Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/20/2011 October 20, 2011 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 Nopyvy3 Naples,Florida October 20,2011 DE 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,East Naples,Florida,with the following members present: / Mark Strain,Chairman Melissa Ahern Fiala 42---7' Phillip Brougham Hiller — Diane Ebert H `11■'`'` Karen Homiak Barry Klein L' '"'i` Paul Midney Brad Schiffer ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida,Growth Management Division/Planning&Regulation Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman,Real Property Director,CC School District Misc. Corres: Date: 3113112-. Item#: l_c) _Pr7 Copies to: Page 1 of 78 October 20,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning,everyone.Welcome to the October 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Eastman? MR.EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Midney,welcome back. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thanks so much. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ms.Homiak is here. Ms.Ebert? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Klein? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr.Brougham? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***Okay,addenda to the agenda. We have basically two continued items.One under new business,which is the Orangetree PUD,and one under old business which is the Watershed Management Plan. I don't think there's any other changes. ***Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is when? I can't even remember when our next meeting is. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 3rd. So our next regular meeting will be the 3rd of November. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it? COMMISSIONER KLEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barry,you're not going to be here? Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ***Approval of minutes. I don't believe there were any distributed. ***BCC report--recaps. Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Yes,October-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN REPORTER: Could you please get on the mic? MR.BELLOWS: Sony about that. After all these years. Yes,on October 1 lth the Board of County Commissioners heard the conditional use for the Garden Street Iron Steel Transfer Station. That was approved on their summary agenda. They also heard the PUD rezone for the Cope Reserve RPUD. That was approved 5-0 on their regular agenda,subject to CCPC conditions. And Hacienda was continued to the next board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. ***Chairman's report. Couple items. Cherie',thank you for the desserts this morning. Our court reporters are really getting helpful around here keeping us fat. So--and the other report is really by someone else. Paul,how was your trip? Give us some highlights. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well,Nevada was nice.Paraguay was a little scary. The day before we got there,the guerrillas or revolutionaries or whatever you want to call them,murdered two policeman about three miles Page 2 of 78 October 20,2011 from where we were. So we were low profile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kind of glad to be back home? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah,it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good to have you back.We missed you. ***There are no consent agenda items today,so let's move right into the first item up. It is the Orangetree PUD. Item PUDZ-2003-AR-3608. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item,please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Well,the only disclosures I have are the same ones I put on record last time. I've had--I don't believe there's been any communication since then that I can remember. So with that,Mr. Saunders,it's all yours. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you,Mr.Chairman. For the record,my name is Burt Saunders with the Gray-Robinson Law Firm. And I understand this one young lady is signed up to speak who has to leave to go to work,and we certainly have no objection to her making her presentation in advance,if that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work fine. We're trying to accommodate the public. So whoever that is,would you mind standing up? Yes,ma'am,come on up to the speaker and we'll hear what you've got to say. MS.JOHNSON: Thank you. My name is Carolyn Johnson. I live at 1709 Birdie Drive. Thank you for allowing me to speak before work. As a single mom I've always been very concerned with the security in our community. Our security allows anyone into the community,just by saying that I'm here to golf or go to the driving range or even go to the sales office. We need our own gate system on Double Eagle Drive to separate all of Collier County from our community. With the turnover of homes either by short sale or by foreclosure,with some homes rented,the clicker code has never changed.Despite repeated calls to D.R.Horton to upgrade the gate system,they have refused. As of today there may be well over 4,000 clickers still active for residents or renters that no longer live in Valencia Golf and Country Club. So when there was vandalism in our clubhouse six months ago,D.R.Horton's solution was just to close the doors and lock us out of our clubhouse,the clubhouse that all the residents pay for in our monthly fees. We maintain that clubhouse every month,whatever comes out of our fees,and we could not use it. Only D.R.Horton sales agent has access to the clubhouse. And also,the gate system allows as many cars as six to enter at a time because the gate swings so slowly. If the planning board approves the amendment for 1,050 rental units for Phase III and IV,which we really don't know if it's going to be investors or homeowners or whatnot,but if it allows for over 1,000 more cars and people coming into the community,how will those individuals not be allowed into our community? We hope the planning board will have the wisdom to make Orangetree have and build and maintain a gate system at their expense to separate the two communities. That's all have Ito say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,Miss. Just so you know,this is a zoning board,and one of the things that is not under our power is to enforce or require anybody to put a gate in.That's something that unfortunately is outside any requirement of any of the zoning codes that we fall under. Now,obviously the applicant can volunteer to do things to be more in conformity with what maybe the neighborhood would want to get a better hearing. But that's not the thing we can require.There's no code that will be able to tell him that we demand to put a gate in. So I just want to let you know we have our limitations as a zoning board. Just as the Environmental Advisory Council is limited to environmental issues,we're limited to basically zoning issues. But we'll try the best we can to get there today. So,okay,Burt,with that-- MS. SAUNDERS: Thank you,Mr.Chairman,members of the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 78 October 20, 2011 Just a couple of very quick introductory comments before we get into some of the detail. Today we have Bob Mulhere,Matt McLean and Norm Trebilcock here representing the petitioner,and also Steve Lowitz is here representing the petitioner. And I wanted the Planning Commission to know that since our meeting on October 6th,we've had numerous telephone calls and several meetings with neighbors to make sure that they understand what we're trying to accomplish and that we also continue to understand what their concerns are. And to ensure full disclosure,we've made sure that the new drafted document was on a web page so everyone had access to it. So we've tried to make sure that there's been full disclosure and everyone has been available to answer questions. And in addition,we've worked very closely with your staff and the county attorney's office and I want to thank them for their diligence. Mr. Chairman and members,a lot of the conversations we had since October 6th and also during October 6th planning meeting dealt with concerns about compatibility and making sure that the units that we're going to build, especially those adjacent to existing communities,were compatible. So we've agreed to two things I think that wold alleviate some concerns there. One is to increase the minimum size of those new units in those R-2 areas adjacent to the existing developments. And Mr.McLean is going to point those out. Those will be a minimum of 1,250 square feet. Under the existing PUD document that is currently enforced today,those units could be 750 feet. So we're going to move that to 1,250 square feet. We're also going to agree that there will be no carports in those areas. Those will have to have enclosed garages. There will be no carports.And that was an area that was of some concern. In reference to internal security,we commit to continuing to work with the community to improve security, but we're not going to be able to put gates on the loop road. There was some discussion about that. We don't believe the transportation staff would sign off on that. We've got an e-mail from them indicating that they would not agree to gates internally there. We can certainly talk about different communities,but the loop road itself,we're not going to be able to put gates on that. There are technologies and things that we can do to improve security at the gate. For example,there are ways to make sure that if someone comes to that gate and they're going to be playing golf,that there's communication between the golf course and the gate to ensure that those people really are playing golf. So we want to work with the community to improve internal security,but we don't believe we can address that in the document. The other issue,or one of the other issues dealt with the homeowners associations. As we discussed on October 6th,that's an area also that would be very difficult to put into a PUD document.We will continue to work with the community to make sure that we establish new homeowners associations for the new development and that we are working with them to make sure that those concerns relative to the homeowners associations are addressed. Finally,there was some concern from the Waterways area concerning the mixed use parcel and the potential for three-story buildings there. The concern was how close would a three-story building be to an existing single-family lot. There's going to be an access road across that parcel for--adjoining the two schools together.And with that there's going to be a fairly substantial setback. So I think we've alleviated the concern that there'd be close proximity to three-story buildings. Also in the mixed use parcel we're going to agree that the noise restrictions,same restrictions that are in the OC and NC parcels,will apply to the mixed use parcel so that there won't be any problems with lighting and with noise. And we went and met with Ms.Cocheran to go through those changes,and she was representing the--some of the folks in that community. I think,Mr.Chairman,with those changes,we are really attempting to address all of the major issues that have been raised by the community. We have a couple that we have to work on outside of this document. And with that,I'd like to ask Robert Mulhere to come on up and we'll start going through the document to make the changes that we all agreed to at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before you do,you said something I would like staff to clarify. Who on Page 4 of 78 October 20,2011 staff told you you could not put a gatehouse on a private road,internally to an internally private project,to a project that is owned by a developer,not owned by the county? How did we have control over that? I'd like to know,Nick. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then where is Mr. Saunders getting his information? MR.CASALANGUIDA: He must have spoke to one of the staff members. Maybe from John Podczerwinsky, is that who you spoke to? MR.McLEAN: Correct. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We can make a recommendation to that effect,but it cannot be a requirement by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean,I just got done telling the young lady we can't impose security. Likewise,we can't impose the developer wanting to put security in. They put-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: No,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --security in all over developments all over the county. So Burt,I don't know where you got that information,but it doesn't sound like it was accurate. And I'd sure like to understand what transpired so--because that would have had a-- I mean,that was a big issue with the community when they were here last time. And it was one that was important to be addressed because you said you would address it with them after we left that meeting. MR. SAUNDERS: And we did have a meeting to discuss that. I do have an e-mail from staff in reference to that. We will continue to work on that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's got to get resolved today or you're--I mean,that's a big issue. So you can continue to work on it,but we're going to have to resolve it today. I'm disappointed that somehow there was a miscommunication between staff and you. Because that--I thought resolving that issue would have gone a long way to help some of the issues out there,but it doesn't sound like it got resolved if you are just walking away from it because staff told you they wouldn't let you. MR. SAUNDERS: Well,let's go through the changes that we do have and then I'll sit down with the petitioner here and we'll talk a little about that as you're going through the other changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: Good morning. For the record,Bob Mulhere. Mr. Chairman,I thought I would go over the changes that we--we've identified a couple of changes that still need to occur in the document that reflects Heidi's changes from the last meeting. Probably some mainly typo type stuff.And also we have some changes that we're recommending as part of our commitments to the residents. So rather than go over every single change page-by-page--I certainly can do that if you thought that was necessary--I thought I would just go over the changes that we feel still need to occur either as a result of a commitment we made for the residents or something that we thought was not--did not get addressed in Heidi's changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Bob,just so you know,as the commission normally does,we're probably going to go through the PUD page-by-page ourselves anyway. So why don't we take it all together page-by-page. And then after that there are some--I have a dozen-- 17 or so leftover questions from the last meeting that if it isn't shown how they've been addressed in the document I'm going to separately ask how you've addressed those for clarification that the public raised the last time they were here. So with that in mind,we'll proceed that way.The first page really of the document starts with Section 1,Page 1. It's the 55-page document.Let's just take five pages at a time. And a lot of the first few five pages are cross-outs. Does anybody have any questions this time on the first five pages? Did you have--is that yes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I do. Yes,I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. I noticed in the new PUD-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us a page? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,on Page 3. Page 5 of 78 October 20,2011 --that you are completely removing the absorption tables and you're getting rid of every--as to when this was going to be built out. What year was the first house built in this community;do you know? MR.MULHERE: Excuse me,you're on Page 3? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am on Page 3 of the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.08 is what she's referring to. MR.MULHERE: 2.08. Well,we struck through that because it--way more than 15 years have already passed. To answer your question of when the first unit was built,I have absolutely no idea. Anybody have any idea? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,well,that was the question that I had on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,for that answer,though,if--Bob,I'm assuming it would have started sometime after this PUD was put into place,which is approximately 1985. MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So,you know,probably in the late Eighties. MR.MULHERE: '86,'87? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,you probably have your first unit built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And on Page 4,I noticed you crossed everything out for any reference to roads. Everything was crossed out in that. MR.MULHERE: Okay, 1988 was when the first house was built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1988? Thank you. I think one of my bigger questions is on Page 5. You-- MR.MULHERE: Well,you were on Page 4 and you asked the question about roads. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You took out the roads.You just took everything out. MR.MULHERE: Everything that it says there is as--we don't need that language. It's the way it is through the LDC and through the other provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few years back this board made an effort through staff to start streamlining the language in the PUD's;language that it was either redundant or part of current code and didn't need to be repeated,we asked that it stopped being repeated to make these documents less cumbersome. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Cumbersome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is--that statement under 2.1.3.under roads,that is already part of an acknowledgment that's in our system.They can't always make roads public or private, so they didn't need to restate it there. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Page 5. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your land use summary,table one,you crossed everything out. And to the people who bought into this development,everything that they have known has changed. Everything was fine up until the time you brought in this PUD for a new change. Everything on this page was changed. Originally it started out that there was R-1 was going to be residential one-acre lots. And through a couple of amendments it went down to a half acre lot. Now you're going to try and put 1,050 homes kind of in that area. You're just trying to change everything these people bought into. MR.MULHERE: May I--I mean,what you said is not accurate,okay,so I have to correct you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,that's fine. MR.MULHERE: Okay. Because it says R-1 is one-half acre lots, if you looked at the master plan,the vast majority of the PUD was not designated R-1. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,it was-- MR.MULHERE: The vast majority was designated R-2 and R-3,which allowed much smaller lots. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Um-hum. Originally there was 200 and some-- MR.MULHERE: Just saying we changed everything is not accurate. We've changed nothing with respect to those parcels that are already developed. We worked very hard to maintain the development standards that apply to those lots and parcels. Page 6 of 78 October 20, 2011 Now,there were a few changes in undeveloped areas,and we even went back and returned those to the developments--at the request of the residents to the development standards that applied,even so far as to increase some protection,such as the minimum lot size and such as the prohibition on carports and things like that. So we actually have more standards that apply to protect the existing residential area than previously did. But anyway,that's my response to that,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then that's all I have till we reach a couple more pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on the first five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to the next five pages,6 through 10. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah,I have a question on Page 8. Why under agriculture do we have educational plants and ancillary plants? Does that have to be there? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why? MR.MULHERE: Because they exist. They're built. It's the school board's property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I was just wondering why it's under the agricultural part if it's a school board property. MR.MULHERE: That's the designation that was in the PUD. The school board acquired the land. Some of the schools are built. There's probably some future improvements planned. Maybe-- MR.EASTMAN: School uses is a permitted use on agricultural property,as well as most versions of the residential. So it is a legal and valid use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 10-- MR.MULHERE: I have one on 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as Phil's done with his. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Section 4.04 under R-2. MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: In comparing the former rendition of this to this version,you deleted the reference to multi-family on the second bullet under R-2,but you added back in triplex.And I'm just wondering the rationale there. MR.MULHERE: The direction that I understood was to return the R-2 to what it previously had.And that's what we did. Unless I'm mistaken. I mean,I think that's what the intent was. So I'd have to defer to Heidi,but to my knowledge we went back to the language that exists. That was what the Planning Commission's direction was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. See,Phil,what they had done is changed it to add more intense uses,and they now have come back and decided to leave it like it was and drop some of the uses they used to have. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. I do see that it,in referencing the other one,it was struck through on the former one. Okay,fine. MR.MULHERE: On Page 9,and this was a request from--I wasn't at the meeting from the Waterways residents,and I know we've kind of said we weren't going to make any changes to the ag.designation,but I'm just reiterating because there was a request that we eliminate the packing houses use,and I guess that would be up to the school board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,first of all,the school board would have to sign on as a co-applicant or provide a sheet of authorization for you to represent them here to make that kind of change today. Tom,do you carry that kind of authoriza--I mean,I agree that the packing house is something that isn't going to be there or shouldn't be there,but we didn't open the PUD up to areas that weren't owned by the applicant. Unless Tom,have you had any conversations with that with your board? MR.EASTMAN: No,the board has not weighed in on this issue. As a practical matter,I don't think the school board has any objection to the removal of packing houses. But Page 7 of 78 October 20, 2011 as a technical matter,no,the school board has not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi,I guess from your department,in regards to whatever you do with this particular section would have to apply equally to all sections. And previously because of the discussion with the fairgrounds and stuff,it was acknowledged that if the--if co-applicants or landowners didn't provide authorization or sign on,changes really couldn't be made to their sections without their authorization. Does that still hold? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,yes. In light of the fact that the school board is not a co-applicant,has not signed on off on anything,and I don't believe that Mr.Eastman has authority today to bind the school board,no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason for that,everyone,is that we can't make zoning changes to someone's property without their permission. And the only people that have applied for zoning changes here today are the people that own the bulk of the Orangetree project,Mr.Bolt and his company. So all the other various property owners that can't--won't have any changes made,such as the schools or Orange Blossom Ranch or the fair or the utility site. Okay,Bob,anything else in those? MR.MULHERE: There was another one on Page 10. So this in an addition that the residents have asked for that Burt mentioned. But suggestion would be under the bullets of R-2 to add a bullet that would read something such as this: Within the R-2 hatched tract designated on the master plan,the minimum floor area shall be-- 1,250,was it? 1,250 square feet,and no carports shall be constructed on the tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to amend the master plan for a consent hearing that will show that special area so it can be designated in some manner and tied to this language in the-- MR.MULHERE: Yeah,we're going to--it's probably a little bit hard to see on that. I don't know if we can make that a little bit bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,that's fine. The one we have,though,that was distributed, I didn't notice the shading. That's just something new. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: There's going to be a few things that we would recommend as a result of our meetings with the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else on Pages 1 through 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,the next group is Page 11 through 15. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one on 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Your permitted accessory uses and structures,you have in there the guesthouse on lots more than one acre? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why are you leaving that in there? MR.MULHERE: I mean,it's unlikely,but there is a possibility of developing some larger than one acre or larger lots. 1 think that's permitted-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sizes of the lots they're asking for on the tables are minimum. So they could always make bigger lots. So I think that's probably why they're leaving that in. In case they ever decide to go to one-acre lots,that in this market place wouldn't sale,but if they ever waited long enough and the market turned around,maybe they'd want to do that. So I think that's why they left it in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 15,anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maximum building height.Originally it was 25 feet. Now they've broken it down so they have zoned 35 but actual can be 42. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. Page 8 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: If it was 25,what would the zoned height be--I mean what would be the actual height be if it was 25? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,yeah,I mean,let's take for example,let's pretend this pen's the roof. The zoned height would be the center of the roof. The actual height would be the peak. So it would really depend on the slope of the roof and a whole bunch of other things. So there is no relationship between the two. The 35 feet is essentially a single-family home's height. So I think that's why they have it at 35 feet. MR.MULHERE: In today's marketplace,almost all homes have very high ceilings. At least that's what the market demands. If you go out to the clubhouse,it has very high ceilings out here. So it really is intended to be more compatible with the current development patterns that we see. If the of you look at the single-family districts,as Brad indicated,the building height allowable in most single-family districts is 35 feet. So,you know,the 42 feet just allows for that additional height for the roof treatment above that midpoint of the roof. So you're having an additional seven feet for the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,I don't mind the 35. I just--you know,when it comes to 42 and everything else was 25 in there so far,it was just a question that I had on that and I wanted to ask Brad. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,actually,the 42 isn't relative to the 25. Meaning the 25 is your zoned height. There was never an actual height listed on the prior PUD,which meant they could have gone to any height for the appurtenances that would have gone on top. So it's probably more restrictive to add it the way they have than to leave it like it was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. MR.MULHERE: I have a couple of comments on Page 14. I'm sorry,I didn't know if any Planning Commission members-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple but I always wait. Go ahead. MR.MULHERE: On Page 14,the--I think we need to add the reference to the sidewalk setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is added. Except you need-- MR.MULHERE: I'm sorry,the footnote.There's a footnote on the first column,the 20 foot. I think we missed the footnote there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first column? MR.MULHERE: On the front yard setback under cluster homes. If you go down to the 20 foot,there's a-- there needs to be a setback there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,your reference for the footnote one needs to be cleaned up. Because the way it reads now is for any construction after,and parenthetical,the effective date of this ordinance is when that applies. But your terminology for any construction could mean a wide variety of things. So I would suggest you would change that for any building permit applications after the effective date of this ordinance. And you don't need to put it in parenthetical,because the effective date will be whatever date it's recorded. And that will clean that up and you've got a definitive date to go with and you're no longer trying to define what construction may or may not be in the future. Does that work for you? MR.MULHERE: It works for us. I just want to make sure I--actually,the document is in Heidi's hands now,so I want to make sure. Did you get that,Heidi? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: For any building permit application after-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The effective date of this ordinance. The effective date of the ordinance-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,the reason I put that in bracket is the intent was to actually fill that date in,but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But the effective date is whatever it's recorded at. So it's going to be on the last page of the ordinance. So,I mean,I'm not sure we need to wait and fill it in.Because even if--if you fill--you're going to have to fill it in with the date that's effective and it's not going to be effective till it's recorded. I'm not sure you'd want to do that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,it's effective-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the same day. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --when it gets filed with the Secretary of State. Page 9 of 78 October 20,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I would just leave it effective date of the ordinance. That works. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page-- MR.MULHERE: Also,we wanted to--we suggest that we also add a footnote under the column at the bottom of the first column,floor area minimum.Just to be particularly I guess repetitive,but if someone could look here and then if we had a footnote that says R-2--the R-2 tract depicted on the master plan through hatching shall provide a minimum of 1,250 square feet. So we'd have it in both places that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,before you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --move on,I have a question. Back to guesthouse,once you brought it up.Would you have a problem putting in there on single-family lots? Because the way it's written,you could actually put guesthouses on multi-family lots larger than an acre. MR.MULHERE: I don't have a problem putting it in there. I think it refers back to the section of the LDC which I believe limits it to single-family. But that's--okay. So let's just make sure we-- CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Guest houses will be limited to single-family lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just,you know,put on-- MR.MULHERE: Accessory guest homes or single-family lots of one acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Guest homes on single-family lots one acre. MR.MULHERE: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anything else Pages 1 through 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think on Page 15 we have the same reference to the effective date of the ordinance and the word construction. Now there you've taken it out of the reference for number one. MR.MULHERE: It needs to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think you need to kind of make it like the one we just talked about. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on the two of them it would match up and it would be able to be read the same. Okay,Pages 16 through 20? Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 18. When you talk about the square footage of the commercial areas,can I ask,on the two areas that are there now what the acreage is for the southern one and what it is for the northern one? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. We have that information? MR.McLEAN: Yeah. Matt McLean for the record. The Randall parcel on the corner where I've got the pen on the master plan is 8.7 acres. The NC at the corner of Oil Well Road is 14.14 acres.And the OC in the middle is 9.4 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So the two make up the 22 acres that was originally in there? I didn't bring my calculator with me. MR.McLEAN: Yeah,22.8 acres. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I see that you kind of want to mix things around. Collier County is apparently now allowing this,because if it were a DRI they kind of separate it. And you're saying office and commercial in the neighborhood commercial areas,and then you're also saying in the mixed use district. I happened to drive out there this weekend because I just wanted to see what it looked like.And other than the fact that Oil Well Road is a mess,there's nothing out there. MR.MULHERE: You mean because it's under construction? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. And I found out how long it's going to take to finish it. It's going to be a year before it's done. MR.MULHERE: Well,I mean, improvements take time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I lived on Immokalee Road. In this,when I was reading through the original agreement,it said that the shops were supposed to be,just a minute,in the vested area. In the vested area the size of the parcel should be no smaller than two and a quarter acres Page 10 of 78 October 20, 2011 and no larger than five acres. And I notice the only thing out there is E's Convenient Store. And county records show that's 1.91 acres. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,I really don't know what you're referring to. I couldn't even answer your question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We,because in this they were selling the lots. Like if you sold it to CV S,I mean,that's how this was being constructed,each one was buying their own on the 22 acres. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is this what you're still planning to do? MR.MULHERE: No,not necessarily. I mean,somebody--the developer could develop the commercial and own it,the developer could sell tracts in the commercial or to plat them,or the developer could sell an entire shopping center.Just like any other commercial. I'm not sure what you're referencing there,but to my knowledge there's no restriction such as that that applies to this property. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I'm referring to the vested areas. This is a very special project,and I'm referring to what the vested areas are,vested area one and vested area two. MR.MULHERE: But I'm unaware of any restrictions on the lot sizes that can be sold in the commercial. And nor has there been any legal issue raised with that,nor has staff raised an issue with that. I'm unaware of it. I mean,I'm happy to take a look at that,but I can't-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.MULHERE: --answer your question because I really--I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. But this is what I'm reading on one part,and the other part is--it just does not mix. That's it on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're on Pages 16 through 20. Anybody else have any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16,a couple of things.And I guess the first one may be for Ray. They're silent on an accessory height,then it falls to the LDC;is that correct? MR.BELLOWS: Yeah,the PUD is silent to a particular standard. The LDC would apply. Now,in regards to accessory structure height,I'm not sure that the LDC is specific,and we might need to provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't recall offhand without pulling up muni.code. So you guys want to peg accessory height in that table something to something? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,throw a number at us,see what it sounds like. I mean,you're basically looking at screen cages,aren't you? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what do you need for a screen cage, 15,20 feet? MR.MULHERE: I mean,I've seen them a little bit higher than that,you know,on homes. You have a second story,people can walk out on the balcony under the screen enclosure. I'd say 25 feet for accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll make an addition to the table? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,on your front yard setback under multi-family structures you have 20 feet. You failed to put a footnote three. I think that that would also need to be there where you have parcel boundaries. You're looking at--you're protecting--I mean,20 feet to a parcel boundary is pretty close for a 60-foot building. MR.MULHERE: I'm just trying to find where you're at,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Page 16. MR.MULHERE: Yep,that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the last column,multi-family structures,I'm on the third line down,front yard setback,it says 20 feet. You have a footnote one. MR.MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm suggesting you put in a footnote three as well. That will at least get your Page 11 of 78 October 20,2011 setback-- MR.MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --comparable to what you build. On your maximum building height under multi-family structures,I believe this can only go on that one R-4 parcel in the new section that hasn't been built in yet;is that correct? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why do you have the actual 25 feet more than the zoned? That's quite a spread. Was there a reason to go that far? Are you thinking of doing underground parking in which you'll then end up with really four stories? MR.MULHERE: Isn't that 15 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,okay,you're right--no--yeah,you're right, 15 feet. Okay. Are you looking at underground parking for any of this? MR.MULHERE: No. We haven't even had a conversation about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,so my add-- MR.MULHERE: 55 would probably work out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 15's okay. I just had a--I was in a rush when I read this. I was thinking more of it being higher trying to put in an underground parking,and I thought that would--at least we need to talk about it if that was the case. On Page 17,when you have a rear setback--and I guess Ray,this is a question for you--and it's half the sum of the building height,but you only got one building,so it's half the sum of that building then,right? MR.BELLOWS: Well,that would have to be interpreted that way,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure so that it--that's fine. That's what I want to confirm. Page 18--I think we went dead--there we go. I've got to talk a lot closer now. You have the 75,000 for the --the way it reads is no single use in the NC district shall exceed 75,000 square feet of gross floor area. 75,000. What threshold do you think a big box is? I know what you're going to say to defend your position, but I'm just curious. MR.MULHERE: No,I'm thinking 100,minimally. Some are bigger than that. The reason we chose 75,000 is a grocery store could actually come in pretty close to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,similar to the--I can't remember the exact language in the Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center,but it was similar circumstances,close by residential and things like that. Why don't--would you consider looking at only one use may exceed 40,000 square feet and all the others have to be less than that? That would assure not a prolification of big boxes. Or is it-- MR.MULHERE: No,it's one may exceed 40. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a grocery store down at 75 or 80 or whatever it needs to be,that's fine. But that's what--that's the item that goes--because this is neighborhood commercial. You're not thinking of a Wal-Mart,are you? MR.MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: And actually I think that the likelihood of the big box stores going in is probably much more feasible on the other PUD which doesn't have the kind of access that we have for neighborhood commercial,so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,to have an unlimited number of 75,000 square foot store seems kind of odd. MR.MULHERE: Maybe we can have that conversation. The suggestion is that we could live with only one use over 45,000 per NC parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But not to exceed 75 --well,yeah,not to exceed 75. MR.MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that would at least limit the amount of giant buildings you'll have out there that accommodate one use. I think that would be-- MR.MULHERE: 45,000,not to exceed 75,000.Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,question on that point. Page 12 of 78 October 20,2011 The use of the word use,could that be confusing? If you have multiple offices,do you add them all up and say that the office use exceeds 75? Or do you mean tenant,or-- MR.MULHERE: Well,this only applies in the NC,so I don't think we'll have that much office use in there. In the OC we don't have that restriction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,then use retail. So in other words,you add up all the retail uses,they can't exceed 75 -- MR.MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --or do you mean one tenant,don't you? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. Single tenants,use tenant. We could--you know,I don't-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the building code use would be like I'm describing it. So if it doesn't confuse zoning,that's fine. But-- MR.MULHERE: I can look at the language that they used in the Golden Gate Estates Shopping Center PUD,but I think it's very,very similar to that in terms of how it's described as a single use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So,for example,a big box could go in a smaller one. But if they put the garden center next to it--I mean,somehow could they start considering that a different kind of use? MR.MULHERE: Not in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has to be owned by the same company and operated the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,did you--page--okay,now we get into your commercial uses. MR.MULHERE: I had one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR.MULHERE: One additional change. 5.A.02 where we-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page? MR.MULHERE: Page 18,I'm sorry. Second paragraph, 5.A.02 where we've just been discussing those square footages and so on,so forth. It seems that needs a title,and I would suggest maximum density and intensity as the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Into your uses that you're suggesting for the neighborhood commercial,one of them that you have here is number six,bowling centers, indoor. You failed to put an SIC.It's 7933. MR.MULHERE: Yes,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven,miscellaneous business services,7381. Because of the noise from dogs,do you mind excepting out dog rentals? MR.MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that's odd,but that is in that code section and I'd hate to see someone walk in --don't ask me what a dog rental is,but it's in there. So I could see someone use using that to keep dogs there and barking all day long and disturbing neighbors more than they've already been disturbed. MR.BELLOWS: What number is that under again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven. MR.MULHERE: So there's a specific SIC,or just no,it falls in the SIC Code as one of the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 7381. Bob, if you disagree with me-- MR.MULHERE: No,we have no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --let me know. Because I've made mistakes. That's easy enough. On Page 20,number 14. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your last sentence,outdoor dining shall only be located between the commercial center and Immokalee Road. You mean commercial center buildings and Immokalee Road,don't you? MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they're going to be acting then as a buffer to keep that noise away from the residential. Under 21,health services,miscellaneous,8092 to 8093. 8093 includes a series of uses. And I would suggest that you want to except out--you did except out some uses in 8099 that follows,but I didn't see any-- Page 13 of 78 October 20,2011 MR.MULHERE: I think we intended to delete 8093 so that it should read 8092,either comma 8099 or/and 8099,limited to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I would suggest,yeah,8092 and 8099,then limited to. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that would resolve a lot of 8099-- 8993's alcohol treatment and drug treatment centers and things like that, so--okay,that takes us to Page 21 through 25. Anybody have any questions on those pages? Go ahead,Melissa. COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 23,we were going to add a note,parcels of two or more frontages may be reduced one yard by 10 feet. Did you still want to add that or did you decide to leave that out? MR.MULHERE: No,I thought that we agreed to strike through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it became a problem last time because some of these parcels have three frontages. MR.MULHERE: So we just eliminated it. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: I do have one minor revision on Page 22. We neglected to or should probably have struck through,or at this point we couldn't--there's nothing under the title development standards,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike through that title. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,strike through that.Because there's a table on the next page that contains the development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob,on Page 21. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 36. Did you intend to put freestanding liquor stores? MR.MULHERE: I don't think we had any discussion about deleting them. Though if the preference is that they be attached to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,usually they're attached to something else,pharmacy or a grocery store. The freestanding drugstores(sic)I'm not sure are the best idea. MR.MULHERE: Liquor stores. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Liquor stores,yeah.Drugstores,we'd eliminate half the commercial in Collier County if we eliminated drugstores. What you then would do is drop 5921 and go 5932 to 5963. That would be on number 36. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Drop 15 and 21. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 40,social services,including indivi--I mean social services,individual and family. You have 8322 to 8399. And you except out homeless shelters and soup kitchens.There are other issues that may be concerning to the neighborhood. And some of those are the offender rehab,the offender self-help programs,the parole officers,probation officers,certain public welfare services. And I brought my SIC Code and it contains a whole litany of things that you might fmd in some neighborhoods. But I'm not sure all neighborhoods would want them there if they knew they had the opportunity to say no on a zoning application. I'll read 83 --we're back to the 99's again.And if you recall,those are the ones that when we talked I told you would be the most concerning. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. So we excluded homeless shelters and soup kitchens. What you're saying,there are other uses that we should want to consider excluding as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well,under 8322 there's self-help organizations for alcoholics and gamblers, settlement homes--which I'm not sure what that is-- MR.MULHERE: Okay,we'll just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --refugee services-- MR.MULHERE: We'll just exclude 40 in its entirety. Page 14 of 78 October 20,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: It's not really neighborhood commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not. And that's why I was trying to make sure if you had it in there we at least took out everything that wasn't. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is just a general question. When you had your neighborhood meeting,did you discuss all these different areas that you were thinking of doing with the residents? Did they know anything about this? MR.MULHERE: I mean,I don't know that we specifically discussed every single use in our neighborhood meeting. Nor have I ever been to a neighborhood meeting where every use has been discussed. However,we did discuss what our intention was and we provided the documents. There's questions--I mean,you know,it wasn't our intent to try to put a use in there that the neighborhood objects to. When we use the SIC Code, sometimes the uses are contained in the list that we have no intention of building,but there's just a long list. And we're very happy to strike through it. So,I mean,I don't-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I was just wondering if you brought it to the people. I see them shaking their heads no,that they had no idea of what was going to go in-- MR.MULHERE: Well,I don't know that everybody was at that neighborhood information meeting. It was quite a few months ago. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,one thing that happens at neighborhood informational meetings,the applicant has to talk about the uses. But unless the citizens come prepared with the SIC Code-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: And they don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --in this book--well,no,and that's not--it's hard to do that. I mean,who's going to know that the numbers that they're saying are in a book somewhere like this that describes what each use is. It's--what I think this board should do is go through those things,which is what we're doing. I don't know if all the citizens would be expected to know all those answers. We're here to hopefully help them understand what it is being asked for and correct it through the public process. MR.MULHERE: What we did discuss was the square footage,the locations,the type--generally the type of uses. Did we specifically discuss SIC Code 8322?No,we did not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,that's not--I just was wondering if this was really brought up at the neighborhood informational meeting. MR.MULHERE: Absolutely. The changes that were going to include the commercial areas,the square footages,yes,those were discussed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 41,your telephone communications. I just want to make sure we're not sliding in any cell towers there. Do have any--mind just say excluding communication towers? MR.MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 43,vocational schools. Most of them are okay. There's one there that might be kind of awkward in a small neighborhood like this,it's called truck driving schools, 8249. So do you mind dropping out truck driving schools? I just don't think the roads could take it. MR.MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're on Pages 21 through 25. On Page 23,Bob-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I'm looking at--okay,the footnote two. You have footnote two for the dumpsters are being set back 35 feet. And we have enclosure requirements and all that for dumpsters,so I know from a site perspective that isn't a problem. But from a distance perspective,I asked you to refer to the Golden Gate Shopping Center.Do you know what number was in there? Because we had those platted on a map,and that was one of the more contentious noise issues. And you guys were going to look at that to see the setback there. I just can't remember what it is. Page 15 of 78 October 20,2011 MR.MULHERE: I did look at it. I'm sorry,give me a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if-- MR.MULHERE: I didn't bring that PUD with me.I did look at it. I--here it is. Good. I'll see if I can fmd it. It might take a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can come back to that. Just before the discussion's over,if you could come back with an answer,one of you could look it up while we're talking about the other things,we could keep moving. On Page 25,use number 30. The second part of that,secretarial and court reporting services.Those court reporters have extremely wild parties.How we doing,Cherie'? Actually,number 26 was where I had a concern.The way you've labeled this,it's a principal use but you've tried to tie it to a--not to be a standalone facility. It would be better if you listed it as an accessory use,because I would hate to see someone come arguing in that this could be a principal use because it's under the principal use category and tie it to a liquor store or whatever they want to say a physical fitness is part of.But since your intension is to have it as an accessory to something there,why don't we just make it an accessory use and keep it clear? Is that a MR.MULHERE: I don't even know,to be honest with you--I'm just trying to think of a use that it would be accessory to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,there was a guy in Fort Myers that built a building,and on the top he wanted to put a little place to run and work out.And maybe that--I thought maybe that's what you're referring to. I don't know. But I just want to make sure that you're not looking at standalone in this office area,because that's a completely different use in office. MR.MULHERE: I think that was what the intent was,that it would be an accessory to a large office that the company wanted to have a fitness facility for its employees. And I don't mind putting it as an accessory. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that takes us through Page 25. MR.MULHERE: Or maybe a bunch of smaller offices together would agree,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as long as it's an accessory,that gets it out of the ability to put it in as a principal use and take up office space,so-- Let's go to Pages 26 through 30,anybody have any questions? Phil? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: One question on Page 29. MR.MULHERE: Yes,sir. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item number 702.A.10.I had made a note that the word grounds was to be deleted from the last time you folks were here.Collier County Fairgrounds,that there was some issue regarding the entity that's out there. MR.MULHERE: I'm looking to see if I had a note to that effect. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: That's in the community use district,and those are the uses that we were not making any changes to since we-- MR.MULHERE: Yeah,I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,we can't make changes to those because the property owner is not one of the people asking for a hearing today. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. Slip of the pen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On Page 28,clubhouse. Is that already built? This is for the golf course. Is the clubhouse already built? MR.MULHERE: There is a clubhouse built.There is a clubhouse out there. I don't know--I mean,Matt, you may want to talk to--I don't know that it's-- MR.McLEAN: Matt McLean,for the record. There is a clubhouse that currently exists out there for the golf course itself. However,it's more of a temporary type structure and the intent is one day to redevelop that. Right now it's basically a glorified trailer. Page 16 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh,it's just a temporary? Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,through Page 30,anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 26,the issue on the dumpsters,when you get that information,that needs to be corrected there as well. Or acknowledged,one way or the other. MR.MULHERE: We did find that,if you want to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What is the distance? MR.MULHERE: They've got a table and a footnote. And the footnote says,accessory uses such as fences, walls,dumpsters, so on,so forth,are not required to meet principal or accessory setbacks. However,they are subject to section 2.01.02 and a number of other sections of the LDC. So they're not even restricting the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,they did get restricted on the site plan. They produced a site plan in which they showed the dumpsters. Those dumpsters were accepted as part of the site plan and the restriction was back to the inside of the parcel away from the homes to the north. MR.MULHERE: I don't have the site plan. But the 35-foot,my thought there was we're going to have a landscape buffer with a wall that we're going to be building. And then you have a 35-foot set--and the dumpsters themselves are required to have a wall around it. So you sort of get double-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course you know that the problem with the dumpsters is not the dumpster itself or the wall,it's the trucks picking up the dumpster early in the morning and making the noise. So that's why it was so concerning in the Estates. The only thing I would suggest,Bob,is let's between now and consent we can resolve it,depending on what it says,so we can leave that one open. MR.MULHERE: Okay,we'll take a look at that master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.McLEAN: For the record on that again--Matt McLean--I just want to note that within the NC district on Randall there's a current SDP approved that already has a dumpster location that's 35 feet off the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,I know you can put dumpsters--I mean,they can go towards the front of a parcel,because they are heavily landscaped. They're wrapped in a nice decorative wall,you don't even know they're there. But it also keeps the noise away from the residents. So if you can take a look at that,it might help. On Page 28,Item B,I'd suggest we change that language to the same language concerning building permit application and the effective date of the ordinance that we referred to in the tables. MR.MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 30? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one other one. On Page 28,the one you're just on,you put in there number six,a maximum of two total permissible residential units for the management of the golf course. These are considered caretaker residences? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Why is that in there? MR.MULHERE: Well,just so you're--take a look at it. You can see what's underlined. What already existed in this PUD was this following phrase: A maximum of two residential units in conjunction with the operation of the golf course.That's what existed. All we did is clarify that they are subject to the density,the total density count, and indicate that they're caretakers residences. I mean, so the allowance is already in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they are counted as residential units as part of the density. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,yes,okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next five pages are all pages that aren't part of the application today,they're all owned by other entities,so let's jump to Page 35 and we'll go 35 to 40,the next grouping. Does anybody have questions on 35 to 40? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Page 17 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: On Page 40,Item No. 5,this concerns the construction of a CAT shelter. And you're specifying that--the issue of a CO for commercial that exceeds 40,000 square feet. Is there any estimate--may be an inappropriate question,but is there any estimate as to timing of that,when that might occur-- MR.MULHERE: There really isn't. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --in your plans? MR.MULHERE: But the need--there's two things: One,the need really won't be there until you get some commercial for the stop. The only other alternative is if the county wants to construct it themselves and they come in and ask for it sooner than that. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And just for clarification too,because that does refer to 40,000 square feet in the entire PUD,we already do have some existing,such as E's stores,and there are a couple that would count towards-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you know approximately how much? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --40,000,the way this is written. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Do you approximately how much-- MR.MULHERE: How much exists? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. MR.MULHERE: How much? 6,000? E's. Sorry. MR.McLEAN: The current--and again,Matt McLean. The current PUD annual monitoring report,the only current CO on there is E's. And that's approximately,you know,a couple thousand. 3,500. MR.MULHERE: So it would be,you know,as soon as we can attract--get through this process and attract some commercial either tenants or purchasers and then,you know,hopefully the shopping--the grocery store would be the first thing that would get built,and then we'd already trigger that and we'd have to provide it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 40? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: --one on 35. And it was only an observation when I was reading this over. And it's number two under 10.2,the second one down,the multi-family dwelling units can be put in the mixed use structures. And I'm thinking wow,you have a high school on one side and you have schools on the other side.You really think multi-family will want to live between two schools? MR.MULHERE: I think you see it all over the place. Everywhere. Yeah,yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR.MULHERE: I mean,you can look at Immokalee Road,you can look at Pine Ridge Road. I mean,there are many examples of multi-family in close proximity to schools. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,one more, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir,Phil. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We had a conversation the last meeting regarding the construction entrance and the possibility that you would be utilizing the additional access point off of Randall. Where was your construction entrance going to be? Or where is it? What are your plans for that?You're going to have two? MR.MULHERE: Thank you for raising that,because I think maybe we didn't address that,and that's--I'm glad you brought that up. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah,I had a note for it. MR.MULHERE: I think we intended to use the area where we would ultimately be improving a new access point. There's nobody living over there,so we would have minimal impacts that way. I think your suggestion was maybe we use Oil Well. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Or both. MR.MULHERE: Or both. And Pm fine with limiting the construction traffic to either/or of those two locations. And that makes sense. We need to put that in as a condition,and we neglected to-- Page 18 of 78 October 20,2011 MR.McLEAN: Nick,for clarification on that,though,there are--right now as you are aware there's only one access point coming into Valencia Golf and Country Club at-- MR.MULHERE: Correct. MR.McLEAN: --this location? And currently that is the access that's being used both for residences and as a construction entrance. And until such a time as development continues and this additional road is built out this direction to the east connecting back to Oil Well Road,or construction is built out to the connection out to future additional access point on Randall, you know,there's still homes to be built over here. And these homes are currently utilizing this particular access for construction and most likely will continue until such a time as these roads are built out that direction. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I understand. But what I wouldn't like to see--I don't live there,but what I wouldn't like to see is construction starting in the new R-3 -- MR.MULHERE: Yeah,that's what I was-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --area and still utilizing the existing construction road and hearing the words,well,you know,some day or when we get to it or there's not enough money. I've lived through a couple of those. And I think there needs to be some commitment as to at what point are you going to open up access for construction as you move to that R-3 construction area. MR.MULHERE: I think we can come up with some language,we'll have to bring it back to you,but that triggers when we would--where the development-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You understand my point,Bob. MR.MULHERE: Yes,yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean,conceivably you could use the existing entrance for all your construction and drive all that traffic,you know,around the development. And the other issue I would--or the other question I would have is once you do have construction traffic coming in,and I assume you have some now,what is your security going to be with respect to those new entrances? Hours of operation,are you going to have some guard sitting there to be sure it's only construction,authorized construction vehicles,that type of thing? MR.MULHERE: Yeah. Well,I think-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would like some clarity on that. MR.MULHERE: Okay. I think ultimately they'll be gated,but during the construction process--I'll have to talk to my client,yeah. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I can tell you,that's where certain developments have had the most issues from the residents is the gate's open,who knows who is coming in and out of that gate,who's responsible to check. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,I can appreciate that. There was one area where there was some security issues that my client already took care of by placing some rocks in the way. It's sort of a temporary condition. But we do need to look at that more specifically as it's associated with future construction traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're still through Page 40-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Page 37. I would just--the number H(sic),could you just please explain that? MR.MULHERE: Well,the sentence,the--thank you for asking that. The first sentence is missing something. And I think it should read residential density is limited to a maximum of 3,150 residential units in the entire PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR.MULHERE: So what it says is that this district may use any remaining residential units not used in other districts. So whatever is left over, if there is anything left over,can be used here. I mean,if it's going to be mixed use,it's still subject to that limitation. Page 19 of 78 October 20,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is still subject to the development standards that apply to the type of product they put there. So if they put multi-family,the multi-family standards would apply to it. MR.MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. MR.MULHERE: I have one on 36. Just want to make sure that--on number five at the top of the page on 36,all uses permitted in the NC district of this PUD. We had some folks in Waterways ask if we were going to be also subject to the applicable restrictions, such as hours of operation and those kinds of things. And just to be on the safe side,to give them a sense of comfort,I think if we after the word"PUD"put a comma and said: And subject to all applicable limitations and restrictions set forth therein. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR.MULHERE: And then the other one I had was in 10.03,development standards below,paragraph B, there's a reference to Section 5.A.03,which we struck through. So we think it should be just more general. It should say: The development standards for commercial only structures shall be as set forth in section 5.A-NC. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Where is that change,Bob? MR.MULHERE: Paragraph B on the same page,36. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And how did you want it to read? MR.MULHERE: Strike through section 5.A.03,because we've already struck through that in the document, and replace that phrase with the phrase Section 5.A-NC district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody--go ahead. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: The prior change of subject to all applicable limitations and restrictions,I'm going to have to take a look at that. Because I don't know if this language will apply just to hours of operation or if it will create confusion as to development standards. So I'm going to-- MR.MULHERE: Well,that's fine. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --have to take a look at that language and make sure it's clear enough. MR.MULHERE: I think the reason I--just so that there's some understanding,the reason I worded it that way,used the word applicable was that,for example,the one that deals with locating outdoor dining between Immokalee Road and the commercial buildings will not apply in the MU district. So there's one that is not applicable. I think that's the only one. I think all the other ones-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah,see,that's what I mean,I need to look at it and see what does it means,and if it needs some clarification,we'll have to clarify it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, I'll make a note. See,I think when we get to the consent we're probably going to have to reserve some approval at the consent process and then just vote not to have a further consent on those ones and settle them at that time,because there's some cleanup that's going to have to be done that may need some weighing in by this Board,based on your responses. And that may be one of them, so--anybody else through Page 40? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have several. MR.MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on Page 36. Under C,conditional uses,the language is a little concerning the way the first sentence is phrased: The following uses are permissible as conditional uses. That seems to connotate that you can have them,you've just got to go through the process. And regardless,you're going to be able--they're permitted. I would rather make sure that they may be allowed as conditional uses,subject to the process of the LDC. And that's just to make sure no one's going to hang a hat on saying well,see,they said they could be here. So-- MR.MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so everybody knows,a conditional use is another use added to some others that are already there,but it only happens through an entire nother public process,similar to what you're seeing here today. So it's not one that's just given to them,they have to come in,have public meetings,have input and provide development standards that meet the needs of the area before it gets approved. At least theoretically that's how it's supposed to happen. On 10.03,Item D,distance between principal structures: None or a minimum of 10 feet with unobstructed Page 20 of 78 October 20,2011 passage. How do you avoid massing? And massing has been an issue on a series of PUD's. It comes up any time we have this language. We basically have put in limitations on how long a building can be. Do you have any concerns or any suggestions or have you looked at that? MR.MULHERE: Well,the only thing I think,we maybe missed that,because what we did elsewhere where we had that similar language I think was we said none or a minimum of ten feet. What we could add to that is for one-half the sum of the building heights,whichever is greater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't get your massing issue. MR.MULHERE: Well,the massing is something that's going to be addressed through the architectural standards. There's massing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Ray,do the architectural standards limit the length of any one building? MR.BELLOWS: It doesn't limit the language,it just requires a setback or-- MR.MULHERE: You've got to break it up. MR.BELLOWS: --break up the relief of the sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You've got to break up the relief. So you could have a 1,000 foot long or 2000 foot building. All you got to do is have a two or three-foot panel popping out every now and then. MR.MULHERE: You're on distance between principal structures,right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what brought the question. I'm sorry,you don't even have a section to describe the limitation of massing. MR.MULHERE: Well,let me add,you had brought this up-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And the depths aren't two,three feet,they're like 10 feet. I mean,it gets pretty big. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you comfortable with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was on a committee to work on it,so I'm a little prejudice that it works, but-- MR.MULHERE: We're limiting this-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --I don't remember us ever limiting the length of a building. This isn't-- you know,and especially like when we get to the townhouses,we maybe should. But essentially the massing of the building in the architectural standards is to be broken up to prevent the look of one large massive building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those setbacks--or those breakups are 10 feet in some cases? MR.CASALANGUIDA: They can be. MR.BELLOWS: They can be,depending on the length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the longer the building,the more the breakup-- MR.BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the depth of the breakup? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the size of it,the square footage too. MR.BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. E. This issue only becomes an issue when you get up close to the--in the MU/U,you have a neck that goes up to the R-2 of Waterways. And that--anything going in that area,whether it's the commercial which involves the retail uses and higher levels of noise and congestion,or if you were to put residential up there with the heights that you're asking for here,you're up closer to the existing homes in Waterways. What I would suggest is that anything in that panhandle or that neck from that east-west line north is reduced in height to two stories or 35 and 42,which is 35 feet and 42 actual. And that way you're limited--that's basically what a single-family is--heights are limited to. And that keeps Waterways secure in regards to what they could have close to them. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,we'll be okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somehow we need to make that-- MR.MULHERE: We'll either have to hatch it or somehow address it with a description of that area. Page 21 of 78 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: So 35 with 42. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same height as a single-family,yeah. MR.MULHERE: Somewhere in here I saw,and I can't find it now,I'll try to find it between now and the next meeting, somewhere where it just said MU,it didn't have the slashed U. We were going to correct all those. I saw that there was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,I pointed that out to you last time,yes,and you were going to get that.And that was one you missed,huh? MR.MULHERE: Yeah,I missed one somewhere. I can't find it now though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 37,Bob,both numbers(sic)G and H have the following reference,and it's like the second sentence in G: This district may use any remaining retail personal use or office commercial square footage. And in the residential it says: This district may use any remaining residential units not used. Now,I believe your intention is to use these uses in the MU/U as you phase out the utility site that's there,or as the county takes it over and removes it. MR.MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you--at the rate of build-out of this project,I mean,it's been there a long time,'85 till now,and the commercial that you've got on Immokalee Road, if you wait till all that's built out before you're allowed to build anything on the MU/U,you may find the MU/U vacant for years. MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you understand by the way you've worded this-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the district may use any remaining-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest then that you can't do anything until the entire project's built out and that's the only piece left. MR.MULHERE: Okay,that wasn't the intent. I mean,I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just said yes. MR.MULHERE: No,I realize that it may--you asked me if I realized it may be a long, long time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know,yeah,it's going to be a long time,but do you really not want to touch that property until-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then how do you determine what's remaining if the project isn't built out? MR.MULHERE: Well,I guess--that's a very good question because that wasn't the intent. The intent was that we're still limited. So that if that built out first,we could only use what's remaining. But if we built something in here sooner, it's still subject to that cap so it reduces what we can build elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I just think you ought to rephrase that. Because I would think that when it says the district may use any remaining,someone's going to have to wait and see after you've built out what's remaining and then acknowledge that's the amount you can use there.Otherwise,how did--where's the limitation on what can be put there and how much? MR.MULHERE: We probably don't even need that sentence in either case. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I had-- MR.MULHERE: It's already accurate. It already applies that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already got the uses there,so why have it? I think that just--both sentences probably could be-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And with that change,I'm going to have to reanalyze the residential portions to make sure that there's a sufficient cross-reference so they don't get it in both locations. So we don't exceed the overall density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? Page 22 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Actually,in thinking of the architectural standards,do you think you'd be building solely multi-family?Because they don't apply to multi-family buildings,multi-family residential. MR.MULHERE: Within the MU district? I think there could be one or more freestanding multi-family buildings and some commercial in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the architectural standards don't apply to those,so-- MR.MULHERE: We're not going to build those things 1,000 foot long. I mean,we're going to build what the market's going to be attracted to.The kind of stuff that you see everywhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And every developer that comes in here says they're going to do that.And guess what? We've got some pretty ugly stuff out there. MR.MULHERE: Okay,but I'm not--I'm unaware of any PUD that has a restriction on the length of the multi--it's the setbacks and those other things,water management,parking,that's what restricts the buildable area. Once you've got a buildable area defined,we've never restricted that in multi-family. I mean,you've got setbacks, you've got parking,you've got water management,you've got landscape buffers. Once you've put all that into place, you've got a buildable area that's left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've brought it up before but we never have restricted,so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did on that PUD on the corner of County Barn Road and Davis that ended up not going forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We put the maximum length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember that one down there? That was that--I mean,went on for a long period of time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's right,we did there,you're right. But this isn't--I mean,this site isn't big enough-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's too small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --to get in trouble.Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do it there. You couldn't build it here that way if you wanted to. Okay,Page 38,that sentence that was--the paragraph that was added on the top under 11.01,the last sentence,when the PUDR closed out--is closed out,just a little grammatical thing. It's the only one I'll try to give you today. I don't like to get into that stuff at all,but it just seems so obvious. Let's read out that whole sentence,though.When the PUD is closed out,then the managing entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of the PUD commitments. And I would suggest we add: As long as all the commitments are completed. MR.MULHERE: I don't think that is necessarily true. I mean,I'll defer to Nick.Because the homeowners association may still have responsibilities,ongoing responsibilities for some commitments. It might be monitoring. Right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that I understand.I'm talking about like your traffic mitigation and all the things that developers are responsible for before he turns it over to the HOA. MR.MULHERE: That's part of what this-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah,for the record,Nick Casalanguida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You feel this covers your concern? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It does. Because the Board reviews close-out. So the Board of County Commissioners has the opportunity to decide when it's closed out. If there are commitments,they can note that at the close-out portion of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that works. We're still up to Page 40. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's give Cherie'a break, since she was so nice today. So let's come back at 10:35 after she has some time to rest her fingers. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you,Ray. Welcome back from our break,everyone. We left off on Page 40. We're taking five pages at a time. The next five pages have mostly to do with the utilities situation out there. It's through Page 45. Page 23 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.McLean,are you in charge of utilities out there? MR.McLEAN: I'm certainly not in charge of utilities. However,as a civil engineering professional,we design those sorts of facilities,yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are you--I assume that if this goes--if this goes forward,that you have the capacity for everything? MR.McLEAN: Well,much like any other utility site,capacity is driven by the number of units that need to be served by that capacity. So for today's mechanism,the Orangetree Utility Plant,just like the Collier County Plant continues to upgrade and expand their particular parcels and networks to include additional units as they're ready to come on-line,that sort of thing. More like a concurrency issue,if you will. The particular Orangetree utility site today has the ability to continue to expand on its existing site of 28 acres to certainly service not only additional units and commercial it's asked for today here,but more of the greater area within that network. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And who are you servicing now besides Orangetree? MR.McLEAN: I actually have a utility service map, if you could just give me a quick second here. In general,to answer your question,Twin Eagles is within the Orangetree service area,Orange Blossom Ranch,the PUD adjacent to this. A couple of residents along 33rd Avenue,which is a connection between point Twin Eagles and the Orangetree PUD. That's the general for service area. But I'll get the service area maps and throw them up here for you so you can-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,no. I remember reading in the paper a while back,and this was quite a while back,that there were problems. Have those been fixed? Have you had any complaints,or are the people happy with the utilities out there? MS. SAUNDERS: Burt Saunders for the record. The utility--there were some issues a couple of years ago. Those have all been corrected.There are an occasional complaint;typically it's a billing complaint,it's not a quality of service complaint. And in terms of the additional units in the additional commercial,you can't get a certificate of occupancy unless there's water and sewer service available. So that mechanism is in place to make sure that service is available for any units that are developed. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. What is the capacity to date;do you know? MR.McLEAN: The current water capacity is 750 gallons a day. The current wastewater capacity is 600,000 gallons a day. Operational for those two numbers. However,the wastewater section of that is permitted for expansion,and it is currently under an expansion to go to 1.1 million gallons a day. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,we're on Pages 40 through 45. Does anybody else have any questions on those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Pages 45 to 50? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,I've got some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --cleanup questions. I'm not sure where they fall,and I haven't found references to these,which were changes that were provided to us at the last meeting,Mr. Saunders.And if they're in there,if these commitments are in there,just point me to them. And the first is limiting outdoor dining 6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. Is that specified in the PUD? MR.MULHERE: It is. It's under the neighborhood commercial district. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay,I just missed it. And limiting the amplification devices as well? MR.MULHERE: Yes,that's also in there. It's on Page 20,paragraph 14. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. All right,very good. And then I'm just going to go back to construction. MR.MULHERE: Yeah. Well,there were two outstanding, security and--I have the construction language I Page 24 of 78 October 20,2011 can offer,let me do that real quick. What we thought was that we'd put a condition under transportation,I assume. But it says,construction access road shall be developed on either or both of the future access points off Oil Well Road or Randall Boulevard. These construction access points will be used for the new construction tracts east of the existing access off of Randall Boulevard. So pretty much everything east of that existing access point. The existing Randall Boulevard access point will be used for completing infill parcels within the project not otherwise accessible,and predominantly to the west of the existing access point. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay,a couple of questions then. And a resident approached me during break and he brought up a very good point.I understand that at this point that the maintenance of the internal roadways are the responsibility of the residents in some shape or form? MR.MULHERE: I don't know the answer to that.I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,are you a--they're not county roads,right? MR.MULHERE: They're private roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,and they're not CD--you're not a CDD, so you don't have your own municipality or you don't have an MSTU,which is special taxing district-- MR.MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --so yes,the HOA would have to be responsible for-- MR.MULHERE: But the question was the residents. And I think in some cases-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The residents are part of an HOA,aren't they? MR.MULHERE: No,I was only going to say,in some cases it's still the developer's responsibility,and in some cases it's not. That's-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well,on a pro rata basis. The concern being raised is you're going to have a certain amount of construction traffic over the internal roadway getting to that R-2 area that's-- MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --sort of isolated. And to the extent that that construction traffic causes damage to that roadway,can you folks make a commitment that it would be your responsibility to repair it? MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. And we'll see that the next time? MR.MULHERE: Yeah,I'll put that in--I'll put that somewhere in this. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I would also,going back to timing,I'd like to have more specificity here as to when you're going to open new construction access in terms of time. Like one month prior to the onset of any construction in the new areas-- MR.MULHERE: Oh,I understand. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --east,or what?Because lacking a timing consideration,or timing commitment-- MR.MULHERE: No,I understand. Perhaps what we'd say is prior to the issuance of any building permits for construction. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That would help. MR.MULHERE: You know,in that area that we're describing,that the access points--one or both of those access points will be available for construction traffic. But we can--that's a good point. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The objective is just to minimize,then eliminate construction traffic off of that-- MR.MULHERE: Off of the new--off of the main entrance. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: The existing access off of Randall and around through that new R-2. MR.MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay,thank you. Page 25 of 78 October 20, 2011 That's it,Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. Okay,we're on through Page 50. I guess I have a couple questions on Page 49. Since this is going to be the plan that gets recorded,the R-2 area to the west and the south side of Oil Well Road,I know that extends all the way over to where the R-3 abuts it. But the line of demarcation between R-2 and R-3 isn't really clear by following all those dots. It's not the map you have on here now,it's a little--I don't know, if you look in our packet,when they record them,the dotted lines,they all kind of get to look similar. And I'm(sic)just wanted to suggest that you place the R-2 in more areas to the east so that we're sure how far the R-2 goes to the east,that's all. I had tried to track this-- MR.McLEAN: This area here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,over in those areas,yeah,to the left of that pencil. In those areas in there where you've--over between the two GC's. But I suggest throw another R-2 or so in there so we know what parcels are. It will make it clearer for staff in the future. On that same map--yeah,that's what I was asking about,Bob. On that same map you still show that interconnection to Orange Blossom Ranch. At the request of the residents who were in here before,that was a concern. I think it's certainly a valid concern for security purposes. Do you have a reason why you left it on there? MR.MULHERE: I mean,I think that was requested by staff. And I think typically it's just to allow access to the commercial parcels without forcing people out onto the arterials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What commercial-- MR.MULHERE: That's not going to happen.Well,I know that's not going to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to a residential parcel. Orange Blossom Ranch and that--commercial is north of Oil Well Road. MR.MULHERE: We don't have a problem eliminating it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,Nick's shaking his head no, it doesn't make a lot of--let's just cross it out,then it solves another problem. MR.MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's just take the balance of the document,which is I think Pages 50 through 55 or--most of it's a legal description.The last few pages are buffers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the Oil Well neighborhood commercial,the section you show goes through the eastern boundary. But the intent would be to have everything from the property line to the left of that also on the southern boundary. And maybe just note that there somewhere. MR.McLEAN: Yes,that is correct. The only difference is going to be once you start to turn down on the south side down there that you won't be on a right-of-way at that stage of the game. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I think maybe some note from the property line to the left,the little arrow,say on southern boundary.Because the people that are living there will be looking across the lake. They probably don't want to look into the--just to make sure the wall and everything is there. MR.MULHERE: So let's make sure we understand,a note on this exhibit that indicates that it extends-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right,I think coming down,draw an arrow to the left and say add southern boundary or something. MR.MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,anybody else on the last five pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with Exhibit C. Sit down,Burt,I'm still trying to get Bob to answer questions. Sorry. Can you show me--it would have probably helped if on the map we had indicated where the buffers were going to go. And I can understand the buffer says this one is for neighborhood commercial Randall landscape buffered to residential. Now,is that--okay, so it's not the one along Randall Road,it's along the east side up against the residential. Page 26 of 78 October 20,2011 And the--are the walls going to be used then in the entire buffer? You're not limiting them--okay,so everywhere--so there's not an option,you're definitely going-- MR.McLEAN: No,there's no option. There's a wall on the entire east,with the exception where the roadway guts through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay,on the next exhibit it says the office commercial landscape buffer to residential. Now,on part of that parcel you have a right-of-way. Does that mean you're not putting the landscape buffer up there both at the entry--I understand where the entry might have to access the parcel. But you have a road going to the back. See that internal loop road to the back of the OC parcel before you get to the residential? Go to the right. Right there. Right along that roadway,are you putting a buffer in? MR.McLEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which buffer? MR.McLEAN: The one with the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the buffer that reads landscape buffer to residential also runs along that roadway section? MR.McLEAN: Yeah,anywhere where it abuts up to that residential section,correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,that's contradictory.If you--that OC-- MR.McLEAN: I understand your question. Yes,there's a difference between whether or not it's a lot versus whether or not it's a right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Is there a difference? Is there a difference in your scheme?So if the right-of-way is serving--is part of the R-2 district,then the right-of-way gets the same buffer as though it was up against a residential? MR.MULHERE: Say yes. MR.McLEAN: Yes,that's the intent. The only question--or clarification I got on there is the entry coming in there. There's not an intent to place it,a wall,through this section right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm more concerned about protecting the residential. MR.McLEAN: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason the question came up is at our last meeting you were going to look at buffers and setbacks in one regards to residential versus roads. And I want to make sure there's no confusion. Your setback when you have a residential lot for your commercial buildings is greater than if your setback is up against a residentially district road. Okay. The last one is neighborhood commercial Oil Well landscape buffer to residential. What does that mean? That's only going to be where then?Where would that buffer go? MR.McLEAN: That buffer runs along the eastern side of the neighborhood commercial and then turns down the southern-- MR.MULHERE: Right. MR.McLEAN: --section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you come back--and the last one is the mixed use utility landscape buffer to residential. This one would only go along that north edge? MR.MULHERE: Right. MR.McLEAN: That's correct. The section that abuts up the Waterways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by letter,arrow or something just show on the master plan where these buffers are going to go? MR.McLEAN: Yes. MR.MULHERE: And label them according to what exhibit it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That way down in the future no one's got to guess what your intentions were. Okay. Well,that gets us through the PUD.Did you have--I mean,we still have a lot of other--I still have a list of questions to go through to make sure we're consistent with things that were raised at the last meeting,kind of what Phil was getting at,he still had some questions. Page 27 of 78 October 20, 2011 I don't know if you want me to bring those up now? Okay,there was an issue about recreation areas. And I heard from citizens last time that there wasn't enough rec areas,the rec areas that are there aren't being utilized. What are your intentions with additional rec areas in relationship to the additional densities that you're asking for? MR.MULHERE: I think we did put on the record at the last meeting that we would be building separate amenities in the new area,the area to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you didn't put--you may have stated it,but as another attorney would say,if it isn't written down and recorded,it doesn't really carry weight. And that's--we know other land use attorneys who have taken that position. So I want to--I didn't see it anywhere in the documentation,nor did I see on the plan where you intended to put it. I did notice up in the far northeast corner,right there you've got an empty tract of land that could be utilized for a park,a tot lot,something. But I don't know what your intentions are,you don't cull stuff out. So we need to get that down on paper. You can do it next time if you want to bring it back. MR.MULHERE: We'll bring it back,we'll show the location. And if we need to add a specific condition, we can do that as part of the general commitments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the same time,I'm not sure if the rec area is going to be configured in a manner that it's also a park. Because you have different--rec areas sometimes are buildings that are designated for club usage,for common areas for the community,and that may be a need.And there are also park areas that are needed for internal, like tot lots and things like that. Most PUD's come in with a--they call them linear parks, different things--I haven't seen any place down here so I don't know where you're planning to put them. Unless the SP is going to double as that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask. MR.MULHERE: So I think I heard what you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. MR.MULHERE: This is a design,a preliminary design of a recreation area. Matt,why don't you speak to the issues? There is some--there are some open play areas on that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR.McLEAN: This is a design area. And actually the location,Mark,which you identified that's up in this corner right here in that open area parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,if you labeled that as something to do to meet the needs that have been requested,it would probably go a long way to help explain how you're going to meet those needs. Because up until I asked the question,I didn't fmd that reference anywhere. MR.MULHERE: Yeah,we'll do that. Future amenity site and park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,but call it a recreation park facility,whatever you--try to be a little--the more descriptive you are,I would think the better it would provide the clarity you need for the residents there. So-- MR.MULHERE: Yeah,we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Crosswalks and safety at the new intersections on Oil Well Road. I know it's not your responsibility to install those,but I had asked transportation staff to provide us with any information they had on how they were going to make sure the kids that live in the south part of Orangetree safely cross the road to the north part. I understand there's been some concern out there with--I actually met with the residents and they told me there was a concern. So how--is anybody planning to address that,or how-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner,for the record,Nick. That question was not brought to my attention, so I wasn't prepared to answer that today. John is not here. But I can probably at the break look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,at the consent hearing could you-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --bring that information? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a lot of discussion about an additional HOA for the new area. And I think you said you're going to do that. Where in the document did you say you were going to do that? Page 28 of 78 October 20,2011 MR. SAUNDERS: Mr.Chairman,we were under the impression from our last discussion that that type of commitment should not be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,it shouldn't be. But I don't know what we can do to make sure that you do it. So I'm trying to figure out some way we can get the commitment--in the past,and I think Olde Cypress was the prime example,we had the developer go back with the community,work out an agreement with the community and come back and everybody acknowledge they worked it all out. And it was outside the document but there was something else done to work out the point that there was going to be separate entities working on separate things within that community as a means to get through the process. Now, it's not a requirement,but you--I thought you had said you were going to do that and I thought the residents had indicated they wanted it,so-- MS. SAUNDERS: Between now and the consent we will work with the community to come up with some binding document dealing with the additional homeowners associations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The security points,we're going to address that between now and the time-- MR. SAUNDERS: I think we can address that right now,because obviously that's a very important item. And Mr.McLean can point out on the site plan locations for two internal gates. And I want to put on the record,I was a little concerned,and what gave us actually a great deal of concern was the statement from transportation that by putting the gates in there that would violate Growth Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 9.3,because it would negate the allowance for internal capture reductions in the Traffic Impact Study. If there is any reduction in internal capture,it would be diminimous at most. And so we feel that we can go ahead and put those gates in,with the understanding that it's not going to require us to do another Traffic Impact Study,it's not going to affect those calculations. And I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick,are you comfortable with that? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And for the benefit of the owners here,you're trying to look at a project that is being retrofitted. And if this was a unified project,we would not recommend approval with all those kind of internal gates. But we recognize for your concerns that you're trying to protect yourself,so we have no issue with what you're trying to do with the developer to secure those gates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your two points of access,both of them are--I'm wondering,I need to understand them. The one to the south. You have a gate off of Randall Boulevard right now. Now,that--why wouldn't you put your black dot to the right of that T instead of to the left?Because the gating is supposed to be for the new section being created that many folks suggested why don't you just make it a new PUD,keep it separate?Although that's something that would be real difficult to do. MR.MULHERE: Actually I think their concern is that they're not the access into--access other than residents,guests and invited folks into their portion of this PUD. So they want those gates--we're not the ones asking for the gates on the new portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that surprises me,because if there's a gate there which is to the east entrances to the R-2 section,there's no gates on the other sections,are there? Off of Oil Well and off of Immokalee? MR.MULHERE: They'll be a gate at any point--if you think about it,there's two issues here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've only been--the only gates I've--the only place I've come through for that development is always to the south,so I'm not familiar with that-- MR.MULHERE: There is only one way right now,and that's that main entry,which is gated. There's a couple of issues. There's the overall issue of security. We're meeting with the residents;we're trying to work through those issues about,you know,how people make reservations to play on the public golf course. Those are just really operational issues that deal with security. As far as entry into the project,every external access point,point of ingress and egress,will be gated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't realize that. That's fine. Now, I understand then why--okay,the dot to the north,those two cul-de-sacs that pull--yeah,both of them are--well,one's not a cul-de-sac.That connection point shouldn't be a T. You should move the T further to the east,I would think,yeah. That would make it a cleaner way to get to your gate without having a multiple intersection to deal Page 29 of 78 October 20,2011 with. Okay. Anyway,I have no problem now,understanding why it was chosen there. And I think if that's what you're putting on the record is where you're going to put the security,do it on your fmal master plan and we'll be in good shape. MS. SAUNDERS: That is correct,Mr.Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The absorption schedule. We talked about it before. And as we explained before,it would be one that would be an estimated absorption schedule,but it would be more for the use of the planning department to kind of make sure they stay in tune with the rate of development out there. So do you have any--last time I thought we agreed you're going to provide one. Is that still something you don't have an objection to? MS. SAUNDERS: We don't have an objection to providing an absorption schedule,as long as it's a plan that's flexible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Bruce Anderson had the same problem,and he loved all that flexible language he added,so-- MS. SAUNDERS: So with that,we have no problem with the absorption schedule. And I'm not sure we have one that's been finalized. MR. MULHERE: Is that visible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So the current year would be 2011,and then you just add the years after that. And so that in five years you plan to put in some of the commercial,a few hundred more of the units and then that's how you're marching forward. Okay. Nick,does that work for your planning purposes? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It's informational only and not regulatory. That works for my planning purposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Are you proposing that this go in the ordinance,or is this just going to be a supplemental sheet that will-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we do-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --provided in the backup? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we do Tuscany and the other one? Do you remember how that-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think it was supplemental-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: It was supplemental information only. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --I don't think we put it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that's all we're looking for. It's just a planning tool for Nick's offices. I mean, if they're in the document,they're written in such language it doesn't carry any weight anyway,so-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark,I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,ma'am,go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a little comment on that. You're starting from ground zero again and you're adding the 15 years. I know it's not important to the developer,but the people out there bought into a lifestyle,and they also bought into a time as to when things were going to happen. And you're coming before us now and you are saying we're going to scrap everything and start now at--right now you have 1,477 units. And you want to add 1,050 more;you brought it down 200.Can you--you're 653 short already on your 2,100.Can you justify all these extra units? MR.MULHERE: Well,I guess there's a couple of ways to define the term justify. Can we fit them on the site? Absolutely. Is there a market for them? Under the current conditions,no. Are we hopeful that the market will change sometime in the next,I don't know,two,three,four years?Yes,we're hopeful. If you're not prepared to respond to the market,you then have a three or four-year process to go through just to get able--just to be able to go out and build. So we're a little bit ahead of what we anticipate the market to be turning around. And we're fortunate to be able to be in that position because my clients acquired this land a number of years ago. As a result,they're able to be in that position. A lot of other people would not be able to be in this position. So,I mean,to answer your question,we're really not starting from scratch. We've done the best job that we Page 30 of 78 October 20,2011 can to make sure that we are protecting the existing rights of all of the existing residents out there. And maybe we didn't do--we didn't address all the issues up-front.We heard about them in public meetings,we heard about them here and we've been very responsive to that. So we're really not starting all over. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,the only reason I'm asking is because in looking over all these different papers,and we've got plenty of them to look over,going back to the vested area and everything,Bob,I also had found a letter that was for--to Mr.Jordney(phonetic)at the Davidson Engineering back in 2002. And I know that they wanted this vested. They did not want to be a DRI.To be honest with you,they would have been better off being a DRI,I think. But back in 2002 they already wanted another 1,900 units to bring the total to 4,000. And they wanted another 280,000 square feet to bring it to 340,000 square feet as far as commercial. And at that time that would have constituted a DRI. And as it turns out--this was in 2002,starting in 2003. As it turned out,what happened was they split the property and started Orange Blossom Ranch,which kind of took care of this.And they took the 1,600 units. And the 1,600 units at the time were just under the DRI threshold. They also got 200,000 square feet of commercial on 44 acres. People from--which community-- Waterways were excited because of the fact that they thought the 200,000 square feet out there would give them their grocery store,something they want. This is what we're hearing from everybody out there. Now there's one at Ave Maria,and of course 951 is where most of the people come right now.Everything is grocery store,grocery store,grocery store. That was done in 2004. This is many years later,and nothing,not one piece,has turned over on that land at all. On your land the only thing is E's. I mean,there's been nothing. And this was during the good years when the market was going crazy. You did not come back--and in the 2004 from the split it said you were going to come back in January and ask for about four or 500 more units. And Mr.Mudd said at the time,no,they're going to ask for 702 units so that the total will be 4,450,I believe it was. I can see why the people out there are having a little bit of a heartburn,because of the fact that they were hoping a grocery store was going to be there early,like 2005,2006. And the market was still going up,so they were happy to see that. The other thing is,these people bought into a special unit out there,which was a vested area,and in there it said that there would be a maximum of 2,100 homes. And so up until now when you're coming in for this PUD amendment,that was the same all the way through. So I can see where the people are upset. And it just turned out that they all happened to be single-family homes. Because I asked that question last time. Now you're trying to bring in another 1,050 and just add all kinds of multi-family and different units. You had that choice from'86 on,or'87 on,and you did not put in any multi-family.You did all single-family. And so people are--I live in a single-family community and there are many advantages to it. So it's not all bad. But I can see where the people are upset,because all of a sudden you're changing everything in this last document. Because up until you brought this forward to us now,they only expected 2,100 units. And that 2,100 units was supposed to be in 2,800 acres. And when you split off the 616 acres and they got 1,600,that brought it to 3,700. I think the people inside Orangetree were happy because of the fact that theirs was still only limited to 2,100. And now you want to change everything in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure if that was a question or a statement. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,I mean,can you explain the need? I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,that's what this whole two days of process was. MS. SAUNDERS: I guess a couple points. First of all, in reference to the number of units,the overall density on the units that my client's going to be developing turns out to be about 1.5 units per acre,which is a relatively low density project,for an overall project. We've done everything we can to isolate the new development area from the existing area. And we've now got approval in terms of the security gates to continue that separation. In the areas that the developer can currently develop that are adjacent to the existing single-family units,we have assured the property owners there that they're going to continue to have single-family units there. We've limited the size to a minimum of 1,250 square feet. We've changed the zoning to R-2,which is consistent with what is there. We've eliminated car ports. So we've done everything we can to make sure that in the existing area there is total Page 31 of 78 October 20,2011 compatibility with what is already there. In the new area there may very well be some multi-family. And there's nothing incompatible about having multi-family in a large development.You see it everywhere: Pelican Bay,pick a development,it's everywhere. There's nothing incompatible with that. In terms of the commercial,the two NC parcels and the OC parcel,those parcels are in a perfect location for commercial development. They're on Immokalee Road,they're on the other Oil Well and Randall. Those are perfect locations for commercial development for a grocery store and for other types of services that are important in those areas. Comparing that to Orange Blossom Ranch I think is comparing apples and oranges,if you will. I think that those parcels will be developed,there will be a grocery store there much more quickly.There are more rooftops out there. So I think that we've done everything we can to make sure that this new development area is compatible. Now,in reference to the DRI issue,we've got a letter from the Department of Community Affairs that indicates that this is not a DRI. And we've got staff recommendation of approval based on the Growth Management Plan in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And we've got plenty of information that we provided to you on the record that the maximum densities and intensities were not set in the settlement agreement. So there's nothing that we presented to you that is inconsistent with what the County Commission has done in the past and what can be permitted in this project. And so Mr.Chairman,I'm not sure if that addresses the issues,but I think that we've tried to address-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you say that the Orange Blossom Ranch portion of it,which is a different unit,that they will get their grocery store much quicker? MS. SAUNDERS: No, I don't believe so. I think that as soon as this PUD is approved,assuming it is approved,I think that there will be tremendous interest in those two NC parcels for a grocery store. It's in a better location in terms of transportation,and there are more rooftops out there. But that's a market-driven issue,that's not an issue that we can control or even the Planning Commission can control. That's something that's driven by the market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Burt,we left off on going through the PUD and going through questions we have. Diane's questions. And then anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any more presentation you want to present right at this point? MS. SAUNDERS: No,I think that covers our presentation,Mr.Chairman. We'll listen to the public comments and then we may have some response to that. Bob,do you have anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is there a staff report,Ray,any further than the one that was presented last time? MR.BELLOWS: Nothing new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,every--yes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: You're going to think I'm terrible,but I do have a couple of things here. I noticed when you went to put the--in here you're saying that you're going to add 67 acres.You're going to increase agriculture district by adding 67 acres,from 131 to 198. The maps don't show that. Because what you did to send into the state for your letter,it shows--which is August,2009 when you sent it in for your letter,it shows agricultural as 67 acres. So how many acres are you really adding? MR.MULHERE: We're not adding any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you guys have the letter that she's talking about? Because we-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,no,I'm just--them.If you're asking them questions from something,you should at least make sure they got the same thing so you can get your answer accurately. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The acreage just doesn't add up. MR.MULHERE: I don't know what the letter was referring to,but the acreage that we cite, 198.3, is the Page 32 of 78 October 20,2011 total amount of acres designated agriculture in this PUD. We're not adding anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same on the original? I'm going to pull it up right now. If it is,that would resolve the issue,I would think. MR.MULHERE: No,it's not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think the question is then what did you add to the 131 in ag.that wasn't on the original? MR.MULHERE: The question is about these acreages where there's a difference here than there was there. Like for example, 131 says approximate acreage of ag. But what we show is 198.3. MR.McLEAN: Yeah,to clarify that question,as we're going through this,there's 60 some plus acres of ag. lands that's effectively the canal section through here,the T canal section. It's not really necessarily developable, because it's effectively the stormwater management connection sections for within the overall PUD. Waterways drains out that way,the school boards drain out that way. And I believe--I think you're referencing the DCA binding letter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,I am. MR.McLEAN: I don't have that in front of me right here yet. But that DCA binding letter did not include trying to do any changes within that 63 acres of the ag. section in there through this piece. So-- MR.MULHERE: So when you add that T land to the 131,that gets you to 198. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,are there any more questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,Ray--members of the public that would like to speak,we're going to start with those of you that are registered and submitted slips to Ray. However,when that's finished,anybody else that still wants to speak would more--we'd like you to come up and let us know what you think. And at that time I'll call you up. We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes,although it's not a strict rule. And if you can avoid redundancy,that helps get the point across to us as well. Okay,Ray? And if the first speaker comes up to either one of the mics that's most convenient to you,that's fine. MR.BELLOWS: Troy Bish,to be followed by Kathleen Sullivan. MR.BISH: Good morning. I'm Troy Bish at 2212 Vardin Drive,Valencia Golf and Country Club. I'm requesting that--would you mind if I were to move over where I can show you some things on the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,go right ahead,that's fine. Either one. MR.BISH: I just want to give you a little clarification if I could to make sure we're all on the same page. As far as Valencia Golf and Country Club,as the panel--is the Board familiar with the exact outlay of our development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only to the extent of the documents provided for most of us. Some of us may have been out there. So by being exact,I'm not sure how to define that term. Where your house is,no. Where every other individuals live? No. MR.BISH: That's fine,you don't need to know mine is. MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Not yet. MR.BISH: That's right. Right now that's--this is Valencia Golf and Country Club. This area right now is Phase I and II. This area over here is what we're talking about expanding to the new units,which was what we referred to as always Phase III and IV. When we bought in there,that's the terminology that was used. This is Phase III and N that will be developed in future single-family homes comparable to what we have now in Phase I and H. There's no interconnectability(sic)between Valencia Golf and Country Club and the next development, which is Vanderbilt Lakes. Totally separate communities. I wanted to make sure that you're clarified on that where this outlay's at. Couple things we were discussing,and we have met with the Orangetree PUD petitioner and his staff,and they've been very willing to at least sit down and talk with us,and we appreciate that. Page 33 of 78 October 20,2011 Couple of issues that got resolved today was the interior security gates,which that's something we're excited to work with them on and put in place to see if we can come up to an agreeable resolution on that. The one issue we're still having a little bit of conflict with is the R-4 that they're still wanting to put in right here. Just more or less maybe a comfortability. We're not really sure what that final product's going to be or what it's going to look like. So we're still in question on that.We'd like to continue our discussions with them and maybe they can come to a better clarification on that. As you're aware of,the ones that have been in these last few meetings,we're still going through an HOA turnover,which is scheduled to happen November 9th where we will be forming our own board and we'll be able to have one voice when we come and speak in front of you and the County Board of Commissioners. At this point we don't have that. The one thing that was mentioned earlier that they agreed upon was in this off Double Eagle they talked about when--they had 1,000 square foot minimum. When they came out to meet with us this last time,what we were requesting was a 1,500 square foot minimum along Double Eagle. Right now our smallest home in our development is 1,560 square feet,I believe. Goes up to 4,400 square feet. So we felt that was more compatible number is a minimum of 1,500. What they've agreed to with their petitioner is 1,250 square feet. So we're still at a little bit of a gap there as far as what we're comfortable with and what we're looking for to have as far as a minimum square footage. And I'll point to that area again. It's in this new tract that's going to be part of our HOA. That's going to be a separate HOA from this new development. Next thing I'd like to talk about is the timeline of this new development and their amenities and when they're going to be coming in.Right now in our community we have one pool,and that's by our clubhouse. And that's in this area right here,which is in front of the existing golf course pro shop. Behind our clubhouse is our pool.And what we were concerned about was if this new development comes in and they don't have amenities,that they're either going to be requesting to use our amenities or they're going to do it without our permission. So along with their agreement to put in amenities for their new development,I'm wondering if there can be some sort of attachment to after a certain amount of COs,after a certain amount of permits are pulled that there can be some sort of a timeline of when their amenities start to have to appear for that new development. The clubhouse lease,I want you to get a picture of this,because if you haven't been to our neighborhood. And I don't have an aerial view of our development. But where our clubhouse is is right past their Approach Road. As we come through the guard gate now we have around a 5,000 square foot clubhouse with a pool. What the petitioner has behind us is his private--not his private,but his privately owned,which is the public golf course,which is a temporary double-wide sales trailer that he's using as a pro shop now. Which we've been told that they're going to be tearing that down at some point and putting up their own clubhouse. So within 100 yards from each other we're going to have dual clubhouses;our clubhouse for our association and then 100 yards away would be the clubhouse for the golf course,if that plan stays put. Just so--and I'm just trying to give you an overall layout of what this development's looking like and what it's going to end up looking like. We're in a David and Goliath situation,and we're all speaking as individuals at this time. We do appreciate your Board and your panel and your expertise on this to help guide us through and make sure the clarification is done. Because a lot of this we're not familiar with the verbiage,we're not familiar with the one dot two's and the three dot O's,just like you were referring to earlier,Mark,about your--the books that have those definitions in there. I doubt if any of us are really going to take the time to do that,so we do lean upon you as a board to help walk us through that and make sure that this final product is something that is a benefit to the residents,along with the petitioner,and that we can have a harmonious relationship in the future. So I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a couple of points.When we fmish with public speakers, some of these will be asked of the applicant. One thing I wanted to point out,I just checked and the--your R-2 area that you live in around the golf course isn't all built. Besides the piece that they're shaded in on this plan,sections of that piece to the west is cleared and the roads are put in,but no units are there. You do realize that any of those units could go in at 1,000 square feet. The current PUD is R-2,is 1,000 square feet minimum size unit. So by them going to 1,250,that seemed to be above what was even required on Page 34 of 78 October 20,2011 existing parcels. Am I wrong in that assumption? I know what they built. What they built was what the market dictated. But I just kind of wanted to make a note to you that if my reading of the original PUD is correct,they wouldn't have to do 1,250 anywhere else but that R-2 that's shaded in. Is that how you understand it? MS.BISHOP: No, it's not. I'd have to refer back to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,maybe one of you guys from the applicant,can you tell me? MS. SAUNDERS: Under the current PUD,units could be as small as 750 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,R-2 detached-- MS. SAUNDERS: We had agreed to go to 1,000 at one point,and then we agreed to go to 1,250. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 13 of your PUD under development standards for R residential areas,it has R-2 detached. Is that the product that is in the current facility now? MS. SAUNDERS: Okay. I apologize,you're correct,it's 1,000 square feet now,and we're going to 1,250. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now,what I was trying to say to you is 1,000's all they've got to do on the areas that still are not built. By them going to 1,250,I know you were wishing 1,500,that's still a lot better than what they've got to do under the current PUD for the remainder of those areas. So,I mean,I just wanted to point that out to you that the 1,250 is still a jump above the 1,000,so-- MR.BISH: And are you--if you look at the map,are you referring to these-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.BISH: --cul-de-sacs that are undeveloped at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those could all go in with 1,000 square foot units. MR.BISH: If that's the way it's worded,I guess that's the way it's worded. It's been-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. MR.BISH: That would be extremely incompatible with the homes that are existing through here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,and I'm not saying you're wrong in what you're asking. I'm just trying to show you that the level of what they've gone to get to the 1,250 is a good level. I mean,it's better than it was. Because right now the remainder,they could do 1,250's in the R-2 that are shaded,and all that other area that's across the street could still go in at 1,000. Even you wouldn't like that,that's--now,I don't know what they've got planned for there,but that's all they would have to do. So I kind of wanted to point it out to you. MR.BISH: Thank you. And what we would be asking for then is a minimum of 1,500 throughout the existing phases of I and II. These cul-de-sac lots that are undeveloped,they're already plotted for single-family homes,and this area here is what we're looking for. In the new R-2 of a minimum of 1,500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the new RD that wouldn't--is all that that isn't platted. It would only be that shaded area. The platted areas you can go back and change the square footages on them,because they're already platted. But see the R-2 that's shaded down this side? That's the area that they're talking about,the 1,250. And where you're talking 1,500. MR.BISH: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay,next speaker,please? MR.BELLOWS: Kathleen Sullivan,to be followed by Barry Sullivan. MRS. SULLIVAN: My name is Kathleen Sullivan and I live at 1537 Birdie Drive. And I purchased my home just over a year ago in a single-family neighborhood. And I just wanted to say that since all this has come to light,I have realized a few things that I was never disclosed. I was a real estate agent for over 10 years,and I understand disclosure. And the Orangetree developers failed to disclose they own the lakes,they own the access roads,they own the drinking water,they own the sewage system. And they own the land our clubhouse is built on. And in my opinion,at a minimum,this demonstrates systematic bad behavior on the part of Orangetree. This behavior should not be rewarded by amending--by approving this amendment. And I wanted--I had a question, I don't know who to give it to,but my question is,are they going to split the existing entrance that we have now off of Randall Boulevard for this new area?It's quite a long entrance,and that was one of my questions. Page 35 of 78 October 20,2011 And the other question I had, if somebody could get back to me on,is they're multi-family homes. You said no carports. Will there be garages? Will there be parking lots? And that's pretty much-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,for your two questions--up here,hi. I know the voice goes through these speakers,you never know where they're from. As far as the entrances go,they're showing a new entrance on Randall to the east. That's got to be approved yet,but that is one--that's another entrance that is being shown. And as far as the carports,that was in reference to the R-2 shaded section on the plan,not the multi-family. So on the multi-family,that limitation doesn't necessarily apply. The multi-family occurs in the new area to the east. There's only one section of multi-family R-4 left on the property. It's narrowed down to a very small parcel compared to what it was. So,okay? MRS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just one question. Did you purchase a resale or did you purchase from the developer? MRS. SULLIVAN: I purchased from the developer. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: Barry Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Barry Sullivan,and Mr.Chairman,Commissioners,I will not repeat my objections that I already went through in my previous statement at the previous meeting of the Board. I would like to add that based on proposed changes to the amendment,I'm still very much opposed to the approval of this. The changes proposed by Orangetree do not mitigate the underlying concerns and as such would not justify surrendering our legitimate property rights and concerns as property owners. However,I will add that I have heard some discussion today about security and HOA issues that,depending on the outcome of those resolutions,we might be able to feel better about this and change our position. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: The last speaker,Tony Pezza. MR.PEZZA: Good morning,how are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Good. MR.PEZZA: I was disappointed that an evening meeting could not be arranged so that our large turnout of our HOA at our clubhouse could not be here today. I just find it kind of awkward that the Board cannot find time as to our nighttime schedule to address such an important issue as it is to us,so we have such few folks here. With 13 percent unemployment in Collier County,a lot of people feel the need to get to their job on a regular basis. I'm also equally disappointed that the Board has not felt it in their heart to grant us a continuance which we asked from the very start.Legal matters such as the verbiage in contracts that say whether it's 1,000 square feet or 1,250 square feet,what was the minimum,there's a lot of legal issues that as residents we really don't have the knowledge to stand here and protest and--I always was a firm believer that someone should be granted the right to legal counsel,whether it's at a planning board meeting or whether it be in a court of law. And the fact that the Board did not grant us a continuance I think is sort of you're acting on our behalf as our attorney,but I think we'd feel more comfortable spending the money and hiring our own. And no insult,but I think we would feel more comfortable if we had our own counsel to look over these documents. And the fact that a continuance was not granted I think is a huge disadvantage to the residents of this community. I'm going to go back to the--from the start.And when I moved in here,I did due diligence and I found out that--I was under the impression that this once protected land,that there was a settlement agreement that capped this out at 2,100. Somebody tells me a judge put a stamp on a piece of paper and said that this is going to be capped out at 2,100 units, I took it to believe that that was the case,that capped out means capped out,that no further development could be added to it. So maybe I'm,you know,thinking from my North Jersey experiences,but I don't understand and I still don't understand how something like this cannot be changed or can be changed by commissioners or a planning board and not a judge. I'm just boggled at the fact that there's a settlement agreement that has been altered multiple Page 36 of 78 October 20,2011 times,as Diane had elated(sic)to. This went from one acre to a half acre and now it's down to multiple family dwellings. Well,then why did the judge put a stamp on this and approve this back in 1985? I don't understand that. So maybe if we have to--you know,once we're organized a little better,then we might have to go and look at that route or avenue to find out what our legal responsibilities and rights are. You have to--if we sound skeptical in front of these gentlemen,it's only because they have nobody to blame but themselves. We're in the process of a turnover and we find out just recently that their developer is turning over the association to us supposedly on the 9th after multiple waffling back and forth. But they're turning over an association to us that's over$100,000 in debt. So that's another issue that we find absolutely--if we're skeptical and we come across as being coarse or callus,we didn't mean to inherit this kind of debt on an association. To me their developer did nothing more than keep the maintenance fees artificially low over a long period of time just to sell homes. And the attraction of a low maintenance fee was what sold homes. You get this,you get this, you get this,you get this,you get this. Well,the fact of the matter is that we are so far in debt that our fees immediately after the turnover are going to have to go up. And I think that should be brought out at this public meeting as far as our scepticism with Orangetree and their developer. Security issues I'd like to talk about. They did acknowledge the fact of gates. Well,we have a gate in the front of Approach,and I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not,we have a gate that when it opens up,it takes a half an hour to close and probably 30 or 40 cars could go through. Of course I'm being facetious,but the gate is not a gate. It's not a gate that manually closes in between each car. And I would hope that any gates internally within our community are going to be gates that can be closed in between each and every vehicle and gates that will be adjusted as people come in and out of our community. The first speaker who spoke at 9:00,she had to go to work,this woman took a lot of time to be here for a three-minute sentence. And I hope you appreciate the fact that there's a lot of people missing work to come here and try to stand up for our community. There has to be,and I would guess,3,000 clickers on residents,short sales,foreclosures,renters that are still out there. That the gate code has never been changed. There's clickers out there. And then when there's vandalism at a clubhouse,their security answer is to lock us out.If your son broke a window,are you going to lock him in his room for a month? They've locked us out for six months on property that we pay for,we maintain,and if we're one day late on an insurance payment,his contract said that he can take that land back. I had no idea. He's talking about disclosure. I had no idea that this land,our facilities are built on a leased property. Which brings up an interesting point. Is the new recreation facilities going to be a lease that people have to worry about? Is it going to be a lease/purchase? Is it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know,this is a zoning board. MR.PEZZA: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of the issues you just spoke about have nothing to do with issues we can be involved in. They're not zoning. MR.PEZZA: I understand that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know,but I'm just trying to let you know,you're trying to make points in regards to the issues you want to make. It's not within our jurisdiction. It's for another board, it certainly isn't ours. We can't MR.PEZZA: I understand it's not for your board,but it's interesting to find out why we're skeptical as residents of what has transpired since we have been in this community. Mr. Saunders stated--we had a meeting at our clubhouse six weeks ago,and I want this on the record,that he stated that they would not be--as the result of any new development in Phase III,that there would not be any added assessments or impact fees. There was 150 people in the room that heard that statement,and I just want it on record. There seems to be--Phil brought it up--excuse me,I can't read your last name,but he brought it up and-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: It's Irish. MR.PEZZA: --I would really like to somewhere on the record be--the dates of this access road for the construction of Phase III be built prior to any permits being given out. We cannot have the construction vehicles coming in Approach. So that second road off of Randall east,the second entrance,if we could put some sort of a Page 37 of 78 October 20, 2011 verbiage in writing that that road will be completed prior to any permits being given out,because then you're just going to have that many more construction vehicles coming in and out Approach,which is already a pretty heavy traveled road. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next speaker,Ray? MR.BELLOWS: No other have registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the audience like to speak,just come on up to the microphone one at a time. Andrew? MR.McELWAINE: Thank you,Mr.Chairman.Andrew McElwaine, speaking for myself today. I made The Conservancy's point last time. I won't reiterate them,they're on the record. There's been a lot of discussion about the old settlement agreement,and I just want to--and in fact,it may be outside of a pure zoning issue,and so it may be ultimately be something that you decide is not correctly within your jurisdiction. However,I do want to put to bed some of the discussion about it. Because ultimately the old settlement agreement is a form of contract. And contracts can be broken,contracts can be ignored. And the only question then is who has rights under that contract,and what rights and how do they claim their rights. So under the old settlement agreement the first question would be are the individual homeowners either A,by virtue of being property owners successors to Golf American Corporation with rights under the old settlement agreement,or are they B,third-party beneficiaries with rights under the old settlement agreement which they can put forward? The next question of course would be was there any damage. Assuming they have any standing under either of those two cases,then the next question would be were any damages suffered as a result of not abiding with that old contract,that old settlement agreement. If so,can those damages be monetized in some way or a claim be asserted that a judge could act upon,such as--I would suggest again,getting past the issue of standing,do the owners have standing. Then the next issue would be okay,diminution in property values,extra traffic,monetizing that time. How would you then give the judge something to rule on in terms of your damages or not having that contract followed? And of course another issue might be with Orange Blossom having been pulled out as a separate PUD, should that density--do they have action already,given that that density was not deducted from the 2,100? So those are all judiciary questions that may not directly apply to the issue of zoning before you,but I do think you should have the full information on that,or at least the opinion and the opinion of several lawyers that have been consulted on this. And so if you're going to put the taxpayers'chips down on the roulette wheel, is it fixed in your favor,or as Clint Eastwood might say,do you feel lucky? Because if the homeowners don't have standing under the old settlement agreement,and if there are no damages that can be monetized,then the taxpayers are free and clear,they don't have to worry about these good people. If on the other hand they do have standing,they do have a legitimate claim and they can monetize it,then the taxpayers could be on the hook for some cash. So those are some things you need to be aware of. Again,they may not be specific to your zoning decision, and I understand that. There will be things that commissioners should know. And I expect at some point there will be a case filed under this to try and see if a judge could resolve those issues ahead of time and so that everybody knows what they're buying into here and we're not putting the taxpayers' chips down and spinning the wheel. Thank you,Mr.Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Andrew,you had raised the question to me once before on the settlement agreement. And I went through that agreement to-- MR.McELWAINE: You mentioned it the last time. I was listening. Page 38 of 78 October 20,2011 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the settlement agreement clearly refers to the exhibit that's attached as a document that is part of it. And that exhibit is the original PUD. The original PUD does provide for amendments to the PUD. Since the settlement agreement was enacted, there's been a series of binding letters issued,trying to define what is vested and how far the vesting can go within that settlement agreement. Then we had our GMP incorporate the settlement agreement by reference. In that reference it was incorporated into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I went through all that trying to figure out this cap that everybody seems to think is the cap,the 2,100 units. And I found just the opposite,that clearly it didn't--it wasn't a cap, it was an amount that was vested as a cap. But above that,and let me read the language right from our GMP,and the GMP is what dictates this Board's actions: Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this district--and the district and clause is the settlement area--will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above referenced vested status. I need to understand what your argument is as to why you think that that vesting maximum becomes a maximum in contrast to the language that I just read. MR.McELWAINE: The question becomes really beyond what you've just read. It is an issue of state law regarding contract and common law regarding contract. And sure,you can amend a PUD.The question is,who does the amending? And if all the parties to the contract are not party to the amendment,then you're opening yourself up. So again,it's not a question--and I understood,as you noticed I referenced at the outset,this may not be an issue for zoning.However,it is an issue of contract law. And contract law and 1,000 years of British common law have a higher legal standing than the Growth Management Plan. So again, I understand that you need to operate within the limits that the Board has given you,and you are justified in doing so. I think these issues do need to go before a judge,and I suspect they will be going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,thank you. I appreciate it,Andrew. Next speaker,please? Sir,come on up. I'm sorry,he called everybody that was registered,so come on up. Heidi,did you want to comment on something? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know whether you want my comment or not,but the law-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always like your comments. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --does not support contract by zoning,and it does not support contracting what-- your zoning powers. So I'm really not concerned about the legal defensibility of going forward and exercising the-- the Board of County Commissioners exercising their zoning powers. So in making your determination today,you need to be looking at the criteria that our LDC looks at for PUD's and rezones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I was just trying to under--I have a great respect for Andrew and the work he does and that's why I was trying desperately to understand his reasoning. I do understand his reasoning,but that doesn't change the perspective of this board in the sense that we have obligations that are dictated to us by the GMP and the LDC. And I understand those are what we have to go by. Okay,sir. MR.ANDERSON: Good morning. Howard Anderson, 1690 Double Eagle Trail,Valencia Country Club. First of all,I want to commend the panel committee. I didn't realize you guys were all volunteers,and you're doing a good job and I respect that,that you have to sit and listen to both sides of the story and make a good decision as to do what to do and what's in the best interest of the community,investors and the residents. I appreciate that. And Pm sure every one of you owns a house and you take pride in ownership. You did your due diligence when you purchased your house. You asked the questions that we spoke about earlier,you know,what is this neighborhood going to look like,what are we buying into. And we look at plats and we do all the things that everybody does when they want to buy a house. I'm a little concerned about the timing of this whole thing,to be honest with you. As you've heard from Troy, who isn't here right now,we're going through a change in homeowners association.With that it's been very difficult to get legal advice in some areas to understand what the limits are under a PUD,which I don't understand,versus what we have our rights of as residents,property owners of Valencia Country Club. Page 39 of 78 October 20,2011 And I would urge the commission to put everything on hold until this gets done. Then we can come as a whole and try to understand it. But that may not be possible. We go back to the beginning of why did we buy in that neighborhood? You know,I think there's a lot of-- you brought up today,just now,I didn't even know this,but you had said-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,if you--I'm sorry,but you need a portable mic,because everything has to be on record,so Ray will get you one. MR.ANDERSON: You actually brought up a great point today. Our house is roughly somewhere--our house is approximately right here,right across from the R-2. And that was a question. But when we went there,we asked questions of our realtor,of a developer,et cetera,what is this master plan community going to look like. And they explained to us that--you know,they showed us the houses all were 1,500 square feet or above.This is Phase I and II. Phase III and IV they didn't really talk about. But now from what you had just told us,apparently the houses in this area that are undeveloped right now can be as small as 1,000 square feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,sir. MR.ANDERSON: Okay. So who's held accountable for showing us,telling us what this community is going to look like and now all of a sudden be put under a PUD,quote,rezone and destroying the commonality of what the houses are now versus what the houses are going to--well,multiple family homes or whatever it's going to look like. The last question I think I'll ask is on a statement today,and I think you had it,Mr. Saunders,I think you had right about--yeah,right here. What is that going to be exactly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,sir,you can't direct your questions to them. That is on-- MR.ANDERSON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean,there's several different product that could go in there. But the difference between that parcel and the others is that one parcel could have what's called a multi-family product. The multi-families could go up to three stories. That's the biggest difference between it and most of the others. Everything else is limited to two stories. The density's a little higher,they could go a little smaller. But that's the only parcel that's unique with that classification. MR.ANDERSON: But in our last meeting that we had,did we not talk about--I think he had wanted to put a hotel there originally? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not there. But they wanted to have 100 resort lodging units. Those have been eliminated. Those are no longer being--that's no longer on the table. MR.ANDERSON: Then I'm missing something. It may be that somebody forgot to do it. On your announcement,advertised public hearings,under number nine, 100 units may be resort lodging. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. When the advertisement's done, it's done for everything that would be possibly discussed at the meeting.Through the public process things do change,and hopefully they get to the better. I mean,if you look at the way the project started to where we are today,there's been a lot of changes. And that happens through the public process. But the advertisement,to let you know what could have happened there,and had you folks not shown up and objected to it and the developer not had any negative comments,he may have gotten 100 units in lodging. But the fact is,over the process in public that has evolved,those have been dropped. Those are no longer requested. MR.ANDERSON: Those are off the board then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. That's pretty much all I had to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your question about the use of 1,000 square feet,the lots around you are probably platted,so I think you're safe in the sense that they're platted at whatever they were intended to be. The piece across the street that could have been 1,000,they've agreed to do no less than 1,250. Now,they may do 15,they may do 2,000 square--who knows? But the minimum there is better than the minimum surrounding you. MR.ANDERSON: Understood. But I guess what I'm asking both of--for me to understand is you have Page 40 of 78 October 20,2011 Phase I and II,which included the ones off to the west that I show showed you. Those were never explained to us-- sorry,I'm looking at my wife on that one--to us as being anything less than what we were shown by the builder/developer. In this case,it was D.R.Horton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,D.R.Horton's intention may have never(sic)to build less. But in reality a different owner or somebody else or they themselves could have built less if they desired to. What commitments they made to you we have no control over. MR.ANDERSON: No. But we have a contractural agreement,whether it's expressed or implied,that says this is what this community is going to look like. This is what everybody buys in a gated community,a true gated community. You're buying a lifestyle or a certain way. And now to be told in the middle of this,oh,well,I forgot to tell you,it will actually be 750 square feet. After you've laid down 250,300, $600,000,and not even--it's one year that we've lived there. And now all of a sudden we're finding out we can have homes that aren't even close to what we live in. That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And unfortunately that rule has been on the books since this PUD was written back in'85. MR.ANDERSON: Well,maybe they should be unwritten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. It's being changed.But I'm saying,it has been there a long time.It's been public record. Unfortunately most buyers don't know where to find those things when they buy a home and they rely on their realtors to tell them what-- MR.ANDERSON: Well,we went to the public records,that's why we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,this was in public records. MR.ANDERSON: We did not see that zoning that small. That's my fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. MR.ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other speakers? Ma'am,come on up. MS.MILNE: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Milne. I live on 1716 Birdie Drive. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name,please? MS.MILNE: Milne. M-I-L-N-E. I want to thank the Board for hearing us. At this point,though,I think that we are at your mercy to make a good decision as to how this could even be addressed at this time, seeing that the economy is in this position. Yes,things have changed. Some of us have paid over a half a million dollars for our homes who are--we buy into a community that's single-family--excuse me. I'm a little appalled at the changes that have been made. And it leaves us in a place where we're not able to respond to those changes. Excuse me. I will probably have to send a letter,because I have too many notes here now. I came with a sheet of paper and I now have about four sheets in front of me,addressing a lot of the changes that are made. I don't know how--how do we rebut any of the changes that are made if we don't even understand them and we don't have the proper sources to find out this information? I called the zoning office this week. I spoke--I called six numbers,and I just wanted to know the definition of the R-4 and what exactly might be on the dockets to be put there in that one spot that's designated R-4. And nobody could explain to me what the R-4 would mean. I am a licensed real estate agent. Don't sell homes presently. I'd like to sell my own. I don't know how you can build such a plan or even have thoughts of such a plan when there's--I just found out the other day there's 69 people that aren't paying association dues,those of which we are going to have to carry the load and we don't have the money to do that. If there's 69 homes not paying dues,that means there's potentially 69 homes that may go into short sale or foreclosure. I can only wish the new developers good luck,because I don't know how you can proceed on developing places where there's 3,300 more residents coming in when we are in a position where we can't even do anything with our own homes. Irrelevant. That's my problem. Land use I guess is an issue. Land use is for highest and best interest. And it's for the community. I don't know where this is in our best interest,because it's conflicting with what we thought we had. Page 41 of 78 October 20,2011 As far as utility goes,the goods that are sold need to be put to good and--it needs to be sold for a useful purpose. I don't see any use if what's there is not being sold. We have no control over what we even have at this point. Looking at the demand issue of it,demand is I thought an economical issue. It's either a desire or a need. We don't need it. This is somebody's desire. And it's not going to benefit the homeowners that are there presently. As far as value goes,that's determined by an appraiser. The county appraisers have already appraised our homes,half of what I paid for my home. I don't speak for anybody else. So if it's worth half of what I paid for it,the open market doesn't at this point need this community to grow in any way at this present time,I don't think. There's a lot of things that are(sic)been mentioned today,and I just jotted down some things. There's an issue with utilities,the roads,the drainage,the sidewalks. The ingress and egresses out of Oil Well Road,last I counted, it looked like nine arrows where there's ins and outs on that road. That road right now doesn't accommodate what's there now. There looks like three more arrows coming in where there's going to be more exits and entrances. I think another thing you need to take into consideration is there are three schools there,an elementary,a middle and a high school. I'm glad that I just sent my last one off to college,so I don't have to worry about the young ones. But I do have--in consideration of the other children that are in that school,there's thousands of children in that school that are going to be crossing those roads and being transported on those roads that are now going to have construction vehicles once again going up and down. I own a home in Waterways,and I've been there since--I've been in this neighborhood since 2001. We were supposed to get a Publix in 2002. The Publix thing is kind of hysterical at this point.There's been a Publix on our area,down on Wilson,the new Wilson thing,now on our corner. I'm going to be rambling here,now,I'm sorry. You have a commercial area zoned for commercial on the corner of Randall and Immokalee Road. As far as I see by the public maps CVS now owns that corner,and I may be incorrect,but it shows public record--I think it's CVS owns that little point. And then Mr.Bolt owns the center part,and the bank owns the north end of that commercial area right there on that point. And I may stand to be corrected,I don't know,but where are we building all these things if there's only that little area in there? And that is also going to have to have an exit,and that exit,it showed an arrow going onto Immokalee Road. People that shop in there or going to be going to work in there won't exit that area if they had any common sense, because they could only go one way at that point. They will be using that Randall Road exit,which is going to cause another--I don't even want to mention Randall Road,it was so under water yesterday from a little rain storm that nobody could go past it anyway. So I don't know where all this building is going and who's coming in and who's buying. And I'm all for growth and management. I didn't come here to be set back the way I am. So I don't understand where the mentality is for growth at this point in time when the opportunity for growth was passed by. We're now in a downslide,and the market,if any economists are correct,and especially in our area, this isn't going to come back any time too soon. A lot of the people in the neighborhood bought without the knowledge of knowing that they needed to go to a public record. We buy thinking that the integrity of the builder is trustworthy,and it's been less than that. And I think that's an issue we have with the builder,so that's not your concern. But you need to go out to our community and see what we have there and where all this stuffs going,where all these amenities are going and all this extra stuff that's being added. We don't have the amenities that we were supposed to get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am,I need to ask you to start wrapping up,okay? MS.MILIAN: Yes,I will have to do this in writing. And I know that. I don't know where to start. I am all over the place with this. I have too many issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,but I think we understand your point,so-- MS.MILIAN: And I'll end at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we appreciate it. Thank you. MS.MILNE: Thank you for allowing me to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,ma'am. Okay, I believe that--anybody else wishing to speak? Sir? Two gentlemen,okay. Whatever one of you wants to come up. Page 42 of 78 October 20,2011 Are we doing okay,Cherie'? THE COURT REPORTER: Fine,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to wrap this up before we break for lunch. Were you sworn in,sir? MR. SEBOK: Yes,sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SEBOK: My name is Frank Sebok. I live on-- THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name,please? MR. SEBOK: S-E-B-O-K. I live on 2839 Orange Grove Trail. My only concern is that a lot of the residents/owners in our development are seasonal.And they not--most of them are not--I would say not aware of what's going on with that area and the area where they bought into. So if I could ask this board to postpone the decision to approve this PUD for the time being until all the people could be aware of what's going on and they can have their voices heard. So my--that's the only reason I stand here,to ask you to please consider this.Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you,sir. Next gentleman,and our last speaker. Were you sworn in,sir? MR.DAVIDSON: No,I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR.DAVIDSON: Robert Davidson. I'm not from New Jerry,I'm a Florida cracker. I live at 1444 Birdie Drive. And I'm one of the--well,there's eight more houses being built on Birdie Drive. I'm at the end of the development before the cul-de-sacs and the other areas up and around that area. It's underdeveloped,but it's plotted out. I just want to make sure that those houses that are going to be built there are going to be single-family homes and they're comparable to the homes on the street already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on the map where that--over by Ray that area in question? MR.DAVIDSON: Okay,right here is the road that is the one end of Birdie. And Birdie is a circle--is a horseshoe kind of road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The zoning on those--that area is still going to remain R-2. So it will be similar zoning to what you have now. As far as the size of the structures that are going to go there,they can put any structure in that the zoning allows and that they're platted for. And I just don't know what that is at this point. That's something outside the purview of this board. But your builder would build whatever size they want,as long as they don't go down below the minimum. MR.DAVIDSON: But wouldn't they have to be comparable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that is above the minimum is considered comparable. So if they've got a minimum of 750 or 1,000 square foot units now and they want to build 2,000's and 2,500's and then drop in 1,000, they can do that. MR.DAVIDSON: So they could have one type of architecture and a totally different kind of architecture? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. It's like you can a different color house. I mean,those are individual homes,so-- MR.DAVIDSON: Well,that's not what I bought into,but that's what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,most developments won't be developed like that. I don't know that any are. So there will be some--there is consistency as put on it by the developer,but-- MR.DAVIDSON: I understand. So we could have another developer that develops the property. But they're all single-family,correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to check your--but whatever the--I don't know what the--usually when an area's platted,it has to be for similar product in regards to the use. MR.DAVIDSON: They're all platted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you got a--you can't like have a village split between multi-family and single-family. Usually if you have an area that's platted,the plat has to be all of the same use. Now,whether that use Page 43 of 78 October 20,2011 is the same size or not,that's outside our control. MR.DAVIDSON: All right. But the minimum at this point is 1,250? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,the minimum in R-2 is 1,000. MR.DAVIDSON: They're requesting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Across the street in that one area of R-2,they're willing to go to 1,250. MR.DAVIDSON: Just in that one area in R-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR.DAVIDSON: Okay. The other thing I'm concerned about is all the entranceways and when they're going to open the egress and exits and entrances. That's a very--that's a big concern. Because if we're not given our security with gates,the construction crews can come in and out of there at will. So the concern is is the security in the gates. So that has to be in place before the construction takes place is my opinion. So if that could be addressed at the time,too. And the last thing that concerns me is the last R-4,the separation of that entity from the Valencia Golf and Country Club as it is now. It's not quite fmished,but will be finished. The R-4 is a separate entity and that maintains that separate-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's one single parcel is what they have for-- MR.DAVIDSON: But it will be annexed to that other development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's where it is on that plan. I mean,where it is is where it is. Ray,could you point to the R-4 on the plan so that the gentleman knows where that R-4 is going to go? MR.DAVIDSON: I know where that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,that's the only piece of R-4 on the property. MR.DAVIDSON: Well,I'm concerned that it's not going to become part of our homeowners association and it become part of the new homeowners-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that would be part--all that area to the east will be part of the new homeowners. And that is something that's going to be worked out before this is settled. MR.DAVIDSON: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Okay,do you have any rebuttal comments,Burt or Bob or Matt or any of you guys? MS. SAUNDERS: No,I think that,you know,there are a couple of issues that we're going to have to address when we come back. But as far as the public comment and the comments from the Planning Commission,we're satisfied with where we are now,unless you have some questions of us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark,I have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --a quick question.And just for the public. Ray,the schedule on this thing,today a decision will be made. In two weeks or the first meeting in November it would come back for us for consent. So what is the schedule of decisions before the Board? MR.BELLOWS: BCC hearing date? MR.MULHERE: Is December 13th right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words,December 13th it will be after their takeover date that it will go before the final decision-makers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah,this body just-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And that's a question I have for you,do you want to continue it and have the regular and consent heard at the same time at the next meeting,or are you going to--because there's still a number of issues to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to bring those issues up to Burt in this discussion when everybody else fmished. I was going to go through a list and see how it could be handled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right,thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been trying to take notes as we went through the document,Burt,and I was Page 44 of 78 October 20,2011 trying to get some of the notes from the public. And we have about a half a dozen or so issues that I--or maybe more that might need clarification. For example,the timing of when the construction entrance would be open for that R-3 section. We need to tie it to something. One suggestion was before any building permits were issued,it just needs to be done so that it gets tied to something in the document. MS. SAUNDERS: And we'll bring back something that does just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There needs to be a note added to the--about the setback for the MU/U in regards to the Waterways site. These are just things that aren't on the plan. I still have a whole list of things that we've still already noted. Discussion on the crosswalks,I think staffs going to provide us with that to make sure that there's some opportunity to make sure the crosswalks are going to be installed like they need to be. The timing of the new recreation and park area. I think you showed us a schematic of it to the northeast corner. We need to get the timing nailed down on when that's going to be built. MS. SAUNDERS: We have no problem with the location. We may have a little bit of an issue in terms of timing. We'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I mean, I'm not asking you for an answer now. I'm suggesting these things need to to get resolved yet. The security points that you added,we need a timing on those as well. They need to be refined and put on the master plan. Heidi's going to clarify Section 10.03.B.There's going to be language added for construction damage to the road system. The construction access. The location of the recreation areas,the location of the internal gates. To resolve additional HOA issues. You were going to do that and come back with an issue for that for the next meeting. And the other thing I wanted to suggest is your R-4 is still a stickler. It's kind of like a thorn that sits on this plan. And it has from day one. It is probably one of the most incompatible remaining issues to deal with. If that were to go to an R-3, it would probably make the plan a lot better,especially since everything you're then doing is compatible to itself to the east of the developed portion of the project. MR.MULHERE: I'm listening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I'm just suggesting.I'm just providing you with information that--because I listened--the folks have a lot of issues. MS. SAUNDERS: Mr.Chairman,I just talked to Mr.Lowitz about that. He's agreeing to change that R-4 to an R-3 designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would go a long way to keep this project more compatible. MR.MULHERE: One thing we'll have to do is look at the MU district and either put a set of standards directly in there--because we were referencing the R-4 standards. If that goes away-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just move them to the MU. Okay,you've got the same throat that I've got today. I'm having a hard time sometimes. Now,with all those issues in mind,I need to ask this panel what they feel is the best way to approach this. We could consider a motion today with direction and then reserve some of the issues for a final vote on consent. But that's not necessarily what we do on consent. Heidi,do you have any preferences from a legal perspective? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: I think you're better off continuing it to the next meeting for a regular item. But you could do the regular and consent at the same meeting so that they don't lose their date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that might be a better way to go. Because I'd rather--there are so many tweaks that need to be done to your master plan and finishing up. We've walked through a lot of language today. And while we've made notes of it,we haven't reiterated it again. And I think it would be a good idea to get all that in solid form and then close out everything at the next meeting. Is that going to work for you guys? MS. SAUNDERS: Certainly,Mr.Chairman,that will be fine. We'll have--so at the next meeting we'll do the clean-up and the consent-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 45 of 78 October 20, 2011 MR. SAUNDERS: --at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move the consent to the--we'll do them at the same meeting. Does that work for the Board? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mark,just a comment or a question on protocol,though. Each of us takes our own notes,you all take your own notes.Today we plowed through page-by-page trying to recall what commitments or changes were agreed the prior meeting and then finally saying okay,they're there. It would help me personally,and I don't know if this is protocol or not. As far as Pm concerned,the onus is on you all. I mean,you took the notes,you heard all the comments. I would like to see something that comes back next time that says here's the commitments,the change that we made. Here's the reference in the PUD where we made that commitment or changed the language. I mean,for me it would simplify it a great deal. MS. SAUNDERS: And just for clarification,are you talking about the new list of issues,not what we've already gone through? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,I think the best way,and it might be simpler said,just to do a red line version of the changes from this meeting to next. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Well,then that would help also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And see,the reason we don't have a red line version now is because the prior document was so badly marked up. But now we've got a more basic point we can do a red line for the next meeting of the changes between today's document and the next meeting's document. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: We can. It's just when you do the red line comparison,because you have a strike-through and underlying document,it's going to throw everything off and might be confusing as to which is actually going to be struck through in the final-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just do everything in red. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: For this meeting we did a handwritten visual aid. I don't know whether that was distributed. But what I can do is highlight in yellow the areas that were changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,anything that you're going to--anything you change from today's meeting till the next,just do it in red. If you do a new strike-through,do it in red. If you do a new word,do it in red, if you do a new paragraph,do it in red. Everything in red will be new. We know what we looked at today. Any changes as a result of today's meeting and today's commitments done in red. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does every-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yeah,I'm fine with that. It's just that I look around and I say who's the official record keeper here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,I have been for 10 years. I mean,Pve got everything written down,so-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Not that you make a mistake,Mark,but I'd like to see these guys in-- MS. SAUNDERS: This may give you some comfort.But the County Attorney's Office has control of the document. So any changes that are made are going to go through Heidi Ashton,not through us. We'll communicate obviously to make sure it gets in there,but they control the document. And so I think what we're suggesting is that the stuff that has been agreed upon that's in the document currently,that's not going to be redlined-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Correct. MR. SAUNDERS: --it's just the new things that we talked about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Very good. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: And we'll do that. And it worked really well the last meeting with Mr.McLean getting his changes to me and me making mine as well. I think it did anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay,then I would like to ask this panel for a motion on behalf of the Planning Commission to request a continuance to November 3rd. Page 46 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER AHERN: I make a motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Melissa,seconded by-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 8-0. Yes,sir? MS. SAUNDERS: Mr.Chairman,just for the record,that motion contemplates that the regular hearing and the consent item will be-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SAUNDERS: --heard at the same time? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes,they will be. Okay,thank you all very much. We appreciate it. Members of the public,thank you for your time and coming out to us today. In the end,while we may not hit every issue,we're going to try to hit as many as we can. With that,we will take a one-hour lunch and will be back at 1:15 to pick up on the Watershed Management Plan. (Luncheon recess.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Welcome back everyone. ***We are moving on to old business. Mark had to step away. Hopefully he'll be able to rejoin us. Mac,you're up for watershed. MR.HATCHER: Good afternoon. Mac Hatcher with Land Development Services Department. We've been to you all several times over this year to work you through the development of the Watershed Management Plans. We'd like to present the recommendations to you today to go forward and ask for your acceptance of the watershed plans and your recommendation on our proposed recommendations to go to the Board of County Commissioners. The purpose of the Watershed Management Plans is to protect water resources. We started the Watershed Management Plans as a self-imposed commitment in the Growth Management Plan. We also wanted to try and use this opportunity to help meet regulatory requirements and move forward with projects. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you lean in a little bit? MR.HATCHER: The findings of the watershed plans were that water quantity impacts were the most critical items. And also pollutant loads from nutrients from development is a concern. Collier County is a naturally integrated system. The basins that we're working with are there primarily because roads and development have divided up what was once a continuum of a basin. Restoration and protection must also be from a county-wide perspective. Page 47 of 78 October 20, 2011 So the consultants,after evaluating the existing conditions in the watershed in developing the updated basin model,evaluated alternatives to try and overcome the short-fallings of the system.And they proposed a series of prioritized projects--or developed prioritized projects,and also some nonstructural alternatives. And I've got 13 recommendations to present to you all,and we can either get your approval as we go through the recommendations or at the end at you all's convenience. The first initiative is the structural projects that are proposed. And these projects have been scored. The values that were on the presentation that I sent to you all have been corrected,but it didn't change the listing of the projects. So these projects are identified to improve the water quantity discharges and also groundwater recharge and water quality. And I should also add that the proposal is for the projects to be implemented with existing stormwater management funds as they become available after we complete the L.A.S.I.P.projects. And they'll be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program and be brought back to you for a final approval as capital projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this chart you don't have the Corkscrew,even though it has such a high benefit to cost ratio. Is there any order on this chart or are you recommending that maybe the Corkscrew thing,while it does have a high ratio,could have a lesser priority? MR.HATCHER: There's a lesser priority because it's such a small project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Mac,maybe if I could interrupt a second before we move on. I think we would like to take these one at a time. And for clarification purposes,Mac's correct,you're not authorizing a capital improvement. This is going to come back to you as part of the CIE when it does come forward. And Jerry Kurtz is working on a surface water master plan. So this is one component of a larger plan that's coming back before you as well too,prioritizing both capital improvements,maintenance and enhancement projects as well. So what we're looking for is if you reviewed the plan that you think these projects are consistent with what's in the plan for the benefit,as Mac has pointed out,for the watershed plans.But it's not like you're authorizing these to be incorporated in the CIE specifically in any order,just that the 10 highest projects or so that are within the Watershed Management Plan. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And if we can,just will everyone ask questions after the presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. I mean,we're going to go through this one-by-one? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well,he's just going through this presentation. Then we're going to go through the executive summary pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR.HATCHER: Well,we can do it either way. I mean,we can go through,I mean,and get the recommendation now or--or at the end. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We don't want to make a recommendation until we're at the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,if you want the recommendation's line item,I think why don't we just discuss the line item,decide at the end of that our recommendation and then go to the next item. MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's fine. Just keep going,Mac,we'll visit them one at a time. MR.HATCHER: Okay. The second initiative is the low impact development BMP's. These are proposed as an incentive program. And what we plan to do is relax LDC standards if low-impact development BMP's are proposed to improve water quality and recharge characteristics. And what we'll have to do is develop basically design standards for the BMP's and equate those to reductions in LDC commitments. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What is a BMP? For my benefit. MR.HATCHER: Best management practice. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Thanks. MR.HATCHER: Okay,the third initiative is a stormwater retrofit program. And this is intended to upgrade with primarily LID BMP's on public stormwater systems. And the idea is to use stormwater funds again for grants or assistance from other state agencies to upgrade the existing facilities prior to their redevelopment. Page 48 of 78 October 20,2011 Okay,the fourth initiative is to change to a fee-based stormwater utility to change from an ad valorem collection of revenues to a fee that would be based on the stormwater design treatment that the existing facilities are having. And what we have to do is evaluate whether or not we can provide an incentive for facilities to upgrade based on an incentive and fee,and offset that without raising cost to the public as a whole. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Can you explain that a little bit more,the retrofit program? Providing incentive for existing facilities to be-- MR.HATCHER: Right,the retrofit program is to upgrade existing public facilities,stormwater treatment facilities,with LID type best management practices so that we can get increased recharge and better water quality treatment out of those public facilities prior to their redevelopment where those upgrades would be required. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So this is isolated to only public facilities? MR.HATCHER: Correct. It's being paid for with stormwater public funds. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is that the bulk of your problem? I'm probably not explaining this right, but stormwater treatment takes many forms across the county,you know,and you have commercial facilities,you have public facilities,you have numerous developments and so forth that retain,perhaps not treat,but at least retain stormwater within their premises. So you're restricting this to the public facilities? MR.HATCHER: Right. We're restricting what we're proposing to fix with public funds to public facilities. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. I think what he's asking,Mac,and the way your slide reads,is consider 5-A(phonetic)credited to businesses to incentivize retrofits. At that point we can encourage businesses--if we go to a stormwater utility,they would get a lower fee if they said--you know,if they go forward and retrofit their existing commercial lots. Inverted swales,rain gardens-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So you're really not talking residential stormwater retention and so forth, where you may have aging systems that don't do an adequate job. MR.HATCHER: The residential facilities that would be affected by this initiative would be existing developments. If a PUD wanted to upgrade their stormwater utility or their stormwater treatment system,we want to evaluate whether or not we could provide a break in cost in the stormwater utility fee that would be sufficient to incentivize private treatment systems to do upgrades on their own. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So it goes beyond public,it goes-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --beyond commercial. MR.HATCHER: Yes. MR.HATCHER: Right,the prior initiative would have been limited to public. This one would be open to everybody. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I would think that the private is more of your problem than the commercial,but I'm probably just speculating there. MR.HATCHER: I suspect it's a much larger portion of the pie. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac,hold on one second. We were going to do questions at the end,but obviously there's more,so-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Pm sorry,I thought we were going to do it one-by-one,but-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this side has to do it at the end and that side gets to do it one-by-one? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: They're breaking the rules. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: We're rebels down here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,we can go back.I mean,we can make it through to the end. I mean, I do have questions on the prior components too,so-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: As do I. So is everybody in agreement-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --to wait till the end? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. Page 49 of 78 October 20, 2011 VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Go ahead. MR.HATCHER: Okay,the fifth initiative is flood protection standards. And these are ranked primarily at quantity of flow reductions and flood protection. It includes adjusting the base and discharge rates. And on this figure the basins that are highlighted in yellow are the basins that are proposed to be changed. It also would be to develop LDC changes that would require an assessment of the quantification of discharges on downstream properties and also to the floodplain. The sixth initiative is to modify the flood protection level of service standards. And what we would do here would be to evaluate the proposed changes where the flooding on the evacuation,arterial and neighborhood roads is assessed based on 10,25 and 100-year storm events. And if we can identify improvements and positive benefits of the new change,then we would come back with Growth Management Plan amendments to try and change the level of service standard away from the existing. The seventh initiative is the TDR program in Golden Gate. And what we're trying to do is incentivize TDR transfers from sensitive areas,either under receiving areas or some sort of cluster development. The idea is to improve recharge water quality and also habitat benefits. It's proposed to set up a citizen committee to work through the development of this TDR program to see whether or not it can be accomplished. The eighth initiative is a mitigation bank in Golden Gate Estates. And this is to incentivize mitigation within the Golden Gate basin. There's been a lot of issues with mitigation outside of the basin losing the functions of wetlands within the basin. You lose the stormwater treatment,the water quality treatment,also the recharge and floodplain protection when mitigation occurs in a mitigation bank outside of the basin. So this would be a pilot project to see if we could encourage in-basin mitigation. The next initiative would be to modify the operations of the water control structures to try and reduce the amount of base flow,the groundwater that's coming back into the canal system and contributing to the discharges to the estuaries. And what we would try and do would be to maximize the benefits from the operation of the operable weirs throughout this county. The tenth initiative is monitoring,the monitoring program. And what we want to do is try and refine the existing water quantity monitoring program to focus on improvements and impaired water quality areas,and also increase our understanding of runoff quality issues. We have kind of a lumped additional protection program. And what we're looking at here are the possibility of implementing recyclable water containment areas. These are temporary water storage,primarily in agricultural areas. So we want to evaluate the resource protective lands that were identified in a habitat assessment portion of the Watershed Management Plans in the rural fringe neutral areas and a couple of areas in the urban area,and evaluate whether or not the preservation standards that exist need to be altered. The certification of stormwater systems and maintenance is an existing policy in the Growth Management Plan. And the proposed program would be to use checklists that are being developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as part of their stormwater rule amendment process to ensure that the stormwater systems that have been constructed are continuing to function as they were permitted. And the last initiative is the Florida friendly fertilizer ordinance. It was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July the 26th.They directed us to develop an education component.Pollution Control Department is leading that effort. The training for commercial and institutional applicators will be provided by Greenscape Alliance. We've developed a web page and will continue to work on the education program. And that's what I have on the initiatives.And I guess will be happy to go back and go through questions. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,do you guys want to take this one part at a time? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Go back to the first slide,Mac,on the projects and start there. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,questions on the prioritized projects? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion. MR.CASALANGUIDA: You want to hear from the public speakers first? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well,we also have to go through the executive summary. Page 50 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: If anyone has any questions. And then public speakers. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: All of it,you mean,or just volumes two and three where all these-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Volume one. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Volume one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm confused. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Volume two and three are the ones that have the structural and nonstructural VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But volume one is the summary that summarizes everything in the-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: I think what Mac's asking you to do is the memorandum has the recommendations in it,one at a time. It's consistent what his presentation was. It might be appropriate just to hear from the speakers just in case they bring up some questions that you didn't have,before we ask staff to go through and ask that you approve them one at a time. I think it was our intent to use the memorandum as a guide for recommendations going forward to the BCC. Ifs consistent with his Power Point he presented to you. MR.HATCHER: We're asking you all to accept the plan,not necessarily approve it. If anybody has any corrections or changes,we'd love to have those comments. But we didn't intend to go through the plan again. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So any questions on number one? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Are we going to do speakers,or are we-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,I like Nick's idea. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I would recommend--they may provide input to the Commission that you may want to ask further questions on. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's fine. MR.CASALANGUIDA: First speaker we have is Judith Hushon,followed by Tim Nance. DR.HUSHON: Hi. I'm Judith Hushon. I'm chair of the EAC,but I wasn't here the day they voted on it. So I have a few points that I would like to see that didn't get in here. So that's why I'm kind of coming to you as another voice. There's a need for another type of regulatory action: An inclusion in the GMP of a need to review relevant water quality data and quantity data. I suggested seven years the first time.Then every five-year basis. In other words,go through this exercise,re-look at the numbers. How are we doing. It doesn't pay to do something once like a Watershed Management Plan;you have to have a cycle of review of Watershed Management Plans. So I'm asking that you would include a recommendation for cycle of review. I suggested seven years, because it will take it two years to get it through the first time and that would be five and then five more every five years. You could just make it every five years to start. But because we're going to have data coming out of monitoring programs,we do need to look at these in light of our past history and where we're trying to go. We need to see what's working and what's not. In addition,I would like to see the potential in the future to look at what would happen and what it would mean to our watershed management planning for a one-inch rise in sea level. That's something that I don't think is off the board here in South Florida. We live so close to the water,so much water. And-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Hold on one second.There's smoke coming out of this thing. DR.HUSHON: Uh-oh. I'm not using that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Orangetree burnt it up. DR.HUSHON: I would also like to see a program to deal with anthropogenic copper. This is a problem in the developed part of the county.Anthropogenic meaning man-applied copper,not naturally occurring copper that occurs in the soil just because it was a copper containing soil.Copper has been applied to keep weeds from--copper sulfate used to keep weeds from growing in ponds. This has led to a buildup in a lot of the developed area. This is--a lot of this plan is dealing with the undeveloped parts of the county.But this copper would deal with the developed part of the county. In addition,I would like to be sure that under the LID program we include taking care of permeable surfaces. Right now our Land Development Code isn't good on that. And this is kind of in your area. But what happens is that we have permeable--if we let people put in permeable surfaces,they should get Page 51 of 78 October 20,2011 credit for that. And--this is more interesting,I can tell. Anyway,they should have--they get credit for their permeable surfaces. And right now we say that if you put in a driveway and you have a roof and you have whatever else you have,sidewalks,these are all impermeable surfaces. If you choose to use permeable pavers or something,permeable asphalt or something like that,you should get credit for that against how much you need to set aside in terms of wetlands and things like that. That's a telephone. That's somebody's telephone. Never mind. So you should get a credit. Initially I suggested a 25 percent credit. In other words, .25 would be--you'd take one times the amount of the roof and the sidewalks and.25 times let's say they have the impermeable pavers on the driveway. Since then I've seen that other areas have used that.25 number. So that's just--apparently it's a fairly good number. But this is something that would be in line with a lot of your work and what you see when you review the plans for projects and things and how much they have to set aside. This obviously has to be done together with South Florida Water Management District. But they are not opposed to this. Right now people are having trouble,because even if we were to let's say cut them a little slack in a meeting like this, South Florida Water Management District sets the rule,and no,you have to have the wetland mitigation for so much. This would could that wet--could cut that wetland mitigation. And they'd be billing to do that. So I think this is something the county needs to do together with South Florida Water Management District. But I would see including it in the LDC as part of the LID things that are going to come in. Let's see. One other thing. I kind of agreed with you,Brad,and I had said this before,on number three,start a stormwater treatment system retrofit program. I would like to see that designed for both public and private where we somehow give some credit to communities that are willing to take on a retrofit program. It's important--we've got a lot more private communities out there with the problem than we do public venues. And I would like to see this as something that we do for both sides. The problem is if we don't put it in here,it will get lost. I worry that,you know,this is a list of things are going to get checked off and they'll say well,we did all 14 or 13. And I would like to see it be 15 because I would like to see that come back every few years and re-look at the data. And then I would also like to see the one-inch rise in sea level and I would like to see the anthropogenic copper included. I had some other grammar things and some other minors,but those are my major ones. And we've been through this I guess it was 13 times. I didn't realize that, 13 meetings. And we commented a lot as it came through at the various times. There are still typos,there are still some misstatements,there are still some things like that in the reports. But we were asked to focus just on the staff recommendations. So these are my additions to the staff recommendations. The--you also have ones from the EAC that did come through. And you have three of those at the bottom that you certainly can look at. He didn't go over those with you. And I don't have a final copy. Staff is to comment on conformance--can I have--thank you. Staff to review and comment on the conformance of the plan in the staff reports. This would help us. There's a figure,it's number 1-40 in the manual,and that lays out areas that are environmentally sensitive. And if projects are occurring in those areas,we from a watershed management planning point of view,we'd like to know that they're in those areas,and we would like staff to kind of make us advised of that. Staff is to provide an annual update on the status and implementation of the plan. That's just what they've been doing. Which projects have been implemented. You had two lists of long lists of projects. Which ones have they started? Which ones have they finished? What else has been going on? Whether they've been doing anything in terms of education,in terms of best management plans. One of the areas that is going to take a fair amount to put into action is this number 12,the stormwater treatment system certification program.This is really focusing heavily on communities.And one of the things that we had asked was that they come up with a set of inspection standards so that when you inspect stormwater retention areas,you might have standards against which you would inspect these so that you could tell how well they are attaining good stormwater management. We have a concern that a lot of the stormwater retention areas,as built and--maybe are not even as they Page 52 of 78 October 20,2011 were built. They are not today what they were designed to be. That 1.5 factor,you know,that comes in. We design for 1.5 retention area.They fill in both for muck and also from sides caving in. We get two problems occurring. And this leads to holding less water than they were originally designed to hold. This is looking at that what was once going on,our stormwater management ponds working for us in the communities. So that was going to be an issue. And staff is to begin the process of developing a low-impact development manual. That's your BMP's. We were talking best management practices for low impact development. And as part of that,you probably would also get some credits somehow. And this hasn't been worked out for doing low-impact developments or retrofitting low-impact developments. And we were going to start by encouraging the county to start in their projects the schools,are a good example. The county parks projects,things like that should definitely be looking at low-impact development, incorporating that into their design. So do you all have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. DR. HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Judith,on the--you said a seven-year review would be good? DR.HUSHON: For the first review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that something we should work into number 10,which is for their refining the existing programs? And then can we just incorporate that requirement into number 10? DR.HUSHON: You could,or you could just make it a separate requirement. Because it's going to go into the GMP if that happens. It would be a requirement that would hit the GMP requirement,you know,they do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd rather it be a GMP-- DR.HUSHON: Yeah,I would rather it be a separate number. But you could put it into that. I'm just--I think it's really important that we do--I mean,this is the whole assessment cycle thing. You don't want to have spent as much money as we have spent to do this once and then forget about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it might be the review might be broader if we didn't put it in 10. DR.HUSHON: That's what I was thinking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. What fear do you have with a one-inch sea level rise? I mean,what do you think that's going to show? DR.HUSHON: I don't know what it's going to show. We have--there's a couple of issues. We have a drop in the--right now in the level of our aquifers. If you have a rise in sea level,you have that coming in further. I could turn to somebody like Peter to give you a good explanation of that. But our biggest risk here is that water will contaminate aquifers,sea water will contaminate aquifers. You know,migrate in horizontally and contaminate them. We have two things going on: We have dropping aquifers right now,and we have--if we raise--you increase the pressure--every time you raise sea level,you increase the pressure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other item,when we had the fertilizer hearings,one of the horrors of those hearings to me was,and it wasn't the fertilizer issue,was how people were treating the ponds,you know,that had the algae blooms and all that in there. DR.HUSHON: Well,that's the copper one that I brought up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one fellow,essentially what I think he said is that they put copper sulfate into the pond and killed not only everything in the pond but anything within six feet of the pond,what he told us. So wouldn't-- DR. HUSHON: They did a very strange application. Usually they go around and do a very targeted application. I'll just say this,if they're applying it. But-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the scary thing to me,I mean,that was more frightening than the fertilizer results. So shouldn't we not have a system of how to treat these ponds? I mean,shouldn't there be a best management practice? DR.HUSHON: Well,that's part of the dealing with anthropogenic--actually,you could expand that. I have a dealing with anthropogenic copper which is the problem that we are left with,having dealt with ponds. But the issue is how do you manage ponds down in South Florida? Page 53 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With algae blooms,especially-- DR.HUSHON: How do you manage algae in ponds.And then the other half would be how do you manage the anthropogenic copper that is now in your ponds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do they-- DR. HUSHON: And copper is an element,once created doesn't go away. You know,it moves slowly with water as a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean,do they have the ability now to do anything they want to clean those ponds? DR.HUSHON: I think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh,my God. DR.HUSHON: But,you know,the thing is that if you actually scrape the bottom and you have used a lot of copper sulfate,you may have a hazardous waste. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. DR.HUSHON: I don't know what--I don't know the copper number to make a hazardous waste. But if you get it concentrated enough,you could actually create a hazardous waste. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So wouldn't really the best thing is to add something that's a best management practice for,you know,the cleaning and maintaining of ponds? DR.HUSHON: Oh,I think that would be wonderful. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah,Commissioner Schiffer,we just fmished a stormwater guide with South Florida Water Management District,City of Naples,City of Marco. We're going to release it at the HOA meeting in draft format. It talks about pond maintenance. So we have a guide that's coming out in coordination with our partner agencies that talks about some BMP's for pond management. DR. HUSHON: Very important. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we incorporate that guide into here? MR.CASALANGUIDA: We'd be happy to do it.It's done so it's an easy-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. DR.HUSHON: I think that would be a good thing to put in here and then potentially to require its use through the land development codes. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We're going to get there.One of the comments I was going to save for the end is we are one and a half--when you say staff is in plural,it's pretty much Mac Hatcher. So Mac's got his job cut out for him till he retires by looking at these recommendations. So it's a challenge,but we're going to get there. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is this your way of pushing him to early retirement? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In that brochure,the best management,are you allowed to put copper sulfate into a pond? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It talks about best management in terms of putting in littoral plantings,putting in aeration systems,putting in--stopping fertilizer from getting to the ponds,you know,what you're doing. So there are things in there,but it doesn't specifically mention copper in the guide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we should do something as to what people can do,what boundaries they can work in once they have a pond that has an algae bloom in it. And anarchy shouldn't be the answer. MR.HATCHER: If I can interject just a few comments on copper sulfate. This problem I guess came to light primarily through analysis from the City of Naples. And Naples Bay has an identified copper issue. It occasionally is above state standards. We have found that there are a couple of canals that occasionally have water samples that are above state standards,but it's not routinely above state standards. Copper sulfate is a labeled algicide. And EPA and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have both recognized its use as an algicide. And it can be legally used and we cannot--this is one of the areas that we're preempted from making rules. And the city tried to restrict the use of copper sulfate and were told by the Department of Ag. and Consumer Services that they didn't have the authority to do that. So we can have an educational program,we can do everything that we can within the county operations and stuff to limit the use of copper,but it would be very difficult for us to have a regulatory program of copper sulfate. Page 54 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I still think we need to regulate how you can clean your pond up and make recommendations. Because if they're killing the pond and killing everything within six feet of the pond,I can't believe--I don't think you're allowed legally to put copper sulfate in septic tanks to clean roots and stuff out of them, but-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner,that's not typical,just so you know. You've got an example,with thousands of stormwater ponds you've got one,so-- DR.HUSHON: Yeah,most of them don't end up with the six feet around. They usually spray it right on the algae. But it still is a concern.And I do know that when we get into this lake cleaning out, it's going to be a concern in that environment as well because of the copper levels. We're also going to have to go through with water levels,because we do have some non-attainment areas for copper in Naples Bay and some of these canals. So we will get hit with TMDL's and have to come up with practices for managing so we can decrease those levels. So this doesn't just go away because you say you can do it. It requires a reeducation. And I think that's what you were talking about,Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,good. I'm done,thanks. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aren't all the--anybody that treats the lake,they're licensed and they can't do it otherwise,they have to be-- DR.HUSHON: Oh,they can be licensed applicators,because it's on the list of things you can use. You're a licensed applicator and you can use it. It's a question of whether the community decides that it's not the best way to manage their lake. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Again,that's one of the things in the guide,natural ways to manage your lake versus chemical ways. And it's what's in our guide. And we'll give you a copy of the guide. It's in draft form and it's going to the HOA next week. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But we can't dictate that you cannot-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. DR.HUSHON: No,but we do have to figure out how we're going to manage the copper problem,the anthropogenic copper problem,which we do have. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. DR.HUSHON: That's where it's coming out of. Okay,so you have my suggestions for where you can kind of push a little further on these,and I hope you do. Thanks. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thanks. Next? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Tim Nance is our next speaker,followed by Jeremy Frantz. MR.NANCE: Mr.Chairman,Commissioners,Tim Nance. Today I'm representing--I'm speaking on behalf of the board of directors and members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I'd like to confine my remarks to those parts of the Watershed Management Plan which relate directly to the Golden Gate Estates area. And they are a very central portion of many of the elements of the Watershed Management Plan. The things that I'd like to specifically address are one of your major projects,which is on this list here,which is the top one,which is the North Golden Gate Estates flowway restoration project,how it relates to initiative number eight,the Golden Gate Estates--formation of a Golden Gate Estates mitigation bank,and finally initiative number seven,which is the creation of a transfer of development rights program for the Golden Gate Estates area. I'm a little concerned mostly about number seven. And I think it's just a question of the language. I'm going to ask you to take specific action and recommendations today to straighten out what I think is a little bit of a misunderstanding. I would like to say first and foremost that working with Mac Hatcher and with Peter deGolian from PBS&J and now Atkins and members of this Commission has been an absolute pleasure on this. I know it's been like passing a kidney stone, it seems like we've been working on this for a year. But we've also worked very closely with Nick. Page 55 of 78 October 20,2011 And Nick,I'd like to thank you also for this. Because I think this is very,very important for Golden Gate Estates. Because we really don't have any sort of a drainage program out there,and there's a lot of things that are coming together. Let me say this about what Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association requested and restated and discussed in our many meetings: The basic gist of our recommendations were for a density reduction program for Golden Gate Estates. We thought that density reduction in Golden Gate Estates,which would be accomplished in two different ways,number one,an incentive plan to encourage people to recombine non-conforming lots out there. I think everybody realized at the last minute a bunch of acre and a quarter lots were created in Golden Gate Estates,and a lot of them are in the eastern part of it. So we suggested come up with a concept to recombine those acre and a quarter lots. And secondly,create some sort of a development rights program of transfer to allow parcels to be acquired in Golden Gate Estates that relate to these different projects,which is a mitigation bank within Golden Gate Estates, where somebody could take a real wetlands parcel that nobody could use,get it in a mitigation program,allow somebody like Nick who has a road project to acquire those,meet the mitigation requirements and do some good within our basin. And secondly,if it was not going to be in direct mitigation like that,to have a transfer program where those development credits could be moved out of Golden Gate Estates into an area that's more appropriate for development, like urban infill or perhaps the rural fringe plan or something like that. In initiative number seven there's language that suggests that there be areas in Golden Gate Estates of increased density. That is what we object to very,very strongly. I would ask you directly to strike that language from the Watershed Management Plan. I don't want anybody ever to come back and say this is where the concept of increased density of Golden Gate Estates got started. That was never our intention. I'm afraid that's something that's been an outgrowth of thinking of a TDR program like we did for the rural fringe. I know that Mr.Mulhere participated in this process. He was the primary author of the transfer of development rights program in the fringe,and I don't want anybody to think that that's what Golden Gate Estates Area Civic proposed here or that's what we endorse in any way. We do not endorse creating receiving lands in Golden Gate Estates. We think it's wonderful to allow some of that density reduction,but what we had envisioned overall is kind of like what they have in Lee County,which is a density reduction groundwater recharge concept for Golden Gate Estates. Because we have 80 square miles right in the center of the county that is maintained by residents in a low density fashion that allows groundwater recharge,it allows watershed storage at absolutely no cost to the county. It's really a great resource if it's thought of in that way. But I really hope you will see fit to strike that language to suggest that there should be higher density in Golden Gate Estates. Because that is not what anybody intended or endorses in any way. I think if we get into an opportunity where we can develop a program,it should be fully vetted.I really endorse having the concept here,but I think to put any detail in it is very dangerous and misleading. So that's just what I wanted to say to you today. Does everybody--does that make sense to you guys? I don't know if--it's been a long process and I thank you for your indulgence. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. MR.NANCE: Thank you. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Jeremy Frantz. MR.FRANTZ: Hi. Jeremy Frantz,representing The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm actually here in support of the Watershed Management Plan today. We've worked with staff for quite some time. We've submitted pretty extensive comments. And as a result of some compromise,a lot of provisions have been made that we're pretty happy with,and we just want to recognize that staff and everybody that we've been involved with has been really helpful. We did have some recommendations that we were waiting to see final approval on at the last time it went to the EAC. Did just get an e-mail from Mac yesterday that assured us that we would see all those in the final updates, so we are happy with that. Page 56 of 78 October 20,2011 The only other issue that you might want to consider,and you haven't really discussed it yet so I don't know what you had in mind anyways,but the only other issue was the fertilizer ordinance.Mac stated that it was--the state model was passed--adopted by the BCC,and you might want to consider updating that recommendation,maybe for some clarification on the direction that the Board gave to get some legal clarification. I know that Mac has said that he's in the process of doing that,so I don't know what exactly would need to happen today or what you might want to happen today. But that's the only other issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. So yeah,the last time that we were at the EAC,we still did have concerns,and I think that it's pretty significant that at this point all of our concerns,all of our recommendations have been included as revisions or compromises have been made,and I just wanted to recognize that. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Thank you. Mac? Okay,you guys,we're going to go through each one-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I just-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --and just ask questions as we go. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can--Judy and Tim,can you give your recommendations to Mac so he has them all? I mean,all your recommendations that you spoke about today. DR.HUSHON: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question before we go through these. Mac,one of the problems that I thought the Golden Gate Estates had is that with all the road systems and a lot of the development is being done on fill pads and stuff like that. There's no recommendations to review how we're doing that,or does the stuff in the existing LDC essentially,you know,encouraging stem wall and stuff like that, cover that already? MR.HATCHER: We believe that the stem wall and those changes will keep things from getting worse. And the projects and the changes that we're proposing we think will keep the drainage from getting worse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. So in other words,we've covered that in the past couple of years with the LDC amendments that was requiring if you put a mound up you have to essentially replace the storage that that mound's displacing? MR.HATCHER: Right. And in addition to that,the second project,the North Belle Meade spreader and the third project are diversions from the North Golden Gate canal system into Rookery Bay to try and offset the quantity of water discharges problems that those two systems are suffering. And both of those projects should help to alleviate some of the flooding issues within Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Brad,just to follow up,we do have a fill pad code-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --so it does limit the amount of fill you can bring. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,yeah,requires you that any displacement,to replace it on your site, which is going to have a lot of holes in sites. Okay,I mean, I'm ready to make a motion on number one,if you'd like. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well,I think we're going to do it at the end altogether. Isn't that what-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: You can do them--if you think you're going to have separate motions or additions,you can do them one at a time and say one is fine. You know,if you'd like to do it that way,we're happy that we would know exactly-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: When you say one-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the recommendation.What I'd like to do,since we went through all the recommendations silently,I would like to personally go back one-by-one and maybe at that time we do vote on it. That way-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So number one is prioritize projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Item number one here.Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that all right? Page 57 of 78 October 20,2011 VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does the Board want to go through the executive summary,or are you comfortable sticking with the presentation? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have questions on--noted on the executive summary. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I mean the--no,I mean the full packet. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Oh,no. MR.CASALANGUIDA: What we're asking you to take action on that's going to go to the Board is going to be this. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. But Mark wanted to review. He had a lot of questions-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Okay,comments on-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --on--right,on this specific. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Okay. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So I'm asking if anyone else had questions on the actual report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To go through all the volumes of the report? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Just volume one,the executive summary assessment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not up to me. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,let's take number one,prioritized projects. Any questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just a comment there.Prioritized--how would you attach this? I mean, here's the prioritized projects,but would you do nothing until you got enough money to do the highest payback or-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Why don't you let me answer that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know,I mean,how can you argue with any of them? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Moneybags here. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Well,Mr.Lack of Money more than anything else. Right now your stormwater funds are all going towards L.A.S.I.P. This Board has seen an Annual Update and Inventory Report in the CIE recently.L.A.S.I.P.carries you out to 2014,2015. Recognizing L.A.S.I.P. is coming to an end,we're working on a surface water master plan,which incorporates these projects in this well too.They're going to include not only projects like these but maintenance projects in there as well. So Golden Gate City,replacing some of the outfalls and the corrugated pipe. We would bring these projects along with those maintenance projects or other expansion projects to the Planning Commission and the Board as part of the annual CIE. But at least they would be referenced from the Watershed Management Plans that these are projects that due to the studies are important for water quality,things like that. So as we can fund them,we bring them in. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I would assume then you'd also keep this in front of you as a target of opportunity if you had a project side-by-side with something,hey, let's grab this one off,even though it's not a big return. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I hope Jerry's listening.That's exactly our intent,is once they're adopted as projects come in near these and touch these-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You look at them. MR.CASALANGUIDA: --we reference these,exactly. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So really,funding's driving it,notwithstanding opportunity. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. Not for about four or five years. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But then once they're approved as priorities,they're available for grants. MR.CASALANGUIDA: They are. And that's another opportunity. Or coordination with private development or,you know,as we get maybe to a stormwater utility funding can come back into the program. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac,how are the scores determined? MR.HATCHER: They were determined through an evaluation of benefits and then a comparison with cost. So we derived--we--Adkins derived estimated benefits for water quality,for water quantity discharges to the estuaries,for recharge.And,let's see,oh,yeah,wetland hydrology improvements to habitat productivity. So each of those four areas,the benefits were estimated,combined and then compared with cost,then that's Page 58 of 78 October 20,2011 your cost per benefit. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So why is the Corkscrew with the highest benefit to cause ratio so far down? MR.HATCHER: Because it's such a small project. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: With a low cost you wouldn't want to do that first? MR.deGOLIAN: For the record,my name is Peter deGolian with Atkins. That project you're talking about,the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed,what we're talking about there is a very--it's a very small project,do a little bit of backfilling of ditches and things like that. And really all you're getting is a very small lift in wetland hydrology. It's not making any difference in the flows to the estuary,it's not changing groundwater recharge.We're really not getting much water quality benefit because it's in the Corkscrew Regional Watershed anyway and the cost is dirt cheap. So it's kind of artificially inflated at the way it calculates. So when we looked at it and started doing a logical assessment of not just the numerics,it didn't make sense to have to prioritize that as the number one project,because we're only focusing on one very small-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So the cost--I'm sorry. The cost bumped it up to a higher. MR.deGOLIAN: Yes. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Number two, low impact development. Oh,you want to vote on it? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah,if you're comfortable,just nods and then we can fmish up with one recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me ask a question on that. You gave us in a handout today a table with a different list. Which one should we--and again,it is the Corkscrew that's the floater in there. Or we can do it without using the word priority. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I'd rather you just did that,adopt the projects as identified in the Watershed Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I move we forward recommendation number one with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,number one moves forward 7-0. Low impact development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,I have some questions. Mac,what kind of--when you're saying you're going to incentivize the relaxation of the LDC,what does that mean? MR.HATCHER: The LDC specifics that Atkins identified initially as targets was a reduction in parking aisle widths,parking space,dimensions a little bit,the dimensions of roads going into very low traffic areas. A reduction in the width of a road at the end of a cul-de-sac of just a couple feet makes a huge difference in terms of the amount of runoff that it generates. So if we can relax the standards there a little bit in some instances,we get a benefit from the amount of runoff that's created. And if we can incentivize then further benefits through LID type best management practices we can get a huge gain in water quality and water recharge benefits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is stormwater harvesting an LID type project,or is that-- MR.HATCHER: It certainly could be,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And could we somehow incentivize that or--other codes are,but-- MR.HATCHER: Right. The details of what will be allowed and the standards that will be set all need to be Page 59 of 78 October 20,2011 worked out in the future vetting of the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) MR.HATCHER: The details that Judy Hushon was speaking of in terms of how impervious and pervious areas are treated,those are details that would be worked out as we come to,you know,decisions on the standards. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Are you targeting just PUD's,larger developments,or is this going to apply to individual lots and single-family homes as well? MR.HATCHER: It was proposed in terms of the larger developments. However,we do currently review for impervious coverage,even for single-family residences. But when we do those reviews,the details that Judy was talking about,we get full credit for pervious pavement when we do those reviews. But this could be part of that as well,because if you exceed the impervious standards you do have to provide stormwater treatment,even on a single-family residential home. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: But it's pretty difficult to hit that,isn't it? I mean,you have to have a lot of the pervious area. MR.HATCHER: You do,yeah. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: What kind of incentives could you offer for individual lots? MR.HATCHER: We could adjust that impervious cover standard that is set. And we certainly could allow for LID BMP's to be used as the mechanism for providing the treatment. And stormwater harvesting cisterns would be a terrific example of something that a single-family residence could do to meet a stormwater treatment standard. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. And do you have an idea on timing? MR.HATCHER: This would be one of our high priority projects. The EAC,this was one of their recommendations was that we develop that design manual. So I would hope within a year and a half,two years,if the Board recommends it. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Before you start implementing the requirement? MR.HATCHER: No,we were start working on it right away. But it would probably take a year and a half or two years to-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I mean before you were requiring people to meet. MR.HATCHER: Correct. Before we could get an LDC amendment,it would take at least a year and a half or two years. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Because the concern of it being not identified,at least,you know,Nick and I have discussed,is that you're going to implement this and people are going to be required to meet these standards,but you're not going to have,you know,a cause neutral incentive available for them to use. So-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: No, I think that's our goal. I think when we met internally and both with some of the industry folks,we recognize the environment. It needs to be cost incentive or cost neutral. I mean,some of the median landscape,when we talked about inverted swales,rain gardens on-site,single-family homes where you could retain the water on-site rather than discharging into the swales,these are things that we can put into the guide as well as,you know,what's not just a guide and references the BMP. It could be the LDC,but we've heard it loud and clear, they need to be cost neutral. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. Because most of these are not inexpensive. MR.HATCHER: Correct. And we've approached this from a standpoint of the incentive goes in to incentivize the use of the LID BMP. So you've got to have an incentive that offsets that BMP. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This appendix 3.A that was in our information here in volume three,that would be the guideline for this-- MR.HATCHER: That's an initial--right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This would be what you're working off of the-- MR.HATCHER: That would be our starting point. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? Page 60 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion we forward recommendation number two with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,number two moves forward with a vote of 7-0. Moving on to number three,stormwater retrofit program. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Now,you're going to modify that to include private as well,Mac? MR.HATCHER: Well,we can,but we won't be proposing to use any public money on private facilities. I suppose if we could get a grant or something like that we could incorporate that into a private facility,or private facilities could be incorporated into a grant project. Where I see private facilities coming into this would be if we could revise the stormwater utility to incentivize upgrades through that mechanism. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And that would be on projects going forward? MR.HATCHER: Right. And that would be on initiative four. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,anyone else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No,not really. But Mac,couldn't--in a private development somebody could take advantage of the prior one,the low-impact stuff as he-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --remodels or renovates his site. So that's where the private work would come in. MR.HATCHER: Right. That would be another incentive that would apply to a private facility. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward recommendation three with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,number three,stormwater retrofit moves forward 7-0. Number four,fee-based stormwater utility.Questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question I have,right now stormwater essentially is paid through our ad valorem taxes,right? MR.CASALANGUIDA: It's an equivalent transfer. It's not on your ad valorem tax roll.It's an equivalent of .1 mill that comes to stormwater. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you know how much goes to stormwater? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're thinking of taking that out and using that number to develop a fee system for the existing projects? Page 61 of 78 October 20,2011 MR.CASALANGUIDA: Well,yes. You get rid of that ad valorem and work with like almost--it would be on your tax roll as a fee based on impervious. You know,but that's the stuff that has to be vetted and figured out to see if it makes sense. And that would be a heck of an encouragement for folks to do better on-site treatment than what we have right now if they paid more,because they'd have a heck of a lot more impervious or didn't have an optimal stormwater system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent there,so once you isolate it,people can privately reduce it by doing projects that reduce the stormwater. MR.HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially somebody could completely go off the stormwater grid,so to speak,if they're that well designed. Maybe we don't have to do that. But the point is it's up to them if they don't like the number to reduce it. And they know where the nobody came from. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they'll know what to do. It's a good program. MR.EASTMAN: For the cost neutral utility fee,is this from a--I guess at its smallest example,an individual homeowner, if this were enacted they would be subject to a fee going forward in the future,but they would see a reduction in their tax bill; is that what you mean by cost neutral? That's the-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's-- MR.EASTMAN: --ebb and flow amount? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's the intent. MR.EASTMAN: How would this work with the school district,for example,that is exempt from ad valorem taxes? MR.CASALANGUIDA: I think right now you're exempt from taxes. And,you know,you do have a stormwater impact. But right now I don't think you pay into any funds for things like that. So,you know,we'd have to evaluate with the school system to see how it would change or if it wouldn't change. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And would the fee adjust based on property taxes? I mean,if they-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: No,if they're based on a stormwater utility fee,it would based on an impact that you have for impervious. I think that's what we talked about. And so it would not be based on ad valorem value, it would be based on what type of impervious you have. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So everyone would be-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's going to be a lot of work. MR.CASALANGUIDA: It doesn't matter what your house would be worth up or down,it's a base value for impervious. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's difficult. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Yeah, it's very difficult. Mac,I notice this on a lot of them,but a lot of them say evaluate benefits. What is your plan to do this in terms of timing? And if you're evaluating at this point,I mean,these are your recommendations,but you really don't know what's going to come out of these,whether it's a committee or however you're setting this up. MR.HATCHER: Well,until we do some sort of cost study we're not going to know whether or not we can provide a sufficient incentive to make it worthwhile for somebody to improve their stormwater system. So we need to do an evaluation based on what the current projections for what we're raising are,how that would break out,you know,individualized for properties,and then whether or not you could structure it such to be able to provide a meaningful incentive. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And if not,you're starting from square one to come up with another solution? MR.HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. I have a question. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Just one question I have on-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all right. Page 62 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --that would cover all these recommendations,in view of you're the man. Have you prioritized your time in attacking the approved recommendations here? I mean,I see 13 recommendations to use your time,essentially.What do you do,throw them up on the wall and see if it sticks or do you have--I'm not being facetious,Mac-- MR.HATCHER: I understand. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --you know,this--you've got 10 hours in a day and where are you going to start? MR.HATCHER: We have not gone through any formal process yet. The Environmental Advisory Council identified the low-impact development,singled that out as a priority. Some of these issues are almost normal course of business. The water quality monitoring refinement will be part of how we handle working with the DEP and the Water Management District on TMDL assessments. So that's something that we're already currently doing for,all intents and purposes. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: This might help for clarity. Let's make a presumption that the majority of these recommendations are approved but then as you go forward,you know, it would help in terms of the next review if you said--these recommendations were approved and here's our plan,here's how we're going to spend staff time,you know,attacking these things. MR.HATCHER: Well,the other agreement that we made with the Environmental Advisory Council was that we would provide them with an implementation plan and a report of progress. So the implementation plan is planned for the presentation to the EAC,but it is not developed at this point in time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac,and I'm thinking more of an economic base here. If a home or a project could have similar stormwater loading yet one's a millionaire's house and one is somebody of a lesser income, how are you going to adjust for that? Because you really wouldn't want to--even though they're--they could have the exact same rating for stormwater,you know,generation yet the economic base of the owners or the value of the properties won't be even. Will that be a consideration or-- MR. HATCHER: Well,that's a consideration on the way that we collect fees currently. It's not anticipated to be part of the proposed fee base system. I mean,that would be limited to--you know,your fee would be based on how much treatment you're providing or how much runoff you're creating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point I'm making,though,is two homes of different economic value where you are now getting different fees could have exactly the same stormwater runoff. Therefore,it's kind of a regressive tax on people if you're not-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: Once it becomes a fee it has to have a nexus. And the value of property is not a nexus for a fee in the essence of it has to be an impact. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my concern,is that a millionaire's drops and the poor guy's rises. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. But when you take what's right now currently a budget of less than$10 million and you spread it over Collier County by commercial and residential,these stormwater fees could be very, very small,relatively speaking. You know,that's our budget. So when you look at a cost neutral to begin with,the fear is that the program,when we do the study it will come out positive,let's do it,but the implementation cost will be prohibitive because you have to do an assessment of everything that's out there. So you can imagine,it's almost like doing an impervious appraisal on each property.That might be prohibited in itself to start it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But you see my point. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the impervious appraisal for a rich man's house could be equal to a poor man's house and something unfair could happen there. So somehow stir that in the mix. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We will definitely be looking at that. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And your idea is to keep it the same as what they're paying currently on. MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's the base level. I mean,I can't see us coming in and raising a lot more money. But that way as development grows your fee grows. Stormwater is similar to roads,you've increased your inventory and surface water systems,management systems. Yet in a down market you're collecting less to maintain more. If it was a user fee base it would be,you Page 63 of 78 October 20, 2011 know,level. And that's what other communities have done and said that's the positive of having that user fee. It's stable based on your inventory,not based on ad valorem. We'd have to evaluate what that impact would be. But when you look at less than 10 million spread out over all of Collier County,I would imagine that's going to be a small portion of the tax bill,probably less than 10,20,$30 on a residential,maybe more on commercial. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: What if it's three million to regulate it or-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's the problem. I think--what we're going to find is I think they're going to say it's a great idea,but to implement it might cost you several million dollars,which would be the problem. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. MR.CASALANGUIDA: So that's what we're going to look at. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Anyone else on--what are we on,number four? Tom? MR.EASTMAN: Well,the cost of our stormwater maintenance right now may be in the neighborhood of $10 million,but in the future with perhaps a rising ocean,and this would be long into the future,that cost could rise substantially. And that would be a greater number that you're talking about in terms of a collection. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it would be based on that,Tom. I think,you know,you're getting into sea level rise or other issues,I think that would totally throw the fee out of whack. That would be a bigger problem. But I think we're looking at a cost neutral first time around. And again,I can't answer your question about schools. MR.EASTMAN: I'm just saying,on the first go this may look very negli--as a very small impact,a very small fee. But once that course is set in motion and things change and the cost of stormwater management rises in the future,40,50,perhaps long time down the road,this cost and this structure,the fees could be very substantial, depending upon what mechanisms are needed to protect us from stormwater. So even though it's cheap now, it may not necessarily be cheap in the future. MR.CASALANGUIDA: For whatever costs you'd incur in the future,you're going to have to pay for them one way or the another. I don't disagree.But someone will have to pay either way. We've looked at other communities that have done it and some have been very successful, it's just cost limitation has been our issue. MR.EASTMAN: Right. But tying back into Brad's point about potential for a regressive fee here,as it rose it would become more regressive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I mean,it will come back to us. We'll see. So I move we forward recommendation number four with a recommendation of approval,being sensitive to the economic value of the people's houses. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Fee-based stormwater utility moves forward with a vote of 7-0. Number five,flood protection standards. Questions? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Yes. How does this interact,interplay,conflict with the floodplain management plan,Mac? Which also speaks to the same issue here. MR.HATCHER: These would be mechanisms that would protect the floodplain from adverse impacts from the stormwater. From new or redesigned developments. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: So this Item No. 5 speaks specifically to stormwater treatment system standards. And I think the floodplain management plan in terms of--that was to prevent flooding of structures and Page 64 of 78 October 20,2011 that type of thing,primarily. MR.HATCHER: Yeah,the floodplain is a much broader analysis of different types of measures.Whereas these are three specific LDC amendments--or ordinance amendments,I should say--that could strengthen floodplain protection,as well as just plain-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. So there's no conflict is what you're saying. MR.HATCHER: There's no conflict. They're complimentary. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Okay. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mac,would this help our community rating,our FEMA rating if we do manage this? We'll have to get Bob Wiley in here. So you think this would help. But the intent of this is-- MR.HATCHER: It would make small gains,yes.The floodplain compensation assurance of that would be a small gain and the discharge rate would be a small gain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think the real intent of this is to get people who are developing projects to not at all effect the floodplain. In other words,the solution to all of these things is for development to keep their water to themselves. MR.HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Don't waste water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go get some big diapers or something. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac,I notice this one doesn't say cost neutral. MR.HATCHER: It does not. The impact would be to the developer,and it would be an additional assessment that they would have to make in permit review process. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: When you say assessment,what do you-- MR.HATCHER: Study. They would need to model their stormwater discharge to ensure that they are not increasing the quantity of water flowing downstream to such that it would affect downstream properties or the floodplain. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is that something that you anticipate would generally happen? I mean, is this going to be a huge expense to make a development meet whatever requirements you're looking to put in place? MR.HATCHER: I wouldn't anticipate that it's a huge expense,but it would be an expense over their existing --this is not a current requirement. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. And my concern is, I mean,we always say that it's a cost to the developer,but at the end of the day it's a cost to whomever buys the home,which is ultimately the taxpayer. So,you know,what kind of increase are we looking at is the concern. And then you'd also mentioned redesign,so--any projects that are I guess redesigned,but--are you going to have to retrofit some existing projects? MR.HATCHER: You wouldn't have to retrofit an existing project,but you might have to modify the stormwater treatment system to accommodate the discharge requirements. And the discharge rates are directly related to the canal capacity. If we start exceeding these discharge rates,then we are very likely to cause problems on downstream properties. MR.CASALANGUIDA: May I recommend that when we come back we give you what I'll call three typical examples,small,medium, large development,what do we cost based on recommendations. That way this commission can evaluate the cost of benefit of something like this. MR.HATCHER: Right. When the LDC amendments were developed,I'd have those answer. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And that's what the concern is,a lot of this stuff we're approving but we don't really have all the answers. MR.HATCHER: And that's why we're pointing out I guess over and over again that you're not approving the LDC amendment at this point,you're approving us going forward to work up the LDC and the analysis. MR.CASALANGUIDA: On things like where I think there's going to be an increase cost,maybe we can come back and just tell you what they think they might be before we spend a lot of time developing the LDC. Because that may be something this Board may want to consider and say,you know,we don't recommend going Page 65 of 78 October 20,2011 forward. I don't have a problem doing that-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Right. MR.CASALANGUIDA: --if you put that as a condition of approval. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion we forward recommendation number five with a recommendation of approval. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: With the conditions that Nick just stated? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I'm not as worried about it maybe as you. Because when we do the LDC amendments,they all have a line for fiscal impact. And that is when we'll know what it is really is,don't you think? MR.CASALANGUIDA: You know,we bring LDC amendments forward sometimes with what I would say in very rough draft form with some costs to benefit to it before we actually take it through. I mean,that way you could at least get a chance to look at it before we spend a lot of time on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't think at this level we'd know the fiscal impact yet. It's the line that's usually left blank,by the way,but-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Well,that's the concern. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Your call either way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we can,you know,insist upon it on these things. And that way they'll know specifically what that is. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,flood protection standard moves forward. Moving on to number six,modify flood protection level of service. Anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,I mean,I guess are you intending to change these or--I mean, because after the last couple of days it should be based on types of vehicles as to whether they can get into the neighborhood and stuff like that. MR.HATCHER: Well,this is one of the initiatives that will require further study. We need to evaluate how effective this different type of level of service standard will be in terms of both addressing flooding issues and whether it will allow us to better define areas that need to be improved. So this is very much an evaluation at this point,rather than a change in level of service standard. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: When we're saying again evaluate or as you said study,you're going to be doing all of that? MR.HATCHER: I would anticipate that I will need some assistance on this particular one. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Mac would be the project manager on it. But we would have teams that would work with him on like some of the transfer development rights,the basins. Some of these we would sub out with assistant contractors to help him. But ultimately this is on Mac's work list.He's going to have assistance,but he's the guy. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So when we're saying studies,we're not going to have an additional million dollars to look at-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: No,this might be where the road department is,they work with stormwater to do Page 66 of 78 October 20,2011 that too as well too. MR.HATCHER: The current level of service standards,you know,all of the basins are either C or D. And none of those are identified as acceptable levels of service. So the current system doesn't do very much for helping us define or prioritize where we need to improve things. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: They're all equal? MR.HATCHER: Right. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. But first,I think Phil earlier volunteered to help Mac, so I don't think we have a problem. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Moving forward number six with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,modify flood protection moves forward. Number seven,TDR program in Golden Gate--slow down? THE COURT REPORTER: Could we take a short break? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Oh,I'm sorry. Okay,let's take a 10-minute break and we'll come back at 2:50. (Recess.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Picking up where we left off,number seven,TDR program in Golden Gate watershed. Once Brad's finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't wait for me. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does anyone have any questions on number seven? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'd just like some clarification from Mr.Nance as to how he would recommend that this recommendation be changed specifically. MR.HATCHER: Well,first,I'd like to interject that if I communicated that we were intending to increase the density in Golden Gate Estates,that was incorrect. We do not have any intention of increasing the density in Golden Gate Estates. The intention is to transfer density out of Golden Gate Estates. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Well,let me be clear. Not necessarily. We talked about you have your urban Estates as well too. Your coastal urban boundary is 951 and one mile to the east of 951. There's a lot of what's called Estates property west of that urban boundary. So what we're saying needs to be vetted to the community both for this project and the mobility plan is taking density for development rights from the eastern Estates and in this flow area and considering adding them to the urban area or the rural fringe receiving areas,which could be the urban Estates. In talking with Mr.Nance--I'll let him elaborate--as Commissioner Brougham has asked,he's not looking to see urban types of developments in the Estates developed because of this. In other words,a multi-family development in the middle in the middle of the Estates because they bought the development rights. MR.NANCE: The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association traditionally represents the people living east of County Road 951,which is considered to be the rural--what Nick says,rural Golden Gate Estates. Now,this sort of language has been used in discussions,you know,informally for a long time,but it's not codified in any of our programs and so on,so forth. On the other hand,you have Estates lots that area over off of Livingston Road that actually have very little in common. Page 67 of 78 October 20, 2011 And I believe from time to time you do have those people come forward with those lots and say gee,you know,would you let me do something else with this property,and then somebody comes back and goes no,I'm sorry, it's zoned E,it's Estates,you can only do so on and so forth with that. So I think there's an opportunity to develop some of that. My concern is that this plan which is I think the first time this concept has ever been written down anywhere, is going to cause people to have--you know,to jump to conclusions that a TDR program with receiving areas is something akin to what we have in the rural fringe,which I certainly hope that wouldn't occur at this point. So what I'm suggesting is that this language be cleaned up a little bit to indicate exactly what Nick and others perhaps are suggesting,or to say that,you know,rather than--you know,when you have that top line and you say transfer the TDR's to receiving areas,that suggests that you have an area in the Estates that is recommended for increased density. That's the way I perceive that based on the other TDR program that exists today. So my suggestion was not to jump to any predetermined conclusions here or to endorse something that is at the very,very conceptual stage. And to go--like I say,I think that this sort of a development,a credit system,can really help with your mitigation bank,it can help with your flowway restoration,it can help with mitigation that's necessary for Nick's transportation infrastructure. But at the same time, if you look at that Eastern Estates as a density reduction groundwater recharge area sort of a concept in your head as a whole,you can see where it's necessary to move density out of Golden Gate Estates and actually have density reduction. So if you could include language that so indicated that,I think it would be--it would--I think it would help the community really feel good about the Watershed Management Plan and maybe actually help this concept move forward. But it needs--you know, it would certainly need to be fleshed out with a lot of public vetting and a lot of people contributing. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Your concern is that the text of the recommendation have the appropriate disclaimers or caveats in it not to mislead people to-- MR.NANCE: Yes,Commissioner,that's what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned that they don't think this suggests density increase in Eastern Golden Gate Estates. And,you know,I'm very pleased to hear Mac say that. But I just wish--you know,I hope we can get language in there that clarifies that. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Is there any problem modifying that? MR.CASALANGUIDA: No,we can make that clear. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this something we're just approving to move along to be vetted by a steering committee with people from Golden Gate Estates? COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: My concern--not speaking for these guys,my concern is that if we approve this recommendation to go forward,it's going forward to the next stop on the train line.And if that language remains the same,you could have even more problems at the BCC. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right,I think we can--I'm happy--in talking to Tim and Mac,we're happy to clarify that as it goes to the BCC it's not intended for a receiving area in Golden Gate Estates. MR.NANCE: You know,when you start saying what this says,number seven,you're talking about something that's very,very complicated,it's got a lot of cross-connections and a lot of benefits. But also,if misdirected,it's going to be exceedingly controversial. It's going to cause a groundswell of reaction in the community. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That satisfies me. I think you'd be happy with that,right? MR.NANCE: Yes,sir. Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And Tim,I'm sure someone from your organization will be part of the committee to-- MR.NANCE: We would--we really hope that would be the case. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I don't think so. MR.NANCE: Welcome to my world. I liked you up to now,Nick. MR.CASALANGUIDA: I'm kidding with you. MR.NANCE: Thank you very much. Page 68 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Matt,what do you really see? Give me an example of things that would establish a TDR. Can you--you must have thought of something. MR.HATCHER: Right. We would identify areas to transfer density out of And also you would need to trans--I mean identify areas that that density could be transferred into. The proposal was to consider the rural fringe receiving areas to receive the density. But it has not been,you know,vetted or analyzed to see whether or not that would be an improvement over the existing rural fringe TDR program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean,so, I mean,the density,while that's,you know,the chip in this case,I mean,essentially you want something on the ground. And what is it you're looking for on the ground? Let's say for example one guy has a site that's all wetlands. So what you're saying is that you're going to let him take his development rights off of that wetlands and let you use that wetlands for mitigation or something else,right? MR.HATCHER: Correct. And increase water storage,get water quality treatment benefits and recharge benefits from the transfer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then where that TDR can land is something you'll be studying. And I guess obviously it's not going to land back in Golden Gate Estates. MR.HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I don't see anything dangerous in this. I mean,even the way it's written. I don't see anything that says that the land could come back in the Golden Gate Estates. Do we want to add a sentence that says that,though? MR.CASALANGUIDA: I think,remember what we talked about,urban Estates as well too. So Tim's point's well taken. He will be on the committee,him and his folks. And there will be folks in the urban area that will be on. Because there's going to be a discussion--I've already had people inquire,does that mean I'm going to be able to put a high-rise on the coast and buy TDR's from Golden Gate Estates? I said no,no,that's not the intent. But that's the fear that--so we're going to make sure everybody's included in this discussion. And there's a lot of value in this, so we want to make sure we get it right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: Well,I think at the same time,when you're looking at this,though,you also need to look at how we can improve the marketability of the TDR's that we-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: --currently have. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So you could be creating a whole new receiving area. MR.HATCHER: Could be. Or could be just adjusting the calculations for the existing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the goal is not to decrease density in the Estates,the goal is to provide land for watershed management solely,right? Because we're getting confused. We start talking about density and it's not a density desire,it's to get properties for watershed management,right? MR.HATCHER: I would agree. Density is not necessarily the primary mover,but density seems like--I mean,the density reduction seems necessary to be able to mitigate or restore those wetlands that are in private property ownership. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anymore questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward number seven with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is that with the--to clarify the language-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: We'll note that in the presentation to the Board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want to put a caveat that no density increase in Golden Gate,that's fine. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Again,what we talked about,Golden Gate's a broad word. Golden Gate Estates. Just-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Golden Gate Estates. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Eastern. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Eastern Golden Gate Estates. Page 69 of 78 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eastern Golden Gate Estates. Tim's neighborhood. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does the second agree? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I think so. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. MR.NANCE: I'm feeling the love there. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,TDR program moves forward 7-0. Number eight,Golden Gate Estates mitigation bank. Anyone? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,just one question,Mac. What is your timing to do the committee? MR.HATCHER: Well,shortly after I guess Board approval,if we get it. And I see this--the mitigation bank again is a complimentary piece of the previous initiative. MR.CASALANGUIDA: This is a higher priority, if that's what you're asking. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: That's what I was asking. Okay,any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes,I'll move that we forward this on for approval. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay Golden Gate mitigation bank moves forward 7-0. Number nine,modify operations,water control structures. Questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: No questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,Mac,in your presentation you mentioned something about--were you thinking of hardening the walls of drainage structures,building like channels? I mean-- MR.HATCHER: This is simply looking at the way that the structures are operated. When the gates are opened,when they're closed. The consultants think that we can gain or prevent base flow into the canals just by modifying the current operational schedules. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the problem being that if you lower the canal,groundwater will then start to seep in? MR.HATCHER: Correct. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We're doing this now already. I mean, it's almost a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No-brainer. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward with a recommendation of approval. Page 70 of 78 October 20, 2011 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Just one question,Mac. Have you met with Big Cypress on this yet? MR.HATCHER: We haven't had any formal meetings,but we've discussed it-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: You're on board? MR.HATCHER: --amongst staff. Yes. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,number nine,modify operations of water control structure moves forward with a vote of 7-0. Number 10,monitoring program. Anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No,I mean,Judith in her presentation,I was going to try to stick that in there,but she's right,we'll keep it separate. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forward with a recommendation of approval number 10. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,monitoring program moves forward with a vote of 7-0. Number 11,additional protection programs. Any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward number 11 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Number 11,additional protection programs moves forward 7-0. Number 12, stormwater system maintenance and certification. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I have some on that one. Or at least a potential concern. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. Page 71 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: What are the implications if this recommendation was to go forward and take some meat on the bones with respect to existing developments and their existing stormwater retention,discharge systems and so forth that can fill up and do fill up over time and so forth. But what are the implications of an implementation of this type of a program on private developments? I'm worried about the word certification and inspection and the burden it would be putting on homeowners' associations and community development districts and that type of thing. MR.HATCHER: It is an existing policy in the Growth Management Plan. We--development services tried to push it forward,and was requiring professional engineer certification,which added a considerable expense to the operation. We'd be taking a slightly different tact and perhaps requiring property managers to do the certification. But the I guess implication is that--the reason for doing it is to ensure that the facilities are operating as designed. The implication I guess or the negative implication is that you would require someone to correct deficiencies,which would obviously be expensive.But,I mean,the permits require that they be maintained,it's just a matter of somebody stepping in and requiring review on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I mean,I hear you. I mean,you can't quarrel with the goodness. But I know how much pushback you got the last time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes,that's what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: And I just envision a storm of pushback as this goes forward,people saying,you know,we can't afford it,we're under water on our home values,little lone our HOA expenses. And even if you required the property management company to do it,they're not going to do that for free. And then you get downstream.Well,what if they don't do it,how are you going to enforce it? Are you going to levy fines? I just see a host of problems with this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I agree. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I don't know where that leaves me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The thing is,if these people are responsible for maintaining it,then they need to have reserves for it. That's what Lakewood does,we're responsible for the whole outfall system through Lakewood. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: That's a good question. And I don't think-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's dredging, it's-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean,so you need to have reserves for that. And if people don't have them, then they wait till there's a problem and there's too much flooding in their community,then they realize there's a problem,then it's too late. I understand if people are upset about it,but it's-- COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not arguing against the recommendation,I just think it has to be really explored and really explained very,very carefully as you move it forward. And Karen,your point on reserves is well taken,but I would venture to guess that probably 50,60,70 percent HOA's and/or community development districts don't have a clue for a reserve for stormwater maintenance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Are we going to cover this? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well,they should. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm not arguing that point. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: One at a time,guys. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'm sorry. MR.CASALANGUIDA: If I--Commissioner Ebert had asked about this a while back before you joined the commission,Commissioner Brougham,how we're working with HOA's to identify the depreciation of your stormwater system over time. We know that over the course of 15,20,30 years you have to do a bunch of retrofits in your drainage system,no different than the county does. The county is suffering the same issue you have. We have a bunch of stormwater systems that we probably haven't properly depreciated and planned for replacement. I think we're going to have to look at this and more maybe to start is it informational. I think this is how we soften it.Go do your inspections,find out what it is for a period of three to five years that,you know,there is any ramifications. But at least it gives you a chance to do an assessment and start to build funds. Page 72 of 78 October 20,2011 I think your fear is you do the initial inspection and when you find out you've got a half a mile dollar price tag to come into compliance.We're going to have to balance that. Because I share the same concern you do. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You know,if there were appropriate lead times put in to regulations that were enacted,this program is what it is,here's an explanation of it. You know,it's going to be phased in or become effective two years out,three years out,four years out,then at least you're giving sufficient notice to these organizations. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Your point,and maybe something we need to look at,Mac,is to say for--you know,as we develop this,for the first one to three years they become informational inspections and you guys take them for what they are and they become more effective in the fifth year and officially effective in the eighth year. I mean,you know,so we stagger in compliance so you don't--also not out of compliance. But the problem is with your South Florida Water Management permit,you're supposed to be in compliance all the time with your stormwater system. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Excuse me,Nick. Will we be covering this--will you be covering this in the meeting coming up for the HOA's? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yes,ma'am. In the same capacity we're talking about it now is that we're looking at it,we're going to try to come up with ways to work with HOA's. But once,you know,your district permit is not in compliance,you're supposed to fix it. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Tom? MR.EASTMAN: The school district within the past year or two recently completed a certification for every school site that has a South Florida permit. So would this be--could we just turn that paperwork in? I mean,are you thinking of additional things beyond that? How would your system differ? MR.HATCHER: What we're thinking of would be something like that on a recurring basis. And it would be based--well,the proposal that the Department of Environmental Protection had for their proposed stormwater rule amendment was based on a type of stormwater treatment system you have,then this inspection period is based on how likely that system is to need upkeep or maintenance. Wet detention system is a little more frequent than a dry detention system. But I believe the frequency for the wet systems was every year for a couple of years and then it jumps out to five years. For the dry systems,they were like every five years. So I would anticipate that we would accept a recent certification and then require some sort of an assessment on a recurring basis after that,based on the type of system you have. MR.EASTMAN: So,in other words,the paperwork for South Florida would suffice as paperwork for this program under the county? MR.HATCHER: Yeah,what we're looking for is that the facility is operating as per the Water Management District permit. So right. MR.EASTMAN: So how does that differ than what South Florida does and its enforcement arm? I mean, with kind of this downturn in development they've had an upturn in enforcement. And that's what really happened with--that's why we certified over the last year or two all of the school sites. Do you see any duplication of inspection and certification? I mean,if South Florida is already doing it,why would the county do it as well? MR.HATCHER: I wasn't aware that they had increased their enforcement,but we'd have to factor that in. And I'll talk with them before it goes any further. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Anyone else? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac,on here you've got annual inspection,no submittal,but the recommendation is to develop,review and reporting standards. Are you going to then require a submittal? What are you thinking? MR.HATCHER: It would be based on that DEP time table,based on the type of facility it was,or is. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. So if you're--I mean,currently I know we're talking about slowly implementing it. But currently this is a requirement,correct? MR.CASALANGUIDA: Only for your South Florida permit. Right now your system has to be--Tom raises a good point. If South Florida does what they're supposed to do,we would accept that inspection and say Page 73 of 78 October 20,2011 you've done it. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: You're done. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. It would not be to duplicate those efforts. They just haven't. I know we all kind of chuckle,but they have increased their enforcement recently leg quite a bit. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So what type of review are you looking to create? MR.HATCHER: Whatever--well,the minimum that would reasonably keep the facilities operating as they're intended. And like I said,for a wet detention facility it's every second year for two years,and then it's every five years after that,I think. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: And then once this goes into effect,how are you going to monitor,you know,what's reported? And then what happens if a community fails to do so? MR.HATCHER: Well,it would depend on whether we adopt standards--right now we'd have to refer it to the Water Management District if we got a report that indicated a facility wasn't operating.We don't have the enforcement capability. So that would all be part of a formal approval process to define how it would be enforced. We haven't spent a whole lot of time talking about that at this point. We've been trying to get through the assessment certification end of it. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have another question. Being that the Water Management District is now enforcing it a little more,you mean there's less for them to do right now? MR.CASALANGUIDA: No, I think from talking to the regulatory side,they've said since they've slowed down they've put a focus on cleaning up their permits. A lot of systems were built and never certified,including some of the road projects. We're going through--we're getting letters as well,you did the road project four years ago,we haven't received final certification yet. So they're going through and doing the final certification. I think that's what Tom Eastman was,you know,responding to was a final certification that it's done. What they're not doing is coming back and checking after it's done and been filed certified on a regular basis. And what we'll do is coordinate with them to see who's going to do that.Do they expect the county to do that,are they going to do that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to ask next. Is there a way that we can talk with Big Cypress and maybe because of all these--because of all the PUD's,that they could come in,if the associations paid them something,to look at it? I mean,just trying to be aboveboard here and get everything right for the--for their systems. MR.CASALANGUIDA: We're going to coordinate with them. I think what Tom's referring to is certification after it was built. File certification that it's built to compliance. It's an as-built. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay,rather than a maintenance. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Rather than a maintenance every five years. We have requirements in our plat--correct me if I'm wrong--if the system fails and the drainage easements are privately maintained,we have the right to go in and fix it if it's doing harm outside the system. That's in a lot of the plat dedications we have right now,the county can come in and make a drainage improvement because you're not doing it and we can't wait for you to do it. We don't want to be in that situation. That's kind of the goal. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,right. MR.EASTMAN: And some of that final certification can also become maintenance. Because if the project were completed,final certification didn't happen until years later and you have to meet a certain slope or whatever. I know in order to obtain our certification we had to actually do projects and change banks around stormwater management ponds and so forth. So,I mean,it does bring you--that fmal certification does bring you to a current state in terms of everything, including maintenance. MR.CASALANGUIDA: Right. At that point in time. MR.EASTMAN: At that point in time. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: You mentioned soil--bank erosion. And the development that I'm in now started 13, 14 years ago,and we're facing over a million dollars worth of bank erosion control--or mediation on Page 74 of 78 October 20,2011 roughly half the lakes in the development. So it's-- MR.CASALANGUIDA: A big problem. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: --a big number. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Any more questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Is there a motion?Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Mr.Motion Maker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I recommend we move with a recommendation of approval number 12. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Stormwater system maintenance certification moves forward 7-0. Thirteen,implement Florida-friendly fertilizer ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move we forward with recommendation of approval. Well,we can discuss it after the motion. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That already happened,though. MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's right. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah,we already did. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I just wanted to clarify,Jeremy mentioned that we approved the state model. Wasn't it a little more stringent what we actually-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: --sent forward,the state model? MR.HATCHER: When it got down to it,we ended up going with the model ordinance. You all had recommended provisions that were more stringent.The Board of County Commissioners wanted to evaluate conditions that were more stringent. We got a letter from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services the Monday afternoon before the Board meeting indicating that they had in the recent legislative session received sole responsibility for the formulation of fertilizers,so they were threatening to sue us if we implemented more than the model ordinance. So we went with the model ordinance. I intend to contact them again. There were some of the more stringent provisions that you all recommended that the Board also wanted to evaluate that don't have anything to do with fertilizer formulations,like the prohibition period and the additional buffer requirements,and we'll see where we can get with it. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So right now it's just the base model? MR.HATCHER: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mac,I have another question then. What happened to all the other areas that pushed for the stringent,Lee County,Charlotte County,the rest of them? Did the state come in and threaten to sue them also? MR.HATCHER: No,the legislation basically grandfathered the existing regulations. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So we were a day late and a dollar short. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,there's a motion and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 75 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,number 13 moves forward, 7-0. And I think that is it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,wait,we could have more. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We could have more,yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could have more. I do like the one about the best management practices for open water bodies. So can we add that as a recommendation? MR.HATCHER: You could add that as separate,or we could incorporate that into the stormwater system maintenance and certification. We'll incorporate an education and best management practice recommendations with that certification program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You'll do that though. Which one-- MR.HATCHER: That would be number 12,the stormwater maintenance and certification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,you'll add it to there. MR.HATCHER: Right. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Are there enough nods for that to move forward? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it as a motion and then you can vote it down. I move that we add to recommendation number 12 a best management practices for open water bodies. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Mac,is that enough for you? MR.CASALANGUIDA: That's fine. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,motion approved 7-0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about the EAC recommendations,do we want to incorporate those? VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: I think the low-impact development is part of that. I think that's covered in that section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah,kind of. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Because Mac,whatever incentives,you're going to bring back to us, correct? MR.HATCHER: Correct. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: So-- MR.HATCHER: And we've already agreed to provide them with an annual implementation and progress report. I would anticipate that any evaluations of the watershed plan would be part of those reports. Plan for the anthropogenic copper,we can implement an educational program. But until we get formally declared impaired or get some other authorization,it's going to be difficult to implement any regulatory program. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Could that be rolled into the BMP? MR.HATCHER: Certainly. That's where it would be applicable would be the stormwater management systems. Page 76 of 78 October 20,2011 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,then we'll let that go. And then I do like the idea of having a review cycle,at least the first term of it. The seven years seems appropriate. There's a lot of stuff that has to happen here. So I guess it would be adding 14,which would be an initial review cycle of seven years for essentially all of the above. Do I hear five? DR.HUSHON: Repeat after every five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well,can't they at that time decide what the next cycle should be?Okay, with a repetition of every five years thereafter. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Was that a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER BROUGHAM: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Aye. Okay,motion approved to reevaluate after seven years,then reduce it to five. Does anyone else have any additional items? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just kind of have one question on the watershed plan. Is-- VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --that the right time? In the report you discussed,you started out by doing an initial modeling of the predevelopment I guess water flow of the county. That would be back in the days of the Indians,or before them even,maybe. And then you did analysis of the current,right? MR.HATCHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's the biggest--I mean,obviously it's all chopped up,it's canal,it's hacked. But was it a really extremely well-functioning thing prior to creative man hitting it or--I mean,what's some of the major--I mean,obviously the canals to drain it,to build on it. But back in--I'm just curious as what back in time this county was flowing like. Do you have any comment,analysis,or-- MR.HATCHER: The reduction--let me put it this way: There was a significant increase in flow of water, the quantity of water to the estuaries with the canal. And that predevelopment condition is basically a model that's based on the existing conditions,taking the canals and the roads out. So it's an estimate of what things were like predevelopment. You want to say something,David? MR.deGOLIAN: I guess in--Peter deGolian with Atkins. I guess the biggest issue is historically the flows kind of went from Lake Trafford and everything went overland flow to the south into Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands. And with construction of the canal network you took what was essentially a 50 square mile watershed that drained into Naples Bay and made it 170 square miles. So you've more than--I mean,almost 10 times the volume of flow is now going into Naples Bay than what used to go in there historically. And you're getting a subsequent reduction of flow is going into Rookery Bay and Ten Thousand Islands as a result of the those canals also. So that's kind of the biggest effect of the development of the canal in residential developments that's going on down here is the change in flows to The Estuary systems. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay,thanks. I mean,I was looking for the Discovery Channel answer, I guess,but that's close. That's good. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Okay,does anyone have anymore questions on watershed? (No response.) Page 77 of 78 October 20,2011 VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: ***Okay,does anyone have anything under new business? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: Does anyone have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion we adjourn. COMMISSIONER KLEIN: Second. VICE-CHAIRPERSON AHERN: We are done. Thank you. ************* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. Pr cult la MARK STRAIN,C airman, _ A 'RML i -Chairpers These minutes approved by the board on ` (,- 1 t as presented (/or as corrected . Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,Inc., by Cherie'R.Nottingham. Page 78 of 78