Loading...
CCPC Agenda 06/21/2018Page 1 of 2 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JUNE 21, 2018, IN CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING, 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, 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 – May 17, 2018, 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. PL20160002360/CP-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and map series to remove the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill subdistrict from the Urban Commercial district and to add the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed-Use subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use district, to allow up to 375 multi-family residential rental dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 31 acres and located at the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20160002306) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planer] Page 2 of 2 B. PL20160002306: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 99-94 the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), to add 375 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the master plan; by adding development standards for residential structures; by providing a conversion rate from commercial to residential; by revising Exhibit A, the PUD master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20160002360) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] C. 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, to amend landscape requirements to provide minimum size of replacement trees in shopping centers and prohibit slash pine and bald cypress, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.06.01 Generally, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of- Way, Section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp May 17, 2018 Page 1 of 41 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 17, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative May 17, 2018 Page 2 of 41 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Welcome, everybody, to the May 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a lot to discuss today. We'll start out just with the roll call, though, by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. Mrs. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. We had seven issues, land-use actions, to discuss today. Of those, only two are going to be discussed. One is the Bent Creek project, which I see the applicant's representatives are here, and the other one is the LDC amendments. The issues involving the five continuances have different causes and different reasons. And I've talked to Jamie French, our deputy director over at the Developmental Services Division about making sure we don't have this happen again. The first three are issues involving lack of staff review and lack of legal review. Previously, the Planning Commission had clearly stated that if it doesn't have legal review, don't send it to us. I guess we assumed it would have staff review. The first three did not have time to do adequate staff review. Staff had acknowledged that in the paragraph preceding the amended staff report. For that reason, it needed to be continued. In fact, one of them may need to have another NIM before they can be heard in that regard, and that's something staff is dealing with right now. But in talking with Jamie there was -- and Jamie's here to address us on this issue. We're trying to find a solution, because when we try to assist in time frames, as we did in one of those at least, one of those continuances, it was done on the premise that staff would still have enough time to review it because it was basically a cleanup, and we were going to combine the cleanup language with a consent in the last -- in the last hearing we would have to final that. Well, it came back much more extensive than just cleanup. Staff did not have time to review it and circulate it to the departments. Instead, they sent it to us. And my suggestion, I think Jamie's in concurrence, we're going to set it -- if someone can't have something delivered to staff by a certain drop-dead date after they're continued from this board, then they will automatically go to the next date and not be squeezed in. And, at the same time, when we have -- if we don't have a staff review, then it's not to be sent to us. That doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't make any sense for the public either. So, Jamie, did you want to add something to all that? MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jamie French. I'm the deputy department head for Growth Management. Mr. Strain, you're absolutely right. We have prided ourselves as a focal point to provide excellent customer service, and we'll continue to do so; however, we've recognized based off of the volume and May 17, 2018 Page 3 of 41 staffing levels that sometimes it's just not possible to be able to meet that date that the petitioner would always like to meet. So some direction that I've provided to staff is that if it is just some minor changes, that the Planning Commission has asked for a petition to come back at the next meeting. If we don't receive those changes, let's say, by 12 o'clock noon on the Monday after your Planning Commission meeting, then they would be pushed onto the next meeting. So we just want to make it exceptionally clear to this body that if we don't bring something back, it may very well be because our partners in the County Attorney's Office or our own staff just literally did not have enough time to go through or perhaps the changes go well beyond what was originally reported to the Planning Commission or, in fact, what we've seen is sometimes intensity increases, sometimes just a little and sometimes a great deal. But we're going to exercise that option that if we don't think we've got enough time to come back to you and provide you a very good, solid professional review from both our staff and the County Attorney's Office, then we will make an administrative decision to delay that application or that petition onto a next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would concur. That's a better idea. And if they don't meet that specific deadline, then it automatically flips to another date. What we seem to tend to do, if someone calls up and says, well, you know, I'm going to be five or 10 minutes late, well, we just need a drop-dead date because everything then -- well, we can go 10 minutes late this time. Let's go an hour late next time. And the same thing happened with our off-site preserve. Look what we've gotten into with that. So I'd just as soon we don't open the door a crack at all from the set time frame you've stated, if that works for your department. MR. FRENCH: I think that gives us about four-and-a-half business days to be able to work with the County Attorney's Office. And we'll come back and report if we need more time, and we very well may. But at this point what we're finding is that the petitioners will drop off their packets, perhaps, the day or maybe a day before they're ready to be delivered to the Planning Commission. It creates a great deal of havoc on top of which we put aside other petitions that have actually met time deadlines, and we've got to stop doing a review, so there's always a loss of productivity and quality and, really, we want to focus more so on quality outputs. We can focus on efficiency all the time, but quality is something that we're starting to see be sacrificed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I concur with all your statements, Jamie. So if we can -- with that -- Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one question. A lot of times we see projects that come up and somebody says, if I don't make this deadline, I'm going to lose this funding. How tough are we going to be? MR. FRENCH: I say we have to draw a line somewhere, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. I don't have a problem with that. I just want to know that you get the word out that says if you don't make this date, we don't care about your funding. We don't care about anything. You're not going to make it. MR. FRENCH: On the petitioner's side, we have to believe that they hire very qualified and skilled gentlemen and ladies that are properly licensed to be able to do this work. This is simply project management. They've got timelines, as do we. And, unfortunately, for an individual petitioner, there's competition for our time, so -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So we're not going to see any exceptions to this? MR. FRENCH: Any exception would have to be granted either by Mr. Bosi, myself, and it would be vetted through the Chairman as well as through the County Attorney's Office. So I can't tell you, Stan, that there wouldn't be -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So we are going to see exceptions to this? MR. FRENCH: I can't tell you that they would not. In other words, if it was something that met true valid public purpose, perhaps, that may be a consideration, but I think it's very situational. But at this point May 17, 2018 Page 4 of 41 we're establishing a policy that simply says this, and this is why I'm here today, I'm here often, but this is why I'm in front of you today saying that we're committed to making sure that our partners in the County Attorney's Office, as well as our staff, has adequate time to be able to come back and provide you with a very professional review and give you their professional opinion on how projects should be. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I would prefer to see no exceptions, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, Stan, I think that's the -- that's how we're going to move forward. And I'm getting tired of the exceptions as well. We have, what, 365,000 people in Collier County, about 100 developers. As far as I'm concerned, 364,900 people have a little more priority over the possibility of these 100 developers fitting things in that are not qualified -- quality reviewed, and that's the part of the whole process we need the time for, so we'll take the time. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As long as we get the word out that this is the way it is, I don't see any reason to make an exception. MR. FRENCH: And I understand that, but I'd ask that you just provide me with a -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're wimping out here on me. MR. FRENCH: I'm not wimping out on you, Stan. We've known each other too long. But I'll tell you that we'll make it right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the first three continuances are for those reasons. Also, I would suggest that when changes are made that go beyond the statements made at the NIM, as we always have in the past, we don't really question it. You just go back and do a new NIM. That seems to be something that's floating around now. And I would suggest we just say, no. If you make a commitment at the NIM, that's the commitment that goes on record, and that's what you adhere to. We have that issue going on with one of them. And in the other one, we had two cases for the Pine Ridge Commons, and while the GMP had met the criteria for a NIM in the time frame, they ran out by about a month, maybe a month and a week for NIM, and for that reason they needed to be continued. Rightfully so, Tim Finn had notified them that they were running out, but somehow it still got scheduled and sent to us. So in the future I'd hope those things are caught better, and we won't have that come through again. But based on -- that's the reasons why five of the cases are being continued this morning for the Planning Commission's benefit. Thank you, Jamie. Appreciate it. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Thank you, everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to read them off and suggest the dates for the continuance and get affirmation from the Board on a motion. First of all, continue 9A and 9B and 9C to the June 7th meeting. 9A is PL20160002584/CPSS2017-1. It's the Grace Romanian Church at Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. That's the Growth Management Plan small-scale plan amendment. The second item is PL20160002577. It's the conditional-use portion of that same location. And then the third one is PL20170002614. Now, that's the parking exemption called Sand Banks that was continued from the April -- first from the March 1st, then from the April 5th meeting. So if I could get a motion to continue those three to June 7th, then we can move on to the next two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane made the motion. We'll let Patrick second it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. May 17, 2018 Page 5 of 41 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question. With those -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you vote in favor of that, for those three, or you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have not voted yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll have to -- go ahead. What's your question? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a question. With those three being moved, what does the rest of the agenda look like? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Heavy. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How many more -- MR. BELLOWS: June 7th there are four items on the agenda currently. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Plus these three now? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are we all going to be here? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A challenge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure. What are the four? MR. BELLOWS: There's Naples Villas PUDZ, Sand Banks -- or it's already on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: And Grace Romanian. So part of the four -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the four -- include the four. Okay. So there's been a motion made and seconded. We'll call for the vote again. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Will we have a quorum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to go to that -- that's the next thing on the agenda, but we hopefully will have. I never thought of that, but we always have a quorum. I'll ask right now then. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on June 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a quorum. The next two items are 9F and 9G. Both companion items to one -- the Goodlette/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict and the PUD for that one. 9F is PL20160002360/CP2016-3. That's the small-scale -- or Growth Management Plan amendment. The second item is PL20160002306, and it's the PUD for that same location, both requesting a continuance to the June 21st meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's a month away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a month away, that's correct, yes. They've got to have the NIM, so they've already got the NIM schedule and set up, so they'll have the NIM in 15 days, which is required by code, before we can hear it, so we're in good shape as far as time frame goes with that. So anybody else have any questions? If not, is there motion to or -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve. May 17, 2018 Page 6 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. Seconded? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who said that? Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Now I just saw a member of the public come in for the Sand Banks petition. That's been continued to June 7th. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I recognized you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that takes us to Planning Commission absences. The June 7th meeting, has anybody -- I think I already asked, but just to ask under the agenda item, anybody know if they're not going to be there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And also absences today, I'm going to have to leave around 11 o'clock. With the new schedule it's probably going to work out okay. And that takes us to the approval of minutes. We have -- the April 30th minute were sent to us. Anybody have any comments or changes to those? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. That takes us to BCC report and recaps. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners, on May 8th, heard the PUD rezone for the mini-triangle. That was approved 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. May 17, 2018 Page 7 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The issue under Chairman's report, on our 21st meeting, we can't use this room. It's being used by the Board for budget hearings. So we're searching for another room. We were suggesting to go upstairs, but that room upstairs isn't open until the afternoon. I talked with Judy this morning. We believe that the 609/610 at Developmental Services will be open, and we'll be relocating over there. We probably will not be televised, so all these new graphics that Troy was so nice to put on the overheads for us today may not be seen that particular day. But we will be able -- we will all be notified of a change in location, and it will probably be 609/610. I'm waiting to get verification on that. But it would be the same time frame. It's a big enough room. We just won't have video, but we'll have audio, and it will be transcribed, so we'll -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is that the June 21st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's June 21st, yes. Okay. And that finally takes us to our consent, which there are none, so we'll move right into our remaining two advertised public hearings. ***The first one up is 9E, and it was one continued -- no, that's -- no, I'm sorry; 9D. This is Bent Creek Preserve. It's PL20170002382. Bent Creek preserve RPUD. It's located half mile to the east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures; we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I talked with Mr. Vanasse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did talk with Patrick, and I told him I really don't have any issues, so we'll go from there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, it's all yours. MR. VANASSE: Okay. Well, good morning. My name is Patrick Vanasse. I'm a certified planner with RWA. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the Bent Creek preserve PUD amendment petition with you. Joining me this morning I have Scott Edwards with Lennar Homes, who is the applicant for this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just forgot one thing. Oh, did -- did I swear everybody in? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. Never mind. Moving too fast. MR. VANASSE: Also with me is Steve Hartsell, land-use attorney with Pavese Law Firm. And I have our project engineer, Mike Pappas, from RWA. I also have Laura Taft, who is a planner with RWA. You had a very busy agenda, not as busy now, but I'll still keep it brief. I did get a call last week from Ms. Ebert. She had a few questions, so I put together this little PowerPoint to summarize our petition. I'll go through that quickly, and we'll be available for any questions you may have. The location, as the Chairman said, about half a mile from the intersection of 951 and Immokalee. We're bordered to the east by Woodcrest Drive's, Calusa Pines beyond that. To the north we have Immokalee. Beyond that is The Quarry. To the west we have the Pelican Nursery and Tuscan Cove, and to May 17, 2018 Page 8 of 41 the south of us we have Crystal Lakes and a portion of Tuscan Cove also. Our application, our request, is relatively simple. We're coming in to make an adjustment to our PUD to address an issue that was present in 2012 when we first rezoned the property. At the northwestern corner of our project, we have an existing cell phone tower. It's a relatively large tower. The intent was always to have that tower in place until their lease expired in 2018. The lease has expired, and we're coming in to adjust that. At that time when we did the rezone we had discussions with staff as to how we should deal with the tower, and what -- how we should define that tract, and it was decided to call it a recreational area tract and allow that use within "recreational area," but the intent was always, once the tower came down, to convert that to a residential tract. Just to make things very clear, we're not asking for any additional density whatsoever. Density stays exactly the same. We're just converting that tract from RA to residential. Also, as part of our request, we are asking for a slight reduction in our front yard setbacks for the single-family attached and townhome category. We are reducing that from 20 feet to 15 feet. And, lastly, we are adding a footnote to our development standards to address corner lots. As you know, unless we've got that footnote in there, a corner lot defaults back to the LDC. We have two front yards, two side yards. We're clarifying that to have only one front yard, and that would be the yard with the drive -- the driveway to the property. This is our currently approved master plan. As you can see in the upper left-hand corner, we have this RA tract where our tower is located. This next slide shows you the proposed master plan where we've adjusted that tract, and it is now an R tract, residential tract. We've also made adjustments to the land-use summary table in accordance to that where we take 1.27 acres out of RA and we add that to residential. The next slide shows you the tract and lot exhibit. Basically, the areas that don't show up as orange or red, that's our Phase 1 of the project, so that was approved a while back. Construction has occurred, improvements have been put in, roadways, infrastructure, landscaping, preserve have been put in place. To date we have 93 homes that have been sold in there as part of Phase 1. All the homes are single-family detached only. Phase 2 consists of Phase 2A and Phase 2B. Phase 2A is all single-family detached homes. Phase 2B will be where our single-family attached homes will be. So when we request a reduction in the front yard setback, it would not affect any existing homes. The only folks that could benefit from that is Phase 2B, and we've got nothing built in there so far. So this is the Development Standards Table. I know it's pretty hard to read, but if you look under the townhouse and single-family attached category, we've made a change right here to the front yard setback. Also, we've added the note at the bottom associated with the corner lots. One of the questions also that I had was what kind of homes would be provided. Would they be townhomes or single-family attached? The intent right now is for single-family attached, not townhomes. And each of the homes is going to have its own garage. This is a typical single-family attached home for Lennar; two-car garages for each of the units. We are asking for a reduction. The reduction would not apply to these types of units because these are front loaded, so we have to maintain the 23 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the clarification. First thing I was going to ask, is this what you're intending this is going to apply to? MR. VANASSE: Yeah, to the front of the garage. But they do want to keep flexibility if they do come up other designs where the structure is brought a little closer, but the garage maintains the 23 feet or if they have a unit where it's side loaded for the garage. So that's what the reduction is for, to provide that flexibility as they move forward in whatever the market's asking, if they come up with a different type of unit. So with that said, I'm just going to conclude my presentation. We have thoroughly reviewed staff's report. Nancy did a great job. We support her finding of consistency with the LDC and compliance with the Growth Management Plan, we support her recommendation for approval, and we are available for any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go to questions from the Planning Commission, I just May 17, 2018 Page 9 of 41 want to ask, is anybody here in the audience for this particular item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll go to Planning Commissioners. Do any of you have any questions of this action? Diane, then Ned. COMMISSIONER EBERT: My question is: I was here when we put this originally through. This, I believe, is the fourth sale of this property. And I noticed that Commissioner Strain had a hearing on this for -- to make some changes, and we had the minimum front yard from 20 down to 11. And I noticed in his hearing, Hearing Examiner note, that he didn't want any roof lines in the utility easements. Are you telling me that these homes, you have the street and they're just 11 feet back? MR. VANASSE: So the minimum setbacks -- so in 2015 we went before the Hearing Examiner for a PDI, and the request was to reduce the front yard setback from 15 feet, and we reduced that to 11 feet. But there was a condition that any roof overhang would not go within that 10-foot utility easement, so that's why the extra foot was given and, also, you know, the designs of the homes don't have that extensive overhang. So we've maintained that where we don't have overhangs. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, the original was 20. MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You said 15. But the original was 20. It was brought down to 11 feet. MR. VANASSE: Correct. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What I'm asking you is, the curb -- and is the -- are the new homes then set back 11 feet from the curb? MR. VANASSE: I'm not sure of the exact design, but we are maintaining -- do we have any homes that are that close to the PUE that you know of? MR. PAPPAS: Not the single-family attached. MR. VANASSE: It looks like -- that we haven't really taken advantage of that reduced setback a whole lot, and we don't have any homes that are that close to the PUE. So most of them would probably exceed that 11 feet at this point. COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything new that you want to talk about in regards to this application today? Diane, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned was next, then I'll go to you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just very quickly. On Page 12 of the electronic materials, it was referenced, surprisingly to me, that the NIM was held in Marco Island. Then I got down to Page 146, and I see it was held at Bent Creek's clubhouse. I take it the Marco reference was a typographical error? MR. VANASSE: Yes, that would be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. I was scratching my head over that. Thank you. That's all I had. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I noted that as well, Ned. I'm sure that was a cut-and-paste, but that should have been caught during the review process at staff. To have that go all the way through and published with that information... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have anything -- is that what you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I have a second question. The question, Patrick, regarding the setback. With front-entry garages, will there be sidewalks on the -- MR. VANASSE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- on these -- is that going to create a problem with the distance of parking a vehicle in the drive hanging over the sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnote 6, I think, addresses that. MR. VANASSE: Correct. So we will maintain that 23 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's the only question. That's always been -- Stan always May 17, 2018 Page 10 of 41 asks that question. I'm surprised you didn't ask that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He actually started it back years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, years and years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When he was working in the Engineering Department. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I automatically assume that Engineering's going to check for that, just like doing a water management plan, but -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I just wanted to ask it on the record. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You're right about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is in the PUD, so... Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll move to staff report. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. As the agent stated, staff is supporting and approving this petition, as it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. If you have any questions, it would be our pleasure to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do have one question, and that is the PowerPoint or the slides that were shown to us today, how do we acquire those for the record, just out of curiosity? Because, you know, I want to make sure that we tie it all together. We're supposed to have everything on record. How is that -- how is that done with these kind of electronic displays? MR. BELLOWS: The applicant can email us a copy or give us a flash drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. "Can," though. Is it a requirement? Aren't we required to have a copy? MR. BELLOWS: They should be providing the court reporter a copy as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that's consistently done, because that's a really nice summary, and it's easier to take a look at it if anybody wanted to check the record, so... Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. A lot of these files are much too big to email, so I automatically assumed that somebody was giving you a copy of the thumb drive or something, but I guess I shouldn't assume anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I asked. I don't know how it's being logged in when they're just electronic. And this is a good summary. It helps a lot, so... Okay. So that will get done. And with that, I'll turn to -- is there any member of the public here who would like to comment on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. We'll entertain a motion. Anybody? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the RPUD-A, No. PL2017002382 (sic). COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. May 17, 2018 Page 11 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. ***So with that, we'll move to our next item up, which is the LDC amendments, and let me read that one into the record. It's Item 9E. This is continued from the May 3rd meeting. It's for emergency -- various emergency items as a result of Hurricane Irma, the reaction to Hurricane Irma in regards to improvements needed in the community. With that -- it's being brought forth by Jeremy. And before we start into that, I'd like to ask if we have any members of the public here for any of the items listed in this document. Okay. And, Mr. Doyle, I know you're here for the landscaping item involving the trees in shopping centers, and that one -- so what I'd like to do is, Jeremy, when we got done with your preview, we'll like to move that one first to address the -- to help the public that are here, and then we'll move back into the ones that staff's here for. And before we go to that very important item, you know, when Caroline was in your position, she always used to use different colored pens. She had a lot of different colored pens. I noticed something. You're wearing different colored glasses. Do you have different colored frames for every day of the week? MR. FRANTZ: Not for every day of the week, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's starkly different from yesterday, so... Okay. With that, Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Thank you. Jeremy Frantz, for the record, with the Growth Management Department. As the Chair stated, we have several amendments. Some of those are related to the county's response to Hurricane Irma. We have another for commercial landscaping requirements. All of these amendments we were given direction by the Board, and so we have a timeline that we have given to the Board. Tentatively, we'd like to go back to the -- or get to the BCC near the beginning of the hurricane season for some of these, so that's what the Board has seen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You might be late. MR. FRANTZ: Might be. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You might be late. MR. FRANTZ: You know, I'll let -- we have Dan Summers here to talk about the Hurricane Irma amendments, and so I'll just skip over all of this. I'll go directly to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to the one that we have public attending for, then we'll fall back on the one's staff here for, if we don't mind. That's page -- I think it's on 17 -- starts on Page 17 of your -- well, actually, it starts on Page 18 of your package and Page 17 of the electronic version, so... MR. FRANTZ: And I'll just try and give a brief overview of some of the points. So in January we were given direction to address commercial landscaping when shopping centers are removing and replacing all of their landscaping in the vehicle-use areas, in the buffers. And, you know, they didn't have a lot of specific direction about what that should look like. They wanted to see some balance between protecting property rights but also kind of protecting the mature canopy. So the amendment that you see is limited in applicability to shopping centers which are commercial areas that have 20,000 square feet or more. We further limited the applicability to when those shopping centers are replacing non-palm trees within the VUA, the vehicle-use area, and the Type D buffers, and that would also only apply when those replacements are being done through a landscaping plan change. So there's a couple of different ways that you can remove trees, and we're limiting that to -- for shopping centers it would be, basically, SDP -- SDP changes. So here's kind of a look at that breakdown. We have a cultivated tree removal permit that's limited in scope in how many trees that can be removed. Trees removed through that process would not be required to meet these new standards; only those that are going through the landscape plan change. Both of these May 17, 2018 Page 12 of 41 processes are administratively reviewed. Talking about the applicability, we had a discussion with the Chair yesterday; wanted to talk a little bit about -- a little bit more about when this would apply, and we wanted to further clarify that after a natural disaster, an act-of-God type of situation, we currently would not require a landscaping plan change to go back and replace to the existing approved plans; therefore, that would not apply -- the new standards would not apply in that scenario either. So if, for instance, a hurricane comes through and knocks down a bunch of trees, if you're just replacing to the previous plan, you're not meeting these new standards. And so here's our proposed new standards. So we wanted to base the requirements for replacement trees on the sizes of the existing trees, based that on the methodology used by a number of other communities around the state and, essentially, what you see there is those required replacement trees are approximately 50 percent of the size of the existing trees. We also wanted to provide some flexibility to meet those required minimum replacement sizes through the use of multiple smaller trees that equate to the same size rather than forcing them to use a single tree that may be quite large. We also wanted to provide for some additional visibility through those buffers. We know that that can become problematic when you have a mature canopy for sightlines into the shopping center. So we have allowed for some occasional breaks. There's more specific language in the LDC, but the image that you see is, you know, what we were kind of looking for. There's also a prohibition of slash pine and bald cypress trees when they are within the vehicle-use areas in Type D buffers. That would only apply to new landscaping plans or existing landscaping plans that are going through this removal process. Just want to point out that this doesn't prohibit slash pine and bald cypress throughout the entire property, simply within the vehicle-use area and the Type D buffers. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I ask why, or do you want me to wait till he's done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He might answer it if we wait till he's done. MR. FRANTZ: Well, that is the end of the presentation, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Perfect timing, Stan. MR. FRANTZ: -- if you want me to answer that, I can. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why? MR. FRENCH: We talked through some of these -- well, we talked through all of these new requirements with landscape architects on staff, and the thought process was kind of twofold; one, to address the canopy that's provided by these species of trees as well as thinking about the viability of those types of trees within irrigated areas. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a very large cypress tree right in front of my house, and it has a nice canopy. And I cycle up and down Livingston a lot, and after the storm, all the oak trees were down, and the cypress trees were all still standing. I'm thinking they're probably a better thing to plant than the oaks. Of course, I'm only an engineer. I -- you know, the next time the oak trees fall, they'll just wipe out two lanes of traffic instead of one because they'll be bigger. The cypress trees, they just tend to shed their canopy, and they don't fall. So I don't know what you have against cypress trees, but -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, by the way, the direction on the species to exempt, did that come from staff, or did that come from the Board? MR. FRANTZ: That was a staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Board didn't tell you to eliminate these kind of species? You guys came up with that? MR. FRANTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In 4.06.03, let's see, Sub 2, Arabic No. 2, there's a reference, it says, "Multiple trees with a caliper smaller than the required minimum caliber for a replacement tree may be May 17, 2018 Page 13 of 41 substituted to create the total caliper inches required by LDC section," and then it quotes it. My question is, if you're going to use, let's say, three smaller caliper trees as the equivalent of one, shouldn't we specify how far those trees need to be from one another? MR. FRANTZ: We didn't really want to change any, you know, planting standards. So whatever would currently be required now would still be required for these replantings for the multiple smaller trees. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Shouldn't there be a cross-reference then? Because it struck me very clearly that right now, looking just at this language rather than extrinsic requirements, that you could plant three palm trees 10 feet apart or five feet apart, and I know that's not the intent. So shouldn't some kind of bunching standard, or whatever you want to call it, be specified in here? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I can't speak to the specific separations that would be required for different species and, unfortunately, we weren't able to get one of our landscape architects in today. But I think, you know, a cross-reference is certainly something we could add. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. You're not seeing -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's important. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You're not seeing the context. You're just seeing the one section. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I understand. That's true. I'm just seeing two. If it's in the context, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to verify before it goes to the Board that it's there and, if not, then at least address it before the Board, if you could. MR. FRANTZ: Will do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, if we go to the same section that Ned was just on, 4.06.03, you've got a series of sized trees all increasing in the required replacement tree from five inches up to eight. Have you done a -- have you done a cost analysis and availability on these sized trees? And the most important one I'm concerned about are the bigger ones because, having been on the private side and putting these kind of trees in and knowing the availability of those larger trees, it's tough. And they're not inexpensive. And I know that's part of the reason you've gone to the bigger size, but just the availability's been the problem. So what did you find when you did the research, or did you not do the research? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we were given a short time frame to bring this back to the Board as well, so we didn't do an analysis of the potential cost. We were able to go to some different nursery websites and look at what was available, and so we tried to limit to those sizes that were listed on some of those websites. They didn't always list the prices for those, so it wasn't easily available. But that's the extent of our, you know, availability analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another way to approach this might be to try to find out what is readily available, and then say anything -- anything above -- down to a certain size replacement has to be of that size and then pick another point, and below that you go to a little bit smaller size replacement. But to have four different criterias for replacements, two of which I think is going to be real hard to find, I'm just concerned that we're putting somebody in a box that you can't solve. Plus, the way this is written and knowing how the development industry sometimes reacts, I would watch my trees, and as soon as they got to 4.9 inches, I'd go out and cut them all down and replace them with the 4-inch trees that are required by code because, basically, nothing happened -- you're incentivizing people to replace at an earlier time before the trees mature, because if you go to replace them -- actually, it said nine to 10 inches. If you go to replace them when they reach nine to 10 inches, you're penalized. If you replace them before they reach nine inches, you're not. So I think this could work against the intent, and I'm a little concerned about that. So between that being incentivization the way it's written and the cost availability and analysis being lacking, this part of the program bothers me as far as having enough knowledge today to know what to do with it. Ned's point on the multiple trees, very well taken because, basically, the intent is to keep the canopies May 17, 2018 Page 14 of 41 up, but you can replace them with whatever size multiple trees you want with no regard to the minimum canopy and caliper that those trees have to necessarily attain when they're mature or when they're plants. So if you had a choice of finding an 8-inch tree and you couldn't and you wanted to put two 4-inch trees in, you're not going to get the same kind of tree. And I think the intent is to keep the canopies. This wouldn't give you the canopies, so I'm not sure that's accomplishing anything by having that in there. I'm not saying it's not warranted. I just don't know if it fits right the way it's currently constructed. So those are the concerns I have with the way this is written. I just wanted to express those to you so we can go from there. Does anybody else have any other comments on this particular item? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just concur with both what you said and what Stan said. I don't understand why we're restricting -- I can sort of understand slash pines, but I don't understand why we're restricting cypress trees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And instead of diameter, you know, if they use cross-sectional area, you never lose anything. You'd have to use four 4-inch trees to replace an 8-inch tree instead of two. Cross-sectional area you never lose. You always gain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that ought to be -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- but diameter you lose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But still, you'd still be getting 4-inch calipers 12 feet high or 10 feet high, whatever the code says, to make up for, let's say, an 8-inch tree. And the canopy that you'd get out of those still wouldn't be consistent with the height and canopy you'd get out of a mature tree. So I'm not sure Paragraph 2 is working like we would want it to. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But eventually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even with your measurement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Eventually you'll get more canopy, and it will keep increasing. And the more they cut stuff down, the faster it will fill in, and they will be incentivized not to do it. Because when you replace an 8-inch with four 4-inches and those things grow in a few years and then you're replacing, say, four 6-inches with so many 4-inches, it's a geometrical progression instead of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you think it multiplies exponentially? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It does with area, and it doesn't with diameter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an interesting point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. So if you use cross-sectional area instead of diameter, it incentivizes them not to cut them down or replace them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Okay. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll definitely hear from the public now so, Dr. Doyle, you're more than welcome to come up, and... COMMISSIONER FRYER: While Dr. Doyle is coming up, I want to say to Jeremy, first of all, thank you for sending me the Word documents without the watermark on it and, secondly, other than the point I raised, which may turn out to be resolved by context, I thought your draftsmanship was quite good. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. That's quite a compliment from you. DR. DOYLE: Good morning. I'm Dr. Joseph Doyle, Naples. And, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to have this exhibit. I've given copies to all of the commissioners. It's in a little different order, obviously, than what's here on the poster. I'm here because of the experience that we had recently with the Marketplace in Pelican Bay. As you'll recall, there was landscape renovation in 2012 in Riverchase. And to answer Stan's comment about slash pines and bald cypress, that's what was put into Riverchase. And if you look on Page 2 of the handout I gave you, five years later that canopy has not come back. So I think I agree with staff on limiting those species in the vehicle areas. But, anyway, let me give you a little bit of background on what's going on here. This happened in 2012 in Riverchase. The LDC was not changed so, guess what? It happened again, and it happened to the May 17, 2018 Page 15 of 41 Marketplace in Pelican Bay. I understand Commissioner Fiala talks about something out near her area that it happened again. So we need to stop this from happening to these mature canopies. Just to give you a little bit of background. Since -- the Marketplace at Pelican Bay is within the Pelican Bay PUD, and the Pelican Bay PUD is bounded by Vanderbilt Beach Road on the north, U.S. 41 on the east, and Seagate on the south and, of course, the Gulf of Mexico on the west. And, as you know, the PUD is mostly residential, but we do have the Marketplace, we have the Waterside Shops on the south. We have the Phil, or some people call it Artis Naples. We have the church, and there's some -- you know, commercial. So we have a mix and, of course, we have the two big hotels: The Ritz-Carlton, the Naples Grande; then there's a small hotel at the other end of Pelican Bay. So, obviously, it's mixed just like a PUD is. Now as part of the process, exactly a year ago, April 28th, the applicant in this case was the property manager for the Marketplace, made a presentation to the Pelican Bay Foundation, which controls the PUD. It was one of those things where the packet was given the night before so, Chairman Strain, I'm glad that you're going to enforce this new rule of no exceptions and people having their packets in early so that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to try. DR. DOYLE: -- the Board can read them. So it went through that, which is supposed to be the first step in the whole process. Just sailed right through and then came to county staff. Well, there's two problems with that. The first problem is that at the Pelican Bay Foundation meetings, they're not public meetings. They're only open to the members, the residents of Pelican Bay. So your other -- so we're talking about a commercial property here. So there's no way for public input for the people who live around the surrounding areas who may patronize that plaza; so we're talking about Pine Ridge, Pelican Marsh, Naples Park, Vanderbilt Beach, et cetera. That's the catchment area for that plaza. Their only ability to have input would be at the county level, and I'm here because it was filed as an SDPI which, from a layman's perspective, didn't look very insubstantial to me when it's really the icing on the cake and you're talking about the canopy, but so be it. It's purely administrative. There is no provision within the process for the general public to have some type of a town hall -- required town hall meeting; any type of input. It's purely administrative. In fact, there were no information sessions given to the public. And guess what? Once again, it was done in the summer. You know, the PUD -- even the Pelican Bay part of it with the Foundation was done April 28th after everybody's left, and then this was done in the summer, and it was approved just prior to Hurricane Irma. We had an appeal period going, which I didn't bother appealing because, first of all, it was $1,000 and, second of all, I don't think that the staff had necessarily done anything wrong administratively, so there was really no sense appealing it. But my problem was, is that there just was no public input. So Hurricane Irma comes and kind of delayed everything, as you know. They received their approval at the end of August, and then they had the 30-day wait period, which ended the day Hurricane Irma struck. But I'd like to point out there were 140 mature live oaks. Only one died. So they all survived the hurricane, unlike what may have happened on Livingston Road. But all of the mature live oaks in this plaza survived Hurricane Irma except for one. On December 4th they were slaughtered. That whole week they all came down. Now, the interesting thing here is that they were replaced with a variety of royal palms and a couple of magnolias and this sort of thing, but 54 of the new plantings are live palm -- are live oak; I'm sorry, live oaks. So 140 live oaks minus one, 139; 54 of them are new live oaks that are twigs. There's no canopy. So, you know, I have issues with how it was -- what happened there, but also the fact my biggest problem is that there's no public input in the process at the county level. And what can we do to change the SDPI process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good question. I think, though, if we were to try to change it for this, we might be having a problem with all the others. There's a lot of SDPIs. A public board could not even handle the amount coming through the county right now. We can't handle it with the hundreds of people we have working in the county in the total review process. So to do the SDPI process in an open public meeting May 17, 2018 Page 16 of 41 might be difficult. I don't know, offhand, how we would accomplish that. DR. DOYLE: Yeah. I didn't know that you had that many going through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a common process. We do it for a lot more than just this, though. There's all kinds of applications that would come in under it, and to sort those out might be problematic, so... DR. DOYLE: So there's no way to necessarily put it in for landscaping renovations? Something to consider. But I do agree with the need to look at the caliper, because you don't want to replace them with seedlings, and also the species. Because if you look at the Riverchase five years later on Page 2 there and also here on the poster board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a tiger in the lower right-hand corner? DR. DOYLE: This is Riverchase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the bottom picture; what's that brown thing? Looks like some kind of animal. DR. DOYLE: That's a woodpecker that was in one of the trees, one of the oak trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Never seen one look like that before. Okay. DR. DOYLE: So, you know -- these two right here. We're not going to get a canopy back in Riverchase. My mother is turning 78 next week. She's not going to have a canopy back in Pelican Bay the rest of her retirement. So it's just a travesty to what happened here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you for your time and -- DR. DOYLE: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll certainly have a discussion on it. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Dr. Doyle, I have absolutely no expertise in this area but I, once again, will not be constrained by that in asking my question. I have some limited personal knowledge about live oaks because I have two in my front yard, and they play havoc on the pavers. The roots seem to be shallow. And I wonder if that consideration could be part of why there is a -- on the part of some of this inclination to go with these trees. DR. DOYLE: That was given as one of the excuses. They're also talking about the fact that the canopy at night was blocking the lights in the parking lot. But, quite frankly, I walked around a lot of those, and I did not see the roots pulling up the asphalt or anything in the parking lot. And I also was told that you can put in certain devices to bound the roots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We have a root barrier requirement in the code, and that's -- I don't know if it kicks in for some of the existing product though, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have a comment on this, because I do remember Riverchase. That was huge. This is another one. With these major shopping centers -- and I did hear about this one where the people were complaining. To me, if the public is complaining on these, this should be a public hearing on it, especially some of these big areas, because I was just at the Pelican Bay -- what they put in there, just awful. Yeah. DR. DOYLE: And let's face it, we all go look for a tree when we go to the supermarket, right, to park under? At least I do. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We do. We go for the shade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Doctor. DR. DOYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I noticed some speaker slips came in while we were discussing this. Did any come in for this item? MR. JOHNSON: No, Mr. Chair. Cindy Pisani and Amy Owen both came in for Item 9F, which I believe you continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 9F being the Pine Ridge Commons, yes. MR. JOHNSON: So that's continued to June 21st? May 17, 2018 Page 17 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And it looks like they left. They must have been convinced. Okay. With that, let's finalize our discussion on this particular landscaping element, which is the one we've been talking about. I don't remember all the numbers; 4.06.01 and it goes through 4.06.05, I believe. So any final comments? I know that, Jeremy, you're trying to get all this to the Board before they leave, so for us to require it to come back for further clarification based on any comments we may have may be kind of a moot point. Is that -- what's your goal here today? MR. FRANTZ: I think on this one we probably have some flexibility on how fast it gets back to the Board. I mean, especially if there are concerns at the Planning Commission level. I certainly don't want to bring it to the Board with no recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, with that, any members of Planning Commission that would like to see any specific changes to the language? Joe, then Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think staff ought to take our comments, especially evaluate what Stan said in regards to dimensions, and come back and present another look at this at a future meeting if it's not critical in meeting -- I don't believe this is as critical as the other LDC amendments in regards to Hurricane Irma or preparation for this year's hurricane season. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wouldn't need to have this brought back with respect to the item I raised as long as there can be confirmation that, within the larger context, the bunching requirement, if you will, is stated clearly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm concerned also about the incentivizing. When a tree reaches a certain size, you're -- it's an incentive to take it down rather than let it goes beyond nine inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I may have offered some solutions to that. Instead of grouping the replacements to the existing trees like you have, I would suggest you start, instead of under existing tree, maybe look -- from eight to 12 inches have to replace with 5-inch trees, and above 12 inches would have to be replaced with 6-inch trees, and keep it there. Because I think you'll find those are more readily available than the seven or eight inches. And those would provide a much more substantial -- especially 5- and 6-inch will give you much more canopy. Maybe not what you're going to replace it with, but I don't think any of these will, to be truthful. An 8-inch tree's not going to give you a 15-inch tree canopy. So you're counting on some kind of grow-back. I think that No. 2 probably isn't appropriate at all because you're never going to get anything close to what you started with with No. 2. So maybe we could consider that both ways next time around. And as far as the cost analysis, I think if we had availability -- not so much cost as availability for the five and six inches -- that would at least suffice for my concerns, and the rest of the Board can make their own minds up on that matter. So, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do see one thing, and I -- Summer maybe can answer this. From what I understand is trees over 15 feet should have an arborist. It's supposed to be there to have an arborist. And what I'm seeing in these shopping centers is they're not maintaining the trees. They are not pruning them properly. They're just letting them grow the way they are. They are not doing the proper maintenance on these tree. If they did the proper maintenance, I think we could keep a lot of the trees that they're taking down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a code-enforcement issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, it's a statement for the record. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a tree. I mean, they grow the way they grow. If you're talking about topiary... COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no, no. They need -- your trees need to be thinned, Stan. There are -- no. May 17, 2018 Page 18 of 41 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They thin them to get the canopy out of them for the hurricane season, but that's not natural. That's not normal to do that. I'm not a big fan of oak trees. I've seen too many come down. And when I worked at the county, we saw -- and not shopping centers, but residential developments where they planted a bunch of oak trees and within five years, 10 years, the residents are in there wanting to take out the oak trees because they drop acorns. They -- the roots are tearing up -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sidewalks. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- sidewalks. And in one case they were tearing up somebody's kitchen. And they -- most of the trees -- where I live in Lakeside, almost all the oak trees are gone from the area. A lot of them were taken down by hurricanes. And, you know, I go back to Livingston Road. The oak trees, they come down. The cypress, they stay up. I don't really care one way or another, you know. This is a -- it's not a forest we're living in, although they talk about urban forests. You know, I'll leave it up to the experts, the landscapers. I'm not sure landscapers are -- maybe the environmentalists should be doing this instead of landscapers. I don't know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stan, I wasn't just talking about -- I was not talking necessarily just oak trees. There are many trees that need to be trimmed. Shady Lady, it's a beautiful tree, but it needs to be trimmed. You just don't leave it heavy, or it will come down during the season. So it's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because they don't belong down here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Pardon? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's because they don't belong down here. They're not -- you know, you look at the natural Florida -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I'll tell you what, the county planted tons of them on Livingston. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane and Stan, we're getting off track here. So we just simply have a replacement item to be discussed. Let's -- I understand your need to maintain oak trees and -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Maintain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any tree, but that's not what's in front of us today. So I think we've discussed everything that's in front of us today, Jeremy. And so with this item, as we move forward today and recommend direction to the Board, I don't think we've come to a conclusion on 4.06.01 through .03 and .05, so... MR. FRENCH: Understood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then is there any members of the public here for any other of the items on the LDC amendments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see anybody saying anything, so we'll move right into -- so you can go right back to the beginning if you'd like. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So I'm going to be brief and just kind of introduce these items, and then I'll turn it over to Dan to, you know, present anything else he wants and answer your questions. We have four amendments. Three were directed by the -- or have been discussed with the Board at two different after-action reports. Those would be the requirement for alternate power at healthcare facilities, ALFs, nursing homes, for alternate power at gas stations, and to require generators at community clubhouses. The fourth amendment, to provide exemptions to some of the development standards is recommended by staff to try and aid in the installation of some of these generators, especially on existing sites that might be site constrained. I think with that I'll turn it over to Dan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Dan, if you don't mind, we usually work our way through the document by order, and I think the first thing we'd probably like to discuss is -- the first one up is on Page 5 of the electronic document, and it's Section 5.05.05 under group housing. It's just two pages. If you don't mind, we would normally question from those two pages, then go on to the next section to any questions we might have. Does that work for you? MR. SUMMERS: I would like to make just a couple of opening comments, if I could. May 17, 2018 Page 19 of 41 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. SUMMERS: Absolutely. For the record, Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. And, again, thank you. It's great to be in front of you as always, and very much appreciate your hard work and your consideration. I'd like to consider your emergency management program as someone who is constantly steady in plowing ahead for disaster resilience. I just came back last night from the National Hurricane Conference, and I wanted to share with you just a couple of things. Because we know what disasters and disaster amnesia, as we refer to it, can be. And in my 31 years of doing this, let me share with you just a couple of little nuggets to kind of put this in perspective as to how important this has now become. First of all, I just want to mention in the nursing home deaths in Hollywood, Florida, that occurred because of the failure. Twelve of those 14 fatalities are considered a homicide. And so when you go back and look at this situation about nursing home and rest home power and how quickly the frail and elderly in this environment decompensate because of stress related to heat or the absence of other support facilities, it's a serious problem. I want to tell you that we called a global timeout in Collier County when we found out we had a large number of nursing homes whose backup power systems were failing. Collier County engaged and sent what I'm referring to as strike teams or SWAT teams that individually went to these facilities to make sure that we found some way to get lifeline power back into a number of these facilities. I think another thing I want to just stress with you -- and, again, this is a compliment to your good work and planning zoning and flood resistance. Yesterday it was announced by the director of the National Hurricane Center that 26 percent of all homes in the Continental U.S. with a 30-year mortgage will experience a flood. Gives you some ramifications about the flood impact. Twenty-seven percent -- you're 27 percent greater to have a flood impact your home than a house fire. Between Collier and Lee County during Irma we had 46,000 people in shelters. Our goal here is always to evacuate miles, not hundreds of miles. That's where we get into safety. We get into impact -- reducing the impact for our residents. So finding something that's safe harbor locally is certainly important. There were 80 deaths from Irma that were considered indirect. Of those 80 deaths, 80 percent were cardiac and decompensation, meaning the stress from heat, hygiene, absence of food and water and other basic healthcare services. The balance of that came from the evacuation, car accidents, and power lines and chainsaw accidents. This was the first hurricane in history that there was no storm-related deaths from storm surge. That's a testament, I think, to our evacuation planning being a little bit better. So this is a real eyeopening set of numbers that came out yesterday, and I think what it does is tells you that while we're looking at some of these that are quite hard, there's probably more things we can do in the future as we work to try to build a disaster-resilient community. So I just wanted to share that with you a little bit and, certainly, Mr. Chairman, we'll go through your questions on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the Planning Commission, Electronic Page 5 starts out with Section 5.05.04, titled "group housing." And there's two pages. Does anybody have any questions from that section of what's being proposed? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then Ned after Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Dan, under, of course, E.1 -- I'm looking at Section E. It's the underlined. But I'll go to Subparagraph B, regular testing and inspections are required. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's going to do the inspections? MR. SUMMERS: Great. Let's talk about that just a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's going to pay for it? MR. SUMMERS: -- little bit. May 17, 2018 Page 20 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And what are the requirements and who's going to enforce? MR. SUMMERS: Very good questions. Let's talk about this a little bit. Number one, we know that the governor in late March signed the legislation that brought this requirement statewide to nursing homes and rest homes. It was negotiated with the State Nursing Home Association. I want to give you a little history. This is not a surprise to the industry here locally. We have had one webinar and one face-to-face meeting with the Nursing Home Association here in Naples, and they understand this process. What's missing in the state legislation is really what I can refer to as a third-party attestation of the generator reliability. So let me comment. So you can have a generator. That generator emergency power plan or environmental plan, EPP, goes to the local emergency management office. Lauren Bonica in our staff is our Human Services Program manager. She is responsible for reviewing the nursing home plan which is a comprehensive emergency plan and now an EPP. We were the first county in the state that set up a template for that emergency power plan, okay. Because, again, 30 days suspence is all these facilities had basically, under the state, to comply, get an exemption or receive a $1,000-a-day fine. Once those plans come to our office, we review them. The template allowed us to do that. We give a letter back to the Agency for Health Care Administration, AHCA, who is the licensing arm of the nursing home and rest home. So, Joe, to come back to your comment, there had to be a process there. What is not a process for emergency management is to go out and do site visits and evaluation. What's missing in the state statute in this case is any type of run, testing, or validation -- and this is exactly what happened during Irma. Facilities had generators. They had not done a load test. The fuel had not been sampled, the belts were dry rotted, the hoses were dry rotted, and so it was just a myriad of things gone that were absolutely deferred maintenance in this process. So to bring this back -- and what we're requiring that the state law does not -- and the nursing home associations were comfortable with this, to say, we want a third-party attestation to the reliability. That means a third party has gone in and observed the operation, looked at the preventative maintenance program -- we all know what diesel fuel is like in South Florida because of humidity and those kind of things -- and to make sure that -- as you know, a lot of folks run their generator on -- 8 o'clock on Tuesday morning for 30 minutes. Well, that's the engine. That's not the generator transfer. That's not the components. That's not the electricity delivery down range. So what we think is absolutely necessary here, as we have referenced NFPA99, which is the Class I generator operations for hospitals, that they use that as a template. And everybody that we spoke with -- and, again, I'm not representing those associations, but we felt that there was a high degree of comfort to say, look, if you're making this new investment in generators and equipment and having to adjust site plans as well as maybe having to go in and do some refurb work, you now know it's a new day in terms of the testing and reliability, because we're not in a position to validate that testing nor is what state wanted us to do. But we think a third-party review, such as an authorized generator service dealer, someone with generator expertise, is actually outside of the plant engineer giving this building -- giving this generator a good, thorough review. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So the LDC says regular testing and inspections. It doesn't tell me -- I heard exactly what you say, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Well, and that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's the intent? If I'm a nursing home owner and operator, do I bear the cost of that third-party attestation? And, if so, then what? Then do I submit a -- the plan and that I've had it evaluated to you? And is there additional cost to me to submit that plan to you? Are you charging me for some kind of an application? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir. Good question, and a couple answers. I didn't mean to interrupt, but you've got a three-part question. Emergency management does not charge for any plan review. May 17, 2018 Page 21 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: So it's totally a General Fund submission. Now, the state charges, and the state charges somewhere between 2- and $10,000 for every generator construction application. Every construction application goes to the state. Collier County does not charge anything for a construction document or an emergency plan review for nursing homes and rest homes. We're looking at 76 facilities right now, and we all know we've got numerous facilities in different stages of planning. So this has become quite a workload for us to review. To also answer the second part -- so we don't charge. The other component here, of course, is that the nursing homes -- they understand that having that additional review maybe from the dealer, maybe from a qualified third party, is important because they learned the hard way that when they did have a running generator and with the requirement to have that generator support a certain amount of square footage for cooling -- remember the end goal here is being able to cool certain areas. By state statute I believe it was 81 degrees had to be held depending on the type of facility and how many square foot per person. That was negotiated and agreed upon with the Governor and the industry. So in order to make sure that we protect the health, safety, and welfare, we feel like it's important to have a high degree of reliability in the preventative maintenance and load testing of that generator and the load testing accomplished by actually running a load through a load bank and/or running the facility. I hope I answered your question there, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, is that -- you cite the state statute here. Does that state statute -- is that -- is that what -- I didn't look up the state statute, but is that what defines all the criteria that has to be met in this testing? MR. SUMMERS: That's what missing in the state statute. There's no testing criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: The square footage, the temperature regulation, the cooling plan is mandated. So this was almost a good thing statutorily, but the practicality is anybody can fill out the plan, anybody can say one time that their generator provided that service, but without an annual attestation -- and all we have asked for -- and AHCA requires that we receive a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and a power plan annually. So the annual submission by these soon-to-be 100 facilities that we provide a template so that we can provide some validation to it, the third-party attestation is really what we need to rely upon to say there's even some degree of reliability in their plan and in the equipment. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Ned's next after Joe, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You said there's no criteria, but the wording is clear to me: Permanent emergency generators shall be tested under load as required by Section 58A-5.036, Florida Statute -- FAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Florida Administrative Code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Florida Administrative Code. So 58A-5.036, you said there's no criteria, but this says it will be tested under that as required. MR. SUMMERS: But the testing goes back to -- it is testing based upon the applicant or the -- the facility is, quote, doing the testing, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. SUMMERS: How do we validate? So there's an absence -- and this is -- this is like what we see in so many areas. You've got state -- you've got the state legislation, but you have no enforcement, you have no other tool to go back to, and we feel like a reasonable tool for validation -- and so we don't have to have enforcement staff -- is that -- and certainly to help minimize risk, is to say you had a third party review to the reliability of that generator. Again, same issue, this statute -- that reference has been in Florida for years. But look at what we went through with Irma because of either deferred maintenance -- somebody just filled out a testing log, okay, said, well, the engine ran, but when they went to transfer power, the engine couldn't handle it or May 17, 2018 Page 22 of 41 electrical problems arose. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very familiar with large power plants and powering base camps in the Middle East. So I'm very, very familiar with it. MR. SUMMERS: And it's scary if you don't have -- if you have equipment that's been sitting there for years, without putting that device through its challenges, then your probability of failure just escalates exponentially when you really need it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Frankly, I concur with the requirement. I'm just trying to understand how do I comply. But this LDC doesn't tell me specifically that I have to have a third party now attest to the performance of my system. MR. SUMMERS: And before Jeremy responds, let me make one other point here. AHCA has told -- first of all, AHCA is still writing some rule. So the law was signed March 26th. AHCA told us again last week they're still writing some rule, which is within their authority. But they made it crystal clear to the local emergency manager -- because that facility cannot operate without my approval. So it is reasonable, within my purview, as part of their licensing, annual licensing process, that we look at that third party and, again, we shared that with the industry without -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One last question. MR. SUMMERS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Within the LDC -- and I understand that, but some of this should be in the Code of Law and Ordinances in the county in regards to the criteria for testing, third-party performance. It's not really part of the LDC. That's part of the -- our Code of Laws and Ordinances. MR. SUMMERS: Well -- and we're between a rock and a hard place there because, number one, the Board brought this forward for timely action, the legislation came in in March, and we're in a little bit of a gray area waiting on AHCA to make final rule. But we feel like this was a much more timely issue for us. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the LDC establishes criteria for development. Code of Law and Ordinances are what compel someone to meet certain requirements. And we're -- I think we're trying to put those kind of things in the LDC where they don't belong. There -- this should be tied to our Code of Law and Ordinances and an ordinance that specifies certain requirements for testing, third-party validation, and all the other types of things you just brought up. I beat it to death. MR. SUMMERS: No, no. Good -- I think Jeremy -- MR. FRANTZ: If I can just respond really quickly regarding the testing. The way that we tried to write it in the LDC was to rely on the manufacturer specifications for how often, how, that sort of thing. And so, you know, we didn't want to create our own standards. We're also hearing that there may be additional standards coming down the pipeline. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. But are we going to demand EOM replacement parts? Are there other type of things that -- I mean, that's -- I understand you want to have reliability. All you're saying here is you will have it installed and you'll test it. I'm looking for the other piece of it, and that's got to be some kind of an ordinance or some other compelling action that would be enforceable through probably either your staff going out and evaluating or code enforcement. MR. SUMMERS: And where our arm has sort of been extended there is with our pollution control folks that are going out and doing tank inspections. And with part of their field tank inspection what they have said is, happily, they're out there making a site inspection on their fuel tank and all of their regulations for fuel storage. They have offered to say, okay, hey, let's see a demonstration as well. So they had the field staff for that. We were not trying to expand staff to go out and do enforcement, but the third-party attestation to reliability is really what we felt like was reasonable under these circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I've got several questions, three or four of them apply to these generator-related ordinances, and so I won't have to ask them again, and that way I'll achieve some brevity. First, I agree with Joe that I think this is misplaced in the Land Development Code. It needs to be in the general Code of Laws of Ordinances, I believe. It goes beyond requirements for developers. May 17, 2018 Page 23 of 41 Second, with respect to testing, to pick up on a good point that Joe raised, our generator, we have it tested annually by a third party, but it's also -- and I think it may be the state of the marketplace or the state of the industry. These things, at least ones that have been built recently, self test weekly. Now, they're not testing the switch-over capability, and I get that, but at least you would identify in advance problems that are just as serious as not being able to switch over. And couldn't you and shouldn't we require that the generators that are put in -- that are put in going forward would weekly self test? MR. SUMMERS: Sir, loud and clear, but the same thing continues to happen. It is an engine test, not a power transfer test. It's not an engine -- it's not a power test when the air-conditioning is being maximized, the kitchen is being maximized. So, again, there are -- we think, and what we've experienced, inherent risk without that testing going closer to the NFPA99 standard which brings that load bearing into the generator system, gets the engine good and hot, stresses the belts and the hoses. And, again, you know, we had this firsthand at Palmetto Ridge at one of our shelter sites as well. So, again, I think it -- and, honestly, again, not speaking for the industry, but we've had two meetings with almost 70 facilities, and they get it. They understand it. And I think what we wanted to make sure -- and I would also say that I think the reason that -- the driving issue here also to the Site Development Plan was that -- and Jeremy is the expert, so I want to phone a friend here, but the component is that these generators were going to have impact on Site Development Plans because many are going to have to be replaced, fuel tanks are going to have to be expanded, and certainly that's what we want to do is accommodate that as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But, Dan, I don't understand why we wouldn't require new generators to have self-testing capabilities because I think that's the state of the industry now. MR. SUMMERS: We do it all the time at our EOC, and it's not a power transfer but simply a 30-minute engine run, and A 30-minute engine run doesn't give you any reliability for a seven-day run during a disaster. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I know, but it's a threshold issue. And I've had generators go bad, and I discover it when they don't self test. And when the hurricane hits, you're going to find out that the generator's bad. And if it weekly self tests, at least people would be able to flag that part of the larger problem sooner than annually. So that's my first question, or issue. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The second one is, what are other counties doing? What is Broward doing? I'm sure you talk with your peers. Are we getting to a point where you would say that we're doing the most or as much as -- at least as much as other counties are doing? Are there any things other counties are doing that you're not proposing we do? MR. SUMMERS: And one of the reasons that I wanted to get there was to poll some of my colleagues. And they're on this same -- in fact, we're probably just six weeks ahead in terms of bringing this as an LDC discussion and bringing additional requirements. Some of the communities are waiting for some opinions possibly for AHCA to allow the local emergency manager just to say this is rule. I think putting this in the LDC or in some form of codification as mission critical -- because you go two or three years, this gets forgotten or overlooked. And, quite frankly, I'm not in a position to be able to -- with 100 facilities, and if 20 or 30 facilities have generator failure, I can't shelter these people. I simply do not have the capability to provide a level of skilled care or semi-skilled care. Should these facilities fail, there is nowhere for them to go. And so I am separately pleading for the fact that this reliability -- we've done a wonderful job with new codes and construction and wind load, but the life-sustaining capability that's necessary for these people to shelter in place, I can't get -- I don't have a 500 kW generator sitting in the parking lot to support them. I don't have the ability to relocate hundreds of people that are heat compensated -- decompensating during this disaster. So the only fallback that we have is to make sure that we have the highest level of reliability so that these folks can safely shelter in place. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand, and that's all a good thing, Dan. I guess I want to know May 17, 2018 Page 24 of 41 that we are best in class in Collier County and that if there's anything that we're not doing that other counties are doing that I'd like to know what that is. MR. SUMMERS: Well, again, we were -- not to belabor too much but, again, this is something where the healthcare industry discussed this but not the emergency managers. So the practicality of this legislation, while good, certainly reactive to this very unfortunate tragedy in Hollywood, is missing this component there where you look at NFPA99 as a framework, that that absolute highest degree of reliability. For those residents, life safety is necessary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think my last two questions can be answered very quickly. MR. SUMMERS: Sure. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, the 96 hours, is that a state -- MR. SUMMERS: That is state, that's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Just a short answer, if you would. How long after Irma hit were generators in this county able to be refilled? Longer than 96 hours? MR. SUMMERS: Oh, absolutely. I mean, it was a -- well, I can't give you a case by case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. MR. SUMMERS: We just know that we had fuel shortages across the board, and I know my office responded to almost 12 facilities even with small loads of fuel just to tie them over. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My last question, the third-party inspection, did I understand you to say, or maybe it's in the document, that the contractor who inspects these generators then has to send a certification to your office? MR. SUMMERS: It's a letter that accompanies their annual emergency power plan. We have not put too much specificity in that other than the fact that we're looking -- that a third party has looked at this from a preventative maintenance standpoint, maybe fuel quality, and performed some type of load testing, whether it be to the facility -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: They don't have to -- they don't have to send anything to you? MR. SUMMERS: No. It goes to the applicant or the facility, and it accompanies their annual submission of their emergency power plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Good morning, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because of our hurricane season June through November, could this third-party validation be done between March and the end of May, giving three months? You said we have approximately 100 places here that need to be checked. Could this be done just before, like three months before the hurricane season? Do we -- with the third party checking the fuel and the load? MR. SUMMERS: Great question. And here's kind of what has happened and where the state is leading us to. Obviously, the Governor only gave us 60 days, basically, from the time of legislation to generally comply. So that means that every facility now has this April, May, June anniversary date on their emergency power plans. The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that every facility has to send to us was scheduled -- the requirements. And this is important; let me share this. The importance for the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan for each facility talks about sheltering, evacuation, all of their plans, that legislation was scheduled -- those rules were scheduled to be updated this year. It was on the docket, and then when the Parkland shooting hit, every hurricane activity was set aside, and the legislators have said we had to focus on that, and we'll come back to Irma issues. But where I'm going with this is that we expect next year to see the emergency power plan and the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan requirements updated and blended. When that submission becomes updated and blended, they're going to give staff -- or they're going to give the EM offices an opportunity to adjust the anniversary of these annual submissions. And what we do want to do at that point, after we meet this state requirement, is exactly what you said. And we can either have that done as a preseason activity, or maybe you can say I'm going to attest in January that it ran, and you can attest that you May 17, 2018 Page 25 of 41 can do an addendum in July and say it was retested. So we're going to open that, but right now we have to get both sets of legislation blended -- both sets of rules, rather, blended into one and then coordinate an anniversary date. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Does this -- should this be done just once a year, or do you feel it should be done twice? MR. SUMMERS: Well, I think -- the attestation, I think, is sufficient for once a year, but what we're also looking -- and I think the Chairman brought this up also in some discussion, is any other test logs, like Ed (sic) was referring to; test logs. So what we would envision would be a third-party attestation of the equipment, and they want to accompany their generator test log, which is typically a manual, or it could be an electronic printout from the device. Then we're able to say, okay, hey, look, you had an aggressive program, you had a third-party inspection, and you shared your test log. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. MR. SUMMERS: With the caveat that that test log may not be transferring power; it's only running the engine. We understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Dan, we're learning from our mistakes with respect to the generators. All the tests with the hoses and all that stuff, it's great. One gap that may exist or may not exist is making sure that we have adequate personnel. Say that the equipment is all in perfect order but the people that know about getting those things started and up and running are not there or we have so few of those and so many generators to attend to. Are you looking into the personnel requirement and making that part of the requirements that not only does the equipment work, but they have people there that can work it? MR. SUMMERS: It's a great question, and we discussed that with the industry in two of our meetings. And they are -- a lot of facilities are challenged by turnover in personnel and plant managers. So what we want to add to this particular component is maybe another check box that says, hey, staff has had a training; that there may be a manual available for this for ready reference. We expect that to be further refined by AHCA in the future so that there -- if, for some reason that the plant manager and the director of the facility is not there, there's another activation check list. So while it's not directly in here, that is absolutely best practice. The industry is aware of that. And when the Comprehensive Emergency Plan gets rewritten next year by AHCA, that generator activation will have to be a component, an SOG or an annex to their Emergency Management Plan. And they'll have to show that validation of training. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. We had -- are you going to get a copy of this report that says everything is okay? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, the third-party attestation -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It will be in your file? MR. SUMMERS: It's in our file. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are you going to read it? MR. SUMMERS: Of course we're going to read it -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: -- because we have to authorize that licensing. We have to release and approve that plan to go to the facility, and that release goes to AHCA as part of their annual operating license. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So if you see something that says this isn't exactly going to fail but it needs to be corrected, you're going to pursue that correction? MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. What we do is we ask for -- and we deny plans all the time that says, look, this information is incomplete, doesn't demonstrate -- and, again, we don't make site inspections, but we're reviewing what they have attested to in their plan that they're capable of delivering. We see holes in those plans. We call that particular facility. We speak with their compliance officer. We try to coach them and mentor them through the process so that they can make sure that those issues are addressed -- May 17, 2018 Page 26 of 41 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And you're going to have a database with all of these nursing homes in it? MR. SUMMERS: And that's a perfect point, Stan. That's exactly what we're doing is that when we get these generator reports that Facility X has a 500 kW, a three-phase high-leg Delta, it's in our plan, and if there is some catastrophic failure beyond their control and I need those folks to shelter in place, I might be in a position to rent or turn to the state or turn to FEMA and say, I need an emergency deployment of this generator of this kW of this voltage so that I can allow those folks to shelter in place with an alternative generator as opposed to an evacuation. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the window that these plans come in is all year long or -- MR. SUMMERS: Well, right now they are due in our office at the end of the month, but the anniversary will be changing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You're going to go through a hundred of these plans -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- read them all, and you're going to do this for free? MR. SUMMERS: Yes. We won't -- well, part of -- we are doing it for free. But what we provided them, in order to speed up our review, was a template. So we're not turning pages through a narrative. We gave them a template of information to fill out. It's about 48 items that they have to provide information on. And, again, that was intended to meet the spirit and intent here of this 30- or 60-day window, and then we know that if we need to expand that template, we'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Terri, are good to 11 o'clock for a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody's talking slow this morning, so I figured you'd be okay. MR. SUMMERS: I'm so bad about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few questions. You were talking -- first of all, I know you don't charge, but the state does, and it's an outrageous amount that I head you say; 2,000 to 10,000. I wish we had that franchise. But unlike land-use actions, can you benefit from that review prior to you approving something? Because we can't tell an applicant that they've got to have South Florida and the Core and others done before we can do our approval anymore. It used to be that way. What about you? MR. SUMMERS: If I understand the question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they're going to do a $10,000 review, can you get the benefit of that review before you approve an applicant coming into Collier County? MR. SUMMERS: No, as I understand it. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SUMMERS: -- let me restate just to make sure that I'm clear. If a nursing home facility is sending a construction plan to the state, we are not copied on that; however, they are still going through a local building permit process. I am typically not on the front end of that process, but they also know that if it is a generator expansion or a fuel tank, I will -- they know they have to meet state requirements, number one. AHCA is the only party that makes a site visit related to the nursing home or rest home facility programming. I don't make site visits, and I don't review preconstruction plans. But they know they have to meet that requirement. My work picks up with their emergency plan for their site, and now the emergency power plan as well. So I don't have anything -- Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything on the front end of this as being preemptive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They shall be tested under load. I know that other parts of the generator issues that you've raised in today's LDC amendments specify sizing and essential electrical components. As far as group housing goes, I didn't see that language, so I'm assuming by your reference to the Florida Administrative Code it must be in there somewhere. So when it says, "shall be tested under load," is May 17, 2018 Page 27 of 41 that the load that it has to meet and, if so, how do you set a transfer switch up to specifically address those loads that the generator's supposed to be designed for versus the entire loads of the entire building? MR. SUMMERS: When -- and this was a -- what my perception is was a negotiation between the industry and the legislation. The generator requirement can certainly power -- or the generator desire can certainly power the whole building. The state's legislative component of that generator was this emergency power plan which is the square footage and the temperature area for a common area. So many facilities have a generator that will run elevators. They have everything that will run the kitchen. The state legislation here mandates that the generator hold I believe it's 30 square feet at 81 degrees for a common area. So they don't have to cool rooms, but they can cool auditoriums or cafeterias so that these folks can shelter within the complex but shelter in a conditioned space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So another component to this is going to be how the building's wired, because they'd have to put a sub-feed that would be separate from the main feed in order to supply the generator to just attach those issues plus, when it's operating under load, there might be changes within the building while the generator's running that are inconsistent with what it would run if they were on full power. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. And that's why they really need to go through an engineering process to address that or designate certain outlets maybe with a different color wall jack, which is industry standard. But, yes, part of that power plan not only is what they're submitting to us that what they're capable of doing, but certainly an on-site engineering plan as to what that generator can support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The backup response time of the transfer switches is going to have to be somewhat instantaneous because, if you don't, you're going to see computers, routers, all the digital stuff go down. MR. SUMMERS: And -- well, fortunately Desktop UPS is, but scheduled testing -- and, again, this is, I think, referred to in the NFPA99 standard, is that you schedule that transfer. As an example, facility engineers told us when the power starts dipping with FP&L, when there's flickering, they make a conscious decision, shut down systems, transfer to the generator, boot the plant back up, boot the operational facilities back up, and stay on generator until power -- until the event is over; power becomes steady state. So there is a methodology in their transfer. You don't want to switch back and forth, because you are surging and rocking the system. But you get into this, the best thing to do -- and a lot of these generators won't kick off until power is steady state for 15 or 30 minutes. So the logic in the new transfer switches avoids that power bounce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like the idea of testing with a load. I was at a place that had a generator, and they only tested it like -- for the engine, and it failed. And I know several others that have, but they all happen to be the same brand, so I would hope maybe something there could be done. But to the written statement part of it -- MR. SUMMERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I know you must have gotten word from staff I was going to ask the question about everything's digital now, and Ned certainly hit on that. Why are we relying on a written statement? We shouldn't be relying on written statements for anything anymore. I mean, everything should be digitized. The records keeping is much better than paper that's going to eventually fade and deteriorate. So is there some way that that particular paragraph could indicate that -- electronic, you know, recordkeeping is sufficient, or does it have to be written? MR. SUMMERS: Well, let's comment. Obviously, in the multi-million-dollar generator installation, there's logic. I know at the EOC we get a report, how long did the engine run, engine temp, did it transfer a load? How much the load draw was. I'm certainly a-okay with something that is a digital report, but I don't think you're going to find too many of those facilities in the county. So I'm open to a digital or an initialed generator log. I'm open to either one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we put that in the -- I mean, Jeremy, is that -- as soon as you finish with Eric. Can you add that to this language so that everybody knows they can do it electronically? May 17, 2018 Page 28 of 41 MR. FRANTZ: We can clarify that, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the last one is a broader question and, actually, it pertains more to the HOAs that are going to have to assume a huge cost for the language that we have under the residential component for clubhouses, but it would apply to this one, too, and it's to Jeremy, really. Can you provide the names and the groups of stakeholders that you've reached out to to discuss this with? For example, we have 56 senior living facilities in Collier County. Did you get them -- did you notify them so they could come into a room and you-all could kind of understand how this is happening together so you can get their input? And did you do the same thing with the probably 400 HOAs we have so that those people that have clubhouses under HOAs know the ramifications after their HOAs get -- their clubhouses get old and now the developer's gone, the cost to upgrade, the cost to run these loaded systems? The cost to change this system over would be a bigger part, possibly, than the entire upgrade may be in some cases. These generators -- the systems that have to be modified to let them test under load, the fuel tanks, the maintenance, they're going to be huge for the HOAs, and they're all private groups, for the most part, now. Have they been involved in this process that you've started? MR. FRANTZ: From the LDC team's side, no. I know that Dan has said that he's worked closely with the ALFs, nursing home types of facilities. But in terms of clubhouses, we haven't had any special interaction. We've just followed our typical process of notifying the public of these meetings and these amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is that ad in the paper that nobody reads. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I was going to follow up on that. At least talking to any of the general managers out there that operate all these clubs. We must have well over 150 private -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have 400 -- close to 450 PUDs. Every PUD, practically, has its own club. Some of them may not reach to the 10,000 square feet. But like Wyndemere, I got a call from them. That's an older club. They're going to probably redesign and improve. To hit that 50 percent mark that triggers this would be easy to get to when you design an older club. Their cost to put this in that club means virtually rewiring the club to accommodate the load requirements in the specific areas and the temperatures. I mean, have we thought all that out before we jump in and put HOAs into the middle of this? Because I'm sure the political blowback might be extensive. When we were looking at this one from group housing, okay, the state's already addressed that. That's a different animal. But either one, as a courtesy, I would think we'd want to do that outreach to kind of get them involved. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How critical -- and I agree. I mean, you're putting a significant burden on many of these older communities; 15 years they're into the remodeling, and now you're going to -- and you triggered a 50 percent. You've not talked to any of the general managers of any of these clubs. I guess I certainly would like to get their feedback. But two, Dan, how many of these clubs actually were used during hurricane season for shelters? MR. SUMMERS: Well, anyone can privately shelter. And in this particular -- so, you know, we had churches, we had communities, we had enclaves that did their own thing, which is fine. That's good. We certainly realize that managing 17- to 20,000 people in Collier County required 27 school buildings that we filled to the max. And, again, part of the resource here is two components. While the sheltering may not be very -- we're not going to stop a community from having their own CERT team and say we want to shelter here, as an example. Okay, that's fine; that's good. But what we think the true value here is that with extended power outages, to have one refuge location within your neighborhood where you can get a cold drink, where you can have some communication capability, where you can cool off a little bit as a cooling shelter and not evacuate so many miles although, maybe it's 10 miles to Palmetto Ridge or Golden Gate High School, whatever that may be. If you can do all May 17, 2018 Page 29 of 41 of this at a local level, kind of a respite -- we're not calling it a shelter. We're calling it a refuge -- or find a location that gets a -- if a neighborhood has a serious impact, think how much gas we can save if I can get water and meals and tarps into the parking lot of a clubhouse. Then you've got neighbor helping neighbor. You've got a little command post, if you want to call that there. And, again, folks have the ability to weather five, six, seven, 10 days without power -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are we going to -- MR. SUMMERS: -- knowing that they've got a refuge right up the street they can go to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are we going to open these private clubs to nonresidents in the area? I give you an ex -- I know Fiddler's Creek, okay. They -- during the hurricane they lost power. Naturally, their refrigerator meats and other things -- well, they were cooking every day for the people that were there. And it's probably only, at that time of year, maybe 20 percent, 30 percent of the residents actually had returned, because most are gone to their other homes elsewhere. But they were providing, I would call, pretty decent amenities and services. But, yeah, there was no air-conditioning, because there was no power. There was no generator. I just have a difficulty -- just, as Mark said, we're putting an extraordinarily expensive burden on many of these older clubs now. Diane, your club's probably close to that age. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, 20 years. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Twenty years, and the cost of this is significant. And I -- Old Cypress. I don't know. Did -- are we going to shelter people along Immokalee Road in Old Cypress, is that -- was that -- I'm just thinking about these various clubs, that you are going to have these generators. And are they going to become alternate sites for sheltering people? MR. SUMMERS: Well, it's a great question and, unfortunately, over the years we kind of use the same terminology. When we're talking about a general public shelter -- when I'm using the word "shelter," it means that we've done some building performance analysis, we know the square footage, we know what the census can be like, and it is for the general public. That's why we use school buildings exclusively. What we're looking -- the term that we're using -- and to clarify the definition -- is that we've provided the neighborhood or that association or that HOA a refuge that could be pre-landfall but certainly could be available as a service center post-landfall so that they don't have to come into town for fuel and supplies and ice and water and tarps. I can bring that commodity to them, sort of work these disasters in a level of customer service that I can do a little bit better at the neighborhood level. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would like to hear -- regarding these clubhouse issues, I would like to hear comments from the current general managers out there and make a -- canvass general managers who run these communities and these clubs. See what they think about it, because I absolutely agree with Mark's statement. It's an extraordinarily expensive cost, and the residents ought to be aware that they're going to be burdened now with a significant price increase on any remodeling that will be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MR. SUMMERS: And certainly an option would be, at minimum, the transfer switch as opposed to the transfer -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I mean, that's the answer. But how many times -- how many generators are going to be made available that can bring in a -- MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- link belt or whatever -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was at a house that had to have a 400 K generator just to run the house. Now, you can imagine what it's going to take to run a big facility. It's just the cost -- and that generator's 30- to $40,000. What are they going to do when they've got to pay for a generator 10 times that size? I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A hundred thousand square foot clubhouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then tying it all in. Anyway, I think it's something that needs to be thought out before we go on to that particular one with the residential component. I understand the group housing. All that's commanded by the state. But this other one's more optional, and that may be something May 17, 2018 Page 30 of 41 we want to really seek out some more stakeholder input before we go that far with it. But that's just my thoughts, and you heard the comments. Yes, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: To me, I believe this was supposed to be just for the community. And if you have 100 -- I mean, 100,000-foot (sic) clubhouse, could you designate just part of it? I mean, could -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- but then you'd have to have the A/C in zones, you'd have to zone it. You'd have to zone the electrical. I mean, it's just -- yes, you could, but then everything has to be zoned based on the operating of that generator. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do not most of these clubhouses have some type of generator already? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yours did not have a generator? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why it would, yeah. Unless they have an emergency just for lighting. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's battery backup a lot of times. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Battery backup. Those are just emergency lighting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How would a community clubhouse situation deal with a potential liability? Let's say that somebody being sheltered or taking refuge may slip and fall. Will they sign a release before they go in? What -- I mean, how would -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a great other question, what liability that they incur. And, again, it's the residents. Most cases -- many of these clubhouses have been turned over and are privately operated. They're not under development -- developer control. They're integral and a part of the operation of the community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's one thing to worry about or to take care of your residents, but if you open it up to the public, you've got an unfunded exposure there, it seems to me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's why I said residents. MR. SUMMERS: One of the components -- and I know I'm taking a lot of time, but I think this is a great opportunity. One of the things that if a -- we want to make sure that we offer that if a clubhouse or a community wants to engage in this and they are -- some have expressed an interest of supporting the public, then if they do that, I can sign a memorandum of understanding, and I can bring that to the Board. If they partner with the county or basically become a component of our Emergency Management Plan, then that does allow me the opportunity to use public funds at that location whether it's for fuel or ice or commodities or whatever it may be. So what it also provides -- and it's voluntary, but it's an option for me to be able to deliver essential emergency commodities and goods at that location as an option if they want to voluntarily participate. And, again, we're not forcing them into the pre-landfall or landfall housing, but what we want to have is that post-event refuge or service center at that community level, and that's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. One last thing. On these reports, from lessons learned, we did something similar with cell towers. We had reports submitted, and we were told that the report is a copy of the report that goes to the FCC, and we're just getting a copy. Unfortunately, when you get a copy, like we said, you have to read it. And if you see something you don't like, you have to do something about it, because you're liable at that point. But what we found is the next year and the year after and the year after, people forget to submit their reports. So you have to keep a suspence file, and you have to send letters out saying, hey, we didn't get your report, and you have to follow up with that. And if you do them all in one tight group, you know, forge about doing anything else for that month or so. And if you do them spread over the year, it's difficult to track them. So I'm just saying, you've got to be careful how you set this up, because people are not -- you know, after the first two, three years, you're going to have to follow them out for the reports, and good luck. May 17, 2018 Page 31 of 41 MR. SUMMERS: It is. It is work. And we also know that through development tracking resources at GMD and our office as well, we want to combine those forces and make sure that we're being fair in a checks-and-balance review. That's a good point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we're going to take a 10-minute break, or actually 12 minutes. We'll come back at 10 minutes after 11:00. (A brief recess was had, and Chairman Strain and Jeffrey Klatzkow have left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have live mike. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Could you take your seats, please. Okay. Do we have any more questions on this, or can we just get through the group housing one with a recommendation if there is one, or -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll -- let me throw something out as a possible solution here. I understand the commissioners' desire -- county commissioners' desire to get something on the books quickly, but I also see a need for some fix-ups after -- after these things have been enacted. I think a lot of good points, which have been made this morning, need to be addressed. It's too late to address them before they go to the county commissioners, arguably, but I would hope that we could calendar this to come back before the Planning Commission, if this is the appropriate place -- and it may or may not be -- so that we can fix a lot of the issues that have been raised. For instance -- well, just as an example, on self testing, I wasn't suggesting that that replace the annual certification, but I see no reason not to require that, and -- but I also understand we're trying to stay to a tight deadline to get something on the books. So I would be -- I'm going to be willing to vote in favor of these things as long as there's an undertaking from staff to come back to us and give us another chance, retroactively, to make changes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Would that be something -- MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, you could include that as a recommendation for this amendment, and depending on all of the specific discussion points that you have in mind, you know, some of those we may be able to work into the amendment prior to going to the Board and, you know, we can come back to you on what we have been able to do. If you want it to be more like, get these approved and come back for separate amendments, you can also -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will the Board expect us to have reviewed it the way we bring things back on consent or -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- or not? No. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No, this is just a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a recommend -- LDC goes to the Board. They have two public hearings just like us. MR. FRANTZ: Thinking of how I would write it, I think I would say it was a recommendation of whichever way, with conditions, that type of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ned, I would concur. My -- I have two reservations. I don't think the second and third-order effects of these have been analyzed as much as it should be. I have some concerns about enforcement. Dan, I agree, but there's -- I really think some of the enforcement belongs in the Code of Law and Ordinances, not in the LDC. But the only one I would not agree to move forward is this 50 percent -- the generator for 50 percent or more of the community until we get more feedback from the general managers out there who run these community clubhouses. I think that's an extraordinarily -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: So this is -- that's for the community? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I want to just get through this group housing one and then go to the next one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Which one you on now? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Group housing, 5.05.04. May 17, 2018 Page 32 of 41 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Most of my issues -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. I have no problem with moving forward on this. I just -- I think it should be -- I think that the part about the testing and the requirements and -- should be -- should be spelled out and in a separate ordinance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I don't agree, because the ones on cell towers are in the Land Development Code, not in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, and they are very similar to what he's going to have to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I don't see anything in here specifying those requirements. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just because cell towers are misplaced doesn't mean we need to misplace this, I don't think. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well -- but that's something that can be worked on later with more specificity, right? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, I think Dan has heard enough here today with our questions. I kind of trust him to do the right thing -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. I recommend we go forward with it -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and, you know, if he has enough staff -- and I'm not sure he does, because I think he's getting a little -- I think he's biting off a lot here, and he's going to find out that he's going to have a lot more work than he thinks he does. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Stan, you can volunteer. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I got nothing better to do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, I make a motion that we move this forward to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER FRYER: And just for clarification -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- we're voting on 5.05.17 only? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: 5.05.04. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I was reading the wrong one. 5.05.04. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Group housing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's what I meant to say. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I think it is appropriate to recommend that it go in the Code of Laws. That was the recommendation that Mr. Stone and I made when we did review this particular amendment. So we do agree with your position. So I would include that. I think you make some good points, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There you go. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- note that -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Lawyers. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- Mr. Schmitt noted that, perhaps, the effects haven't been fully evaluated. I think you can make a recommendation, if you want, for approval with those two notes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question then. If we put it in the Code of Laws, which is where I think it belongs, would it not come back to us ever again then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. It would not come back to you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is fine with me. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- for that particular one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's fine with me. Let's put it where it belongs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But it also is an LDC -- it is an LDC, and part of this should stay in the LDC, but it should reference the enforcement in the Code of Laws. I have no problem with it. We've May 17, 2018 Page 33 of 41 done that several times in the past. MR. SUMMERS: And now, if I could, I just want to mention, too, that I think the other goal here was the real fear by a lot of these facilities of some of the challenges of citing a new generator and expanded fuel tank, those kind of things, so we certainly wanted to make sure that we were making an LDC provision or waiver so that we could expedite the fuel tanks and the new generator setting with their parking lots and those kind of things. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's how the communication tower stuff ended up in the Land Development Code because it was part of the communication towers. Here's how you do it, and here's what you have to do every year. COMMISSIONER FRYER: There are aspects of this that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more comment. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Is the motion with the recommendations that Heidi mentioned or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, with the recommendation that Heidi mentioned that it be followed up with a clarification in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, and you can have much more specificity in that ordinance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But would you leave it also in the Land Development Code? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. For the requirement, yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: To the extent that it addresses -- to the extent -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear you when you're away from the microphone. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I would. To the extent that it defines the criteria and the placement and the requirement, I think it belongs in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we're saying the same thing. CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: Okay. And the second agrees? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, because this amendment pertains to the provision of an emergency environmental control plan; that your control plan has to have all of these elements that are listed. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll call the question. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There was a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: Okay. We got one done. MR. SUMMERS: These are not easy, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: No. Okay. So this one will be the clubhouses and community centers, 5.05.17; residential developments with clubhouses or community center buildings. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is for new development, though. MR. FRANTZ: Currently, this amendment is written for new or substantially renovated. I was going to ask, based on your previous comments, whether the objection in this amendment is only to the May 17, 2018 Page 34 of 41 substantially renovated issue or if it's both scenarios, new and renovation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I was going to -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Tom. I'm sorry. MR. EASTMAN: Based upon some of the comments here and what Dan has said, rather than blindsiding these residential communities and the clubhouses, you talked about some are voluntarily interested in serving in this type of refuge situation. Could you change it to be, at least in our initial trial, as those that want to volunteer, and then you do it through that memo of understanding rather than a requirement initially? Because there are a host of issues that are very complicated. There's the expense; there's the whose allowed in; there's the liability issue. There's a lot of problems. But if you have people in communities that want to volunteer for this role, we probably shouldn't tie your hands right before storm season for you to get these type of agreements in place. MR. SUMMERS: For the record, Dan Summers. Let me -- that's a great option. Let me kind of share with you a couple of sidebars. I would say, first of all, that certainly what I'm looking for that would drive my interest to entertain a memorandum of understanding is if the generator is there. I am not in a position to go and get 10 more or 15 more generators in order to support that. Now, that doesn't stop me from using that clubhouse to provide tarps or meals ready to eat or ice or water, whatever it may be. But I think what I'm really looking for here is that if that generator is there, then that does make any operation that I support work a whole lot better. If I'm just using the parking lot and a clubhouse without a generator, I have to come totally self-sufficient with port-o-potties and generators and lights and those kind of things, and that doesn't -- that's too taxing. So if it was -- if the resources are there, certainly, I'd want to come forward with an MOA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll state for the record I cannot support this amendment. These clubs are private entities. And where does it stop? Why not golf course clubhouses? Oh, by the way, why not a convention hall? Oh, by the way, why not the restaurant down the street? These are all private entities that were not built and designed to be shelters. In most cases, they're closed up and usually with -- from a standpoint of, what do you call it, storm shutters and those type of things, and it's a -- it's a cost that is -- needs to be explained to the community if they're going to have these kind of requirements. So I cannot support it the way it's written at this time. MR. SUMMERS: And, if I could, we're not necessarily reinventing the wheel on this one. This is a -- Palm Beach County has a similar type format as well. I haven't polled some of the other counties. I know staff has taken a look at the Palm Beach discussion, which is where some of the square footage recommendation come from. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But is it in their county law that these communities have to be enforced? It's not a law here. So let's have the commissioners make it a law, and then we'll do the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: I thought this was just for the residents in the community where the clubhouse or community building is. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Just to take care of themselves, take care of their own community. MR. SUMMERS: Or provide me a location to bring commodities after the event. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think perhaps -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I can understand that. I can understand it in the parking lot. I can understand the building. But now you're requiring this generator, which is an extraordinarily expensive endeavor both in a new facility and in a building that's going to be renovated to a private entity. And unless the Board changes the law and directs that these are designated shelters, I don't see any need for the LDC amendment. That's my position. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. This is after the hurricane, Joe. May 17, 2018 Page 35 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. In most cases the clubs will volunteer. They're going to volunteer to open it up as a refuge even if they use it to distribute water, ice, or whatever. This is requiring now the installation of the generator. We're not talking about making it a refuge. We're talking about requiring it to have a generator installed when it's built, now. If they come in -- the community next week comes in and says, I'm going to build a clubhouse, they're going to be mandated to put an auxilliary generator in, or if it's 50 percent or more renovation, they're going to have to put a generator in. And you could still have a place of refuge without forcing that -- that expense and all the requirements onto the -- what, essentially, is a private club. Again, I have to go with, then, why not the golf course clubhouse? I can go on about different facilities within the community. Now, if the Board makes it a requirement to advertise and make it a requirement, mandate it as a county law, then we'll deal with the LDC to implement that law. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a suggestion to make that is intended to address your concern, Joe, which I share. I think there should be an opt-out provision but some strings attached to the "opt out" such as a requirement to notify the members that they are opting out of this and that there will not necessarily be sufficient protection for the members in the event of a disaster that they would have if they had voluntarily -- or opted in, I would say. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I would agree if they want to, as part of their club renovation, install a generator and designate it as a shelter, that's their prerogative. They can -- it's their club. They can do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And I'm for free enterprise, too, and so I'm with you on that. But I think if we were to go that route -- and I would call it an "opt out" rather than asking people to opt in. They are free to opt out, but they need to bring notice home to all their members that they're going to be out a place to be sheltered. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I know our club clearly stated during the evacuation that the club was not going to be open for -- as a shelter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not open to the public, but not open to the members? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Not open to the members. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Now, after the hurricane they opened. There was no power, but they provided free service. They were serving free lunch, and the people who were behind cleaning up, those kind of things they did, but it was a voluntary type of process, not a mandated process. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And just for clarification, you know, this will become law. So if it is adopted, this is the law. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're just making our recommendation, I think. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I defer to the Board. I cannot support it, so let them make the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think where I am on this is I'm going to recommend that an opt-out provision be built into it that requires the notification be made to the members that they're not going to be as well placed in relation to the disaster as they would be if they had -- if they had opted in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. May I make (sic) something, Dan? In here I also notice -- because we're not even done discussing this yet. Generator requirements to include lift stations. The communities, do they not put in the lift stations? And once they are in and operating, does the county not take over those lift stations? MR. SUMMERS: Okay. I'm going to have to phone a friend, so let me start. Okay. Obviously, the lift stations are part of the utility standard. One option -- two options. What I see as two benefits of that generator being at the clubhouse, number one, you -- certainly, with air handling, you minimize the post-disaster risk of mold and mildew and those kind of things. We've been through that scenario where, if there was air handling, mold and mildew could be reduced if there was some type of breach in the envelope. May 17, 2018 Page 36 of 41 And the second component here is certainly making sure that if it's still a private lift station at that point that there is backup power at that lift station, and there's typically a lift station at a lot of these facilities. So those things go away. That becomes a burden, an additional burden to the county. Now, the county is looking at utility standards and the transfer, future private lift stations, there's obviously discussions -- a lot of discussions about generators being required as part of the utility standard. So, again, you have an opportunity there. One generator could run the lift station and the building. Either way, most likely in the utility standard, there's going to be a generator requirement anyhow. But I'm going to have to defer to Public Utilities Division in terms of what part of that lift station and the utility standard -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Lift station goes to the utility. The developer builds it. It's built to county standards. But once it's accepted and connected to the county system, that lift station belongs to the county. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct, but most likely there's going to be a -- there's discussion. And I can't speak for PUD, but discussion that the new standards on the private side will require a generator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SUMMERS: Makes sense now after what we went through. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that requirement may come up, yes. MR. FRANTZ: I just want to point out that this section here is limited to systems related to the building. So this type of water/sewer lift station is more related to the facilities, related to the building rather than the community as a whole. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It does nothing if the building has power to its sewage system but a quarter mile down the street the lift stations are completely overburdened. And we know where that happened; many places in the county. So it has to be an entire system. Stan, you've talked about this, too, about lift stations and generators, but that's not part of this LDC amendment. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you -- MR. SUMMERS: Could staff clarify? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you need to look at your options at this point. Your options are to recommend approval with -- or recommend not to adopt, or if you think revisions need to be made such as an opt-out provisions, as Mr. Fryer mentioned, then that would require an amendment, some changes, and then to come back. And I don't know how that all fits with Jeremy's schedule, because usually if you're going to recommend a change like an opt-out provision, you would either -- if there's consensus that the rest of the board members want to do that, then staff would make the revision and bring it back if there's time to do that. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: This is something the Board wants at their -- at their next -- the meeting when their approval -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Our problem is we're getting this just before their meeting. It's not fair to this Planning Commission to do that. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I have a suggestion for you. This is one that was outside of the regulations related to the state issues of concern; the gas stations, the ALFs. This is one -- more of a local option that we're developing. This might be one you may want to suggest a recommendation to the Board to segment out from the others to allow for more vetting, whether with the existing communities or to address some of these points and segment this out from the other amendments being suggested and have a little bit more time to work on some of these issues you've identified. That could be a plausible recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That -- I agree with you, Mike. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Just have this come back; not approve it and have it come back -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion that staff contact general managers of the various communities, sample -- you can create a sample, you can validate that sample some -- however you want through sample analysis, and you can see what the -- some of the GMs say out there in regard to this and bring it back and see what the feelings are from the communities, both from the general managers and from the people in the community who have private clubs. So that's my motion, that this -- you spend more time May 17, 2018 Page 37 of 41 developing this and bring it back and remove it from the ones going to the Board at this time. We'll be glad to entertain it, but I think we need more information. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, can I ask a question? When we did PUD monitoring, there was a list of all the emails of all the PUDs that -- an email blast could be sent out to everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why not just -- if that still exists, that capability, just send them all out something and get 300 responses back and see who says what. MR. FRANTZ: We do have community associations in our distribution list for LDC amendments but, yeah, we can look at that list again and send out a more specific email kind of identifying what the changes are. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the motion, then, would be not to adopt this LDC amendment at this time and to vet it through stakeholders and HOA groups and bring it back if the Board so desires. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. Thank you. As stated. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, Stan, will second, then I'm going to move to amend the motion. I agree with everything that Joe has said, but I would ask that when staff goes back and sounds out the stakeholders, that if there is any significant level of concern about expense, that your redraft come back with an opt-out provision that requires all constituents, all members be informed that the association is going to opt out and that, therefore, their level of protection may be less than an organization that did not opt out. That's -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I saw Mr. Schmitt nod, so I believe he's saying that his motion is so amended. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I agree with the motion as amended. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: And Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And second, yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Any more discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do have one thing. Is this going to become mandatory for new developments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes, new construction. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: New construction. MR. FRANTZ: That's the way this draft is written. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As written. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So that will come back. And the next one is for facilities with fuel pumps. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 5.05.05, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chair, I meant to say this -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- before we voted on the previous one. It wouldn't change my vote, but I'm not going to repeat the concerns and questions I have about generator testing and specifications; May 17, 2018 Page 38 of 41 simply to say that they apply to all of these. I believe that self-testing should be in addition to the annual testing. So I'm not going to repeat myself each time. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Okay. Are there any -- we didn't talk about this one too much -- questions on this? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions on this. This has been fairly routine for the last several years ago. I think we need to enforce this. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, from the standpoint the way it's written. The only question, I guess there was something about -- where did I read that? About being able to pay, and the loss of -- most people pay by credit card. MR. SUMMERS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's -- MR. SUMMERS: And I'm happy to address that. It's an excellent point. Here's -- you know, a couple of things that we need to be aware of. Obviously, there was the issue that in most cases we had fuel in the ground during Irma, but that absence of power avoided the ability to pump. We know the state is looking at new strategies to make sure that bulk deliveries can occur earlier. This was unusual. We had the Port of Everglades, and we had the Port of Tampa closed, which is where most of our fuel comes from, at the same time. We've not experienced that before in hurricane history. Internet connectivity at the pump, which is where the point of sale is; you look at Costco and Sam's who a lot of times their data is relayed by satellite, not by ground-based Internet. So there are not a lot of options related to Internet connection options other than, certainly, Sam's and Costco might be -- continue to operate because their network is not public for that point of sale. The other fuel stations who may be relying on Comcast as an Internet provider may have some limitations. But in that case, typically, there's a retail operation, and hopefully they can sell gas by cash. Does anybody use cash anymore? But certainly what you need during times of disaster. So we understand that there are point-of-sale limitations, but we think either through cash sales or some of those stations that do manage their POS by satellite base still would expand some options for fuel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it clear that the other specifications and requirements that we've been talking about, I guess, in 5.05.04, are carried forward in .05? MR. FRANTZ: Not all of the specifications in that previous amendment would apply here. Some of those specifications were specific to the design of those systems for nursing homes and ALFs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Specifically in 5.05.05, I did not see -- maybe I just overlooked it -- a reference to how often these are tested and how long before they are re-fueled. Now, I understand the 96 hours. Is that -- are those specifications part of .05 by some reference that I'm not seeing? MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, they're not. And we felt like, at least emergency management staff felt like that -- certainly with a little different scenario related to life safety in the nursing homes and rest homes, these folks, we felt like, would be incentivized to keep that generator operational, because if they're not operational, they're not doing business. So we felt like it was -- it would be -- would not be a fair shake to put these other testing requirements on them because they're going to lose business if they don't test and make sure that this equipment is reliable. Just like Publix and Winn-Dixie has done by putting a generator at every facility, they're driven by the market conditions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I guess the gas stations that have decided not to put generators as part of their station, they've already made the decision that they're -- they're not worried about losing revenue. MR. SUMMERS: It's their revenue-loss decision, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But this clearly states that any gas station with one-half mile of the interstate will be required. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. And, again, state statute led that after Wilma, but no enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No enforcement. MR. SUMMERS: No enforcement, and a push by the retail fuel industry -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) May 17, 2018 Page 39 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't we then require testing? If we require the ones close to I-75, why wouldn't we also require that they be tested annually? MR. FRANTZ: In I.4, there is that same kind of general language about testing according to the manufacturer's specifications. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I.4. I'm in my Word document. Did you change the -- I don't see an I.4 in 5.05.05. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. It says permanent emergency generators and transfer switches must be tested under load and according to the manufacturer's specifications. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, that's capital Roman Numeral I. I'm sorry. I was looking for the wrong thing. So that would -- is that the same language we used in reference to the group housing? MR. FRANTZ: According to manufacturer's specifications, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about a certification? MR. FRANTZ: Let me flip back to that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If it's a good idea for group housing, it seems to me it would be also a good idea for gas stations. I don't know why there would be a difference in wording. If you're telling me the wording's the same, that's okay, but it didn't look to me like it was. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question, Dan, on enforcement, and that's what did not happen this last one. Is that state -- that is the state ruling, correct? MR. SUMMERS: Well, the state put it in. The early legislation said it could be requested at the request -- it could be -- that information could be requested by the local emergency management program, by the county's emergency management program -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's you. MR. SUMMERS: That's me -- that it was available to be requested. From Wilma up until Irma, it was generally -- and I delegated that authority to Pollution Control who was on site doing a testing with their inspection with their tanks, et cetera. So even if I requested it, there's no -- they can hand me a letter and just say, this is it. So that's all I have to work with. We periodically looked at that through our Pollution Control Department, who had the resources to make the site -- the tank inspections. So it's an area on both sides either with Pollution Control or my office that needs improvement. Either way, that wouldn't have solved the problem in terms of generators being on site because they had the option of rental or the transfer switch. Good intent, but they just didn't get the puck in the net, so to speak, with the legislative requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Originally, after Wilma we just required a transfer switch. MR. SUMMERS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. So is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: Okay. The next one. May 17, 2018 Page 40 of 41 MR. SUMMERS: Thank you-all very much. I very much appreciate the time and your patience today. This is certainly important for all of us, and thank you very much for allowing me to share these concerns. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What about the other LDC amendments? MR. SUMMERS: We've got one more? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 4.02.01 and -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Dimensional standards for principal uses and base zoning districts, parking space requirements, and general landscaping requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These are all just a criteria for installation. MR. FRANTZ: This is where we wanted to allow some flexibility in the site requirements to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to approve as written. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HOMAIK: That was a good one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It gives them the latitude to do what they need to do. MR. FRANTZ: That is all of our amendments for today. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Dan. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: That's it. So and -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Come on up, Dan. I want to give you some more heartache. No. MR. SUMMERS: I've enjoyed the discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. And the last -- that one, the tree one -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tree one we've already dealt with. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: -- is coming back, right? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We've covered all of the amendments now. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. So the next -- Joe, you had something? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: New business. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: New business. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've had the distinct honor and privilege of serving on the Affordable Housing Committee for about the last year and a half as the Planning Commission representative. And my duties and travel and everything else have kind of caused me to miss several meetings. I was wondering if anybody on the Planning Commission would have an interest in serving on that committee. We're required to provide a planning commissioner on that Affordable Housing Committee, and -- CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Mark -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark did it for a while, I did it for a while. So if anybody else wants to volunteer... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I'd like to nominate Stan. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No, no, no. I'm glad I was here. If I wasn't here, I'd be screwed, wouldn't I? CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Yeah, I'd say so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. I nominate Patrick. May 17, 2018 Page 41 of 41 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: All in favor? Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Well, he has to want to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The meetings are typically once a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mondays. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mondays once a month, 8:30 -- 8:30, yeah; 8:00 or 8:30. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Seriously, I have an awful lot that I'm involved with. I really couldn't do it. Does this mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's at 8:00 a.m. the first Monday of every month. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Do you want to try it for a while, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: No. I recommend that we just table it till the next -- new business. I think everyone here, potentially, if they want to do it, they could discuss it with Joe, and then we could talk about it and maybe do that at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Next meeting we'll discuss it, because then the name has to go to the Board, and the Board actually has to approve the nomination. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: And it gives me more time to talk to Stan and have him do it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: There's no old business. No public comment. So we are -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN HOMIAK: We're done. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:47 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 9-A This item was continued from the May 17, 2018 CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet materials at the May 17th meeting. Attached are additional materials. PL20160002360/CP-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and map series to remove the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill subdistrict from the Urban Commercial district and to add the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed-Use subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use district, to allow up to 375 multi-family residential rental dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 31 acres and located at the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20160002306) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planer] AGENDA ITEM 9-B This item was continued from the May 17, 2018 CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet materials at the May 17th meeting. Attached are additional materials. PL20160002306: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 99-94 the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), to add 375 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the master plan; by adding development standards for residential structures; by providing a conversion rate from commercial to residential; by revising Exhibit A, the PUD master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20160002360) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] AGENDA ITEM 9-B L:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\6-21-18\Memo to CCPC - Commercial Landscaping 6-21-18 (6-12-18) Final.docx Memorandum To: Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) From: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager Date: June 13, 2018 Re: Commercial Landscaping Land Development Code (LDC) Amendment On May 17, 2018, the CCPC reviewed a proposal to modify commercial landscaping requirements in the LDC and suggested the following edits and additional research before a recommendation could be made. Staff’s revisions to the amendment and additional research are described below. This amendment is scheduled for Board of County Commissioners review on July 10, 2018. CCPC Discussion Modify the replacement tree standards table to include only two categories of sizes: eight to 12 inches and greater than 12 inches. The replacement tree sizes should be limited to five and six-inch calipers. o The revised amendment includes this change. Remove the provision allowing multiple smaller trees to satisfy the replacement tree size requirements. o The revised amendment includes this change. Add a cross-reference to existing standards for the clustering of trees. o This change was not made since the provision in question was removed. Determine the availability of trees with a five to six-inch caliper. o See description of price and availability below. Availability and Pricing Research Staff interviewed seven local and statewide suppliers of landscaping trees to determine the availability of native trees with a five to six-inch caliper. These discussions revealed the following: The current requirement for three to four-inch caliper trees within the vehicular use area in shopping centers (20,000 square feet or more of floor area) is already difficult to find at this time. The availability of native trees with a five to six-inch caliper, as proposed by this amendment, will be even more difficult to find. The suppliers suggested that a five to six-inch caliper requirement may limit tree selection to species such as: Gumbo Limbo, Southern Slash Pine, Bald Cypress, and Live Oak. The selection of larger trees that are likely to be available may not meet the County’s quality requirements which may further limit available supply. L:\LDC Amendments\Advisory Boards and Public Hearings\CCPC\6-21-18\Memo to CCPC - Commercial Landscaping 6-21-18 (6-12-18) Final.docx Hurricane Irma has greatly reduced available nursery stocks generally statewide. Staff also interviewed landscaping suppliers, nursery supply websites, and the County’s Road Maintenance Division regarding pricing. Landscaping professionals indicated that five to six-inch calipers may increase costs significantly. Due to the amount and quality of the information available, few direct cost-comparisons were available. However, one comparison of quotes for Live Oak trees from several vendors listed on www.plantsearch.com is shown in the table below. Please note that given the limited nature of pricing data, these examples may not be representative of the market generally. Caliper (inches)Price Quantity Available 3.75 – 4.00 $495 10 5.00 – 5.50 $1,250 -- 6.00 – 7.00 $1,750 -- Several sources also suggested that while prices typically fluctuate with changes in supply and demand, Hurricane Irma has caused highly competitive pricing. Public Outreach The Board of County Commissioners requested a thorough outreach process. To that end, staff outreach throughout the amendment review process included notification to: Property managers and developers, The typical community distribution list used for all other LDC amendments, Landscape architects, and The local and statewide landscaping suppliers referenced above. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeremy Frantz, AICP JeremyFrantz@colliergov.net (239) 252-2305 Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping\Draft\Commercial Landscaping Amendment 6-11-18.docx Land Development Code Amendment Request ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners AUTHOR: Zoning Division Staff LDC SECTIONS:4.06.01 Generally 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of- Way 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements SUMMARY: This amendment increases the size of required landscaping trees and modifies the standards at shopping centers that remove mature canopy trees within the vehicular use areas (VUAs) and “Type D” buffers through a landscaping plan change. DESCRIPTION: Board Direction: Over several years, residents have petitioned the Board regarding perceived aesthetic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods when mature canopy trees are removed from shopping centers and replaced with the LDC’s minimum tree planting requirements. On January 23, 2018, Zoning Division staff presented to the Board background information regarding landscaping changes in shopping centers, and potential LDC changes that could mitigate the perceived impacts due to the loss of mature canopy trees on the surrounding community. The Board directed staff to draft LDC standards that maintain the ability to change existing landscaping plans while also ensuring any changes would retain mature canopy trees and maintain an aesthetically pleasing community appearance. Existing standards: When trees are replaced in the VUAs or “Type D” buffers at shopping centers, the replacement trees are required to meet the same minimum standards for landscaping material required for new developments. The minimum tree height, caliper, and canopy spread required at the time of installation are: Height: 10 feet, Caliper: 1 ¾ inches, and Canopy spread: four feet. Additionally, for buildings that are a minimum of 20,000 square feet, LDC section 4.06.03 B.9 requires that trees in the VUAs be a minimum of: Height: 14 to 16 feet, Caliper: three to four inches, Canopy spread: six to eight feet, and Clear trunk height: six feet high. Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping\Draft\Commercial Landscaping Amendment 6-11-18.docx Proposed changes: The proposed standards for shopping centers when replacing non-palm species trees through a landscaping plan change are as follows: A new table to determine the minimum size of replacement trees is provided. The replacement trees shall have a caliper of 5 or 6 inches depending on the size of the removed tree(s) within the VUAs and “Type D” buffers. New tree spacing standards within “Type D” buffers to provide better visibility to shopping center buildings and wall signage. This new standard would: o Allow an increase to tree spacing from 30 feet on-center to 60 feet on-center in limited situations, per the new LDC Section 4.06.03 D.3. o Require three trees on both sides of the 60 foot on-center spacing within the “Type D” buffer to have a minimum of a 30-foot crown spread per tree. Slash pine and bald cypress trees shall be prohibited in new landscape plans and changes to existing landscape plans within the VUA and “Type D” buffer area due to their ineffectiveness to provide an adequate canopy and flourish in irrigated areas of a site. Adds submittal requirements to the landscaping plan to include the caliper of existing trees to facilitate review of these new requirements. Lastly, the amendment adds cross-references to the new standards in LDC section 4.06.02. These changes are intended to balance the aesthetical value of mature canopy trees with the surrounding neighborhoods, and property owners with the need to redesign and update the appearance of shopping centers. The standards are intended to provide options for compliance, and flexibility in site design and an alternative to replacing trees or maintaining the existing mature trees. Public comments received by County staff to date are included in Attachment A. DSAC-LDR RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed the amendment on April 18, 2018. Lacking a quorum, the Subcommittee members present, as well as a regular member of the DSAC, made several suggestions and observations for further review at the regular DSAC meeting. DSAC RECOMMENDATION: The DSAC unanimously recommended denial of this amendment on May 2, 2018. The DSAC members indicated that the amendment was too problematic for adoption. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: The amendment will increase costs to shopping center owners when updating landscaping plans by virtue of replacing non-palm tree species with trees that are larger than the existing minimum tree planting requirements of the LDC. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: There are no anticpated growth management plan impacts associated with this amendment. Amend the LDC as follows: 1 Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping\Draft\Commercial Landscaping Amendment 6-11-18.docx 1 4.06.01 Generally 2 E. Landscaping Plans Required. 3 1. Landscape summary. A landscape summary in matrix form which shall include: 4 a. Graphic symbol to indicate each type of plant material. 5 b. Botanical name. 6 c. Common name. 7 d. Total number of each type of plant material. 8 e. Height and spread of each type of plant material. 9 f. Spacing of each type of plant material. 10 g. In accordance with LDC section 4.06.03 D., caliper of existing and 11 replacement trees for shopping centers when replacing non-palm tree 12 species within the vehicular use areas and Type D landscape buffers 13 through a landscaping plan change. 14 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 15 16 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 17 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 C. Types of buffers. Within a required buffer strip, the following types of buffers shall be 19 used based on the matrix in table 2.4. (See Figure 4.06.02.C-1) 20 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 21 4.Type D Buffer: A landscape buffer shall be required adjacent to any road right-of- 22 way external to the development project and adjacent to any primary access 23 roads internal to a commercial development. Said landscape buffer shall be 24 consistent with the provisions of the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan, 25 which is incorporated by reference herein. The minimum width of the perimeter 26 landscape buffer shall vary according to the ultimate width of the abutting right- 27 of-way. Where the ultimate width of the right-of-way is zero to 99 feet, the 28 corresponding landscape buffer shall measure at least ten feet in width. Where 29 the ultimate width of the right-of-way is 100 or more feet, the corresponding 30 landscape buffer shall measure at least 15 feet in width. Developments of 15 31 acres or more and developments within an activity center shall provide a 32 perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width of 33 the right-of-way. Activity center right-of-way buffer width requirements shall not 34 be applicable to roadways internal to the development. 35 a. Trees shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center in the landscape 36 buffer abutting a right-of-way or primary access road internal to a 37 commercial development. However, for shopping centers replacing non- 38 palm tree species within a Type D buffer through a landscaping plan 39 change, see LDC section 4.06.03 D. 40 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 41 42 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 D. Standards for shopping centers. The following standards apply when replacing non-palm 45 tree species within the vehicular use areas and Type D landscape buffers through a 46 landscaping plan change. 47 1. The following table shall determine the minimum size of replacement trees at 48 time of installation. 49 a. Table 4.06.03 D.1.a. – Required minimum caliper for replacement trees. 50 Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Commercial Landscaping\Draft\Commercial Landscaping Amendment 6-11-18.docx Existing tree (DBH)Required minimum caliper for replacement tree 8 to 12 inches 5 inches Greater than 12 inches 6 inches 1 2 2. To provide additional visibility into shopping centers, the required trees within 3 Type D buffers may be spaced no more than 60 feet on center and shall have at 4 least three consecutive trees, spaced no more than 30 feet on center with at 5 least a 30-foot crown spread per tree, on both sides of any spacing greater than 6 30 feet. 7 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 8 9 4.06.05 – General Landscaping Requirements 10 D. Plant Material Standards 11 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 12 2. Trees and palms. All required new individual trees, shall be species having an 13 average mature spread or crown of greater than 20 feet in the Collier County 14 area and having trunk(s) which can be maintained in a clean condition over five 15 feet of clear wood. Trees adjacent to walkways, bike paths and rights-of-way 16 shall be maintained in a clean condition over eight feet of clear wood. Trees 17 having an average mature spread or crown less than 20 feet may be substituted 18 by grouping the same so as to create the equivalent of 20-foot crown spread. For 19 code-required trees, the trees at the time of installation shall be a minimum of 25 20 gallon, ten feet in height, have a 1¾-inch caliper (at 12 inches above the ground) 21 and a four-foot spread. 22 a. A grouping of three palm trees will be the equivalent of one canopy tree. 23 Exceptions will be made for Roystonea spp. and Phoenix spp. (not 24 including roebelenii) which shall count one palm for one canopy tree. 25 Palms may be substituted for up to 30 percent of required canopy trees 26 with the following exceptions. No more than 30% of canopy trees may be 27 substituted by palms (or palm equivalent) within the interior of a vehicular 28 use area and within each individual Type D road right-of-way landscape 29 buffer. Palms must have a minimum of 10 feet of clear trunk at planting. 30 b. All new trees, including palms, shall be of a species having an average 31 mature height of 15 feet or greater. 32 c. As of {Effective date of this Ordinance}, all new landscaping plans or 33 existing landscaping plans that are replacing or removing required trees 34 within the vehicle use areas or “Type D” buffers shall not include slash 35 pine (Pinus elliottii) or bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). 36 # # # # # # # # # # # # #