Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/29/2008 S (GMP Amendments) April 29, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 29, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle (arrived at 9:30 a.m.) Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 ~ AGENDA April 29, 2008 9:00 a.m. 2006 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments, Transmittal Hearing Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chairman, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Page 1 April 29, 2008 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. 2006 Growth Management Plan Amendment (Transmittal Hearing) A. CP-2006-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), to change the Conditional Uses Subdistrict by adding subject site as an exception to locational criteria so as to allow expansion of the existing church use on the adjacent property onto the subject property, located on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, 1/3 mile north of Golden Gate Parkway (CR886), in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 3.54 +/- acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Site (FLUE/FLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to establish the Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, for a 20,000 square foot clubhouse and up to 26,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, schools, professional and medical offices, and personal and business services consistent with the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-l) zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of5 +/- acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Page 2 April 29, 2008 C. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Site (FLUE/FLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to establish the Airport/Orange Blossom Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, for up to 12,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, professional and medical offices, and personal and business services, along with senior housing in the form of an Adult Living Facility and/or Continuing Care Retirement Center, or other similar housing for the elderly, consistent with the Commercial Professional and General Office (C-l) zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located on the west side of Airport Road, approximately 330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drove and adjacently south of the Italian American Club, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5 +/- acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] D. CP-2006-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Site (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Open Area to a Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for property located west of Lake Trafford in the RLSA, in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 191.80 +/- acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] E. CP-2006-10, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) Open Area to a Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for property located east of Immokalee in the RLSA and within the Area of Critical State Concern, in Sections 13, 14, 15,22,23,26 and 27, Township46 South, Range 30 East, consisting of 2,431.80 +/- acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] Heard on April 15,2008 F. CPSP-2006-12, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Page 3 April 29, 2008 Use Map (FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use District/Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Conservation Designation, and make a corresponding text change to reference a new map of the site, for the County-owned Mar-Good park property located in Goodland, adjoining Pettit Drive, Pear Tree Avenue, and Papaya Street, in Section 18, Township 27 South, Range 52 East, consisting of2.5 +/- acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] (Resolution 2008-100: Transmitted amendment "CPSP-2006-12" to DCA) G. CPSP-2006-13, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Transportation Element (TE) and Maps. Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE). Economic Element (EE). Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM). and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to change the allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates; to extend the transfer of Development Rights early entry bonus in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; and, to make corrections of omissions and errors and other housecleaning revisions so as to harmonize and update various sections of the various elements of the Growth Management Plan. David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] 3. Adjourn INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 4 April 29, 2008 April 29, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: You've got a live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Growth Management Plan Cycle 2006. Today is April 29th. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 29th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks, I'm assuming that you will guide us through today's meeting? MR. WEEKS: I'll do my best. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. The specific purpose for the hearing this morning is to consider the balance of the 2006 cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments. You'll recall on April 15th you heard one petition down on Goodland, Petition CPSP-2006-12, and you acted upon it at that hearing, and then continued the balance of the items to today. This is a transmittal hearing, which means that any petitions that you approve for transmittal will be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee and other state and regional agencies for their review, and then subsequently we will receive an Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report from DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, and then we will hold adoption hearings, and we would anticipate holding those in the fall of this year. These items are legislative, not quasi-judicial; there is no requirement to swear in participants nor disclose ex parte communications. As required by state law, there is a sign-up sheet outside of this boardroom on the table in the hallway for any interested party to sign up to receive notice from DCA once they have completed their review Page 2 April 29, 2008 of the amendments that are adopted later this year. That notice would identi -- advise the person that is signed up of the determination by DCA as to whether or not they've found the amendment in compliance or not compliance with state law. The executive summary identifies each of the petitions in the order on your agenda. It identifies the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff recommendation. As is your usual protocol, the applicant will present first, followed by a brief staff presentation. And of course, at any time, as always, the board can ask questions and have your discussion. As a transmittal hearing, your action will be approved by As, which only requires a simple majority, that is a minimum of three votes, whereas adoption requires a supermajority vote. And, Commissioners, at the conclusion of the hearing, with the assumption that we will finish today, and we certainly hope so, we would appreciate if you would leave your binders behind. We will collect those and reuse those. And with that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it okay, I marked up some of my binders and color coded them and stuff? MR. WEEKS: Of course, Commissioner. We look through those -- and certainly those are for your use in whatever way, and we will look through those and change out the marked-up pages, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Item #2A RESOLUTION 2008-123: PETITION CP-2006-5 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP), TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT BY ADDING SUBJECT SITE AS AN Page 3 April 29, 2008 EXCEPTION TO LOCA TIONAL CRITERIA SO AS TO ALLOW EXP ANSION OF THE EXISTING CHURCH USE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOCA TED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, 1/3 MILE NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (CR886), IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 3.54 +/- ACRES - ADOPTED W/CHANGE TO TRANSMIT TO DCA MR. WEEKS: And Commissioners, our first item is Petition CP-2006-5, petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to change the conditional uses sub-district by adding the subject site as an exception to locational criteria so as to allow expansion of the existing church use on the adjacent property onto the subject property, which is located on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, one-third mile north of Golden Gate Parkway, in Section 29, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, comprising approximately three-and-a-half acres. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for the firm R W A, representing the First Baptist Church of Golden Gate, the CP-06-5. With me this morning is Cindy Kreutzer. She is from the church. The purpose of this Golden Gate Area Master Plan amendment, to provide for an opportunity for an expansion of church-related facilities onto the property owned by the church, which is immediately to the north. That expansion property is 3.54 acres. It is the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. As you can see on the little aerial photo that I put up, subject property is on the east side of Santa Barbara, just a little bit north of Painted Leaf Lane, which is approximately, let's say, two-thirds of a mile north of Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nadeau, can I interrupt you, Page 4 April 29, 2008 please? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff and Planning Commission has recommended approval. MR. NADEAU : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, that's -- to me it's a no-brainer. MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. I'll stop my -- I'll conclude my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I don't find any problem with churches in District 3. I think it really makes a community. The Planning Commission made some stipulations -- MR. NADEAU: Indeed, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- as a part of their recommendations. MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir, and we're in full agreement with them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, with that, I'll make a motion that we transmit to DCA. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second your motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by commissioner -- David, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, as -- if you'll turn to page 3 in your executive summary, about halfway down, I'd like to address the Planning Commission's recommendation, one small change. The double underline, double strikethrough shows the Planning Commission changes. Number one, they imposed a -- a recommended, to add a square footage limitation of 12,000 square feet onto the subject property. Secondly, they recommended striking through the term church-related day care, and instead have it simply say day care use shall not be allowed. And Planning Commission's -- Commission asked staff at the time if we had any objection to that change and we responded no. Page 5 April 29, 2008 But after thinking about it further, we do, and I'd like to explain why. The master plan has a strict limitation on where conditional uses can be located. This petition is asking for the subject site to be an exception specifically for a church use. No other exception. So the only allowable conditional use, if this is approved, would be a church. To state that a day care is not allowed is not necessary, any more than it would be necessary to say a social fraternal organization is not allowed or any other of the conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district because this exception is only for a church. The reason staff had recommended adding the language "church-related day care would not be allowed" is because that is not a free-standing conditional use, rather one associated with the church and one that typically would be viewed as being allowed. So with the exception for the church, a church-related day care, in staffs opinion, is something that ordinarily would be allowed; therefore, the staff recommendation would be, do not strike through church-related day care, leave it as -- leave it in place so that the amendment will only allow for a church to be located on the property, which is the applicant's intent, and it will clearly identify that a church-related day care is not allowed, and then, of course, any other conditional use in the Estates district would not be allowed either because it is not being accepted. Perhaps a bit confusing, but it's a matter of, believe it or not, clarity. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before I-- MR. NADEAU: Certainly the applicant has no objection to the changes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I restate my motion, my colleagues have questions or comments, starting with Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question was answered. That's exactly where I was going with this, okay? I just wanted to get some Page 6 April 29, 2008 clarification. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, and same here. I understand what it was now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I -- the amendment or clarification to the motion is to strike out day care, correct? MR. WEEKS: And replace it with church-related day care. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, church-related day care or activities, correct? MR. WEEKS: The word activities is not necessary, but no harm done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's okay with the second. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #2B RESOLUTION 2008-124: PETITION CP-2006-7 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, Page 7 April 29, 2008 INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SITE (FLUE/FLUM), TO CHANGE THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT DESIGNATION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE ITALIAN AMERICAN PLAZA AND CLUBHOUSE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT IN THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, FOR A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE UP TO 26,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SCHOOLS, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICES, PERSONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE (C-l) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT ROAD AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5 +/- ACRES - ADOPTED TO TRANSMIT TO DCA W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is Petition CP-2006-7, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to change the Future Land Use Map designation from urban residential sub-district to a new Italian American plaza and clubhouse commercial sub- district within the urban commercial district to allow a clubhouse not to exceed 20,000 square feet and up to 26,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, schools, professional and medical offices, and personal and business services consistent with the C-l zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the southwest corner of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, comprising of approximately five acres. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich? Page 8 April 29, 2008 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Bob Duane and Chuck Mohlke and Ray LaCotta and Ren Morani from the Italian American Club. As you can see from the visualizer, the property is an approximately five-acre parcel. It's outlined in pink. It's at the southwest quadrant or Orange Blossom and Airport Road. The property currently houses the Italian American Club, which was constructed about 40 years ago. The -- what the request is, is to expand the Italian American Club from its current roughly 7,000 square fee to 20,000 square feet and also allow office and schools and financial institutions on the site. The Italian American Club is dated and basically needs to be replaced. The goal would be to move the Italian American Club from its current location on the property to the grass area that you see on the property, and then the office and financial institution would be where the current club is. As you can see from the surrounding development, this is no longer really a residential corner or area. You have the government center with the library and the government office building on the northwest quadrant, and then on the east side of Airport Road, those two corners have already been rezoned to commercial uses. So it's really not a residential corridor anymore. Plus, there's only about two, two-and-a-half acres left on that site, so putting residential on that two, two-and-a-half acres really couldn't be compatible with what's around it. The Planning Commission -- the original request was for retail. Staff objected to retail, and the Planning Commission didn't think retail was appropriate in the area either. So the request was changed from the 20,000 square foot for the club, that stayed the same, but the additional 26,000 went from retail to office and financial institutions. With that, the Planning Commission recommended approval 8-1, and Page 9 April 29, 2008 that's, in summary, the request. And we had our neighborhood information meeting. I think the neighbors were looking forward to a more modern and nicer-looking facility on that corner. As you all know, there's been many -- the Italian American Club provides many, many public events on that site, as well as provides a public facility for weddings and other events that's really needed in that area of the county anyway. You've got plenty of country clubs if you want to go high-end, but you don't really have any mid-range facilities to serve the public to have special events and the charities that the Italian American Club serves. So with that, we're requesting you follow your Planning Commission recommendation to transmit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Rich, are you also the petitioner on the next one that we're going to be hearing, which is CP-2006-8? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir, I'm not. That's Mr. Nadeau. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we have talked to your staff about transmitting as two separate petitions, but at adoption, coming up with one sub-district. We just need to work out the details to make sure that we're -- even though we're one sub-district, we each have our own allocation of development. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that was my concern. I know that there was some discussion in regards to interconnectivity, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that we wouldn't run into a problem with the roads in that area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Page 10 April 29, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: And also the enhancements that were going to take place at that intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. The plan would be -- I'm sorry to interrupt. But as far as the enhancements go, the plan would be to add an additional turn lane to Orange Blossom, which would free up the through movements going further east to Livingston Road and allow people to turn north onto Airport Road, which seems to be the bottleneck on that road. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. There was also some concern, I believe, from residents that lived west on Orange Blossom Drive, that they wouldn't be impacted by traffic coming out of this -- these two segments of land that are going to be basically put together. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What will end up happening, Commissioner, is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, those people would be going west on Orange Blossom out to Goodlette-Frank Road. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll actually be making -- going west to Goodlette- Frank? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We shouldn't have any impact on that at all. What will end up happening is this entrance will stay, this entrance basically will go away, and we may get a right-out only -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- if we're developed separately. But if we develop jointly, there may be some opportunities for interconnection going that way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My last question is, I'm glad that the Planning Commission brought up the fact that we've got a lot of retail, and I think to the north of this, that we have a mixed-use that came before us, and I'm not sure, I think there's retail across the street, kitty-corner across the street that's supposed to be there eventually. Page 11 April 29, 2008 So it's my understanding that you have medical office and offices in general, and then the other agricultural land that wants to be rezoned basically is going to possibly be for assisted living; is that my understanding? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's my understanding of their presentation. And I believe also 12,000 square feet of office; is that right, Mr. Nadeau? MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I thank you very much for your time on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- by Commissioner Fiala to transmit to DCA, there's a second by Commissioner Halas. Is there any public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question? Yes, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: Clarification. Would that be to approve per Planning Commission recommendation? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my motion. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala agrees, second also agrees. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, do you have anything? MR. KLA TZKOW: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) Page 12 April 29, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimous. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Item #2C RESOLUTION 2008-125: PETITION CP-2006-8 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SITE (FLUE/FLUM), TO CHANGE THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT DESIGNATION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE AIRPORT/ORANGE BLOSSOM COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT IN THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, FOR UP TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, PROFESSIONAL AND MEDICAL OFFICES, AND PERSONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES, ALONG WITH SENIOR HOUSING IN THE FORM OF AN ADULT LIVING FACILITY AND/OR CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT CENTER, OR OTHER SIMILAR HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE (C-I) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD, APPROXIMA TEL Y 330 FEET SOUTH OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DROVE AND ADJACENTLY SOUTH OF THE ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5 +/- ACRES - Page 13 April 29, 2008 ADOPTED W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS TO TRANSMIT TO DCA MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next petition is CP-2006-8, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to change the Future Land Use Map designation from urban residential sub-district to the new Airport/Orange Blossom commercial sub-district within the urban commercial district to allow up to 12,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institution, professional and medical offices, and personal and business services, along with senior housing in the form of an adult living facility and/or continuing care retirement center or other similar housing for the elderly consistent with the C-l zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the east side of Airport Road, 330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drive and adjacent to the south of the Italian American Club, which was also the preceding petition, further located in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, comprising approximately 5 acres. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nadeau, before you start, I think Commissioner Halas wants to make a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to talk with Nick Casalanguida before I make that motion. Nick, if you could step up to the mike here, please. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I apologize in need to be sworn in, if this needs to be sworn in. No, okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, you've discussed with both petitioners in regards to these two pieces of lands that will probably be married together. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Page 14 April 29, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, do you feel comfortable with what's been presented and what's been discussed with the Planning Commission in regards to road capacity and getting in and out of these two pieces of property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's an opportunity to have them interconnect and make them a unified access and access control. Also, we've discussed that this should be a mini consortium per se; that intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport there requires multiple improvements. And if they work together in a group __ and that was the recommendation for the Planning Commission __ I am comfortable that the capacity will increase sufficient to handle this project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: With that, I make a motion to approve this with the __ CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nick. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- caveats that was put in here by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion by Commissioner Halas to forward to DCA with Planning Commission's recommendations, second by Commissioner Fiala. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- Dwight, would you put that back, please. MR. NADEAU: Oh, I'm sorry. There we go. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you tell the board what you envision of the intersection improvements at Orange Blossom? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I probably need the microphone, but let me walk you through it if I can. Page 15 April 29, 2008 An additional turn lane heading westbound, an additional turn lane heading eastbound and an overall intersection improvement probably putting that signal on the SCOOT system, and then an interconnection between the two projects. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- when you say a turn lane, we already know that going east you want a right-hand turn lane. What about on the other side? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be an additional left turn lane in both directions, opposing left turn lanes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposing left turn lanes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, and I think what we were -- the object is to get the developer that's at the northeast corner, southwest corner, this developer, and everybody to kind of work together with right-of-way, water management, and the design. And then what we'd do is probably an overall intersection analysis and say what works the best and design it that way. That's our goal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. So you're going to have more involvement besides these two landowners? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. It's similar to what we've done on 41, what we've done on Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill and J&C, is to get the group together and say, what benefits you all, and you all need to work together on this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, isn't it in the plan to four lane Orange Blossom from, what is it, Goodlette-Frank to Livingston Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's on the constrained plan, sir. Is not on the needs plan or the financially feasible plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. It says here that prior to the adoption hearing, prepare and submit to staff new data and analysis, including a market conditions study and a comparative traffic analysis with the revised amounts, intensities and types of use Page 16 April 29, 2008 allowed. In other words, this thing's still up for grab? Or hasn't these studies already been done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It has, sir. It's been done by several applicants. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How much of a time lag would there be between when this study was done and the new one that's requested here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the idea would be to do a study where all of them work together on. The studies that have come in -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I see. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- have been fragmented. The idea would be if they all do a unified study similar to what we did at Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill and say, based on the overall traffic of all the projects, this is the improvement, and then get buy-in from all of them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That makes sense. It didn't say that in my executive summary, and now that I understand that, thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, is there any public speakers? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? Page 17 April 29, 2008 (No response.) MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Item #2D PETITION CP-2006-9 - REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SITE (FLUE/FLUM), TO CHANGE THE FLUM DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) OPEN AREA TO A HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA, TO MAKE CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO ACREAGE FIGURES IN RLSA POLICIES, AND TO INCREASE THE CAP ON EARLY ENTRY BONUS STEWARDSHIP CREDITS IN RLSA POLICY 1.21, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF LAKE TRAFFORD IN THE RLSA, IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, CONSISTING OF 191.80 +/- ACRES - MOTION TO MOVE AMENDMENT TO THE 2007 GMP CYCLE - APPROVED MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next is petition CP-2006-9, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element, including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to change the Future Land Use Map designation from rural land stewardship area open to rural land stewardship area, habitat stewardship area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures within the rural land stewardship area policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus stewardship credits within the rural land stewardship area policy 1.21 for property located west of Lake Trafford within the rural land stewardship area in Section 33, Township 46 south, Range 28 east, consisting of approximately 192 acres. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Page 18 April 29, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'd just like to make note here that we have a unanimous approval from not only the Planning Commission, but from staff. This is a -- this is a good thing. And I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta for approval, second by Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one tiny little thing. On the opening page from Hole Montes, it talks about background, and in here it refers to the RSLA rather than the RL -- RSLA rather than the RLSA, just once, and I thought you might want to correct that before you send it to the DCA. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You are good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any public speakers on this? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have two public speakers. Tom Taylor? Nancy Payton? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks. MS. PAYTON : You're welcome. Good morning, Commissioners. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and I'm here today to ask you not to transmit this Comprehensive Plan amendment. As you recall, when the rural land stewardship area plan was adopted, that there was to be a five-year review, and that five-year review was to address several items, and I have on the visualizer some of the issues that it was to address. Whoops, and I -- that's my one copy. One of the issues it was to address was what lands should be Page 19 April 29, 2008 designated as sending and what shouldn't, and the five-year review was to go back and see what were the shortcomings in the five-year, where did we have glitches, where were there problems? And then there was the LDC that went into effect that it followed up on that compo plan policy that addressed several things, and one of them, if you look at -- and you do have a copy of it -- says that subsequent to the June 2008 review, the rural land stewardship overlay and district regulations may be amended. And the philosophy back then was that we have dealt with rural land stewardship area as one large area, and now if we start having individual landowners coming in and modifying it to their benefit, it undermines that comprehensive planning strategy. And as this review has come forward, there have been many concerns about, well, how many credits do we have out there, how many credits can it generate and how many credits does that translate into development. And I think before we -- we need to get a handle on how many credits are out there before we start generating more credits and re-designating lands. I want to let you know that this landowner participated regularly, intimately, in the development of rural land stewardship overlay. And during that process, they never objected to these lands being sending lands. It was only two years or so into the program that they decided, well, maybe this ought to be sending lands, because at that time I think that's when the market was going up and potentially there were some opportunities for -- to sell credits. My concern is that it undermines the comprehensive approach to dealing with this area, and this amendment ought to be rolled into the five-year review because we're going to have different things happening at different times, and how can you get a handle on the overall picture out there if you have these moving amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. Page 20 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, or Coyle, we're on 2000 -- or 2006-9. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have the petitioner address that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the property that the Conservation Collier is looking at, correct? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So right now it is somewhat sending, and now it is a developable -- the petition is to develop a property? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, actually it's the opposite. The present designation is open, which would allow for development of the property. The request is to change it to habitat stewardship area, which is a protective status. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Has the Conservation Collier looked at this application? MR. WEEKS: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I know that it's not needed for them to make recommendations. Do you have any indication of what -- if they did vote on this petition, or did they make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners, or did they have any concerns? MR. WEEKS: To my knowledge, they did not make a recommendation. They are aware of it. It was presented to them. The advisory -- Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee had a presentation about this petition, and I think the way I phrase it is, they did not object to the change, and Mr. Taylor was present, and I would defer to him as well for comments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Taylor? MR. TAYLOR: As the applicant, Tom Taylor, for the record. The question came up, was specifically related to, would this affect value and the appraisal process that's undergoing with the Page 21 April 29, 2008 Conservation Collier potential acquisition of the property. We told them that we believed that it would not affect the value, and that if it did have an impact of increasing the value of the property during the appraisal process, we would ask that that not be considered or we would be willing to withdraw the application. We would prefer not to withdraw the application. It's not going to be adopted until after the appraisal process is completed. So indications to us is that it's not going to affect the appraisals in any way negative to us or negative to the county, if you want to call it that. So we've elected at this point to continue the process forward. We're not trying to enhance the value during this appraisal process for the county. This was something that was applied for in, I believe, April of2006, and it's taken this long to move to this point in the process. So we apologize for the overlapping efforts, this compo plan amendment process and the Conservation Collier evaluation and appraisal process, but it's just the way things seemed to have come together. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Tom, forgive me for being a little slow. But if the taxpayers of Collier County, through Conservation Collier, have already moved forward in wanting to purchase this property, even though we don't have the assessment for the property yet, and the county commission unanimously has approved that purchase waiting, of course, for the evaluation of the property, why are we going through this process? This is a lot of money, the cost to go through this process, if you're not even going to be owning the land, we are. I don't understand. MR. TAYLOR: Unfortunately, this application and the fee that was paid was paid in 2006. It was a $16,000-plus, I think, application fee. That was well before the discussion about submitting to Conservation Collier occurred. Page 22 April 29, 2008 So this particular 191 plus or minus acres, as we got to know the property better, we felt like this property would not be developed. It was not developable, or it was not appropriate for development in our opinion, so we felt it was best that that be added to the property that was immediately adjacent to it which was already habitat stewardship area. So adding this same designation to the property was what we anticipated at the time, and that's -- that's why the application has moved forward. Now, certainly we have continued expending money by coming to hearings like this and advertisements and the like, and that purely is in the event for some reason the county did not proceed with a -- an acquisition of the property, that it would still be -- that it would be moved into a habitat protection area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- I just have two more questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, this is not going to change the value of the property at all, you're not even going to be owning it, hopefully, we will be, and yet are you moving forward. It's still not -- it's still not hitting the right cord here. It's not making any sense to me. Can you tell me then, can this be put on hold until such time -- as long as you've paid the money, you're not going to get it back anyway, could we just put this on hold until such time as the value of the property is determined and the county decides to either move forward with it or, if it's too expensive, not move forward with it, and then pick this up and go forward? MR. TAYLOR: You know, that probably fits more along the lines of what staff would say the time lines are for submittal to DCA and then coming back for adoption hearings. My understanding is, that can only occur, is it once or twice a year? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Once a year.e Page 23 April 29, 2008 MR. TAYLOR: Something like that. So, you know, the timing of it. I guess it could be. I think Ms. Payton is suggesting that it be delayed and come as -- MS. PAYTON: No, no. MR. TAYLOR: Okay, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm -- I don't want to speak for her, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We'll get that clarification. MR. TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that it? Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Coletta, and then I would like to -- since Ms. Payton's name came up, I would like her to address the board, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that was to be my question for Mrs. Payton. Would you go back to the mike, please, Nancy? Try to tell me why you think it should be delayed from the standpoint of preservation of the property, protection of the property from development and cost of the property in the event we really do decide to buy it. MS. PAYTON: Well, first from the standpoint of preservation, any land, open land, can be designated sending. So that ifthere's an interest in protecting that, there is a mechanism to put open land, currently that's receiving land, into a sending status. You don't get as many credits for doing that, and there's some other issues. Secondly, we have the five-year review which is supposed to be doing just this, is looking at land that maybe was incorrectly designated one way or the other and adjusting that, but looking at it from the comprehensive picture so we can get a handle on what the credits are out there, how we're possibly going to adjust the credit system, if we're going to change the balance between sending and receiving, if we're going to do something different for credits for restoration. There's discussion about ago preservation incentives. My concern is that we continue to look at the rural land stewardship area Page 24 April 29, 2008 in this comprehensive manner. And there's nothing at this point that requires the landowner to go ahead and develop that property. Ifhe feels it's sensitive, then he can continue to protect it. He can use it for some type of mitigation. There are other opportunities. But my concern is not to transmit this and to direct the five-year review committee to look at this along with the other areas that have been identified that need to be reevaluated. We have a list of20 issues, and other environmental organizations have come up with lists and are pushing them through the committee, and we urge the landowners to do that as well, and it seems much more appropriate. There was a hearing earlier where this issue came up, and Mr. Taylor said, oh, I forgot about that compo plan amendment. So on one hand, he had forgot about it; another hearing later on I've invested this amount of money in it. We've got to move forward. I'm hearing different rationales at different forums. So I stand by, this needs to not be transmitted and it must be in the five-year review to look at it comprehensively. He never made a -- Pepper Ranch never made an issue of this back in 2003 when the lands were designated, there was an opportunity to do that, and his consultant was intimately involved in that planning effort. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So do you see this as an attempt to get more credits on this property than would otherwise be the case? MS. PAYTON: Sure. Why else would you re-designate it to sending without wanting to seek those credits and -- maximum amount of credits, because you do get more credits through a sending designation at this time than you do with open land going to sending. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why wouldn't the designation result in a lower land price if it is changed? MR. T AYLOR: Well, you may have to be compensating for those credits if they remain on the land. Conservation Collier may have to compensate the landowner for those stewardship credits if Page 25 April 29, 2008 they're not severed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there's no assurance that they will be severed under these particular circumstance? MS. PAYTON: We don't know that. We don't know that. My recollection of Conservation Collier, that they asked for appraisals with this land as open land, receiving land, and also as sending land so they could get a better feeling of whether this would or would not impact the price. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, that's correct. They did make that request. MS. PAYTON: And I also want to share with you, that when this application was submitted to Conservation Collier through a fluke of the application which specifically didn't say, do you have a compo plan amendment pending, it was not revealed to Conservation Collier when they initially made their decision that there was this Comprehensive Plan amendment pending. Now, that -- for whatever reason, that was not in the original application. Conservation Collier has amended their nomination form to make it clear so that there aren't these gray areas that may be exploited for various reasons. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I presume the defense has a response? MR. TAYLOR: Well, I take exception to the implication that-- somehow we're trying to pull a fast one. That absolutely is not the case. We've said from the beginning when this first came up that if this is going to increase the value for the Conservation Collier acquisition, we would ask that it be discounted by that increased value that may be caused by this. Frankly, we did forget that we even had this pending. We had no communication from the county whatsoever from April of 2006, until Jan -- I believe it was January of2008. Page 26 April 29, 2008 It was out of sight, out of mind as far as we were concerned. We didn't think about it when we submitted to Conservation Collier. It came up when we got the first communication from the county and said, this is unfortunate that these are running parallel to each other. We don't want it to become an interference in any way with the Conservation Collier evaluation. That's not our intent. It never has been. Our intent with this has been to protect the land so that it could not be developed, which is consistent with what our intent was from the beginning when we purchased the ranch. It adds an additional protection layer. It does give us the ability, if we were to come in before the five-year time frame, which is coming up, to get early entry bonuses, which is one stewardship credit per acre, which is about 191 or 192 credits. And if the land is restored, it does give us the potential, upon staff and county commission agreement, to get restoration bonus credits. But those are not guaranteed in any way, and it would have to be agreed on by the county staff and the county commission for us to get that. So I can assure you, we haven't been trying to do anything other than what is appropriate for this property and protection of this property . We had the application in for two years now. And you know, it's unfortunate that it's strung out as long as it has, but that's the way things -- things fell. And I just -- I'm just shocked that somebody would imply that we're trying to pull something. We are not doing that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you could get your $16,000 application fee back, would you want to do that and just drop the whole thing or not? MR. TAYLOR: I think we would seriously consider that. I would want to talk to the other general partner in the project because Page 27 April 29, 2008 he and I have to agree with that, but we would consider that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- this is my final question, I'll let somebody else get into this. Nancy, I understand from a philosophical standpoint where a comprehensive review is essential. What I can't quite understand is how you accomplish that when you have individual property owners who might have needs or interests that occur at different points in time, and one comes to petition for one thing this year, another one comes to petition for something a year or two years from now. How do you do that on a single comprehensive review? MS. PAYTON: Well, I think that's appropriate as we move forward beyond the five-year review, but the five-year review -- we implemented a plan that had never been done elsewhere. It was entirely new. It was entirely different. And so if you look at LDC and you look at, gee, the five-year comprehensive review, it was, we need to go back in five years, we've got to let it work and see how it functions, and then we need to go back and see, do we have this right? But by jumping ahead of that, how can that committee do a comprehensive review when we've got potentially two ranches that are on their own -- own different program than the overall plan? So it's not going to say -- be that much time difference by rolling into the five-year review. And I -- I support your suggestion that -- to refund the $16,000 and that the committee can incorporate these issues into their review. After the five-year review -- and it does say that in the Land Development Code -- subsequent to the June, 2008, review, the rural land stewardship area overlay and district regulations may be amended in response to the county's assessment and evaluation of the participation in and the effectiveness of the stewardship program. So when that went into effect and my interpretation of that, it was that this is -- we've got to get a handle on it. There have been issues Page 28 April 29, 2008 raised from all different entities. The Planning Commission, which surprised me as to why they moved this forward -- because they have repeatedly raised issues about the number of credits out there. We don't know how many credits are out there. Are the lands properly designated? There's some new science that's come forward. And, therefore, I think we do have to keep the plan the same as it was in 2003 for this 2008 review so we can look at it properly. And how do you account if this is going to change? This is asking for bonus credits, which we're supposed to jump start the program in 2003, but this amendment wants them to -- it's retroactive in many ways. And particularly annoying is that it's from an entity that was involved very much in the initial planning effort. And in fact, the rural lands stewardship overlay was modified at the last minute to accommodate concerns from the Pepper Ranch because it runs -- it runs into the Immokalee urban area. So there was a density blending amendment to assure that they could move their credits around to optimize saving the best habitats. I hope I've answered -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Saving the best habitat is not a bad thing to do, is it? MS. PAYTON: It's not, and there are ways to do that now. One is that the plan does allow that land to be designated right now as sending land. I think the objection in the -- or the goal of Pepper Ranch is to maximize the number of credits, because you don't get the same credits by designating receiving to sending as you do sending to sending, and that's a big issue that's to be addressed by the rural land committee. And there were questions raised about these credits. You get two credits just for thinking about restoration. And we've raised that issue; is that appropriate for just saying, we'd like to do restoration, you get two credits. You should get the credits when you do it, not just Page 29 April 29, 2008 thinking about it. So there's some shortcoming and where -- does this put is this application, this amendment, and Half Circle L, are they vested, are they out of sync with the recommendations that come out of the five-year review committee? It just raises big issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- let's see. Probably -- Mr. Taylor, the -- are we absolutely sure -- I mean, there's nothing to assure us 100 percent that Conservation Collier is going to be able to purchase this land. We don't know that yet. We haven't got to that point. And I think a couple of us made comments up here before that if it's one dollar above a fair appraised value that we're not going to go along with it. That's been said. The action that you're looking for now gives you a little bit of levity in case the Collier Conservation doesn't go forward, but it still protects the lands? Does it protect it any less than what's there now? MR. TAYLOR: It's protecting more. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly my point. Now, if Conservation Collier, if the deal collapsed at some point in time -- and it could happen. There's absolutely no guarantee, even though I know we have a lot of supporters for Pepper Ranch -- that item's going to be carried in here and it's not going to have some fatal flaw in it, it might go down in flames. Meanwhile, we have an entity out there that's offering to give up the rights of development at this point in time to sever the credits and to not use them in any way. And I'll tell you something, I got a memory that's long enough to remember this day when it came before Page 30 April 29, 2008 the commission. And if you ever asked, saying, okay, we need these credits for bringing the price -- more and more dollars from the Conservation Collier to offset the credits, I won't go along with it. I don't think you expect us to go along with that. I am a little curious, knowing everything that we do know now, what is the advantage for your company to do this? MR. TAYLOR: The stewardship program is an intensive-based program. The intensive to putting the best habitat land into protection is the stewardship credits that you have the ability to remove and transfer elsewhere. Putting this into the habitat land as opposed to open, which could be developed, creates that additional incentive to protect that land rather than do something else on it. It's got two mechanisms of doing that. One is the early entry bonus credit, and that's -- we don't know whether we'll take advantage of that or not because we haven't had a discussion about the next step of this if this is approved, and I don't know if it will even be adopted before the early entry period expires. The other is for restoration of the land and the potential of getting the restoration bonus credits. Again, that's an incentive-based additional credit. If you spend the time and effort and money to do restoration, you get the additional credits. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, with that said, now, if -- Mr. Taylor, if we do purchase through Conservation Collier your land here, then all this you went through is really for no reason at all. MR. TAYLOR: Effectively that's the case. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But it gives -- but the thing is, it gives us a built-in assurance that if something goes terribly wrong with the Collier -- Conservation Collier purchase, this is like an ace in the hole to make sure this land stays into preservation, and that's the way I look at it. MR. TAYLOR: That in a nutshell, and I'm -- I'm sorry that we're Page 31 April 29, 2008 not on the same page, Nancy and I. This is a little bit unusual that we have an environmental group that's not on the same page. And I understand philosophically. I think where she's coming from is this should be evaluated as part of the overall five-year plan. Had I known where we would be today two years ago when we started this effort, we, you know, we wouldn't have been at this point. But, you know, time ticked by and here we are. Our intent, our desire, is to still protect this land. As Nancy said, it can be protected. We don't have to develop it, but it's an incentive-based protection program, and that's all -- that's all we were asking and why our application was submitted to begin with. We felt that this land should be -- that it's very similar to the property immediately to the north, which already has protection. It was a habitat area. I don't know how we missed it, frankly, when we were involved with the RLSA program five, four, five years ago. I wasn't that personally familiar with that part of the property at the time. We came in somewhat last minute, and there was some accommodation made between our Immokalee urban area lands and the RLSA in some transferability and some density blending and that type of thing. But it came pretty clear to us not long after that, that that area really probably should have been part of the habitat area, so we proceeded with it -- with the application, and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Taylor, one more -- one more question regarding the area and what we're looking at that's before us today. If we were to approve this and send it forward and it came back for adoption and four commissioners passed it at that point in time, that would give us the assurance that this land remains -- the habitat remains in protection in perpetuity, or at or at least that point in time that somebody doesn't forget 12 generations from now. If you weren't successful in selling your land to Conservation Page 32 April 29, 2008 Collier and you had some time -- a point in time, possibly during your lifetime or when your demise comes and it goes on to somebody else, they would be bound by this particular stewardship area, the business of the sending lands; that would stay there regardless of who owned the land, correct? MR. T AYLOR: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This is all part of the Pepper Ranch, not only this one, but the next one? MR. TAYLOR: The next application, I think you're referring to, is part of the Half Circle L Ranch. It's a little bit different animal but, again, similar to potential restoration of parts of that property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't we have -- MR. T AYLOR: The next application is not directly related to this one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it isn't. Somehow I thought Pepper Ranch was like 2,450 acres. MR. TAYLOR: It is. It's 2,512 acres, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- and the two acres (sic) here total just about that, don't they? MR. TAYLOR: We are only asking with this application to change designation, I believe it's 191.8 acres. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I guess I'm having trouble why they're separated here. I don't understand that if they're all Pepper Ranch. And the last thing is, have you given us any appraisals yet for this property? I know we've been wanting to see them. MR. TAYLOR: The County itself actually does the appraisals. The county has hired two appraisal firms. That effort is underway. County staff and we had an opportunity, all of us, to meet together about a month ago. So that's underway, and it's anticipated that this Page 33 April 29, 2008 will come back, and I think the appraisal should be done in about another month, is my understanding. Maybe I can help with this. I'm not sure if I can or not. I don't know if staff can delay adoption hearings or not. Maybe staff can answer that for me, and that might give me an alternative to put out on the table for you. MR. WEEKS: Well, not for a single petition. It would affect the entire cycle. This petition would either be heard with the balance of the '06 cycle at adoption hearings or it would need to become part of the next cycle of amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I would comment further that I agree with what Mr. Taylor said. It's my understanding of the timeline that the appraisals for this property are expected within the next few months, I think over the -- sometime during the summer, whereas the adoption hearings, though they are not set yet, we would anticipate approximately September for this -- for these petitions to come back to you for adoption. So there is a period of a few months where we think things will start to settle out where we think we'll have the appraisals in place by the time we get to the adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it. I feel that, you know, Tom has taken -- Mr. Taylor has shown me his property. It's magnificent. And I certainly want to see it protected as much as we can, but I would like to see this delayed until the next cycle till we can get all of this stuff taken care of, personally. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If this property is protected, why would Conservation Collier want to buy it? It's protected. What is the purpose of Conservation Collier? To protect property against development. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what it was -- the premise it Page 34 April 29, 2008 was sold on to the people. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So if it's protected, why are you going to spend taxpayers' money to buy it? Could somebody give me an answer? MR. WEEKS: I could just comment that one distinction between privately owned lands that are protected versus public, of course, is public access. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's the only reason? MR. WEEKS: That comes to my mind at least. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We might spend tens of millions of dollars to buy protected land just so somebody can go out and walk around; is that right? MS. PAYTON: I raised question -- Nancy Payton. I raised questions about the purchase. I'm the only conservation group that did, and I have taken flack for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, by the way, this is not the time for us to make that decision, but I'm just asking for information, okay. And how is it going to affect you? I'm as interested in property rights as I am in conserving property. MR. TAYLOR: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what I'm really asking is, if you preserve it, have you not -- not accomplished our purposes, which is to preserve the land? Why would we want to spend, how much, 60, 70 million dollars to purchase -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirty. MR. MUDD: Thirty-five. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-five? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's have an offer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, 35. How about 20? MR. TAYLOR: We're not going to ask for a dollar more than the appraisal. The ranch as a whole -- our intention and what we told the family Page 35 April 29, 2008 when we bought into the partnership was that we wanted to try to preserve the ranch in its entirety. It's something of a historic landmark in Immokalee. The flora and fauna that are on the property use the property in its entirety. There are certain areas that meet a technical criteria, the technical criteria that the county has established in drawing lines on a map that say this is habitat area, this is open area, et cetera. That doesn't mean the animals don't go back and forth. We've offered the Conservation Collier the entirety of the ranch to try and preserve it in its entirety. There's recognition and there was a discussion with the appraisers that there are parts of that property that have less value, parts of the property have greater value, and that will be considered in the appraisals process, from what we have been told. So we believe that to be the case. And depending on what the total value is in the entirety and protecting the entirety of the ranch, I think, comes down to the decision that Conservation Collier and you folks make the ultimate decision, should we buy this ranch in its entirety because of its collective value as opposed to a piece of the ranch that may have some level of protection already. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What portions of the ranch have no protection whatsoever? How many acres are we talking about? MR. TAYLOR: Over 1,500 acres. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have no protection at all? MR. TAYLOR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that a lot of my colleagues have said something. I've always asked that question, is, if its -- the RLS program works if we allow it to. Mr. Taylor says, this needs to be protected, and this is what the application is. My perspective, I don't want to purchase a piece of property that's already being protected. There are other properties in Collier Page 36 April 29, 2008 County that would make up -- small parcels could make up a big parcel of protection, interconnectivity and that. And I'm willing to kick this ball down the road. But at end of the day, is it going to be protected by private industry or does it have to be protected by the public industry, or with the public sector? To me, it should not be both. We're not being very prudent with the dollars. Just because you have public access, to spend $20 million, I think, is absolutely ridiculous. And with that, I'm going to give it to Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I got to tell you something, I probably disagree with that statement more than I've had -- with anything you've ever said before. There's an element here you're totally forgetting, and that element is that -- the rules that are created by man. As long as this remains in the private sector, a couple generations from now or even a generation from now they can rewrite the rules. If this is in the public domain, same as a national park, be it Yellowstone or Everglades National Park or whatever, they'll remain in the public domain forever. But to leave it in the private domain, you're going to have people amending this over the years to the point that you're going to lose the value of this as far as a pristine environment that can be enjoyed by many. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I took a tour of this particular property, and what concerned me is that there was a large area that fronted Lake Trafford, and that presently is zoned RT zoning. I think this is a great opportunity for us to invest in the future as far as people having the ability to go there to recreate on the lands that are next to the lake. Page 37 April 29, 2008 We've done a poor job in the past in regards to providing access to water for our citizens. And instead of having this developed in R T zoning with high-rises and privatizing it to the point where nobody can use it, I feel this is a great opportunity for us to acquire this land and also all the other lands around it, even though some of it may be protected because of the fact I believe that would give the opportunity of the people who live in an urban area the understanding of what a rural area is, and I think it could be used as a working ranch and give respect that we need for all the lands here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, I don't think that's a silly statement, Commissioner Coletta. Look at Alligator Alley. It is owned by the public and it is being sold by the government. That is no different than anything else that the government owns. It can sell anything it wants to. So I disagree with your statement and I'm not going to support the motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Mind you that the motion is not to purchase Pepper Ranch. In fact, I think we're doing the petitioner a disservice by what you heard today. Do you really want to go forward with this petition when you heard this mixed bag up here where you're going to give up some of your rights so you put yourself in the bag so they say it's not something they want to purchase just because you've already stepped forward of your own initiative and put conservation easements on your property so that you're destroying your chance of ever selling it? Do you really want to go forward? MR. TAYLOR: Well, let me make a suggestion. I've had a little bit of side discussion here with the county attorney. I guess maybe we can ask, can we put this off and put it with the 2007 cycle? That will have an opportunity for it to get through the Conservation Collier process or not, if we have that ability to do that. I don't see it changing anything dramatically with what our intentions are with the property . Page 38 April 29, 2008 We can delay it. I don't want to be part of -- you know, we don't want to be part of controversy . We were thinking we were doing the right things here. So I apologize for that and just suggest, you know, maybe we can just put it off for a year and put it in the next cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And before I withdraw my motion and make a new one, what do you have to do with the 1-75 being sold to the public interest? No, I'm just kidding. Forget that. I withdraw my motion and make a new motion to move this forward to the '07 cycle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you've withdrawn your motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Withdrawn my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Changing your mind? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Making a new motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your new motion is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To move it forward to the '07 cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you want to not submit this to the -- for this cycle and you want to submit it to the 2007 cycle? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's very good, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My analogy was right on point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How is that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: The government owns land. It could change its mind what it does with that land, and you'll see that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- quite a bit in the future, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I need to counter, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't know why you want to argue today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I do though. Page 39 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think your analogy that you're trying to draw to this is completely incorrect. One, it hasn't happened. The citizens of this county and this state are very much in opposition to that. Look at such things as the national parks. Have you seen any of them being turned over to private interests? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not yet. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a lot less likely in the public sector than it is in the private sector. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's going to be a wonderful day. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next? Item #2E RESOLUTION 2008-126: PETITION CP-2006-10 REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, INCLUDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES (FLUE/FLUM), TO CHANGE THE FLUM DESIGNATION FROM RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA Page 40 April 29, 2008 (RLSA) OPEN AREA TO A HABITAT STEWARDSHIP AREA, TO MAKE CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO ACREAGE FIGURES IN RLSA POLICIES, AND TO INCREASE THE CAP ON EARLY ENTRY BONUS STEWARDSHIP CREDITS IN RLSA POLICY 1.21, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF IMMOKALEE IN THE RLSA AND WITHIN THE AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN, IN SECTIONS 13, 14, 15,22,23, 26 AND 27, TOWNSHIP46 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, CONSISTING OF 2,431.80 +/- ACRES - TO TRANSMIT TO DCA - ADOPTED MR. WEEKS: The next petition is petition CP-2006-1O, petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element including the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to change the Future Land Use Map from rural land stewardship area, that's the RLSA, open designation to habitat stewardship area designation to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in the RLSA policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus stewardship credits in RLSA policy 1.21 for property located east of Immokalee within the RLSA and within the area of critical state concern in Sections 13, 14, 15, 22, 23,24,26, and 27, Township 46 south, Range 30 east, comprising of approximately 2,432 acres. MR. DUANE: Hi. For the record, my name is Robert Duane. I have Mr. Scofield here, the owner of the ranch. It comprises of approximately 10,000 acres. It's located in northeastern Collier County; approximately half of it, or 5,000 acres, is in Hendry County, and the balance of it is in Collier County. This was also the subject of a stewardship SSA area that was before you in two oh six when a conservation easement was placed on -- over, by and large, all of this property. The request here, however, today is to designate 2,500 acres that are in the open lands category and change those to a habitat Page 41 April 29, 2008 stewardship area. They're presently habitat stewardship areas located to the north of our open lands designated area, lands to the south, and there's a flow- way stewardship area located to the west. So this would make approximately the area that you see -- by and large, this impacted area that you see from past agricultural practices, it would make it eligible for restoration, additional restoration credits, not unlike -- there's some similarities between this and the previous application. This is taking another step further to not only -- well, with preserving the land today, but now we're taking that next step to ensure its further restoration or at least have that opportunity to have credits available with further restoration of the property. Weare taking the position and we have staff support from both the Planning Commission and your own staff that because of the habitat value and the -- particularly the endangered species value of these lands -- they're very highly rated for panther habitat, and I'm sure we're going to hear some of the same -- philosophical argument, which I understand, from Mrs. Payton today that somehow we should roll this into the five-year review. But similar to the previous application, we filed this two years ago. It's taken us a long time to get here. Mr. Scofield has been a long-time owner of this property, and I think he made a decision, you know, early on that he, too, wanted to see ultimately not only the property preserved, but he wanted to see it enhanced and restored. And currently there are agricultural uses on the property. But that's what his long-term plan is, to move down that road. We do not want to -- unlike the last petition, there are some differences. Mr. Taylor's selected to go into the two oh seven cycle because he has some rather unique issues regarding the timing of the acquisition of his property. This property is different from that standpoint. Page 42 April 29, 2008 I think that will conclude my relatively short presentation. Mr. Scofield has been on the property most of his lifetime. He has a lifetime of experience he can share with you. I don't know if many of you had a chance to see this property like the Pepper Ranch, but 10,000 acres, or at least half of it, located in Collier County is a significant opportunity for future preservation of this property; however, Mr. Scofield will be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Two speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing there are no questions, you want to call the speakers, please. MS. FILSON: First speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be followed by Dane Scofield. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and we ask you not to transmit this Comprehensive Plan amendment. This one is a little different. This land, as I understand it, already has a stewardship easement on it, of which you hold the easement. So Commissioner Coletta, when you're concerned about things changing, that change would have to come to the county because you are one of the holders of that stewardship easement. This raises some of the concerns that DCA Secretary Pelham has brought up about the rural lands stewardship in general, that it's being not dealt with in a comprehensive manner, but individual landowners, ranchers, tailoring the program to their need. And not that there shouldn't be incentives to restore land. It's, once again, this needs to be looked at in the comprehensive picture. There may be some other open lands that need to be restored, and how are we going to deal with generating credits for that? And, again, we need to look at the whole program so we know how many credits we're generating which, in turn, is how many Page 43 April 29, 2008 houses and how many towns, villages, and hamlets does that in turn translate to? So in order to get a handle, which the five-year review was to do we've got to know what's out there and what is going to happen from the 200,000-acre perspective and not have the Half Circle L have their modification of the program and Pepper Ranch have theirs, and maybe somebody else do their modification. These issues and the -- this was on our list of how do you find incentives to restore farm fields is should -- and is being wrestled with by the rural lands committee. And, again, this is one of the issues that can be rolled into the committee, and the committee can address it, not just from Half Circle L's perspective, but from everybody out there, all landowners' perspective, because you can't have landowners having their individual tweaks on the program or else it's not going to work properly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a question of you, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You bring up a good point, Nancy, and I think just the last item that you had you left us with the uncomfortable feeling that we might be missing something along the way, so we moved that forward to the '07 cycle, where this is something you're asking for us to do in this case, too; is that correct? MS. PAYTON: Well, moving it forward to the '07 cycle, but I'm failing to make the point that this can be addressed through your rural land stewardship committee that's going to come forward with amendments and changes and tweaks to the program, and why not roll this issue into that comprehensive review so that the committee can get a handle on all of the lands out there, how all the lands are going to relate to each other, the number of credits we're dealing with, do we want to look at some other incentive like agricultural preservation which has come forward to the committee? We just need to keep this Page 44 April 29, 2008 as one big plan and not little tweaks for individual landowners who did something in the program and now want to do something different. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Hearing what you are hearing right now, tell me how this whole scenario of events could play out. What would be the best way to handle it? Because I can tell you right now this commission's got concerns over this. MR. WEEKS: In effect what Mrs. Payton is asking for is a withdrawal of the petition, so rather than it be dealt with as a private sector petition, have this property -- both actually that she spoke on -- have these properties evaluated and considered as part of the county initiated five-year review, and that if through that review process it's ultimately deemed appropriate to change the designation, then so be it, as opposed to this -- she didn't use the word, but I guess you would say a piecemeal approach of one-by-one requests coming before you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. May I speak to the petitioner? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, okay. You can see where -- the direction this is going. What are your thoughts on it? MR. DUANE: As a fundamental issue of fairness here, I'm going to plead -- perhaps make more of an emotional argument than, perhaps, is logical of one regarding -- I'm not trying to sidestep your request. We've been in the process for two years. If we had any idea that this would have taken this long -- I mean, it wasn't just the $16,000 application fee. It's the other monies, the other documentation from the other consultants to back up the petition, the wildlife studies that were done, the updates to those wildlife studies that were recently made and brought to our attention, frankly, at the last minute. And here Mr. Scofield has been marching down this road, and now we're Page 45 April 29, 2008 asked to enter into a process that, frankly, we can be a participant in, but we don't necessarily have any control of the process. Is it going to be next year? Is this going to drag on to the year after? There are over 200,000 acres. And I'm not trying to minimize the importance of anyone piece of the puzzle, but there are 200,000 acres. Mr. Taylor's request was to change 194 acres. We're merely asking for the opportunity to restore these lands under today's rules, having already placed a conservation easement over the property. He can't go back and develop this property. This is the right that he gave up under this particular process, and now to ask him to go in another process, frankly, is -- I just -- I've made my best case to you. I really don't want to leave here with a denial of this amendment today, but I would have to tell you that if it's the pleasure that we get pushed into this process -- and Mr. Scofield is going to follow me. He has every right to be disappointed at the outcome today. And I'll rest my case. Thank you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dane Scofield. MR. SCOFIELD: Commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. When we entered this process, we were operating under the rules that were currently in place at that time. We had not anticipated the time frame that it would take for us to come before you with this petition. Weare -- as Mrs. Payton has suggested, we are involved with the review process through the rural lands stewardship. I'm not sure exactly what will ultimately come out of that review process. She has mentioned the fact that DCA is trying to direct some of the potential changes that may occur. We're not sure exactly how that will dovetail our county program with the state RLS program. Our family has owned the property for several generations, and it has always been our intent to preserve this land. And what this Page 46 April 29, 2008 petition does -- the property is already under, as Mrs. Payton has said, an SSA. It's already protected. We've already got the early entry bonus credits for those lands. We're basically talking about our intensive agriculture operations. These lands -- what this petition would do is afford us the opportunity at some point in the future to do restorations and be compensated for that restoration process. What is unknown here -- one of the information points that helped us in determining this course of action is a water quality issue. As development continues to occur, and if we continue these drought cycles here in South Florida, water quality is becoming a major issue in agriculture. And we actually have on our property a sodium, a salt water intrusion problem that our farmers are dealing with now, and they're able to currently deal with the program through low volume drip irrigation systems which preserves and minimizes the impact to the aquifers; however, if the competition continues for those water resources here in South Florida -- and they are. They're going to continue as the numbers of people come to and move into South Florida -- that competition between agriculture and municipalities for those water resources will intensify over time. And if the water quality situation becomes such that we can no longer affordably pursue agricultural, we would like those opportunities in -- to do restoration and be compensated for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Scofield, how close -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is this property that we're considering today to the flow-way? MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the flow-way actually goes through our property on the western boundary. The three sections on the western boundary, the Okaloacoochee Slough flows through our property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The part that we're considering Page 47 April 29, 2008 today? MR. SCOFIELD: No, no. These are the lands -- those sections are protected already -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: -- under H -- FSA status. The top two sections across the property, actually the top half of those two sections are under HSA, so these are the lands interior to our property in Collier County where you see the intensive agricultural uses. Mr. Duane has another map that's in red that outlines the requested area for changing status. If you'd actually turn that, rotate it 180 again, Bob. There you go. One more. There you go. That area in red is interior to our property, and that is the area of consideration. You see that's the focused agriculture intensive activities on our property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the map in our packet, it shows like it's abutting the flow-way. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, these lands do. Right there on that western boundary red line those -- it abuts the FSA status area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, ma'am? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, Bob Duane mentioned you have 10,000 acres and half of those acres are in Hendry County? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The other 5,000 are in Collier County. Now, this is for a piece of that 5,000 acres? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, ma'am. Approximately -- a little over 2,400 acres that were designated open within our Collier property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that isn't part of the Pepper Ranch? MR. SCOFIELD: No, ma'am. Not affiliated at all. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. Thank you. Page 48 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. A couple of points. You want to be able to do this so that you have the right to be able to restore farm lands to native habitat? MR. SCOFIELD: To an appropriate habitat. Those -- that plan, that restoration plan would have to be approved through the county -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: -- at some point in the future, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And here's some of the thoughts I got on this, Commissioners, is the fact we have a -- this process is long. It's extremely troublesome how long it is, but it's our fault that it's as long as it is. We try to meet the needs of every entity out there. But two years in the making, the rules and regulations that we had in place while this was going on is what's driven us to this point. Now we have future plans, we have future regulation coming forward at some undetermined date, another six months or so from now, that could possibly influence an outcome that would be different; however, they have paid the fees, they've been through the process, they lived by the rules up to this point in time according to the rules and regulations we put into place. I think it's only fair -- and besides the fact that we're not talking about intense use of the land. We're talking about doing something that brings it back in line with nature. I'd make a recommendation to transmit, but I'd also -- in my motion, I would like to see something come back from our rural lands five-year review committee as to how they see this fitting into the overall picture as a side note for us to consider at the time of adoption. But I would make a motion for transmittal. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta to transmit, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Coyle? Page 49 April 29, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard several people -- or several statements made during the hearing on this petition as well as the previous one where it was emphasized, I think, both by staff and by the petitioners, that you have been pursuing your rights through the process that we established. I'd like to get a clear understanding of that. If -- are we saying to both these petitioners that we're going to require them to wait until new rules are made before they can get the changes made, or should they be permitted to use the rules as they now stand in order to accomplish what they want to do? That remains confusing to me. Now, what rights does a property owner have to petition and make these kinds of changes under our current rules or the rules that existed over the past two years since these petitions have been in the process? Okay. Can you-- MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, landowner at any given time, short of an imposed moratorium, can file an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan. State law allows amendments twice a year. You've adopted -- prior board has adopted a resolution for Collier County saying we will just do these amendments once per year. But simply put, a landowner has the right to file their application. What is being discussed as far as deferring these into the five-year review would make them a part of that, not before it, not after it but, in fact, a part of it so that ultimately that five-year review committee is going to recommend some amendments to the RLSA program, one of which might be the re-designation of this property in the prior petition so that you might get a bundle of amendments coming before you to change policies, to change map designations, one of which could be a re-designation of this property. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is the five-year review going to be completed? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I can answer that. Page 50 April 29, 2008 Your -- there's two phases to the five-year review. There's the technical report, then the more thorough data and analysis and recommendations of the committee. The Planning Commission will hear the five-year technical report on May 1st. You will see that report at the end of May, and that's nothing more than a report describing everything from number of credits, credits to conversion, that -- basically the technical report. The other report you will see later this fall. It is scheduled actually to terminate March of '09. You may see it -- the committee coming to you before that with the report. I think the caution here, and as David has alluded to, there has been some criticism at the state level of the whole stewardship program. Collier County was not legally part of that from a standpoint of the legislation review of the stewardship program, but it was wrapped up in the report. And I think as David alluded to, what mayor could happen is what the petitioner has a right to do now may be changed in some form or fashion either by amendments or by the state review. So it does potentially put a petitioner at risk of dealing with new rules. And frankly, if you look at the timeline, the five-year committee actually, ifit comes back in Phase 2 and reports, by the time we review all the recommendations and get them in through review, it may be a year, year and a half before those actually go through transmittal and adoption. If you look at another cycle, you're probably in 2009,2010. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's my problem. In every other aspect of our business we operate with the laws as they are now. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We have to make a decision on things as the laws are now. I don't understand how we can just arbitrarily say, you can't move forward under the laws as they are now. We're going to make you move forward under laws as they Page 51 April 29, 2008 might be later this year or next year or the year after that. And Nancy's going to educate me a little bit here. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife. I'm just putting your Land Development Code on the visualizer so you can read it. You also have it, that I handed out in paper, which does talk about the five-year review, and subsequent to the five-year review, amendments appropriate. Also I might add that Secretary Pelham has made statements that Collier County's rural land stewardship program is not part of the state rule making effort, and he said that on numerous occasions where prior to that, we were a unique program and operate under our own structure. So to reference that things are going to change on the state level, I disagree with that in terms of its implication to Collier County. MR. SCHMITT: But Nancy, it was part of the critical review done by DCA, and Collier County was cited in several portion of that reVIew. CHAIRMAN HENNING: After you, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just -- I see nothing here, Nancy, that says that someone cannot come before us before the June, 2008, review and petition to take advantage of the rights under the RLSA overlay. Is there something that says you can't make a change or you can't petition for a change? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: No, there's not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's my fundamental problem with both of these issues, okay? I understand clearly Ms. Payton's point and I support the point, but what I cannot get over is the hurdle of denying people the right to do what the law allowed them to do over the past two years and requiring that they wait until some future point in time under some future change to law possibly before Page 52 April 29, 2008 they can petition us on these changes. I have a fundamental problem with doing that. And I would -- I would -- I would encourage the board to consider that either we let both of these petitions proceed and provide their requests to the review committee to be incorporated into their review with respect to future changes, and then when -- if these changes to the plan are approved by the state or recommended for adoption, we can then make a decision at the adoption hearing as to what we do. But to deny them the due process under existing rules, I think, is fundamentally unfair. I really do. And that doesn't change my position with respect to spending money on land that's already protected under Conservation Collier or any of the other things I've said earlier. It's just the fact that the rules don't prohibit you from coming in here and doing something before the five-year review. If it does, tell me, okay, because right now I don't see it. And if the rules don't prohibit you from doing something, you've merely been pursuing your rights and we have been delaying you for two years. So the very least we should do is give you back $16,000 each. But if you want to proceed, my recommendation would be to forward these amendments, both of them, as a matter of fact, unless the petitioner -- earlier petitioner wants to continue to wait. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifwe can deal with this petition, we can -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Reconsider. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, we can reconsider the item. We haven't adjourned the meeting. But the item on the agenda now is this particular petition. So if we could dispose of that, I'm sure nobody would have a problem with a discussion to reconsider. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I look at the Planning Page 53 April 29, 2008 Commission as a commission that does due diligence, and I look at staff in regards to them doing due diligence, and since this has been in the hopper for two years -- and I look at what the Collier County Planning Commission recommended -- and in both cases they recommended majority, supermajority, of passing these two items on to the state. And I have some real concerns of where we're going because people can submit building -- or submit for building permits at the 11 th hour to take advantage of the laws that are in hand. And why can't we do the same thing here, especially since this has been an ongoing process for two years? And I have a problem with that. I think that you've done your part. Obviously it takes us a while to get things through the system. And today you're here, and it's to the point, well, we're going to deny this, and I think that's totally wrong. I have to go along with Commissioner Coyle. I have a real problem with this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, so-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission Coletta, you get -- tried to get my attention. You have something to say on this petition? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not done yet? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No I'm not done. And my question is, I believe what you're trying to do here -- you made a statement, and I think just to clarify a statement that you made is that a lot of these lands are agricultural and you're running into a problem where you're getting a lot of salt in the water. So what you're trying to do is take these lands, hopefully put them into preserve so that we can use that to recharge the aquifer system so that maybe we can dilute the amount of salt that's in there, because with the onslaught of people that are going to be moving here to Collier County in the future -- whether it will be in our lifetime, Page 54 April 29, 2008 who knows. But we know that there's going to be that potential build- out eventually. And I believe that you're trying to be a good steward in regards to making sure that we have land set aside to recharge the aquifer system here, and I commend you. And I think that we should look at this very seriously, that we're doing something not for today, but for the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Should we take a 10-minute break with the contract with our court reporter at this time? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you still want to speak, and I do too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, very briefly, Ijust want to say Commissioner Henning handled the majority of my questions -- or my statement about procedure, which I'm thankful very much, he explained very well. I just totally support Halas and Coyle. They're absolutely on target. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a 10-minute break. MR. SCHMITT: You have a motion on the floor though, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we have a motion and a second to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Transfer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- transfer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there's still discussion. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SCHMITT: Live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Y es. Yes, my question for Mr. Page 55 April 29, 2008 Scofield -- Mr. Scofield? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is any of your property being offered to the county for sale? MR. SCOFIELD: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. It's only the Pepper Ranch property, right? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, ma'am. Yeah, we're not affiliated. The only association is we had Hole Montes do some of the engineering and the presentation of our petition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So actually these are two different petitions entirely? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I am very satisfied with my -- with the -- with my decisions on the first and now the second. Okay, fine. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would like to bring back Page 56 April 29, 2008 for reconsideration the vote previous to this one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's a motion and a second to reconsider the motion on petition 2006-9. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? All in favor -- MR. KLATZKOW: You may want to hear the speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before-- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we take the vote? Mr. -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: He might not want it to be reconsidered. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Taylor? MR. T AYLOR: Due to the controversy with Conservation Collier ongoing effort, my position remains the same. We're happy to go ahead and delay it the year because that's a whole separate parallel Issue. I appreciate the position that the commission was stating earlier on the subsequent applicant's petition and the right to petition government for change on any particular piece of land. But because of the Conservation Collier, I would just ask that we go ahead and continue the delay until 2007. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I withdraw my second then. MR. TAYLOR: Thank You. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's no more motion. Do we have further business, Mr. Weeks? Item #2G RESOLUTION 2008-127: PETITION CPSP-2006-13 REQUESTING Page 57 April 29, 2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND MAPS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (ROSE), ECONOMIC ELEMENT (EE), FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES (FLUE/FLUM), AND GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT AND GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, CHANGE THE ALLOWANCE FOR MODEL HOMES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES; TO EXTEND TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EARLY ENTRY BONUS IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT; AND TO MAKE CORRECTIONS OF OMISSIONS AND ERRORS AND OTHER HOUSECLEANING REVISIONS TO HARMONIZE AND UPDATE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - MOTION TO MOVE MODEL HOME PROVISION TO THE LDC - APPROVED 5/0; MOTION TO EXTEND TDR EARL Y ENTRY BONUS TO 3 1/2 YEARS - APPROVED 5/0; MOTION TRANSMITTING REMAINING PORTION OF CPSP-2006-13 W/LDC REFERENCE CORRECTION - APPROVED MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Your final petition is petition number CPSP-2006-13, a staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, capital improvement element, transportation element and maps, recreation and open space element, economic element, and Golden Gate Area MasterPlan Element and Future Land Use Map Series, to change the allowance from model homes in Golden Gate Estates, to extend the transfer of development rights early entry bonus in the rural fringe mixed-use district, and to make corrections of omissions and errors and other housecleaning revisions so as to harmonize and update various sections of the Growth Management Plan. Page 58 April 29, 2008 Commissioners, you might recall specifically on two different dates this commission gave staff some direction to pursue amendments to the Growth Management Plan. One of those pertains to the model homes and how they are treated in the Golden Gate Master Plan within Golden Gate Estates and, secondly, direction pertaining to the early entry TDR, transfer of development rights, bonus program in the rural fringe area. The other amendments which staff sought and received your direction to pursue are what I would characterize as housecleaning. They're very minor in detail, and if you've looked through your amendments, I think you would agree. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to support the amendments proposed by staff with two exceptions, and they're -- both of those specific items to which this board gave direction. Number one, pertaining to model homes. The staff proposal is that with the exception of model homes abutting Collier Boulevard, model homes would have a five-year time limit; three years as a trans -- temporary use permit, two years as a conditional use, and then that's it. That model home has to cease being a model home in perpetuity. It's gone. Planning Commission endorsed that recommendation. They differed with staff along the Collier Boulevard corridor. What staff had recommended was after that initial five-year period, a conditional use could be granted without limitation of time, that is, a model home abutting Collier Boulevard could be granted and remain in effect with unlimited duration. Planning Commission's recommendation is that after that initial five-year period, each conditional use could be granted for no more than five years but with an unlimited number of subsequent conditional uses on the property. So there could be an approval for up to five years, and at the end of that time period, another approval could be sought for up to five years, on and on and on. Page 59 April 29, 2008 Secondly, pertaining to the early entry TDR bonus, a public -- or a request came before this commission by Mr. Bob Mulhere of R W A asking for the early entry bonus to be extended by five years, and this board gave staff the direction to pursue that. The Planning Commission's recommendation, rather than a five-year extension, was only for two years, and their rationale was that if the purpose for the amendment is to account for the economic slowdown that we're presently enduring and if we don't anticipate that is going to last for a full five years, then why would we grant the extension for five years? If we think the economic slowdown is more like a couple years, then let's make a corresponding early entry bonus extension for that same couple years. So that was their recommendation. For model homes it was a 6-0 vote, and for the early entry extension, it was by vote of 5-1. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, one last point if I may. Those are the two highlights. You'll also notice in the executive summary carrying on from page 9 and page 10, this is one other very minor housecleaning matter that staff noticed that we did not present to the Planning Commission, so it's new, and that is simply correcting an LDC reference. That same correction is made in other places, but we failed to catch it in time to present to the Planning Commission. But those two subsequent issues are pertaining to model homes and the early entry bonus. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's a -- the four units per acre in the urban fringe sub-district? You said page 9 and 10. I just wanted to make sure that we clarify the issue. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. The bottom of page 9 and 10, I was drawing attention to the Land Development Code referenced correction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I see. Page 60 April 29, 2008 MR. WEEKS: The actual change is shown on page 10. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And page 9 under the CCPC recommendation is the explanation I was walking through regarding the other two changes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Chairman Henning, if it's possible, rather than have the conversation blending back and forth between these different items, if we could start off with the -- having to do with the model homes and then get into the early entry so that we don't get to the point where the confusion gets where we can't operate. And if I may address model homes first and for beginning the discussion, I don't think we can do enough to be able to preserve the integrity of our homebuilders out there. There has never been a complaint that I've received regarding a model home on Collier Boulevard, on Golden Gate Boulevard. There just hasn't been complaints. They've been good neighbors, and I think that the market should determine how long they could stay rather than having to come before this commission on a regular basis. So I'm looking for the maximum amount of time possible to be able to allow them to maximize the resource. And then every time -- then we can address the situation as it's necessary. So I would be looking for the five years in -- starting from day one going five years, not an additional two years or whatever. I would very much like to see that. I'm curious to what my fellow commissioners feel about that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you feel that you support staffs position on the model home. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, Commissioner Henning. Page 61 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: And comments on that? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to make some comments in support of that position. It seems to me that the model home -- the life of the model home is determined by the developer's ability to continue to build homes. As long as the builder is building homes, he's going to need model homes. So I agree that we should provide them a fairly long period of use but reserve the right that it can be terminated if they come into violation or if they have excessive complaints, and we might provide some termination period, specify that we can terminate them with 90 days or 180 days advance notice if we judge the offenses to be sufficient to terminate. And that saves us all a little trouble, I think. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you could put that in the resolution or the conditional use. Mr. Klatzkow, is that a condition? MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're starting to get very technical about our compo plan. I guess the question I have for you is, do you -- my understanding was staffs position is they wanted to take out the limitation, just allow these model homes as a permitted use more than anything else. Now I'm hearing that we want to continue them as a conditional use but change the conditions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why does is it have to be in the GMP anyway? MR. KLA TZKOW: Because there's a prohibition. The conditional use is part of the GMP for the Golden -- for the Estates. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this goes back to the original adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan in 1991. To answer the question directly, it doesn't have to be here. You can certainly completely strike this provision and let model homes be treated in Golden Gate Estates the way they are in every other designation on Page 62 April 29, 2008 your future land use map, and that is the Land Development Code controls completely. The Land Development Code has no time limitation established other than a temporary use permit for model homes for a maximum of three years. After that it requires a conditional use but with no time limitations, which means on a case-by-case basis, this commission, in granting the conditional use for a model home, can impose whatever time limitation you so choose. But in the code itself, there is none. So absent your specific action to impose a time limit, the model home is approved forever. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My preference is to have as little in the Growth Management Plan as possible because it's too hard to deal with when we have to adjust it. I would rather have that dealt with otherwise. And ifthere's a way to do that and accomplish our objectives and the objectives of the builders who need model homes, I would like to do that. I just don't like cluttering up our Growth Management Plan with all this stuff if we don't have to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks, could that be accomplished in this amendment? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commission Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm -- could we do this? Can we make separate motions for each one of these things rather than one motion altogether? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The Planning Commission did that as well, certainly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If that was a motion, Commissioner Coyle, I'd be happy to second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nick has something he wants to tell us. Hopefully he has some words of wisdom. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know if they're words of Page 63 April 29, 2008 wisdom. A little late to the party, I guess. The only issue I have with model homes, we don't like to treat them as zoning applications and do TISs. I mean, they're a simple analysis. We get claims for business damages all the time for model homes when we expand the right of way. They're typically on arterials or collectors that are about to be expanded. Collier Boulevard's a perfect example. And I know you can notice one on White Boulevard at Pine Ridge at that intersection. The issue I have with model homes is, if you treat them as a commercial enterprise and when we go to widen those facilities -- they're meant to be, in the end, just a single-family home. And when we're dealing with them, we're dealing with all sorts of damages for businesses regarding their use at the time we expand the facility. So I don't know ifthere's any way to have any consideration in this process that if they want to be a model home, they need to work with the county on these roadway expansions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that in that respect you have to have some time limitation on them specifically to protect you under those circumstances -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- when you want to widen the road. If they're limited to five years, we can grant them another five-year extension if we don't have any plans for widening the road. But you've got to let us know in advance whether or not there's a plan to widen the road. Then we would have to say to the model home person, you -- well, okay, we'll give you an extension until such time as we have to begin widening this road. That will remove that particular problem; will it not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could. I'm concerned that a blanket extension indefinitely for a model home puts us in a situation where -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It becomes an Page 64 April 29, 2008 ongoing business then, and you get all sorts of claims for business interruption and that sort of stuff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I have to accommodate that access as a business and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you have -- if you don't -- if you do not permit it in perpetuity, you can solve that problem by just saying, you can have it for five years and it's automatically renewable for five additional years unless the Board of County Commissioners judges otherwise. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we can do that in the LDC. We don't need a compo plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And that's exactly why I don't think it should be in the compo plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or if it's recognized as a future single-family home, it could be dealt with accordingly as such. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. That's my only comment. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would --let's talk about-- well, we'll have to have it come back to us anyway. I think the decision we have to make is whether we put it in the GMP or the Land Development Code. My preference is in the Land Development Code, and that would be my motion, is to move that provision to the Land Development Code, then the staff comes back with the Land Development Code and see if it meets the board's -- the board's desires, and then we can debate and change it at that point in time. We don't have to do that today. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the sake of discussion, I'm going to second that, but I'd like to hear from the county attorney. He seemed a little perplexed by our discussion. MR. KLA TZKOW: No. My understanding is that you want to remove this prohibition from the compo plan and put whatever Page 65 April 29, 2008 prohibition you want in the Land Development Code, which is much easier to change. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And I think that's fine if that's what you want to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just a clarification for the motion and the -- and staff understands of the motion. Conditional use model homes are different in the Golden Gate Master Plan, even locational criteria within the majority of northern Golden Gate Estates, that being that it must be located adjacent and abutting a future activity center. Correct? MR. WEEKS: There are just a few locational -- locations for which a conditional use would qualify. What you're referring to is the transitional conditional use where a property has to be abutting a neighborhood center or the site could be within a neighborhood center or could be abutting certain non-residential uses such as a fire station or some type of commercial development, but it is very limited. This existing language allows the model homes to be located anywhere within Golden Gate Estates that is not subject to the locational criteria, but it contains a limitation on the duration. That's what's being proposed here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. MR. WEEKS: And so what the commission is discussing is completely removing any locational criteria so that the model homes can be anywhere and without any time limitation. That's what I understand the motion to be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Subject to the LDC requirements which you will bring back to us for approval and we might wish to change those. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And can we be specific and have them in Golden Gate different than we have them in someplace else in Page 66 April 29, 2008 our Land Development Code? MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: See? So if you have specific requirements in Golden Gate, we can deal with it in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. WEEKS: And if I may, Commissioners, on that point, and that's the clarification I wanted to ask about was, what is the direction of the board regarding a Land Development Code amendment? Did you want to give staff some specific direction as to locational -- or excuse me -- time limitation within the Estates? We simply need to know what to prepare to bring to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to see our arterial-- improve arterial roadways. That way you would address some ofMr. Casalanguida's concerns. Randall Boulevard is, I think, designated as an arterial roadway, but it hasn't been improved yet. Is that correct, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MR. WEEKS: I believe it's a collector. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's on the long range plan as a six-lane utility, so it will be arterial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It will be an arterial-- it's not an arterial right now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not today, as a two-lane facility, but it's slated to be an arterial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But Golden Gate Boulevard is a-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Arterial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- arterial from DeSoto Boulevard to 951? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or right now it functions as a collector Page 67 April 29, 2008 as a two-lane, but it's scheduled to be an arterial in the long range. Both of those would be six-lane facilities. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if you deal with it as a six-lane arterial, then it addresses the concern about the acquisition of the property . MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you're looking at a future model home, we would look at it that way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: In could just amplify on that a little bit. One of the problems I think we would have if we tried to identify only improved arterials as the area permitted for model homes is that we would immediately eliminate the current locations of some that exist now, and that would be difficult, I think, for some of those people to move. I believe the best way to deal with that is, perhaps, if you want to protect against a situation that Nick has described, is provide a longer period of approval on improved arterials because we know we're not going to expand those for a long, long time, and a shorter period of approval for those on roads where we are going to expand them. That way if we're going to widen them, we have to buy right-of-way. We will not approve an extension of that model home beyond the point where we need the right-of-way, okay, and then that solves that particular problem for you, I think. So we might -- it's going to require the staff to do a little homework about what roads are we going to want to buy additional right-of-way on and which ones are we not going to be buying additional right-of-way on, and maybe have different criteria for the period that a model home can remain on those locations. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, I think you know what we're getting at, right, David? You understand what we're talking about? Page 68 April 29, 2008 MR. WEEKS: I believe so. Commissioner, what I was envisioning as I hear you discuss this, is rather than trying to craft an LDC amendment that identifies specifically the locations, that is specific roadways, instead have general text that provides that a model home in Golden -- I think you're limiting it in Golden Gate Estates, perhaps not, but that's my understanding -- that in Golden Gate Estates, part of the evaluation criteria would be whether or not the site is located on a roadway that might require future widening. That opens the door for you to then impose a time limitation on that conditional use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I can't answer the issue about whether or not it should apply just to Golden Gate. I know that Commissioner Henning has some specific issues there. I would just like to make sure that we don't have a model home at the intersection of Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway, as an example. MR. WEEKS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We should have some logical criteria. I think activity centers and other kinds of things are appropriate. But you have some criteria now. I think maybe we should bring those criteria forward. You modify the criteria, perhaps, for Golden Gate or other areas based upon the commissioner's specific concerns, and then we kick it around. MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, one thing I'd point out, and it might be appropriate that you limit this to Golden Gate Estates, because it's unique. Most subdivisions, of course, are much smaller in nature. Their build-out time period is much shorter. So just as a natural occurrence, the model home is relatively short duration. Golden Gate Estates, of course, being a massive subdivision, has a build-out of a period of decades. That's why the model homes, some of them have been there many years and would expect to be there many years more. You know, I think that's -- I think Golden Gate Estates is a Page 69 April 29, 2008 unique circumstance because of its size, that the model homes theoretically could be there for many, many years, far more than your typical subdivision, and that's why your regulations might -- you might want to adjust, limit it, as the master plan does today, have the Land Development Code be specific to that subdivision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd be happy with that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concern because somebody could find a high traffic area which may not be conducive to being out in Golden Gate Estates but have a high traffic area where he could have a model home even though he would build the homes out in Golden Gate. So I think it -- just to make sure that we cover all bases for the future, maybe it should be directed as such, however, they -- you formulate it for Golden Gate, I think it should be the same throughout the county, just to make sure that we cover all our bases. MR. SCHMITT: Your zoning would prohibit a lot of areas. What David's referring to is basically the Estates zoning allows for single- family homes. This is more conducive to the Estates; other areas, zoning prohibits it. And as David alluded to, in most planned unit developments, model homes have a limited lifetime and they're dealt with separately in the PUD and they're dealt with through the planning process. So this -- if we write this language, I think it can be very easily tailored for Estate lots, and put the language in the LDC. And what I heard you propose is to strike this entire paragraph from the GMP. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm saying, I guess, is that, let's say somebody buys a piece of land, says it's residential but says, I'm going to put a model home here, and it may not even be involved with the Golden Gate Estates. It could be just a plot of land that's outside of the Golden Gate Estates overlay and still put a model home up because it's a high traffic area. I'm just using that as a hypothetical Page 70 April 29, 2008 case. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're dealing with Golden Gate Estates in this LDC amendment. Any -- I think we have a public speaker on this item. MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. I have one public speaker. You want the other issue? Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the TDRs. MS. FILSON: He's going to wait until you take your next motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) RESOLUTION: 2008-127: PETITION CPSP-2006-13 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next issue is the TDR. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- I think we're not being fair to the people out there that have invested their time and their land in a program that we told them we would stand by and make it work. Economic conditions being what they are, and we don't know if they're going to last two years, three years, or five years, but I think we have to make this early entry program available for a maximum of five years -- no, not a maximum, for five years additional so that Page 71 April 29, 2008 there's enough time for the whole system to recover and the property __ the property rights of these people are assured, just to be brief. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion on the TDR? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would suggest to you that the CCP (sic) is absolutely right here. We don't know how long the economic downturn is going to be, so why not make the extension coincident with the period of the economic downturn, so make it a shorter period of time but we can extend it so that if the economic downturn is -- doesn't last as long as we thought it would, then the extension for the early entry won't last as long as it -- as it had originally been proposed. So what I would suggest is that we take the CCPC's recommendations on this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. I was working with Mr. Mulhere when he did the public petition. The economic downturn has probably been going on for at least two years already and probably will be going on for a while longer, so we've already lost two years of the three-year period already. So you're already only giving us back two years that we've already lost, and there'll probably be another couple of years of this downturn before developers who will be buying these TDRs will actually need them. I represent Six L's. Six L's is designated as a receiving area. They're probably one of the primary potential buyers of these TDRs. They can't -- they simply can't afford to buy the TDRs right now, hold them, and hope that the market's going to go ahead and turn around. It takes a while to do all this, get their development plans going. The five-year period will give them enough time to move forward with their plans, acquire the TDRs, and hopefully in five Page 72 April 29, 2008 years we'll be -- we'll be back to a normal rate of growth and we'll be in a positive upswing. So that's -- they're already concerned that they've lost two years of the three-year period because of bad economic times. We expect probably another two to three years to catch back up. And that was the rationale for the five-year period. Right now you don't see a whole lot of activity in people either buying TDR lands or people severing the TDRs. It's an un -- it's an untested market. If you own sending lands, you would be -- looking for the right word -- you would probably be foolish to go forward right now and sever the TDRs with the hope that there's going to be a market for those TDRs in the future. So what are they going to do? They're going to sit there. They're going to hold onto the sending lands, and if the market is not equivalent for the value of the TDRs, they're going to go ahead and build on those lands because that was the whole reason of trying to provide an incentive for people to put this into sending land in the first place. So we're requesting, based upon the couple of years of downtimes that we already had, the expectation that there will be a year or two more, plus the time frame it takes to go ahead and go through the development process, that we be given the five years as originally requested to the Board of County Commissioners and originally directed to the BCC. As you know, it's difficult to change your compo plan. This was actually quite -- kind of rushed because the three years caught up to us pretty quickly. You know, two years will be here before you know it, and we'll probably be saying, please give us the three years anyway. So we're requesting the full five years at this time. I don't think it hurts anybody to give someone who owns sending lands that much longer to find someone to want to buy their lands to take advantage of that early entry bonus anyway, so that's our request. Page 73 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion? Direction? Motion? Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Am I interrupting something? Yeah, motion to extend for five years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to extend five years by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any possibility of splitting the baby and do it three and a half years or four years? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd go three. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I completely agree with the Planning Commission's analysis on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You can always extend it another three if the economic conditions haven't improved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: I'd just make one comment, Commissioners, and that's that -- to remind the commission of discussion that you had back around 2005, I believe it was, when you were -- when you approved the addition of some -- of some bonuses. You added this early entry bonus, you added the restoration and maintenance and the conveyance bonuses, and that was because after the initial adoption of the rural fringe amendments that included the TDR program, it was absolutely dormant. Nothing happened, and you had persons coming before you saying, the reason is, the bonuses are not adequate. There's not enough compensation. And when you approved those bonuses, you said that you did not want to touch the program. You wanted to leave it alone and let it work. The concern was that the message going out to the public was, just sit a little bit longer, the county will amend these again. And of course, we're here today, but then circumstances are different, too. We've gone through an economic slowdown that, of course, no one anticipated that many years ago. Page 74 April 29, 2008 My only word of caution is that maybe it's better to go for the full five-year period and hopefully be done with it as opposed to a shorter-term amendment and then be coming back again for a later amendment. It's just that point of, what message does it send. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the message it sends is that if you extend it for five years now, you'll extend it for five years again later on. If you keep extending it, you keep people -- people will hold onto them until the very, very last -- it's just like a stock. If the stock is going up and you think it's going to continue going up, you don't want to sell it. It's only when it finally hits its peak and you're convinced it's not going any higher that you're going to sell it. And the same thing is true of the TDRs. Now, the fact of the matter is that there hasn't been as much demand for TDRs as we thought, is primarily because the people who are building are taking the TDRs off their own land. They're not going out and buying it from somebody else, and that's going to continue to happen until they run out. So I think that if we -- if we keep doing this, then people will just hold onto it and nothing much will happen. Even when economic conditions improve, there might not be of much of a market for that. And so I just don't know that we need to jump into a five-year extension initially. Let's -- you know, let's go with three or three and a half or something of that nature, and then we can always reassess it. But at some point in time we're going to have to drive the stake in the ground, say, this is it, folks, you know. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And believe me, when it comes down to it, if I have to negotiate something less than five, I'm going to do it, but I just want to remind you that the whole program was set up so that we didn't have to lean upon the taxpayers to buy these lands like we're doing with Conservation Collier. Page 75 April 29, 2008 This is something where it's a voluntary program that people had agreed to get involved with in the beginning, then we came -- well, we made it mandatory. But the whole thing was is, where's the value of their land? It's all in TDRs. It's tied up. They've got sending lands that have no other value. We told them we would compensate their -- with the fact that they'll get a value for the TDRs at whatever point in time that market does, and we made it a free market item. Market's not there. So to try to diminish the number of years with the idea we're going to force them to do something, I don't know where we're being fair with that. Don't these people have some sort of rights to be able to retain the value? Are we going to take those rights away from them? That's my concern. That's why I'm aiming for five years. However, if it would make you comfortable, I'll change my motion to four years. Do you think you could live with that, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can live with three. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Four years. Come on, now. Be a sport. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll split the difference, three and a half. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Three and a half, you got it. That's my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And does the second recognize that three-year -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- commitment -- three and a half? How many years? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three and three quarters. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three and three quarters. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't split, by the way. Three to five should have been four. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, can you Page 76 April 29, 2008 explain again your analysis about the Conservation Collier and the sending lands? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Henning. It's very simple. Conservation Collier is buying the land at an appraised value. Whatever that appraised value is, whatever the uses that have been permitted on that land, they go ahead and they set the price, and the taxpayers of Collier County, through two referendums, have agreed to pay that money; however, we're talking about lands that far exceed that ability in the rural fringe and the rural lands to be able to handle that. So in order to be able to get to where we needed to be, we came up with a program that didn't involve taxpayers' money. It involved giving certain people in the sending lands rights to be able to be transferred to the receiving lands. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this took the taxpayer out of the equation and made -- gave them an ability to be able to get a product in the end without having to put any money forward. Meanwhile, the landowners in the sending lands have put their land and life on the lines trusting us to be able to assure that they'll have liquidity down the road. Thank you for that opportunity. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think that was Commissioner Coyle's point, exactly what you said. Why should we buy it if it's already in preserves? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for staff here. On page 12 of the staff report, 2006-13, and it's page 12. It says, early entry TDR bonus sending lands. Early entry TDR bonus. The early entry TDR bonus shall be available in the form of an additional TDR credit for each TDR credit severed from the sending Page 77 April 29, 2008 lands from March 5, 2004, onward for a period, and then it says three years, which is crossed out to eight years after the adoption of the LDC amendment implementing this provision or until September 27, 2013. Can you explain what you were trying to get across here then? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this was the -- the staff report reflects the original commission direction, which was to extend the program by five years. The Planning Commission did not endorse that. The resolution in your packet has a different time period and date because it reflect -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this says eight years in it. MR. WEEKS: Correct. So this is the original version. The Planning Commission's recommendation is reflected in the resolution COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- which in -- okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas (sic) to extend the program for another three (sic) years additional. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it was -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three and a half. MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala made the second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala seconded it, I believe. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three and a half. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was the second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you were the second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pretty close. We look a lot alike. MR. SCHMITT: That would be to March of2012. CHAIRMAN HENNING: March, 2 -- I apologize. I thought the motion was over here. Page 78 April 29, 2008 All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Entertain a motion to adopt the balance of 2006-13. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: And would that please be with the one addition by staff, that one LDC correction? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in the motion, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- part of your motion? Is that a part of your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And for clarification, motion was to transmit? CHAIRMAN HENNING: To transmit? Did I say adopt? I did say adopt. I apologize for that. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 79 April 29, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Mr. Weeks, any more dis -- MR. WEEKS: That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- guidance? That's it. Mr. Schmitt, do you have anything? MR. SCHMITT: That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any board members? Entertain-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a motion to adjourn. Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :31 a.m. Page 80 April 29, 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TOM H~G~a~ '-:l-:::{\ (fi~~ , ATTEST:" '" DWIGHT 13, BROCK, CLERK ~~\L Attest 4S to Cn.lnIIA , s i\JllatMrt CIA h These minutes approved by the Board on S-:;). ':t -68 , as presented ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 81