Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/20/2017April20,2017 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COLTNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, Apil 20, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida" with the following members present: CIIAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRE,SENT: Raymond V. Bellows, ZonngManager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Co.by Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeff Klatzkow, County Attomey Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative (Absent for roll call.) Page I of30 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., APRIL 20, 2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-April 6,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. PL20160001100/ CP-2016-2: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida proposing amendment to Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the r-r Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and map series by changing the designation of property from Urban,Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, to Urban, Commercial District, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 100,000 square feet of gross floor area for uses allowed by right and by conditional use in the C-4, General Commercial, zoning district, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18.6±acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending: Chapter Three -Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, to amend design standards relating to off-site preserves and to modify requirements for monetary payment and land donation off-site preserve alternatives; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz,LDC Manager] B. PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11: An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County Florida, adopting a county-initiated amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to update and clarify text,specifically amending the Capital Improvement Element, Conservation & Coastal Management Element, Gold Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element,Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, and Transportation Element; recommending transmittal of the adopted amendments to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] C. An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 74-50, as amended, to add maximum off-site discharge standards applicable to the Henderson Creek Belle Meade Basin - north and south of Sabal Palm Road, Immokalee Master Plan Area - east and west of SR 29, CR 951 North Canal Basin, C4 Basin, Corkscrew Canal Basin, Cypress Canal Basin, Faka Union Canal Basin (north of 1-75), Gordon River Extension Basin, I-75 Canal Basin, Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin, Lely Manor Canal Basin, Main Golden Gate Canal Basin, Palm River Canal Basin, and Pine Ridge Canal Basin; also modifying the maximum off-site discharge standard for Harvey Basin; providing for inclusion into the Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS April20,2077 PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thankyou, Mike. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 2fth meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. I didn't want to ask everybody to stand while you're still urying to sorl out your wiring. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Before we do the roll call, just for the record, Patrick Dearborn noted he had another commitment today; he couldn't be here, so he has an excused absence. And with that, I'll turn to the secretary for roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: He's here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: He's here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to addenda to the agenda. There is one item that's been requested by staffto be continued to sometime, most likely the June meeting, and it will be the Item 9A, the Collier County Land Development Code changes involving the resource protection -- I think it's Conservation Collier and items like that. MR. BOSI: Yes, the Conversation Collier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that -- you're going to readvertise for that, right? MR. BOSI: Yes, we most certainly -- we're going to extend out to the five years, so we most certainly will have to readvertise. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So we're not asking for a continuance. We're just withdrawing it for now, and it's going to be readvertised for the future, which brings us to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is May 4th. Does anybody know ifthey're not going to be here on the May 4th meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don'tthink I'm -- I'm not here May 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that means you can't be here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Huh? CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't be here then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Then I'll make an affirmation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt will not be here on May 4th. We'll still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm out of town 3 through 5, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no minutes in our packet for approval, so we'll move to the BCC report. And is there one, Mike, that you want to try? MR. BOSI: Yes. At the April I lth Board of County Commissioners'meeting, the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict was unanimously approved for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity, as well as the Board adopted, on the second hearing, the stormwater management LDC amendments that relates to the amount of impervious allowed and when the requirements for an engineered stormwater plan would be required when you cross ceftain thresholds. That was adopted by the Page 2 of30 April20,2017 Board. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Thank you, sir. That takes us to chairman's report. I have nothing new to bring up today, so we'll move right into consent agenda. *{<*The first item and the only item on today's consent agenda is what we heard last time. It's PL20160001 1001CP2016-2. It's the GMP amendment for the commercial at Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road to establish a commercial infill district. Now, this is a consent item. All those wishing to testifi on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the couft repofter, because there will be some questions. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I see David at the podium, so you must want to start something out David. MR. WEEKS: Sure. For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, the brief staffreport that you have for consent agenda shows in double strikethrough and double underline version format, excuse me, the changes that were made to what was presented to you at your hearing on this item. And, of course, the purpose of the consent is so that you look and say, yes, staffl, you got it right or, no, you didn't. But I really want to talk about the item on the staffreport page itself. One of the changes the Planning Commission made was removal of reference to zoning district. As the petition was submitted, it indicated the C4 zoning district, and staffhad recommended a reference to the C3 district. The uses that have been recommended for approval at your hearing two weeks ago does reflect the C3 zoning district, permitted and conditional uses, just certain ones within; however, part of the Planning Commission's motion was to remove the actual language that refers to the C3 zoning district and the subdistrict. Staffwould like to see that language remain, tweaked a little bit, but still some reference to the C3 zoningdistrict. We think the value is that in the future and when we're looking back on this petition, we can have some context to know that all of these uses that are allowed came from the C3 zoning district. Otherwise, with simply a list of uses, then, in the future it would take a person to spend the time looking at each individual use to see what zoning district it came from. And so we think there's a benefit of having that context. We also think that such a change would be outside of the scope of this review for consent because staffdid not discuss this at your hearing, so it was not -- there's nothing on the record. This is a new issue for staff to bring to your attention. So we just wanted to give you the heads-up that we will, at the adoption hearing, be suggesting that some reference to the C3 zoning district be included in the language and, in so doing, if the Planning Commission endorses that C3 reference, then the result of it as far as the list of uses here is two uses could be withdrawn. There's a reference now of saying an accepted use, that is "not allowed use," is pawn shops and others, building materials. But if this district language changes to reference the C3 district, those aren't allowed in the C3 district anyway, so there would be no reason to have them listed as not allowed. So, really, it was just a heads-up, Commissioners, that these are a couple of minor concems that we have, and we'll bring those up at the adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: David, you had said something that if this was referenced, if the C3 district was referenced, if somebody was looking back at this zoning they would understand better as to why the zoning was there, or something to that effect in one of your paragraphs you just read. Well, wouldn't they understand better what zoning is there by just simply reading the zoning that's allowed and not allowed? MR. WEEKS: But they won't know what zoning district to start with. They would have to look at - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who cares? This is its own self-standing zoning district. MR. WEEKS: Well, one of the things we do, sometimes when an applicant comes in for a GMP amendment, they sometimes look at another subdistrict to mirror; that's one thing. The other is it provides context for the intensi[ of use that is allowed here. The language staff was thinking of would be something to the effect of uses that are derived from the Page 3 of30 April20,2017 C3 permitted and conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAN: But, David, using the C3 as a reference brings to mind the discussion that you were in a meeting with me in last week involving that supposed grocery store up in North Naples. It's within a C3 district but it's, obviously, something that may not have been anticipated as an allowance in that district. I would suggest we should leave it more defined as we've attempted to do, and I think that is probably a better thing to do in the county than leaving the broader references that I know you're liking to put in. And along that, I did, in reviewing the staffs consent item, I found some other issues that I believe weren't addressed that had been brought up by the public, by the submittal, and that's in the personal services category. The personal services category is - Page 2 it says, personal services miscellaneous SIC 7299,but we had received a confirmation from the applicant Kevin Ratterree, in his work with John Nicola in the adjoining neighborhood that there was a series of personal services that they didn't mind striking, but that's not how this document came out. And I know we addressed that as one of the issues that was resolved through the neighborhood, but apparently it didn't get into the final version. MR. WEEKS: Corby, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the position was that that would be addressed during the PUD. MR. SMITH: That was my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I am fine with that as long as the record here today can be used to assure that we don't get any of the uses beyond the personal services that have been vetted through the public already. MR. WEEKS: I think specifically the one -- one particular use under that category was the day spa./massage parlor. We spent quite a few minutes talking about that particular use. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, for example, under that category is escort services. The applicant agreed they're not going to have escort services there. I would not want to see that pop back sometime in the future. So I'm willing to leave it that way, but the record is real clear, John Nicola's letter and acquisition by Kevin Ratterree to those -- acquiesce of Kevin Ratterree to those issues, I think, is clear, too, so we'll have to look at it. I don't have a problem with the PUD. I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. The other thing, if you turn to the next page of the consent item, and it says, eating places, it says SIC 5812 except for dinner theaters, drive-in restaurants, industrial feeding, and then theaters, comm4 dinner. Do you need that restated that way? Isn't dinner theaters enough? MR. WEEKS: It would seem to be, but we were just going by what the SIC code listed. Even though it seems redundant we -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- we were just playing it safe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see, there you'll put exceptions, but you didn't put exceptions in the personal services. I just wonder why. MR. WEEKS: My recollection -- oh, go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we knew that upon adoption this would be companion to the Planned Unit Development itself, and those smaller or more detailed restrictions would be in the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAN: If during the adoption process some of the exceptions that aren't here but they're obviously still confirmed by the applicant as being acceptable, could they, during the adoption of the GMP, be modified in the GMP at that point? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I believe they could. MR. WEEKS: Yes, they could;certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So we can see how that rolls out with the public. And if it becomes an issue, we can fix it at that point. MR. SCHMIDT: And one more remark, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, when staff approached this recommendation even before consent and established or produced this list of uses that would be allowed, it Page 4 of30 April20,2017 was -- keep it in mind that that C3 distict would be our bookends. So the concem is, not a large one if we take away the C3 brackets, that the list of uses that would be not allowed; the things that we're not looking for will become longer, because then we need to go outside the C3 district and look for those uses that are entirely possible with no brackets in other commercial districts but might go here one day. And there's no intention of doing that with this upscale. The specific list of uses has already been agreed to, and this does reflect, except for those smaller items you just mentioned, what the applicants are looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAN: The prohibited uses -- well, the way we operate -- my understanding of the code is that if it's not a listed use, it's prohibited. And so you can't go into the LDC and say, well, we don't have -- all the uses that aren't listed in C3 are still allowed. No, they're prohibited because they're not specifically allowed. Now, if that's the case, when this comes back through with the PUD language and through the adoption, with the exception of those prohibited uses that are sfictly allowed inCl,2, or 3, we at that time could refine this list of prohibitions because we would be more locked down at that point. Is that a reasonable way to approach it? Because this idea of listing prohibitions when they're all prohibited anyway if they're not listed as allowed is getting us into the weeds a little bit in regards to, well, if we only think those are prohibited, why don't we just list those. And I'd rather not get into that if we don't have to. So maybe at the PUD level we could modify ig the adoption level. MR. WEEKS: One of the concerns, and I think we just talked about it when we met with you separately, is the comparable and compatible use determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And that's one of the reasons for wanting to actually more clearly define what the use -- or restrict uses, as Corby's term, the brackets or bookends, and that goes back to the C3, because if we know that all these uses are derived from the C3 district, that's telling us that's the restriction. If we simply go with the listing individually, that does beg the question, might there be a C4 or a C5 use that seems comparable to some of these that are actually listed here. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but without comparable/compatible language added to the PUD as one of the principal uses, that door may not even be opened. And so that's -- I mean, that's the way it's been opened in other PUDs, and maybe that's where we will look at locking it down, so... MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Isthatall, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if anybody else in the audience has any questions on this issue. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve the consent as submitted with discussion? It won't have any bearing on it, but I'm sure David's going to be talking to the Board about it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifu by sayng aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. Page 5 of30 April20,2017 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Thank you. With that, we will move into our next item on the agend4 which is our regular advertised public hearings, and it will be 98. 94, as we said earlier, is continued. 9E} -- or, actually, 9,A. is withdrawn and going to be readvertised for June. ***9B is PL201300026371CP5P2013-ll, and these are amendments to the Collier County GroMh Management Plan. This is the adoption hearing. This board previously had heard this on transmittal. Transmittal went to Board of Coun[ Commissioners, it then went to the DEO, and we're looking at the results of those two actions for a final adoption here today. So I guess we'll move into staffreport to start that out. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning andZonngdirector. Thank you, Chair. For a description of where we're at within the process, this is the adoption hearing stage of the amendment cycle. Before you is the batch amendments. These are the traditional cleanup amendments that we have for our Gro*th Management Plan. There are a couple different tweaks and changes that have been made since the transmittal hearing, and I'm not going to give a full presentation on all of the -- all the amendments contained within, but myself and Corby or David would be here to answer any questions that you may have regarding the differences between the transmittal and what's being presented here for the adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I think since we heard it as a board, Ned is probably our only member that wasn't here at the time. Maybe Joe. Were you here for transmittal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No,I was not. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. And I know you're familiar with transmittal adoption. And, Ned, this is kind of the second reading of these, so if there are issues that seem to stand out we can vet those today. Previously the Board of County Commissioners has heard it as transmittal, and that's how it went forward, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I did review it. I don't know if - where anybody wants to start if anybody has any preferences to move into a certain page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have some questions into the document, but if we want to -- if you're going to through page by page -- but I do have questions on Page 23. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. Why don't we just turn to each one of -- because this is a second reading, let's go straight to the pages at question; otherwise, 236 pages, we could spend a lot of time just looking at them. So Page 23 is your first question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, Page 23. COMMISSIONERFRYER: Actually, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I did have an item on Page 10 if we're going to go by numbering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we'll go by individual first then we'll go back. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some questions. I have about 25 questions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll go - I'll just wait for you guys to get done, then I'll bring mine in. Joe, why don't we go - Page 23, electronically is - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Policy 7.1.2, and it says revised text Page 37. So I'm not sure that -- I guess that references Page 37 of the GMP. MS. ASHTON: And which element are we in? In which element is that that you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be Page 7 of 12. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Goal 7, to protect and conserve the county's fisheries and wildlife, Objective 7.1. And this language is fairly - is repeated in several places throughout this document, and Page 6 of30 April20,2017 I -- just before the meeting I talked to Steve. We use terms "wildlife habitat management plans for listed species." My experience, typically when we talk about management plans, these are actually Habitat Conservation Plans, HCPs, not HMPs. And I don't - I just want to make sure the intent is, what you state here, is a Habitat Management Plan, not a Habitat Conservation Plan. Again, second, you say "listed species," but I do not find any documentation nor did I really do any research on it, but I just want to make sure, are we talking about federally listed and state listed species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act? I think that needs to be clarified because it - the underlined version then says, "and for protected species identified below shall be submitted to the county." But I want to make sure we identifo what listed species. ln accordance with the ESA, or is it a separate list from the county? I don't recall. And in that same paragraph, again, we talk about management plans. And, typically, these are HCPs when you're talking about a plan to protect listed species. If you're talking about a plan to protect habitat or vegetation or other types of -- then it might be a Habitat Management Plan. But typically when you're dealing with the ESA, Endangered Species Act, it's an HCP. So I turn it over to you, Steve. If you guys are comfortable with this language, I'm fine. I just want to make sure that since you're amending the Growth Management Plan language, we want to put the right language in. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. For the record, Stephen fenberger, GroMh Management Plan Division. In regards to the listed species, it actually says in Objective 7.1 -- but you don't have a copy of that language - and it refers to the endangered and threatened species listed by the Feds. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: And then also the endangered, threatened, and species of special concern listed by the State, so it's actually defined in there in Objective 7.1, which I don't think you have a copy of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I didn't pull out the entire document. I was just looking at this. MR. LENBERGER: As far as the management, you know, the Habitat Conservation Plan would, you know, address a number of different things: The species, which a-reas you want to develop, which areas you want to preserve, things of this nature. It's a broad encompassing thing as far as what the Feds are using. As far as the management plan, what we have here is preserves which are already established in accordance with the Growth Management Plan, and it's to manage the habitat for listed species as well as the type habitat in general. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, when you're dealing with the ESA, and if you're dealing with panther habit, or you're dealing with the bonneted bat or some other listed species, if it's area-wide, typically you have to do a Habitat Conservation Plan, HCP. So I just - if you know, you guys are comfortable with this, I'm fine. I just want to make sure the language is - MR. LENBERGER: Well, the Comprehensive Plan on listed species, we defer to the Feds as far as listed species -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: - and what to do with them because they have the expertise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it would be - typically the applicant would submit the HCP as a draft and would be part of the -- either the 404 process, the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act, and it goes to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife for review, and they would eventually approve the HCP as part of the -- whether it's a federal, you know, 404 permit or whether it's a Title l0 permit or whatever. But, typically, it's an HCP. So I just leave that with you, and then if you want to continue to call it a Habitat Management Plan and you're comfortable with that, then I'm fine. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: While we're on that, is that your only item, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On that paragraph, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that page and that section, I have a couple I had in there, Page 7 of30 Aprll20,2017 too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it -- because back, again, in Paragraph C he calls it a Habitat Preservation Plan. So we change it from a Habitat Management Plan, down in Paragraph C we call it a Habitat Preservation Plan. And then we go back to the term habitat - in D you go to Habitat Management Plan, and in E you go to Habitat Protection Plan. So we're using all these terms interchangeably in the document. And, like I said, if you're -- this same paragraph is repeated in many sections of this -- of these, quote, cleanup documents. If you're cleaning it up, you ought to have some consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: I'd have to read the context of every paragraph to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I want to make sure, I mean, if, in fact, you -- is it a Habitat Protection Plan, the Red-cockaded woodpecker? Typically, again, it's an HCP when you're talking listed species, the RCW. MR. LENBERGER: For the county it's a Habitat Management Plan. That's what we're concerned about when we look at preservation for the county is that the habitat's being managed for the listed species that were located in there or would utilize the habitat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But in E you call it a Habitat Protection Plan. MR. LENBERGER: Which policy? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same paragraph. I'm going right down -- that's Policy 7.1.2. MR. LENBERGER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We seem to switch Habitat Management Plan in Paragraph2, Paragraph 3. So Paragraph2C it's called a Habitat Preservation Plan, and then in D it's called a Habitat Management Plan, and then in E it's called a Habitat Protection Plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, we'll work with the environmental staffto either clean that up or clear it up before it goes further. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I know what you mean. I just -- I think since you're cleaning it up, it ought to be consistent with the - MR. LENBERGER: So noted. We'll go through it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - the ESA, Endangered Species Act, and that terminolory. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be beneficial if you communicated with Joe to make sure your and his understanding are the same so that when you go to the Board with this, you know, we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's only, like -- me and Steve maybe understand exactly what I'm talking about, but - that's dangerous, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any.thing else on the CCME, Joe, that section? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. That -- again, that same paragraph is repeated several times in this documen! and you just have to do a word search to make sure it's consistent. That was really all I -- let me go through and see if I've got any more notes here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while we're on those pages, I had several questions about some of those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead, because I found another one on another policy I wrote. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Up in Policy 6.5.2 onthe page that Joe started his questioning with, we refer a couple times previously, and now again under new underline, the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. How is that document modified? Outside of the GMP, obviously? So -- and the reason I'm asking is the implementation code for the GMP I had previously thought was mostly the Land Development Code. But now we're looking at a different reference, and I'm just wondering - and this occurs often. But I want, for clarity, and understand how a reference like this is modified. Does it take aquasi-judicial hearing to modifo it, does it take a supermajority vote to modifo it, or does staffjust modif it on the fly and then these proposed development projects would have to now fall under those new rules and regulations because of the way it's written in the GMP? MR. SCHMIDT: I think I can generally answer that concern. Page 8 of30 April20,2017 The references to the manuals are suggested for change because the previous reference to the updated manual, Volume II, which is a State document, it replaces a previous document, and there's a long process that's gone through to review and approve those newer manuals. But in this case the county does not intend to refer to those new provisions but those specific provisions that were in place previously that we still intend to enforce, and the reference is cited back to that original Volume I and the specific cites. And I think there's more specificity here besides reference to the older document a number of places where you see it, and that was intentional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that part of it, but let's -- I thought that the Land Development Code was the implementing document of the policy - objectives and policies in the Growth Management Plan. And wouldn't it be better to reference the section possibly of the LDC but put this kind of a specific document in the Land Development Code as applicable to this policy instead of putting something in the GMP because it's so much more time-consuming or, let's say, the GMP less frequently amended than the Land Development Code? MR. BOSI: That's an approach we most certainly can take. Normally, the LDC is the implementation aspect of the Growth Management Plan, but it's not the only implementation aspect of the Growth Management Plan. The policies, goals, and objectives of the GMP set the higher goals for the county. Sometimes those could be contained in other documents other than the Land Development Code; could be the code of laws and ordinance. AIso, there's also a tie between the -- a tie between the administrative code and the Growth Management Plan as well. But your suggestion would be to remove the specific reference to these -- to these manuals from the - from the GMP and have an implementation policy within the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was what I'm thinking only because if anybody wants to know how to interpret the GMP, it would be great to be able to know, go to the Land Development Code; that takes it across the board for everything. And then in that Land Development Code, then we find any other documents that we can bring in and out easier and modifu easier than we can in the GMP. I know it's too Iate to do that on this one. I'm not saying change it today. I'm suggesting maybe that -- if that's a philosophical thing that hasn't been thought out, maybe we just need to think it out, a step, and whatever you end up doing with it, Ill work with it. I just - itjust came to mind in reading this and thinking how these things fit together. On the following page, when you get into the various species that have to fall under these new plans, whether -- no matter what Joe wants to call them, it says, for example, under No. B on the following page, for parcels containing gopher tortoises. Priority - it used to say priorities shall be given to protecting largest most contiguous gopher tortoise habitat. Now it says, Habitat Management Plans are required and shall give priority. That is a little bit changed in the way you approach these species from the fact - for example, what if we have take permits? What if the applicant has take permits? Does this now supersede the take permit? Because basically a take permit means you don't have to do any of this because they're taking them. And I was just wondering, how does that fit into this equation if we've strengthened the language to make it all required instead of shall give priority. "Shall give priority" could be subject to the way these species'viability is, and that's what generally leads to a take plan. So how does that fit into this? How do those exceptions fit into this? And, again, you've given us snippets of the GMP, not all the language, so it may be addressed in another policy. I just don't have -- I haven't had the opportunity to go back and memorize the GMP. MR. LENBERGER: I understand. Again, Stephen Lenberger. You know, the GMP, you know, has language to where we defer permitting to these state and federal agencies. In the Land Development Code it allows you to take tortoises offsite in accordance with the state regulations. And, you know, there is a Gopher Tortoise Management Plan approved by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, and that allows you to take it off. So, you know, if they're allowed, given the Page 9 of30 Aprll20,2017 number of tortoises, for example, they're not a viable population, they're allowed by state law to take them offsite, and they can do that. It's actually spelled out in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that kind of leads me to what -- some of the kind of phraseology Joe was hinting at, and I think you responded that the Habitat Management Plans here are the counfr's referenced plans. So is the county saying that they've still got to -- if gopher tortoises are seen on a parcel -- and I'm just using that as one of the species, and they all seem to have the same language requirements -- then a habitat management plan -- a county habitat management plan is required? And I know you just said the LDC can exempt it, but how does the LDC exempt something required by the GMP? MR. LENBERGER: I'll have to take a look at that with comp planning general language but you know, these are if species occur on site and are not going to be relocated, obviously, and some of these species are wide-ranging animals which could use the habitat. So that's a good question. MR. BOSI: I would suggest that within that scenario that you described, if there is a take permit that's being issued by the State, we have a policy that we defer these issues to the State. When that's presented to us, that would - that would supersede the requirement that they have to submit a management plan because we realize that the State is allowing those -- that species to be taken offsite and, therefore, the need is invalidated for that management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're basically saying is the GMP may say it's required, but when we get to implementation through the Land Development Code, because the Land Development Code would allow exemptions as allowed by the State, that would supersede the GMP. MR. BOSI: Well, the GMP says you defer to the State. It's not the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that language isn't here. So these plans are all subject to the State -- how ever the State would look at them for exceptions; is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: That's a fair statement. MR. LENBERGER: Correct, because we defer -- in the comp plan it actually says it defers to the agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm fine with that section. Joe, did you have anything else before we move to Ned or -- Stan? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a comment on page -- let me go back here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I got one on that thing we were just on if you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I can see the difference between a prevention plan and a management -- I did the word search that Joe was talking about for "habitat." I can see a preservation plan means you preserve it. A management plan means after you preserve it, you've got to manage it. But what's a protection plan? You've got, like, a bunch of references to management and preservation, and you've got a few to protection. Is a protection plan a preservation plan? MR. LENBERGER: Yes,l would say so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Well, but to avoid that confusion, why don't we just say, where the word "protection" is referenced as a plan, change it to "preservation." Wouldn't that be, then, consistent? And that would help clarifu Joe's issues and now Stan's. MR. LENBERGER: We could dothat. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think you just need to go back and see where you're using that language and make sure there's clarity and consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, and also I have to look at the context of each place it's put. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because that -- this whole section is repeated in other elements of this transmittal related to other pieces in the transmittals. And I -- you're going to have to go back and look at this policy and make sure it's consistent for the language -- when you look at the entire GMP, to make sure there's consistency in the language. MR. LENBERGER: It would all be in RLSA Future Land Use Elemenq similar language. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else in this section of the - Page 10 of30 April20,2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm at Page 12 of 12 ofthis section. That's all I'm reading here. I can't figure out -- it's page - I think it's Page 28 again. I don't know what -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 28 electronically, but it's Page 12 of l2 of the same section. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just again, you use the -- this is Policy 12.3.3, and you're being specific on the positions, as it says, the Recovery Task Force shall include the Sherifi the Growth Management Plan Department Head, and Zoning Director. Given that, over time, some of these position titles change, I would recommend possibly a more generic definition here with the specificity in the LDC. That's just a recorrmendation. I -- because the person -- that Growth Management Plan Department Head may be called a Division Administrator again six months from now, I don't know. And I look at that and say, it's GMP language. Make it a little -- Soy, you know, as directed by the County Manager or something to that effect. I would just -- because, again, the difficulty in changing the GMP language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, that does bring in an interesting thing. If you think about how Growth Management's currently organized, we have Jamie French, who's in charge of the actual building, and then we had David Wilkison in charge of both buildings. So which person would it be here, just out of curiosity? MR. BOSI: It would be the department head, the position that was previously occupied by David Wilkison. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So he's be -- he's head of both buildings, Transportation and Growth Management? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it's all Growth Management Plan now, isn't it? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: I don't know. It changes like - MR. BOSI: It is all Growth Management. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's why I'm recommending maybe some sort of generality because, again, this language could be six months from now -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And what I'd seen in the past is they put the County Manager and his - or his appointed designee resigns or moves or something, and the County Manager never reappoints a designee, and that gets real dicey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, having been the, at that time was called the Community Development Environmental Services Administrator, I'm very familiar with the Recovery Task Force and what this is. And I know why you're being this specific, because it has to do directly with building recovery in the event of a disaster. Bu! again, you're using definitive language that could change. I would just think you might want to look at that before you send it to the Board, or you can leave it like it is and just live with the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those l2pages, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Corby, on Page l0 of 12, Policy 10.5.4, the second sentence -- well, first of all, the first sentence says, the county shall not allow construction of any strucfures seaward of the Coastal Construction Setback Line, then it says, exceptions shall be for passive recreational structures. Now, it says, exceptions shall be allowed for passive recreational structures. It's kind of strengthened that. Is there a reason we couldn't say "exceptions may be allowed"? There are possibly somebody that may deem that if they apply for ig it's got to be allowed because of the strength of that language. And it did get stronger in the way you've written it. MR. SCHMIDT: We tried to keep with the original intent of the provision, and the provision didn't use a "shall" or a "may." It just mafter-of-factly stated these are the exceptions, those recreational structures, those crossovers and so forth. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why don't we just drop the word "allowed" if it was better the way it was? MR. SCHMIDT: This is one of those items that came back to you since transmittal that's in the Page 11 of30 April20,2011 double underlined/strikethrough previously where we had trouble with the language using the "shalls," or in some cases use "mays" and "muststtand t'wills." And when this comes to the implementation of the policy, the staffmembers who do this don't give exceptions to things that "shall not" be. So the first part of this was changed to "allow." Then they can give exceptions to things that are not allowed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? MR. SCHMIDT: It's just a matter of restating what they really do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: For what it's worth, this was a question that I had as well, and my proposed solution was the same as yours, substitute the word "may." It's my understanding that a word like "shall" makes it a ministerial act, and "may" makes it discretionary. And I'd think you'd want to retain the discretion, would you not? MR. SCHMIDT: It is not discretionary. The way it is written, it says, these are the exceptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but we don't know to what extent those exceptions can really be implemented. For example, if someone comes in with a recreational structure that has so much decking in the - past the CCSL -- and I can tell you there's a couple projects out there that came through with this - they had more decking to do things that they really needed to do past that and the decking was excessive. It was something that was seaward of the CCSL. I would suggest someone would argue that because they put it on plan, it's now allowed. And I'm suggesting it may be allowed, as Ned is suggesting. MR. SCHMIDT: Now we're back to discretionary again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is supposed to be discretionary on the part of the applicant convincing the administration or the staffand everybody else that it's a necessity. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, the discretion now lies in the second portion of the same provision, and it tells when you they won't be allowed. If you change it to be "may be," then there's other reasons, too, besides the specific ones inside the policy that may come up. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CIIAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: And if we don't know to address those specifically... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I get Jeffs opinion as to "shall," "must," or "will"? MR. SCHMIDT: Or "may." COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, "may" is definitely not "shall," "must," or "will." MR. KLATZKOW: "Shall" and "must" are the same. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me? MR. KLATZKOW: "Shall" and "must" are the same. MR. SCHMIDT: For some people yes, but however -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. "You shall do this" or "you must do this" is the same. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: He's the attorney. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me. Many times when we work with these documents and we specifically choose the language, "shall" usually means "will" and "must." COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're both saying the same thing. MR. SCHMIDT: Most people who read these provisions, "shall" is clear, but when we say things like a certain provision "will" be applied, it typically means that that occurrence may never take place, but when it does, it shall be applied. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you explain itthen? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: "Shall" means you will do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I thought, okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what's got me concemed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You must do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've been through this many times. MR. KIATZKOW: I'm not sure the difference between "thou shalt not steal" and "thou will not Page 12 of30 April20,2017 steal," so there you go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, the base density in the urban area is four. Is that a "shall" or attmay"? MR. SCHMIDT: It's a "may." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why can'tthis be a "may" then? MR. SCHMIDT: (Shrugs shoulders.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what several of us are hinting at. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: "May" means that there are procedures to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To go through andyou've got -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to allow for a deviation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The predicate of this sentence is passive recreational structures, and it seems to me that the county would want to reserve some discretion with respect to the exact nature of those rather than be obligated to approve each and every onejust because it is a passive recreational structure. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I thinK this -- MR. BOSI: We will modifi the language to say "may." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I think we should use "shalt." COMMISSIONER FRYER: And thou? It's old English. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thou COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have -- I think my last question in this section is on Page 1l of 12, Policy 12.1.14. I had -- I did not realize this language necessarily was in the GMP. I know we have addressed ceftain types of facilities in the LDC, but this parlicular one, it says, all new nursing homes and assisted living facilities that are licensed shall have a core area to shelter residents/staffon site. At what stage of the process, since this would need to be implemented in the Land Development Code, is this checked by stafP Because we have 56 senior living facilities in Collier County, and there's 7,500 units in those 56, and we have l0 more approved that have not yet been built. So with that quantity, are you telling me that all of those are builg including Bradford Square, which is up on Livingston and -- it's Vanderbilt Beach Road? There's two of them there. They were -- the construction of those was different than what we typically see in South Florid4 at least from what I'm used to seeing. Im just wondering, has anybody checked to see if they meet this criteria? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are you on? MR. BOSI: I haven't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I I of 12. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: At one time, when you submitted a building permit, it did go over to Emergency Services for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if it does anymore, but they used to do a cursory review for -- MR. BOSI: All -- Mike Bosi, Planning and ZonngDirector. AIIALF's are provided for EMS or Emergency Services to review. I couldn't attest to whether all the county facilities -- because of the dating of those, I couldn't attest to that but I do know the process is as Joe referenced. When we have these facilities -- these type of facilities proposed, we make sure that the Emergency Management Services are provided review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that was instituted by this panel as a requirement when they get their zoning, but that doesn't answer this question, because at the time they get their zoning, their core areas won't even be shown on the plans. These core areas -- I mean, if you have sheer walls and concrete walls and solid facilities where you've got a core area that is hirely (sic) - more safe and a higher level of Page 13 of30 April20,2077 protection, I understand that. But in looking at the construction of some of these new facilities going up, I question how they would have obtained that and if it was really looked at. If it was, that's great. So let's take those two on Vanderbilt and Livingston as an example. You've got two of them there. One's just down to the east, and one's right on the corner. Could someone verify to this panel at the next meeting that they're consistent with Policy 12.1.14? And I just know how this has been applied. And we're getting so many of these now, it would be something to make sure that it is adhered to. I don't mean just meets the Building Code. Building Code may have a different reference for a core area. It needs to meet this to whatever extent that it would have been reviewed, and I'm curious as to how that is applied. We have it here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree with you. I seriously doubt all of them meet the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you've got a core are4 it's going to be different than the whole building, and this one says a backup generator for that core area is required. I just would like to make sure that that's how it's something -- all these settlements are being looked at that way. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I recall the intent of this, Mark, was to prevent having to go through the process ofrelocating in the event ofan evacuation because ofthe - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Frail nature? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- I guess the burden it places upon the county to locate the folks from these type of facilities. But I would - I would -- I really don't think they meet this requirement, honestly, especially those if they're -- if you're in the coastal high-hazard area. I mean, they're going to move anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, we've got some new ones coming in that haven't even been designed yet. They're coming in for changes, and it would be nice to know that this policy now has been highlighted. We just need to find out if the Building Department and/or Zonng or anybody else is following up with this as to however it's supposed to be implemented. And if you could come back to us and let us know at our next meeting or as soon as possible, that would be helpful. MR. BOSI: Understood. CTIAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. Okay. I think we're fmished up with the CCME. And, Joe, do you have any other questions of any other parts of this document while we're on you? And then we'll go to Ned next. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Of the 72 pages,I do further down in the document. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: We're done with the 12 pages. Why don't we -- I don't know how many total questions everybody has, but - COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: ljusthad - CFIAIRMAN STRAN: - why don't we just go through yours, and then we'll go through Ned's, and then whoever else. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me go back to my comment. Sorryr, I've got to find it again. On Page - all right. Let me go down here and look. Page 4 of 44,that's a document -- Page 42 of this document; 42 of 236, and it's Objective 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What electronic page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm electronic Page 42 of the236. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Yep, that's one -- yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You cite Dover-Kohl Partners publications. I still have battle scars from that term. My problem is, is this still the underpinnings of our entire program? And if it is, it was a Dover-Kohl study done, what in the '90s. If it is, we ought to put the date and the publication of the date in this, because I don't think we've done anything with Dover-Kohl since -- MR. BOSI: You're -- we're referring to the original - I think it was 2000, '9912000. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: '99 or2000, correct. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, it -- the way this reads, this is -- we are still basically wedded to that document. And if that's the intent, that's the intent. I think, then, we ought to put the date of the publication in there. Page 14 of30 Aprrl2},2017 CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, better yet, we have so many - and I boxed the same area for questioning. We have so many PUDs coming through, we don't pay arry attention, that I can see, to Dover-Kohl. We pay attention to the LDC, and the LDC -- if they're consistent with the LDC, they're fine. Why even reference this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. I agree. I think it should just be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's an antiquated document that's not been updated. I don't know where we specifically use it that much. Every now and then we'll throw it on the table if we have questions about a project that seems out of context or out of nature, but how is this -- how is this - why is this necessary in the Growth Management Plan? MR. BOSI: Well, the policies that are underneath Objective 7 deal with interconnectivity, urban design. Those are evaluated -- every single Growth Management Plan consistency memo that you'll have for a PIID, each one of those policies will be referenced in terms of how they're related to the proposal. And this policy, or this objective cites the area and the underpinning of how these policies have been derived from that original document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying strike the objective. I don't - just leave the reference to Dover-Kohl out. I mean, it's not necessary. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would reference other sections of our GMP that state those criteria. I think this document -- other than this statement in the GMP, it's never mentioned in any type of zoning that comes forward. Yes, the principles are still good. I'm not arguing that. But we haven't done anything with this since 2000, I believe, '99 or 2000, other than when we did a study of Naples Park, which didn't go over very well. MR. BOSI: No, it didn't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But that's a story for another day. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And the parking fields and commercial and things like that, we have issues with that constantly. The green spaces that are constantly being bombarded by the development industry to have them modified again after they've previously been committed. I don't see the need for the reference to this antiquated document; I really don't. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I don'tthink we should put it in there, because it is a registered -- or it's a firm that has identified - why should we give them advertising in our GMP? MR. BOSI: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a recommendation. Anybody else have any objection to that as a discussion? (No response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Just one issue. Does staffrely on that document? CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's the problem. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's the issue. Does staffrely on that document? MR. BOSI: Does staffrely upon that document? We don't -- that document is not referenced other than the design components -- MR. KLATZKOW: When you're in review, do you ever reference that document as part of the review process? MR. BOSI: The -- MR. KLATZKOW: When you're making a decision on an application, are you reviewing that document? MR. BOSI: No. We are reviewing the policies that are based upon that document. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those policies were codified in the later GMP amendments. MR. KTATZKOW: You're either utilizing the document or you're not. If you're utilizing the document, it should be in here, and it should be on the website, by the way, so other people can see what it says. If you're not utilizing the document, then I agree with Mr. Schmitt; get rid of it. MR. WEEKS: Let me jump in. We don't. When we're reviewing a zoning petition or some other petition for consistency with the Future Land Use Element, we're not going back to that document. We're Page 15 of30 April20,2017 only looking at these policies. And, in fact, all of those policies, as some of you might recall, use the language "encourage," so we have no longer taken the position as staff that if a zoning petition is not complying or is not meeting the intent, or however you want to phrase it, of those policies, we would not say this petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We would raise it as an issue as a valid planning concern but, for example, if an interconnection could be provided, as one ofthe policies calls for, encourages, and the applicant did not provide for that interconnection, we would not say this petition is not consistent with the plan. We would, instead, just identifu that as a concern. We wish they would. We request that they do, but -- so it's not a requirement, the policies that are based upon that Community Character Plan. But the short answer to Jeffs question is, no, we don't look through the Community Character Plan. Primarily the times that we've used that plan is in reviewing some Comprehensive Plan amendments; we've looked back for - asjust a one ofmany general planning resources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the cleaned-up second sentence, if you were to leave that, leave the strikeouts - take the strikeouts out and then not add that bottom sentence, I think we've got a policy that still works well, and then you have the ability, then, to modiff it pursuant to any other policies, smart growth principles or policies that come along, instead ofjust those restricted to the Dover-Kohl. So I would rather keep the opportunities and flexibility there for the county to change -- it's kind of like we're stuck with the SIC code of NAICS; same thing. We don't want to lock ourselves into something when the possibilities could be better in the future. MR. WEEKS: I agree. I think we just need to - I think the last two words "as follows" need to be retained, but the specific reference, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on that Future Land Use Element section Page 1 through 44. Does anybody have any other questions from that section ofthis adoption hearing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thiNK I dO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm down to just three remaining questions, thanks to the previous discussion, so that's a good thing. Under urban designation -- and this is going to be on Page 44 as it came to me on the thumb drive, refers to revised text Page 57. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the pages where it says on the bottom 5 of 44, you're on Page 44 of that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, sir. I'm on Page 6 of 44. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ah, good. That helps. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's going to take me a little while to figure out these references. My concern, there is a drafting style that's been adopted, which I've -- I don't care for it, but a lot of people do, and that's when you're referring to a number, you use the number and then you spell it out, and so that's fine if that's the - if that is what you're doing, but to be consistent, I think you've got one here - and pardon me for nipicking. But in a cleanup, I think we do pick nits -- that you have - this includes three, but there's a strikethrough in the three, and it's been written out as three. So it seems to me that's just inconsistent with the drafting style that you've employed elsewhere in referring to numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAN: On Page 6, what paragraph are we on, or what -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Cl. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, Cl. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: CI. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Urban commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. Now I see it. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, that's a common edit or non-edit throughout the document. Where the numbers are used to be instructive or describe a requirement to give something definitive, those Page 16 of30 April20,2017 numbers have been changed to include both the word and the number. Where it's simply being descriptive of that's -- there's three sections over there or there are, in this case, three interchange sections, it's just giving you how many, not doing anything but. We just have left that alone. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm curious, from the County Attorney, what your take is on that. MR. KLATZKOW: When I'm drafting I don't do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Neither do I. MR. KLATZKOW: I just use the word. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Me too. MR. KLATZKOW: But other people do do that. It's a stylistic issue. I find that when people do that, they'll actually get it wrong. They'll say, like 14, and then they'll put down, like, 13. It's just -- I mean, you're just asking for a mistake that way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's how I feel about it as well. But there's a distinction been drawn. There's a method to your madness, as it were. But it seems to stick out to me as if this one wasn't caught. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, this one is deliberately not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then why - and to follow Ned's reasoning, look at B, you refer to two road miles. That's a generic reference. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Why, then, is two there spelled out and numeric when you didn't do it on one. How does that fit yourjust -- what you just described as your reasoning? I mean, what would -- would it hurl just to be consistent? And if you've already started doing it with both numbers and letters, why don't we just do it both ways -- continue that pattem even though it's a questionable style? MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: I see it there in your Subsection l.B. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: That's simply a description of some distance, not a requirement or an instruction. CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, your point on that could be confusing, and if we're going to just list them as verbal, why don't we just do them as letters, written, just do it both ways ever;,rvhere -- MR. BOSI: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAN: -- if that's the decision. And it looks like it has been because too many of them have already been changed. MR. SCHMIDT: There can't be many left. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I then go to Table 2.3.1, which is on numeric Page 134. It's Page2 of the exhibit called Vacant and Developable Land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is outside of the FLUE, outside of those 44 pages, right? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Can we finish first? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course, of course. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any - while we're on the section with the 44 pages, does anybody else have any other questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to, again, note for the record on that section, Page 51, 52, has the same language regarding the use of management plans, conservation plans, and preservation plans. Same verbiage. That just needs to be corrected, if you're going to correct the one section I noted above. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You're looking on Page 13 of 44, bottom righrhand side? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, Page 51. I've gotthe notes on the side here, so let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's on the -- see where they did the - COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: It's 13. CHAIRMAN STRAN: That's what I thought. Page 13 of 44. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's Page, yeah,13 of 44. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what everybody else -- not everybody's on electronic, so everybody's Page 17 of30 April20,2017 trying to follow what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay, sorry. MR. SCHMIDT: Thirteenof 44? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's 13 of 44 of that section. And 13 -- Page 13 and 14 has that same issues with that terminology of management plans and the Habitat Management Plans, Section -- under Section - Policy 5.5, Paragraph2 and Paragraph 2C, areas that just need -- again, if you're going to correct it in the one area, you need to correct it in this area. We're not going to discuss the difference anymore. I'm done with that. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if I could just make a note for the record. That's Policy 5.5 of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: - Future Land Use Element. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's stay on these 44 pages. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One question. On this bit with the numbers, I was just looking through the document, and I see, like, one place it talks about 1 5 days, and it's just the number I 5 not out, in parentheses, written. One talks about 20 years, and it does have the number and the thing written out; one talks about 25 percent and it actually has the 25 percent in the number; another talks about 300 feet, and it only has the number and not -- how far do you take this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, when you -- back in my days when you used to write reports and other things, anything that's 10 and below you spell the word; 1 1 and above you put the number down. So that was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's correct. The question is, though, when do you just express it in one form as opposed to two forms? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think a decision's been made to go through and express it all in two forms. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to -- the majority of the corrections in this adoption is a lot of that kind of action. MR. SCHMIDT: It was. For housecleaning matters, we've approached this batch of amendments, we looked at the overall construction of the bulk of the Comprehensive Plan, and no matter what element you looked into, the predominant method was using both the word and the parenthetical. And those were being added here. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, and I think what we're pointing out is the next time this comes through, we may want to look at either making it all consistent or figure out some way of cleaning it up a little bit fufther, so... Anything else on pages -- on those 44 pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Mike, on Page 9 of 44, you talk about overlays and special features and, Steve, I sent you an email. I don't know if it was yesterday or whenever. I think you were out yesterday, and it said you'd be in today, so you may not have seen it yet and it was about Plantation Island. We talk about the areas of Chokoloskee, Big Cypress, that are outside Big Cypress, and Everglades City and Ochopee, and I know we have a special agreement on Plantation Island, and I know that we are currently in the midst of a debate with some properly owners down there, or a property owner, maybe there's two of them, over the fact our agreement doesn't provide enough flexibility for them to develop their property. And in looking at the agreement and looking at the standards in the ACSC -- and I'm now wondering based on DEO's most latest email to you in which they basically provided no flexibility, what good is that agreement? And maybe we could list Plantation here as an exception, or how is -- because part of the question that has been asked is, why is Plantation separately looked at when it was there - it goes back Page 18 of30 April20,2017 decades? And Everglades City was exempted. Ochopee, apparently, was; Chokoloskee. But Plantation Island got caught in this mess. We tried to fix it with an agreement, but DEO's backtracking on the agreement, so... MR. WEEKS: Well, first of all, those specifically listed areas that are excluded from the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern are statutory. We, as the local government, cannot exempt other areas. We don't have that authority. The statute would have to be changed to exempt Plantation Island if we wanted it to be exempted or excluded from the ACSC regulations. Secondly, I don't agree with your characteization of DEO's position of, I think you said, backtracking. What the agreement provides for Plantation Island is a minimum site alteration of 2,500 square feet. There's another requirement that applies to the nonpermeable surface are4 and that language refers to 50 percent of the generally allowed 10 percent site alteration. DEO is saying that that 50 percent allowance still applies to 10 percent of the site area, not the 2,500 square feet of site and impact area that's allowed. The agreement simply is silent to the nonpermeable surface area; therefore, we default back to the state rule that says 50 percent of the 10 percent. The proposed change to the agreement for Plantation Island, in the present form, would allow for a nonpermeable surface area also of 2,500 square feet. So you could have a site area impact of 2,500 square feet and nonpermeable surface area of 2,500 square feet. That's the current draft. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And are you -- I know you're aware of the email that came in from DEO pertaining to a couple of the sites down there. First of all, it appears that the agreement is subject to those sites under - whether you own a single lot or you own two, three, or four lots in combination. You're penalized if you use - if you own more in combination. So if you own three lots, instead of 2,500 per lot, it's 2,500 for all three, which seems kind of strange. I don't know why we would agree to something like that. The other issue -- and I'm trying to figure out how to say it. DEO indicated that what we've already approved and what's already gone on down there is inconsistent with their interpretation of the agreement. And how did -- I didn't see a response to that from staff And I did go back and look at other lots to see what we've approved for facilities on those lots, and they're all similar to the one that now DEO says shouldn't have been approved. MR. WEEKS: I think the issue is -- two issues here. One is that the county has not been issuing permits in accordance with what DEO says the language provides for. We have been allowing additional nonpermeable surface area than the ACSC regulations authorize. And the second issue is, I believe the county has not been rendering development orders to DEO as we are required to do, which is why DEO has never, I believe - why they've never raised this issue before, because they weren't aware it was going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So - okay. MR. WEEKS: But DEO is now aware and they said, hey, time out, Collier County. You're not doing it right. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: And I think that's the result of what I seem to see in the emails that just happened. This is a substantial issue for the people that own lots. There's quite a few lots on Plantation Island. The fact that we had an agreement that really wasn't as beneficial as it could have been to fix some of this, and now we're experiencing that lack of, I think, citing in that former agreement. How far have we gone to fix this within the county? I mean, where are we at right now? MR. WEEKS: County Attorney's Office has drafted an amendment to the agreement. The next step is for us to provide that to DEO and to get their -- DEO is Department of Economic Opportunity, the State of Florida - is to get their reaction to that proposal, and assuming and hoping that it's affirmative, verbally they seem to be accepting. They seem to understand how restrictive the regulations are and what we think are unique circumstances for Plantation Island. The next step would be then to take this before the Board of County Commissioners for their approval and then, of course, DEO has to approve the agreement as well. But we also need to gather some additional supportive information to provide, we believe, to both DEO and to the county commission, and that is information such as how many lots are we dealing with, how many parcels are we dealing with, what is the number ofthose parcels that have been developed, undeveloped, and ofthose that have been developed, Page 19 of30 April20,2017 how much development has occurred. And I think that will be very telling to be able to see, well, look, number one, here's how many parcels have been developed that are not in compliance with the existing provision and, secondly, look how reasonable we believe it is to allow the amount of development that has already occurred to support the change to the agreement. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: This all kind of, from my participation -- and it just came to light a couple days ago when one of the residents down there -- I don't know why they picked me, but they emailed me about their concern and asked me if I'd look into it. And I started looking into it, and I found all the things we're now talking about that you've already enacted or started to work on. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: What's your time frame to resolve these, this issue; do you have one? The Board's got to sign offon it. Are you going to get to them before their break or not? MR. WEEKS: We should be able to. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. So there's a chance that before summer at least an agreement could be modified to a point where some of these issues could be resolved? MR. WEEKS: Yes. As you mentioned, there's one particular property owner that's proposing development that's brought this issue to light, but we recognize, stafl and again with our conversations with DEO, we believe they also recognize that this does have impact to all of the properties on Plantation Island. It's an issue that others -- it's an issue that should have come about earlier. But now that we know about it, we are taking active steps to resolve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Steve, my email simply asks for an explanation that David just gave me, so you can ignore it and save yourself some time. Thank you. I wasn't sure where you guys would be prepared to answer. I had no idea the County Attorney's Office was already working on it. I'm glad to hear they are. Maybe I'll talk with them to get some kind of information from them as well. So thank you. Another question while we're on these 44 pages, on Page 74 of 44 -- and it's under the management plans that Joe likes so much - 2,{ triple I, and it says, when listed species are directly observed on site or indicated by evidence such as denning, foraging, or other indications, the minimum of 40 percent of native vegetation on site shall be retained. Have we ever done that? I mean, we're getting everybody coming in demanding we drop retention of open space or preservation space down to minimums based on hired environmental studies done by them. Have we ever countered any of it and come back with an application that fits this? I can't recall them offhand. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. First I need to know which policy you're on, which element. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm on Page 14 of 44,triple I up on top. MR. LENBERGER: This is the Future Land Use Element? MR. WEEKS: Yes. First, Commissioners, let me justjump in and say that this is a Rural Land Stewardship Area policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So we've only had one approval, Ave Maria, the town, and then the Rural Lands West is under review. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Right. Now -- okay. Well, that's interesting then, because if they are in any of the areas that have any of this application, we're looking at a higher percentage of native vegetation retention. Okay. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: That's fair enough. That's all I needed to know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's one of the issues with the stewardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If we turn to -- on Page - electronic PageT3,there is no -- oh, Page 35 of 44. Now 35 is on the left side of the page, and this is one of your activity center maps, and it's the one that we're sitting in right now. Are you there, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look at the PUD that's directly across from us today where we're sitting, Courthouse Shadows, the northwest comer at the intersection of Airport and 41 is white. I Page 20 of30 April20,2017 believe that corner was picked up and is now part of the Courthouse Shadows PUD as a result of the last change they came through. Remember that's where Starbucks is going to go. I can't forget Starbucks. Thanks for Starbucks I can talk so fast that Terri has to type t. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Did you see her eyes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw. Did you see her roll her eyes? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Terri. That's on the record now; Terri rolled her eyes. MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look atthat, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you? Isn't that, Mike - didn't we just change that? MR. BOSI: Yeah, we did. But I'm trying to think, did that PUD get adoption? CHAIRMAN STRAN: I'm asking - I thought it did with the exception of the gas station component. Because the gas station component was pulled, so they got adoption to come in with more squ-re footage for a larger commercial. And the key was they needed that change so the Starbucks could go there on the corner. I don't want anything to mess up that plan. That's a good plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Where is that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 35 of 44. Oh, okay. Where is it? That's all I've got of section -- of those sections, I through 44. And, you know, David, did you have something on the FLUE sections? MR. WEEKS: I do. I want to correct something, that previous discussion we were having about Rural Land Stewardship Area Policy 5.5.2.A.iii. I just made -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Fourteen of 44. MR.WEEKS: Yes, 14of 44 ontheFutureLandUseElement. Ijustmentionedthat--wastalking about the stewardship receiving areas and so forth. This policy is not applicable to those. These Group 5 policies are pertaining to the baseline conditions. That would be a project that is not participating in the stewardship program. So it would not be SRAs; that would be just your baseline development. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I appreciate that clarification. Thankyou. You know, I have been talking fast, and I know Terri's getting a little frusfated over there. So let's take a break until 10:30. It will be about 15 minutes, and we'll finish up when we get back. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Sorry, Chair. Live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. We're back on record. Back from our break. We left offwith -- Ned was working through his questions and, Ned, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I go to Table2.3.1, which is on Page 134 as it came to me on a thumb drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me tell you what that is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vacant and developable land. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, that's in the appendices of the - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. And this is - I mean, it's nitpicking typo, but since we're here to clean up, in Item 78, you have something called best homes, and I think you mean rest homes. Some of the best homes are rest homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know the table he's talking about? MR. SCHMIDT: I do not. I'm lost at this moment. Page what of what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that brings up a question -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Table 2.3. 1. MR. WEEKS: What element are we in? MR. BOSI: There's no element. This is a copy of the adopted EAR report that was provided that was the basis of - COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we can't change it? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Butjust for future reference, if you use that table, instead of "best homes," it should have been "rest homes." I think that's what he's saying. Page 21 of30 Apr|l20,2017 COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's right. MR. BOSI: Understood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And -- let's see. My last point. This maybe is a little more substantive. And I'll try to identiff it for everyone where it comes up. It comes up on Page -- numeric -- Thumb Drive Page 747, and it is -- oh, let's see, under executive summary, the stand-alone GroMh Management Plan amendment. And my question generally is, when studies are prepared by staff- and, by the way, I think these are all excellent studies that you've brought to us -- the -- in this particular case, there is a summary of the benefits that you cite in support of your conclusion. And as a matter of process, do you ever deal also with the downsides, the detriment and then dispose of them in an argument? MR. SCHMIDT: Typically, in executive summary we will not include that portion of the argument because it would have been provided in your staffreports, both the pros and the cons, weed them out, water it down, and the Board likes to see it in a shortened version. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So at some point we do see the pros and the cons? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Great. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thankyou. Now, does anybody else have any sections that they have prepared any questions on? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Page I of the Section 17 - correction, I of 79. It's the Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAN: What electronic page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm on electronic Page 158. And it's just here as Policy 111, you cite -- and there is a change. It says, the county has established and will maintain -- and will maintains, or maintain, that's stricken, the "S" -- an environmental advisory council which advises/assists the county agencies and, of course, the Collier County Planning Commission. We no longer have an EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, no, no, no. We are the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We -- right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're both. We wear two hats, just like the Board is the Board of Zoning and Appeals and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Do we want to specifu that in this, or is this language suitable? CHAIRMAN STRAN: The ordinances already address it. Yeah, that was already addressed when Jeff wrote the ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It's set up like a light switch. If the Board wants to break it to two boards, they can break it to two boards. If they want to use you, they've got a single board. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because there were positions that are at large. I was one of them, so -- but, okay. That's fure. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? I think I have -- and most of - allmy stuffs been addressed as we moved through it, so we're in good shape at this point. I don't think there's any more questions from this board, so we would then be looking for a motion both as -- I think we need to do one as the EAC and as the Planning Commission. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we need two motions. I imagine they would be similar. But let's start with the EAC first. Is there a motion sitting as the EAC to approve the adoption request - adoption of the language in front of us subject to the discussions that we had today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: - to adopt subject to the language as we discussed, specifically the sections to address some of the language clarifications. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Page 22 of 30 April20,2017 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And we're not going to go through all those. You have those notes. So I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, signifo by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMTAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Is there a similar motion for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be matching the previous motion by the EAC. Is there a second to Ned's motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Seconded by Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifo by sayrng aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I was thinking here; aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you didn't say nay. Okay. Thank you. +**I think we're done with that one, then, and we will move onto our next agenda item, which is 9C. It's the ordinance amending 7450 to add maximum offsite discharge standards to the various basins in the counff. This isn't part of the Land Development Code. It's being brought forward as, I guess, a courtesy for the Planning Commission for a discussion and then recommendation; is that - MS. MOSCA: That's correct. It is, though, somewhat related to the previous agenda item where we requested the removal of discharge rates from the stormwater sub-element. So it's somewhat of a companion or at least related to that. So good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with the Stormwater Management staff. The staffand the county's consultant, Emilio Robau, are here today before you to present for your consideration an amendment to the Code of Laws and Ordinances to reduce offsite stormwater discharge rates in 16 basins. And Jerry Kurtz will be presenting today and answering questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Thank you. MR. KURTZ: Goodmoming. Jerry Klurtz, for the record. What we've done is -- the PowerPoint that's in your packet we've shifted some slides around and Page 23 of30 April20,2017 reduced the number a little bit to speed things up. Certainly, we have all the slides available if you want to discuss more of the questions. But I'd like to run through approximately l0 or 12 and give you the - give you the quick overview. This slide starts offwith the history of the discharge rates for Collier County and the various steps that were taken over the years. Just a quick snapshot. There's been a lot of work done to control discharge and explain the discharge of stormwater runoffoffproperties. More recent items discussed; discharge rates, specifically the watershed management plan. A lot of modeling was done with the Watershed Management Plan, and one of the initiatives in the watershed management plan was to bring forward more restrictive discharge rates, just a lot of historical information there. So a snapshot of what we're really talking about. The county, as far as stormwater management, we've got the county divided up into about 51, 52 basins, subbasins, whatever you want to refer to them as. There are other mechanisms to break up the county for various other purposes, wabbits, water body IDs, that sort of thing. But we're talking about -- and these have been the counfz, as far as stormwater management divides watersheds, divides for years. So we're talking about we had six historically for a long time of these colored areas that were restricted at rates below the overall rate for the county. The top 6 here in the light colors, this initiative is to add 16 more to the current six, and that's the coverage meant to show the coverage of the county. Again, kind of the same thing only in tabular format. The top is the first six, the names of the basins, and the rates of discharge; and then the bottom is the 16 proposed additions. Pretty significant going fiom six to 16 bu! again, the basis and the backup information for why we're doing this is pretty solid based on a lot of modeling and a lot of time. This analysis goes back years and years to some master plans that we did as well as watershed. I want to point out one thing on this slide. Our partners in Watershed Management, the Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management. The asterisk along the bottom l6 -- there's eight of them of the l6 are basins that directly discharge into district-maintained canals. So about half of these basins discharge into our -- the county's maintained system, half discharge into the Water Management's canal system. Bu! overall, you know, very little distinction; it's all one canal system. We're just when we partner and maintenance of the overall system -- so we've been vetting this for two years plus, and one of the things with DSAC that came up is when you restrict discharge for a new developer, it's going to increase costs. We did - that's why we hired Emilio, our consultant. We did very detailed analysis. Basically, we created a couple of projects and looked at them with the current discharge rate and the new more restrictive discharge rate and actually calculated what the increase in cost would be. Basically, you're just lifting up the site a little bit more to hold a little more water temporarily on your site. This slide's just explaining -- and we did two scenarios. We did a really intense 72-acre commercial, and we did a residential as well. And I'll show you the outcome and a little bit more information on this analysis. As part of this analysis, we developed -- this was a huge positive thing. We really drilled in deeper with new technolory, the GIS data, and produced really detailed basin maps. So here's an example of one of the basin maps. We realized early on, you know, having very accurate maps to be used by the Water Management District and by us is critical. And the boundaries are in. They're solid. It's very clear to see who's in, who's out what basin you're in. So this was a real valuable exercise for us, and we've got all these maps done. And it really took a lot of time, but it needed to get done. The prior six we had similar maps but not to a greater detail. So now we've upgraded all our basin maps. And just -- in order to show really per, I guess, Stan's initial questions through DSAC, what are properties would be affected by this -- because it's properties that are still yet to be developed. Knowing that some of these basins we want to impose this on pretty much built out, which is a good point, but these new restrictive discharge rates will affect sites that become redeveloped, which is quite a new trend, strong trend now redeveloping various sites. So this new ordinance will have the ability to restrict discharge on sites that are deemed redevelopment sites. Here's just a quick shot of the total 16, again showing that, in fact, Stan had a good point. Some of Page 24 of30 April20,2017 these basins, the available land yet to be developed is down to almost zero. [n fact, a couple of them are zero. But again, some of them are fairly significant not yet built out. So we go from 41 percent down to zero of - by basin of land that will be affected by this in addition to where redevelopment -- and, of course, redevelopment probably will be strong in the areas that are, you know, low, undeveloped property at this point. So we developed this based on our vetting with DSAC. And that's the information being shown here on this slide. And, also, each basin has -- or there's - the restricted rates vary from .04 to . I 3, so this groups them by what rates they'll be restricted to. The engineers were very interested in that sorl of thing. As well, here's just a quick slide showing that we actually went through Emilio's -- he and his staffwent through a detailed analysis, so the one on the left is basically - you know, I'd have to zoom in. And basically we're looking at LiDAR type information showing, color-wise, the height of fill to be added as you develop a site. You know, the reds and oranges are high. The blues and greens are low. Bu! basically, if you zoomed in on here, you could see that the site on the right, which is held to a higher discharge rate, would -- a little bit more fill would be added. So there's a little bit more red and orange and yellow than the site on the left, which is held to the curent discharge rate. And we did this for -- this is the commercial site. As well, he went ahead and designed the whole thing, put in the infrastructure, the drainage infrastructure, used current cost estimates. Of course, fill, cost of fill being probably the most significant, came up with site design costs under the two scenarios, and it came out to be less than 2 percentcost increase. And then we presented this to DSAC. And, again, we wanted to do the residential, too. The nature of the development for each, you know, is quite different. We wanted to make sure we covered both scenarios. We did the exact same thing for a fictitious residential, bigger site, how you would develop it and, again, the depictions left and right. Right, you'll notice, if you zeroed -- zoomed in a lot more, just more fill. Here's the breakdown of the cost estimates. And this one affected the price a little bit more; 4.4 percent. But we did another interesting thing. We looked at -- on a bigger site you have the opporhrnity of digging your lakes and generating more fill, digging your lakes a little bit deeper, which is a common practice. So the original cost estimate showed just digging the lakes to the minimum depth, but Emilio figured out that if you dug the lakes a little bit deeper to get a little bit more fill, you could bring your cost increase down to, again, just under 2 percent cost increase, which is, I'm told, a common practice. So the point was, we're agreeing that it's going to increase development costs, but we showed that it's a slight increase. So now, again, this slide shows how long we've been working on this and vetting this. We went to DSAC four times over a year and a half, and in the end -- the last meeting was in December. They did vote to support this initiative, once they fully understood, and then we basically did everything they asked us to do to explain the issue and the impacts to the issue. They voted I l-3 in favor. So throughout the whole process we've been touting the benefits. We know it's a more restrictive regulation for land development. We've been very sensitive to that the whole time, from the beginning to the end. We've been transparent. We've pointed out the impacts as well. The benefits are huge. It's so deeply embedded in the Watershed Management Plan. I mean, I don't want to read all these. It's just -- for the environment, for the receiving waters to ensure, do I dare say, the seaward concurrency for stormwater management. We know what the canals can handle under what circumstances, storm events, and holding a little -- restricting discharge runoffrates will help us to manage the canal system so the canal system can always be a good receiver of the runoffin the worst of times. We know the canal system's very limited, so this is a critical initiative to go up in - upstream into the -- into the basins and try to see what everybody can do to help us ensure that the level of service for flood protection is still there and -- because when you get a big storm, a lot of rain really fast, our canals fill up very quickly, and we've got -- spent a lot of money on modeling during the Watershed Management Plan that showed this. Page 25 of30 April20,2017 And so this is the why the initiative got a head of steam on it and it's kept slowly rolling along, as well, benefits to the receiving waters, benefits to sustainable water supply and aquifer recharge. So there's just numerous really significant benefits to why this needs to be or should be done. Shall? Must? Oh, wait. No. Here's the next steps. We're here today with the Planning Commission, and then the next and final step, hopefully, is going to the Board with this. And then as it churns through the process of acceptance with the State, I guess, it could be -- we could be reviewing stuffunder these new conditions as soon as August. And that's the end of the presentation. I'm ready for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Tom, and then Ned. MR. EASTMAN: Jerry, just to confirm these new discharge rates, they will apply to new development new redevelopment, not existing development; so the county won't be coming around and saying, you know, you have to make changes on an existing structure, building, facility? MR. KURTZ'. That's correct. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except schools. Schools will all have to come to the new code. MR. EASTMAN: That's what I was thinking about. Thanks, Jerry. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the slide presentation, I think the final section was benefits; this sort of relates back to the last agenda item. As I read this -- when I read these things and I see lists of benefits, I try to identifo possible cons or detriments, and one that emerges from the text would be an increased cost to developers, and I get that. I don't have, really, any expertise in this area, so I'm just kind of winging it. But in the long term, are there any potential detriments or cons to requiring retention of waterflow this way? MR. KURTZ: Not that I'm aware of. In the long term, it should - it should be beneficial for all the trends, the future trends developing, even saltwater intrusion. When you're actually trying to mound some water on the uplands, it kind of retards the inward migration of saltwater. So I can't see any long-term disadvantages. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: StAn? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, for the record, does this affect any of the single-area homeowners in Golden Gate Estates? MR. KURTZ: No, it won't. It's only for development that falls under basically Water Management rules and regulations. So neither -- it's all - it exempts single-family homes/lots, even in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. Maybe Stan has the answer to this one. I see that three people voted against the proposal, and I'd be curious to know why, if that's a fair statement, fair question. Maybe it's not. MR. KURTZ: As I recall, it was just pushed back for increasing cost of development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's my memory of it. There were certain people on DSAC that just -- if it's going to increase the cost of development, they just vote no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody else? (No response.) CFIAIRMAN STRAN: Jerry, a couple questions. You had said that this would apply to, potentially, redevelopment sites, okay, and then you said it doesn't apply to single-family homes. So even though you have a basin for the -- let's say the Pine Ridge area, Pine Ridge north of Pine Ridge Road and east of U.S. 41, if those homes in there were destroyed during a hurricane or something, they would not be applicable to this particular -- these changes? Page 26 of30 April20,2017 MR. KURTZ: Would not be, right. This is just for Water Management sites with water management - sites that have to be permitted through -- and follow the South Florida Water Management rules. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. That -- my concern was, obviously, if you're going to be raising a site, if it was a single-family home in a subdivision, we are running into problems with homes -- new homes built so much higher than existing, and there's been some flack on that. But if this doesn't apply to that, then it's a nonissue. MR. KURTZ: We are, and that's why the other ordinance for the lot coverage is -- was reviewed and altered. We were well aware of the issues with single-family, you know -- runofffrom single-family sites, so the two things will, I think, work together nicely. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And in the excavation of lakes, did you change your fetch formula in any manner? Because most of the lakes that happens -- happen are dug to that formul4 and you can only go so deep based on the side slopes and everything else that are required. So the solution to the cost by digging lakes deeper on projects really means you may have to change the configuration of the lake to get that additional depth, then. Is that what you were thinking? MR. KURTZ'. Yes, absolutely. You know, it's going to be available to certain developments based on their configuration; others it might not be. Even the size of the lake you can't -- it has to be a certain size even before you can consider going deeper, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KURTZ: - we just used the example that we came up with, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: But, see, under that scenario, if you were to try to go deeper but you had to increase the size of the lake so your formula works, you really have got a cost involved in losing lots then, not just fill. MR. ROBAU: I kind of anticipated some of that. And without having to do all the iterations of varying the -- oh, for the record, Emilio Robau, Robau & Associates. CHAIRMAN STRAN: You'll might want to spell that last name for her. MR. ROBAU: No. She has my card. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, okay. MR. ROBAU: I was hoping I'd get up here. Anyways - CHAIRMAN STRAN: You were hoping? You're the only person I've ever seen that's hoping for such a thing. That's good. MR. ROBAU: I think my terms of the day I learned today are best homes are rest homes and nitpick or pick nits. I really love those two. But anyrvays, I kind of anticipated that, so I went to 14 feet for the lakes. I mean, I didn't go all the way down to 20 feet. I figured that with a fetch formula of 12 versus 14 feet, the additional two feet, we could probably get some of the same geometry layout for the developments. And I also wanted to point out that the differential's about two-tenths of a foot is what we're talking about here. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Oh, okay. So it's that much. Thank you. Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If we're going to pick nits, in the frst page, the requested action, you always put a zero in front of the decimal point. You did it the whole rest ofthe document except for the first paragraph. And I don't know how you're going to spell those out, zero point zero four? MR. EASTMAN: They must do that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: I think that was a - just a statement. I'm not sure there was a response needed, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ask Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just an observation. CHAIRMAN STRAN: And I think that wraps up questions from the Planning Commission. Are there any public speakers, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes, Chair, there is one. Joss Nageon De Lestang from the South Water Florida (sic) Page27 of30 April20,2017 Management district. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: So you're going to snatch success -- how's that -- what's that thing - Come on up. You know, this is heading to a positive, but we're willing to reconsider it if you'd like, especially if the higher regulatory government agency is involved. MR. DE LESTANG: Good morning, Commissioners. No, I do not want you to reconsider it, if such is the direction in which you are going. I just was - I just wanted to voice my support for this measure that Jerry and the county are proposing, because I think that it's going to be useful overall and will definitely help the Big Cypress Basin, at least to the extent to where these properties discharge into the canals, and to the extent where we can have less discharge. In a 25-year event, I think it would be very helpful. As it is, it's really more of a - really a concept of shared diversity. I think ina25-year event, these canals are probably not going to perform. They really are probably, on a best-case scenario, about a lO-year canal. So in a25-year event it would be safe to say that we'd be working with flooded conditions. And to the extent to where you can restrict flows at least immediately after a storm, I think it's all useful for the entire system and everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What do you believe about climate change? Do you want to weigh in on that? No. MR. DE LESTANG: I think I will definitely pass on that. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Are there any public speakers? MR. BOSI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, is there a recommendation to the Board to support and approve this ordinance? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAN: Motion carries 6-0. Mike? MR. BOSI: And I should have spoke up earlier, I just realized, the motion related to the batch amendment approvals, was there a request to bring that back on consent, or was that just to move it forward? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Generally how we've approached consent is if we make a motion to do it then it comes back. If we don't and it stays silent, then it's not needed. MR. BOSI: Thankyou, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to the -- I think, the end of our agenda. New business? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ihave -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a request. My screen, even though they turned it on, Page 28 of30 April20,2017 which is nice, it tells me to press control, alternate, delete to log on, and I do that, and it asks me for a password. And I keep putting in my county password that I have. I don't know what password to use. Do I have a password? CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, if you did and you haven't used it for six months, that means you've still got to change it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I know, but I get stuffat home via the lntemet or whatever the county -- and it's my password that I use for my correspondence, my emails, but this thing doesn't seem to take that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did you try "guest"? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Guest and guest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, guest and guest. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest? I'lltry it. Okay. Okay. Carry on. CIIAIRMAN STRAN: That's your new -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As you were. CFIAIRMAN STRAN: The only thing I'd like to mention -- I notice now that we've got almost everybody electronically wired in, and it's -- the references to where we are in a document, when you get them electronically, we all get the same electronic feed and we turn right to the page. I know Diane and Karen - is there any - would you guys consider switching to electronic? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would certainly make it easier to follow because we just have to keep falling back and flipping through pages and slowing the process down. Diane, if the county would supply you with a laptop, would you do that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a reason why you can't do that since we are in a modern world? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I like the pages because I go back and forth. I read them. I set them aside. I come back. No, I keep going back and referring to them, so... CHAIRMAN STRAN: Karen, are you the same way? You wouldn't accept a -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No, it's easier for me to pick up whenever I want to instead of -- even at home. I mean, I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I just was -- I keep trying, but I'm glad to see some of us are that way. Makes it a little easier. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest doesn't work, password doesn't work,1234 doesn't work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do guest guest? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Guest guest. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Guest, guest? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guest is your sign-in name, and guest is your password. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It doesn't ask for a sign-in name. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sometimes num -- you know, the num lock goes on automatically, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can work -- Stan can work on that after hours. Is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members ofthe public here to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you're dying to say something. You have nothing you want to say? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: She hasn't been up all day. MS. MOSCA: I just need my thumb drive. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? Page 29 of30 April20,2017 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane, seconded by Joe. All in favor, signiff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. t1.+**** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at l1:01 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board o, f-t t - t'\ , as presented y' o, as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 30 of30