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins?
MS. ROBBINS: I'm going to cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Resident's
Association.
As I sat through last week's DSAC Meeting on this very topic,
and then later pored over the staff analysis and revised amendment
language, it seemed to me that we're still not getting to the product
that we're aiming for.
The language in the last draft doesn't seem to conform to the
Page 3 1
May 20,2010
specific directions that the CCPC ordered -- or asked to be drafted in
conformance with the County Attorney's statements at the last
meeting.
As we all know, the LDC is prescriptive in nature, as Ms. Caron
just mentioned. If a specific use is stated in the code, it's allowed. If
it's not stated, it's not allowed.
In cases where a landowner has put some or all of his land in
preserve or protected conservation easement, in order to gain
something else in return, such as increased density, the public is led to
believe, as well they should, that the set-aside land is no longer usable
for other purposes.
Developers often use such reassuring words as the land will be
protected in perpetuity. Those words should have meaning. If dock,
marinas and other intense water uses are not integrated into the SDP
and into a specific conservation easement until years later in the
application process, then those things were left out for a reason --
probably to gain some other advantage -- and they should not be
permitted.
Staff has stated that the shoreline was not counted for wet slips in
the past when the shoreline was fronting on a conservation easement.
No doubt because that interpretation conformed to the letter and the
spirit of the code. If shoreline use for wet slips is not addressed in a
conservation easement, then the proper interpretation of the code says
that the shoreline cannot be counted for wet slips.
Over the years we've witnessed over and over again instances of
government bodies charged with protecting the public from
overzealous individuals and corporations not doing their jobs. Rather
than protecting the public, the environment or sometimes even the
security of the nation, we find that these agencies are either looking
the other way or actively working to assist the overreaching entity.
It's not the job of government bodies to help private businesses
enhance their bottom line or make their job easier. Government's job
Page 32
May 20, 2010
is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community that it
serves. Yet we continually see examples of government acting
unthinkingly in exactly the opposite manner.
In this particular amendment, the goal that benefits the
community at large is not to the see how many boats we can jam into
a particular area to benefit a given landowner or a few select boat
owners, but rather how do we protect and actually preserve not just
manatees, although that's a worthwhile thing to do.
If we allow development to encroach on every piece of shoreline,
one development at a time, what becomes of the estuaries that are the
spawning grounds and the habitat for so much of the wildlife and fish
that add to our quality of life?
I think that we all believe that when the land was being put into
conservation easements or wetland preserves or whatever you want to
call it, we thought a good thing was being done for the environment
that we live in. If it turns out that they're nothing more -- these
conservation easements are nothing more than a sham, then we all
lose.
We need to keep in mind that we are a tourist mecca and a
desirable retirement community. But that can be quickly reversed
through bad development decisions.
The number one job of all of us should be to see that our
development legislation takes into account Nature's delicate balance.
I think we need to get the language in Section G heading more in
a direction of something like this: Quote; shoreline fronting on a
wetland preserve or conservation easement which was freely given up
should not be counted in the calculation of allowable wet slips unless
wet slips are specifically listed as being permitted in the grant of the
original conservation easement.
So I'd respectfully suggest that this document needs more work
and that the staff once again be directed to bring their language into
more conformity with what we have been talking about as we've been
Page 33
May 20, 2010
going through this process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I appreciate your introductory discussion about what is the
purpose of sub-paragraph G and how will this apply to the protection
of manatees, because this is part of the Manatee Protection Plan.
The other consideration and concern that the Conservancy had
was that the previous language which indicated that unless a use was
specifically excluded within the conservation easement, it should be
assumed to be an allowed use, we felt that really attacked the integrity
and the proper legal interpretation of conservation easement. So we
saw it as really two dual and very important issues. If in this instance
you assume that unless it wasn't allowed it should be allowed, that
could be applied for many other use. So we found that language very
concerning, as did the County Attorney's Office. So we do appreciate
that staff did make some changes to that.
And in the current draft before you where it states that shorelines
within these conservation easements which do not allow wet slips
shall not be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wet
slips pursuant to the MPP, I think that gets us where we need to be.
And I don't believe that any of the following language needs to
be in there. This clearly states what the conservation easement does,
how it is interpreted. And if a property owner or past projects believes
that they have some sort of vested right, then they're able to go back,
go to the county, and try to renegotiate that conservation easement. If
it's a vested right and it's a legal entitlement, then the county will be
obligated to amend that conservation easement, allow the use, again
keeping the integrity of the conservation easement intact.
So I think that we can satisfy all of these concerns by simply
Page 34
May 20, 2010
doing as Commissioner Strain suggested, putting a period after
pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan and ending it there.
I do want to make a few comments about the two additional
concepts in this language for your discussion purposes.
When we're talking about accepting projects which make 50
percent or more of their wet slips available for the public being able to
request additional boat slips through a conditional use, first of all,
when this went to the BCC, it was 100 percent. So I'm not quite sure
why that was chopped back to 50 percent.
But 100 percent, 50 percent, these are boats that are going to
impact manatees just as much as a private marina will. And if we're
looking at protecting manatees, why would we want to put this
exception in?
And also, the issue of the way it's written I believe is a little
vague. Is this allowing these particular marinas to request additional
boat slips above and beyond the maximum wet slip calculations
allowed by the MPP? It really isn't clear and I think could potentially
be used to try to argue even more boat slips.
And the last sentence about existing and vested rights with
respect to wet slips shall be exempt from this ordinance, you don't
need to put in every LDC amendment that vested rights are vested
rights. That sentence could be taken out and vested rights are still
entitled vested rights. I don't see that that sentence serves any
purpose.
But I would warn you that it says these vested rights will be
exempted from this ordinance. The ordinance is more than just
sub-paragraph G. I think what staff was wanting to do is exempt it
from sub-paragraph G. This exempts them from the ordinance. So I
think that that is not what staff was wanting to do.
And that was discussed at EAC, so I point that out because that
goes far beyond simply exempting from this ordinance.
So I'd ask that you take the sentence, the second sentence, end it
Page 35
May 20,2010
after pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. I think that gets us
where we need to go, and ask that you go in that direction. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MR. BELLOWS: Lew Schmidt.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners.
Most of my concerns have been addressed. I've attended 11 of
these hearings, and I have to tell you, I totally lost sight of what it was
all about. And it's really about the Manatee Protection Plan.
And Commissioner Strain, thank you for bringing us back to
what it's all about, and what it is all about is the intent of the Manatee
Protection Plan.
And I think there's one other concern. I don't know how it can be
addressed that I wanted to bring to your attention. But Commissioner
Caron got to it first. The question is, does the Manatee Protection
Plan give a property owner a right to density based upon the total
shoreline? Is it a density that we're looking at in this plan?
What's happening is we can take shoreline that they can't put boat
docks in. No reasonable person would put a boat dock in. And yet
you can swap that density allowance to a place where you can build
boat docks, and overbuild and defeat the purpose of the plan. It's a
way of circumventing the plan.
I don't know how you can fix that. But the way that I see it as it's
written now, they can do that. And I would put that up as a flag. And
I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Joshua Maxwell.
MR. MAXWELL: Hi. For the record, Josh Maxwell, with
Turrell, Hall and Associates.
I just want to -- it seems like the Planning Commission has a
pretty good understanding that we're not going to be building docks in
Page 36
May 20,2010
conservation easements.
The language in G kind of gets a little confusing in the fact that
you're not allowed to build in conservation easements. Well, that's the
reason that they're there, so that you won't be building upland
structures or docks. It's a little tough to, you know, keep a boat on the
upland.
The big issue with geez', it's going to be further restricting the
riparian rights of the upland owners. Riparian rights are given to us by
the state to use, they're sovereign submerged lands, to build docks and
keep our boats over.
By further restricting this you're taking away rights of people that
buy property along the water line. Yes, they can still have docks, but
they can't have as many as they originally intended by buying a larger
piece of land.
This -- passing this will not just affect the Dunes as it was been
(sic) a big thing in today's discussion. It's also going to affect
Chokoloskee, Goodland, all parts of Collier County that are not
incorporated.
So just passing it with a lot of the emphasis on one area of Collier
County is going to affect everything as a whole, which I think you
guys have a pretty good understanding of. I'm not sure if other people
here today understand that. By passing it for something in the
northern part of the county you're going to be further restricting what
they can do in Chokoloskee, which as some of you may not know,
their entire economy depends on the waterfront. So if you further
restrict Chokoloskee's ability to use their waterfront, then you could
be affecting their entire state of life.
Also, Everglades City mirrors Collier County's Manatee
Protection Plan. If they also adopt this, you're going to further
constrict what they can do in Everglades City, which is just like
Chokoloskee, everything they do depends on the water.
Another big concern I have is when it says that 50 percent of the
Page 37
May 20,2010
slips given to the public will allow you to get more slips for your, you
know, multi-family development. I bought a property out in the
Golden Gate Estates. That does not entitle me to riparian rights along
the waterfront in Collier County. So therefore I don't see how that
should be a constraint to allow or restrict how many slips we have.
You only have riparian rights if you buy along the -- you know, along
the water.
If Collier County's intention is to provide public slips, that's
great. You know, the county has a few boat ramps that have, you
know, other dock slips, we can help you further develop that and
provide slips to the county. But I don't think that it's the upland
owner's responsibility to provide public slips.
If you have any questions -- I think that's at the end when you
guys ask the questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we'll ask you any questions now if
we have any of you. But we're going to be have -- we'll be having
quite a bit more discussion on this monster, so.
MR. MAXWELL: If you have any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Rich Y ovanovich,
representing his second client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't think it's another 20 minutes,
Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think I'll need 20 minutes.
Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
The language is not up, but the concern that the Pelican Bay
Foundation has is in regard to Clam Bay. And as you know, Clam Bay
is a NRP A. And that last -- that sentence addressing -- allowing
docks, if you provide public access, the concern was that there would
Page 38
May 20,2010
be an interpretation that under that type of language you can allow
docks, if they're public docks, in Clam Bay.
That issue was discussed by the EAC, and they recommended
language that the foundation supports, which is the third language. It's
on Page 2 of your staff report, under the EAC recommendations as
item number three. It says that this ordinance is not intended to allow
publicly owned wet slips within a NRP A.
And that would be language that we would like to see in there to
assure that the government doesn't exempt itself from the very same
protections it's saying a private property owner is subject to, just
simply because they're public boats versus -- or they're private boats,
but being provided space by the government versus being provided
space by a private property owner.
So the foundation would like that last sentence added to the
current language and supports the EAC recommendation on that.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have no more registered public
speakers.
Is there any member of the public who would like to further
speak?
Tim?
MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall, with
Turrell, Hall and Associates. And I'm here speaking on behalf the
Marine Industries Association. My company, as an owner of the
company, as well as several other clients, of which Signature
Communities is one of them.
I've heard a couple of people say that this is part of the Manatee
Protection Plan. But I think it needs to be understood that the
Page 39
May 20,2010
Manatee Protection Plan is actually a stand-alone document that was
developed with input from interested stakeholders, the state and
county participants.
What this amendment is is actually additional codification to the
Land Development Code section that implements or addresses that
Manatee Protection Plan. It's not actually part of the plan itself.
Different staff members at different hearings have said different
things, really, regarding whether or not this has been applied in the
past. I know from my standpoint and my job and with what we do,
we've worked on a lot of shoreline projects within the county and it's
never been applied on any of the projects that I've worked on. A lot of
which have had conservation easements along the shoreline. And the
shoreline has always been counted in that maximum allowable slip
matrix.
Because of the way the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan
is set up and the allowances that are given, there's very few instances
where you can actually build what you're allowed, because of the
numbers that are allowed per hundred foot of shoreline, depending on
the different criteria.
Rich was close, the max number is actually 18. It's one, 10 or 18
for the three different criteria.
And I heard councilman (sic) Strain on--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're thinking of the city now, be
careful.
MR. HALL: Sorry. Chairman Strain says that the Manatee
Protection Plan was put in place to limit slips. I don't think that's
actually why it was put in place. It's a side effect of it. It does limit
slips in certain locations, but it was actually put in place to identify
where slips were more or less appropriate in terms of the
environmental and physical criteria at the different sites.
We understand the importance of the natural preserve areas. And
quite honestly, very few properties remaining within the county or,
Page 40
May 20,2010
you know, shoreline as you go up and down the state have left their
natural shoreline in place. And there are several instances where
having boat docks outside or adjacent to natural areas is not
detrimental to the natural areas, as long as those slips or those docks
are developed in an environmentally responsible manner, taking into
account the potential impacts that they might have and addressing
those in the development process.
What this amendment does or could do is actually penalize those
projects which have protected their shoreline. As I said, there are very
few of those left. And the ones that have gone and protected their
shoreline now are actually being penalized or could actually be
penalized if this amendment goes forward.
If the amendment is needed, then the Marine Industries
Association believes that it should be in the form that was previously
reviewed by the Planning Commission and that was recently approved
by the Development Services Advisory Council, by DSAC; namely,
that all the shoreline should be counted unless it's clearly or expressly
prohibited in the easement documents.
Barring that, if the amendment has to go forward in its existing
state or as it's written now, we have a few things that we believe are
reasons or ways in which it should be amended or changed.
First of all, that it's wrong, and quite honestly I think it's a little
arrogant for county staff to presume what was or was not allowed in
state or federal easements in which they were not involved. I think if
it is going to apply, it should only apply to county easements, not to
the state or federal ones.
If the state doesn't want docks or doesn't want the shoreline
counted for docks, they're very good about putting that in the
easement. They have an actual specific type of easement called a
proprietary easement you put along the shoreline. It actually gives the
state a partial like an ownership interest in that where no changes
could be made over and above the amount of slips or what they have
Page 41
May 20,2010
allowed in the permits that they issued. And I think that's very clear,
and the county could use that.
But going back into normal passive use or standard easements
where this was never an issue and was never addressed, I just think it's
wrong for them to assume that a project or a property owner has given
up all of their rights to docks because of that.
We don't -- also don't believe that any of the language
referencing additional slips for public use should be included. Docks
are docks. If the intent of this amendment is protection of these
conservation easements, then it should apply to all of them, not to
private versus public.
And it also should only apply to any easements that are put in
place after the passage of the amendment. It should not apply to those
already in place, especially the state and federal, which were put in
place prior to this being an issue in which it was never addressed.
And the last thing is we'd like some additional clarification with
respect to existing or vested rights. From my standpoint, I believe if I
own shoreline, I can count that shoreline for my slips. That's a riparian
right that is recognized by the state and by the approved Manatee
Protection Plan.
So that needs to be clarified as to what it does or does not apply
to. If it only applies to docks that are constructed, does it apply to
PUD's or site plans in which maybe it hasn't been constructed yet?
How far out or what kind of vested rights does the county see having
to be in place for that to be allowed.
Appreciate the time, thanks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Tim, one of the problems
is the taking the depth of the shore -- or the length of the shoreline,
and you described how you waddle through the muck to get that.
Page 42
May 20, 2010
How do you think we should handle shoreline that obviously is
never going to be able to have a dock yet we're going to take the
lineage of that back to some other area where we're going to be
multiplying it by 10, maybe even 18. How do you think we should
handle that?
MR. HALL: Well, what I think should be done -- to be clarified,
I think that the criteria from the Manatee Protection Plan that's
established with the shoreline should be applicable to the shoreline
that's being counted. For example, if you have 100 feet of shoreline
that is on a canal that's four feet deep and you have 1,000 feet of
shoreline that's on an area where you have sea grasses and very
shallow water, then for that 1,000 feet you would be in the protected
category and be allowed one slip per 100 feet.
And for the 100 feet that you have on the waterway with deep
water and so forth, you would be allowed the 18 per foot there.
But as I said, I mean, 18 slips per 100 feet of shoreline, if you
tried to fit 18 slips in side-by-side, that's -- a normal boat 10 feet wide,
most slips, you know, for a little bit are 12 feet wide. Twelve times 18
is more than 100 there. I mean, you would take up your entire
shoreline.
The numbers that are allowed in the plan are a little bit extreme, I
guess is the best word to use.
But if you calculated it that way and then through the permitting
process you know that whatever slips you have are going to be in that
area that's most appropriate for them. They would be in -- you'd place
them in that 100 feet that's on the waterway. You would not place
your slips into the shallow or the sea grass areas.
It all comes down really to a project-by-project analysis of where
the slip's most appropriate, where they're going to be the most
environmentally conscious, do the least amount of environmental
impacts, and how many can that area actually support, you know,
according to the Manatee Protection Plan.
Page 43
May 20, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To sum it up, what you're
saying is take that length in the category that it would be at -- for
example, it's probably protected if you're waddling up these tributaries
-- and that's the density you can bring back to the other location.
MR. HALL: Correct. The way it's done right now is they look at
the site and wherever you're putting your slips, that's the criteria or
that's the allowance that they use for the entire project.
And when you get those projects that have a lot of shoreline, a
lots of times that results in these astronomical numbers. If we go back
-- and I wasn't going to talk about it, but if you take the Dunes for an
example, even under this definition the shoreline is going to be
identified by the interface of the mean high water with -- the mean
high water line. That goes all over the place when you're in a
mangrove shoreline. I mean, it goes all over the place. It will be more
than just a straight line count.
So that part of the language is actually going to increase the
amount of shoreline that's counted in some instances.
But, you know, that's just if you own property that has that much
shoreline. I mean, that is the shoreline calculation.
And as I said, right now if you have a section where you're
putting your docks that is moderate, that moderate ranking or 10 slips
per 100 feet of shoreline is counted for all of your shoreline. I think it
would probably be more appropriate if you split the shoreline up and
counted it -- it's moderate there but it may be protected in some other
areas.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, now we -- thank you, Tim.
We already had all the speakers. Anybody else wishing to
speak?
(No response.)
Page 44
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion by the board.
Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, how do you want
to go from here? I mean, do you want --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly have a -- I'd like to
explore some input from our legal staff a little bit more on this whole
thing.
And the reason for that is is Tim started out his discussion with a
very good comment. This -- or I think it was Josh, one of those guys.
This applies to more than the Dunes, more than North Naples. It
applies to places like Chokoloskee and Goodland and parts of the
county where they want to see more boats, where they like the idea of
boat traffic, where they don't have a problem in congestion like they
do in Vanderbilt Beach.
Vanderbilt Beach is atrocious. I feel sorry that the people up
there have to put up with the boat traffic that they have to. But that
doesn't apply to the whole county.
Honestly, soon with the Gulf turning into a giant pool of oil,
maybe we won't even need boats.
But with that said, I'm now concerned whether we need to do this
at all. Maybe the best thing is leave in place what we have, let the
vested rights of those projects that already have conservation
easements go forward and be challenged as they mayor be set upon
by the -- what's on record as they may. Or in areas where people don't
care, let them use what they would have used with no objection. And
then as we go forward it's a -- this is a well known issue. I don't think
it's ever going to get by a conservation easement discussion again.
So maybe we don't need this additional regulation that's going to
go beyond what many see as the intended purpose, which happens to
be the Dunes, and do damage where we don't know if we really
needed to be doing that damage.
Brad?
Page 45
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question -- or what
would be the problem in just making all marinas subject to a public
hearing?
The honesty is that if you look at this the way that you can
calculate density in this plan, it is huge. You would never get
anywhere near this. So this isn't regulating density, this is giving you
a number that's laughable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm really thinking an additional
layer like this is actually going to probably hurt us than help us. And
your idea of having marinas come through a public process, that may
not be a bad one. But I think it needs to be looked at for what triggers
there are. You know, triggers if -- and Jeff, I'd like to know from your
perspective, if we decided to do nothing, if our recommendation to the
board was we don't need this language, we have plenty of
opportunities in place to manage this through appeals, through review
by the County Attorney's Office, through challenges by the public,
through the public record, through the approvals in the past, what do
you see that -- do you see that as a positive outcome or do you see that
as problematic? Does this have to be addressed from a legal
perspective?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why -- I'm not really sure why
we began this discussion to begin with, okay, to be perfectly blunt.
Because I never got from staff what the real intent was here, okay.
This was a staff generated item by a staff person who's no longer
here, all right.
It's sort of like we threw a grenade up there and now we're trying
to figure out where the shrapnel's going to land, and I don't know, all
right?
I am fine without the way things are without this amendment,
okay. The reason for the amendment apparently is staff had a
disagreement with a particular developer and to resolve that difficulty
with a particular developer, we do what we often do in this county and
Page 46
May 20, 2010
that's to change the code. And I've never liked that approach.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Doesn't that, though --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- conflict with what you said
about wanting a clear line for the future?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, what I said was that if you're going to
do something, okay -- and again, I'm just limited to get the
conservation easements. Okay, this has nothing to do with
Chokoloskee or any other place where we're operating your shoreline
outside of conservation easements. Understand?
If you're going to do something, do it on a going forward basis.
Do a rule. I'm indifferent as to what the rule is, but at least look at
certainty in the system.
You don't need this rule because, as Commissioner Strain has
said, we do have mechanisms to get this through. And 0 and I would
have been a mechanism in the case we've been talking about to have
gotten this to the board for a resolution. We don't need an
amendment. And I don't know that the amendment fixes that issue
anyway. In fact, I know it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I tend to agree with you,
I'm worried about the -- what's going to happen in the other areas,
Chokoloskee and that, and I'm worried about the consequences.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments or
questions at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're almost wrapping it up. So, I
mean, if you got anything to say, now's the time to say it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. I don't see the need.
Certainly if we're going to do anything, it should end at line four there.
A better thing to have brought forward from staffs perspective
Page 47
May 20, 2010
would be that all marinas have a public hearing, as Mr. Schiffer said.
That would have been a better way to deal with any issues that come
up.
The whole issue with The Dunes docks is going to have to be
settled on that individual case. And I just -- I think we're spinning our
wheels.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think the only
thing we could do further is that when you really look at this allowable
wet slip density, this is done back in the days of bulk-heading and
stuff. I mean, I don't think this even makes sense, in now that we're
doing conservation on the shoreline, now that we're -- the dimensional
thing is ridiculous. I'm sure they -- you know, right minds did not
realize you're going to be calculating up little tributaries.
So I think that if we do anything, we should review this whole
section 5.05.02 and come up with something that really does protect
density and the manatee along the way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think Steven said something
earlier too that there's going to be some recommended changes
coming down to the various counties regarding their manatee
protection plans from a more recent review by the state. If I'm not
mistaken, our plan is a decade or two or quite old, if I'm not -- how old
is our current Manatee Protection Plan?
MR. LENBERGER: I believe it was '95, but I'd have to check
the date.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that is a decade or more old, there
might be a lot more new science out there. And the state you did say is
reviewing these and is going to come back with recommendations?
MR. LENBERGER: That's right. And they have -- are
producing different data and looking at it now. So we will be
reevaluating the Manatee Protection Plan in the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't see one case that's going to
Page 48
May 20,2010
be affected by this any differently than whether we passed it or not
right now. The Dunes is going to happen, based on what they've
already committed to in a public meeting. And that fight will
continue, regardless of what we do today.
The other ones that are out there may not have a fight with them
because they may not be in an area that is problematic.
And going forward, it's so relevant that there is -- I don't see
another conservation easement coming through this county that
someone's not going to know this issue's going to have to be looked at
and addressed.
So maybe our best solution is to recommend that we -- to the
BCC that they consider dropping item G completely, leaving
everything as it is today, going forward on a case-by-case basis and
then review the Manatee Protection Plan in a whole when the
recommendations come in with the changes that the state's
formulating.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may be the simplest solution
and the best solution and the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- most -- the least litigious (sic) too.
But let's -- Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to give you --
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray, could you get on your
microphone?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to that point, I'll ask you.
Okay, Nick, did you have something you wanted to throw in?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
I think Pandora's Box was opened maybe by a prior staff
member. Steven, if anybody knows him, has been the poster child, the
Page 49
May 20, 2010
whipping boy for this amendment. He's been on the road to Abilene
for six months dealing with this.
I think we're perfectly fine with your recommendation where it's
going. I think both the public and private sectors have voiced their
opinion, and we've been kind of along for the ride. I think Steven
agrees, if that's your recommendation, we're happy to go with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else from the Planning
Commission wish to comment?
If not, Mr. -- oh, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. Since this
is for boat slips, multi slips of 10 or more, or all marina facilities, that
would come before us anyway. I mean, it would be rare that
somebody would find a site that they could build 20 feet to the
shoreline, so they're going to have to come before at least the Planning
Commission to do anything of any depth out past 20 feet. So I think
we may -- it may be a public hearing already.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also think that the
recommendations coming down from the state will probably help a
lot. I can't see them getting more flexible. I think there'll be more
science involved and probably giving a better result.
So with that, I'll ask Mr. Murray ifhe'd like to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would, I did, I am.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to Mr.--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
And the motion was as previously stated.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 50
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Thank you. We are out and we will take a break until 10:15.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break,
everybody.
And now that we finished up one of the more controversial items,
we will get into one of the lengthy items.
MR. MULHERE: But less controversial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less controversial, yes. It will just be a
lot of tedious discussion. But it needs to be done. The record needs to
be as complete and we need to make sure all the little nuances are
buttoned up.
Item #9B
PETITION: CP-2008-5, AMENDMENT TO THE IMMOKALEE
AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER
PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP
We had a staff report and a newly issued revised Immokalee
Area Master Plan. The next item up is the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, a continuation ofCP-2008-5.
There's been a lot of changes, including a complete numeric
change to the plan which threw me for a curve when I first read it. I
Page 51
May 20, 2010
thought oh, my God, what did they do now. And I'm not sure where
it's best to start.
Bob? I think what we'll do is we've got an introduction letter
from you that is lengthy and I have some questions on it. And then we
get into the body of the document. But I also have a lot of questions
from the staffs letter that they sent to us, the staffs recommendations.
I'd like to walk through that at some point, too. So I'll let you decide
how they fit together best.
MR. MULHERE: Let me just, if! could -- for the record, Bob
Mulhere, on behalf -- here on behalf of the CRA.
Let me just state just a couple of introductory remarks briefly. I
just want to express gratitude on the part of the CRA on myself. We
put a lot of time into this. I know you guys, the Planning
Commission, did as well.
But even more recently working with David, Carolina and Heidi.
It was a lot of hours. I think it's a very good product as a result of that.
And even most recently Heidi's comments.
Now, you don't have within that version the County Attorney's
comments. We just met yesterday to resolve those issues. And I have
those here and I'll have them on the visualizer, Mr. Chairman,
highlighted in gray, so we'll know exactly which those comments are.
As well, I think Heidi is having copies brought down; is that true?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not of this version. I can bring--
MR. MULHERE: No, no, no, your comments.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just my comments with -- in red, it will
have the comment as to how they've responded.
MR. MULHERE: What the disposition of it is.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, with the --
MR. MULHERE: And we're in agreement. We're in agreement.
But I also have made the language changes that are reflected in
Heidi's memo based on our meeting in this document that's on the
visualizer. And to me the easiest way is to go through it, because
Page 52
May 20, 2010
you're going to see the yellow highlighted changes that reflect changes
since your last meeting, and the gray highlighted changes reflect --
they're relatively minor, but the changes that the County Attorney's
Office requested.
There are one or two substantive ones that we probably will have
to spend a little time on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was going to approach
this page at a time like we did originally. I don't expect the intensity
of the original review. But I think we still have issues that I want to
make sure are clear. I want to make sure everybody understands
them. And funding issues are part of that. So we'll have to -- we'll get
into that.
And you started out with an attachment "A" that was a lengthy --
I know you probably wrote it really lengthy hoping nobody would
read it, but unfortunately I read it. And all that fine print that you
decided to drop it down to -- that's a data and analysis requirements. It
was right after your statement of compliance. It was the very first
thing in your document.
MR. MULHERE: You know, that's not a new document, though.
That was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. MULHERE: -- submitted previously. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You put it in a new spot, so it took new
attention.
MR. MULHERE: Well actually I'm not sure exactly how that
happened. We didn't produce -- we didn't make copies of this, the
CRA did. So maybe some of the exhibits got -- I don't know. I'm not
blaming them, I'm just saying maybe some of the exhibits just got
moved around from where they previously were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what: Why don't we
go right into the page you're on. And if there's some questions not
answered by reviewing the document --
Page 53
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that are in the data and analysis page,
we'll go back to it.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point do you think it would be
best to move into the staff report?
MR. MULHERE: Are you primarily concerned with their
recommendation? Because I'm of the opinion that we've addressed all
of the issues that staff -- all of the concerns or issues that staff has.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's more of explanation. Some
of the staff report -- for example, they have a table in there that is
incomplete. Yet their comments are that the -- that will require
funding and allocation of staff that may not be readily available. Yet
we don't know because the table's incomplete as to the cost of the
items that staff laid out what it is we're possibly approving from a
funding perspective. I'm not saying that's a deal breaker. I want an
explanation on how they think they're going to sell that to DCA.
And if DCA finds that to be a deal breaker --
MR. MULHERE: Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what do we do then?
MR. MULHERE: Well, here's my response to that, and then I'll
-- the staff can certainly -- and we've talked about it.
I believe that the changes that we made which, number one,
condition every one of those policies that have a fiscal impact
associated with them or a potential fiscal impact associated with them,
every single one is conditioned upon the availability of funding. They
also have a time frame. Most of them are within two years, but there's
even a stop-gap there. Because if it doesn't happen within the two
years, then the county is required by the plan to revisit them as part of
the next EAR -- so that's another five years, or a total of seven years --
Page 54
May 20,2010
to determine whether they're still appropriate and viable and how they
would be funded at that point in time, if they haven't already occurred.
There are so many different ways that many of these policies can
be funded, it is impossible for us to suggest to you that we know how
that's going to happen or even what the cost is at this point in time.
Certainly there could be estimates. For example, the stormwater
management plan, the CRA has procured a $3.5 million grant for the
first phase of that. They may get another grant for the second phase.
I hope they do. That's certainly what I know Penny's working hard to
do.
There are many examples like that. There are other examples
where the policy would typically, if deemed to be appropriate by
yourselves and then by the Board of County Commissioners, it would
typically just become part of a staff work plan. And if it says within
two years, it might be this year and it might be next year. If there isn't
funding it will get deferred.
So my personal -- and, you know, I think staff agrees with this, is
we'd like to transmit this document. And if DCA has a concern,
probably if they have a concern at all, it might be related to the time
frame, because that could be extended out to seven years.
How would we respond? If that is a concern, we would have to
go back and either eliminate some of those policies, or put a specific
time frame up, a maximum of five years, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was where my question was,
wanting to understand --
MR. MULHERE: And I'd like to sort of see what they have to
say and then we'll go from there. Because we do have -- we do have a
definitive time frame for those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind that approach. But the
acknowledgment is if DCA has an objection that we can't overcome
financially, we basically have to then remodify --
MR. MULHERE: We would.
Page 55
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the objective.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what I thought. I
just wanted to make sure everybody understood it.
With that then, maybe we ought to -- there's not many questions
on the staff report. Maybe we ought to just roll through that real
quick.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, that'd be a good spot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, is that fine with you?
MS. VALERA: Absolutely.
Carolina Valera for the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The staff report is -- was sent to
us in a separate three ring binder, smaller one. I don't know if all the
commission members have it. But why don't we take the first say
three pages or four pages at a time.
Does anybody have any questions in the staff report?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On Page 17.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's between 1 and 3, huh?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's between 1 and 4. That's okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you say
that. I obviously was ignoring you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought whoa, that's a jump.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take it a little slower.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I learn to count my own way.
Sometimes it's helpful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My first question's not going to be until
we get into about page --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 17.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Seventeen, see?
Page 56
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just move forward. Anybody
have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say, let's do Page 17.
Ms. Caron, go ahead then, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if you have one before Page
17, why don't you ask yours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. On Page 12, Carolina, in the
middle of the page you said something that seemed interesting.
We just discussed in the prior paragraphs the issue of DCA and
the possible unacceptability of the lack of funding. But then you
added a sentence in the middle of the page that says, the petitioner has
also indicated that general information in regard to fiscal impact will
be presented to the BCC.
Okay, why to the BCC? Why wouldn't we get the benefit of
understanding that too?
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can respond.
MS. VALERA: Please do.
MR. MULHERE: This request just came down in the last couple
of days, and so we're actually going through an estimate. We'd be
happy to bring that to you as well, we just didn't want to delay the
process.
Weare working on estimates as it relates to each one of those,
but we're not finished with that and we probably would be finished in
the next few days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it just came down recently.
From who? From staff?
MR. MULHERE: From -- no, from the County Attorney's
Office. Well, yeah, staff, but in the form of the County Attorney's
Office.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please send that to each--
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 57
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- member of the Planning
Commission?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I understand the
numbers are going to be something we've got to deal with no matter
what they are --
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so it's not going to really change the
outcome. It's just a matter of now having the knowledge of what that
is and how it fits into the big picture.
MR. MULHERE: I'll tell you what we've done and maybe this
will give you some idea of at least the methodology. We'll send it to
you as soon as we're finished with it.
Some things are already funded, as I said, through the CRA. So
we've identified those and we know a cost associated with those.
Some things we don't know. We've identified potential funding
sources, and we're still working on that.
As far as some of the tasks, we've gone in and made an estimate
of man hours of the number of FTE's over a period of time that would
be required to accomplish that. And we've used a -- and we're talking
to staff about using a -- you know, a standard average hourly rate plus
benefits to calculate a cost. I mean, it's typical methodology that
would be used. Maybe it's $80 an hour plus 35 percent for benefits.
That will give us an hourly rate, total hourly rate. And we'll multiply
that, times the estimated hours to accomplish the task. And we'll be
able to tell you both the dollar amount and a .5 or .25 FTE's, whatever.
So, I mean, I think that's the methodology that is the most
appropriate one is how we would estimate the cost on anything else.
But there will be estimates. I mean, there's just no way for us at this
point without the details to figure out an exact cost.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. But will you, in the
process of identifying the fiscal impact, identify the source of the
Page 58
May 20,2010
funds? Because some of --
MR. MULHERE: Potential source.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- these policies -- right, some--
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- these policies are covered by the
CRA?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And some are expected out of the
overall trough of the taxpayers --
MR. MULHERE: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of Collier County.
MR. MULHERE: Or grants.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mulhere, could you wait until
the speaker is finished.
MR. MULHERE: Sorry, yeah.
MS. VALERA: Mr. Chairman? Just to say clarify, I agree, it
was just a matter of timing. Not -- in no case was it not wanting to
present it to this board, it was just a timing issue.
And since, you know, we will be here back with adoption, so we
thought that, you know, if it was acceptable to just bring it to the
board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And has the CRA considered,
since they're going to be doing some of the funding, getting a large
bond covered by their incremental tax increases to cover a lot of the
costs that are laid out in this plan or that will be laid out in the fiscal
impacts when they're presented to us?
MS. PHILLIPPI: Penny Phillippi for the record.
We have discussed some of the disaster recovery bonds with our
CFO for the county, but we have not yet committed to going into debt,.
because we don't have a huge increment at this point in time, as we
discussed earlier, because of the current economy.
So down the road, yes, that will definitely be an option for us, but
Page 59
May 20, 2010
right now we're not ready to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and I'm glad to see you're being
conscious. I was just trying to -- when we get the fiscal impacts in
front of us and we have to figure out how they're going to be laid out
over the next decade or so, I was just curious what options the CRA's
looking at. And if you're already considering that at the right time,
well, that works. So thank you.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: There is one thing I'd just like to add that
relates to this. And just as a reminder, you'll recall that we took out --
and I think it was really at the Planning Commission's
recommendation, we took out the policy that would call for a separate
capital improvement plan for Immokalee, which made sense taking it
out.
But we replaced it with a requirement to prepare a prioritized
capital improvement, you know, list especially by the CRA for
Immokalee, which will -- that will be the time when we would have a
better idea of the specifics of the funding sources and the costs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Carolina, the second paragraph
on the top of that same page, the second sentence says: In addition,
the proposed plan will shift prioritization from some countywide
efforts to the Immokalee urban area.
As we go through the plan, would you make sure you highlight
that to us, tell us when we --
MS. VALERA: I'll certainly try, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, let's roll on to Page
17.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In the third paragraph down that
says within Lake Trafford/Camp Keais, that first line says: There are
proposed changes to increased density or intensity.
And then in the last line it says: In addition, no increase of
density within Lake Trafford/Camp Keais is allowed. And that was
Page 60
May 20, 2010
according to the EAC hearing.
So was the EAC recommendation incorporated?
MS. VALERA: Yes, it was incorporated. But I believe it has
been changed once more.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So we're going to get to that.
The County Attorney's Office expressed some concerns related to
just some very small portions. Less than five percent of that whole
overlay is not designated low residential, but is already partially
developed and designated either medium or high residential.
What we had done was we had limited the density to four units
per acre across the entire spectrum of it. So approximately four
percent of it is not designated low residential. And the change that
we've made is to limit the density to the base density of the applicable
sub-district, but not allow any bonus density.
Practically, what that does is, 95 percent of it's limited to four
units an acre, as we already proposed, or more than 95 percent. The
balance, though, because of vested rights concerns, would be able to
get the density that they -- the base density that the sub-district allows,
which is up to I think six or eight. And it's a very small -- it's less than
100 acres. And we're going to get to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
staff report? Might as well take the whole document.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, on Page 23, number 12. Just
curious how you came to that conclusion. Number 12 says: The
proposed increase in density and intensity of the proposed plan will
likely alter the existing character of Immokalee.
What made -- just what's the conclusion? The density is just
being shifted to some areas, so you get higher density where you had
not so high density. But in your preamble and in Bob's, they basically
said that nobody builds out to the density supplied anyway, and that
the market really dictates the density that's used.
Page 61
May 20, 2010
So how did you come to that conclusion that the density and
intensity will likely alter the existing character of Immokalee?
MS. VALERA: Well, it will definitely change the character,
especially along the main roads --
MR. MULHERE: Right.
MS. VALERA: -- Main Street and 29 and so forth. So in that
sense it will.
MR. MULHERE: For the better, we believe.
MS. VALERA: I'm not saying that is negative or -- I'm just
saying that it will change it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because actually, the overall density to
reduce just got shifted and there's higher pockets of density now.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. VALERA: Yes, but now also you have a mix in areas
where you did not before.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Okay, and that's most of my -- that's my questions from the staff
report.
Bob, if you want, we'll start --
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right in with your document.
What I'd like to do is when you have a revision that was
recommended by the County Attorney's Office, let us know where it
occurs.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that that got accomplished.
MR. MULHERE: So the first changes that we have occur on
Page 4. And I'll just pull it up so you can see them. These aren't I
don't think real substantive changes, but they are in yellow. They
were I guess textural changes that clarify and better -- I think maybe
actually Nick I think requested that we remove the reference from two
lanes to four lanes. And there had been an ongoing discussion about
Page 62
May 20,2010
removing the reference to the interchange, the 1-75 Interchange.
Which we did remove everywhere else and somehow this was a
remnant and so we've removed that as well.
The other one in gray is one of the county -- there's a general
comment by the County Attorney as anywhere where you use
abbreviations to, you know, use that standard format of -- and I think
we did it in most cases but there were some that we missed.
And I -- to tell you the truth, I didn't really know what RNA V
and LBVVOR is except I know they're instrument approaches, so
that's what I put in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You can be -- interesting, if Tor
was here he'd be focusing on that today and making sure that those got
covered. So we don't have the acronyms covered as we used to.
Maybe we ought to remember to do that from now on. If anything --
MR. MULHERE: And we did try, but I think we missed it in a
few spots, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now what I'd like to do with
the Planning Commission, if -- are you going to walk through your
item page at a time like we just did? And as the Planning Commission
members have questions, we'll just have to -- we'll just chime in,
okay?
My first is going to be on Page 6, so you can --
MR. MULHERE: The pages might be slightly different in mine.
So, you know, that's okay, I mean, we'll figure it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is the issue which when
DCA has an objection to the lack of specificity of funding, will it be
because of this goal and objective and policy? Is that how they'll
approach it? Because this is what basically says we'll only do it to the
extent we have the fiscal ability to do it.
MR. MULHERE: I think it will be -- if they have an objection, it
will be a general objection to say that the plan -- throughout the plan
there are objectives or policies that call for certain activities to occur,
Page 63
May 20, 2010
and there isn't a specific identification of funding mechanisms for
those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we either provide it under say this
goal or we come back in and modify the policy, okay.
MR. MULHERE: And honestly, I'm pretty confident that they
cannot expect every single county and municipality at the time they do
a plan to understand how they're going to pay for everything that's in
it. You do have to do that, but that's why you have other procedures.
You know.
I'm speaking too fast again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I just like this, we got Cherie'
this time. That was her phone.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm so sorry.
MR. MULHERE: Because I told her I was going to practice
speaking slow. So far I haven't succeeded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Spotlight is on Cherie'.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, maybe this is small
potatoes, but in this same Objective 1.1, and to use the term and so
forth, I realize you're trying to capture any potential that may be for
the future that you hadn't thought of, and I'm trying to think of some
things. And so forth, is that really -- I mean, I know it's a GMP type
ofthing.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you could say et cetera. I mean, it's just
that it's not limited to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's your intent is that it's
not limited.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I accept that. That's
fine.
MR. MULHERE: I do have one change to what you see before
you in gray. Heidi's comment was that we again, you know, define
Page 64
May 20, 2010
CRA at its first place where it's used. And the first place where it was
used was in the title so that's where I did it, but that's now where it
should happen. It should happen under objective one, not in the title
but under objective one. I need to just define it as I did above, and
then put in parens CRA there. So the parens CRA in the title will
come out. It's a minor change, just--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi, you want to pass
those out?
MR. MULHERE: And it should be area instead of agency.
We'll make those corrections.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what Heidi's passing out are
the County Attorney's Office's suggested corrections. And if it's in
color, most of them will show that they've been addressed and we'll
see it all today. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: And those are in order, so we're more or less
going over those just in the same order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if we're done with that page, I
know I've got a question on Page 7. And move it down a little bit in
the yellow.
Commercial trade hub. I got the information you sent on the
commercial trade hub. I asked for some information on the Federal
Enterprise Community. And one other. And the Federal
Empowerment Zone. And I was referred to a Collier County
government page that describes the CRA but it doesn't describe those
two things.
So when you get a chance, ifthere is a basis of what a Federal
Empowerment Zone is -- and basically, Patrick, it was numbers four
and five on your e-mail. Your reference link just gives me the CRA
site at the county site, which doesn't give me the -- what the Federal
Empowerment Zone is and what the Federal Enterprise Community is,
other than saying that --
MR. MULHERE: You need definitions.
Page 65
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I need to know what they are.
Not that it's going to affect today's meeting, but I would like to see
that for future reference.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, we'll get - I think he's going to want it
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need it in writing, Fred. I'll need it in
writing.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you done with your--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I had one other point.
The second bullet, assist the CRA, and then it says: EDC and
other economic entities.
Why don't you just say, assist the CRA and other economic
entities in the marketing of commercial and industrial opportunities?
Why did you refer to the EDC?
MR. MULHERE: Well, because that's really specifically what
the EDC is charged with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is charged as long as they exist.
If they don't exist, I'd rather not -- why don't you just leave it generic
and if you use them, fine, if you don't --
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it takes it more of an opportunity to
be flexible.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And in bullet point one, it's
the same thing. It should read, work with the Immokalee CRA and
other economic entities of Collier County to actively promote blah,
blah, blah.
And we had talked about that at the very first meeting, was to
take out -- because you don't want to limit the CRA either.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's not that they're not going
Page 66
May 20,2010
to work with the EDC, that's what they're doing.
MR. MULHERE: No, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But it broadens it for the future.
This is a long term plan, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the yellow and the gray
highlighting there is in response, some of it, to the County Attorney's
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the gray is. And again, it's mostly not
substantive but, you know, clarification and also spelling out the
abbreviations and those kinds of things. At least in this case.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I will say that you'll see that there's a couple
of changes. Instead of assist and assist and work with, it says support,
encourage and support.
The purpose, as I understood it from Heidi, was that those are
more flexible. They still convey the message but they're more flexible
in terms of the impact on the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I don't think there's any
objection.
The next page is Page 8. I notice this particular policy doesn't
refer to the 1.1.1 policy as all the others do. Was there a reason for
that?
The policy, Mr. Murray, is of 1.1.1, is the fiscal policy that
basically says if we can afford it, we'll do it. If we can't, it will have to
wait till we can. Now, everywhere else where a policy had, for
example, 2.2.3. on the next page and all the others -- and 2.2.1. on the
bottom of this page, all the others specifically kept referring back to
Policy 1. I. 1. This one did not. And I was wondering if --
MR. MULHERE: No, I think we may have missed -- I think the
thought was that this was going to occur and would be part of --
because there's already a lot of data out there. We had that discussion
here. The data pretty much already exits. But, I mean, there's no -- I
Page 67
May 20, 2010
certainly have no objection to putting it in. We put it everywhere else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I'm just asking, if
you'd be consistent --
MR. MULHERE: Within two years, subject to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, on Policy 2.1.3., going
down about seven lines and talking about the mitigation bank, it says:
The purpose of such a mitigation bank and/or identification of lands
targeted for acquisition within or proximate to the Immokalee urban
area.
Why are we worried about lands that are proximate to the
Immokalee urban area? Shouldn't we just be concentrating on what's
in this area itself?
MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. Ifthere were some lands that
were close to the -- approximate to the urban area -- I didn't want to
restrict ourselves entirely, but the reason that's in there is if there were
some lands that had high value, natural resource value, you could use
that as a mitigation bank. In part you could use those lands for
impacts that are occurring in the urban area.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would not be in favor of that
because we have so much land within the urban area that's
environmentally sensitive that we don't need to be protecting land
outside that already is in the RLSA that should be protected by that
mechanism.
MR. MULHERE: You know, I mean, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the point -- and that's an interesting
point, because if you do it in proximate to, then you could go into the
RLSA area, land will be a lot cheaper, and you'll end up somewhat,
maybe defeating the purpose of getting environmental land within the
urban area --
Page 68
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: Well, and there --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's higher priced.
MR. MULHERE: There is the big chunk of the overlay that
would be obvious primary location for mitigation. So, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what if you took out the words or
proximate?
MR. MULHERE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would be in favor of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or proximate to. And then it says:
Within the Immokalee urban area. So that --
MR. MULHERE: Right, so strike through or proximate to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: It was only there for flexibility.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then I had another comment
on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that same section.
Oh, go ahead.
MS. GIBSON: Could I make a comment?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, sure.
MS. GIBSON: Laura Gibson, the Environmental Review.
It may be appropriate to have the proximate. I'm thinking in case
that there's a natural resource that straddles the line between
Immokalee and the RLSA, perhaps, and that we could still have the
ability to set this up to where the land could be purchased -- required
to be purchased first or used first in the Immokalee area, and then go
over to the -- to outside to preserve that whole contiguous area was my
thought.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would submit that everything
straddles in this thing, and that there's just much more higher priority
in the urban land because we don't have the protection of the RLSA
May 20, 2010
mechanism.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think leaving it -- striking those words
will stay -- the RLSA can take care of it itself, that's what it was
devised for, so --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then something else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. And then in that 2.1.3., the
last sentence where it says: Incentives shall be included in the LDC,
Ordinance 04-41 as amended, to direct mitigation to or acquisition of
these targeted lands and to direct development away from such lands.
Does the LDC -- would that include EAR amendments, possibly?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the --
MR. MULHERE: The LDC is the document that implements
these policies.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. You talk about incentives
to direct development away from such lands. When you talk about
directing development away from something, you're almost sounding
like disincentives. Would it be correct to say incentives and
disincentives, or would you only want to use incentives?
MR. MULHERE: I think we prefer the utilization of incentives.
You could use disincentives. Disincentives, although I would use a
different word, it's called regulatory requirements.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm just wondering if that
might not be something that should be included.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you said incentives or
regulatory requirements --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would cover that.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that would do it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on to Page 9. Any
questions?
Page 70
May 20, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, any issues you have?
MR. MULHERE: The reference to the EDC here -- and by the
way, I'll have to make sure that that's the first location that we spell it
out -- is specific, because they do administer the Certified Sites
Program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you didn't say them and
they did it, what difference would it make? Because couldn't the
county take that upon themselves if they wanted to?
MR. MULHERE: Sur.e.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They why would you want to have it
administered by the EDC if it's not the only entity that could do that?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was actually my comment to
clarify. I had actually used the words offered by the EDC, because it's
not a county program that I was able to find, it's an EDC program.
MR. MULHERE: There's no harm in taking it out. It is what it
is. And if it's done by somebody else, I think that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, does it hurt to not have it in there,
to take that language out?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it doesn't hurt it. It just -- the
implication I think is that it's a county program.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The way it reads now.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out a solution to--
MR. MULHERE: One solution might be to say Collier County
will work with economic development organizations to review the
existing Certified Sites Program.
Because the issue is reviewing it and the changing it, if we need
to. That's what it's calling for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why can't we just add, Collier
County will review the existing Certified Sites Program for economic
Page 71
May 20,2010
development? Because then it can be any entity performing the
economic development.
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a very specific program. I think
that's kind of general, too general.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought we were
going for.
MR. MULHERE: It's a Pre-Certified Sites Program.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then should it then read
Certified Sites Program of the EDC, in order to make it clear?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, you could do it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that work?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't we -- that's a better
way to put it.
MR. MULHERE: Of the EDC.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Section
staff.
As an alternative to what was just discussed, could we simply
insert the word presently, part of that phrase, presently administered
by the EDC?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's even better. We're getting
better. Takes a while to get around it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, takes a while.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least we're not going the route of the
shoreline calculation amendment.
Okay, so you're going to insert that word presently in front of
that, right?
MR. MULHERE: Right.
Page 72
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page is Page 10, let's say 10
and 11 in our books.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 2.3.4, entertainment area.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In recognition of the fact that the casino
is a significant attraction. And it goes into basing everything near the
caSIllO.
And I don't doubt the casino is an attraction. And if they ever
build it, it's going to be a fantastic attraction.
MR. MULHERE: Big change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to try to develop
entertainment in the area near the casino. But we really don't know if
the casino will ever continue -- will ever expand. The Seminoles
could decide any day now just to drop the whole idea and walk away.
How will that impact the development of that area? Will that be a
negative -- will that be a problem if this language focuses
entertainment development in that area without the casino or without
the expansion of the casino?
MR. MULHERE: I think two things: One, the casino is the
anchor for that entertainment district. That's -- people are coming
there. But not everyone wants to sit inside all day and all night. Some
people do.
So it's to take advantage of those folks that actually want to do
something else while they're there, have some other entertainment
opportunities.
Is it enhanced by the expansion? You -- you know, to the
greatest extent, yes. That will drive the -- and the idea is to go from
the casino towards town with this. And then that will connect within
the downtown corridor.
Page 73
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a problem with it at all.
Just conceptually, the lack of cooperation that the Seminole Tribe
offers to Collier County is frustrating. And when we try to go this far
as to set up support districts to their casino, I'm just wondering if that's
the best way to go. Without locking ourselves -- I don't want to lock
ourselves into something.
MR. MULHERE: Just one other thing, and then Fred wants to
talk.
But the other thing I would offer is, you know, that there's no
harm in planning for this, but if it doesn't happen, the market is never
going to allow it to occur because you don't have that expansion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I need to know. Thank you.
Fred, I'm comfortable with it, so you can say something if you
want to, but -- go ahead.
MR. THOMAS: If you're comfortable with it, I won't say
anything. But I wanted to make one little comment.
The Pact has been signed. They're going to go vertical. Don't
forget that for a moment. When you go to Chinatown, you don't
expect to see Fifth Avenue South.
We're saying to you, when you come to Immokalee, when you
get up by the casino, you're entering Central America. And you
expect to see Central America and anything that's associated with
Central America. Like the people on the street, okay? So that's why
we're going to make that the beginning of our tourist zone. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Fred.
Okay, Pages 12 and 13. Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the Policy 2.5.2, they're talking
about amendments to the Land Development Code. You want to
reference Policy 1. 1. I?
MR. MULHERE: That's funded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that is funded.
Page 74
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The land code amendments are funded.
Weare working on them as we speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they're funded by?
MR. MULHERE: CRA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. No need to apply.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Pages 14 and 15.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There is a change.
MR. MULHERE: Did I miss something?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just Page 14 under Policy 3.1.1, you
took out the H-2A housing.
MR. MULHERE: That shouldn't be highlighted, but -- it was
made really just more general. I think it still says the same thing, but
it doesn't specify H-2A housing, farm-worker housing. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in our books, Pages 14 and 15
starts Policy 3.2.1.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going back to the H-2A,
housing, is that a designation by the federal government for guidelines
on housing?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the visa type. It's the type of visa
that they would receive.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, visa. Okay, now I
understand. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: There's no changes to 3.2.1. or 3.2.2. or 3 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about 3.2.1. The
second sentence: Targeted redevelopment areas include
neighborhoods with occurrences of substandard structures.
How do you qualify those neighborhoods? Because you could
have one substandard structure in almost any neighborhood. Do you
Page 75
May 20,2010
have to have a -- is there some qualification that's going to come out--
is that what you see coming out of a future Land Development Code
discussion?
MR. MULHERE: Actually -- well, I think it's a -- there's a study
that -- well, there's a housing inventory that's already occurred, at least
on one occasion, if not several occasions. That housing inventory has
to be updated. That housing inventory will identify substandard
structures by definition of building code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it would rank them by
quantity so --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your targets would be the most
heavily --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- occurring areas first, is that--
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how that would --
MR. MULHERE: And then whatever the course of action that's
best prescribed to address it may not be land code amendments. There
are other opportunities to address that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred?
MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas, Chairman of the CRA.
On that H-2A question, that's the type of housing that the federal
government mandates for the H-2A workers that come under that
special visa that she's talking about. It's the type of housing that they
regulate, okay?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I asked the question.
Because I wondered if that should be pertinent --
MR. THOMAS: No, it's just we --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made it by reference.
MR. THOMAS: It's just a type of farm labor housing, that's all.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the intent was
Page 76
May 20,2010
referenced not to refer to a specific requirement.
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 16 and 17 in our book. Anybody
have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 17 --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it may be moot, but I have
to ask it anyway.
With regard to Objective 4.1, we speak of a comprehensive
system of parks and recreational facilities.
That gets you into that issue we always have with the AUIR
about parks, private and public. And I realize that the intent here is
probably public exclusively.
But if we're doing ecotourism, some of them may very well want
to be parks or considered as parks. And so the way I read this, it kind
of disenfranchises private parks. I know it doesn't stipulate that or
state that, but I wondered, because it references later on that it has to
do with the public services division and so forth and so on.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, I think all we can control is the
public parks --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's true.
MR. MULHERE: -- in terms of connectivity and the access.
If a private landowner who, you know, has a -- I mean, I guess
one example -- or maybe a better example might be a
non-governmental yet not-for-profit entity --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- that -- like I guess Corkscrew.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like the zoo.
MR. MULHERE: Or the zoo. Although they charge to cover
Page 77
May 20,2010
their cost. But we're talking about connectivity. So that's why it didn't
differentiate. Because connectivity would be just as important in that
circumstance as it is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought from the --
MR. MULHERE: -- for the residents.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought from the extreme --
maybe not extreme but from the most desired planning process you
would want to have the potential to incorporate private as well as
public and not focus exclusively on the public.
MR. MULHERE: No, we would. But the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you cannot is what you're
saying. You cannot.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the objective doesn't
differentiate, and that's why.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the objective doesn't, but
the later information in support of it tends to eliminate from most
thought processes that it would entertain it.
MR. MULHERE: Only because that's all the county really has
control over.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that. Well, I
thought, though, that the overall plan was just beyond what the --
okay, I got it.
MR. MULHERE: I think it is. I mean, the RT, for example, the
RT area that we expanded, you could have some private -- it's all
privately owned land, it could have exactly what you're talking about
and connectivity would be important there. Maybe a bike trail
through it and a sidewalk or something --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I'm really relating to.
And then further on in Objective 4.1 where you have the adopted
-- and that may be that one's going to go away, I suspect, or maybe not
-- where it says Collier County shall implement a parks and recreation
program for Immokalee that is equivalent.
Page 78
May 20,2010
If we're going to retain that, I would say instead of equivalent,
that of, that is -- yeah, I fooled myself. That of Collier County
standards is what I was trying to relate. I don't know if equivalent --
either it's county standards or it's not, right? Because equivalent now
says to me --
MR. MULHERE: That's the old Objective 4.1.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I know. So it's not going
to stay, right?
MR. MULHERE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So moot, all right.
MR. MULHERE: We're providing that because it was--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What it was, what it will.
MR. MULHERE: -- deemed to be easier for people to
understand what previously existed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 18 and 19, anybody have any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, under Policy 4.2.1., the -- well,
4.2.1., you've got to go down a little bit. Now you've got to go up a
little bit.
See the fourth line up and the end? It says as priority
improvements are identified, input from landowners and residents will
besought.
Would you consider changing that to input will be sought from
landowners and residences (sic) in order to prioritize improvements?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way that reads,
someone else could actually prioritize them and then afterwards say,
hey, we'd like your input. I think it --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, can you just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- should be just the opposite.
Page 79
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: -- say that one more time?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will be sought.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Input will be sought from landowners
and residents in order to prioritize improvements.
MR. MULHERE: I think that's very good. We could even -- we
could just say stakeholders, but, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just say landowners and residents. That
words. Just leave that in there.
But anyway, I would suggest that change to that page.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Yeah, on 4.1.3 -- on 4.2.1. You can see
in the gray that we just -- that language was just not necessary. That is
how it happens, it's not necessary to be in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: 4.1.3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Heidi, I'm assuming you're
watching as we're going along to make sure your stuff was caught.
And speak out --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- ifit doesn't. Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: We struck through the reference. I'm just --
4.1.3., you can see it's on the screen. We struck through the reference.
We thought we got every reference to the Immokalee Capital
Improvement Plan, but there were a couple of remnants of it. This
was one of them. So I just wanted you to know that we did go through
and strike through that. And in this case we're just referencing parks
master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on Pages 20 to 21?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.2.2.; long range transportation
improvements.
Nick had thought that we ought to be four-Ianing 846 to
Page 80
May 20, 2010
Immokalee and spending money there instead of tearing up Golden
Gate Estates by unnecessary roads in our area. So I was wondering
why you wouldn't want to put that as a bullet in there.
I see Nick shaking his head.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll get the white flag.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well anyway, it wasn't really Nick, but I
had to throw him in the mix just to keep him alert. He was falling
asleep back there.
But why wouldn't we put down as a policy that we want to try to
four-lane 846 out to Immokalee? To me I think that would be
important to the residents of Immokalee.
MR. MULHERE: Complete the four-Ianing of--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just another item of the bullet.
You listed some really nice bullets --
MR. MULHERE: No, that's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so why wouldn't you want to put that
one too?
MR. MULHERE: It just never came up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, to my knowledge it didn't. I didn't
exclude it purposely. I mean, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't believe Fred would forget
something as important as that. Of course maybe he doesn't want the
connection to be complete, I don't know.
Oh, hi, Fred.
MR. THOMAS: I don't know whether you want -- I wasn't
thinking. You said 846. I was thinking 858 and then coming up
Camp Keais Road in. Because that's being worked on right now to
six-lane it and then four-lane Camp Keais Road straight into
Immokalee.
You may into the want to four-lane 846 through Corkscrew, you
understand, when you have better traffic coming straight down 858
Page 81
May 20,2010
past the front door of Ave Maria and coming -- but the part I'm talking
about is Camp Keais Road is what I thought you was talking about,
Camp Keais coming straight into Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get to the same point as the
connection between Naples and Immokalee is not complete. Why
wouldn't you want in this policy to have one of those connections
favored? That's kind of where I was going.
MR. THOMAS: That's what I say, I was clapping for the Camp
Keais Road four-Ianing and straightaway from the already developing
the six-lane road of 858 over to Camp Keais.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just suggest that in your
discussions after today's meeting you may want to expand one of
those bullets to include a better connection between our community
and that community, since --
MR. MULHERE: I'll get with Nick. He can help us. Because as
I understand it, one's already funded, that's why it's not here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one?
MR. MULHERE: Oil Well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oil Well's only funded for a certain
portion of it.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So maybe we need to include that as
well as then Camp Keais Strand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever direction you decide to go, I
think a connection between this community and that community is
vital. And I would suggest that the CRA would want that too, but it's
up to them. I would suggest they add it to this list. It wouldn't hurt.
MR. MULHERE: No, it can't hurt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. VALERA: Mr. Chairman, just trying to catch up with your
request of highlighting some of the policies that prioritizes
improvements for Immokalee. This is one of those, that 4.2.2. It does
say that it will be new investment in Immokalee area, so it's specific to
Page 82
May 20, 2010
Immokalee, so it's prioritizing some of the work to Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it does say, prior to that reference,
subject to available funding.
MS. VALERA: Absolutely.
MR. MULHERE: Well, moreover, there's no intent for this
language to assume that we would have some higher priority than any
other area of the community. It's within Immokalee these are
priorities. And we still have to compete with the available limited
resources with all the other projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like I woke up the sleeping
volcano. Good morning, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida. My white flag, I
dropped it on the way, but I brought it, it was big. I was going to
leave it today and just put it aside.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to get you going a little bit there
today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not working with these folks.
We try to leave specific improvement roads and widths out of this,
because your long-range transportation plan is going through its
update process. And that's the more appropriate place to talk about
which roads would get widened through the public, you know,
participation process, rather than the GMP document. And that's why
we mentioned it to Bob and the other folks. Specifically don't
reference out a road other than referencing the long-range
transportation plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's a good point, but
-- if you take out the idea of saying widening or four lanes or six
lanes. But why wouldn't you want as a goal in this policy or as an
objective of this policy something to lead it forward that the
connection between Naples and Immokalee needs to be one of the
things that is focused on.
Because you didn't even mention it. You mentioned roads that
Page 83
May 20,2010
don't even exist. I would think that improving these roads that are
here would be a good goal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Referencing improvement of roads in
general is a good goal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just didn't want to put specific
laneage (sic) in, because that really excites people before going
through the public process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. MULHERE: Just a lot of that deals with the long-range
plan for the downtown area, because until that loop road is funded,
we're never going to be -- it's going to be more difficult to change the
plan for the downtown area, which is tied to the long-range economic
improvement in the community. So that's why those were part of --
I'm not suggesting it -- it would be relatively easy to put something in
there that also talks about connectivity between Naples and
Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a general concept, I would
think it would be an improvement for Immokalee to have better
connectivity with the coastal area. For any number of reasons. Ifit's
just for the workers to get from the Immokalee area to the hotels and
other places where a lot of them work. Right now there's buses and all
things going on, but it's all a two-lane difficult road for anybody.
So as an overall goal, and I don't know where you'd want to put
it, I'm surprised it didn't show up somewhere in this document, but I
would suggest that you'd throw it in there.
MR. MULHERE: We'll put it right there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anyway, it's just a
suggestion. I think it would be better for the community if it was
there.
Pages --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark, could I?
Page 84
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Karen.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: When this goes -- when and if
this goes through and it changes the configuration of development in
Immokalee, does that change the traffic analysis zone numbers where
this will prioritize different roads in the long-range plan for
Immokalee? Or -- it will, won't it?
MR. MULHERE: Everything.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Over the long haul, everything's going
to --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's going to work itself out in
other words.
MR. WEEKS: But not --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Roadways.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a great question. It really is.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will, as a matter of fact. As you
move density from one part of the county, not there are -- in such as a
document like this, that's what the long-range transportation plan takes
into account.
That's a great question. It will.
MR. MULHERE: And I have to add, for example -- and it's not
-- you know, if we're able to create a climate where we create job
opportunities, employment opportunities, long-term, higher paying job
opportunities in Immokalee, we will change the way people drive.
Because right now, just as Mr. Strain said, the opportunities are
limited, so people who work need to be heading, you know, west in
the morning and east in the evening. And there's limited opportunities
for them to do that. But we could change that pattern. And yes --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And it will change.
MR. MULHERE: -- everything will change priorities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody on Pages 20 and 21?
Page 85
May 20,2010
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Talking about the transportation
concurrency alternatives, I see they're talking about a mitigated
waiver. Can you define that a little bit? If you're talking about
increasing the intensity on the roads above what concurrency allows,
how would you mitigate that?
MR. MULHERE: I look at Nick, because he probably can
answer that question a little bit better, but I'm going to take a stab
while he's coming up real quick.
There are provisions where you could allow to support, say,
economic development a percentage above the LOS, the adopt -- so
125 percent or 110 percent or 115 percent of the LOS. Is that right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea that going forward from the
state level and down and something we're trying to embrace is you
may allow for a waiver if they do a transit or into the design. Or if
they do -- in other words, they build in some sort of transit program
into what they're developing. If they encourage transit ridership, you
may allow them to build to a certain density.
So it's something we wrestled with when developing this,
recognizing you want to start the process but you also don't want to
put aside concurrency.
On that last point about limiting the duration, reevaluating it is
important. Because what we said is we'll consider these things, we
just want to be able to take a litmus test at some point in time to see
how we're doing, if it's getting bad. But we recognize that downtown
Immokalee is going to have to be that give and take to get it going.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that there already are
exceptions to concurrency that have stuff like rapid transit and mass
transit and things like -- aren't they already in the concurrency system?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have them in your transportation
concurrency exception areas, and you have them in your TC,
transportation concurrency, management areas where you can do
Page 86
May 20, 2010
certain things.
You don't have them in Immokalee. And we're talking about
evaluating and setting one up for Immokalee. We want to make sure
the public's aware what that means. Because you are accepting a
limited amount of congestion to get that development to come on-line.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just wondering why a builder
would want to build something if he knew that there was going to be
congestion when he went in.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually brought that up to Penny
and, you know, make sure that people know to get to that development
you may get more congestion up front to raise that money and get that
improvement before you get an improvement to actually come on-line.
MR. MULHERE: I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, don't leave, I've got a question for
you, if you don't mind.
And you hit on it. You said, B-3, limiting the duration or having
mandatory public reviews of the continued feasibility of any such
exception or waiver process.
I understand the limiting the duration. That's -- under the
heading on B it says: Potential limitations on such exceptions from
concurrency. And one of the limitations is limiting the duration or
having mandatory periodic reviews.
How is that a limitation on an exception? That's just the
opposite. If you have an exception and you limit mandatory periodic
reviews, you'd be doing just the opposite of putting a limitation on it.
MR. MULHERE: It's not limiting the mandatory periodic
reviews, it's limiting the duration or having periodic reviews.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Put a comma in there, it will
take care of it after duration.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
Page 87
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- no, that won't work.
Well, the way I -- and I understand the way you're reading it, I
just wondered how --
MR. MULHERE: Well, if you have a mandatory review period,
part of the reason for the review is whether or not the exception should
continue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Limiting the duration or requiring
mandatory public reviews.
MR. MULHERE: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the word "having" is the problem.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Requiring.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And so we could give them one
day and take them away the next day from --
MR. MULHERE: You wouldn't --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the same person?
MR. MULHERE: You wouldn't take it away from somebody
who already had a development order, you'd take it away as you move
forward.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, now, I read that as an
either/or.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea is like we have the annual
update inventory report, is to give you a status. They may want to do
it every six months. You know, take a sample of the road, see what's
happening and then report back to say this is working so well that
you're increasing congestion too quickly, we need to stop the process.
MR. MULHERE: And I just have to add again in response to
Mr. Midney's question, you know, I mean, we've talked about this a
lot, and you have competing public policies. One is you have
concurrency limitations that stop development from moving forward
Page 88
May 20,2010
because of the impacts on levels of service; in this case roads.
But in Immokalee the community has determined that they are
willing to live with some congestion in order to allow economic
development and diversification and job creation to occur. So you
have these two competing policies. It's not willy-nilly to allow it
occur, it's under a very limited and hopefully well designed program
that we haven't got to yet but that we will get to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to Pages 22 and 23.
Yes, sir, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 23, Policy 5.1.1., that
first sentence is very awkward. Collier County will promote the
preservation of native vegetation in the Immokalee urban area,
exceeding the minimum requirement amounts set forth in CCME
Policy 6.1.1. and pursuant to lAMP Policy 2.1.3.
Up until there the sentence is good. And then there's this phrase:
Opportunities for mitigation and acquisition. Those words kind of --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there's something missing. I think
maybe we lost something there.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Something either needs to be
added or maybe that phrase needs to be eliminated. Because the way it
reads, it doesn't make much sense.
MR. MULHERE: No, I think we want to leave that, but it should
be a separate sentence. And I think maybe it was at some point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it could be provide
opportunities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just making sure I call you for the
record, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Provide opportunities for
mitigation.
MR. MULHERE: Something along the lines of provide or this
Page 89
May 20,2010
may include opportunities for mitigation, yes. We'll correct that. But
it's a good point.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: It's a good point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 22 towards the top, your
Policy 4.4.1., is that being funded by the CRA?
MR. MULHERE: 4.4.1? 4.4.1., hold on one second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or is it subject to Policy 1.1.1 ?
MR. MULHERE: I think -- I mean, I'll defer -- it's the CRA.
Yeah, I thought it was.
The only reason I hesitated was that I do know that, you know,
Code Enforcement from time to time does have these cleanup
activities, and that might fall under that. They do them right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried about -- it says the plan.
The plan's going to be developed by the year 2011. I just want to
make sure someone's funded --
MR. MULHERE: That's the CRA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to cover that plan.
That's the CRA. In the other areas you mention that do you need
to say that in here?
MR. MULHERE: That it's funded?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I'll let you decide. It's not
a big deal, I just wanted to make sure -- you're on record, so I just
wanted to make sure we know how it's funded so there's no question in
the future.
Pages 24 and 25?
MS. VALERA: And just a thought, Mr. Chairman, going back to
what you were saying. And you, in your general estimate of the --
you will identify the funding.
MR. MULHERE: That is -- yeah. I didn't know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under Section 5.1.1, there was a
Page 90
May 20, 2010
section, I'm seeing now Bob, that I recommended deletion, and that's
the second paragraph, the fourth line down, should it be determined
through this feasibility analysis that a TDR program will be desirable,
the master plan will be amended within two years. I recommended
deletion of that section, because that would result in the GMP being
self-amending, so --
MR. MULHERE: Okay, and I --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We don't usually put that in there.
MR. MULHERE: We wanted to have discussion -- I'm sorry, go
ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Pardon me?
MR. MULHERE: Go ahead.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, I'm done.
MR. MULHERE: And the reason I didn't make the change that
you recommended was this was one that my recollection in our
meeting was one that was going -- we were going to bring up for
discussion with the Planning Commission.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Oh, yes, that's right. I'm sorry, we
weren't in agreement on it.
MR. MULHERE: And the reason -- I still should have
highlighted it, though, so that I would have remembered.
You'll recall that The Conservancy at one of your meetings, first
meeting, I think, when we discussed what happened at the EAC, The
Conservancy had raised the issue of requiring any future TDR
program to go through a comprehensive plan amendment. They were
uncomfortable with it happening just as an LDC amendment. The
EAC supported that.
We discussed at your meeting and you left that language in,
didn't object to it, I guess would be the thing.
It's likely that the GMP would have to be amended anyway
because of the density implications ofa TDRprogram. And I guess
my concern is how is that self-amending if we're saying that you have
Page 91
May 20, 2010
to amend the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you have time --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You shouldn't have a provision that
says you have to amend it within two years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's the time frame I think is
what kicks in the problem.
If the TDR program is desirable and feasible, then the IMP shall
be then amended. Maybe if you drop the rest of that it works, subject
to Policy 1.1.1.
MR. MULHERE: I'll even say though on the flip side, if it
requires an amendment, it requires an amendment and we don't need
to say it here. So I'm just telling you the basis for it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's drop the whole
sentence, like Heidi suggested then.
Pages 24 and 25?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You notice 5.1.5. doesn't have the word
policy in front of it. You probably already caught that.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we saw that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you would.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we saw that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's so obvious.
Policy 5.1.4., why is that there?
MR. MULHERE: 5.1.4.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's informational. Doesn't -- it's
not a policy, it's just informational. It just says something's there.
MR. MULHERE: I think that was at the request of staff. They
might not remember it, but that's what our recollection is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which staff? You got a change of
hands here, so --
MR. MULHERE: Somebody over here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're sure it's one of those two? Okay.
Page 92
May 20,2010
Carolina?
MR. MULHERE: You know what, it could have been
environmental.
MS. VALERA: Yeah, I think it was Laura Gibson. And I think it
was a cross-reference, if I recall.
MS. GIBSON: Yes, because we felt that that policy being
referenced added some regulatory regulations to Lake Trafford.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it a policy? It's not a policy, it's
an informational statement. I'm just wondering how you classify it as
a policy if it's not directing something or saying something. It just
says hey, if you want to know if about this, go look here. That's not a
policy.
MS. GIBSON: And it may have been started --
MS. VALERA: Laura, in recall well, the requirements that we
had in the land use were also here as a policy. So we told them, well,
just cross-reference it. You don't need to have it in two places. So I
guess now I should ask -- I don't think it makes sense anymore. I
think you're absolutely right, there's no need to have it here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean --
MS. VALERA: Do you agree, Laura? I mean, I don't think --
MS. GIBSON: I'm not -- there were so many changes, I'm not
sure. But that's fine, whatever.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It ends up not being anything but an
informational note, so --
MR. MULHERE: I like that response.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Policy 5.1.4. is not needed
and you're going to change the numerics.
MR. MULHERE: And renumber, right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 26 and 27, any issues?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just C.l. Again, we have that
name wetlands connected to. And I think we decided just to have a
Page 93
May 20, 2010
standard terminology the whole way through, which is Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System Overlay. We don't have the
wetlands connected to anymore.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think -- you're right. Thank you. We
need to revise that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on 26, 277
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go to 28 and 29.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on this rezoning, it's 6.1.9,
this is kind of confusing me. First of all, I think the first sentence of it
does, from that point on. What are you really saying there is --
MR. MULHERE: Actually, we have to have some discussion. If
it's okay with you, there's some substantive changes on 6.1.6., if you
want to just take care of those, and then we'll get that one too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, I just -- I don't want to lose sight of
something that's previous. We have to have a little bit of discussion
here on the mobile home issue. Let's see if I can get it all.
If you look at -- the gray is a change that the County Attorney's
Office requested. That I think is really just for clarification purposes
there. But what it does do is it -- see, the problem we had is that it will
be sometime before the compo plan is adopted. And there are zoning
districts in Immokalee that also occur elsewhere in the county that
allow mobile homes that when the compo plan is adopted will not
allow mobile homes.
So we had to -- staff wanted us to expressly state that we would
amend the LDC to reflect that prohibition in those districts. Because it
will only be a prohibition in Immokalee, it won't be a prohibition
elsewhere where those districts apply. So we'll do that through part of
our LDC amendments.
Page 94
May 20, 2010
The second part of that is what if somebody comes in right now,
tomorrow. This is not adopted. So they would be able to still permit
those mobile homes up until the time of this being adopted.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That wasn't specifically the language I
requested. I think Bob's proposing it as a result of our discussion on
my comment.
MR. MULHERE: Right, actually I think it was more David's
discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but there is a case out there right
now that these two policies pertain to, is it -- is that correct?
MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Blockers' property.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, no, they didn't specifically pertain to
that. I'm going to get to that too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: They didn't--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to understand what we're trying
to do by the changes. Because I know that the prior language without
the gray language was basically flying with -- I mean, I talked to Fred
about it and various people, everybody seemed satisfied with it.
MR. MULHERE: Right, we're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's 6.1.7.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think Bob's on 6.1.6. right now.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And 6.1.7 is the one that addresses--
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to get to that, I just wanted --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but 6.1.6 says that -- on the third
line up, or if the use is allowed within the acceptable underlying
zoning district. Isn't that the issue at hand with some of the processes
Page 95
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: No, because--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going on now?
MR. MULHERE: Once -- this deals with -- until such LDC
amendment is adopted, new mobile homes shall be permitted as
provided herein until the underlining (sic) zoning district -- if they're
permitted in the underlying zoning district until the LDC is amended.
That deals with the situation that we have of having VR and
AMH, not only in Immokalee but also in other areas that allow mobile
homes. So we have to expressly prohibit those uses in those districts
in Immokalee. And legally until that happens, they can still come
forward and get mobile homes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So that's one issue.
And David, unless I've got that wrong, I think -- now, let's move
to 6.1.7.
Interestingly enough, when we wrote paragraph A, our intent was
that that be read and that apply to existing mobile homes in
Immokalee on individual lots or parcels, but not a part of a subdivision
for mobile home parks.
But the way we wrote it, if you don't read the gray, if you just
read the yellow, is that it would also apply to existing mobile homes
within mobile home parks that were not approved. And so the
example that you cited, the Blocker example, is the only one that I
know of. It's a mobile home in an industrial zoning.
You know, I guess there's two ways to look at it. I'm not trying to
take the position that I'm representing Mr. Blocker's position. I think
the county's position is that that was not an approved mobile home
park, okay?
So if you read paragraph A without the gray, that would then
become a legal nonconforming use and be subject to nonconforming
provisions. And that's how Heidi read it. And after Heidi explained to
me how she read it I thought, you're absolutely right, that is how it
Page 96
May 20, 2010
reads.
So we have a couple of options. The language in the gray was
what we discussed that would clarify what our original intent was. I'm
not suggesting that that's what we have to do here. But that would
clarify -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't that -- this kind of gets into
the shoreline calculation. I mean, we reversed a couple words and it
changes the entire intention and meaning of what's being done.
The prior document that we have in our possession said, existing
mobile homes not located within an improved mobile home park or
subdivision may continue. This one says existing mobile homes
located on individual lots or parcels and not located --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that phrase--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that throws in an issue of platting.
So basically then you got -- how do you have a --
MR. MULHERE: It doesn't necessarily throw an issue of
platting. The purpose of the -- our intent -- maybe I haven't made
myself very clear. Our intent was there's a bunch of mobile homes in
Immokalee on ago zoned property, on VR zoned property, on single
lots or on five-acre parcels, they're not part of a mobile home
subdivision and they're not part of a mobile home rental park. And
moving forward, those aren't going to be permitted.
So that was our intent, to say that those will be treated as legal
nonconforming. But we didn't write it very well, because when it was
read, it could just as easily be interpreted to mobile homes within a
rental park or subdivision that isn't approved. Then I guess you'd have
to define approved.
But that's the way Heidi read it and that's the way I think it could
have been read very clearly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: The County's in the process of foreclosing
the Blocker property. Before I take property away from somebody, I
Page 97
May 20, 2010
need to know, okay, what are we doing here? If -- do we intend to
allow the Blockers to remain in that use or do we intend otherwise?
MR. MULHERE: Well, let me be very, very clear. Originally
when we wrote this language -- you have to now go down to a
different section here. If you go down to paragraph C, which would
extend the time period when nonconforming mobile home parks could
go through the site improvement plan process to become legitimized,
right, there's a condition on that. And that condition is that last phrase
that says, and which are located within sub-districts that allow
residential uses. Okay?
That excludes the Blocker property because it's in an industrial
sub-district. Proposed industrial sub-district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 6.1.7. would then force the County
Attorney's Office to foreclose on the Blockers property because of the
way it's written.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't know that. That wasn't our
consideration. Let me just -- give me two more minutes because I'll --
during the time we wrote this, the county was in a lawsuit with the
Blockers. And I coordinated with the assistant county attorney who
was Jackie Hubbard, right? Robinson? Jackie Hubbard. Anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jackie Robinson's a fighter.
MR. MULHERE: Well, that was her name prior. Whatever,
anyway.
So providing this information to her, there were concerns
expressed about whether or not the changes I proposed would
legitimize -- would have an impact on that litigation and potentially
negate the county's position.
Therefore, I added that phrase, and which are located within sub-
districts that allow residential development. Which then precluded the
Blockers from taking advantage of that opportunity and didn't have
any -- then would have no impact on the litigation.
I just want to -- two more minutes. One more minute.
Page 98
May 20, 2010
If you would like to not force a foreclosure of the property and
allow the Blockers to continue to have that mobile home subdivision
in operation until they replace it with some other use that's going to be
allowed under the industrial sub-district that they have, or will have,
then I would suggest to you that A would be the more appropriate
course of action. Because that won't legitimize it other than to make it
legal nonconforming. If you follow my thinking.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, C says additionally. So
even no matter what you do with A, you still have to comply with C.
MR. MULHERE: You should comply with C, because that
would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then --
MR. MULHERE: -- that would approved it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But compliance with C puts you back in
the loop where we have litigation.
Now, I think it really boils down to what does the community of
Immokalee think about the process? What do they want out there in
regards to this Blocker residence? Because if they're not objecting to
it, why are we going through a foreclosure process? Because -- I don't
understand it.
MR. MULHERE: No one discussed specifically the Blocker
property during this process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe you should. Maybe it
needs to get on the table and get done.
MR. MULHERE: But let me just tell you, I think the intent of
the community was to limit the allowance of mobile homes across the
spectrum of the community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. But the way
this is written, though, it only negatively affects this one piece of
property. It's just kind of like the shoreline calculation, if it goes
forward, it's going to be done because this one property is being
attacked. Why don't we just --
Page 99
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: I would suggest if the County Attorney's
Office doesn't object -- doesn't object to it relative to litigation or
something along those lines, doesn't object to that use continuing, I'll
-- I mean, I'll defer to Penny, but-
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've just seen some pictures of that
particular mobile home area, and I don't know why -- and from the
pictures I've seen, it was presented in a manner that there wasn't an
objection to it.
MR. MULHERE: I've actually been to the site several times. It's
not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we going forward with more
needless litigation and we can write this so that it works and covers us
in that one situation in a way that doesn't foster more litigation?
MR. MULHERE: Then if that's the case, then to do that I would
suggest that you simply take out that phase in C which says, and
which are located within districts that allow residential -- that phrase
comes out. The A is not applicable, because it doesn't really -- it
wasn't intended. Or you could even take out the gray in A and then it
would be legal nonconforming and could go through the process. And
I don't see where that's a -- Jeff, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but is
going through the process the issue? I don't think so. It's not being
able to go through the process.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is this: Staff gave an opinion that
the use of the mobile home park was unlawful because it was in
violation of the compo plan. That's why they could never go through
the, what is it, SIP process, okay.
Staff then took that in the form of a code complaint to the CEB,
Code Enforcement Board. Code Enforcement Board made a ruling,
yes, and that has led to my office years later in the position where
we're going to foreclose on that property. All right? This is not a
policy issue with respect to the County Attorney's Office, this was an
initiative that was started by staff believing that this was a code
Page 100
May 20,2010
violation. All right? If it is the intent to make this use legal, that's
fine, I will stop the foreclosure because there's no point on continuing
it.
If the intent is to put this mobile park out of business, then fine,
just let me know. I just need to know the intent, because I don't want
to be fighting over what this language means, what this language
doesn't mean. I want the intent clear to the Planning Commission who
can then make a recommendation to the board. We'll then have the
intent clearer to them, and I can either be done with it or I can
conclude this to foreclosure, to its final conclusion. It's one or the
other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to know the location
of this trailer park.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Fred's probably got the answer
right behind you.
Bob?
MR. THOMAS: It's the one down at the end of Alachua Street.
Down the end of Alachua Street next to the old dump, okay?
I will tell you how I got involved in this. Fred Thomas,
Chairman of the Master Planning Envisioning Committee.
We had several families come to us about seven, eight months
ago who live on single-family lots to the west of 29 on Immokalee
Drive with code enforcement problems. Because they took an old
map; Code Enforcement looked at a new map and saw buildings and
structures on the new map that was not on the old map, because this
was done before we had the initial Growth Management Plan when we
had a separate planning commission in Immokalee. And they couldn't
find any documents to show where they got permits to do those things.
Okay?
And this mobile home park is in the same situation. And it
Page 101
May 20,2010
shouldn't have been a code situation, it was a land use situation.
Now, we all want that property to be industrial, to help with our
industrial development. There is a very viable mobile home park
that's on there that should be legal nonconforming and be allowed to
do an SIP until such time that they could take advantage of the
industrial use. That's all we're asking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the succinct detail we need.
And is that -- you're talking as now the visioning committee and
the CRA and those boards all talk about this issue, Fred, so it's not --
you're not talking out of school?
MR. THOMAS: No, we haven't talked about Blocker.
MR. MULHERE: We've never talked --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is any -- do you believe the
committees that you're on are sharing a similar opinion as yours?
MR. THOMAS: I think you can look at Paul Midney, I think we
all -- when the county came up with the first Growth Management
Plan in the early Eighties -- middle Eighties, we wanted to make sure
we protected the existing use and existing rights that the families had.
So we put in a clause that the County Attorney's Office didn't even
know, that if you didn't do more than a 51 percent change in your
property use, you didn't have to go through the new deal. You
understand? If you put more than 51 percent, then you had to come
up to all the new codes and what have you, okay? So that we could
protect the existing property uses until such time they could take
advantage of the new direction that we're trying to go.
And we want to become the industrial hub. We don't want to
make this man change it back to residential, then change it back to
industrial later. It's just a legal nonconforming use that will disappear
as soon as he can take advantage of an industrial use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Mr. Midney's indicating by
nod of the head he's in agreement. I don't know if this board has a
reason to disagree.
Page 102
May 20, 2010
Bob, why don't we make sure the language is able to make that
happen, and that takes cares of the problem with the County
Attorney's Office and everybody walks away fairly happy.
David?
MR. WEEKS: I have a question. We're talking about a very
specific property. What I don't know, and I ask if anybody does
know, if there are any other similar situated properties.
MR. THOMAS: That's the only one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been told there are by numerous
people, but I can't attest to it myself. I've just been told --
MR. THOMAS: This is the only one that falls in that category.
The only one. The only one.
MR. WEEKS: So all other mobile home parks and subdivisions
in Immokalee are on lands zoned mobile home or VR --
MR. THOMAS: Yes. And our future land use will be -- mobile
home would be or something like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you need to use the microphone.
MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, we're talking two different things. I
hear you where you're going now.
In the Future Land Use Map, all the rest ofthem are located
where they're supposed to be, mobile home parks. Okay? Now, I'm
not going to say there are any other legal nonconforming.
When they tried to do an SIP for this property five or six years --
the Blockers just got the property in 2002, I think. When they tried to
do an SIP they wasn't allowed to do the SIP because of the master
planning going through and not knowing what the future land use and
all that kind of stuff. You see?
We had that problem.
MR. MULHERE: There was a deadline.
MS. VALERA: It was a timeframe.
MR. THOMAS: A deadline or whatever, there was a problem.
So the point is, the question came up whether they rezone it so
Page 103
May 20,2010
they can do it, and that didn't make any sense either, you understand?
But this is the only mobile home park that it fits that degree of --
Mr. Weeks? This is the only one, only one.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, this is not a legal non-
conforming use, this is an illegal use. That's what staff determined.
Because this is not a zoning issue, this is a compo plan issue. You are
not allowed to have residential within an industrial area, all right? So
this is not a -- this property could never go through this SIP process --
MR. MULHERE: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- because it is an unlawful use, not legal
non-conforming.
So what I'm understanding now is the intent here is to change the
comprehensive plan to now allow this as a lawful use.
MR. THOMAS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get to the bottom of it.
MR. MULHERE: No. I mean, I don't know what else to say. I
mean, there are hundreds of non-conforming uses made non-
conforming by plan changes that are allowed to continue to exist until
they are forced out of the code out of existence through the non-
conforming sections of the Land Development Code. Seems to me
that that's what we're --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think because it's zoned industrial
it could never be legal to begin with; therefore, it cannot be a legal
non-conforming use.
MR. MULHERE: It wasn't always zoned industrial.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, 1--
MR. THOMAS: Excuse me, it pre-existed. It pre-existed any
zoning that made it industrial.
MR. KLATZKOW: Look, that's your position. But staffs
position and what the Code Enforcement Board upheld and what the
superior court has upheld is that it is an illegal use and it's always been
an illegal use. So that if you want to make this a lawful use by
Page 104
May 20, 2010
changing the compo plan, that's fine, let's do that, okay?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know how we're going to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm indifferent, all right? But if you're
telling me what you're simply doing is allowing a legal non-
conforming use to stay there. This is not a legal non-conforming use.
I just want to know, is it the intent here to allow the Blockers to
stay here or not?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't heard an objection from it.
Paul, you're the representative on this board from Immokalee.
Just what's your opinion on this whole thing?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's unfortunate. I mean,
when you have a viable mobile home park that people are living in
and that they're, you know, trying to keep, I don't see why we want to
go to foreclosures and lawsuits.
MR. MULHERE: Can I ask a question? If -- in order to comply
with what the County Attorney is proposing, we would need to go
through -- the only way I know how to do it would be to go to the
industrial district and add mobile homes as a permitted use. How else
do we make it a legal use?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: That's why I wanted to ask a question of Jeff,
since we're getting into this more.
Jeff, I thought I heard you specifically say that it was represented
to the Code Enforcement Board and I guess subsequently the courts
that the issue here was a noncompliance with the designation on the
Future Land Use Map in Immokalee.
MR. KLATZKOW: Staffs position has always been that this
was never a lawful use, that it's industrial property and this is
residential use. And that was staffs position, all right, which is why
we're here. This is why I could never settle this case, because it's an
unlawful use. All right?
Page 105
May 20,2010
I just need to know, is the intent here with the changes we're
making today is to allow the Blockers to stay there?
MR. WEEKS: And the specific point I'm trying to get to, and
Bob I think touched on it as well, is it's more than a future land use
issue, it is a zoning issue. The property is zoned industrial. It is a --
industrial zoning district as well as the designation does not allow any
type of residential development. That's where I think Bob touched on
it.
Even if we change this future land use language in a way that
would no longer make that use noncom -- non-conforming's not quite
the right term, but not consistent. If we change the language so that it
is consistent with the Immokalee Future Land Use designation, it is
still not allowed by the zoning district. That doesn't fix the problem is
what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically what you're saying, there's
nothing we can do here today with this GMP that's going to resolve
the problem.
MR. MULHERE: There is one thing. It just dawned on -- I
mean, you could. You'd have to put a specific new paragraph or
paragraph that deals specifically with that property, okay? Typically
we don't do that, but you could. That's -- or generally deals -- since
it's the only one, you could make a general statement that says existing
mobile home parks may continue to -- I mean, I thought that's what
the non-conforming language was for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Mr. Klatzkow's in a
strange position here. From what you've said, it's illegal, it's not a
proper zoning. I don't know that you have a choice but to go forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the way it is currently constructed.
But getting on what Bob's just said, you could put a provision in here
that says for industrial zoned property, okay, existing mobile home
parks shall be an approved use. But there shall be no further
Page 106
May 20, 2010
expanSIOn or new ones.
And if this is the only one, all right, I think we're done. It's sort
of like what we did a couple weeks ago with Tony Pires and his client.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: And the difference would be that you
wouldn't have the same -- you wouldn't have the same regulatory
effort to cause it to come -- go out of existence as soon as possible.
And what I'm talking about is the non-conforming regulations that sort
of force a non-conforming use over time out of existence.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's been there 50 years.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know. And I think that we need
to get out of this without litigation. And I think that you've got the
sympathy of the community in favor of it, so why are we fighting it? I
think the direction ought to be we're going to be taking -- we're going
to go to lunch, come back with an idea to resolve it and let's just get it
done. And then it solves the problem for the county, it solves
litigation, it solves problems for the community.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make sure. There has
been testimony, but I don't know if it's accurate testimony, that this is
the only one. We don't want to be making the situation worse.
So if you limit it to just this particular case, we're probably okay.
But I certainly wouldn't want to see this go forward so that anything
else that might be out there now suddenly --
MR. MULHERE: We could do this; I think that's a very
legitimate concern, because we haven't checked that.
So what we could do is assume for the moment that it is the only
one, I think it is in industrial, and we're only talking about industrial.
And we can verify that between now and, you know, a few days.
And we could certainly let you know if that's not the case. Assuming
at lunch we come up with some language, which we should be able to
do.
Page 107
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we're going to end
up spending part of the afternoon here. Mr. Schiffer has to leave at
1 :00. In deference to his last question, why don't we finish that
question up.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then go to lunch and come back an
hour after that.
So Cherie', as soon as we finish with Brad's issue, we'll take a
break.
MR. MULHERE: And in could, I'm going to have to give you
some revised language on this. Because the County Attorney's Office
has revised this language.
And I could put it on the visualizer if that's easier than -- you
know, I think it might be easier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Try it.
MR. MULHERE: Can you read that? Or is -- staff and David
and Carolina and Heidi and I met yesterday. Part of our discussion
was on this section.
The underlying language that you see was Heidi's revisions,
which are acceptable, and some strike-through language. The blue,
the new hand-struck through language was David's recommendation
upon reviewing it.
So what we have is agreement between Heidi, David and myself,
that this language effectively addresses the issue. And if you'd like
me to explain the issue, I can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you explain the issue that
Heidi then brought up so we understand what you're correcting it for.
MR. MULHERE: Well, the issue is this, and the same thing in
'89 when we adopted the plan. You have some zoning, developed and
undeveloped, that would no longer be consistent with the plan. But
we're not proposing to go in and rezone those properties, we're going
to allow them to continue, but they can't further intensify. They can
Page 108
May 20, 2010
be -- they can rezone to an equal or lesser intensity or density.
So let me give you an example. On the East Trail you've got
three or four parcels that are Zoned C-3. Not in Immokalee, I'm in
coastal Collier County now. You've got three or four parcels that are
Zoned C-3. I want to change it to a PUD. And I want to allow a use
that maybe isn't permitted in C-3, but I can demonstrate that that use
will be of equal or lesser intensity than the other uses.
This permits me to go ahead and do that. It also permits me to
change that C-3 to residential. Because originally there was a total
prohibition on rezoning those, but then it was changed to allow you to
do it to an equal or lesser intensity or density.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my change, and my concern was just
the language that they used where they're saying we're going to go
ahead and zone things in the future that's inconsistent with the land
use designation. That's the problem I had, not with the concept. So the
change in language is not to change the concept, just the
inconsistency.
And then I added -- so that resulted in a change in your first
paragraph and also in your Subsection D. So I made no changes A
through C.
And then I added a section that, you know, if it's initiated by the
landowner, then they shouldn't be able to use this section, so I put that
in. And then worked with Jeff on B, which is a new language that
deals with vested rights and takings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And B is interesting only because it's,
all applications must be submitted within one year of the effective date
of the lAMP or applicable amendment.
So when this gets adopted, the one-year time table would start.
How does (sic) general public affected by this, unless they're notified
in writing? How do they know that the time table started for them?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I guess in practice they probably
wouldn't know.
Page 109
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So, I mean, the year goes by and
they're down the road a year or two and they need to -- they discover
they have this problem, but then they're barred from coming in for a
VRD. Do we need that limit -- do we need that timetable in there for
the VRD process?
MR. MULHERE: Is this being treated any differently than how
you treat the coastal area?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, I think the coastal area is one year as
well.
MR. MULHERE: That's my point.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Which is why I picked the one year. I just
took what we did in the coastal area and put it in here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think most people didn't even
know that the whole process existed within that one-year time frame.
That's not really fair to the public. I mean, it doesn't mean because we
did it in the coastal area it's right. And I'm just wondering if we need
to do that. It's kind of a back door way of shutting everybody out
from appealing a decision they never knew occurred.
MR. KLATZKOW: But we're not shutting anybody out, we're
giving them -- I'm giving them a remedy here. You're just saying that
you want a remedy that has more years appeal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I want a remedy that they know
about. If they don't know it, they don't know it's a remedy. That's
what my concern is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about adding public
notice?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the public notice is simply the
process we're going through today, public notice.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm thinking of newspaper
or something of that nature where --
MR. MULHERE: Well, you'd have to take out an ad in the paper
Page 110
May 20, 2010
that says after adoption, the lAMP has been adopted, note --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- that anyone who feels they've been
adversely impacted has one year to establish a --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is what I'm --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned about that issue,
Jeff. And I know how we did it in the coastal area. It happened
actually right after I got on this Planning Commission 10 years ago.
And I didn't think -- I was wondering -- I didn't know then how
people would find out. Well, now I've been on here longer, I know
how people aren't going to find out. And they aren't. So it's a little
concernmg.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm not -- that's fine. Would you -- how
many years would you suggest?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I'm just trying to figure
out how you get to a property owner who doesn't -- especially in
Immokalee they may not read the paper. They may not have access to
these public hearings all the time.
MR. MULHERE: We're talking about what we believe is right
or what we believe is right versus what's legally required.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, been then what's right should be
what's legally required.
MR. MULHERE: But it's always. I mean --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to correct that.
MR. MULHERE: The notice requirements for -- sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are two issues here. One issue is you
don't go onto limited people's existing rights and you want to give
them some sort of remedy. Now, right now, they have a Bert Harris
Claim. But I was really trying to give people something more
efficient than that with this, so that's why I tied it into the vested rights
as an alternative.
But the other issue is that you're adopting a new plan here for
Page 111
May 20,2010
Immokalee. Eventually you want that plan, you know, to go forward
and be the plan. So you need some sort of time line where people are
adversely affected. They come and say hey, wait a second, I'm
adversely affected by your plan, and then we deal with that. You don't
want to be 10, 15 years down the road where somebody says wait a
second, and now you've got in essence a hole in your plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, why don't we--
MR. KLATZKOW: So one year, two years, four years--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- come back to this after we come--
we're not going to finish this discussion now. Let's just come back
after lunch and maybe think about it and hopefully introduce a time
frame that works. Something better than what we've got. I can tell
you, one year's not much.
MR. MULHERE: Is it the time frame or the notice? I mean,
that's the point that I'm trying to make. If it's a more extraordinary
effort to notice people, then seems to me that's an easy -- you can't
notify individual property owners, it's too expensive. You can notify
through an ad in the paper, or you could even in Immokalee take some
extra steps because of -- you know, there's a lot of folks that may own
property that don't read the Naples Daily News or whatever, you know
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that we need to have--
MR. MULHERE: -- The Bulletin.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have some way of making
sure these pe -- everybody's aware of what's happening to their
property. And I don't think just saying it in a paragraph that you've
got one year to do something about it is enough, so anyway --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just before I leave, what's
the problem that you're preventing with that? What if a pers -- there
was no time limit and I have a commercially zoned piece of property.
The master plan has it as what, high density residential? I mean,
where do we get in trouble 10 years down the road?
Page 112
May 20,2010
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we don't, but there's no remedy 10
years down the road. Whatever remedies you've got in the Florida
Statutes, which right now is pretty much the Burt Harris Act, and I
think that's a one-year limitation period, off the top of my head, I
could be in error there, that's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's saying, what if we take out
the one-year clause for the VRD and we have an unlimited timeframe
for someone to ask for a VRD?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have a commercial use
now, I'm happily commercial, and I didn't notice all this stuff, I was
fixing cars, I wasn't paying attention to this. And then where would
that be a problem for the master plan? And why is the timeframe --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, because what will happen is you may
get a block developing a certain way, which is what the master plan
wants you to do, and you'll have one owner 5 years from now, 7 years
from now, 10 years from now saying wait a second, I had the right to
do this other thing beforehand, and that sort of takes away -- he's
going to do something different from what everybody else is doing.
MR. MULHERE: There's got to be a limit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I want to make sure we
understand what this policy is dealing with. It is dealing with first of
all land that is no longer consistent with its future land use designation
because of a change of this master plan. But more than that, it's
specifically dealing with the rezoning of that property. If your
property is zoned commercial and the new designation is residential,
this doesn't impact your ability to develop that property per its existing
zoning. This only impacts you if you want to rezone the property.
And what the policy says is, you can rezone to the parallel or
anything that is taking you closer to consistency. If you want to
rezone from C-4 to C-l, well, your designation is now for something
noncommercial. You're moving closer to consistency.
Page 113
May 20, 2010
This language was taken from Policy 5.1 in the Future Land Use
Element. And it has been amended over the years. Back in '89 it was
an all-or-nothing provision. You shall zone to be consistent with the
plan, period. Which meant if you wanted to rezone from C-4 to C-l,
no. In some cases if you rezone C-4 and you're designated residential,
your only consistent zoning might be down to a three-unit per acre
residential or agriculture or something like that. Very drastic. It was
draconian.
And so ultimately the amendment to 5.1 allowed for this:
Maintain the same level of density or intensity, or anything that is
moving closer towards conforming or being consistent with the new
designation for your property.
I want to make that clear that we're dealing with the rezoning, not
your right to develop the property under the existing zoning. We're
not touching that here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, let me ask; is it
important that a landowner yell ouch within a year? Or what happens
ifhe doesn't notice it till' 10 years, how will that mess up a master
plan?
MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm still struggling with how are they
impacted to the point they even make a vested rights claim.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. WEEKS: I mean, there may be some scenario out there,
and I think that's the whole reason Jeff wanted the language put in
there, that what if just in case. I cannot think of such a scenario.
Again, you can develop per your existing zoning. This policy
doesn't address that at all. It only addresses if you want to rezone it.
And again, you can go to the same. So if you want to rezone from C-4
to a PUD that allows C-4 uses, you can do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we can -- we'll drop back
Page 114
May 20,2010
on this when we get back from lunch. It may not be that complicated
by the time we have a little more time to think about it.
Brad, I know you've got to leave.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I just don't want you guys
to have a tie vote, so I'm going to leave.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work.
And for the rest of the Planning Commission, I would think
within a couple hours we can finish up when we get back at the most.
So with that we'll take a break and come back here at 1 :00.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Schiffer is absent.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from
our lunch break. And we left off with a couple lingering questions on
policies on Pages 28 and 29, and we'll move right into them and then
continue on.
Bob, before we start on new stuff, what came about as a result of
the thinking or thought on Policy 6.1.17
MR. MULHERE: Okay, so we had a discussion. Given the
basic -- the limitations that we have, the limitations are, can't be a non-
conforming use, it has to be a legal use, based on what Jeff said, Jeff
Klatzkow.
What we propose then would be to make sure that it's limiting, to
actually identify that mobile home park. I have to get an address or
something, I'll put it in there.
But what we would propose is on the visualizer right now, and it
would say something very similar --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, it's not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not here.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, computer, yeah. Exit. I got it, I got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Electronically challenged.
MR. MULHERE: I am.
The existing mobile home rental park located -- we'll define what
Page 115
May 20,2010
it is -- and designated industrial on the lAMP FLUM shall be deemed
to be a permitted use -- and then here's what we thought was
appropriate -- subject to submitting and obtaining an approval of an
SIP under the provisions and time limits set forth in paragraph C
above.
We thought let's at least get them through a Site Improvement
Plan process to make whatever improvements are appropriate, if it's
going to be there in who knows how long.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a pretty good work.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I only have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray, then Mr.
Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except that I thought that
because the way it is currently zoned that it can't get an SIP. That's
what --
MR. MULHERE: Well--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- Klatzkow said.
MR. MULHERE: -- that's what he said. But I think if we say it
in the compo plan, then I think it's okay. I mean, I don't know--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't take a position on it, I'm
just curious.
MR. MULHERE: I think it's true if we left it silent. But if we
say that it is a permitted use and needs to go through a site
improvement plan, I would think that would be okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, well --
MR. MULHERE: Because otherwise you would have to be a
non-conformed use to go through the SIP.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't have an objection to
your effort to try to solve the problem, I just want to be sure that we in
fact do.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
Page 116
May 20, 2010
MR. WEEKS: Just to speak further to that, we did discuss it
during the break. And the specific wording using the term shall be
deemed a permitted use is specifically phrased that way to have the
effect of a mandate. So it is dictating that it shall.
In most cases when we deal with land uses we would identify a
use as being allowed and then defer to the LDC to determine how it's
allowed; by right, conditional use, accessory use or not allowed at all.
But in this case we're mandating that it is allowed. So it, if you will,
trumps the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley was that where
your question was?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it was -- no, it was
regarding the wording. The mobile home is not designated industrial,
it's the land under which the mobile home exists. So I was just --
MR. MULHERE: Well--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- if you could put -- the only
thing I was thinking was that --
MR. MULHERE: Okay, you're right, we'll--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the plan -- go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. You're right. And I didn't mean to
step on you.
We'll say and located within the industrial sub-district.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, or mention that first part
about the industrial and then what's on it second.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, I'm sorry, I just --
MR. MULHERE: No, that's good.
MR. WEEKS: Perhaps the site of the existing.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a big deal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the intent is clear.
Mr. Klatzkow, unless -- do you have an objection to it or do you
see anything wrong?
Page 117
May 20, 2010
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's not going to help you
much.
MR. MULHERE: What happened?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, okay, Mr. Weeks, okay,
from a compo planning standpoint, should this be adopted, okay, the
existing mobile home park owned by the Blockers would now be a
legal non-conforming use.
MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. WEEKS: My professional opinion is it should not. There's
a reason why the -- there's a reason why the industrial zoning district
does not allow residential uses. There's compatibility concerns of the
types of uses you can have in an industrial area, to have residential
mixed in with that. You have noise, glare, odor, dust, truck traffic, et
cetera.
Secondly there's the potential for health concerns, most
particularly the long-term nature because of the potential in an
industrial area to have the use or processing or manufacturing,
whatnot that involves chemicals, fibers, things that again potentially
could generate health concerns for residents in close proximity.
And the third reason is the potential impact upon the industrial
land users within close proximity to the site. I can think of one
example; it mayor may not be the only example. The National Fire
Protection Standards specify a distance, minimum distance, for bulk
storage of propane to residential. We dealt with this many years ago
here in Collier County. And whether it was 500 feet, 1,000 feet, that's
not the issue. But it's in close proximity. Which the effect of which is
if this use is allowed to remain, then that precludes that one and
possibly other uses from being located within some specified distance
from that site.
I know this development, it's already been put on the record as
been there for decades; I think 50 years was mentioned. That doesn't
alleviate these concerns. And of course if it's -- if this language is
Page 118
May 20,2010
adopted, then that ensures that it is allowed to be there for another
period of decades or theoretically forever.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me frame it a different--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to say, you didn't get
to the question that he asked.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me rephrase the question.
If this particular provision is adopted, what would be the legal
status of the Blockers' property, in your opinion?
MR. WEEKS: That property would then be consistent -- that
use, that location would then be consistent with the Immokalee Master
Plan once this language goes into effect. And it would be consistent
with the LDC by virtue of the GMP having, what's the word, like
superior authority over the LDC.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Is it a lawful use or a --
MR. WEEKS: I would say it's a lawful-- becomes a lawful use
then.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is it legal nonconforming or is it just not
conforming?
MR. WEEKS: It's conforming. It's conforming. Subject to --
MR. KLATZKOW: The SIP.
MR. WEEKS: -- the SIP.
MR. MULHERE: And one additional item I forgot to mention is
we wanted to also put a stipulation that it cannot be expanded.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. I think that's
appropriate.
But that makes it a legal use that solves the problem, that
conforms to what the community has indicated is acceptable to them.
Problems go away, we're good to go.
MR. WEEKS: Well.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what they're telling me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You need a lawyer.
Page 119
May 20,2010
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but see where I get a little bit skewered
on this is that I am advised that it is staff that gives the impression of
what the compo plan says and what -- staff which gives the
interpretation of what the LDC says.
So I'm just asking staff from a comprehensive plan and from an
LDC perspective, this is now a law -- if adopted this would be a lawful
use.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. But Jeff, as you well know, the Board of
County Commissioners ultimately interpret the plan or the LDC or --
either directly or through an appeal to them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I understand. From staffs--
MR. WEEKS: Yes, from staffs--
MR. KLA TZKOW: Staff started the fight. I want to see if staff
is now ending the fight is where I'm really getting at, okay?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: So this takes care of staffs concerns as far
as the status of this property?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, two lawsuits settled today so far.
So I think we're earning our share -- we're earning our money here at
the county.
Okay, Bob, you know what to do to clean it up? You're almost
there, you're going to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moving along.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's move on to the next item
which we started on. We were -- we left off on the time frame for the
VRD.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says one year right now.
Did you guys have any thoughts on how that could be modified
to --
Page 120
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: We did, we had some discussion. And I guess
we feel it's really important to put on the record. Because the concern
is the notice.
I think it's really important to put on the record that we've had
many public meetings, many -- not just with the Planning
Commission, but in Immokalee. The website's been updated
constantly on the progress; the CRA newsletter is constantly updated
with the progress. The CRA executive director has written many op-ed
or letters relating to the progress.
Having said all of that, I guess I understand that there could be an
absentee landowner or something. That's what I meant by the legal
requirements versus maybe what might otherwise be more going the
extra step to making sure that somebody doesn't get left out here.
But we don't think one year should be expanded. If anything,
maybe what we ought to do is do some notice after the adoption in
local newspapers in Immokalee. That would be going well above and
beyond what is otherwise ever done.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to be honest with you--
MR. MULHERE: In Spanish and English, because, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after listening to David's explanation
and how this applies, the one year is too much of a moving target.
Because it's so hard to determine how and when things start.
I'd just as -- if we put in two years there, I think that would be
adequate coverage.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it would take care of it. It
just gives it an additional buffer, and it's more fair than the coastal
area. And if anybody had an objection they can easily be shown that
they got a better time frame than any others in the county may have
had in the same situation.
So does that seem to fit for everybody?
Page 121
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My opinion is that it would work
just as well as one year or three years, if it's going to work at all.
I still think we ought to add public notice via some kind of
newspaper or other means. Because that's a real earnest effort to get
the word out. Having something lying in a document that no one will
have a chance to look at or think to look at doesn't serve the same
purpose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a suggestion then, Mr.
Murray, for language?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Yeah, my suggestion
would be that on the occasion of the approval of this that an
appropriate newspaper advertisement be made in the local paper that
is -- I don't know if there's a newspaper in Immokalee. Is there?
MR. MULHERE: There's several.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, whichever is the
appropriate paper --
MR. MULHERE: There's the Immokalee Bulletin and then
there's a Spanish supplement of the Naples Daily News, and--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And then somebody will, or
anybody who has an interest will have two years to take action, if they
wish to.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And my thought would be that the
notice would consist of notification that the plan was adopted and that
there's a two-year period with anyone who feels that their vested rights
and takings determinations --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are in question.
MR. MULHERE: -- have been impacted, you know, something
along those lines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you add that notice provision
into the paragraph, we're good to -- in paragraph B, we're good to go.
MR. MULHERE: Heidi, will you assist with that? Because I
want to make sure that we --
Page 122
May 20, 2010
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure.
MR. MULHERE: You know, there's things like the size of the
ad. We don't -- you know, you probably want to look at what's done
elsewhere to make sure it's done properly.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Do you want the actual map of
the -- the land use map, or you just want to say the land use map is
available for review?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the map will help, it will
just cost more --
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So just the notice that they have a time
period.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody living in the Immokalee area
is going to know the Immokalee area, so -- okay, let's move on to
Pages 30 and 31.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to say that I'm
glad that you added in there including setbacks to Lake Trafford in
Policy 7.1.1 as things that will be developed in the LDC.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Policy 7.1.1, well, that's
going to be funded by the CRA, so that's covered.
Can that -- who is going to write all of this for the CRA? Is that
something they contract out to you guys?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we're -- it's part of our --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not looking to staff.
MR. MULHERE: It's part of our contract.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just -- I had noted the Lake
Trafford setbacks as well.
Just to note, Paul, there's nothing that says that the setbacks will
Page 123
May 20, 2010
be greater than whatever they are now or any --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I'm hoping--
MR. MULHERE: That's the intent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that that's the case, because I
think that's the intent.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it is. I mean, I don't object to -- I don't
know if I want to put the words in greater, but that is the intent. I
mean, we're not -- it's to protect the resource.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. All right. I just want to
make sure that that's confirmed. And it's on the record and that's fine.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Policy 7.1.3. and 7.1.4., you don't
have your Policy 1.1.1 in those. Was the intention.
MR. MULHERE: Also that those are going to be part of the
LDR's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDR's --
MR. MULHERE: 7.1.3. will definitely be part of the LDR's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, that are written in Policy 7.1.1 ?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then where it says in the--
Collier County and funded by the Immokalee -- you really want to
word -- those two things will be funded by the CRA as well then,
right?
MR. MULHERE: (Reading.) Redevelopment, shared
infrastructure, enhanced public -- signage, transit.
Yeah, I mean, it's going it be part of -- some of that's going to be
part of the central business district, which is part of the LDC
amendment -- or the overlay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the LDR's up in 7.1.1. are
funded by the CRA. You said 7.1.3. and 7.1.4. will be part of those
LDR's. And if they are, because they're actually more regulations that
Page 124
May 20, 201 0
have to be written, wouldn't you want to say they will be funded by
the CRA as well, as well as 7.1.4 --
MR. MULHERE: Well, we could do that. I don't know how
they're going to be funded exactly. I mean, it could be a grant that
funds one or the other, like especially that entertainment district thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then subjectto 1.1.1.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we could put that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for both of them.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: So let's put that in there, subject to 1.1.1.
I'm looking at 7.1.4., and I'm not sure that that will be found
within the -- that's sort of a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. As long as that caveat's in
there, Bob. That's -- Page 32 and 33.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had an interesting one here. The
enterprise zone in Policy 8.1.2 refers to Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
If you read what was sent to me by Patrick, it's a 13-member
committee, and it says this committee also serves as the Immokalee
Redevelopment Board.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that then -- so the first reference
in 8.1.2. is in coordination with the Community Redevelopment
Agency and the Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
Does that mean the Redevelopment Board or the CRA on the
first one?
MR. MULHERE: The first one would mean the CRA. I mean,
ultimately it's the same -- to the degree that something has to filter up
to their advisory board, they're the same people. It's like the Board of
County Commissioners and the BZA. But they may not --
Page 125
May 20, 2010
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Actually, according to Ordinance
95-22, there is an Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
I can provide you a copy, if you want that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I have.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's the -- okay, it's Immokalee.
MR. MULHERE: But they are right now the same people, but
they might not always be the same people.
What's unique about the Enterprise Zone Development Agency
in Immokalee is that in most other locations it's a large geography. In
Collier County it's just Immokalee that's designated as that. So
anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 8.1.1., you're referring to the
initiative with the Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we struck that now and put, with local
and regional economic development organizations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then I don't need to get into all
that. Because we really don't have anybody representing us on that
group.
Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: And in 8.1.2. , we took out the chamber and
said other local organizations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about EDC? I mean,
shouldn't that just be --
MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't strike that out --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- economic development
organizations?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, consistent with your -- so let's just
make a note to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I just want to be consistent
and I want to give you all the greatest latitude to work with whoever's
going to help the most.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm taking it through the basis that the
Page 126
May 20, 2010
EDC is a private organization, therefore --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: -- we treat it like other private organizations.
Even though it's sort of quasi-public, we treat it that way. For the
purpose of this master plan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 34 and 35, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, the -- or not David. Under the
urban mixed use district, new commercial development will be
allowed in the low residential, median residential or high residential
sub-districts through planned unit developments.
Doesn't that mean may be allowed? Because otherwise if you
got a PUD and you submitted it, it says it will be allowed. Would
may be a better word there?
And then if you go to the next one below it where it says,
commercial development shall be permitted within a PUD, wouldn't it
be may be permitted within a PUD?
And then the second line, commercial component within a PUD
will be allowed? I mean, may be allowed? Wouldn't you want to
make those -- use may instead of will in all those conditions?
MR. MULHERE: Personally I think yes. I mean, I think that the
board -- it's not an entitlement, right, is what you're saying, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- a case-by-case decision.
MS. VALERA: That is correct.
MR. MULHERE: And I would -- you know, unless David has
another opinion, I think that's correct. Good catch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on that page?
(No response.)
MR. MULHERE: I do want to say, I think that's the existing
language in the plan today, but it's still a good--
Page 127
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're still going to fix it, right?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 36 and 37?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your low residential, third--
second, third line, it talks about the uses that you can have there.
Residential dwellings will be limited to single-family detached,
structures and duplexes, and multi-family dwellings and single-family
attached dwellings. Now, this is in the LR.
What is not allowed in the LR? All of -- it looks like all
residential of any kind is allowed there. And if you watch that
language, it appears in the MR district as well.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah.
MR. WEEKS: I was just going to point out, aside from saying
yeah, that's the way it presently reads, it does beg the question why
not just say all residential. And the reason is because mobile homes
are treated differently.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why couldn't you say all
residential and then say mobile homes are allowed pursuant to
provisions of policies? And that way you're not getting into all the
different kinds of residentials. If your intention is to allow all
residential, why don't you say that?
All residential dwellings will be limited to single-family -- well,
no, all residential dwellings and mobile homes are allowed pursuant to
revisions, policies and go into it that way.
Would that be simpler?
MS. VALERA: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
So that's for both, right?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where it occurs, yeah. Because
your MR's got similar language. It's not exactly the same, but it's
Page 128
May 20, 2010
pretty close.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that you give
latitude for staff and the applicant to structure that language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just trying to short-circuit
it.
Why did you take the PUD out of that sentence? See where it
says, provided they are within the planned unit development. They
don't need to be. You can go straight zoning is why you took it out; is
that right?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: We didn't want to limit it to say the only way
you could do it was through a PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I agree. Ijust wanted to make sure
I understood the reason.
And if you go over to high residential on Page 3, the same
language involving the residential and then the mobile home that we
just talked about.
Okay, Pages 38 and 39.
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have something on 39.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I notice the -- there's something
new, the maximum allowable zoned building height is 50 feet. Why
in the -- to start off, why did this just now come in? We've been --
we've had -- this is like the third version, and we've been considering
this. Why did this decide to come along at this particular time?
MR. MULHERE: I'm not even sure where we are. I'm trying --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there, top of the page, second--
well now it's the --
Page 129
May 20, 2010
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Third bullet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third bullet. It was the second bullet at
the top of the page when he had cut it off, so --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there was always an intent to limit the
building height so that you didn't have high-rise buildings necessarily
visible from the lake. There was an expressed commitment to the
committee, desire on the part of committee that we limit that. I think
we were just more general before, but now we've become -- we're
more specific with 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because when you say maximum
allowable building height, it's also allowable. In other words, you're
allowing it to go up to 50 feet. And that seems to be too high for that
neighborhood. I think it's out of character.
MR. MULHERE: Well--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've talked to people who live in
the area and they don't want that. I've talked to other people who don't
live in the area. Someone said, are you crazy?
I think everybody here is familiar with Lake Trafford and the
type of an environment that it is. I think that 30 feet would be high
enough.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I'm going to play the devil's
advocate.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERE: And I'm going to say that you want to attract
recreational tourism including hotels. You want to minimize the
footprint because you don't want that development spreading across
the entire scope of the landscape.
By allowing potentially a 50-foot building, you will minimize the
impact of that footprint significantly versus saying you can go 35 feet.
It will just force people to put more buildings on the property.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think you'll force people to
do anything. I think it's a bad idea.
Page 130
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the people that I've also
talked to have also been unanimous with the same thing that --
MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm just giving you a basis for it. And--
yeah, two-story. Two-story for hotel.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Two-story would be --
MR. MULHERE: This would allow three stories.
I think flexibility in allowing economic development in
recreational tourism is critically important. And those vistas are as
important as -- you know, from that structure or as important as an
economic attractor. It's just that's I think why we wanted to go a little
bit higher, we wanted to -- but we didn't say 100 feet, we didn't say
75, we limited it to 50, which is three stories.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Well, it cuts both ways.
You talk about vistas, yeah, it's --
MR. MULHERE: I know.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- going to look good from the
people who live on that third or fourth floor, but --
MR. MULHERE: I know.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- from the people who are on the
lake, it's not going to look good at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Just couple of comments. One was -- well, let me
start with was the suggestion to replace 50 feet with a number of
stories?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My suggestion would be 30 feet.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Just to tie in with what Bob was saying,
this I think initially came from a staff concern -- I can't recall if
Planning Commission shared that concern or not -- concern about
continuing to allow four dwelling units per acre. Because the staff
concern was we're identifying these lands essentially as conservation
type lands, and it didn't seem appropriate just to allow four units per
Page 131
May 20, 2010
acre. That's the same as LR; that is a residential density that we think
is inappropriate for land you want to see, generally speaking, in the
sub-district you want to see protected.
And so the way to address that without taking away the
development rights that people have or believe they have today under
their current designation, we thought okay, let's impose development
standards. Maximize the footprint. And you can see the square
footage caps that we have proposed jointly for the sub-district.
But as Bob was saying, you know, we'll make the footprint
smaller; we're either going to end up with smaller buildings, fewer --
more buildings, or we can push up the height. I don't think I quite said
that right. If you limit the footprint, then you've got to push the height
up to get the same density, or you get very small units and structures.
So it's a typical balancing act of if you want to protect the habitat
but you're still going to allow a certain intensity of use, then you've
got to push up to be able to achieve that.
I recognize and I'm familiar with Lake Trafford, it's all low
profile one-story structures today. But also the land uses there today
are not ecotourism uses.
MR. MULHERE: But there's one other consideration to add.
We've already said that we're going to look at setbacks from the lake.
And if you have appropriate setbacks, you may not even be able to see
a 50-foot building from the lake at all. We don't know that, you know.
I mean, there's vegetation, there's ways to buffer from a
perspective. I just think you're limiting yourself. And when you go to
30 feet, that's extremely limiting. That's barely two stories by today's
standards. Barely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know whether we have
control over the Seminoles if they decide to build a 12-story building?
MR. MULHERE: Do we know? We know we don't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't.
Page 132
May 20, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I asked the question that way on
purpose --
MR. MULHERE: No, I--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as you might have guessed.
So in other words, it's theoretically possible that people from
Lake Trafford might be looking at this building in the distance.
And so what I'm driving at is that while I respect what you're
saying about keeping it rural, this whole plan intends to modify it from
rural to metropolitan. It may not be the same as some others. But
Smart Growth principles also recommends that you go taller to keep
more green.
Now, that may be false, ultimately, but that's its purpose.
MR. MULHERE: But also --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say I agree with you that
by limiting it to 30 feet, or 35 even, you're placing immediately a very
negative impact on where your first opportunities will be, which is in
your ecotourism and your people being able to stay overnight and the
rest. And I think that, you know, pines could be grown around it and
the rest of it. It could look quite lovely, I'm sure.
I respect what you're saying, Paul, but I disagree in that regard.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add also, because the more I
look at it, there's more -- I mean, we wrote it pretty carefully. Because
the other thing is we said multi-family development projects shall be
submitted in the form of a planned unit developed. So you would
have a rezoning -- as it relates to multi-family, you would have a
rezoning, you'd have a public hearing, you could look at those issues
such as height and impacts associated with it.
Now, that's not true for other kinds of development, such as
single-family.
So perhaps the maximum allowable zoned building height of 50
feet might be limited to multi-family and hotel/motel, and
single- family could be, you know, limited further. You certainly
Page 133
May 20,2010
wouldn't need a 50-foot tall single-family home.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just continuing that, you jumped
to that, so I -- that was a question I had on my mind, referenced the
preceding conversation on the other page about changing it all now to
residential. Multi-family -- I don't see mixed use here, I see
multi-family. Must the multi-family be a planned unit development,
or is it because we're stating that we'd like it to be that way?
MR. MULHERE: No, we're saying multi-family development
shall be submitted in the form of a planned unit.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it says on this page;
but suppose they were platting, is it possible to put multi-family on
platting?
MR. MULHERE: Not with that language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. MULHERE: I mean, you can put it on a platted lot, but you
still have to put for a planned unit development.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm driving at, and I may
not be making myself clear, is what was changed on the preceding
page to eliminate instead of all of the references to each type of
dwelling, we made it all residential.
MR. MULHERE: It won't matter. It's going to go through the
zoning. And that's the other thing that I still wanted to tell Paul the
same thing, it's the RT zoning or some other zoning district that you
might zone, too. Designated RT, but there's also an RT zoning
district. Or you could zone to some other district consistent with these
allowable uses. Or you could zone to a PUD.
So we have to look at I think presently -- I don't know, is that
land -- do you know, David, if that land is zoned RT or Ag?
MR. WEEKS: Ag.
MR. MULHERE: It's mostly age. It's presently limited to --
anybody know the building height? Is it 35 feet?
MR. WEEKS: That sounds right.
Page 134
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: I think it's about 35 feet under ago
So all of those properties are going to have to be rezoned to
achieve any height above what they currently have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public process.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I still think that we want
ecotourism. It's a good thing. But if it's at the cost so that you have
buildings that are visible from every place on the lake, I don't think it's
a good idea anymore.
MR. MULHERE: But I think 50 feet, that's not the case. I think
you're -- I mean, I'm just saying, from my perspective 50 feet is not as
high as you seem to feel that it is. And it can be buffered from the
lake and visibility can be minimized. But you might have a lobby that
goes up that high and the other rooms come off of it. I don't -- it's --
I'm not -- you know, hey, listen, whatever the Planning Commission
wants. I'm just -- as a professional planner, I'm advocating flexibility.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. As an Immokalee person,
I think that the Immokalee perspective would be that we want to keep
the lake pretty much as it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the only problem with that is
that I'm hearing two different things. Because in the beginning you
said that you wanted to keep the lake fairly pristine and that's why you
limited it to four units an acre. But that's not really true, because
transient lodging you've got down here at 26 units an acre.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, those aren't the same as permanent resi
-- that's the same as the coastal area. It's the same density that's --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand what it is. But
everybody says, well, it's not the same as regular housing. Well, yeah,
it is, because the building that's going to house 26 units an acre is
going to be there, so --
MR. MULHERE: Ifwe want to attract a hotel, ecotourism--
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to need it.
Page 135
May 20, 2010
MR. MULHERE: -- or not, we need 26 units--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- per acre.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying you don't, I'mjust
saymg --
MR. MULHERE: And I mean, they can be designed to be -- and
that's part of what we need to do if we're going to create -- through the
LDR's, if we're going to create some setbacks that are specific from
the lake and maybe some other standards to protect the vistas, you
know, maybe -- you know, maybe the 50-foot height requires a
conditional use or something. I don't know, you know.
I'm just saying I think it's -- for flexibility purposes, the
additional height to me makes sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something
you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's further in this. But I
was going to actually ask, as long as Fred is there, with regard to all of
the activities that you've been involved with, and especially as chair of
the Visioning and so forth, when you folks discussed this, because it
had to be an important issue, did you have many objections or --
MR. THOMAS: Of the residential tourism at the lake?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
MR. THOMAS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Height.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He means the height in--
MR. THOMAS: The height. No, no, there was not a whole lot
of questions about the height.
Let me tell you what the situation is. We see high end
ecotourism, okay. Around the corner from there you can go duck
hunting, you can go turkey hunting, you can do a lot of things.
We didn't want to spread the footprint this way, so you have to
Page 136
May 20,2010
go that way. You don't want to spread it this way but you have to go
that way.
But not a whole bunch of things like you see on the coast here,
you know. You understand? But you have to have the flexibility
where you can build a little bed and breakfast -- not a bed and
breakfast, a cottage -- places where people can cook and whatnot, sit
out --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Efficiencies.
MR. THOMAS: -- on the patio and watch the thing after they
catch the fish in the lake and what have you. Okay, understand?
Now, 50 foot--
MR. MULHERE: That's all right, keep talking.
MR. THOMAS: Fifty foot compared to what the tribe is going to
put up, they're putting a 23-story building up, okay? So 50 foot's
nothing, okay?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. I guess what
I'm trying to drive through, and with great respect to Paul, what he
visions for his community, still, in order to make some kind of
progress, there is a combination of planned concepts.
MR. THOMAS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you folks are working to
build that, and I'm assuming it's not Fred Thomas alone, it's a
representation of the community that has made this. Unless Bob
Mulhere in his incredible ability, foisted it upon you folks, which I
don't think.
MR. THOMAS: No, he did not host (sic) it upon us. And Fred
Thomas would not still be sitting in the seat as a chair if he's going
contrary to what most of the people in Immokalee know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's what I have to weigh as
an individual when I think about what you folks want and being
respectful of Paul because he lives there and understands the
community.
Page 13 7
May 20, 2010
MR. THOMAS: Well, I live there also; it's my adopted home.
And I'm saying to you that it's going to be very hard for us with what's
happening at the tribe for not becoming the number one tourist
destination spot in the world. I'm not going to do my concierge
statement anymore. But we got to be.
In addition to what's happening on the tribal land, we need to
have some of that happening out in the rest of the community. Lake
Trafford becomes a key location. Coming down towards sunny-land
becomes other key locations.
And you're going to find the big farmers who already have lodges
out in the middle of their farm fields saying oh, they can hunt deer and
turkey out here. And it will become a place where people can come to
enjoy getting back to nature like you do down in Costa Rica.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Fred, it's a wonderful idea.
And again, I'm going to restate it, even though it may seem like I'm
restating it too often. In were in Paul's shoes, I'd be advocating that
that's all well and good, but suppose this all fails, then we've got all
these buildings around and -
MR. THOMAS: What all fails?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of this effort.
MR. THOMAS: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, it can't fail, is
what I'm really saying.
MR. THOMAS: No, wait a minute. What I'm saying to you,
people in Immokalee are not stupid. They're not going to invest
money in something that's not going to work. The good '01 boys didn't
lose any money in the stock market. They're not going to invest
anything until they see something happening. You understand? Trust
me on that. And I don't live that far from the lake.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that we had workshops
on this and we saw a lot of renderings and everything. And I wish we
had something that would show. Because I can envision -- I've been
Page 138
May 20, 2010
around the country and I've been in places in Colorado where you can
go in and see magnificent lodges, and I know that all the tall pines
around to some -- a great degree hide it unless they want to have a
visual.
MR. THOMAS: Can I ask you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I know it's possible.
MR. THOMAS: -- something? How tall are the buildings down
in Everglades City on the canal, on the left-hand side as you're going
down Everglades City, how tall are those? Excuse me, a little bit
more than 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's exactly my point.
MR. MULHERE: I think that your point about, you know,
having some sort of an illustration is premature at the comprehensive
planning stage. We will get there. We're going to get there at zoning.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you don't want to lose the
opportunity for this based on the absence of a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need your microphone, Bob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry.
You don't want to lose the opportunity on this based on an --
MR. MULHERE: No, at this point--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- inability to convey effectively
what it is you're trying to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks like we have a difference
of opinion on the Planning Commission in regards to this issue so
we'll do -- David?
MR. WEEKS: I just want to interject, when staff and the agents
met, we were very focused on residential. And that added language, it
would be the middle paragraph on -- with the bullet points on the
screen -- pertains to residential only. So actually that 50-foot height
would not apply to other land uses.
I was just going to suggest that if it's -- I was going to suggest
Page 139
May 20,2010
that it may be appropriate to apply that height to maybe all structures.
Whatever it is, if it's 50 feet or if this Planning Commission
recommends a different height, because we're missing hotels. And
that's the one thing we've discussed a lot today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but doesn't the standards like this
normally come out in the LDC?
MR. WEEKS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's -- so you're doing this
as an exception to lock it in. The LDC is where it should be basically
ironed out. But since it's here, we'll have to deal with it.
So with that in mind, the Planning Commission has a difference
of opinion on this.
Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or we don't have to deal with it.
We can just leave it out and wait till it gets to the LDC.
MR. MULHERE: Or a rezone --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: -- for a PUD.
We thought it would be better to have a maximum height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did it as a protection.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereas it could be looked at as an
extravagance above what is expected.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you took it out nobody would
know what they could put there and they'd have to come in in the
process to determine it, and that could be through a public process
where everybody could weigh in on it, including the CRA, the
Chamber of Commerce and everybody.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's strike it then.
MR. MULHERE: Or a PUD. Straight zoning, it already has a
Page 140
May 20,2010
height.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was a good
discussion though.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's drop the 50-foot height reference.
Everybody okay with that? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob, what's the height in the
straight zone?
MR. MULHERE: RT. It's much higher. It's 75.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's why.
MR. WEEKS: Yeah, 75 or 100.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. So in other words -- but if
it's RT here, that doesn't automatically entitle them to anything.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they still got to go back through no
matter what and get the zoning, so n
MR. MULHERE: In fact, most ofthe land that's designated RT,
I don't think all of it, but most of it is actually presently zoned ago So
all of that would have to be rezoned, even to allow some of these uses.
Because I don't think -- hotel is not a permitted use in the ago district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you come in for the rezone, the
issues involving height and all the other stuff will --
MR. MULHERE: Nor is multi-family, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Well, just on that point, it's either one of two
ways, and both of which involve public hearings. Either one for the
individual PUD --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- if that should be pursued. The other is the LDC
amendment that will follow this plan amendment in which specific
heights for the -- an overlay or straight zoning districts will be applied.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's good. That's a good point.
So you would see it coming back either way. One more
comprehensively, and one more on a case-by-case. But either way
Page 141
May 20,2010
that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just drop the reference to
the height and let's go on to Pages 40 and 41. Anybody have any
questions on Pages 40, 41 ?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Pages 42 and 43.
That table you have there on Page 42, the one you've got on the
screen, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That table is repeated two more pages
after that.
MR. MULHERE: Somewhat.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
MR. MULHERE: It has more zoning designations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only difference,
right?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
There is a -- there was a question that came up by Marjorie
Student on behalf of Habitat that relates to I guess arguably both of the
tables.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still on 42 and 43, but if it
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but -- yours is on 44? No, these pages
-- okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 45 in our book.
MR. MULHERE: But it relates to the table, doesn't it, Marjorie?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's the issue?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, I can get up and -- for the
record, Marjorie Student Stirling, volunteer attorney for Habitat for
Humanity.
Page 142
May 20,2010
I just had a question, because we have one project, Carson Lakes,
that is in the VR Zoning District. And right now we're built out, but
just to forestall any future problem down the road about being legally
non-conforming, you know, we thought maybe it needed to be
addressed here. So thank you.
MR. MULHERE: So David and I spoke about that. And all of
the structure is different here. The whole language and policy intent is
the same as it was previously. So there never was a reference to VR
in the existing language. I'm not saying that's the way it should be,
I'm just making a statement.
What was the reason why there wasn't a reference to the VR?
Well, the reason was that it was determined that the density -- how
you calculate density in the VR is a little bit different. It gives you a
minimum lot size for various uses. You then have to divide that
minimum -- or maximum lot size by 43,560 an acre, square feet an
acre. And that gives you a number of units per acre.
So for like mobile homes and single-family structures, it's 6,000
square feet. You divide 6,000 by 43,560 and you come up with --
seven and a half?
MR. WEEKS: 7.26.
MR. MULHERE: 7.26. It was decided at that time -- and the
bonus is capped at eight. It was decided at that time that there was
really very little likelihood of anyone achieving eight units per acre.
But today you do have smaller 4,000 square foot lots and things like
that.
So anyway, our suggestion is that we include a VR designation
on both tables; we show the base density for single-family.
Right? Both, or just the one?
MR. WEEKS: It would only be applicable to the table we
haven't gotten to yet, the second table.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we do that, and it's -- still the cap's
going to be eight, so, you know, that should cover that concern.
Page 143
May 20,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works.
Anybody have a problem?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on Page 42 and 43, any other
issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 42, Item D, which is just above the
table, just so I understand the reading of that, the LR has a base
density of four. You're eligible to go 50 percent more than that for
affordable so you can do six; is that how that would come out?
MR. MULHERE: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay on the next page under density
bonuses, proximity to commercial mixed use, 50 percent or more of a
project is within the commercial mixed use sub-district. The base
density allowed within the commercial mixed use sub-district of 16
dwelling units per acre applies to the entire project.
MR. MULHERE: Tell me where you are, Mr. --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right down -- you were there.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, that was--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're -- I don't know where you
are.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure where you're reading from.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go down, go down slowly. Go down
slowly. Hit that little down arrow instead of the stupid scroll --
MR. MULHERE: It goes right to that box.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You want number two density
bonuses.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. See where it says
proximity to commercial uses? That's the one I was reading from.
What that says is if half the project or more is within a
commercial mixed use district, then the 16 units apply to the entire
project.
Page 144
May 20,2010
Does that mean -- say you have a commercial mixed use district
of 10 acres and next to it you own 10 acres in another district, so you
own a total of20.
Does that mean you get 16 for the total of 20 acres or 16 for 10
and you can spread it over the other 10?
MR. MULHERE: No, it means if you have a project -- if you
come in with a project, a unified plan of development, and at least 50
percent of that project is within the commercial mixed unit district,
then the 16 units per acre applies on the whole project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of having 10 times 16, you
have 20 times 16.
MR. MULHERE: Correct. Except that it doesn't apply in the
low residential district.
I mean, it's -- if you look at the box below, it's not new language,
the density's a little bit higher, and we made it not applicable in the
low residential because we knew that was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand how it
worked.
If you look at the page you're on, the last sentence on the top of
the page, buffering to achieve compatibility with adjacent lower
intensity uses shall be addressed.
Why not shall be required?
MR. MULHERE: I think that's good. Better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Pages 44 and 45, anybody have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 46 and 47.
MR. MULHERE: Are we on these --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 46 is the one starting with
residential infill.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there.
Page 145
May 20,2010
Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to be picky, but on
the bottom of D, any given location. That's more of a vernacular.
How do you -- what -- how do we relate that?
MR. MULHERE: Any single and any specific -- maybe we don't
even need that phrase.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's superfluous. You can
start out with this residential. Because it's already --
MR. MULHERE: I think you're right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- vague.
MR. MULHERE: I don't think we need that. Capitalize "this"
and that works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 46 -
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And actually -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and 47, anyone else?
Ms. Ashton?
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. On Page 47, between one
and two there's an "or", right? That's an either/or, Bob, correct?
MR. MULHERE: So I need to put a -- I'm sorry, I'll show you.
I need to put a comma right there and put "or" after the word sub-
district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on that residential infill, the way
I read that is if you have one adjoining property, at least one abutting
property is developed, your property can be considered as infill?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. If it's 20 acres or less.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that become infill ifthere's
only one other property developed? It's not between anything.
MR. MULHERE: It's the way it's been defined. I don't know
how long it's been that way. Since '89, at least.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another mistake David has made in
defining?
MR. MULHERE: I don't know if it's a mistake. I mean, you
Page 146
May 20,2010
know, it may be -
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He doesn't either. He's not paying any
attention.
MR. MULHERE: But you know what? It may be that that
parcel might be integral to general redevelopment. It's the parcel
immediately adjacent to a developed parcel. You might need that
vacant parcel to cause redevelopment to occur. You know, for
parking, for whatever, you know, I don't know. I just think it doesn't
allow you to leapfrog it, it limits it to there, and it's kind of always
been the way it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the second part of that, about
the TDR program, why are you getting into the particulars of the TDR
program when you don't have one? And if you do have one, it has to
come back in for a GMP amendment anyway? So why are we even
discussing it? You don't know what the rules will be for it because it's
got to go back through the process.
MR. MULHERE: Did we leave that language in, requiring a
compo plan amendment? Because the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y es. You said it would require it, even
if we didn't leave the language in.
MR. MULHERE: And it would even if we didn't, because it's
going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you're going to have to
come back through the process and change the GMP to implement a
TDR program, why are you discussing the implementation of a PDR
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I guess just to help direct that process a
little bit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, you may not want
the same direction when you come back in with it later on.
MR. MULHERE: I know. I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why tie your hands? Is that needed?
Page 147
May 20,2010
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not then let's just take it out.
It doesn't help anybody; you don't have the program.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, we can take that out. Two paragraphs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under -- the next page under density
and intensity blending. Oh, Paul, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, under density and intensity
blending, A, it's a -- in, let's see, the fourth and fifth lines down where
it says in the case of properties which are contiguous to Lake Trafford
or Camp Keais Strand which straddle.
That's not a very well-defined term, and I think we're kind of
going with standardization of the terminology, which is the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay. And instead of saying, which
are contiguous, which is kind of vague, why don't we just say which
are within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay, so that we
define our area a little bit better?
MR. MULHERE: Again, because there are lands that are
contiguous to Lake Trafford that are not within the Camp Keais Strand
that are today allowable to take advantage of this -- this was written --
this is language that was written and already exists. And the way it's
written, it's written so tightly that it only applied to, as far as I know,
one property, and that's the ranch that the county acquired.
MS. VALERA: Pepper.
MR. MULHERE: Pepper Ranch.
I don't know, standing here in front of you, whether it applies to
another piece of property or not, but we agreed at the last meeting to
put it back in exactly the way that it was. And that's what we did.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, it's just that it's not very
well defined geographically.
MR. MULHERE: It's already kind of --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's grandfathered in?
MR. MULHERE: It's kind of been already utilized and accepted
Page 148
May 20,2010
as a process.
I don't know, you mean, I mean, I'm not trying to be
argumentative. If we could --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm not either.
MR. MULHERE: -- change the -- nomenclature.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Dave, does that seem like a well
defined geographic term for you?
MR. WEEKS: It's a little loosey-goosey, but as Bob said, that's
the way it's been since 2003.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And we think it only affects that
one piece of property, a piece of property the County's already
bought?
So in other words, my question is, none of this has the
opportunity to dramatically increase density in the RLSA?
MR. MULHERE: No. Beyond what existed already, no.
Because see, it requires a property to have been of 200 acres in size --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. MULHERE: -- designated RT. That alone could have
caused an increase in the application, if not for some of the other
conditions, because we just increased the RT designation -- or we are
increasing the R T.
But if you look down there, it says -- or somewhere. I've got to
find it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, little "i" talks about it being
designated R T.
MR. MULHERE: Right. But I thought it was at a certain date
and time. Is it -- oh, here it is. In existence and under unified control.
COMMISSIONER CARON: October 22nd.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So it's pretty limiting.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Very limiting.
Page 149
May 20, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on 46 and 477
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about the reference
that continues on 48 to the RLSA program.
The purpose and intent of the RLSA program was to benefit
environmental and development properties and agricultural properties
within the RLSA. It's the same paragraph we've been on.
This provides density to an SRA from the Immokalee urban area.
How does that benefit the RLSA program as ordered by the
Governor? I don't understand.
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, it was adopted. The density
blending, there were three provisions in the compo plan adopted for --
I think three -- for density blending. One was rural fringe to urban
fringe. Okay?
Then another one was -- there's another one that I can't
remember, and then there was this one, and that's the specific to
Immokalee and these lands adjacent to Lake Trafford, contiguous to
Lake Trafford and the Camp Keais Strand.
Those lands in the urban area had very high value wetlands. The
lands right next to them in the RLSA were cleared ago And they were
under the same ownership. And so the idea was that there would -- it
made sense to protect those high value wetlands, even though they
were in the urban area because, you know, the habitat of the species
don't know boundaries so, you know, it was to protect those and allow
the impacts on this very limited basis in the RLSA. And that's what
got adopted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't the one -- this goes
beyond the one that got adopted. There was -- I remember during the
RLSA program we had that one 200-acre parcel somewhere near Lake
Trafford that Hole-Montes was--
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- involved in somehow.
Page 150
May 20,2010
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They came through and pushed it and
got it.
And is this that parcel?
MR. MULHERE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only thing it's
pertaining to.
MR. MULHERE: It's the on -- it's not written that way, but if
you apply it, that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to be sure.
Thank you.
Page 48 and 49?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-nine, Item B, it's under -- it's one
of the things that was left there. It says for purposes containing two or
more future land use sub-districts.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In overall density and intensity that
could be achieved in aggregate may be distributed throughout the
project.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We changed it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I see. What's on here is what
you changed.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is for properties containing
two or more future land use sub-districts. Of what percentage? I
mean, if you got one percent of an industrial district and 99 percent of
a commercial, what does that mean?
MR. MULHERE: But it doesn't give you any greater intensity or
density. It just allows you to distribute it on the property differently to
master plan the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you distribute the
Page 151
May 20, 2010
uses?
MR. MULHERE: You can distribute them throughout. You
calculate what's allowable on one. Based on what you're proposing to
develop, you calculate what would be allowable within one
designation, what would be allowable within the other, and you can
put it anywhere on the property, subject to those conditions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you take an industrial use that
overlaps a commercial use, you can take the higher intensity of the
industrial use and spread it anywhere in the commercial use?
MR. MULHERE: Subject to the project furthering protection,
enhancement or restoration of wetlands, listed species habitat or other
natural features. The project being consistent with and furthering
applicable objectives of the plan, proved as part of a planned unit
development, so you get to see it, and mitigating for any negative
impacts on adjacent properties. I think we got any potential negative
covered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What happened to 2? Why was
that struck?
MR. MULHERE: Because we're not changing the acreage of
any of the land use sub-districts. We're not -- that was the problem.
That was deemed to be self-amending. If you change the acreage of a
land use sub-district, your plan is self-amending. So we've changed
that.
So now we're not changing any boundaries, we're just allowing
you to shift within those boundaries. So that's why we struck 2. It
doesn't apply anymore.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 50 and 51.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number 2, industrial mixed use.
I'm trying to figure out how you included, and you intended to include
Page 152
May 20,2010
agriculture in a mixed use where you speak of light manufacturing,
processing and all the rest of that stuff.
Catch-all, or what? What did you envision?
MR. MULHERE: No, there's a bunch of existing ag., and that
may be there for a long, long time. In Immokalee, in the Immokalee
community, ago is a huge economic driver, and they want that
flexibility. They want to be able to have that use.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Until they'd be ready to do
something --
MR. MULHERE: Until they change it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well now it makes sense
to me.
MR. MULHERE: But I do have a change that I need to tell you
all about.
We didn't have a limit on the amount of commercial that could be
applicable in the IMU when we first proposed it. When we met with
Heidi, she had a concern that -- and I probably need to pull up the
Future Land Use Map for this -- that some of the lands right in here
which are now IMU were previously CMD. And when they were
CMU, they didn't have any restriction on the amount of commercial
that they could have.
We had -- and staff raised the issue and we said okay, how about
if we put a limitation on the commercial? But staff really only raised
the issue of concern as it related more to this piece that we expanded
that used to be LR and was supposed to be a buffer from the higher
intensity airport use to the low residential use out here. That's where
we wanted to apply that limitation.
So what we've agreed to do is to crosshatch that, reference it by
policy in here and show it on the Future Land Use Map. So the 30
percent limitation will now apply here. It will not apply to these
properties. So that they will be able to have whatever mixture of
industrial and commercial that they want.
Page 153
May 20,2010
And of course the basis for that is in part the County Attorney's
Office had some concern that they were losing -- they had a
significant diminution of property rights.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does pertain to number 2,
industrial. But just curiosity, rehabilitative centers, you're talking
about people in need of alcoholic, drug and so forth --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Psychiatric.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that all subject to public
hearing?
MR. MULHERE: It's only subject to public hearing if the
district that exists today, that's also consistent with the future land use
sub-district, doesn't allow that use. So, I mean, what you're asking --
I'm not sure off the top of my head, I think that use is allowed in
industrial. I think it presently is allowed in industrial. I think it is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine --
MR. MULHERE: So if it was, no public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody thought about it;
therefore, somebody must have thought, where will we put it. So we
don't -- are we going to limit ourselves to industrial application or--
MR. MULHERE: No, those are -- you typically also--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says mixed use.
MR. MULHERE: It's also, yeah --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commercial.
MR. MULHERE: It's also permitted in C-5 I think in other
commercial districts.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the lowest use would be C-5,
not C-4.
MR. MULHERE: Maybe even C-4. I mean, you know, I don't
know exactly. But, I mean, it's typically an allowed, you know, use in
at least probably C-4, C-5 and industrial.
Page 154
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do these -- because it's kind of
open, and I have nothing against rehabilitative centers, but they can be
as simple as a store front where you'll have a psychologist, or we can
go into --
MR. MULHERE: Hazelton.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- beds.
Yeah, Hazelton is a good --
MR. MULHERE: Willows.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- example of a very fine
operation.
But we also could go into something that could be a lot more
liberal than that. And I just was curious.
MR. MULHERE: So is your suggestion -- I'm just throwing--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not suggesting anything yet.
I'm trying to find out some facts. I'm just more concerned -- it seems
odd that it's in the middle of high technology, research, med,
laboratories and rehabilitative. I guess all those subjects who
volunteer for those activities may need to be rehabilitated.
MR. MULHERE: Well, medical research is a primary focus of
economic development. And as a result you could -- there could be a
connection there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you -- I was making a joke,
but you're not.
MR. MULHERE: No, there could definitely be a connection.
You might want a treatment facility somewhere close to some of the
research activities that are going on, or vice-versa.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is not by right, this is --
you're including this in, but it's not by right, is it?
MR. MULHERE: No. Again, at the comprehensive plan stage,
it's an allowable use. Whether it's permitted or conditional --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: -- is unknown.
Page 155
May 20,2010
COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Okay, I'll accept that that's the
case and we'll work at it on the other.
But it is similar to what, you know, a lot of people are concerned,
and I won't go any further, we'll wait till the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 52 and 53?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on 52, right there, that big
paragraph right in the middle, says the minimum 75-foot setback
within which a 20-foot wide vegetation landscape buffer shall be
provided.
About six lines down it says it's a 25- foot wide buffer. I think.
MR. MULHERE: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good?
MR. MULHERE: No, good catch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
MR. MULHERE: You ever notice that sometimes the more you
look at something the harder it is to see?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I can't tell you how many times
I've looked at the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
MR. MULHERE: I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Living this thing.
The 75-foot setback that you're talking about.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If20 or 25-foot of it is used for a buffer
area, what can be used in the rest of it? Setback for buildings, or
setback for parking lots, or setback for what?
MR. MULHERE: It was intended to be for buildings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you think you ought to
say a 75-foot minimum building setback or minimum 75 building
setback?
MR. MULHERE: It couldn't hurt to be that specific. No, it
Page 156
May 20, 2010
couldn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it would help.
MR. MULHERE: Couldn't hurt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you want to go to the 20-foot wide
landscape buffer instead of the 25, or you want to go to the 25 instead
of the 20?
MR. MULHERE: Twenty was the intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: That's one of the wider landscape buffers that
we have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just want to make sure we're
consistent.
You scroll down a little bit to the overlays and features.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit. Go down to the second
paragraph. See the yellow highlighted area?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Essential services shall be limited to.
And then basically it's everything. So what kind of limitation is that?
MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not everything. That comes right
out of the -- I think the conservation designation, or it might have been
the sending lands designation. It's limited to those necessary to ensure
public safety.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. MULHERE: So, you know, somebody has to make the
determination of what it that is, but that's the existing language today
in I think the conservation district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just thought it was kind of odd.
It says it's limited and I don't know where it's limited. But -- and that's
not a problem.
MR. MULHERE: Well, you're not allowing wholesale -- these
listed essential services, sewage treatment plants, water treatment
Page 157
May 20, 2010
plants, towers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may, I believe essential
services also is for -- Comcast is included, or cable is included.
MR. MULHERE: In this case cable is included if it's intended to
serve permitted uses, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no objection to it, I'mjust
saying that's one of them. And there are a couple more. But--
MR. MULHERE: I don't know, I guess maybe today you could
almost make an argument that cable might be necessary for public
safety, I don't know, if you can't get otherwise television.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Yeah, let me try to explain the intent behind this.
Start with the second part of the phrase or sentence, those necessary to
serve permitted uses, and the examples are private wells and septic
tanks, utility lines, which include your cable, your telephone, lift
stations, water pumping stations. Those are all the types of things that
typically are allowed by right, they're -- you might think of them as
accessory. I mean, they're just integral to having a house or other
types of permitted uses.
The biggest limitation is in the first part that are says those
necessary to ensure public safety. The obvious examples are fire and
police stations or ambulance service.
But as Bob already gave, it would preclude the ability to put
government offices there, water or sewer -- wastewater treatment
stations, communication towers, unless that somehow was determined
to be necessary for protecting -- for public safety because of
communications necessary --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would be fire --
MR. WEEKS: -- for emergency providers, so forth.
But it is limiting because the essential services without that
restriction is very broad. Again, that prevents this building from being
Page 158
May 20,2010
located in these lands that are environmentally sensitive and we want
to see protected. And it is taken from the conservation designation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if! may further?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The term essential services --
and I can't recall now whether it's by definition only in the LDC or is
it also considered in the GMP as a definition item, essential services?
MR. WEEKS: Only in the LDC --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's where.
So this is intended more to highlight. Because I was wondering
when I read it whether you were concerned with, you know, we talk
typically about packages that are used for septic services and so forth.
So you want to preclude those. And these are illustrative or are they
limiting?
MR. MULHERE: They're limiting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're limiting.
MR. MULHERE: They're limiting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I needed to understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 54 is the last page of the
document. Is there anybody have any questions on Page --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to that answer.
I would say I would agree with Bob, it's limiting when it refers --
I mean, it uses the term shall be limited to. But the second part where
it says those necessary to serve permitted uses, that part is illustrative.
I just wanted to be very clear.
The whole provision is limiting, but that list of such as private
wells, et cetera, that is illustrative. There certainly could be other types
of things.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question about the paragraph
that's on there. You know where it says essential services shall be
limited to? How is it limited? Thought I'd just throw you for a curve,
see if you're paying attention.
Page 159
May 20,2010
Go ahead, Donna.
Yeah, we beat that thing to death. I didn't mean to stir up so
much trouble over it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, come on.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The paragraph that follows that,
the --
MR. MULHERE: Additional wet--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- one we've just been discussing,
is that old language or new language?
MR. MULHERE: This additional wetland protection measures?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. MULHERE: That would --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That do not apply to properties
within Lake Trafford that have been cleared.
MR. MULHERE: That is -- well, it was existing language the
last time you saw this, but it's new language to the plan, obviously.
Because the whole Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay is kind
of new and being dealt with in here.
That was agreed to with the environmental staff. There are some
cleared sites, undeveloped. They're pretty minimal, but there are a
few. And so it was agreed that we could not apply those additional
measures to those, but do apply to all new development and
redevelopment. So if somebody comes in and develops or redevelops,
then they would be subject to those standards.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So between now and when this
plan gets adopted, people can be clearing?
MR. MULHERE: They could be, but I don't know that that was
intended to deal with that. It's just that there were some cleared
developments out there that somebody might put a garage on or put
something on, you know, and they wouldn't be subject, I don't think,
to these standards. Minor kind of things.
But it says new development and redevelopment pursuant to the
Page 160
May 20, 2010
nonconforming section, so you go to the nonconforming section and
that tells you what those standards are that would trigger compliance
with these greater wetland protection measures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to the end of
the proposed master plan. And that -- why don't we just take the data
and analysis section as a whole. Does anybody have any questions
from the data and analysis?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. If you turn to Map 4-9.
MR. MULHERE: Where is that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your Immokalee listed species.
(Microphone falls.)
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the second time you've done that.
You don't like that microphone, do you?
Where -- on this map you have cross-hatching denoting panther
primary zone and panther secondary zone. Where did you get that
information from to know where those lines fell?
MR. MULHERE: It's a data set from Fish & Wildlife. I think
it's U.S. Fish & Wildlife.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send me the link?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm curious for another application
involving the RLSA Program. I just want to make sure it's consistent
with the ones you're using there.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I know this was updated. We
actually -- when we had the piece of the airport that was in -- that's
when it got updated. Because we had I think old data and this was
updated. So we'll send it to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you turn to map -- actually it's
Page 58.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You'll make sure everybody gets a
Page 161
May 20, 2010
copy of that updated --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No way, you don't get any.
You're on Page 58 --
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- number 5.3. Read the last sentence.
Read the last sentence and track it down for me, if you could. If you
can do it, more power to you.
MR. MULHERE: A copy of the zoning map is provided for
reference. Map 5.3.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I like the map you want to call
5.3. Basically it's an aerial.
MR. MULHERE: It's 5.4. It should say 5.4.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure you got
the correction.
That's the only things I had with the data and analysis.
Anybody else have any?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do. Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Map 4.4, it doesn't seem to be
right, because it's referencing what were described at the wetlands a
few years ago before it has been revised. Map 4.4.
MR. MULHERE: Getting there. Okay, I'm there.
It may not be. I don't know whether it's right or wrong. I do
know that it's what we determined -- what we believe to be the best
available data, which is all that we're required. So this is wetlands,
US. Fish and Wildlife. I don't know, 1992.
So we can look and see ifthere's some -- more current available
data. We could probably work with the environmental staff to see if
there is something more current.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This one corresponds to map 5.2.
If you look at it, it's the same. And it should correspond to map 5.1
Page 162
May 20, 2010
which has, you know, the more accurate boundaries of the Lake
Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetland system. That's basically what
you're talking about, wetlands.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, but those are completely different. The
county -- I don't know, I think the county developed the boundaries of
the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland systems. This is data from
U.S. Fish & Wildlife. So they're not related. They may not be exactly
the same.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think the county's more recent
and more accurate.
MR. MULHERE: It is, it is.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- unless there's anymore
overall questions from anybody, I think we've reached the end of the
line with the Immokalee Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hoorah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we provided a lot of information to
Bob. He's going to incorporate the changes as we discussed. He has
the County Attorney's changes mostly incorporated, and whatever
remaining is going to get done. We have a couple of rewrites of some
paragraphs. We need some additional information. Although that
won't impact our vote, it does -- the cost analysis and the primary and
secondary and whatever other items we asked have sent to us.
And I think then subject to all that, it's ready for a motion. Does
anybody wish to make a motion?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we approve the
Immokalee Master Plan that's been offered to us today, subject to the
recommendations that we've made.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made and seconded.
David?
Page 163
May 20, 2010
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, did you want to hear the staff
presentation? Brief that it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it going to change our vote?
MR. WEEKS: We hope so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I thought we went through
the staff, but go ahead, let's just hear what you got.
MS. VALERA: Only in regard to the recommendations that we
have on Page 24.
MR. WEEKS: Very end of the staff report.
MS. VALERA: Right. The number three, map revisions to
identify proposed expansion of the 300 acres. We did request that,
and that hasn't been done just yet. But we would like that to be
updated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number one we took care of, do
you agree with that?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, minor edits to Policy
6.1.9., we've -- that's going to be taken care of. I think everybody's in
agreement on that.
MS. VALERA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, are you in agreement on
number three, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: What is number three?
MS. VALERA: It's just to --
MR. MULHERE: The map?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number four, that's been done.
MS. VALERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that your presentation?
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Staff -- I told you it was brief.
I think the only issue, and I won't belabor, we talked about it
Page 164
May 20, 2010
earlier, the only issue that I'm aware of that staff is in disagreement on
has to do with the change for the mobile home. I think it was Policy
6.1. 7 that affected that Blockers --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that you helped write and told
Jeff it would take care of things?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're in disagreement with it?
MR. WEEKS: No -- well--
MR. MULHERE: He always was.
MR. WEEKS: We always were. We were being helpful in how
to craft the language in responding, but we disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys --
MR. WEEKS: You know, it's the typical we recommend denial,
but if you're going to approve it, change it this way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
MR. WEEKS: Well, we recommend denial of that one
provision, but that language reflects what we believe this Commission
wants to see, and the community, as expressed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any more discussion from the
Planning Commission?
Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing. The -- I just want
to make sure all of the EAC recommendations were handled.
MS. VALERA: For the most part. Except for the language that
was revised a bit today in regards to allowing density and intensity
within the overlay, the wetland overlay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
for discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify
Page 165
May 20, 2010
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries seven --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to zero.
Yes, sir. You -- it's too late.
MR. WEEKS: Was that inclusive of the one mapping issue?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, absolutely.
And the next thing that's up -- and by the way, first of all, Bob,
Patrick and Chris, you guys did a great job. Thank you. This was one
of the more cooperative ventures.
And Penny, I wholeheartedly thank you for all your help. You
hung in there through the whole thing. I know it was tedious, but we
sincerely appreciate your board's help and the community's help in
getting this done. I think you've got a good plan.
MR. MULHERE: And we worked very closely with David and
Carolina and Heidi, so, you know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were next.
Thank you David, than you Carolina. Heidi, especially, your
input on these things is becoming refreshingly nice. So thank you for
providing that.
MR. WEEKS: I'd say we're just doing and trying to keep our
Page 166
May 20,2010
job.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, that put it in a different light, didn't it?
I do want to thank each of you for helping us through this long,
tedious process. And I feel like we have a beautiful document, a
document that hasn't been produced historically that I know of in this
county at least. It's really I think something that the entire community
is really proud of. And largely to your efforts. I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Penny.
Okay. We have finished with the Immokalee Master Plan, except
for consent -- well, adoption.
Item #llA
ADOPTION HEARING SCHEDULE FOR GMP AMENDMENT
PETITION CP-2008-5; IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
Now what about new business under adoption, David?
MR. WEEKS: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question,
do you want -- or does the Commission want to see this document
brought back June 3rd, that's your next regular scheduled meeting,
under consent agenda?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, please.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Moving on to the adoption hearing--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, what comes back, it just
needs to be the objectives and policies and those 50 pages, not all the
data and analysis.
MR. WEEKS: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now back to the adoption
hearing.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Right now the schedule calls for the
Planning Commission to hear this petition, Immokalee Master Plan,
Page 167
May 20, 2010
on October the 28th with a carryover of October 29th. Would like to
change that to November 4th, which is a regular Planning Commission
date.
And then the carryover date could be November the 16th, which
is a Tuesday, or if you would prefer, the carryover date could be to the
18th of November, which is your regular--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we carry it to the 18th David.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to have the
time needed to spend on it those two days, so we probably don't even
need the two carryovers, so -- is that okay with everybody?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: I would just remind you that at adoption, for the
most part it does tend to be rather a matter of procedure, okay. You've
already reviewed it, you've thoroughly hashed through it. The wild
card, so to speak, is the objectives, recommendations and comments
from the Department of Community Affairs.
And depending upon the magnitude of that report I think would
directly correlate with how much time you might spend on this at
adoption.
But I have it down there for November 4th and then carryover
November 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, that will work.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now the meetings that I asked Ray
and then through you to verify, our next meeting was originally
schedule for June 1 st. It is not.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our next meeting will be June 3rd,
which will be our regular Thursday meeting. We had one in between,
but we're not going to need it after all. So our next regular meeting
Page 168
May 20,2010
will be the next meeting that this board has.
Item #llB
CONVERSION OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATION (SIC) TO THE NORTH AMERICAN
INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS)
Item l1.B is the conversion of the two codes. That's going --
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be continued.
David?
MR. WEEKS: If! may, further on the dates. Not for this
petition, but for the 2007 and 2008 Cycle of Growth Management
Plan amendments, which this body has already act on at transmittal,
it's now coming back for adoption, we have that scheduled for June
15th. This is not a change, but I just wanted to remind you of it. June
15th, which is a Tuesday. And then the carryover date, if needed,
would be to June 17th, which is your regular second meeting of the
month of June.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are the items that we had
gone through, Wilson and all the rest of it?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we did have a date on the 21st of
June and it's a carryover. So you're telling us we don't need that now?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're good to go.
Public comment? They're all gone.
Discussion on the addenda, that's done.
Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney -
Page 169
May 20, 2010
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- made the motion, seconded by Mr.
Vigliotti.
All in favor.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you.
******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:24 p.m.
Page 170
May 20, 2010
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 171