The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 04/27/2010 Item #16Ioil BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE April 27, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Minutes: 1) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes of April 8, 2009; June 10, 2009. 2) Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of December 1, 2009; January 5, 2010; February 2, 2010. 3) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of February 16, 2010 special session; February 18, 2010; February 26, 2010 special session; March 4, 2010 special session; March 10, 2010 special session. 4) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 9, 2010; March 9, 2010. Minutes of February 9, 2010; March 9, 2010 — no quorum. 5) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of November 19, 2009; January 28, 2010; February 25, 2010 — no quorum. 6) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of February 18, 2010. B. Other: 1) Public Safety Coordinating Council: Minutes of December 10, 2009. q"ECEiVED 161 l a� APR G 8 2010 Fiala ' Ii i1,,, Ilan "ry �;ivnmissionar' Halas Henning ? $aysRora BeastNNcatiort M.S3.14. Coyle Advisory Committee Coletta 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 April 8, 2009 Nlinutes 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bill Neal at 4 00 P %I 11. Attendance Members: Bill Veal, Tom Finn, Conrad VVillkonun, A ictor Brittain. D�aiht Oakley, Victoria Nicklos, titauriee Gutierrez (Excused) CRA: David Jackson - Director, Jean JOUrdan - Project 4lanaoer. Shirley Gan:i,t - Operations Coordinator _ Sue Trone - Operations Analyst Others: Sue Flynn- Mancan_ Sue Chapin- %lancan, Aaron Gross - Ground Zen,. Ted Trvka Aenoli, Barber R Bntnda,e, Dan Brundal ±e- Aunoli, Barber K Brundage K John Paris -public 111. Approval of Agenda Victor Brittain moved to approve the agenda us submitted. Second ht' Dwight Oakley .11(itie)n carried utianituousll' i -0. Joan Minn canned ut !_(13 pin IV. Approval of Nlinutes - March 11, 2009 Victor Brittain moved to approve the minutes of March 11, :009 (rs uthntittedL .Second hr Victoria .Vicklos. .Motion carried unanimousty 6 -0. S . 'I ransportalion Services Report David Jackson distributed the' New' Board Book (binder) lot the Adt isor, Committee members to be reviewed throuphoot the meetinu A. Landscape'Slaintenance Report David Jackson recommended the Committee approte an invoice non) Gound Zero for services rendered in the ainounl of$25 0)0 and an iu.t ic. for irrigation parts tw Central Park in the amount of S_ za -x i See wt t, c.l 67ctoria ti'icklos moved to por Ground Zero invoices. .Second hr I it Brittain. .Motion curried unanitnou.stt' 6 -A I -he Committee was directed io remove the (IOCLlnlent1 tiom the B0.1'(1 I;,,,,,. (binder) and leave the binder at the end of each meeting Doc'wrIent ntai, Misc. Corres: Date: ® X1 to Item # < <0 L- 1 4 r�,,ieS ro 161 1k\ wit be available the Friday before each meeting and will be distributed , is entail to the Committee for their review Each set of new documentation w ii he arranged and inserted behind each appropriate tab in the binder For each upcoming meeting A Consensus was made to continue to receive copies of im oices the NIS F( is responsible to pay. Aaron Gross — Ground Zero reported Fertilizing trees and shrubs - Complete Sprayed medians with last application - Complete Coordinated with County on Bridge irrigation repairs - Complete Soil has been added. Plants and Palms — Complete It was noted that White Fly is prevalent at this time of year and usually attect< ficus plants .Aaron Gross stated heavy rains helps wash the problem a,ca, B. Budget Report David Jackson stated the FY 2009 Budget Report had a typographical error and was not up to date due to numerous outstanding Purchase Orders. Revenue numbers were not included. (See attached) Update South Bayshore Project — Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Ted Tryka save a slide presentation on the South Bm shore Project It was noted a survey taken at the Public Meetirnu reflected the design of Option A Option A (Based on 55' RONN Added 4' bike lane on east side of roadway -e Added 6 sidewalk on cast side of roadway •b 10' wide ditch on east side Base cost would be $238.000 without landscaping_ Option B 3 Remove bike lane on west side of roadway (per County 1 Widen ditch on west side to I I' 10' wide sidewalk on cast side 4 10' wide ditch on east side Base cost would be $344.000 without landscapny Option C e Remove bike lane on west side of roadway Shift pavement -I' west and remove 4' pavement on east side :• Keep ditch 7' .vide with 10' sidewalk on east side 14' wide ditch on east side 3 Base cost would be $3s(000 without )andscapin' Discussion ensued on advantages and drainaue AIanN questions ,yore asked on the designs presented to the Committee 16 1 Ted Tryka noted the drama.-e is split down the centei LI1 tl%%e ctl.al!I • and hater drains both 1vays to ditches and tlow south i ihun) 11'illk011nl lt.1r of 4. J) pin Further discussion was made on the base costs. add -ons, hike paths and sacine ntonc\ f ; l7mn 11 ditkomm j cmined tit a: 51) imt The Committee Membeis saiced opinions and reason; Glt thcit dcstun eht�wc and a consensus was made on Desisn Option 13 I'ictoria b'icklos moved to approve Design Option R Sec find hr Tin+ Thin, lfotion carried 6 - "Yes" I - "nu ". If iffiarn Itiillkonnn 1 e,wd Ted Tivka stated costs for Li ,Ming and Let nel c :I, iII � ",,,uIJ I;tII ![''I r niminutm of$Ic)LJ.oU() 10 a higher leceI of54 is t_)!)0 au i added ko'ue hssc cos He also noted the County has a surplus of I light pubs 17 of tl:c are sinule armed lath a sin-11e bulb and could he refurPi,hed unkt ham;e:! Rl: the project He estimated costs on the tolloty mi-, add -::ns Brick Payers in lieu of concrete - S20 per,yuarc yard Option 11 Landscapim_ in I Wide - S94,0uu Addinu white edge lines - $8.500 \ 1. Old Business A. Alillagc Rate F \'2010 Discussion David Jackson distributed and to iewed A he( olhei Counts (io,crnnlcnt Fiscal Year 2000 .Adopted Budeei' iellecnne! al' the B( \It, it appropriate millace rates F1' 2_009 and a "Preliminan f l''Ulo Budget 15_ attached) 13. Seasonal Banner Designs it A%as noted the Botanical (iardetl, are not aJtil_', to 11,;IiC hanngl nail �Idc' the Gardens' piopem� David Jackson iecununended the \ISTI titEz fcomimue n 1- th the Botanical Garden and Mien the de,iLnis are selected ,lr,,ew ;,l the Committee for direct ion C. American Farms Donation — Planting Locations David Jackson ,tated the Re,oluti,n to _i,,: I. 1 lit, plants is on the BCC \ uenda iur appm „ti on Apt:! Ilse Statf and -\aeon Oio,, Ground zero scarcheC n, a! t: a :n:ln' ill.i 11; Ihedonated plant, GIOUITd ZLTi. III, : 1�1:, :, r .car li:� .•I,...u:__ ie.nmmendations tSeeanacbai) 1 Iceper, ( ukde-sac 161 1 "' 1 llacshureiLunar 1 Fern I homasson Drive 1 I.akeciesv Dr N 1 Pine Strect Cirrus Pointe 1 CR.A Baildmn 1 We Station I *ictoriu Vickhec moved to ;;o /forward with recommendations and if -there arc extra plants. to ace them to go down side.streem Second ht Dwight Oukler_ Motion carried unanfinauslr 6 -0 D. Bridge Project I plate David Jackson reported the installnuon tf .ite lows aad landscaping has been completed It uas noted the light pules are in'miit., banner holders tN Inch are on backorder The Pnolect has been extended to lino E. Relocation of Bus Benches The benches and trash containers ha%e peen relocated "it brick pa%ers installed beneath the seats to meet %DA remm- ements It "as noted Stott kill coordinate "Ah Be KU Statl'to relocate the rcummine benches and report findings to the Conuninec Sll. New Business A. Bormann Study Report The `Suvetscape WVorkhook- "as distributed to the Committee Members 6); inArmational purposes (Due to sire of documc:n only the cover sheet is attached) B. MAN( AN Services - Discossiou David Jackson recommended the Committee approse hasment to A1VV'C 1� for invoices rcceised and cancer. their Contract Ihr sccretaiial >emces He stated the Stafl'has equipment to doannent and iecad mecums and %toald provide this set % ice tcith a say in s ofapprommaich 'S,.io0 I}. 2000 and 54100 F1' 201() Bill Neal stated this �cas a business decision and a "a_\ to say c taxpayers- dollars If illian Prillkomm morerl to cancel lLIAC:I S services rued have the CRA provide the sernires. Second hr I ietaria Sickles. Motion carried nnoniamuslr 6 -0. (, MS IT Board Goal Session Set Date Mid Jacksmt recommended the Committee set a chic fin a \\ orkAmp Goal Session to discuss Ihrntghts and ideas on tuture nroiect, and to set shoe -term and lone -teen goal: and objcmt e, 4 161 CAS ol ":ty 1). WIN Shot e D[ I% c I amk( ape Hall Dist 41"Imi Cl"It 'Wilt41 , A NlS I I G.lff M 101� o:' Bill \Cal :1 0, the ( R III, Public 4 onlink-111,I Sue ( hapill Nlatican - l- "I' — Ox 1 o'l 1110H Ili do, !i 'W'i Inc "k, lol there helm;! no hwthel- fur the uo11 ui' 11w( will!1%, tile Illet'lirl"m ad.imulled '14 6:02 11.111, H;n dkol c Ni's I I xd% k,,m A 6 fillilintlec Bill \Cal' ( llail-Fliall Fiala ' APR 0 8 2010 Halas —� !1 <,artl o= �:,imty commissioners �� S j { (� Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 Coyle Coletta BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 2009 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Mr. Gutierrez at 4:00 p.m. at the MSTU Office 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Committee Members: Maurice Gutierrez, Tom Finn, Dwight Oakley, Victor Brittain, and Victoria Nickles. Excused: Bill Neal. Absent: Conrad Willkomm. MSTU Staff Present: David Jackson, MSTU Director, Jean Jourdan, Project Manager, and Sue Trone Operations Analyst. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion: Mr. Finn. Second: Mr. Brittain. Approved 5 -0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Gutierrez asked for a motion to approve the May 13, 2009 regular meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Brittain. Second: Mr. Finn. Approved 5 -0. 4. Projects Report: a. Landscape Maintenance. Mr. Jackson gave a report on the work Ground Zero had performed in the last 30 days. There were no questions from the Committee. b. LAP Bridge Proiect. Mr. Jackson presented and e-mail update from Ms. Lulich, Alternative Transportation Modes on the Bayshore bridge improvement project. Mr. Brittain asked if the light pole banners arms had been installed yet. c. Relocation of Bus Benches. Mr. Jackson informed the Committee that the quote received to move the last bench was higher than expected, so additional quotes will be solicited. d. Transportation Funding Transfer to MSTU. Mr. Jackson detailed the no -vote motion taken at the BCC meeting concerning the $40K annual transfer from Transportation to the MSTU. e. FY2010 Budget. The draft FY2010 Budget was handed out and Committee members were asked to provide input. f. MSTU Website and Quarterly Newsletter. Ms. Trone discussed a MSTU web site co- located on the CRA address where information could be p9gied*npublic viewing. June 10, 2009 Minutes Item 161 1 A �,,, o� kr Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 She also detailed the approximate costs to create and mail a MSTU newsletter. Motion by Mr. Brittain to reimburse the CRA for staff time creating the web pages and newsletter content fund from MSTU budget the creative design.. printing and mailing of the newsletter. Second; Ms. Nicklos. Approved 5 -0. 5. Old Business: a. South Bayshore Project. Ms. Jourdan presented a scope of work and cost sheets from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage (ABB) to create construction documents for the conceptual design. Ms. Jourdan explained that she had negotiated the quote to an acceptable price when compared to the 'projected' cost delivered in the concept package. Motion to approve a scope of work for ABB to create construction documents in the amount of $49,950.00: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Brittain. Approved 5 -0. b. FPL Lighting on Side Streets. Ms Jourdan discussed the proposed contract from FPL to install 70 lights on existing poles with transformers. The annual cost will be approximately $9,240 per year. Mr. Gutierrez stated that the agreement is for 10 years unless the MSTU decides to install a different type of lighting system. Mr. Finn asked where the poles were, and Ms. Jourdan stated that FPL had not delivered a site map, but she would get it to the Committee by the next meeting. Mr. Gutierrez stated that all of the poles were in the right of way and on some of the side streets that had street front electrical service. Motion for staff to take the agreement to the BCC for approval: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Finn. Approved 5 -0. c. Bayshore Drive Landscape Plan. Mr. Jackson explained that the Committee should get quotes from the County - approved fixed term contractors to get competitively price quotes. A roundtable discussion ensued that covered strategies in selecting a consultant and whether or not all the medians needed to be re -done. The decision was made for the Committee to tour the area together and ground -truth the landscape infrastructure in place so that all members would have the same foundation. By consensus the Committee agreed and asked staff to arrange a tour bus and make the appropriate public advertisement to meet sunshine requirements. 6. New Business: a. Hamilton Harbor Signage Request. Mr. Jackson briefed the Committee on Hamilton Harbor's request to mount two directional signs, at their expense on MSTU sign posts. Motion to approve: Mr. Brittain. Second: Ms. Nicklos. Approved 5 -0. 7. Public Comments. Mr. Gutierrez asked if there were any comments from the audience. There was none. Mr. Neal arrives. June 10. 2009 Minutes 161 1 A-( Bayshore Beautification MSTU 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, FL 34112 8. Advisory Committee General Communications. The Committee agreed to continue to have meetings throughout the summer months. They also agreed to attend the Naples Botanical Garden tour on July 1st and have the staff advertise the tour to meet sunshine requirements. 9. Adiournment: Motion to adjourn: Ms. Nicklos. Second: Mr. Finn. The regular meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm. Approved and forwarded 15y Bill Neal, MSTU Advisory Committee Chairman June 10, 2009 Minutes Fiala Halas THY. BAYSHORE.. / G A'r Ev AY TRIANGLE RFDFV E LO PbflUMning COMMUNnITIY REDEVELOPMENT' A�B,�'Se 4069 11AS10R� RF�'F��yf ppF'�_np AX 2 APR (] 7 �SMl1'SHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD „y,, is �n �fnisti!Un2+ MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 1, 2009 MEETING a The meeting of the Bays horelGateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6 00 p m at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive_ 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez. Bruce Preble, Lindsey Thomas, Karen Beatty, and Chuck Gunther. Excused: Jill Barry. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone, Project Managers, and Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator. 1 Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Mr. Jackson asked that three items be added to the advertised agenda: New Business — SEG 01 -2010, CRA Event Policy & Procedures Manual — Review and Forwarding: and CRA Executive Directors' Annual Evaluation — Chairman Thomas. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the agenda with changes: Motion: Mr. Preble. Second Mr. Main. Approved 7 -0 3. Adoption of Minutes, Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the November 3, 2009 meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Preble. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 7 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. Project Updates i. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a projects update memo. As a further update, he handed out CRA Advisory Board application received to replace Mr. Neal. He stated that the interviews will be conducted in January. ii. Mr. Jackson introduced Ms. Jourdan who advised the Board that Southern Motor Sports, one of the CRA's tenants in the mini - triangle, had a CRA Board approved action to conduct eviction procedures. Mr. Thomas stated that he believed that they had already moved out and had relocated to Kirkwood Avenue. iii. Ms Trone gave the Board an update on CRA Grants and a documented history of the effect of the grants in leveraging CRA grant dollars 5 Old Business a. Request for Payment of Services. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve payment of the following CRA work order invoices. Motion to approve Mr. Gutierrez Second: Mr. Main. Approved 7 -0 i. Pizzuti Solutions — in the amount of $3,995.12. ii. HSA Engineers and Scientists. - in the amount of $40,511 00 iii. O. Grady Minor & Associates. - in the amount of $197.00. b. Progress Report Pizzuti Solutions. Mr. Jackson introduced Mr. Tom Harmer of Pizzuti Solutions to provide a progress report on the 17 acre project. In that update, he explained that they have a conceptual site plan that will be presented to the general public on December 10, 2009 at the East Naples Community Cente , . 6. New Business: a Request for Letter of Support — David Corban Mr Jackson introduced Mr. David Corban representing the Chlumsky family in their pursuit of a vacation of public right of way (that has never been used) to assist them assemble two parcel separated by the right of way. Mr. Preble asked why the CRA would be involved in this process. r. Co bL an stated that ISC. l:Off05. Dais: a� Item 111F. - , A a -- - -- - 16 1 1 -kz the sites are in the CRA Overlay and as such a vacation of right of way and assembly of land would further the public benefit that the CRA overlay was intended to create. Mr. Corban concluded that what he was really requesting was a "no objection" letter and that he had several letters from adjacent property owners already Motion to approve Mr Gunther. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. b. Brownfields Site Rehabilitation Ag reement BSA. Mr. Jackson informed the Advisory Board that a BS-kA was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on December 1 st Ms Trone handed out a copy of the BSRA and reminded the Board that they were also the Brownfields Advisory Committee and as such they were to receive this information. c. Grants. Mr. Jackson briefed the Board on two matching grant applications: i. C -BIG 04 -2010 Maida's Hair Studio - Commercial. A commercial grant for a new hair salon at 2800 Davis Blvd for a new sign in the amount of $1,184.28 of which the CRA would provide a 50% match of not to exceed $592.14, Motion by Mr. Gunther to approve, pending County Attorney approval. Second: Mr. Preble- Approved 6 -1 Mr Ingram dissenting. SEG 01 -2010 Randal Luedtke - Residential. A residential grant for 2938 Cypress Street to improve a rock driveway and new mailbox not to exceed $1,000 of which the CRA would provide a 100 %. All work would be done by the owner as part of the "sweat equity ". Motion to approve, pending County Attorney approval. Mr. Ingram. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 7 -0. d. CRA Event Policy & Procedures Manual — Review and Forwarding. Mr. Jackson passed out the Manual with the County Attorney's edits. He informed the Board that the creation and CRA Board adoption of the Manual was a necessity and asked for a motion to forward to the CRA Board. Motion to forward Mr Thomas. Second Ms. Beatty Approved 7 -0. e CRA Executive Director's Annual Evaluation — Chairman Thomas. Mr. Thomas advised the Board that they are to review the executive director's performance and forward a recommendation to the CRA Board. The CRA Board will individually evaluate the executive director in January of each year Mr. Thomas handed out a draft letter for the Board to review and approve. Motion to forward the appraisal letter to the CRA Board. Mr. Thomas Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. 7. Citizen Comments. Mr. Thomas asked if there were any comments from the audience. None. 8. Advisory Board General Communications. a. Historic Files, Picture and Documentation — Mr. Thomas asked the Board to review the Board's discussion last month and hear a guest speaker — Mr. Paul Arsenault. Mr. Arsenault was in attendance at Ms. Beatty's request and he gave a short presentation on his art work trying to document the history of the fishing fleet and old Florida Cracker buildings that were in the area. Mr. Main supported a Board effort to help brand the area as a good area through history, to include incorporating it into the 17 acre project Mr Ingram stated he would ask Mr. Morgan a local boat builder to attend the next meeting. 9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 7 10pm. roved ayf "rwarded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman APR 11 2Qitl T r] li riM1ar� r @IGirIH' 6r+r11%11Yi1W "�'. I X AN T It r A N G L E RED E V F 1.0 [' M COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT A Fiala J + v Halas ,t n T / 3069 R,,,.ox[ Da I I'I, Nn It 15, ti. 31112 1' Ito yF 239.643.1115 F.11 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 5, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the BayshorelGateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Mr. Lindsey Thomas at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Bruce Preble, Lindsey Thomas, Karen Beatty, and Chuck Gunther. Excused: Jill Barry. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone, Project Managers, and Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Thomas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda Mr. Jackson asked that one item be deleted from the advertised agenda New Business — SEG 02 -2010. Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the agenda with changes: Motion: Mr. Main. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 6 -0 (Mr Preble absent) 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Thomas asked for a motion to approve the December 1, 2009 meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Gunther Second: Mr Gutierrez. Approved 6 -0 (Mr. Preble absent) 4. Executive Director's Report . a- Project Updates. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a projects update memo. As a further update, he handed out CRA Advisory Board application received to replace Mr. Neal. He stated that the interviews will be conducted in January. b. Mr. Jackson advised that in the packets, there was a volunteer sign -up sheet for Board members to volunteer for the January 23 Id CRA event. 5. Old Business a. Request for Payment of Services. Mc Thomas asked for a motion to approve payment of the following CRA work order invoices. Motion to approve Mr. Gunther Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0 i. Pizzuti Solutions — in the amount of $7,014.12. ii. HSA Engineers and Scientists. - in the amount of $13,597.50. iii. Q Grady Minor & Associates - in the amount of $440.00. 6. New Business a. Cl Election of Officers Nomination to re- appoint Lindsey Thomas as Chairman: Mr. Ingram. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 7 -0. Nomination to re- appoint Jill Barry as Vice Chair. Mr Preble. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. b. CRA -AB Applicant Interviews. Mr. Jackson informed the Advisory Board that two of the four applicants were at the meeting for an interview. Mr. Fernandez had applied however was not eligible and asked to be withdrawn. The Board interviewed Mr. Dvorak and Ms. Farren. Mr. Cunningham did not attend. The Board voted to recommend Mr. Dvorak to the CRA Board for consideration as an At Large member to fill the vacancy. Triangle Streetscape Design Concepts. Mr. Jackson detailed the private property improvements that were being made in the commercial section of Linwood Avenue, Linwood Way and Commercial Drive. He also reminded the Board that the County was installing the Phase II improvements to the stormwater pond and that there would be underground pipes installed in the right of way. He stated that due to the private improvements and the impact of the county pipe installation, it was time for the CRA to develop conceptual streetscape design plans to engage the commercial and residential Misc. Corres. 1 Date'.- - Iterrt ^ -n!es to. 161 1 l owners about value -added improvements to the streets He detailed five design firm bids to develop streetscape designs and the lowest quote, meeting specifications was A, Gail Boorman and Associates at $6,775.00, and asked for a motion to approve the project Motion to approve. Ms. Beatty. Second. Mr. Ingram. Approved 7 -0. d. Environmental Attorney and Environmental Consultant Services. Mr. Jackson addressed the Board packet memo that explained the recommendation by the County Attorney, for the Advisory Board to approve the future selection (and funding if necessary) of an environmental attorney for the Corradl CITGO gas station purchase and for the Advisory Board to approve a quote for environmental consulting services for the same site to protect the CRA's interests. Mr. Jackson delivered a quote from HAS Engineering and Scientists for 'not to exceed' $11,000 to provide the services, and asked for a motion to approve the Work Order. Mr. Ingram asked why does the CRA need an attorney now, and Mr. Jackson explained that the Board's approval today was an 'in advance' approval' provided the County Attorney's Office recommended an outside specialist. Motion to approve an environmental attorney, if needed and at the request of the County Attorney, and approve the Work Order for HAS Engineers and Scientist not to exceed $11,000: Mr. Gutierrez. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 7 -0. e. Historical Documentary - Approve Project. Mr. Jackson asked the Board to review the information in the Board's packet and approve the creation of a historical documentary for the CRA area in conjunction with Collier TV Studio. Motion to approve the project and any intergovernmental charges that may occur. Mr. Thomas. Second: Ms. Beatty. Approved 7 -0. f Grants. Ms Trone briefed the Board on one matching grant applications: i. C -BIG 05 -2010 Linwood Avenue - Commercial. A commercial grant for to renovate the exterior and interior of the former Holland Salley warehouse at 2231 Linwood Avenue, in the amount of $54,086 for exterior work, and $69.523.76 for interior work. The CRA would provide a 50% match of not to exceed $30,000 (exterior), and $20,000 (interior - provided the full $60,000 exterior project is completed). Also if the exterior and interior project was completed, and additional $10,000 was available (no match) to cover sign /sealed arch itecturallengineering documents- Motion by Ms. Beatty. Second. Mr. Gunther. Approved 7 -0. 7. Citizen Comments. Mr. Thomas asked if there were any comments from the audience. None. 8. Advisory Board General Communications. a. Area History Discussion - Mr. Thomas asked the Board to discuss CRA history and invited Mr. Johnny Morgan a local boat builder, Ms. Lois Bolin, Naples Backyard History, and Mr. Paul Arsenault, painter to come to the Board table and inform the Board and attending public about their knowledge of the area's history 9. Adjournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm. oved 8 forwarded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. 1llly3 Fiala Halas T11 F. BAYS }I O R E/ G .A'F E W A Y TRIANGLE R E D E V E L O P M E N 1HArvri 'j r_C-, .- F- COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGEW91 APR0 7 211111 4069 BAisuoae Drive, Nnr[,ta, F1. 34112 Puone 239.643 -1115 Fnx 239.705GDl pl MSMORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 2, 2010 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Vice -Chair Ms Jill Barry at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Jill Barry, Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Bruce Preble, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, and Chuck Gunther. Excused: Lindsey Thomas. CRA Staff Present: David Jackson, Executive Director, Jean Jourdan and Sue Trone, Project Managers. 2. Adoption of Agenda. Ms. Barry asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Ms Barry asked for a motion to approve the agenda: Motion: Mr. Preble. Second: Mr. Main. Approved 8-0. 3. Adoption of Minutes Ms. Barry asked for a motion to approve the January 5, 2010 meeting minutes: Motion: Mr. Preble. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 8 -0. 4. Executive Director's Report a. Proiect Updates. Mr. Jackson advised that in the Board packages there was a projects update memo. As a further update, he handed out CRA Powers and Duties section of Florida Statutes 163 Part III for the Board to review and a flyer announcing a Stormwater Department Public meeting notice 5. Old Business: a. Request for Payment of Services. Ms Barry asked for a motion to approve payment of the two Pizzuti Solutions invoices in the amount of $3,500, and $1,696.42. Motion to approve Mr. Gunther. Second: Mr. Gutierrez. Approved 8 -0. b. 4069 Bayshore Drive Lease /Purchase Option. Mr. Jackson pointed out staff information in a Board Meeting Memo that detailed the results of his discussions with the President of Bank of Naples, Mr. Guidaidas. The Bank did not want to be a landlord and would rather sell it to the CRA. The building was in foreclosure proceedings and the Bank would consider selling the building to the CRA for $500,000 (Bank appraisal at $725,000) if the CRA would make a 20% down payment ($100,000) and the Bank would finance the balance ($400,000) for 19 years. In discussion the Board agreed to not accept the offer at this time and not make a counter offer. Their approach was to wait until the Bank completes foreclosure proceedings. Mr. Ingram asked about the vacant CRA property at 1991 Tamiami Trail. The Board agreed that each Board member should visit the site and return and discuss options at a future meeting on moving to that site New Business: a. Grant Approval. Ms. Trone briefed the Board on one matching grant application: C -BIG 06 -2010 Davis Blvd - Commercial. A commercial grant for to renovate the exterior and interior of the former gas station at the intersection of Davis Blvd and Airport- Pulling Road, in the amount of up to $30,000 (50% match) from the CRA for exterior work, and up to $20,000 (50% match interior — provided the full $60,000 exterior project is completed) from the CRA for interior work. Also if the exterior and interior project was completed, and additional $10,000 was available (no match) to cover sign /sealed architectural /engineering documents. Motion to approve Mr. Gunther. No Second. Motion dies. In discussion the Board weighed the merits of the Commercial Grant process, the high risk nature of start-ups and specifically restaurants. The Board was disappointed that that applicant, Mr. Berec, was not in attendan t.. a to shed light on his AIsc. es: February 2 2010 Cll Minutes Date: Item 0: 161 1 Az project. Motion to disapprove: Mr. Ingram_ Second Mr. Preble. Motion failed 3 -5. In further discussion, the Board felt that they did not have enough information to approve. Motion to table the grant review until next month., have the applicant appear at the next meeting with financials, renderings and a business plan: Mr. Preble. Second: Mr. Main Approved 8 -0. Mr. Gunther Approved 7 -0 b. RFP for Engineering Design — Shadowlawn Swale /Culvert System. Mr. Jackson informed the Advisory Board that the BCC had approved a Disaster Recovery initiative Grant in the amount of $27M to complete the drainage project in the Triangle's residential area. To complete the work, the CRA must bid and fund a consultant to develop construction documents that can be bid to execute the project He asked for a motion to advertise the RFP and return with a bid amount for CRA -AB approval. Motion: Mr Gunther- Second: Mr. Main Approved 8 -0 7. Advisory Board General Communications. a. Mini - Triangle Catalyst Proiect. Mr Jackson asked for approval to advertise, through the Purchasing Department, for Letters of Interest from potential investors and developers that might be interested in redeveloping the mini - triangle. The Board agreed and asked for a report when letters are returned, if any. 8. Citizen Comments. Ms. Barry asked if there were any comments from the audience. None. 9. Adiournment: The regular meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm. Afpr ed an" rry ded by Lindsey Thomas, CRA -AB Chairman. February 2 2010 CPA -AB Minutes Henning Coyle Coletta RANSCRIPT OF THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 16, 2010 161 1 February 16, 2010 F' F" '. €- i r ..SP, 6 _ MIAt? LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kol flat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti (absent) David J. Wolfley Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Carolina Valera, Principal Planner David Weeks, Comprehensive Planting Manager Misc. Corres: Date: r �� Page 1 Item #: Copies to: 161 1A-3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Dave. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 8:30 Tuesday meeting, February 16th, of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting for the review of the limnokalee Area Master Plan. Would everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem. Mr. Eastman is not here. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vighotti is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We're going to be meeting today, the first of three scheduled meetings on the Immokalee Master Plan. This meeting will probably take all day. And by all day, we'll probably break around 10 minutes to 5:00. We'll probably continue, assuming we don't finish today, till our regular meeting on Thursday. And for that meeting, does anybody in this room know if they're not going to be here on Thursday? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Afer Thursday -- and I'm just checking for absences, really. After Thursday we have a continuation of the Land Development Code meeting that started a week or two ago. And that will begin on the 26th at 8:30 in this room. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on that day or not'? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? Okay. So we still have a quorum. And then finally following that we get back to our regular agenda, regular schedule, which is the 4th of March. And that's a regular Thursday meeting. With that, I'd like to talk about how we're going to move forward here today. First of all, I was asked by the CRA if we could have a time certain for public speakers who would want to come in and speak at that moment and not be here for the two or three days it takes to walk through all these policies. Certainly that can be done and it was accommodated. We will be doing that at 10:00 today, time certain for any public speakers. Now, the public will be asked, if the public is here, to comment as we move through the document, as we always have done, probably a page or couple pages at a time, we'll interrupt and ask if there's any public comment. But for those people that can't stay for the two or three days, we certainly will have that time period at 10:00 today. Now, as far as the format for today's meeting, we normally take the process a page at a time. There are so many issues and policies that have changed in this document before us today, it's basically a complete rewrite, that I was thinking it would be more productive if we took it policy at a time. Page 2 161 1143 February 16, 2010 Obviously the introduction and the ending, the density blending, all the provisions in the end, we'll go by pages. But where there are policies, I'll ask that we discuss each policy, any questions. And I will be asking staff to participate as we go through policy by policy. And I know that the applicant will be doing the same. Normally we have introductions from staff and the applicant and a lot of times make their arguments in the introduction process, and we're supposed to remember all that through 40 pages of rewrite. And honestly, that's not the way it's going to probably be most effective today. So I'll ask that for both of you, if you want to have any general introductions, but if you get into specifies, just hold those till we get to the policies, we'll be more aware of them by that time. So with that in mind, as far as the Planning Commission goes, we received a large book from the CRA a while back, about a month ago. And I think a couple weeks ago we received a staff report and some back -up material. In the book that we received from the CRA there was a clean copy of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And it starts actually — well, Bob's got one that's highlighted in red and blue, but the word introduction, that starts on Page 19 of the booklet that was passed out. And if we can all work from the same page, that really goes into the paragraphs of the introduction. It's all the underlined version, then it goes into all the policies after that, one at a time. That's the one that I worked off of And I hope -- if not, if there's a better one for this commission, just let me know, otherwise I'll proceed through that one and we'll just reference each policy as we go through to make it real easy to follow. And so with that, Bob, if you have any general statements, and then we'll go to staff for the same, and then when you guys get done we'll go right into the document. MR. MULHERE: Okay, I do. For the record, Bob Mulhere, here on behalf of the CRA. I do have a couple of comments to make. I have made copies, which I can distribute, although this was done -- finished late last night and I realize that some of the highlighting makes the text difficult to read. Therefore we also have it on the screen. So I'll hand these out to you, but we could use the screen, it's a little easier to read. And of course I have copies for the public, too. The idea I think, as the Chairman indicated, would be that you would go through your version that you have with maybe your notes on it, and on each particular one where there's changes I could highlight those changes for you, and if you agree or disagree we can deal with it in that fashion. I also have a spreadsheet here that recalculates the densities. When we get to those -- I'll hand it out with this -- but when we get to those sections we can use the spreadsheet. It shows you that -- oh, we've actually changed all the density increases except one, based on staff recommendations. So there's a whole new set of numbers here, which I'll also hand out. In addition to the workshop, in addition to the two substantial meetings we had with the EAC, we also met with staff on a number of occasions, including just a few weeks ago we had a very productive meeting. We met with individual members of the Planning Commission that called and wanted to discuss this. We met with members of the public. So there's been -- and this is all in the last month. You know, before that we also had a lot of public input. So I think you're right, that the plan has changed significantly. I think it's a better plan as a result of that. So that's the good news. I guess the bad news is that it will require a little bit of work on your part. And I apologize for the extra work, but hopefully for the community that will be a good result. So we're here to answer any questions you have. And that concludes my opening remarks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'll go to staff now. By the way, David and Carolina, I'm not sure who's going to be leading, it doesn't really matter, but between the two of you I do have some questions from your staff report. I don't know if those will be best asked in the beginning or the end. Maybe at the end after we finish the document the staff report questions will be not as relevant, so maybe that's the best time, so -- MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Comnussioners, I just want to give some very general comments as I always do for these types of hearings. And then Carolina will make just a few remarks about the specific petition before you, the hnmokalee Area Master Page 3 161 1A3 February 16, 2010 Plan. First of all, as the Chairman has already noted, we're here for a Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan amendment, petition, not rezonings or conditional uses or other types of petitions you more regularly deal with. Secondly, this is the transmittal hearing. After this body has completed its review and made its recommendation, this petition will go to the Board of County Commissioners and they will take their action at the conclusion of their hearing to either transmit the petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and other state and regional agencies or not to. And presuming that they will vote to transmit, then eventually the petition will come back before both this body, the LAC again, and the County Commissioners for the adoption hearings at which final action is taken. This is a legislative action, not quasi judicial, which means it is optional, that is, there's no requirement for you to swear in participants or offer notice of ex parte communications. As is required by state law, a sign -up sheet has been placed on the table just outside this meeting room where interested parties may sign up to receive notification from the Florida Department of Community Affairs after they have issued their notice of intent to find the adopted amendments in compliance or not in compliance with state law. Granted, though we're still at a transmittal hearing, the board has not even acted on this for adoption, we are required to provide that sign -up sheet at each of the hearings before Planning Commission and the board, at both transmittal and a adoption. Just so that you're aware, we presently have the County Commission hearing scheduled for May the 4th. Of course that depends on at what point this body completes its review of this petition. As always, we would like to collect the binders at the end of the hearing, or hearings, whenever that may occur, for reuse for those of you that choose not to hold on to your binder of documents. And with that, I'll turn it over to Carolina. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning Section. Staff is in agreement with the Chairman, we believe that going policy by policy, objective by objective will make a more efficient hearing process for the benefit of everybody. And so, you know, with that we would just rather give you our input as we go along through the process, you know, of reviewing the whole amendment and for the benefit of everybody. So we're in agreement, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'd like to ask one other question: Do either one of you remember what date we have the third meeting figured for? MS. VALERA: March the 4th, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our regular hearing date? Okay, so we have two. And the reason that may be relevant is if we can in the next two days produce enough -- get through this document in whole and Bob's firm can make the changes and distribute them in time, the 4th might be a good day to just review the final draft with the changes in place and combine it with a consent and final review, if we can do that. I just don't know, seeing as how close it is, if we can get through it in that short a time frame, especially with the LDC in the middle. If the BCC is not hearing it till May, during the break today or some point could you check and see if there's any other open days between March and May where we could fit in a day to take a look at a final draft and maybe allow Bob's firm more time to rewrite it after the next couple of days and possibly then us to reread it before the 4th. MS. VALERA: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chair, I'll just note that we -- under the present schedule staff has prepared, your consent agenda hearing would be Apri l the 1 st. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the problem I have, a consent agenda is after the vote. And I would certainly like, with the amount of changes -- Bob, before the meeting started, approached and showed us some of the highlighting he's done. I mean, virtually every policy looks like it may have had some changes to it. And that's great, because there was a lot of work needed. But I'd sure like the time to walk through those and think about them in final written format before we actually go to consent. Page 4 161 1 t�3 February 16, 2010 So I don't know if the 4th is going to give us that enough time frame with the extensive amount of changes that we seem to have had so far. MR. MULHERE: I think if we play it by ear, because a lot of the changes are not substantive. Some are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So, I mean, you might have -- you know, it looks like there's a change to every policy. Well, there's an additional phrase added to most policies where we had a timeline. Because the phrase is what's acceptable in every policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you got 28 paragraphs that -- MR. MULHERE: Maybe more. Yeah, right, exactly, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, with that we'll move ahead, and before we get to the policies, there's several pages of introduction. Let's -- MR. MULHERE: We'll hand out these -- you canjust -- you know, if you need to refer to them, but we'll have it on the screen, which might be an easier way to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these will be good, too, if we take breaks, go on lunch and whatever, if we want to have some enjoyable reading while we're having down time we can go through all these new documents, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a sense of humor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you ask Kady in IT, this monitor is off, if they could send somebody to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's an IT person monitoring the meeting, one of the Commissioner's monitors is dead. Brad, if you want, you can come over here and sit on this one. I used deodorant this morning, everything's tine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that, we'll hopefully get your monitor fixed, Brad. Let's go a couple pages at a time. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 19 and 20, which is the first two pages of the introduction? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody? Bob, and looks like you're on the page that I had a couple of questions on. MR. MULHERE: Page 20? Your Page 20? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The begim ng of those bullets numbered one through nine is Item C, which says, identify and provide the Board of County Commissioners the committee recommendations relative to. And it goes through and lists various things. It does say on number five, density increases in mixed use districts. Was the intent there that there was not to be considered any density increases in any other districts, or do you -- how limiting do you see those bullets in regards to what was supposed to come -- MR. MULHERE: I didn't see it as limiting, but I do see it as focusing on the mixed use districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And also, I guess we made some changes here. There was a general staff recommendation that anywhere where we referenced the LDC to include the phrase Ordinance 04 -41, as amended. And then there was the term unified, which really doesn't apply, we don't use that term anymore. The only caveat I would say is that this actual language we were repeating what was written in a resolution and actually existed in this fashion. But I guess there's no harm in cleaning it up either, and that's what we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On number eight -- or number nine, the review of the five year schedule of capital improvements relative to the Immokalee community. We just did the CIE here within the last 30 days. I didn't notice any particular recommendations in regards to that -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I can answer that question. The intent is -- and as we get through you'll see this clearly made. Part of the work that we are contracted to do is to create an hnmokalee specific Capital Improvement Plan. Page 5 161 1A� February 16, 2010 That would then -- and that was not going to happen until after this gets approved, because how this gets approved will affect what goes into that Capital Improvement Plan. That Capital Improvement Plan for Immokalee will then be weaved into the overall countywide Capital Improvement Plan and prioritized. I've also written a new policy that deals with creating a list of priorities for Immokalee that you'll see when we get into this a little bit that will be done on an amoral basis and it will be part of the budgeting process. So I think that that objective has been covered adequately in two ways. One, there'll be an annual set of priorities submitted to Collier County as part of its budget review process for Immokalee. And then of course the typical weighing of which is a priority will occur. They'll compete with all the other interests looking for money from, you know, from the budget. And then there will be a specific Immokalee Capital Improvement Plan that will compete for funding for the larger capital projects as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This Capital Improvement Plan that's going to specialize in Immokalee, the references to that begin on Policy 3.1.4. Do you -- who's going to be preparing that? MR. MUI.HERE: As I see it, the CRA will be primarily the lead agency in preparing that. Or they may use a consultant, but they'd be the lead agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the first two pages, 19 and 20? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is this CIE for Immokalee a new idea? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's as new as whenever they set up this committee where it was referenced. I don't recall when that was. It was -- anybody recall when this committee was set up, five, six years ago, seven years -- six years ago? Six years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me correct something. You just said it was new when they set up the committee. I'm not sure nine says what you just relayed. It doesn't say you're going to create a new Capital Improvement Element -- MR. MULHERE: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not objecting to it, I'm just -- I don't know if that's necessarily what -- MR. MULHERE: No it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the intention was. MR. MULHERE: -- doesn't, you're correct. It said relative to hmokalee. I think we felt that -- and part of our contract, I mean, we didn't write the contract, the contract called for us to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, from the Comprehensive Planning staffs perspective, how do they do a second CIE for Collier County? And if they do one, does that set a precedent for other elements -- for other portions of the county like Golden Gate Estates or even Vanderbilt Beach where they have their own overlay in other places? MR. WEEKS: Well, we only have one CIE for the county. There's only one Capital Improvement Plan. As I read this, and I believe the intent is that specific to their geographic area that community is going to make its own recommendations for the CIP. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be then -- it wouldn't be really a Capital Improvement Element, it would be whatever they want to call it -- MR. MULHERE: It's still a plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it's not the CIE for Collier County, it's just going to influence possibly our overall CIE. MR. MULHERE: Correct. And we didn't call it an element, we called it a plan, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why, Bob, though, I think C.9 may not have referenced the fact that new ones to be done. Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the pages -- the last three pages of the introduction, 21, 22 and 23, questions from the Planning Commission? Page 6 161 1 -A3 February 16, 2010 Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, why did you strike out the 1 -75 bypass? MR. MULHERE: Because it's not really an option anymore and because that was the recommendation of the EAC. The Conservancy highlighted that as a concern. The State Road 29 loop is still a project that the community wants and that is something that Transportation Services is working through the long range transportation plan to accomplish. But not the -- they're no longer using the phraseology or the term I -75 bypass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same general reference, isn't the 29 loop and the 75 bypass actually the same thing, right? MR. MULHERE: I think they are now, yes. They may not have been originally but I think they are now, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 21, the first full paragraph from the top, fourth line from the bottom, you reference -- it says the Seminole Casino and growing stewardship receiving areas, including the Town of Ave Maria and Big Cypress. Now, we have not reviewed Big Cypress yet and I don't think anybody has from a public process. And I'd rather that we not reference a town that doesn't exist for the potential that it may cause some conflict later on, depending on how that review comes out. It's on the -- it's right after new direction. See where -- there you are, Economic, and if you go down and see where it says and Big Cypress. I'm not -- I don't think that's appropriate if it doesn't exist at this time, so -- MR. MULHERE: Let me just make a note. I'll make a note of each of those and try to keep track of the recommended changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll keep track of it too. MR. MULHERE: You will. You'll do a betterjob than I will, I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between the two of us, I'm sure we'll get it covered. Anybody else have any questions on -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The paragraph on Page 22, Bob, starts on Page 21 and carries over to 22, so you go down to the bottom of this page. A little bit more. Starts with the -- on 22 it starts with the word customs office. There, okay. MR. MULHERE: Trying to find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go a little bit further. MR. MULHERE: Scroll up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Improvements to a roadway system is where this one begins. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Got it. Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, my question, hope it's worth all this effort. Well, right there -- MR. MULHERE: We'll get there. Ijust have to -- I'm going to put -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your pages, because you made the changes, have changed a bit. MR. MULHERE: When we take a break, I'll put these pages on mine and then I'll be able to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last line, what is that referring to? MR. MULHERE: Starting with located? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: (Inaudible.) THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Sorry, I was reading to myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what that is? MR. MULHERE: Trade Port DRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has that been approved? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we referencing it? MR. WEEKS: That project has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really think if we have items that are not real at this time, they shouldn't be in a reference. And I think it will prove problematic later on if someone wants to argue that they were deemed approved or Page 7 161 1 A3 February 16, 2010 even hinted as being deemed approved, so -- Now, the last paragraph where it says another potential of that grouping. It says in the second sentence, as new towns in eastern Collier County develop, needed government services and departments should be centrally located in hmmokalee to serve the eastern portion of the county. I think the word should should be could. You don't know if that's going to be the best location, but it certainly should be one that should be considered. Okay, and if you move down past the next one where it says Immokalee Area Master Plan priorities and go to the second sentence -- or second paragraph, I'm sorry. Well, the one -- now it's split between two windows on yours. In that one paragraph you refer to five different housing types. It starts out with farmworkers, housing, gap housing, market rate housing, affordable housing and work force housing. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we don't have definitions for all those in our books, and I'm wondering if we can just make sure we're consistent somehow. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, well, I added some language there. I don't know if that works for you. But gap and affordable work force housing are defined in the Collier County LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, MR. MULHERE: 1 started to then write that market rate housing is housing that has no subsidies. But I think that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your fix here looks -- MR. MULHERE: -- pretty obvious -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, your fix looks good, and other market rate housing. Yeah, I think that works. I just didn't want it as -- it seemed more like the way it was before it was a defined term, and I couldn't figure out what you meant by it. MR. MULHERE: Right. And fannworker housing is defined -- I don't think it's defined in our LDC but it's defined in state statute, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Above that here's the first of several changes that are highlighted in blue on the visualizer. The changes are -- there's a couple of changes. I've added a new goal number one, which we'll get to. So therefore all the goals had to be renumbered. There were seven goals, now there are eight goals. So each paragraph in here that refers to a goal I had to change the reference to the number. But there's also a little bit more substantive change here that says -- that tells you what that first goal's objective is. And you're going to see it in detail when we get to it. But it says, requires the development of an Immokalee specific prioritized list of capital improvements and other activities desired to be funded each year. Overall, each of the eight goals support economic development and diversity, but goal two specifically, and then it goes on to read as it did before. So -- and then we'll get to that goal number one that I've added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, by the way, would you put a copy of that paragraph as it's written in the handout on the screen. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take the handout and put it on the overhead. I just want to -- MR. MULHERE: You want to show that it's hard to read? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to ask you to on Thursday bring one that's a little easier to read, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I know, but you can see the color there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this one we can. MR. MULHERE: What's interesting is that's the same color that's here, but for some reason on the printer it printed out in dark blue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it. I want to make sure that we see that. I don't think anybody's going to be able to sit there without their eyes going problematic on this one. MR MULHERE: Which is why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as much as I appreciate you passing this out today, and we'll struggle through it the way we can, when you come on Thursday, can you have one printed in a color that we can read the contrast? Page 8 161 1 A February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish I had that magnifier in my glasses, but -- so if you don't mind, that would be much more helpful. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm not sure why it didn't print out in that lighter blue, but we'll fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Microsoft's fault. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you explain this first goal that's highlighted in the blue that's -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we're going to go directly over it shortly when we get to that first goal. Would that be a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine? Okay, we're going to hit the policies next. MR. MULHERE: And I'll tell you why I added it and so on, so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll move to Page 24. It's the beginning of the policies and the goals for the -- goals, objectives and policies for the hnmokalee Master Plan. MR. MULHERE: So there we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Holy cow, you've got the whole thing rewritten. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a whole new goal. And over the last three or four months since the workshop through the EDC, meetings with staff, individual meetings with others, in particular with staff, there's been a very big, big concern related to the number of policies, goals and objectives -- goals, objectives and policies that require the county to do something or some other entity to do something that has a staffing or funding impact. As we all know, we're in a very difficult economic time and tough choices will have to be made. Philosophically the community felt that if it was a policy that made sense or a goal that made sense or an objective that made sense, it should still be in here. I think everybody understood that maybe where we call for something to happen within a two year time frame, that simply might not happen, given constraints of budgeting, finances and also constraints of staffing resources. Some objectives might be accomplished with no impact on the county budget through TIF funding, through the CRA or through grants, which Penny is here and Penny has worked very hard and has already secured several grants that would offset -- that would provide funding for some improvements out there. An example might be the stormwater master plan for Immokalee that's not entirely paid for, but there is opportunity for grant funding. So if a policy makes sense, we want to keep it in the plan. We still want to leave a time frame in there that makes sense, but we also recognize, as staff has brought to our attention and others have brought to our attention, that we cannot hamstring the Board of County Commissioners in terms of the budget or in terms of staff not having the capabilities or resources to accomplish all these things. So I wrote this policy that will be now referenced in each of those goals, objectives and policies that contain a time frame, that does a couple of things. It requires the community, through the CRA, to come up with an annual list of capital and other objectives and to present that to the county during the budgeting process, which we think will be beneficial for the community, showing their organization, what their objectives and goals are. And we also think it will be beneficial to the Board of County Commissioners and the staff so they'd be able to review this list of priorities and then determine which ones can be accomplished, measuring all of the objectives and goals and priorities that the county has countywide. And then 1 put a policy in there that's entitled Fiscal and Operational Constraints. And that basically allows the time frame called for in this plan to be deferred as may be necessary because of fiscal or operational constraints. And then it requires that anything that isn't accomplished that's in this plan be reconsidered during the evaluation and appraisal report process. It would be anyway, I would think, David, but at least it specifically calls out that if something doesn't get done because of fiscal or operational -- and I say operational, that's really, I'm talking staffing constraints. Then we can take a look at those during an FAR based review process and say look, these 10 policies or Page 9 161 1 y3 February 16, 2010 objectives were never completed, do they still make sense. If they do, do they go higher on the priority list, so on and so forth. 1 think that should address largely this concern that -- you know, 1 guess if you think about it philosophically, if we put an objective or a policy in here that does make sense, we want to put a time frame to accomplish it. Then to say well, we're not sure we're going to have the funding to accomplish it, you have a couple of choices. You can extend the time frame or you can remove the policy. And I think for the comununity it doesn't make any sense to remove a policy that is a good policy, that makes sense, that they want to see happen. But we also recognize the reality -- and by the way, the LAC even commented on this, that they would support some sort of policy that allowed judgment based on fiscal and operational restraints, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think addressing it is a good idea. But one thing that I saw is -- we all want this master plan to be bulletproof for Immokalee. And one way to get there is to make sure we don't put things in a plan like we have in our regular plan than says the Watershed Management Plan will be done in two years when it's taken 12 and we haven't started it yet. So I would rather see this reality entered into like you're proposing. But I want time, obviously, to tweak the language and look at it, so -- MR. MULHERE: And that's fine. That would be helpful, because it's certainly going to be a better product with your input then just me writing it. But the other thing I do want to throw on the record -- I'm sorry, 1 didn't mean to interrupt. We'll have to wait and see what kind of response we get from DCA. When there's a time frame -- when there's something to be accomplished, they like to see a time frame. And then there's a way out of that time frame. I don't think -- I mean, they have to be as cognizant of the fiscal constraints that we're facing here, that we're facing throughout the state, that we're facing throughout the nation. So again, I think that we should have enough structure here that requires it to be revisited as part of an EAR based process that it's not going to get lost in the shuffle, such as some other examples that you might cite, and I'm not going to put them on the record -- but whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is very interesting. Funding and/or operational constraints. I'll broach it. You have a commissioner representing a huge area, and Immokalee is contained in that and it's generally po' boy territory or at least that's always considered as being such. How do we do it a little stronger to make sure that whatever is integrated in the overall element goes forward? It's -- this leaves it very challenging in my mind. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that the key will be that annual list of priorities. The key will be getting involved, the community getting involved in the budgeting process and having a set of priorities. They're probably not all going to get accomplished. Therejust isn't enough funding, there just isn't enough staff. But that will put a little bit more pressure on the community, maybe Penny and the CRA, to find other alternative funding sources. And believe me, that's an option, that's a viable option. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What operational constraints did you folks think of? What's an example of an operational -- MR. MULHERE: Boy, I mean, that really deals with staffing. I mean, if the staff workload -- let's use the example -- let's use the example of a satellite office for a number of services in Immokalee. Let's just say that somehow you found the capital funding or you found the money to pay for rent for an office that would house a number of services that presently -- govermuent services that presently are not located in Immokalee. The next question is do you have staff to occupy that? If you don't, then why spend the money in the first place? So that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there's a cart and a horse and a cart and a horse there. Okay, I understand the problem -- MR. MULHERE: It doesn't mean that's not a good idea. And I think everyone here would respect and appreciate the fact that that community 40 mules east of coastal Collier Comity, you know, would also like to have government services available so that they didn't have to drive into coastal Collier County. Page 10 16 l 1 February 16, 2010 And at certain times there have been certain government services available that are no longer available out there due to constraints. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that would be my concern to make sure that -- I mean, if we're going to go forward with an idea of building a structure and/or renting one, one should also include it in their budget. So operational constraints I understand now in the example that you've given. I do think that this is curious. This is an escape clause. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not sure we should have an escape clause in there. Although I do understand the reasoning. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My concern is just the overwhelming volume of these, to use sort of like a catch phrase, unfunded mandates. And when you have that many of them, how are you going to pick and choose which ones are more important? I would rather see us focus down on the ones and sort of like cull them down to the ones that are really necessary instead of having this sort of vague outline there with an escape clause. It just seems very amorphous. MR. MULHERE: Well, we are -- we have eliminated a number of them and we are, I supposed, going through them. But I would say that the ones that are left are all valid. And, you know, it's not my job to prioritize this. So I would say that the community has said we want all of those in there. And they're not all going to get accomplished, not within a two -year period. They'rejust not. There just isn't enough funding, there isn't enough staff support. So again, I see a couple of alternatives. One alternative is to take some out. We have taken some out. We haven't, you know -- and there will be a few more taken out I think as we go through this process. The second alternative is to extend that time frame. But who knows if even with an extended time frame, you know, you have the resources to accomplish it. So it seems to me that you need something in this plan, at least that's the feedback I've been getting, that allows the board to react to a prioritized list and to defer some of these things. It doesn't mean they won't get accomplished. If you have them in the plan, you have something you can hold up and say this has been here three or four years now, we need to make sure that this gets accomplished. And it becomes a higher priority if it didn't get accomplished before that. It moves up the priority list, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I went through this after reading it many times and made a list out of the number of policies that had a two -year commitment. First of all, there are 28 policies that have time frame commitments; 27 of those are two year commitments. Your comment in the beginning was that if DCA sees a policy or a goal or an objective that doesn't have a time frame it might be a problem for them. And this is a way out of it. And I certainly think that we need to be realistic. If we're not realistic and Immokalee banks on something that is going to happen in two years and it just can't happen, that is hurting more than helping. So what happens if we leave these different goals that are here and we do leave a catchall to get out of the time frame, what do you think DCA's going to say to that? Because with 27 two -year triggers, there is no way that Collier County can afford to do that in the next two years. I don't know how it could possibly happen. So do we have to prioritize in this framework and not reference goals that DCA's going to want a required action time frame from, or how do you do that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think some goals don't require a time frame because they're ongoing. They'd be ongoing. There are objectives and policies that might occur on an ongoing basis. I don't know, you know, protect natural resources, that's probably more like a goal, and then you'd have some objectives and policies. But it would be ongoing, you know. Not everything has to be accomplished within a specific time frame. If they're ongoing, there's still a funding and an operational implication. But that is one way that you might not have to have a time frame associated with it that I think the DCA will accept. The alternative -- I don't know of any other alternatives than those I've already suggested. One is take some of the objectives or policies that have a time frame out of the plan. In which case that's a way of prioritizing. Come back in the next time you amend the plan and put some more back in. Page 11 16y )6, 201(1"` I think there will be a little bit of that going on here, you know, over the next few days. And then the other one is to extend the time frame, either expressly or through some policy. Expressly would be instead of two years we go four years or five years or six years or eight years, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your suggestion that the CRA form a prioritized list on a periodic basis and get it to the BCC for consideration when they do their budget is a good way to approach it. Ijust don't want to get into crosshairs with DCA over having a policy that says there's a certain thing going to happen and then they're demanding a time frame if we can't afford it. MR. MULHERE: Well, one thing I've done is in each one of those where there's a time frame I've referred back to Policy 1.1.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's under the assumption DCA accepts Policy -- MR. MULHERE: Right. No, I understand that. And what I was thinking was it may be on some of these that we could remove the time frame entirely but just indicate that it will occur as it is prioritized on an annual basis and is expected to occur within five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's pretty much where I was going to go. It seemed to me that if you're going to employ 1.1.1, it probably should be reflective throughout the entire sets of policies there that do depend upon a two year window. Because the constraints are the constraints are the constraints. MR. MULHERE: It does. I mean, the way I wrote it, it does have a reference back to that policy. But what I'm thinking is you could even in many cases just take out the whole two year time frame and just, just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was going to suggest. In each of those policies it seems to be a contradiction then in light of 1.1.1. So take out that particular part of it that references the two year. MR. MULHERE: And then the measure, the trigger is the annual prioritization which is reviewed then as part of the EAR based process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense to me -- MR. MULHERE: For what's been accomplished or what have you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only thing I have with the EAR thing is that that's every seven years, and you've referenced five years. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, well, you're right, seven. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I don't -- unless there's a good reason to reference five in order to make sure we get the last two years in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: On that Policy 1.1.1, the last sentence that Mr. Murray was just speaking of, my initial thought is that sentence could be deleted. I mean, a function of the EAR process is to evaluate the plan -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, right. MR. WEEKS: -- and I don't know that it's necessary to specifically say we will do what we must do. MR. MULHERE: Well, the only reason I put it in there was specifically for somebody's behalf up in Tallahassee. MR. WEEKS: If we were to leave it, I would suggest we change the word shall to may. And between objectives and policies insert the word and. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, isn't the purpose of the EAR to make certain that all of those things that were said to be accomplished be accomplished, and if not, to explain why? MR. WEEKS: That's one ofreasons, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that stands on its own merit, right? MR. WEEKS: (Nodding head affirmatively.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that it's necessary to put it in there. DCA knows what the EAR is for, right? Sometimes they need to be reminded, is that the suggestion? MR. MULHERE: Well, if I'm going to have to make an argument that even though we may not meet the time frames we have an adequate measure in place, I'd like to expressly state that measure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this hurt`? MR. WEEKS: Again, 1 would suggest changing shall to may. Page 12 161 14- February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about five to seven, as Mr. Murray pointed out? MR. MULHERE: Well, let me just give you my -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You were looking for a tripping point -- MR. MULHERE: Exactly right. And what I thought was if it doesn't happen within five years, are we now -- I mean, how does that work, David? When does the EAR process commence, at seven years? MR. WEEKS: It is seven years, based upon the date that the EAR is adopted. I would suggest that we take out the time frame altogether and just simply have reference to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: EAR. MR. WEEKS: -- the EAR process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. That makes the point to DCA and that's -- MR. MULHERE: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on this? We're on Objective 1.1 and Policy 1.1.1, as stated here. policies? comments Does anybody have any comments from their document, though, in regards to those two objectives and (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what you -- so now you've moved everything down and changed the numbers and we're going to go through all new numbers throughout this entire -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I can -- I mean, it's very easy. Goal number one is now goal number two, I mean, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when we get to goal number seven, let's figure out what it's going to be. MR. MULHERE: Eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe. MR. MULHERE: Maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the sake of the Planning Commission and our document on Page 24, Policy 1.1.1 in our document, does anybody have any questions from that policy? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, I -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, there are a lot ofreferences here to entities like the Economic Development Council and the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and all of these groups that we don't really have control over. And also it could be limiting to who the CRA and the county could partner with. And I'm concerned that these are in here and I think they should come out. MR. MULHERE: Well, I've gone and taken them out in almost every circumstance. But there are some circumstances where it doesn't make sense to me to take them out. Because I know who the county has to work with to accomplish certain things. And we know who they have to work with to accomplish certain things. So I've taken them out. You're going to see that almost every instance where it previously said in coordination with or in cooperation with, I've taken them out or restructured those sentences to not obligate the county to work with those people. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good thing. MR. MULHERE: However, this example here, the commercial and trade hub in all of these overlying designations within Immokalee really require that the CRA and the EDC work together to -- and they're doing it right now, to pursue all of the grant and funding opportunities and other opportunities that exist through these, these organizations. Now the CRA is directly -- answers directly to the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the CRA board, so the county does have control over them. And as tar as the EDC goes, well, I mean, they receive a significant amount o£ funding from the county, and I think the county has some influence over what their work plan is. I mean, excuse me, the EDC. I'm sorry, I think I said CRA but I meant the EDC. So I guess arguably -- now, I see the Chamber -- I mean, as I said, there are circumstances where I left this in because I thought it made sense, and this is one of those circumstances. I certainly — you know, I've taken it out in almost every other example. As we go through, you'll be able to see that I did remove those references elsewhere. You know, I guess -- Page 13 161 1P February 16, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just not so sure it shouldn't say something more general like economic development agencies or --I just don't want to be limiting inhere in any respect. Because for example, if tomorrow Mr. Strain comes forward and has started a new company that's an economic development agency and has five clients he thinks might be perfect for Immokalee, why does he necessarily have to work with the EDC -- MR. MULHERE: Well, because right now -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in order to accomplish that'? MR. MULHERE: He doesn't have to, but right -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, so -- MR. MULHERE: — now the EDC is the conduit that receives the state assistance and funding. It is the designated economic development entity in Collier County. And then the CRA I think has certain legal obligations as it relates -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it went through the CRA, not -- MR. MULHERE: Both, both. Both, EDC and the CRA. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the funneling comes down -- MR. MULHERE: You talking about money'? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- through the CRA. Yeah. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't want to try to put on the record something that I'm not an expert on, so I'm going to defer -- maybe we can get that question answered. The way I understand it, certain funding for economic development and diversification for new businesses is achieved through the Economic Development Council, from the state, from OTTED and from other organizations at the state Office of Trade, Tourism and Economic Development. The CRA is named as the agency that is also responsible for working directly with some of these other agencies and entities. So I believe it's both organizations. But I do understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to be argumentative, that's not really my objective here. So perhaps we could say something more general, Collier County will work with the CRA, the EDC and any other agencies that may -- you know, organizations or entities that may facilitate economic development and employment, something along -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or economic development entities -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if you need that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So I think we could accomplish that. And then probably take those bullets out as a result. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the County Attorney's Office, when we reference something inhere that says work with, what does that connotate in regards to responsibility`? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't even know why it's in the Comp. Plan, for the life of me. But I'm going to have that comment about a lot of this stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you need to voice -- MR. KLATZKOW: I fully agree with what Commissioner Caron has been saying about this. I mean, I don't know why you would put in the Comp. Plan that Collier County will work with a particular entity or agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, throughout this document we have references, there's 17 of them, to different agencies that Collier County is more or less obligating itself to in some manner that you and I -- 1 had mentioned it to you, and it's just that we need to figure out what that manner is, what work with means. And if it's better not in here and you can still accomplish the goal without that reference, I'm wondering why we would even need it to complicate things further. Once it's in the GMP, it's as solid as it can get in Collier County. Although we know that's not very solid anymore. It's still as close as you can get, so -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, 1 can only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if they didn't fund EDC this past time, and all of a sudden you got to work with them, though, in order to get something done or they're gone. Page 14 16I February 16, 2010 MR. KLATZKOW: The more specifics you put in the plan, more problems you're going to have later, because this is a hard plan to change. MR. MULHERE: No, I understand -- MR. KLATZKOW: Ordinances are hard to change to begin with. The Land Development Code is hard to change. This is an impossible document to change overnight. I mean, I would -- MR. MULHERE: I'm glad to hear that, because I always used to get the opposite when I was here. It had to be more specific. I'm glad to hear now that we're going the other way and it's going to be more general. This community wanted it to be very specific. MR. KLATZKOW: You never got specific from me. MR. MULHERE: No, I know. I understand that. I think we can revise that to -- as Commissioner Caron said, to be more general. But I guess my concern is I'm wondering what's even the purpose of the whole policy at that point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe there's not. MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm wondering, you know, that's what I'm thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the policy might be to simply acknowledge and promote the continuation of some of the zones you're referencing, which is another question. You have a foreign trade zone, a CRA, an enterprise zone, a federal enterprise community, a hub zone, a rural area of critical economic concern designation, and they all have various goals and objectives. I have read all of those documents, and some are rather extensive, with the exception of two that I need you to get to me. One is called the Federal Enterprise Community and the other is the Hub Zone. Now, maybe those are wrapped up in some of the others and I read it and didn't know it. But I've read all the rest, and they're pretty involved and they're all good for Immokalee, nothing really bad there. So maybe wejust need to acknowledge all the zones through this commercial and trade hub policy and not get into how we're going to handle it as specifically working with other groups. Because that's a flow that goes through this entire CMP amendment. MR. MULHERE: So you would say maybe Collier County would work to further the benefits that can be derived from these designations, from these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then an LDC implementation language that comes out of that would then describe how those benefits get furthered. And that might be a better approach to it rather than -- you could even say in the LDC then you come back and then you reference some specifics instead of putting them in the GMP. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't even know if at that point -- for this we probably wouldn't need it in the LDC. But I can appreciate what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on this policy, whether it's one or 2.1.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the old policy, and I see you've kept it in the new, the last two bullets are assist the CRA and the EDC, assist the CRA in pursuing grants. What, again, obligation does that have on Collier County in regards to how it's done? By assist, what does that mean? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we may be taking the whole thing out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that part of what you were thinking of taking out? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then, fine. Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about this thought, though. How about throwing it on its head. The EDC and the CRA shall assist Collier County. MR. MULHERE: I would see the problem there is we can't -- we definitely can't obligate them to do that. We can obligate the county to do something, we can't obligate those agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? I'm ignorant of that. MR. MULHERE: Because the county doesn't really have any control over private -- the Chamber, anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just made your best argument as to why they shouldn't be there. MR. MULHERE: No, there's a difference, there's a difference. The county can agree to work with people but Page 15 16! 1�3 February 16, 2010 I don't think that 1 can in the Comp. Plan say that the Chamber will work with the county. I mean, there've two different things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can't, but then why have it in there? MR. MULHERE: I thought we already got to that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think this is a good vetting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to Policy 1.1.2, Florida Trade Port in Immokalee Regional Airport. Any questions on that policy? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: Here's an example where I did take it out, all those references, andjust said Collier County will promote economic development opportunities. If you look on the screen there, you'll see that I've struck through the in cooperation with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was -- MR. MULHERE: I put a sentence at the end, and maybe that doesn't belong there either. It says anticipate that Collier County will work in cooperation -- slow down? I put a sentence at the end that probably -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Take it out. MR. MULHERE: -- yeah, doesn't need to be there, I guess, based on the conversation we've had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you make your point without it, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's fine. That occurs in a few places, so we'll just delete it where it occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on that policy? (No response.) CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one is Policy 1.1.3. Now, this is a mitigation bank policy. It's changed extensively. We have a rewrite, and some of that was done by the LAC, and I think, Bob, others might have been done by you, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I can go over that if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll probably -- I certainly will ask our questions today. But we may have a lot more when we get time to read it in detail, so -- MR. MULHERE: So just to sort of let you know what the LAC motion was and how this changed, the yellow highlights the first LAC comments and motion, and then we went back to the LAC and the gray, they made some refinements. And the blue is just me taking out those references as we've discussed. So what it says is within two years of the effective date of this policy, Collier County will explore the feasibility of utilizing privately owned undeveloped parcels with significant wetland upland or listed species habitat value as a listed species habitat conservation bank or wetland mitigation bank to compensate for wetland or listed species impacts associated with development in the Immokalee urban area. Now, we think this is a good thing, or could be a good thing, because it might allow, facilitate quicker and more and better development in the already impacted urban areas and protection on the outlying areas or other areas where there is some natural resource value within the urban area of other lands that could be targeted for mitigation or acquisition. So it also requires, and here's a -- there is an impact, it requires the county to develop a map depicting the preferred lands to be targeted for mitigation or acquisition, and that incentives will be included in the LDC to direct mitigation or acquisition to these targeted lands and to direct development away from such lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob and then Paul. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have a desire to keep the within the two years in there? There may very well be a reason to do that, if you're trying to accelerate a process, and is it reasonable to do so? MR. MULHERE: Well, there's a couple ofthings. Part of our contract is to write these LDC amendments or as many LDC amendments as we can write, you know, that evolve out of this process. And I think that we can accomplish that, we will accomplish that within the two year period. And the funding has already been, you know, there's funding already in place for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what the key element is, that staff are able in fact to achieve that. MR. MULHERE: Now -- Page 16 161 1m February 16, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because you're encumbering the county again here. MR. MULHERE: Right. I can't speak -- well, there's an impact on the county associated with reviewing those land code amendments and also helping to develop this map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's staff time or costs associated? As long as there's capital involved, there's money involved, that's what the important part is. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So two years should stay in there. MR. MULHERE: I think in this case -- well, I mean, I guess we have a fundamental decision here still whether we're going to go with Policy 1.1.1 and leave the two year time frame in place or we're going to change those time frames. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if timing is a predicate for moving things, then it probably is applicable here. But we've had this other conversation, so it makes it challenging. It may be an exception here because the way I read this is it looks like it's the precursor to the rest of development, potentially. MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? MR. MULHERE: No, it's -- you can still develop -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then maybe it doesn't belong. MR. MULHERE: You can still develop out there without a mitigation bank or a targeted acquisition area. But, you know, it would be helpful if you didn't want to preserve a small parcel of native vegetation, you know, as an example, in the urban area, and you could mitigate by acquiring that elsewhere, where it was more appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, I looked at this phrase, this is -- as a -- I hate to use the word holistic, but the totality. And I used that and that was the way I thought of it, as a precursor, if you will, that you want to make sure you had that in place so that you could go ahead with whatever development you want to go ahead with wherever you want to go. MR. MULHERE: That would be the effect. I agree, that would be a beneficial effect of it, yes, if it happened. But it's not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that's not what you contemplated. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure I'm understanding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that was my view of what this phrase intended. And you indicated that no, you could go ahead with development anyway, and so -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you can. I'm not -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm still hinging on the two year issue, that's my real -- MR. MULHERE: The purpose of this would be to make it twofold. One, to protect existing areas that have either listed species or significant wetlands, and two, to facilitate development elsewhere by directing acquisition or mitigation to those areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. So if you accelerated this process, the mitigation bank, you achieve opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise achieve because you'd be going in leapfrog. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what 1 thought was intended. So maybe two years belongs in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, this is a good example of where when the plan first came out I didn't like this part at all. And the way you fixed it, I think it's a vast improvement_ I think it's something very positive. So I congratulate you on this. I think the two years is appropriate, because this is an important thing that 1 think it should be an important goal of the county, if it's financially feasible for us to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In regards to this policy, if Carolina, could you put this -- pass this down to her, put it on the overhead for me. I am not sure the language on the policy until I get time to sit down and quietly read it along with all the other policies. So I'm not going to be critical of the new language. But I want you to be aware of something I think needs to be considered in all of Immokalee's approach to its environmentally sensitive areas. And if you -- okay, that's just about good enough. If you look on the bottom right -hand side. And by the way, Page 17 161 13 February 16, 2010 this committee knows from the review of the RLSA, that there was a Memorandum of Understanding created between the landowners in the Eastern Lands and some environmental groups in that area who are looking at the area. In that Memorandum of Understanding, they are required to have a study done by I believe six scientists chosen -- selectively chosen, independent of them, to study the impacts on the panther in the area. The scientists came back with their technical review in October of last year. There are about 100 pages in that document, and they're -- by the way, they're extremely interesting for this Planning Commission to read before we ever review the RLSA again. But in the back -up of the appendices are a series of maps. This is one of them. And there's actually three of them pertaining to Immokalee, and I have more. But if you notice in Immokalee, they're showing a crosshatched area up in the far eastern side, right there. And if you look on the bottom, that's a recommendation from the panther resource team or research team to be included because it's primary, in their mind, primary panther habitat. Now, all the documents we've received on this Immokalee Area Master Plan has not addressed that area as sensitive in regards in the way they have the other green area that goes to the Lake Trafford slough. So I'd like to suggest that you look at this to consider how it could be addressed in re -- with all the other mitigation and environmentally sensitive issues that you've been now trying to introduce in this Immokalee Area Master Plan. MR. MULHERE: Well, it seems to me that that would be a perfect area for this policy to apply to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it wouldn't, I haven't read the policy because you just passed it out, but -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. We are totally unaware of this because again, just so everybody understands, we didn't collect new data, we used the best available data. I have no access to this information leading up to this point in time. I know you mentioned it to me. But this is I guess done by a private group attempting to, you know, influence habitat protection as it relates to the panther. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's their -- and remember all the stewardship credit debate going on and the group came back and had a lot of input in regards to the 45,000 acres being developed and all that, well this is all part of that analysis. MR. MULHERE: So we have a piece that is considered priority panther habitat in the urban area, presumably mostly undeveloped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have panther telemetry as well as other points. There are some development there but they're mostly -- you see where the white line starts as far as -- that's at the edge of Farm Workers Village, from what I understand. MR. MULHERE: So that night night be an area that could be targeted for mitigation and acquisition as part of this policy. And it makes sense to me that it would be. And that would be one of the areas when you did your research to do your mapping that you would be sort of focused on. CHA RMAN STRAIN: My suggestion is to look at it. And Paul, you want to make a continent? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That area that you're pointing at, it looks like it's pointing right at the Immokalee Airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's the one up from that. MR. MULHERE: That's north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, there's a series of maps in this document and they all show that area, a little bit tighter than some of this. But I can get you the document. Or I know i forwarded it to staff, multiple staff members. If one way or another you can get ahold of the document then we'll see that you get it. MR. MULHERE: But I just want to be clear, it wouldn't really be our intent to provide any greater environmental regulations over a piece of property through this process now than already exists other than the Lake Trafford overlay, which already was adopted into the conservation and coastal management element. Because part of our marching orders was not to take away people's private property rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just — I think, though, if you've got -- if you're addressing mitigation and Page 18 16 I 1 -ft� February 16, 2010 sensitive environmental areas, this area, you may want to consider this. MR. MULHERE: I agree. I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David? MR. WEEKS: I'd just make a further objection then, as we're discussing this particular rectangle of property, that the Future Land Use Map that is proposed as part of this petition does increase allowable development density and intensity for a portion of that area. And I think it would be appropriate to consider that once we get to the Future Land Use Map discussion. Because if on the one hand we're identifying this potentially as an area to protect, it would seem that we're at odds to at the same time be increasing the allowable density and intensity of land use in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the six scientists that did this study -- and I'm not sure what weight they have on the environmental agencies, Fish & Wildlife and the rest of them, but if they do have, and if that study is going to be relative to future permitting and planning in that area, then Immokalee should be looking at this now and try to understand what it means for them, and, you know, so that was my point of bringing it forward today, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us through past policy -- well, let's see, Policy 1.1.3, the bulk of the discussion on that, Bob, other than what you've heard from us today, will probably come when we get time to reread the intensity of the rewrite that you provided here today. So with that, we'll move on to Objective 1.2. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You need to change the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, can you switch the screen back over to Bob's? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 1.2. Does anybody have any comments on that? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, I think, you know, the expedited review is pretty obvious, you're going to try to clear the path for getting permits in this area, correct? The second policy, the 1.2.2, the -- what is a pre - certified lot? Wouldn't that essentially be a conventionally zoned lot? What do you -- MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. I did have an e -mail to Penny, I didn't get a reply yet, and to Tammie Nemecek with the EDC to try to determine what the status of the existing pre- certified sites program is. That question came up. And I will get an answer to that, whether it is a functioning program or not, today. My understanding was that there was a pre - certified sites program, which is why we've said it needs to be revisited and approved. It doesn't necessarily have to be -- straight zoned, I think was the term you used? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, conventionally zoned. In other words -- MR. MULHERE: C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a typical industrial, you have rights, you have setbacks, you have all the development. MR. MULHERE: Well, that could be true. When I think of conventional zoning, I think the opposite of conventional zoning is a PUD. And you could certainly do the same thing within a PUD. I could have a PUD and have a platted piece of property into industrial parcels and come in and do some prototypical development scenarios, 20,000 square foot building, calculate the stormwater management, provide a landscape plan, and working with the county, then have a site plan A, site plan B, site plan C. And if that fits into somebody's needs who might be thinking of coming there, then there would be an expedited process because you would have a pre - certified site program. That, as I understand it, is how it would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's not that the county would go in and pre- certify sites -- MR. MULHERE: I mean, it could go that way. But -- and I think sort of it will go that way if you got people saying I want to pre - certify my parcels here. You might have four or five or 10 or 20 pre - certified sites, yes. I mean, I think it works both ways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not sure. Then it really is, it's a PUD at that point. In other words, a private individual would come to the county and say I have a parcel of land, here's what development rights I would like to pre - certify? Page 19 161 1.0 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, I don't know that it has to be a PUD. I mean, you could have an industrial subdivision with parcels that have been platted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The conventionally zoned -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, conventionally zoned. You meet the setbacks, you pre -certify a couple different development patterns. You do a landscape plan. Everything gets expedited because everything's already been pre - reviewed. And if you follow that prescribed course of action, then you are able to go through the process faster. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Essentially you would -- is that trying to skip the SDP process, that you could take a conventionally zoned piece of property and -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think skip -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- honoring the rights to it you could build what's there without getting an approval? MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think the intent was to skip it but the intent was to expedite it, make it much faster. Because I think you still need a record, you know, you still need a public record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question I still have is who's doing it, I guess. You know, the impression here, since it's in the GMP that the county will actually go ahead and do that, as opposed to the way we would have it now, a private individual landowner would have to do that. MR. MULHERE: Well, it works both ways. And what will happen is that there would be probably a group set up of county staff, certain reviewers and so on, so forth. And bring in some landowners who want to pre- certify their sites. And you then develop these prototypical site plans. And then, you know, there has to be a process written. And this is why I'm asking the question. I don't know the answer to what degree it exists today. I don't think it's been used very extensively. It was written as though it existed, but to my knowledge it really doesn't -- it's not functional if it does exist. So I'm not sure if it's improve it or actually, you know, develop it. And I'll get an answer to that question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does it have a public hearing process, do you think? MR. MULHERE: No. These would be zoned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially you would go to the proposed land use map right away without going through the hearing process. MR. MULHERE: No, you'd go to either the CRA or the EDC and say I'm interested in bringing my business to Immokalee. They would say okay, we have some pre-certified sites, will that meet your needs. Yes, those will meet my needs. Boom, you're in the process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand the reason for it, and I think conventionally zoned land should give you that. But the problem I'm having is linking it between the process we have now where you would rezone property, you would certainly use the future land use map as your strength in that process. But you're saying this map could become a conventionally zoned sites map. MR. MULHERE: No, I wasn't even -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- by pre - certifying sites. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, l wasn't even -- I don't know that you even need a map. You just need to know where they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you'd show them on the map. So, I mean, we're silly here. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We kind of got ahead of ourselves. We're actually talking about Objective 1.2 paragraph on Page 24. And we'll probably get to 1.2.2 in a few minutes. What I'd like to do, though, is 1 inissed any public speakers. And Nicole, I think you wanted to speak on that previous policy? Go right ahead. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just had a couple of comments on the new Policy 2. L3 about the mitigation banks. And Conservancy did share Comm ssioner Midney's concern about the reference to Pepper Ranch and other public lands for mitigation banking purposes for the public and public private partnerships. We had worked with the EAC, with Bob, with Penny to come up with language that really better captured what we believe Immokalee wanted to do in this policy, and that is identify parcels that could be mapped and that Page 20 Ue ,. Jry 16, 110 �( 3 would be readily available for mitigation purposes when a project comes in, needs to purchase land, needs to mitigate somehow. It just really streamlines that process. So we believe that the language now does that. Certainly like the idea of targeting both that eastern portion of the Immokalee urban area where you have primary panther habitat and looking at the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais flowway area. And also smaller parcels within the urban core area and some on the fringes where you have the scrub jay habitat. Because oftentimes the federal permitting process will not be triggered unless you have wetland impacts, and that leaves a lot of those upland species vulnerable. So we like this idea. We support the two year time frame. And The Conservancy was concerned with all of the two year time frames contained in this document. We certainly felt the impact of the watershed management planning process, which we pushed at the last EAR. They are working on it but they aren't completed yet. So we understand that the time frames really need to be thoroughly considered and thought out. But this one, all the data, all the information is already out there. So we can -- and The Conservancy certainly offers our assistance for doing the mapping, sharing that information with Collier County, with the CRA so that we can have the maps that really overlay those most important of habitats and come up with some kind of mitigation map. Not regulatory but informational and hopefully helpful. So please keep the two year time frame in there. It's certainly a doable goal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Bob, by the way, as a side note to the time frames, if you're intending to try to leave a time frame in there, I think then it becomes more relevant to have a fiscal analysis for it. I notice that we have a whole listing of time frames but no fiscal impact dollar wise. So if this is one of the ones out of all of them that you think are necessary to stay, somebody needs to plug some numbers into it so we know what we're talking about for impact to the taxpayers over a two year time frame. So that's just a side note. And we left off on Objective 1.2. And I'd have one comment on that and then we'll move into the rest of it. Your second line starts with the word economy. It says economy and increase employment opportunities and thus improve the quality of life for Irnmokalee residents. That's a conclusion. I'd rather say, comma, to improve the quality of life. No, keep going. The one on top. MR. MULHERE: Go up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go up. Right there_ See the second line where it says and thus improve? That's a conclusion I'm not sure you necessarily can draw. I'd rather say to improve, if there's no problem with that. Now -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'd like to take out the word positive. I'm not sure that we spend our time creating a climate that's not positive for business. I mean, that's never been our goal. I would say that the growth over the past few years would belie that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's just another adjective that is -- you know, we get into a lot of adjectives in our documents that really are -- MR. MULHERE: Take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we shouldn't have, it should be more factually based. Okay, now we lefl off on Objective 1.2. We'll move into Policy 1.2.1 when we get back from break after our public speakers. So let's take a break until 10:00 and then we'll go into anymore questions through 1.2 and then public speakers. MR. MULHERE: Okay. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. And we had finished up discussing through Page 24 and Objective 1.2. We had a time certain for 10:00, and that is an opportunity to hear from members of the public. Which we -- by the way, you're more than welcome to stay and discuss things as we go through this whole process, but that could Page 21 161 1�3 February 16, 2010 take days, and so we have a time certain at 10:00. Before you speak, I'd like to ask that you do not do what Bob Muthere has done, and that's talk too fast or talk over people, because there's things worse than the LRS, and that is a court reporter who is mad at you. So hopefully Bob will be a little bit tempered when he comes up here next time. So now let's move into our public discussion, and we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but there is no strict rule. This isn't -- we're not going to pull you off stage. If you've got a lot of things to say we need to hear it. And this is an important amendment for Immokalee, and we're going to be spending two, three, four days at it. So the more input you provide to us, the better job we hope we can do. And we'll start with Penny. MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay, good morning, my name is Penny Phillippi, I'm the executive director of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency. And I wanted first just to talk about some very broad historical background with this master plan. And not to give you a detailed history, but to give you a feeling for the spirit of the document. As you know, this community has been meeting off and on for six solid years to try to hit on every single aspect of the things they want to see happen in their community. And of course there were time frames attached to that. And the specific reason for the time frame was to hopefully encourage the county to implement some of these things that they've been trying to get done for so very long. So when we talk about realistic time frames, we've moved into a different economic environment than has historically happened in this particular county. So yes, perhaps some of those timelines need to be moved. But we need timelines so that there's at least hope that down the road these things that we want to happen will actually happen. And the second thing I want to talk about are priorities. This community is very, very clear about the priorities. They're very clear that economic document development is the number one priority. Job creations and whatever partnerships are required to make that happen, be it public or private. The second thing they're very, very clear about is infrastructure. They don't want the streets to flood every tune it rains. Understand that 90 percent of the streets in Immokalce are privately owned. Those cannot be conveyed to the county until they're brought up to current development standards. Those -- we have to get the water off the streets, we have to get those streets finished so that they can be maintained for the -- in the future. Another huge issue is safety. This commmunity is pedestrian and bicycle traffic. That's what's there. I mean, you can stop at any park on a Saturday and Sunday and see hundreds of bikes lined up from people riding their bike to the park to participate in soccer matches or whatever. And we have -- we had 16 injuries on bicycles and three tatalities, bicycle and pedestrian. So it's extremely important that we have some bike paths, that we have sidewalks, that we have a safe place to push our baby strollers down the street. This community is very clear about that. So when you think about starting to build the community, we have a lot of low income housing, we have a lot of affordable housing. So if you begin to build your personal wealth, where do you go next? There's no middle income housing, no market rate housing for you to build up to. So you build a room onto your house or something like that. So housing is another huge issue. And we talk about crime and safety, we're talking about CPTED kinds of activities that will put bright lights on streets that are high crime areas. Those are the kinds of things that are extremely important to this community. And this is a work -a -day, paid by the hour community. If you miss a day to come and sit at the Planning Commission, you're out of luck. You're not going to be able to pay your rent. So I don't really -- it would be my fervent desire that this community not be criticized because they couldn't give up a day's pay to come over here and chat. I think that's very important to state as well, if you don't see huge crowds coining to Naples today. So on and on we go. The other issue that I wanted to talk about in the economic development piece, I do like the idea of keeping it general, that there will be -- we'll work with economic development conduits or economic development agencies. But you need also to understand that under -- we've learned through our County Attorney's Office, the CRA is not considered an economic development agency by the State of Florida. So if a business comes to us and wants us to sign a non- disclosure agreement, we can't. We operate in the sunshine. We are part of local government. Page 22 161 110 February 16, 2010 So we really need those agencies like the economic development council who can sign those agreements and work with our new businesses. And with FHREDI, the Florida's Heartland Economic Development Initiative that covers the central Florida region, which we are part of, who apply for grants for all of the region, who bring businesses to our region. So it's vitally important that we are able to work through those agencies, because we can't do those things as a CRA, or as a local government for that matter. So I guess I've rambled on for at least five minutes. But I do want you to know also that we deeply appreciate the fact that you're going step by step by step to make this a true and honest statement. And if with your permission as we go through it, I may pop up at intervals and give you the different perspective that comes from within the community to you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think there's going to be some questions. By the way, as far as popping up, we would really like you to do that. MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust wanted to ask you to repeat what you said about private streets in Immokalee. MS. PHILLIPPI: Ninety percent of the streets in Immokalee are privately owned streets. In other words, they do not belong to the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I can't imagine anybody on this commission being negative because people couldn't come here today to speak. We went out there for a workshop because we understood that. So please be assured that there's no negativity here. MS. PHILLIPPI: I appreciate that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Penny, priorities. I kind of wanted to talk a minute about your comment about priorities. I understand where your general concerns were: Economics, infrastructure, safety, CPTED and things like that. And that's exactly fine. Those are great general things I think that we're all looking for as goals. But when I heard the discussion about priorities, my interpretation of that was on a yearly or every two years, however often it's determined, the CRA, through community input, would come back with a laundry list of issues that were most important that year to try to get done in order. For example, you're going to have a piece of the budget of Parks and Rec, a piece of the budget of Transportation, a piece of the budget of pathways. So pathways can come out to hnmokalee and put a pathway in, over in the, say, the Lake Trafford Slough or somewhere like that where it's not supposed to be. But for you the priority may be to have that piece of the budget spent along a section of Main Street or something. Those are the kind of priorities I think we're talking about the CRA putting in a numeric order as the most important, not the general things. I think everybody is acknowledging that those are good priorities, and should be. So MS. PHILLIPPL And I do appreciate that. And I will tell you that that's a wonderful vehicle when we put that vehicle in place, to be able to say, all right, you get a piece of this budget, a piece of this budget. Currently what we do is the CRA approaches that department and says if we kick in half will you kick in half. And it becomes a partnership within local government, which is kind of a strange thing to do. But our stormwater master plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. It's been laying around for five years. Now we've applied for grants through our Housing and Human Services Department to the tune of almost four million and we're going to complete phase one and start the first retention pond to get water out. So when this vehicle gets in place, which I hope will happen soon, then that would only be able -- that would enable us to augment what we're already doing in those priority lists, because they're long. It's a long list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was what I was hoping some of the goals that we'll get through here as this plan is finished is that you will be able to prioritize and have some kind of reliance on the fact that some of your priorities, after it goes through the budget process, will be then met. Page 23 161 IAA February 16, 2010 We certainly -- it benefited no one, as just as the watershed management plan was put up as an example, you just mentioned another one, a five year plan that never happened, or a time frame in drainage that took so long. It does no one (sic) to have a false goal that we never reach, because then too many people bank on it and all of a sudden you find out it never happened. So I think realistically we're trying to get something that's more bulletproof for you to work with. MS. PHILLIPPI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there -- anybody else that would like to speak from members of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can sit here and listen to us as we go through policies and I'll always try to ask every few policies if there's any comments, or you're more than welcome to have any general comments right now if anybody so chooses. Okay. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Yes, for the record, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. We're a major landowner in Collier County but also in Immokalee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I'll probably provide more specific comments on a policy by policy basis. But I did want to share with you a couple of perspectives. One, I am here because I do care about Immokalee and I think the level of effort and input that this community has put into what's been presented is significant. I heard some of the questions about the priorities. One of the things that I think you're probably hearing is that the community does have priorities, and they recognize that within the constraints of the county process Inmtokalee is different than coastal Collier County. And we do need to have some flexibility that may or may not be appropriate in other locations but is appropriate in Immokalee. And I think that the work that the team and Penny has done have been a very well done job at identifying that appropriate balance between flexibility and standards that meet the requirements of 1.6.3. So I appreciate your review of this. 1 do encourage you to recognize that hmnokalee is working very hard on their own behalf and would appreciate your support to help them move forward. Just one quick example of that. Our company has put in two and a half million dollars of investment in our agricultural facilities over the last two years. None of that has been in Immokalee or Collier County. The reason for that is because we have to meet timelines to get things done, and we cannot meet those timelines in Collier County or Immokalee. So that investment has taken place in adjacent Hendry County and in Desoto County, where this was our first target to do those projects. So I wish that you would recognize that some of the encumbrances that occur within Collier County are discouraging those types of investments. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you please expand on the timeline issues that you just related -- MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Absolutely. We are doing housing for our own harvesting workers. And in order for us to build that, we have to have that project on line and ready to go at the beginning of harvesting. And because of the government's change over to an H2A program, it required us to move very quickly. We essentially identified a site, got all the permits and constructed the project in the other two counties in nine months or less. You cannot do that in Collier County. And so that was an issue. We looked at it, we looked at the rezonings, the landscaping requirements, the architectural requirements, and those would have been timeline prohibitive and cost prohibitive to meet that standard for that housing in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you could bring additional jobs and economic activity if you were able to move a little faster and get in place what you need to work; is that what you're saying? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: We are committed to agriculture, and we continue to invest in our agricultural operations. We look for ways to do that smarter, more efficiently, and to bring the right kinds of jobs. And so yes, we would be in a position where we continue to invest. Page 24 161 1 February 16, 2010 Right now we're not in a position to be able to do that in Collier County because of the obstructions that prevent us from meeting it in a timely matter. That's not to say we wouldn't ever get there. But for us agriculture is a very thin margin, and so we need to make sure that we are spending our dollars in the most wise and prudent way possible. And if we can get a bigger bang for our buck in another community, we have to go there, we don't have another choice. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you were talking about farmworker housing; is that correct? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: This is through the Federal H2A program, so yes, it's housing for our workers that do our harvesting projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: But, you know -- and with all due respect, I think it's important to recognize that if we don't have that component then we don't harvest. If we don't invest, we don't invest. If don't invest, we leave the community. It is a critical component. And I would encourage you to look at the projects that we've done, because not only do I think that they are significant, they probably exceed the quality of housing of 50 to 75 percent of what's in Immokalee. So it was remarkably well done. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question then for staff. How is it we're able to put roadblocks up on federal standards for housing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hand grenade. MR. WEEKS: Well, the nature of the question suggests that the county has deliberately taken action to put up roadblocks- - COMMISSIONER CARON: Which I'd like to correct. MR. WEEKS: And I don't know that that's true. But the county, of course -- Collier County does have regulations in place. We have staff constraints. We have requirements that we keep getting told that some other communities in the heart of the state do not have. And you've heard Fred Thomas speak more than once, I'm sure, about how quickly in some other counties they can get through a rezoning process, site plan approval, et cetera. I don't know the details of those communities. I would assume that they have far less standards than Collier County has. Not just architectural, but landscaping, even parking. We require a lot in Collier County. And at least for the coastal area, I think that accurately reflects what the community wants. For Immokalee, we're being told that that's not the case. That's not what they want, at least to the extent that it is in the coastal area. And of course the more process you have, the more requirements you have, the more costly it is, and the more time it takes to get through the process. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And before I leave, Ijust want to clarify that that was not intended to be a criticism of staff. I think staff is implementing the regulations as they exist. And I think that the conclusion was appropriate. For us in particular, parking requirements, landscaping requirements, architectural requirements and the timeline to administer those standards were the prohibitive elements for us. And I'm not here to say that's inappropriate for other places. But I think that in Immokalee, Immokalee is coming forward with standards that they say we believe as a community these are appropriate and we look for you to expedite it. If we meet these standards, expedite it. And that's what the community is looking for. So with that, again, I would compliment the hard work that's been done and ask you to took favorably upon these recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final question, I hope_ Immokalee and your ranch, if all of these changes that were recommended were adopted, would you be able to go forward or are you outside of Immokalee in your investment? MR. HUTCHCRAFT: We have property that is inside the Immokalee area. And that was actually one of the first sites that we identified for this project. And that project -- if these changes had been implemented, that project would be on that property. Page 25 16 1 1A3 February 16, 2010 We have already made that investment, so it's not likely to be duplicated again. But it would be on that property right now if the approvals had been done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody else from the public that would like to speak at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go on with the review of the policies -- oh, one more person. MS. BROWN: Good morning. I'm Pam Brown. I'm a lifelong resident of Immokalee. I'm also a fire commissioner over there right now. We have been working on the Immokalee Master Plan for six years now. And we are not coastal Collier County and we would really like to see these plans go forward. There's been a lot of hard work for a lot of people in Immokalee, and I think that now is our time to progress. I appreciate the work that you all have done over here in your area, but we are so unique in hmnokalee we have a lot of farming that goes on there, citrus, and we're more of a working class community. I apologize for not more people being here today. But in the future, if you could please have this meeting in Immokalee, we are a working community and we cannot afford to leave our jobs and come over here for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BROWN: Is there anybody that would like to ask any questions of me? We do have land over there, my family. We have 170 acres. It's very hard to bring people over into Immokalee to invest in our town when it's so expensive to try to do anything there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob, we'll go on where we left off. And that was on Policy 1.2.1. It's the expedited review policy on the top of Page 25. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that paragraph, I guess if you count lines, it's third line up where it says review program for projects deemed to provide a positive. Who deems it? What is contemplated here? Unless you've changed it and I don't see it. MR. MULHERE: No, I did not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand deemed. I appreciate that someone has to do that. But I just wondered if we wanted to -- who are the parties? MR. MULHERE: What I did was I added a sentence to the end of this policy which says during this period criteria will be developed to be used as a guide for determining what will qualify a project for this expedited review program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't -- MR. MULHERE: Are you looking on the screen? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to see what you're talking about on the screen, yeah, because I'm not going to try to read the other thing, that's impossible. MR. MULHERE: It's highlighted now. 1 think it's intuitive, based on all of the other policies, as to what would qualify. If it's going to bring in new jobs and economic development and diversity, it's going to qualify. But I think, you know, it's well taken that we need to write something specific so there's no question as to who qualifies for tlus expedited review program. We'll do that through subsequent action. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's important, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? We're on 1.2.1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay, 1.2.1, anybody have any other questions on 1.2.1? Paul? Page 26 161 J16, 10 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a question about the word targeted industries. I think at this point in hnmokalee any industry, why exclude any? I think if the gambling industry, which is not one of my favorite industries, but it has a positive economic impact, and I wonder why you put targeted in there. MR. MULHERE: Because the county has an adopted list of targeted industries that include high tech, clean tech, biomedical, medical, manufacturing, distribution. And I may be missing one or two. I'm trying to speak very slowly. I took a couple of quaaludes, you know, at the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might get through these days after all. MR. MULHERE: Where was I? Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quaaludes. MR. MULHERE: I understand your point, and I tend to agree that let's not restrict it, because if it's good for the community from an economic development diversification perspective. I guess maybe one example, if we could use a real example, I read in the paper that there was somebody interested in bringing a brewery out to Immokalee that would create seven or 800 jobs potentially over some period of time. I don't know if those are high paying jobs, I don't know any of the details, but maybe have half of them are, in which case we should try to work with those folks. So I do appreciate that. And maybe what we could do is define the term targeted industries differently or better or in some way different than what we have today. It's kind of restrictive today. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I wouldn't want to exclude breweries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, that is defined, by the way, already in this document what you -- so if Paul wanted an answer to that, maybe we ought to take a look and discuss what's been defined. It's on Page 22, second paragraph. It talks about the Collier County economy, which is currently highly dependent on three industries. The three targeted industry clusters are: Health and life science, computer software and services, and distribution. So those are the three targeted industries. I'm not sure, and one of my questions was similar to Paul's, what is the targeted reference here? If it's those three, then that doesn't give us enough -- broad enough level as maybe Paul's looking for. MR. MULHERE: Right, and I agree. I think -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about targeted and other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: flow about targeted and other industries? I don't know, just to get over the hump on this. MR. MULHERE: I would say if we tied it to employment generating orjob creating. So, I mean, I think I could come up with something. I could leave targeted and then add some language there that would broaden that a little bit, I think I could do that. I'm not sure 1'd want to do it on the fly here, but I think I could do that if that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think though, it doesn't say that you're limited, it says specifically including. It doesn't say it's excluding anything else. So maybe it's covered by the fact you're just providing examples. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other item I'd like to mention on that one is can you tell me what project would not be deemed to provide a positive economic impact to the Immokalee economy? And if it didn't, why would anybody build it? And if it didn't, who would make that decision that it didn't versus the owners who might think it did? So deemed to provide becomes a problem. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that it depends on how you define it, which is the last sentence. Because I guess an argument could be made that any project has a positive economic benefit. Though that doesn't mean that that project should qualify for this expedited review. I mean, I guess the question is should a fast food -- maybe as an example, should a fast food or a grocery store qualify? And I don't think that was our intent. I mean, there are operational and fiscal impacts associated with this fast track program. We want to limit it to those economic development opportunities that will create high paying new employment opportunities and/or maybe are related to housing, because as Penny indicated, housing is a very important priority. Page 27 161 1,p February 16, 2010 So I guess from my perspective we need to create some very clear definition as to what would qualify, and that's what I'm proposing that we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina? MS. VALERA: Just to clarify, we do have a fast track process in our Land Development Code -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. VALERA: -- and of course this amendment is trying to improve it. But I just want to mention that the fast track that we have right now will consider any project in Immokalee to be a fast track project, including fast food restaurants, because we do review those as fast track, if they go in Immokalee urban area. MR. MULHERE: And my issue -- you know, my issue is that I'm not sure that is the way it should be. And maybe I'm wrong. We can figure that out. But from my perspective, if everything is fast tracked, does that have a fiscal and operational impact that really takes away from what that program could do for those targeted types of industries? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then versus what -- based on what Carolina is saying, you're actually suggesting then that Immokalee for its review pull back and not expedite everything, and there's only certain ones that will be expedited. MR. MULHERE: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that will certainly then change the context of who gets considered for an expedited process and who doesn't versus all of them being expedited right now. MR. MULHERE;: I'd just add I don't believe that was ever the intent either was to have everything qualify for fast track program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're going to keep that in there and you're going to keep the two year time frame in there and it's going to take a rework of some criteria, again, if that's one of the ones you want to keep the time frame in, we need a fiscal analysis of it, a fiscal cost associated with it. You have within two years of adoption of this policy or the effective date of this policy. You want to change the program. Whatever staff time it takes to do that, whoever's going to write it, if it's whatever costs -- MR. MULHERE: I guess we need to have maybe some discussion about that. I mean, I can come up with some projected costs associated with this and all of the other ones that are in there. Some of them are already funded, some of them might be funded through grants or through other means that wouldn't impact directly the county ad valorem tax base. It seems to me that some of this work would typically occur if it was approved by the board, ultimately adopted by the board and this two year time frame stayed in and prioritized, then that someone, someone on the staff perspective is going to build that into the work plan, assuming, let's say, that's -- I don't know, community development, I guess it's the -- is it the zoning department? I'm sorry, terminology. MR. WEEKS: It's a mouthful. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Whatever that department is they would then, you know, build it into their work plan to look at the land code to qualify, which -- or quantity, and quality and quantify which projects would qualify for this expedited review program. And so that would be part of their work plan. So again, it wouldjust be a number of hours that I would estimate that it would take staff to do that. I mean, I guess I can do that, but -- CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Well, let's get staff to weigh in on it when we get done reviewing this plan as to how many are left. Ms. Caron's got a question, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a little bit of a frustration here associated with this. I mean, I heard the argument and superficially it sounds fine. But it suggests that Immokalee, in order to be economically stimulated, will only happen with targeted industries, and the result of that would give them the money they need. And I'm worried about moms and pops, I'm worried about entrepreneurs. And ifyou do put high payingjobs in place, they're going to need the grocery stores and the rest of it. And I don't know to what -- how it was intended in the Land Development Code, but if it's in there that everything gets fast tracked, I suppose the intent then was to try to motivate all economic opportunities. Page 28 161 V February 16, 2010 I'm a little bit concerned that you're making it dependent or seemingly dependent on the targeted industries for much of the growth. The CRA envisions utilizing whatever capital can finally result from increased valuation in order to achieve better roads and lighting and all the rest of it. So -- and I don't have a problem with the fact that we have industries that we'd like to get in there. But I'm concerned we tip too far in one direction. So what do you feel about that thought? MR. MULHERE: I don't know that it says in the LDC that it was intended to apply to any project in Immokalee. I don't have that language here with me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going by what Carolina said. MR. MULHERE: No, I think what Carolina said is it has been applied to any project in Immokalee. I don't think it says that policy. You know, I guess I would defer to staff. If staff feels it's appropriate to apply to every project in Immokalee, to fast track every project, then so be it, I'm good with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Just a couple of comments. One, I know outside of Immokalee the expedited review is more like the language that reads here. It is not for every project, it's for select projects that have been identified ultimately by the board as those which should have priority. You know, we want or we need this certain type of housing, we want or need this certain type of industry in our community. The second observation is if everything is fast tracked, then everything in fact becomes slow tracked, because you can't do everything faster. And so you have to choose your priorities. And, you know, this project is of a certain category, it will get a higher priority than the other projects. But if everything becomes a high priority then the reality is everything is not faster, it stays the same or is slower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to prioritize the fast tracking process. MR. MULHERE: I think it makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under that basis it does make a little more sense. David? MR. WEEKS: Just one more general comment about targeted industries. I think it's shortsighted to think that any development is an improvement. In the short term I think that's true, particularly in our current economic conditions. Anything that gets another person hired, that brings more money into a community I think is beneficial. But in the long -term thinking, and that's what I think we're supposed to be doing here, is what is the type of development we want to see here in the long term, what type of industry do we want to see coming into the community in the long term. And that's not specific to Immokalee, that would be countywide, a longer tern thinking. Want those industries that are clean industries, that do pay higher wage jobs. That's ultimately what we need more of in this community, not more low wage, menial type of employment. That's not to say that those things aren't important. And of course, as you have development on the whole, yes, you've got to have a grocery store, you've got to have a barbershop, et cetera, et cetera. But the target needs to be something different I think in the long term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: We have an ordinance. Ordinance 03 -80, as amended. It specifically provides for the very thing they're asking for in the Comp. Plan. If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to amend that ordinance, they can do so on the fly. It's a very simple process. We start putting these things in the Comp. Plan, all right, it takes away the ability -- it takes away our ability from time to time to make changes. If amendment four passes, whatever you've got in your Comp. plan is pretty much going to stay there, you know, forever and a day. So honest to God, if these things can be done by ordinances, do them by ordinance, don't throw in the Comp. Plan. And I already have an ordinance that does exactly what he's asking for. I've been working this ordinance with Amy Patterson for years. MR. MULHERE: But I don't disagree with what you said. All I'm -- the Comp. Plan only says that you're Page 29 161 1t� February 16, 2010 going to actually do it within two years, you're going to look at it, you're going to do it -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the ordinance number, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It's 03 -80. You can see it in Municode, section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, I'll pull up the ordinance too and read it before we have our next discussion on Thursday or the 4th. And I think that's probably the best way for the board to handle it tight now is take a look at that ordinance. And Bob, if you could too, if it gives you what you want, there's no sense of making it harder by putting it in the GMP. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, if what we're suggesting is that we don't need it in the GMP, we canjust approach the board and try to get on the work plan somehow a review and revision, unless that's occurring now is what I might -- MR. KLATZKOW: But you're asking the same thing. If the Board of County Commissioners is going to pass this GMP to require their staff to look at something, they can simply took at their staff and say look at the ordinance and change it. MR. MULHERE: I understand. We could probably take it out then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's take a look at the ordinance. We all know the number, we can look it up and have further discussion on this particular one. Policy 1.2.2. Questions on 1.2.2? Anybody? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, never mind, never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was quick. I do. Bob, I've asked for a couple of times, and I'm not sure I mentioned it to you or the other -- however, done in an e -mail, the Certified Sites Program. Can you send me what that is? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't evaluate this policy without that information. MR. MULHERE: I'm still trying to get an answer as to whether or not it is in existence or it's simply a desire that it be in existence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says in this one it's existing. And if it isn't, we certainly don't want a policy that says it is. MR. MULHERE: No, I know, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could find that out so that we would have that discussion at some point in the future. Anybody else on 1.2.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 1.2.3. Oh, David? I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, on the new language, the language that's in red here, I read it to be saying that the county will identify the appropriate locations for those uses. And I'm thinking that typically the county's role is to designate, and through rezoning actions rezone properties that are appropriate for certain types of land uses. But it's the private sector that actually determines exactly what piece of property or properties are appropriate for that use. If I'm missing something, I just, you know, encourage that explanation. But it just comes across to me that it's inappropriate for the county to be tasked with identifying specific locations for allowable -- for these types of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 think it's a zoning designation that probably says where light industry can go and commercial can go and items like that. Page 30 161 1 �3 February 16, 2010 And maybe, Bob, if you make the wording so it's dependent on the zoning, not on the county, that would bring it back in line what I think what David's trying to get to. MR. WEEKS: I confess ignorance of this Certified Sites Program, and so I don't know if my comment is off point. Maybe we're already tasked with that, but I'm not aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get that -- find out about the program. And I certainly, depending on the existence or not of that program, you may want to change the language in reference to what David discussed in the beginning. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, just everybody understands the intent of the program is to have sites that were preordained to be appropriate for these uses and that have some level of preliminary design. As much possible pre - approval as could possibly occur. So that if someone said I want to put a manufacturing or light industrial use, where can I go, the EDC or the CRA or both in combination working with that client could say we have 10 sites that are pre - certified, here's some site plans, let us know if these work; if they do work, then you can shave six months off that process, because we've already done a stormwater plan, we've already done a landscape plan, we've already done a parking plan, we've already pre - approved it with the South Florida Water Management District, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and if your -- MR. MULHERE: That's what the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if your Certified Sites Program does that, that's fine. That's why we need to see it. Right now we don't know that it does. MR. MULHERE: Right. No, I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't even think you do at this point. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't. I'm trying to find out if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we've got a whole policy -- MR. MULHERE: -- if it's effective or not, if it's in place or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a policy really that nobody really knows what it means till we get that information, so -- MR. MULHERE: We know what it means, we just don't know if it exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I understand David's point on the first one, whether the county would be the entity that would identify the appropriate locations. The county in a sense already will have done that by providing a comprehensive land use designation that allows that use. And then it would be incumbent upon -- if it wasn't zoned property, incumbent upon a private landowner to zone it to accomplish that. If it was already zoned that way, then it would be incumbent upon a pri vate landowner to say, hey, I'd like to become -- I'd like to be a part of this Certified Sites Program. So I do understand that and I think we can correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Policy 1.2.3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to figure out why you really need this. And if you do feel you need it, I would think that maybe it might say something like the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency in cooperation with the county. I guess why I'm relating to it that way is that I believe it's already happening, unless there's something I don't understand, as work closely with community or grassroots organizations. I would think the Community Redevelopment Agency is already doing that. MR. MULHERE: You know, I have to say, I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I think we probably don't need that. It is occurring. But I think probably it was developed at a time when there was a desire to just expressly state that the county would work with the CRA to further these community and civic organizations. But I think it's going on right now, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any concerns if 1.2.3 is omitted? Page 31 161 1m February 16, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public got any comments so far? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Policy 1.2.4. Any comments on -- Brad? Then Paul. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think this is good. You know, the building codes now have covered this topic on how to handle it, so I think it's a good one. But I'd like you to take out the last sentence. I'm not sure why you added it. First of all, I think those might be the two less likely locations for home occupations. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'll tell you why I added it. Staff had a continent in the staff report that expressed concerns about the flexibility, the increased flexibility implied in this policy for home occupational uses which -- you know, I mean, again, my -- our perspective is that as long as you have the appropriate restrictions in place, you reduce trips, you -- this is a very interesting economic climate we live in, there's a lot of smaller home occupations popping up. People are looking for inventive ways to make a living. Other communities around the state and the country are increasing flexibility for home occupations or cottage industries. We think it makes sense in Immokalee to do the same thing. Certainly there have to be restrictions. You can't attract a lot of traffic. It's not going to be a nightclub, you know. But understanding that there have to be restrictions, this proposes to increase flexibility. Because the guidelines right now are very restrictive. Very restrictive. So this conununity said we like that and we want that. I put that last sentence there as a means of addressing staffs concerns, which partly talked about, you know, the broad application of this new flexibility. And to me the CMU and -- which is the commercial mixed use designation and the high residential designation, I thought that the impacts of a home occupation might be greater in the low residential district where you have, you know, a larger lot and maybe it's a little quieter out there. But in these commercial mixed use you have commercial activities existing right proximate and even in the same building as residential. So, I mean, maybe a dentist's office in the basement of a -- well, in a room in a home, you know, is not a bad thing in that location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, I know what it is and it's a really good thing. I just think that that last sentence, first of all, you use the word focus it. First of all, the HR district, that's going to be 10, 20 units. I mean, that's essentially an apartment building. That essentially might not be the smart place for it. And I think closeness to the CMU is going to be an important thing. So I think if you kill that sentence, within that two years when you develop the regulations, you might restrict it to sites that are within -- you know -- MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in other words, you may not have all the MR available for this. MR. MULHERE: That is very good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it is an important thing to have. And like I said, the building codes have covered it, handled all the issues with it. A lot of communities are taking advantage of this. And this community I think would take advantage of it more than most. So I think it's a great thing, just kill the last sentence. MR. MULHERE: So assuming that we do that, and 1 would defer to staff, they've expressed some concerns. Perhaps the concerns could be addressed through the land code amendment as it relates to any unintended consequences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And thus we would be in an ordinance, and as Jeff pointed out you could adjust it and tweak it, I mean. So here you're getting yourself in trouble. MR. MULHERE: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Wouldn't be the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would this be -- when you say home based occupations, I'm kind of having trouble conceptualizing it. Would this be something like auto repair, you know, that -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No? Page 32 161 1 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: No. Typically home based occupations have been limited to things that don't have any additional traffic impact on a neighborhood. Even in terms of no more even deliveries than would typically be associated with a single - family home, which is pretty restrictive. In other communities there are some things that are allowed like some office uses, like a dentist's office or a doctors office or something like that. I'm not -- just using those as examples; I'm not saying they're appropriate here. Typically it's a lawyer, you know, some -- an arelmitect, you know, civil engineer, somebody that can functionally operate out of their home but can meet clients or whatever elsewhere. But, you know, again, maybe some minimal level of impact increases the number of home occupations that occur, and maybe there isn't an objection to that. And from what I've been told, the Immokalee community would like to expand the flexibility on this. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you know that there are barriers to doing that right now? MR. MULHERE: Yes. The existing LDC is very, very restrictive as to what's permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the other side of that coin, with today's use of computers and people working at home, some of them could be entrepreneurs. Would we be preventing the development of that opportunity, say, in an apartment house? And I don't know if it's probable, but let's just say for the sake of argument that you had 12 units and six of them or seven of them, those people for whatever reason are entrepreneurs and they have connections, are we going to eliminate that -- MR. MULHERE: No, were going to encourage that as opposed to prohibit it, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we have to find a balance. Because before you indicated maybe you're right, Brad, because -- MR. MULHERE: I think Brad was right in terms of my putting that restrictive sentence on there because it might be appropriate to have one located proximate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree, I think you need to loosen up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Bob alluded to some staff concems which are in the staff report on Page 20. It's the third paragraph from the bottom. The existing provisions, as Bob has already stated, they are very strict. They're very stringent, and intentionally so. It's to ensure that the home in all ways appears to be nothing more than a residence. You cannot generate excessive noise, you cannot have additional traffic coming to the site. You cannot have deliveries other than the normal delivery process such as FedEx and so forth. You can't have big semis coming to your house. Cannot generate additional odor and so forth. Again, the idea is to make sure that no one would know that anything's going on other than a house living there. It's not uncommon for different types of home occupations -- well, a planner, land use planner could be one. But you could not have meetings in your home because you cannot have people come into your house. But you have your occupational license at your home address and you can do office work and whatnot at your residence. The types of things that some other communities do allow as home occupations, which Collier County does not, one example would be some personal services, like a barber or beauty shop. If it were limited to, say, one chair, you provide one additional or maybe two additional parking spaces. That's an incremental step from what Collier County presently allows. So when you drive by that residence and you see three parking spaces or four instead of the usual two, well, that's a little bit different. And again, if you have the barber or beauty chair, yes, you're going to have people coming to the site. But that's an example of something that's generally I think not obtrusive. You know, it's not generating a lot of noise, a lot of traffic, et cetera, that would be disruptive to the community. And I think that's one example of perhaps what the Immokalee community is looking for. We have concerns about it, but I guess that ultimately would be addressed through the LDC process as to just how greatly we expand the opportunity for the home based occupations and therefore the potential impacts to the community and to the neighborhood specifically. Page 33 16 1 13 February 16, 2010 The second comment has to do with the structure of the policy, who it is that does this. Right now this is -- Collier County is tasked with this, yet we're not the ones that are proposing or have this idea of what should be allowed. And we're thinking that maybe it should be the CRA. It's their idea, they should be the ones coming forth with the amendment as opposed to county. We don't know what they have in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that input though come at a time when you have the LDC implementation language and not during the GMP process? I mean, they wouldn't want to tell you what they have in mind now. Collier County would have to modify their LDC through -- MR. MULHERE: Were writing the LDC amendments. I mean, I just want to clarify, we've been hired to write the LDC amendments. We're writing them right now, depending on what happens here. But I put Collier County because every time I put something else in I got criticized for that. So isn't Collier County ultimately the responsible entity for amending the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think. MR. MULHERE: That's why I put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, or -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning. Maybe we could -- and I agree, you have been criticized before. And we will refrain from doing that. But how about if we more specifically, not just the county, let's say the CRA will initiate the amendments. Because David hit upon it, we don't know the level of flexibility that the community would like to develop within these amendment standards. And we want to provide the flexibility they're looking for, but we don't know what that flexibility is. So the county, the county, specifically the CRA acting as the county to initiate the Land Development Code amendments, would seem the most appropriate utilization within this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But in the end it's the county is the only one that can amend the Land Development Code, right? MR. MULHERE: We're back to the chicken and the egg question, which is why in many places we put the county in concert with the CRA, in cooperation with the CRA, so on and so forth. But I took all that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't look like it was ever in, and we've got the original. MR. MULHERE: No. But I mean in most other cases I took it out. So l guess my point is we're intending to write these amendments. Ijust had one other quick comment. The level of flexibility in my view does depend on the land use designation. What David talked about, these levels of protection, I think are greater in a low residential, single - family neighborhood than they would be in a densely developed, mixed use neighborhood with public parking, which is what we intend to see happen in some areas of Immokalee, which is where we want to promote greater flexibility in home occupations. So I mean, we do have some ideas, and I think that the concerns can be addressed. And maybe they are appropriate elsewhere in Collier County where the same conditions exist: maybe within another CRA, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you absolutely sure that the county's current language does not provide enough flexibility? MR. MULHERE: I'm absolutely certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the word will is something that's needed. MR. MULIIERE: I'm certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with saying Collier County will amend the LDC parenthetical like you have it, and then -- can you get that little rectangle box off this thing? MR. MULHERE: Where is it, what box? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right over the words I want to read. Okay. Then after the parenthetical insert policy subject to -- I mean, add the words subject to Policy 1.1.1, and then strike within two years of the effective date of this policy. It still says the same thing but it doesn't put a two year item in there that's negated by the reference to Policy Page 34 161 1 ,43 February 16, 2010 1.1.1. It makes no sense. MR. MULHERE: Okay, within two years of the effective date of this policy subject to Policy 1.1.1. Now, what are you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say you just drop that entire first line. Say Collier County will amend the LDC ordinance, yadda, yadda, yadda, subject to Policy 1.1.1 to create more flexibility. So what you're basically saying is Collier County will get it done, and subject to the policy, which is what we're saying all along. But there's no false impression that it's going to be a two year time frame. It's going to be maybe quicker or maybe longer, depending on what -- MR. MULHERE: This may be then the solution to all of these, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would. It would take a lot of the problem away from the two year reference you keep putting in there. MR. MULHERE: The only reason that this is different in my view is I -- for what it's worth, I'm standing here before you telling you that there's funding, we're in the process and we're going to get it done in two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And even if there isn't funding and you say two years, it isn't going to get done and it's going to rely on Policy 1.1.1. So why falsely state it? Why don't we make the code a little more -- read like it's supposed to, like the realism that we're supposed to have in it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to Policy 1.2.5, Financial Incentives. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on 1.2.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last line, examples of such incentives, I'd suggest you insert the word may include -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fee payment assistance and property tax or impact fee deferrals. Would this apply to both commercial and residential? And what do you mean by deferrals? It's just like the affordable housing impact fees? Can we do stuff like that to commercial? MR. MULHERE: I think you can. It's a policy decision. I'm not suggesting that it's appropriate here, I'mjust saying those are examples of incentives. And they may be more appropriate only for housing incentives, some of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've only known the deferrals to -- I'm not saying no to it, Fmjust kind of curious of how it's to apply -- MR. MULHERE: But legally I think you could defer it. You know, you'd have to have some time frame. And I'd defer to Jeff, but, I mean, I'm not suggesting that's the appropriate incentive for commercial development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 1.2.5? Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. Bob? You're first, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Regarding that issue, you have property taxes -- MR. MULHERE: And we have a program right now that does provide property tax relief for qualified -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that through the county or is that through the CRA? MR. MULHERE: It's through the county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I thought the CRA was responsible for the collection and -- MR. MULHERE: No. I'll defer to Jeff. The CRA gets an increment of the taxes collected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that the way the CRA worked was that the money collected remained in the CRA. MR. KLATZKOW: There's a base -- you set a base tax year and whatever increase in taxation after that is CRA money. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. MR. KLATZKOW: So there's a floor level that's county and then above that is CRA money. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I thought it was independent. All right, it's good knowledge for me, thank you. Page 35 161 4 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: And we do have some programs already in place, and those were just examples. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not sure that you need that last line at all. I mean, why would you even bother to put it in there? You're going to look at everything -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as a possibility. MR. MULHERE: I agree with you. And I guess we -- MR. KLATZKOW: Again, we already have an ordinance that does this. But if you want to throw it in the Comp. Plan -- I don't know why we're doing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What ordinance do we have that does it, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It's around the same one I gave you before. We have an economic development section you'll find in Municode that contains much of this already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you get a chance later today and find the number, would you -- I mean, the only way we're going to really prove whether all this is needed or not is to actually look at the ordinances and have a consensus on it. So I'd certainly like that -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'll forward it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I'd appreciate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'll forward it to all of us? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he meant. Okay, anything else on 1.2.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to 1.2.6, Agricultural Related Business Uses. Are there any comments from the Planning Commission there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I think it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, what is the -- the way this is written, it's allow agricultural related business uses such as. Do you know what the broad range is you're referring to? Because there is an SIC Code for fruit and vegetable -- and I don't think we should put SIC codes in here, but I -- MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- want to make sure 1 understand what you're doing. 5431 covers most of your agricultural uses and I'm wondering if that's what you're aiming for or -- MR. MULHERE: I think what we would propose to do is, again, as part of this LDC amendment that we're working on is to come back and provide a list of agricultural related uses -- these are again examples -- and that would be appropriate in this rural agricultural community for allowance in other districts besides just the ag. district. And I don't know that that list is exhaustive. I understand your concern, but I think you would have the opportunity through the LDC amendment to make sure that we weren't putting something in that was inappropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what it says, within non- agricultural zoning districts. So that means if you decided -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a citrus packing house was a agricultural use and you wanted to stick it in a little residential housing area or next to a multi- family building, you'd basically by this you'd say you could do it. MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Page 36 16 I 1 �3 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I mean, I'd say that that -- I would bring that back as an example as part of the LDC and there would be public dialogue and debate, and somebody would say that's inappropriate and it would fall out of the -- you know, in that circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, from a writing of this policy, when it says within non - agricultural zoning districts, would the actual districts that apply to be appropriately defined in the implementation language in the LDC? Would we have any fear that someone could demand that they go broader than that? MR. WEEKS: I agree that the LDC is where all the specifics are going to occur. We could identify just specifically one or more zoning districts that would allow these types of uses, we could identify what these agricultural related uses are in the LDC, and we could even identify the mechanism. Perhaps some would be allowed by right, maybe some would require conditional use. Because this runs the gamut from potentially being allowed on a single - family lot to being allowed in a commercial or industrial or multi - family or -- you know, the varying impacts and the concerns about those are wide - ranging, depending on what specific zoning districts we're speaking of CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as broad as this is written, that broadness doesn't have to be carried over into the LDC. We can limit it to anything we want to based on that. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If we're going to get into this type of specificity, could we put some word in there where it would be nonfood -- or food product and nonfood product? Many times, some of us know, that I have interest in nonfood agricultural products and they're oftentimes left out. And my other comment was if we're going to be getting into some of this ag related businesses, what about neighborhood plots ofvegetables? I just want to be sure that especially in hnmokalee there may be a neighborhood that wants to do their own you know, have a lot -- there's an empty lot there that somehow gets pitched in and they use it as a family garden. MR. MULHERE: Any prohibition you could think of on anything like that? I don't think so. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just as it comes. But my main concern was nonfood related agriculture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would come into your LDC when you define the uses that this is referring to. MR. MULHERE: And selling -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We're starting to get into listing all the agricultural uses, that's why -- now we're going to limit some, and I don't want to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I believe the discussion we were having was that in the LDC we would provide those specifics. And I believe, Mr. Woltley, your point is that we don't limit strictly to food. For example, if somebody is creating rope out of hemp, well, that's an agricultural product, you don't want that to be excluded. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Or other things, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I was going to say, flowers came to my mind. Hemp is interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, move on to Policy -- or actually now it's Objective 1.3. Starts on Page 25. Well, actually, it ends on Page 25 too. Any comments on 1.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, a lot of -- the last part of that second line, thereby improving the quality of life. Maybe we should say to improve the quality of life. That's another conclusion. Policy 1.3.1? Anybody have any questions on 1.3.1? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to go back to -- oh, I guess we're on to this 1.3.1, is that what you're doing now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I think it's up to the CRA to promote the community, not up to the county as a whole, unless it's through tourist development tax. Page 37 16 1 1,k3 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I know that. I think it is the TDC -- the tourism -- I forget the word. Anyway, whatever they're talking about. I think the CRA, and I think other entities. The only reason -- you see what's struck through there. 1 mean, we've had this thing worded so many different ways it's not funny. hi terms of trying to identify the kinds of cooperation and interaction that had to occur to achieve these types of policies and objectives. In the end, the last basic direction we got strongly from staff and I would say from others was that it's the county's plan, the county has the obligation, and underneath that whatever needs to occur will occur if the policy is approved. So we didn't say in coordination with the CRA, because if the county -- if the Board of County Commissioners approves this policy and it's adopted, then somebody's going to have this job and obviously it's going to be the CRA, and the CRA is going to work with some of the folks. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But then we do get into fiscal issues with policies like this as well. MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, there are -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's not been any fiscal analysis. MR. MULHERE: No. I mean again, 1 don't -- I guess philosophically we don't necessarily think that we had to do a fiscal impact on every single policy. Because either they're going to be appropriate and they're going to be into someone's work plan, at which time someone's going to identify how much it costs to do it. It's sort of getting the chicken before the -- or the cart before the horse, I guess. To me it is. Because I think -- I mean, I think that just going through and -- this could be just -- you know, this is what the CRA's doing anyway as part of their work plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then my point initially was correct, why isn't it the CRA will promote? MR. MULHERE: I just can't win. You tell me which title you want me to put in there, CRA or the county. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because that's what they're doing. The county may do it, the CRA will do it, I mean that's -- because that's what they do. MR. MULHERE: You know, again, the only thing I can say is that's why we had that language in there, that the Collier County in coordination with the CRA, Chamber of Commerce and the Naples /Marco Island/Everglades Convention and Visitors Bureau, because those seemed to be the entities that would be involved in this. MS. VALERA: And maybe staff was misunderstood when we made the comment. We wanted to have just Collier County duties in the GMP. CRA's duties we thought may not need to be in the GMP. And so if it's a duty of the CRA, then it might not be needed here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to join in on this thing. Because the CRA board is the County Commission board and they act on behalf of the needs of the CRA. When they make a determination for the CRA, that's final, is it not, for the CRA within its activities? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's where the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And are we saying that the County Commission and commissioners acting as the County Commission, does that subordinate any activity within the CRA? In other words, there's no possibility of the CRA board, County Commissioners, adopting something that the County Commissioners would somehow neutralize. MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. Same people. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. So it seems to me on that premise that the CRA board is your final authority for those kinds of things. Because 1 don't know how they're in the business of promotion of entertainment, cultural and recreational opportunities. I can see they're in facilitation, but promotion is another matter. I think CRA certainly would be in the business of promotion. MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand that. And let's look at it maybe a little bit differently. Let's say -- I don't know if a policy exists to promote tourism broadly in Collier County. 1 mean, I know that happens. I don't know if there's a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that calls for that activity as part of economic development or tourism development or not. But if there was and we weren't talking about Immokalee, who would be responsible for accomplishing that? And I assume that Collier County would be responsible for accomplishing that. Page 38 16 1 1 ,4� February 16, 2010 Now, obviously we know that filters down to subsidiary agencies within the county, the tourist development group or a CRA or some other entity. And that's the same thing here. I mean, if promotion -- if the promotion of the expansion of entertainment, cultural and recreational opportunities is a good thing and the policy is good in that respect, then it's the county that will promote it, but they'll promote it through these agencies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could only reply that in my view, when the County Commission acting as the CRA board focuses on issues, they are relating their energy, they're putting forward their energies to solve problems associated with the CRA or to agree with things. If it's more broadened, then you have a four -to -one situation potential because of western Collier and so forth. And it does, I think, dilutes the process in that regard. MR. MULHERE: So I don't know what the board's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's just my view -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We can remove this policy too. I mean, you just tell me -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that you want to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more trying to see what difference does it make. If the CRA is Collier County and Collier County's going to do it, all I -- my concern is let the county do it. Don't tie its hands with these other groups who may not have the same goals in mind for Immokalee. They may have goals in mind, who knows if they'll be the same. In the end it all funnels up to the county, the county makes a decision and it's done. And I think that part of it just needs to be clear. So if it means by Collier County leaving it in there that that defers to the CRA, then I'm comfortable with that. David? MR. WEEKS: Couple comments. One is that my knowledge of tourism department is they promote the county and the county activities, you know, come visit us, stay at our hotels, the beaches and whatnot, as opposed to promoting the expansion of certain development opportunities. I do not believe that's a function of the tourism department. Secondly is, I note the language says as far as promoting these various things, specifically through implementation of the Immokalee Public Realm Plan. And I think that's key. What is that document, what does it require, what does it allow, and then who is responsible for implementing that plan, is that the CRA or is that County Commission agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I got to my comments, my whole focus was going to be on the Immokalee Public Realm Plan. And it may be more than we can discuss today, because that plan is many, many pages. It was written by Bob's -- by RWA. And it brings in a lot of sub - plans. I have one question. Does the Immokalee community and does the CRA support and want the Immokalee Realm Plan? Because it's going to have a wide -range impact on not only today but future meetings. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, remember you said that, because on the 26th I'm going to specifically ask you what you meant by saying that. Because the LDC amendments that you're asking for for the interim guidelines to the architectural criteria, if you want latitude in those yet you want the Immokalee Realm Plan, which you wrote -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which brings in the form -based guidelines -- MR. MULHERE: Actually, we didn't write it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your name's on the bottom lower right -- MR. MULHERE: It was written by a sub - consultant working for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. You sound like Patrick White now. MR. MULHERE: No, it's important -- to me it's important that that sub - consultant who spent their time, blood, sweat and tears writing that get credit for it. The name is LDI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, whoever wrote the plan, I saw your name on it. MR. MULHERF: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless, it has some very intense criteria in the form -based guidelines that are Page 39 X eb 61 14� ruary 16, 2010 part of the realm plan that now are going to be locked into gold -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they're guidelines, number one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in here. Well, but those standards are what you want. Remember that on the 26th. MR. MULHERE: I understand that. But I just want to make clear that they are guidelines. And guidelines are different than regulations that don't have any flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to know how they impact this sentence then, because if-- David, if that realm plan's in here and they are guidelines to be changed by somebody else in the future, how does that impact the Growth Management Plan reference to it in here? MR. MULHERE: The public realm plan in part lays out a development scenario for Main Street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It also has a reference to the form -based guidelines that lay out development standards for Main Street. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's nothing wrong with those. I'm not objecting to them. I'm just making sure that if you want to lock all that in, that you do so, that you understand what you're locking in. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So there -- because you've got two different documents, right? Public realm plan and form -based -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one is brought into the other. 1 have the language that you actually put in the realm plan, bringing in the form -based guidelines as part of the realm plan. MR. MULHERE: Right. But the pub -- no, the public realm plan is limited to the public area. The public area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So when we talk about promoting expansion of entertainment, cultural and recreational opportunities through the implementation of the Immokalee Public Realm Plan, the streetscape, the public parks, anchoring the business district, the outdoor -- allowing for outdoor dining, things like that, creating pedestrian -- easy pedestrian activities and flowways, those are the kinds of things that fall -- that we're talking about falling within the public realm, which would then facilitate or promote restaurants, theatres, museums, public spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: hr the executive summary to the public realm plan it says, additionally this report includes a standalone form -based code that provides clear, articulated standards and guidelines for the development and redevelopment of buildings and structures adjacent to the public realm. MR. MULHERE: Adjacent to the public realm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, the form -based code was developed to complement and enhance the public realm plan and is presented as a companion document. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm saying, Bob, is I've heard many times that Immokalee does not want the architectural criteria and standards that Collier County has. In fact, you've asked for them -- MR. MULHERE: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be -- right, and you asked for a release of those on the 26th of this month. MR. MULHERE: Potentially, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you look at the form -based guidelines I think you'll find those are more intense than the standards you now want to have some release from. MR. MULHERE: Okay, see, and that's where I don't -- see, we don't think that's actuality the case. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just -- and then it aught be easy on the 26th that you accept no standards less than those in the form -based guidelines in lieu of the architectural standards, and that might make that a lot simpler. MR. MULHERE: Except that those only apply in a very specific geographic area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So, I mean, there are a lot of nuances there. They only apply in that very defined Main Street area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, from a comprehensive planning perspective, David, by referencing the Page 40 161 1A3 February 16, 2010 Immokalee Public Realm Plan in the GMP, how does that --how do we effect change --what if someone, or the CRA -- I don't know who has the right to change the Immokalee Public Realm Plan now. But by putting it in here, how does it get changed in the future? If someone wants to change one of the form -based guidelines or the setbacks or the heights of the buildings or the way the facades are built along the -- all that's now in that realm plan, and the realm plan's being brought into the GMP. MR. WEEKS: I think the first question is who has -- maybe that's partly what your question was, who has the approval authority of that realm plan. The policy specifically references that it was accepted by the CRA advisory board. But has the CRA board -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. WEEKS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's not that were not intending to bring it to them. We are intending to bring it to them. And it will be part of the whole LDC process. Because portions of the public realm plan as well as portions of the -- I'm sorry, I'm just having -- the other document that we're -- the design guide -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Form -based guidelines. MR. MULHERE: -- will also be incorporated into the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't get me wrong, this is a good plan. I read it. I read every page of it. In fact, I read it many times. I read your form -based guidelines, because they are going to have an impact on the 26th. I think this stuff great. Whoever -- you guys did a nice job. It's a great plan. I don't want to see, though, a problem for the CRA down the road by implementing it and bringing it into the GMP if they go to try to change it and it's locked in because of references in documents much higher than that document. MR. MULHERE: So you would suggest we take out that entire phrase starting with specifically and ending with 2009? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just worried it may not give you the flexibility that you all keep wanting to have. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: You could simply add in the Immokalee Public Realm Plan, as amended from time to time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we get back into who's amending it and how it gets amended. MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding it's going to have to be the Board of County Commissioners -- MR. MULHERE: CRA board, which is the County Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- as long as it stays in a manner that it can be handled. But is it simpler to be just not in the GMP so you guys can handle it off to the side and you can change your standards as you want to, rather than have to document, stuck in something like this? David? MR. WEEKS: I tend to agree with your last statement right there, Commissioner. The -- I think in part it would depend on what regulatory effect -- a large part, what regulatory effect does that realm plan have, and the form -based code that it draws in. If they're guidelines, then that means just that. As Bob has already stated, that means they're not regulatory in nature but they may form the basis for regulations, i.e. Land Development Code amendments. MR. MULHERE: That's exactly right. That's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, Mr. Murray. Bob, did you want to finish saying something? MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to say, you know, I think you raised a very good point, there's unintended consequences associated with keeping it in here, and you could either say as amended, which would give you the flexibility. I tend to agree, just take out the phrase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 'Phis Bob? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm going to even go a little bit more dicey on this thing. I see it as a mixed bag when you use terms such as restaurants, movie theaters, museums, public spaces. Movie theatres I don't Page 41 161 im February 16, 2010 think is governmental in nature. It's private enterprise. In other words, what I'm driving at, you're asking the county to promote movie theaters. You're asking county to promote -- MR. MULHERE: That's just what the CRA does. That's part of what the CRA does -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the county. Do we want the CRA or the county? Anyway, I would have -- I would have been satisfied, will promote the expansion of cultural and recreational opportunities. I don't even know that you need the such as. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm okay if it has to be in there but I see it as a CRA activity, not as a county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're also comfortable, though, Bob, and I saw Penny come up, so that means you guys are satisfied by taking the realm plan out'? I think it gives you better protection for Immokalee and a better ability to change things in the future than having it in here, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 1.3.2, ecotourism. Anybody have any questions on 1.3.2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question on there is on the last line when where it says with a particular focus on Lake Trafford and surrounding lands. Do we have some demarcation there to what surrounding lands are? MR. MULHERE: There is a designation that we've expanded, which is the RT designation in the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, residential tourist. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And I would say that that would be a good demarcation. So if the suggestion is to be more specific there, we could say and surrounding RT designated lands. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be happier with that, because I think it's nebulous the other way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with your changes, Bob, I don't have any at this point. So we'll move on to 1.3.3, Seminole Casino, hnmokalee. Does anybody have any comments on that'? Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just the phrasing, and work with. It's very vague. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I don't know what else we can do. It's an independent sovereign nation, right? Something similar to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of, though, the biggest issue with this one is the Seminole tribe has not been too cooperative in providing us with advanced planning on what they're wanting to do and how it ties in with our levels of service standards. We don't have any control over that, if I'm not -- MR. MULHERE: We don't. And to be honest with you, the reason for this is to ensure that we continue to try to coordinate, that we continue to try to work with. Because it's in that community's best interest to know what the Seminole tribe is planning and to hopefully be able to work with them to be able to receive some sort of mitigation for impacts that might be associated with what the tribe is planning. And, you know, a lot of that is contingent upon what happens with things that we have no control over, such as exclusivity, pact, the pact, all those kinds of things. But this is in their community. This casino and any future improvements sits right within the community. It's thought of as an asset. And I guess the idea is to have a policy in there that says we're going to keep talking with them. We know we have no regulatory control. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's nothing wrong with trying to work with them. I just wish that it was somehow more required than optional. Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, yeah, my only problem is we are taking on a responsibility that, I don't know, that they don't even necessarily want us to do. It says we will integrate them into our marketing plans. Page 42 161 1m February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Well, it says we will continue efforts to integrate them, yeah. I mean, I can't control what they do, but it's in the community's best interest to do this. I mean, it's enlightened self interest. It is in the community's best interest to continue this effort to work with them. Maybe it would happen without this policy. And if that's what you're suggesting, that's fine. Part of the reason we have these policies in here is so that someone can have something that they can rely on to say this is what we're supposed to be doing and this is why we're doing it, and this is why we're spending resources on it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I was reading the policy as it was written, not the way you -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I'm song. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- changed it. So I apologize. MR. MULHERF: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to 1.3.4. Anybody have any questions on 1.3.4? (No response.) CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, is there a defined district? MR. MULHERE: At this point, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you intending to define one? MR. MULHERF.: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I don't think there's any sort of parameters to where that would extend, but it should connect, it should be close to the casino and it should connect with Main Street, because the idea is to draw traffic, pedestrian and other traffic, out of the casino that maybe isn't -- that is staying there but doesn't have to be occupied with the casino 24/7 into the downtown area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the casino that you're referring to is the one that's in place now. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: I think the staff had a question about this policy. I believe it was mentioned in the staff report, I'm not sure. But the policy indicates that the county will undertake efforts to develop an entertainment district. Kind of ties in with your question about is this a geographic area. I do not believe, but I would ask Bob to clarify, that the intent is to use the term district as in a land use designation on the Future Land Use Map? MR. MULHERE: No, it is not. MR. WEEKS: It is a generic term I suppose other communities might have, maybe Orlando has a such - and -such district where that's where the restaurants and theme parks or whatnot might be located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could it be entertainment area in order not to get into a definitional concern over the word district, since we do use that as a definition in other parts? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. WEEKS: I have no objection, but I'm still -- I guess the part of the question here is what is the county's role? County will undertake efforts to develop this entertainment area. What is the county being tasked with? That seems like a function of private development. Or maybe the CRA. I'm not clear. MR. MULHERE: I think the idea would be for the CRA to identify the geography that might constitute this area and then what is targeted for that area to take advantage of the casino. And then how do we facilitate those targeted pieces. So again, it's a process that probably will require land code amendments so that it would either be referenced Page 43 161 1 3 February 16, 2010 in the over -- there's going to be an overlay -- there is an overlay. We're going to try to make it one overlay instead of seven overlays or six or however many are out there right now, as we work through the LDC amendments. And within that overlay there can be different areas or districts, or subdistricts. And this would be one of them. And there might be some criteria or some uses or some allowances within there that we would identify. So that's what was intended. MR. WEEKS: Because I was trying to understand what regulatory effect does this have, if any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than it's one of those feel good policies that says we're just going to try to do something. MR. MULHERE: I think eventually there will be some specific language. Now, whether it happens as part of this next LDC amendment, it depends. Because see, 1 don't know what the plans are for the casino, whether they're going to move forward or not move forward. But that's going to drive this entertainment district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Let me maybe go a step further. We start with the Immokalee Master Plan. It's going to have future land use designations. And those designations will identify what categories of land uses are allowed, in some cases very specifically what zoning districts will be allowed. And then the implementation then would occur through a rezoning process or even a creation of a zoning overlay. So that takes me back to my question, what is the regulatory part of it? Perhaps that is the creation of the zoning overlay but which must be consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ma'am, you must have something to say. MS. BROWN: Yes, sir, I would like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Youjust need to identify yourself for -- MS. BROWN: My name is Pam Brown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Each time you come up you got to say that again for us. MS. BROWN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. BROWN: My name is Pam Brown. 1 would like to address 3.3 about the Seminole Casino in Immokalee. I know that they don't cooperate as much as we think they do in a lot of situations, but I am aware they are working with the Convention and Visitors Bureau and they do advertise a lot with the magazines. And they are a big contributor to the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on anything up to this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Objective 1.4. It's one sentence. And then anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move to 1.4.1, Research and Development. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I've got to keep looking up at your language changes to know if I still have any questions. So -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Mitch. You want to identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Again, my name is Mitch Hutchcraft with King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus. I'd like to take a moment just to talk a little bit about 1.4.1, the concept of bringing research and development and attracting that to the community. And I want to talk to you about it through an example that we as a company had and just to illustrate some of the challenges, I think, that exist. We have some groves that are impacted by citrus greening and citrus canker. And as we realize the impacts Page 44 k6.a l 16, 21 A� of that, we begin to think about how can we diversify as a company. And because we're an agricultural company, the first thing for us is that we're going to diversify into other agriculture or other agriculturally related uses. One example of an agriculturally related use was a business that had a partnership with Dow Chemicals, and they were in the bio fuels space. They were converting agriculture into energy. And they were coming to us looking for 300 acres to do a demonstration facility, but they wanted an adjacent 15 to 20 acres to put their corporate headquarters and bring their research and development facilities from the northeast corridor down to this property as well. As a company we identified three sites, one of which was in the Immokalee area. The challenge was the Comp. Plan doesn't allow for that combination of uses, agriculture, office, research and development kind of all in one location. Now, part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that's included in this package probably could have addressed that. We designated some property as, you know, the industrial research that could have accommodated the office and the headquarters component. We could have done agriculture as a continuing use. When we started talking about that and they said okay, great, that's in progress, how long is that going to take, you know, this application's been submitted 18 months ago, it's probably got another 12 to 18 months to go. That was a timeline that the company could not commit to. We actually started working on a lease on another piece of property in another county and then a third county stepped in and offered them a significant amount of money to bring their facility to their county. So we as a company lost that opportunity, which was devastating to us. Collier County lost that opportunity as well. And it's not because of a lack of desire. And I think a policy like this is a great policy, but the question is how are you going to do it? There's got to be a certain flexibility and ability to be nimble, particularly when we're looking at some of these new sector uses that we haven't really thought about before and that aren't cleanly addressed in our Comprehensive Plan. And if you look at Immokalee, I think Immokalee is a perfect area to accommodate a lot of those types of uses. And so my question is, if we don't start to address it, and maybe this was more appropriate to be talked about under the expedited review or the certified sites, but I think that gets at the heart of it's great for us to say we're going to attract them, we want to bring these uses. But whenever we find them, we've got a live one on the line and then go look at the Comp. Plan and say, brain, we can probably fit you in but it's going to take us 36 months to get through the process, those guys are gone. And this company was not only interested, but they are already under construction in their current site. So again, within 12 months of our conversation they reviewed our site here, our site in another location, found a third site and are under construction already with governmental money. So I appreciate the effort and the thoughts, but my question is okay, what are we really going to do about it? Because we are losing real world opportunities. So with that, again, I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I honestly think your answer's going to be that if once this policy is in place, it's up to the CRA to produce the implementation language and recommend it to the county, and that's where the emphasis should be. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: And I appreciate that the CRA is responsible. I think the CRA has made that recommendation. There is still a process that that has to go through. That process is a timely process. And so maybe we come up with more -- maybe we come up with an agriculture and targeted employment land use category. But we need to do it with more speed and flexibility on a going forward basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process that's going on now to get this in here is actually the shortest part of all this process. The longest part was getting it to this day. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I mean, look, if you bring a significant economic opportunity to Collier County, I mean, we will get it through the system in half the year, no more. It's not going to take 18 months or 36 months. I mean, those are generally small -scale amendments. I mean, you bring something that's significant to this county, my office will work with Nick Casalanguida's office and we'll get it done quick. Page 45 16 f 1,p February 16, 2010 MR. HUTCHCRAFT: I appreciate the commitment then. We'll hopefully have the opportunity to put you to the test on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. MULHERE: Well, and I think -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's been stated by the BCC right along. I'm just shocked that suddenly all these barriers are there that everybody's been saying are not there. And, you know, I don't think they are there. MR. MULHERE: Well, if I -- they are there in terms of the Comprehensive Plan. I mean, you can't get around the Comprehensive Plan. You've either got to amend it or adhere to it. And there are barriers in the plan. And we are changing, that's part of what we're doing here. I would defer to staff to agree or disagree with that statement. MR. WEEKS: I certainly would. The very point I think that Mitch is making is two things: One is that this policy seeks to attract educational research facilities, okay. That's an aspirational policy as here's something we want to see happen. But the meat of the matter is, and that Mitch is identifying is, okay, you get the interest, where are you going to put them? Is there a land use designation that will accommodate that land use? And the mixture that Mitch has mentioned, it is not there in the plan. Yes, we would allow the research facility on agricultural properties. But when you bring in the corporate headquarters, that's a totally different land use. That's an office, light industrial, something like that of -- business park, one of those types of categories, not agricultural. And they fall under that typical segregation of land uses. And it's not something that is provided for presently, nor do I see it provided for in this proposed plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, when you wrote this policy, where in your proposed plan would it fit? MR. MULHERE: The way this was written, it was intended to attract -- this is news to me. So, I mean, this was not intended to allow these uses in agricultural zoned properties. I think that's a very good example and that flexibility makes a lot of sense to me and I think it's an easy fix. The fix is to specifically state that that's permissible, you know, within the agricultural district as a mix of uses. Because it's related to agriculture. But I didn't know that really leading up to this. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: That's right. MR. MULHERE: This policy was we already have a couple of research entities in Immokalee. It was let's get more of those. Let's work with these agencies to attract more of these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you have an opportunity to find more and better, then I think if you can make that change -- MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that would be beneficial. MR. MULHERE: And my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if anybody's going to object to it, so — MR. WEEKS: And Ijust point out that the issue here may -- we might be talking about two different circumstances. For the educational research facilities, depending on the nature of those, I would think that number one, they would be allowed in an industrial designated area. On the other hand, if it's something more like the policy referenced Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, which is a governmental entity associated with the University of Florida, that is located in an area that is not designated industrial, it's designated I believe low residential and zoned agricultural. And that leads to my point, if it's that latter scenario, the research related to the agriculture, that may be allowed on the agriculturally zoned property, which means that if anything we might have to amend the Land Development Code. Remember, all of Inunokalee is designated urban. None of it is designated agricultural rural. MR. MULHERE: Yes, good point. David brings up a very good point. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: In defense to the CRA's application, we felt like there were some properties that were being designated as industrial. And because of that industrial we felt like we could have accommodated the headquarters and the research development had it been approved. So I think that's a step in the right direction. But I agree with the point. The point is the mixture of uses. And 1 think when you're looking at this new Page 46 161 1 A3 February 16, 2010 segment, you're going to see a new mix of uses that doesn't cleanly fall into a commercial land use category, an industrial land use category, an agriculture. The hybrid of those is where I'm encouraging you to begin to look. Because I think that will become more and more important, and particularly appropriate around the Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate the point, thank you. MR. MULHERE: I think it can be accomplished through a land code amendment. But David's point, I just want to reiterate, because we do forget, standing up here, that this amendment is limited to the Immokalee urban area, which is a pretty good size area, and there's a lot of ag zoning in the urban area. But some of these potential sites fall outside of the Immokalee urban area, and I think maybe the -- anyway, some of them fall outside of the urban area and fall within an ag designated general county designation. We're not dealing with that here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I think David's point then is well made. Maybe that's an LDC issue we look at on a countywide basis. It wouldn't hurt to look at that in that regard, so -- MR. MULHERE: And that would really promote I think some diversification of the agriculture industry specifically. So that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on 1.4.2. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust think that's a great idea and I applaud Mitch for what he has to say. Wejust have to be careful though and not being negative about the plan, about the mixed use. We have to be careful about a larger landowner that is on some ag. land just be able to plop down some office building there and say hey, I'm within the mixed use. So, you know, we just have to make sure we word it that way. That was my only concern. MR. MULHERE: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 1.4.2. Anybody have any questions on 1.4.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I guess this falls back to the reference to Collier County really means the CRA as well. And that is probably the entity through Collier County to identify those cultural programs. In the end it still is the county. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I could see potentially there are some human service agencies that might need to be involved in this. There are some -- it might affect to some degree parks and recreation, although I think that's dealt with elsewhere. You know, cultural programs and facilities is a broad term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your two year reference doesn't need to be there, but -- MR. MULHERE: I agree with you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're probably going to have that discussion -- MR. MULHERE: We need to try -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, after the word visitors, you could say subject to Policy 1.1.1 and be done with it. MR. MULHERE: And I think that we're going to need to do that in an awful lot of these, leaving only those top priorities within that short time frame that we know there's funding for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, that would be a good thing to do. Anybody else on 1.4.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move on to Objective 1.5. Anybody, any questions on Objective 1.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Policy 1.5.1, Technical Assistance. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, what's the intent here? And this may be the kind of thing that could really help the kind of flung Mitch just pointed out. What is your intent, to have a team of people that could kind of cut through some of the red tape and people knowledgeable about the regulations to kind of cut through the regulatory approvals, or what is -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Every single -- the Immokalee CRA advisory board meets monthly. At almost every meeting, Penny, at almost every meeting one or two folks come up that are trying to do something and can't do it under the existing regulations. And typically it's a redevelopment type of scenario. That's one example. You know, there are barriers to redevelopment, trust me. Redevelopment is a different animal. That does not only exist in Immokalee, it exists in Bayshore /Gateway and other areas prime for redevelopment. We need to look at Page 47 16 1 13 February 16, 2010 that under this economic condition to try to promote redevelopment and find out where we can be flexible. That's part of it. And I guess the other part of it is that I think Nick is -- has talked about creating a, like a task team or a team that would specialize when certain opportunities arose of kind of working with either the EDC or the CRA or the property owner with the EDC and the CPA to help guide that person through the process. And I think Jeff alluded to trying to get something done within six months if it was a great opportunity. Well, you're going to have to have a specialized team to help you get through that process. And so that's part of it too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is who is that team made of? Are these private citizens, are these going to be county employees? MR. MULHERE: I think county employees. And to the extent that you might need somebody outside of the county, a state agency that would be willing to be a part of that, that might be helpful too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 1.5.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about 1.5.2, any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the last line, it speaks to provide for flexible performance based incentives. Can you give me an example of what you thought of when you refer to flexible? MR. MULHERE: Yes, let me just read it real quick. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should I look at the screen rather than my book here? MR. MULHERE: There'sjust a minor change in there. Yeah, I guess there's a lot of examples that come to mind. I'm trying to think of one that would be the best. I already used the example of let's say you have a piece of property in the development and redevelopment area along Main Street, somewhere where it's in the CMU and it's prime for redevelopment or it's a vacant parcel and it has some area that's set aside for native vegetation or that should be set aside for native vegetation. Well, flexible performance based incentives would be allowing -- in that case that I cited where it was undeveloped and had some native vegetation requirement, maybe that's not the best place for that native vegetation in the urban core. Let's create an incentive to move that somewhere else so that you could develop the entire parcel or most of the parcel. Of course you're going to still have landscape buffers. In the case of a developed parcel maybe you can't meet all the landscape buffers in a redevelopment scenario that you previously would or that you would be required to meet if -- you know, the way the code reads for nonconformities, if the use has not existed for 90 days, you've got to bring everything up to code compliance. And that's really a barrier against redevelopment, because you may not be able to provide more parking, you may not be able to provide more or wider landscaping, but you can replace the vegetation, you can improve the parking for the disabled, there are things that you can do. So what we want to do is create flexible incentive based standards that promote redevelopment. And those arejust a few examples. There are dozens of them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that there's at least one and that has to do with time, and there may be others -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, there are others. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that's what you're suggesting. Okay. I recognize that the Growth Management Plan is where we should be a little less pinpointing, particular. But flexible struck me because it doesn't -- it leaves it to an awful lot of interpretation. So I guess we'll have to wait to see what the LDC changes would be. MR. MULHERE: Right, that's where you'll see it is in the land code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, staff is satisfied with flexible? MS. VALERA: We think it's a subjective term. As you mentioned, it's something to -- subject to interpretation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What would that do -- MS. VALERA: What is flexible? I mean, it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you cure it in the LDC when they come forward with their suggestions, Page 48 161 11�� February 16, 2010 if you feel that it's subjective and it's open to argument? MS. VALERA: Perhaps more in the lines of, more in rhetoric with the visions of the Immokalee -- MR. MULHERE: I think if you -- the term -- my experience in dealing with people who want to do something in a redevelopment scenario, there's only one word that you keep hearing: flexibility. We need flexibility in terms of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think 1 understand it. But when you're getting into what that represents, you indicated time was one and there are others. And as long as those are known and can be codified, then I guess we're okay. I just wanted to be sure that everybody was okay with it. MR. WEEKS: I mean, ultimately the Board of County Commissioners will implement this policy through their adoption of whatever land code amendments they so choose, and they would be the ultimate body to decide what is and is not flexible performance based standards. And though one person might have an opinion that I don't think there are, we wanted more flexibility, or we don't think these are flexible, the board will make that final decision and say yes, they are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate. But it won't become a defined term. MR. WEEKS: No. And I don't know how to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't know that it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions on 1.5.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 1.5.3? Any questions on 1.5.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, your strike -outs look good. With that, we've reached the point we normally take about a lunchtime. So let's take a lunch. We'll come back at 1:00 and resume at that point and go from there. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody's here. Welcome back from the lunch hour. And for the record, we do not need the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. And we left off on goal number two. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He doesn't have a mic, that's not fair. MR. WEEKS: Can we mute this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I notice Nick is sitting way in the back, and that's the only way to get his attention sometimes is to challenge him, so -- I'll sprinkle the meeting with things like that, that way he won't fall asleep on us. We left off on goal two on Page 28. And we'll start off with Objective 2.1. Anybody have any issues with 2.1 ? If not -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I don't have any issues with it, I'm just concerned -- is this something that's not happening now? MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't know if it's happening or not happening. And I think that the -- I'm not sure. Can you tell me if that policy, at least Objective 3. 1, whether that existed previously, or -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We've had it in our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if this is intended to be on record, you know, he's got to -- MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to know if it was something that we added to the code or not. Some of this language came from Mitch Hutchcraft and others that they brought to the IMPVC and the CRA advisory committee. And they agreed to put it into the code. Particularly policy what was 2. 1.1 is now 3.1.1. Do I know whether there's coordination with federal, state, local and private agencies to address farmworker housing and migrant labor camp needs for Immokalee? I don't know. I don't know what the ongoing efforts are. I mean, I think that there are some, but I don't know, I don't know to what extent that's occurring. It's an ongoing objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a private agency? MR. MULHERE: Well, you're asking me to give you an example of a private agency that might be involved in this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, it says I can understand us coordinating with other governmental agencies. Page 49 161 1 February 16, 2010 I mean, that seems to be a given. And if we have to have language that kind of promotes that, fine. But what is a private agency? I mean -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can give an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: There's Immokalee Nonprofit Housing, which has brought things to this board before. MR. MULHERE: And promotes housing. Safe, clean, sanitary housing in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any -- we'll move on to -- your numbers are really getting hard to follow. But it's 2.1.1. in our book. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think ifyou just go with your book, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any questions on 2.1.1? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's really what I was focusing on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your third line, it says, hmnokalee urban area to eliminate unnecessary regulations that are duplicative to federal and state provisions. Just out of curiosity, are our regulations -- we're allowed to have greater standards than the feds, or are the feds the maximum standards? MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know if I can answer that unilaterally. l think -- don't know the answer to that question. Some cases I think that you cannot. Like if you're talking about a constitutional right, like a Fair Housing issue, you can't prohibit a certain use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but if they say, for example, you've got to have so many bathroom fixtures for a number of bedrooms and we have a standard that says you've got to have one for every bedroom, we actually have a better standard than them, can we increase the standards or do we have to go by their minimums? MR. MULHERE: I would think that you would be permitted -- I don't know the answer for sure. My opinion is that you would be permitted to have more stringent standards. Maybe I would defer to staff on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, David, do you know anything about that? MR. WEEKS: 1 would be looking to the attorneys, probably. But I know in general the county can be more restrictive but not less so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious. Federal rules seem to have a different level of power, especially when we come to the Right to Farm Act and things like that, so I didn't know if we -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it depends if it's a protected kind of a use and they don't want the local government to have authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it doesn't -- the question just came up when 1 was reading the unnecessary regulations, and I'm wondering why we would have any, but 1 understand. We have quite a few. 2.1.2.1 Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it depends. ICs sometimes whether the state or the federal get involved and their particular statute preempts us and sometimes it doesn't. If it preempts us, that's the end of it. If it doesn't preempt us, we often have latitude to have more stringent requirements. And we have more stringent requirements in this county on many things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 agree with you. MR. MULHERE: I would say that if there was a desire to put this in the code, that means that there probably is not preemptive language. Cl (AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, 1 mean, 1 don't see what it hurts to be there, I was just curious. Policy 2.1.2. Anybody have any questions on 2.1.2'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Objective 2.2. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is my ignorance speaking here. We speak of shall promote the conservation. MR. MULHERE: Could say retention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm not looking for other words. I'm just trying to understand Page 50 161 1A-, February 16, 2010 conservation, how Collier County can promote conservation in Immokalee neighborhoods. I know that they have code enforcement that can cite them for code violations, but how does the county get involved in conservation of the homes? We have clauses that say that the county will not interfere with neighborhoods and PUDs and things. MR. MULHERE: Okay, so some of these are existing objectives that we didn't write that we carried over from the old plan. This is one of them. To answer your question the best that I could provide a response is that some of the efforts that the county would undertake to stabilize a neighborhood, to improve a neighborhood, to make a neighborhood more safe, to clean up a neighborhood, all of those efforts in concert will help to conserve the housing by retaining and attracting people to that existing neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You like stretches, I like stretches. I'll go with your stretch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we move into Policy 2.2.1. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I just had a question about the funding for that. Is that going to be something that's going to cost extra money, or does the county have money for something like that? MR. MULHERE: Are we talking about the targeted redevelopment areas? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, do an inventory, update the inventory to identify. The last -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I see that. I would propose, if you look at my language, to strike through that within two years of adoption and to go with the standard language that we've proposed which simply says subject to Policy 1.1.1, because -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: -- you know, it would cost something and I don't know if there's funding. It's something that needs to be done. Why have a study that we don't update, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anything else on 2.2.1. Bob -- MR. MULHERE: I just want to say, the nexus behind that -- I apologize. The reason that it's important in part to do it, so much has changed since 2004 in terms of affordability, in terms of need. And so we don't want to follow a set of facts that no longer apply in terms of assessing resources to an issue. If there's more than adequate supply of affordable housing, then we should be looking at something else to expend our resources. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's very true. And I know Farmworker Village right now is half empty because ofjust -- MR. MULHERE: So that update is kind of important. MR. WEEKS: I would just echo that from a different perspective and that is that since Hurricane Wilma came through in 2005, 1 suspect some of the houses that might have been on that inventory at that time may not even exist or some that were in decent shape before may now be eligible to be on a list such as this. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same policy, Bob, on the second line you refer to frequent occurrences. What is a frequent occurrence? MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't really have a definition for that. Frequent occurrences of substandard structures, vacant parcels or groups of vacant parcels in areas where issues of compatibility between land uses exist. You know, I'm sure that that phrase was intended to refer to the number of code enforcement or safety citings as it relates to substandard structures. But 1 don't know what number would associate with frequent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So maybe that needs to just come out and just say occurrences of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I think ambiguous words like that cause problems down the road for interpretation -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the only reason I pointed it out. MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You took out the conflicting land uses, because that was another one. And that's it on that. Page 51 161 1 February 16, 2010 Anybody else on 2.2.1.? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 2.2.2.? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question is what do we do today? We're speaking annually. What is our program today? MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm proposing to strike through annually, first of all, because I don't know that it has to occur annually. I mean, that was there. But if you look on the screen, I'm going to strike -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see it now on the screen. I was looking at my book. Okay, that answers my question then, because 1 -- MR. MULHERE: Because this certainly could be biannually or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next one is 2.2.3. Anybody have any questions on 2.2.3.? MR. MULHERE: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your own? Okay. Oh, you wiped it out, good. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Based on the new goal one and the new policies related to that, to me this is no longer necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. MR. MULHERE: So I get one checkmark for eliminating one thing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that just -- now, do your fees -- do you go negative on your fees — MR. MULHERE: We're already negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you start taking stuff out? MR. MULHERE: We're way negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Policy 2.2.4. Any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Collier County will update its program. And my statement that I wrote down, to achieve what, exactly? For the repair, removal or replacement of substandard housing units. Well, that seems to be what you want to achieve. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that is what the program is intended to achieve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's going to update its program. MR. MULHERE: You know, that directly relates to the inventory, you know, how much needs to be repaired, removed or replaced. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I guess the question there is the word update. If something is continuous, then you don't have to update it. It's constantly being updated in the sense that I see this, it suggests that you want to do it at some period. MR. MULHERE: I would suggest, for what it's worth, that this is very directly related to the statement at the end of Policy 2.2.1., which requires -- which says that the county will review the 2004 Immokalee housing condition inventory to determine if the findings of the inventory are still valid, and update the inventory to accurately identify and target redevelopment areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's a better phrase. MR. MULHERE: Well, and I'm just saying maybe this could be combined with that, because really the next thing is also to provide funding to improve those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So if you would agree, I would be able to combine -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the more you combine, the less policies we have, the better it's going to be to read this in the future, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, was that -- is that the direction we're going? Because I was going to say periodically update. Page 52 161 1 3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think he's going to combine the two. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. MR. MULHERE: I like that, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 2.2.5.? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is this going on now, 2.2.5., or is this a new policy? Because I've never heard of this happening now. It would be great. I know a lot of people who are losing their housing and they don't have anyone that's helping them. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if it's occurring. It's not exactly a new idea or a new concept. I believe it has in the past occurred from time to time when circumstances warranted. Obviously it was going -- in some cases it was private entities that were doing a lot of this work. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, I've never heard the county getting involved with it. It's nice. MR. MULHERE: That's why it says coordinate with local nonprofit social service organizations. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's all. MR. MULHERE: I think that there could be some funding available through the — I hate to say it, but -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Block grants? MR. MULHERE: No, there might be some funding available through the American Recovery Reinvestment Act, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 2.2.6? Anybody have any questions on 2.2.6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where you have, shall make every effort, can you use the words, shall make reasonable effort? MR. MULHERE: You bet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I put that in there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I hate that phrase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too. MR. MULHERE: No, that's a very good qualifier. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And my question on that is isn't that supposedly happening already? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it is. But I don't know -- you know, again, I mean, if we don't put stuff in the plan, we'rejust going to assume that someone's -- that it's happening. If it's not in the plan, you can't make it happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you strike the word every? Shall make reasonable effort. You're not helping us there, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Questionable. MR. MULHERE: Every reasonable effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That makes it worse. Okay, 2.2.6. If we're done there, let's go to Objective 2.3. Anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question here, I have, my note, seeks an example. Explore innovative programs and regul -- what kind of -- I just want to understand the thinking process. MR. MULHERE: I guess the thinking process there is that maybe not every single embellishment that's required for a residential development in coastal Collier County should also be required driving up the cost for an affordable workforce housing project in Immokalee. So, I mean, I can use examples, but I hate to pick on one example. I mean, maybe it's -- you know, maybe it's you don't need as much parking because you have more people who are using transit and bicycles and walking, if the project is proximate to employment. So maybe you don't need as much interior landscaping if you, you know, do appropriate external landscaping keeping the co -- I mean, the whole thing is that these -- you have to evaluate what's required to see if the cost translates to a benefit to the community when weighed against the impact to providing affordable housing. And that's what the effort is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 53 16 9 1 �3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 2.3.1. Anybody have any questions on 2.3.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 2.3.2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My comment here is, and do what? Determine incentives to determine the effectiveness of existing provisions and whether additional incentives are necessary or desired. And do what? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess it's implied. And if they are necessarily your desire, they would be adopted in the land code, or wherever they need to be to become effective. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To determine the effectiveness of existing provisions. That's a whole study in itself. What is staffs position on that? MS. VALERA: Well, in terms of determining the effectiveness of the policy, we do that through the EAR, through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. So we do -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's every seven years. MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a long time between food breaks. MR. MULHERE: I would propose we change it as we've discussed before so that it now reads Collier County, subject to Policy 1.1.1 will review its affordable workforce housing, including gap incentives, to determine the effectiveness of these existing provisions. And that could be a period right there. I think it's implied that if they're not effective you're going to do something else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah. And then where do we put that, in the code? MR. MULHERE: The land code provides for the affordable housing bonus. Mostly it provides for the incentives in the land code. 1 suppose there are some outside of the line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would relate then in the code directly to Policy 2.3.2 and we would stipulate some characterizations? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, what you have in the code is you have mostly density bonuses that are available to incentivize workforce -- affordable workforce housing and/or gap. You know, it's probably a little bit of a difficult exercise right now because of the current economic conditions. The need is diminished because things are more affordable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I can see further than that, and I'm -- MR. MULHF,RE: So I don't think in the next few years you're going to be able to have an accurate -- when things begin to change again and affordability isn't an issue -- and maybe it still is an issue for certain segments of the population, I don't know the answer to that. That will be part of this analysis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, isn't that policy already more or less addressed in the housing element in a sense that we have a goal for a number of affordable houses to be produced on an annual basis and we're supposed to review that goal on a regular basis? I thought -- wouldn't this already be addressed there? Have you checked? MR. MULHERE: I think to a degree it would be. I guess maybe the idea was that this would be more Immokalee specific. But I do agree with you that that probably is. There are already some policies that are Immokalee, like by right zoning to increase the likelihood of getting affordable workforce housing in Immokalee. So I think you're right. If it's not expressly stated, it's certainly implied that if you have an objective to attain a certain number of affordable workforce housing units, that you've got to look at how your -- what policies you're using to attain them and whether they're effective. I don't know if it expressly states that as it does here, but I think it's certainly implied in the housing element, and I think we could eliminate this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, do you see any -- or Carolina. Doesn't matter one way or the other to you guys? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind leaving it in, just as long as there's not a problem, that's all I raised the Page 54 161 1p February 16, 2010 question for. Okay, let's move on to goal three and Objective 3.1. Anybody have any questions on Objective 3 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll move into 3.1.1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 3.1.1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3. 1.1 on Page 30 of our document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at it. It's more to staff, I suspect. I presume consultation with the Parks and Recreation organization occurred, and they have no objection to an hmmokalee specific component. MS. VALERA: I'll say that to the extent that they had reviewed this plan, yes. And they did comment that they had no comment regard to the -- what's proposed in the amendment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, along that same line, if we provide an Immokalee specific component to the parks and community regional park master plan, basically we have a component of Parks and Rec now that tell the parks and the status and where they're planning to spend money throughout the entire county. hnmokalee's in there along with every other part of the county. What is the goal, what do you see you're getting out of this more than what's already there now? MR. MULHERE: Oh, I mean, I can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. MULHERE: I mean, the community is very, very different. The demographics are very different. And their needs are very different from other parts of Collier County. I think Penny can speak to that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I'm not saying they're not. What I'm trying to say is aren't their needs taken into consideration in the planning of parks now? MR. MULHERE: I don't want to speak on behalf of the community, but I guess the community felt it was important to have a policy that expressly required that they do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't they do it now? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would agree with you, I think that I haven't heard people saying that we're not getting the parks, that the county's not cooperating. I questioned this myself. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And it's also an existing policy, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Bob, see, when we go through the parks element in the AUIR, for example, and then all the other times we look at it, they list all over the county, they list 40 -- however many parks they have. They list all the facilities in each one. They list why and where they think the ones need to be expanded. And I'm just wondering, so you got all this in a master list. And so now you're going to go into that master, you're going to take them out that apply to Immokalee and stick them in another list over here that's going to be treated the same way as the master list. Why are we doing that -- MR. MULHERE: Well, no, it would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what does it gain from the exercise? MR. MULHERE: It would be something different than that. You'd have a -- you have the community and regional park master update. Master plan, which is updated. And within it you would have a certain segment, it could be even a few of paragraphs, that specifically address the unique needs of Immokalee as it relates to community and regional parks. That could include that maybe there's more -- less need for parking or more need for soccer fields there than elsewhere. That could mean that they don't need tennis courts as much as they need facilities for youth activities. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying they can't do that now? MR. MULHERE: No, I'm not saying they can't. Page 55 161 1 �3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, did you have something you wanted to -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Just wanted to add, you're correct, you know, the county has a level of service standard that applies county -wide, it's not geographic specific. Parks department does have a community outreach program where they do solicit input from the geographic area that they're trying to service for the parks or planned parks. With that being said, 1 can't see Parks and Recreation having a problem having this component, because it's being done already. And one of the things that we've encountered a number of times during the hearings today, we've been reminded this stuff is -- some of these aspects are being done already. And I guess from the perspective of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the visioning committee, they wanted to put the idea out that yes, there may be activities that are currently going on, but they want to focus their attention specifically to the Immokalee community. I guess that would be my only statement going into some of these redundancies that are contained within the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, that's no different than what every other part of the county wants. I mean, I can tell you right now, Golden Gate Estates, we certainly would like different things looked at than the way everything's looked at in Collier County. I'm sure East Naples has elements that they want to see looked at differently for their community than other parts of the county. So if that's the case, then that's no problem, let's create specific components for all parts of the county and have separate sub - elements for everyone. MR. BOSI: Well, we have a Golden Gate Master Plan where those specific individual dictates or desires are expressed within that master plan. And that's why the one thing I saw from the applicant's perspective, that it was appropriate, because this is the master plan for Immokalee, to put ideas that maybe are redundant but they are -- this is their vision. This is the vision for the community that they're expressing. So even though it's being done, they want their vision unique to Immokalee to be expressed in that manner. And that's -- I mean, the elimination doesn't stop the county from doing it, you're correct. And that was just the perspective I had from purely a master planning exercise. And I understand you're getting into the specifics of the policy, and the specifics of the policy in your best interest are elitr nating any redundancy within the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Adding more layers upon layers upon layersjust doesn't seem to be as effective from my perspective. Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think if we look at the current Immokalee Master Plan, you're going to see that -- well, and let's just ask if this has happened. It says in Policy 4.1.1, in accordance with Objective 3.1 and subsequent policies of the recreational and open space element, the County Parks and Recreation Department shall by 2010 develop a community and regional park plan. Has that been done? MR. MULHERE: I believe it has been done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's been done. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So -- MR. MULHERE: So this is an ongoing effort to make sure that when that gets updated that the same considerations occur. And by the way, I don't (sic) want to put on the record, I'm in no way insinuating that Parks and Recreation is not evaluating the unique needs of the hmmokalee community. Because I am sure they are. I doubt that anybody as a Parks and Recreation professional wants to build somethng that people won't use. I seriously doubt that. I'm just -- I mean, you know, you have an existing policy that called for the creation of a community and regional park master plan. That's been created. Now that will be updated from time to time. This policy says -- it said 2010, but I've revised it to say the next update, it probably should say next and subsequent updates, that there be an Immokalee specific component. And that's really I think what the community wanted to ensure, that their priorities were being addressed as part of that master plan process. So while there's a community and regional park master plan, I don't know that it has an Immokalee specific component. In fact, I think it does not. Page 56 161 1P February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't want to either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you relate the issue to Policy 3.1.2, it really brings into focus what the intent is. We make an Immokalee specific component and then the community will talk about placing parks in the most densely populated urban areas. And access by majority of residents. I guess what I'm really saying is I brought it up because I thought it was going to create another list and somewhat of a contradiction to what is currently the means by which it's now evaluated. Parks and Rees evaluates its needs. MR. MULHERE: I guess I would say look, I'm sure that they're already doing this. And I think that again, I'm just -- not to be redundant or beat a dead horse, I think the community wanted to make sure that there was a policy that they could call attention to that said that it would get done. You know, I think no one's going to object if you want to take it out because it's deemed to be redundant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not always eager to just simply take something out. I'm trying -- like the rest of us try to craft something that's really effective. I can live with hnmokalee's specific component. I was just concerned with what we see at the AUIR and whether or not that's going to carve out another issue. MR. MULHERE: You know, I think maybe we need to look at some of these things from another perspective. I understand we're looking at the perspective of is this duplicative, is it already getting done. There are other reasons for having policies in a comp. plan, which I've tried to express here on several comment points. And one is that the community desires to have that policy in there. Just that very reason alone, whether it's being done or not being done. And the second one is that having that policy in there does create an opportunity to hold someone's feet to the fire to ensure that it's happening. Not that it's not happening now, but what happens five years from now when there's different staff and different people and different decisions and different economic conditions? And also, I think it provides opportunity for grant opportunities from Immokalee specifically. If you have a comprehensive plan policy that supports that, you might be able to use that to acquire funding from other areas because it's in the policy. So there are a lot of reasons I think to have these policies in here. I'm not trying to defend whether or not it's occurring and I'm not trying to point fingers to suggest that it's not occurring right now, because I think that would be inappropriate. Because I believe it is occurring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand the sense of any of this. What is an Immokalee specific component in the park? I mean, swings are swings, soccer fields are soccer fields, basketball hoops are -- I mean, you know, courts are basketball courts. And again, I spend an awful lot of time in Immokalee, I drive all over there for a number of reasons, and I still don't get it. I mean, I'm not being insensitive, I just don't -- I don't get it. MR. MULHERE: I guess I don't know -- you know, the only thing I can continue to iterate and, you know, maybe this is not fruitful, we should just remove it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, not just that -- MR. MULHERE: Community and regional park master plan needs in Immokalee are different from community and regional master plan needs elsewhere in Collier County. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How? MR. MULHERE: The population, the demographics are completely different, the types of facilities are different that they want. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, what is different? What's a component that -- MR. MULHERE: It's a much younger community. They don't probably require as many bocce ball courts. MR. WEEKS: Shuffleboard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do we have -- MR. MULHERE: Or shuffleboard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- bocce ball courts in -- Page 57 1611 1 -�3 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERF: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- in parks? I don't even know what it is, but -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I'm trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. We've got other questions and comments. So let's just move through everybody -- oh, Penny, do you have something you want to contribute? MS. PHILLIPPI: I do want to say one thing. You know, by education I'm a cultural anthropologist, which kind of gives me a whole different look at things. And our population is 90 percent Hispatuc, Central and South American people. And one of the things that they look for when they come to Immokalee is the plaza, theLocalo, whatever you want to call it, the center of town where there's music or celebrations or those kind of things. And as you saw in our public realm plan, one thing we absolutely knew we had to have were two plazas, two bookend plazas that would be gateways -- not only gateways into the community but traffic slowing devices that would address some of those safety things that we talked about earlier. We've already -- 1 mean, we're about to close on the land on Ninth Street to build the Ninth Street Plaza where we can actually have an amphitheatre, quinceaneras, events that we can't currently do because we don't have adequate space to do them in. And we're in negotiations for the First Street Plaza. So these kinds of things are very unique to Immokalee, because that's the nature of the town, the community, the pueblo, as some people call it. So -- and the other thing that we want to do is find small neighborhood lots where we can have small neighborhood parks, which would be normal in any community. And I want to assure you that the Park and Recreation Department are full partners in these activities. When these plazas are completed, naturally they're the ones who are going to be maintaining them. But there is a unique quality, and Bob is correct, the average age is 24 in this community. Which you really don't find anywhere else in Florida, little lone the rest of the county. So, I mean, any given day if you're in Immokalee you can see young people playing soccer by the hundreds. It's not small numbers of people. Or many young women pushing their strollers or young couples strolling down the road. It's a young, vibrant community that looks for those kinds of active parks, interactive kind of parks. So what's unique about Immokalee I think is the ethnicity and the age, particularly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe -- Paul, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would be in favor of removing 3.1.1, because I think 3.1.2 and 3. 1.3 do the same thing, but they state it much better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- Bob, I've got another comment on it. Right now in our AUIR and all the rest of the planning we do, Immokalee's parks are listed in some kind of order; I think it's mostly alphabetical or something like that, depending if they're community or regional. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're lumped into the overall budget. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This proposal would take them out, isolate them and show them as a separate grouping, with most likely a separate total dollar impact. And when that total dollar impact is seen in context, standalone by itself compared to the rest of the county, I'm not sure that the same frame of mind will stay in place as far as a quality of distribution of funds as it does when they're mixed in with 40 other parks and their share in their total threshold is not as, say, blatantly put forth. I'm not sure this will help you get more -- MR. MULHERE: Well, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- funding. It may end up saying gee, they're already getting all this funding, it may hurt, so -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. That certainly wasn't our intent, and we didn't think that this necessarily even really required that there be some sort of separate funding calculation. All -- the purpose of that was to make sure that there was an Immokalee specific review of regional and community parks to make sure that the community's needs were being addressed. Why spend money on things that, you know, aren't appropriate or desirable. So I'm not arguing. I think you bring up a good point. I have no objection -- you know, it's been a long discussion. I think Cotrmussioner Midney's point is that probably 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 do as much to achieve what I'm Page 58 16! 1,3 February 16, 2010 suggesting we want 4. 1.1 to achieve, or 3. 1.1 to achieve. And it could come out in that respect, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that would be a better idea. I think your 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 will -- well, plus the rest of these, this whole section pertains to parks, so let's just move on with the rest of the park discussion. Priority park sites. Anybody have any questions on 3.1.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the last part of 3.1.2 -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just a comment. Right now there are no trails, let alone a network of trails. So I think it's inaccurate to say expand the network of parks and trails. MR. MULHERE: That's on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at? Oh, you're on 3.1.4. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Oh, we haven't got there yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm still on 3.1.2. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just taking them one at a time so we make sure we catch everything. The only question I had on 3.1.2 is not a question, it just isn't that last sentence something that you're trying to do through that realm plan as well, right? On 3.1.2. Well, identify locations for public plazas, greens and -- MR. MULHERE: We did identify two locations through that, yes. And the ones that Penny referenced -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the kind of thing you're trying to do, is that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, good. MR. MULHERE: And, you know, just real quick, those two plazas, they're going to be beautiful and they're going to be critical to the whole redevelopment and redesign of downtown Immokalee. But they're not community or regional parks. The other policy dealt with community and regional parks. They might take away or satisfy some of the needs that might typically be provided in a community of regional parks, such as gathering places, places for quinceaneras and all those kinds of things. I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that they're really two different things. Those are kind of like a hybrid, they probably function more as a public place neighborhood park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then if this policy says that Collier County will prioritize those parks -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then at the end you skip down to the end and, the CRA will identify locations for public plazas and greens and urban parks. But they're not park sites then, right? MR. MULHERE: Well, they are park sites. They are publicly owned and -- they'll probably be maintained by Parks and Recreation, so I would say that they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the public plazas that are in the realm plan that are going to be completed -- MR. MULHERE: They'll be public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will be parks -- will be maintained by the Collier County -- MR. MULHERE: I would think to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- park system? MR. MULHERE: In most places that I know of, a pocket park is still a park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not objecting, I'm just curious as to has anybody -- since you're already underway with that, has all that been approved by the board for budgeting and maintenance and operations and cost? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- again, I'm not saying no, I'm just saying has anybody approached the board to say when you buy this -- since you're buying the land and you're going forward with this, has all that cost analysis been done? MR. MULHERE: You mean the maintenance cost? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said they're going to be maintaining it. MR. MULHERE: I would assume they would be. I mean, maybe that decision hasn't been made. I'm going to have to defer to Penny on that. I don't -- you know, maybe that decision hasn't been made. Page 59 161 P February 16, 110 MS. PHILLIPPI: The initial park on Ninth Street is coming forward to the board very shortly, either late February or early March. So they have seen them and they like them. Have they approved their construction yet? No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the money for the construction -- well, I guess that's irrelevant. You guys are -- that's just going to be worked out with you and the board and funding with CRA. MS. PHILLTPPL Well, and funding through grants and things like that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a -- yeah. Okay, thank you. 3.1.3 is community input. Any comments on community input? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I had a little note on here, what does this mean? Collier County will solicit community input to ensure provisions of adequate facilities to address the demographics of the Immokalee area. MR. MULHERE: Perhaps adequate is not the correct word. Maybe it should be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think it's a question of adequate facilities, I think it's a question of what facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appropriate facilities? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably be better. 3.1.4, does anybody have any questions on 3.1.4? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That was my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you repeat it again. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, it talks about expanding a network of parks and trails. As far as I know, we don't have any trails, let alone a network. So I think we're talking about creating instead of expanding. MR. MULHERE: Well, you have parks, though. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, but no trails that I know of. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: So expand and create -- and/or create the network of parks and trails? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When you're talking about connecting the recreation areas throughout the community, I can't visualize how that would be. MR. MULHERE: You -- I mean, it could be a sidewalk too that doesn't exist. Or a bike path and a sidewalk that doesn't exist to connect to public recreation facilities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. Change then to create instead of expand. MR. MULHERE: So I think maybe it would say Collier County will expand the network of parks -- but you do have sidewalks connecting things. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think a sidewalk is equivalent to a trail. MR. MULHERE: No, and 1 think that's where we're having the confusion. Because it may not be a trail, it could be a sidewalk connecting two facilities. So will expand and provide -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just take the words "trails to" out. And connect to recreation areas throughout the community. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's better. MR. MULHERE: Right. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 3.1.5, anybody have any questions on 3.1.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The prior policy in 3. L5 and the next one all start talking about this hnmokalee Capital Improvement Plan. What is that going to be like, Bob; do you know? MR. MULHERE: What is it going to be like? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it doesn't exist today, right'? MR. MULHERE: Right. My -- I believe what we think that it will be like is to take all of the category A capital facilities and identify the capital needs in Inunokalee for those, and then prioritize those, and then submit that to the county for consideration as part of the county's capital improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we're going to have an AUIR with another -- I shouldn't say the word element, but another chapter of it that will have a separate -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I guess I look at it differently. Is there anything wrong with this community identifying what they believe their capital needs are and providing that to you all for your decision - making process? Page 60 16 1 1p February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just trying to figure out the -- MR. MULHERE: No, I know, and that's what I'm saying. To me it's a good thing, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we already have a capital improvement plan. MR. MULHERE: Right. This would not replace that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will it supplement it? MR. MULHERE: It should be a factor in consideration of the prioritization of that county -wide capital improvement plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when we review the AUIR, what will we see? Will we see -- MR. MULHERE: You'll see a report that says here are the capital improvement needs for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: -- for Immokalee and a prioritized list of those needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, you really think a report in the AUIR that shows the expenditures county -wide and how much is going to go separately or needed by Immokalee is going to help you get more of the budget? MR. MULHERE: I think it helps show what the needs are and then, you know, there's a prioritization. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I -- if the community wants this, that's fine -- MR. MULHERE: But here's another -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think you're shooting yourselves -- MR. MULHERE: -- component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the foot, but -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to talk over you there. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the community wants this, that's fine. But in some ways I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, but that's -- MR. MULHERE: Well, there is another component to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, then Mr. Murray. MR. KLATZKOW: It's almost like we're creating a shadow comprehensive plan within the comprehensive plan. I mean, I could understand if Immokalee wanted to incorporate itself why we'd have all this stuff in there, but they either are incapable of because of finances or don't want to for other reasons. So you're creating a shadow plan within a plan. I mean, I don't know what an Immokalee Capital Improvement Plan is, I don't know what Immok -- I don't know what a lot of this stuff is. I don't know why you have to have a separate Immokalee parks policy to our comprehensive plan. It's like a shadow comp. plan within the comp. plan, and it's starting to give me great pause here. MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess I understand that. Or you could say the same thing about an Immokalee Area Master Plan or Golden Gate Estates Master Plan. Why have a separate master plan? You already have a master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's right. And that was to capture the needs of the area. But now we're doing sub plans on top of the sub plan to the main plan. So we're going to have a series of trickled down plans now. And I'm worried about the efficiency of getting government to accomplish any of its goals, well enough ones that are buried so deeply in layers of plans and so isolated that someone says, well, that's Immokalee. If they get a million dollars against their 10 million request, fine. Whereas if they were in the main plan and their requests were brought in under every department lumped in with all the other departments' improvements, they may end up with $2 million in improvements because they weren't so isolated out and shown to stand alone and say well, they're already getting a million, how come they want more? I'm not sure it's the best way politically to win your argument, and I don't know if pulling things out and isolating them in this manner is going to help. I'm not trying to hinder, I'm trying to understand if that's really the best thing you all have thought out. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I can tell you the intent was to be helpful. The intent was to allow this community to work together to identify their priorities and then tell you what those priorities are. So I guess that if that's got some unintended consequences associated with it -- we do have policy -- the new goal that calls for an annual prioritized plan of Immokalee's potential funding implications to the budget, and maybe that is sufficient and would take the place of a separate Immokalee specific capital improvement plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your Objective 1. 1, when you first pulled that up to us earlier today, I thought that was what you really meant by what you previously had stated as the Immokalee Capital Improvements Plan, Page 61 161 1 3 February 16, 2010 because -- and I guess I -- MR. MULHERE: Well, the difference -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: — you told me that you wanted both. You're going to have a prioritized plan that you're going to produce, plus you're going to have a capital improvements plan. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well, to me the difference is that capital improvement plan covers a five -year period minimally, could cover even more. So let's say you got a stormwater master plan. I mean, that's a high priority in your capital -- Immokalee's specific capital improvement plan. Well, that's going to cover -- typically a CIP is a five year period. So the other one was a -- this year in the budget process, this is what we see as a priority. So that was the difference between the two of them. You know, 1 understand that the county already has a CIP. I didn't write the scope for this, I'm only following the directions of what the community identified as being required. And one of the things that required in my contract is to come up with a capital improvement plan for Immokalee. We could certaitily have the discussion with the client that that may not be necessary and, you know, that we consider other options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we're going to be meeting a couple more days on this. If you and the CRA or you and Penny and others have a discussion that -- MR. MULHERE,: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe this isn't the right way to go, that's fine, it's -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- up to you. If not, I -- if the staff isn't objecting to it, I'm not. I'mjust wondering if it's just the smartest way to go. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. One thing is, hearing the discussion, it would be very difficult -- our capital improvement program is contained (sic) a level of service standards, and that level of service standards are tied to population that's distributed county -wide. To develop the Immokalee capital improvement program, I just wonder how that would surface. To me, going back to the suggestion of creating a prioritized list for the CRA to provide to the county government and to the Board of County Commissioners as the kind of the to do list or want list serves as a better process than developing a capital improvement program for lmmokalee that it's kind of hard to segment out where the population for -- to satisfy the level of service standards that we have incorporated within our comprehensive plan, how to segment out that Immokalee population and then sort out what are their appropriate levels of service for that population, segmenting out the rest of the county's population. So I see some discord within that process, but I see the benefit of what -- going back to the first Policy 1.1 of creating that list and putting it forward on an annual basis of the priorities that Immokalee sees. I see that accomplishing the effect of the CIP. And that might be produced from the Immokalee area CIP. They can do that internally in house, and then based upon that, that could form the basis for, you know, the priorities that Immokalee's going to put forward on an annual basis. So it doesn't cloud it as much, keep it somewhat separate. Just leave that first Policy ] .I to accomplish the goal and maybe move away from the idea of a formalized recognized within the Immokalee Area Master Plan that capital improvement program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Bob, I think the best thing to do is -- MR. MULHERE: 1 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have further discussions with your client, and when we talk again, we'll -- MR. MULHERE: We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll see where this one should go. And with that, is there any other questions on 3.1.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: if not, let's move on to 3.1.6. Any comments or questions on 3.1.6.? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Third line up. It starts, acquisition may be through outright purchases, Page 62 161 1.(3 February 16, 2010 purchase of tax lien certificates. And my comment, don't go there. Doesn't — that's more of a legal question, I would think. Doesn't that bring us into some pretty sticky territory? MR. MULHERE: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, or Jeff, whatever. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see the value. If they want to acquire it, consider acquiring vacant resident parcels, period. I don't know why you have to say how you're going to acquire it or -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. We can take that whole sentence out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. Because -- MR. MULHERE: It doesn't matter how. Whatever the best opportunity is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that's better. That leaves you the more generality that the GMP should be for. Brad, did you have anymore you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my point is you can't acquire anything through a lien. You can get a tax lien and force it down the steps, but that doesn't mean you're going to acquire it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just makes it muddy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move over to Policy 3.1.7, park amenities. This refers to the master plan. And you want to have to remend (sic) that language since 3.1.1. May come back and not use that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm not even sure if we need this, if we assume that that's going to get addressed with those other policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wouldn't park amenities be contingent upon community input, 3.1.3? MR. MULHERE: Yes. And also 3.1 -- yeah, I guess 3.1.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you could combine those. I mean -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- even if you wanted to salvage something out of that, you'd be better off combining the two policies. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on 3.1.7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 3.2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we really want to get on board with greenhouse gas emissions reduction? Do we want to create another bureau? MR. MULHERE: I'll let David answer that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm really concerned about that baby. That one gets us into a lot of stuff, so -- MR. WEEKS: Well, under 2008 House Bill 697 we were mandated to do so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we have to create a bureau of people with expertise in greenhouse gas reduction? MR. KLATZKOW: But you don't have to put it here. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes, you do have to have in your comp. plan ways that you're going to reduce — MR. KLATZKOW: In the comp. plan. But hnmokalee, correct me if I'm wrong, is part of unincorporated Collier County. We don't have to shove everything into this. MR. MULHERE: Okay, that may be. But I'm -- what I'm hearing from DCA is if you don't have methods, then they're not going to find you in compliance. So I've represented my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it's alre -- I think what Jeff is trying to say, it's already in the master comp -- or overall comp. plan. MR. MULHERE: Is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I'm asking. If it is, then why do we need it here? Page 63 16! 1 P February 16, 2010 MR. WEEKS: The answer is no, it's not- That is one of the items we will have to address during the EAR and then subsequent EAR -based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- MR. WEEKS: And I think -- excuse me, I think Bob's concern is this amendment is going to DCA before we get to the EAR -based amendments. The -- actually, the timing is that the EAR should be going to the board probably a month or so before this goes to the board -- excuse me, goes to DCA for transmittal. Is that right? MR. MULHERE: I just think it's in our best interest to try to identity how we're reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I think staff even requested that we provide this information in the plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, boy. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I'm the one with the lawsuits. When people start firing lawsuits saying you're not complying with the subjective of your comp. plan because you're not doing this for Immokalee, you're not doing that for hmmokalee, am I supposed to say that Itnmokalee's the same as the rest of unincorporated Collier County? I mean, that's my problem with a lot of this. I mean, by singling Immokalee out saying you've got to do this and you've got to do that, all right, you have separated Immokalee from the rest of the county and you're not going to have the same standards. MR. MULHERE: But, I mean, that's the whole objective of this. I mean, you have a separate Immokalee area MR. KLATZKOW: But do you really want separate objectives? I understand you want to economically grow. And I understand there are too many regulations on Immokalee. I understand you don't need the same sign code. I understand all that. But you keep throwing different stuff on Parks and Rec, on greenhouse gasses and everything else, and now you've got two separate comp. plans here. There's a difference. It has to be -- MR. MULHERE: I want -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- a meaning why we're saying Immokalee gets this and this and this and this. MR. MULHERE: Ijust want to say, I don't disagree with you. I think it would be better to address greenhouse gas emission issues comprehensively in the comp. plan, in the conservation and coastal element and probably in the future land use element. I don't disagree at all. I think we were asked to include this, number one. Number two, I did have a concern that we might be found in noncompliance if we didn't include it. So those are my two concerns. And I guess if I put them on the record and we take it out and we get found in noncompliance, no big deal, we can address it as part of, you know, the DCA's comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, can you address the need for this versus the timing of what -- I thought you just said our EAR is going to be going through a month before this does. And if that's the case and it's in the EAR, then why do we need it in Immokalee? MR. WEEKS: I think I misstated a little bit; let me back up. This petition is scheduled to go before the board in May. So DCA should be receiving this most likely sometime in late May, depending on when the board's hearing is. The EAR will not go to the board until its due January, 2011. So several months later is when the EAR would be sent out to the board. So House Bill 697, which is a state regulation we must comply with, is applicable to the hrtmokalee Master Plan. And if this master plan is silent to the greenhouse gas emissions issue, I would be concerned that DCA is going to object to that. Now, here's the question, though, back to Jeffs comment. Is it necessary to state something in the plan, specific GOPs, or can we address the House Bill 697 issue, the greenhouse gas issue, by support materials? And I think we can do it by the latter. That's what we do with other private sector amendments. You know, each of those amendments to the Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Master Plan you dealt with in the 07 -08 cycle, granted, they're a much different animal than this, a whole element, but all of those provided support data as to how they were addressing the greenhouse gas emission issue. So to sum all that up, it may be that we cannot adopt policy specific to greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the plan and instead provide support materials, for example, showing that this master plan, this set of amendments, will reduce trip lengths, it will result in more mixed use development, those types of things that would reduce greenhouse gasses. MR. MULHERE: And I think we have it. If we could maybe embellish it, I think we already have it. Page 64 161 43 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's -- Mr. Wolfley, you had a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 1 was just going to say, I'm being a little bit hesitant to put that in here. Of course about 90 percent of this I'm a little hesitant to put in here. But regarding all the farm equipment and so on and all the pumps and all the generators and things that put out diesel, diesel type fumes that tend to be a little obnoxious. But, you know, when 1 first read this through, and I want to say this now, is that I thought for a moment that Immokalee was seceding from the county. You know, they're creating their own comp. plan amendment here is the way it seemed to me. I'm -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it should seem that way, that's exactly what they're doing, creating their own comp. plan. Actually, they're not creating it, it already exists, they're amending it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I guess -- MR. MULHERE: It's true, that's what they're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- David? MR. WEEKS: I was just going to suggest, if the Planning Commission is leaning in the direction to what I think Jeff was suggesting on this policy, new Objective 4.2, perhaps we simply delete the last part of the sentence beginning with the phrase "reduce greenhouse gas'. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then use the supporting documentation to buffet up why you did that. That might be a simple solution to it all. MR. WEEKS: And I certainly would agree with Bob, that if the result of being silent to it in the actual adopted GOPs is to receive an objection from DCA, then maybe we reconsider this. MR. MULHERE: Well, and we might be able to make the argument at that point, and I think that's a good point, that the EAR -based amendments by that time moving through the system do have these county -wide requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you -- MR. WEEKS: They're not EAR -based -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MR. WEEKS: -- amendments but EAR itself, which leads to the amendments, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you not just notate in there that to be later adopted in the comprehensive plan of Collier County? And just that, and then provide the supporting materials that you reference rather than -- I mean, I understand his need. MR. MULHERE: I think that would call more attention to it. I think I'd rather just be silent on it and let them, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm good with silent then. MR. MULHERE: Let them -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was trying to -- MR. MULHERE: -- respond and if they do respond I think we have adequate responses that fall short of actually putting it in the -- anyway, I mean, I — again, I was only -- I think we put that in there because we were asked to and I think also we put it in there because we felt like we might get found in noncompliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we have a solution to at least part of the issue. Let's move on to the rest. Policy 3.2.1, anybody have any questions on Policy 3.2.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, 1 have a general question. What in that policy is not already done by policy automatically? I mean, where is this -- you're asking for all this issue to be in this document, but isn't that how we currently operate? So why are we restating it here? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's an existing policy in the existing Immokalee Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't care, I'm still -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I mean, there's a lot of existing policies that we didn't take out because we thought there was a reason why they were there and we left them in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if we're already doing this, and then this is -- well, we already have a Page 65 161 P February 16, 21 traffic circulation map. MR. MULHERE: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a transportation element. I'mjust wondering why we need the policy. It's already in the -- that's what they do, that's what the MPO does. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the policy's there, couldn't you just take the underlining out? MR. MULHERE: No, it's the -- no, we struck through the entire existing Immokalee Area Master Plan because the changes were so substantive that we struck through the entire thing and we underlined the entire new one. We have included in the backup information a spreadsheet that identified all the policies that we retained. And staff asked us to do that and we did do that. But I'm just -- so I can't remove the underlined, because it's new language. The whole thing's new. But I'm saying it was an existing policy. Now, I recognize that doesn't mean anything, and, they didn't -- I mean, you know, obviously part of our job is to understand whether it's still appropriate or not appropriate. And we left it there because we thought it was appropriate to call attention to it. But it isn't any different than what's already happening. I agree with the Chairman in that respect. That's what the MPO does, that's what the transportation staff, you know, does in terms of looking at the Future Land Use Map from a transportation perspective, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't know why we would need to restate an existing policy in effect. It also goes into some prioritization that I'm not sure is consistent with the way the MPO needs to operate. And why would we want to tie their hands by this paragraph? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't know -- I don't know if that's inconsistent. It's just prioritized by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These improvements will be — these improvements, and it's talking to the Immokalee's existing and future major roadway network. And identifies specific roadway improvements needed to implement the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And it's saying the MPO will make those prioritized. Prioritized over what, the rest of Collier County? And if that's the case, then I thought the MPO's prioritizing based on level of service need and other standards that they've -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No, I didn't think it meant prioritized over all Collier County. It just meant prioritized and placed into the Capital Improvement Plan. It's what they're doing now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then for clarity, we probably don't need it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless somebody else has an objection. Under the 3.2.2, does anybody have any questions or concerns on 3.2.2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, 1 have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the second line up where it says, are identified, input from landowners and residents will be sought. And my question to myself was public meetings, is that what that means? How do we get that input from landowners? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, it could be in a lot of ways. You could sent them a letter and ask them to comment. 1 mean, there's -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Too fast? We could do it a lot of different ways. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we're not seeking public meeting. MR. MULHERE: I don't think for this, no. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We sometimes have town hall meetings about things like that. MR. MULHERE: And the CRA has meetings. They're public advertised meetings, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You do realize that that can be an expensive proposition, putting in pathways and bicycle paths. So a few people in the community can make a determination? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's usually how it's done, they put a notice in the paper and say the sidewalk committee wants to meet, anybody who would like to provide input come to the meeting, and the ones who go to the meeting are the ones who get the sidewalks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's typical of politics. But the question that 1 would have then, is that Page 66 161 1 j�� February 16, 2010 group or that committee, are they an advisory committee to the county? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The one that I went to, it was staff who invited the community to a meeting. MR. MULHERE: I'm just having trouble following. 1 know that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we typically like to think that the best way to serve the public is to at least give the public an opportunity to have a say. And I ask a simple question, and are identified; input from landowners and residents will be sought. Well, I wanted to know how would they be at public meetings. Because it could also be sought by hey, Mary, you know that soccer field that you wanted? I mean, that kind of thing. I guess I'm trying to find out, are we as transparent as we need to be? MR. MULHERE: 1 mean, if it makes you feel that -- more specific, we can require some sort of a public meeting. I'm sure -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not -- MR. MULHERE: -- that that occurs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust want to know that we're good on what we're doing, that's all. I don't really want to establish unnecessary stricture, but I do think that it's important that we qualify how we get the input and from whom. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think in the past we've done things the right way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: hi the past that it has been done the right way in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you're comfortable, you're the man from Immokalee, I guess I can -- MR. MULHERE: Just so we're clear, that the MPO meetings are advertised and open to the public, the pathway advisory meetings are advertised and open to the public, the CRA meetings are advertised and open to the public. I mean, you know, we can be more specific, but it seems to me that just saying that we're going to reach out and solicit landowner and resident input, there's an obligation to do that in an appropriate way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was thinking of from the context of money and availability of money and prioritization. And, you know, you're talking about plazas and parks and soccer fields which are inevitable and they're very costly and how much money do you all have. And I was concerned with whether or not we're going to get the full and complete opportunity for the public there. And maybe only two people will ever show up. But it's the intent. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and my response would be I'm sure we will do that. And yes, it's all priority. There's only so much money and so many improvements you can make. They have to be prioritized. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly am not against bicycle or pedestrian pathways. Just you're asking for a lot of things here, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, did you have something you wanted to say'? You need to state your name for the record. MR. MENENDEZ: Yes. My name is Pedro Jesus Ramiro Menendez. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you -- MR. MENENDEZ: I'm a resident of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir? MR. MENENDEZ: -- Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to talk much, much slower, and you have to spell your name for this young lady here. MR. MENENDEZ: Pedro Jesus Ramiro Menendez. I'm a resident of Immokalee. And yes, we do need the pathways for the pedestrians and the bicycle. I live in Immokalee, and driving there is very dangerous. People have no place to walk in most of the town. It's no place. Lots of people there. There's a lot of poor people live there. Different fatmworkers that they cannot afford cars. And they got bicycles. It's a lot of elderly people there on tricycles. It's not enough pathway for them. I have lived in other states where they make sure there are enough pathway for the pedestrian and the bicycles to connect all through the city. You say it's too expensive now. If you don't do it now, it's going to be accidents, people going to get hurt, it's going to cost more to the insurance company, and it's going to cost more in the future. Like if some of the other Page 67 16I p February 16, 210 programs that we cut because we don't have money now, like it -- I'm just making comparison, they cut programs from the school. They cut down the programs that -- money at the library because no money now. So these kids, they got no after- school program now because we're saving money now. So they can no go to the library and use the computer and read the books because we don't have the money now. But we don't use it -- that money's no use now. In the future those kids are going to end up on the judicial system. It's going to cost a lot more than what we are saving now. Same thing with the pathways for the pedestrian and the bicycle. We don't build them there, it's going to be a lot of accident. Traffic is increasing in Immokalee. Now with Ave Maria it's going to be more traffic coming through Immokalee. And these people -- I'm one that I like to walk. And it good for our health too to do some more walking. It's not enough places in Immokalee to walk. It's no safe place to walk or for bicycle. So you might be saving money now, but in a few years from now it's going to cost you a lot more. It's going to cost the community a lot more if we don't build this pathway now that are needed. The people in Immokalee, they do need it. It's not like -- Immokalee is the poorest area of the county. Unfortunately we don't have enough direct representation there. We have to depend the people here from Naples. The people here in Naples, majority, they are affluent, they got cars and they got good means of transportation. The people in Immokalee, as I said before, it's a lot of poverty there, and people need to work, to go to work, to go shopping and to contribute to the economy of the town there. And we need to avoid all those accidents and we need a safe place for these people to ride the bicycles and work so we can be able to travel easily through the town. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, the intent of this policy is within Immokalee to prioritize whatever funding Immokalee's going to get for pathways. To prioritize the connection, the linkage of existing and future residential neighbors with commercial employment, public service areas and community parks and recreation site. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't agree with what you're -- somewhat of what you're saying. Your goal -- I don't disagree what you're trying to get to. I don't think this says that, though. MR. MULHERE: Well, I added some language. It says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not reading what you added. I told you I can't read that and read this at the same -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- time. MR. MULHERE: -- just want you to know that I did add some language that says related to pathways specifically in the Immokalee urban area. So -- because you're right, 1 think it could have been read that the prioritization was county -wide, that the county had to prioritize these linkages in Immokalee, and that wasn't the intemet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: The intent was whatever funding hmmokalee might get towards pathways, let's prioritize this connectivity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that does correct the concern -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I was going to bring up with the first sentence. But the last sentence is still -- I want to ask staff, the Collier County five year pathways plan will depict existing and future pathways for the Immokalee community. Do we depict those for all communities now or no communities now? What are we -- how is this different than anything that's going on now? We don't have any transportation person in the room. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah, we have somebody that's close. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did not take any of Bob's Quaaludes that he offered me earlier this moming. But 1 will try and speak slowly. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. We've got an Immokalee walkable communities plan that the MPO had done, which identifies priorities. So we have something, but it's not a five -year plan that's updated on a regular basis. So maybe it's just to say, you know, Page 68 161 l A3 February 16, 2010 updated on the Immokalee walkability plan, master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we ought to reference something that you have so that we're -- and as updated and leave it like that. So that's the correction needed for that last sentence. Thank you, that works. MR. MULHERE: Is that available? Because we can't seem to get our hands on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's what's on my list of items that -- MR. MULHERE: I know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to be sought yet and -- MR. MULHERE: That's what I'm asking for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting there. COMMISSIONER CARON: So would you repeat that? What is the report actually called? The Immokalee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokability (sic) Walkability Plan. I think it's the Immokalee Walkability Plan. It will be something like that is what Bob will find. And there is a reference in here, and I -- it's on Policy 3.2.6, which we haven't gotten to, of the actual walkability study. So we do need that before we can finish all the review of these documents. Okay, with that, I think that takes care of 3.2.2, and we'll move on to 3.2.3, long -range transportation. Anybody have any questions on 3.2.3? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why did you feel it necessary to put in there subject to available funding? It's always subject to available funding, right? MR. MULHERE: Okay, I'm going to strike through the two, four lanes, because that might not be the case. So we're just going to say under the first bullet the Florida Department of Transportation in the widening of State Road 82 between 1 -75 and 29, okay? That just came to me, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's those Quaaludes kicking in. MR. MULHERE: To answer your question -- what was your question? Oh, subject to available funding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Isn't that always the case? I mean, you're trying to make a point there, but I'm not sure that you needed to make that. MR. MULHERE: Well, we had several sources, 1 think staff in many cases asked us to put that language in. But also others suggested that you -- you know, you have to have some caveat in there that relates to the ability to accomplish these based on funding limitations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but it says will explore the possibility of accelerating the implementation. MR. MULHERE: Even that exploration is based on available funding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that may be true, but that's a fact. You just stated it yourself, even that is based on. So I don't know, it seems superfluous to me to put it in there. But if I'm missing something, then that's fine, somebody can straighten it out for me. MR. MULHERE: I'm not agreeing that it's superfluous, but I'm tired of fighting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We almost got him wom down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got two more days to go, at least. MR. MULHERE: Well, I can get a good night's sleep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't get tired yet. Any other questions on 3.2.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, in the last sentence it says in particular, county will support and encourage. Then it goes on listing all these routes and roadway and transportation issues. Doesn't the MPO have a plan in which they are -- which the MPO is Collier County Board of County Commissioners, so don't they already have a plan that they support and encourage as the long -range transportation plan? So what are we trying to do here, circumvent that, or — MR. MULHERE: They have a plan. This talks about accelerating the implementation of that plan as it relates to those three or four examples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accelerating it over what? Page 69 161 1 A February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Just accelerating. If we can find funding moving faster. Not necessarily over anything else, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why -- Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those policies -- the MPO is going through the LRPT update this next year. Having those in there only supports some of these projects through the MPO process, it wouldn't hurt us to identify them, so I don't have an issue with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you already know that these are going to be more or less included in that plan and approved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They'll be considered and gone through the public process, so at least we'll look for that. And for the record, Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's drawing a line in the sand. Okay, I just -- if this works for transportation, I guess it will work. Policy 3.2.4. Anybody have any questions on 3.2.4? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do we have that Florida Trade Port Parkway on any map? I'd like to know where it is. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to defer to Nick. I don't -- I think it is on -- I think it is on a map, but I can't -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's not. It's proposed. And I have a little issue with this. I mean, again they put subject to available funding. PD &E is a pretty expensive and long process. But if it puts that caveat that it's subject to available funding and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, you know, PD &E study is a pretty long and in -depth process. MR. MULHERE: I guess just so you know, this would be a significant benefit to provide access to the airport for economic development, so -- I mean, I know we did put subject to funding. At some point this is going to have to happen, you know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to at least know where it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you bring that back? MR. MULHERE: We can bring something back to show you where this is, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PHILLIPPI: Can I tell them? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can start that way, and then we'll bring -- MS. PHILLIPPI: You know where the -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MS. PHILLIPPI: Excuse me, Penny Phillippi again. If you know where the TMI building is, it's directly across the street. That whole area has been laid out as the Trade Port. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know where the TMI -- MS. PHILLIPPI: Okay. Across the street from the airport there's that industrial -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- site. It's right there just beyond that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So the access would be from 29, 1 guess. I don't know what -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, it sounds like it would be from 846. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you're right, 29 by passes. Yeah, yeah. MR. WEEKS: Bob, could you show that on the visualizer, possibly? Is that detailed enough? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. I don't think so. 1 don't know exactly where it is. Somewhere in here. That's the bypass. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Bypass is this. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That? No, I don't think so. That goes right through the airport preserve. MR. MULHERE: It's not even in the -- no, the airport boundary is right here. This is on the outside of the airport, okay? This is the boundary for the airport. Page 70 161 1 p February 16, 2010 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Then the access road would be actually the outside of the boundary. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there is such a road planned. MR. MULHERE: There would like to be such a road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've never seen it on any plan. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it was part of the whole Trade Port DRI, which has been, you know, withdrawn. But the need for the access to the airport remains as a priority. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm kind of hesitant about signing onto something that I've never even seen a drawing of and have no idea where it goes. I mean, I have an idea where it goes but I have a lot of reservations about where it goes. MR. MULHERE: We will get something that shows the location for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Until that happens, I'm hesitant to support this 3.2.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll just make a note then, at one of the next meetings we'll see what that review -- we'll come back and touch on that paragraph. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, if we come up with a map that depicts it, is there any objection to us sending that to you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. MULHERF,: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I want to see it, yeah, of course. MR. MULHERE: No, I know, but I meant before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions on 3.2.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if there was -- I don't know what you would need this for. I think it already says the same thing in another one of the previous ones said. MR. MULHERE: I'm proposing to strike through it. I know you're not reading our revised language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't even look up. MR. MULHERE: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still reading off my sheets. 3.2.6, safety improvements, anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is the reference to the walkability study, which you still have to get; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: I don't have it. I know we put a call into -- is it Mr. Buchheit. Did I pronounce that correctly? I don't know if I pronounced his name correctly. MR. WEEKS: With MPO? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But we're trying to get a copy of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can't get copies of any of the referenced documents I think, at least from my perspective, you're going to have to strike the reference. Because if nobody can find them, they don't do us a lot of good. So eventually we need to find it if you intend to keep that reference in here. MR. MULHERE: As far as I know, the study is done, but I don't think it's been released. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It hasn't gone through the process. It's completed. MR. MULHERE: So are we going to be able to get a copy or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll get you a copy of it. MR. MULHERE: We'll get you a copy of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 3.2.6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.2.7? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Again, pending available funding and demand? Suppose you had demand but no funding? MR. MULHERE: Well, actually, I'm proposing a slightly different -- I've struck through that last phrase and what I said was Collier County will consider expansion of public transit routes to comprehensively cover the Page 71 161 1 PC February 16, 2010 downtown area. Connect significant, not all but significant employment centers and public facilities and interconnect to adjacent communities where deemed appropriate and subject to Policy 1.1.1, which is the funding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm glad you took transportation division out, because medical transport doesn't fall under them, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 3.2.7'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to 3.2.8. Anybody have any questions on 3.2.8? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think he combined it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 3.2.9, anybody have questions on 3.2.9? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is that still in effect? I thought that we were kind of taking that off the table of MR. MULHERE: We were taking off-- if I can, we were taking off the table the adoption of any kind of TCA. But including a feasibility analysis of either a TCA or some other methodology to address the conflict between these two competing public policy issues, concurrency and economic development. And we met with staff on several occasions, and I think we have staff support. We'll find out for sure in just a few seconds. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I thought that that was kind of something that wasn't going to work. MR. MULHERE: Well, if that doesn't work, we can fold up and hit the road. So -- I mean, we've got to find some way for it to work. Because we've got to find some way when an economic development knocks on the door to allow economic development to occur out there. And that's what we're proposing to do over this two year period. In a way that, you know, maybe doesn't have the unintended consequences that maybe a TCA might have. So that's not -- that may not be the only solution to the problem. Nick has suggested a couple of other options. And even if we did go with a TCA, we would talk about limited geography, limited uses and so on and so forth. So -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue is obviously State Road 29. That's going to be a limiting factor for that area. That bypass road that they're talking about doing the PD &E study for is a long ways away between the PD &E study right -of -way design. So they're going to come up eventually over the next two, three, five years as the Seminole Casino expands and things grow out there, to concurrency issues. So Bob has asked that within the two year period if we could review some sort of concurrency exception area modified by size or, you know, its extent. We have no issues with that, because they're going to pay for the study. And that way it will be more comprehensive. The state would be involved. But you're going to run into a road block in Immokalee eventually and so you want to look at different alternatives. We have no problem exploring those alternatives. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What alternatives would (sic) there besides a TCA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could do some sort of, you know, up to 110 percent of capacity and limit it to a downtown redevelopment. Right now when a road goes to 100 percent of capacity only dintinimous is allowed to go forward, which is one percent of that level of service. You could do something like that but allow it only for the downtown area. There's different things we talked about. Allowing redevelopment, a high rate of capacity. In other words, if a building goes down, assume that had a certain amount of capacity on the road and give that credit back to the redevelopment. So we want to give them flexibility to look at things, but we also want to make sure that we manage the transportation concurrency as well too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If you overload the roads, aren't you going to have more pedestrian and car accidents? MR. CASALANGUIDA: 'I'hat's exactly our concern. That's the concern we have is that, you know, we allow too much to go before we put a halt on it. But again, they want the ability to consider redevelopment and development downtown, so we're open to the Page 72 161 1p February 16, 2010 review. MR. MULHERE: And Ijust need to put on the record that that is not exactly an accurate statement. It is not always having more traffic results in more accidents. You actually could slow down the traffic and reduce the pedestrian occurrences with more traffic. And actually, there are designs to increase congestion for that very reason in any downtown areas so people drive slower through the downtown area. So it's not always the way. You know, trucks driving through Main Street at 40 or 50 miles an hour, you have a propensity for problems too. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It sounds dangerous to me. MR. MULHERE: It is. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've seen too many accidents. I'm leery of something like that. MR. MULHERE: I understand. And that's why we've got to work together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I heard Mr. Casalanguida say a couple of times that this would be limited to the downtown area, and I haven't been able to spend much time with this paragraph here, but I don't see any mention of downtown, Ijust see urban area everywhere. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, there really is nothing called a downtown area technically. What we have here, if you look at these criteria here is potential limitations on such exceptions and/or waivers from concurrency, including limiting the applicability to certain locations in the urban area such as the airport, Trade Port, other lands around the airport, the central business district, corridor and the urban infill designated lands. See, urban infill designated lands are those lands that mainly run along Main Street. You know, all these ones I've listed may not fall within that. They may fall out, because they may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and we may not be able to do that. But I didn't want to exclude those areas either. Because those are the areas where we're going to see the economic development. That's why they're in there. And we'll bring it back, anything that we -- you know, anything that we develop, you know, you're going to get to see it, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, right now in Collier County don't we have several of the TCEAs and TCMAs in different parts of the county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have one TCEA along 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And you have two TCMAs. This wouldn't qualify as an MA because then you need to have alternative routes. So this would be completely an exception. The hurdle they have is State Road 29 is a hurricane evacuation route, there's only one road going through Immokalee. So if you overload it, even allow the development to continue, and then as I mentioned to Bob and Penny, the Seminoles can continue to load up that road as well, too. So you want to have definitely a limiting factor on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, the ones we have in Golden Gate City is under a, what is it, TCEA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: MA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MA. We've reviewed projects there and it's working fine. So are the others in the community. So I'm not sure it's not a bad alternative to consider, amongst others. And I go to the next question, which is your back log exception area. Did you strike that or do you still have that in here somewhere? I can't tell your new language, so -- MR. MULHERE: I struck through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have a question then. Does anybody have any other questions concerning 3.2.9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what we're on? Yes. Your numbers are so different than mine now. Okay, we'll go to 3.2.10. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I propose to strike through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be easy for questions. Okay, Objective 3.3. MR. MULHERE: By the way, the reason is that all those things are addressed in other policies and we already have the funding, overall funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on 3.3.1? Page 73 16 l 1 �3 February 16, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 3.3.2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, is this going to eliminate the open drainage canals alongside the roads? MR. MULHERE: It could. It's unlikely that it would elimnate it entirely because of the cost limitations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But by the way, if you're looking for a pathway, build a concrete trough, put a lid on it and you've got a nice bicycle path. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'd like to get -- what do we do to get rid of these drainage canals? If there's one thing in that community that makes no sense, to me anyway, it's those drainage canals. They've got bicycles in them, they've got who knows what, Primola, ooze. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I'm sure the stormwater master plan will take care of the ones that are on large county roadways, but these other private roads and side roads, that's a different issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Unfortunately those canals treat and attenuate. So they're treating the water as they're going through and also providing, you know, the carrying of the water. So you've got to go to some sort of surface water pond system like they've done in the Bayshore area or other places, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But 1 think -- I mean, Nick, what kind of treatment could something -- you know, there's clothing, garbage, everything is in these canals. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're not clean canals but they provide treatment as they convey water. So they treat and convey. It can be done. They can be closed in, but you'll have to provide the treatment someplace else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I guess my big question is, is this the clause that would focus everybody on that and cause that to happen and cause that to happen fast? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Both of them do. I agree with Bob that they bring it up. As long as it's subject to funding and maintain the ability to, you know, treat that water and maintain the quality of the water is important as well, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So just as an example, you have the comprehensive stormwater master plan that's moving forward now, and that will address this in some locations and in some areas, but that's really public — where there's a public street. Some of these other areas you might be able to address them on a case -by -case basis as improvements are made. And you raise the issue, let's say you're building a sidewalk and you're connecting a sidewalk from one location to another, that might give you the opportunity to then make some improvements. But again, Nick's right, I mean, they have a dual purpose and you've got to treat the water somewhere, somehow. So it's like more of a -- it's a bigger issue. I mean, how long has the stormwater plan for Bayshore/Gateway been -- years under consideration. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it mentioned earlier that there's 90 percent of the roads are privately owned. What percentage of these drainage channels, and that's a nice term for them, are privately owned, a large majority of them or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: A large majority, yes. MR. MULHERE: Well, this says coordinate necessary improvements to county maintained drainage channels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that -- so they're not even included. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are there a lot of -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they could still be privately owned and county maintained. I don't know that, I'm sure that exists out there to some degree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I think, you know, one thing that when you come from the urban area and visit, immediately you realize, you know, what the hell is going on with these canals. And the fact that you tell me that they're actually treating water, you know, if] didn't want to expose my naivety I would have laughed. MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess part of that is dealt with in another policy that talks about a clean hnmokalee and an educational campaign and a cultural campaign that talks about educating people as to the benefits of keeping Page 74 161 lo February 16, 2010 the street side canals clean and litter free. You know, that's part of it. Because this is not going to be an overnight, this is going to take years to accomplish. Literally. Maybe decades. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the downtown walkable area, we should do everything we can to close those. And like I said, once you close them, you get a top that's great for bicycling and -- MR. MULHERE: I think that will occur in the downtown. In the area that you -- you're going to have to have a central stormwater system there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.3.2, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last part of this says, with street upgrades and reconstruction. So does that mean that every time transportation goes in to upgrade a street or reconstruct a street, they've got to complete the improvements on all those roadside canals in the vicinity of their reconstruction and upgrades? MR. MULHERE: Subject to Policy 1.1.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm bringing it up is it's either going to do one of two -- you'll never get any kind of road upgrades if it's going to cost more because of the encasements of those drainage swales. Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done, but one's going to slow down the other. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I wasn't necessarily saying that the only solution is -- I mean, I think the only solution isn't piping. 1 mean, you know, there's going to be a need probably to maintain those street side swales for a long, long time. But they can be cleaned and kept clean. And then there may be opportunities to create a different kind of a process for treating street side drainage, but again, that's going to require ponds and things like that, it's going to require a comprehensive plan. You know, I guess to answer your question, I would say to Nick, when you go and do -- maybe you can answer, when you go and do a road project, is the street side drainage part of the project typically? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It typically is, because you have to meet South Florida Water Management District standards. Again, a lot of our objection falls aside when they said subject to be able to funding (sic) and as prioritized by the board. If that's the case, we're a little less nervous about a lot of these policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just out of curiosity, if this policy wasn't here, would it change anything you do or don't do? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need it desperately then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It says coordinate. I mean, you know, I think we do that anyway. We have public meetings, we do projects. So I think, you know, coordinate with the CRA, coordinate with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just know that when you go in and you change your road system, you have to upgrade it to the standards that are in place at the time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I can't see how this is asking you to do anything you don't already do. And I'm just wondering, I mean, it's nice to say something like this, it makes everybody feel good, but is it necessary in the GMP? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's benign for me, sir. MR. MULHERE: We can take it out. I think the master stormwater plan one is the more important one for the community right now, with limited resources. I'm sure they'll have another chance to deal with this down the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a big heartache over it with whoever you talk to, fine. But it just doesn't -- it doesn't hurt, but it doesn't -- I don't know why we'd want to clutter up more language where we don't need it. MR. MULHERE: I mean, if it's going to occur anyway, and as an improvement occurs, the county through the Water Management District has to took at the stormwater impacts of the roadway anything, I think it's unnecessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Object 3.4, anybody have any issues there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to 3.4.1. Page 75 161 1 February 16, 2010 This one is interesting. Did you read the Guiding Principles? MR. MULHERE: Have I read them? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. And I read them again and I read them again and again. MR. MULHERE: It's been a while, but I have read them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't figure out why they're here. Do you know why they're here? Because they -- I don't. They have nothing to do with transfer stations. They're basically for the landfill. And it was a result of the meeting I guess the BCC had on top of the landfill one day. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah. I mean, I thought that there were some that would apply to using technology to minimize impacts on the landfill, you know, such as extracting materials out that could be recycled and things like that. And those things could occur on a transfer station. And also those things could occur at a private hauler's -- a private location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when you come back to us, would you tell me from that enduring Guiding Principles plan, six pages -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where in that plan it applies to what you have in hnmokalee. And then that's fine if you can -- MR. MULI IERE: Which is a private provider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, even if it's a private provider, this is not written for a transfer station. In fact, if you read -- well, I've read the whole thing -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find a place where it fit and I couldn't. So I'll let you read it and maybe you can tell us where it fit. MR. MULHERE: We thought we did pretty good. There were how many pages, six pages of solid waste policies and the previous recommended plan took it down to two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if already have solid waste policies that apply - -1 mean, if any part of the county is going to be -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- more cogtvzant of solid waste problems, you don't think it's going to be the coastal area? So you were already getting our standards out there for solid waste. MR. MULHERE: It's probably not necessary to repeat that. I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's — MR. MULHERE: I don't think we even need to deal with it, if -- you know, it's not necessary to repeat it. I think there's really no problem in taking that out. You have the other objectives. It's sort of a general one above it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 3.4 -- were going to take a break here in a little bit. Is that okay? Oh, you don't want a break? Okay, we'll just work on through. I'm just kidding. We'll take a break right now? We'll take a break right now. We'll be back at five minutes till 3:00. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. It seems later in the day. It's a little hard to sit here and focus on all those things, so we're probably going to take shorter breaks more frequently. With that in mind, we'll move to Policy 3.4.2. A Clean Immokalee Plan policy. And wait for a minute here until Bob gets on the same page that we're on. We're on 3.4.2, Bob, which is -- I don't even know what number it is under your plan. It's the Clean hnmokalee Plan. MR. MULHERE: Right, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any issues with the Policy 3.4.2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just Bob, what is the Clean Immokalee Plan? MR. MULHERE: It is an educational campaign to educate the citizens of Immokalee as to the benefits. It's to sort of help -- I'm trying to think of the word. To help them understand the implications or the different cultural implications of living in this community and what their responsibilities are for keeping the community clean and what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. Page 76 16 1 1 lft3 February 16, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then by the date, it's happening now? MR. MULHERE: Well, that date, I changed it to 2011. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 3.4.2? David? MR. WEEKS: Just a comment that I believe before the break the Planning Commission discussed deleting Policy 3.4.1, the Guiding Principles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: And if that occurs, then we only have one policy. And obviously that means a renumbering. But I'm looking back at the Objective 3.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the objective addresses an issue that's already handled by Collier County. And as the County Attorney has expressed vehemently, you know, what are we doing here with these redundant policies? And I'm -- so if the objective doesn't need to be there, then leave the Clean Immokalee Plan and move it to something else. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll figure that out. We'll probably delete that objective and move it somewhere, yeah. MR. WEEKS: It's just really a global observation as we eliminate policies that may affect the wording in the objective it falls under. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. MULHERE: I understand. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that we'll move to Goal 4, which has been rewritten. And that rewrite is pretty extensive. So most of that discussion may occur at another time, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But let's walk through what we can while we're at it today. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go through Objective 4.1. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on the objective? Nicole, I know you've been here all day. If you have any issues as we get to them, just walk up to the podium. We're not going to be any more formal than that today, so -- And with that, we'll move into Policy 4.1.1. We probably can't comment from the rewrite accurately or as emphatically as we may once we have time to read it. But if there are any issues anybody has, we'll bring them up right now. I would like you to consider adding that panther primary zone wherever it fits in the various environmental issues involving the Immokalee urban area, just because it is a designated primary zone, and one way or another it's going to have to be addressed, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, Mr. Chair, I think there is an appropriate -- and Nicole and I actually discussed this a little bit before. Were we talking about the mapping of areas that would be the target for mitigation and acquisition? There's a policy that calls for that. I think we could cite a couple of examples. We at one point had cited the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay as an area that would be targeted. I think we could go back to citing that but also cite this other piece and also cite, we talked about maybe some upland habitats for scrub jays. I don't know if we want to be specific. But the point is we'll figure out something that I think lists a few examples of the lands that could be prioritized for mitigation and acquisition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 think you'll probably need to include something that references implementation language on what lands are to be included and how they're included. I mean, that may be what you just said, but I'm not sure you want to put all those lands in the GMP but you might want to reference a way to get there through some implementation language. MR. MULHERE: Okay, that's a good point, too. And I think we have language, and I think it talks about wetland or listed species habitat. Those are the two criteria, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But Objective 4.1 is a rewrite of Policy 4.1.1, Policy 4.1.2, and Policy 4.1.3. And I believe they're adding new policies, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5. So those policies we'll probably put off for a better discussion on another day when we have time to read the new language. Page 77 16 1A� February 16, 2010 But while we're talking about it, does anybody have any general questions or concerns about those, that entire objective and those five policies I just read off? Other than what with we have to read yet. And Nicole, if you want to have any comments you want to make? I notice you moved up closer to the microphone. This is the time to do it. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I think I'll save a lot of my discussion for the next meeting after you've gone through and read this and have questions and thoughts on this. Though I do want to acknowledge the efforts of Bob and Penny and the EAC in addressing The Conservancy on a lot of questions, concerns, issues on this goal. And we did work with Commissioner Midney to decide what could be put in here that would actually benefit Immokalee, benefit the environment, and everyone came together with a lot of I think interesting and positive solutions. So it's been a very good collaborative process. I guess I'll probably wait for specific input from you to answer any questions that you have at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will try to discuss this either on Thursday of this week, which is two days from now, or on the 4th at the latest, if we continue to that date. MS. RYAN: I may not be here for the 4th. There's a public hearing in Lee County for their DRGR amendment adoption. So if you are able to discuss this on Thursday, don't set your meeting around me, but just to let you know there is that constraint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you might tell Lee County to not set their meetings against ours, so -- MS. VALERA: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. VALERA: Thank you. Just wanted to, since we're going to talk about this later on, but I just wanted to let you know that the EAC made a lot of modifications to the Goal 4. And Bob, at the time if you could please point out all those changes and modifications to the board. We did tell the Environmental Advisory Council that we would make you aware of all their changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't the language in yellow as a result of that input? MR. MULHERE: Yellow and gray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Well, I have to double check. I haven't gone through the new revisions, so -- and I do have notes from the EAC so I will be comparing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let us know when we discuss it if it compares satisfactory to what you -- MS. VALERA: I'll do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And Mark, it's in our staff report too. And I was at the EAC meeting and they did do a very accurate job of reflecting what was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Then we have something to be ready for next time on that one. Goal 5. Why don't we move on to that since we can't do much with Goal 4 right now. Goal 5 and Objective 5.1. Does anybody have any questions on either the goal or the objective? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to 5. L 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, this is just -- the word mixed use here in A, essentially what you're using with that is to show that the following uses will be mixed in with A? But again, mixed use has another connotation and that's building and zoning districts that do mix uses within the district. So is this term to give it like a macro -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- use -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not a micro. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 78 February 16, 2�0 4 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, nothing else on that? Then we'll go to 5.1.2. Any issues on 5.1.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.1.3 has the correction needed, as far as the Right to Farm Act goes. 5.1.4, anybody have any questions on 5.1.4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a bit. That's basically saying you can have farmworker housing in all residential areas. Basically anywhere. Well, farmworker housing is a different type of housing including a lot of times mobile homes. And we're only talking about the urban area of Immokalee. So how does this help Immokalee in regards to trying to develop stable housing, housing that is I guess both affordable and then upgrades in neighborhoods when you can live in a low residential neighborhood in Immokalee and all of a sudden one day find a farmworker housing village going up next to you? I'm not sure that's a real good thing. And I'm just wondering why. The urban area of Immokalee is much -- is contained, and you've got a lot of agricultural well outside of the urban area. So why does it need to be in the urban area? Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, that's the way it is now. Immokalee has farmworker housing everywhere. And so I don't think you necessarily want to take that away, since the majority of the people are involved in farm work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, just because a farmworker lives in a house doesn't mean it's farmworker housing. I'm talking about the housing that's there pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code 64.E -14. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, they are spread throughout the town. MR. MULHERE: This language is existing but with the exception that we specifically added the references to those designations, which I've now struck through. Because I tend to agree that it may not be appropriate everywhere, and it's certainly not appropriate without regulation or restriction. There's obviously regulations, buffering and the number of units and sanitary facilities and so on and so forth. By the same token, I'm not sure that it's inappropriate, even if it is in the Immokalee urban area in some circumstances, even in the low residential area, which is all ag zoned or almost entirely all ag zoned, that low residential area surrounding Immokalee that's urban but zoned ag and used in many cases for agricultural activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you -- I mean, hnmokalee wants to grow and it wants to get a better tax base and it want to get better improvements. And the agricultural areas outside Immokalee in time may grow, but they're going to be much longer off in the future. How do you improve the urban area of Immokalee with a better tax base and better housing without having some compatibility requirements -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, you do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as to where the -- where farmworker housing would go in relationship to permanent housing within the town of Immokalee? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and I'm not suggesting that there not be compatibility. And those would be found in the LDC. You already have a whole provision on farmworker housing in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this only says it's going to be consistent with the migrant labor housing provisions. And based on that it could basically go anywhere then. So now you're telling me we do have some conditions that -- how would we know -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that? How would someone know that reading this GMP amendment? MR. MULHERE: I see this saying that -- well, that's a good question. I mean, but what I see it saying is that Collier County recognizes the need for farm labor to support the agricultural industry and encourages the provision of housing for these specific kinds of farmworkers, providing that housing is consistent with the provisions of the Section 64.E -14 Florida Administrative Code, which does provide for some regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I've got all -- I've read all those reg -- I pulled all that code down and Page 79 16i 1p February 16, 2010 printed it out and I read the whole thing. And I don't disagree with you, but it still is another form of housing that may not be compatible near some of the developments that Immokalee desperately needs for upgrades to their tax base, their status, their diversity that they keep looking for. So why don't we build something in here to make sure that we don't have an incompatible situation? MR. MULHERE: So we would want to add on the end of that sentence, and the regulations applicable to -- I'm trying to remember what that's called. David, do you remember in the LDC, is it farmworker or is it migrant laborer? MR. WEEKS: It's farmworker housing, I think. But I think that's a different provision in the statutory reference. Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, the statutory reference is to what I would call equivalent to a dorm where you have multiple sleeping units, maybe just a whole bunch of beds in a single building and you might have separate restroom facilities, separate kitchen facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have it here and -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we have that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'll try to find it. MR. MULHERE: -- too. What's the name ofthat? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I've got it right here, David. I'll -- MR. WEEKS: But if I might comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Not on this very specific point, but as far as agriculture goes, as Bob's already I think noted, there's a lot of agricultural land use within the Immokalee urban area. And the provision of housing for workers, be it for the agricultural uses within the urban area or outside of it, is still a need. And I don't think the approach that the county would want to take is to restrict that housing to be where the agriculture is located. Looking in the long term, you know, we have to assume that at some point in time there will not be any more agriculture within the Immokalee urban area, that it will be developed with urban land uses, such that the RLSA, the agricultural rural area outside of the Immokalee urban area, is where the agricultural activity would continue. But I don't think we want to place all of that housing within the agricultural land use itself, just like we don't -- well, it's a different example. The residents, those farmworkers, still need commercial services, and I think it's important to have them located close to where those services are at, as opposed to putting their housing out into the agricultural fields themselves, isolated from the services that they will need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I'm just concerned that if we allow farmworker housing everywhere where we're trying to provide more permanent housing, affordable housing, gap housing and all the other kinds of housing, you're going to discourage those kind of improvements in Immokalee. And I think you really want to not do that. And so all I'm suggesting is we look at some kind of escape clause that provides something that gives a latitude to say okay, if you don't want to put famrworker housing in this area where it's more appropriate but you want to put it right in the middle of Arrowhead PUD, well, before you can do that you've got to have some guidelines. That's all I'm saying. MR. MULHERE: So maybe we say in locations to be determined appropriate for compatibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to think about it, Bob. You don't have to rush on that today. We can come back to that. But I think it needs to be thought out and I drink, to be honest with you, if the community doesn't care, well, that's fine too. But I really think someone needs to think that out before they j ust dive into this. MR. MULHERE: Right. And I just want you to know that it's not -- again, this was an existing policy, and again I'm not suggesting that we ignore the existing policies, but we tried very hard not to take away rights that already existed. And what it said here in the existing policy was new housing for seasonal, temporary or migrant workers shall be permitted in any land use designation, provided that such housing is permitted under Section 10.D.25 FAC, and this is the new cite there, and does not conflict -- and here's a little bit of additional language, and does not conflict with the existing zoning districts or the Immokalee Future Land Use map. Well, that doesn't say a whole lot but -- Page 80 161 1M February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that changes the ballgame tremendously, because if it doesn't conflict that means it conforms and it's compatible. That's a whole different parameter than what this is reading now. So I would suggest -- MR. MULHERF: We could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you want to get back to something like you've got versus what you've proposed. Sir, did you want to comment? MR. MENENDEZ: Yes, 1 want to make some comments about the housing for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll need your name again for the record. MR. MENENDEZ: Oh, I'm sorry. My name Pedro Jesus Romero Menendez. See, I moved to Immokalee because I used to live in Minnesota and work with migrant immigrant workers there. It came to visit Immokalee for a workshop and I fell in love with the community and I saw there's a lot of need in the community for improvement. And something needs to be done with the housing. You're talking about where to permit those housing for the migrant workers in the residential areas. We have those house now all over the town and they're deplorable. A couple years ago there was a very bad accident there, a fire, that the family got trapped there. And what the problem is that most of the housing is owned by a limited number of families there. They don't make improvements on the house. And I rented from one of these families. And they supposed to be one of the best buildings they got. And that building, it was infected with roaches and rats, mices (sic). And they would not do -- they blamed the tenants, they said that the tenants were too dirty. No, the building is kept dirty from them, they don't do any improvement. I have to buy buckets of cement to cover the holes because they could not cover the holes there to stop the mice to come into my apartment. These houses are horrible all over the town, the trailers we got there. And the way they got the -- what they charge these workers for the trailer, it cost more to live in one trailer in hmmokalee, the trailer than it would cost an apartment in Manhattan. They got, 10, 12, 14 people living in those trailers and they charge, you know, $40, $50. And we need improvement on these house. And we need better housing conditions from the farmworkers there. And they are all over town now. So why not make some decent housing? Like I said before, these workers, they're contributing to the local economy. They're shopping in town. And we need decent housing. And we don't want to see another accident like happened a couple years ago with the fire that the family got trapped there because they could not get out because the windows were blocked. And we need to get some more help for the residents there so there can be better and more decent living conditions on these trailers and houses. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Bob, that really brings up a good point. And David, maybe this is research that somebody needs to do, whether it's Bob or I don't know how it happens. The 64.E -14, the Florida Administrative Code, ifthat doesn't have a restriction where we couldn't regulate it in a manner that farmworker housing ought to be for the farmers and their farmworkers. To have people develop farmworker housing anywhere in Immmokalee and allow it to go into deplorable conditions because it's considered farmworker housing doesn't seem to meet the spirit of what we need to have. Now, we know there's landowners around there who participated in this process and they're looking to have protection for their farmworker housing pursuant to 64.E -14. Having them have protection so they can have decent farmworker housing versus say landlords who inherit housing in deplorable conditions and maintain it in deplorable conditions is two different things. I think we need to separate them out so one doesn't happen and benefit the other. MR. MULHERE: I mean, the only -- the objective here is to provide an opportunity for safe, affordable farmworker housing for seasonal, temporary or migrant fannworkers, okay? That's a very specific -- those are very specific adjectives. And there is already one approved, built, developed, seasonal migrant fannworker housing facility in Immokalee that is a dormitory. It was built a few years ago. The reason was that it was perceived that if we could build these types of facilities, we would take the migrant farmworkers out of the other less desirable housing Page 81 16 1 1 February 16, 2010 opportunities where they were putting potentially eight, 10 people into a unit because the rent, you know, divided by eight or 10 is much cheaper. And those are kind of deplorable conditions. But if you could have a safe, clean seasonal, you know, structure that would house seasonal migrant farmworkers, that would be the solution that would put those people out of business. We can't regulate what the free market does in terms of who they rent to and what they do, but there are rules that deal with housing conditions and deal with occupancy, and those are, I'm sure, enforced out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you just said something that I can't agree with you. You said we can't regulate it. But in fact if we do not allow it to be in low residential areas and others, we can regulate it. It will have the effect of driving housing to the more appropriate form. You may want a grandfather clause -- although I'm not inclined, you may want a grandfather clause to protect those who are currently renting. But I agree with the Chair, if you want to see Immokalee change to grow and still expect it to be a viable agricultural community, there needs to be adequate facility for those folks who work hard in the fields while at the same time you raise the economic standards of everybody who lives there. MR. MULHERE: We're not disagreeing on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but if you allow fannworker housing six, seven, eight, 10 people in a single house or even sometimes in a single trailer -- MR. MULHERE: But that's not what we're proposing at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then I'm -- MR. MULHERE: We're proposing just the opposite. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought that you were advocating residential. MR. MULHERE: We're advocating clean, safe housing under the statute as is allowed, not the six, eight, 10, 12 units in a single home. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But didn't you indicate, too, and I apologize if I misheard, maybe I'm getting tired, but I thought you indicated that you didn't want to stop the methodology that's currently employed, which was in response to Mr. Midney. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think I said that. I said I thinkjust the opposite, that by providing these opportunities you will do away with those unsafe, deplorable conditions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's in the future we will do away with. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess we were talking the same thing from different angles. Okay. If I misheard you, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I made a note to come back to this one. And I think it would be important for you to use this as an opportunity to better regulate the housing so you get a better product. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we talked a little bit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you come back when we talk about it again as one of the ones we should hit on at another time. And is there any more? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, one thing is, some ofthe complaints, and I've been out to Immokalee and they've showed farmworker housing, is that they're held to the same standards as essentially an apartment building in Naples would be. Is there anything inhere that's going to try to get rid of some of the additional regulations we put on construction of these in Collier County? I mean, if you want, I can get Fred Thomas to come in and talk endlessly about some of the problems they had out there. So the concern is that it is silly, some of the development standards that we have. So what are you doing, and would this be the appropriate place to shake loose some of the requirements that we have for residential construction? MR. MULHERE: I guess there's a couple of questions there. One is when Fred talks about how much trouble he had getting through a review process and how costly it was, he's talking about subsidized housing, he's not talking Page 82 161 1. � February 16, 2010 about farmworker housing. Although there may be some farmworkers living there, that's not a farmworker housing environment, that's a subsidized housing. That's the Collier County Housing Authority. What we're going to do with respect to that is we're going to look at every single land development regulation and determine which ones are appropriate in I m mokalee and which ones might, might warrant some flexibility. And we do that with community input through this LDC amendment process. As far as farmworker housing goes, I think that's a separate issue. You raise a good point, you know, are they being held to a standard that makes it such that they can't afford to do farmworker housing in I m mokalee or close to Irmnokalee, so are they going to, I don't know, Hendry County. That was something similar to what was put on the record here this morning. And I don't know the answer to that. I mean, we need to be sure that whatever is constructed is safe and meets both statutory requirements and, as you're indicating here, is not incompatible with other land uses, other existing properties and property rights. So, you know, I don't know what the answer to that is. I mean, I can certainly inquire to those people that build farmworker housing, the fanners, as to whether or not Collier County standards are so much greater than what the state statute would require that they don't do it here. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what the answer to that is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the point he made is that if you're charging $40 per person per week and -- you know, you can design, and for example, in the building code under R -4 there's ways to design where you could put four people in a room -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- legally, you know, and comfortably with the proper facilities. You do end up earning as much money as a penthouse in Manhattan might get. So obviously it's got to be a good business model. For some reason it's not happening. MR. MULHERE: No, there is one. I mean, and again, I know that Fred was involved in that one. There is a fairly large dormitory that was constructed out there for I think mainly male migrant seasonal farmworkers, and that was designed so that they would be in one place, safe, clean, be able to monitor behavior, you know, keep people out of trouble, you know, keep the community out of trouble in terns of the other things that might happen if they otherwise weren't in such a central location. And, you know, that's been done. So I could talk to Fred and see, I mean, were there problems with that. I'm sure he had some problems with landscaping code and this and that and the other thing, and I'm sure we can figure those things out. But as far as now allowing somebody who owns a single - family home to convert it or build it so that it becomes farmworker housing, I think that's an area we've really got to be careful about. We really have to watch that. If it's in a central location, managed, that's a different story, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if your building department was on top of it, they would realize that it went from one category to another, and that would have much higher demands on it, they could control it really that way. MR. MULHERE: Right. I don't think this is happening legally, by the way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it really -- it was Fred giving a tour of that dormitory where he went on and on about -- and some of the points he made are silly, that why would he have to do this, why would he have to do that. But you'll take care of it. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we will. We'll coordinate with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on 5.1.4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 5.1.6, Compact Mixed Use Development. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about 5.1.5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.1.5, I'm sorry. I'm looking at his and I'm looking at mine and I'm getting them confused. But it's 5.1.5, actually. You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here we're using mixed use again. And is the intent here that we're allowed to combine commercial with these? For example, when you go further on we're going to get into the different Page 83 161 13 February 16, 2010 districts and they don't allow commercial. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is this saying -- MR. MULHERE: Here we are talking about the term of art compact mixed use, which means allowing for residential and commercial both within the same building or in different buildings but within the same district or within the same project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's going to conflict when we get further down with the description of these districts. At least HR is defined as a residential, and I'm not sure it allows -- but we can wait till we get there. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, 1 think you may have a point there. Although it can still be very compactly designed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what does that mean, compact? That means that, you know, I can design a -- I mean, we have some problems with the difference in open space and essentially somebody could put a phone booth on the corner. Now they're mixed use and they get a -- they can drop their open space requirement. MR. MULHERE: I think what it means is you're allowing higher density in that district and you're doing it on smaller -- it's in the urban core so you're doing it on smaller parcels. So you do have compact dense development, which is what you want in the urban core. And then as you move out from that, that's where you want your increasingly less dense development to getting out to then the almost rural scheme. And that's your transect concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So again, mixed use here is a macro, not a micro tern. MR. MULHEI_,: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 5.1.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice, Bob, and I certainly agree with you, 5. l .6 and 5.1.71 thought were redundant. I've noticed you've struck those. So unless anybody has any questions on those, I think that's a good move. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I guess essential services are already covered elsewhere in the plan as -- Jeffs not here but we could say he would have told us that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I saw him jump off his chair when he saw it. Okay, 5.1.8, mobile homes within the Immokalee urban area. MR. MULHERE: I think the next few policies all deal with mobile homes. And in general the community's desire was not to prohibit mobile homes but to restrict the location and to restrict the proliferation of mobile homes in single - family type districts as an alternative for housing. So mobile home parks and subdivisions, they could certainly still be permitted, developed and designed in certain districts, but not throughout the entire urban area. And mobile homes as a principal place of residence in a single - family environment are really prohibited, except on a temporary basis while you would go and build a home. So that's my overview of the next few policies, then we can go over them specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: All right, so that was the intent. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Because in reading through it, I wasn't really sure what the intent was here at all. And I'm glad to understand. MR. MULIIERE: So with the first policy there, it says no new mobile homes shall be permitted in the Immokalee urban area except as temporary residence -- and we have policies that deal with that -- or within an existing mobile home park -- we have a policy that deals with that -- or as part of a new mobile home park approved in the low residential or medium residential districts. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see what you're saying now, but when you just read that paragraph without -- MR. MULHERE: It's harder to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- an explanation, I say no new mobile homes and then you exempt everything and allow them everywhere. MR. MULHERE: No, where we're not allowing them is in high residential, commercial mixed use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it. Page 84 161 ip February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: And even in those lower ones we're not allowing them as a singular form of housing, they have to be within a -- in a designed park. And I think staff made a comment, and it's probably a good comment, although at some point I recall getting asked to remove the reference to subdivision, we now have the request to actually add it back in. So we will add that back in, because we do have a mobile home subdivision as an identified term. So there's a park and there's a subdivision, and the difference is the ownership, right? The mobile home park is wholly owned and rented, and a mobile home subdivision is subdivided and the lots are sold. And both of them would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so Policy 5.1.8 and 5.1.9. Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, are they allowed to replace the mobile home? MR. MULHERE: Yes. In an existing scenario? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Where is that in here? MR. MULHERE: You're talking about in an existing mobile home park? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. MULHERE: It's dealt with under I think Policy 5.1.8 -- I'm not sure what yours says. It says existing mobile home parks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 5.1.8 and 5.1.9 still. MR. MULHERE: Staff does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? Go ahead, Dave. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, Bob touched on something. If you look in the staff report on Page 21, we have comments on Policy 5.1.8, which is newly numbered 5. -- excuse me, 6.1.6, the mobile homes within the Immokalee urban area. Bob was just walking through that. And one of the questions that staff was identifying, or issues, is the mobile home subdivision. And I believe Bob said he was going to add that. Another point is what about individual mobile homes on individual parcels that are not part of a park or subdivision. And Bob, I think I heard you say that those would -- that's one of the categories that would be allowed as a temporary only? MR. MULHERE: Correct, the idea is not to allow that as an identified permitted use but only on a temporary basis while constructing a residence. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And that would be I guess ultimately implemented through Land Development Code? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: I'd just point out as an example a piece of property zoned VR, village residential. That allows for single- family, multi - family and mobile home development. There's quite a bit of that in Immokalee. And some of that has already been created into individual parcels, whether formally subdivided or not. So that would be an example where an individual owns one small parcel that by zoning they could have a mobile home on the property, not part of a park, not part of a subdivision, because it's a single parcel. And that was something that I did not see this policy covering. So Bob's explaining that through the LDC amendments that will be addressed. MR. MULHERE: Well, and we did have a sentence at the end of that that says existing mobile homes will be continued to be governed by nonconforming regulations of the Land Development Code. So we're going to have -- there's going to be some nonconformities created by this. MR. WEEKS: Sure. MR. MULHERE: And [lie desire here frankly is to over time reduce the proliferation of mobile homes, especially delapidated mobile homes in Immokalee, and to create more middle class, middle income market rate housing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. Page 85 161 10 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: And we're not saying they're prohibited under certain circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David's got to finish up. Then Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer. MR. WEEKS: My next comment is on Policy 5.1.8, that the mobile homes is temporary residence. CHAIRMAN STRAW: 5.1.9. It is on our sheets, at least. MR. WEEKS: It's now 6.1.9, 1 believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, were not going to go there. We'll get all confused. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Staff has verified that this is a provision that exists in the LDC already. I know it's a little confusing in one location because it's listed under interim agricultural use -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- but yet the provision has nothing to do with agriculture. But it's also listed in the agricultural zoning district as an accessory use. So -- MR. MULHERE: I have a question for you. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: I thought that mobile homes were only allowed in the ag -- oh, so what you're saying is regardless. You don't have to have mobile home overlay, no, it's just in the ag. district mobile homes are permitted on a temporary basis while you build a principal structure. And are they permitted for up to three years, do you know? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And includes a specific requirement that once that house has been finalized, the mobile home must be removed. MR. MULHERE: So this becomes redundant. MR. WEEKS: Correct. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. WEEKS: So staff would recoimnend it be deleted. MR. MULHERE: I just want you to know I thought that there was a difference though in the period, which is why we retained it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron, or vice versa. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, one thing, remember 1 asked you to look at that movie Frieda? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason that's -- because that would be a good model for what to build and replace a mobile home on a narrow lot. So if you haven't looked at it. MR. MULHERE: I've given direction to get me a copy of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But anyway, look at that, because that is an excellent replacement for that kind of a lot. MR. MULHERE: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the rating on that? Just out of curiosity. We're not getting Bob in trouble here, are we? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. There may be some -- MR. MULHERE: Is it subtitled? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm tine. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. So we're going to strike 5.1.9. Let's move on to 5.1.10. Anybody have any questions on 5.1.10? MR. MULHERE: I think it might be important for me to just give you a really quick sort of little bit of a commentary, because the question's been asked. You have -- this policy's been in the plan for probably seven or eight years, maybe longer. Some people took advantage of this policy and came through and went through the site improvement plan and legitimized their mobile home park or subdivision. And it cost some money and they went through the process. And honestly, others ignored it or for whatever reason didn't do it. And I guess there's two sides of the story here. One is we could say why still allow it to happen for those people that didn't take advantage of it when they should have taken advantage of it. And the other side of the coin from my perspective is let's give it another shot because the result is we get an improved health standard in these Page 86 161 ip February 16, 2010 parts. Now, do you keep doing it? No, you don't keep doing it. But in the discussion with the CRA advisory board and the IMPVC and the community, it was agreed that we would extend this one more time to let people come into compliance. But I just wanted to give you that background. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on 5.1.10? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I support that idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Basically the current deadline was January 9th of'03. And it got extended. Now you're wanting to extend it to sometime probably in 2012. So that's almost 10 years of a heads up. And some people did correct the problem, others have ignored it. MR. MULHERE: No question, no question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As we've marched on in time, and I want to show you something. I saved all kinds of little paperwork for you, Bob, to make your life real interesting. I'll need Carolina to put this on the overhead projector for me. This is going to become relevant -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- real fast in Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: I could see by the colors what you're putting up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's -- it brings it into question on this one. But actually it brings it into question on everything that you're doing to make sure you keep it in consideration. In your data and analysis, or someone's data and analysis, I found a reference to the flood hazard applicability of Immokalee, and it said the following: The Immokalee urban designated area, however, has one of the highest elevations in Collier County and is not subject to typical coastal zone flooding which is characteristic of properties closer to the Gulf of Mexico. Now the intent there was, I'm sure, to say you guys don't have a flood zone problem. But if you look to what's going to be happening with the flood maps that are coming out, and this is not the final one, this is one of the drafts, the AH, which then becomes a mandatory area for flood hazard mitigation is basically all of Immokalee, as it is all of Golden Gate Estates. MR. MULHF,RF: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's absurd. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the federal government is trying to make this stick so that -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- insurance companies can get more money for their policies. That's going to bring into play all these old mobile home parks -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and I'm wondering how this is all going to all fit together out there and how much of this you've contemplated. MR. MULHERE: We did consider it. And let me just say two things: One, I still think that sentence is 100 percent accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm not saying it's not part of the coast, I agree with you. I just don't know how to get past the foolish feds. MR. MULHERE: Well, and then the second part is I can't do much about what the federal government is going to -- you know, I was going to use a less kind term, but say, you know, cause us to have to comply with here on the Immokalee ridge, which is one of the higher elevations, you know, in the region. There's no way around dealing with the requirements to elevate structures that might come out of this. It's possible the flood mitigation may only be some sort of an overall design that allows for the capture of water and reroutes it so that, you know, you're managing a floodplain. But I think also it could be that you have to elevate structures. And I don't -- you know, that's what we use right here. We elevate structures, in coastal, we elevate and we use other building techniques to manage flood issues. Page 87 161 1 p February 16, 2010 So that may be the case out here. What do you do in the City of Naples with a house that's been built in 1955? It exists as long as they don't exceed 50 percent of the construction, the current appraised value I believe is the way that it works. Doesn't matter, there's a formula. If you exceed 50 percent, then the entire structure has to meet current flood elevations. If you don't exceed 50 percent, then you can do some improvements to the site, and then the improvements still have to meet flood elevation. So you have that issue that is a thwart to some improvements, because people say well, Pm not going to have two steps up to the new building or something like this. And that's what you're going to have to deal with in Immokalee as well as everywhere else, you know, if these requirements do become effective. So new structures will have to be elevated, it might be only a couple of feet or something like that. Existing structures like these mobile home parks will continue to exist until they get replaced. But when they get replaced, then through the nonconforming provisions they have to meet those new flood elevations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and my concern is this additional two year period. Are they going to run into this as a problem, making the two year period moot anyway? MR. MULHERE: Very possibly. I mean, who knows when this gets effective. But yes, that could happen. As far as that one issue, that could be a problem, yes. CI AIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this. I didn't see the reference to it in the prior documents, and it seemed to be the appropriate time to bring it up. So if it affects other things in your plan, you probably need -- I'm not sure how much Penny's CRA is aware of this, but it's going to be very difficult for the City of Immokalee and all the areas that this is impacting. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's certainly going to affect the -- if you think about it, it's certainly going to affect the design parameters of the pending Immokalee Stormwater Management Plan, which then could reduce the implication through that stormwater management plan on individual structures. I mean, there's a possibility there. If you have some flood protection built into that plan through ponds and other things, you know, you might be able to minimize the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This may change elevations too in existing -- MR. MULHERE: It could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in your new structures, which will affect your neighboring structures and -- MR. MULHERE: And it probably will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your lots and everything else that happens out there. So anyway, that's enough of that issue. Any other questions on 5.1.10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 5.1.11 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the way I read this, Bob, is you're anticipating a change in the boundary of Immokalee near the urban area. And when it happens or when it's decided to be studied, that change is going to be initiated through this policy; is that -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why would the county want to initiate a pol -- a GMP amendment for a private property owner? I don't -- MR. MULHERE.: Well, several -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get it. MR. MULHERE: -- several private property owners. I guess -- well, I'll tell you what happened. The -- when we made some changes to the -- through the airport PUD and through the land use designation out there as part of this process, a couple of the landowners who own property adjacent to it came forward and asked that there be consideration to change the land use designation on their property. And we actually did. They brought it to the CRA advisory board, the CRA advisory board recommended approval, and we actually went in and made the change. Staff objected, indicating that it was their opinion that there was no justification for it. We agreed and Page 88 16 140 February 16, 2010 removed that change. Went back to the advisory board and said, you know what, we can't really support this at this point in time. There might be some reason to do it down the road when we know what the implications of the land use change are as the airport develops out. And that's when they came back with this language which, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just a way of circumventing a private submission for a GMP amendment that every landowner must do when they come to -- we see these all the time. I'm just wondering why is the government going to do it for them? If they want to change -- once this is done and Immokalee's urban area is defined, if someone wants to change it, why don't they do it like everybody else does? MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is the taxpayers looking to be having -- MR. MULHERE: Maybe we can make it clear that any change would not be done by the county but the county will consider the implications of the change as part of some privately submitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why submit it? That's what we do anyway. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I suppose that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: But it calls attention to the fact that an action by the county is going to -- that we're taking right now could very well have an impact on their land and the ability to use it the way it's designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not modifying the urban boundary line in that area, are we? MR. MULHERE: No, but we changed the land use designation close to their properties by the airport. We changed it to industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did we change their land? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I don't get it. I'm just -- if we start having the government make the land use changes for private entities, we're going to be doing that all over the county. I'm just wondering why this one qualified. MR. MULHERE: Well, it wasn't so much the intent that the government make the land use change. 1 mean, and I understand that argument that that shouldn't be the case. But more that there be some policy that three, five years from now, seven years from now, we all don't forget that the land use changed and that we agreed that we would take a look at what the implications of those changes are. And what you're saying is let the landowner come in and do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're going to have to -- if they want a land use change, they're going to have to produce the data analysis that says it's justified, the needs analysis that says whatever they want to do is okay, and then go forward. I'm not sure why we want to put ourselves in a position to predetermine that or to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree, it seems like you're asking the county to take on another cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. And with that, let's take a 10- minute break and we'll be back here at five minutes to 4:00, and we'll go to 10 minutes to 5:00. Okay? (Break.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on for -- till 4:50 is when we're going to stop today. And I have one announcement to make at 4:49, just as we declare our continuation. And I hope Nick's not here to defend himself. Now that I set the tone for the next hour. Policy 5.1.12, Public Education Plants and Ancillary Plants. MR. MULHERE: Where are we at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a 5. -- well, I don't know where you're at. We're on 5.12. And I see you've struck it, and that was going to be my question -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I thought -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to staff. MR. MULHERE: -- we were already done with that. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And the reason I was going to -- okay, well, if it's struck, then that takes care of Page 89 16 February 16, 2010 it. Because it is already part of our -- go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I would suggest -- I don't object to striking through the language, but I think we still need some reference to the Future Land Use Element. l crafted a single sentence that I would suggest we could replace this with. But I think it's important to still have some reference back to the Future Land Use Element. I would also note that as part of a comprehensive approach during the EAR process we're going to need to look at the Future Land Use Element Policy 5.14 that this policy references. And there's a similar policy as we find in the Immokalee Master Plan, also in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And the reason we'll need to address them comprehensively is because they're all making reference to the two interlocal agreements that were adopted in 2003 with the -- between the county and the school district. At least one of those interlocal agreements has been superseded, and I think the other one may have expired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 guess that's probably where the problem is by putting these kind of things in here. We've now got to go back and change other policies because of a change of a sub - agreement. David, am 1 mistaken, or is -- I had thought that whatever in this process was missing, say the Immokalee Area Master Plan did not identify a particular objective or goal because it was identified in the FLUE and the FLUE would then take care of it. But youjust seemed to indicate that it has to be in here and the FLUE both. Is that -- I didn't -- is that true? MR. WEEKS: It would be our preference. Because this goes back to the interlocal agreements that we had to adopt in 2003 as mandated by the state. And that's why we didn't just put it in the Future Land Use Element, we thought it best to put it in all of the elements that regulate future land use: The FLUE, Immokalee Master Plan, Golden Gate Master Plan. If you'll allow me, I have a single sentence to replace all of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: And I think it will be helpful in the future as well. Replace this policy with the following: Public educational plants and ancillary plants shall be allowed as provided in Policy 5.14 of the Future Land Use Element, period. And that way if that policy changes over time, we won't have to continuously update this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any objection to that? Bob'? MR. MULHERE: No. You'll send me that'? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that would sure make it a lot simpler. Okay, then move on to Goal 6? And Objective 6.1. Okay, this is the reference to land use regulations, and we're on Objective 6.1. Does anybody have any comments on 6.1 before we move into the policies? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I would suggest or ask that do we need -- where it says Collier County shall develop hnntokalee specific land development regulations, after that word insert: To the extent required to fulfill this overlay that reflect the unique character of (sic) cultural diversity of the residents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good, and stop. Period there. MR. MENENDEZ: Yes, once again, my name Pedro Jesus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, let me finish up this thought here. Does that work? To the extent required in this overlay -- to fulfill this -- MR. MULHERE: In this master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To fulfill this -- yeah, this master plan, I'm sorry. To fulfill this master plan. That works, I'm son-y, yeah, you just changed some of that. MR. MULHERE: And which reflects? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I flank you just need to make a period after that. Because isn't -- if the master plan is written as I believe -- MR. MULHERE: It would do those things -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it would automatically do those things. And if it does more than that, you don't want to limit it to just that anyway. Page 90 16 ] 1 p February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: No, it's just sometimes it's nice to say that you want to encourage -- I mean, it's nice from the state oversight perspective to talk about cultural diversity, pedestrian friendly urban form, promoting energy efficiency, but we don't need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I doesn't hurt -- I don't know if it hurts anything. David, does it matter from a comprehensive viewpoint? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many times do you want to say that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? MR. MULHERE: A lot. MR. WEEKS: I don't think we have to have it in here. I agree with Bob's comment as well, though, that because of House Bill 697, if we keep inserting it, and I know it's redundant, but each time we mention it in a policy, it's right there in the face of DCA reviewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I don't have an objection to it if it doesn't hurt anything, so -- sir, your comment? MR. MENENDEZ: Yes. My name again, Pedro Jesus Romero Menendez. I want to talk about the requirements that the commission has on plantings on new buildings. I rememberjust before they open the I Tech in Immokalee, I participated in an interagency meeting there. And we were giving a tour of the camp -- the building and the landscape. And I notice that there was a lot of grass planted there and no native plantings. And I asked, I said, why do we have, you know, so much grass? Because -- and he said that is a requirement of the Planning Commission. And I think the policy should be changed to go more to native plantings. For many reasons. It could protect the wildlife. It could save water. Native plantings require less water because adapted to the conditions of the area. The use of grass, it looks nice, but it requires a lot of maintenance. Grass is not American. These seeds of grass that we use in this country, they were brought by the early Europeans that came, because it remind them of home, having the nice lawns. And these are mostly European grasses that we use. We have to depend a lot on the use of chemicals. It's a lot of maintenance. We have to use the lawnmowers to keep it a certain level that's required by the cities, and use the chemicals. We're poisoning our environment and our health. And I know it is a big business, the lawn business; it's a multi - million dollar business. But it's not doing now for our environment. Now we are more concerned about the greenhouse gases. And we need -- we're losing a lot of species of animals and plants. And that's why you need to change that policy to allow more native plants that, as I said, it would save water, the use of water and the chemicals. And it could look nicer and it could attract more of our native wildlife. Also on planting trees, hnmokalee, as I mentioned before, is a poorer community than Naples so it would cost more to the owners to plant more trees and so close. We should also allow to have some trees not to be the same kind of trees one after the other, because what will happen is when you get so many planting, vegetation the same kind, a disease come attack one and it's going to wipe all of them. That's what happened with the elms in this country. We got the Dutch elm disease. Every city, they got the boulevards, you know, with the beautiful elms, then come the Dutch elm disease and the elms gone. By interplanting we got more protection for the trees and the other vegetation. And there was a case in point several years ago, they were doing experiment in Minnesota. They got two big parcels of land and they were divided. One, it was mostly a monoculture and the other one was a bigger diversity of planting. One thing they weren't planning on that experiment is that time Minnesota went through the longest drought season in the history of the state. Well, what happened is the one that had the monoculture, that, it died completely. And it took a lot longer for that land to come back to be productive. The one that has the diversity of planting, that -- the damage wasn't done quite as severe. And that recuperate a lot faster. Also, when you got a mixture of plantings, these plant, they help one another to -- because they got different size roots to bring moisture for the sublevel to the top layer. And they could help one another to stay productive. That Page 91 161 1 lk� February 16, 2010 is why you should look at the policies and try to make changes that would reflect the needs of the environment now days and the health of the community. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The comments about the plants that this gentleman just made certainly are ones we ought to consider when we do the Land Development Code implementation of the policies that we're talking -- MR. MULHERE: Good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about today, so -- And I know that next week or -- yeah, next week you're asking for relief of some of those, which is interesting, so -- MR. MULHERE: Interim, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to see how many you really need now. MR. MULHERE: All of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off somewhere. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 6.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6. 1, yeah, the objective. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just changed some language in the beginning of the objective and now we're moving on to 6.1.1. Anybody have any issues on 6.1.1? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 6.1.7 seems to contain what's in 6.1.1. Do we need to have both -- do we need to have 6.1.7 as well? Because 6.1.1 mentions native preservation. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's actually different. I mean, I guess maybe you could combine them. I prefer to keep them separate, because 6. L7 deals with a very specific allowance in the Comprehensive Plan for deviations from native vegetation requirements. The other one is a more general -- it says we'll look at the standards as it relates to native vegetation and see if they need to be changed in Immokalee. Okay, I mean, I can get -- if you want me to get into 6.1.7 right now 1 can do that, I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Okay. 6.1.7, the Comprehensive Plan -- find my copy of the -- I know I gave you one, Mark, and I had other copies, and I have to figure out what I did with them -- oh, they're right over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just showed me one earlier. I don't think you gave it to me, though, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Here they are. Here they are. Policy 6. 1.1 of the Conservation Coastal Management Element, paragraph 10, states: Within one year of the effective date of these amendments the county shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied by a monetary payment, land donation that contains native vegetation communities equal to or of a higher priority, or other appropriate method of compensation to an acceptable land acquisition program as required by the land development regulations. The monetary payment shall be used to purchase and manage native vegetation communities off -site. The land development regulations shall provide criteria to detennine when this alternative will be considered. The criteria will be based upon the following provisions: The amount, type and rarity and quality of the native vegetation; the presence of conservation lands adjoining the site; the presence of listed species; and consideration of federal and state agency technical assistance. And then D. And this is the one that I think is important for us: The type of land use proposed such as but not limited to affordable housing. So this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan occurred some three years ago, or two years ago. And the land code amendment is now being amended or has just been amended I guess to incorporate this process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation be provided elsewhere, so on and so forth. Page 92 161 1 February 16, 2010 But it limits the applicability of that process to affordable housing projects. And I'll repeat the language from the Comp. Plan that says as one of the considerations the type of land use proposed such as, key phrase, but not limited to affordable housing. So in Immokalee we would like to also be able to ask for that exception, deviation, off -site allowance when it's not only in a provision for affordable housing but also a job creation or economic development or diversity opportunity. And that wasn't covered in the amendment that just got done. So that's why that's in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, I think you're all going to say what I'm going to say. Go ahead David and then -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Youjust said that what it says as an exception is the type of land use proposed such as but not limited to affordable housing. MR. MULHERF,: 'That's what it says in the Comp. Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You already got that. So what are you asking for in 6.1.7 that isn't already provided to you in the existing deviation process of that chapter of the CCME? MR. MULHERF: Well, what we're asking for is that we go back now and amend the land code because they did amend the land code in conformance with that but only limited it to affordable housing. What we're asking for is the ability to -- I mean, you may call it -- and it's okay if we get it in the public record -- you may call this being overly cautious. But I want to make sure that I don't have a problem down the road when I come in with an LDC amendment that allows for a deviation from native vegetation, the basis of which might be something other than just affordable housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you come in with it as an LDC amendment for the specific LDC language you're going to create for Immokalee so that there it can be changed as needed rather than put it in the GMP in which it's going to be impossible to change? MR. MULHERE: I'm planning on coming in. This isn't the specific language, this is just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But you don't need this if you change it through your LDC language. MR. MULHERE: If what you're saying is based on that language I don't need this, I'm okay, then we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm saying you have to ask for it. If it becomes part of the LDC language that's adopted, it would be consistent, I think, with I O.D which is what you're pointing at, David. If you were to look at 6. 1.1 I O.D, type of land use proposed such as but not limited to affordable housing. And he's telling us that the LDC currently limits it to affordable housing. By that phrase it says but not limited to, could it be expanded to more than affordable housing throughjust changes in the Land Development Code and not have to be reiterated in this GMP? MR. WEEKS: Let me rephrase that. Would it be possible for the LDC provision to be expanded to reflect what is in this Policy, 6. 1.110 without -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- having to do any further amendment -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that -- MR. WEEKS: -- to the Comprehensive Plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that expansion meaning can it go beyond affordable housing. MR. WEEKS: I would say yes. Yes, you can amend the LDC to reflect what this Policy 6.1.110 says without any further amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- you know, I'm back to Jeffs earlier, why would we want to beat this thing up in our -- why would we want to get this into a GMP when we already got it resolved through another process that's MR. M ULHERE: Because our experience is -- I mean, I guess my experience is that we haven't always gotten what we thought we could get unless it was expressly stated in there. And in fact we have an amendment that limits it to affordable housing. Why does it limit it to affordable if that wasn't -- and there were recommendations that it not be limited to affordable housing, that it be increased -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking too fast. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I know. Thank you. Page 93 161 1 P February 16, 2010 So again, I mean, I don't — we can take it out. It's on the public record. It's okay. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's talk about it. I'm sure there's other comments. Mr. Wolfley, you still got a comment? And then Donna had a comment too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? MR. MULHERE: It was put in there just to ensure that we would have the opportunity to come in and do that as sort of a placeholder. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm in agreement with Mark that it doesn't need to be in here. MR. MULHERE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm a little concerned, though, that what you're trying to get out of this is that in every instance you can be exempted from native vegetation policy. MR. MULHERE: No, it's not an exception. You have to -- you actually have to buy native vegetation in another area where it's targeted for acquisition. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: So it's not an exemption. It's just not allowing -- you don't have to do it on -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I apologize for that turn of phrase. So that you can just buy it somewhere else and Immokalee can essentially become a concrete jungle -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- because you've decided every little project will come through and say we don't want it, we'll buy it in, you know, the RLSA or we'll buy it in -- MR. MULHERE: It's really not written that way. It's really written with a great deal of limitations and protections. I'll read it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in what? What are you reading, the CCME? MR. MULHERE: I'm reading the Comp. Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, let me explain something. If this were -- if we were to add more than affordable housing to this exception for a deviation only for the Immokalee area, we could put criteria on when that exception kicks in. And we can do that through the LDC amendment process, which is something we can't do here -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which makes it too much in totality -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is what 1 think the concern is. MR. MULHERE: And that criteria already exists. There's a threshold for administrative, then it goes through public hearing. There's all kinds of stuff in the comp. plan al -- in the LDC already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's much more comfortably left in that document than this one. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have -- yeah, I think we're all on the same page on that. Okay. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know if this is necessary or not, but when you're talking about native preservation retention, I don't know if this would be an appropriate place to put it but to exclude the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais overlay as a part of any kind of opportunity, you know, to bypass native vegetation preservation. MR. MULHERE: 1 don't understand. I'm not following why we wouldn't want to target acquisition and mitigation in an area we want to protect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think he's saying if there's a project there, the project can't look to deviate from a standard -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That was what I -- MR. MULHERE: That I understand. That makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just the opposite. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's 4:00. Page 94 161 1 3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That was -- we're still on 6.1.1. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you make a note and just come back -- MR. MULHERE: And put it in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. 6.1.2. Anybody have any questions on 6.1.29 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, the term mixed use, is it still a macro or is it a micro yet? MR. MULHERE: That is talking about mixed use centers, so that's really talking about a product. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's an actual building with mixed uses, so it's the micro version? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Policy 6.1.2. 1 guess it's, let's see, fourth line down where it talks about interconnection of pedestrian facilities serving new schools to the existing pedestrian network. I've been under the understanding that school people do not want their plant to be open and available for use. They've even put fences now around a lot of schools. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I'm in error, I would like to know that. But if I'm not in error, then how do we propose to make this happen? What compulsion can we require of them if we haven't been able to do so up to now? MR. MULHERE: I think that's a very good point. And I actually struck through the new schools language in both circumstances where it occurred. Because the fact is that we don't have any real ability to, you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Make it happen. MR. MULHERE: -- to make that happen. I mean, I guess it could happen through some future interlocal agreement or something. But for the purposes now, I mean, if we're interconnecting -- if we're placing parks and other community facilities close to -- in a walkable condition, you know, in a walkable condition, I would hope that the school board would also be looking at the same thing as it relates to new schools. But you know what, I don't see -- I could be wrong, but I don't see a whole lot of new schools happening in the near term. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I've just seen schools that have been in place for a long time suddenly get big fences on them now so -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I don't know why -- I mean, this is under the guise of security. MR. MULHERE: Security, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we're really basically saying that this is not public property even though you paid for it, citizens, and you can't come here. MR. MULHERE: I guess the unfortunate condition we live in is one where liability seems to be the driving factor in everything that we do. And that's a comment, but I mean it's sad but true that the basis for that is liability. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I hope that one day we change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 6.1.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 6.1.3. Anybody have any questions on 6.1.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 6.1.4. By the way, Bob, I notice that you've not only just here but in a prior page or two where it says -- where it has those two -year performance standards, I notice that you didn't put in the subject to Policy 1.1.1 as you had all the others. I mean, I'm assuming you're going to catch that when you clean this up? Page 95 161 1 3 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 6.1.5, anybody have any questions on 6.1.5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this one you reference the central business district overlay. That's the new overlay? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You already got what, five or six overlays in Immokalee? So now are we wiping all those other overlays out and putting -- how is this being done'? MR. MULHERE: The intent -- I mean, we haven't done this yet, but the intent is as part of the land code amendments to combine the multiple overlays into a single overlay. Might have some sub, you know, sets of standards. I don't know that we'll accomplish it in one but we certainly I think can reduce it to no more than a couple of overlays. And maybe the term overlay there isn't necessarily appropriate. We're going to have a central business district. I don't know if we now have to say central business district overlay subdistrict, you know, that's a little bit of overkill there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David will have fun with trying to figure out what that is. MR. MULHERE: I think it would have been all right if we just would have said essential business district and then how we -- what nomenclature we use, we'll figure that out. Would you agree? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to create that though through the Land Development Code. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, will that be done when you do the LDC changes, or will you do it as a separate overlay? MR. MULHERE: It's proposed to be as part of that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 6.1.59 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 6.1.6. Any questions on 6.1.6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had some questions, but you've changed a lot. Okay, well, that last sentence is important because the CPTED principles are not always compatible with architectural design that's acceptable. But I think your last sentence clarifies that. Anybody have any questions on 6.1.6? David? MR. WEEKS: Just a very minor point. The policy reference the subject to Policy 1.1. I believe that should be 1.1. L That's that template language. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Goal 7 and Objective 7.1. Is there any questions with those first two points? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 7. L 1. Anybody have any issues with 7.1.1 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 7.1.2. I'm not sure why you need this. But do you know what the Enterprise Zone is? Have you seen that document? First of all, it's a 1995 document. It was a time, a 10 -year planning document. And it has a whole pile of strategies and goals that are not necessarily consistent with things that are in place today. It also is supposed to have an appointed board. And I'm j ust wondering, is that board -- have you guys met with that board and talked with them to see if they've met their goals and strategies? There's seven strategies in order of priority. They are listed. I have all the listings. The timings for completions were all supposed to be many years ago. MR. MULHERE: You're talking about the Enterprise Zone. Page 96 161 11-3 February 16, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. They have an annual report. Joe Cunningham used to be involved in it, but the latest one was '06. And in that report they talk about what money they had. And it says the key element of the master plan update is the economic feasibility study now being prepared by the Regional Economic Research Institute of the Lutgert College of Business of Florida Gulf Coast University, which is under subcontract with the CRA. The study will lay the groundwork for future physical development of hnmokalee's economic base. And the reason I pointed that out is because that particular document, we haven't -- we can't seem to find all the pieces of that to know what its basis was for. Do you really need to reference the Enterprise Zone? MR. MULHERE: Well, I guess there's two ways to look at it. One is whether we need to reference it and the other one is whether or not we need to talk about looking at the Enterprise Zone strategic objectives and determ ping whether they're still applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of them is eliminate impact fees. I mean, it may be applicable, but how practical is that going to be? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't be a great thing to do but -- MR. MULHERE: I understand, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then you really got a problem on how you pay for things. MR. MULHERE: I really need to defer to Penny as to whether or not they're still meeting or not. I don't know the answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know it's still in place, and that's good. It's not bad there. But I'm just curious about how we bring it into this GMP. Hi, Penny. MS. PHILLIPPI: Iii. We do have an Enterprise Zone. We do report monthly and quarterly and annually to the state because we're a state designated Enterprise Zone. And the CRA advisory board is the board of the Enterprise Zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. MS. PHILLIPPI: We have a list of objectives. But eliminate the impact fees isn't one ofthem. So I'm wondering if you have an old document or if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the only one referenced in county records that I could find. So I -- MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, there's a second one because they had to resubmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I asked for these documents and I only took what I got. So someone needs to give me the right document, and I'd be certainly glad to see it, but it would have to be in the form of an adopted ordinance. Because the Ordinance 95 -22 is the one that created the Enterprise Zone and the application within that document, which is about 80 pages, has all this information in it. And the sixth strategy in order of priority is eliminate impact fees. And I wish we could. MS. PHILLIPPI: We did reapply. There is a reapplication and approval, and I'll get that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd sure appreciate it, thank you. And then we have another one here, which is almost as interesting. And this one is called the Community Redevelopment Area Plan. Now, I asked for that document too and I got the document. But it isn't the document I think everybody thinks it is. MR. MULHERE: No, it's very minimal, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not minimal, it's nonexistent. It provides the CRAB for Bayshore and -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Gateway Triangle. And if you'll look in the index for that document, it's all about Bayshore and Gateway. And in the appendix it refers to four figures that are basically an outline of the Immokalee urban area, but it's not a plan for the CRA -- for the community -- it's not a community redevelopment area plan. So I don't know what that is. And I think before we accept it as a reference, we try to find out what it is. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm going to -- now, I'm going to defer to David now. There was an adoption of a community redevelopment plan in Immokalee which I believe was done for various funding and state funding purposes. You all called it to my attention that we didn't have that overlay as part of our Comprehensive Plan and we Page 97 161 1,3 February 16, 2010 then inserted it. The community redevelopment -- the redevelopment plan? Do you have any recollection of that? MR. WEEKS: As far as the Future Land Use Map, it was the urban infill and redevelopment area. MR. MULHERE: Right. And I don't know if that's the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, here's the plan that was referenced. This was -- I mean, I asked for all this stuff a month ago, and I got bits and pieces of it. Some of it turned out to be an answer to the question and others turned out to be what this is, which isn't a Community Redevelopment Plan Area for Immokalee. So if one does exist, I think we need to see it in order to understand why it's referenced and how it applies in here. MR. MULHERE: And I see that the reference is right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just -- for the next time around, Bob, if you could -- if somebody can try to find that so we know if have a valid reference or not, that would be -- MR. MULHERE: We have a valid reference, we just don't have a plan within the reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or if the plan that you have, because it said Immokalee somewhere in it, someone thought that was an Immokalee redevelopment plan, it isn't. And -- MR. MULHERE: Right. I would say this along with the CRA plan is what's the redevelopment plan for Immokalee, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I pulled the stuff for the CRA too, so -- okay, well, I think you need to follow up on that one and we'll wait. Anybody else have anything on 7.1.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 7.1.3. Are you going to put your -- you did put your subject policy in here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that seems like a huge amount of new government spending. It seems out of place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a -- I mean, Bob is a valid -- what do you call you, member of the Obama army? So that would justify his need for more government spending. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm the Obama army. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, your need. I can't believe you're complaining then. MR. MULHERE: Well, I know that these are subject to funding. And again, all I'm saying is that this is -- how far is Immokalee from the coastal urban area, 40 something miles? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty minutes, 45 minutes. MR. MULHERE: So, you know, with appropriate funding it seems appropriate to me that there be at least a satellite office, since we have a satellite office in North Naples and East Naples and so on and so forth, for some of these services so that the citizens in Immokalee who have less capability of getting from one point to another can get to these government facilities. I recognize that there's probably not funding for it right now and may never be, I don't know. Seems like it has to be at least a goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 don't have -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some of them anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 mean, if they can -- what about justification? You include subject to financial -- I mean, basically feasibility by that policy reference. And what about the need? I know there night be a need for one or two people, but don't we want to justify there's -- in order to have domestic violence services, you've got to have enough activity to justify it? I mean, Paul may say we have out there, 1 don't know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Actually, looking at this, we have Animal Control, we have Child Support, we have Code Enforcement, we have Court, we have Domestic Violence. EMS, I don't know if we have or not. Public Health we have. Housing, Human Services we have. We have a Commissioner's office. We have a CRA. We have a Tax Collector. We have almost everything, they're just not in one building. Page 98 161 1 �3 February 16, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it's a moot point. We'll just move on. MR. MULHERE: I could say -- I put a little phrase in there, where utilization warrants. I mean, if that's -- to ensure effective collaboration and where utilization warrants, you know, something along those lines. I'll add a couple more. But, I mean, that would be a -- I mean, if you only have a few people using something then it doesn't make financial sense to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, could I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think on the other side of that coin is the projected population of Immokalee in 20 years, 10 years, whatever would certainly in numbers alone suggest the need for services proximate to them. MR. MULHERE: And potentially serving the other communities that will develop out there as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if for no other reason than to save on greenhouse gases. COMMISSIONER MIDNF,Y: Yay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Policy 7.1.4, funding for safe neighborhoods. Any questions on that? MR. MULHERE: I struck through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that saves the questions. Okay, before we go into this next massive section that has a lot of issues because it involves the density, why don't we just call it a game for today and come back on Thursday and do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, we need a motion to continue this meeting to Thursday morning, 8:30 at this location. And between now and then we'll try to read the yellow highlighted policies that were passed out to us today and we'll try to at least get those into the mix on "Thursday and finish up as much as we can. COMMISSIONER WOLFLF.Y: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. We are continued until 8:30 Thursday morning in this room. Thank you all. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING jCONS O,NN MARL P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on I PM((- t, Z C', as presented f -- or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 99 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 18, 2010 16 I 1� February 18, 2010 MAR 3 f iuw ;oit+ of Cou ^ty Comrni��.00 ors LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Interim Administrator for CDES Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Susan Istenes, LDC Manager David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Misc. Cares: Date: Page 1 Item #: q ,oies to: 16 I 13 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everybody. If you'll all take your seats. We are starting a minute late. Kady asked for an extra minute. So Kady, I hope this extra minute for you worked. With that, welcome to the February 18th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY _ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Midney is not here yet. I presume he will be. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Chairman Strain'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Vighotti is present. Commissioner Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Welfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA _.. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The agenda today. We have two consent items from our last regular meeting. And this is a regular meeting of the Planning Commission with a continuation of review of the hnmokalee Area Master Plan that will start as soon as we finish our consent items. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're going to be not here on the 26th, which is next Friday? That's the land Development Code date continuation. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we'll have a quorum. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES --JANUARY 21 2010 _ CHA RMP STRAIN: Approval of the minutes from January 21 st, 2010. Is there a motion to approve or Page 2 correct? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second'? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Caron, motion made by Mr. Vighotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. 161 13 February 18, 2010 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are no recaps. And chairman's report, Ijust have to kind of make a comment. It's real important in our meetings that we have a good transcript of everything that's going on. And it's -- I guess it falls to the chairman to make sure that the meeting is held in enough orderly manner that the transcript can be adequately taken. I have to ask everybody one more time, please wait to be recognized to speak. Because when we speak out and we're not recognized, it's easy to get tripped over with somebody else. And it's very hard to do the recording that's needed for an accurate transcript. And Mr. Mulhere will do his absolute best not to speak until everybody finishes. As impatient as it is -- or as hard as it is sometimes to sit here knowing you've got something really important to say that may solve the problem that's being discussed, we've still got to wait till that person finishes before we're recognized and move on. So with that courtesy in mind, I think we can have a much better potential transcript and a smoother day. Item #8A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -1304, BARBARA KAREN LEHMANN CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, we'll move into the consent agenda items. The first petition is BD- PL2009 -1304, Barbara Karen Lehmann, Trustee for the Lehmann Declaration of Trust. It was for a dock extension at 27 East Pelican Street. This is a consent item. Is there either a motion to approve or is there a motion to any corrections or changes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just -- Page 3 161 10 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one point. And this is to you, Ray. Ray, we had some discussion at the meeting as to whether you measure to the center line of a pile or to the closest edge of a pile to the property line. These drawings still show to the center line. Testimony was that it would be to the edge. Will these drawings cause any confusion there? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I don't believe they cause confusion. I think testimony was given during the public hearing that those are kind of conceptual drawings and they aren't used for the construction of the dock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLF.Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIO "I "Fl: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Item #8B PETITION: PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11320 MCMULLEN MPUD CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next consent item is Petition PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320, the Sembler Family Partnership, No. 42. It's for the McMullen MPUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion'? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: On the Exhibit A on number 20,1 still don't understand what --or see where group housing facilities definition is. I see group care facility definition and group housing unit definition, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at in the document? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Exhibit A of Page I of 12 it says on Exhibit A. That's what it says on the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I of 12, okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It says on number 20. 1 don't know if-- it says care units only including group housing and group housing facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, is there a def -- I thought there were some definitions in the definition section of the Land Development Code. Do you know? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, there is definitions for both care units and group housing in the LDC. So I don't recall that having to be placed in the document, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says homeless shelters are prohibited. Is that what your concern is? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, Finjust -- there's no definition for group housing facilities in -- that I see. I'm just -- should it be group care facilities or group housing unit? So that there's a clear definition. I don't see it. Or it's just a different one that I'm not finding somewhere. Page 4 l6! In February 18, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: I think the Land Development Code provides both definitions, so I thought it would have been redundant to include the definitions again in the PUD document since they are basically spelled out in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we wouldn't normally do that. But I think the question is are they both in the LDC. I think that's -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the question. They are? MR. BELLOWS: They both are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if they're both in the LDC, then is that -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see it. I have it right here CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you have it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and I don't see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, can you -- one of us need to --let me see if I can get it on the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's just one word. It needs to be one or the other. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe it is under the definition section under group housing facilities. And you might have to look under housing, back slash group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have your code with you? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I don't, but I can pull it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm pulling it up now too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I have this page. It's here, here and here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For the record, let the record show Commissioner Midney is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Computers are working very slow this morning, so I can't get the Muni. Code up yet. So if anybody can get to it before me, please try. COMMISSIONER MfDNEY: Mark, you remember I said I would be late? You weren't worried, were you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We knew you'd be here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We were all worried. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Paul, actually, when I called the roll call, I said Commissioner Midney is not here, but I'm sure he'll be here momentarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did. Did you resolve it or not? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's a definition for group housing, but there isn't one for group housing facilities. I thought that group housing facility's just a structure within the group housing category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you take the F on facilities and make it a small F, and then it's group housing and that takes care of it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you have group housing group housing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Small F, changing it to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would strike out -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think that probably means group care facility, not group housing facility. Because there is a definition for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then maybe that's what it should be. Is the applicant here? Sir, would you mind -- MR. HOREAS: Tom Horeas, the Sembler Company. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to be swom in first. (Speaker was duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it meet with your application if that word in the second one was instead of group housing it was group care facilities? MR. HOREAS: No, I think we specifically needed the group housing. But your suggestion for making the capital F, which is a defined term, to a lower case F makes good logical sense. Because it's not a defined -- the facilities isn't defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but is group housing defined, Ray? MR. HOREAS: Last time -- Page 5 161 1P�� February 18, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MR. HOREAS: -- I looked it up, I thought it was. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, group housing is defined. And it basically says, housing structures designed to meet a special need such as housing, health and socialization of certain segments of the population such as youth, the elderly or the developmentally disabled. Group housing refers to the following types of structures: Family care facilities, group care facilities, Category I and Category 2 care units and nursing homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why wouldn't we have this read care units only including group housing, group housing facilities, and go on from there with the facilities being a small F. And then we've covered both the group housing and those facilities that support group housing under that definition. MR. BELLOWS: That works forme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, do you have any further objection if those changes get made? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any objections from the applicant? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It just drives me crazy when -- MR. HOREAS: No, that's logical. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- I can't find the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 would think, too, to clean it up, Ray, that the first reference to group housing, the H on the housing needs to be capitalized. And then again with the second reference, drop the capital F and make it a small F. Then we all tit with the definitions. MR. BELLOWS: That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, thank you. That was a good catch. MR. HOREAS: Thank you, everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'thank you, sir. Okay, with that change to the consent agenda item, is there -- and there's been a motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTh Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9 -0. Thank you. Item #9A PETITION: CP- 2008 -5, IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FLUE MAP CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from this format we'll move into our GMP review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan that was continued from the 16th. This is CP- 2008 -5. We left off by finishing up most of the policy statements, objectives and goals except for the environmental ones, which we wanted to start out with today. Bob, you had one on the -- you've got one on the screen and it would -- oh, your numbering system is really going to be difficult. Page 6 161 1p February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Everything is just one number off. Every goal is one number off. Instead of four, this is now five. When we get to five, it's six. When we get to six, it's seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then today we will be on our Objective 4. 1, Bob's new numbering, 5.1. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for those of you who went through and tried to decipher the hard to read sheets, that occurs on Page 19. MR. MULHERE: And we have the changes on the screen. Hopefully you'll be able to see themjust as easy, or the public can see them up there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions on objective -- let's start with the very first paragraph, 4.1. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the second line when it says, and connected wetlands systems and listed species habitat, including upland habitat, do you mean upland habitat used by listed species? MR. MULHERE: Yes. You want that -- you think that should be added for clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- the way things happen sometimes in interpretations, it might be better to have it explicitly clear. You might put an "S" where that "X" is. Any other questions on the first paragraph of Objective 4.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to Policy 4.1.1. Now, there's several paragraphs here. We'll just work our way through the whole thing. And Bob, I've got a couple different versions, so it's taking me a while to coordinate them all. MR. MULHERE: It's been completely rewritten from what started through the EAC recommendation. And just as a reminder, on the screen, the yellow highlight is what the EAC recommended in their first review. And the gray shows we went back to them, showed them how we made the changes and they had a couple of minor additional changes, and so that's what you see. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So EAC has seen this twice. MR. MULHERE: I think at least twice, yeah, but twice. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Good. Since -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They've seen it once since January 6th. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, you missed the beginning of the meeting. I know I'm --Donna's going to help me make sure everybody's recognized. We had -- last time it was very hard to transcribe the meeting when we didn't get recognized individually. So in order to make sure the transcription goes as smooth as possible -- and that will slow us down a little bit too. And Donna's agreed to kick me every time I speak too fast. And my knees are already black and blue. So with that in mind, first paragraph of this pol -- or any point of Policy 4.1.1, does anybody have any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two years that you keep referring to, I mean, the first time you caught the subject of Policy 1.1. t that's in the third paragraph. The second one you didn't insert Policy 1.1.1. Was there a reason for that, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes, there was. The reason -- thank you, I'm glad you asked that, Mr. Chairman. The reason why I didn't put it in the second one was because again, we believe that we would have completed the land code amendment part of our assignment within that two -year period, so -- and it's funded. So we didn't think that we needed to put that there. Though I think at your direction in a few locations on the 16th regarding land code amendments, we still put that caveat in there, because I think you said that there's no harm in having it in there, so I guess I just put it back -- put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, 1 think also when we come back and do the review of your rewrite, now that we've got clean copies, but it would probably more after today, we may have to revisit some of those where Page 7 16 1 13 February 18, 2010 it either is missed or not in there and ask -- MR. MULHERE: We'll try to catch them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- take a look at them. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions on the remainder of 4.1.1? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 4.1.1. Just to sort of clarify for me, would this policy imply that perhaps later on in the LDC we might look at -- when we're looking at cluster development, would that include possibly buffer zones? MR. MULHERE: Tell me what you mean. Because I -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, how close to the, you know, environmentally sensitive areas you would be allowed to, you know, develop. MR. MULHERE: Well, there already are I think regulations that relate to how close to a natural reservation you can develop. And again, you know, I'm not saying we wouldn't look at that, but if we're having a landowner acquire land in a natural reservation, I'm not sure then we need a significant buffer on top of what's being required. I mean, we need some buffer, and it already exists in the LDC There is -- I don't know what it is, but there is a buffer. I think it's 20 feet from a natural reservation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, in I guess it's 6.2.5. No, I'm just --if something like that would be within the realm of what's covered under this where it says innovative -- incentives and innovative land development regulations. So it could be possibly -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, could it be. Yes, it could be, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, I haven't had time to pick up all this new language as well as I would have liked to, so I need to ask you, under your density and intensity blending provisions, you refer to some transfer of the RLSA stewardship credits or into the SRAs of the stewardship area. How does that play out in reaction to Policy 4. 1.1 where it talks about transferable development rights, density bonuses and -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, those are two different programs completely. The density blending already exists in the plan, albeit we have amended it to -- as proposed. And in accordance with the EAC motion, we've amended it to allow for a density blending for lands in the Inunokalee urban area within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay that if you protected those lands you could transfer your development rights to lower sensitive environmental lands within the RLSA. That's completely different from any proposed transferable development rights program. It's sort of like the rural fringe in the RLSA. Two completely separate programs. This calls -- originally we had written it that we would create a transferable development rights program. It's been rewritten by EAC motion based on I think requests from The Conservancy that we would only explore the feasibility of it. And frankly, we concur with that. It may not make sense on a limited basis to expend the time and energy. So we don't even know if there's going to be a TDR program, but if it does make sense, it has to come back through a comprehensive plan amendment process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, could the lands that are being subject to Policy 4. 1.1 utilize the RLSA process by -- MR. MULHERE: 4.1.1, meaning the tran -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The incentive, yes. MR. MULHERE: No, there's no intent for this, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we're going to have a -- we'll probably have a lengthy discussion on the density and intensity blending provisions, because the RLSA -- well, we'll get into that when we get there. MR. MULIIERF,: Just to be clear in response, the TDR program that's referred to here, if it's determined to be feasible and appropriate, is not intended to allow for a transfer anywhere but within the Immokalee urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the key. Good, thank you. Page 8 161 1 lk� February 18, 2010 Now, how do you see -- with the density bonuses and the density increases that are being proposed for the Immokalee urban area in this plan, how do you see the desire for anybody to want to come up with a TDR that would be for additional density when they've got so much given to them by the plan itself? MR. MULHERE: Well, you've got to build the incentives in. There may be as part of that plan that you have -- I think, in fact, in having some discussions -- we've had some general discussions, and one of the discussions was perhaps in an urban infill bonus, which is a bonus that's available, in the urban area presently to get the urban ill bonus you have to buy at least one TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And I'm thinking in Immokalee, you know, you might do something similar. It might be that you have to buy a TDR or might be that if you buy a TDR you get a little bit of extra bonus. But there are opportunities to build in incentives that start at the base or the floor before you can get the bonuses you have to do, you know, if you have a TDR program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And again, that's not even been determined that it's going to be feasible. So I agree with you, that there may not be feasibility plus -- last comment related to that -- when we get to the density. You're going to find in our recommendation now is that we've limited the increases significantly so you don't have the same situation that you think you have. We have to wait till we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? Over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I believe Bob misspoke. Bob, I understood you to say that for the residential infill you have to use a TDR credit. MR. MULHERE: Presently? MR. WEEKS: That's for the coastal urban area, not for Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: That's what I meant. That's what I meant, for the coastal urban area. MR. WEEKS: My fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, I understood that. Because he and 1 had discussed that point. And that's where we suggested maybe we ought to look at the same kind of incentivization for Immokalee, so -- Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I think, you know, when we were discussing this at the EAC and with Bob and with Nicole from The Conservancy, what we were thinking of is that the RLSA density blending is a nice idea. Potentially it could take care of the whole problem, if there were enough new towns developed and enough new demand for those RLSA credits. But the new towns that are not Collier owned may take many years to develop. And by then, you know, there may be a need for something like a TDR program. So it's kind of like a -- you have two possibilities for taking the density off of these lands and giving the landowners some compensation. The TDR would be one and the density blending would be another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a good idea_ I haven't — I don't have a problem with the proposal for a TDR program. I certainly have some concerns over the way the RLSA interactions (sic). And we'll discuss that when we get to that section of the code. So that's where my -- that's why I quizzed on this, because I wanted to make sure this was clean of any reference to the RLSA. Because if it wasn't, we'd be into that discussion now. Okay, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I didn't want to prolong the conversation, I just wanted to make it clear for everybody that, you know, we haven't got to the density rating system, and that's where you'll see the density blending provision. So we haven't even looked at those yet, so I didn't want to confusion anybody. When we get to them, we can have that conversation. As far as this goes, yeah, no relation, no intent to transfer or allow transfers outside of the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I think we'll do is finish up this objective before we go to any public discussion. I know Nicole had some comments that she wanted to make. Why don't we move into Policy 4.1.2, Lake Trafford development. Are there any questions concerning that item? Page 9 Februjb2A0 1 �3 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any items on four -- yeah, 4.1.2? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to 4.1.3. Any issues on 4.1.3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And last one is 4.1.4, which because it's all been stricken takes my questions away. MR. MULHERE: There's a little bit, if 1 -- CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: On the bottom. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It's quite a bit less language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then 4. 1.5 was added because -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you moved the conservation designation to 4.1.6. Anybody have anything on 4.1.5'? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I have a continent on that, if I may. CI AIRMAN STRAIN: I do too, so -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't matter. I mean, we can go either way. I just -- to me it puts a huge burden on Immokalee and I can't see the necessity for it. And why are we doing it for scrub jays? Why don't we do it for every species there is? And why are we doing it at a pre -- as a preemptive strike more or less as a county effort when it should be a private owner's effort when they come in? I'm a little puzzled by it all. I don't know why we've singled it out for this for Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: Well, again, this was a recommendation of the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. Question still applies. MR. MULHERE: Well, and Ijust wanted to offer some thoughts on it. And Nicole and I have discussed this as well, at least in a sort of preliminary discussion. There's already a policy in this plan that you've reviewed that calls for the county to look at areas that might be appropriate for either mitigation or acquisition. And one of the areas that we talked about was the panther Priority One area on the eastern part of the Immokalee urban area that we talked about on the 16th. The other area is the Lake Trafford/Cantp Keais Strand area that's identified as an area of higher value environmental. And we already talked about that applying to both wetlands and upland areas with listed species. So there is already a general provision that would have the county look at areas that would be targeted for mitigation and acquisition. The EAC's concern was that there is scrub jay habitat uniquely found out in Immokalee and that that required some special recognition, therefore this policy. I think you could cover this, as you've already suggested, that we look at including as examples the areas that we know have potentially high listed species value or natural resource value, including the panther Priority One area on the eastern part, as well as the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais Strand overlay. And we could also say -- again reiterate uplands with listed species. It does -- it's a general provision that would focus folks in the future when they're looking at mapping to look at those areas, as well as the wetland areas or the panther priority areas. So I don't know that we need this i f we include a reference to uplands -- upland listed species habitat in the other provisions in the plan. That's just an observation on my part. I'm not -- I don't have any objection to it, just maybe Nicole will have a continent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my comment on all that is that the other plan that was referenced, the panther habitat plan, that plan was completed by six scientists at a cost to a private sector that the county could benefit from. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would require the county to pay, or Immokalee CRA or somebody, to fund a rather intense study for the entire urban area of Immokalee way before it may ever be needed and way before it might be subject to change as the birds move or migrate or change their habitat. I really don't think this is something Immokalee should be paying for, nor do 1 think they should be under the gun for this type of item in this kind of a policy. I think the other policy where the language was j ust recently changed adequately covers it. And so that's -- Page 10 16 1 1 �� February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: And that's purely voluntary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where I was coming from in my discussion. And Paul and Donna would be next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have some insight into the scrub jays. I've kind of taken that on as my project or an area of expertise in Immokalee. It wouldn't be expensive to study them, because there are very few left. And they're very territorial; they don't move around hardly at all. It's rare for them to go even a mile away from where they are. And so it wouldn't be that hard. There's probably just a few families of them left. I don't even know if it's maybe too late to save this population because it's becoming so isolated and so small. But I like, you know, the general statement development should be directed away from these areas and the possibility of providing incentives. But I don't think the study would be very costly or very involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, Paul, if we have the objective language in there that says the listed species habitat, including upland habitat for listed species, wouldn't that cover it without requiring the proactive position of the taxpayers to have to locate it and leave it up so that the landowners end up paying for the surveys that are needed to get it done? Because someone will have to pay for it and the CRA's got a limited amount of funds. And I've actually studied their funding process. I don't know how they're going to pay for all this stuff they're suggesting here, so I'm -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Other people are studying it. I know the Fish & Wildlife is going to be doing a study with regard to the airport with regard to that thing that we recently did. And so their biologists are going to be around. 1 don't know, that might be enough to really study the whole thing, the population is so small. I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But again, that would mean that Collier County would not have to do that. And that's the point I think the Chairman's trying to make, that the county and/or the CRA shouldn't have to undertake that study if other people are going to do it and/or if some private landowner comes forward with a project, they would have to do it as part of a management plan. So I think you're absolutely right that there's no need, you're covered in the first policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think there's plenty of environmental provisions to make sure endangered species or threatened species don't get buried in the process, so -- MR. MULHERE: If I could just add, there's lots of existing data on wetland and listed species. And there's already a provision that says the county within two years is going to map targeted areas for acquisition and mitigation. And that's --we want that, because we want that to bean incentive in other aspects of the plan. And I don't know that you need a separate mapping process. That process should cover this, or could cover this, I guess is a better way to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the consensus says that that paragraph is unnecessary because it's covered in other policies. And certainly during the implementation of all the policies, if it needs to be further highlighted we can address it then and more effectively. So with that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just in my ignorance, sembjays are a listed species? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be sure. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: There's actually very few listed species in hmnokalee. The panther is the big one. We don't have red - cockaded woodpeckers. About the only other one besides gopher tortoises and, you know, those are well covered, is the scrub jays. That's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for the panthers. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Panthers is the big one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you missed -- yeah, you were here Tuesday. Page 11 161 i ,o February 18, 2010 Okay. Let's move on to 4.1.6, 5.1.6 now. Any issues there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you reference in the third line, where such lands were required primarily for the purposes of conservation. How do you quantify or qualify the word primarily? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think that modifier -- I don't know how to quantify it. The modifier was there because there are uses that are not directly related to conservation, such as passive recreation that are typically allowed in conservation lands purchased with public dollars so that the public can actually use those lands. So I don't know that it's necessary. David, and maybe we can -- it doesn't really matter, because those uses are allowed in the conservation designation. So we probably don't need the primarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's got a conservation designation, wouldn't that be the qualifier? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, the passive recreation uses are permitted under that designation, so you probably don't need it. But as an abundance of caution, you know, for -- to be sure that there were other uses besides conservation uses that were allowed, I put that in there. We can take it out. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Some of these allow hunting too. I know the CREW lands do and I think the Pepper Ranch envisions some hunting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we --but i f we drop the word primarily and just said acquired for the purposes of conservation, it still covers it, because all the conservation lands can be used for passive recreation; is that not right? MR. MULHERE: They can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd rather -- I think it would be confusing to leave the word in there. MR. MULHERF,: And I think the only reason that -- also was that, you it's a small C. It doesn't -- that phrase doesn't reference the designation, it references the act of conserving. And primarily that's what they are acquired for, but they do allow other uses. So anyway, it's okay, I can take that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second to the last -- oh, go ahead, David. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While we're crossing out, could we cross out one of those "for these "? MR. MULHERE: Is there an extra one in there? God forbid, did I make a mistake? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Never. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is it" COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right after primarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the for the. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: For the for the. MR. MULHERE: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just stuttering, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the second to the last line, Bob, you start a sentence that says, such land shall be designated conservation, and of course it's lands. And shall be subject to provisions of conservation designation. Now, is it the intent that those lands that are designated conservation be done so on the FLUE? MR. MULHERE: After acquisition and at the next update of the plan, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we need to say that here, that such lands shall be designated conservation lands on the Future Land Use Element and shall be subject to provisions of the -- to make sure that it does get on the FLUE? MR. MULHERE: I think that's a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, that would be why you would be including mapping the lands, right, so that they could be put on the FLUE. MR. MULHERE: No. That's part of the reason. The real reason we're mapping them is so they can be the target of acquisition or mitigation. But after they're acquired -- if you think about south blocks of Golden Gate Estates, that was a long acquisition process, 20 years, maybe longer. The county didn't designate that area as conservation until after almost Page 12 16 1 1." February 18, 2010 all of it was acquired. Because they just waited until the acquisition was done. So as piecemeal as these things are acquired and then the county is going through and updating the plan anyway, that's when they'll designate them as conservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this entire objective before we ask for public comment? MR. MULHERE: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob, and then Dave. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Ijust read this and I realize there's a really unnecessary phrase at the end of that. Such lands shall be designated conservation on the Future Land Use Map, that should say, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think it should end there. We don't have to say that it's subject to the provisions of that designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Automatically is. David? MR. WEEKS: Covered it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was it? You took his thunder away there, Bob. MR. MULHERE: You know, I had coffee this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers on this item? Nicole? Why did I figure you'd be speaking on this one today? MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, hereon behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And The Conservancy did sit down and do a lot of work with Commissioner Midney and with Bob and Penny to really beef up these natural resources policies. So we appreciate all of the collaborative effort that went into that. The EAC was very responsive. So we think that we have a good goal, objective and policies here. One comment on Policy 5.1.1. In looking at the TDR program, the incentives, we wanted to pull out the concept of a TDR program from other clustering incentive based provisions that could easily be put into the LDC, because the TDR program is really quite an expansive and in- depth, complicated program. And we didn't feel comfortable with the assumption that if a TDR program were appropriate it would simply be implemented in the LDC, we wanted that to come back, be part of the GMP amendment process and then be implemented. So that's why the TDR program -- one of the reasons the TDR program was separated out from the other incentives that can I think easily be put into the LDC. And also the question of with all of the density and bonuses available, is there going to be a market for a TDR program, and is it worth the energy and effort to put one together. So that's why those were culled out. On the provision for the upland habitats, 4.1.5, while there are a lot of agency review processes in place for wetlands and wetland dependent species, what we find is that if a wetlands permit isn't triggered, then some of these upland listed species don't get that same level of detailed review, because you don't have the agencies coming in as they normally do through a wetlands permitting process. And the scrub jay is one of the species that sometimes falls through the cracks. And unlike a lot of the wetland species where if you map the large lands that are connected, the flow ways, some of these scrub jay parcels are very small. And so when you're doing mapping to look at specific parcels targeted for mitigation, the concern is that you may not pick up on some of these five, 10 -acre parcels that are scrub jay habitat, may have scrub jays on them but may not be picked up in that initial overview of mapping. So while I understand that pulling out the mapping and the surveying could be taken from this policy, put into the overall mitigation mapping, I like the idea of having that be kind of a master mitigation plan and a wish list for targeted acquisition. Scrub jay habitat, upland habitats for listed species, that could be part of it, but The Conservancy would still like to see a tie -in to policies that are really scrub jay based as far as incentives for directing development away from those scrub jay habitats. And I'm not sure that it's -- it isn't specified anywhere else and so we would like to see that policy remain in some form. Maybe not requiring the county to undertake a brand new survey to identify the lands. I agree, a lot of the data is out there and I think that can be done in a different manner. But in specifying that development should be directed away from these areas made available for passive recreation and providing incentives, I think that's a good policy and should remain because we're dealing with a Page 13 161 1�3 February 18, 2010 species that is quite specialized and is on those upland habitats that often won't get that trigger for review because it doesn't have a wetland impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nicole, let me address that. Because in the objective statement where it talks about the protection of natural resources in Immokalee, including connected wetland system and listed species habitat including upland habitat for listed species, a scrub jay is a listed species. They would be covered under that language. That language will trigger implementation language in the LDC which I think will be a more appropriate place to decide how it becomes implemented, not in the GMP that becomes a do or die situation and it's so hard to change. So I'm not against finding -- making sure we protect those listed species, but I think putting the burden in the GMP forever and locked in stone for the CRA basically to pay for is not the appropriate mechanism to do that. And I certainly think, just like we have considered all the protection mechanisms for wetlands and other species we have in the Land Development Code where we can lay out the implementation more precisely, that to me would be a better place to put this rather than dragging that detail into the GMP. So I'm still going to stay with that statement on this for myself. I'm not -- well, I guess the rest of the commission will weigh in on it as we go along. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, these rules, Mark, that you speak about, have they been in existence continually? I mean, they aren't new. They've been over the last 20 years, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a lot of protection mechanisms in the LDC. I can't tell you if they're specifically written around every species. I just don't recall without looking it up, Paul. So maybe -- I don't know if David's that familiar with the Land Development Code, or Nicole, you might be. MS. RYAN: I know the GMP does address some, but the LDCs -- the LDCs have good policies for gopher tortoises, but the rest of the species I'm not that familiar with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The reason why I ask is that just the record in Immokalee is very clear. Every time something goes in that's sort of like for societal benefits, like our clinic, that's where they put it, scrub jay habitat. The habitat stuff, that's where it goes. The Immokalee nonprofit housing. And I think it's sort of an easier sell to get through the process if it's something that's like beneficial to society. And the result is that the scrub jays' habitat has been decimated in hmmokalee over the last 20 years. They're not there anymore, all the places where they used to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Paul, I don't think anybody's disagreeing we don't need a solution for it. I just honestly don't think this is the right place or the right document to put it in. Especially for the fact that you may find you may want some flexibility for the community of Immokalee as time goes on. And if you put it here, you certainly are going to have a real hard time changing it. But I'm -- you know, that's just my thought. MS. RYAN: And this may have also tied back to months ago there was the consideration of potentially doing a habitat conservation plan for the Immokalee urban area to look at those upland species, specifically scrub jays. Sothis may tie into the possibility of an HCP in the future. I'm not sure if that's what EAC intended with that, but that could have been part of it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: I just want to reiterate, again, there's nothing that would prohibit as part of that other mitigation and acquisition targeted lands mapping process that you couldn't have some scrub jay habitat also added there and put some incentives in for acquisition of it, or mitigation for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other mapping process, that's a county -wide process'? MR. MULHERE: No, no, it's just for Immokalee. It's a -- the idea is to create some targeted lands for mitigation and acquisition and then create incentives for landowners to go to those lands and mitigate in those lands. In Immokalee. So impacts in Irmnokalee, mitigation in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do think putting it -- addressing it with the other existing policies is a much better method than putting the detail that's specified in this document -- in this paragraph or this policy here, so -- MR. MULHERE: And I'm sure that when that process occurs, then Nicole or The Conservancy and other, you know, stakeholders will be involved to make sure that it happens in that way, so -- Page 14 161 ip February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would bet my bottom dollar they'll be involved, so -- okay, with that, any other public speakers on the Objective 4.1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the next one. And Bob, I think that is under the -- MR. MULHERE: Land use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, which means we ought to go back to the other section and work our way through the land use till we get to the density and intensity blending provisions that have been changed. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? That's the only other policy we didn't address. The rest are all land use discussions, right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, even the density blending is part of the land use designation portion of the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now we're going to move to Page 42 of the original Immokalee Master Plan discussion. We left off on Page 41 by finishing up through Policy 7.1.4. We stopped there on Tuesday. The format that we had worked through that date, we'll just move into now Page 42. Okay, on Page 42, this is not broken down by policy, it's broken down by paragraphs. I guess we'lljust go by page, that would seem to be the simplest way. So does anybody have any questions on the very first page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I was going to say, it might be helpful if I give you a little bit of an overview of the changes, because they might address your questions. And they're substantive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir. MR. MULHERE: Soon the first paragraph if you look on the screen, or Page 29 of the handout, the strike - through of that second -- that last sentence, in discussions with staff and others, there was concern that this really would call for almost an entire new zoning reevaluation process, which was substantive. Those of you that were around when we adopted the comprehensive plan in 1989, that was a significant process, a very legal process. There is really no need for that level of process here because we are not taking away anyone's development rights here. Where we've changed the designation — and we'll get into the details of this -- we've actually probably created greater development rights for them. There may be some nonconformities created through this process such as with mobile homes, existing mobile homes or mobile home parks that we discussed day before yesterday. But those are allowed to remain in place subject to the nonconforming provisions in the plan. So based on those discussions, we felt that, you know, it was a bit of overkill, that we really do not need to burden the county with the process of rezoning land to make it consistent with the new land use designations. That burden should fall on the private property owner. And anything that's nonconforming can either remain in place or in the future be consistent with the plan. Adequate explanation, David, or anything to add? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. I think that's pretty good. I would make one specific comment. You've stricken the last two sentences of that paragraph. And I would suggest that the first sentence not be stricken. That is a similar sentence as it appears in the Future Land Use Element. And it's not specifically related to that reevaluation process. And staff would recommend leaving that however sentence in place. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I only struck through it because I thought it was obvious and redundant, but that's okay, in an abundance of caution. MR. WEEKS: The other comment I would just like to I guess reserve the right of staff to go back and look at how this language stricken, which we support, but how this language compares to those policies that we discussed under I think it's goal five regarding mobile homes. As we discussed on Tuesday, the scenario where certain properties might be zoned VR they would allow a mobile home as a -- on an individual parcel -by- parcel basis, not part of a subdivision or mobile home park. Page 15 161 10 February 18, 2010 Just want to make sure all of that fits, that everything's covered, that we haven't left something out. And that reevaluation process would address anything that was missed. So by removing this language, we just need to make sure that we haven't left a situation uncovered. MR. MULHERE: And I expect that we will have to spend some time. That we -- not have to, but will want to spend some time with staff. Assuming once we get through the Planning Commission's review, we'll get with staff and we'll rework some of these things so that they make sense. And this being one. By striking through this, we need to make sure there's no unintended consequences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you scroll down a little bit? Ilow far down does your change go? Because you used to have a number one low residential subdistrict LR. MR. MULHERE: It goes fora ways. Let me explain this change to you then, if] could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And obviously we cannot weigh in on this change -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --as much today as we will probably do -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the rewrite review. MR. MULHERE: But let me just tell you what it is, because staff also --in staffs comments, they have repeatedly made a comment that said that the -- that there should be a PUD designation in the Future Land Use Element. And we have said why. We don't need a PUD designation, that's a zoning action. It's a zoning district. And we've been back and forth. And if you look at the Future Land Use Map, you don't see any designation that says PUD. It's only a written textual designation. So we stand by our position that a PUD designation is not necessary. However, staff brings up a good issue as it relates to commercial uses within PUDs. What size, what restrictions, where should they be, so on and so forth. There were locational limitations contained in that PUD designation. So what you see before you that's been added, if 1 remove this -- come on -- is a repeating, taking the existing language in the plan that already exists that deals with commercial development in PUDs and the limitations on commercial development in PUDs and adding it back to the plan. We still don't think we need a PUD designation, we haven't added a PUD designation, we can meet with staff and talk about that, you know, as part of our discussions. But we have added the restrictions that already exist in the plan that go back to allowing commercial uses in PUDs. You can see there's three categories that's already existing in the plan. There's 80 plus acres, 160 plus acres, 300 plus acres. The only additional change that I made to that language is under Category 2 under permitted zoning. It says C -2 through C -4. And presently the plan restricts that Category 2 sized PUD to only C -2 through C -3 uses, it does not allow C -4 uses. It does allow the C-4 in the larger category, but it does not allow it in that Category 2. And 1 will tell you that my rationale -- our rationale for that was that we think in hnmokalee 160 -acre to a 300 -acre PUD is pretty large and that maybe the C -4 uses are appropriate. It's not something we have to argue about. If staff feels strongly, we can just go back to the G2, C -3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any -- I'm certainly going to weigh in on this more when we have the rewrite, but -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. Ijust wanted to give you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have any -- you had your hand up. Is there -- MR. WEEKS: Just a comment, that Bob and 1 chatted ever so briefly a moment ago. And the staff position is that we should retain that at the use intensity of C -2 and C -3 zoning districts. Our rationale is not just to the say, well, that's the way it is today but to say that a I0 -acre size commercial tract fits within -- typically within a neighborhood center of commercial development. And the use intensity for neighborhood commercial has historically been in most instances C-3 or lower intensity. And we fully support for the larger commercial being allowed to go up through C -4 intensity because that steps into the realm of a community shopping center. So larger and more intense development being allowed there. Also, the existing Category 1 today actually is limited to C -2. They propose to add C -3 as well, and staff does not object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the second one that you spoke of, because there are some uses in C -4 that I know Page 16 16 ! 13 February 18, 2010 from the processes that this board has reviewed many times are not as intense as they might all be for C -4, but they just happen to be classified there because of a piece of what they may be involved in. What about a C -3 with conditional uses applicable to C4 as compatible or as approved? If it's C -2 and C -3, you can't use anything out of a C4, but what if you went to a C -4 for a conditional use? MR. WEEKS: That is, allow uses that would typically -- of the C -4 district that are listed by right but here only allow them by conditional use? MR. MULHERE: May I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's correct. In order to get their C -4 need covered, if it is -- if it's compatible and could and would fit with the neighborhood. Bob? MR. MULHERE: I'm song, I just wanted to -- the presumption here is that someone's going to have to go through -- there's two ways that this could be an issue, okay. One way is the presumption is that this is someone going through a rezone process. They're having a public hearing that's already been deemed that if you need a CU that's covered as part of the rezone process. My suggestion is a footnote, Mr. Chairman, on that middle one that says certain C -4 uses may be deemed appropriate through the rezoning process and, you know, shall be approved based on compatibility, you know, just a few caveats in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm mentioning it is we have repeatedly found where some uses of C -4 in today's world don't need the intensity they were anticipated when they were originally classified as C -4. And maybe they'd work okay, especially if bmmokalee seems to want some of that additional flexibility. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to find a way to get there. MR. MULHERE: I could think of some examples. Like a small movie theatre or I think bowling alley. I think those are all C4, although bowling alley may have been changed. But there's some recreational uses that make sense to me that you might want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it'd be something to think about when you come back on the rewrite. MR. MULHERE: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I was going to comment, I agree with what -- although I'm not sure I fully agree with what Bob was saying, historically, and I believe it would be the same if this was added back, there's only one way to implement this, and that is through a rezoning action. There is no administrative process for this to occur, that if there's an existing PUD approved that falls within one of these categories -- MR. MULHERE: You're right. MR. WEEKS: -- that we would not allow that. You'd have to go through a rezoning. And that would negate the need to require a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it would. So based on that then, because it would go through a rezoning, which means the compatibility studies would be done, the buffers would be in place, do you still retain an objection to C4 as inclusive? MR. WEEKS: I do. I mean, I understand that it goes through the public vetting process, but it's just a matter of what is the appropriate intensity. And historically and not just in the Immokalee Master Plan but Golden Gate Master Plan and in the FLUE, we have drawn that distinction between the neighborhood commercial intensities and size of development versus the more general of the community centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you and Bob before the rewrite would take a look at this footnote idea and see if we can develop something. Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it's not a question, just a comment. If a project is coming through the PUD process in public hearings and wanted a very specific C -4 use, would that not come through as a requested action under a deviation or -- I mean, couldn't it come through -- MR. WEEKS: Not if it's -- not if the comprehensive plan says you're capped at C -3 intensity of use. Because Page 17 161 1� February 18, 2010 you cannot deviate from the plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, and this is really to the mixed use. So I just wanted to make sure I understand it right. Is it low residential, medium residential, high residential will not have commercial in it other than the home based? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And whatever's listed here, obviously. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, until you get to the commercial mixed use district on your map. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll -- the rest of the conversation is when we get to the map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, on Page 42 we still have two other subsections we can discuss. It's number one, low residential, and then number two, medium residential. Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: One more comment on the PUD commercial provision. I understand that Bob's put the language back in the way it used to be with a couple noted exceptions. We may wish to consider either replacing the PUD size requirement or categories with number of dwelling units or add that as an additional component. Because the size of the PUD itself doesn't necessarily correlate with the number of dwelling units you have. And the general premises is that there would be some correlation between the amount of residential development and the amount of commercial development. I would suggest that there's not a direct correlation; that is, the amount of commercial allowed may exceed what is required or would exceed the generated demand for commercial by the number of units in the project. So that it already would allow for more commercial than would be needed to meet the needs of the amount of residential units allowed. But with acreage alone, particularly if you think of a project that might have a considerable amount of nonresidential uses within it, I mean, institutional uses, golf course, preserves areas, whatnot, you could end up at least in theory with a very small amount of residential development, a very small number of units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, couldn't the commercial be on the perimeter of the PUD and essentially be accessed by the community? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: It usually is. MR. WEEKS: And in fact, there is no use -- no locational restriction on where the commercial would go in this component as opposed to over in the Future Land Use Elements where it's exact opposite, where the commercial and at least some instances it's required to be internally located. MR. MULHERE: But if 1 could, the limitation makes a lot of sense. We don't want to have every PUD have a commercial component, because we're detracting from the downtown or we're detracting from the areas where we want to go see people go and shop. But by the same token, a large PUD with a limited commercial component does reduce traffic impacts and does make sense. And that's kind of what David's suggesting. The factor is really the number. So it should largely rely on the number of dwelling units within the PUD, assuming they're going to get some passerby trip traffic as well. But that shouldn't be the generator. You know, it's really dependent upon how many units within the PUD will use that commercial, what size it should be. So, I mean, I think we could very easily figure using those acreage thresholds a reasonable number of dwelling units and then come up with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that will have to come back on the rewrite and after you guys have had time to MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chair, 1 have to leave now. I'm going to turn it over to my able- bodied professional, Page 18 161 IA3 February 18, 2010 Pat Vanasse. He's going to come up and lead you through the density rating system. I just want you to know that as a precursor to that, that we've pretty much gone back in all except for the CMU district to the original density, so this should make this discussion a little less painful. And I'd like you to take it easy on Pat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, this part of the document was the most troublesome. So how long before you come back and rescue Pat, just out of curiosity? MR. MULHERE: If I comeback smiling? Right after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse, Certified Planner with RWA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want us to start just where we left off? MR. VANASSE: Well, you know, I appreciate that you will be taking it easy on me. Ijust want to clarify something, is that a lot of the changes that have been made, Bob was the architect of those changes and was privy to most of the meetings where those changes occurred. So if I need to confer with Penny or with my colleague hereon some of those issues, if you give me a little time I'll try to get you those answers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll work our way through it. And we left off -- we're still on the low residential subdistrict. Does anybody have any questions about that or the medium residential at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to understand, the term gross acreage means the area of the site, the area to the center line of the road, adjacent to the site? What does it mean? MR. VANASSE: What is meant within this is the entire project. And I would assume for a planned development, for example, it would be based on your boundary survey, the entire area within that boundary survey. So depending where your boundary ends. In some instances you may have a road easement on your property, in other instances the road stops and your property starts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to be sure that I have this right. The only way for commercial to happen in the low residential district is through a PUD? MR. VANASSE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. So it can't be determined that it's a supporting ancillary use. MR. VANASSE: I think we tried to keep it as it was, make it very clear that with an LR, MR and HR, you have to go through the PUD process and go through the zoning process and the hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Throughout this you're going to use the phrase less than or equal to. Is that really the best way as opposed to, you know, a base density of up to six dwelling units. MR. VANASSE: I guess we can have a general discussion right now and address that. I know it was an issue that came up. When it comes to base density, originally in our proposal, the packages that you were sent originally, we had increases to that base density within a lot of the categories. We have gone back and adjusted that back to what it was. The clarification with the less or up to, whatever that base density is, to make it very clear that the base density is not an entitlement, that when you go through the public hearing process you may be granted less than what that base density is. So it was just a caveat in thereto make it very clear to everybody that it's not an entitlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: One of the staff recommendations would be to delete that less than or equal to. We need a concrete number to know what the base is when you go to apply density bonuses. Are you applying the bonus to the base of four or are you applying it to something less than? We need to know. And this is the existing language from the hnmokalee Master Plan. And I've commented before, generally there's a lot of areas about it that are poorly written, and this is one of those. Page 19 161 February 18, 2010 Staff would suggest take out less and/or equal to. Just give a flat, fixed number this is what the base density is. That would be consistent with how it's written in the Golden Gate Master Plan and the FLUE as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any objection, Patrick? MR. VANASSE: We don't have any objection. MR. WEEKS: And if I might, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: On Patrick's comment about the -- making it clear to the reader that there's not an entitlement, that is covered a little bit later under the density rating system. There's specific phrasing there that states that eligible density is just that, eligible but not an entitlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on -- let's stay with one at this point. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a comment. I recognize you said it's in there and I recognize that, but wouldn't it make more sensejust to put that kind of a comment right at the outset so that we don't -- because you think of the word base, you're thinking that's the base. But no, that's not the base, because it can be less than the base. So why don't we get it right out in front and let people know at the outset that this is what we generally might want to go after but it's possible you might not get that much. It just seems more reasonable to me, more logical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: We could do that. It is the very first sentence under density rating system of how it's applied. But no objection if you want to place it under each of the subdistricts so that the reader immediately sees that. MR. VANASSE: If l may add, we --the term base, we've inherited that from the existing document. And also it's used in the GMP. We have some concerns over that terminology, and we'd be more than happy to sit with staff and look at maybe if they have suggestions of how to clean that up. We have the same concern that you've brought up of what does that really mean. Well, it's a maximum base. And, you know, I think it could lead to some confusion. And having the ability to clean that up with staff would be welcomed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have myself been witness here, sometimes we'll get a developer from Miami or another location who is not aware of our transactions, and stands there in great defiance and frustration about that. And it just makes more sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's something that you all need to work on then before the write -up comes out. I would suggest, though, in taking Mr. Murray's suggestion, maybe in that first paragraph under land use designation description section, you add that non - entitlement clause that is further on so that it's in the beginning of each section like that, and that just kind of helps emphasize it. So as a suggestion. 1 notice you're not typing as we talk, so -- MR. VANASSE: Taking handwritten notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, handwritten notes, okay. MR. VANASSE: Chris is doing a good job. I'm a peck and search type of person so I don't want to hold you up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just didn't want nothing to get lost in the transaction, so I didn't know how your method was. Okay, back to the low residential subdistrict. On the third line of that reference you have the word duplexes. And under medium residential you have duplexes. And there's a lot of similar corresponding duplication in both. And I -- so low residential really can have any mix of residential units, as long as it stays below the density threshold. You're not limiting it to any specific kind of product. It can be any product. MR. VANASSE: That's correct. Well, the products that are identified here. But I think that the intent is to have a mix of uses, even in the low residential. I believe that's consistent with what was already in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not objecting to it. I was just trying to make sure I understood it. And it says, the fourth line, provided they are within a planned unit development. Now, that seems to wipe out the idea of going into straight zoning. We've had applications in here many times in here for straight zoning that wanted to abide by these standards and development standards for those straight Page 20 16 f 13 February 18, 2010 zoning districts. I didn't know we could demand only the PUD process, which is a rezoning process, on a piece of property. I thought we had to allow straight zoning as a basis if someone wanted to come in and abide by the straight zoning standards, instead of telling them they have to abide by a special zoning district. At least that's the intention I thought we had gotten instruction on in the past. David, am I mistaken on that, or -- MR. WEEKS: Heidi will need to weigh in, but that's my recollection as well, that the county could not mandate PUD zoning. A developer willing to say yes, I'll acquiesce to that then we could, but the county cannot impose that requirement. Patrick's already stated that is existing language in the Immokalee Master Plan, and I would recommend we take that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think so too. And I would think that the flexibility for straight zoning would be a benefit to Immokalee -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- especially with the standards that you all are trying to introduce. My God, you guys would be way ahead, I think. MR. WEEKS: Well, this also would be one of those scenarios where we were discussing earlier in the context of mobile homes. If there's existing zoning within the LR subdistrict that allows multi - family dwelling units, how do we treat that. We've got a zoning district that says you can have multi - family use but we've got a plan designation that says no, you can't, unless you're a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So this would take care of that. And I think it would bring us into a better format for Immokalee's flexibility that they could have in the future, so -- MR. VANASSE: We would welcome that. We were just trying to be consistent with what we had before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't what he's saying there, though, that you can only get multi - family and single - family attached via the PUD process? MR. VANASSE: It was the multi - family that was really targeted with that PUD designation. However, if the Commission and staff believe that straight zoning is appropriate, we would welcome that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, would you then welcome multi - family being by right or only via the public hearing process? MR. VANASSE: I think what is being suggested is by right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I think that's a mistake in this district, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but where I was coming from, if you read this sentence, it says residential dwellings will be limited to single - family detached structures and duplexes, and then it says, and multi - family dwellings and single - family attached dwellings, provided they are within a planned unit development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the semicolon I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so the way that you're intending this is that you're -- you could do straight zoning for single - family detached structures and duplexes, but if you wanted multi - family or single - family attached, they'd have to be in a PUD. Is that the way it was intended? MR. VANASSE: Yes, that was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now back to David then. If that was the intent, how would we work straight zoning for multi - family in a low residential district? How would it be possible? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under a standard straight zoning. MR. WEEKS: Well, for new development, for example, starting with agricultural zoning, of course it would require rezoning. But I missed part of your conversation. I hope I'm not amiss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I'm trying to figure out if we --if someone comes in and wants a straight zoning subject to the standard development standards that we have in the LDC or that Immokalee would develop for Immokalee, when they come in for that straight zoning it's going to be a public process to be reviewed. MR. WEEKS: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And through that process they have to show us what they intend to do and how they Page 21 '. b I 13 February 18, 2010 intend to do it. We could weigh in on that, compatibility, buffers and other elements that would be needed to protect the surrounding neighborhood, but it wouldn't have to be a planned unit development, they'd still get there with a multi - family if they kept the density. MR. WEEKS: You do have lesser requirements for your conventional zoning. Remember the PUD requires a master plan and it does require showing more detail, requires showing the specific development standards and buffering requirements and so forth. Whereas the conventional zoning, to my knowledge, you're not required to submit any type of master plan at all. And the development standards would be simply those of the zoning district they're requesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. But because you have to go through the public process, that seems to indicate to me it's not an entitlement. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely. You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in order to get the entitlement, they're going to have to provide the compatibility that the process dictates at some point or other or they may not see that rezone happen. And it isn't required to happen without some kind of cooperation through the public process. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recognize the semicolon in there, and its intent to set up an additional factor. However, in totality, the paragraph suggests that it's okay to have single - family attached and multi - family dwellings and duplex. In other words, whether you have to go through the hoops of a PUD or not, you're welcoming that kind of thing in the low density -- in the low residential subdistrict. So I don't know why you would need to have an additional planned unit development. When they go through -- and they wouldn't have a master plan, they wouldn't have the things you have in a PUD, but they still have to go through the site development process. Still have to verify and comport with all of the codes that are in place. So in my mind, I recognize the set -out. I understand that, but 1 think the intent of this paragraph is to allow it. So I don't see why we should put them through hoops. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and maybe the solution is that the applicant works with the County Attorney's Office and David to come up with the right approach on this. My whole focus on this was the fact we were requiring a PUD. And 1 had been told in many years past that since we've been on this board you cannot require a PUD, you have to have -- they have to have some flexibility in what we can require of them. So I was trying to clean that up, to make sure we weren't requiring something we couldn't legally enforce. MR. VANASSE: Just to clarify something, you know, this allows for multi - family; however, your zoning districts is really what implements things. So if you have a zoning district that allows a higher density, I think that decision has been made at some point by the county that it is deemed appropriate to have multi - family in that zoning district. In some areas where it is agriculturally zoned, you will have to go through a hearing process to get the additional density, hence that oversight at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just -- and Brad, just before you speak, let me say one thing. If -- the way I looked at this is Immokalee wants a lot more density, a lot more multi - family where they can have it. I would think that if we have areas where the multi- family has to be of a lower density, you're going to have a better quality multi - family, which would give the opportunity for the tax base to improve and for people to move up from an extremely high density to more of a moderate density and even to a lower density. Whether it be in the multi - family townhouse like we see in the common developments around here or even some small single- families. But that's how I picture this LR within the urban area. And if they wanted to get into estates zoning and big wide lots, I would assume that would be more appropriate outside the urban area, even though it could be done here. It may not be cost effective. And with that, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think could you clean it up just by -- if you put a period instead of a semicolon, capital and, and then say, and multi - family dwellings and single - family attached dwellings are allowed, add those words, provided they arc within a planned unit development. Wouldn't that make it crystal clear? MR. VANASSE: I think it makes it clear. However, we would welcome the opportunity to remove the Page 22 161 13 February 18, 2010 requirement for a PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but I — the problem is I would welcome that too, but not in this district. You have another district coming up where multi - family would be more appropriate by right. MR. VANASSE: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think if you want to put multi - family in a lower density district, I think that should be allowed by public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But David, if you have a low residential district that by the GMP allows a density that can be -- and multi - family product, can we then legally restrict them to zoning at only as PUDs? That goes back to the original question that started this whole discussion. And I guess Heidi, that's going to fall on your shoulders. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think you can. Because you're allowingjust a very low density product. But if they want to go higher, you're still allowing them to do it but it has to be through a PUD. But I think what I heard earlier is whether or not the Board of County Commissioners on its own could do a -- you know, under the Land Development Code allow multi - family. And I think you would have -- my personal opinion is that you would have an inconsistency with the Land Development Code. So if you want to allow the board the opportunity to do a Land Development Code amendment, you know, to allow it, then you've got to provide it here as -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why is this any different than -- you know, we're allowing commercial if it's done via PUD, isn't that the same thing? MR. VANASSE: And this is language that already exists. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Here's the problem; here's where we can get in trouble: If we allow it by right, somebody could take a good size piece of land, create a lot of density, let's say there's a lot of wetland, there's a lot of good reason that they don't want to totally use their land, and they could shove in the corner of this in public view a pretty dense multi - family project by right. So I think if they're going down that trail, that has to be done with the consent of the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the land's not zoned but they have to rezone it, wouldn't they have to come back through the public process? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a public process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially everything in this plan is going to comeback through the public process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. David? MR. WEEKS: There's two scenarios. There's one, and I took a look, there is an exhibit Map 5 -3 in the support document that shows the existing zoning for Immokalee. And we've located at least one area that is designated LR but is zoned RMF -6, which allows multi - family development. And that's one example of what I was referring to earlier, that we have existing zoning that then is in conflict with what this subdistrict states. But yes, as far as properties that are zoned agricultural or any other lower density zoning district, it would have to go through a rezoning process to get up to the base or anything higher. This limitation on allowing multi - family is different than commercial that you asked about, Mr. Schiffer, because the PUD requirement there is not for commercial only, it's for a mixed use development. It's residential PUD with commercial. And I wanted to mention something to Heidi specifically that this provision, as it reads now, is not a requirement for PUD zoning to achieve higher density, it's to achieve a different type of residential development. That is, the LR district -- subdistrict would allow four units per acre as the base, single- family being allowed through conventional zoning, but multi - family still at four units per acre only being allowed through PUD zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to suggest -- we need to take a break. I would like it if the County Attorney's Office could work with David and come back with what we can do in requirements under this language, whether it has to be the PUD as a way to -- we can legally require that. I'm concerned about that based on the past. And hearing the information that David now is trying to clarify to you, Heidi, if you guys could talk on break a little bit, I'd appreciate it and we'll come back at ten after 10:00 and Page 23 161 1 40 February 18, 2010 resume this discussion. Because I think it's an important one as a basis. So with that, thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We need to resume the meeting, if everybody will please take their seats. And we left off on a discussion under the low residential subdistrict concerning the requirement of a planned unit development. And let me read again what the two sentences -- well, it will be two sentences now, or even one, depending on how it comes out. In the issues in the middle it says, residential dwellings will be limited to single - family detached structures or duplexes. The proposal is to put a period there and that's for the low residential subdistrict. But then there will be a second sentence that says, multi - family dwellings and single- family attached dwellings will be allowed, provided they are within a planned unit development. Now, density in that area is four dwelling units per acre. And the discussion began because the planned unit development reference seems to dictate that if you use a certain type of product, you're required to go through a zon -- on a zoning process for a PUD. Many times in the past this board has been told you cannot dictate a zoning process. So during break the County Attorney's Office and hopefully staff and maybe the applicant conferred on this matter and now have a solution or a recommendation to us. And Heidi, I guess I'll look to you. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. Well, the proposal is to change the sentences so that it would allow residential dwelling units. The first sentence would be combined with the second sentence and we would delete the planned unit development language. And as the -- Mr. Vanasse had previously said, that was a carryover from the prior Growth Management Plan language. However, we've met and discussed the deletion of that language because it no longer seems to serve a purpose. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm going to pretend I'm the devil's advocate here and make sure we're understanding what's going on. If we -- currently in the GMP, and it's been there I guess then forever since the Immokalee Master Plan existed, there is a reference to a PUD as a requirement. Because it's there, it is accepted. It's not something now subject to a Burt Hams claim on a prior property owner saying their property got forced into a process that they shouldn't have been forced into because it's always been in the plan from day one and it's not been challenged for all these years; is that a fair statement? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if we take it out, it means that the low residential area could either go with a PUD, depending on the property owner's wishes, or come through the public process and do a straight rezone based on the standards in the Land Development Code. Which standards could be modified through the public process because the rezone isn't entitled and that modification could entail more issues of compatibility, including recommendations to minimize or change some of the development standards that are particular to that particular rezone request. So hearing all that, Ijust want to make sure we understand where the -- I guess the concern is if we go to this straight rezone as an option and take out the reference to a planned unit development. And I'm not sure there's a negative downside to that, but I want to make sure we've vetted that out. Because that is a -- once we take the planned unit development out of this, we go to both, straight rezone and planned unit development, and find out oops, we should have left PUD in, then we've got a problem putting it back in from a Burt Harris claim, whereas now we don't have. And Heidi, is that a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, 1 think the planned unit development limitation --I mean, I see it as more of a limitation as opposed to allowing them to do what pretty much anyone on the coast can do. Because most of the property in Immokalee is -- you don't have RSF -3 and RSF -- you know, you don't have those zoning districts which would allow you to just come in and develop without having to go through a rezone. So I think since most of it is ag. with some kind of overlay, they have to go through at least a rezone or a PUD. Page 24 161 13 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is basically then a -- by leaving the PUD reference in here, they are actually under a more stringent zoning requirement than the coastal area, which has -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- always been the most safest area in the county for zoning or the most I guess highly profiled in the county. Which seems odd. But anyway, let's make sure we vet all this out. David, do you have -- your department have any concerns either way? MR. WEEKS: Our preference remains to take the language out. Heidi touched on one of my comments and that's over herein the coastal area we've never had the requirement to have a PUD. If you want PUD zoning, then you ask for it. If you want conventional zoning, you ask for it. And I don't know that we've had any particular problems with compatibility or otherwise through the conventional zoning process. I realize in the coastal area the vast majority of the time PUD zoning is requested. But of course there's a benefit to the landowner for doing the PUD zoning. It's a give and take process. The county gets something from it, the developer gets something from it; it being again the PUD process. But we've had some conventional rezoning requests over here. It does add usually more time to the process, it adds additional expense to the process to pursue PUD zoning. Mr. Schiffer mentioned as an example of what might happen if someone had a large piece of property and a large portion of it had environmentally sensitive lands that could not be developed. And if it were developed as a PUD then the -- excuse me, I'm not sure of a specific PUD, but if it was developed under multi - family zoning, whether PUD or conventional, the density could be shoved into one comer and the net density be relatively high. And the staffs position is, what's wrong with that? That's good planning. That's good, efficient use of the land. If the landowner was restricted to single- family detached units, they would get far fewer dwelling units on that property. And that's not necessarily a good thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that happened, couldn't we build in compatibility through the public process, even for straight zoning? MR. WEEKS: I would suggest it's already there. I mean, compatibility is one of the criteria under rezoning factors in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an important issue, and I want to make sure we've vetted all of our discussion. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Dave, here's the problem that could happen. I'm the guy across the street who moved out here to be in the middle of nowhere. Next thing you know I've got an apartment building in front of me. So that's the problem. So let's go -- in the conventional process -- the PUD process we obviously outline where we're going to put -- we outline product, we are much more transparent as to what's going to happen. In a conventional zoning, wouldn't Ijust say I want -- would I be changing this to like RMF -6 or something? Or what would happen in that conventional zoning that would make me tip my card that I wanted to cluster all my development in one corner? MR. WEEKS: First let me make sure we're clear on this. The designation on the Future Land Use Map just identifies what uses are allowed and what densities, not the mechanism to get there. Whether a PUD zoning is pursued or conventional zoning, it must go through rezoning process. So there's going to be a public vetting, there's going to be public notice provided. Whether you get a notice that says there's a PUD proposed across the street from me at "X" units per acre or conventional zoning, the same notice provisions would apply. There is a difference, certainly, because the PUD does require more specificity in their planning documents. There's a PUD master plan, and you would be more able to tell right across the street from me is going to be a residential pod, whereas in the conventional zoning without a site plan required by the LDC you wouldn't necessarily know where that development would be located on the property. Whether it's close to you or far away, you would not know necessarily. Now, in the case of environmentally sensitive lands you might know, because the documents submitted with the rezone, it shows well, here's a wetland here and that has to be protected, so you might get some sense. But Page 25 161 W February IS, 2010 certainly there's more information available through the PUD process than conventional zoning. MS. VALERA: And if I may add, I think the key difference is that in a PUD you can request deviations, and that's why you will require more specificity of what, you know, those deviations may cause to the adjacent lands. In a rezone petition, a straight rezoning, you already have your set guidelines, I mean, they are already -- they have been approved. So I think that's key between the two processes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern was is maybe the reason these guys wanted to have multi - family and rezone is so that that transparency would exist in that transaction. If a developer came in and got conventional zoning and then sold the property, nobody knows where the units are going to go. So, I mean, you know, the point is they're going to look back. Would they have the right to build multi- family or would it depend on what district they're rezoning to? In other words, if I come in and I'm looking for RMF -6, is that's what's going to happen? And then you're going to know, well, this guy's looking for multi - family? Or if I go to single - family district, what's going to protect the guy across the street from somebody building an apartment building in the middle of a rural area? MR. WEEKS: It's exactly that scenario, the landowner has to pursue a rezoning. And if they choose to ask for RMF -6, RMF -12, RMF -16, any of those zoning districts that allow multi - family use, they would have that right to pursue it. The right to request it. They still go through the rezoning process, there's still the public notice provided. But again, no, the landowner next door would not know where on that piece of property the development is going to occur through the conventional zoning because there's not the requirement for the master plan that shows that detail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So he couldn't take a low single- family, have it rezoned to that classification and then cluster everything in one corner of it and build a multi -fam ly building? He would have to meet the platting, the lots and everything of that district? MR. WEEKS: Yes, but for multi - family you don't necessarily have to go through a platting process. If you're, for example, doing an apartment complex or for that matter doing condominium plats that are not reviewed locally, that could still occur. Because we're looking at gross acreage, &Toss densities, even under conventional zoning you could still end up with a high net density, you know, a small portion of the site developed with a high number of dwelling units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon -- let me keep the floor a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based upon the actual setbacks and classifications and limitations of that district. So if I call it a low -- a residential single - family district, then I'm locked to that product. MR. VANASSE: Exactly. And that's what l wanted to clarify. If you have an existing residential single - family district, someone could not come in and just by right build multi - family. There are restrictions in that zoning district that limits that. So someone would have to come in, do a rezone, ask for a multi - family district, and then the public would be notified and would have the opportunity to comment. MR. WEEKS: And the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead, Dave. I mean, I do have the floor, so go ahead, Dave. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And remember, we're talking about the low residential subdistrict. The base density is four units per acre. The only way that can be exceeded is through the affordable housing density bonus being applied. So if the multi - family development occurs, it's going to be at four units per acre gross unless they achieve the bonus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, in a wetlands kind of a site we can clear it up. But I think that if we're in the rezone process and we're clarifying what district we're in and that would limit the geometry of the product, I think that -- I'm comfortable that that would protect it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust wanted to mention that even if we were to keep the PUD process in there, there's nothing to guarantee that a petitioner coming forward who planned to put multi - family in an area across from that person you were referring to, that they wouldn't succeed. They could easily succeed. And that person would not have any more protections under that scenario than they would any other. So I'm not inclined to see it as a true additional qualifier or a stepping stone to help the people out there. I Page 26 16 ! 1 A3 February 18, 2010 think in place we have what we need, based on the statements made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are we still talking about that semi colon between duplexes and multi - family dwellings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that sentence, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I think that in a low residential district, I'd like to have, you know, protection. But if Mr. Schiffer thinks that, you know, we don't need it, then that's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I trust these guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I won't comment on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Paul, when it happens, you know who to come to and I'lljoin you in your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right to Paul. Before we go further on this, I would like to ask Penny if she wouldn't mind weighing in on this as the CRA. MS. PHILLIPPI: Good morning. Penny Phillippi, for the record. I'm the Director of the Immokalee CRA. And as you know, this is an existing policy that was before our time, and we're -- Fred doesn't even remember the history of this particular policy. But what I would like to say is that based on the comment, that what would trigger multi - family would be the affordable housing density. As you know, we feel like we have an adequate supply of affordable housing. In an ideal situation, if someone wants to come in and do multi - family housing in a low residential area, we would like to have a partnership wherein it would become a mixed income development as opposed to only an affordable housing development. I mean, right now, honestly, I moved into a house on 20 acres and behind me they're building 196 single - family -- I mean, multi - family farmworker housing. This happens every day because of this affordable housing allowance. Which is strange for me to say, because I am a housing professional, you know, for the last 30 years, so it sounds odd for me to say that. But in Immokalee, everything is backwards. We have a glut of affordable housing and we need more decent affordable housing, but we also need that mixed income housing to start being developed. How this comes out of this, I have no idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and t don't think David said it could only happen with affordable housing. Because you're allowed to do multi - family dwellings in this zoning district by right stated right here in the GMP. So I think what he was saying is you could have more intensity if they added more affordable housing bonus provisions. But what we're trying -- I think the whole issue is if you as a community feel the planned unit development is best for the community, you have an opportunity to leave it in with no threat of a Burt Harris claim. If we take it out and provide the flexibility of going straight zoning like all the rest of Collier County is plus the planned unit development, it gives you more diversity in how someone can get their property zoned and completed. They still go through the public process. One is a little simpler than the other. There still are accommodations made in each case by the review boards that it goes through in case someone feels they're trying to get out of hand. I didn't know if you wanted that flexibility or not. But I point it out only because it doesn't happen elsewhere in the county because we were told a long time ago it couldn't. But yet it's happening in Immokalee. So it seems like since it's been there for so long, you can legally continue it. Although it may not be what you want. And I don't know how --if you've ever had this discussion with your board or if you all considered this in the process of review of this GMP, but it certainly would have been one of the ones that I would think you'd want to review. MS. PHILLIPPI: Can we let -- hear from Fred? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Fred? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to know how you felt about that, multi units going in or the housing going in abutting -- Page 27 16 1 1 43 February 18, 2010 MS. PHILLIPPI: Oh, well, I'm an affordable housing advocate. I was fine with it. I mean, I don't have all those nimbi issues that a lot of people do. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay -- MS. PHILLIPPI: But I was surprised. It was a surprise. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you involved in the process? MS. PHILLIPPI: No, not really. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred? MR. THOMAS: For the record, my name is Fred Thomas. And the hat I have on now is chairman of the CRA advisory board. You've got to understand, we are a different kind of community. I live on 1.6 acres of land. And some of you have been to my house. And I petitioned several years ago because we had a commercial district going down 29, which is maybe 300, 400 feet from my house. And the commercial was only allowed to come halfway, 200 yards -- 200 feet in. And I said it didn't make sense, it needed to go to the property line, which would put it right at my property line, the commercial. It would have no effect on me. We don't have the same kind of feelings. We like to see residential with commercial. I like the idea of being able to walk to the drug store and the grocery store. I mean, we haven't got the kind of neighborhoods and communities in Immokalee that want to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. It's just not like that out there. So if somebody wants to put an apartment in, just like she has a community coming up behind her. If she had children living with her she would see it as a benefit because that means it would bring a playground near her house at the same time for her kids. You understand? Wejust have a different kind of a feel. We're a small community. I'm from New York City, but this is a small, friendly community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, do you have any concern if we remove the reference to the planned unit development? MR. THOMAS: I think it's a good idea to take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. PHILLIPPI: I think simple logic dictates, if it's already in place, it makes life easier, let's get rid of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can I say something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Penny, it was described to you as easier, but David, answer this question. Which would be more transparent? And by the meaning transparent, which would give the public a better idea as to how a piece of property is going to be developed? Conventional zoning or a PUD? MR. WEEKS: PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what you're losing, Penny, is that transparency as to what's probably going to happen on the site. MR. VANASSE: I don't want to belabor the point, because I think we might be in agreement to remove it. However, let me give you a scenario. As Penny has identified, there is a nm of market rate housing. Town homes are a way for a developer to come in and give a real high quality product at a lower price than single - family homes. And you can have some great product. Right now the attached multi - family such as a townhome would have to go through a planned unit development. Without having to go through that and going through straight zoning, they can shave some costs. The margins in Immokalee are smaller for a developer in that the prices for land are still relatively high for that area. And the -- what they can ask for a unit is lower than they can in the coastal Collier County. So not having to go through the PUD is providing more flexibility to that developer and I think is beneficial to them and beneficial to the community in that we may see some diversity and product from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David go next, Fred, and then you. MR. WEEKS: I want to qualify my answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, because 1 was going to ask you in a minute about that. MR. WEEKS: PUD provides more information because the PUD master plan typically identifies the Page 28 161 1 ..A3 February 18, 2010 development pods where the development is going to be. On the other hand, your typical PUD for residential uses includes the whole gamut of single - family, duplex, attached, mul -- you know, every type of dwelling unit there is they typically allow it. So in that sense I don't see any difference between that and a conventional zoning. You don't know what's going to actually be built there until it starts getting built. Or at least until the site plan or plat is approved. MR. THOMAS: Brad? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, and then -- MR. THOMAS: Brad Schiffer, let me explain something. You have to have a large piece of land with low residential development that you can cluster something that would be objectionable to a person across the street, you understand? We haven't got those large sections of land that you'll find, you know, around. In fact, the golden triangle of Immokalee is surrounded by 29, Lake Trafford and 29A, New Market Road, where most of your high -end houses are in the urban core of Irmokalee, you understand? That's where they are located. And you got Arrowhead is already developed. You haven't got that many large parcels of land where you have to worry about the low residential development that they cluster everything on one corner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll -- I mean, if the CRA wants it, I certainly will fold. I'll stay out of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then it looks like, Patrick, that that will make those changes to that section when you do the rewrite, so -- let's move on to number two, the medium residential subdistrict. Are there any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll -- high residential subdistrict, number three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so you know, my questions went away when you guys started adjusting the densities, so I'm not going to -- MR. VANASSE: And just to reiterate on all those, if staff prefers that we remove the lessor equal to, we have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that goes as a -- on a base reference, yes, I think that's what they indicated. How about the commercial mixed use subdistrict CMU; anybody have any questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, just- - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's explain, how will density work? I'm going to do a building, I'm going to combine uses in a building. How will the densities -- in other words, this is not like a PUD where I can -- I'll have a commercial area where I can isolate that. So I would get on the gross area of the site the maximum density that I negotiate in the public hearing. And the commercial, how would that happen? MR. VANASSE: That is correct. Just to clarify a few things: We want to allow both the opportunity in a single building to have a mix of uses; for example, commercial, on- the - ground level, residential on top or offices on top. We also foresee that someone could develop a parcel purely with commercial development and the one next door to it could be a mixture of residential and commercial. So the way it is now, the density, the maximum density that's allowed, is based on the gross acreage. And again, it's up to 16. You would have to request it, and it would have to be approved as part of the hearing process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- all right. So what you would do then, in a building like that, you would --I guess maybe Dave, explain how --let's say I'm a developer, I own apiece of land. I'm not sure what my conventional zoning would be. Most of this stuff is in an area of town that does have conventional zoning. How would I get these rights? I would -- MR. WEEKS: If you already had the zoning in place, for example, C -4 zoning, the first thing that's going to have to occur is an amendment to the Land Development Code to allow for that. Because right now only C -1, 2 and 3 zoning districts allow residential uses. And they're specially limited through a conditional use process and there's strict regulations as to how that can occur. So to implement this through conventional zoning there would have to be amendments to the Land Page 29 16 1 1 -,3 February 18, 2010 Development Code. Outside of that, if someone comes in with a PUD, that's how they would be able to allow commercial and residential. This would be very similar to the mixed use activity center concept over here in the coastal urban area which also allows, besides a variety of commercial uses, allows residential uses. If I may comment further, in the activity center there is no density bonus. It's not subject to the density rating system. It's just a flat you get --you're eligible for 16 writs per acre. Through the rezoning process, whatever the board awards you, so be it. This particular case, this is structured to allow for a base density but then allow density bonuses to apply as well. So my comment about that would be the same as for the three residential subdistricts. Remove the phrase less than or equal to as far as base density goes. So you're eligible for 16 as a base, and then on top of that if you qualify for additional bonuses, then you could go up to the cap of 20. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me ask the same kind of question again. I'm looking at the Future Land Use Map and I'm looking at the existing zoning map that we have. Some of these are single - family districts that are now going to be under the CMU standards. And they're small lots so they're not going to be much of a PUD. So what happens'? What does the guy do? He comes in, buys a piece of property, it's zoned let's say single- family three, which some of these are. What happens if he wants to build a building with apartments on the top and commercial on the bottom? What does he do? MR. VANASSE: We would have to come in through a -- to go through the rezone process and ask for -- either go through a PUD process or a Gl through G3. And obviously the C -4 issue that David brought up, if we want to allow a mix of uses and allow some residential, that would be — we would have to change that as part of the Land Development Code amendments. Maybe just something that would clarify also what you're asking. When we turn to the density rating system, it's made clear in there also that for the CMU district that you calculate your density on the gross, you do not exclude the commercial component to it. Whereas in every other district you would exclude the commercial component. So that's just something to understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there a -- I mean, in the urban mixed use district to get commercial the PUDs are -- I mean, is there the ability to do on just the plat? And what zoning would I ask for, Dave? I mean, if I want to have residential on top of mixed use zoning, would I be -- MR. WEEKS: Under the present LDC it would have to be C -1, C -2 or C -3 with a conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And I presume that part of their subsequent Land Development Code amendments, they may change those provisions for the Immokalee community, possibly to allow for the C -4 to have residential, but also to change the regulations as to how you achieve that and the limitations on locations of the units and so forth. MR. VANASSE: I think the intent is to provide more flexibility in that district. And one of the things that we would look at when we do the LDC amendments is in the C -I through C -3 districts, this issue of a conditional use, I think you might be able to draft some language to give some parameters that if you meet those conditions then you're not required to have a conditional use. But that's something that we have to look at and we obviously have to discuss with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David'? MR. WEEKS: Yeah, let mejust make a comment again about this subdistrict. This is the closest designation in Immokalee Master Plan to the mixed use activity centers over here in the coastal area that we're all more familiar with. You have the ability to have a commercial only project from C -1 through C -4 intensity. You have the ability to develop a residential project, residential only at up to 16 units per acre, or if you qualify for bonuses 20 units per acre, or you can do a infixed use development, a mixture of commercial and residential. And the mixture could occur as residential over commercial in one structure or it could be two different separate tracts within a single project, here's my commercial component, here's my residential or combination of those two. I mean, this allows that full array of flexibility of development similar to the activity centers, except that it caps Page 30 161 13 February 18, 2010 you at C4 intensity rather than C -5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on the commercial mixed use? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a question. What was the vision? What's not -- what were you looking to include by adding C -4 in here, as opposed to leaving it the way it is currently? MR. VANASSE: C -4 was an existing category of uses within the mixed use district that was -- that that is currently in the Immokalee Master Plan. MR. WEEKS: I'djust comment that presently there are three commercial designations. There's the commerce center mixed use, which does allow commercial through the C -4 intensity. There's the -- I think it's something called commercial district. And maybe breaks down to the State Road 29 and I think maybe New Market Road commercial strips. They also allow C -1 through G4. The third is the neighborhood center. All three of those are replaced with this commercial mixed use. And the chief difference I would say is that the neighborhood center was capped at C -3 intensity. And that's one of the concerns that staff has identified is that by converting all of the neighborhood center to commercial mixed use, we've increased the intensity up to C -4. And the locations of those neighborhood centers are in some cases -- within them are elementary schools and/or low density residential. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And their goal is to get rid of those neighborhood centers now. And I'm not sure that because of what's already out there, for example, elementary schools, whether that's really -- if that was really the intent. Or what were you trying to achieve by converting everything to the ability of C -4? MR. VANASSE: The intent was to simplify the different categories and combine it into one more comprehensive category. Also, the intent was to create a mixed use corridor where clustering and more intensity could happen to create a walkable community. When we're discussing specific uses that are allowed within C -4, I think the conversation you had with Bob earlier of what is intended, I think maybe that the same limitations that we discussed earlier could apply to this where some of them are allowed, maybe not all of them. Obviously a bowling alley or such use, if we had to go through a conditional use, we don't think it's appropriate. We -- I think the Immokalee community would like more opportunities for recreation and those types of uses right in its downtown. So I think C-4 allows that. Maybe we could discuss, just like the other one, how we limit that and how we put some caveats as to what kind ofuses. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's really important. Because you're not going to be the one bringing forward the development, it's going to be somebody else looking to make money. And if it's left wide open, the community could suffer some circumstances that they're not anticipating because they have a vision. That's why I keep going back and asking you what you really want out of this, because I'm not sure you want all of the issues that would crop up on C4 next to your elementary school. MR. VANASSE: I completely agree. And if we put the right language in there, the developer would have to go through a rezone process where those uses could be looked at. So I think we could incorporate that in it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, my second question was, as David has explained, this would allow -- this designation would allow it to be an all commercial project, an all residential project or a combination of the two. As opposed to what -- and we've had this discussion before, every time we see a corn mercial mixed use situation, we want to see a combination of uses. Does the CRA really want to see a combination of uses or do they not care that every single one of these developments could be all commercial? MR. VANASSE: I think the intent is to really have a lot of buildings that would be mixed use within the building. However, you know, a lot of downtowns have, you know, condo buildings right adjacent to, you know, mixed use building. And I think that's perfectly acceptable to the community. And I think the flexibility is there to allow that. And again, as you go through the rezone process, you address those uses that you would put in that building and the compatibility issues with the adjacent properties. Page 31 16 1 1 A3 February 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. My only point is that there's a vision that you all may have, but you're not the ones that are going to be bringing this forward. So unless you're specific about where you want things and where they're going to go and what's going to be allowed to go there, you may not get your vision. MR. VANASSE: And Mr. Thomas addressed this. You know, it's been discussed as part of a -- their advisory board. And I think the point he makes about the type of community out there and their willingness to have this mixture of uses is completely true. You know, we don't see a ton of gated communities in Immokalee, and I think that the community's desires are different than what we have in coastal Collier County. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's not what I'm saying. Because I understand that you don't want a series of gated communities. MR. VANASSE: But the willingness of people to have more intense uses in their downtown and be close to that where they can walk to the CVS or the Walgreen's rather than have to get in their car, I think that understanding is completely there, that this could happen through that process. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the simple fact of the matter is everything in this district that you're going to create could get developed as all residential. Lord knows, ifthe residential market comes back and developers think they can make money, you won't get any commercial to walk to, it will all be residential. Orjust the opposite. If it's allowed to go through as either /or. MR. VANASSE: The mixed use district allows you the opportunity. Again, you have to go through the rezone process. And there's oversight at that point. And, you know, market conditions obviously are going to have a significant impact as to what gets developed. But I think there is that clear understanding that it will be mixed in nature. MS. VALERA: If I may, I don't know if this helps or not, but at least the current -- and I'm looking at the LDC right now on the screen. The current LDC allows -- mixed use is allowed in commercial property zoning districts. It says that in no instance shall the residential uses exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of the building. So there are some restrictions in the Land Development Code, which I don't know if RWA is proposing to change them or to -- or leave them as they are, but just -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Carolina, that's sort of the opposite of what I'm trying to say. MS. VALERA: Understood. COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 want to make sure that there's residential and there's commercial, not that the whole corridor gets development -- MS. VALERA: As just commercial. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- either as all residential or all commercial. And that is the way our code is written and the way this is written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me bring an example. We had not too long ago a project that came forward on the comer of County Barn Road and Davis. They went -- had gone through the GMP process and they promised to do a mixed use district. They came forward to us and they had very little commercial and a lot of residential. And there was a lot of discussion from the neighborhood and from this board, it doesn't seem like what we all thought you were going to do from a mixed use viewpoint. They're going to come back. I'm not sure what they're going to come back with. But this kind of smacks of something that could go into a situation like that. If I was a developer coming into Immokalee and I wanted to do a high residential district, I would look at your HR and say well, 10 units per gross acre unless I go through some convoluted process to get a density bonus to get me up to what I really want. And I really want 16. But heck, 1 could go to this commercial area that may not be as desirable, but I could put my 16 units there, probably do a cheaper product, being in a more -- say a blighted area of town or an area of town that is not so high end or positive for residential and get away with it without any density bonuses needed, therefore not any kind of benefit that would be added by getting your density bonuses. So the idea that this commercial can be all residential really makes it no different than another high residential area. And you may see that come out of it, whereas, from what I've been hearing, hnmokalee wants to develop with a lot of mixed use, a lot of diversity. I'm not sure you're get as much connncrcial out of this as you will a higher density residential with an easier way of getting it because of the base that you have here with no incentive to combine it with commercial. Page 32 16 1 1� February 18, 2010 And maybe Patrick, you need to comment on that. Because it's another one of those issues that could go bad for you. MR. VANASSE: I think it's a valid point, and it's something that we definitely need to look at when we look at the land development regulations. And maybe we have certain restrictions and certain minimum requirements to make sure that there is a mix of uses. However, I would also like to point out that the configuration of the lots that we have in that corridor doesn't allow for what we've seen in coastal Collier County with large plots of land and large green fields. We're really looking on the infill and redevelopment scenario in most of that corridor. Therefore, someone coming in with 40 acres or so and asking for a mix of uses through the PUD process and basically having the unintended consequences that you discuss, I think it's very limited in this scenario because the lots are a lot smaller, because you'll have some existing uses. And those vacant lots that do exist today tend to be very much infill type of opportunities. Could someone amass, you know, multiple lots and do something on a larger scale? I believe that they could. But a lot of downtowns, a lot of denser urban areas have that same scenario that we have here where it's smaller lots and the market hasn't dictated where people come in and pretty much tear down a city block and make it, you know, pretty much just all residential or just commercial. So I think there are limitations to that because of the fiscal constraints today. But definitely a concern that we need to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your process of looking at this, maybe you ought to consider that the base density would be "X" if all residential, but you give an incentive to go to a higher base density for the residential if it's a mixed use. And that way it differentiates you from the higher residential subdistricts, it encourages you to have a mixed use commercial component, which I think the town could really benefit from. MR. VANASSE: I think that's a really good suggestion. I would just add that whatever that base is, we need to make sure that it's consistent with what people have today so we don't diminish those rights. But as long as we keep that caveat in there, I think that's a really good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, because in all of this conversation, Patrick, what I'm hearing from you is about the downtown. So you're kind of looking at this area on Main Street only. Well, when I look at your proposed map, there are larger areas or potentially could be put into larger areas that are on this proposed map. So -- MR. VANASSE: There are some. But however, if you look at those lots that are improved or unimproved, a lot of them are already improved. So there is an existing use there. So it would truly be a redevelopment scenario. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. VANASSE: So -- and, you know, in the curb where we do have a larger lot, well, you know, there are some restrictions, if you're familiar with those properties, as to what the ownership is and then what the use is currently. You know, we've got the ranch there. And I think obviously what's going to happen there is somewhat unknown. But I think again, it's -- that's about the largest lot you have along that corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'd like you to look at that suggestion. And then has anybody else got anything on the commercial mixed use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Patrick, you hit on it. Because I'm suspicious of your description of commercial mixed use. What is that square that is southeast -- or southwest of the curve? Why would you imagine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he needs to hit his mouse, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sony, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's okay. Why would you imagine that to meet the description of commercial mixed use district? And Fred may -- MR. THOMAS: You're talking about Shuman's (phonetic) curve that's just south of Pepper Ranch, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred Thomas for the record. MR. THOMAS: For the record, Fred Thomas. Page 33 151 1 �3 February 18, 2010 You're talking about Shuman's curve, the southwest comer around there, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. THOMAS: Okay. Main Street, if it didn't go around the curve and went straight ahead -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's it there. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, I believe that's -- is that -- MR. THOMAS: Actually we're talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, you've got to use the microphone. I know you want to point, but don't talk, because she can't get your voice. MR. THOMAS: Okay. I'm sorry. If you blow that up a little further -- can you blow it up further? Now, move the pencil up a little further north. A little further north. Come on, up a little. That, right there. Right there to the right a little bit. Right there. Right there. That triangle right there. That's the area you're talking -- I'm sorry, how's this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's better. MR. THOMAS: This area right here is what you're talking about. This is the south part of the Pepper Ranch. The Pepper Ranch is up here where the museum is. And this property here is owned mostly by the Blockers. This is the property you're talking about right here, right'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it's not. It's just to the left of the pencil point. MR. THOMAS: Right down here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that square. What is that — why is that CME? That's my question. MR. VANASSE: I'll let Fred address that. That was a parcel that the landowner came before the [AMP and had a concept for that. And it was vetted through the TAMP. So I'll let Fred address that. MR. THOMAS: We're not sure what's going to happen with that. It's probably going to go to high -end ecotourism. Because that's back there back in the farm area behind the churches that we're talking. We'll probably see some high -end tourism back there with some lodges and things like that. Because all this land is pristine. In tact, if I take you out there this morning, you might have seen wild turkeys out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And hence 1 think the concern people have, though, is that, you know, does that meet the pedestrian- scale, high- density, residential mixed use development providing employment? You know, I mean, is that within the -- and the only reason I bring it up, and we don't -- we're going to probably go through the land use map is that there is suspicion -- that the concern would be is that you just went into these areas and put in -used it as a way to get high density -- MR. VANASSE: Actually, that specific parcel was added after the initial draft of this map. A -- the landowner and I think some of his partners came before the LAMP and provided a concept for a mixed use development that was be ecotourism based but would also be some kind of a small campus where they would have a mix of uses where they could have an outfitter there and have some transient lodging. And they were looking at different types of uses, and that was really the category that fit that best. So it was described what the intent was for that area. And the request was to make it commercial mixed use. And the IAMP suggested that we change our map based on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what you described is essentially residential tourist, which would give them high density tourist lodging and -- MR. VANASSE: Probably with more commercial opportunities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But to end here, I mean, the point is that we really do want mixed use. And when you start pulling pieces of land out that would make excellent residential, maybe it shouldn't be CMU, maybe it should be a high residential. Thank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MLDNEY: I would echo the same thing, that looks more like an RT than a CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would like to ask, why would you ever believe what a landowner told you during a planning process in which he's getting his entitlements increase so he could sell it down the road? I mean, why would anybody do that'? Page 34 161 1 �3 February 18, 2010 MR. VANASSE: I'm not saying we necessarily believe that. It came before the IAMP, and I am not a member of that board. The LAMP requested that we make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, you know how things change. When a landowner gets an entitlement, he sees millions of dollars of increase in value, he flips the property and walks away. Why would you not want yourself better protected on this piece of property? MR. THOMAS: We're hoping that we can get -- Fred -- did I do something wrong? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. THOMAS: I thought Donna was indicating I did something wrong. We're hoping that -- you remember where this is. This corridor is the end of our tourist zone that begins right here, comes up Main Street and goes around, okay? Let me describe this tourist zone for you. Because we're the number one tourist destination in the world right now, okay? Four of you guys are from Montana, you're high -end bass fishermen. I mean staunch bass fishermen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not going to do the concierge story again, are you? MR. THOMAS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already heard it, Fred. We're not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Too much detail. MR. THOMAS: That's another location that supports that whole concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We understand the concept. Honestly, we do. MR. THOMAS: Nobody else is going to do anything else other than that in that area, trust me on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what we're trying to tell you is by the designation you're making, and Brad very well pointed that out, by the language here, you are not going to even closely guarantee that's what happens to that property. In fact, the values that will now be put on that property may make it not worth happening and you'll find something totally different than what you're expecting, so -- MR. THOMAS: For example? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see. Shopping center, office, transcient lodging facilities, government institutions, schools, restaurants and other entertainment uses. That's what it could go if it stays the way it is now. What we're suggesting is you take a -- if you really want the RT type of operation, then why don't you label it as an RT? MR. THOMAS: If we have the RT and we want to have an outfitter that's just going to just provide canoes or an outfitter that's just going to provide hunting equipment and that kind of stuff, can we do that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. THOMAS: -- in the RT? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's marina. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see -- David, I'm sure that when you get into your LDRs you can write into the RT practical applications for that district. MR. THOMAS: If we have that flexibility, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you give them this, Burt Harris -wise they're never going to let you go. MR. VANASSE: Just to clarify, currently that area is zoned RMF -6. RT limits density to four. Therefore, we have an inconsistency with what's allowed through zoning versus what would be allowed with RT. I understand the concern about, you know, there's a difference between six and 16. However, RT may not be appropriate either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Numerous cases in the Land Development Code or in our current planning, we have zoned something and then had an overlay on it with an RMF -6 application. We -- you can see that if you look at our zoning maps. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's RMF -4. So it's actually perfectly tuned. I'm looking at your map five- three. Anyway, that's a small point of what we're talking about. But it is -- it looks to me like it's RMF4, which -- MR. VANASSE: I think it's both. RMF -4 is closer to the curb, and as you go further it's RMF -6, but there's both in there. Page 35 161 1 3 February 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- you know, but Mark brought up a very good point. If you over -- you know, give this thing a higher density than it needs or a higher zone, that's exactly what's going to happen is that the temptation or the pressure of what that use could be, you may ruin a beautiful piece of tourist property and turn it into big multi - family really dense multi -fam ly, you know, by your actions. I mean, you're not doing anybody a favor. You're certainly not doing the community a favor giving it a higher designation than it needs or that is intended. Because you'll lose it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What l would suggest, you guys take a look at readdressing that square on this map. And then when we come back for the rewrite, I think that's the time you need to readdress it. MR. VANASSE: And I think maybe through the land development regulations there may be some ways where we can address that where we can put some limitations and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not if you leave it CMU, Patrick. 1 don't see how you're going to do that if you leave it CMU. Unless you limit the whole CMU district, which I don't think you want to do. Do you know why an RT would be so -- take a look and -- MR. VANASSE: And I think maybe your suggestion where there's an overlay if we have RMF -6 where we allow at least that density as, you know, permanent within RT for those specific areas, that might be appropriate. And again, we'll have that discussion with staff and we'll have that discussion with our client, because we have made that change based on their direction. So we'll go back and talk to them and obviously talk with staff and look at some limitation based on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the commercial mixed use subdistrict was a lot of fun. I suggest then, if everybody's finished, we'll move on to the RT district. We need to bring the other map up on the -- or the other page up on the overhead, so -- we're working off of whatever you currently have. Someone hit a button. MR. WEEKS: We're trying. 1 think the machine's smarter than I am. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Or stubborn. I'm not sure which. MR. WEEKS: It may not be saying a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes it might go into stagnant mode if you don't touch the mouse or something. Do you have -- does Patrick need to do anything from his? MR. VANASSE: Yeah, I do have it on my screen here. And 1 have no clue how to use this mechanism here. CHAIRMAN STRAW: There you go. Okay. Okay, does anybody have any questions on the RT district? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, weren't you going to add a base to this district? MR. VANASSE: We had that comment. And I think the change wasn't made on the copy that Bob provided. But we had internal discussions about the maximum density being their base density also. So it would be just a question of clarifying that and using the same format that's been used for the other districts, but definitely adding the base, that being four. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. Anybody have any questions or comments about the RT district? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAW: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: On Page 21 of your staff report, staff has identified a couple of issues. One has to do with the density, as wasjust discussed, and if residential remains a use of density they're proposing, we would suggest that that simply be identified as the base density of four units per acre and no bonuses allowed. Because that seems to be what is being proposed. The staff concern is about the residential being allowed at four units per acre. And first let me acknowledge that's allowed right now. The present RT designation and the Immokalee Master Plan allows four units per acre. But if you look at the purpose and intent of the district and the types of uses allowed there, it doesn't seem fit to allow residential development at four units per acre. That would allow someone, similar to a conversation a few moments ago, about another property, the CMU. Someone could come in and simply develop this at four dwelling units per acre, a pure residential project. And that simply does not seem to fit with the intent of this subdistrict. Page 36 161 1 A3' February 18, 2010 Our suggestion would be to limit the density to what is presently allowed by the zoning, which is agriculture. And that's the one dwelling unit per five acres. Again, the purpose here is for protection of natural resources, allowing for ecotourism, transient lodging and RV campgrounds are allowed so that you can accommodate the tourists coming to the site to visit their natural resources, or go from there, say, out on Lake Trafford, for example. But allowing a four -unit per acre residential project just strikes us as inappropriate. MR. VANASSE: I'd like to point out that currently that area that's not RT that we've expanded the RT district a little bit is low residential. Low residential allows up to four units per acre. You have to go through the rezone process and request that. However, I think if we went the route that David is suggesting, it could be seen as a diminishment of property rights. And the idea was to keep it consistent with what the low residential allows right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that's a good point. And that's where I was going to go with it. But David, do you have a follow -up to that? MR. WEEKS: 1 guess a rebuttal. I acknowledge that it's presently LR and allows four units per acre. But the request is to change that, to change it to RT. To change what the purpose and intent of the subdistrict is for that added property. And again, I just don't think residential development at four units per acre is appropriate, and I don't think it fits with the stated intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not in disagreement with you, I just want to make sure from a Burt Harris or any other claim viewpoint we don't run into a problem of not at least salvaging out what the rights are that they already have, versus taking away and saying here are your new rights. Even -- and someone may argue that their old rights were worth more. And I want to make sure that point isn't something we're going to run into. MR. WEEKS: I'll certainly let Heidi or Jeff weigh in, but my understanding is that the only entitlement they have is what their zoning is. And that's agricultural, one unit per five acres. They're eligible to ask for a density increase, but there's no guarantee. And as we state in the density rating system, even your base density is not an entitlement. MR. VANASSE: Again, the RT district that currently exists allows four. So that's our concern also, in that currently you have four in the RT, you currently have four in the low residential. Our intent is certainly not to go back. And legalities, I would leave that up to Heidi. However, I think it does open you up for the opportunity for someone to say that you've diminished their property rights. If they would prevail, I have no clue, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from a plarming perspective, then from you and your applicant, would you have an objection if there was a way to leave it pure RT without the base of four? MR. VANASSE: Well, I think part of the RT district, if someone wanted to do a mix --let's say some kind of a lodge concept where there are large condos for sale. And I don't think this community would object to that. I think they would see it as a positive. It would bring value to that area. And I think it would be --you know, the idea of having to go through the rezone and demonstrate what you want to do, I think if it's done well, having a condo project that incorporates a lodge or some kind of eeotourism type of concept at four units per acre for a small condo project, I don't think that's inconsistent and I don't think the community would object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then what you're saying is the transient lodging provision of the RT in your mind doesn't mean it has to be all transient lodging_ You think, or your client or you agree, want to open it up to permanent housing such as a condo, which then takes away the RT value of it. I'm wondering -- again, we're back to one of these things that it doesn't -- I'm wondering why you want to go there. MR. VANASSE: I'm not sure exactly what that project would be. Could be some kind of a timeshare product or just purely residential. I'm not exactly sure. But I think in discussing that district, I think the community, what they were envisioning for that area would lend itself to some residential component like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I thinkjust like we talked about a few moments ago, this has got to be looked at under the absolute worst nightmare. Because that's what a developer will give you. MR. VANASSE: And again, it's currently allowed within the RT district today. So changing that, changing those uses would also, you know, affect what we have out there currently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? And let's get the legal department to weigh in on this possibility of how it Page 37 16 I 1 A3 February 18, 2010 could or could not go. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, any time we take away somebody's property rights, I am concerned. You know, I'm going to hold off weighing in until I see the entire final version of this, because I've seen so many drafts of this that, you know, it's really hard. But any time we start taking away people's existing property rights, that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But as I think staff was trying to say, the existing property right here is one that was not a locked in. It was an entitlement that had to be requested and could be denied, is that -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. But if I've got a right that's been typically something I've got to request and it's always been granted, okay, that leads to an expectation. But again, I'm not sure why we're taking away property rights here. I thought the idea was to enhance Immokalee's economic base. But, you know, we'll take a look at the whole thing at the end of the day and I'll have private discussions off the record with staff on this. But as a general rule, any time we take away people's existing property rights, it's a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I wouldn't be in favor of taking away property rights. But I went down to the seafood festival a few weeks ago, and the change in Everglades City, which they've put up a lot of three -story -- I guess they're -- I don't know if they're timeshares or they're condominiums, they're year round. I'm envisioning something like that happening. They put them in Everglades City right along the Barron River. And if something like that were to come up right near to the lake and they were calling that RT district, that to me would be a degradation of what we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think based on what the option could be by leaving the density in there, you could end up with that. I think that's what's being said here. And I guess now it's a matter of staff and legal getting together at some point before their next rewrite and determining what we can do that's defensible and not going to cause trouble. Probably that's the best we could hope for out of this. But I think the intention is that if the four can come out and it can be more what it was intended to be for residential tourist transcient, that's probably where it needs to stay. MR. VANASSE: I think we may be able to incorporate some incentives to get what we'd like to see out there. However, again, you know, our concern is really to not diminish what people currently have. And currently right now it's -- you know, they're allowed to ask for four units per acre. And we'd like to honor that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it needs some work, and we'll be looking forward to the rewrite on it. And while we're at it, is there any other language here that needs to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And Dave, what would happen if there's -- and I think we could have a case where there would be a lot of workers that would stay out on -- if there is an ecotourist (sic). Would those units for the workers be considered dwelling units, or would they be considered transient units or — because I think we'd want to make sure we would accommodate people living on -site. MR. WEEKS: If they're workers associated with one of the permitted uses. I'll use an example of a state or national park or even private like Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary where they have staff housing. I mean, those are people that maintain the property, the boardwalk, the facilities, provide educational opportunities, et cetera. Those aren't counted as residential units, those are viewed as accessory units to the project as a whole. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they don't enter into this conversation. MR. WEEKS: No. When we're talking about residential densities, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on the RT? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have. 'f he last sentence of that big paragraph, within two years of the effective date of this master plan, areas adjacent to the wetlands connected to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system will be analyzed for suitability to ecotourist activities and possible expansion of the RT district. Page 38 16 ! 13 February 18, 2010 Two questions. The normal caveat for the costs, I don't see that here. Policy 1.1.1. And I think it should be. And the second one is, by possible expansion of the RT district, David, would that mean a GMP change? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, for five years -- I know you haven't been involved in all that time, but for five years this process has been going on. And now you think it could be done in two years to have the analysis done. Wouldn't -- you guys hadn't come up with a more definitive basis for your RT subdistrict in all that time? And the reason that's a concern is you've got to go through a GMP change. You're talking more money and a lot more effort. And I'm just wondering, do you really want to try to do that allover again? MR. VANASSE: And 1 agree with you, I think the two -year stipulation there is overly ambitious. I think the idea would be it could be done maybe as part of the next EAR. But within -- before that time period really assess if there's a need to expand the RT for ecotourism opportunities. And that came up as part of the discussions with the advisory board. And some people came forward saying well, if that's the type of use that we want to promote in Immokalee, we want to allow, shouldn't it be expanded a little bit? And that Camp Keais Strand overlay has some great habitat. And is it therefore an area that we -- in proximity to that area should we even allow RT type uses? And obviously at that point we felt like, well, that needs careful assessment and scrutiny. And the idea wasn't to expand it any further but to really look at it. And maybe if we take away that two years, include the Policy 1.1.1, and maybe say prior to the next EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me make a suggestion to you. We've got a pretty bad year ahead of us economically, and maybe the year after that, and who knows how long after that. Immokalee like the rest of the county is going to have quite a surplus. You have a whole pile of land that's going to be more or less opened up to different kinds of development through this GMP process. I don't see you knowing how much of that land or how much o£ these uses are the most viable in Immokalee in the next five years, maybe not even the next seven years. You might just see moderate growth. Why don't you just drop the entire last sentence and whenever the CRA decides that you know what, we ought to amend our GMP to put in some more RT land, they just do it. Why do you need to say that you're going to put a time table on it or analyze it? Why don't you just wait? I mean, you could always come in with a GMP amendment anytime you want. MR. VANASSE: We could certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be more beneficial. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, we don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I like that idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that kind of gets us past the RT. And we're into the density rating system. First paragraph of that -- we need to slide our picture down here a little bit. Okay, are there -- Ms. Caron, well start with the very first paragraph. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to know if you actually wanted to start into this now or break earlier and come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My program organizer has called her assistant to come in at 12:45, and if we leave earlier, she'll be late. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I thank you, Cherie', for keeping us on course all the time. So let's go back to the density rating system and try to discuss at least that first paragraph to start with. Any questions on the first paragraph? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts out, it says, the density rating system is applicable to areas designated urban mixed use district. Does that mean everything but the industrial? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so I understood. The density by right provision. Density achieved by right shall not be combined with density achieved Page 39 161 1 �3 February 18, 2010 through rezone public rehearing process. What's that clarification? Because that -- okay, so what that means is if you have a base and you use the by right provision where it is allowed, your bases increase to "X" plus X', and that's all you get. But if you go through the density provision -- density bonus provisions you don't get the by right increase, you just get the base plus whatever you get in your density bonus provisions. Is that the way to read that? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. This is the same language as appears in the future land use element and -- whoops, song, the existing Immokalee Master Plan. The reason for this is to ensure that someone doesn't, say, come into the County Commission and get approval through the rezoning process for a density of bonus of let's just say a 12 unit per acre project, and then come over to staff and say I want an additional "X" number of units administratively and be able to build that on top. Or vice versa. Keep the two process separately. So administratively you're going to be capped at no more than eight units per acre, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Any other questions on that first paragraph? If not, we'll go to number one, the density rating system is applied in the following manner. And that's several paragraphs. Are there any questions on that section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your second sentence it says, the base level of density may be adjusted, depending upon the location and characteristics of the project. And I was trying to understand by the words may be adjusted. Is that -- by who, by whom, by what process? It seems -- I'm just wondering, do we need a qualifier in there? And David, does that language cause any concern? MR. VANASSE: That's existing language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a lot of existing language we're correcting here today, so -- MR. VANASSE: I think maybe clarifying would be a good thing. But I don't know if there's been issues with that previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, if we have a base density and it's up to that base density, why is that sentence necessary? Because I'm just wondering what it's getting at. MR. WEEKS: This is a general recognition of the density bonuses. Because the density bonuses that follow are based upon specific characteristics of a project and/or its location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could we say may be adjusted by the density bonus provisions, depending on the location and characteristics of the project? MR. WEEKS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problem with that, Patrick? MR. VANASSE: Not a problem. To be honest with you, we've always found that section somewhat confusing. As mentioned before, the terminology that the use of base has always been a bit of an issue with us. But we figured let's not touch it, that's the way it is. And we thought that would be the simplest way to approach it. But if staff makes a recommendation that would clarify that, we're more than happy to agree with them and put that in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a base density and then we have bonus density. So when we increase something by the bonus density, we're not increasing the base, we're adding to it via the bonus plan. So do you think the intent of this was to point out that the base could be reduced? Remember, we removed the up to or less than. So now that we're fixing the base, maybe we should just use this to note that the base could be reduced because of these items, or what would -- does reduce the base? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure we're fixing the base, though. MR. WEEKS: I would say yeah, to the contrary we want the base to be a fixed number. Not an entitlement. But when someone comes and asks for a rezoning -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Baseline. MR. WEEKS: -- we have to have a baseline where you start from. And that would be your base. And if the Page 40 161 1p February 18, 2010 board chooses to award density on top of that, then so be it. But you have a baseline to start from. If we go back to that base density of up to a certain amount, then that begs the question where are you beginning from. And think of the example of the affordable workforce housing bonus. If you started the base of four and then add to that, it's only those bonus units that are subject to the regulations as far as the density bonus agreement and all the different requirements of those types of units. If you don't award the full base, for example, say well, we'll give you a base of two and then your bonus starts above that, then that means more units within that total project are subject to the affordable housing regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point kind of was is when we use the bonus system, we don't really adjust the base, we add it to the base. So that's kind of the semantic of what I was questioning. MR. WEEKS: Oh, good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what Brad's correcting then is the base level of the density maybe added through density bonus provisions, depending upon the location and characteristics of the project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybejust kill the word base. The level of density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, does that give you any heartburn? MR. WEEKS: No. And actually, it's probably good to be crystal clear of how the bonuses are applied, and that is that they are added to the base. And we don't have to deal with any reductions to the hnmokalee Master Plan. I think that adjustment terminology came from the Future Land Use Element. And in the Future Land Use Element we do have one density reduction factor. So your adjustment actually could go down. You start at a base of four, if you're in a traffic congestion area you go down to three. But because that's not applicable here, just straight reading that you get a base and you add bonus to that makes perfect sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. VANASSE: So David, just to clarify, could you tell us what that change would be to that sentence so we can note that? MR. WEEKS: No, but I'll come up with something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, I think we're --so far where we were, the level of density maybe added through bonus provisions, depending on the location and characteristics of this project. That's pretty close to where I think you're going. So anybody else have any questions on -- that was paragraph 1 -A. How about 1 -B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually you took out everything I had a problem with, so that kind of clears it up for me. Oh, I have -- David, I've got one follow -up on 1 -B. The density rating system is not applicable to accessory dwelling or accessory structures that are not intended and/or not designed for permanent occupancy. What would happen in a guesthouse? MR. WEEKS: The guesthouse would be an example of a unit not intended for permanent occupancy. And in fact by zoning not allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. And what would happen with the -- Brad's previous question about, say like a caretaker's residence in an RT district where the person would actually be adding a unit to live on the site. Now, the unit may be allowed because of as an accessory to the transient lodging facility, but does that unit count as a unit count towards level of service density and all the rest of the elements? MR. WEEKS: It would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? MR. WEEKS: Because it's not viewed as a residential use. It is an accessory use. It is accessory to the principal use of the property. Just like the guesthouse is an accessory to the single - family dwelling, not designed for permanent occupancy or intended for that. In the case of the -- my example earlier, the national park, the chief purpose or principal purpose of that land is conservation or preservation. A component of that use is that you have staff housing for the people that --go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the case of a transient lodging facility, if you have a --say you have a 50 -unit Page 41 16 l 1 �3 February 18, 2010 semi hotel, whatever they — a lodge, and you've got several people who are employed there and they've been employed there for years, they live on -site, they do have a level of service impact because they use water, sewer, electricity, roads and they have a permanent base there. And they are more or less permanently occupying those facilities. You're saying they're never counted? MR. WEEKS: From comprehensive plammng standpoint we have not counted those towards the allowable density under the density rating system, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's a lot of -- there could be -- 1 mean, this could occur in a lot of different ways throughout the county. MR. WEEKS: A different example would be a commercial development, an office building or retail, whatever it might be, you're allowed to have a -- under the zoning regulations, you're allowed to have a caretaker's unit. This would be another example of where the comprehensive plan would say no, that doesn't count towards any density allowances. It's an accessory use to the commercial use that is the principal use on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it says not designed for permanent occupy. These facilities would be. When you're housing employees that have been an employee for years, it's like an on -site manager, they're there permanently. MR. WEEKS: You've got a good point. We do say not intended or not designed, but you're right, in the case of the caretaker's unit it is both intended and designed for permanent occupancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just might have found the reason why Nick has a problem with the roads being congested in Collier County. And he's not even here to realize it. MR. WEEKS: 1 do think we need to tweak that language or probably add to it and maybe give an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you would do that. Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, that's only to commercial property, right? If you had a high -rise with caretakers and grounds crew living on it, what are they? If I built a maid's house for my place and a chauffeur's cottage for my -- this is a false illusion, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Brad, these architects get paid a lot, don't they? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a chauffeur's cottage, would that count? MR. WEEKS: My inclination is to say no, that it would again be viewed as accessory. But I don't think I've ever had to answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know there are places that had that application. It would be interesting. I guess maybe regular zoning staff or planning staff may know, instead of comprehensive planning. Well, let's move on on to I.C. Does anybody have any -- you need to scroll up on the screen here, if you could. Any issues on LC and 1.D? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on 1.D, it's referred to where applicable, areas of the urban mixed use district, all property zoned A, and it lists a whole series of zoning. Are you going to come back in and assign these zoning districts to whether it's an LR, HR, MR designation? Is that the next step in the process? MR. VANASSE: I think the thought is to go back and take a look at your zoning districts that fall within that. But these are the existing zoning districts that are highlighted in the current language. And our thought was to leave it the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VANASSE: Because we're not proposing to go in and change the zoning map as part of our LDC. amendments. Private entities would come in and do that on their own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, did staff look at this paragraph? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any concerns with it? MR. WEEKS: We're on paragraph D? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph D. MR. WEEKS: "Thank you. Yes, we did. This is the same language as exists in the Immokalee Master Plan presently. Page 42 161 1 p February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you had problems with it? MR. WEEKS: Do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Clarify. We don't object to the way it reads. Staff maintains its position as we had when this was first added that we do not support this provision, this density bonus by right. We under -- brief history. I think it was around 2005 or so, it was a handful of years ago and of course it was during different economic times and when the need for affordable housing was recognized as being a pronounced need. County Commission held a couple different workshops. One was an affordable housing workshop; another was a gap housing workshop. And out of those workshops came direction to staff to pursue certain concepts to try to address the affordable housing need. And one of those was to allow affordable housing by right. And the concern through the public hearing process to achieve additional density for affordable housing is, number one, it takes additional time, additional cost, and there is no certainty of the outcome. You may spend that time and money only to have the County Commissioners deny your rezone request. So the opposite is true then of having it by right. Less time, less cost, certainty of outcome. And it was proposed, as I recall, at countywide level. And that was vehemently objected to. But for the hnmokalee area it was decided that that was something that could be supported. As I recall, Paul Midney was asked and he was in favor of it, thought it was something that the community would support. And I also recall that Fred Thomas was in attendance and he also spoke for the community saying yes, that's something we want. But the staff concern is that you don't have a public hearing process. There's no opport unity for the public to say we do or do not support this project. And I know again we have the nimbi argument, but sometimes there's a valid reason for neighborhood concerns. And the staffs position is we think it's appropriate if you're going to be increasing the density, if you're going to be changing the unit type that is allowed, that you should have a public hearing process so that it could be fully vetted and considered by all the hearing bodies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you look at this I .D, it scents to say one thing, and 2.0 I think seems to be addressing the same issue. But they have two different outcomes. Maybe they're two different things, I'm not sure. And I need to sure have that cleared up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, on C, when this happens, again, this is my poor guy on a country road, has a 10 -acre parcel across from him. Next thing you know they're building 40 affordable housing units right in front of him. And nobody had any idea. But what it says here is a rezone public hearing shall not be required. But this doesn't cause rezoning, does it? In other words, if I have an agricultural piece of property, when it says a rezone hearing's not required, it doesn't change the zoning. I'm still agricultural, but somehow in the records it shows that I took advantage of this clause. What happens? MR. WEEKS: That's part of -- actually, it raises another concern of staffs is without a public hearing process, how is there a public record kept? If someone were to come down to the county and look at the zoning maps, they're going to see that property next door zoned, for example, agricultural. Yet what they're seeing developed may be an eight -unit per acre multi - family project. The details of this would have to be placed in the Land Development Code. I mean, there's a lot of other issues that come to mind. One example being if you had a piece of property zoned agricultural, they're allowed to have by zoning farm animals, barbed wire fences and so forth. And that clearly is, we don't think, appropriate or compatible with a residence development. Land Development Code would need to address that to say if you're doing this density bonus by right, here's what the new rules are for your project. MR. VANASSE: We understand the compatibility issues that could emerge from this. As David mentioned, maybe the best way to address that is through land development regulations. Our concern is that this is already in the code -- in the GMP, and it went through a pretty significant vetting process, from what I hear. Page 43 161 1 A-3 February 18, 2010 And, you know, we had that discussion internally. 1 think Bob gave me a recap also of those discussions. And we have numerous affordable housing stakeholders in Immokalee, and I think if that were to change in any way, they may have some strong objections. And, you know, obviously we weren't proposing to make a change to that, to leave it as it is. And I think if there was any consideration of maybe making a change to it, those parties may want the opportunity to comment on this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we -- at some point this was provided, even though there was concerns over it. And now that it's there, you're arguing -- and I'm not saying you're wrong, your argument can't be taken away. I want to pursue that argument a bit more. But first of all, my question from previously, before we answer the other question, I asked you what the difference is between I .D and 2.C. Did you happen to take a look at that'? They both seem to be by right provisions. One is 50 percent and the other is four. MR. VANASSE: And just a cursory look through it, C seems to kind of let everybody that by right you can get to the four, which is the maximum base. And then the other one allows -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. VANASSE: - -you to get bonuses above four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, C seems to indicate you get 50 percent of the permitted density. Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Excuse the interruption. But if you'll look at their revised language, they've replaced that 2.C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MR. WEEKS: Replaced it with the language that presently exists in the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we haven't got down to 2.0 in the screen yet, so I didn't see that. All I -- and I don't have the revised language in front of me except in the handout that got handed to us today. So I certainly haven't had time to review it. Okay. MR. VANASSE: I think I may have misspoken. I actually meant D brings you to four and the other provision deals with bonuses above four. MR. WEEKS: If I can comment. What l .D provides for is where the -- this by right bonus is allowed, what zoning districts it may occur in. And I believe provides that you get abase density of four units per acre. And then 2.0 provides for the bonus itself Provides that you're going to get the base of four as part of the by right process. And then you can have a maximum of four bonus units. So in what I'll call the worst case or most advantageous scenario, you would have a piece of property zoned agricultural, which by right is only allowed .2 units per acre, one per five. Through this administrative process they could achieve eight units per acre. They would be entitled to the four unit per acre base and then four unit per acre bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C it says, can achieve a density bonus of 50 percent of the perrnitted density currently allowed. A public hearing will not be required to achieve this bonus. So that's a by right. So that means they get 50 percent of four, which is --so they've got a total of six. On the one that we're on, which is LD, it looks like they're adding four to whatever base there is, which would be eight. And that's where my concern is. They seem to be not saying the same thing. I don't know -- MR. WEEKS: Were you reading from 2.0 again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started reading from 2.0 and it says 50 percent. COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't in the new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, let's go down to the new language. Oh, it's all gone. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, staff had raised concerns about that. And in the staff report we basically just say we've discussed it with the agent and they've agreed to remove it and that's what they've done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's go back to I .D. I won't bring up 2.0 again until we get to it. Boy, I love the rewrites on the fly. Now, the by right provision is only applicable to the agricultural, the Estates and the RSF -1, 2 and 3. Is that Page 44 16 1 ]� February 18, 2010 reading correctly? Is that what it says? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. VANASSE: Rural ag., Estates, 1, 2 and 3. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you've taken the by right provision and applied it without a public hearing to your most highly valued, low intensity land. Now, again, I keep coming back to my concern for Immokalee's long -range future with their tax base. Why would anybody want to go by in a neighborhood that is supposed to have lower density as a base and then unbeknownst to them a higher density gets thrown in next door? It really discourages the land values from climbing so that people want who want to buy up, they may be looking to other towns to buy up in: Ave Maria, Sanona (phonetic) and all the rest of them around there. Because this is really problematic for those people. And you've got such high densities now going into your MR district and your HR district, as well as your CMU. I don't know why you need this by right. I don't know why you'd want to subject your potentially valuable future properties to that kind of language when you've got so much available to you everywhere else. I don't know what you're gaining by it. MR. VANASSE: Understood. And again, I haven't been privy to this entire history and kind of the debates that went on when this was incorporated. Obviously at some point someone deemed -- the county deemed it appropriate. Again, we left it as it was. And again, the concern is to change it at this time, what kind of repercussions is that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to take a break for lunch for one hour, and during lunch and when we get back, I'd like to resume the conversation with legal staff telling us what they think we can and cannot do in regards to this by right provision, having been recently put in and possibly maybe even being amended at this point. So with that, we'll take a break, we'll come back here in one hour at 12:45. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, we all set? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had to make sure the organizer was organized. With that, we will resume the meeting from our lunch break. We had left off on a discussion of the density rating system. In particular, the density by right. Before we went to lunch, in that discussion an issue was raised about how much of the density by right, because it was put in place not too long ago, is going to be problematic if it were to be modified now. And County Attorney's Office was going to take a look at it. I don't see Heidi here. Jeff, should I wait for her to get back? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know which one of you guys looked at it. What do you -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have to look at it. It's -- if 1 buy a piece of property and under the existing usages it's worth a million dollars, all right, and then through an act of government that value has now been diminished, all right, I have been injured and I have a cause of action, all right, for that difference. Now, if I buy a piece of property, sometime later the government changes the zoning, benefits me, and then a year later changes it again, if I'm still in my original position when I purchased in, I'm okay. Now, can I tell you parcel for parcel, lot for lot which somebody acquired a piece of property? No. But that's going to be the analysis. So, if we put something in fairly recently, your number of claims will be relatively low, okay. If you --something's longstanding, your number of claims will be relatively high. And that's pretty much the analysis. How have I been hurt? When I purchased my land, what was my investment -based expectation for it and what have you done to me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that doesn't make me feel too good. Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Just to narrow it down some. This was -- this density -by -right provision was added as part of the EAR -based amendments that were adopted in January of 2007 and went into effect a few months later, so it's been a little bit less than three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone were to challenge this and you were able to show by deed that they purchased it in that three -year period, then that challenge could be dealt with in a different manner than if they hadn't Page 45 lot 1�3 February 18, 2010 purchased it in the three -year period? MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't this through the Bert Harris Act that this would occur, claim? And isn't there a time frame that somebody has to make a claim by? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and there are defenses and there are procedural matters and there's everything else. But at the end of the day, okay, that's a case -by -case basis. As a general rule, if you're dealing with a large number of parcels, okay, with a relatively old regulation that you're changing, you will have a lot of claims, okay. Okay. The shorter the provision's been in, the fewer landowners that are there, the less amount of property. I don't know. But I'm going to tell you, if you make changes, you will have claims. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But this has been a short duration. Let's assume there's a fewer amount of landowners because of the economic conditions as well. It came in after the peak, and we've been going downhill since. If those people came in with a claim, they'd have to prove they purchased it within that time frame. They have to go through all the other processes of Bert Harris, and there's plenty of time frames in there for mitigating the issue or for solving the issue through a compromise. MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. As part of the solution, the Board of County Commissioners could say, okay, well, you're exempt from this now. You'll be able to do what you could do before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's consider then that we have an option here based on those conditions. Then is it really beneficial for Immokalee, especially its long -term future and its future tax base potential, with all the density that's being put into this place on this plan, you go -- you've got a lot of high- density area now -- is it really beneficial to inflict upon those handful of areas where you can actual get into a more, let's say, valued product, one that is a higher tax base and creates more revenue for the CRA as well? Is it beneficial to do that with this by -right provision? And 1 don't know why it's so needed at this point. I didn't see why it was needed before, but I especially don't see why it is needed now. And Paul, we certainly would like your input on this. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 1 know you would I kind of feel like a little bit on the spot, almost on the defensive, but let me just sort of defend what I said before, and that is that historically, even before the land prices were -- became so overvalued, affordable housing, farmworker housing, worker housing, was very poorly represented. It's usually not as profitable as other types of housing, and because of the character of Immokalee as a farmworker town, as a working -class town, and because so many people lose their houses as they gradually deteriorate and become devalued, we thought that it would be -- and I still think that it's beneficial to have something that makes it a little bit easier to put that kind of housing in, which is for the low -wage person; because right now, there's plenty of it, but in the long run, I don't know if that will always be the case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you, but that's why the by -right provision doesn't need to be there because they can also come in and ask for it if it's compatible and useful in the neighborhood through the standard provisions of our code. And that goes back to the same argument we probably had three years ago, Paul. Not an argument. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 mean, you are here as the representative of Immokalee. I wish that Penny was here because I would have liked to get it right from the horse's mouth as to what the CRA's position is on this and see if it's changed over time. Maybe when she comes back we'll revisit that when she comes in for the meeting. And -- uh -oh. MR. VANASSE: We're going to have Bob takeover, but I'll leave you - -just my personal thoughts on this is that we had affordable housing stakeholders show up at our meetings and state their point, and I think any affordable housing provision that is currently in the Growth Management Plan, 1 think they feel strongly about those provisions. I'm not going to speak for them as to how they feel about them, but I do know they have strong opinions. And I would tend to respect what's already in therejust because it has been vetted, and those stakeholder groups probably had a significant part in crafting that language. Just an assumption, but obviously, you know, I would -- I would like the opportunity to maybe be have those groups speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, they --they've had a lot of opportunity to develop this --they had five Page 46 161 1 -0 February 18, 2010 years of effort to develop this plan, and they have basically chosen to leave it in. But I do want to ask Penny when she shows up what she knows from the CRA's perspective on it, so -- MR. VANASSE: Okay. Well, I'm going to turn it over to Bob. And thank you very much for taking it pretty easy on me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, if you might notice he's lost a lot of hair since you left earlier. MR. MULHERE: We both have. MR. VANASSE: That's my wife's fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. MR. WEEKS: Just a point of information of reference. Before map 5 -3 in the support document shows the zoning for the Immokalee community. And you can see this blue color which represents the agricultural zoning district is a significant portion of the land within Immokalee. And then you can see there are various single- family zoning districts as well. My point is that there is a significant amount of land within Immokalee, I would say well over 50 percent that will be eligible for this by -right provision. Now on the other hand, I would remind you that this is -- this density provision is for a single purpose, and that is for affordable /workforce housing, that's what the density bonus is about, so that's what we're speaking to. So from the standpoint of any person laying a claim, I would assume that part of their burden to meet would be to show that they had intended to utilize this provision. That's how they were harmed. If they did not intend to develop affordable /workforce housing, how are they harmed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have Ms. Caron, then I have a comment as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would certainly agree with that, David. And my comment goes back to what Penny said on day one, which were the priorities that the community has now and those priorities were, number one, economic related and jobs. Secondly, infrastructure needs. Three were safety bikes and paths and sidewalks for safety reasons, and fourth was housing. And what she said specifically about that housing was that it needed to be housing that people could move up into, not stay at the affordable level forever, because they did have plenty or affordable housing. Now, if we go back to the years -- three years ago when we had that discussion, I also was not in favor and voted against any by -right provisions anywhere in the county, including Immokalee. So I mean, I'd be very -- I think the community overall would be better off without this provision, but that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how many -- let me answer (sic) one thing then get to you. David, how many multifamily high density -- how many non- -- I'm sorry. I'm trying to think how to word this. How much -- how many units are currently constructed in Immokalee, residential dwelling units; do you know, approximately? MR. WEEKS: I don't know. I believe it's in the support data, but I -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: About 5,000, I would guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the current provisions in this code, if it's passed, the way we're talking about it today, in the mixed residential to high residential in the mixed -use district that we've been talking about, there's a total of 74,000 units available. Now, I'm not sure how much multifamily affordable housing or whatever Immokalee needs, but 74,000 units, which is how many times more -- 15 times more, practically, than what they've got now. I don't think you'll see that in one or two generations. But what I'm getting at is, if this turns out to be the right thing to do, there's plenty of other times to put it in if needed to provide other facilities. I think the last thing you want to do is taint what possible upper -level tax base you could have to benefit the community when with the CRA, because of the tax increment financing and all the other things, they need it -- they will need it to continue financing the other plans that they have to improve Immokalee, and they won't be able to do it if they don't have an increased tax base because that is the whole basis for tax increment financing. They get the benefit of the increase in the tax base, and you won't see it if they don't have a benefit. So I'm going to stay pretty strong against this density -by -right provision. We might have a difference on that on the board by the time it finally comes out, so I'm not sure -- you may have to leave it both ways, Bob, or at least explain both ways. But right now, 1, like Ms. Caron, I think it's the wrong thing for Immokalee's long -term future. MR. MULHERE: I think -- if I could, I think what we would do is take your recommendation, as we have all along, so whatever your recommendation is, that's the way we would carry it forward. I think if there was a --unless -- you know, unless we had a -- I don't see -- Penny's not here -- but unless we had a discrepancy where the client that Page 47 16 1 1,3 February 18, 2010 I'm representing, which is the CRA, felt strongly enough, then we'd just have to carry that message forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I was waiting for Penny to come back. Whenever she does come back, before we weigh in on this as a whole, we'll probably ask her for her thoughts on it first. So Mr. Schiffer, and then Mr. Murray. You told me you didn't want to talk after all. You do want to now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah, but you motivated me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Brad, okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, in the process, this -- I know it's -- 10 acres is a big -size piece of property, but if -- somebody would just show up with a site plan and you really have no control over how they develop that. I know it's going to go through an SDP process. But, again, my concern is not so much for this property but the adjoining properties. Is there any control in this process to keep someone from pushing everything over, let's say, to one side, next to Paul's house? And -- I mean, what controls the development of this land with this? MR. WEEKS: Generally I would say we don't know yet because the Land Development Code will have to contain all the details. This is very sketchy what's in the plan. hjust opens the door. The Land Development Code will have to have all the development standards, setbacks, heights, separation between structures, landscaping, open space, all of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- but this has been in effect for a while, so no one's obviously used it then? MR. WEEKS: No. We, in fact, had, in a prior LDC amendment cycle, first drafted the language to implement this, and I'll just say that we got partway through the process and realized, wow, we missed a lot. And so we pulled the amendment, and it's not gone forward since. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's not even available today? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. "Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just --if I'm not mistaken --and the Growth Management Plan has a clause someplace in there about the concentration for housing for low income. And so I wonder, is that sufficient on its own to potentially minimize and overbuilding? I mean, with 74,000 units -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately that is -- you're right. There is a provision in there, and it's in the housing element. That provision was changed at the same time this went through the discussion of the density by right occurred back in '07. Well, what happened is, we were all focused on the density by right, and we missed the little tweaking of that one sentence in the housing plan. And that one sentence completely changed the way affordable housing is -- can be looked at as just being dispersed in Collier County. And David may have it there. I see he's looking it up. I have both the old language and the new, and there was -- one word was changed in which -- in the old language it was read as a requirement. In the new language it was read as, I think, we strive or we will try to. So to take it as a -- instead of a positive affirmative action, it now took it as, well, do the best you can. And if you don't do it, there's no -- there's no recourse basically the way it's written now, where before it was very positive. It said you had to do this. And there is a big difference in the two languages. And I have both of them. I don't have them with me today, but I do have them. Bob? MR. MULHERE: I just -- I'm not sure if you already said this. 1 apologize, since I had to go to another meeting for a couple hours. But as it relates to this Paragraph D, which is part of the by -right provisions, there are two by -right provisions. I don't know if you, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had that conversation. You basically fixed the other one. MR. MULHERE: I went back to what was there before, yes. But the question that you're having is, should there be any by -right provision. And I just wanted to mention that this one that we're looking at here, D, does limit the density to what is the base density in the GMP. Page 48 16 1 1�3 February 18, 2010 So the GPM -- the Future Land Use Element for the Immokalee Area Master Plan allows four units per acre in the low residential as a base density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And that's what this limitation is, to four units per acre. I just want to make sure that everybody under- -- that was the basis for the four units per acre. That's why it was limited to that in this provision here, because it was deemed that that would be compatible, in response to Mr. Schiffer's question and other questions. Since the Comp. Plan allows four units per acre, somebody could come in and rezone to that and reasonably expect success. But I mean, you know, if you go through the rezoning process, there is at least an opportunity for provisions to be put on the property that would ensure compatibility. This would rely on the development standards that are in effect in the zoning because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute now. MR. MULHERE: Because you don't have to go through a rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already have a base density spelled out in your LR, MR, and HR district. MR. MULHERE: Four units per acre in I.R. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And D gives you four more on top of that by fight. MR. MULHERE: Right. Within appropriate areas of the urban mixed -use district, all properties zone A. So if we think of just A, rural ag., okay, that's kind of -- which is, most of the low residential is zoned A rural ag., for which you have an affordable housing density bonus, the base density of four units per acre by -- you can get -- you can get the base density of four units per acre by right. So it's not giving you eight units. Ijust wanted to make that clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's very important. CHAIRMAN STRAW: We've been trying to get to that question for the first half hour before lunch and now MR. MULHERE: It's giving you -- you can get up to the base, that's why -- David, if I could. That's why you don't see RMF6 in there, because you've already exceeded the base density in RMF6. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Well, David, if this is so clear to Bob, how come it hasn't been so clear to anybody else for the last half hour of -- MR. MULHERE: It's not that clear. It took a long time to get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Well -- but there's a problem with our language. Did you -- you didn't understand this the way Bob's now describing it based on your responses prior to lunch. MR. WEEKS: I think I need to read it one more time. I thought I had it clear before. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's why I said there's two provisions. There is a provision that allows a bonus on top of the base by right, and we didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now the 2C provision is the bonus on top of-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the base density. MR. MULHERE: So let's --so if you get to that one, we put back in exactly what was in the code. And in that one you see the RMF6 in the residential -- the RMF6 and, I guess, residential multifamily are now back in there. And in that one you get a bonus of four residential units per gross acre added to the base of four residential units per acre, but the maximum density that may be achieved by right shall not exceed eight. So even if you were in an RMF6 and you added four to that, that would be ten. You don't get ten. You get eight. So in this one you actually can go up to eight units per acre by right. In the other one, you can go up to four units per acre by right. So, again, let me just give you another example. And if we went up to the previous one -- CHAIRMAN STRAW: By the way, you've got to take it a little bit slower, remember? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I -- you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAW: You're wound up. Page 49 161 110 February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I just run up the stairs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, okay. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to go slower. If you look at this 1 D -- am I right, I D -- okay. Let's use the example of RSF3. If you had RSF3 zoning, this would allow you to get not three units per acre but four units per acre that's the base density in the FLUE, by right, so you would get a one -unit bonus in that scenario. Your zoning allows three. You can go up to four. You would get a one -unit bonus. And David, I'm going to ask you to correct me if I'm wrong in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, is this already in the code? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. So it is -- it is -- there are limitations. Ijust wanted to give you that sense. I'm not arguing in favor or against. I mean, it already is in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would have been the purpose in whoever's mind did this to zone something Estates, which is one to five -- MR. MULHERE: One to two- and -a -half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or RSFI -- one to two- and -a -half, I'm sorry -- and then say, but you're guaranteed four per unit? Why would we have bothered -- why would we bother with zoning anything less than that? MR. MULHERE: There was a policy debate on whether or not there should be by -right zoning, and it was said, no, in the coastal area we don't have it, but in Immokalee we need it more so. We're going to do it. And I recall the hearing, the Planning Commission hearing, where you asked the question several times, you did, are you sure this is what you want? And it got approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is such a mess. David, you were going to look up something fm going to get distracted here for a while before -- Brad, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David first. You were going to respond to Bob. You had decided to read this thing again. Now with Bob's clarification, do you understand it better, or not? MR. WEEKS: I'm wondering how 1 misstated it earlier. MR. MULHERE: Because he always understood it. He's the one that helped me. MR. WEEKS: I agree with what Bob said, you start by getting the base density. I think I'd used the example earlier that if you're zoned agricultural, your zoning only allows .2 units per acre, but through this process, you are awarded the -- density by right, you are awarded the base density of four units per acre, and then on top of that you can get an additional four units per acre. That additional falls under paragraph 2C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your Estates -- MR. WEEKS: So that's where you can get a total of eight units per acre though your zoning and the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use Estates. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, could be Estates or agricultural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So where you moved and you expected one unit per two- and -a -half acres, you got a little ranchette, you've moved up in life, you've gotten through the high density, you've worked your way forward and you've got a place you -- that's roomier and you're raising kids, right next door to you the guy could drop in with eight units per acre? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't see that working for any town. MR. MULHERE: At one point we had proposed a change to these policies that would limit the bonus to no more than 50 percent increase of what the zoning allowed. That's what we had proposed. So that if you had ag., which allows .2 units per acre, you would only be able to get a bonus up to .3 units per acre, one - and -a -half units per acre. We thought that was a compatibility benefit. But somehow in the confusion of this language what we put in there didn't have the effect that we thought it had -- and you pointed that out to us at the workshop -- and so we said, look, let's just go back to what's in the code, and that's what we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The point that Bob was making that it's just the four, it's what we have --but that's the base. You're not guaranteed the base. And what's taken out of here, the most important thing to me is the hearing, that this is by right. Page 50 16 1 1p February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're increasing it in most -- in all of the zoning districts. MR. MULHERF: It already has been increased. I have no dog in the fight. It's already been done. It exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said earlier if -- when Penny gets back, if she could help us here. Penny, I'd like to ask you if the CRA has dwelled on this subject of density by right. And then there is one public speaker who asked to speak when we got back from lunch, but he wasn't here. So we're going to start up with him injust a few minutes. MR. SOTER: Thank you very much. MS. PHILLIPPI: Penny Phillippi, for the record. What is the question, again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are a couple provisions in this master plan that provides density by right, and it ends up being eight units per acre in areas that are zoned Estates RSF, which is residential single- family one, two, or three or the agriculture area. I, and other members, have expressed concern over that, other members have weighed in favor of it. What -- has the CRA taken a position on this density by right in regards to this latest master plan? Because while you were gone, one of the things that was pointed out, there's a lot of new density being moved around Immokalee, and maybe the density by right is not as useful or needful as it was in the past, but -- MS. PHILLIPPt: And I think that's going to depend on what hat you're wearing. If you're an affordable housing provider, then you need that really badly because of the NIMBY issues and things like that. If you're a community developer and looking for market -rate housing, you're going to think, well, maybe that's not so cool for all the reasons you've just stated as far as an Estate. Has the CRA Advisory Board sat down and talked about this particular issue? No, not to my knowledge -- not since I've been there for two years anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Penny. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Penny? Right here. MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I raised the concern and I do have a concern that we try to avoid -- that would be my suggestion --try to avoid a concentration of such housing. I have no objection to the housing where needed. The problem is, sometime in an area where something is wide open, so to speak, it's cheaper to build quick to go, density bonuses, financing opportunities. What would you -- have you considered what -- how you could minimize it or constrain it so that you do build a community that has all the elements rather than too many of one element? MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, I think it's too late for that discussion. We have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Too late? MS. PHILLIPPI: -- heavy, heavy -- we're heavily weighted with affordable housing or very low income housing, which is affordable, I would say. Now, if you start to build your personal wealth, you're ready to move into your next house, a little bit better house, where do you go in tmmokalee? So in my mind, the incentive that we need is some kind of an incentive that we haven't found an answer for yet to incentivize market -rate housing like Arrowhead to come in there and start building. So it's like the chicken and the egg; we need the jobs and -- MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MS. PHILLIPPI: -- then we need to tickle that market. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before Bob wrestles the microphone away from you, what I guess -- you're reading me. That's really what I'm trying to focus on, but the affordable housing density bonus by right effectively allows for additional -- I don't want to call it low- income housing, but first — how do I want to say it? Affordable housing. MS. PHILLIPPI: That was the reason it was created, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the opportunity for those other kinds of homes might get lopsided in the sense that developers may choose to build the other over that. MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, there's another -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what we're talking about. MS. PHILLIPPI: Sorry. There's another definition that we were trying to get at to say market -rate housing, Page 51 161 1 A3 February 18, 2010 and I think the word is workforce housing. 1 think that's a legitimate definition; is it not? MR. MULHERE: It is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. He desperately wants to get that -- MS. PHILLIPPL That's good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- microphone away from you. MR. MULHERE: Ijust want to say, I think Penny hit the nail on the head. I mean, you're not going to increase the market demand for market rate, middle class, lower middle class, upper middle class unless there's jobs and income to support that. And the banks aren't going to give you a loan under today's circumstances if you don't have the income to support it. So no one's going to build them today because they won't get a loan to build them. So -- so how do you get market -rate, middle - class, lower - middle - class, upper - middle -class housing? You find the jobs. That's what this is all about. You know, that's the most important priority here is jobs. Having said that, as far as lower income and affordable housing goes, I think if you're -- if you're making an argument that this by -right provision is appropriate, you're making the argument based on concerns over compatibility, potential negative impacts that were unintended consequences on existing properties. Another argument I think you can make, at least from my perspective, is a change in the economy, which has produced a significantly higher volume of affordable housing. Everything's dropped in value by 50 or 60 -- or 40 or 50 or 60 percent, and as a result, you perhaps don't need this incentive as much now as you did when market values were so incredibly high, even in Immokalee. And I mean, that's -- that might be a -- that might be an argument that would be -- that would be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see it as an argument. I don't see it as a convincing argument, and I realize you probably don't think of it as a convincing argument because it's the chicken- and - the -egg thing. If thejobs are what is necessary and needed to get the -- to stimulate the economy, then we have to get out and get those jobs. MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And in the absence of that, and a community that's striving to try to develop, they may open themselves up to more and more opportunities forjust the opposite of what you're intending to achieve by having this one density bonus type of thing by right as being too appealing. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm not arguing in favor or against it. I'm just saying if someone was making an argument against the fact that there's more affordable housing on the market right now than there was two or three years ago -- you know, no one's used the provision. As — I asked, David. It's been in there three years, but the land code amendments to effectuate it haven't been adopted, so I don't know if that's a valid argument. We haven't created the land code amendments that would allow it to go forward. But I think if I was interested in doing something in Immokalee and I wanted to take advantage of this provision and the Comp. Plan allowed it, I would be the one driving that as opposed to waiting for it to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. If I could just sort of give a -- maybe a little bit different perspective. I think it sounds like there's a fear that at some point Immokalee could be flooded by affordable housing or workforce housing. I think if you look at history, all the affordable housing that's been built in Immokalee has been either done by non -tor- profits or government agencies, Fannworker Village or Habitat or organizations like that. And when we look at the affordable housing that's been built in the rest of the county, it's usually part of a mixture that the affordable housing is maybe 10 or 20 percent, which wouldn't be bad if that were replicated. And if the nonprofits do it, they usually do a very good job. So -- and as I said before, fight now affordable housing is very available, but nobody has jobs. When we go back to a more normal economy, I think affordable housing will be at a premium again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, just so --the thought of reasoning that you came up with is not the one I share. There's a lot of potential density in what's already -- with what's in this plan right now for all kinds of affordable housing. The Immokalee area has wanted to grow. The CRA in 2000 froze the tax base for Immokalee. The county gets that tax base's frozen amount. Any incremental amount above that, the millage rate goes back to the CRA to spend on improvements for Immokalee. Page 52 16! 1p February 18, 2010 That means the CRA in Immokalee will only improve as much as their tax base improves because that's how they're funded. So data we didn't have in 2007 when this came --and I wish we did --but the intensity of the review of this hmmokalee Area Master Plan has opened up some eyes of mine --I mean windows tome that I have not seen before and had not realized, because I would have made my argument even stronger in 2007. Even though I was against it then, I didn't have the impact I may have had now. In looking at this, if we don't provide a diversity in Immokalee's land use so that people can stay in Immokalee and grow with the town as they grow in their monetary and financial betterment, they're going to move to Ave Maria or Sonoma or one of the other new developments that go around there. You may want to keep a lot of people in town. You may want them to be able to buy up in town, and it's not a matter of the --how much additional affordable housing is in certain areas. It's a matter of whether that area is made for affordable housing as a community pocket. Some people are going to want to be able to move away from the multifamily, not because it's affordable; it's a different product. They may want the bigger yards. They may want to have the peacefulness of a less intense neighborhood. They won't be able to get that in Immokalee if they go into an Estates lot where they have one house on a nice acre- or two -acre plot, but next door to them eight units go up on the same -size lot. That's what I'm worried about, and I don't think the diversity that Immokalee wants -- has in its culture is reflected in the same market -type housing it's going to be able to have if this passes with these by -right provisions. I think you're going to scare people away. And that's the best I can explain it. And it's the long -term view of Itmokalee that I'm more worried about and it's the long -term view of the financial resources that the CRA's going to have to operate with and move forward with to better the community, and I think you're going to stifle that if we continue with the by- right. So that's the -- I mean, that's the best I can explain it. And if there's no other comments from the Planning Commission, I certainly -- a gentleman that has been waiting patiently to speak, it's certainly your turn, sir. MR. SOTER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to please state your name for the record, and then off and running. MR. SOTER: Very good. Good afternoon. My name is Bob Soter, S- O- T -F. -R. I served with the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board for nine- and -a -half years from January of'99 through July of 2008. So I had the wonderful opportunity to parlicipate kind of on the ground floor, if you will, with the Master Plan and Visioning Committee and had the opportunity to participate in the subcommittee that chose the first consultant, RMPK. By the time I had left and we realized that RMPK wasn't doing thejob, we were very fortunate to have Bob Mulhere and his firm come in. Served on a subcommittee that did hire Penny Phillippi, and that was a wonderful decision. So -- and I also had an opportunity relative to Immokalee to write the grant proposal for the USDA loan guarantee that built the career and service center where we held our public meeting recently, so -- and, of course, that building has been able to serve the Immokalee community for a wide variety of uses. The planning process has been long and tedious but it truly has focused on the needs of the Immokalee community. And for the -- for the several years that I was a participant, I was particularly pleased with the amount of public input and the opportunity afforded the public to participate on a regular basis in that planning process. I know that some people have called this Fred Thomas' plan. That is absolutely not the case. Again, it's been a broad variety of input and observations that have brought the plan that you have before you today. I can tell you that when we built the career and service center, there were many stipulations that did not pertain to what the function of the building was but, again, needed to meet the current codes that were in place. And so, again, the new plan that you have before you, I think, will be focused on helping us achieve what we want to achieve in Immokalee. I had the opportunity, too, to visit Poland with the Trade Delegation 2005. We specifically went to Poland to bring a company called Skytruck to Immokalee, but the net product of all of that was that the company found all of the rules and regulations so onerous and the process took so long that we lost that company, I believe, to Texas. So those jobs and that clean industry did not locate in Immokalee, did not raise the wealth of that community because we were under, again, the previous plan. So in summary, what I would like you to do, again, is what you're already doing. You're being very careful, Page 53 161 IP February 18, 2010 you're being very cautious. But I think the bottom line, as Bob referred, we need to create a plan that supports the development of small businesses and that creates jobs and careers. So, again, thank you for your good work and thanks for the opportunity to be able to make this input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it very much, sir. Thank you. MR. SOTER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on the -- we left off on Item 1 D. Is there any more comments on 1 D? And Bob, I don't know what you need to move forward, because I'm not sure if this board's in unison on that issue or not. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if you want to take a straw poll orjust wait until we come back. I mean, I would need to know whether you -- I think I I'd need to know whether the recommendation is to delete or to retain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I dunk, to be honest with you, if you -- in your writeup, when -- I guess we might talk about timing right now. How long do you think it's going to take you to make the changes to this document once we finish up with it? MR. MULHERE: And we're assuming that we would finish at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know -- based on -- at the rate we're going, I don't think we'll get done today. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, so -- and then your following meeting is in April. Is April -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The following meeting could be the 18th or 22nd of March, but I'm -- and we might as well get that all on the table. Before the next review is read by this committee, this commission, in this room, I would like to make sure staff has had ample time to review it and especially the County Attorney's Office. Because any hidden problems legally, we need to know them. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, that being the case, 1 think we clearly don't want to do it in March because you're going to -- your last substantive review of this three -day process is in early March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: I really -- we're going to need to meet with staff during the rewrite process to make sure we're onboard with a few issue. We've named three or four issues that we need to, you know, address. And so I mean, I personally think we need probably in the range of three weeks to be able to rewrite it, two weeks maybe, and then you need at least a week to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff and County Attorney's Office are going to need sometime, too. MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to take more time than that. This is a major --we want to get this right. MR. MULHERE: That's fine. MR. KLATZKOW: And this has been going on for how many years? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's fine. I'm just trying to come up with a time frame. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I was talking to Mr. Bost before. You know, my office is going to want two weeks to review the final product here before it comes back to the board. MR. MULHERE: So two, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the final product. MR. KLATZKOW: The final product. So however long it takes you and staff to get to a final product — MR. MULHERE: No, this is -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- I want an additional two weeks. So this is going to take a while. MR. MULHERE: So again, I was assuming a couple of weeks for us to get to a final product and then two weeks for staff and the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we have to have some time with it. MR. MULHERE: Then you have to have some time. That's at least -- you want at least two weeks before your meeting, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think two weeks would work for us. MR. MULHERE: So that's six weeks right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So March -- you're talking maybe your last meeting in April. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a problem with that as long as it can work. I think that that comes back now to what started it in the first place. This by -right thing is real, real critical. It will set a different tone for Page 54 161 1 3 February 18, 2010 Immokalee depending on how it comes out. I personally have stated my opinion on it. I know some of the members here have. I would certainly think, since we heard Penny indicate that it really wasn't focused on in the last two years that she knows of by the CRA, and it's only been in existence possibly three, I would really like them to think about this issue, discuss it, focus on it, before we jump on it and -- because it's Immokalee's plan. And I didn't -- along with those lines, I would certainly, if they want a perspective like I've expressed, I don't mind coming out and expressing it to them. I'm just concerned that they understand what they're walking into if they do the by- right. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So they have a meeting scheduled usually the first part of the month? MS. PHILLIPPI: March 17th. MR. MULHERE: On March 17th. Great. Saint Patrick's Day. So anyway, we could have that discussion then and be prepared to at least provide you with the CRA Advisory Board's position on this as part of-- I'm not going to make any changes. I'm going to give you their --then when you have your final review, you'll have to make a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, but I think that's the way -- might be a better way to handle it. I'd rather see them really spend some time talking about it. We've spent an hour on it, and we're not really -- and we're not even them, and it's not even our town. We're just trying to understand what's best for planning of that town, so -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the exception of Paul. Sorry. MR. MULHERE: And keep in mind -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. MULHERE: --you know, we agreed that was why our intent was to reduce that bonus, by -right bonus, to something manageable and compatible. Perhaps it's not even necessary at all, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Just need to get it out on the record. If this meeting originally was advertised for two days ago, February 16th, the maximum we could continue is five weeks without a readvertisement, which would take us to March 23rd. Just so that you know, we're talking about another quarter -page legal ad being necessary, and that's, ballpark, $1,300. And brings up the question of who's going to pay for it. MR. MULHERE: Us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, I think it would have to be the applicant to get us there. But honestly, if we don't do this right and there's a mistake, we're going to loose a lot more than 1,300 bucks. MR. MULHERE: Also, you know, I don't know if you're talking about that, but that pushes the board hearing date back, and you've got to figure out a different hearing date. And that's okay. I'm just putting it on the record that we'll have to find another date that's a little bit further out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I don't know what the board was thinking of the process with us. If they want us to shorten the time frame, that's going to leave more for them if they want to do it that way. I certainly would think they would appreciate the time to do it right and get them as concise a package as possible. MR. KLATZKOW: We need to get this done right. The Board of County Commissioners does not have the time or resources to put in the amount of time that you guys can do. MR. MULHERE: 1 have no argument there. I'm sure they would appreciate it, and I think it's an effort that's very well -- you know, well based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's put it off. Let's not establish the time yet, David, until Bob and you guys after these meetings get over, start focusing on what has to be done, and then start putting the schedule together and come back with a clear time frame. Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: I believe you had said earlier, Mr. Chairman, you didn't think we'd finish this first review today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And so whether it would be now or at the end of this meeting, we need to discuss when to continue to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4th. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Page 55 161 1A3 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 4th was the make -up date kind of, and that's the day, if we have anything left, we can finish up. The fact that we've only gone through, what, three- and -a -half pages in six hours, I'm -- or five hours, I'm not sure we'll get through the rest of the pages before the day's over. If we do, that's great. We've still got environmental issues to go over and quite a few others, so we'll see where it goes. Okay. So that leaves the by -right clause pending, and we'll discuss it when we come back for our rewrite. Now, let's go on with density bonuses. Oh, and before I forget. There were a lot of policies that we discussed the first day that we were going to go back and try to clean up pending more information, and you made note of those, Bob, your first day. "There were some documents missing. I had a list of them, and I think we talked about it. MR. MULHERE: And I have some information. I don't know if you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to go back and visit those, and we may do that on the 4th as well. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The density bonuses provisions -- where are we, Bob? There you are. Now, there's -- the proximity to cormnercial mixed use was modified in a bigger way on your sheet. Or is this the only modification now that you're getting down to? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. What we added as a modification was to not allow that bonus on any lands designated low residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You changed it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So -- in protection for the low- residential lands. So if you have a project that's 50 percent within the commercial mixed -use district, minimally, and the balance is some other district, medium high -- or medium residential or high residential, you can calculate your density based on the entire project being within the commercial mixed -use district, but you cannot do that when those additional lands are in low residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. You changed. MR. MULHERE: And, of course, it requires appropriate --appropriate buffering to the adjacent uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go back to the first number two, the introductory paragraph under density bonuses. Did anybody have any questions about that? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just the very last line where it says the Transfer of Development Rights section. I'm not sure what that is. MR. MULHERE: Well, that -- what that means, in no case shall the resulting density exceed the maximum density specified for each subdistrict -- which each subdistrict identifies the maximum density -- but we don't want to necessarily have that apply when you're using TDRs. If we develop a TDR program, that may exceed that maximum density because we want the TDRs to be used if we develop one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. That's very helpful. So the TDR is a future hypothetical? MR. MULHERE: It is. And we didn't want to preclude that exceeding the maximum density. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Actually that is existing language, and that -- MR. MULHERF,: Right. MR, WEEKS: And that -- this reference to TDR program is to the original pre -Waal fringe TDR program, which has not been used since about 1990. MR. MULHERE: Right, but it still -- MR. WEEKS: But it's still there, and it's here. That reference to it is here as well as in the Future Land Use Element and the Growth Management Plan because it is a program that's on the books and it's eligible to be used. MR. MULHERE: But also, that 2037, that's what we would be amending, I would assume, if we did develop a TDR program, because that's where all the TDR programs reside, in that section, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the fourth paragraph, it starts with a parenthetical four there. Towards the end it says, only be exceeded if utilizing an affordable /workforce housing bonus. Right now, the way the density by -right works, you would have four units by right and four units by right again but not as a bonus, just by right, or is that considered a bonus as well? MR. MULHERE: It's still a bonus, but it's a by -right bonus. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 56 161 V3 February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted the clarification. As far as the -- to exceed the maximum density specified in each subdistrict, you've got to use the TDC process. To what extent can you exceed that density. Is that -- MR. MULHERE: Right now it's spelled out in the code in terms of the provisions that David referenced back to the existing TDR program that hasn't been used in 20 years. There's a -- it depends on where it's being transferred from and what the value is. There's a very complicated formula. By the way, it hasn't been used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David? MR. WEEKS: Just to explain further. You're more familiar with the rural fringe TDR program, and that's a one -for -one or even higher ratio. You know, you have five acres of sending land. It's eligible for one dwelling unit. You can transfer that one dwelling unit and then sometimes get bonuses for doing so. This old -time TDR program is based upon the zoning of the receiving property, I believe, and it's a fractional. You cannot exceed the maximum density of the receiving site's zoning by more than either 5 or 10 percent, depending on what that zoning is. Example, RMF16 allows 16 units per acre. If it's a 10 percent, then no more than 1.6 units per acre could be added through the transfer. MR. MULHERE: And I just wanted to add, any changes that we might make relative to a TDR program in Immokalee, you'll be seeing it through a Comp. Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually I was getting ahead of myself I was going to the next line, A. That would be my question in A. Although I'm not sure we didn't discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me just ask one question about that first paragraph. So you've got four units by right, you have four units for affordable housing by right, and then with the TDR process you can add even to that some percentage; is that the way it works? MR. WEEKS: Possibly. I would say not likely, because that TDR program also is only applicable to certain higher density zoning districts. So unless you had some RMF 12 or 16 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- within the RT -- low residential, I don't think it would be applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Now, Mr. Murray, do you want to do your questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah. Ijust wanted to -- under A, at the very last sentence, appropriate buffering to adjacent lower intensity uses must be addressed. That seems like that's already part of our code, unless there's some particular reason why you needed to put that in there. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it's important, because you're allowing someone to get a bonus. If more than 50 percent -- 50 percent or more of their project is within -- is not within the CMU district, they can use the CMU district density, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Our code wouldn't cover that? MR. MULHERE: It covers it, but I think it gives you greater flexibility. When we do the LDC amendments, I think we can create specific buffering standards for this scenario that really would make sure that those -- any adjacent use is adequately protected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: You know, that was the purpose of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I won't fight you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions on 2A? With that provision in 2A, does that mean that all the density can be piled onto the commercial side if they wanted to? MR. MULHERE: They could -- they could -- they have to come up with a design. I don't know what that design would be. They're going to be going through -- I can't think of a scenario where they're not going to be going through a zoning process to accomplish this, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they could come in and -- for a -- MR. MULHERE: I guess in straight zoning they could, yeah, yeah. But your question is, could they put it all on the commercial side. Yeah, I mean, I guess we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're going to design it in a way that works for the market. I don't -- you know, I don't know what -- exactly what that is. I don't Page 57 16 l 13 February 18, 2010 think there's -- I'm not sure what the risk is or what the concern is. So in that case they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ljust was curious. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think they could put it wherever they want assuming it's designed to be marketable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the last line, appropriate buffering to adjacent lower intensity, instead of the word appropriate, could we say, buffering to achieve compatibility? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's a good suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then where it says, uses must be addressed, instead of the word must, we seem to always like the word shall. MR. MULHERE: Buffering to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Achieve compatibility. MR. MULHERE: With. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With adjacent lower intensity uses shall be addressed. You know, your cohort there couldn't type and talk at the same time, so you got him beat. MR. MULHERE: Well, I can't spell, but I can type. Okay. I just want to make sure 1 get the -- at least generally your -- I got -- Chris is taking notes, but just if I can get something in there so I remember when I'm writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to 213, affordable /workforce housing bonus by public hearing. Any questions on 213? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So this gets us up to 16? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's an interesting question. 1 was just thinking the same thing. To encourage the provision of affordable /workforce housing -- no, it can't be added with the by- right, no; you can't combine the two. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But I think your question's still valid. If you just -- I don't see a cap in there, a not -to- exceed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: So if you were in the CMU and you had a density of, say, 16 units per acre or 20 units per acre with this bonus, arguably you could get up to 24 or 28 units. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. But the CMU has its own cap identified, which I believe is 20. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it does. That's right. MR. WEEKS: Each subdistrict has a cap, so your bonuses could only be added up to that. MR. MULHERE: Up to that cap. Each district has a cap, that's right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if it were maximized, it still could only get to 20. MR. MULHERE.: In CMU. COMMISSIONER CARON: In CMU. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else on 213? Okay. Let's move to -- well, 2C is the one we already discussed, so let's go on to 20, residential income. Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, 1 wanted to --you said --you may have jumped a little quick for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go back to 2C, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to see one thing. Where you said a public hearing would not be necessary, did you take that out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is that one that they're going to confer with the CRA and come back to us on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, good. All right. MR. MULHERE: This is one of the two policies for by -right zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the by- right. Okay. Thank you. Page 58 161 1A3 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we'll move to D, residential infill. Go ahead. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a question. Do we have -- in the rest of the county, what's considered urban infill property? Is it 20 acres or less? MR. MULHERE: Now? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it was less than that. I mean, I thought infill was like 10 acres or less. MR. MULHERE: It was at one time. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. The Future Land Use Element for this residential infill bonus used to be capped at 10 acres. As part of the rural fringe amendments, we both expanded it to 20 acres and added the requirement only for the FLUE, coastal urban area -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- that the first of those three infill bonus units had to come from a rural fringe TDR credit. MR. MULHERE: So I think the reason it was increased was that the idea was to encourage infill development. And if you had a 20 -acre parcel that met these requirements, it still qualifies as infill, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the qualification here for infill is one abutting property is developed. How does that qualify for infill if the other side of it's -- I mean, so at the end of the far -out distant place where they're developed to,just one side is developed, theyjust keep -- MR. MUL14ERE: You can't. You can't leapfrog. You can only get this one time. You can't do this more than once, even if the other side is vacant. It doesn't mean now that parcel qualifies. It doesn't qualify for development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone takes advantage of it early as an infill next to a developed piece, the piece beyond them can be developed as regular zoning but it can't use the infill provision? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about the piece beyond them? MR. MULHERE: You can't leapfrog. I mean, I'll defer to David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'mjust curious how one property owner can -- MR. MULHERE: Because they're adjacent to developed property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can a -- right, but that one property owner develops and he's in an area that can be zoned for what it is zoned, his neighbor now is restricted because of the way he developed. So how does he put that burden on his neighbor? MR. MULHERE: He's restricted anyway because his neighbor's not adjacent to a developed parcel. He doesn't get -- he's not eligible for this bonus. It's not any — it's not the other guy's fault. He's adjacent to developed property. The one that's not adjacent to developed property doesn't get this bonus. You have to have at least one developed parcel, one parcel -- one property line adjacent to developed. And this has been this way for how long, 30 years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is the urban area -- I mean, the coastal area relying upon just one abutting property as well; do you know? MR. WEEKS: It does. What I'm not seeing is any prohibition on the leapfrog. There is a prohibition on creating parcels to take advantage of this provision. You can't take a 30 -acre parcel and split it in half so, okay, now I qualify; I'm less than 20 acres. But I don't see the prohibition on the leapfrog. I wonder, Bob, if you might be thinking of the office and infill commercial. MR. MULHERE: Maybe I am thinking of office and infill. So if I misspoke --I mean, I thought you couldn't -- because I mean, that's a good question, otherwise, can you keep going? Can you requalify now new properties by taking advantage of this for a bonus, urban infill? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I -- that's what my question was, and I think that's what -- I don't see where that's not possible. That's what I'm asking. MR. WEEKS: I agree. If it's the desire to prohibit that, we need to state such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to because, otherwise, what good is it? You night as well just say, all the zoning at the end of the current development can have this new incentive. MR. MULHERE: The idea is to -- is to incentivize development of properties that are already within a predominantly developed area. Page 59 161 to February 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. MULHERE: You have economy of sales, you have essential services, you have schools, you have, you know, services. That's where you want the development to occur, before it gets pushed out to the areas where there isn't any service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, will you make sure you make a note of fixing this? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. But it will be treated, I guess, differently than the urban area. And I don't have an objection to that. I don't have an objection to your concern. But I'm just saying that you might want to look at that sometime down the road then as it applies to the rest of the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also as incentive to development infill -- which is better than developing new lands further out --the idea of using TDRs in the rural area was developed. Is there -- MR_ MULHERE: Yeah. I wanted to say, I put a provision in there, and it says, if a TDR program is developed -- there's a couple typos, but anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Fin sorry. I was still reading off my old one. I didn't see your new one. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Considerations shall be given to incentivize the use of TDRs within areas that qualify for this residential infill bonus, including but not limited to, allowing the bonus by right if all of the additional density is derived from TDRs -- so if they go and buy TDRs, let them have them. That's a good thing -- or we're allowing additional density bonuses of up to a half a utut per acre for each of the three bonus units derived from TDRs. And those are just examples. And they don't have to be in there. I just wanted to give you some flavor of what might be, you know, a palatable attraction to use TDRs for the urban infill. I think it makes sense, if a TDR program is developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I will correct all the typos and misspellings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Okay. How about Item F., roadway access. Are there any questions on roadway access? And the next one after that, seeing no questions -- oh, David, did you have something? Did I see that arm go up? No, I didn't, okay. I'm so used to seeing them flash out of the comer of my eye, I wasn't sure what it was. The next one's been a rewrite, density and intensity blending, so we've got to move to the new section in our other handout to get there. And I'll find the page here in a minute. MR. MULHERE: Page 35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 35, okay. MR. MULHERE: Starts on -- I could give a little background if it's helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MULHERE: During the RLSA process, the adoption of the Rural Land Stewardship program, there was a property owner who owned a pretty good amount of land in the urban area along Lake Trafford, the north side of Lake Trafford, as I recall, that was high- quality wetlands, high -value wetlands, and that property owner hired a consultant, the consultant participated in that process and suggested that it made sense to protect those high- quality wetlands around the lake. That property owner also owned land in the RLSA, so they were under the same ownership. We had already developed a transferable -- a density - blending program for the rural fringe area, so we had a model that we could use, and that consultant suggested that a density- blending provision made sense in this circumstance to protect those wetlands and allow that landowner, who also owned land in the RLSA, to be able to, on an acre - per -acre basis, protect those wetlands and transfer his rights out to the RLSA. That got approved. It was very limited. If you look at some of the strikethrough language in here that I'll -- that would provide for you an understanding of the limitations. It basically said, the lands would straddle the Immokalee urban area and the RSLA area as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and which were in existence and under unified control as of October 22, 2002, which is when the whole thing was adopted. And then the --in the aggregate, the project had to be a minimum of 200 acres. At -- so you can see there were restrictions, to make along story short, as it relates to that. There were restrictions. So there was a landowner who participated through a consultant in this process in Immokalee as well who owned a significant portion of land within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keats Strand overlay, which were also deemed by the county to be high -value Page 60 161 1A3 February 18, 2010 wetlands, and which they placed some additional restrictions on those lands, and that consultant on behalf of that property owner suggested that they be able to take advantage of the density - blending provisions. And we said, sure, why not. It makes sense, if you're going to protect those high -value wetlands that are in that overlay, we don't have a problem with that. That person also owned land within the RLSA. So you had a similar situation. Existing condition, lands within both the urban area that were valuable and within the RLSA that could be impacted, allow for a transfer. During the process of the -- the LAC process, the Conservancy -- Nicole, on behalf of the Conservancy -- said, look, if this is a process that's good for one landowner and if it makes sense that we want to protect the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay, which is high -value wetland and the -- part of a system, connected system, let's just allow anyone to take advantage of a one -to -one transfer, they protect those lands and forever put them into conservation. They get to transfer those rights on a one -- on an acre -to -acre basis into the Rural Land Stewardship receiving -- area designated as receiving. They'd have to go through the process to designate receiving. And as you know, there are restrictions on what can be designated receiving in the RLSA. It has to be lower -value environmental quality as compared to other lands. The difference here is that -- I'll just throw this out there -- they don't necessarily now have to have land owned in both locations. They would then -- if they didn't have land in the RLSA but they had land within this urban area overlay, Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand, they'd have to find somebody in the RLSA who's interested in buying those acre -to -acre rights. And the last thing I wanted to say -- I hope I did a good job explaining that -- is that there has not been any analysis -- before Mr. Strain asks this question -- there has not been any analysis as to what the impacts of the RLSA program might be if the entire -- what's the size of the overlay? See if we can find that. 1 think -- we know the size of the overlay. I think it was a thousand, slightly bigger than a thousand acres. But anyway, if every single acre on a one -to -one basis got approved, you would be then able to entitle that many acres as receiving lands in the RLSA. And what would be the impact, we didn't do any analysis of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you have a question? No. Well, I sure do. Go ahead, Bob. Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Before you get into a lot more detail, under -- and this may be more for David -- under lower case i -- A lower case i, where it speaks to -- or that the property owner will restore such lands to high natural resource value. My question is, is it appropriate to have it stipulated in the Land Development Code what time frames are associated with it or what predicate there is before they can put a shovel in the ground or take out a permit or something of that nature? Because I'm concerned with the -- you know, the guarantee that that will, in fact, happen. MR. MULHERE: It would work the same way it works right now with other similar bonuses for restoration. They have to submit a plan. The plan is reviewed by staff. If the staff agrees that the plan is an appropriate restoration program, there are timeframes in that plan, and they have to provide some financial remuneration for maintaining the exotics. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we're good in that area. And the other thing, when you said you guessed that it, you know, that thousand acres, I'm sure you didn't believe that the thousand acres, they would be all potentially wetland, would they? Is that -- or is that what you're saying? MR. MULHERE: If not, 95 to 100 percent, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's a lot of mitigation. That's a lot -- and what do you think of the implications for their ability to buy in the program? MR. MULHERE: Well -- okay. Glad you asked me that question. 1 think -- I think the property owner that has lands in the RLSA and has lands in the Camp Keais Strand overlay can reasonable transfer those rights. They have lands in both locations; they have lands that are lower environmental quality. It makes sense. There's no other players in that game. It's not an arm's- length transition -- transaction. It's the same owner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gotcha. MR. MULHERE: The one -- the property owners that might have land within the Camp Keais Strand overlay that do not have land in the RLSA are going to have a much more difficult time to find a buyer. The only Page 61 161 13 February 18, 2010 buyer that would be interested in those rights that they would have is someone who only has lands that don't qualify for receiving in the RLSA. Most of the large landowners have lands that fall in both receiving -- now, you wouldn't spend money to buy something that you already are. So I don't know if there are any landowners that have a significant amount of only lands that wouldn't qualify as receiving in the RLSA and would, therefore, be interested -- I'm sorry. It's the vice -versa -- that only have lands that are receiving and don't have the sending lands to accommodate. I apologize; I flipped them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess the root of my question comes down to, do we not favor then? Do we not cause a favorable condition to a certain element of the population that is denied to others because of that particular -- MR. MULHERE: No. 1 mean, I think here's the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Likelihood. MR. MULHERE: I think there's two circumstances here. One, the property owner that has them in both places, I think the county benefits because they're going to get a significant chunk of this protected, and the person already has lands in the RLSA that could be impacted anyway, so you probably haven't changed anything, you know. You might have reduced, a little bit, some of the RLSA lands that would be protected because now you're going to protect them over here, but they're both valuable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my concern was, you were facilitating development in one sense, and they can't move forward -- likely can't move forward in another, and that's a concern for equity. MR. MULHERE: But I'm not sure how -- again, I'm not -- I'm not a wetland expert, but if these are really high - value, high- quality wetlands, there's going to be a significant mitigation process anyway to develop, and it's unlikely that they're -- you know, it's going to be very costly to develop in there, so -- the better question is, forget about -- what if somebody doesn't -- what about the folks that don't own land in both locations. Is there really any opportunity -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm talking about. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I know. And I don't think there is much of an opportunity for them. We've -- by giving them the chance, at least there's the chance if somebody out there wants to -- and I think that was the Conservancy's position. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But what you're going to be doing is then transferring all the possible densities that are allowed in the urban Immokalee area to be transferred into receiving areas of the RLSA? MR. MULHERE: In this limited overlay. Not all in the Immokalee urban area. Only in the overlay. Only in the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand. Only in the thousand acres. MR. MULHERE: And right now, what they have as an entitlement on an acre -to -acre, that's all low residential. So they only have -- they're probably ag. zoned, but they have an entitlement of up to four units per acre in the low residential. Not an entitlement, excuse me, but allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: But right now we still have by -right provisions in here -- MR. MULHERE: No, they don't get any -- that's not part of this equation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul'? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My question is on 3A, the first phrase I have a problem with. It says, for those properties which are contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand or that are -- I think that that should be removed. I think we should -- we're only talking about what is in the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay. And that was one of the things in the EAC. We wanted to standardize the language with — throughout. We didn't want to put wetlands connected to in there anymore. MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe, but there was a specific motion, wanted the lands contiguous to be included and notjust within, because there's high -value wetlands that are contiguous to this boundary. I'mjust saying, that was the EAC motion by my recollection. So, again, I mean, we can go and look at the record, but 1 believe that what was decided was that they wanted to be apply to lands within the overlay and contiguous to the overlay, because there are some wetlands that don't fall Page 62 161 1�3 February 18, 2010 within the overlay that are around Lake Trafford that have high value. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think the whole purpose of the overlay was to get all those wetlands. If they didn't, then the overlay was drawn wrong. MR. MULHERE: No. Well, I don't know. I didn't draw the overlay. It was done by staff. There's a -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That was their whole criteria was to encompass the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand. That was the whole purpose of it. MR. MULHERE: No. Again, Paul, if you can look at your Future Land Use Map, there's an area in green that's RT on the north part of the lake. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. MULHERE: Those are lands adjacent to Lake Trafford that have high -value wetland. They are disconnected from the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay. You can see that there's development between the overlay and those lands in green in RT. So there is some high -value wetlands in that RT, and that was the purpose, I believe, of saying for properties which are contiguous to Lake Trafford or that are within. And I agree with you on the language of this Camp Keais Strand wetlands connected. That should have probably been changed to reference the overlay language. So I agree with you there from the terminology perspective. But I just want you to know the intent of the EAC was to include both lands contiguous to Lake Trafford and lands within the overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My only problem is contiguous, I mean, that -- you're going around the whole boundary of the strand on both sides. How far in does it allow you to go? MR. MULHERE: Well, the presumption would be that you would only do that where there was value, wetland value, and then the conditions below. And not all the lands that are adjacent to Lake Trafford have any high - wetland value, so those wouldn't qualify. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. As long as it's clear to everybody else. MR. MULHERE: Well, I do agree with you that that language needs to be changed to reflect the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay. So we'll make a note of that so it's consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on 3A. Anybody else? Okay. Bob, the -- some of the things that — oh, first of all, I want to go back to a couple things that were said. Under triple "i" --I'm going to go by my document. It's easier to read. And you can tell me if it still applies or not. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For every acre protected within the Immokalee urban area, one acre of SRA is allowed; is that still in there? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When Ms. Caron asked the question about what that meant versus, I guess, transferring of density and whatever, basically if you take an acre of SRA, I think it's eight units per acre -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plus any amount of commercial, industrial, whatever, that's allowed on the percentage in the SRA. So that one acre can be a multitude of value in different things. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't restricted to what it was in the Immokalee -- or what it could have been in the Immokalee area. So -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- potentially an acre in SRA is much, much more valuable than the acre wetland in this wetlands. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the incentive thing, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. It just didn't apply to the bonuses in the urban area, but you're absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure that got clarified. But the issue that I see most problematic is, during the RLSA review, we had a lot of days of debate. One of the biggest debates was the acreage, the count, how much they wanted to develop, the total. They also had this panther study going on. The panther study has been finished. I've read it thoroughly. I think it hurts their argument quite a bit. Page 63 16 I 13 February 18, 2010 So I'm concerned that if you try putting more land into an SRA from an area outside the RLSA, which -- besides the governor's order and all the other stuff that set the premise for the RLSA, which was that land developed within the RLSA was to be developed only as a benefit from conservation lands presumably by, what I thought was the governor's order, within that RLSA area, which this is not. So now you're bringing in outside lands, which could set a precedent for many other areas to say, hey, we should do the same thing, including maybe that panther primary area that we talked about earlier. To move it outside the Immokalee urban area on a one -to -one value, the SRAs then get to benefit from that acreage, but in doing so it reduces the cap on the acreage, I would think. Because I'd hate to see them argue, well, no. Now, we didn't count it. Unless you want to add it in, you add it to the cap. That's a viable argument that's going to be still had with that whole group, and I think it's going to be very problematic. So -- and then actually, if you read the panther study, that 45,000, by what they're recommending be included in that, it actually takes off that 45,000 substantially. So that 45,000 isn't 45,000 anymore. MR. MULHERE: Acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Acres, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they've created -- if they think they have all these credits that -- to be honest with you, if you cash them all in, you're going to have more than 45,000 acres of need -- they're going to argue that this is taking up some valuable needed acreage that they need for their acreage, for their credits. MR. MULHERE: Well, they haven't made that argument. I'm sorry. I stepped on you, I apologize. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: At the time the RLSA was adopted, this was already in effect. It had already been done, the RLSA straddling. 'The only change to this is to allow the small landowner who doesn't have lands that straddle both boundaries to get in, which is very few landowners. You're not talking about a lot of extra acres here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me correct -- I remember this process, because I know the property owner that came in. He had his planner sitting here in the room, and he insisted that this one piece of property around Lake Trafford had to be sucked into the RLSA program. We went through a big debate about it. Everybody finally said, okay, we'll live with it, we'll agree with it. We'll calculate it into the totals. And that's not what this is doing. This is expanding it substantially into a much broader area than was ever anticipated during that initial discussion. This is taking that initial acreage around Lake Trafford and taking -- now you're dumping in the entire Camp Keais Strand, I believe, in all that green area along the southwest side of Immokalee; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's somewhere -- 1 don't know. I guess we've not -- 1,492 acres. Well, that's just the overlay, and then the lands that are contiguous to the lake could add to that. So you might be talking about a couple thousand acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you tell those landowners that you're going to take that 45,000 now and out of it potentially take another 2,000 acres, we're going to have a big fight on our hands. And I don't know why this has got to be the solution for that. MR. MULHERE: Well, I would say, I assume they're watching this process, I don't know, and that they would be aware of what's proposed -- and I don't know about that either -- and that if they had an issue, they would show up and state that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, the way this is written, it would take Aristotle or some- -- I mean, nobody can figure this thing out. MR. MULHERE: They had representatives at the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on. David couldn't even figure out the -- he does this for a living. MR. MULHERE: The density blending? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. For the last -- before you got back, we spent a half an hour on something in the wrong direction. MR. MULI IERE: But that was existing language in the code. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: The whole thing's written like this. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So don't tell me they know what this is exactly saying because I don't think they do. And if they do, t think they'd be here to talk about it. MR. MULHERE: Well, there were representatives in the workshops, and it was a representative of one of Page 64 16 ip February 18, 2010 the large consultants that actually brought forward this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I'm not defending it. Again, I appreciate the comments that you've raised, Fra just -- I'm just not sure -- I'm just not sure that those landowners have a concern. You're raising a concern that this may take away from the public policy intent of the RLSA to protect natural resources within the RLSA. Very valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And create a new argument from them that they need now more than the 45,000 -acre cap because the cap was based on lands within the RLSA. I canjust hear it now. MR. MULHERE: And this is pretty --a good chunk. Because if every acre got transferred --which I don't think will happen -- but if it did, you're talking probably -- well, at least 1,400, and probably more acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, and then David? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They are aware of it, I'm sure. They have lawyers that watch things like this. But no one is making them make these transfers. It's a completely voluntary program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you missed my point. I don't -- that's not the point. The land -- taking land from outside the RLSA to reduce the developable acreage within the RLSA, I think, is a potential problem. And, David, you had a comment? MR. WEEKS: Couple things, Mr. Chairman. Just -- you were talking about the applicability. On the visualizer is the existing Future Land Use Map for Immokalee. This dark green up here, the north side of the lake, that is the presently designated RT. And this density - blending provision that exists in the master plan today only applies to that RT designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And then the expansion area would include where they've added some RT in this area to the east of the lake, and then within or adjacent to the strand system, which boundary will also be changed. Second thing I wanted to mention, just as a point of order. It's not some major issue. But because there's reference to the RLSA program, we're going to need to make companion amendments to the RLSA overlay, and that's something that's touched on later about the Future Land Use Map, another issue, and we're - -just to recognize that you're not seeing it in front of you today, but when this petition comes back for adoption, there will be some amendments to the Future Land Use Element, and more than one place that will be necessary to correlate with these changes to the master plan. MR. MULHERE: Not substantive, but cross - references. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I did have one other thing, if I could, just to add. Not to prolong, but possibly just for consideration. Assuming that the Planning Commission -- I just want to throw out that this is one way that the EAC supported to foster the acquisition and perpetual protection of these high -value natural- resource areas. Presuming that you don't support that for the reasons that you've raised, it doesn't mean that there couldn't be some provisions to still advance the protection of these properties and that then this could then become a principal target area for acquisition and mitigation under the other policy that we already have written in that says we're going to create some incentives to protect these areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in policy, I think it's 113, we already put that in as a mitigation potential. MR. MULHERE: And it might drive that TDR progr- -- it might make it viable, whereas, it might not be viable without these lands. So again, I'm just saying, there are some alternatives that might -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, from the perspective of the RLSA and its -- I don't know if you call it consistency or interpretation -- was the program designed to accept or to be -- to benefit from lands outside the RLSA? Was that -- does that -- do you believe that's going to be consistent with the overall order from the governor and the intent of what the RLSA was supposed to accomplish? MR. WEEKS: First of all, you know, because it was adopted at the same time, that is, it was part of the RLSA amendments to add this density and intensity- blending provision, I see no consistency issue with that as it presently applies. Page 65 161 1,�3 February 18, 2010 Now, as far as expanding the applicability, that's where Bob has acknowledged that they haven't done the analysis yet, because that's one of the issues that staff has raised in the staff report is, we don't know what the impact will be to the RLSA program, and that is a concern. It may not be significant, but we need to know. Right now we're acting blindly. We just need to know what that impact is going to be, because that's been discussed in the past with your discussions of the RLSA five -year review process, and there was much debate about the 45,000 acres or credit caps or just exactly how to deal with how much development would be allowed. And as you've stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, this provision is allowing for more development to be sent into the RLSA. What is that impact? We just don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 think at some point we need to find out. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Well -- and in my position -- which certainly could be altered by my client, but I'll state it anyway -- is that part of our -- part of our compensation and express contractual obligations did not include collecting data and analysis in support of a policy that was brought forth on the part of a private landowner. Was included by recommendation of the Immokalee Area Master Plan Conunittee as well as the EAC. But, frankly, if we're going to do the data and analysis on the impacts of the RLSA, that that wasn't really something we had anticipated, and the burden might shift to the landowners to do that, who would benefit from it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's not good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we need the data and analysis just as much as anybody else. And I think, in fact, the question's been raised and it's a concern, and staff even acknowledged it. I don't know how you're going to get around not doing it and if you want to keep this kind of language in there. MR. MULHERE: Well, I understand that. And generally --and you know, we'd have to be more specific. But generally, we made that statement to the original -- the original consultant on behalf of the landowner that originally came forward with this saying, if there's any additional data and analysis. These are very high -value wetlands. So if they were in the RLSA, would they then be able to entitle an acre -to -acre basis of receiving? Then you would know exactly what the impact is. It would be equal to the amount of acres that would qualify for this, in some presumption, couple thousand acres, that now wouldn't be preserved in the RLSA to entitle receiving lands because they're going to be preserved in the urban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But with the cap on receiving lands being such a sticking point in the RLSA and having read the most latest report, I just want to make sure we're not going to have this hit us alongside the head when we try to discuss that coming up whenever it does come back to us. Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bost, Comprehensive Planning. One issue I would like to point out is, there is no cap on the number of acres eligible for an SRA. Those are proposed amendments that we're going through the process right now of whether we're going to initiate that as a private cycle for the specific amendments, or is it going to be contained within the EAR -based process. But as it exists today, there are no --there's no cap within the SRA. And one of the things, through the discussion with Carlton Fields that I have been working on another issue related to the RLSA amendment, is DCA is going to have extreme scrutiny towards any provision that's going to increase the amount of acreage of development within the SRA and they're going to say, there's going to have to be an absolute demonstration of need within these proposals. If the Immokalee Area Master Plan maintained the language as it exists today, the applicant, we would have to show why there would be the need for the additional 2,000 additional acres of SRA lands to be -- to justify the proposed change and the effect that it would have on the RLSA program, and I think that's very problematic in terms of having to be able to demonstrate that need in that 2025 time frame that an additional 2,000 acres potential of SRA is needed. That -- and that would be just something for consideration as you're going through with your client. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know -- I mean, I guess we'll wait and hear what the Planning Commission's recommendation is. But I can state right now emphatically that the benefit of this is protection of what's deemed to be very important natural resource areas. That's the only reason it's in there, from my perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but -- MR. MULHERE: If only landowners are going to benefit and if there's not enough data and analysis to support it --if only a certain amount of land owners, small cadre of landowners --unless they're willing to do the data Page 66 161 1t3 February 18, 2010 and analysis, it probably won't go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mike, I want to make sure you understand, I know the 45,000 acres is still in debate. I'm probably one of the people that led that charge for a length of time. So I know where that lies. I know what we got to deal with on that. I just don't want to have more problems on top of that problem with this being thrown in the mix. And Bob, to the benefit of the Immokalee urban area, you may be better off looking at this to incentivize TDRs to improve the urban area rather than move it outside Immokalee and not have it do as much benefit. MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- okay. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, you've got to take -- there are recommendations. I'm carrying forward a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The recommendation of the -- the property owner's going to want what's easiest and best for them, so -- MR. MULHERE: Of the EAC and of the IPVC as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I still think -- you might want to see hrunokalee's urban area be developed, be improved, and be preserved to benefit Immokalee's urban area. Might be a much smarter way to approach it and let these areas stand on their own. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. There's basically, I think, three ways of protecting these wetlands. The first would be by a TDR program. And from everything I've heard about that, they're very complicated to design, and difficult, and especially with the density that we already have locked in, it's hard to see where you're going to be able to get an incentive for people to want to buy these TDRs in the Immokalee urban area. The second way would be by mitigation banking, and that also is kind of a complicated thing to setup. So this kind of seems like a more ready -made thing. I understand what you're saying, too, that it has its disadvantages. But when we're trying to protect land that -- you're going to have to give something to the landowners in exchange. You're not going to just be able to take it away from them. It's hard to find which is the best way to do it. MR. MULHERE: There is a third, and that's acquisition. I mean, acquisition. You have a -- for example, there's a tax that the residents agreed to tax themselves for acquisition of large -- or of environmentally sensitive lands. And so there is a -- you know, they just bought Pepper Ranch. There is a third option, and that's acquisition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That is the fourth option, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, did you want to make a comment? MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy. And the reality is that the hmmokalee urban area is the hole in the doughnut that is the RLSA in Eastern Collier County. And there are wetland systems, there are important habitat areas that, on the map, end right where that urban area begins. But in reality, there is connectivity that can't be ignored. So in looking at the importance of these areas as it's connected to Eastern Collier County, in looking at ways to protect these areas, the Conservancy has suggested that the provisions which were already contained in the master plan that -- I don't believe anyone has actually used them for a development or even started that negotiation process. But in looking at how those could best be protected -- I think Commissioner Midney stated it very well -- in the case of a TDR program, which was the first thing that we looked at. Maybe with the decrease in densities which are now part of the current draft, maybe there is a market for TDRs for someone to want to come in, purchase TDRs, and the ability to increase density elsewhere. But quite frankly, the densities are so high by right or by doing certain things that doesn't require going out and buying TDRs, I'm not sure there's going to be a market to protect those lands through a TDR program, and I'm not sure Collier County will have the money to actually construct a TDR program in the next several years and get it implemented. So the TDR program, it's a great idea for the future. I'm just not sure how feasible it is. We certainly like the idea of having the mitigation banking. I think that that could also be an option. But in looking at that, the whole pallette of choices, we like the idea of potentially linking in all of these lands to the RLSA. Now, I do agree that the first sentence under A is a bit problematic because it could allow hundreds or, Page 67 161 10 February 18, 2010 perhaps, thousands of additional acres to be part of this, and I think it does need to be limited, and I would say limited to the areas that are within that boundary. If they're important areas outside the boundary that should be within it, then put it in the boundary. But it, I think, opens up a little too much to say the areas within the overlay and the areas contiguous. And the other issue is, in looking at how this would impact the RLSA, the conservancy is in no way advocating that this should be added to that 45,000 -acre cap. As you know, through the whole RLSA review process, the Conservancy was very concerned about the amount of development that we're going to be getting in the rural lands. So we think 45,000 acres is a lot of development. We have agreed that we'll work with the county on that but, quite frankly, not an acre more. Sothis would have to be part of that 45,000 acres. If it's proposed to be in addition to, then that's a non - starter, and protection would have to be in another mechanism. So those were our thoughts on it. We certainly are willing to work with you on other viable options. And if the decreases in density that are part of this plan would allow for a viable TDR program, I think that's a great way to go. I'm just not convinced that we're there yet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. VALERA: Mr. Chair'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. VALERA: If I may add. And I think --and Bob, correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm looking at my notes from the Economic Environmental Council meeting -- and we don't have our minutes yet -- but I don't recall the EAC recommending the lands adjacent or, you know, contiguous to the overlay. I think they were concerned with lands within. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. VALERA: And also -- MR. MULHERE: I have a different recollection. MS. VALERA: As I said, I mean, we'll check in the minutes. But the other thing that we're concerned -- and it was part of their first motion on January the 3rd, they said that they wanted to prohibit density increases within the overlay. So that was one of their concerns with this overlay. MR. MULHERE: I guess there's two things. One, we went back to the EAC, and they looked at this language when we went back to them and they approved this language when we went back to them. So I'm pretty sure it is consistent, but that's neither here nor there. We'll get their minutes. It doesn't matter at this point. I guess the question is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I have to ask you the -- did they concern themselves in any way with the implications? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. So -- MR. MULHERE: Not with the implications of --there may not be any implications if the cap is not exceeded. The only implication would be on the part of the property owners whether they agreed or disagreed. Right? I mean, if it's 45,000 -- if there is ever a cap, if the cap is not exceeded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But none of those things are known. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that the problem with that 45,000 number has got to be resolved. And until that's resolved, I'm not of a mindset to think you can impose on the RLSA program. I just think it's not the right choice without the data analysis to support it, including whether or not we have a problem with the acreage. That study that was released, they started at 45 -, and they start taking off the — obviously all the developed areas, Hogan -- the mining areas, the roads. So the acreage is far less than 45,000 acres now in perspective to where they think they started from. So when they comeback and hear they've got another 2,000 acres coming out of it, I'm sure there's going to be problem. MR. MULHERE: That this is the panther protection plan`? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's the plan that supposedly they were going to buy into if everybody was Page 68 161 1A-3 February 18, 2010 warm and fuzzy afterwards. And I'm not sure where their mindsets are on it yet. But there are a lot of recommendations in there that are actually more -- set -- are actually more in line with what we argued during the RLSA review than not, so -- MR. MULHERE: So it maybe premature for this, but there maybe a place for this, but it kind of depends on how that process works out, is what you're suggesting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was --that would be my comment. If the RLSA can benefit from this or this can benefit from that and there's no objections from the state, then I don't have a problem with it. I just want to make sure we don't run into a stronger argument now that causes us more problems with the RLSA program. MR. MULHERE: Well -- and my only response to what Mike said was, if there's no cap right now, he's right, then DCA would consider this an increase in intensity. But if there is a cap and the cap isn't exceeded, then it certainly would be no issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fight right now isn't what worries me. It's the one coming down the road. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Again, I think that we should eliminate the first part of that sentence, properties contiguous to the strand. It should only be the ones in the strand. And a couple hundred acres of that 1,400 are Seminole land. They're not going to be involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that Bob's going to review the minutes to find out if the word contiguous was involved. And if it -- if the EAC recommended it, are you still recommending it be struck? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I don't have a — MR. MULHERE: He's limiting the impacts by taking that out of -- limiting it to maybe a thousand acres, say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't -- depending on how the RLSA issue comes out, it doesn't matter to me. So I mean, why wouldn't we go along with Paul's suggestion at that point? So -- MR. MULHERE: So that would be stating then, for those lands within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Only. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's all it would say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't we want to protect other wetlands that are there that are contiguous and contribute to the -- MR. MULHERE: Because -- we would want to, but not by enhancing -- based on your discussion, not by increasing the impacts to the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so we'd find another way to protect those? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we would have to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why wouldn't you want to include them --if you can do it for the RLSA for the one part, what would it matter if you do it for the second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm listening to what you're saying. Ijust think it sounds too onerous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, I'm thinking if he said one acre, it would sound too onerous. So I'm starting at one acre. So if you go to -- if one acre's acceptable, then 2,000 is. I mean, I don't know if it makes a difference because if we're not going to run into that road block with the landowners in the 45,000 cap and all that argument, I'm not -- it doesn't really matter how many acres you move into the SRA base to get the benefits for the environment out of it. MR. MULHERE: Well, with Paul's change, you're talking about a maximum of 1,400 acres, and probably less if some of it's Seminole land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the rest of the discussion on 3A's going to have to wait until we come back with a -- David? MR. WEEKS: Just clarification. Could you go over again one more time, please, what the proposed change would be to that first sentence under 3A. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, my proposed change would be the -- starting the -- whole first line and the second line up to where it says to, delete. Page 69 161 Z �3 February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: It would read, for properties within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: -- system overlay. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that -- but still, David, that's going to be contingent on this RLSA issue, so -- okay. MR. MULHERE: When you say contingent, meaning -- I mean, meaning -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Mike's, David, everybody said that you're going to have to do some kind of analysis, data analysis, to determine, first of all, if it's even acceptable to do. I'm more concerned about where the property owners are going to go in regards to this 45,000 cap. If it's going to affect the cap, then it's out the door before it begins, as far as I'm concerned. MR. MULHERE: So then I guess what I need to do is send email to the landowners here and ask them if they're interested in providing some additional data and analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that. MR. MULHERE: Because unless we're going to go and renegotiate, we're not going to provide that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have come in here with this plan, and you've been carrying the flag for several landowners. MR. MULHERE: Well, I don't know about carrying the flag. Again, the EAC made a recommendation for this, the Immokalee Area Visioning Committee. 1 mean, you know, those are — the client is CRA. So, I mean, this was recommended to carry forward. I think we have an obligation to cant' it forward. I'm not sure I'm carrying it forward. I don't have a dog in the fight, you know, one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well -- MR. MULHERE: I don't own any land in Imrnokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys want to --it's how you workout the data --I think you're going to need the analysis, staffs telling us, no matter what. So how you work that out with your client is up to you. I think the next item then, we'll move -- well, let's take a -- Terri, you don't look too unhappy, but we'll take a break. How about if we come back in 20 minutes to three and we'll resume at that time. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We lefl off on -- well, were actually on our Page 47 in our original document. We've finished with 3A, which basically is going to have to have some more research and review. We're going to go to 313 right now. Okay. Under 313, does anybody have any questions under 3B? David? MR. WEEKS: Cortunissioners, the staff concern expressed in the staff report is that this provides for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map through a rezoning action. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can't do that, can you. MR. WEEKS: And wejust question whether that can legally be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking him? MR. WEEKS: No. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to -- holy cow. MR. WEEKS: This is not without precedent, I don't think. There's a different circumstance, and I'll mention that. In the master plan mixed -use activity center in the FLUE, there's an ability to adjust the boundary of the activity center through a rezoning, which has the effect of similar, l think, to what they're processing here, that you are changing the boundary, and then after the fact, the county would come along and change the activity center maps to show the boundary to correlate with the rezoning action. So I guess that's similar to what they're proposing here, but I still -- it just strikes me as a bit odd when I read it to say, we're going to change the subdistrict boundaries and it's going to occur through a rezoning action, and I was hoping the attomey's office could be here to offer comment. MR. MULHERE: Well, while they're waiting, if I could -- l think it might be helpful if-- maybe not everyone understands why we would propose something like this. If you have a piece of property that you want to develop and it straddles two subdistricts or three subdistricts, Page 70 161 1�3 February 18, 2010 you want to design -- you want to put a master plan or design that property so that it makes the most sense on the property as a whole and not based on some artificial boundaries within that property, that I have to put this use over here because that's allowed in the subdistrict, and I can't move it over here. We want people to design it in a way that makes the most sense. So we're not letting somebody get more intensity or more density, but we are allowing them to shift whatever uses might be allowed in one area or another within that project throughout that project to design the best project. So, I don't know if we -- you know, I mean, I don't know if we adequately conveyed that, but that's why we put some conditions in place for the further protection, enhancement, or restoration of wetlands or other natural resources. So you might be able to avoid impacting them, whereas, you otherwise wouldn't be able to because the subdistrict precludes you from moving something from one place to another or the -- you know. Or the shift mitigates for any negative impacts on adjacent properties through appropriate measures. So we think we're protecting the other properties. We think it makes sense to be able to develop it as if-- you know, I can put in some commercial at this level of density in this subdistrict. My project includes lands that aren't in that subdistrict. Let me spread that around even though that density might exceed what otherwise would be permitted in half of the project because it's of a lower density subdistrict. Do you follow what I'm saying? And I think that the design can be much better. Now, 1 agree with David that there may be a question if this is self - amending, I think is the term that the state would use. I would suggest to you that if the policy makes sense, let's see what the state has to say about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's on -- and Heidi, the question came up of legal about this issue, and I'll let David rephrase it for you. But we're on -- under the density and intensity blending, Item 313, which on our sheet is on Page 47. I'm not sure what pages you're using. MR. WEEKS: Well, Bob's handout, I see it on Page 36. MS. ASHTON: Okay. And you're under B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, B -- the very first sentence in B, the very -- up to the semicolon, the introduction to that, that's the question. MR. MULHERE: I'm song. I just wanted to clarify. And the other thing is that there is a restriction that wouldn't allow you to increase the overall density or intensity, which is -- which is one that I -- this shift does not result in a change of the acreage of each land use subdistrict within the subject property. So while you could shift it around, the boundaries, you could shift the boundaries, you can't achieve some greater level of intensity or in density. That wasn't the intent at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One thing that we established -- I think you were out — MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- with that is that it's not going to happen in the low -- we're not going to allow the 50 percent thing that we were talking about earlier. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that was another provision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but I think this broaches that. I'm not sure that it does, but I think it does. MR. MULHERE: Well, not really, because again, let's say that you had low and medium density, and you've got a provision in here that says you have to adequately buffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But let me frame my -- then let me frame it then, because you said you were straddling. In your illustration you said about straddling three districts. MR. MULHERE: Two or three districts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If one of them were the low, we had, I thought, established that we wouldn't go there then with that. MR. MULHERE: That was a separate provision. That was another provision. That was a bonus provision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This doesn't relate in any way to that? MR. MULHERE: No. It's separate. I mean, I'm not saying that you're -- what you're saying is to minimize any unintended impacts to low residential, maybe what you're suggesting is we should do that but we didn't. The Page 71 161 1�3 February 18, 2010 policy that you're thinking of is one where we were allowing a density bonus, which we said wouldn't apply in low residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There's no bonus here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. MR. MULHERE: This just allows you to design the plan --design your piece of property within those --by shifting the boundaries of those districts to allow for an appropriate plan instead of forcing something to be in one location when it might not make sense and it might not protect natural resources. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't have a problem with that. I was just concerned with the straddling of the districts, whether or not that opens up an issue for -- and I'm pretty sure it opens up an issue for you. MR. MULHERE: And if I might add, it's particularly at issue in Immokalee if you think about the fact that -- and I don't know that this is true in the rest of the urban area. But in Immokalee, you have very small -- you have a lot of multiple district conditions. You can have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: You can have a subdistrict and another subdistrict and another subdistrict, and you want somebody to go in and acquire that and you want them to redevelop it, and they can straddle two or more or three subdistricts, this provides some flexibility for them. I mean, I honestly think it's a very good policy. Whether it will fly or not, I don't know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They'd have to come in -- under that scenario they'd have to come in for a public hearing. Wouldn't it be more effective tojust change the district? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a Comp. Plan amendment, so that's totally different. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- well. MR. MULHERE: And they don't have to come in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that's a good reason -- MR. MULHERE: -- for a public hearing. They might not have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Ms. Ashton. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Pm fine if we want to hear from the county attorney first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi, did you want to -- MS. ASHTON: Okay. So we're looking at the new subsection -- CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: 3B. MS. ASHTON: -- 3B. And I've reviewed the section, and we -- I don't recommend the addition of this language personally. I think it's a little crazy to start getting -- shifting land use map designations, so -- and I don't know that that really furthers what Ms. Phillippi is trying to do with her economic development. And it -- I believe it will have a bad precedential value for other areas in the county. So I don't recommend it at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And David, I guess that kind of puts it in perspective for your question then. Ms. Caron, did you still have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, 1 do. If this were to fly, is it the intent that all of these -- all five of these criteria be met? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I'm having -- I just don't understand what the harm in good design is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 think part of the problem is, we have always looked at the GMP as locked in stone, although we know it isn't anymore. But to get to the point that it isn't, it has to go through a rather elaborate public process, much harder than a PUD. This would eliminate that potential. And basically you'd do it on the rezone, and the GMP then follows the rezone. David expressed a concern that -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they may not even like that. That may not even -- it's self - amending, as I think you used the term. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may be a problem. And if the county attorney says it is a problem or it could set a problematic precedent, I'm not sure why we need to start that in Immokalee. Page 72 161 1p February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: That's fine. We're just trying to think out of the box to make things happen a little differently than they usually do, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I might -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I would like to hear what David has to say. MR. WEEKS: I was going to say, I certainly understand the benefit that's being proposed here, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do I. MR. WEEKS: -- and the overall goal to promote economic development, and in that vein of thinking eliminate as many hurdles as you can. And this proposal would eliminate a hurdle for that scenario Bob described where a single parcel has multiple future land use designations. Remove the hurdle of having to come in for a plan amendment for what conceivably could be a rather small piece of property where the development is -- your cost benefit, like, how much am I going to make on the development of this property versus how much is it going to cost me to go through a plan amendment process and then go through a rezoning process and all the other steps for development. So we eliminate the plan amendment process, which is both costly and very time - consuming. So I fully understand the benefit of what's being proposed here. MR. MULHERE: With no greater impacts presumably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we -- you guys are going to come back with a rewrite anyway. Before the rewrite comes back, why don't you guys, off record, get together with the County Attorney's Office and see if there's a way to work a language that fits what you want to do. If there isn't, there isn't, but at least you can give it another try. MR. MULHERE: Fine. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's a great suggestion, because I'm not sure there isn't some merit to what you've proposed. Have you looked at how many properties? MR. MULHERE: That's what wejust looked at. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. So that may -- MR. MULHERE: It's hard -- the only thing that makes that hard is somebody could aggregate a couple parcels, and we can't anticipate that process. We want people to do that. We want people to aggregate parcels into a nice project. But I think we can certainly take a look at the urban core and maybe limit this to that area where we really want to see aggregation and development. And so -- and that's also the most intense district, so there would be less concern with low residential or any unintended consequences. So what I was thinking was maybe this is something that only applies in the urban core, and maybe we wait and see what the Department of Community Affairs has to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, aren't most of your boundaries in the urban core based on roadways anyway? I mean, I'm looking at this. Some of it may not be, but it appears that if you're going to get down to the smaller lots, you probably won't have this problem. MR. MULHERE: You won't have too often, but looking at the -- looking at the proposed designations, you could have -- I think you could easily have medium or high residential adjacent to the CMU in a project, or both -- or all three. And that was, I think, where we were focusing anyway. So eliminating maybe low residential or focusing in on the CMU or properties abutting the CMU, you know, would narrow that down. It wouldn't -- it probably wouldn't address Heidi's concern. I think -- I mean, I'm not speaking for Heidi, but I think her concern is, you know, it's -- it is -- in a sense it is amending the Comp. Plan without going through a Comp. Plan amendment, but it's not allowing any greater intensity, and it's limited to a project. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: I'll just offer this comment, which may at least partially address this. If we're dealing with like subdistricts, that is, if we're dealing with more than one residential subdistrict, I think this could be handled through the density rating system where we would allow for this blending of densities. Page 73 - "1 1 P February 18, 2010 A more difficult issue is where you have completely different districts. So a residential subdistrict and then the CMU, for example, or residential and industrial, or CMU and industrial where you have totally different land use categories, that is a -- that's a tougher nut to crack. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Well, I think that given some time -- MR. MULHERE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to work on it before we come back with a rewrite, that might be the solution, so -- we still got to get -- we still got to get consistent with legal, so -- MR. MULHERE: We also wanted to give the Department of Community Affairs something substantial to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if this had gone up like it was, they'd have plenty to look at, Bob. Let's just keep moving then. We're on Page 48, our Page 48. It's the urban industrial district, and you've gone up too far. Okay. Right there. There's the first paragraph, Paragraph B; does anybody have any questions on that particular paragraph? Okay. We've got B 1, the industrial subdistrict, IN. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. You know, that looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were a -- what do they call that, a park, a business park; is that what you're intending there, or is it true industrial? Because it seems like an interesting mix. MR. MULHERE: It is industrial, true industrial. You can see it allows -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- manufacturing, processing, warehousing, wholesaling packing houses, but it also allows some of the other uses that we want to attract, such as high -tech industries, laboratories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would this be a new industrial district, or is this the one that's currently in place? Because that's where Trade Port is, that area. MR. MULHERE: It's very, very similar to what was in the code for the industrial district out there. I think it is expanded a little bit to include some uses that are typically not found that are more light industrial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, like office and -- right, commercial, yeah. All right. How much an of expansion? Not much, small? MR. MULHERE: No, not significant, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? We're still on B1. David? MR. WEEKS: Just a couple of cleanup items, or so I think. The third line includes a use, very first use after the word including, uses ancillary to the airport, and then the very last line of Paragraph 1, campground accessory, et cetera. Because the airport now has its own designation, it seems that both of those items should be removed. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along those lines, David, why are we -- an industrial district is defined in the Land Development Code for its uses. Why are we spelling out so many uses in the GMP? What is the benefit of that? MR. WEEKS: I think that's -- I don't think it is necessary. I think it's just a carryover from the way the master plan is read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if lnimokalee wanted to change the uses, either -- they could actually change it for other items, because I don't believe this is limitation. MR. MULHERE: It's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you wanted to change it to say, well, you know, we no longer want vehicle racing in our industrial area. We don't need it anymore or we want to have a special over a conditional use for vehicle racing. The way this seems to be written, I'm not sure that you got enough latitude here, whereas if you just address the whole thing in the LDC, you'd have more latitude to take in and take out and mix and match the uses as you would want to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you normally have day care in industrial? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 74 161 1 �3 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would, huh? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: People drop their kids off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In industrial? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. The industrial zoning district allows for, as well as the industrial designation in the FLUE, does allow for certain, we'll call them, accessory or related or subordinate commercial uses for industrial development. And the rationale being that industrial lands are major employment centers, so you want to be able to have some restaurants, maybe childcare, which I know might seem incompatible on the surface and potentially could be, but you don't want to force the workforce to go outside of that employment area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate that. MR. MULHERE: Gymna- -- MR. WEEKS: Physical fitness. MR. MULHERE: Gyms, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the reason I ask that question is because all of those things are already in the industrial subdistrict. MR. MULHERE: But this is the industrial subdistrict for Immokalee. It's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, so why do you need to bring those things into light? In other words, this is not located anyplace else. Try to put it in English. In other words, the citations that you have here are unique? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. This is -- this is for the industrial district in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I think the chairman's question of, by naming all those uses specifically, are we in some way limiting ourselves -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. MULHERE: -- and they are not limited to those. They only include those uses, as you know. But, I -- for example, the limited commercial, the phrase, a variety of industrial limited commercial and associated uses. The limited commercial is sort of further defined as you move down to say business services intended to serve the needs of employee and visitors, such as, and then it lists some typical uses. Down the road, there's going to be some substantial industrial development with employees, and someone's going to say, this commercial is appropriate in this location. It's not there. And then the staff is going to use that language to justify whether that use that's not there should be allowed in that industrial district. I can't name every use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree with the chair that -- I think I'm agreeing with the chair. What I'll say is that maybe you need to take them out. MR. MULHERE: But by doing that I nun the risk of reducing or having a situation where someone doesn't understand what the intent was in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't they look at the LDC to find out what the intent is? MR. MULHERE: No. You have to look at the Comp. Plan to find out what the intent of the Comp. Plan is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the intent said it was the industrial, distribution, trade and manufacturing, and list -- went up to the semicolon, then they -- to know what those uses are, you could go to a master list like we currently have under our zoning categories in our Land Development Code. MR. MULHERE: You know, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm concerned about unintended consequences. And this language pretty much exists in the code for a reason the way it does in the Comp. Plan today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is for David. And Bob, maybe you too. I'm not sure it's a good idea to pull those things out that had to do with the airport. I mean, some of this is adjacent to the airport. Bob, isn't it in there for a reason because somebody locally must have thought that was necessary? MR. MULHERE: Not the vehicle racing. That's only allowed in the airport, and I don't think we'd want to allow it anywhere elsewhere but where it is allowed right now within that -- within that area. Page 75 161 1Ik� February 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ancillary support to the airport, I mean, you could have a catering company that's running stuff into the airport. MR. MULHERE: That's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the campgrounds, when they are having the racing, maybe that -- I mean, if the local people put these words in, why are we pretending we know more than they do? MR. MULHERE: 1 mean, you could take out vehicle racing and its ancillary uses and leave in uses ancillary to the airport, and that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Remember, they're proposing a new airport designation. Right now the airport is within the industrial subdistrict, so that's why the language appears today in the master plan wider the industrial district because the airport is within it. Since they're proposing a separate designation for the airport, these uses that specifically are accessory to or ancillary to the airport, to me no longer seems appropriate. That should be allowed under the designation for the airport itself, and it does refer to "the airport," meaning the Immokalee Regional Airport. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that makes sense. But my concern is that the citizens groups that reviewed this language, certainly before we did, but they may know something we don't know and they may want something -- I mean, there may be a campground in that area that's adjacent to the airport. MR. MULHERE: But I don't think that's an issue. What happened was that the airport was working its way through the process and onlyjust got their PUD approved, as you know. And after the PUD was approved, we -- we then -- or right before, I guess -- we then created a separate designation for the airport property at the recommendation, I think, of staff. And so that does cover it. I'm not arguing with you as it relates to the term uses ancillary to the airport. I think -- I think if we left that in and took out the rest of the specificity related to campgrounds and vehicle racing, we'd probably then have the opportunity to not have an unintended consequence. There could be something there that might support the airport that's outside of the airport property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But these uses you're not allowing -- you're not noting them in the airport. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's because if we want to get to that, we have language under the airport that really covers it, because -- you can see what's struck through there in the red on the screen -- or yeah, in your handout, it says, in addition to all uses pennitted in the industrial district, allowable uses include other uses deemed to be compatible with the CCAA needs and vision and consistent with the adopted airport master plan. So the presumption there was that the adopted airport master plan would cover these other uses, including vehicle racing and so on and so forth. We could simply add the list of those uses back to the industrial Immokalee Regional Airport subdistrict. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Again -- and this is in the end. There might be somebody -- Penny can maybe verify it. That there may be some buy that's running a campground for race day out there or something that wants it in that district. I mean, we assume everybody was thinking when they made this list up. So before we yank stuff out and can't understand why, we might be missing some points. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then David, and then I got a clarification. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. My question has to do with clusters. I can't remember whether they're development clusters or whatever that terminology is that's appropriate that the EDC was opposing -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, target cluster industries. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. How does that relate to -- MR. MULHERE: This -- these uses are -- include uses that are targeted cluster. Yeah, they include those uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By the absence of that statement, do we prevent the development of that? MR. MULHERE: No, not technically. That's my concern though. My concern -- my concem is --you know, I'm just worried about what's going to happen five, six, seven years from now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate that. MR. MULHERE: When you only say in the industrial district what's allowed is a variety of industrial limited commercial and associated uses, period, there's no examples, no guidance, and some use comes up that we didn't see before, and it happens all the time, and somebody has to make a decision as to whether or not that falls under Page 76 161 1p February 18, 2010 industrial, limited commercial, or an associated use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want you to get there, please understand. I want you -- MR. MULHERE: You know, I don't know what else to say. I can't really say anything else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because of the fact that you nor I nor anyone in this room can foresee what five or seven years from now will, you know, potentially be sought for that area, the question that arises, if you can't include everything, there ought to be a means by which you can -- MR. MULHERE: That's why you put, such as. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Such as, but -- MR. MULHERE: I can only make my best professional argument, and if it doesn't cut the mustard, then I'm still going to go to sleep tonight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not -- I'm not disagreeing with your argument. I want to clearly understand that what you're achieving with your argument does, in fact, get there. MR. MULHERE: I know. I know. You're on my side is what you're saying on this one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm not agin' ya. I think the community needs to develop, and I think it's important. 'this, in particular, I think, is very important to get right because of what you want to do with jobs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: If for industrial lands there's only a limited supply --it's pretty large in Immokalee --but one of the concerns that staff would have about the -- the campground as one example, those are not traditional industrial uses, and the concern would be the inventory of using up valuable industrial land, the limited quantity that we have for nonindustrial land use. It's the same rationale for why over the years the county has amended the industrial district to remove commercial land uses. Let the commercial go to the commercial areas, with the exception of some of those that -- like a restaurant that serves as a support function to the employment center within industrial, but leave the industrial lands principally for industrial development. It's a lot easier to have a new designation and new zoning for commercial lands than it is to get new industrial lands, so we want to try to protect those. Unrelated, I think we need to work, perhaps, with Bob on the terminology. That phrase of business services intended to serve the needs of employees and visitors, and then gives examples of day care, restaurants, and convenience stores. No objection to the examples, but the temninology business services is a specific SIC terminology, which means something very different than the listing here. I think wejust need to -- I think we need to just clean it up a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you tell me in the industrial district, how many acres are in here? MR. MULHERE: Overall in the industrial district? I'm sure we could get that for you in just a second. I did want to -- while he's looking for that answer, if I could, I just wanted to point out that there's an awful lot of ag. zone land on the outskirts of the urban area and outside of the urban area that would allow for campgrounds and camping. So there's a lot of room, and the airport itself allows it. So I just wanted to give you some sense of comfort on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So David, while that's -- who's looking it up, David? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Because those are the only residential on the spreadsheet, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from a perspective of your department, do you have any problem leaving in the references to those uses in the IN district? MR. WEEKS: No. I'll tell you one thing I would suggest that we specifically add though, and that would be a specific reference to the industrial zoning district, because that is absent here. So we've identified a lot of uses, and I recognize it says including, but there's a long list of uses, but they may not capture everything that's allowed in the industrial zoning districts. So to play it safe, let's make sure we include that industrial zoning district list of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you get that, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I did, and I'm not going to try to complicate it, but I'd like to give you a little additional information. In the -- the industrial district, the IN district, as we're proposing it, it's 754 acres, but I don't think that gives the full answer you're looking for. So what I would say to you is if you --if you include the industrial district and the Page 77 16 1 IP February 18, 2010 industrial mixed -use district, which is here, and the Immokalee Regional Airport which allows industrial uses, you're talking about a total of 3,099 acres out of the 17- and - change acres. MR. WEEKS: That information's in the staff report on Page 9 near the bottom of the page. I think that may be what Bob's reading from -- MR. MULHERE: Yes -- MR. WEEKS: -- the proposed industrial acreage by category. MR. MULIIERE: --and just by comparison, previously looking at industrial designated lands in the existing hnmokalee Area Master Plan, it was 2,643.5, and now we're proposing just about 3,100. So there is an increase of about 455 acres of allowable industrial -type lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are-- MR. MULHERE: And, excuse me, 100 of that 500 -acre increase is the addition to the airport for the extension. Thank you. "Chat's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, your forecast model indicated it needed 1,600 more acres. But we'll get into that when we get into the supporting data, so -- MR. MULHERE: And I think that's very much tempered by the current economic conditions that probably was not factored in when that was done. So -- I mean, we'll be happy if we can begin to fill up what we're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to --we got a lot of supporting data that we still have yet to go through, and some of the detail and supporting data clash with the analysis we have. MR. MULHERE: You maybe wondering, well, why we didn't update or something. We're only using the best available data. We're not doing any kind of new analysis or new research, new collection of data. We're using what's available, which is all DCA requires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The reason that I actually was asking that question is that we just approved the Immokalee Airport -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- PUD. That was five million square feet of industrial. You've already -- you've always had this industrial subdistrict, which is another 754 acres. And I don't know how many million square feet that will add to industrial. And my questions are actually coming from the next category, you're adding -- you took out of low residential and added it in this additional category of industrial mixed use. MR. MULHERE: We took some out of it, yes. Some out of commerce center, some out of business park, and created industrial mixed use, which is a buffer from the hard -- the heavy industrial and the residential. Immokalee, in our perspective, has too much residential and not enough residential and mixed -use zoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's going all the way to C5, so you haven't -- there is no transition. MR. MULHERE: Well, there is because we also increased the customers center mixed -use district which allows for the -- the full range of commercial uses but doesn't allow the industrial uses. I mean, you have industrial today throughout the county immediately adjacent to residential. It's how you buffer it, it's how you buffer it. But what we've done is tried to put a light industrial, a lesser industrial, you know, immediately adjacent to the airport and immediately to the industrial designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the way we're going to leave B1 is David recommended a few things to be struck. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But basically the use references will stay in. Is that, David, where you're at? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to B2. MR. WEEKS: And the --my suggested addition of specific reference in the industrial zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And we'll work with the agent to clear up a little bit that phrase business services because of the SIC code connotation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And could you get the language back on the screen for us? MR. MULHERE: Oh, sorry. Page 78 161 1 13 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. We're going to move to B2, which is the industrial mixed -use subdistrict. Is there -- anybody have any questions on the industrial mixed -use sub- -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Bob, the -- when you're referencing the C4 and the C5, you know how the -- all these uses inherited, prior uses, in other words C4 inherits C3, C3 inherits 2C. MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that what you intend to have happening here? MR. MULHERE: Yes, but to make sure that we were allowing the C4 and C5 uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially you're allowing the uses of Cl through C5? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I think there will be less demand for those uses, but there's no reason not. They're low- intensity uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would that be a better way to put it, or do you want to make the person realize that they have that inherent use? MR. MULHERF,: Well, if you look at -- I could be wrong, but I think if you go to the Land Development Code and look at C4, it says that all the uses -- at least it used to, and I don't know if it still does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, it does. MR. MULHERE: But all the uses -- okay, I think you're covered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in other words, based on that inheritance, you're essentially allowing Cl through C5? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't you just say it, and then everybody knows it? They have to be smart enough to know that. MR. MULHERE: We could do that. I mean, there's no harm in doing that. As it stands, it is a fact that if you are C4, you get everything from Cl to C3, and if you're C5 -- so by clarifying it, maybe it makes it cleaner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there might be some -- you know, some guy may be wanting to do something as C 1 and doesn't know that, opens this up, sees that, and -- you know, it's -- you know, the inheritance thing. if your intent is to use all those uses, then let's just let them. MR. MULHERE: I don't object to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does that dilute your commercial district by allowing the Cl through C3 and actually suggesting that it can be used in the industrial mixed use? I mean, if you really want this to be for the lighter industrial, C4 and C5, but now you're allowing it CI through C5, won't you see a predominance then of C 1 and the other light uses that could go elsewhere? MR. MULHERE: Only --only if it's an appropriate location from the market perspective for those uses, and I don't think it will be. I mean, there could be some C 1 uses that somebody might -- some office use or some other use. I don't know what it might be that might be appropriate there. But you're going to put a convenience store where it's appropriate to put a convenience store, and the land values are going to be significant that if you don't have to by industrial -zoned land, you won't buy industrial -zoned land. You'll buy land that's more reasonably priced for that use. So I didn't want to -- I mean -- look, the way it was written and intended to be applied, C4, C5, and business park districts would be allowed; the uses in those districts would be allowed. I don't know if it makes any sense to restrict those C 1 -, C2 -, C3 -type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just asking. It's your -- go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you had --let's say for the sake of argument what we know are targeted industries, medical and research -- and I don't know what rehabilitative centers are yet -- but high technology and so forth, are they going to be constrained to be in these places, or can they still occupy lands that they would choose that would be appropriate but through a PUD or -- MR. MULHERE: They can. David, the question was -- and Ijust want you to hear this because -- the question was, if someone wanted to Page 79 161 1p February 18, 2010 come into Immokalee with a targeted industry, are they restricted to those designations -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The subdistrict. MR. MULHERE: -- subdistricts that -- that would allow that use, and generally the answer is yes. There is an altemative without having to amend the Comp. Plan, I'm thinking at least in the urban area, you have a business park district, right? And that can go anywhere'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, before you proceed to answer, let me enhance that question, because we did listen to a gentleman, a fellow by the name of Mitch, who told us about a situation. And you know, I was wondering how we could facilitate such a thing. MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I recognize it's not a direct correlation there, but using a targeted industry that may want to have corporate headquarters or whatever. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I guess my feeling is, there's ample opportunity with what we've put here for these types of uses to go in these locations where we already identified them. The situation that Mitch identified was a corporate headquarter related to the agricultural industry, and we agreed we would look at the ag. designation to address that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me go further then, because what you and I both know -- I suspect others do -- is that with these targeted industries, the idea is you get a core industry in there, and then other like and supporting industries tend to build around it in support of or in -- whatever. And Ijust wondered whether or not you end up with a hodgepodge as opposed to the intended clustering. So that's the real -- where I'm going with my questions ultimately in this. Does that -- does the way this is structured, does it facilitate that? MR. MULHERE: I think it does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does? MR. MULHERE: I think it does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you do, then I'm good. MR. MULHERE: I just did want to get back to C 1 through C5 briefly. I'd like to reserve -- as long as we're looking at things, I'd like to just take a look at that in response to your question to make sure that -- that we're not creating an opportunity where it would be inordinate -- would take away from the commercial district. And I will take a look at that, and maybe that we want to restrict it to more of the C4, C5 uses, and that relates to your question, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good. Okay. So anything else on B2 before we moved to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to find out what rehabilitative services centers were; what is a rehabilitative center? Is that where someone would go and get physical therapy and so forth? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, it could be a number of different things. It could be physical rehabilitation, it could be job rehabilitation, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Employment rehabilitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, your turn. MR. WEEKS: Couple of comments. One Ms. Caron's already touched on, and that was staffs concern about the transition, the stated intent of this subdistrict, to provide a transition yet it allows a rather high intensity of uses that would be next to low industrial -- low residential. Another point -- more of a point of information. Because this allows for a mix of uses from an array of commercial to limited industrial uses, implementation of this would require rezoning to a PUD for either the mix of uses or to just allow those light industrial uses. I use the term light industrial in abroad sense, generic sense, because we don't have alight industrial zoning district. We have the industrial district, we have the commercial districts. We do have a business park district. And I think we have a research and technology park PUD provision now in the LDC as well, which leads me to say, number one, for that mix of uses orjust for those light industrial would require PUD zoning unless the subsequent LDC amendments that will be prepared for Immokalee provides for either a separate Page 80 16 1 1 �3 February 18, 2010 zoning district or overlay that would accommodate these types of uses. Secondly, I would suggest that in addition to the business park district being included, that we also should include the research and technology park if I am correct that there's a zoning district for that. A different point is the business park district itself does have a list of uses, but it also has development standards. And this body reviewed the Naples Daily News PUD a few years ago, and it was relying upon the business park subdistrict and the FLUE, which has standards that are similar to what the business park zoning district has, and that's to require a lot of open space, pocket parks, pedestrian facilities. It's not just, here's a bunch of uses and you're allowed to have them. It's also a certain design that's intended. And as this is worded, which is not unlike the existing industrial subdistrict in the present Immokalee Master Plan for which I see this as a weakness, we don't say, you must comply with those development standards and design parameters under the business park. It only says you can have those uses. And to me that's a disconnect. If you want those uses, then you need to develop a business park subject to those design parameters, not just be able to grab those uses and place them in a totally different context. So I would recommend that if business park district uses are allowed that they only be allowed subject to those design parameters. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, personally, I think -- that's a little bit of where I was going to end up going, David. If in --point of fact, you really want a transition area between your industrial and your residential, and most of this either goes to residential or --some of it backs up to commercial here, but probably Cl through C3. I can't really tell from this right now. It would seem to me, rather than industrial mixed use, that you go business park and technology park. Those are good transitions. It's all the kind of targeted industries you're going for, plus more. So I don't know what you would lose, and the transitions would be better because there would be more open space. They are more parklike atmospheres. There's more things that would benefit the community. MR. MULHERE: I guess what I would say in response is, number one, what you have right now is industrial immediately adjacent to residential. That's what you have right now in most of the circumstances. Industrial immediately adjacent to low residential. I mean, so that's what you have now. We thought we were taking it a little bit better by having this industrial mixed use, a step down in intensity from what you have right now, which is industrial immediately adjacent to low residential. As far as the business park, I don't think that's a bad suggestion. That's why we included that use there. But I will tell you that there's some concern over the inability to use that district over the long time that it's been in place based on some of the standards that are in there, and particularly for Immokalee. So it might be that we might have to look at the business park standards as it relates to Immokalee as part of the LDC amendment process -- not trying to find more work for myself -- but that may be something we need to do to make sure that it is usable. It's no sense if it isn't usable. But we felt that this had a good variety of uses as a transition down from the full range of industrial uses to something less, and then you go to low residential. There are buffer requirements. I mean, again, throughout the county you have industrial immediately adjacent to residential. You have to buffer appropriately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the case where we don't have any straight zoning that will fit this particular example, why don't we label that industrial mixed -use subdistrict IMU PUD and then define it as, if these types of facilities want to be utilized, they then go to PUD? MR. MULHERE: Well, we don't have to label it that way. I think we could just -- I mean, we can -- all of that is ag. zoned, at least I think it is. MR. WEEKS: If I may, Mr. Chair. Ijust want to point out that this IMU down here that's southwest and south of the airport, this is either presently industrial or commerce center -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- industrial, so it's already allowed, intense uses. The new industrial is this narrow strip along the west, northwest, and then the north side of the airport. MR. MULHERE: Ofthe airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we are changing this to the IMU and we don't have any standards for such -- and but -- and obviously we can't force the existing owners to go into a PUD, then what are we going to do? Page 81 161 JA3 February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Well, now see, I -- I guess I would disagree with that. You've got ag. zoning. They're going to have to rezone it. So there's two options. We either write standards, a zoning district -- which I would prefer not to do. I would prefer to require a PUD rezone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those existing guys in those small parcels down along the roadways, they're in an ag. zone still? They're not zoned for the commercial that they're operating under? No. I know up there, but the IMU goes all the way down to the southeast side and around as well. Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Those areas are presently zoned -- a lot of it's that C5. None of that is ag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we're going to be turning all those into an IMU? MR. MULHERE: We're going to allow them to, if they wish to, rezone their property consistent with PMU or use it if it is already in that fashion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I'm worried about having standards, because you're going to have to have a standard that fits all those properties for them to be then consistent with the IMU that they are being forced into. MR. MULHERE: If they rezone it. Under their current zoning, they can continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then from a legal point, could we go ahead and, if they want to change the zoning to the IMU, can we make that a PUD requirement, or their option is to leave it like it is, which is a standard zoning format that they've had for years'? MR. MULHERE: So, you know what, if I could, Chris just raised an issue. I mean, it's true that they could rezone to any district that's consistent with that industrial mixed -use designation, which would include the C4 and C5, and probably the business park and the research and technology park, or a PUD that could incorporate, you know, all of those uses. So they're not limited to a PUD. So, again, we're not requiring a PUD, but if they want to use a mixture of uses, just like is the case today, they may have to go through a PUD zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm worried about how to get there. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, everybody's got an idea that this is the right thing to do. Not everybody's, but let's say there's an idea that this is the right thing to do. David or somebody said a little while ago that it'd have to be basically a PUD because they don't have a straight zoning for this designation. How do we get there then? MR. WEEKS: Okay. Hopefully what I said was, if they wanted to get that mix of uses. I agree with what Bob said because, for example, C4 is allowed. So if someone says, I want just C4 uses, they could ask for C4 zoning only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: But to get the mix of some commercial, some light industrial, or to get just those light industrial -type uses for which there is no single zoning district, conventional, then they would have to rezone the PUD. MR. MULHERE: Which is true really anywhere today if you want a mixture of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we need to state that in this paragraph somewhere that the PUD process would have to be utilized, or is that the only option that's out there? MR. WEEKS: I think it's a given. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, tine. MS. VALERA: Mr. Chainnan, if I may. Then I wonder then if it's really needed to have all these uses spelled out here in the GMP. I mean -- CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Uh -oh. We're going to start that again, huh? Good point. David, that's your call. It's your -- Carolina, you guys are the ones that accepted it in the first one. If you don't like it in the second one, state why and -- MR. WEEKS: This one's a little different because this does not correlate directly with a zoning district. The various -- on Bob's handout, Page 37, where it says, the subdistrict also allows for less light manufacturing, processing, and so on. Some of those uses, many of those uses are allowed in industrial zoning district, but we don't want to -- I don't think the intent is to allow all uses from the industrial zoning district. MR. MULHERE: No. In fact, some of the uses probably aren't permitted in the industrial zoning district. I Page 82 1 I 1,43 February 18, 2010 would caution against that. I feel very, very secure in recommending that you list the example uses in these areas. MR. WEEKS: My point is, there's not a single or even group of zoning districts that we could reference in the LDC that would capture all of these uses. It's going to be some zoning districts, like C4 and C5, and portions of other zoning districts. So generally I would agree with the approach of, why list all the uses, just reference the LDC, what zoning district they can have. But in this case, it doesn't exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in this case you favor leaving the uses in here such that they are? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I do. And we'll get to potentially struggle each time someone comes in and says, well, I'm proposing light manufacturing, and we have a debate on whether what they're proposing is or is not light manufacturing. But I don't see a way around that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing you might want to do is elaborate that, subject to as stipulated in the Land Development Code, and that way they're limited to uses defined in the Land Development Code, or can you not do that? MR. WEEKS: I don't know if these terms are defined in the LDC. MR. MULHERE: No, they're not and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they will have to be for implementation, won't they? MR. MULHERE: Well, you have all kinds of new uses coming up. I mean, you have all kinds of uses that we want to attract that we don't even know about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that certainly leaves the land use open to a lot of subjectivity down the road. MR. WEEKS: It does, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I mean, ordinarily my preference is, if you want C3 uses, just reference the C3 zoning district in your amendment. This is a different animal. MR. MULHERE: We have to have some flexibility. We have to be able to use the interpretative skills that we as professionals have honed over years of experience, and we can take a situation where we don't have an answer and come up with what's the best answer. I mean, I'm trying to help this community have a plan that will help them diversify. And every time we put a -- further ratchet it down, it becomes more difficult. This district should be -- have some flexibility. I'm sure we can figure out when a use comes in that we didn't know about, whether it falls in here or not. And if not, we'll come before you and we'll ask you about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or you'll send a land use attorney in who will argue that he's got a right to do this because of the flexibility that you didn't expect, and that's what we have to worry about, because we hear it -- we get it constantly, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I understand that, but I don't know how much trouble you can get in in this industrial district here. The only question would be a level of intensity, whether some more intense use should be in industrial land or in this land, you know. It's pretty clear what's permitted, if you -- as I look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, in your -- in staffs position, did you accept this in the first round? I mean, in your sufficiency responses, did you have any complaints or concerns? MR. WEEKS: I don't recall. Because of the revisions that have occurred, we might have raised some issues and they might have addressed them. I know the prin- -- oh, yeah. I'm not sure if it was this specific subdistrict or the industrial subdistrict that an earlier version of their petition would have allowed mobile homes, and we objected to any residential being allowed within an industrial subdistrict of any kind. I know we had during sufficiency and continue to have some concern about the transition, because it does state the intent to transition. And I don't disagree with what Bob said. Right now the industrial designation is adjacent to low residential, but the stated intent is to provide transition. And my thought would be lesser intense uses would be more appropriate to actually provide transition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Packing houses and warehousing are the same that's allowed in the industrial district up above, and they certainly aren't much of a transition. MR. MULHERE: But they exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that, but I'm not sure it fits a transitioning attitude, if that's what you're trying to go to. MR. MULHERE: I can tell you that this community, in reviewing this plan, wants those uses to be allowed in this district. Page 83 161 V3 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe your best bet is to leave it all industrial and not create this animal that nobody knows what it is, and now we're going to have to go forward and try to figure it out in the future. MR. MULHERE: But industrial allows more uses than what we have here. This is a step down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, how would you write implementing language, or how would you see the LDC implementing this district use -wise or description -wise? MR. WEEKS: I don't know that we would need an LDC amendment to implement this. It would -- it's going to have to occur through a rezoning, and at the time of the rezoning, the county collectively would be comparing the uses proposed against the uses listed here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that's the case, then I can see a lot of people corning in and saying a lot of things are manufacturing that are more intense than what you may see as a transition. If that's -- if this has got to be the language at the least level, we might want to consider, everywhere where you have the word allows, might have the word may allows -- or may allow. That way there's some relative ability to say, well, that says may allow, and this type of manufacturing was one that was not considered as one that would be allowed. MR. MULHERE: I personally think that's going to create more questions of interpretation when someone says, well, I don't think it may allow that one, but --but hey. 1 mean, Pm just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know, Bob, I'm just -- this is -- MR. MULHERE: I'm trying to figure out what is the objection to a step down in intensity? I recognize every one of these districts is going to require some interpretation at some point or another, every single one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do you see this as a step down in intensity? MR. MULHERE: Because it's got less allowable uses than the industrial district which is immediately abutting the low residential right now today and, in fact, is in airport industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as some of the uses in the industrial district above it, they're just as intense as the ones that are now being allowed in this one below it. MR. MULHERE: Some are, and -- but we believe that those can be appropriately buffered, you know. And if you want to use a mixture of uses, you're going to have to come in with a PUD, and you're going to have to demonstrate how you're adequately buffering against your adjacent property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we need to move on past this one and give it some more thought for the final read, because I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it yet, but maybe there's going to be more language and things added as the future -- you guys work it out. MR. MULHERE: Let me ask you a question. Would it give you some sense of comfort if we actually required a buffer, a substantial buffer, in the Comp. Plan adjacent to low residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure what everybody else's concerns are. I'm trying to figure out why you need to create this hybrid to begin with, that's all. 'that's kind of where I'm at. Based on everything now that we've read and the intensities there, some of which are the most intense ones used in the industrial, and they're going to be allowed because they're there now, but because they're listed here, they're going to be allowed to be recreated. MR. MULHERE: And the reason is because the industrial doesn't allow also that commercial mixed use that you have in here. This is a district that allows a mixture of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just not sure you'd get the transition. That's why I'm wondering why it's worth it, but -- MR. MULHERE: You know, I guess I wish I didn't use the word transitional. We wouldn't be having this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'd have to have some reason to want to change it to an IME over IN. MR. MULHERE: It's the mixture of uses. It's the mixture of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments on B2 at this point? I think, Bob, the best thing to do is, we're going to come back for a re- discussion. Might be feeling a little bit better about it by that time. B3. Anybody have any issues on the Immokalee Regional Airport subdistrict? Could you put that language back on here? You see the last line, it says, other uses deemed to be compatible. I would just say compatible and consistent with the adopted airport master plan. We don't know what the CCA's needs or visions are, and I don't know how can you have an article subject to that. MR. MULHERE: Say that again. Okay. Page 84 February 18, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the word -- the second line up, see after the word compatible, strike "with" all the way down to "the," compatible -- there you go. Compatible with the adopted airport master plan. Wouldn't that be what you -- MR. MULHERE: I'm going to suggest, as may be amended, because they're going to amend that plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. But I think that's a better way to state it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any issues on 133? If not, we'll move to the overlay's features. Now, this is a rewrite again, so we're going to have to turn on the other pages to take a look at it. Cl, and that pops up on Page 37 of the rewrite. MR. MULHERE: There isn't a great deal of change here, or I don't think substantive -- I don't think there was a great deal of substantive change in the difference in what you had and what you see except that we would probably need to potentially remove the reference to density and intensity blending depending on what we do with that. There is a limit -- we did add a limit, which does make sense to me -- that would limit the density in this Lake TratLord/Camp Keais Strand system overlay to four dwelling units per acre, which is already allowed in the low- residential subdistrict, but we're not going to grant any bonuses in that area because we don't want, you know, higher development in that -- in that location and that. And it -- let's see. What else did we add? We added a provision that would clearly grandfather, protect, vest, whatever, the little bit of development that has already occurred in there that wasn't subject to these. So there are -- there is a little bit of development on the edges that's some ag. clearing and, I think, some houses, and so they're exempt from it unless -- as long as they were legally -- legally cleared, and that's the standard language that we use in the code for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Bob, we reference to, in the first paragraph there, to density bonuses on the end of it. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that means the by -right provisions do not apply? MR. MULHERE: That would be the way they would -- I would, yeah, interpret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, is that concurrent with your read of it? You're still looking -- we're on Page 37 of the new write. I know you haven't had a lot of time with this. MR. MULHERE: I can tell you that was our intent. No density bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Including no by right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And this came during the EAC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While Dave's taking a look at that, I've got one more — MR. MULHERE: We could clarify that. We might want to just make sure we clarify it. MR. WEEKS: The question was about the last -- the last sentence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last couple words on the first big paragraph, it says, are not eligible for any density bonuses. I want to make sure that includes, not the by -right provision as well. That's all I was asking. And is that language sufficient to ensure that, because that was the intent not to include that. MR. MULHERE: I believe it, at least --it falls --some of it falls under the density bonus provisions. We'll have to check, because I think it would apply to that. MR. WEEKS: I know we were discussing earlier under the density rating system the density bonus of four units per acre versus, I think it was Paragraph 1 C or D that was the -- to get you to the base density. And I would think of that as a bonus. But maybe for clarity, just say, not eligible for any density bonus, including by right. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that'd be safer to do. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last paragraph, it talks about -- whoa. MR. MULHERE: I know. It's a little hard to do this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're doing a lot better than Patrick. Could you scroll down to your last paragraph. Page 85 161 February 18, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. MR. MULHERE: Seminole reservation language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. See where it says, if development on a Seminole reservation severs the connectivity, my questions was about what the word severing means. Does it mean 100 percent, 10 percent, restricts? MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Severs means to cut apart. Yeah, technically it would mean 100 percent, but I don't know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 don't think you mean that though, because if they cut 99 percent of the water flow and don't have wetlands anymore, what have you got left? MR. MULHERE: I mean, does the word functionally --does the word substantially --I'm just asking a questions, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, substantially is just as ambiguous. Functionally, I guess a wetland can be determined to be functional or not. Maybe that's the best word. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you want to say completely, you could. MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think we do. I think we -- I think we -- you know, if we have a — I guess for lack of a better way to describe it is a -- lack of function for that wetland - connected system due to something that occurs in the reservation, that would sever it, so -- so if we say functionally, I think that clarifies it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The flow is going east to west. So if the Seminoles did do something, that would just create an isolated wetland on the other side of it. I don't think it would destroy it. MR. MULHERE: The rest of it wouldn't, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what is this saying? If the development severs the connectivity east of the reservation, the wetland protection measures will not be applied to those severed eastern lands. So then, Paul, what you're saying is, those lands still are valuable wetlands, so why would the reservation -- why would the protection measures not then be applied? MR. MULHERE: Because they wouldn't be part of the system. They'd be severed from the system. And these are to apply -- they'd still have to adhere to all wetlands, state, federal, Collier County; just the additional measures, the greater wetland protection measures are intended to apply -- this came from staff. I didn't -- environmental staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it doesn't matter. We still can question it. MR. MULHERE: No, I know that. I'm just telling you that there's a reason why I think they wanted that included, because I think there's no value to that end of the system once it's severed from a system -wide perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what that means though is that wetlands connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay would no longer be part of that system overlay if they were severed by this -- consistent with this language. Okay. And if they were severed by this language, what would they then be controlled by? MR. MULHERE: That was Morse code. That was SOS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From who? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From Terri. MR. MULHERE: Sorry, I couldn't resist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. It's not been hard enough on you today, I can tell. MR. MULHERE: They would be controlled by the existing wetland protection mechanisms. Let me say, those that are not within the reservation would be controlled by those because those within the reservation — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are controlled by them? MR. MULL IERE: Yeah, we have no control over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, is that the way you understood it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I can understand the logic of it from the county's perspective. My understanding is that the Seminoles are going to use that -- preserve those wetlands as part of the tourist thing that Page 86 16 1 1k3 February 18, 2010 they're planting to develop, but we don't know until it happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And I think the word functionally is good because I think it gives some evaluation. At least you can do an evaluation and determine, is that -- has that occurred? Is there a loss of function? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the other item -- does anybody have anything else on the C4 portion of the overlays and features? Okay. How about -- oh, David? MR. WEEKS: The -- well -- it -- okay, I'd like to buy a vowel, please. MR. MULHERE: It sounded like you had a lot of vowels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been a long day. MR. WEEKS: Boy. Policy -- bear with me. This -- so I get my point out. Policy 5.1.7 of the original submittal provided that essential services were allowed in all land -use districts, and then in Bob's handout version that's been stricken. In most but not every district or subdistrict it provides that essential services are allowed, which we have no objection to, we support. But I think the industrial subdistrict, one or more of those, fail to include essential services, and I would suggest that we add it. That's more of a global comment. Now, specific to the overlay that we're discussing, I don't think -- it's silent to essential services, and I would suggest that we add language similar to the conservation designation that allows a very -- allows essential services on a very limited basis, because after all, the objective here is to protect these lands. They are in same vein as conservation lands. And if it's silent to essential services, that certainly begs the question that essential services would be allowed without elimination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good item. MR. MULHERE: So the conservation where we talked about designating lands conservation; is that what you're talking about? MR. WEEKS: I'm thinking of the conservation designation in the FLUE. I can look that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to add an allowance for limit essential services in this overlay? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Again, the concern would be, without language to the contrary, if someone came in saying, well, we want to X, Y, Z essential service, I think staff would be hard pressed to say no, even though that might appear and, in fact, be contrary to the intent of the protection measures for these very lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, you have any problem with that? MR. MULHERE: 516? Okay. What page is that on? Let mejust get to that. I mean, what I thought we were going to do, and maybe we didn't -- I just thought it and didn't do it -- so let's just take a look at it -- was that we were going to -- other uses provided -- it should say provided for in the Collier County Future Land Use Conservation Designation. Does that not cover that? So, basically, you have no conservation - designated lands right now in Immokalee. MR. WEEKS: Right. MR. MULHERE: But as lands are acquired, or even those that have already been acquired, they will be then designated conservation. And it says here, inclusive of public access and passive recreation and other uses provided for in the Collier County Future Land Use Conservation Designation. My thinking was that the Collier County Future Land Use Designation, conservation, limits essential services. MR. WEEKS: I can't read this. MS. VALERA: Bob, actually the Land Development Code has restrictions of the types of essential services in conservation. MR. MULHERE: I thought we did that in the Comp. Plan as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, just before --something just dawned on me --and excuse me for going off on a completely different tangent. Kady, I know you're probably watching us, and we took a break a little earlier than I had indicated, and if you still need facilities management to get in here, we can accommodate that at any time. You've just got to let me know when. So I know she's monitoring this show. And we were going to try to break around -- closer to three o'clock. We broke a little early, and during that break I think facilities management wanted to come in and set up this room Page 87 161 10 February 18, 2010 before they left for the day. They're still welcome to do that. If you're listening, just let us know, stick your head in the door, and we'll break for a while while you set up, and then we'll resume. So with that in mind, Bob and David, go ahead. I'm sorry, David. It was your turn. MR. WEEKS: I didn't follow all of what Bob was saying about the conservation designation uses. But if it -- if language is added to the overlay to capture the uses in the conservation designation, that would be sufficient. The conservation designation does include aside from the various other limited uses. One provision is essential services necessary to ensure public safety, and then the other is essential services necessary to serve permitted uses identified in the list of allowable uses above, and it goes on and on. But, again, it's much narrower than the typical broad allowance for essential services. MR. MULHERE: So I'm going to suggest -- I know it's not typed exactly right. But I'm going to suggest that in the language that we add a phrase to the existing language, which reads, for the purposes of conservation inclusive of public access and passive recreation and other uses, including essential services as permitted therein provided for in the Collier County Future Land Use Conservation Designation. So I think that would be very clear that the limitations that exist in the conservation designation in the FLUE apply in the Immokalee conservation designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we, right now, take a break for about eight minutes till four 4 o'clock. And we may cut it short when we finish this section and then go over what we need to do on the 4th. But I want to go over and make sure facilities management didn't need to get in here. So let's break until four. We'll come back in eight minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. We're a little late, but we're back on. And we have our setup complete for this evening's meeting, and roll. We left effort Page 49, Item Cl. I believe we completed that discussion. We need to find out if there's any discussion on C2 or C3. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Actually I don't think we did finish Cl. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Bob and I spoke very briefly during the break. Bob was discussing making some changes to policy 5.1.6 which pertains to acquisition of lands within the -- I'm not sure if it's specific to wetland overlay, but anyway -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. WEEKS: It's not, okay. What I was suggesting, and Bob had said he agreed with, was actually within the wetland overlay itself, we would add language that provides that essential services within the overlay are allowed as per the conservation designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what you guys were starting to work on when we went on break. That works fine. Anybody have any concerns? Okay. Let's look at C2, Seminole reservation, SR feature. Does anybody have any issues there? How about staff? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. C3, urban infill and redevelopment area feature; any issues there? Okay. Now, with that, that takes us to the end of the standard language of the Immokalee Master Plan. That does not get us through the revisit to the several or, if not more, policies and clauses that were -- we went through the first time we didn't have additional information from, and let me kind of indicate what those are. There was a community redevelopment area plan that was referenced, which we didn't have; there was a certified sites program that was referenced that we didn't have; the walkability study by the MPO; the federal enterprise community, whatever that is and the HUBZone, policy 1 11. MR. MULHERE: I could go over some of these. If you want, I could give you some updates, and it should be relatively quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'd like to do is read all the stuff that's referenced and take it out, one or the Page 88 161 U3 February 18, 2010 other. MR. MULHERE: We've got several of the documents which we can forward to each of you via email; it may have already happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And we've copied staff on those. That is the enterprise zone and the hub. Okay. So the state enterprise zone -- anyway, we've got some documents coming to you. I can talk to you about the certified sites program because I have some information on that. The community redevelopment plan was the one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 712. MR. MULHERE: But that was the one where the document really only had substantive data related to Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I said, well, give us the right one. When I asked for it previously and you gave it to me, the one you gave me was for GatewayBayshore, or Bayshore /Gateway, and I just said, well, find the right one and get it to us. MR. MULHERE: And we have that, so we're sending that to you as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we need to read that. It's a referenced document. MR. MULHERE: So maybe I could talk about the certified sites program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can talk about it. I still want to seethe written part of it. MR. MULHERE: There isn't anything. Well, I can --I can send you what the EDC has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you can't reference it. I mean, how do you reference something if nobody can look it up, but if they have to -- MR. MULHERE: I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they have to find Bob Mulhere and ask him. MR. MULHERE: No. Well, it's the EDC. It's a program they run. I can get you that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm thinking that it's kind of getting near the time when I have to leave. Maybe if you could just list the things -- MR. MULHERE: He was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was doing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that you were starting to do, but let's not go into actually talking about them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We weren't. I was trying to get it across to Bob that he can talk about it all day long, but the -- or the master plan could be changed. This item is -- please refer to Bob Mulhere if you can find him in Collier County somewhere. MR. MULHERE: I don't think I want that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Get us the written documents that you keep referring to. That's a necessity for those items, and that will be first up on our discussion -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on March 4th. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So you named five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. I'll walk them quickly. Community Redevelopment Area Plan as it pertains to Immokalee, the certified sites program, the walkability study by the MPO, the -- in policy 111 you refer to two others called the federal enterprise community and another thing called the HUBZone, H -U -B, and then, of course, ordinance 03 -80 was referred to. I can pull that myself, but if you have it, fine, send it to us. And then the last thing that I want to emphasize to you is you -- in your supporting documentation, and I saw it in the Florida Enterprise Zone, you referred to the Immokalee Master Plan economic analysis. That was the one done by the state. They refer multiple times in that document to the data they use for the FIRM. And, again, I'd like to see what data they used to produce your economic analysis to make sure it's consistent with the data used in this master plan. MR. MULHERE: Now, we're chasing a hor- -- we're chasing our tails. We can't get anything else out of the university. We've emailed the author. He has no data. He has no backup data. He doesn't have access to it. Page 89 161 10 February 18, 2010 CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. That sure does --hurts the credibility of the document, but we'll have to deal with that. MR. MULHERE: I'mjust -- I can't manufacture it, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I don't -- if you can't get it, you can't get it. MR. MULHERE: We talked directly to Dr. Jackson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the issues 1 have on my list. If anybody else -- Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The Florida Trade Port Parkway, I'd like to see the map of it. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Oh, that's right, too. You're right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then the little square of land that Brad was talking about that was commercial. Remember that little pink -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the -- it's the commercial that we're suggesting you might want an RT for that. You guys were going to look at that. But that's an issue to do with the master plan that -- you know what he's talking about? MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do. It's just east --it's in that primary panther area, isn't it, or close to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. This was the piece -- oh, you weren't here. MR. SCOTT: I'll fill him in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You'll fill him in, good. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing -- and, Bob, could you do this? You know how you're making the two maps, the past and the future, the proposed map? Could you put those at the same scale. They've very close to being the same scale, so it's not a matter of fitting, but -- and the reason is, it's easy to hold it up to the light and kind of see the differences. MR. MULHERE: You know, I assume that we can. I would know of no reason why we couldn't do that. I thought we already had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just say yes and cross your fingers. We'll just hope for the best. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It maybe that we --well, whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can do it, trust me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the list of documents. When we come back next time, we'll go back over those policies we didn't finish, and we need to go through the stab's report, the charts to do the staffs report, and then any questions from the supporting documentation, and I think that wraps up what we need to do on the 4th. And I expect it'd be about a half a day or less, and then we'll -- by that time we need to have a schedule from staff and the County Attorney's Office and you as to where you think this thing is going for its next meeting. And, David, you had something you wanted to throw in? MR. WEEKS: Just to mention, as far as walking through the element, the one thing we have not discussed is the Future Land Use Map, and I didn't know if you wanted to consider that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think on the 4th. I think we've had enough today. MR. WEEKS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The only thing that I would add or would like to add is that I would like, as you walk through the staff report, for the staff to be able to -- and I'm sure they will be able to -- recognize or, you know, specifically indicate where we have addressed issues through this process either ourselves or through the discussions we've had with you. That would -- that's going to change, you know, their position on a lot of stuff. And we've had discussions with them, but I'd like to see that, you know, become part of the record, density reductions and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but, Bob, I really think that by the time we get done on the 4th, if staff hasn't got an issue, they don't need to bring it up. By the time you come back to us with your rewrite, staff will come back and say, well, through this whole process we resolved all these issues. We only had these remaining, if any. MR. MULHERE: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAW: Okay? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That work for everybody here? Is there a motion to continue to March 4th -- Page 90 161 ]. 3 February 18, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at 8:30 in the morning at this location? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are continued to the 4th. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PL ING C � O IS SON V�' (��,_�1 MARk STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on rh 1(� 1 (� t 2 `' , as presented (/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM and TERRI LEWIS. Page 91 RECEIVED F ✓-- APR 0 6 2010 colatto 5-11 of Gm Wv corn =nis'sionors TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida February 26, 2010 1 Feb i ary 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti David J. Wolfley Karen Homiak Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director Misc. Corres: Date: Page 1 item #: —___ es to: 161 1 A� February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to a continuation of the very tedious meeting of the Land Development Code Amendments, February 26th, 2010. Everyone please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONERVIGLIO'I'IT ConmussionerKolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTT Chairman Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Vighotti is present. Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Commissioner Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Cominission absences. We are meeting once a week for the entire month of February. We're actually meeting more than the Board of County Commissioners meets in that regard for meetings. So we all have to be aware that we need to be here once a week starting in March. The first one or next one up is March 4th. Does anybody know if they are not going to make it here on March 4th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll still have a quorum, then. Our regular meeting is March 4th but on that particular day we're going to be doing the hnmokalee Master Plan. The meeting that we have after that will most likely be a continuation of this meeting on March 10th. I won't ask you today if you are going to be here on the 10th, I'll ask you that on the 4th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What a guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that we have our March I Sth is a regular meeting, and I'm not sure what that is going to involve yet. I know we have a couple issues on it. So that will be our next regular meeting. And we have another continuation of this LDC meeting, if we don't finish on the 10th, March 24th. The reason we have all these meetings is because we don't seem to have a code that wants to stay consistent. Wejust got another package given to us today. It's the third package of a pile, more of code amendments. We already have Package 1 and 2. I'm certainly not faulting staff on any of this; it's just the way things seem to have evolved. Every year we talk about having way too many amendments. 1 honestly wish we didn't have so many because it's sure making it difficult for people to know what our Code is. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Page 2 February 261010 With that in mind, we have some changes to today's agenda that are being put off til March 10th. The first one is the very first thing that was supposed to be up, Section 2.03.03.E.1. It was a private amendment for the C -5 Commercial Surgical Manufacturing. That particular item was requested to be put off to the March 10th meeting. I didn't see any reason why we should object to that. Is that okay? Anybody have any concerns? If not, the other one that was discussed for being moved to the March 10th meeting and Mr. Mulhere is here to, I believe, confirm that. Yesterday, 1 think, or the day before, there were some staff responses to the requested changes for the hmmokalee Deviation Process. And, based on those, I suggested to Bob, rather than us beat those up back and forth and try to understand them at this meeting, that he first try to work out those with staff and come back with a boilerplate of what their -- where they are, you know -- where they agree and where they don't agree, so we haven't got to go through all that in the process. I think that's what you're going to do. Is that right, Bob? MR. MULHERF,: Yes. Bob Mulhere, for the record, representing the Immokalee CRA on this. I did talk to my client, Penny Phillippi, and rather than occupy three or four hours of your time, it's best for us, I think, to -- although she wasn't very happy, she agreed the best thing for us to do is to get with staff and see what issues we still had that were of separation. And I've already spoken to Susan a couple of times and we're going to meet on Monday to try to finalize that. My objective would be to get a revised document out to you all by Wednesday or Thursday, which would give you enough time before the 10th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if you find you need more time and you want to move it until the last meeting in March, I mean, that's Pine, too, Bob. I think we're served better if -- MR. MULHERE: You are right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you guys work out your differences and we focus on where everybody is in agreement and not, and then step forward like that. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, if anybody is here today for the Immokalee Deviation Standards, they are going to be at least off until the 10th. That was 2.03.07.G. It was Page 1 of the second book. And I believe there is one more item. County Attorney is reviewing Ordinance 08 -64. It's a proposal that starts on Page 85. And I honestly don't -- I think it's 85 of the second book or the first -- it doesn't matter. Whatever Page 85 deals with Ordinance 08 -64, I believe that's going to be put off until at least March 10th as well. Is that right, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think those are the only changes. Are there any other changes that staff is suggesting to be delayed from today's meeting or are we set to go on the rest of it, in order, as it's written? MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes. We have no other changes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a question. Page 85 in which book, did we say? MR. KLATZKOW: That was my book, but I got so many now. This was the parking exemption. COMMISSIONER CARON: The parking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it looks like it's in the first book, from what I can tell. Okay. These books, in the future, and I know this won't affect this amendment cycle, but maybe we ought to run a continuous series of numbers instead of starting each book over with one, or two, dash one, so we have a Book 2 starting with Page 1, something of that nature, to keep a better track. MS. ISTENES: It is actually one book. It just, you know, it sounds like a lot, but it's just divided, otherwise it would be in one, huge book. So, hopefully, it's making it a little bit easier for you to at least keep track of the amendments by having them separated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem I would suggest is that we start the numbering over with each piece, Page 3 uj26, 2e maybe just run the numbers in order. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First item up is a private amendment. It's Subsection 2.03.04.A. 1.a. Industrial Zoning Districts, Tony Pires. Tony, I think the best thing, since it's yours, you can present it. We'll hear staffs comments and then we'll go into questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are we on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 57 of Book 1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. And it came to pass. MR. PIKES: Ray, do you want these? MR. BELLOWS: Those are extras. MR. PIKES: I have enough papers in my tiles also for the Planning Commission. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Planning Commission. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo. And I tiled this particular private amendment and request the favorable recommendation of this amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. The subcommittee of DSAC and DSAC in its entirety have unanimously recommended this petition and the code of amendments, changes, for approval. Previously provided with the application, some of the rationale and basis for the proposal is outlined in the original submittal, that the proposed language and the uses outlined are consistent with and no more intense than the -- a number of existing uses that are permitted uses in the current I industrial district that are deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore we believe these proposed uses would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are, in tact, compatible with the Industrial District and the other uses. I e- mailed to you, the board members -- the commissioners, on the 24th an additional set of SIC codes with outline of additional uses, I believe, are once again, similar to this in intensity and are consistent with the growth management plan, again, by virtue of them being listed as permitted uses in the industrial district. By way of example, auction rooms is outlined in the submittal, that SIC Code 5999. It is listed as an allowable use, permitted use, in the industrial district. Dinner theaters and tea rooms. Now, I know the staff has stated in their staff report a number of issues about compatibility, and that they have stated that the, quote, unquote, retail uses or quote, unquote, commercial uses in the industrial district are there to support the industrial uses. In other words, you have a little snack bar so the workers can go there. You have a little bank so the workers can go there. Dinner theaters, I think, are of a different type of use. Typically you don't see those, I would submit, in industrial. So again, that use is -- and tea rooms, I'm not sure how many tea rooms we have in the industrial districts in Collier County, quite frankly. And I can't imagine the 6 -foot five, 300 -pound construction guys going to a tea room. Now, maybe they do. I'm not sure I can hold the cups properly. Maybe they learned. Coin- operated laundries, and again, typically those are more of a commercial retail operation and are not inconsistent with the industrial district or, again -- a similar type of use. Photocopying services, I outlined, like Kinko's. In this particular property I think it's also important to recognize its location, for a number of purposes, and here is a zoning map. Thank you. And, once again, that's from the zoning atlas in Collier County and it reflects the location of this property in yellow relative to the C -5, and also Pine Ridge Road. And there is an aerial photograph. Yellow is the property. And you can see where it is relative to Pine Ridge Road. It's about 600 feet away from this particular area. Again, we believe the proposed uses are no more intense than other uses and no more inconsistent, quote, unquote, than other permitted uses deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Interestingly enough, there have been a number of discussions and correspondence with staff over the years involving this issue, going back to 2006. And Mr. Schmitt, Joe Schmitt, in December 12th to 13th of 2006, at a county commission hearing on this, where the county commission had tasked staffwith analyzing how many uses of this type are in this industrial district -- and there was a conversation and Mr. Schmitt stated that all of it -- secondhand. And then Page 4 161 1A3 February 26, 2010 there are some arguments that secondhand furniture is really more wholesale operation than retail. And what we have here is a secondhand operation. Mr. Schmitt sent a letter of May 22nd, 2007, and stating that staff determined that the antique mall at that time falls under the used merchandise stores classification. This industry includes stores engaged in the retail sale of used merchandise, antiques and secondhand goods. Again secondhand goods, back in December he stated, arguably, in the merchandise and the furniture area, could be considered wholesale. This type of use that we propose, we believe is very similar to auction rooms and auction houses. David Weeks, in his memorandum, made an observation stating that, historically the zoning code, 1982 and prior, allowed more commercial uses in the I District than today's Land Development Code. And, to my take of things, that would mean that more commercial uses that used to be in the code, not being deemed necessarily, were not incompatible with industrial uses, but the board made a policy decision to not to have them in there. And I believe, from the historical background of this, the limitation is a concern with regards to preserving the, quote, unquote, integrity from a vacancy standpoint and availability standpoint of industrial zoned space in Collier County. I think you all know, if you go through the Pine Ridge Industrial Park, you go through the industrial parks on J & C Boulevard, go to the industrial district off of Airport Road, off of Radio Road, huge vacancies. I think the rationale in the past was that there was a shortage projected of industrial space in Collier County. I do not think you have seen that same rationale today. I think that was part of the rationale why this type of use should not be allowed in the industrial district, the one that we're proposing today. Susan Istenes, in her staff report, made a number of observations that we -- I think worth a comment on. One, at Page 3, she states, commercial building vacancy rates located in commercial zoning districts are currently relatively high. What is not stated in her report is the same holds true for industrial. Additionally she states that maintaining the integrity of the industrial zoning district offers protection of existing manufacturing and industrial operations from the encroachment of incompatible, nonindustrial land uses in occupancies that might impede ordinary business operations. I think that's broad and speculative, and we believe that this use, propose uses, do not affect the integrity of the industrial zoning district. Also, staff has indicated, Ms. Istenes, that the proposed commercial retail land use is not comparable to those uses permitted by right in the industrial zoning district. I believe, by virtue of the SIC code and the materials previously provided, that it is in fact comparable to those. Non - industrial support services are listed, like barber shops and others. Again, we've listed other uses that, really, I would not consider them to be industrial support services. I would consider a large number to be non - industrial. So this a not plowing new ground. Additionally, she states in her report at Page 4 that retail, commercial and industrial land uses are not compatible both in their form and function. However, I believe the code by itself, by allowing the various uses in the industrial area, shows that they are, in fact, compatible. The -- also states in their conclusion that a variety -- the proposed amendment will open up the industrial zoning district to allow a variety of retail land uses that are currently only permissible in commercial zoning districts, thus competing with industrial land uses. Again, I don't believe there is any competition. I don't think that there is any competition. It's 10 or 15 years out. Again, from the availability of industrial space that we have in this county, the huge vacancy rates. If you go up and down Shirley Street, Mr. Halter indicated to me this morning, he's been there since 1998; he has not seen the level of vacancies in the industrial district since 1998. It's worse than before. With regards to the Southwest Florida Industrial Market, I think we all know that it is in deep trouble, and in a report that was online in Florida Real Estate Journal of December 15, 2009, relating to the Southwest Florida industrial market, states that the overall vacancy rate in the Fort Myers/Naples industrial market rose to 17.5 percent during the quarter, up 1.7 percent from the second quarter of 2009. Overall demand remains at historically low levels with leasing activity during the third quarter totaling a negative 254,000 square feet. This decrease in leased volume is related to the continued slowdown of the general Page 5 161 1A3 February 2 6, 2010 economy and, in particular, limited construction related employment. Overall absorption, another testament to the decline in tenant demand, also fell significantly for the third quarter. As can be expected with such a dramatic quarter over quarter increase in vacancy, the market recorded 156,881 square feet of negative absorption. So again, the reason I mention that is that, in the past, part of the rationale for -- in addition to the issues about alleging incompatibility, alleging inconsistency was that we need to make sure we have adequate industrial space in this county because we're going to run out. I don't believe we're going to run out. I think there is plenty out there and I think that these proposed uses are compatible and consistent with other uses and compatible and consistent in the industrial district. I'm available for any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Tony? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tony, in your proposed wording here, you have in brackets, without limitations as to percentage of gross floor area. Why was that put in? MR. PIRES: The Land Development Code, at the present time, in the industrial district -- and, once again, just for clarification, just to make sure, is that, under accessory uses, B3, states, retail sales and/or display areas as accessory to the principal use, excluding automotive sales and/or display areas, not to exceed an area more than 20 percent of the floor area of the permitted principal use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you are requesting this to be permitted for principal use, thus -- MR. PIRES: Without that particular cap, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would anybody go to that cap, if this was an allowable, principal use? MR. PIRES: Under that category of uses for the one outlined in the proposal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Mr. Pires? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got some questions but I want to hear staffs comments first, and then I'll -- I [might pursue some more questions with you. MR. PIRES: 'Thank you very kindly. 'Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff want to weigh in on thus? MS. ISTENES: Good morning, again. Susan Istenes. I think our analysis is pretty complete in our staff report. David Weeks is here. I think one of the key issues here, obviously, is consistency with the comp. plan. So he would, I'm sure, be able to answer any questions you may have as well, related to the comp. plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions based on the staff report or of David at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tony? MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffs report, and I read it when 1 first got it and I didn't read it again since then, but my recollection is that they are concerned that this will open up a lot of commercial and -- out of industrial uses, and you articulated how you don't see that as that much of a concern in today's market. But let's assume that the market changes and let's assume time goes on. There are some options here that may be explored in order to make sure we don't have an unnecessary use of industrial property by cotmnercial uses. And one of them, I think I had mentioned to you when we had talked one time, and that was, if this were to be approved, on this particular use, because it is considered more commercial than industrial, limit this use to a certain distance from an arterial roadway. We have had similar applications come in. The one most recently was the dealership up on Airport Road, just north of the Dodge dealership there. And, if we did that, I think we would be protecting the heart of the industrial. And 1 am not --if you're closer to an arterial road, it seems to make more sense. And I do believe Pine Ridge is considered an arterial road. Does anybody -- Page 6 161 to February 26, 2010 MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you know the distance of your property from Pine Ridge Road? MR. PIKES: Yes, sir. Based upon the little clicking and measuring on the Property Appraiser's website, it reflects the distance from Pine Ridge Road to the southwest comer of the property where this is located in yellow as approximately 608 feet, approximately 600 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So my suggestion would be that, if we are in favor of this, honestly, with the gentleman being there ten years and with the problems in the economy now, I'm not sure there is, from my perspective, I didn't see that much wrong with it, but I did understand staffs concern. I think if we were to limit it to, the platted tract must be within a portion of the -- the edge of the platted tract, or the boundary of the platted tract must be within 600 feet of an arterial road, that would severely limit the amount of applications where this could occur in Collier County and thus protect more than a substantial amount of industrial in the county and leaving a limited amount open to possible -- this particular SIC code of commercial. Anyway, that's my suggestion. It certainly is open for suggestion and for discussion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good suggestion in general but I'm a little concerned with using the 600 feet because it pertains directly to this. What would that mean to someone who had 700 feet or, you know -- could we not come up with a different number that might be more reasonable for an overall application, such as a thousand feet. Now I'm using an arbitrary number, too, but it is arbitrary on purpose. I think your suggestion is a good one. I just -- what happens when somebody comes in with 650 feet? Do we run into a snag on that? That's my concern. I hope I've stated it correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I certainly understand. If this project had been a thousand feet away, then the suggestion might have been a thousand feet. I was simply trying to get something to work that's been in existence a long time without opening up a floodgate to address the concerns staff had, which I think was a legitimate concern. I don't think it matters, Bob. I just didn't know if we wanted to open it up further. If this satisfies the immediate problem, we may not ever have this problem arise again, and so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yes. And so I agree with that part of it, but I'm aware that it may very likely become an issue as we continue along this path of economic woe, that there may be others. That was my concern in that. I can be happy with the 600 feet, 608. MR. PIKES: Well, and, once again, it's based upon clicking a mouse on the Property Appraiser's website. I don't have a survey that reflects it, so a higher number would be something that would be requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this would have to come back with the proper language inserted, if that's the recommendation of this board. MR. PIKES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the time it came back, I would hope that staff would find out an accurate measurement to know our concern and, at the same time, write it in a manner that -- the 600 feet is to the property boundary of a tract, and it includes the whole tract if the boundary falls within that 600 feet. And they have good ways of massaging that language so it reads right. MR. PIKES: And, Mr. Strain, in your comment you mentioned about platted tracts and if they have to have to be metes and bounds, I think you can say, to the parcel of land and to try to protect against people re- describing their property, and it could be, you know, those parcels in existence as of a particular date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And anything we can do to tighten it up I think would help the concerns, but I don't -- in this economy, I think, if this gentleman is doing a business there, more power to him. I'm very pleased to see that someone is succeeding enough to want to go on and actually put together the time and money it takes to come through one of these hearings to stay in business. Any other questions? Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I just heard Mr. Pires say something. Are you suggesting that perhaps we just put a grandfather clause in on this one, just to allow your guy to continue the use that's been there for a very, very long period of time, but to get the staff concern if this use does -- Page 7 161 3h) February 2 6, 20 10 MR. PIRES: What I was saying was, from the standpoint of any parcel that would qualify, but that you couldn't try to recreate a new parcel boundary after the accepted date. Because a platted tract is easier to control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I think all of that is good input. And as staff is listening, when this gets voted on, if this is deemed the direction to go, they can incorporate as much of those limitations as they can. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 think that perhaps grandfathering this particular business that has been there forever might be abetter way to handle this situation. It seems to bean anomaly. It's been there since '98. I'm certainly not looking to put the guy out of business. Let's grandfather him in without destroying the code. Let's try to maintain some integrity here in the industrial district and in the commercial districts and deal with it that way. The simplest way is often the best way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a way to legally grandfather this in? MR. KLATZKOW: [ think, between now and your next meeting, we can look into that and get back with a recommendation to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if that isn't one that seems to easily work, then would you explore the other recommendation? Is that a consensus from this board? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, and it's actually to staff. I am a fan of allowing this. I think used merchandise shouldn't be, maybe in -- some of the commercial lease, some of the used merchandise I'm picturing. We allow art galleries and all of that in these areas, correct? MS. [STENES: I would have to check on that but l don't recall that art galleries were permitted in industrial areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I can guarantee it because I've been to them, in this industrial district. MS. [STENES: I can look. 1 did want to make one other comment, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. [STENES: Just for the record. This isn't a lawful use so when you use the word grandfathering, you imply that it was lawful atone time and now it's not. It's just not. It's an illegal use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly -- MS. ISTENES: So anyway, I'll work together with the county attorney's office -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I suggested to the county attorney -- that's why we would like you to look at that. And if it is a way to do it and that's a simpler way, tine. But it may be difficult to grandfather something that has never been legal in the first place, even though it's been open. So, maybe, by making it legal, it irons it out, so either way. [ think the sentiment of this board seems to be that this needs to go forward with a positive. Staff has been given direction, two different directions to come back with some or one that, hopefully, fits. David has got that troubled David Weeks look on his face this morning. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Section. Commissioners, [ remind you that, whatever recommendation you make as far as an actual amendment to the code, grandfathering being an exception, because that really is a, in my mind, is a zoning consideration, and in few -- very few instances does the Future Land Use Element dictate to the zoning code how a use is allowed. So, generally speaking, and in most circumstances, a use that is grandfathered is a zoning issue, it is not a GMP, Growth Management Plan, issue. In this particular case, what is being discussed, though, is amending the industrial zoning district which implements the industrial future land use designation. I just respectfully remind you that, whatever your recommendation is as far as an actual change to the code, you'll need to have -- you'll need to make a finding that it is consistent with the industrial designation. And in the staff memo we -- as you've already acknowledged, we do raise some concerns about that consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Page 8 161 1 ,+3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: David, in Mr. Pires' memo, he did point out a couple of instances that seem dramatically inconsistent with industrial zoning. For example, dinner theaters and tea rooms. I would assume, since this has been brought to your attention, you'll be trying to correct that in another cycle or -- MR. WEEKS: I was going to say that -- yes. 1 would take the opposing point of view. Rather than saying these other types of commercial uses are a justification for allowing this additional use, that we should take the opposite approach and say, we need to re- examine those uses and find out, why are they in there? Now, the presumption is going to be because the county commission has approved the industrial district with those uses in there, that, knowingly or unknowingly, the county commission has determined that they are consistent. But I agree with your comment, that it raises the question. We need to go back and take a look at those uses and reevaluate whether they should be allowed or not. Some of the other uses that Mr. Pires has identified, such as the barbershop, I do think they fall within that support commercial category. Those are -- as I noted in the memo, the intent is to allow some commercial uses within the industrial area that seemingly have no relationship to industrial designation but they provide an important service to the industrial users. The industrial designations -- excuse me, the industrial zoning district -- one more time. The industrial areas in the county tend to be very large, typically hundreds of acres. They serve as major employment centers. For that reason we believe it's acceptable to have some support commercial uses. Don't force the employees and patrons of the industrial areas to leave to go get lunch or to take care of certain types of personal business, even a haircut. Retain them within that park. It's better for transportation purposes, for one reason. But again, there are some uses that I have to scratch my head, why is a dinner theater allowed in an industrial designation? Off the top of my head, I can't answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, I think when you trace it back you'll find that they changed the zoning to fit a circumstance exactly like the one here. t know in the architectural standards there was a lot of anomaly stuff, and everything had a business name to it, so that's what you'll find. MR. WEEKS: Last couple of comments, just, really, in the vein of what the Planning Commission was discussing as one alternative, that is, a certain dimension from the external roadway, Pine Ridge Road in this case. The industrial designation used to have very specific language that did allow for lands around the perimeter of the industrial designation to have commercial uses, so as to serve as a transition. That language has since been removed but any existing commercial zoning around the perimeter is still recognized, that is, we didn't make it nonconfomung. The plan still recognizes that. I submit to you that that already exists. There is a strip of C -5 zoning along Pine Ridge Road right now that would function as that transition, just as there is on most, if not every other industrially designated area, there is a strip along the perimeter of C -4 or C -5 zoning, in most cases, that would function as that transition. So, when the discussion about having a certain dimension under the prior language of the future land use element, I think, absolutely, no argument, that that could be found consistent. But, with the language change now, I just -- I question how that decision can be made. But, on the other hand, I certainly recognize the authority of the Planning Commission, and ultimately the board, to make the consistency determination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, how --if you have a recollection, how deep does that transitional area go from commercial to industrial? MR. WEEKS: The plan never specified a dimension, so it left it flexible. Again, with only a few exceptions, because I can't think of one up around the railhead, these industrially designated areas do have existing commercial. The commercial along the perimeter, that C -5 zoning, typically, predated the future land use element coming along and saying, you can have this transition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, before you leave, I hate creating a problem where there isn't one. Can you tell me how many dinner theaters we have in the industrial zoning now? MR. WEEKS: To the best of my knowledge, we have no dinner theaters in the industrial or, I don't think, anywhere, for that matter, in the county any longer. Page 9 161 1 W3 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me how many tea rooms we have in the industrial area now? MR. WEEKS: To my knowledge, none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, before you waste all of your time on changing something that is not impacting anybody, why do we want to do that? And, if we were to have a dinner theater come along, I think we ought to welcome it with open arms instead of saying, no, you don't go here. So maybe -- and I don't think we're hurting the industrial processing. I don't think the coastal area is where the industrial market is going to tum. I think Silver Strand, when it goes, Tradeport, when it goes, the Immokalee airport, when it goes, and where the working -- more of the working population seems to be, is going to end up being our industrial hub. And that may be more to the master planning or desires of Collier County as a whole. Limit industrial internally, yes. But when our road systems get internally clogged and everything else happens, those big semis have to steer around more neighborhoods to get to these smaller little enclaves of industrial, we may find that it's not as desirable where it's located now anyway. So I'm just thinking, let's not create problems or cure problems where ones don't exist. And another thing, if you have a lot of heartburn about this as a Comprehensive Plan issue, it looks like this gentleman's been there ten years. The whole process where his involvement to get to us today started at, what, two, three, years ago, I don't know how long ago, and he's been given, more or less, a grace period to get through this process, maybe, if he's thinking of staying in business for five more years, he gets another five year grace period. And then, all of a sudden, we don't have to worry about the grandfathering, we don't have to worry about the distance, changing the Comp. Plan or changing what you may perceive as a problem, and the Board of County Commissioners just gives them a five -year grace period and it's over with. They have already given him some, apparently, because he's here today without being penalized. Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: In response, I'm not sure what -- let me ask. What does the additional five -year grace period grant the gentleman, other than -- I mean, the ability to operate for another five years, but then what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- I'm trying to figure out if he intends to stay in business forever. And if five years works for him to work his way out of it and it's an easier way to get this accomplished, fine. If he's saying that it doesn't or the applicant says it's unacceptable, they still have an application, then we have to deal with it. I'm trying to think of time frames and solutions to everybody's problem. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was -- I've got to talk about that, then, because I think we're going to see more of these. And if grace period is a potential solution, I would certainly bean advocate for that because it does suggest sunset. And, when things turn around, we can revert to our original intent. So that is something to explore, I truly believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe -- and, Tony, at some point maybe you would get together with staff and talk that over. And, if there is an acceptable time frame in there or with a time frame with an option for more, depending on how badly needed industrial is at the time, I think that's the way to solve this. I'm just looking for options, all of which try to let this gentleman operate where he is at. I think the mind -set of the whole board is there, it's just that we all have different ideas on how to get there and they all need to be explored a little further. MR. PIRES: Thank you. We'll have those conversations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PIRES: 'Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question. I don't know the situation that well. Is this a code enforcement case or something? MR. PIRES: No. Years ago there were some complaints that led up to code enforcement further investigations, but it was put in abeyance by the Board of County Commissioners, in providing the property owners various alternatives. One could be try to go and change the Comprehensive Plan, which is a very expensive, timely process, with -- and it appeared to be staff would not be inclined to even go that particular route. When the cycle came available last year for amendments, then I was looking at the code, I thought, maybe this Page 10 161 4 February 26, 2010 is an opportunity, after looking at all of the uses. So there is no code enforcement case pending over him. There was an abeyance period to December of last year. It has been extended by the board to December of this year. And so, having further discussions about a further time frame as a solution is appropriate and acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this business has a business license that was given to it by the county and everything? MR. PIRES: Yes. And the question is whether or not it's a business license for retail or wholesale basis, and that's the difficulty. I believe it is currently of a wholesale nature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions on this issue, or comments? If not, we'll move on to more exciting things. And the next one up is on Page 143. It's Section 3.05.07.A -B. It's on the preserve standards and definitions. And this was a staff generated amendment. So, Steve, it's -- MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, environmental section, from the engineering environmental comprehensive planning and zoning services department. The amendment -- the amendments here, all but one of them, are GMP related. They are in response to changes that occurred in 2007 to the Growth Management Plan, and particularly the conservation coastal management element. The last time I was here, and the last meeting, I had wanted to go through and see if you had any questions line by line. Did you wish to do it the same way, and see what questions you have, or how do you want to handle this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes. We can start with first page and we'll work our way through it just like we have before. Page 143. Does anybody have any questions on Page 143? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 144. We're still on the staff write -up. Steven, the -- Page 144, 1 know it's further in the document, too, but this right -of -way acquisitions language, one of the nice things about making the right -of -way subject to mitigation, if they have preserves where they could avoid them, they try to avoid them more. This language would completely eliminate any reason for transportation just not to plow down every cypress head that they want to go through, unless you can tell me differently, because they would have no penalty. They have no reason not to. They just go in straight lines. Is that an assumption I should be making? MR. LENBERGER: The County would not impose a restriction on it, no, but they still have to go through permitting with the state and federal agencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how does the county restrict it now? What is it -- without this language, what would happen when -- I can't say Nick anymore. But Nick set the pattern, so let's say Nick wanted to plow down a cypress head because he knew he could get away with it. The agencies -- what did the county do before in regards to stopping him from doing that? MR. LENBERGER: We -- our department does not permit road projects. They would design the roads, the MPO would design the roads and the Board of County Commissioners would approve future roads and they are permitted by the transportation department and eventually they are put into right -of -way. They are not permitted through our department at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, this paragraph, who does it apply to, what department? MR. LENBERGER: I was taking -- this amendment came into being because it was clear and requested for infrastructure to support highways and utilities adjacent to the right -of -way. They were not actually part of the public dedicated right -of -way. And this amendment was put into place to allow that -- also to be clear and to pretty much take the permitting out of the county's hands, our department, and to let transportation permit it. Things that might not be in the right -of -way would be utility lines and also water management areas. The state requires water retention areas for these new highways, and they often are located outside of the dedicated public right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And to put those retention areas in, they basically bulldoze down everything, Page 1 I 161 1 �3 February 26, 2010 build berms around it and apply gravel, or whatever other drainage necessities they need, to accept the drainage. And I know they need drainage, and I'm glad they are having it, but -- so now you are saying the environmental review or sensitivity, as a corridor or a road approaches an area, and all their drainage requirements and edge requirements, are not going to be reviewed by anybody but the very people that are wanting to do this, is that -- MR. LENBERGER: Pennitted by the state and federal agencies. They will require mitigation. And, if those areas are more pristine, it's going to cost the county quite a bit more money to impact those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they are going to already do that, then why do we have this language needed? Can you explain that to me? MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Environmental Services Section. One other way, besides a road building that's in, like, a virgin area, this would be applied would be for an existing PUD or development that has already a designated preserve on site and the county, as part of their expansion project, was going to take part of their property and make it -- what once was preserve, that was required, into stonnwater, for instance. The way the code before this went into the GMP, that PUD, for example, would then become out of compliance. They would no longer meet their minimum requirement for preservation if that area was taken and that development would have to make up that requirement somehow. And this would make it so those people, if they did come into an agreement with the county or state as part of a road building project, would not have to mitigate for that -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chainnan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm pretty sure I know why this is here, but I can't give you testimony. I would suggest you get Transportation in here and tell you exactly why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is absolutely confusing me. if we have federal requirements -- MR. KLATZKOW: This has nothing to do with federal or state requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that. MR. KLATZKOW: But you need Transportation to tell you that because you are not getting the answer here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on Page 144? And we're going to have to defer this particular issue until Transportation gets here. Go ahead. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to nail it down, if an individual on private property wanted to put a road in, they would have mitigation requirements, would they not? MR. LENBERGER: Whoever would be building a road, if they were building it in wetland areas or whatever permitting requirements in the area, there would be mitigation required, private or public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this particular phrase here from Item 33 or Line 33 through 35, especially 35, sets out, shall be exempt from mitigation. You've now said, though, that the state and the fed have their particular. I'm -- this is more than confusing to me, this is concerning, because of the fact that what Susan Mason just testified to suggested that a PUD would be okay, but that certainly doesn't apply in this document. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a very clear answer. If you can get Transportation here, it will be fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's it. MR. LENBERGER: If I may. If you turn to Page 149, we've included an exemption for these right -of -way acquisitions under the exceptions section. And you'll notice it's an exception from the native vegetation retention standards. So that's what this is referring to. It's not referring to the state and federal mitigation; it's referring to the native vegetation retention where this is located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the language on Page 144 does not match the language on Page 149. So now, can you tell me where you are using the language on Page 144, then, to be more exact, otherwise why did we have the language presented on Page 144 in the manner in which it is? MR. LENBERGER: We've expanded the exemptions, right-of-way acquisitions, utility easements and access easements for ingress, egress. These are things that we don't normally require retention of native vegetation for when calculating preserve requirements. Obviously, you know, they could be cleared by adjoining properties which need Page 12 161 1 �3 February 26, 2010 ingress/egress. This is to clarify it. That's why we didn't split the language exactly. We expanded upon it to try to make clearer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to wait for Transportation and we'll explore it further on that particular issue. And if there are no other questions on 144, how about 145. Anybody have any questions on Page 145? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stephen, on the Number 2 on 145, towards the bottom, it talks about a tree count. I'm assuming somewhere in here, and I -- there is a -- oh; it is on the next page, the minimum diameter for trees that have to be included in the count. Does that all apply to that? So a tree count can't be any sized tree, it has got to have a certain diameter to it or a size to it? MR. LENBERGER: Right. We spell that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 145? If not we'll move to 146. Any questions on 146? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The top paragraph of 146, is that reading that we basically have a 30 -foot drip -- MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me. Do you want us to get Transportation here now, for this meeting, or for the next meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know Nick is going to be here this afternoon. We can talk to him this afternoon about it. It doesn't matter. I mean, there is no sense in anybody making a special trip. They've got things they've got to do, and if they are planning to be here today, or someone is, who can answer it -- Nick always has a way of answering things, so we certainly can see what he's got to say when he gets here. MR. LENBERGER: Sorry to interrupt you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 146, up towards the top, it talks about a drip line or within 30 feet of the trunk, whichever is greater. So, basically, if you have a slash pine, a retained required tree, you can't be any closer than 30 -foot to that tree; is that right? MR. LENBERGER: As a base standard, yes. You can't be within 30 feet or within the drip line, but if you look at the sentence after that, it says, encroachment may occur within these distances where evaluation by a certified arborist determines that it will not affect the health of the trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I saw that, and I circled pan of it. Doesn't this have an impact on the minimum preserve setback? MR. LENBERGER: There will be no -- there are no setbacks for retaining just trees. The last sentence in that paragraph says, areas of retained trees shall not be subject to the requirements of 3.05.07, capital H, and that's the preserve requirements, that include the setback requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a tree with a 30 -foot required setback from the trunk of the tree, you are saying it's -- that retained tree shall not be subject to the requirements of 3.05.07.H? MR. LENBERGER: What we're saying is we broke this down into two categories, native vegetative communities -- this came from the stakeholders, and native trees. This is also how Lee County handles it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, we have still got to understand that, that's where -- MR. LENBERGER: That's okay. I'm trying to explain. So the preserve setback is a different issue. Retained trees is to try to preserve the integrity of a tree so it will survive. This is why that distance was put in, 30 feet or the drip line. And we are -- understand, there are instances where you could get closer, and arborists are basically the people who will tell us that. That's why we left an option in there where they can do an evaluation and determination whether it will affect the tree or not. As you know, some trees are more sensitive to disturbance, like pine trees as opposed to hardwood trees as opposed to cabbage palms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may be answering the question, but, I'm sorry, I haven't had enough coffee or something today. You've got a tree that's 28 feet from where someone wants to build, and it's one of the trees that qualifies as a retained tree. The drip line is, say, 20 feet, but the requirement here is you have got to be 30 feet from that trunk. So that means the 25 -foot setback that would be required from the edge of the preserve in which this tree sits would have to be expanded to the distance to make it 30 feet to the trunk of that free; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: It's not within a preserve. Page 13 161 V3 February 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are trees that are not within a preserve, so it only applies to trees not in a preserve? MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why would anybody -- okay. MR. LENBERGER: We --there was concern, and part of the reason the Growth Management Plan was amended, to try to resolve these issues. In the past, areas of trees were determined to be native vegetative communities. And, as a result of that, if they -- if that portion of it was retained as part of the preserve requirement, it had to be restored. And many times, in many areas, the understory has been completed wiped out, there is no mid -story, there is no ground cover that's native, it's been converted to a pasture or lawn, and that was determined to be a hardship on applicants. And staff understood that. We listened to stakeholders and that's why we proposed and they proposed separating it out. If youjust have trees on site and your understory has been eliminated and converted to lawn or pasture, they just retain the trees and the same percentage requirement. But if you have a true native plant community, a native vegetative community, then that would be the preserve requirement. So we broke the two out. The setback to preserve is to protect the integrity of the preserve. For individual trees, you have had disturbance around the tree, it was determined that 30 feet would be a good setback, and/or the drip line of the tree. If your concern is -- I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I am trying to understand it. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the whole purpose of this code is so we can read this and understand what it means. I honestly can't understand what this is getting at. And I'm sorry if it seems simpler, maybe since you wrote it, word for word. I can't figure it out. I'm trying to understand. We have preserve requirements, we enforce those. Now, if you decide to go beyond those preserve requirements and leave a native tree on your property, even though it's not in a preserve, you more or less treat it as a restricted area in which to use your property. MR. LENBERGER: It's not restricted in the sense of use. It's restricted in the sense of constructing something next to it that could kill the tree. If a certified arborist says it isn't going to matter, then you can go closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a house in the Estates. They go clear the pad. I mean, I know all of the Estates isn't a preserve, but let's use this as an example because it's -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, it won't apply to the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. Okay. Let's take a house in Grey Oaks. MR. KLATZKOW: It won't apply to a single - family lot, to a single - family home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What does it apply to? MR. LENBERGER: It applies to developments such as corn mercial projects and the subdivisions. The same that would be required to retain preserves. And what this is saying is, this is an attempt to -- saying, it's not all preserve. You just have trees; just retain the percentage of trees that are required. I mean, part of the flexibility on there, we tried to give leeway and listen to stakeholders. So it's one or the other. It says here, on A on Line 45, general standards and criteria, it says, the following criteria shall be used to administer the preservation standards in all unincorporated areas of the county. And number one is, native vegetative communities. And it talks about that, all naturally occurring strata and then it talks about native trees where the property has been legally cleared and only native trees remain and the native ground cover replaced with lawn or pasture. It's providing some relief, saying the county still gets the benefit of retaining trees on site but we're not imposing the more stringent requirements for preserves on these properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm all for seeing more trees preserved. I'm just worried that we need to incentivize the preservation of trees. This, to me, may be doing the opposite because if you preserve a tree, now you are restricting yourself. And I'm just wondering, will we have the opposite impact we're trying to have with it because you can't go out and force them to preserve the tree if they don't want to because they have already provided the minimum preserve area. Is that correct" Page 14 161 17,,-j February 26, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Let me give you a scenario, I guess, to explain this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Let's just say 50 percent of the property has native vegetation and the other half of the property, other 50 percent, is just pasture with trees, okay. In the old scenario those trees, if those trees are fairly dense, staff would say your whole site is vegetated with native vegetative community, therefore you need 25 of your percent of your site, or whatever the percent was for that particular type of development, we have to put that in a preserve. What we're saying here is that your preserve area, your native vegetation area, your 50 percent, you would have to preserve a percentage of that, say 25 percent, for argument's sake. And, where your trees are, we're not going to make that as preserve; we're going to say you have to preserve 25 percent of the trees. But you don't have to make it a preserve, it's just retaining trees. And we included flexibility inhere. Where it's within the drip line, we try to include flexibility, if they couldn't retain it, you know, where they did. We tried to spell out. We tried to add flexibility along the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I appreciate your example. It helps. Now, how do you or who defines the 50 percent that is considered native and the 50 percent that is considered just trees? MR. LENBERGER: That would be evaluated by the environmental consultant staffwhen the project came in. Usually it's pretty cut and dry, you know, the examples I've seen. Most people like to use the Estey Avenue example. You see the trees there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember that one. MR. LENBERGER: It's all lawn underneath it. That's just trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would this have applied to that Estey Avenue example, since many of us were here when that came up? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the Estey Avenue has got some history with it, as far as legality of clearance, so I'm not going to get into that issue, but let's just assume it was legally cleared, then they would only retain, say -- I don't remember the total acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's say 20 acres, total. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Let's just say it was 25 percent. 25 percent of the trees would be retained as a -- creating a preserve area equaling 25 percent of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you used the word preserve again. We have Estey Avenue. That particular site is on the northwest corner. It's been -- let's assume it's been previously legally cleared and let's assume it's 10 acres. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have remaining a bunch of standing, large trees. Those trees, because it's not native preserve, because it was cleared, you are going to require 25 percent of those trees to be saved? MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they wouldn't be in a preserve? MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you used the word, preserve, and you said you were going to preserve the trees. MR. LENBERGER: I'll say retained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm confused again. You are going to save 25 percent of the trees. And, of the 25 percent you save, you have got to be a minimum of 30 feet from the nearest trunk? MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Unless you have an arborist evaluate it and saying that it's okay to get closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. Am I the only one that didn't understand that? I guess so. Well, now I get it. But thank you. I appreciate you walking me through it, because I just didn't follow it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Page 15 161 1.,-3 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's say, for the sake of argument, we use that same example, that structures were ultimately built there and they had an arborist certify that they could be closer than 30 feet. Reality is that very often, in insuring the buildings, the insurance companies require that the branches be trimmed back to avoid destruction to the building in windstorms. What are the implications there? MR. LF,NBF,RGER: This amendment doesn't address the trimming. We would -- I would assume the trees would be trimmed according to arborists' guidelines, and we would -- we don't regulate that here. This is retention of the trees. The tree trimming would have to be done, hopefully, by a professional. The professional is going to evaluate the distance. I would hope that an arborist would trim the tree properly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think hope is not a good word here. MR. LENBERGER: We don't regulate -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We bring it to the edge in terms of requirement and then we let it drop off into space because, quite frankly, it would be a lawn company that would be hired to do that. Whether they have certification or capability is a question that often is raised. MR. LENBERGER: Are you suggesting we increase that distance? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm suggesting that we're not yet there, to where it is you want to get because it's a set of arbitrary standards that, in reality, you're going to meet with another set of arbitrary standards, and you are going to have a problem. You are going to end up with code cases; you are going to end up with issues. So I don't think you have satisfied -- I don't think you have achieved your results. MR. LENBERGER: Well, also, too, though, if the tree dies, we do have criteria for replacing the tree, if it dies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 146? If not, we'll move to 147. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you drop Paragraph 5? Well, former Paragraph 5. ht's been crossed out. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. I'm looking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: It really doesn't have any -- it's kind of feel good language. It really is not enforceable. It says, to the greatest extent possible native vegetation in quantities and type as set forth in 4.06.00 shall be incorporated into the landscape designs in order to promote the preservation of native plant communities and to encourage water conservation. Here we kind of set criteria for retaining trees. I don't think this is needed at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just sounded like positive things, but, if there is --if it's going to be accomplished by not having that paragraph in here, then I'm satisfied with it. I'm curious what your reasoning was. Number 6, it says you are going to determine, the third line, the amount of, basically, where native vegetation used to be at the time prior to the illegal clearing. I low is that found out? Say you have a clearing that is now discovered to be 15 or 20 years old. How do you know what the native vegetation was prior to that time? And I'm assuming the native vegetation would be not inundated with exotics. MR. LF,NBERGFR: We look at historic aerials, if we have them available. They are not available in all portions of the county, particularly the eastern reaches. But that's an initial approach. And, normally, when environmental consultants look at products, we look at the signatures of the landscape in an environmental sense. And you can pretty much read the type of vegetation on a site, areas of, for example, Melaleuca or Brazilian Pepper or Cypress. But that's how we look at it. There was concern from the consultants we dealt with, on this, and this is why we put in the ability to get an after the fact clearing permit, particularly for those older parcels. That's why we include the triple I in there. We want the ability to make it legal. And, if they had an in -ag. use, the ability to get an ag -- after the fact agricultural clearing permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then, triple 1, down towards the bottom, it's a bona fide agricultural operation. Do we have a definition of what a bona fide agricultural operation must be? MR. LENBERGER: It's under the Right to Farm Act, but we haven't had any questions as far as someone Page 16 161 :V3 February 26, 2010 coming in for an agricultural use. They usually grow crops, usually be cattle, something pretty obvious. We haven't had any problem interpreting that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I do know that you tend to let rows go fallow for certain numbers of years before you do a rotation and I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't disturbing that. Any other questions on 147? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 148; any questions on 148? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is Number 10, you are discussing that you can trim back preserves to meet --and I guess you are referring to the fire -wise requirements of 30 feet. Would that be allowed? I can strip back the preserve 30 feet? MR. LENBERGER: Well, 30 feet, I wouldn't just pick that number out. There are different widths of firebreaks, depending on fuel loads and adjoining properties. So I wouldn't just put 30 feet in your mind. But if there is concern about protection of neighboring properties, having firebreaks is a good idea. We had the state foresters involved, Michael Weston and Victor involved in drafting these amendments. And what we wanted to do is say, we understand you have these firebreaks. They are composed of sand. A lot of animals do use these areas, whether it's for movement, whether it's for burrowing in them, whether it be for things from insects on up to larger mammals. They are utilized, and natural areas have mosaics of cleared areas, certain different types of vegetation. We understand that. So we tried to add the fire and fuel breaks in here as counting towards the native vegetation requirement to give them a little flexibility. We want the preserves to be safe, particularly if they are fire dominated. And I can tell you, from personal opinion or personal experience, that, in Pine Flatwoods communities, those open areas do support a lot of animals, particularly the insect life, and also have interesting plants that grow on them. So it's not a bad thing to have bare soil areas in Pine Flatwoods. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why is this in the illegal clearing section? I mean, why do you point that out here? In case somebody cleared a fire break, this would -- wait, never mind. It's not in there. It's a separate item. Okay. I have it. Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Under B. MR. LENBERGER: Which number? COMMISSIONER CARON: B. MR. LENBERGER: B. Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why did you take out the areas of critical state concern? Why was this language struck through? Is it somewhere else? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. We addressed it in 8, above development standards. I believe it's there in 4.02.14, shall apply to all developments, including single family that's in ACST. We tried to break it out, make it clearer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 148, anything else? If not, 149. Any questions on Page 149? And that Item 2C is going to be left for discussion when Transportation gets here to try to explain it. Is that where we're at? 1 think D is a similar situation. What is -- in your mind, how does, Steven, how does D work? MR. LENBERGER: D? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: D. MR. LENBERGER: Existing utility and easements for ingress /egress. Often when we look at properties in for development, they will often have 30 feet or 15 feet, or whatever the case, along the edge of the property on some areas allowed for ingress /egress for adjoining properties. And they have a legal right to clear those areas. So, in essence, that's a legal access. We shouldn't be penalizing a property owner for retaining that portion of Page 17 161 1 February 16, 2010 the vegetation where their neighbor can come in, who needs that, come in for a clearing permit and clear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that, when you do the total gross calculation of native vegetation area, you exclude any native vegetation area that is in an easement that would potentially be cleared, or whatever? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CI AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MR. LENBERGER: Helps clarify it here. That's why I spelled it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I just wanted to make sure we understood if it's what stirred the question. Anybody else, questions on Page 149? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that one section, through Page 150 or -- 143, we'll come back to just when Transportation gets back and try to clarify what they are looking for. And with that we'll move on to -- does anybody in the public have any comments on that first piece? Okay. Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering. I worked with the LDC subcommittee on amendments, basically as an EAC/LDC subcommittee we tried to throw as many letters in there as we could. And, with particular concern on the one you discussed about tree counts, and the Esrey Avenue property is actually the poster child for that amendment, as to why it needs to occur. There are some difficulties with that that I think we can work out. But one of the things I wanted to point out to you is, one of the difficulties we ran into as we looked at dealing with what is and isn't native vegetation and how you do declare what is counted towards a preserve and what's not, is, actually, the definition of native vegetation in itself. And the problem I have, personally, is, it's in your Growth Management Plan. We define native vegetation in the GMP. Why'? We don't define building height in the Growth Management Plan, but we define native vegetation. And we find there are problems in how it's applied. It all comes back to the same issue: Well, we can't touch that, it's in the GMP. So what I'm going to ask you to do as you go forward is I'm going to ask you to forward a recommendation, if you see fit, that, in this upcoming cycle, that the definition of native vegetation either be reviewed in the GMP or removed from the GMP and put into the documents that we, as a county, control, without the state slapping our hand, because I'm not sure the definition itself is perfect. And the tact that it's in the GMP gives us far less ability to make any corrections or changes to it in the future. So that's the basis for my request, is -- a lot of what you see here is because we're dealing with a definition that may not tit all circumstances but, because it's in the GMP, it greatly reduces our flexibility in how we approach it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I certainly will be talking to staff about that suggestion. MR. HANCOCK: 'Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Anybody else? And I think, Ray, as a -- even a -- one item that we ought to do at some point is research why the percentage is in the -- or the definition is in the GMP, how it got there. There was, undoubtedly, a reason for putting it there. If staff could take a look at that and let us know. Before any decision is made that it shouldn't be there I think we need an understanding of why it's there in the first place. Okay? MR. BELLOWS: Okay. I made a note of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll move on to Page 151, it's 3.05.07, preservation standards. Do you have anything you want to start out with, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: This is preserve, dimensional criteria. I have nothing to add for this. We went through this last year. I explained it in the front part of the amendment. We had one consultant, environmental consultant, who proposed the thin layer of picture frame -- picture frame shaped language, which is what we added. I have nothing more to say about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 1 -- and there is -- it's only a three -page document, 151 through 153? Any questions at all? Ms. Caron. Page 18 6F ruary ZS, 203 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On 153, the last underlined paragraph, is this just giving people an out? MR. LENBERGER: You are talking BA on the bottom of Page 153? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: Sometimes you have areas that we're required to retain by the county that are narrower than the minimum width. In order for them to preserve that, they actually would have to create along the edge to at least get the minimum width. And the stakeholders wanted the ability to be able just to retain it as is, so that was at their request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions through that document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, in the last meeting we had, it wasn't one we could vote on and we had some lingering items left over that we were going to go back and vote on before we finish with this phase or portion. As we go through today, I would assume the best process from the perspective of staff to keep track is that we vote on things that we can finish with, actually move forward as we have done customarily. Does that still work is that the best -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, thank you. That probably would work best for our recordkeeping as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any questions from the public on those three pages, 151 through 153? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there -- we can take a motion from the planning commission to recommend for approval, or denial. But it's Section 3.05.07.H.1.B, preserve dimensional criteria. Is there such a motion, either way'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will make that motion, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIO'I TL Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Vighotti. Is there any further discussion? MS. ISTENES: Would you make the finding, also, that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan as part of your motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. Just to satisfy David Weeks, of course. And the motion maker and the second accepted the consistency with the comprehensive plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8 to 0. Well, we got one down. And I assume that, when we finish the first book, which will be later today, Susan, if it's convenient, I would like to go back and have staff restate the ones from the prior meeting so we can clean them up and just say improved or not. Is that the best timing to do that? MS. ISTENES: Do you want to take a vote on those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ones we didn't have any issues with from the last time. MS. ISTENES: Yes. You would just need to take a separate vote for each one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to clean up -- we have three books. 1 want to clean up one book as far as Page 19 161 11-3 February 26, 2010 we can before we go into the second. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will you identify it by the page that occurred in the first packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'll read out the section and the page it was on in the first packet and then we'll take the vote, as long as we didn't have any return items. If it was a return item, we have to go back to the reasons for its return and discuss that, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 155 is the next piece. Steve, anything? MR. LENBERGER: Nothing more to add. We went through the analysis that you requested last year and your recommendation. I did notice a couple of typos, after proofreading everything before I came here. One of those is on Page 157. That would be Line 31. The section should be 10.02.04, not 01. And the last paragraph that's bolded should not be bolded. Perhaps there are a few defined terms, and I would have to check, but somehow that all got bolded, so it has to be removed. I j ust noticed that in proofreading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions on --and we'll just take this, because it's short enough, 155 through 157? Steve, on Page 157, under D, the third paragraph, it says, no individual, residential or commercial lot parcel lines or other easements, including but not limited to utility or access easements that are not compatible with allowable uses in preserve areas may project into a preserve area. Does that conflict with what we discussed in the prior ability for utilities and roads to go into preserve areas? MR. LENBERGER: No. They would be excluded from preserve areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what happens is, if you've got -- well, the way 1 read the previous document, I thought what you were trying to say is, if you had a road right -of -way and then you needed more space for the utilities on the side, you could use the preserve areas for that space. Right? MR. LENBERGER: If the government entity had to take that land and make it part of the right -of -way, it would be removed, yes, from the preserve, but it would be removed from the preserve, it wouldn't be a part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by taking it through that process, you automatically eliminate it as a preserve, so you are really not, then, going into a preserve any longer? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so D, where it says they cannot project into a preserve if they are not compatible with it, it wouldn't hurt because there are no longer preserves in the area that they have now taken from them? MR. LENBERGER: Been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phew. Okay. Twisted way we get there but I understand now when you are saying. Anybody else have any questions on those few pages? Okay. Same process as before. Are there any public speakers on that issue'? Okay. Is there a motion for either approval or denial, consistent or not consistent with the GMP, for 3.05.07, preservation standards? COMMISSIONER VIGLIO "ITI: So move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti approved that is consistent with the GMP. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN S "TRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, second. Discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOFIT Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 20 161 i A3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8 to 0. Page 159, well, you know what? We're close enough for a break before we get into that one. Let's take a 15- minute break and come back at five after 10:00. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. If you'll please take your seats, we'll try move on. The last, we almost started on, was 3.05.07 H. Le, created preserves, supplemental plantings and offsite preserve criteria. And that's on Page 159, is where it starts. And this one is a lengthier one, so we'll probably take a couple of pages at a time and see where it goes from there. MR. LENBERGER: Mr. Chairman, if 1 may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steven? MR. LENBERGER: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. LENBERGER: Just looking into the pruning, trying to address Mr. Murray's concerns about the vegetation and trees which were retained, and it is included in the landscape section, basically, instead of pruning it talks about, vegetation required by the code shall be pruned to promote healthy, uniform, natural growth of the vegetation. And it goes on and on. It talks about the National Arborist Association standard practices. It references that in here as well. So it is in here. And, if you like, we can put a reference to it in that portion of the amendment, if that would make you feel better about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I am not sure, with regard to that, for a direct answer to you, but I can tell you this, that the concern I have is that, after the fact, when the insurance people come in and they make an inspection and make a reconnnendation that limbs be cut back, that certainly wouldn't necessarily be based on natural styling of the tree, or however you phrased it. That was a concern I had as to what the potential can be. And I'm glad that you have some intent in here, at Least, to try to deal with it. I still think, though, that this tends to -- I was thinking of the Estey property. I remember it well. And, if they start building the structures in there and they try to relate it to this, they are going to be building close to those trees in order to get any kind of logical building in there and make some money. And that was where my question rooted from, so -- I don't know. I'm not sure. I appreciate you giving us the answer in that regard. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, we'll go on, listen to your -- if you have any opening comments on, starting with the policy on 159, we'll go forward from there. MR. LENBERGER: This is a long amendment. It has several components dealing with the creation and restoration of native vegetation. I took a hard look at that. I worked with stakeholders, got a lot of really good input from environment consultants, the whole process. I'm really grateful for that. And we also took a look at the outside native vegetation retention alternative, as also required by GMP. It's fairly lengthy_ I added a lot of analysis, physical impact. I'll be glad to answer questions you have. I know it's quite long. It might be easier to go page by page like we were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will. I wanted to see if you had any general statements. Now that you've made them, we'll move forward. Let's take a couple of pages at a time. Pages 159 and 160, are there any comments on those two pages? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is just to bring me up to speed on this. In here is where we discuss, if we have a piece of land with no preserves on it, where we will create the preserve, is that right or is that wrong? MR. LENBERGER: I didn't understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this in the part of the code that would require the creation of a preserve, if one didn't exist, say, on a commercial property that is required to have -- Page 21 161 13 February 26, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Well, legality of clearing on a previous amendment will determine whether you needed to create one. Also in here there is criteria listed for what you can create, obviously if you have site constraints or whatnot with regard to create a preserve. So that is all addressed in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the legality goes, the way it would apply is, if you have a piece of property that was legally cleared, then you don't have to do any native vegetation preservation. But, if it was illegally cleared and part of what was illegally cleared had a percentage of native vegetation or a certain amount of native vegetation on it, you are then required to keep a percentage of that, and that percentage, then, is defined as to how it would be recreated by this document, right? MR. LENBERGER: According to these standards, or go offsite, if you wish to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I am trying to figure it all out. So we're back on Page 159 and 160. Any other questions? I have one, and back to the same thing again. I'll have to wait for -- F, up on the top, Ijust still want to understand what Transportation is getting at with that, since they are required anyway for the other agencies, what they are trying to do with that. I think that's the same question from the previous language. And that particular answer won't hold this particular amendment up. I'll get that answer on the prior one. Pages 161 and 162. Are there any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going back to 160 and 161, 1 truly appreciate your desire to provide money, you know, pricing in there. 1 wonder, though, whether that will serve, in the long tern, because of the change in costs associated with products, plants, whether we are doing ourselves a service or a disservice. I'm not aware that we've done this before. That doesn't mean we haven't done it before. I'm not aware of it. Is that something, Mr. Chairman, that you think is appropriate to keep in there, pricing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is just in the physical write -up. This isn't going to be in the amendment, so I think -- to try to explain to us how the costs fall for decision making purposes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got it. Lost sight of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Murray started touching on a point that 1 wanted to bring up as well. On Page 61, at the end of your discussion for the bullet points, for by -acre price, if you take the tree, shrub and ground cover cost per acre, as estimated here, it comes to 117,220. You can reduce it by two thirds, based on the note. So that means you take the 117, divide it by 3 and that one third is the cost per acre to recreate. Is that what we're looking at, about 30,000 an acre' MR. LENBERGER: It was all broken out in strata. You can break it down, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you take each strata, that it says in the note, the number of plantings each, for ground cover, shrubs and trees, and the estimate listed above, will roughly be reduced beside two thirds? MR. LENBERGER: That's roughly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all three strata. So, if you divide the total of all three strata by three, that outcome becomes the one third that is left that you have to do in estimated costs. MR. LENBERGER: Approximately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, to recreate native vegetation, we're looking at approximately 30,000 an acre. Does that stay the same -- I think the answer is going to be yes, because what's native is native. But if the acreage is for an affordable housing project or an acreage is for a multi - million dollar subdivision, they each would be basically having to face the same amount for restoration of native vegetation at 30,000 an acre, is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: Well, that's the requirement. They could always enhance it more if they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's say minimum, because that's what most people end up doing in a lot of cases. It just seems that we have some unfair leveraging there. To those that have the high -end projects, that kind of money would be less concerning than the affordable housing projects. And I don't know if there is a solution in that, but this certainly does paint that picture. I guess Ijust wanted to mention that because, if there is a solution, we ought to think about it. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: This would only affect you if you don't want to keep native vegetation on your site. You only incur these costs if you want to clear every bit of your site, and then pay to have it done somewhere else. Page 22 161 i, February 26, 2010 If you have a piece of land and you keep your native vegetation, whatever that requirement is on -site, it doesn't cost you any more at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which is -- you are actually making my argument for me because your higher density projects are usually affordable housing projects. Your lower density are the high - priced, high ticket projects. In this scenario, the high- priced projects, which are much lower density, would have a lot less need to not be able to preserve that additional preserve on -site, whereas your affordable housing projects, because they are high density, would run into this more often, I would think, than your low density, high priced project. I think -- you kind of made my point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Except that, in those high density situations they are more compact. I mean, you are talking about multi- story, multi- family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they are more -- they are urban areas, more compact and they are higher density and they are affordable, so they try to fit more on the property. But it doesn't mean the building footprints are less. Generally the building footprints may even be more, to fit more density on and make the price more affordable. Has anybody put any thought into how this impacts our affordable housing abilities to proceed versus regular high -end housing? So, if an affordable housing project comes in and can't preserve what they have to, they have to pay about 30,000 an acre to recreate the preserve somewhere else; is that what this says? MR. LENBERGER: First, that was an estimate provided by one consultant that I contacted. They were nice enough to do that for me. The price is going to be the same, whoever is doing the project. If you have a high density product, and obviously more site, trying to pack more on, I can see where someone might not want to retain vegetation because they can try to get more in that way. We have included -- well, it's in the GMP policy, too, of allowing offsite for affordable housing projects. There may be, actually, a cheaper alternative, depending on where the product is, of course. But we have included that specifically in the offsite criteria, as far as affordable housing, and according to the density bonus agreement they have. So if we didn't look at affordable housing, that would be affected by the price of, specifically, through creative education. The same criteria were left there, but we did look at that as far as the offset criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And that is a question I have in the offsite. We can wait until we get there. Is this a good time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go to Page 170, and it's F, sub E. What are you exactly trying to say there? I'm confused about -- MR. LENBERGER: It says, affordable housing products with a BCC - approved affordable housing density bonus agreement. The maximum percent of native vegetation retention allowed offsite -- and again, this is applicability for the offsite in this section -- shall be no more than the percent of affordable housing units allowed under the affordable housing density bonus agreement with that limitation to the site as a preserve. So what we're saying is, if you have a hundred percent of affordable housing, you can do a hundred percent of your preserve requirement offsite. That's what that is saying. If you have a 75 percent affordable housing, you could do 75 percent of that requirement offsite, up to. You can do less, of course, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't mean to step no Brad, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think what this says is, no more than the percent of affordable housing units allowed under the affordable housing density bonus agreement. That's not necessarily a hundred percent of the housing on the site. The density bonus agreement only, I think, addresses the amount of additional vegetation. So 1 think this reads a little differently than what I think you just said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The wording is clumsy. If it is what he just said, it would be a lot easier to write than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have got a density bonus and you're asking for -- say you have a base of four and you are asking for four more units under your density bonus, so you have a total of eight, the way this reads. Your retention would then be what? You are getting an additional four by the density bonus, so the maximum percent of Page 23 161 1 A3 February 26, 2010 native vegetation retention allowed offsite will be no more than the percent of the affordable housing units allowed under the density bonus agreement, without limitation to the size of preserve. So if you are picking up a hundred percent of density, then you can do a hundred percent offsite, but if you are picking up fifty percent density, you only can do fifty percent offsite. Is that the way this is intended? MR. LENBERGER: Well, that's the way it's written, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's not for a hundred percent of the units on -site; it's for a percentage of the density bonus agreement for on -site. MR. LENBERGER: Affordable housing. 'f hat's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It does say units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Affordable housing units allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says under, allowed under, it says, allowed under the affordable housing density bonus agreement, so that limits the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I agree. MR. LENBERGER: How would you suggest wording it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I'm trying to explain it first, and then I think we need to reword it. Brad, did you have another comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Could we have affordable housing units that are not there because of the density bonus? I mean, essentially it's a base -- I mean, if somebody did a hundred percent, yes, density bonus, yes. Let's say he could build four affordable housing, he wanted to go in and get eight, this only lets him do 50 percent offsite, if he's building a hundred percent affordable, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that we're discouraging building any more affordable than what the density bonus provides by that paragraph, in regards to preserve preservation. And where that differs, too, is in Immokalee. If the master plan for Immokalee goes forward, in any close manner to the way it's being presented, we have four by right, and four, in some cases, by right again. So you wouldn't need a density bonus, you would actually have it. Maybe we need to consider that as an issue, too. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: If what Stephen said is the real intent, the language needs to be rewritten so that it says that, I mean, if that's really what was intended. And is that your testimony? Is that what you are saying? MR. LENBERGER: 1 will have to look at this. I'm not an expert on this topic, by any means. If you could provide suggestions, it would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's wait until we get to it and we can flush it out as we get there. We left off on Page 161. If there are no more questions there, we have 162 and 163, which wraps up the staffs introduction to this policy. Anybody have any issues with that? If not, we'll move into Page 164 and 165. Any questions there? On your Item Li.a. you added the words, or removal of fill where site elevations or conditions require placement of fill, is the way it used to read. Now it's, placement or removal. There isn't a site in this county that wouldn't require one or the other. And then, who decides if it's harmful in regards to survivability of native vegetation? Is that done by the applicant's consultant or does staff come up with the criteria for that? MR. LENBERGER: The applicant would propose to create vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But by adding the word, removal, you are talking about excavations, right? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which changes hydrology? MR. LENBERGER: Which could affect vegetation, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the creative preserves would then -- this is applicability under creative preserves. Page 24 161 1 /�3 February 26, 2010 So anywhere where you have -- so any site, then, is basically -- let's see. Criteria for determining when a parcel cannot reasonably accommodate both a required on -site preserve and the proposed activity include -- okay. So any site, basically, you can do creative preserves? Every site is going to have either placement or removal, or both? MR. LENBERGER: Depends on the site constraints. You know, the development community, at least the products I've looked at, they don't particularly want to create vegetation. It's expensive to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: So they try to retain it. But there are instances where you have a lot on your site, you need to. Did you want to the tighten that up or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm just trying to understand it, because, as we understand all of the pieces, maybe it will develop more issues. Ijust need an understanding of what you were getting at. Any other questions on Page 164 or 165? Page 166 and 166, any questions? Under your Number 6.b.i., second paragraph, third line, talking about utilizing larger plant materials to quickly recreate the loss of mature vegetation, but in your prior discussions, under your narrative, you indicated that the smaller plant materials have a higher percentage of survival rate. Is this contradicting that? MR. LENBERGER: Different plants have different sensitivities as far as container size when you plant them out. So we did -- in this amendment, we broke out certain species which do better, smaller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what -- MR. LENBERGER: But there is also a size you have to meet in order to be able to compete with other vegetation. You can't just put a tiny plant in, in a lot of instances, and be shaded out by other plant material. So there is a balance there. There is a gradation. As far as larger plant material, that's — in the GMP, to recreate native vegetation, you want to do it faster. What staff did is kind of look at the balance, okay. You have 14 -foot high trees, I mean, they may do fine in an irrigated landscaped median, but you put them a preserve, survivability or the ultimate success of that plant is going to be lower or jeopardized. So we kind of looked at a balance, still having larger sizes, to more quickly create the vegetative community but less than what we had, trying to create a balance there where you would get more of a visual impact for the community, because they had concerns about this initially. "Chat's how it got on the GMP. But, understanding that we want the vegetation to be successful, to do well, which is obviously what the community would want to do as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 166 or 167? Page 168 and 169. Any questions there? Page 170, and 171. We're back to the paragraph that Brad previously brought up. And it's, I think the intention or the suggestion is that it shouldn't be limited to just that affordable housing acquired by the density bonus agreement. It should be for all affordable housing on the site, as a percentage of the overall site. So if you have a hundred units allowed, both as a density bonus and as a base, and you use 80 of those for affordable, then you've got an 80 percent ability to move offsite. So that just --those came from the density bonus. I think that is where we're all coming from. F.i.a., you have the applicability for offsite vegetation retention. Now, that means you can do some mitigation offsite. Is that what that means? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. You can call it that. That would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A different way of saying it? MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, if you were a church, under a conditional use, where would you fit in here in having the ability to go offsite for your mitigation, if you needed to? Because I looked at F.i.a, and A is -- doesn't seem to fit for churches or conditional uses. It just says, property zoned commercial or industrial. How would you fit -- because I know you have had some issues with churches. And so how would that work for offsite vegetation, in lieu of on -site, where it was needed? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the preserves -- well, the churches would be -- if they had a small preserve, D, preserves less than I acre in size, they would qualify there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even if you had it listed as one of the zoned property in A, they still qualify Page 25 16 ! 1 t-4 February 25, 2010 from the other criteria? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other criteria provided in any type of zoning, except if you have a commercial or industrial zoning, it's got to be less than 2 acres in size, so that's why you added A in there, is that -- MR. LENBERGER: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone has a halt' -acre preserve requirement on -site and they kind of aren't able to do that anymore, they can purchase that half -acre offsite as a created preserve somewhere else? MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we cleaned up E. MR. LENBERGER: Well, it wouldn't be to create a preserve offsite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would just be offsite. Okay. Anybody else on Page 170? Page 171, up on top, H, and then it goes to regular 1. Now, this is offsite vegetation retention, the applicability. Portions of preserves located within platted single family lots. I thought single family lots were exempt. MR. LENBERGER: I'm not following you. What page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 171, top of the page, Item 1. MR. LENBERGER Okay. I see. Little I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LFNBF.RGER: Portions of preserves located within platted single family lots. There are preserves, and there have been preserves in the past, and still existing today, with special preserve easements on property. So they were -- the county allowed preservation requirements to be retained on the individual single family lots historically. And we recognize that they are out there. And what we're doing is we're giving the option for the single family lots to take a portion within their lot offsite, understanding that it may be a hardship on the single family lot owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Ijust -- previously the discussion was that there is an exemption from certain preserve requirements for the preservation, and that's why this didn't seem to fit. I understand now. MR. LENBERGER: They were done as a whole subdivision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 understand. J. Now, this is back to that public infrastructure thing, where future planned public infrastructure, approved by the BCC, requires preserves to be located elsewhere. What does that mean now? I mean, the other one, the other explanation you gave us in regards to the road system was that, if the county or somebody wanted to put a road in and it took out some existing preserves of a PUD, then the PUD would have been required to come back and potentially create more preserves. Doesn't this do that? MR. LENBERGER: For future planned public infrastructure, approved by the BCC, required preserves to be located elsewhere. The roads -- this is for the offsite applicability. It would be a requirement for the roads, per se, because they would be sand, so -- but it could be other infrastructure, so -- I guess, if that were to read more correctly, future planned public infrastructure, excluding roads, right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the language that 1 questioned on Page 143 previously, that we're going to have to hear again, or discuss shortly again. I thought included roads in public infrastructure. MR. LENBERGER: Let me check that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question is, if it was already -- are we consistent? In fact, it says, right -of -way acquisitions by any government entity for all purposes necessary for roadway construction, including ancillary drainage facilities and including utilities within the right -of -way acquisition area, shall be exempt from mitigation requirements. MR. LENBERGER: What page was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was on Page 144. T'hat's the previous policy that we're building some of this stuff off of. MR. LENBERGER: Let me take a look at that. This is in the right -of -way acquisition area, including utilities within that area. So it is for, basically, the road projects. It could be other forms of infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just eying to figure out how it applies so I can understand it better. MR. LENBERGER: Probably should exclude the right -of -way acquisition area, right -of -way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 'Then it would tie to that policy. Page 26 161 JA-3 February 26, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me. Just to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then it wouldn't be the same. Any other questions on Page 171? MR. LENBERGER: I see one typo, Line 30, NRPA, apostrophe, S; that should not be apostrophe, just small S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 213, preserve shall remain on -site if located adjacent to or within natural flow ways, natural water bodies, estuaries, government required preserves, not being the offsite preservation purpose. Under that classification, knowing we have new FEMA maps coming out in April, isn't the entire county, then, going to required to be on -site? I mean, they must put us all in, basically -- I don't know if they call them flow ways or what they are going to call them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: River -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this paragraph -- has it taken into consideration the new FEMA maps, and do they apply to this? Okay. That is a better question. MR. LENBERGER: Natural flow way is a defined term and I would have to take a look at the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, FEMA certainly is going to have to have some definition as to why they are saying the entire county floods, so they are going to call us something. MR. LENBERGER: Flood but isn't considered a flow way. We use natural flow way as defined in the LDC. I do have the definition at the back table. I could pull it out for you, if you would like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you check that language with Robert Wiley to see if there is a conflict in terminologies between the new FEMA maps and what B would be required? MR. LENBERGER: I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that clarification is all my concern is. Any other questions on 170, 171 ? 172 and 173. Anybody have any questions there? On Page 172, up on top, A, applicant shall make monetary payment to Conservation Collier. Conservation Collier was created by that special tax, right? MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't we -- why are we -- it's like we're treating Conservation Collier as a separate agency, and it's not. It's not, I don't believe, is it? I mean, why are we making it to Conservation Collier? Who oversees the money going in there, how is it handled? Why wouldn't we make it to Collier County and let Collier County decide how it goes, because we're not -- I would hate to see Conservation Collier be created and all of a sudden become almost a new agency, standing by itself in perpetuity. I don't know if the taxpayers were told that or intended that when we voted that in. I know they bought land in perpetuity, but to require monetary payments to them, they are the -- MR. LENBERGER: They are the county entity which buys preserve lands and manages those preserve lands in perpetuity. There are also mitigation products. 1 know, for example, that the transportation department handles mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. MR. LENBERGER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, I think Conservation Collier is going to be here forever because they have to manage those lands in perpetuity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 understand that. COMMISSIONER CARON: They bought them that way and so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Giving, I guess, having the county turn what, in a sense, is mitigation dollars over to them, is the right place for it to go, to help pay for the long -term care of these lands that all of us have bought and paid for. Is that what it -- is that the goal here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So offsite native vegetation retention requirements can be met by monetary payment or by land donation? MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so when a developer or landowner comes in and is required to do something, we Page 27 1 6 1 1 Y3 February 25, 2010 can exact from them a demand to make payment to Conservation Collier? MR. LENBERGER: If they wish to not preserve native vegetation on -site and they meet the criteria in order go offsite, they have that option to give money or donate land to a receiving entity to manage that land. They also wouldn't have to manage preserves on -site. They would be pretty much saying, okay, it's done offsite. Conservation Collier is going to manage it. Here are the funds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It was my understanding that Conservation Collier was made up of a group of people who chose particular sites for preservation land, and, then, out of that, the BCC, upon their recotmnendations, chooses a particular piece that is going to be purchased for a particular amount of money. So if it was Collier County that writes a check for that land, then it should also be accepting money from a particular, let's say, a developer or a person. And then, if they choose to forward that money or keep that money for Conservation Collier, which I think is what the chair was referring to, it is not an individual, stand -alone entity, it's an advisory committee, so to speak. Is it not? MR. LENBERGER: Conservation Collier is a county program. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: I'm not an expert on the budgeting and how that works. I know Conservation Collier is the entity that purchases and managing it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But they don't have a checkbook. MR. LENBERGER: Right. It's the county. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how can you deposit the check? I mean, my complaint is not that we're trying to use this for more preservation land and useful purposes like that. I just don't know if Conservation Collier is the tight entity to have a check made out to and deposited in the name of. MR. LENBERGER: Right. We'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: And we'll get clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that is riddled throughout that whole page. So wherever you see the reference to Conservation Collier, you really need to see, should it be better Collier County and Collier County breaks it down in the budget process. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you can correct it easily enough by simply saying Collier County, parentheses, for Conservation Collier purposes, close parentheses. That means it's earmarked for Conservation Collier purposes, but it clearly shows it goes to Collier County. No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it could be. But, if Collier County receives the money and the purpose of the money has to be for purchase and management of offsite conservation lands within the county, why do we need to limit it to those owned by Conservation Collier? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. I didn't realize the qualification of that. Thank you. Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look into that and get back with us on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 172 or 173? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On the PUD zoning, on PUDs we're required, on master plans, to indicate the certain amount, a certain percentage of preserve? MR. LENBERGER: Current code requires a minimum of 75 percent of the preserve to be identified on the PUD master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on the Conservation Collier thing. I've just been reading my notes on the next page, because I had the other page full. I went through and pulled the Conservation Collier management plan. My note -- and I don't have it with me, Page 28 161 P3 February 26, 2010 unfortunately -- it says, Page 14 of Conservation Collier does not allow infrastructure or improvements on Conservation Collier property. So you may want to be real careful of what of these you put into CC property, because, if they don't allow infrastructure improvements on those properties -- I wish I had the paragraph with me. I didn't have time to bring it. Take a look at that, though, to see if it has any negative impacts with the changes you are making to the allowance of roadways and other utility systems in preserves. These would be -- I know they would not be preserves, once they are in there. But, if Conservation Collier purchased the property, and you want to put a road next to it, in which your other application is supposed to apply, could you now do it? So that's the only cautionary thing you might want to look at when you pull this up. Okay. Anything else on through 173? And I think that one is going to have to come back for discussion. We'll move on to Page 175. Any comments before we go right to the pages, Steve? MR. LENBERGER: No comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Page 175 or 176? Now, this is the preserve management submission and the fact of putting it on an SDP, in this second paragraph. What is the rationale for the per sheet charge? I mean, basically, you guys are supposed to be a non - profit, or at least they -- you are supposed to bill out what it costs you to do it. And any additional fees -- I just got done experiencing this. And I went in to -- and l was helping a homeowners association in North Naples process their plans for a preserve management on an SDP, and, thankfully, it got corrected. But, because they went a couple of times and had a rejection and some minor changes, changes that would have taken somebody very little time to see the change and read it, when I went back in they wanted a thousand dollars for the re- submittal, for a one paragraph change that was only a couple sentences. I said, how could you possibly justify that? It turns out it wasn't really applicable, the way it was thought to be at the time and it got taken care of. But how can you justify those fees on that page? I'm just astounded by them. MR. LENBERGER: Our department --I don't regulate fees. Like, I let Ray speak to fees and plans. They are to cover -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray is going to have an answer, 1 know that. He's getting as good as Nick at that. Ray, is somebody -- I heard Nick stand before the Board of County Commissioners right after he had first gotten his position saying he was going to look over all of the fees and the bases for those fees and he was going to look at a different way of charging by the actual expenditure of time. Would these fees be subject to that review as well? MR. BELLOWS: I believe they could be. I think, my understanding of what Nick is explaining the concept, is that they would fall under that. Any kind of staff time involved in any kind of project review, whether it's a land use petition, we charge, or even if it's other research we do for other divisions within the county. That's staff time that is being taken. And, if we're going to operate like a private business, we are going to bill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand Stephen's comment. It's not part of his --it was in this document, that's why I questioned it. But at some point let's see what happens. I know you can't answer that question. I should have thought about that before I brought this up, so I'll move on. Anything else on 176? If not, is there anything on Page 177? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In double 1, the second paragraph down, a strange thing. What you are saying is you want a berm or a wall between the preserve so that non - preserve vegetation doesn't sneak in? MR. LENBERGER: Well, that's one of the things, that, yes, that could happen. It's just to preserve the integrity of the retained vegetation. And what this says here is, you have the option of either putting a berm or a wall to define the boundary, or some sort of program to control the edge that occurs, such as lawn grasses creeping in, things of that nature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, then, in other words, you would be happy if there was a curb surrounding all of the preserves? That would suffice? But how do you really do that? And a wall -- let's say somebody actually built a tall wall. Then you don't even Page 29 161 3A3 February 26, 2010 see the preserve. Why capture the -- MR. LENBERGER: It doesn't say the height ofthe wall. It could be a stem wall. But it's --the idea here is just to protect the integrity of preserve. And most of the time you will see a small berm, and they will have a program where they will either edge the grass -- and, if the grass goes beyond that point, sometimes herbicide just the edge of it, just to keep it in balance so it doesn't encroach in the preserve. That's all we're talking here. We'rejust giving the option, however they want to handle it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you don't give that edge as an option, you know, a structure, a berm or a wall. I think if the grass had a clear edge, is what -- I mean, if you had to put some material at that edge, be it a divider or something, you are going to really run up an expense. These are large -- MR. LENBERGER: It says, or special management program, and that's what that means. It says, a structural buffer, and we gave a couple of examples there, or a special management program to prevent encroachment of undesirable vegetation in the preserve. So a program would be edging the grass. Most of die time we see a small berm. Also, too, is, a lot of times preserves abut residential, encroachment on the preserve. You kind of put the lawn furniture out there and all kinds of things. We want that boundary defined, visual aspect for maintenance, also for residents to know that you shouldn't be in there planting sod, landscape plans. We've seen that as well. It's not just a problem in this county. It's a problem for state and federal agencies as well. I dealt with it when I worked with the state quite a while back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I think would make me comfortable? Could you add something that actually defines an edge that you would like to see? Because I wouldn't want somebody to point to this and say it has to be a berm or a wall. And you are saying a management program, you know. That's a physical edge. MR. LENBERGER: Maybe we can put parentheses in there, something about maintaining an edge on the property or something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would feet better with that. It looks like -- you know, when you say berm, that's a hunk of soil, and wall. So it looks like you are requiring something to go into a third dimension to define that edge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Just so I understand this, we have God only knows how many existing PUDs with preserves that we have residential property that we have in this county. Is this going to suddenly create a code environment issue throughout the county or are those other places grandfathered from this? MR. LENBERGER: The double line above that talks about exotic vegetation removal, nuisance vegetation. If they have grasses creeping in the preserve, it already is a violation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you need this new language? MR. LENBERGER: This was a clarification. It is under the preserve management plan, to try to guide people to do this, put it right in there, how you are going to maintain the edge, where you might see a problem_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have a preserve management plan that says in the plan they are required to maintain the edge, isn't that the special management program that you are asking for for encroachment? It's already there, so why are we re- asking for it again in this paragraph? MR. LENBERGER: Where is it asked for? Maybe I missed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 thought you said that, up there in double I. MR. LENBERGER: No. Double I talks about exotic vegetation, nuisance vegetation. Lawn grasses are not native, nuisance vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: They are creeping in the preserve. They are required to be maintained out of the preserve presently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then what is this paragraph doing? MR. LENBERGER: It's hoping to clarify, to put something in the preserve management plan, that they are going to address the edge before concerns arise. Usually where it abuts residential units is where the problem occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I had one of your people review a preserve management plan. I can't imagine they are going to miss something like that. They review every word. I'm just wondering, this may be added language that only confuses the issue, not helps it. Page 30 161 1 43 February 26, 2010 Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was thinking the same thing. So, by, a management plan, you have an expectation that the person will come in and, in detail, depict how they are going to maintain the property, is that correct? They are going to file that with you? MR. LENBERGER: They are going to maintain the preserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Maintain the preserve. They are going to file that with you? MR. LENBERGER: And it's included on the site plans for the whatever, the development subdivision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that environmental code people will come out and take a look at that and see if they are complying, correct? MR. LENBERGER: Code enforcement acts on complaints. PUDs are handled through the PUD monitoring process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. It seems like you have language in there that just, while it's intended to enhance, it may actually -- MR. LENBERGER: Perhaps an easier way to do this, then, if you're concerned about the second paragraph under double I, exotic vegetation paragraph, at the end, add a sentence in there, something about, maintenance of edge, lawn grasses, encroachment of lawn grasses in preserves, something to address that. We can -- MR. KLATZKOW: You -- just a moment. You are going to create, right now, a code enforcement nightmare with this. I'mjust telling you right now. If I own residential property abutting a preserve, I can't put anything into that preserve without committing a trespass. Am I right? Unless you are going to, on a prospective basis, limit this, you are going to be putting countless properties into violation overnight. I'm just telling you. And I don't really understand the purpose of this language. MR. LENBERGER: I would suggest, then -- we'll delete that paragraph. But I would say that, if there are exotic vegetation, lawn grasses already creeping into the preserve, it already is a violation. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: It already is. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would suggest -- MR. LENBERGER: -- we're not creating more. It already is a violation of current code, is what I'm saying. Mr. Klatzkow said we're creating it. We're not creating it. It already is a violation of code, the way it's written. MR. KLATZKOW: If I have a private residence, not in a PUD, and it borders a preserve, maybe my neighbor's preserve, who has a PUD, I am not going to have a special management program. Does that mean I have to now put up a berm or a wall? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it suggests. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what it says. MR. LENBERGER: That's not the intent here. if you're uncomfortable with that, I would suggest deleting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, keep it simple, is the better way to go. MR. LENBERGER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- let's take that paragraph out of the picture. Any other issues on Page 177? Up on, towards the middle of the double I paragraph, up towards the top, you've crossed out the word, prohibited. Why? Before exotic vegetation bold. MR. LENBERGER: Line 14, is that what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approximately, yes. MR. LENBERGER: Preserve would be maintained free of exotic vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But my -- MR. LENBERGER: Prohibited exotic vegetation are only those listed in the code under prohibited exotic vegetation, which have more implications because you have to remove those from other portions of the property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me back up and ask my question again. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Line 14, actually, it starts on Line 13. It says -- it used to say, when prohibited, exotic Page 31 161 1 o�j February 26, 2010 vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains, yada, yada, yada, the base shall be treated. Now you are going to say, when exotic vegetation is removed but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated. Prohibited exotic vegetation is in bold, so I'm presuming that is a defined term. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you are leaving exotic vegetation, so exotic vegetation is bolded. What is the difference of intensity between the word, prohibited, being in front of exotic vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: It includes all exotic vegetation, non - native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you requiring, then, the removal of all exotic vegetation and not just prohibited exotic vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: Actually, we went the other way. We kind of realized -- and I'll explain. We realized that there are all kinds of exotic vegetation. There are always weeds. And, as you know, you can't get all of the weeds out. The code, the first sentence on that, double 1, says, exotic vegetation removal, non- native vegetation and nuisance invasive plant control. It talks about exotic vegetation, removal and maintenance plan shall require that all Category I exotics be removed. If you go to the bottom of that paragraph, it talks about -- find where the sentence starts. It says, it did say, non - native vegetation and nuisance or invasive plants shall be removed from all preserves. Do you see that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: What I did there is 1 took out, nuisance and invasive plants, under non - native ornamental vegetation, understanding that we're looking at the nuisance vegetation. Not every plant that is native -- we can't remove every weed. That would be an impossible compliance issue. What I'm doing there is saying we're looking at the nuisance stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But that's not bolded, which means it's not a defined term. MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do we determine what is nuisance or invasive and what is non - native, ornamental vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: 'The environmental community and the environmental consultants we deal with, they are pretty good at identifying those. Generally speaking, most of the time it's what the district requires, as far as Water Management District requires, as far as removal of vegetation from a preserve. That's generally Category 1. Category 2 species listed by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, rarely, would I see anything other than that being required to be removed. It is a judgmental cal I. Obviously the environmental consultant is going to look at that. They are basically following what the district is using. They are using the list which the Exotic Pest Plant Council uses and the Water Management District requires, in both of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have prohibitive -- what is Brazilian Pepper? Let's start with a common -- MR. LENBERGER: That's a prohibited exotic plant for Collier County, and that is a Category 1 plant listed on the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we know that if you have Brazilian Pepper on your property, before you can get a CO, you have got to remove it all, right? Now, what if you didn't have Brazilian Pepper and you had something that was only classified as an exotic vegetation? Give me an example of an exotic species, a common example. MR. LENBERGER: Someone plants a shefflera or a Queen Palm in a preserve, that's an exotic species. Not a defined exotic, according to county code, but it's a non - native species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are they allowed to plant non- natives in preserves? MR. LENBERGER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're telling them to remove something they are not allowed to put there in the first place? MR. LENBERGER: To plant things in preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying figure out where this last sentence leads, because this whole paragraph leads up, basically, to the last sentence. Page 32 161 1 4�3 February 26, 2010 The last sentence used to read, non - native vegetation in plants shall be removed from all preserves. MR. LENBERGER: And, if we look at all non - native vegetation, that would include every small weed in the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not arguing with your point there. I'm saying, wouldn't we be better off saying, prohibitive exotic vegetation and plants shall be eradicated from all preserves? Why are we going into these non - defined terms that we don't know what they are? They are not even defined in our code? Nuisance, invasive, non - native ornamental vegetation, because I thought you said those couldn't be planted there in the first place in preserves. So they couldn't be planted in the first place, which means, if they are ever found, they have got to be removed because they shouldn't be there. MS. MASON: Again, for the record, Susan Mason with the Environmental Services section. Perhaps I can try to help clarify this a little bit. The prohibited exotic vegetation that is the bolded definition, that actuallyjust covers the 12 kind of worst -case that have to be removed from any development in the county, Brazilian Pepper being one, Australian Pine, acacia. Category 1 is a much broader category of exotics, and those have to be eradicated from areas designated as preserve but not the rest of your property. So those are two different kinds of exotic definition or exotic vegetation by definition in the county. And part of the problem, and this is based on some experience I had working environmental code compliance, is, people do often go in in their back yards encroaching the preserve, plant things and then -- or the plants show up. They don't admit that they were put in there and they argue with code enforcement staff that, well, that is just growing there and it's natural. So this is to clarify that non- native ornamental vegetation that has shown up in a preserve, no matter how, would have to be removed. It's really to clarify for code enforcement that this stuff shouldn't be here and it needs to be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're really down -- now I guess it's this nuisance and invasive plants. How does anybody judge what those are to know if they need to be removed? MR. LENBERGER: It is an evaluation done by the environmental consultants hired to do the project. And in most cases it is the Category 1 and Category 2 listed plants that occur in this county that the Water Management District requires the removal of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the Water Management District requires the removal of it in order for them to issue a permit? MR. LENBERGER: It's a condition of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do we want to get into it when we don't really have a definition for it? Why do we even want to bring it up? Susan's point about the non - native ornamental vegetation, I think that can be identified. And I think the prohibitive exotic vegetation can be identified. If South Florida already takes care of, to the extent needed, the nuisance and invasive plants, why do we want to get into that when we don't have a definition for it and we're leaving it up to the applicant's expert to tell us, and then us starting to debate it with him, whether or not we consider as a nuisance as he thinks it is or as invasive as he thinks or she thinks it is? Why do we want to get into all of that? MR. LENBERGER: First, the county requires preserves, that aren't district required, so the district would not be involved. That's one example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you just said -- MR. LENBERGER: Not all county preserves are district required preserves. The other is, do you want non - native vegetation in our preserves? I would say that it affects the integrity of the preserve and I would say it affects the diversity of the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stephen, I'm not going there. All I'm trying to figure out is, how does a person read this and know what it means? What you are trying to do is a worthy goal. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm simply trying to figure out, every citizen in this county that wants to get involved and try to understand our code has to read and understand it. I wouldn't know what you think is a nuisance or invasive plant if I couldn't look it up in the LDC and find a definition for it, and I know one isn't there. That's what I'm getting at. Page 33 16 I 1,-j February 26, 2010 MR. LENBERGER: Well, alot of the environmental work is stuff that is cut and dry. There are plants coming in all the time that they are introducing to this state. You couldn't possibly list them all. I mean, we can say, nuisance or invasive non - native plants, but there is still subjectivity of what is a nuisance and what is invasive. And, basically, when something goes in a preserve and all of a sudden starts spreading and displacing native material, it's usually pretty obvious to staff and the environmental consultant. I haven't personally had any issues with this. This is existing language, talks about nuisance or invasive plants. I added the non - native ornamental, but it hasn't been an issue, at least that 1 see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, I hate to suggest thus, then why are we changing it? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me get into the fray here. I'm going to try relate to it the way I understand it, or try to understand it. On Line 14 you've deleted, prohibited, and you just refer to, exotic. But on Line 30, I think that's 30, you talk about, prohibited exotic, again. You also talk, on Line 14, about the base, once there, the base has to be treated, presumably for the purpose of eradication, but you don't state that. But for nuisance plants you stipulate eradication. So I'm trying to understand why you put great emphasis on the non- native ornamental and invasive and only infer eradication for the exotic. And why would you in one case delete, prohibited, and then leave the other one there, if a person reading that would, I think, get kind of confused? MR. LENBERGER: Couple things. First, let's go to the prohibited exotic vegetation, where prohibited was crossed out. You are right. That's where it is removed. If you remove an exotic vegetation that isn't one of the 12 that is listed as prohibited, plus -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's one question. MR. LENBERGER: No. Just the 12 that the county has. And if you remove it, you cut it out, a schefflem or a ficus, whatever the exotic is, and you don't herbicide it, kill it, it's going to come right back. So what it says here is, when exotic vegetation is removed, the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with appropriate herbicide. Well, what we're saying is, if you are removing exotic vegetation, you should treat it, not just the prohibited ones but all of the rest because they are just going to come back. So that's all that is saying there. As far as eradication, that eradication term was given to me by the consultants because otherwise it is removal. We don't want to have to them, force them to remove it. Sometimes that does detriment to the habitat. Eradication also means killing it in place, is what I'm trying to tell you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand what eradication means. MR. LENBERGER: So that was from the consultants, wanted that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand. There is a significant difference between the use of that word in that context as opposed to the way you explained it in the exotic vegetation. I could see that you could use the word in both places. You are saying -- you are saying that you cannot. MR. LENBERGER: Well, where it says here, where it says prohibited exotics, it says, when exotic vegetation is removed. When it's removed. It doesn't say it has to be. It says, when you remove it, the base has to be treated with the herbicide. If you look above that it says, exotics of an interior preserve may be approved and be treated in place, if it is determined that physical removal might cause more damage to the native vegetation of the preserve. We're not requiring removal. That says, when it's removed, you treat it. You are either going to remove it or you are going to herbicide it in place, one of the two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess that's what my point of confusion is. Aren't you always going to require that it be removed? MR. LENBERGER: Physically removed, no. The code -- we require within the first 75 feet, and that came about because people didn't want to look at dead Melaleuca trees or dead Brazilian Pepper on the edge of a preserve. That's how it came about. Also a safety concern, with trees falling within that distance. That's how that all came about. But, other than that 75 feet, we allow them to treat it in place. So eradication is a term the consultants wanted, eradication. Cl 1A1RMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley. Page 34 161 1.4-3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was going to get into some things, but I wouldjust as soon see a tree pulled out than putting chemicals into the ground, but that's just me. But down on Line 28, and it was to what Commissioner Murray was just referring to, should you just say, invasion, there instead of reinvasion? Because you took out the prohibited exotic vegetation. Now you are talking about the reinvasion of prohibited exotic vegetation. MR. LENBERGER: Either way is fine with me. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It doesn't mention it anywhere else. MR. LENBERGER: It wouldn't matter to me. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But I didn't get into my first -- 1 was going to start screaming about chemicals in the ground. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 177? 1 think where we left it, that paragraph that was added for about referencing the structural buffer will come out. And, just to let you know, you are going to come back with us anyway. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that last sentence. MR. LENBERGER: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one we've been focusing on conceming nuisance and invasive plants. I will look at that myself between now and when you come back and try to figure out a way that I can explain myself. MR. LENBERGER: We can leave it as is, but then we have a problem with every weed in the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I am not saying you can leave it as is. I just don't know if putting something in there that isn't defined is the right way to go. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's go to page -- okay. Nicole, come up. If it's relevant to the page we're on, that's great. MS. RYAN: Yes. Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I hadn't actually intended to speak on this but the term, nuisance plant, really caught my attention. And 1 would certainly wam against using something like nuisance plant or weed when you are talking about what should or shouldn't be in a preserve because those terms are open to interpretation. And I'll use the example of Key Marco down on Marco Island. They have a conservation easement that does allow removal of nuisance plants and weeds. And the proposal supplied to the City of Marco Island was the Weed Society of North America's list of weeds. Well, guess what? A weed or a nuisance plant is something that you don't like growing where it's growing. Their list was 58 pages long, 3600 species, including Live Oak, Laurel Oak, I think 24 oak species, maple species. If you leave it open to that interpretation, it becomes problematic. So, exotic, I think is good. That can be easily defined. Invasive exotic, the Category 1, Category 2, those are great. But for preserves, stay away from nuisance plants and weeds. It's way too broad -based and open to interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's part of the concern we're having. And here I thought you were only bugs and bunnies. Now you've got plants in your whole background, too. MR. LENBERGER: That was my suggestion, nuisance or invasive exotic plants. That's what I was talking about earlier, add the word, exotic, or, non - native. Probably non - native nuisance or invasive non - native plants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you E -mail us --I'm saying it for all of us, but I'm probably the one that wants it, too -- a list that you are talking about so I know what you are considering? MR. LENBERGER: Which list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I list of the nuisance and invasive, non - exotic or exotic. MR. LENBERGER: There is no such list. It will vary in areas. There are all kinds of plants that could be potentially nuisance. The only thing I can send you is the -- well, you know, it's in the county code, as far as the listed plants, but the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council list, if you wish, 1 can E -mail that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing -- I'm going to be -- when this comes back, I think my position is going to be that we need to tie it to something definitive. And, if you can't do that, then I have a big problem with the language, so -- whatever you can do to help me along, I sure would appreciate it. Page 178 and 179, are there any questions on those pages? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. Page 35 1 fairy 26, 0 03 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're pretty strong on this one. 1 like this one. Under -- I never saw that before, little i.v. Is that supposed to be four? l guess that's four. Where it says, the county will accept -- will accept state and federal management plans that are consistent with the requirements of the LDC. And then -- in other words, they have no supersedure rights over us in these matters. That puts us on the top of the pyramid in that phrase. And I don't have an objection to it, I'mjust curious about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if the fed had a plan that was not consistent with our LDC, we wouldn't go along with it? MR. LENBERGER: Not to scrutinize individual plans. But, just generally, the GMP language that was added to the CCME and the county could be more stringent than the agencies. I hate to say that the language has -- it was in the CCME. I will double check that, but it's on Page — the first page talks about the policy. I'm trying to find the language. 175, Page -- Line 32, state and federal management plans consistent with the requirements of the LDC will be accepted. That's the GMP language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interesting. I don't have a -- I mean, I'm an Amendment 10 of the Constitution, I'm that kind of guy, but I just find it interesting that it would be good enough to accept it, as long as it comports with our LDC I thought that they had certain rights. We accept grants. MR. LENBERGER: We accept what. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We accept grants, money. We accept various things from the federal and state governments and, which, tied to those grants, usually, pretty strong requirements. And some of them may be in conflict with our LDC That was my question. That's really the basis for my question. So as long as you are clear that that will never happen, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that that paragraph or that line simply indicates that the county always has the right to be stricter than either the federal government or the state government in any of their plans. We have that right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it should say that, then. It should say that, not the way it's said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 178 and 179. Up on the top of 179 you refer to wildlife habitat management plans. How many of those do we have in place in the county? What are you referring to there, I should say? Maybe that's a better question. MR. LENBERGER: Which paragraph are you referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 179, top of the page, Line 11. MR. LENBERGER: Fire management plans, is that what you are talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the beginning of the sentence. Shall be -- MR. LENBERGER: Wildlife habitat management plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How many of those do we have or -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, they are -- wherever listed species are present in preserves, the preserve management plan will have a wildlife habitat management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's all capitalized but it wasn't bolded. So you are talking about each preserve management plan that is created for the preserve management, involving one with species in them? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I understand. So wouldn't that be better said, shall be consistent with a wildlife habitat management plan approved by Collier County? Maybe it says the same thing that way. I was just trying to -- MR. LENBERGER: Shall be what, consistent with? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasjust reversing the order. My suggestion was, shall be consistent with a wildlife habitat management plan approved by Collier County. I think it says the same thing in the end. I made that note, so I'm not too worried about it. MR. LENBERGER: I'll take a look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one where it says VI, vegetation removal pernits, though not required for clearing of fuel management or fire lines in accordance with normal fire and forestry practices. Why don't we add in Page 36 161 1x3 February 26, 2010 there, they wouldn't be required for approved fire -wise safety plans, because those plans have a certain delineation from structures. And if someone goes to the effort to have an approved fire -wise safety plan, why would we want to force them to come in for more permits? MR. LENBERGER: Well, I think it would be one and the same, as relates to preserves. But where was that, preserve management plans? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where in that paragraph you would put it, but it seems like you would want to throw that -- in the paragraph you refer to, an example, clearing for fuel management and fire lines, all I'm saying is, also for approved fire -wise safety plans. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are becoming more popular in the area, and we might as well help them when they are. And the last page is 180. Any questions through that element, up to Page 180? Okay. I think you are going to be coming back with some return on that one, Stephen, so we'll wait until you come back with that. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the next one -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go on, what was it that it youjust wanted, approved fire -wise -- MR. LENBERGER: Safety plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fire -wise safety plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Fire -wise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A lot of the communities and homeowners associations are getting approved. That's a nice thing for their insurance and everything else CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one is, we skip a few pages and we go to Page 199. Now, we want to break for lunch at some point. I don't know how much of a discussion this one will be, so I guess I will ask the panel. Do you want to break for lunch now and come back at, say, 12:30 or do you want to wait until we're closer to 12:00. COMMISSIONER CARON: Always better to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do lunch now or do the review now? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do lunch now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lunch now. Okay. Everybody else? Okay. Let's take a -- we'll go for an early lunch while we can still get in line downstairs and we'll come back at 12:30 and we'll finish this one up. (A lunch recess was taken.) (Commissioners Vigliotti and Murray are not present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from lunch. That was the only peaceful time we'll have today or non - confusing time, I hope -- well, I shouldn't say I hope. I hope we don't have any more like that. There is a slight change from -- before we went to lunch, we were going to come back and discuss 30 -- I mean, 5.05.02, which is on Page 199. Just after the break, I found out that that needed to be continued, and so that item won't happen until March 10th. So with that not being up, we'll move right into the other items on the agenda, which is -- starts on Page 181, and it's Section 4.02.01 D.9. And, Ray, are you filling in for Susan? MR. BELLOWS: Susan will be up in a few minutes. Can we go maybe to the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? MR. BELLOWS: That would be 5.04.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll go to Page 197. Everybody, let's go Page 197. Okay Page 37 16! 11#-> February 26, 2010 MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, are we ready to begin? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. MS. MOSCA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting orientated here. MS. MOSCA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray has us jumping all over this book again. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon. For the record, Michele Mosca, comprehensive planning staff. Generally, the purpose of this amendment is to allow for the application of the model home and model sales center requirements and standards for the estates and rural agricultural zoning districts consistent with the residential zoning districts. Now, this is not a new application of those requirements. In practice staff is already applying these standards to those zoning districts. So it's just a matter of codifying what's presently being done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other -- any questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We've been through this a few times. The last one I recall specifically, I think, was along Collier, 951, when we discussed it. And they were -- they were trying to go for almost permanent model homes. MS. MOSCA: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I had an issue with the commercial -- whether that would designate a commercial area and did not want that. MS. MOSCA: Right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So my -- my question is: I thought in reading this -- and I -- I -- I failed to the current LDC, I thought there was a time limit on sale -- or model homes, and then it could be re -- like two years, and it could be re -- MS. MOSCA: Right. I believe -- and Ray may have to correct me if I'm wrong -- with a temporary use, you're allowed a three -year period. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Three years. MS. MOSCA: And then, with a conditional use, I think it's at the discretion of the board. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I thought that we changed it to something like five. It was something that I was opposed to, I know that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's five years for PUD extensions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: For PUD extensions but not -- MR. BELLOWS: No, the PUDs are good for five years. That was extended from three years, plus you get one two -year extension for PUDs. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So a two -year extension -- MR. BELLOWS: The conditional uses are good for three years plus one -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I'mmst -- MR. BELLOWS: -- year extension. COMMISSIONER WOLFLFY: These are now -- it's the estates and ag. And you -- is this referring mostly to the things in the rural lands? Is that what you're trying to bring into it? Or is it just homes out in the estates where you could go along Golden Gate Boulevard, stick up more of those empty model homes? MS. MOSCA: It would be for the estates zoning district as well as the agricultural zoning district. So it would be for both. So the same rules would apply that apply now for the residential zoning districts. It's just a matter of consistency, but it applies across the board, that all of those requests for model homes would be consistent with the requirements and regulations of that provision of the LDC. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I -- one thing is I hate -- is I don't like to see things repeated. But on the other hand, when -- when you narrow down on, you know, 5.04.04 A, for instance, that first paragraph, a temp -- "The model sales center shall be of a temporary nature." Well, then you've got to go see what is a "temporary nature "? And I just don't know why you can't just keep it in that section. That was an issue I had before. And I'm just saying it's a three -- it's a three and two or whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because we have a temporary-use section that actually -- because there's a lot of different temporary uses. Page 38 161 l 1�3 February 26, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And isn't this one defined in amongst those? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the reason. There's -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I -- so we're -- we're going to end up thenjust going back to the temporary uses, trying to find a model home, and then reading that. Is that what we're looking at here? All we're doing is adding the estates ag district? MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding we're clarifying some language that was, I think, inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. That's how this particular LDC originated -- LDC amendment originated from, was the growth management plan amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for conditional uses. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, I'm not -- we'll leave it with that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the benefit, the temporary-use permits are how long? And then they're renewed; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The temporary-use permit for a model home, I believe, is three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then it's renewed based upon need? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they've got to show need, and staffs got to agree with it? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And then it's -- I believe it's five years to apply for conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's when --okay. So after a certain amount of time, it automatically has to go into a conditional -use status? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Ray, this -- the -- the intent of this is, if you have a model home, it has to be in the zoning district that you want to be selling homes for; is that right? I mean, the confusion is that, if you put it in any agricultural -zoned piece of property, that means essentially you're selling to agricultural -zoned districts, or -- or why do you have that in there? What is the reason for that? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the intent is that, if you're a home builder and you're selling homes, say, in the Golden Gate Estates subdivision -- there are certain locations where these things are going to be prevalent along arterial roads. And there was some language in the Golden -- Golden Gate Area Master Plan that restricted that, and I believe that language has been removed. And so we're just clarifying that language to allow those model homes to go back on these arterial roads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But -- but this phrase in b that it's restricted to the promotion of the products permitted within the zoning district, I mean, I'm not sure how you would -- in other words, I'm -- I get into the estates, I build a model home, my intent is to use it on vacant lots in the estates; but I can be selling it for — to be built anywhere. I mean, what are we gaining with that'? Obviously, building a model home in a PUD makes sense, because that model home is to sell PUD -- the product in that PUD. But once we add estates and the agricultural district here, are we -- I mean, because how would you confine -- MR. BELLOWS: It's much harder, I agree, within the estates. If somebody put -- built a model and they're selling homes down in East Naples, and they're not really selling homes in the estates, it's hard -- how is staff going to determine that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why do you care? MR. BELLOWS: We don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the community might. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I wasjust going to say, I can think ofa specific example, and that was Falling Waters. Falling Waters built a mobile home sales center in Pine Ridge -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, that's right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to sell Falling Waters down on the East Trail and Falling Waters up in almost -- north of Wiggin's Pass Road. I don't think that the community wants to support that kind of thing. MR. BELLOWS: And I don't think that's the intent of this language -- Page 39 161 1-,f3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: I know, but I'm not sure that the language gets you there. MR. BELLOWS: -- because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Schiffer's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at what the language says, I build a --I can build it in a residential PUD, estates, or agricultural, and I sell product for -- I mean, of course, I'm going to sell residential; I'm selling residences, you know. So that --there is supposedly control. That just opens it up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, doesn't it say, "Shall be restricted to the promotion of a product or products permitted within the zoning district in which the model home or model sales center is located and further subject to the following "? So if it's in the estates, they have --the model home has to be on an estates lot in the estates area, and out of that, they can't sell homes in Marco Island. Isn't that what that's saying? Or do you not agree? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, that one might be clear. But what --in agricultural, what does that mean? In other words, any agricultural lot means that I can sell this house for any other agricultural lot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, actually, I saw that -- maybe I'm -- a lot of times when you go into a development, it's zoned ag to begin with. They might get their ability to put a model home in prior to their finalization of their PUD or whatever else they applied for. I'm not sure if that's where this applies or not. Ray, do you have an example of where the agricultural reference in here will apply or how it would apply? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, let me see here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While he's thinking, Mark, let me -- like, how would you control somebody -- I -- in an agricultural -- I build a model home. I mean, I could sell that to people who build in the estates. I mean, it's -- these are private lots. It's not -- it's easy to control within a PUD, because the product can be built in that PUD, but only that PUD has that potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the PUDs have it. And I thought -- the way I thought this was always intended is, if you're a builder in the estates, you've got to — you get an estates lot, and you can build a model home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 1 walk in there, and I say, "I have this ag. lot up Immokalee. Can you build it there ?" And he will say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- "Of course." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I don't think he's promoting that site as an off -site model site for another location in the community. And I think -- and I think if he was that blatant, this would give a way for code enforcement to stop it if someone saw harm by it. I think periodically it may be happening in reality. But until someone sees the harm in it, I don't think they're going to say anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the concern is you don't want a strip of model homes for product being sold all over the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely not. I think that's -- that certainly is a concern. Okay. Is there any other -- is there any other issues with 199 and -- 197 and 198? Then at this point, where the language stays as it is, and we seek a recommendation for approval or denial and finding a consistency or inconsistency with the growth management plan. Is there such a motion for either way? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I'm usually the one that -- but I think that the wording of that -- I don't - -1'm not sure it gives you what you want. I'm not comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It kind of says that, but --but the enforcement of what it kind of says, 1 think, is impossible. MS. MOSCA: Now, is the concern having model home sales from agriculturally zoned properties? Is that the concern that you have? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the concern is to have a strip of model homes or a bunch of builders. The intent is that, if you want to put a model home, it's because you're selling something in that vicinity. MS. MOSCA: But eventually -- because it is temporary in nature, eventually it will go away. It will be a single - family residence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, it's just a control thing. 1 mean, Mark, it's really the estates that could have the problem. So if you're comfortable with it, I'll buy it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- and, Brad, I'm trying not to miss anything. So I don't understand your Page 40 161 1 A3 February 26, 10 concern, which I would like to understand, because if you have one, then there may be -- somebody else may have it, and that would be a problem. So can you explain to me why that bothers you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. What it says is "restricted to the promotion of a product or products permitted within the zoning district in which the model homes or model sales center is located." (As read.) So the four choices for zoning districts are residential, which is all the residential; a PUD, that one's easy, that one's clean; the estates zoning is estates zoning, quite a bit of that; or agricultural. So essentially if I put it on any ag. lot, it's -- it's not saying that it's really to promote the sale of housing in that vicinity. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Now, that's probably -- then I understand what you're saying. Where I read this is, when it said "or model sales center is located," I saw that as meaning if it's located in an estates lot in the estates, then it's the estates that they're selling out of there. If it's located in an estates lot in East Naples, it's the estates areas in East Naples. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't say --it says the "zoning district" in which it's located. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It's located in estates zoning, in the estate --in Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if-- I mean, if I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you -- give us some -- some correction then if you feel it should be corrected. That's fine. I'm not objecting to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get us there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 mean, essentially the intent is that it's -- it's for selling homes in that vicinity. But -- but do you think you've described that vicinity -- when you say it's located -- you know, you're really located in a zoning district, which can be all over town. For example, a residential zoning district, there's tons of it all over the place. And you're not corralling it into that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about if you take the word "res" -- where you have the word "residential" crossed out, put the word "vicinity" in, "vicinity of the zoning district in which the model home or model sales center is located." Does that get you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, if you're happy, like I said, I really will back off, because it doesn't bother me in any way. I mean, this -- I can't imagine anything that -- you know, I know we have model homes in District 2, and I know that they're not selling homes for exactly that vicinity. They're selling for whoever has a vacant lot in the county -- or Lee and Collier probably. MS. ISTENES: The other instance you might get is somebody with a model in a development that also happens to have a development elsewhere may -- they -- multiple, you know, developments, and they happen to offer the same product, just in a different development. I don't know that we've really had problems or complaints about that. MR. BELLOWS: No. MS. ISTENES: So it's up to -- to you -all, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you don't know about that. MR. BELLOWS: Well, I mean- - MS. ISTENES: You usually know about complaints, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but it -- the enforcement of this is what I'm saying. You wouldn't know, you know, where the contracts are being drawn up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it would be like a DiVosta project. MS. ISTENES: Sure, exactly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You know, a DiVosta's a DiVosta's a DiVosta. That's okay. There's five of them, so -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: I don't know how you prevent somebody, even in the estates, selling homes in the estates, from also selling a home elsewhere in the county or in the ag district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what you're writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they started doing that and someone objected, you always could just not reissue the temporary pennit. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Page 41 161 1 A3 February 2T 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'll move to forward this to a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And finding it consistent -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is -- it is consistent with the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second'? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley's second. Discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries. And we're down to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seven -- yeah, 6 to 0. Okay. Let's go back and -- since Susan's here, we'll go back to Page 181, and that is Item 4.02.01 D.9. Susan, do you have anything -- do you want to start? MS. ISTENES: Well, yes, I -- Susan Istenes for the record. 1 just wanted to bring you up to date. This actually has been in a previous LDC cycle, and the board of county commissioners directed us to go back and employ the assistance of the Development Services Advisory Committee in determining some of the impacts. And if you look under "Fiscal and Operational Impacts" on Page 181, the bulleted list there is essentially the information we got back from DSAC This amendment is simply to codify an existing practice by staff that allows encroachments of pool equipment and well pumps if unenclosed into required yards. And 182 just basically shows that. The word "pad" was scratched out, and "ground" was put in, only because in the past there had been some confusion about pads being elevated and whether or not -- what the intent of the regulation was, whether it be a pad on the ground or an elevated pad. So the intent, as staff had been applying it, was for ground, and that's why you see "ground" there, to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I mean, I would somewhat argue, because that could be confused as just you have to mount it to the ground. So could maybe we put a "slab on grade" or something instead? They have to be mounted on a concrete -- piece of concrete, whether you call it a pad or a slab but -- MS. ISTENES: It doesn't matter to me. It's -- that's acceptable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your intent is that it's not raised, although in flood zones it is raised. So what happens there? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And we do have new maps coming out, and we do have some -- a whole lot of raisings going on. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I believe there's a different section of the code that may address that, and I'd have to pull it out to answer that question. I'm happy to do that if you want while y'all are collaborating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the only other thing: Do we want to put any provision to landscape the view of it from the street? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we want to put any provision to landscape the view of it from the street? MS. ISTENES: That's up to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A lot of cormnunities have it where you have to have landscaping on the street side of that so that it's not sticking out here (indicating). I mean, it ends up being a small hedge to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well --but if it's elevated because of FEMA, it's going to be a small hedge with high trees. And I understand gated communities doing that, because that's what they get to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They get to control people's lives. But we ought to have some places in the county where things aren't so controlled. I know that's hard to believe. Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. Page 42 161 ky , February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I -- four or five years ago I had to have a new well drilled. Well, they did not drill the well where the old well was back by the equipment. They drilled it almost right on the street. I mean, they might just as well have -- but, anyway, it was on my property that I had. And it -- you're right, it is unsightly. It's a white -- well, you know, it sat about three feet. I had to plant some trees around it, because I thought it was ugly. So, I mean, I -- I kind of agree with Brad there. I don't know if we could make it a condition, but I did mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to prohibit people from letting people drill wells in their front yard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. I couldn't believe it. You know, I rolled out there in my wheelchair, and I went, "What in the hell is that ?" you know, so it was an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you pay them for it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just curious. Why would you pay somebody to drill a well where you didn't want COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's a long story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was weak at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think your example's going to go and happen to a lot of people, though. I mean, I'm not sure we need a code to cover that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess it depends on the well driller. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. There's certain requirements for health safety depending on where other well sites and septic tanks are located. To meet those health safety standards, it may be forced to put a well site in the front yard. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was not -- well, that's true, but -- MR. BELLOWS: It may not in your case. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- not in my case. MR. BELLOWS: But in other cases I've known those situations to exist. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To make it easier for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's try to get through these two pages -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 181 and 182. MS. ISTENES: To answer your question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: -- Ray reminded me that, once you're over 30 inches, then you just don't -- you can't encroach. You just have to meet the setbacks. So that would be the difference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: But we talked about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Brad had made a suggestion that the word "ground" be substituted with "slab on grade." Is that still -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It actually may be better -- why don't we put parentheses "slab on grade," so the -- it's ground — the intent of it, it's on the ground, and it's essentially a slab on grade, is what -- to use that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any more comments or questions on Pages 181 and 182? because I have one -- one or two, actually. The reference to the last bullet under "Fiscal Operational Impacts" on 181, "This will create nonconformance for over 100,000 existing residents," now that isn't what you're proposing in this language on Page 182, right? MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we never saw the original language. MS. ISTENES: I don't think that it differed much from this. I mean, the language is simply just to allow the pool equipment and well pumps to encroach, because it's not specifically stated in the LDC; but that's been the practice of staff when they've been approving permits. And so just in an attempt to make it more clear, we wanted to add that language in so there was no question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me what the reference to the nonconforming -- was it -- was referring to then? I mean, for someone to make a statement that there's -- could be over 100,000 existing residences deemed Page 43 161 lj February 26, 2010 nonconforming -- because of what? MS. ISTENES: I believe -- I think when -- and Catherine presented this to DSAC. But I think one of the concerns was the fact that the board didn't approve it and that, in not approving it, nonconformities would exist because permits had been issued allowing the encroachments by these types of accessories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying if the board did not approve the encroachments in the side yards, we would have over 100,000 in nonconformity. Is that a simple way of saying it? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I don't know if that number's accurate, but that was what DSAC said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. MS. ISTENES: You got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm focusing on where the issue is. If you get to the -- and on Page 182, the second line, Line 16 refers to unenclosed pool equipment and well pumps. What is considered unenclosed? Is it a defined tern? MS. ISTENES: Generally speaking, it's without a roof, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then your air conditioners have to have four sides on them'? MS. ISTENES: Well, you don't have to have anything around your air conditioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean pool equipment. I'm sorry. Pool equipment and well pumps, you've got to have four sides around them? MS. ISTENES: No, you don't have to have anything. What it's saying is, if you enclose them, you can't encroach, because then it becomes a structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you could -- you can put four sides up, but no roof. That's what I mean. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I should have said. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Do you disagree, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No, I don't disagree. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Ray agrees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that makes it fine. MS. ISTENES: We're ready for a vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No more questions. COMMISSIONER CARON: How frightening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay. I understand what you're saying. Anybody else? Okay. Now let's ask the same question again. Is there a motion for a approval, recommendation, denial, whatever? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move that we forward with a recommendation of approval based on the amendment of putting parentheses "slabs on grade" after "ground." And that recommendation of approval is saying it would meet the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What's the page number on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 181. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 181. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 6 to 0. We're moving on to Page 185. 185 is the Gateway Triangle. Susan, do you want to explain to us? MS. ISTENES: I can attempt to. I don't have a lot of the background on this. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Essentially they're eliminating the reference to a front yard build -to line. And I believe there was a graphic that had that reference on there. So they wish to remove that. Page 44 61 143 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's on Page 186 where they had it? MS. ISTENES: Correct. If you see a -- let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The top one has it; the bottom one does not -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if I'm not mistaken. And they reference a build -to line on Page 188 -- excuse me -- and on 189 they do not. MS. ISTENES: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on Page 187, they mention a build -to line; and 189, they do not. So what I'm assuming is all the ones that do not reference the build -to line are the new ones; is that right? MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last one is on Page 191, talking about parking locations. The old one is on top, and the new one, I believe, is on the bottom; is that correct? Yeah -- yes, because the build -to line is gone from the bottom one. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That I understand. What we have in front of us, does anybody have any questions? Why do they change the trees? Never mind. I'm just kinding. MS. ISTENES: I really don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They went from a royal palm to a sable palm. I'm just wondering, is that a sign of the times? MR. BELLOWS: I liked the other one better. MS. ISTENES: I did too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you must have been good at where is Waldo? I move that we forward it with a recommendation of approval and with a finding that it's compliant with the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 6 to 0. We're on to Page 193. MS. ISTENES: That was withdrawn. You see it hashed out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're right. Okay. We're on to Page 203. This is the one that removes the planning commission from the code of laws to the -- to a code of -- I mean, from the code of — from the LDC to the code of laws, right? MS. ISTENES: Yes, that was already done. This is essentially just cleaning up by removing it from the LDC. And that's on Page -- starts on Page 203, 204. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions or comments? I have one, and I don't know who wants to answer it. But if we take the planning commission standards out of the LDC and we put it in the code of laws, if it stays in the LDC, the planning commission gets to weigh in on the changes that are occurring. If it's in the code of laws, it's done in silence, like everything else that sometimes doesn't work for us. Why would this be a benefit to this planning commission? And the example I can think of is in '0 -- in 2001 when the hearing officer ordinance came through. It was the same similar thing. They were going to basically trash the planning commission and replace them with a hearing officer who wouldn't have been nearly as accessible to the public as this planning commission. MR. KLATZKOW: I will give you the reason since it was my idea. Page 45 16 S 1x3 February 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR KLATZKOW: And it has nothing to do with the planning commission. It had to do with all of the LDC advisory committees. We have a mishmash -- well, we had a mishmash of areas in the -- in the code where you could find the advisory boards if you were looking for their ordinance. Some were in the LDCs; some were in the code of laws and ordinances; some were buried within the other ordinances. One of the problems with it being in the LDC is that, when you want to make a minor change to it, you've got to go through this process, okay? So, you know, matters that were -- and we made a couple of minor amendments to the planning commission ordinance last year, you know, dealing with, among other things, how the board of county commissioners would select which ones from which district and what have you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, 1 remember that. MR. KLATZKOW: We would have to go through the entire pro -- LDC process; whereas, if it's a regular ordinance, the board could just hear it, make the change, and do it. That is why it's in there. So, yes, you are not going to be seeing, in this particular arena, any changes to the CCPC ordinance, just like the rest of the committees who used to be there, the EAC and the historical board and everybody else. You won't see those changes either. But they will -- any changes will get advertised and noticed by the BCC -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- and -- no, and you are, you know, welcome to comment there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, we couldn't make that argument in the three minutes before we're pulled offthe show. Second of all, some of the minor things that you --that the reasoning is to move this there, could just as well be major things that could be changed. And we would be in --unknowledgeable of it. Third of all, this board has a lot different standing than the EAC, the historic board, and the others in the sense we're quasi- judicial. We're the official EPA for Collier County, and as long as we have that kind of standing, I think it would be a grave mistake to put this into a process where we don't know when and how it could be changed except for reading all those ridiculous legal ads in the paper that nobody can sit there and read, except maybe an attorney who's trying to make a living -- not you, Jeff, but the outside private sector. But 1 just -- this is --I think this is wrong for this board. I don't --you know, the rest of the boards have a different standing than we do. And I certainly am against it. MR. KLATZKOW: And that's fair. I hear the reason why we did it. It was to make it easier to change the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather see it harder, to be honest with you. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fair; that's fair. And you can make that recommendation to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I'll support you in that recommendation to the board. I don't think that the planning commission should be removed from the LDC. It's not a good -- it's not a good thing for the planning commission; it's not a good thing for the board of county commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In fact, I think we ought to lake it a step further. Can we bring the board of county commissioners' ordinance into the LDC so we can - -just kidding. So what I --I would suggest in the -- in the parts of this that are being considered for the planning commission application, that the recommendation would be to deny and leave the planning commission here, but for the rest of them, leave it as it is -- as proposed. MR. KLATZKOW: That's your prerogative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the rest of you think'? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we ought to cross it and vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion for anything on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. I'll make a motion that LDC Section 8 -1 through 20 -- well, that's on -- on Page 203 and two hundred -- as articulated on 203 and 204 be forwarded to the board of county commissioners with a recommendation of a denial for those sections applicable to the planning commission, but a recommendation of approval for the remaining, and finding both those recommendations consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying "aye." Page 46 161 1�5 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 6 to 0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, one question. I remember watching the commission meeting. Didn't -- in the planning commission Item D, the reappointment, wasn't that removed or changed or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I had a -- there were a couple of minor adminis -- what I would term adminusterial changes made to the planning commission ordinance and a couple of others as well. We were making changes to the EAC ordinance. And this is a rather lengthy and expensive process, going through changing the LDC. So the thought was just pushing everything into the code of laws and ordinances, like many other places do. But you guys are special; I've always told you that. That's why I sit here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The special what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But yet the change isn't inhere yet. So when we're looking at this wording, it's the old wording? MR. KLATZKOW: It's the old wording. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you were going to catch it on the other side? MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, it's already -- it's already been codified. You have a sample of that ordinance now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- which you'll Find in the code of laws and ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Susan? MS. ISTENES: They're in the book too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted to talk to you about that. MS. ISTENES: Okay. (Commissioner Murray entered the room.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it abetter time now to go back and sign off on those that we did go through on Book 1 in our private -- previous meeting where we could not vote and get that done with and/or go into Book 2 in order now? MS. ISTENES: Well, two thoughts on that. We don't have everything you -- obviously, there was things that had to come back that are not coming back until March, and those are in Book 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I also have some staff that wanted to be here, and I told them they were in Book 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. ISTENES: And so that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's enough. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to make sure we were most efficient. And we'll just hold off and go through those workshop -- it wasn't a workshop, but whatever we called it -- at the March I Oth meeting. MS. ISTENES: I have the agenda from that meeting. And if, at the end of the meeting, you want to go through it and - -just for a mental checklist, or if you're satisfied with just waiting to comeback to the third meeting, we can do that too if you wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll see what happens as the day goes on then. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move into Page 1 of Book 2. That one's the one that's been continued. That's the Immokalee master plan. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the hnmokalee deviation process. So let's now move into Page 11 of Book 2. MS. ISTENES: And 1 -- Maryann Devanas prepared this. And the reason she had was the county attorney's office has opined that the responsibility for annual monitoring reports is held by the owners, all of them, of undeveloped or developing lands or, in the case of a fully developed PUD, by the owners, meaning governing associations of the Page 47 161 143 February 26, 2010 common lands. And that is essentially the basis upon which this amendment was drafted, to be consistent with their opinion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This is Page 11, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 11? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11, yes, sir. MS. ISTENES: Of Book 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages -- there's only two pages; it's 1 I and 12. On the -- Page 11, Susan, the reason -- the last sentence, it says: "Following this opinion from the CAO the language struck through below in 10.02.13 F.1.4 is not correct." MS. ISTENES: I think the intent there was to say, based on the opinion, the language that's presently in there is not correct. I'll -- I'm going to clean that up, because it almost reads like what I'm propose -- what she's proposing is not correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I tigmred you just had a different opinion than the county attorney. MS. ISTENES: That never happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the language then on Page 12 were the two changes on 8.a and 4 -- those are changes that are correctly proposed. MS. ISTENES: That is my understanding. Do you agree, .leff? MR. KLATZKOW: I hate talking about this since Maryann's not here to ask why she's doing it. I'll have to get back to you, Mr. Chairman. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: It does appear to be consistent with the reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who was -- was this -- is that something we should wait'til the 10th then, Jett? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just why don't you wait on that. Let me double check on this. I mean, that might have been me who gave that opinion. I don't even remember. It's been a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 know the feeling. Okay. Let's move to Page 13, Section 10.03.05. That's just a two -page issue concerning the notifications for conditional use. MS. ISTENES: Yes. This is actually -- we believe it was an oversight. But if you recall -- I know you don't do that many ofthem. Actually, I don't think the planning commission even sees those. Thesejust go straight to the board. Isn't that right, Ray, the conditional -use extensions? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. MS. ISTENES: So anyway, there's the ability for somebody to get an extension to their approved conditional use if they haven't developed it in accordance with the code. And -- well -- and let me clarify that. If it hasn't commenced, they can extend it, because it typ -- it only has a life of three years unless the use has commenced. So sometimes there's a need, a legitimate need, for -- for a extension. And this will require -- and we've -- actually, I believe we've already been requiring it -- the notice to -- public notice to be published when this extension goes to hearing in front of the board so the public can be aware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just have it comment. We're probably going to see a lot of these coming up, extensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they go up to the board. They don't come to us. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 1 know. But, I mean, they are going to be seeing a lot of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they can do it on summary'? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Comments? Questions'? Anybody? If not, is there a format for a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY- I'll move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to go through the process. Motion to approve 10.03.05. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Consistent with the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. Page 48 161 � February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion; Mr. Schiffer seconded it. Discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 7 to 0. Now we're on Page 15. MS. ISTENES: May I just interrupt, because a thought just occurred tome, that these ones that are being continued really have to be continued to -- if you don't have -- in other words -- well, never mind; never mind; scratch that. Go ahead. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. MS. ISTENES: No, I was just getting concerned that -- I don't -- we've got to be careful if we're continuing things that have to be changed. They really are coming back on your fourth meeting, not your third, which is March 10th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So I was just recalling what maybe we had said --well, we'll talk about them on March 10th instead. But if they have to have corrections, you have your book already for March 10th. So, obviously, anything that needs a correction will not be coming back until the fourth hearing, not the third. Thatjust popped in my head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I think when we meant continued, it wasn't going to be today. It wasn't like a regular advertised hearing where it's going to have an applicant worrying about coming back with witnesses. So let's just -- we understand. Another day it will come to us. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to talk about the Devanas one, I --I've refreshed my recollection on the reasoning on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back to Page 11. MR. KLATZKOW: What was happening was this: Over the course of time, PUDs were getting transferred; sometimes parcels were being sold outright to other developers; sometimes you'd get changes in corporate structure. And what was happening, when staff was asking for a monitoring report, we were, in essence, getting -- getting one of these (indicating). Everybody was pointing fingers at everybody else. And what I said was, you know, this has to stop. The guy who originally got the PUD, he's responsible for it. And if he wants to have other people do it among themselves, they can figure out from the expense standpoint, time standpoint who can do it. But we had to have somebody held accountable for it so that the original developer is responsible for the PUD irrespective of the corporate machinations or transfers he might have within his development. And that was the reason for the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but aren't you taking that -- that out? MR. KLATZKOW: No, the changed portion says it "shall not absolve the original owner." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a change in the entire PUD and moving it to a HOA for the PUD would absolve the original owner. MR. KLATZKOW: Portions of -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there shouldn't be a change in this then, huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Because that was -- that was -- that was the discussion we had. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Why don't we -- rather than -- why don't we -- since the person who authored it is not here, it needs to be reviewed, why don't we just wait and bring that back on the 24th so we can -- MR. KLATZKOW: She's never going to be here. Page 49 161 1,1-3� February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. ISTENES: The author will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. So what I'm saying is, why not wait until the 24th and let somebody else digest it better so that we're assured we're not doing something that's going to be detrimental. It's two pages. We can hear it quickly on the 24th and be done with it. Is that okay? MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Let's wan'til the 24th then. We're on school board concurrency. And Tom Eastman knew we were going to discuss this, and he wanted to leave before we did; so he's gone. And he said, "Oh, I'm going leave this to Amy Taylor; she can handle it." So Amy's here. I don't know who wants to make the presentation or discussion, if there is any, but go right ahead. MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca again with the comprehensive planning staff. The proposed school concurrency land development code regulations before you today were developed and/or intended to implement the countywide school concurrency program, which was adopted by the board of county commissioners in October of 2008. Generally, these amendments codify portions of the school concurreney interlocal agreement and the public school facilities element of the growth management plan and provide a process to review and approve residential developments that are subject to school concurrency. And I don't have any further presentation; however, I do have some minor editorial changes that I'd like to put on the record when directed to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we'll do is we'll go through page by page -- MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and when we get to the page you need to do an editorial change, we're there. Okay. Are there questions on Pages 16 and 17 from the planning commission? On 16, the ancillary facility, is that considered an essential service at any -- at any point in time'? MS. ISTENES: I don't think so; I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I can do a quick search. We can look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Some of those are designated as shelters. MS. MOSCA: Not the -- not the ancillary facilities, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while Susan's looking up that, I'll see if there's anything else on 16 and 17, and we'll move to 18 and 19. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: I do have a correction -- orjust to make you -- or alert you to, Page 17 rather, where there is a blank next to the official record book on Line 7, we're waiting for that interlocal to be recorded. So you'll see an X and a page and a -- MS. TAYLOR: It has been re -- it has been recorded. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Do you want to -- MS. TAYLOR: It has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy Taylor for the record, right? MS. TAYLOR: Amy Taylor for the record, long -range planner with the school district. It has been recorded. And we will get those numbers to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff? MS. TAYLOR: -- the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's tine. Thank you. Okay. Anything else from 16,17? If not, 18,19? Questions? flow about 20, 21? MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MOSCA: On Page 19, Line 7, if we couldjust remove the bolding from the acroment -- acronym, excuse Page 50 166 Lary 26, 104 me, LOS. And, again, on Page 19, Line 9, if we could also remove the bolding from the term "Florida Inventory of Schoolhouses" and, paren, "FISH capacity" and again on Line 10, for "FISH capacity," please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're on Page 20 and 21. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have something here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I've been thinking about this, and it went back to ancillary facilities. Do we consider the sheriffs mobile home, whatever you call it, an ancillary facility? And is that part of the school district? I don't know what made me think about it, but I -- they're at every school. MS. ISTENES: We as the county, actually, look at it as kind of a -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A separate -- MS. ISTENES: -- accessory use essentially to the school. MS. TAYLOR: Yes. MS. ISTENES: They have a -- they have trail -- on some -- some cases they have trailers or -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: -- portables. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MS. ISTENES: And we've just looked at it that way -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So -- MS. ISTENES: -- as an accessory to the school. MS. TAYLOR: And it's not considered an ancillary as defined by the state. There's a definition for ancillary. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, but -- MS. TAYLOR: And it's consistent with the definition, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Pages 20 and 21. Anybody have any questions? Michele, when I turn to the next page, are you going to tell me to go back to 21 ? MS. MOSCA: No, I won't. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about 22 and 23? Questions on 22 and 23? 24 and 25? 26 and 27? 28 and 29? Michele, on the top of Page 29: "Adjacent Concurrency Service Areas: Coneurrency service areas which are contiguous and touch along one side of their outside geographic boundary," 1 remember when this came through we talked about how these can be fitted together. Where it says "along one side," do we mean any portion of one side, or does it have to be the entire side of side one? MS. MOSCA: I believe it's any one portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, you may want to clarify that. MS. TAYLOR: That's tine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you've got a quarter of a side against the side of another facility, you just -- a piece that -- an overhang, then you still get the benefit of that quarter side as being considered adjacent. MS. TAYLOR: I'm not sure I under -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your adjacent concurrency -- MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't go back and reread all those volumes of data on the school issue. If you have a shortage of concurrency and you're -- MS. TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say you're square, if you have another square next to you that has an excess, you can somehow blend it so you -- MSA AYLOR: Absolutely, yes. Page 51 161 1,45 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get the benefit of that. MS. TAYLOR: That's the whole -- that's the reason for the adjacency description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What Cm saying is that you wouldn't need to be adjacent for the full length of whatever common line you have. It could bejust a portion of that common line, and you could still benefit from that blending. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, you could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only reason I'm suggesting is you may want to say "along any portion of one side of their outside geographic boundary," so that's clear. MS. TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was getting at. MS. TAYLOR: Yes, uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 30 and 31, questions? Pages 32 and 33? MS. MOSCA: And, Mr. Chairman, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: -- a couple of elianges on 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Page 32, Lines 20, 22, 23, and 38, delete the phrase "or its functional equivalent." And that should have come out previously. When we worked with municipalities, we weren't certain -- we weren't sure if they had some other functional equivalent to a building permit, et cetera. So that needs to come out. Also on Page 32 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh -huh. MS. MOSCA: — Line 22, delete the word "approval" and the comma, and insert the word "or" before the word "site." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else? MS. MOSCA: Excuse me. And then finally, on Line 38, delete the comma after the word "plat," and insert the word "or" before the word "residential." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it? MS. MOSCA: And that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 32 or 331 D -1, Line 8: "The County shall not issue a COA for a residential development until receiving confirmation of available school capacity." There are some exempt residential developments, right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So not every residential development will require a COA. Are those expandable, any of those non -- those exempt residential developments? MS. TAYLOR: The -- and I'm sorry I don't have the state statute with me. But the state statute provides for the exemptions, so it's -- it's -- for example, all Golden -- Golden Gate Estates previously platted lots are exempt. Those that are designated as adult communities are exempt. So -- and they are as specifically outlined in the state statute. Any -- any other development, site development plan or plat in the future is subject to concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You -- you might consider modifying that line to say, "The county shall not issue a COA for a non- exempted residential development." Does that help some? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- yeah, that's the note that I had on that line. And it also should occur on Line 12 for the "non- exempted residential development" there, and it should occur on Line 13 for "extension or modification of a COA for non - exempted residential development." COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- is that useful to add in there or not? MS. MOSCA: I think it's -- actually, Mr. Chairman, I think it's already covered within the previous pages of the same LDC amendment, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: -- it addresses all of the exemptions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 20; is that right'? Page 52 61 1 43 February 26, 2010 MS. MOSCA: I believe it's located in two areas under --on Page 30, there's a list of exemptions under Item 3, which is Line 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: It also does it on Page 20 -- C14AIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Yeah, that's fine. MS. MOSCA: And that's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: --under "Submittal Requirements for Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy." And B is "Exemptions," so -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. And that takes us to the end of the one for the school concurrency, and that's a whole pile of different sections of the code. Is there a motion -- or is there any discussion, any further discussion, by the planning commission? Okay. Is there a motion on that one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion needs to be -- and I'll just make -- for simplification, it needs to be either for approval or -- for recommendation for approval or denial for the following sections: 1.08.01, 1.08.02, 4.08.07, 6.02.09, 10.02.04, 10.02.07, 10.04.09, 10.02.12, 10.02.13, and 10.04.00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did that rather well, didn't I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just trying to help you get there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my motion, and it comports with the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion for approval, right? MS. MOSCA: Mr. -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is that, yes. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, Amy indicated that we missed -- 1.08.02? MS. TAYLOR: 10.02.03, in your list, when you were listing them, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's not in the list. That's what we're here to review, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 10.02.03. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 10.02.03 should be added to that. Mr. Murray, do you accept that into your motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to Mr. Murray's motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, okay. A motion was made stipulating all those sections, and it was seconded, that it's consistent with the growth management plan. All those in favor, signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? The motion carries 6 to 0 -- or 7 -- 7 to 0. I'm sorry. People are coming and going. Okay. Let's move on to Page, it looks like, 34. MS. ISTENES: This one's very straightforward. It's just amending the square footage of the travel -- the size of the vehicles that are going from 480 square feet to 500 square feet in gross floor area. This was brought before the board on a public petition, and the board -- kind of keeping up with the times, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but the -- you said it's straightforward. That means we need to spend some time on it. MS. ISTENES: Okay. It's really difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- is there any questions on Pages 34 or 35? Page 53 161 1-,,� February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion for approval, and it comports with the growth management plan, for LDC Section 2.03.03 F, "Travel Trailer- Recreational Vehicle Campground District (TTRVC)." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good with it. Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded for approval consistent with the growth management plan. Discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. Motion carries 7 to 0. Okay. We're on to Page 42. MS. ISTENES: Okay. This is to increase the maximum number of seats allowed within the permitted -use classification of Performing Arts Theater. And this is in the Bayshore mixed -use overlay district, LDC Sections 2.03.07 I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And the change is to increase the performance seating, limited -- it was 200, and this proposes to raise it to 500 seats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Pages 42, 43, 44? Do you know why they limited themselves to 500 seats? MS. ISTENES: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I can find out if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how big is the Plvlharmonic, for example? Do you know how many seats that is? MS. ISTENES: No, 1 don't. I don't have- - COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's something like three hundred -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm just wondering -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- forty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may not need more than 500, but why do they want to limit themselves? Is there any reason in the code or the GMP that staff or anybody has an objection just to giving them -- I mean, any -- if we could put another facility in East Naples, that would be fabulous. So 1 wouldn't know why we'd want -- wouldn't want to encourage it, not put any limitations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then you get into the section -- the issue of size overall, number of parking spots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any property in there that could do that? I don't really have a problem with your avocation, but I'm assuming that 500 is a pretty good number. MS. ISTENES: If you want, I could e -mail David Jackson and Gene and see if they can give me a response and even hold off on this one. That's just an option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather not hold off on it if it's -- MS. ISTENES: Well, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, no one's -- no one's here to object to it, and barring anything else, it's too simple. I don't want to -- I was just trying to -- you know, for Naples -- for Fast Naples to have the benefit of a facility like this would be great. And if it's bigger than smaller, that's even better. MR. KLATZKOW: You could recommend that, when the issue goes to the board, if they want more at that time, you're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's good. Page 54 161 1 7�3 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we should recommend approval as requested with the caveat that we might suggest they consider even more at -- potentially, if that's ever wanted. So okay. Is everybody satisfied with the discussion? If there is, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend approval for LDC 2:86.64. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the - COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section 2.03.071, or -- yeah, with -- it comports with the growth management plan, and a recommendation that the board consider an additional number over 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer -- who said it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Karen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen seconded. Karen's from East Naples. We'll let that be a good one for her to second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 7 to 0. Boy, we are just moving along. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I love it. We're on a roll. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it's because of the court reporter we have. Boy, Cherie's going to hate that. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're -- you're dead. You are dead meat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't tell Cherie I said that. Okay. Page 46, Goodland overlay zoning district. MS. ISTENES: This is probably the toughest one of the day. There's an error there. Bayshore Drive is supposed to be Bayshore Way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? MS. ISTENES: And it's correcting it. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 47, where Way is underlined, is it not supposed to be capitalized because it is the name of the street? MS. ISTENES: Yes, I will capitalize that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. Let's discuss this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nobody gets out ofhere easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any further discussion? If not, is there a motion for that particular section, 2.03.07 J.4.b? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consistent with the GMP? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Consistent with the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 55 161 1 �� February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 7 to 0. Susan, your stuff is too easy. Page 48. MS. ISTENES: Okay. This is essentially a cleanup. When Ordinance 08 -11 was adopted -- remember when we converted back from the list of permitted and conditional uses in the zoning district, we had the table, and we took them back to the list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, MS. ISTENES: I guess there were some things that were not stricken out that were supposed to be struck out, and this is just cleaning that up. And I probably didn't do a good explanation of --of that, but essentially that is what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do one of you have Municode pulled up in front of you? MS. ISTENES: I can real quick if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I did have when I reviewed this, and I gave up after a while, because the references for the sections that were being referenced did not seem to match up to the Municode references. And I couldn't follow it, so I kind of need to see if you found out what I found out. MS. ISTENES: Well, Ray's going to open it, because I just accidentally turned my computer off when I picked it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you opening it up? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with Page 49. MR. BELLOWS: Page 49. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under 2 -- I'm going to say Line 28 and 29. The "Rules for Interpretation of Uses" was 2.04.01. It's being crossed out because the one above it says now Subsection 2.03.01 A. If you go to 2.03.01 A on Municode, I believe it's the agricultural zoning district definition or something like that. I'm trying to pull it up, but my screen's slow. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So how does -- how does 2.04.01 get transferred from a rules for interpretation of uses to the ag zoning district description? Don't we need a different reference? And, by the way, that -- MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm not quite understanding the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Can we try that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may be because I haven't read this correctly. Go to Page 49 and Line 29. MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see a crossed -out section, 2.04.01, "Rules for Interpretation of Uses," and then you see the entire paragraph crossed out. MS.ISTE:NF,S: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The presumption is it's crossed out because it's been replaced elsewhere in the code; is that correct? MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reference on Line 28 seems to say now subsection 2.03.01 A. So if you go to Section 2.03.01 A, looking for that old paragraph, I don't find it there. And I found that in quite a few of these, not all of them, but quite a few of them. So I'm -- I'm just wondering if I'm reading the references correct or not. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman, let -- let my staff double check this. We'll bring it back so we're sure this -- it's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Does that work for you guys, Ray and -- MS. ISTENES: Sure. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And 1 -- and, Jeff, I went through a bunch of them. You'll find quite a few that are inconsistent. And if you look at some of the cross -outs, they -- MR. KLATZKOW: When we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they weren't transferred. Page 56 161 1k February 26, 2010 MR. KLATZKOW: When we re- codified way back when, there were tons of stuffjust like this. And I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand -- fully understand the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's move on to Page 64. MS. ISTENES: This, I believe, was simply replacing an exhibit that was difficult to read. Let mejust get there, though, to make sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Probably with one that's more difficult to read. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. There was a — it's a replacement of a current graphic or exhibit with one containing greater detail. And it has to do with the -- if you look on Page 66, that is the one that is going to be removed and replaced with Page 67. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who wants to be Waldo? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got a bunch. Have you got some, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, go ahead. Let's -- you've probably got the ones that I've got, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. First of all, Susan, there's the phrase --and I guess I'm trying to figure out how to describe it to you. But it says 10 -feet, 15 -feet, 20 -feet landscape buffers -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you read that, why does it have that second parentheses? MS. ISTENES: "Two -foot setback behind curb does not apply." It looks -- there's a -- let's see. There is a requirement to set the curb back, I believe, two feet, but -- from a buffer. But I'm not sure why it's specifically res -- referencing a 10 -, 15 -, or 20 -foot buffer, because I thought it applied to all of them. But I could be wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, the thing is, it's telling you that these are for the 10, 15, and 20; and then the thing below says it's not for the 10, 15, or 20. Which -- MS. ISTF,NES: Well, the setback is -- I believe is referring to the curb -- wheel stop. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I understand what the two feet means. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not my question. My question is: Did you -- in the illustration, it shows you that it's for that buffer, and then, at the thing in parentheses, it tells you it's not for that buffer. So just -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- see what that means -- M S. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because one says it is, and then the -- MS. ISTENES: Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- parenthesis says it isn't. And the -- another question I have is that -- the ramp cut you're doing there is not the -- actually, it's not the preferred ramp cut for the handicapped. The concern I have, since you show it, is you might be forcing people to do that. In other words, what's kind of lately been -- been done, because of the steepness of that short little triangle piece, is that you would slope down for five feet or, let's say, six feet i£ it's six -inch curb, and then you go flat for the handicapped ramp, and then you slope back up with the sidewalk rather than going around like you do. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I prefer you showing that, because this could be interpreted that you have to go around like you do. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or show nothing and say -- or put a note that says "or as allowed by" and reference the proper accessibility thing. MS. ISTENES: Well, I'm -- I'm not disagreeing with you. I think the important things are the dimensional requirements here, so perhaps a reference to any design that meets the dimension -- ininimum dimensional standards and is ADA compliant or something to that effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But somebody could force somebody to say, "Look, it shows you" -- and, you know, we have conversations with planning reviewers that are like this -- but, "Look, it shows you a four -foot thing there; you have to do the four -foot thing." Page 57 161 1,1-1 February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know -- and that's what I have, Mark. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look at the old plan and you look at the --about the center of the page where it says "blue," "white," "blue," "white," I have a real smudged -out version, but I see four inches there. On the new plan, if you look at the same reference on the right -hand side of the page, they've all been increased to six inches, which, in essence, you know, increases 50 percent the amount of material and other efforts used there. Does anybody -- was that known -- done with knowledge? because that's more than -- I'm not -- I'm just wondering if that's more than clarity. It seems like a standard change. MS. ISTENES: I would agree with that. And I'm not sure if the standard did change. I apologize for Stan not being here, but I -- since we're coming -- it sounds like we're coming back anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MS. ISTENES: -- I can -- we'll be happy to clarify that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there's a reference in the middle of the new page that says: "Single 6 -inch wide white stripe" between the two parking spaces. That one again, on the old plan, was 4 inches, at least as of -- the smudged way I'm reading it. I notice there's a lot more detail in here, which was part of the reason it was done. But is all the detail requirements, or are they things that can be done in lieu of something else? And in particular, on the top of the new page where it says a -- "For 2 -foot buffer only," where did we get that from? I don't recall a two -foot buffer. There certainly may be one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Mark, it also talks typical, typical, typical, so -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I mean, it -- this is -- this should frequent the current standards of either the LDC originated or any of the ADA requirements. But I -- Ray, if -- 1 think I'm going to have to talk to Stan. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you find it's better clarity than the old one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Because that's the only reason we're doing this. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. 1 mean, 1 think the -- the inconsistency is what concerns me. If we need to put more -- if we need to -- if we had some code changes, I think we should have advertised it then as to what it is. It doesn't seem to be giving us that. Filling it up with a bunch of supplemental diagrams that may change in other parts of the code I'm not sure is the best idea either. So maybe someone needs to take a look at it -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and get back to us with it. MS. ISTENES: Let me-- let me tind out. I mean, it could be this drawing was just really old and it never was updated. But let me get more information on that. It's -- I -- I agree. I read the changes as some --simply replacing it, and I didn't question it. So I will -- I will question it based on your input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me say -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, I think what's wrong with that right -hand drawing is -- what they're showing there is -- if you look above, they've added that detail where they have a curb, and then they have two inches, and then they have grass. MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's what they intended to show on that lower one, but they didn't, because they actually showed curb stop, curb, and then grass. So I think the intent of that drawing would be something to match the one on the left, only using curb stops instead of a curb. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 1 think that's what they're trying to draw there. So it's a totally messed up drawing. MS. ISTENES: Messed up. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if they keep it simpler, it might be better. And let some of the code that Page 58 161 ljt3 February 26, 2010 describes those other elements stay in the code where they are and not try to illustrate them; just a suggestion. Okay. Let's move on to Page 69, 4.05.04, "Parking Space Requirements." MS. ISTENES: This is actually just replacing language that didn't get carried over. Essentially what it does -- it says when you have a change in use -- hang on a second. Let me reread it. "Required off - street parking according to the requirements of this code shall not be reduced in area or changed to any other use unless the permitted or permissible use that it serves is discontinued or modified, or equivalent required off - street parking is provided meeting the requirements of the code." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. I'm sorry, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, doesn't that go without saying? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. That's why I'm trying to explain to you, and I'm kind of thinking, "Uh, this is sort of, you know, common sense here." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the only thing in the code that's common sense, though. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I said sort of. Yeah, I mean -- but, again, it -- I imagine what happened is somebody ran into an issue and realized this part of the code was missing and wasn't carried over and had a question about it and realized -- and that's when they realized, so that's why it's being brought back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's exactly what I was going to bring up, that it was omitted during the re- codification. MS. ISTENES: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Was it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, was it, or was it removed -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because maybe it wasn't necessary? COMMISSIONER CARON: We didn't remove anything. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some of this was added. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We didn't change anything. We removed a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the scoop? Yeah, what do we -- MR. KLATZKOW: See, this -- this is the problem with this, because this goes back to -- how many years, Susan? MS. ISTENES: '04. MR. KLATZKOW: '04. MS. ISTENES: For 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: '04 for 41, yeah, that's right. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what was removed anymore intentionally or unintentionally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's still the law. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, maybe not, not if you can't find it, it isn't. But — but what I'm getting at -- if this is not substantive, let's just withdraw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we ought to find out why it was put there first. Could staff do some research and see if you can come back with a reason why it was being added specifically? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we can do that. I think what the concern is -- you have a lot of staff who are trained to make sure that things that didn't get cod -- re- codified -- that it still applied. I think we just need to be clear on how to treat these things. MR. KLATZKOW: I've been assured from staff that, "We caught everything." MS. ISTENES: No. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you, I've been through this now -- how many times? MS. ISTENES: No. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know anymore what was intended to be deleted, what wasn't intended to be deleted. I've had staff previously tell me that, "We've caught everything. We've gone through it with a fine - toothed comb." And Page 59 161 11.E February 26, 2010 we continue to get these old things. And without going through 10 different LDC changes, you know, every time you have one of these, you don't know. Youjust don't know. Fifteen years from now, are we still going to be doing this, "We think we might have lost this doing a re- codification?" It gets to a point in time where we've -- we're -- we're done with this. If this is not substantive -- MS. ISTENES: Jeff- - MR. KLATZKOW: -- I don't know why we're bothering. MS. ISTENES: Wouldn't it be possible to draft an ordinance or a resolution that says that? I mean, I guess -- you know, you're right. It's open ended. And when we do stop? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we'll -- what -- MS. ISTENES: I guess -- is that feasible? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. We'll go to the board of county commissioners and say, you know -- MS. ISTENES: We're done. MR. KLATZKOW: -- we're done, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, one concern I have with you, if you put this in, if I recall, there is a situation where you can -- with recycling in the commercial districts, they allowed you to use one of the parking places for that recycling bin. This would actually make you unable to do that, because you're changing the use of the parking space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- and there was -- maybe -- that wouldn't be nice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you guys take a look at it -- M S. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and let us know if we should even bother with it when we come back. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Will do. MR. KLATZKOW: Or let mejust ask if you want to add it to the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't want to add anything that isn't needed, because the code's already too big and -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't want to add it to the code, it shouldn't be in the code. How's that? If it doesn't belong -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you don't think it belongs in the code, why are we even putting it back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to find out if there was a reason why someone started the process that got us here today first. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll go from there. Okay. Page 73. MS. ISTENES: There were inconsistencies in the code regarding the safe -sight triangles and -- both in, I believe, the pictures and the dimensions. And this is essentially making them consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does this apply to county work on county facilities on county -- within county right -of -ways? Does this apply to everybody or just the public? MS. ISTENES: I think it should apply to everybody. I don't know why it wouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason is, I keep driving out of Sweetbay and making a right onto Collier Boulevard on Mission Hills Drive, and there's this giant wall right up against the edge of the back ofthe sidewalk. You cannot see any oncoming traffic. So I tried to figure out why was that there after I read this. I started checking it out. It's because it's a utility site, and apparently some utility doesn't want to move the house that this wall's behind -- not -- it's not a house. It's one of those little squares. MS. ISTENES: Unless there was some sell'-- self-- safety, health, and welfare issue that necessitated that wall -- and that could be it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we ought to put it -- see, if that wall has got to be there, then put the exception in Page 60 161 144 February 26, 2010 here, because I don't -- I didn't see any exception language. MS. ISTENES: Well, I guess we could do that. My assumption would be that engineers got together and decided that the safety of putting the wall was more important than the safety of sight or that you could see reasonably well. I'm just making an assumption, Commissioner. But if you want to add that in there as a clarification, we can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the one I'm talking about? MS. ISTENES: Yes. Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'm not the only one that wonders, "Oh, my God, you're going to get killed in this intersection." And I thought -- then I never gave it -- I figured, "Well, somehow it got done that way," until I read this, and I thought it shouldn't have been done that way. So there are no exceptions to this rule. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On poles and stuff. But, you know, one of the exception questions I had is we do have boxes for signals and stuff that are probably in these sight triangles too. So even though it allows poles, lampposts -- you know, it does give you some things -- you might want to check and make -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See if something else is bigger. And then the other question I have is the -- on the drawing for Section A -A -- it's the center one on 75 -- you're showing a three -foot -- you know, the triangle actually goes to the edge of the pavement, but the -- you are showing some three -foot sod thing. What is that? Is that a requirement, or why doesn't the sight triangle cover that? Obviously, if it's sod, it doesn't, but -- MS. ISTENES: No, I think this was just for illustrative --to look at atypical layout. And usually on county roads, for example, at least the newer ones, you've got that sod strip and then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think if you're -- MS. ISTENES: But it's not a regulatory -- in -- in my opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I would worry because your -- your triangles of required visibility are the hatched areas, and they should theoretically go over that sodded area to match the description in the -- it's 10 feet from the edge of pavement. And that sod's three feet from -- you know what I mean? So -- MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- show the triangle over that area too, I think. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me check on that, since I've got to check on any exceptions. I really would probably feel more comfortable asking transportation anyway if there are some exceptions that they regularly put in there. And then we'll put some language in there as you suggest for potential exceptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if there are exceptions, I think somebody from a risk management viewpoint will want to weigh that exception. Anyway, we'll move on to Page 79. MS. ISTENES: May we take a break, 10 minutes? I -- I'm getting behind and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. Let's -- let's come back at five minutes after 2. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. (Recess held.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back from a much deserved break. Let's start off on Page 79. MS. ISTENES: The reason -- this says, again, a scrivener's error made during the re- codification. I -- quite frankly, even if it wasn't a scrivener's error, I think that this reads better. So there's no change here. It's more applicable relative to intersections than street visibility, so to speak. So that's the only change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. You think it reads better the way it is now -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- than before? So when you say visibility at intersections, we're talking about places like Immokalee and Goodlette -Frank or 41 and Immokalee or -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, the intersection of two streets. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So -- but what about when you're coming out -- I mean, if you talk about the intersection of 41 and to mokalee -- but what about if you're coming out of Riverchase, the -- where Publix is? Shouldn't that -- that entrance to the street, shouldn't that be visible as well? MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, 1 would read that to apply here. Page 61 161 1t-3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I mean, I don't think this is intended to be, you know -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So "intersection" doesn't limit -- it's all -- it's all street -- MS. ISTENES: That would be my position on it, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. Yeah, when I read it, my take was it was -- excuse me. My take was it reads better because, when you put "street" in front of it, then that kind of narrows the scope of what intersections. And this takes into -- your scenario. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. I just wanted to be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Ray, my thing is the word "intersection." And I looked it up. It says to "meet and cross," because to me an intersection would be where two streets cross each other. So, for example, a T section wouldn't -- may not be an intersection. So is that the right word? MS. ISTENES: I -- I read it as a T. I mean, they inter -- "intersect" meaning -- MR. BELLOWS: Those are intersecting -- MS. ISTENES: They cross -- their planes cross. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, this -- that's the way I'm reading it too. I -- it's basically an intersection, whether it's a T or a cross - through intersection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- your old geometry classes, they showed you the intersect points. They didn't have to cross completely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the lines in it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about driveways and -- coming out to streets, private driveways to -- things like that? Is there any requirement for those to be -- have a visibilty -- set a line requirement? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I believe that's the same issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does this cover -- M R. BELLOWS: We have a lot of those issues in -- I almost got run over in one of those situations on a driveway with a hedge right up to the intersection with a roadway. In the City of Naples, they have many of those things, and it's very difficult for someone to see where a sidewalk and a hedge come right up to each other. And I think this is the same situation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any gum? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if, you know, I'm a -- what if we were to clarify it "except where visibility at interconnections with roadways are required and where pedestrian access is provided "? I just think "intersections," in most people's minds could be argued to be roadways or more substantial improvements over and above a driveway. I mean, if you have an old dirt road or a driveway leading out -- especially like in the estates, you've got a dirt driveway going out to one of the roads, if this isn't made -- is supposed to apply to that, I'm not sure it's going to be clear, because it says "intersection." Do you need to have that potential argument down the future, or is there a better way to word it so that you don't have that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you could say "except where visibility at public and/or private intersections" -- I mean, if you want it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we could say -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --elucidated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- "where drive, roads, and" -- where a bunch of things meet or intersect. I still say the word "intersect" means where it passes through, so I think "where it meets the roadway or intersects the roadway." Page 62 61 11f3 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you guys take a look at it and comeback to us with a couple of suggestions. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a question in reviewing this as -- where does it come -- how do you get the height requirements, you know, where -- at these intersections of the shrubs, where the -- where's the height standard come from? 1 mean -- because I have been -- you know, I've got a 250 pickup truck, and, you know, you're up there, and there's not many obstructions. Well, I had an occasion when I was riding a bike, and it was a place where there's no bike lanes, so I was up on the sidewalk so I wouldn't get killed. And out from someone's driveway comes a Corvette. Well, needless to say, I went right over the hood and -- because you can't -- you couldn't see. And he pulled right -- because he couldn't see, so he had to go over the, you know, side -- sidewalk. So what kind vehicle do they use to determine the height of these shrubs? MS. ISTENES: Well -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was wondering that as I was going over the hood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much did it cost you to fix the hood? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a bump on my head, and my front tire was destroyed, and I was peeved. MS. ISTENES: I --well --and I think the issue here is the placement of them, regardless of their height. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well -- MS. ISTENES: I suppose that -- and the -- the heights are minimums normally in our codes, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's the problem. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, yeah. So when you're talking about visibility, depending on what type of vehicle you're driving or whether you're a pedestrian or on a bike or in a car or, you know, crawling on the ground, I guess -- you know, there isn't -- there isn't a regulation that I'm aware o£ as tar as height of the shrubs. The regulation would be contained within the safety hazard and the setback of the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I can't tell you -- MS. ISTENES: -- vegetation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- how many times I've had to creep out into a road, and I'm in the road and realize I'm about to get killed. MR. BELLOWS: And I believe some of those are in violation of the sight triangles — the sight book (indicating) -- at intersections. And some of those don't meet -- clearly don't meet that, and many of those are code issues too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Maybe they do if they only talk about minimums. I mean, this is -- that was my problem. We should be talking maximums. MR. BELLOWS: Well, there should always be the sight triangle as specified in the LDC to be kept completely open. You know, I'm sure I've been in the -- some of those are right up — right -- well, the comers of the intersections -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Regardless, could we somehow take a look at this minimum/maximum thing for these hedges that are located at intersections? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But not in this LDC cycle, though. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not -- not in this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys need to come back; just address the issue at hand. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have abetter way of stating it, fine. If not, just tell us that, and we'll finish with it next time around -- or the 24th, whatever date that is. Let's move on to Page 81. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 81 is the fences and walls section of the land development code. And the changes -- I tried to outline the changes very succinctly on Page 81 and 82. There's seven, essentially, surnmations of the change. What I did was I took advantage of trying to reorganize this to make it easier to read and follow and group like categories together. Normally -- and this section is a section that normally your everyday person is going to read a lot. And usually when it comes to fences the first question we get is, "How high of a fence can I have ?" And the structure of the old code was such that you literally had to read down the entire section offence height just to figure out where you were and what your height was supposed to be -- or your maximum allowable height was. So things like that were kind of the Page 63 161 1 February 26, 2010 impetus behind the organizational structure of that. We had a lot of regulations dealing with different issues, such as architectural and fence- height measurement that were commingled in different sections. So I tried to segregate all those sections out so that -- and put headings over them so that, as a reader, you could go and look at a heading and then know what the underlying information was talking about. So hopefully that -- that part of it helps the reader. The other change was per the BCC removing the ability to get an administrative height variance for residential fences. I'll just go down the list here on Page 81. The other change I -- I made -- and this was not BZA directed, but in looking over the ordinance I realized this is sort of onerous, to have to go to the BZA to decide if barbed wire in conjunction with a chain -link fence was permissible in a residential district. I thought that we could do that administratively given the conditions of the request and evaluate that administratively with our professional expertise and make that decision, rather than making somebody go before the BZA. So that was a change. I had a question about wire -mesh fencing, because the code is so specific. It talks about chain -link fencing. I had somebody challenging me saying, "This is not chain link," you know, per the industry standard. It was a wire fence COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wire. MS. ISTENES: — that looked exactly like chain link. And I know that sounds a little ridiculous, but when you spend hours arguing with somebody about it, it just -- you just start to say, "Look, you know, the fencing is changing in the community, and maybe I'd better reference wire fencing. It's the same intent." So we added a reference to wire -mesh fencing. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because there is no chain in fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry. I said there's no chain in fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust wanted to keep it straight for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry. MS. ISTENES: There was some word replacements there. We — when we get to them, I can highlight those. The other issue we were running up against was the requirement to have a wall between non - resident -- residential and residential developments. If you applied the code as it was --as it is currently written, you would have to do that between a golf course and a preserve. And that seemed sort of silly aesthe -- I mean, understanding that a golf -- you know, if you're talking about fairways or you're talking about the open -space portion of a golf course or -- and -- and preserves are generally open and not developed. It seemed sort of silly to put a wall up there, especially -- you know, you're blocking a view or you're blocking transmission of wildlife or people or whatever from -- from these facilities. So we clarified that that would not be required. We changed a reference for the sight- triangle requirement at all street intersections for all districts, because it was currently listed as applicable only --only under residential. And those affect all intersections regardless of the zoning. We already talked about that a lot today. And the big one was that we added a reference in regulations pertaining to sound walls, which are currently not recognized in the LDC. I struck everything and rewrote it rather than trying to do strike -outs, underlines, because things were relocated. But I did -- I can summarize for you where things were and where they went and answer any questions if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's just start with the pages, Susan, and go through our questions -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- like we normally do. 1 think it starts -- let's go to the first two pages, 81 and 82. Are there any questions on those two pages? Susan, under your "Fiscal & Operational Impacts," the first words say: "Need to fill this out." I'm not sure what that means. MS. ISTENES: 1 saw -- I saw that the other day. I'm sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Then it says: "Operational impact lessen workload on BZA," and the parenthetical, "How many cases per year ?" Well, if this is removing the ability to get an administrative height variance for residential fences per the BCC direction, if -- so how do you get the height variance then? You've got to go to the BCC, right? Page 64 161 1 �3 February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Actually, that reference -- the operational impact lessening the workload on the BZA would really be for that barb -- barbed -wire section, which appeared to be kind of antiquated for me -- to me. In other words, in order to have barbed wire where it's not permitted, you'd have to go to the BZA for approval. Now, we -- I can tell you, I may have seen one of those in my 13 and a half years here go to the BZA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the entire change you have, aren't you -- in your first bullet on Page 81, didn't you say, "Removed the ability to get an administrative height variance for residential fences per BCC direction "? MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now how do you get an amend -- how do you get a height variance now for a fence? MS. ISTENES: A regular dimensional variance through the public hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have to go to the BCC. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- MS. ISTENES: BZA, essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- MS. ISTENES: That -- that statement would not be applicable, I guess, Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm saying. It's nnsleading, because you wouldn't know by the statement that you're talking about just the barbed -wire part of it. You'd think you're talking about the whole section that's being presented. And, therefore, it is not lessening the workload; it's actually increasing the workload, because they can't go administratively now. They'd have to go -- MS. ISTENES: Well, it probably equals out, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Well, I still -- so -- MS. ISTENES: And I say that because the -- remember, this change is only for residential. And I've got -- in my research of the last 10 years, we've had two requests for residential. Both were denied by staff, and both went to the board on some form of appeal. The rest -- in other words, you can still get a height variance for commercial and industrial. There's no height issues in ag and estates, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: That's the impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's move on to Page 83 and 84. Any -- well, those are all cross -outs. 85's a cross -out. 86 -- let's go back to -- the first substantive area is 86 and 87. Any questions through 87? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're doing on 86, bottom, A, is you're calling -- fences are permitted to be a principal use. So is the intent there that you can fence a site without any structures or anything or -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And that -- that is current -- in the current code, so it's not a change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It'sjust a relocation. MS. ISTENES: It'sjust a relocation. It was previously 5.03.02 B.4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it is a principal use. And then this other stuff is saying, "But it's not allowed to have accessory uses." MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Good. On -- go to 87, Mark, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, through 87. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty- seven, B, you're discussing -- and I'm not sure of the wording to that. 1 want to make sure that you point out that the foundation can't go across the property line, which is a big problem in fences, especially with the wind loads in Florida. So the way you're phrasing that is, "A fence shall not protrude in full or a part." Could maybe we add a -- reword that to state, I mean, "No part of a fence shall protrude," or -- I mean, are you having trouble with people designing footings that are going across the property line`' because sometimes we go to work on sites and the footing is across the property line. And to do -- you know, a fence in Florida with wind load is essentially a large cantilever, and Page 65 161 143 February 26, 2010 you do have to have a pretty excessive overturning on that footing to build it per code. So -- MS. ISTENES: Then I guess you better make sure it's on your property. Put your fence -- move your fence back a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. You can do it, and you can design eccentric footings. But the point is, should -- I mean, the way you worded it sounds nice, "full or part." Could we maybe at least put in parentheses after "part," "including foundation" or something? MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to remind people of that. MS. ISTENES: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down on a., you and I had this conversation about the difference between front yards — or yard and setback, okay? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: And we're getting close to maybe agreeing. But the definition in the code is that the yard is a space between the building and the property line. So I'm not sure it's a good idea to limit the height of a building in the front yard based on the word "yard." For example, I could have a site with a 50 -foot front setback. I put my house 75 feet, and you're telling me that the height of that wall's going to depend on where I put the house, not the setback. So could we talk about maybe changing these -- the setbacks and make it required setbacks such that -- or is it your intent that, if I do pull my house further away from the setback, that you don't want me to have a taller fence in that area? MS. ISTENES: Is it too late in the afternoon to have a philosophical discussion with you? Cl [AIRMAN STRAIN: It is. And I already realized he was going there again. MS. ISTENES: No, and -- and 1 understand. Brad and 1 spoke, and -- and I sent you an e-mail late yesterday. I don't know if you got it. But I'm -- I'm glad we spoke, because -- and I knew this was going to come up. And there is something missing in the code, per se, and it has to do with the definition of a "yard." And what is missing is -- if you read the code as it's currently structured, it talks about regulating the fence within the required yard. And the "required yard" is termed when you — and 1 even drew pretty pictures -- when you apply the setback and the relationship ofthe -- the distance of the setback to the street, which forms the buildable area. So if you see on this drawing (indicating), at the bottom, you'll see that is the front of this lot. And the setback in this case happens to be 25 feet. And if you're measuring that from the property line, or the back of the right -of -way line, whatever -- whatever's the most restrictive point in this case, you'll see that it forms the -- an outline of a buildable area when you apply all the setbacks that way. The "required yard" is that which is created when you apply the re -- the setback. The -- the regulation as it currently stands regulates only fences in the re — the height offences in required yards. Now, per the definition of the code, there are other yards in your -- on your lot. And if you look at this illustration (indicating), per the definition, you'll see where it's crosshatched in multiple colors. That is your required yard. And then where you've got a crosshatching in a single color, that single green, that is just a yard per the --per the definition. So right now the way the code is structured, it says "required yard" and gives the height limit. So if you do want to place a fence elsewhere in your "yard," per the definition, there is no height limit. So the question becomes do you want a height limit or not. My recommendation would -- would say you do, but I wanted to -- I think that's where you're going. Is it? Am I correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not yet. I mean, you do point out something, and -- and I'm not sure you pointed out a problem, because there are buildings -- within the setbacks, you have height limitations. You -- essentially the same as a building. A fence is a structure. MS. ISTENES: Not per our code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It excludes fences -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- as the -- MS. ISTENES: Fences, yes. And I understand that walls require footings and they -- they -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 66 161 1743 February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: -- may take on the -- but for purposes of regulating them -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a definition of "structure" that does not have fences in it? MS. ISTENES: It specifically excludes them -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but my point really is -- is -- and I agree. I think if you change it to "required front yard" -- but doing -- I mean, we're using in the code "yard" and "setback," interchangeable. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, hence, that's the problem. MS. ISTENES: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I do believe they're two different things. And if you design buildings, especially if you use building codes, especially if you use some of the fire -code aspects of it, the yard is an important creature, and it is different than setbacks. But, you know, is your intent here, though -- is to -- in that area within the setbacks -- I mean, again, the definition of "yard" in our code goes from the face of a building to the property line. So if you change it to "required," I'm happier, because that way it's essentially the same as saying the "setback." The question does become -- and your drawings never showed it -- is that yards kind of overlap. In other words, a side yard -- or does it? Where the side yard comes down towards the street and the front yard goes over, isn't there an overlap of those two yards? And, obviously, the most restrictive -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, and if I --well, to answer your question, yes, yards can overlap. So for--and I didn't draw it on my drawing. But if you look back on my drawing, if you were to put a shed in your back yard, for example, the setbacks are different for accessory structures. So your shed could theoretically go in the required yard of the principal structure but still be a lawful structure. And that's where the yards would overlap. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Anyway, 1 think if you do "required" in front of all of these setbacks, I'll be happier than not having the word there. I guess -- and I'm just looking down the rest of the -- down at the bottom of 87, D.1., we really have an allowance where you could have an eight- foot -high fence in front of an office building. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. What are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: D.1. MS. ISTENES: D.1, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I don't think anybody would want that. But essentially what you're saying is -- or an industrial -- that I could have, on the property line, an eight- foot -high fence. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Look at Evans Oil. They actually had a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- administrative height variance for that fence. I think it's 10 feet. That wall is 10 feet, I believe, 10 or 12 even. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I guess that makes sense on an industrial more than a commercial. I mean, you wouldn't -- an office building wouldn't want that. I think -- wouldn't that vi -- would that violate the architectural standards, if they -- if I buy an office building and I just want to fence it in totally? MS. ISTENES: Not to -- you may -- you may be restricted on the location and type, but I think you could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- put a fence around it, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the only other thing's a small, tiny thing. In No. 2., I would just spell out the word "one" instead of the number "1" before "health," welfare (sic) -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it for those pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through Page 87? Susan, Item B on the top of Page 87: "A fence may be located on a lot line, but no fence shall protrude in full or part on adjacent property or right -of- way." Is that a fence and a wall or just a fence? So you can't have a fence on a right -of -way, but you can have a wall? MS. ISTENES: Could you tell me that section again? I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 87. Page 67 161 1.,43 February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B. MS. ISTENES: B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B. MS. ISTENES: Oh, I'm sorry, at the top. I'm looking at little b. "A fence may be located on a lot line, but no fence shall protrude in full or part on adjacent property or right -of- way." And your question is ... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, say someone had a wall on their property line. But can a -- can the wall be right on the right -of -way, since it's not a fence, or does this mean fence and wall? MS. ISTENES: This should be -- mean both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So are you going to change that to "fence and wall "? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if you change it to "fence and wall," then you need an exclusion for the wall that's in the right -of-way on Mission Hills Drive and Collier Boulevard. MS. ISTENES: Well, that's the one I'm going to be checking on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But your -- your results of that check needs to be -- MS. ISTENES: Would be reflected in this, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- considered in here. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Susan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Has that changed that -- the property -line issue in the right -of- way? Or has that always been that way -- I mean, because I've noticed in later -- past years -- and I apologize for taking up time. But I've seen two concrete walls and two -- two adjoin -- adjacent properties, and they are six inches apart. I have no idea how they built those con -- concrete -block walls. But, 1 mean, why would they -- why would that be? And I've seen that a number of times, concrete -block walls, and there's a -- space enough for a mouse to get in between. I mean, why would they do that? I mean, that's what I was wondering. MS. ISTENES: I honestly don't know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Somebody's -- MS. ISTENES: I haven't seen that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's -- that's what -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe it's a runway for a mouse. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's a mouse runway. Okay. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Unless there's some water - management reason. But, I mean, that's just a wild guess. I don't know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on 88 and 89. Any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley -- or Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the bottom, on Line 41 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you speak to concrete block, brick, wood, or decorative iron and steel, wire, chain link. What about cementitious fences? I think they've become popular. MS. ISTENES: What kind? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Made out of cement, cementitious, a material that's not entirely cement necessarily, but it is -- sometimes it's a combination of materials. MS. ISTENES: That would be acceptable the way I read this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, since you stipulated concrete block, I wondered if somebody might look at that. I know we have these type fences now. In fact, we have a preference for them. I remember the commissioners MS. ISTENES: Yeah, they're just poured. They're just poured slabs in a sense, functioning -- Page 68 161 1 f-3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're poured -- MS. ISTENES: -- as a fence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're formed, yeah. MS. ISTENES: Formed, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "Or similar material." MS. ISTENES: "Or similar material," I think, covers that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't see "similar material" in that particular phase; that's why -- MS. ISTENES: I mean, honestly, to the -- to the uninformed eye, I don't know that you would be able to recognize the differences between a concrete -block fence and a poured fence once they're finished. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we -- MS. ISTENES: I mean, if you're not that familiar with them, they kind of look the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wasn't concerned with the person looking at it as much as the individual who's passing on somebody's request. MS. ISTENES: No, I was just stating that they're a similar material, and that was my example for saying they're --they look and function the same way and are made out of similar materials. So I don't think we've had an issue with that. MR. BELLOWS: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says "but not limited to." MS. ISTENES: I mean, I guess if they were making them out of car tires, you know, I think that would be a problem. But that's not conventional material. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I -- and I don't -- I'm not going to argue that issue with you. I do know -- I do know that there's one commissioner who has a preference -- and maybe more -- who has a preference to avoid chain link. And I remember that there was a meeting of the commission where it was established by -- by their policy that they would have a great deal of preference for a cementitious type offence. And in the absence of it being here as that form, I thought, "That's not a good idea." MS. ISTENES: I mean, I can add "cement" if you want. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as -- as long as you folks are going to not prevent that from going up, that's fine for me. MS. ISTENES: Do you want me to add "cement "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says "but not limited to," so wouldn't that mean everything that -- anything and -- anything you make a fence out of? So I think it's covered. MS. ISTENES: That's conventional. I mean, the car -tire thing I don't think is conventional. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think any -- I think if it's the car tire, we'd certainly want to have a say in that. Anybody else have -- Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my thoughts on that, Susan, would --just add "concrete," and then --and then after that have "concrete masonry" instead of "concrete block." MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The things we see are concrete -- concrete masonry units. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: "Concrete block" is slang. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That does the job. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and that's -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at E., at the top, I kind of like the word -- get rid of the word "requirements," because -- I know what you're saying is, you know, you want to exempt them from the height and what they're made out of But there maybe code requirements on the construction that we don't even govem. So if you'd just -- I think "height and type of construction" gets your point across. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In b -- well, let that one go, b. I'd like to think about maybe adding a ii, and Page 69 161 1 43 February 26, 2010 make that ground elevation of the adjoining lots. These are considerations when you're determining what is the ground level. I think the adjoining lot should be brought into that conversation. MS. ISTENES: I think that's implied under C, but we could certainly beef that up if you think it's not clear enough. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, well, Iet's see. MS. ISTENES: I mean, if you're -- and, again, this is assuming your fence is placed on a property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So maybe that wouldn't be -- and are we on 88 and 89, Mark, or just 88? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, 88 and 89. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on a second. Okay. Number 5, fences and walls should be construction to present -- I would kind of-- I'd like to add — make that "a" finished side instead of "the" finished side, because -- let's not give the impression you can only have one finished side. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we give the — present "a" finished side on the fence or wall of the adjoining lot. MS. ISTENES: Is that the -- the only issue 1 see with that -- because I've only debated this with -- is somebody's definition of "finished" may not be -- I mean, you know what I'm saying? There's -- if-- generally on wood sen -- fences there's a finished and an unfinished side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: And they're different. I mean, could somebody potentially argue with me that the -- the one we consider usually the unfinished side is finished? I don't know. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern here is they're going to have at least one finished side. So if the requirement is that "a" finished side, then that would be -- that's -- the one finished side has to be on the outside. MS. ISTENES: That's tine. I don't have a -- -- 1 don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFFR: But I don't want to make them think that there's a finished and unfinished side to everything. And there's not. MS. ISTENES: True. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I had a note here, and Fin not sure why 1 had it. But No. 5.1, if a -- after "this provision may be," I have "temporarily administratively waived," and I'm not sure why, so never mind. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 88 and 89? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nothing. 1 just said, "Brad, would you finish your sentences? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Susan, onto Page 88. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're getting testy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F starts out "Fence and wall design standards." One goes "Measurement offence or wall height." And if you go in to b, third line, it talks about "ground level at the fence location "; Line 25, "Measuring the fence height "; Line 33, "Average elevation over the length of the fence "; Line 36, "Ground elevation on both sides of the fence." And Ijust think you might want to -- MS. ISTENES: Do the wall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- add a wall in there so there's no argument in the future that you meant both. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. It's -- it is -- "wall" is in the -- the heading, but -- and then under F and 1, but, yeah, it certainly doesn't hurt. That way there's no question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- or just -- MS. ISTENES: Especially when you're kind ofjumping in the middle of it and not reading the heading. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, just -- and drop the reference to "either" and write it as though it applies always to fence and wall. I mean, that's all I'm suggesting. MS. ISTENES: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 89, at the top, same thing. "Fences shall be" means "fences and walls shall be." Number 6 -- why did you omit 61 Page 70 161 1 tt3 February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: I was just looking in my notes for that because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you knew I was going to ask it, huh? MS. ISTENES: Well, no, I had the same question because --and I had on here, "Eliminated 5.03.02 B.S." And I re -- my recollection was, when we went to DSAC, they thought that was redundant with something else. And -- actually, hang on. Let me — I'm just looking at my notes here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust saw it as a good catchall. In case those -- the sight- distance triangle didn't address all of the conditions, including different heights between elevated arterials and local streets intersecting, this would be a good way to enforce a safety haz -- problem. MS. ISTENES: This is what we did on -- we combined it and put it under No. 3, because we felt it was somewhat redundant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: If you look on No. 3, "Fences" --"Fences" --and we're going to add in "walls" --"shall be constructed and maintained in a manner as to not create a safety hazard or a public nuisance." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And that was -- we essentially felt that captured what was already in 6, so we eliminated 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That works. Any other through 89? If not, 90 and 91. Questions? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The chain -link fence on La, you're citing a situation there where the fences face a public or private street. What do you really mean by that, because aren't they not allowed on the primary facade — or on the front setbacks? MS. ISTENES: They're prohibited -- "Chain link (including wire mesh) and wood" -- and these are only for structures that must comply with the architectural and site design guidelines. Those are prohibited forward of the primary facade. So the setback really doesn't come into play here. It's wherever the building is located on the property forms -- and along the primary facaade, you can't have a fence in front of it made of those materials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, this thing here, if it faces a public -- what I'm trying to get at -- is that a fence that's behind the primary facade yet visible from the street; in other words, in the side yard -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --crossing the side yard? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it -- it's a -- MS. ISTENES: Hundred -foot distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. Down on 2, you go with the exception of the single - family dwellings. And yet 2.c exempts this whole section from single - family dwellings, so -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I -- I caught that yesterday. And I think I meant to strike it. So if you feel it's redundant -- Ido -- I'll -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think you can take out the fast part of A, don't you? And then -- MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the -- c will -- unless you want to put c first and make that a, and then that way you don't read on if you're in residential. MS. ISTENES: I would rather do it that way, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the next page, 91, H -- H, it says, "masonry wall or pre - fabricated concrete wall." Couldn't we have "masonry wall, concrete, or prefabricated con" -- I mean, you're really limiting the use of concrete only to prefabricated walls. MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the thing Mark pointed out is -- you use the word "wall" and "fence." Make sure that when you mean "wall" you mean "wall" and -- because, actually, your prefabricated concrete thing, the ones I've seen would actually be fences, not walls. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I noticed they're referred that way --to that way in the industry. Now, we kind of look at them as walls. Page 71 161 16 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The same -- I mean, you could -- MS. ISTENES: They're treated the same, yeah, as walls. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. See, it's too bad you don't come up with a word that means both and use that throughout -- or use both throughout, like -- but -- but you probably wouldn't have a prefabricated -- you could. I could think of prefabricated concrete walls, but fences would be more -- MS. ISTENES: The only thing with fences is it's somewhat misleading, because they're — you can see through them. Nor -- on a lot of fences, you can see through them; whereas, the intent here is not to have -- not to be able to see through them. And that's why it's -- you're kind of looking at walls, concrete -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: -- versus -- 1 mean, a fence is wire. A fence could be wood. A fence could be, you know -- MR. BELLOWS: Pickets. MS. ISTENES: -- pickets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be anything. 1 think the definition --maybe if we need a definition we should do that. But I don't think a fence is -- fences tend to have air movement through it where a wall wouldn't, stuff like that. But it's not see - through. H.l .b -- Pin not exactly sure what b and c are describing. 1 mean -- and when you say "opposite" a residence, you mean adjacent? In other words, we have that word that would mean across the street and stuff, but -- and c is really difficult for me to picture. MS. ISTENES: You want us to explain where -- when these apply, in what situation? COMMISSIONER SCIIFFER: Yeah, graphically. I'm having trouble -- you know, I'm sitting here sketching trying to follow the -- the wording. And I'm not sure, along a street, which is opposite the primary -- MS. ISTENES: If you --I'm trying to think of a good example. We --and I can't remember the project name. But, again, these are non -resi — between residential and non - residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: If you're across the street from residential --on a local street, don't forget, or --or an alley separates you -- so if a local street separates you or an alley separates you and on the other side is residential -- residentially zoned, then the wall's required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're defining is that -- you know, across from that -- I mean, are we -- okay. So if-- MS. ISTENES: It doesn't happen a lot, honestly. The alley situation happens more, and you'll see that in Golden Gate -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: - -City. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through Page 91? Susan, let's go back to Page 90. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.b: "The fence shall be screened by a mechanically irrigated" -- I don't think you need the word "mechanically" -- "living plant hedge." So that means you can't have a dead plant hedge? MS. ISTENES: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- MS. ISTENES: You would be amazed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let'sjust assume that they're in violation of their standards if they're dead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They look dead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So wouldn't it be, "A fence shall be screened by an irrigated plant hedge at least 30 inches in height "? MS. ISTENES: 1 don't mind taking out "mechanically." I honestly would prefer to have "living" in there. I -- like I said, you would be amazed at what people think meets the intent of the code. And they're not willing to replace their buffers that have died and are just sitting there. And this is kind of one more avenue for code enforcement to use to make, sure that they have the adequate buffers and that the butters are functioning as they're intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then every reference in the code to "plant hedge," we need to put the word Page 72 161 1 A3 February 26, 2010 "living" in front of it if the intention is always to have a living plant hedge. I can't imagine our code allows a plant hedge to die. I thought we had enough -- MS. ISTENES: No, and I don't -- it -- it probably references some -- it somewhere else, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ISTENES: It -- what I -- it doesn't matter to me. I'm sure it's somewhere else in the code, honestly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's -- could you check? And if you've got another way to enforce it, to make sure a hedge stays alive, that's required -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which I mentioned -- I thought code enforcement made sure those things happened. But if they don't, then, yes, the word's needed, but -- MS. ISTENES: I know it's in there. I just can't cite it for you off the top of my head, but it's -- I'm sure it's in the landscaping section, the buffering section, so ... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the last two pages, 92 and 93, anybody have a -- anything on those two pages? Four, "Deviation from Wall Requirement," was that existing language, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions through Page 93? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on sound walls, and it's on 93, a. And essentially it's giving them carte blanche on whatever they want to do with these side walls -- or sound walls. MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that something we have to do, or is that us being nice? because the ugliest walls in a community are these sound walls. MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the -- and they're almost always erected to compensate for a planning mistake. So why do we just let them be whatever they want to be? Why don't we -- why don't we make it difficult so that people will avoid using them? MS. ISTENES: I -- well, Nick's here, so he might want to talk about it too. But my understanding is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Nick would have a great input on this one. MS. ISTENES: He knows how I feel about them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, how do you feel about them? MS. ISTENES: I think they're the ugliest walls we have in the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. MS. ISTENES: And wait 'til -- wait 'til they start getting older, and the cost to maintain them -- and they get moldy, and the paint starts peeling, and you have no landscaping in front of them to hide them. It's becoming a walled city. That's my planner -- professional planner's opinion. Thanks for letting me share. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Don't you -- don't you agree — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute, Mr. Wolfley. As soon as Mr. Schiffer's finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't you agree that they really are essentially patching a mistake in planning? In other words, we shouldn't have let units get that close to a right -of -way. We shouldn't have -- MS. ISTENES: Not necessarily. I do know they're being used as somewhat of a tradeoff to acquire right -of -way, which saves the taxpayers money, and certainly nothing wrong with that. But, again, like I said, Nick has a little more insight into that. But I think — I wouldn't agree they're necessarily a planning mistake, per se, as far as the setback goes. But you have a little bit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think if we zoned all our right -of -ways way away -- and I don't want to get Mark started on this one again. But if we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- had all zoned right -of -ways prior to trying to get these things, we wouldn't have to do this, because people would be planning for the future road. MS. ISTENES: Potentially, but maybe not. And Nick -- Nick may have more. Page 73 61 1.43 February 2G, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pm done. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. WolEley had a question. And then I'm sure that we'll -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, she mostly mentioned -- Susan mostly mentioned it when -- regarding the tradeoff thing. But I was thinking of 75, where the taxpayers did pay for miles of fences because it came so close to the community. So it's -- MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's all I was going to say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to -- it's in the same context. I'm looking at Page 92, No. 4, where --on the third line, No. 28, where it says "local street lies contiguous." I think that was part of the last discussion. I'm not sure. But wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "right -of -way" as opposed to a street? because the vision that I see when I read this is a street, an actual street directly next to a conunercial building or -- I mean, actually right there at the building, which you might find in Brooklyn, New York. MS. ISTENES: I'm -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because they use the word "contiguous," and that's the reason why I'm relating to it. MS. ISTENES: I guess I would just prefer to stay with "street." It's --it's somewhat of a generic term that peoplejust apply in all situations. And I think it's possibly even defined that way in our code, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I appreciate your desire. And I'm -- I'm trying to support the chair's many previous statements about contiguity and adjacency. And where we talk about a street I -- I envision blacktop right against a wall, or so to speak. I don't see -- in my mind when I read this, I don't see a space of green or any other form. I j ust see a structure, and I see a street, because you use the word "contiguous." I would see "right -of- way," because generally a street lies within the right -of -way. I'm not trying to pick -- MS. ISTENES: What I'm -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- at you -- MS. ISTENES: Whatever the rest of the board feels, I'm --I think it could go either way. I'm just stating my preference, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let me just add something to that. When I -- what 1 got the vision of when I read this was behind a shopping center that is contiguous to residential, putting a wall up. MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're calling that a road. It's not really a road. It's just an access to get the products to the stores, to the commercial location. MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah. There again -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What would you call that? MS. ISTENES: There's some -- a number of different situations explained here as to when the wall is required. And the -- the street relationship to residential across from commercial and industrial is one instance. Another is exactly as you describe, where you've got a commercial -- commercially designated and developed property abutting residential. The two property lines -- or zoning lines touch. And you would definitely require a wall there too. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There's a roadway of sorts. Trucks drive on it, but it's not a street. So, I mean, is there another way we can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stevie'l omato's is a perfect example. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There, you had to go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Think about the video, right? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Yeah, that would be it. MS. ISTENES: That's a -- that's a driveway. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's right -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- but let's not think about that one for a minute. Page 74 161 1 A3 February 26, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: There's other developments. Like in Berkshire, there's commercial -- there's a -- a true road behind there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay_ So my point is -- MR. BELLOWS: Commercially, it is. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It doesn't look like a road. Can we call it something? Is there something that we can call it other than just a "street "? because that is an issue. MS. ISTENES: Access? Vehicular access or access way? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't -- I don't have a problem if you want to take out the word "contiguous." I -- I think -- if you want to put "street" in there and -- and you understand it and the people that come after you understand it to mean that it really -- it's the entire right -of -way that carries the street, that's fine. But we like to be as precise as we can, and that's what I was working toward. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A "local street" or "roadway "? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: "Right -of- way "? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: "Right -of- way "? "Roadway "? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't staffjust take a look at it and try to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's get on with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- come back with something if it has to be. Any other questions on 92 and 93? MS. ISTENES: Did you want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as the sound walls go, I think we -- did we -- did we have any recommendation on that? Or did you guys -- everybody just hates them, but they are a necessity. And Nick wanted to talk about them and tell us -- MS. ISTENES: I was going to say it, are your questions answered, because he --if you don't want him to talk, I'm sure he's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for the record, Nick Casalanguida. I -- I agree with Susan. They're not -- they're not the most attractive things in the world. The issue is they meet sound requirements, attenuation requirements. And one of the issues that's come up is the county's total communities. We don't want to be punished twice. You make the warrant for a sound wall. Then we have to buy more land to put the sound wall on. It's kind of a Catch -22. So we've said, "If you're willing to donate that property to the county or put it on your own property, we'll maintain it." So then you get in conflict with the land development code. So if we didn't apply that -- a factor for that, now you're condemning more property to put the sound wall on to meet the setback requirements. It's a strange situation. But, again, 1 agree, these walls are an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's the way this thing's worded, Susan. We had a hearing one time -- it was up in the north as 75 is leading the -- leaving the county. These guys wanted to develop the area. We wanted to push the preserve up against 75, but they really wanted to build sound walls. I mean, in their proposal for their PUD was sound walls, which to me was, you know, lunatic. But -- but it -- and it actually passed. But, anyway, the -- the important thing is would this ever be construed that any government entity -- are we the ones telling them to do that when we do a development order or -- I mean, I would never want that paragraph -- first of all, I'd like to get rid of the paragraph. But I would never want it to be that that development order, because it was part of the PUD, made them put the sound walls up in case somebody came to their senses down the road. But it says -- MS. ISTENES: It depends how their development order is worded, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But "at the direction of any government entity" would not be considered the fact that it was in a PUD? MS. ISTENES: Well -- and this "at the direction of is mostly, I think, to capture the -- maybe some agreements that transportation has worked out with property owners for ownership and maintenance and/or construction. You know, when they're acquiring right -of -way, they negotiate a lot of different things. And this may be j ust an avenue of negotiation if the county directs them to erect one out of some sort of agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 75 161 1 A3 February 20, 2010 MS. ISTENES: That's -- this language was actually crafted and monkeyed around with quite a bit by DSAC. And then they came up -- came up with this. So this is kind of how it evolved that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through Page 93? And it looks like, Susan, you're going to come back with some suggestions -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at some point in the future. Page 94, temporary-use permits. MS. ISTENES: Okay. This is actually a holdover from the sign regulations. This is when we amended the sign code pursuant to that lawsuit. We needed to go ahead and make this change. And, actually, it was already presented before the board as a change that was coining, and so this is it. So it's all -- I -- truthfully, it -- if my recollection is correct, it's been vetted already. And this area of the temporary-use pennits is going to house some of the signage provisions for sales and special events, and that is really about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's plow our way through it. 94 and 95, any questions from anybody? 96 and 97? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, on f on 97, which is Line 24, the -- the thing I have -- isn't there situations where we could have an undeveloped property that somebody might want to put -- a fair or a circus might want to set up or something like that? is -- would that stop it? And I guess -- what does "undeveloped" mean is -- MS. ISTENES: I don't mean to put John Kelly on the spot, but I'll ask him just to be thinking of situations where that may occur. But my recollection is that the special -event permits usually almost always go on some sort of developed property or in association with a developed property. So, for example, if a church has a vacant lot next to it that they own, they could use that. But are you -- can you think of any other situations, Ray or -- MR. BELLOWS: I think that's -- MS. ISTENES: -- or John? I don't know that this is really a change. I don't think this is changing anything in the code. It's just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you show it as new. I just -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just --you know, there might be situations where there is apiece of land, undeveloped, that could hold something and the parking and everything for it, and this might stop it, unless I don't know what "undeveloped" means. I mean, it's --if it's an agricultural piece of land that wasn't -- somehow wasn't used, it's got sod on it, so it's not a mud pond. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, l mean, generally "unimproved" -- and I would call un -- "undeveloped" and "unimproved" the same, synonymous -- that, you know, you're not going to have the infrastructure and the facilities for -- for parking, for access, for handicapped, for things like that. 1 mean -- so I think what the code intent is is to try to eliminate or preclude that from happening, where those don't exist. Now, I know that's -- that doesn't always happen, especially if you're using open property on -- that's in conjunction with an improved property, but I think that's the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we can all think of going to events that were out in the middle of nowhere where all that was brought in temporarily, again, a fair or carnival. MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Woodstock would be a bad example, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's leave that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that there -- I can think of circumstances where you would want to do it on a piece of property. MS. ISTENES: Do you want me to look at that a little bit further and explore that if we don't have an answer right now? because that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- not one thatjumps out at me. MR. BELLOWS: The only thing I can add is, historically, we have never issued temporary permits on Page 76 161 1743 February 26, 2010 undeveloped properties. And this is just to allow for recent trends where they want to have groundbreaking ceremonies prior to having the permitted use on site. That's the only reason. Normally we just don't allow temporary-use permits on vacant properties -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. BELLOWS: -- because there is a safety issue with access and all that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I can't give you a -- a really good example. But you might remember that -- or know that Antaramian's property as you come into the city -- and I know that is the city -- they use that in the boat show. They use that for various activities, and they have tents and so forth, and they're there for several days. I can imagine, in our economic conditions, where there may come a time where some undeveloped property, particularly out in the Immokalee area --that tr ght --they might want to do something of that nature. So I think it does bear some additional consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, would f apply to something like a sunrise service on an empty lot or an empty place? MR. BELLOWS: F on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one we're talking about. MR. BELLOWS: All right. Right there, yeah. MS. ISTENES: Usually what we're trying to do is associate them with some sort of use, because the other complaint we get is people coming into town, setting up shop in a vacant lot, and taking business away from other people. Now, I don't know if that would happen so much in the -- in a special event, per se, but you'll get that in special sales and things like that. So the intent is to keep them very temporary in nature and to have them on improved properties where the use is already occurring, for special sales, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So it's kind of the same theory here, but a little bit different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would a sunrise service require a temporary-use permit? MS. ISTENES: Yes, if it was -- you know, if they were going to hold some big, special event kind of outdoor of the regular building. But if you're just having your regular sunrise church service in your church building, absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ISTENES: It -- but, no, if you're going to do some special -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me give you a specific example. MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the Isle of Capri, in the center of the commercial area, the company I work for owns a bunch of commercial property. It's undeveloped. Every year the local church comes and wants to do an Easter sunrise service. And they put up a tent, and they serve some beverages there. Is that a special event, first of all? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would it be allowed under f since the property is not developed and has no improvements on it? MS. ISTENES: Probably not, unless there was some association we could make with a nearby developed property where there was a relationship there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There wouldn't be. So, now, I don't want to see them prevented. That's a typical arrangement that may happen other places. So I think that's why f needs to be kind of reconsidered, for -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- events like that. So -- because they currently do that, so they're currently receiving a temporary-use permit to do it every year. So somehow they need to still fit into that category. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Up at Mercado this past weekend there was an Asian concert or event out there opposite where the theater is located. Would that qualify as that type of event, and would they require a permit? MS. ISTENES: It depends on how the Mercado PUT) is structured. They may have something in there for Page 77 b 1 1 143 February 2E, 2010 those type of events. I don't know. It could possibly. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Because the crowd was large, and it completely changed the complexion of the area where it was going on. MS. ISTENES: Uh -huh, uh -huh. Yeah, I couldn't answer that without looking -- MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to do some research on that. MS. ISTENES: But, yeah, we'd have to research it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 98 and 99, any questions? 100, 101? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, actually, Mercado would be a good example of this. For these temporary signs, do you think we could be wise to exempt them from inside mixed uses? And then we're back to that concept of not being visible from the property lines. In other words, you go into a development -- well, maybe Waterside's a better example too. "I'm in the center of Waterside. Why are you controlling my temporary signs?" Or are you or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we established she was not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah, I mean, when we're talking temporary signs -- I mean, generally you're talking about signs aligned with a temporary use. MR. BELLOWS: Exactly. MS. ISTENES: So it's -- you know what I'm saying? I'm not sure those would be considered temporary signs the way you're describing them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just -- Ijust remember, Susan, the last time that came up, my recollection, you were very clear that you weren't interested in controlling internal signs. MR. BELLOWS: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so that went away, as I thought. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I thought we had kind of addressed that already at the sign ordinance. This is a -- this is a little different animal, though. This is an association with a temporary event, and it -- it truly is just short tern, temporary, in association with an event. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if it's interior too was, I thought, the basis for the question. And that's okay. 1 was only adding that I heard your testimony and remembered it. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 102,103? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you couldjust go back for a minute to 98. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, going way back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just because we had this big discussion about f. And then, if you go to a, it says "sports, religious, and community events," and underlined here it says, "on lands not specifically developed and approved for such." So I don't know if that conflicts with f on the previous page as well or -- both look to me like they need to be cleaned up. MS. ISTENES: Okay. F is applying to sales and promotional events. So maybe we didn't realize that when we were talking about it, although I do believe I gave that as an ex -- as an explanation. But do you agree with that? because it looks like -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just trying to get to -- Commissioner Strain's concerned about the sunrise service. MS. ISTENES: But he would -- but that wouldn't be a temporary sales; that would be a temporary religious event. Page 78 1 b 1 1 .43 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So it looks to me like that can happen on lands not specifically developed MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- for such activities on a regular basis. MS. ISTENES: You're right. So I answered correctly. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MS. ISTENES: Yes. Thank you for calling that to my attention. I apologize. I didn't realize we were talking about temporary sales. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make -- MS. ISTENES: It's getting late. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it is. And we probably shouldn't, you know, do some of these changes -- you know, bring up the issues, and then let's look at them in the light of the morning. MS. ISTENES: So would I still need to look at f, or are we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not from my perspective. I think you may from Brad's, but not from mine. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. What page are we supposed to be on? CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: I have no idea. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 102. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on 102, 102 and 103 together. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- Susan, you may have clarified. You know, when I asked you a question about inside these mixed -use things, you said, "No, that's only when it's associated with a temporary use." In other words, this is a temporary sign for a temporary use? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't see where that's -- I mean, where would I come to that conclusion? MS. ISTENES: Well, again, it's going to kind of depend on what kind of temporary use. When you say "temporary use," we've got temporary -- like special events, temporary sales. And we've got things like holiday sales, like pumpkins and trees and all that. They all have their own various set of regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if I had a fixed store and Ijust want a temporary sign? I mean, l'm a permanent use, and I want a temporary sign. I mean, I'm not sure -- MS. ISTENES: You can have one if you're doing, like, for example, a promotional event -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- like, let's say you're going out of business, or let's say you're having a grand opening or a grand reopening, or, gosh, you're having your, you know, yearly super sale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So -- but that was -- my point is that -- why are we regulating these? And your point was, "Wait a minute, that's not what these are. These are only when they're associated with temporary uses." But that's -- that's not the case, I don't think, in reading 5.04.06, because that's a temporary sign. And I may have a permanent use, and I may want a temporary sign at the Waterside Shops. And, obviously, I have to deal with the -- the governance of the Waterside Shops. But, I mean, why does the county get involved in that? And that was what I was looking for, is an exemption -- MS. ISTENES: Oh, okay. I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- an exemption from that. MS. ISTENES: I understand what you're saying. I mean, essentially, you're looking to treat people fairly within the — the context of the rules. So, in other words, when you're giving additional signage, you're giving it for a reason and for a set period of time. And so just because somebody happens to be in a mall, per se, you know, l mean, it -- it doesn't mean that -- that the signage is -- isn't important. I'm not explaining it very well. But you're talking about -- I would call it -- I want to say "litter" almost. Page 79 16 1 11b February 26, 2010 In other words, you start -- people start hanging banners. Then they forget -- we don't have a time limit, so they stay up for six months, and the sale was, you know, four months ago, and it was only for a week. They start to become obnoxious and look like trash. They start to mess with our architectural standards. They -- people start feeling like they're being treated unfairly, because, "This guy has three banner signs that have been up for nine months, and I can only have one for a week. And I abide by the code, and he doesn't." Or -- you see what I'm saying? So it starts to get very, very prescriptive when it comes to signs, how long they can be up, how big they can be, and when you can have them as far as temporary signs go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point I'm making is, only within developments that aren't visible to the community, private developments, why are we going into the -- why can't we exempt them from it? I mean, one thing you're missing is they have their own governance. They have their own set of standards. They have their own architectural standards. They might even exceed our standards. But why can't we exempt, you know, inside these malls? I mean, we've -- MS. ISTENES: I mean, is that your recommendation? because I'll -- you know, I'll forward it on to the board, and we can discuss it with them. I'm not, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Just for the approval process, I think that would be a good idea. There are situations where we don't see into it. We've had the discussion before. If you put a roof on it — like Coastland, you don't go indoors there. Take the roof, off, you're indoors there. MS. ISTENES: I understand. Yeah, I understand. And, 1 mean, I'll certainly -- I would like to actually get your vote on this so we could move it on, and it's -- and it sounds like I've addressed f already when it talks about undeveloped properties, because we're talking about sales there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: And I think we didn't realize that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, MS. ISTENES: And I would submit to you, you probably don't want to allow peoplejust to set up shop -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- in vacant lots everywhere for safety reasons -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: -- for fair -- for fairness reasons too, you know, that sort of thing, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFF,R: Right. MS. ISTENES: But -- so I hope that issue's dead. I mean, I'll certainly look at the temporary signs internal to malls. And if --if it's consistent with what we did before, we could just add it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I make a point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Ms. Caron was next, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. Your turn. MS. ISTENES: If that's what y'all want. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'm thinking I don't want to take a vote on that today -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that issue, because I'd like to think about it more -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- personally, because I'm not sure it's a great idea. So I'd just like -- since it was just brought up, I'd like to have time, since it's coming back anyway. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That'll give me time to dive into some of the history behind it too, so ... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Susan, one of your concerns --and perhaps one of a number, but perhaps only one -- was some folks getting a temporary sign permit and then selling various articles, retailing and so forth. But they couldn't actually get a permit, could they, if the property were zoned ag or if it was zoned out of what it is they would intend to sell? Ain I correct in that? MS. ISTENES: You're supposed to have a -- for example, for temporary sales, you're supposed to be selling similar goods or goods that would be allowed to be sold on the property pursuant to the underlying zoning district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Zoning district. So it could be ag, a small parcel of ag, within a zoning district Page 80 161 1 ,-3 February 26, 2010 that's retail; is that what you're saying? MS. ISTENES: Vegetable -- maybe, you know, a temporary pumpkin sale or vegetable sales or something like that -- COMMISSIONF,RMURRAY: Well, ifyou're-- MS. ISTENES: -- possibly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You -- MS. ISTENES: Do you see what I'm saying? You're not selling clothing in ag zoning districts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood you, and I appreciated your concern. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to get it to the extent that that goes, and I was trying to feel whether or not somebody could sell clothing in a space that that -- if an area was zoned ag. MS. ISTENES: No, to answer that question. But let's say you have a commercial parcel that happens to be selling -- well, I mean, I'm just kind of pulling what -ifs out. But if you're -- if you happen to have a small shopping center that doesn't happen to sell rugs, but it's a retail commercial center that could sell rugs, they could possibly do a short -term rug sale. You see what I'm saying? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exactly. Now, holding that thought in mind, would that same condition prevent the retailer, who occupies that space legitimately and long term -- would that same condition prevent them from doing the same thing? MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. ISTENES: We have that, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm going to propose a radical departure here from the normal. Let's take a 15- minute break. It gets pretty bad. 3:30 we'll come back and resume. (Recess held.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome from the -- back from the much - needed break. And during the break it was resolved. Nick has asked us to finish Book 2 and go as far as we can to Book 3 until 8 o'clock tonight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thanks, Dave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do all these social events during the day, and you come here refreshed. It's a whole different program. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, Mr. Stain, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER CARON: And he's promised to stop the Vanderbilt Extension -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right, because it wasn't needed, yes. Thank you, Donna. I needed that help. But speaking of our agendas, it's 3:30. We have two more items to finish up in this one we're on for Book 2. If we all think we can hang in there, I'd like to see Book 2 done today and get it past us, at least to a point where it's either going to come back as rewrites or whatever. Book 3 will have to come up on the 10th. I asked staff to start checking for another available date because, even with two days in March, we are not going to finish this LDC review in those two days, especially with the Immokalee one having been continued. That alone is going to take quite a while. We have a few others that are going to take some time, so I know we're not going to finish this month. With that in mind, we'll -- and I'm sure on the meeting on the 4th we can discuss that. We left off on -- through Page 103. So let's look at Page 104 and 105. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a question on 102 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- b, up at the top. Is that per tenant, or is that per -- per mixed -use facility, or I mean, I think I know the answer. It's per facility. But what seems unfair is that, if there are multiple tenants -- MS. ISTENES: "b. The occupant of a lot, parcel, multi - tenant parcel or mixed use building may display 1 on" it's -- it's per tenant, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Good. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Page 81 161 1 ./3 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. And then on 103, 2.c, the grand opening can be obtained within the first three months of building, do you measure that from their certificate of occupancy? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 103,2.c. MS. ISTENES: Yes. I didn't hear your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you --do you measure that from the certificate of occupancy, or how -- how do you know -- what's the three months measured from? MR. BELLOWS: Occupational license. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I mean, generally, the -- not necessarily certificate of occupancy. Normally what happens is they want to be in the building before they have this. It's sort of senseless to put the sign up that says "grand opening" -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- if they're not having anything open to sell to you at that moment. Usually it's to generate business. So usually certificate -- I mean, the -- the day they open is usually the day we see it. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- that's -- you know, when they come in and apply for it, they get the three months. So it's not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on 104 and 105. Any questions? Susan, under 105 Item d, this is for a temporary business ID sign. It says "may remain in place no longer than 120 days, or until construction has been completed, whichever occurs first." Maybe you want to add "or when the permanent sign is installed" as well. MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Otherwise, they end up with a temporary and a permanent. So anything else through 105? If not, 106, 107, any questions? 107 starts the annual beach events permit. 108, 109, most of it's all existing language. 110 and 1 11? 112, 113? Susan, on 113 under 2, Line 27, the word "appropriate," if wejust drop that, would it read better? MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 114 and 115? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 114, a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's e, Susan. My thought was to add -- it's fire protection. I would add "and emergency access measures." MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else through 115? On the top of Page 114, Susan, we're talking about i and little i (sic). It's the provision that begins on 113 that says: "Adequate on -site or additional off -site parking use shall be provided as follows," a maximum of 10 percent of the parking required by the code and the required number of handicapped. But how is it -- is this where you would want to calculate it? How do you calculate the amount of additional parking needed'? See, it says "shall be provided as follows." Is -- are they asking -- are they saying that you -- a maximum of 10 percent -- MS. ISTENES: They're -- what they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of whatever is required to be there or -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, of the parking required by the code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- can be occupied by temporary structures and equipment and merchandise. So if you're having, you know, a tent set up or what have you in the parking lot, you can only take up a maximum of 10 percent of the required parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's in your existing code- required parking lot for the -- for your permanent structure? MS. ISTENES: Yes. Page 82 1 Febru 1 ary 26, 10 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then this is a special event, so where do we show them -- or where do we have a requirement for additional parking for the special event itself? Or is it considered there's enough parking on the permanent facility to accommodate the special event? MS. ISTENES: It's not always on the permanent facility. The conceptual site plan is required essentially to show -- like, for example, if you have off -site parking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh -huh. MS. ISTENES: -- sometimes you'll have shuttles and things like that. That has to be indicated on the -- on this conceptual site plan (indicating). And this can be drawn by hand. This is not any engineered drawing. It -- CI]AIRMAN STRAIN: Just — MS. ISTENES: It's just essentially a map to show the staff where things are going to be located, whether there's any safety concerns. We copy it and give it to code enforcement, the -- fire, transportation, sheriff, whatever the situation warrants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we know the quantity of parking that we're going to ask them to provide for on their conceptual site plan? Is that -- I mean, do we have a re -- do we have a basis for it? MS. ISTENES: Not in code, per se, not in the land development code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Generally speaking -- do you want to add to that or -- MR. BELLOWS: I believe as long as they demonstrate they have the remaining nine -- 90 percent of the parking -- required parking demonstrated on the temporary-use permit, I mean, number -- little ijust basically says a maximum of 10 percent. So whatever special event comes in, they show they have the parking for 90 percent. MS. ISTENES: And if, for example -- you know, most people know when they're setting up these events. Obviously, they don't want people not to have a place to park. They -- and we know what kind of event it was -- is. They'll know about how many people they're going to have attend, especially if it's a regular event. And -- and we'll attempt to just ensure that they have adequate parking, either on or off site, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't mean to beat a dead horse. I'm just trying to figure out how we figure out how much they need. MS. ISTENES: It's not really that scientific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Honestly, it's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we haven't had any -- we haven't had many problems with this issue? MS. ISTENES: I don't want to say that. Sometimes people park where they're not supposed to, even if you have designated parking, and they block, you know, alleyways and roads and things like that. And it's sort of a live -- live and learn type of thing. If you have complaints, then next year you know that the parking was inadequate and they needed to have additional. Hopefully you remember and you --or you have a record of it, and you can make accommodations to ensure they have adequate parking next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So it's -- you know, it's not scientific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under g on the same page: "If required, a faithful performance bond to guarantee compliance with the conditions of the permit." How do you side --decide if it's required? You don't particularly like that group, so we're going to require one? I mean, we have to have a standard of some kind, I would assume. MS. ISTENES: Some of --like, if they're on county property, for example, I know the county has certain rules and regulations that require performance bonds and other type of assurances that the site will be cleaned up and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this isn't arbitrary on behalf of staff when they come in for the temporary-use permit? See -- and I'm thinking of that -- remember the concert that wanted to go in -- out in the fairgrounds or somewhere? And it was one of those concerts that, I guess, the community -- wasn't desirable. And one of the reasons they couldn't go there is, I understood, they couldn't put the bond up that was required. MS. ISTENES: And that was in the county fairgrounds, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the county's got some pretty explicit restrictions as far as the use of their property by outside people, and that includes performance bonds and insurance -- Page 83 161 1 �3 February 26, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only -- MS. ISTENES: -- and approvals by the board, in some cases, or staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only time a bond is required is if it's on county property? MS. ISTENES: I'm not aware of any other time a bond is specifically required, unless there's an agreement between two property owners to re -- require that, and that would be a private agreement. But as far as the code goes -- and -- and that's -- as far as the code goes, I'm not re -- I'm not aware of any, but I'll have John just kind of do a quick Municode searchjust to confirm that, if you wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, what I'm suggesting is if it's -- I'd rather take the arbitrary nature of a requirement out of the hands of staff having to make that decision, because the way this reads, anybody -- a sunrise service, could come in, and, if someone at the county decided that they should have a performance bond, then -- this just says "if required." So maybe we should say, "On government properties, a faithful performance bond to guarantee compliance with the conditions of the permit," something like that, if that's the way it fits, is all I'm suggesting. Refine it if it's -- it needs to be to the spec -- specificity that -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- may apply. MS. ISTENES: I'll look in the code and make sure we're not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to go backup to c, "Limited activity hours." But we don't specify what those limited activities hours are, or we do somewhere else? MS. ISTENES: Not that I'm aware of that it's specified. I mean, we may ask people -- what we try to do is -- we really -- on these permits, we try to ask people what they're doing, where they're parking, how many people they're going to have, what are their hours of operation. We try to get an idea of their impact, and we try to evaluate the site plan for any safety considerations or any access considerations or concerns. That way -- MR. BELLOWS: Music? MS. ISTENES: Outdoor music, yeah, noise, obviously. When we are -- if there is a complaint or the public does question that, we have a permit with a map and all of that information on there so we can at least tell people what's going on, the extent to which their permit was issued, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to -- MS. ISTENES: It's fairly wide open. I'm -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 116 and 117. Anybody have any question on those two pages? They're existing language, I believe. 1 18 and 119? And that brings us to the end of that issue. And that is going to have some -- a couple of items need to be looked at to be back. Hopefully it'll be a shorter discussion when it comes back. We'll move on to Page 120, automobile service stations. Susan? Ms. ISTENES: This is just returning what was left out of the re- codification of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages 120 or 121 and 122 and 123 all together? If there are no questions, does anybody feet like they want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 move we forward a recommendation of approval and find it to be in compliance with the growth management plan the LDC amendment request for 5.05.05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second' CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Discussion? All in favor, signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Motion carries 8 -- or 7 to 0. Okay. Next and last item for today is Page 124, and it's three pages. Susan? Page 84 161 1 A February 26, 2010 MS. ISTENES: This looks -- correct the time limit and return language previously removed that provides for notification to property owners with regard to neighborhood information meetings. I'm not sure when this was removed. That's kind of the question that pops into my head, is when it got left out. It must have been a previous amendment. I can check if you want. But, anyway, it's just replacing. And it says "correct the time limit." Let's see here. It looks like that's on 125 and 126 under 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the sentence that's being added on 125 -- first of all, it says the "notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners who are required to receive legal notification from the county pursuant to" the sections of the code. 'Then it says: "Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the property lines." Are we saying something twice? And is what we're saying in the second sentence I read that's been added the same or different than what was being referred to in the subsections of the first sentence? MS. ISTENES: It looks like there's a period after "11" — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: --there. And then it says: "Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the property lines of the land for which the amendment" is sought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't those be the same required to receive legal notification pursuant to subsections? I mean, I think it says the same thing. But one refers to a section of the code, and the other then redefines the distance requirement. I'm not sure if the subsection referenced just takes care of that. MS. ISTENES: Let me look real quick, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that or we can bring it back. Anybody else have any questions? And that would be through Page 127. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Ijust don't see a corrected time limit. MS. ISTENES: Well, this is correcting something that was left out, so it may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you? COMMISSIONER CARON: I see notification -- the change "to correct the time limit." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MS. ISTENES: Well, if it was left out, it may not make sense the way it's written in here, so I'll see if I can kind of figure that out. It looks like what was left out is just -- that's interesting -- okay -- is just simply that first part of the sentence up until after "I L" So there was a reference left out to 10.05 -- 10.03.05 B.10 or 11, and then the remainder of that actually is already in there. 10.03.05, let me go to B.I 1 just real quick. Okay. And that is a reference to the -- "for all petitions except small -scale or other site- specific amendments to the comp plan for subject properties located within areas of future land use element of the growth management plan that are not designated urban. All the foregoing notice requirements apply except that written notification must be sent to all property owners within 1,000 linear feet of the subject property." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then the second sentence says 500 feet. So that would be a conflict, wouldn't it? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me. Let me bring that back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If-- yeah, maybe if you'd take -- yeah, take a look at it closer. MS. ISTENES: Sorry about that. Yeah, I don't even know who authored this, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It just goes on in that paragraph to call out the 1,000 feet for the non -urban areas. MS. ISTENES: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. But my question is -- to correct the time limit is one -- is one of the changes, and I'm not sure what that means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There doesn't seem to be a time -limit change. MS. ISTENES: "There doesn't seem to be one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. ISTENES: So let me check on that too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Susan. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's a change in the date on Line 19 on Page 125, the number of days. MS. ISTENES: Oh, yes, you're right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, there it is. Thank you. I totally didn't see it. Page 85 16 1 1 43 February 26, 2010 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It also says when the notice should be mailed to property owners within 500 feet. It kind of says the same thing. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let mejust double check on all that and make sure I -- I'm not even sure who wrote this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then what we -- all right. We're at the end of Book 2. We went through the first draft of both Book 1 and Book 2. And on the 10th of March -- there's a few that may come back on that date. I think the very first one that was scheduled for today will come back that day. That'll be first on the agenda on the 10th. And, Susan, any other ones that need to be cleaned up from Books 1 and 2 -- not cleanup, not rewrites. But if we haven't heard them and they want them -- and we want to hear them on the 10th, if you can get them scheduled by then, that's tine, as long as we haven't got a bunch of data we have to reread by the 10th. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then-- MS. ISTENES: I'll see how things -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what we'll do primarily on the 10th, then, is probably Book 3, unless the Immokalee one comes back. I don't know if you'll have it done by the 10th. MS. ISTENES: Bob said he was going to try to and get it to you by Wednesday of next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if he does, then we're going to spend a lot of time probably on the 10th just on that one. MS. ISTENES: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and then you're going to have to find another date. Our next regular meeting on March 4th, Ray, if Fm not mistaken, the only thing on that date is the hrrmokalee master plan; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's a continuation, and that will be for the data - analysis section and for the staff reports that we didn't go through and all the questions and issues on staff reports, for that matter. MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we need a continuation of today's meeting to March 10th. Ray, is it in -- I assume it's 8:30 in the morning on the 10th in this -- MS. ISTENES: Actually, I believe it's -- John, is that 1 -- 1 -- 1 o'clock, I p.m. on the 10th, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this building. MS. ISTENES: It's only a half -day meeting in this -- chambers, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So does someone want to make a motion to continue today's meeting to March 10th at I o'clock in these chambers? Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- does anybody have any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question -- we can vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got some discussion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want John --John Kelly, this is Paul Midney's Packet No. 3? He's obviously not here, so you're going to get it to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other discussion, we'll --all those in favor of the continuance --or, yeah, continuing until March 10th, signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER C:ARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody -- better not oppose. Good. We're continued to March 10th. Thank you all. Page 86 161 1 A3 February 26, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 3:52 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION n n M { STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on —� as presented 1/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY ELIZABETH BROOKS AND KAREN BLOCKBURGER, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 87 161 1 o March 4, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building " F' of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti (Absent) David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Carolina Valera, Comprehensive Planning Dept. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Dept. Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director Misc. Comes: Date: Page 1 item #: s to: Fiala Halas Henning_.._ RE4''EIVE 1 Coyle t` ColeUa APP 0 5 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE Hoard oP Gounry cnnrmESS Doers COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 4, 2010 161 1 o March 4, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building " F' of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti (Absent) David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Carolina Valera, Comprehensive Planning Dept. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Dept. Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director Misc. Comes: Date: Page 1 item #: s to: 161 1 tq � March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the March 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a pause in the pledge of allegiance when we started so Mr. Schiffer could move to the side and we don't pledge allegiance to the back of his head. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Roll call by Mr. -- by the secretary. Mr. Vigliotti has had other things he had to attend to today, so he won't be able to be here. Ms. Caron, would you mind? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Honuak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. 'today is an irregular regular meeting. On our regular meetings, as every first and third Thursday, we normally hear issues of variances or rezones or boat dock extensions. There have been none scheduled for today. Today is going to be a continuation of the review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan on that CP2008 -5. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES We do have a need to take a look at our schedule for the rest of the month. On March 10th I'd like to know if everybody -- anybody here knows if they cannot make it here next week for a -- it's our continuation of the LDC meeting that we continued. It's a four hour meeting, and it's 1:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. Page 2 6 ! l A3 March 4, 2010 Does anybody know if they cannot make it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it will be in this room starting at 1:00 on March 10th. That's a four hour meeting on the LDC. And we have another four hour meeting on the LDC on March 24th. On March 18th, which is a regular meeting date, Ray -- or actually, it's -- yeah, it is the 18th, isn't it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is the 18th. I think, Ray, you said we don't have a lot scheduled for that day? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. We have two items and possibly one, depending ifwe got everything worked out with the advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to suggest is because the LDC amendments are painstakingly difficult to deal with and they take time, and we also have to be very cautious that we're not letting something happen that has unintended consequences, I think we're going to need more than the next two days that we have scheduled, which are four hours each. I'd like to suggest to the Planning Commission that on the 10th we continue the LDC discussion until after the regular hearing -- meetings on the 18th, so we can have the LDC meeting carry over to the 18th for a few hours. I'm not suggesting we go to 5:00 or so with LDC hearings anymore. I think if we stop a little earlier; they're so tedious, we'll try to stop at mid afternoon with those. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any objection to it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Question. Would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: --that mean that we might not have to do the 24th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moo. In fact, I can assure you we'll need the 24th. And I'm suggesting one more date, April 9th. I have a series of dates available from the county to add another day, because I think we're still going to need another one. At the rate this is going, if you recall, the first two books have mostly rewrites. And they're going to be rewritten and start to come back to us maybe on the 10th, maybe on the 18th. Book III we haven't even started yet. We're going to start that next time. There are some rather controversial elements that were actually pulled we haven't even got into yet that will take I'm sure public testimony; one being the conservation calculation for boat docks. And there are some others. So I think we're probably going to need not only the two meetings we have, not only the 18th, but I'd like us to schedule a backup day just in case. And staff has sent some dates in which this room is available. March 30th, but that's a couple days before our regular meeting and I would suggest we don't do that. April 9th, which is a good day, because it's in between two regular meetings, which is where we like to schedule them. April 19th, which is right after -- which is the -- I think it's a Monday after the Thursday meeting on the 15th, or April 20th. I'd suggest to this board that we ought to look at April 9th as being the best. It's in between them all and we get time to fit it in. Does that sound appropriate? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, let's, if you don't mind, letting Ian know that the 9th was one day we'd like to lock in for the room. And it will be 8:30 starting date (sic), if possible. But we won't probably go till 5:00; we'll probably stop at mid afternoon to keep it a little lighter. MR. BELLOWS: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 28,20 10 CIE /LDC MEETING AND THE FEBRUARY 4,20 10 Page 3 161 1 �3 March 4, 2010 REGULAR MEETING Okay, next on our regular meeting schedule is the approval of the minutes. We have two of them. One is January 28th, and one is February 4th. Let's start with January 28th. Is there a motion to either approve or amend? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms. Caron. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. February 4th meeting, is there a similar motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8 -0. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have any recap for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The sheet said February 23rd, but you don't -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, not a problem. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Page 4 161 1,4? March 4, 2010 Chairman's report. Basically I'll explain what we're going to go into today, but I'll wait until we go right to that advertised public hearing. Consent agenda items, we don't have any. Item #9A PETITION: CP- 2008 -5, IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND AN IAMP FLUM MAP So, now the first and only thing up for today is the continuation of CP- 2008 -5, which is the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Briefly, we left off finishing up a discussion of all the goals, objectives and policies as formerly written and presented to us over the last couple of meetings that we had. At the end of that meeting we still had the master plan to go through. The -- I think there may have been some policies that needed cleaning up. We're going to walk through the staff report and any points that this commission had in regards to the writings of the staff report and the tables. Then we're also going to go through all the supporting documents. The supporting documents may have produced a lot of questions in regards to how they fit with the policies of the GMP. And so with that in mind, that's how I thought we'd proceed with today. And I'll let staff or the applicant, I guess Bob first, start off with any opening comments in regards to the prior meeting results or today's -- as we move forward. Bob? MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere for the record. I have some CDs to hand out to you that have some of the addit -- the remaining additional data that you haven't received yet that you asked for. I also have a copy here -- this is unrelated to what we're hearing today, but I do want to let you know that I have a copy here of a revised set of interim LDC amendments that we continued from your last hearing to the 10th. So I met with staff. This reflects the revised -- again, it doesn't have anything to do with this, it's the interim LDC amendments. But I do want to hand those out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The supporting documentation that we listed at our last meeting that you were eventually going to get to us, is that something you're going to have today as well, or not? Remember there were some documents missing from the policies we reviewed on the Immokalee Area Master Plan? MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge, everything that you've asked for is on that CD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Or been distributed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I misunderstood, I thought the CD was in response to the LDC -- MR. MULHERE: No, the CD is the documents that you're looking for. I guess at some point we'll be discussing the Future Land Use Map and the proposed changes in terms of the density impacts. We have a spreadsheet that we can also hand out to you and a revised Future Land Use Map. I can wait until we get to a point of discussion there, or if you want to start there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to start with the Future Land Use Map. I think when we stopped the last time, the first question was as we were stopping, are we still going to review that map. And I said absolutely. And that should be the first thing up for today. MR. MULHERE: I do have one issue that Mr. Midney asked for. And that was going back to --and it's provided for you, a scanned copy on that CD. But the question of the Trade Port Parkway connection, the policy that referenced that, I found a map and I did want to briefly discuss that with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that -- start out with that then, Bob, because that's a follow -up to a prior question. MR. MULHERE: We need to go to -- if we could get that monitor on it would immensely help. Page 5 161 143 March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The exhibit that was just passed out and the information, we need to make sure the court reporter gets a copy. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's of course with everything that's provided today. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, what is being passed out not so much the charts, because I know they're different. But this map 5 -1 -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that -- I can see it's already different than what we have. MR. MULHERE: No, it has changed in accordance to what we discussed with you the last time. If you recall, there were certain changes we had to make, and we'll go over those for you. And we put them on the record the last time, and so we've made those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Did you not have something you need for the court reporter'? MR. MULHERE: I think we're short the copy of the interim LDC. We can send it to you or we can give it to you at the hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we during break I'll try to get the -- MR. MULHERE: Get a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- go next door and make a copy. MR. MULHERE: This is on? MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. MULHERE: It says it's on. It must be dead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's on. We can hear you. Speak up. MR. MULHERE: The exhibit that's before you is an exhibit that was prepared in conjunction with the Trade Port DRI, which has been withdrawn. I lowever, it shows the proposed Immokalee loop road, this road right here. May or may not be the final configuration. That process is ongoing. We shouldn't construe anything from this exhibit. The DRI's been withdrawn. But it does show the general location of what was referred to as the Trade Port Parkway. And you'll recall there was a policy that said we would -- the county would support a connection using the Trade Port Parkway between the loop road and the airport. I've revised that language to be much more general. No reference to a Trade Port Parkway, simply the county supporting a connection between the future loop road and the airport. 'That's all it says now. So there's no reference to any project or project name, since it's been withdrawn anyway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What page is that on, Bob'? MR. MULHERE: I've got to find it. Can you look for it while I -- okay. We'll look for it, we'll find that. So let me just continue, though. This straight line shot here, as you can see, would provide direct access. It's called Gopher Ridge on this exhibit. Again, that doesn't really matter. But there's also a connection --that's to the north of the airport. There's also a connection to the south that would lead to 846 that would lead out to the loop road. It's Policy 3.2.4. on Page 32. It's entitled Florida Trade Port Parkway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, this came about as a question. Does anybody -- MR. MULHERE: It was a location]. I wanted to point out a general location, and then let you know that, I mean, I think it was a good question, because there's probably no reason for us to reference Trade Port Parkway when that project doesn't exist, but the connection still makes sense. So we've made it more general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions to follow up? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, in this master plan we usually don't talk about roads, so I'm wondering why we're saying that we will support the process of this road. It doesn't seem like the Immokalee Master Plan usually concerns itself with roads which we will support or not support. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I would disagree with that. It actually does, in two instances that I'm aware of. One Page 6 161 1 43 March 4, 2010 is the loop road, which is generally thought of as being absolutely critical to the future of Immokalee. And that is expressly supported in the reference in several policies. And this is a connection to the loop road. And the airport is also one of the great economic drivers potentially out there. So that connection directly from the future loop road to the airport is critical. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that's a Department of Transportation issue that they're resolving with meetings with the citizens of lmrmokalee and the shareholders, it's not really a master plan thing, is it? MR. MULHERE: his. Yes, it is. I mean, I can't agree with that. his. I mean, that's where you want to put a policy to support something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, there's a whole section on transportation issues that are being proposed. And I'm not sure it isn't the most -- it is an appropriate place to put the policies, Paul. 1 mean, whether we agree with the policies, that might be a different story. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, you're saying that you think it is an appropriate place? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we even have a -- we have a transportation element and we have a series of transportation policies and goals in our general master plan. And the communities, just standard have transportation issues, quite a few of them, so -- I mean, I don't see that as a problem in itself. But if the policy's direction is concerning to you and to the community, then I think that ought to be what we ought to focus on. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you just point out again where --I seethe Gopher Ridge Road, which may or may not come about. Can you talk about -- you're not calling it the Florida Trade Port Parkway? Do you have the verbiage written out in some form that you're proposing? And can you show me where the road would be? MR. MULHERE: No. And no. There is no determination as to where the road would be. So that's why we're generally talking about a connection from the future loop road -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- directly to the airport. No predetermination as to where it's going to be. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's not on this map. MR. MULHERE: This map shows one potential. The question was where is this Trade Port Parkway? Well, it doesn't exist. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. MULHERE: So this map was developed by the property owners at the time that the Trade Port Parkway DRI was submitted and was under review. And it shows a connection directly here -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- as well as a less direct connection here out to the loop road. And my purpose in bringing this exhibit was to orient you as to what the intent of that connection was. And we have a general policy. The language I don't have with me, you're going to get that when we rewrite everything. But it generally is going to say that the county will support a future connection from the loop road to the airport, or something along those lines. I mean, we had written it to say that the county will support -- conduct a PD &E. And as you recall, Nick got up here and said no, you can't say that. And we've revised that. And that was an existing policy anyway. We didn't create that, we just carried that over. But we've revised it to make more sense under the current scenario. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it does make more sense now, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions involving this graphic before we move on to the overall Immokalee Master Plan map? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess what we probably need to get into then are questions from -- there's most likely two maps involved. One of them is the 5.1 map. And youjust passed a new one out that does reflect some of the changes that seemed questionable in the previous version. And then for argument sake for those that want to repair it, the original Immokalee urban area map is existing Map 3 -1 in your packet of supporting documents. So there's -- and it's got a primarily green background on it. So there are two maps to be looking at. But the one that's being proposed based on the changes in the GMP being Page 7 161 1 0 March 4, 2010 suggested is the map that was passed out today, Map 5 -1. MR. MULHERE: 1 have an existing Map 5 -2, the adopted Future Land Use Map, 5 -2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I've got one here that says the Immokalee existing land use exhibit map, 3 -1. MR. MULHERE: That's an existing land use, that's not the future land use map. 5 -2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha, thank you. MR. MULHERE: And that -- right now I have that on the visualizer. That is the existing adopted Immokalee Area Master Plan. Not on the visualizer, on the podium. On the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I'm not -- I don't remember who had the questions from last time, but I certainly encourage that if anybody has any, let's start -- MR. MULHERE: So just -- if 1 couldjust orient us. So the one that's on the screen right now is the existing. Then this map is the proposed. You know, there's a lot of detail. It would be a -- we'll have to, you know, answer-- respond to specific questions. But --and then this is revised yet further. And I just wanted to go over what the further revisions were. That might be helpful, it might generate some questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERF: So remember, for example, the area that we had here that had some CMU and some medium density, but that was in that panther -- primary panther zone area. So that's been removed and taken out and returned back to low residential. We also -- in various locations, and we verbally explained this to you, and I'd have to get Chris or Pat to come up here and show you the exact locations. But in various locations, primarily more in the core section, we had changed several properties that had high residential designation in the existing plan to medium residential. We did that because under our proposed plan we were increasing the density in medium residential and there was no loss of value to those landowners by reducing them from high to medium. Now that we've gone back to the original density in almost the entire plan, with the exception of the CMU, in order not to dimun -- to reduce their property rights, we had to go back to what their original designation was, which we told you we would do. So we've returned those properties, they were sparse throughout the urban area, from median residential back to high residential, at the lower density that exists already in the plan. So there are throughout in these areas here and here and down in here some areas that have been returned to high residential from medium residential. So that's another change. What else am I missing? Okay, Arrowhead PUD. When we were meeting with staff -- that's right here? The Arrowhead PUD, which is, I don't know, almost 200 acres in size, approved and largely developed at the -- and was designated LR? And we've changed it. So we had proposed on the plan to change the Arrowhead to medium residential and a little portion of commercial that they were entitled to through the PUD to CMU. In meeting with staff, staff said you don't need to do that, they're fully entitled to that commercial through the PUD commercial. You don't have to change the designation on it. And we agreed. So we returned them back to their original designation. So the entire Arrowhead PUD is back to what it was designated, which is low residential. So those are the changes that we made based on our discussion with you all and with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you explain again, the commercial is taken out of the corner of Arrowhead, but you say they have a right to it anyway, they didn't -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's not taken out. We're talking about a designation. We didn't do anything to affect their PUD. We're talking about a future land use designation. We had changed the destination to reflect the actual configuration of the commercial that they're entitled to by putting a CMU designation on it. And David correctly points out that that actually increases their rights. Because there may be uses within the CMU that they're not entitled to within the PUD that they could go in and amend the PUD and ask for. Page 9 161 1 A3 March a, 2010 And that really wasn't our intent. Our intent was just to reflect what was there. And we don't need to do that on the Future Land Use Map, because the PUT) provisions of the plan allow them to have that commercial. So they're fully consistent with the plan and we don't need to call it CMU, and so we've revised it back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad. MR. MULHERE: Oh, there was -- point that out to me, Chris. Point that out. There was one other change. There was some discussion about some property, I think Pam Brown -- the Brown family owned, and it was down here. Right here. Right here. And we had that designated CMU. So it was a square of CMU, it was attached to the other CMU, but kind of was an outlier. There was discussion about whether it should be RT. We returned that back to the low residential -- to the high residential designation rather -- which is what it was. Which is what it was. You can see it right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Bob, just to discuss, the urban infill area, you're extending that a little bit to the west down Immokalee Drive, correct? MR. MULHERE: No, those are existing boundaries. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are existing? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We didn't change the boundary of the urban infill sub - district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Kind of looks like it, but -- MR. MULHERE: No, we didn't. It's -- there's a resolution that establishes that. It really has no regulatory authority, I don't think. We have to -- we have to accomplish what we need to accomplish in that area through a future central business district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then if you look at the original FLUM, there's apiece of medium residential down, and it looks like it's between Robert's Avenue and hnmokalee Drive. The furthest west on that. MR. MULHERE: Let me see if 1 can make this a little bigger and we can --this is the original. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, David Weeks for the record, of the Comprehensive Planning Department staff. And I want to just jump in and say that I agree with Mr. Schiffer, there's an additional square where the urban infill has been added to the west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's --yeah, part of that, I was going to use this question to prove that point. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question really is, Bob, so what you're doing on Immokalee Drive is you're taking medium residential further west on that area, correct? MR. MULHERE: You know, I'm going to have to defer with these guys here for a minute. I understand that we may have changed designations. The question I thought was did we increase the urban ill designation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that was the first question you said no, but — MR. MULHERE: And I thought the answer was no. And apparently -- if we did, we did it inadvertently, so -- because there was no intent to change that designation that I'm aware of. Do you want to get up and say something, Pat? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, could you show us, David? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's right on that area I was aiming you guys towards. MR. MULHERE: Somebody come up here and -- MR. VANASSE: I'll show them a hard copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, you guys are on record, if you're discussing things, so make sure it's recordable. MR. MULHERE: It may be confusing the boundary, but we didn't change. We used the -- MR. VANASSE: The overlay changed but the ill -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm confused. MR. WEEKS: See, here's where the road is, the existing map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, were you using this as an example? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I actually wanted -- I thought the infill had changed. I think it has, Page 9 1 b 1 1,0 March 4, 2010 but -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Okay, it looks like we're both saying the right thing. There seems to be a discrepancy on the existing Future Land Use Map. We'll figure that out. There was no -- let me just say this: There was no intent to increase the boundaries of the urban infill district. We may have -- we're going to get with staff, but we'll tignrre that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the second part of the question is that going down Immokalee Drive, north - south, you are carrying medium residential into that area. And prior to that I believe it was -- it would have been low residential. So just explain why you're doing that, that's all. And because north of that there's an area of existing I'm sure low residential that you're not changing. MR. MULHERE: So can you help orient me again? I mean, it's hard for me to see on these maps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That block that we questioned whether it's -- MR. MULHERE: Right here. Right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you need to use the pointer, Bob, because we can't see the "right here ". MR. MULHERE: Oh, it's not on the -- here. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd suggest you increase the -- yeah, zoom in on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Immokalee Drive -- MR. MULHERE: I just can't get it to move up. Here we are right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Scroll bar. MR. MULHERE: Right here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, scroll bar. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right there. Right in there. Both sides of that area there. MR. MULHERE: I thought you could just move the whole map, but that's all right, here we are. Right here. And you're saying this area in here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That area in there. And that -- you know, the area that we're questioning whether -- MR. MULHERF,: And then you're saying there's low residential here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, what is the reason just to bring in medium residential in that area? Is that developed land, is that undeveloped land? MR. MULHERE: I thought that was existing medium residential right now. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's low. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So do one of you want to help me out here? What would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about the rectangle that has El Paso Trail in the cen -- almost near the center north side of it. MR. MULHERE: Correct. So you've got CMU. We return this back to the medium residential which we had at high but we returned it. We've got high here. And then you've got medium here and low here. This is developed here. And I'm sure that's part of the reason why we didn't change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is (sic) El Paso Trail got existing homes on it? Because if they are, the old plan called for those to be low residential. You're now saying they can be median residential, based on what your changes are. I think that's what Brad's trying to get at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm not against it, Ijust wanted to talk -- MR. MULHERE: I think- - COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --about it. MR. MULHERE: -- our perspective was that it was a transition from the high residential and out, moving out we want median residential. So generally it's a trans -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use the bar below and it will move it. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, I didn't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Scroll bar below will move it in the center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob -- there you go. Page 10 161 1 -A3 March 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, too much. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, yeah, I'm trying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, stop. Now you can increase the size -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, she's having a hard time recording what you're saying. Your microphone's turned away from you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry, that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can't speak without -- unless it's on. You can't do that, you've got to be on uric. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. MR. MULHERE: Hold on one second, I'll confer with my client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're off to a real mmming start here today. MR. MULHERE: Okay, so I guess that is Esperanza Place. By the way, wejust conferred with Penny Phillippi and she said that's the Esperanza Place where they have a density bonus and that will be probably developed as medium density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I guess really what I'm trying to get to is that there are some changes in the land use plan. The changing of uses kind of fulfills a vision for the city. Is there some-- did you just go through here and crazy quilt things to make them work, or is there a vision that this -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, no, there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- land use plan kind of gives us? MR. MULHERE: No, there's clearly a vision. This is why you have the highest level of mixed use and intensity along the Main Street. And as you move out, you step down. You go to high residential and then medium residential. Unfortunately some of those, because of concerns of increasing density, were returned to their original designation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But as you go down, let's say Lake Trafford, why do -- we hit another area of CMU. What is the vision of that? In other words, as we're -- the north side of Lake Trafford. And Bob, my standpoint is I'm not as familiar with Immokalee as most people -- MR. MULFIERF.: Hold on a second. Go ahead, I'm listening to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'm not as familiar with Immokalee as certainly Paul is. And so for me I can see what the zoning creates in terms of density in the image of a city. And I'm just trying to see what it is we're doing. Like the north side of-- MR. MULHERE: We are trying to balance the vision with the existing property rights, a very difficult process, and the existing development patterns in an area that has a mishmash of development and allowable uses. And we believe and the community believes that we've achieved that objective. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've achieved mishmash? MR. MULHERE: No, we've achieved a vision. In what exists now and -- but as we've had to adjust that vision to respond to concerns that have been placed upon us relative to increasing density, traffic impacts, we've got to adjust that a little bit. And that's what we've done. Your question about the CMU, hold on one second, I'll get an answer for you. Okay, so couple of reasons. There's existing commercial out there. We expanded that CMU to the existing property configuration, property boundary so you wouldn't have the designation splitting the property. In addition, that's where Little League Road is proposed to come through. So you will have a future major intersection there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where that's -- okay. And then I guess -- and the last question is Lake Trafford Road, that whole thing, the north side of it has your highest density, and the south side of it for the most part has your lowest density. What is the vision that that's going to create? MR. MULHERE: Well, again, if you look at this area here, this was slated -- we had proposed that for I think medium residential as well. But because it's already developed, and we put it back to what it originally was, that's where we had that little piece of commercial. That's the PUD, Arrowhead. Page 11 161 1 March 4, 2010 This is already developed, and so that's why that's retained at low residential. You know, if we weren't dealing with a significantly existing development pattern there, we'd probably -- and we did propose to change those, but we brought them back to where they were because of -- because of the paper density concerns, the likelihood of those ever being redeveloped any time from what they are today is very, very slim, so we went back to the original designation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, there are areas that -- oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, you can go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAW: That's fine. You may solve my questions. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, I want to go back to the piece of property that we were just talking about, that CMU piece. Because on the plan currently that's neighborhood commercial, which is very different from commercial mixed use in intensity. MR. MULHERE: It's not very different. At least in our opinion it's not. And there is no -- 16 units per acre is what was allowed for residential. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you expanded it as well. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we did. Because we think it's the appropriate -- COMMISSIONER CARON: To the north. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There is no more neighborhood commercial, at least not in what we've written. We now have the CMU, the commercial mixed use, designation which replaced the neighborhood commercial. And again, we think that's an appropriate designation, given the future major intersection, given the existing commercial. And part of the problem that you have in various areas in hmnokalee is where properties are not deep enough to support a well master planned development there. They're cut by, you know, two different designations, say commercial neighborhood center and low residential. And to us that made sense, and to the community it made sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: But this piece wasn't cut. MR. MULHERE: I think that we extended it to reflect the property boundaries. At least that's what I was told. You want to speak? You can introduce yourself. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. On the original Future Land Use Map, the neighborhood commercial actually went into the Arrowhead PUD. So what we did is we looked at the overall acreage for all that you see in blue on the original and tried to accommodate as much commercial area at that intersection than what you had before. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Arrowhead still gets to keep their commercial as well, because it's part of their PUD. MR. VANASSE: Yeah, but it's a -- the commercial in Arrowhead is much smaller than what was on the Future Land Use Map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Bob, the pattern that you've laid out on this new master plan I certainly think is an improvement over the last one. Not the one that you've produced but the one the county's been using for all these years. It does keep your commercial cores near the more activity areas with the exception of a few that are more or less needed because they were given away before. And I see where you've moved the densities and tried to step them down. But I have a question, and that is, you've taken away some people's development rights for intensities on some of these properties and replaced it with what some people may consider less development rights. And it's kind of like what we did in the county years ago with our zoning reevaluation ordinance when we changed things. How -- I guess this is a question for staff. How do you all see those property owners who may believe they've been down -zoned and are losing rights, how's that going to play out as this moves -- if it were to move forward like it is? David'? MR. WEEKS: From a planning perspective, and the legal perspective may be different. But from the planning perspective I see a very clear distinction between changes to a Future Land Use Map versus changes to Page 12 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 zoning. And the zoning provides entitlements. If your property is zoned C something in one of the commercial districts, then you have the right to develop that property with commercial uses permitted in the zoning district that lies on your property. Subject to compliance with all of the development standards, with environmental protection standards, water management requirements, et cetera. But assuming you can meet all of those requirements, you have the right to develop the property with those uses. When you have a future land use designation in the Growth Management Plan, that only provides you the right to request the zoning to implement that designation. I see a very clear distinction between the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but my question is -- well, let's start with the MR section that's to the right — north of Main Street to the right of Main --kind of in the right side of this sheet. See where it says CMU along New Market Road, then you get to the MR, then you get to Main Street. See the crosshatched MR? Go down a little bit, Bob, over to your right. Down a little bit. There, that MR. On the existing Irmnokalee land use map, that is shown as commerce center mixed use sub - district. On this map it's being proposed as MR. Now, how do you tell the property owners that had commercial uses that could have gone there that they're in better condition with the MR designation on this map? Because if I'm understanding it right, if the MR says that that entitles you to ask for the multi- residential zoning, whereas the last one entitled you because of its designation as commercial mixed use, you could ask for a commercial and mixed use, how are you better off just limiting it to residential? MR. WEEKS: You might want to pick a different example. That whole rectangle happens to be government owned. That's Irmnokalee High School, library, community park and so forth. I think your point is still the same, but -- MR. MULHERE: That's why we changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Based on that discussion with staff, that's why we changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have a government -- MR. MULHERE: We were --I just want to put on the record, we were extremely careful and worked diligently at not reducing anyone's development rights. There are probably a few examples where someone could make the argument that they've been reduced, but we don't think we actually did that. And I guess what I'm saying is if you went from strictly a residential designation to now allowing a commercial designation, I don't know if you could argue that that's in any way a down zoning or something that allows commercial, but somebody might try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the opposite. And take Lake Trafford Road where it goes to the east of 15th Street North. You see how in the old map it's got a series of areas in blue which are your neighborhood center sub - districts? And in this one you reduced it to a strip along 15th Street North. Is that reduction going to have any negative impact on those property owners? And did you think about that? And if it does, how is that handled? How is that going to be handled? I know we did a similar thing years ago in Collier County. I'm just asking what the process is going to be. Have we thought that out yet? See the blue there where it says the east side of Lake Trafford? MR. WEEKS: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The easterly most portion of that blue again is a school. That's Highlands Elementary School location. But -- MR. MULHERE: That's right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's west, Bob. I'm talking east. MR. MULHERE: Here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: But the portion to the east of State Road 29, 15th Street North, that's about the middle point of the existing blue neighborhood center. That is a platted single- family zoned subdivision that has -- I don't know if it's Page 13 161 1 �3 March 4, 2010 completely developed, but has several single - family homes in it. MR. MULHERE: Right, there is some of that. And I'll give you another example. There were some changes in this area here, which is, if you go to the proposed, you can see that's now all medium residential. Based on the prevailing development pattern, we thought the likelihood of anybody challenging -- it's all platted single - family lots. And that was discussed at the Immokalee Area Master Plan visioning committee hearings, and their recommendation was to change those designations. So there are some examples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to make sure we have a way to handle this. I mean, is it going to include notifications to the property owners of an ability for them to come in and challenge the rezoning if they want to so they can take their existing rights and keep those intact versus new rights? MR. WEEKS: Number one, there will be no -- there's no public notice, other than what we have already provided and will continue to provide as required by state law, the notice for these plan amendments. Secondly, I don't think you meant to say it, but you said down - zoning or rezoning. Not a zoning change, future land use designation change. And I stress that because I see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying, but in essence a Future Land Use Map. You have to be consistent. And if you're not consistent, you're not going to get the zoning. So in essence your zoning's going to be changed. It may not seem like it right now because it's a picture on a map, but they can apply for the zoning they used to have if the map change says they don't -- aren't entitled to it. Is that a fair statement? MR. WEEKS: Well, no change to their zoning, only a change to what they could request. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? MR. WEEKS: Because the property -- the specific area we're discussing is zoned single - family right now and this designation will not change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for teclurcal purposes you're telling me it's not a change to their zoning because they haven't asked for it yet, but we're telling them we're changing what they can ask for. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In essence it's the same thing. But fine, I understand you want to mince those words. MR. WEEKS: Well, I think it's important. Because the right to develop your property with certain uses is different than your right to ask for zoning that would give you the right to develop. There's no guarantee that that zoning request would be approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you, we've had other -- we've had attorneys in here telling us that the GMP says this, and therefore they have a right for that. And I haven't heard too many arguments legally saying they don't have that right, so -- Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, 1 think that the examples that you've given so far are already built out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so is a lot of development in Collier County. But it doesn't mean they may not want to redevelop in the future and may take advantage of higher price points and different things if they change. That's the only thing I was -- if a man has a single - family home where it's now potentially -- or where it could have been commercial, that home has a certain life expectancy. When it's gone or someone may see a desire to increase the value of that property through a commercial use, he won't be able to do it, based on this new map. That's the only thing I was concerned about. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add a couple of things. That may be somebody's position that ifthe GMP says it's permissible. But we know that the GMP provides for allowable range of uses and that each case stands on its own, based on compatibility and other factors. And we've written very expressly, at least in this plan, that the density -- and I think it's also in the Future Land Use Element that for example density and intensity is simply an eligible quantity or number. It does -- there's no guaranteed rights of that. MR. WEEKS: No entitlement. MR. MULIIERE: There's no entitlement. But 1 do understand what you're saying, and we had this discussion. Actually we met yesterday and we had this discussion. Those properties that end up being made nonconforming in terms of what the GMP would allow and what's existing, even in terms of the zoning that's existing, are relatively few, but they would still enjoy all the rights of a legal nonconforming use, as would any other use. Page 14 16 ! 1 k� March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the map? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, one thing that does happen is, you know, hopefully changing these zoning designations, even on existing properties, kind of guides development towards again this vision. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I see things like on -- if you look on like Lake Traff -- southwest intersection of Lake Trafford and 15th Street, you have areas that go CMU, MR, then HR. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the vision and why are we doing stuff like that? Why aren't we -- it's certainly not -- you don't transition down and then come back up. MR. MULHERE: Okay. This is exactly what I was discussing before in the direct response to your previous question. This was all MR in our original proposal. The reason that's been returned to HR was because when we removed the density increases that we originally proposed, we had to return that to its original designation so as not to diminish the property rights of those property owners. And there is some multi - family there. So the HR density that they enjoy today was the equivalent of the MR density that we were proposing. So when we were changing them from HR to MR, they weren't losing any rights. Once we reduced that density back to what it originally was, we had to put them back to where they were in order to not diminish their property values. And we did that on several properties, and this is one of them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But my question really is, is in the vision of this city you're creating, why would you go from a CMU to a medium residential to a high residential? MR. MULHERE: Because you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, why isn't that MR high residential, I guess, let me make it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, just to keep your day pleasant, don't talk before he finishes, otherwise you might have a difficult day here ahead of you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Look, I mean, I can only say what I've said already several times. This is not purely an exercise in doing what we would like to see happen. If it was, we could have a short meeting. There is balance required here. And we are responding to many different interests: Your interests, the community's interests, the property owners' interests. And in the end what we get is the very best that we can do. We've had to make some adjustments to this plan. This is not the plan that we proposed to you. This is the plan that responds to the comments that you've provided to us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, since it's my fault, I don't understand why I did that then either. MR. VANASSE: For the record, just to address your specific question, this area was -- obviously, as you point out, it would make more sense to go to HR and transition down to MR. We put this piece back to HR because that was existing. Should we then go in and make this piece HR also to have better transition? It would make sense to a certain extent. However, as soon as we identify this as HR, we create more density on our map, and that's potential density that could be built out. And we know that we have an issue of not showing too much density on that map that when we transmit this and it goes to DCA, DCA's going to be looking at that overall density increase. Therefore, again that's another aspect that we have to look at, how is DCA going to respond to this. And while it may make sense from a gradient perspective to go from CMU, HR to MR, in reality when we're dealing with DCA it doesn't help us out. MR. MUL14ERE: I'm sorry, I've got to add to that. It's not just DCA, it's our own transportation department, our own planning staff and others involved in this conversation. DCA is the least of my worries at this point in time. But yes, they will have a concern over the density increase, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, a good answer would be that's a historic district, we want to keep it low. I mean, but -- so in other words -- MR. MULHERE: But that's not the answer. Page 15 161 13 March 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The answer is you're on a scale and you're just moving the weights on the scale to balance the density and so thus that's going to be a donut of MR surrounded by high density. MR. MULHERE: The answer is we're trying to balance the proposed density increases. And by changing that designation on paper, there will be a significant density increase. So the numbers, when we get to the spread sheet -- if we changed everything the way we proposed it, we had a -- what was the number, 12 or 14,000 unit increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least, yeah. MR. MULHERE: And that was deemed to be unpalatable. And for reasons of potential traffic impacts, potential growth impacts, you know, there is a requirement to demonstrate need as it relates to proposed intensity increases. And so in response to the concems that were raised relative to transportation impacts and demonstration of need, we went back in and revised the plan to reduce the impact and to limit our density increase, Brad, to this area here where we feel it's the most important, which is in the CMU. And that's where we basically limited the majority of the density increase to the urban core. We didn't -- we're not disagreeing with what you're saying. We've actually agreed with that. And our original plan actually probably mirrored more what you were talking about. But unfortunately this is an iterative process and, you know, some things have changed. So this piece here was returned to its original designation, and it's primarily already developed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but I -- you know, the second wave of development is what we're aiming. But for example, Lake Trafford Road had a large chunk of the MR essentially, yet you changed that to high residential. Why wouldn't you have changed this little island of MR that I'm talking about instead and leave -- you know what I mean? Pmjust trying to get to a reason that has to actually have back to a vision, it's notjust -- MR. MULHERE: Because it's not just the vision, it's also other issues, including existing property rights that we're balancing, and that's why that was returned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a question. That piece of MR property that we've been talking about. MR. MULHERE: Right here? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On the current map, that's actually LR. And if it's developed already, shouldn't it remain LR? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think we -- our feeling was that we could take it from the high residential that we proposed down to the medium residential, but that it didn't make sense to go back to low residential here. And I think we agree with Brad that ultimately there will be some redevelopment here, especially if things happen in the central business district in the CMU designation that we expect to happen over the next 20 years. COMMISSIONER CARON: What's that -- what are all those little streets developed as now? Are they single family? MR. MULHERE: There's some multi - family too, isn't there? Yeah, there's some multi - family in there as well, yeah. David, you probably know as well as anybody. MR. WEEKS: It's all single - family. There may be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are on record, so either speak into the tnic or don't speak, please. MR. WEEKS: In that hole in the donut where Bob is pointing, that's primarily single- family development. I was thinking there may be one mobile home -- MR. MULHERE: But there's -- MR. WEEKS: -- park in there. MR. MULHERE: There's multi - family here, right? Right in here? I know there's somewhere right in that area. MR. WEEKS: 1 think there's some multi - family and there's mobile home development in there as well. And the mobile home development does have a higher density than single- family, generally six, seven units per acre. Page 16 161 1 p March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you had said something earlier I wanted just a quick follow -up on. In order for DCA and yourselves to determine whether or not you've increased or modified or changed the density, you take the acreages of all these HRs, MRs, LRs, CMUs and calculate out their density and multiply it by acre and that's what you show DCA; is that fair? MR. MULHERE: Both -- we did it two ways: We did both the base and the maximum with bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For example, on this MR district that Ms. Caron just pointed out, are you taking any as -built conditions, or is it strictly by acre? MR. MULHERE: Strictly by acre, both on the base for the MR and on the base with bonuses maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then in order -- and your balancing act between showing too much HR, which increases density and causes you problems with transportation and also DCA and others, if you had a way to decrease density in others so that you could then -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- show what is reasonable in areas where you would expect to see a continuation of HR, it might be beneficial. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which leads me to where I'm going in regards to there seems to be no government district allocated on this Future Land Use Map. And the reason that might be handy is the MR you have where the school is that I wouldn't have known without looking -- without you telling me and a couple locations, one on the east side of Lake Trafford Road and one north of Roberts Ave., those are big areas of MR. If you were to take those out and list them as government with no density, the density from those then could be more used for transitional areas that should have the higher densities, might it not be? MR. MULHERE: And you're probably -- you're thinking right along the same lines of what we -- exercise we did yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And we have a spreadsheet. Actually we handed it out to you already. And let me start with your first comment. We have reduced the density. Leading up to this, we reduced the maximum density by a significant number that could be achievable. We've actually reduced it more now by going through the exercise that you just suggested, which is to take out of the calculation those developed public properties. We haven't used a government designation, you know, that's really never been too much done. I mean, you could through zoning do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Bob, you know what? Andjust because we haven't done it before doesn't mean it may be the best way of continuing not doing it. But I do know from our -- the documentation we discussed in the last couple of meetings -- I'll wait for you to finish your conversation with Patrick. MR. MULHERE: I'm song. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MR. MULHERE: Go ahead. Right, that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is an actual map designation with a G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can be pretty assured that all the park sites, the school sites -- MR. MULHERE: Are P. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the agency sites for our buildings, the jail site, which I don't see where that is on here, if you were to take all those and create a district on your FLUE for government sites and then take that density out of the calculations for the HR, MR and CMU that you probably now have -- in fact, I know you now have it in, because you told us that. MR. MULHERE: No, we took them out. We took them out. On this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I asked you -- the beginning of this I asked you a question, are you taking all the acreage of the MR and using it as a density calculation for DCA, you said yes. MR. MULHERE: I misunderstood what you said then. I thought you asked me how we calculate the maximum density. I didn't realize that you meant every single -- no, we've gone through an exercise -- based on Page 17 161 1 �3 March 4, 2010 staffs recommendation we've gone through an exercise that wejust completed. The spreadsheet that we handed out to you reflects that exercise wherein we identified only developed public properties, not undeveloped, because those could be sold as surplus and then developed whatever designation they are. So every developed property that is a government facility, we've subtracted that density in this latest spreadsheet. And that's why you have a significant reduction in the achievable density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you don't have on this spreadsheet you just passed out what the government land acreages area in hnmokalee. You basically have totals now, which won't balance with the total acreage in Immokalee because you've left out the government acreage. So why wouldn't we want to show that on a Future Land Use Map showing government sites? Is there a reason we wouldn't want to? I mean, it would certainly make it a lot simpler to understand. Some of the questions we had here today you may not even have gotten. MR. WEEKS: I think I want to address that. I -- and I'm partly conversing with Patrick and Bob about this. In our discussion yesterday, staff and the petition agents, one of the things we discussed was the -- was this spreadsheet, or the earlier version of it and the total impact of these changes, the total increase in the number of dwelling units, potential, as well as the commercial from a perspective of the infrastructure impacts and how this both -- and the data and analysis necessary to support the increases in density and intensity. And one discussion that we had was well, why don't we - -just like the Chairman was suggesting, why don't we identify all of these developed governmental properties, create a separate designation for them and then we could remove them from the density calculations and commercial calculations? And the conversation we had, well, to counterpoint that was well, those properties are already developed that way so we don't really gain anything. We should be removing it from the existing and the proposed Future Land Use Maps. And I think we missed something, and that is that the existing designations are there. Whether there's a school developed on the property or not, the property does have a designation, it does have an eligible density which should show up in the spreadsheet. And then if we change the designation, as again you're suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that would in fact result in a reduction in eligible density or intensity, which could be reflected on the table. Now, essentially what the agents have done is the same thing without the map change. They have deducted the acreage -- MR. MULHERE: Actually I misspoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but how confusing will that be to DCA? Here's the numbers, but they're not really the numbers because before we sent them to you we reduced some things, but we're not going to tell you what it is we reduced, we just did it. MR. MULHERE: No, we would tell them we have the acreage calculations. But look, let's make this simple. Why don't we go back and designate publicly owned properties P -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. MR. MULHERE: -- and create a new district. Penny will be coming to see you. And then we'll show that on the spreadsheet and that will have no density associated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that will save us and also make everything appear a whole much more in balance than it's appearing right now. I think that would be a real good idea to do by the time we re -hear this, so -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Anybody object? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. MR. MULHERE: And the reason that I misspoke is that actually that will -- that probably will reduce those numbers even further than what you're seeing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. Which is going to be a very positive thing to show when you try to go forward and get this accomplished. So I think you'd be better off all the way around. If there's no other questions -- M R. MULHERE: Agreed, we would only designate those properties that are developed, not undeveloped, which could be surplussed and sold, so we'll leave those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now -- okay, wait a minute. If the government or the school board or somebody -- Page IS 161 1k3 March 4, 2010 go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Well, I'd just like to propose a question that relates to -- a hypothetical you were using earlier -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull that mic a little closer to you. MR. EASTMAN: It involves a similar hypothetical that you were using earlier, Mr. Chairman. If a homeowner has a home and its useful life has been spent and their underlined zoning is commercial and they could sell that for commercial, wouldn't you be down - zoning them if they were currently commercial but then you changed the zoning to residential? Could we be talking about a similar thing for government entities, both school district owned and county owned, in the event that there was a new park that was accommodating the people and the old park was then going to be put up for sale as surplus. If it were a P designation, would you be decreasing the value for the taxpayers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Well, again, you're going to get tired of hearing this, I guess, but we're not talking about zoning, we're talking about future land use designations. And I can't stress enough, I see just a night and day difference between the two. But -- MR. EASTMAN: But wouldn't a value of a property inherently include --and you like to use the distinction between what you have a right for and what you have a right to ask for. Wouldn't its value definitely include what you have a right to ask for? I mean, I think that's part and parcel of a value of a piece of land. MR. MULHERE: May I just add a thought, if I could? Two things -- I mean, there's two ways we could do this. To address part of your concern, we could certainly show the acreage that we are -- that is developed under public use and reduce the density, and DCA I'm sure would support that. I don't think they would have any problem with us not counting units, even if it was designated say MR if it was developed as a school or park, or a jail. You know, that's a reasonable adjustment that they I'm sure will not have a problem with. That doesn't go as far as changing the land use designation on these properties, but it does result in more accurate numbers. That's one option. Second thing, I think there is one good point that's been brought up here. Ijust had a thought. Three years ago we were suffering from a lack of any ability to find any affordable housing when we had super high home prices. I don't know if we'll ever get there again, but at that time there were proposals to build employee housing on public facilities, on school sites. And if we change that designation, that opportunity is gone. So that is something worth at least throwing into the mix, I think. You know, we may never be there again to where we need to be concerned with that, but one way to get there would be to just subtract and show as a piece of data that can be submitted to DCA a map that shows all of the developed public facilities, and then provides a density reduction based on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Although the continued need for the public facilities is very likely, and in most cases a park will remain a park, a school will remain a school. But I do think it's important that we try to increase flexibility for future development rather than decrease it, especially when we're talking about the taxpayers' assets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's interesting, the more government has things and talks, the more it sounds like a developer. But I wanted to compare this though, to what we have on our books right now, that is very frustrating for all the departments that have to deal with level of service and that is this ghost density that's out there. Government in essence then is creating huge, huge blocks of ghost density, that if we have to do with what's being suggested, that our levels of service will have to be retained for that potential ghost density for eternity. And_ MR. MULHERE: No, we've got to subtract that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just don't see how we can -- I don't see how that's fair to the public in a number of different ways, especially if they've bought in an area with a school in it and in -- everybody thinks a school is there forever, or a park. I'm not sure we -- MR. MULHERE: You know, that's interesting, because we had this discussion throughout this process leading up to these Planning Commission hearings. To my knowledge, Collier County in the past, in amending its comprehensive plan county -wide, has never Page 19 61 1 A3 March 4, 2010 calculated the maximum achievable density. They didn't say when they did that every acre of residential designated land is eligible for an affordable housing density bonus and therefore we have to use the highest achievable density when we submit this plan to DCA as part of our calculation for roads, water, sewer, schools. Am I correct? MR. WEEKS: I think you are. MR. MULHERE: Okay. But we were held to that standard here. We were told you have to calculate the worst possible scenario. And we did it. We didn't calculate on what the most reasonable development pattern is, which is lower than what the comp. plan allows because you have to put in roads and parks, and you never achieve that. We went ahead and showed the worst case scenario. And I think that leads to your point, that there is this -- if you're using the worst case scenario for planning, you're probably over - planning, you know, with ghost trips and everything else. I guess that's why I think it's good that we did a base and a bonus. The DCA, I think it's true that -- you have to deal with these guys in a way that explains the conditions. And they're reasonable enough to say we know that every single bonus isn't going to be achieved. Give us a reasonable explanation of what's an appropriate amount. And that's why I think it is reasonable to subtract the government owned lands from this calculation. And it's going to be very favorable when we finish that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ijust think you need to find some methodology to which it can be shown so it's MR. MULHERE: We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN_ -- clear to everybody. MR. MULHERE: We'll have that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it sure wasn't clear to us here today, and I think that would be helpful. MR. MULHERE: We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's try to move on past the map. And the next itern -- oh, David? MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I have two questions about the map. One other change from the version submitted versus the version handed out today is at the very north end of town in the CMU designation on the west side of State Road 29, right where West Clock Street runs to the west. The CMU designation used to have a significant jog in it, and now it's almost -- the westerly boundary is almost a north -south line. Some property was added there. And I just wanted to ask what the purpose was. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Apparently there was a mapping discrepancy. And if you look at this map right here, this is the originally proposed Future Land Use Map. This is the existing Future Land Use Map. You can see that boundary right here where the neighborhood center is. Then you go to 5 -1, which was the proposed map, and you can see that significant jog right there. And that's what you're referring to, David? I can make it a little bigger for you. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, please. MR. MULHERE: Right here? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And then you go to what we have now and it looks like gee, thatjog is less. MR. WEEKS: That's it. MR. MULHERE: The fact is that the error was on this map. And this map, this boundary right here, is reflective of this boundary right here. Correct? Yes. So this map, which is what is now proposed, more accurately reflects what the adopted and C boundary was. Or does accurately reflect that boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have these two maps on a CAD or some kind of electronic media system? Have you ever thought of taking a base outline of the urban area, taking a transparency and putting the old FLUE on it and then a transparency and putting a new one on it, and then providing that so staff and everybody can see where -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we've done it. We have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. Why don't you produce it for everybody? MR. MULHERE: Any answer to that? Page 20 161 1A3 March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if you did that today, we may have limited our questions. MR. VANASSE: For the record, Patrick Vanasse. We actually did that with a GIS, and we actually produced maps that we printed out. It's just a jumbled mess. You can't really see anything on a large scale. So what we've done is we've had our GIS person go in and on a much smaller scale compare all the boundaries, and that's how we caught some of those, through that process. And we have some saved examples that we can show you how we did that comparison. But we went through that exercise with GIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you -- I mean, for us to develop more questions off of that may not be as productive as if you at least provide that to staff. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we'll do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was why last week I asked that they do everything on the same scale, so we can actually -- MR. MULHERE: And they are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- hold them up to the -- MR. MULHERE: We did go back and check, they are the same scale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not these small ones you were giving out, but the new ones might be. MR. VANASSE: "Those are staff maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David? MR. WEEKS: My second question was about at the very northwest comer of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road there's a small piece of CMU added. That's not a change today, that goes to their original submittal. But Ijust was curious about that small piece being added to CMU. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Next map. MS. VALERA: 'That's the existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be your new map. There you go. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Where are we? MR. WEEKS: Carson and Lake Trafford roads, northwest quadrant. MR. MULHERE: This little pink is what we're talking about? MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: It's an existing commercial site. MR. WEEKS: Commercially zoned, I believe. And I was curious why the designation was being added. It's presently not designated with any commercial. MR. MULHERE: Well, I can say that we added it to reflect what's existing, the commercial that's existing. It was on the proposed map. You can see it right here. Here it is right here. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So if you're asking why was it changed from the original designation to --that's an example of reflecting what is proposed -- I mean what is existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course that begs the question as how did it get there. MR. WEEKS: It's been there. I think it's zoned C -2, if I'm not mistaken, as a convenience store. It's been there for decades. So it predated the Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The reason I was asking the question is I'm not --the scale is dif -- for me I can't tell if that is only that commercially zoned parcel or if it's been expanded. And this is another example of -- which may be by design, but is another example where there is an increase of what's allowed. If the current zoning, if I'm correct, is C -2 right now, the new designation would allow up to C4. MR. VANASSE: It does reflect what's out there. And it is the same parcel. And it was by design, we wanted to allow that commercial within that neighborhood. Page 21 161 1A-3 March 4, 2010 MR. WEEKS: '1'o increase in intensity? MR. VANASSE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: It's relatively small, but -- MR. VANASSE: Just to address the scale issue, the confusion comes in with some of the maps that were handed out. We have our maps that are all on 11 by 17 paper. And the ones you were looking at I believe are from staff that are on the smaller -- yeah. So all our maps are at the same scale, the before and after, and staff was using a different scale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, is that all the questions staff has on the map at this time? MR. WEEKS: At this time, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we're finished up with the map from what I understand. Why don't we break until 10:00, come back and we'll start on staff -- I assume the staff report is the next item up, David? Does that work for you guys to go through the staff report questions? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll come back and 10:00 and start on that. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from the break. Before we go into our further discussion on the Immokalee Area Master Plan, I want to make sure we've attended to any of the public speakers that may be here, and I know there's at least one. And we have a -- we had previously asked for some information on some of the policies, and The Conservancy had volunteered information. They are here today to provide us with a handout in response to that. It's one that we certainly will review at our leisure, but I think it would be appropriate to get it on the record right now. So young lady, if you want to come up and state your name for the record, and off we'll go. MS. CROSLEY: For the record, Kate Crosley from The Conservancy. And as the Chairman mentioned, we have some information we would like to provide to you at this time, so I'll go ahead and pass out the packets and then explain what they're all about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CROSLEY: Or they'll be passed out as I speak. So I'll also be showing you these maps on the overhead, since some of them didn't come out quite right. Our printer was being a little finicky. The point of these maps is to provide information to help implement specifically the LAMP Policy 2.1.3, and that's related to mitigation and targeted land acquisition. So what we've done is we've started the analysis process. And as you know, the policy itself has a timeline of two years. However, we feel that it's important to start the natural resource assessment as soon as possible, and so that's kind of the step we've taken. And to meet this goal, we've providedjust one way of doing this analysis. We took 13 different natural resource layers and overlay -ed them. And actually, I'll have you use my map, because that one is a little bit dark. Okay, so we've taken 13 different layers, which the data from these layers are actually provided by various agencies, including the Florida Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Florida natural areas inventory and we combined them into one map to show essentially the most environmentally significant areas. And what this does is provides you a comprehensive picture of where to target -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to talk a little slower so we make sure we get everything on the record. MS. CROSLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. CROSLEY: Is where to target natural resource areas to start this mitigation, banking and acquisition policy. So as you can see from this map, the darkest green areas have the most overlay of the different layers that we chose. So the darkest on -- on the scale it only goes up to 12. So only 12 of the 13 layers possibly overlap in this part of Immokalee. And then the brownish areas are areas where there's very little overlap between the natural resource layers. Page 22 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 So it's just one way of looking at the environmental resources in the area, and provides that starting point for Policy 2.1.3 to look at where to start mitigation and acquisition. So essentially all we wanted to do today was provide this information to you. We've also given digital copies to staff, so if you'd like to see them digitally, and we can provide them to the consultants, then that way you can take a look at them on your computer and maybe get a better feel as our -- you can tell our red ink is kind of running out on those maps. And so that's the point of our comments today. One of the other maps you can maybe see a little better is this second one. It has an aerial underneath it so it makes it a little bit easier to tell what's going on. But again, the digital copy would probably be a little bit easier to see. And essentially we hope you take advantage of this information, and we are more than willing to help as the process continues in working with staff and consultants to start this as soon as possible so that you can look at the appropriate areas for where natural resource, mitigation and acquisition can be directed. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the best time for us to produce our questions is reading your information and staff and the applicant as well in conjunction with the rewrite of the policies and the review of the final draft of the policies when they come back. It's a little hard to take it all into context right now and read it. So I think we'll wait till that time, unless anybody has something they feel needs to be asked now. MS. CROSLEY: Okay, great, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, and we appreciate the information. Electronically that's all been passed on to both staff and the applicant? MS. CROSLEY: Staff has it right now, but I can make additional copies to give to the consultants as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like you to do that ahead of time so that if they see any issues they need to address, when it comes back we can all be on the same page. MS. CROSLEY: Okay, perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your last name? MS. CROSLEY: Yes. C- R- O- S- L -E -Y. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any -- we don't have any issues with it. That's the methodology that we assumed ultimately would be taken would be to overlay layers of existing data to identify those high value natural resource areas. You know you have the panther priority one area, it's already been mapped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what you need to look at, for example, I thumbed through it and there's a separate section showing where the scrub jay habitat is. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did have a policy pertaining specifically to that. You may want to make sure that policy works with all the recognized habitat if that in fact are the areas that we're talking about. MR. MULHERE: What we did, based on your discussion, is eliminated that separate scrubjay habitat policy and added upland with listed species to this policy. And I just think it's a little premature. The process of how we determine those properties will occur after adoption of the GMP through an effort, you know, if the policy's approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. You may just want to take a look at some of those listed species' sites so we're not suggesting we're putting high intensity commercial -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. Okay. Let's move on to — and before we go into the specific staff report, I think Bob, you asked during the break if you could run through the tables. MR. MULHERE: I think this is really important. And I think it will help you all understand where we are today, which is far from where we were when we started this process in terms of the maximum achievable increase in density. I'm trying to put that on the screen. There we go. This spreadsheet that you have does not reflect -- although we're working on it and I misspoke, this Page 23 1 b ! 1A3 March 4, 2010 spreadsheet does not reflect any reduction that might be associated with publicly owned lands. That's not even factored into this yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So this reflects all the changes that have been made to the Future Land Use Map to date, the proposed Future Land Use Map to date. If you look on the right hand -- if you look on the left -hand side, the two boxes on the left -hand side show the base density and the maximum density in the existing plan. So if you look at the first box, 68,577 dwelling units is the base density achievable on the existing Future Land Use Map. Below that, assuming all the available density bonuses is the density with that calculation of 168,357.8 dwelling units. If you move directly over to the right, to the last column on the right, percentage of change column -- or I'm sorry, the second to the last, the change column. If you go down to the box that says total and it's 2,133.0 dwelling units, that is the current potential increase in the base density under our plan, maximum increase, without factoring in the limitation on density of four dwelling units per acre in the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand stewardship overlay. If you factor in that limitation that's further reduced by 692.5 units in the maximum density increase, based on the base density in our plan is now 1,404 units and a half. 1,440.5 units. That is a 2.1 percent increase. That's in the base density. If you go down to the next box and you look at the maximum achievable bonus density, you can see that that previously was 168,357.8 in the current plan. It's been reduced to 128,338 in our plan for a reduction. If you factor in the reduction of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay Max of four, there's a reduction of potential units of 46,304.5 for a reduction in the overall achievable maximum density of 27.5 percent. Now, once we get through the exercise of having a footnote on this table that further reduces the achievable density without changing the designation but reduces the achievable density associated with developed schools, parks, jail, government facilities, I'm not sure where we'll be, we may actually be at a decrease even in the base, based on that factor. We will do that and have that information available to you and we'll send it out as soon as we get it done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to go back to the school and I guess the government. Are we actually proposing that if something is government now it may not be developed as commercial? MR. MULHERE: No. No. What we're saying is we're going to calculate the developed public facilities sites and put a footnote on the spreadsheet for DCA and show what the reduction of that density would be. We know it's not going to be achievable in the next 20 years. I believe that the Department of Community Affairs being reasonable will consider the likelihood of that density not being achieved over the life of this plan. And we want to provide them with that information. But we're not changing the designation is what I'm suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the tables? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, up in your base density. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice your -- then you go to maximum density. How did you address the density by right provision? MR. MULHERE: I don't think it's at all -- it's not at all addressed in the base density. It would be addressed in the maximum, because that bonus would be exceeded once you add the maximum affordable housing density bonus. So it is by default incorporated into the maximum with bonuses scenario. It is not considered in the base density. That's just the base density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Bob. And David, if you're set, we'll start -- we'll go by every couple of pages at a time. Do you have any comments from the staff perspective before we go through the staff report? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there is a tab in the package that we received, probably one of the last ones receive. It's a large packet. CP- 2008 -5, and it's titled staff report. If we turn to that tab and we work from Page 1, that is the staffs response at the time, the Immokalee Area Master Plan. I thought it would be helpful to go through and bring out any questions this panel may have. And then from that, after that we'll go into the data analysis and see if there's any questions from the applicant's supplied data analysis. Page 24 61 1A-3 March 4, 2010 So the first -- take it a couple, say, three pages at a time. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 1, 2 or 3 of the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, 2 and 3 are the master plans, most of which we'vejust gone over. Okay, Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six and 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what is the build -out year anticipated for the Immokalee Area Master Plan? What -- in your analysis, what did you figure as the build -out year? Or did you look at it like that? MR. WEEKS: We didn't look at the build -out year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at the top of Page 6 there's a statement that starts with -- and it says and just because a state law allows GMP amendments doesn't mean they should be approved. What does that mean, Dave, exactly? MR. WEEKS: Well, that was made in the context of this sub - heading in the report, Growth Management Plan vision. And this was referring to whatever vision that the plan has -- let me start over. This is a very general section of the staff report. It is not meant specific to anything about the Immmokalee Master Plan petition. You might recall seeing this same information in your staff reports for the 2007 and 8 Cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments. It probably has more specific applicability to those site - specific GMP amendments where there is the allowance by state law to ask for amendments to the comprehensive plan, but that certainly doesn't mean they should be approved. Just because you can ask doesn't mean it should be approved, anymore than just because you're eligible under the plan to ask for a rezoning doesn't mean it should be approved. There's nothing -- I guess the short answer is there's nothing specific about that comment that is meant to apply to the master plan as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, just for staffs benefit, I do realize that this report was written prior to all the changes that have been suggested, and the reductions in the density and all that other stuff. So I still have to base my questions on your report. But some of them may not be applicable any longer and you may need to refine your analysis. If that's the case, just say so and I'll drop the question as we go forward. And I'm sure that the rest of us understand that as well. Pages 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Page 8, David, you have some bullets in there concerning the increases in acreage. The forecast, and I'm looking at the third bullet talking about the industrial designated lands, I thought the industrial designated lands actually increased. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera. This is just in reference to the industrial designation. Doesn't account for the acreage within the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it doesn't. MS. VALERA: It does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you call the airport, because it's a PUD it doesn't count necessarily as industrial? MS. VALERA: Because they designate a different -- it is a different category in the new proposed Future Land Use Map. They call it APO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Yeah. MS. VALERA: So the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Airport. MS. VALERA: Before we had everything under industrial. And now we have industrial -- or it is proposed to be industrial plus APO. So the industrial only designation has been decreased. But as David rightly pointed out, it Page 25 161,4,110 M is increased if you account for both industrial and proposed APO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your commercial designated lands it shows an increase of 188.2 commercial acres of designated land, table six. There was an economic model done, I forgot, I think it was the University of Florida. When we get further in here, I can actually pull the tables. But in the tables it showed a need for additional retail by 2020 of 49 acres, and by 2020 of office to be 33 acres. That's a lot less than the 188.2, which is why I asked you about the build -out date. Would it be unreasonable then to expect a greater amount of acreage for an undetermined build -out date to be left in the plan than what the economic model shows'? MR. WEEKS: I'll say yes because we know that the build -out based on current -- or based on present growth rates for Immokalee -- and by present I'll be liberal and say the last 10 years, not the very recent change in economics -- would be many decades we would expect before Immokalee would reach build -out. Because their growth rate has been relatively slow. And they have an inventory as you can see here of residential, I think it's 168,000 presently dwelling units, and there's a very small fraction of that developed presently. So decades and decades. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a lot of it is centered around your build -out date. And without one, it makes it more understandable, so -- MR. MULHERE: Also, if I could add, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add that the increase in acreage doesn't reflect the fact that a lot of that is mixed use designated. And so you're going to have -- you know, you can't assume that it's going to develop entirely as, you know, residential -- or as commercial, excuse me -- that it's going to be mixed use. So that would reduce that number, perhaps bring it more in line with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a problem with it with no locked and build -out date. I was trying to tie it to something, if it needed to be. And since the model tied it to 2020 but staffs not, then there's -- I don't see an issue with it. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: This is one of those cases where we'd have to say due to some map changes I believe that surplus is going to — or not surplus, that increase will be decreasing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 9, table four, under the recreational RT tourist district, talking about the maximum and proposed maximum density changes. I'm concerned about the 26 dwelling units an acre for the recreational tourist district near Lake Trafford. I don't see how you can achieve that without going multi story. And I think that the character of the lake should be a big setback and it should be limited to just one story or maybe at most two stories. I'm concerned by that density. How are you going to get 26 units an acre without having, you know, at least more than two stories tall? MR. WEEKS: You're probably not. We're -- Bob, you go. MR. MULHERE: I'm cony, I'm chomping at the bit. This is an issue that we took exception to in the staff report. I think it was an error on their part. I mean, David can speak to that issue. We didn't ask for 26 units per acre across the RT district. Twenty -six units per acre is for hotels. I don't know how many hotels you're going to get, but I know they're not going to develop across the RT district. The density in the RT district is four units per acre. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you're -- you can get a maximum of up to 26 -- MR. MULHERE: No, you can get 26 units per acre for hotels. It's an error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But maybe the mix -up is a hotel room can be substantially smaller than a living quarter. So you can't get 26 residential units per acre, you can only get hotel rooms, which I think are limited to 500 square feet or less or some number like that. MR. MULHERE: And they're transient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that changes the way it would be built in the sense you wouldn't need as much Page 26 161 1.3 March 4, 2010 height because you could get more rooms on one floor. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just really concerned about the character of the lake --go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I did want to add a couple -- because your question is a good one, because we actually had this discussion also yesterday about RT. I just wanted to put a couple of things on the record. We increased the size of the RT around the lake. The change in that designation was from low residential to RT around the lake, because the community wants to focus on ecotourism, using the lake as a center piece, right? The density allowed in low residential, the base density, is four units per acre. The density allowed in the RT is four units per acre. We didn't change those. We changed the designation, we didn't change that density. But you're right, RT, if you look at the purpose and intent is a little bit different than the low residential. It focuses on the natural resources. What we discussed was that we would separate out the allowable residential use from that list of uses in the RT district. Still allow it but require clustering and require some other standards that would reduce the footprint in the RT district. Let me tell you, the resorts all over the world -- I just don't want it to be shortsighted here, okay? There are resorts all over the world that focus on natural resources that have transient lodging in the same building as or immediately adjacent to residential dwellings that are operated as a resort. Some day that could happen in Immokalee. And the four units per acre if clustered is an appropriate residential density. The 26 units per acre for a hotel is an appropriate density. If you reduce that, you're not going to get anybody to go out there and build anything. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just concerned about proximity to the lake — MR. MULHERE: I know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: --and height and how the lake looks when you're out on a boat. Right now you can see, you know, one or two little one -story houses, that's it. If you start seeing, you know, two and three -story buildings clustering the lake, you're going to lose all the ecotourism value, I think. It's going -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And they talk about in Policy I think it's 4.1.2. about Best Management Practices for the lake, but that's very narrowly worded to water quality. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm more concerned about sight lines -- MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: --and just the overall feel of the place. MR. MULHERE: And I understand that. Again, I just want to say, you know, if you go back -- if we leave it what it is, it's low residential. Agricultural. It's agricultural zoned. The height's higher, the uses are greater. So we were further protecting those lands in our opinion by designating it RT. Significantly more so than what the low residential protection is on those lands. I hear your point about height. And perhaps if the Planning Commission feels, you know, as a body that height is an issue, we could restrict that as well. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: To me it's a huge issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but height's a -- MR. MULHERE: Zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an LDC issue, not -- MR. MULHERE: Zoning. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, it may not be an issue here on this master plan, but how is low residential height different from RT height? MR. MULHERE: Well, it doesn't -- I'm talking about the ag. You've got to go to zoning. Because the comp. plan doesn't really deal with height in the low residential district to my knowledge, no. So in the ag. zoning, I'm going to defer to staff if I'm wrong, but I think it's 50 feet. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thirty -five. MR. MULHERE: Thirty - five? Okay, 35 feet. I think in the RT you can go higher. You can go to 75 feet or you can do -- this is zoning now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right, right, I know. Page 27 61 l M March 4, 2010 MR. MULHERE: You can go -- through a conditional use you can go to 125 feet, which is how some of the higher buildings on the beach got their height. So if height's an issue, I think we put it on the record here, then when somebody comes in for zoning -- I almost think in this case you almost have to put that issue in the comp. plan if there's a desire to limit it or regulate it or make it an issue. And what David and I discussed was not to put a height limitation but to call attention to it as an item for consideration during a subsequent zoning process. So in the comp. process we would say as part of the consideration building height and impacts on clustering, you know, other -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Setbacks from the lake. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Aesthetic things. We would call attention to those in the RT sub - district but not be specific as to what the limitations are. Frankly I think you should support a multi - family product because you can do something really nice with a lot less footprint. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You could, yeah. I'm just concerned that in 4.1.2. it doesn't really -- it talks about Best Management Practices in the RT but it talks only about water quality. I would like to see it to expand aesthetics and go beyond just water quality. MR. MULHERE: I don't think we do it there, I think we do it in the RT district. I understand your point, it's just the question of location. I think it needs to be in the sub - district. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you'll -- now, it says that these regulations will be developed within two years. Is that what we're thinking in terms of for the LDC regulations that will specify all this stuff? MR. MULHERE: No. In this case again you have the RT designation and you have underlying ag. zoning out there. So if somebody wants to come in and do residential and -- at four units per acre or something more than, or hotel, they've got to rezone the property. Most likely they'd come in for a PUD but they'd have to rezone the property. Because to get the mixture of uses, you'd have to do a PUD. When they do that, we would look at these issues. Without some guidance in the future land use designation, we wouldn't -- we might still have some basis for it, but we have more strength with guidance in the future land use designation. So what we discussed was to identify some considerations that would be reviewed as part of the rezoning process. We're not talking about creating a zoning district RT. We don't want to create another zoning district RT. We'd just -- we'd rather have them come through the PUD process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, just as long as the character of the lake is protected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Many times when there are parks or when there are ecotourism sites, Wall Drug, South Dakota, you know, Grand Canyon, things like that and Lake Trafford, you'll find mobile home parks or RV parks where people will come specifically to see it, stay for a week and go. Do you know how many dwelling units per acre an RV park is? I cannot seem to remember. It may be that closely -- MR. MULHERE: Depends on the zoning. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Comes close to 26. MR. WEEKS: The TTRVC, travel trailer- - COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- recreational vehicle campground zoning district allows 12 -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is it 12? MR. WEEKS: -- RV units per acre. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Pages 10 and 11. Anybody have any questions on 10 and l 1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, 11, 12 and 13 are all basically the same. So let's take it 10 through 13. Anyone have any questions? (No response.) Page 28 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, on Page 11 we start with table seven, the operational and fiscal impacts. And you have four columns. But the last column is significantly blank. Why did you put a blank column here? MS. VALERA: There are a few "X "s on Pages 12 and 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says fiscal impact, and that doesn't tell me what that is. MS. VALERA: Absolutely. And this is where we surely knew there that will be a fiscal impact, though we did not do a fiscal impact study per se, so we couldn't fill out the rest. But we wanted to give you an idea of what these policies will translate into with regards to operational impact and fiscal impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the time that you did this, you did not know that the applicant would come back in with a feasibility paragraph. Why then didn't you show a potential fiscal impact for the 27 elements that required a two -year reaction by county taxpayers? MS. VALERA: Because they were going to be a tremendous impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why didn't you put an "X" where those -- you've only got -- the total "X "s on all these pages are less than 10. Or maybe exactly 10. I have a list of actually 28 policies here that required a two -year reaction by Collier County, which meant staff time, analysis time, expert time to get their reactions in place. Why wouldn't you at least have those as a fiscal impact consideration? MS. VALERA: Again, only because we did not have an actual study to show you and demonstrate to you that -- but you're absolutely right. I mean, that the fiscal impact will be there regardless. The staff time, the operational impact, it is in some fashion a fiscal impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know from reading other parts of your staff report, I think it was in your staff report, or it may have been in the 9J -5 responses to sufficiency that the applicant provided there was some disbelief that fiscal analysis wasn't needed because it wasn't required by 9J -5. But however, to make a good decision, especially when there's so many requirements, fiscal analysis is imperative because the taxpayers that have got to carry this versus whoever is proposing to carry it, someone's got to know what the costs are going to be. MR. MULHERE: Well, in our perspective there's going to be a fiscal analysis done. The first point of decision making is whether a policy makes sense. And if it makes sense and it gets approved then you say, well, what's it going to cost and do we have the money to budget it. And we believe we addressed that by putting that feasibility limitation in there now that says we may or may not get to these. Some of them may not even stay in the plan through this process. They may not get supported by the Board of County Commissioners and they may come out. Some of them were already funded by the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the CRA's funding is limited to the incremental tax and what they can leverage that to use for a bond of some kind, I would assume. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, you know, that's not going to be a limited funding source. MR. MULHERE: Some. I said some of them are funded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And going through the policies as we did, I notice in some of them you wanted to retain a two -year mandatory reaction time. So I think when you come back in, this chart for those items that have a fiscal impact, I think it would be necessary for everyone voting on it to know what that impact is. So I'm suggesting that when you come back in with this you have this more filled out. And David, and then Mr. Murray. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, just on your first question, the reason we put an "X" in some cells and not all of them, because you're correct, that if there's any resources of the county involved in implementing a policy, that does have a fiscal impact. Our focus was where a policy specifically called for funds to be used, the county will specifically do something. We're drawing the distinction between if the county must do certain planning effort, okay, staff will do that. And yes, maybe it takes additional staff. We didn't look at it that way, we looked at it very specifically. For example, if it said build a new government office, well, that takes money to do that. Staff can't -- you know, will not go out therewith hammer and nails and whatnot and do that. As opposed to a planning or other type of I'll call it office work type of a task. So that was our distinction, a very simplistic approach. Page 29 161 1 �3 March 4, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, appreciate it. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is going to broach part of this subject and the other subject raised earlier. We've knocked out --to my recollection, we've knocked out a bunch of two -year things. We've taken them out. And I strongly believe that DCA will object to the absence of anytime frames. So that certainly impacts the fiscal issue as well. But I think it's time to start thinking about putting some time - frame back in, and maybe five years is a better time. Certainly some period in excess of two years. MR. MULHERE: There is, and it's the EAR -based process. There is a requirement to then review anything that's not been accomplished as part of the FAR process. That's what's in that feasibility section. So there is a time frame. If you haven't accomplished it by the time you look at your evaluation and appraisal report, then you have to determine whether that policy is still feasible, viable and will be accomplished, and maybe you add a time frame at that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember now our discussing that. Ijust wonder if that's --that's seven years, okay. Presumably seven years from the time we do this next one, which is coming up right now. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that is more feasible. MR. MULHERE: That was my thought. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because 1 was getting concerned with the absence of sometime. I'm quite certain DCA -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we may hear something from them, and then we may have to adjust. Then maybe five years becomes more appropriate at that point, once we get the feedback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Pmjust looking for some time to be put back in there. But that seems -- David, you have some thoughts'? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I had forgotten what Bob just stated there about how we address that by -- I think we have specific language proposed that would make reference to the EAR. Hopefully that will suffice. Historically DCA has mandated that there be specific timelines so that a goal, objective and policy is measurable. In other words, if you say you're going to do something and you don't say when, how can you measure that? But again, I had forgotten about the EAR process. And it just so happens that the timeline for the adoption of our EAR and this master plan are almost simultaneous. They're almost the same time. They're going to be probably within a month or two of each other. MR. MULHERE: If there's an objection, we'll have to deal with it. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, l was going to say, I think because we have addressed it in some way at least by referencing the EAR, maybe this is one of those cases where we wait and see what DCA says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. We left off on page -- through Page 13. Let's go to Pages 14 and 15. Any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, at the bottom of Page 15 you're talking about the density bonuses not being supportable. Are you of a different opinion now? MS. VALERA: That is correct. And this is based --these comments are based on the original amount of density that was proposed. So yeah, that has changed. And I guess we'll wait to see -- to review the, you know, the revised density and let you know what our new opinions are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 15 as well, in the upper part of it there are several paragraphs that refer to certain data and analysis regarding the density and intensity in changes. I'm going -- is it okay to assume that that was because of the potential increase in changes that were proposed and that if there's a decrease you're not looking for the same thing? Or are you looking for some of these data and analysis needs, regardless of whether it's increase or Page 30 6 1 1 A3 March 4, 2010 decrease? MS. VALERA: And that is correct. We were concerned with any additional density or intensity that is not supported by data and analysis. So if it remains as we have it in the plan, then correct, no need to prove anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I will not ask any more questions on Page 15. Pages 16 and 17? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 16 your bottom bullet refers to the water and sewer. There was a letter, and I'm going to try to find it out of order here, from Boyle Engineering regarding the sewer. And it basically said they are addressing the sewer needs within the current area that they are authorized to provide them in -- I believe; I'm trying to find the exact language -- and that they didn't really cover the entire urban area. My question is, what kind of information since -- do you need beyond that from water and sewer? Are you looking for the -- well, here it is, here. It says, for those areas lying outside of the current service area, the increased densities presented in the LAMP will be accounted for in the comprehensive master plan. I'm not sure what that means in regards to water and sewer and how water and sewer are covered, but are you going to be looking for more information on water /sewer areas beyond the existing service areas of Immokalee's facilities? MS. VALERA: No, Mr. Chairman, we were concerned about the inside the urban Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm talking about the inside -- apparently from what I'm reading in this Boyle letter dated June 28th, 2007, it's Page 121 of one of the backup documents supplied. I think it may have been on a disc. The map shows the current IWSD service area boundaries compared to the areas for which Collier County has detemrined the future land use and population density. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way I'm reading this, they have a service area that is not as big as the urban area of Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: It's bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well -- MR. MULHERE: The Immokalee sewer and water district service area extends outside of and beyond the urban area of Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you can say to us then that Immokalee Water and Sewer District covers 100 percent of the urban area that's part of this master plan. MR. MULHERE: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Including all those LR areas and everything? MR. MULHERE: I'm not saying -- their service districts covers it. I'm not saying that lines are extended to all those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but that's their service area. MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may have provided the map. There was a map in here showing their service areas, but you had PDF'd it in the backup documents. And it was -- when you PDF'd it, it was blurred. Because I couldn't read what the lines were. MR. MULHERE: We'll get a map of their service area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, just e -mail, yeah, a clear one, that would be helpful. Anything else on 16 or 17? Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The issue about what constitutes a developed property, can you just go over that? Have we really resolved that? MR. MULHERE: Where are we at? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On paragraph four, talking about the wetlands connected to Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay. Developed properties were excepted and -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- there was some confusion about what is a developed property. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we revised that language based on the recommendation of staff. I mean, I can find it, but it basically says legally cleared. Lands that were legally cleared. Which was a term that they used to establish Page 3 161 13 March 4, 2010 legal development rights. MS. VALERA: And if I may add, that was also discussed at the Environmental Advisory Council meeting, at the second meeting, and the language was revised per their -- for that discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to Pages 18 and 19. Any questions on 18 and 19? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, or Carolina, I'm not sure who wrote this one, at the very end of Page 19 it starts a discussion on Comprehensive Planning Policy Analysis. You have an objection there. Is that objection still needed with the changes being proposed in the -- what we've had worked out in the last numbers of meetings? MR. WEEKS: It's not, Mr. Chairman. I think you can go from the bottom of Page 19 all the way through to the middle of Page 23. Those are all, I'll call them, very meaty substantive comments that are in the staff report specific to various provisions in the master plan, your very -- text or map provisions, all of which have been discussed over the last two and a half meetings so far that we've had. And I think all have been addressed either through specific commitments to remove or make an alteration or in some cases where subsequent to Planning Commission meetings staff has met with the applicant and we're in a position now of saying at this point we believe they are resolved, we'll be reserving our final judgment until we see that new document that the petitioner has prepared. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that eliminates a lot of questions. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but did we actually resolve that with regard to PUD's? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 mean, essentially the first bullet. Did we? MR. MULHERE: We did. I don't know that we did entirely as part of your meeting. We subsequently met with staff. There were a couple of outstanding issues, you're correct, and it was the C -4 use? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. MULHERE: And we've agreed to go back to the way that it was but to embellish it by also adding not just an acreage threshold but a density threshold, which we had discussed before you. And then limiting the uses based on the smaller size, the medium size and the larger size in terms of C -2, C -3 and then C -3 and C4. So we're in agreement on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so -- and all right, then we can wait for the language -- MR. MULHERE: You'll see it, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and review it then. MS. VALERA: And maybe we should add that also with conversations that we have had with the applicant outside of the meetings that we have had. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's move then up to Page 23, since most of-- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFF.R: Well, I just had a question on 20, Page 20, and that was the home base stuff. You had questions there. Has that all been resolved? Some of your questions were there's no justification, stuff like that. So you're comfortable with -- MR. WEEKS: Well, that's another one where we've had discussion and they're going to make revisions and we'll reserve ourjudgment till we see what they -- how they've revised the policy. We think we're at a point of a meeting of the minds, but we need to see that language that they drafted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's take it through Page 23. Are there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John's here. John, 1 need you to answer one question for the record. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: And if you'll bear with me one moment, I haven't been swom in. John Podczerwinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't -- you're not sworn in for this. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't need to? Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody can lie to us today and get away with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Please don't give him that authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 23, you begin -- we begin the transportation planning section, and there are Page 32 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 some questions that I and I know others may have as well. But I'm sure that this was all based on the prior submittal. And you haven't had time to see what's going to be -- come about as a result of the past meetings. You were recommending denial. Are you now wanting to hold off and reevaluate and -- is any of this useful based on the fact we're going to have a whole new plan? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We would actually like to re- review -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. With the proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not ask you any specific questions then about that section of the transportation element. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just, John, how -- on number two, validate BEBR population projection. How do you go about validating the BEBR? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Honestly, this was language that was provided by my managerial staff on how the MPO develops the LRTP, the long -range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just to comment that I thought the BEBR was the final word that we go by and legally defensible and all that other good stuff. MR. MULHERE: If I could add something to John, I discussed with John that might be helpful. We had a meeting with Mike Bosi, Carolina, Nick was in attendance, Nick Casalanguida. I want to say a month ago. Seems like a couple hundred years ago, but maybe it was a month ago. MS. VALERA: Seems like it. MR. MULHERE: And we recognized that everything had changed and that we were going to go through the process of changing the achievable density and increases. We didn't realize we were going to get as far as we got and we still have further to go. But at that time we agreed, and Ijust want to put this on the record, we agreed as far as transportation goes that once we had a final number between transmittal and adoption we would evaluate the impacts of that density increase, which is now limited to the CMU. Factoring in the transit impacts and transient oriented design impacts. Using the LRTP, provide that analysis to staff, and if there were any further issues, we might consider a cap, a density cap. That's between transmittal and adoption. I don't know that we're going to have to worry about that because were down to a couple thousand units, and that's actually probably going to get less when you subtract the public lands. But we still will do that analysis. And that -- I just wanted to put on the record that that's intended to happen between transmittal and adoption, once we have a final number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And John, during the previous process there was a lot of contentious items concerning their methodology for the traffic impact study. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have those been worked out or do you see them going away with this new -- where we're going now? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: With the new direction that it looks like we're going to take, it looks like most of those will go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We are bound to look at the maximum achievable density on staff level, which is going down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the traffic section that was analyzed by staff Chat is now, from what I'm understanding, basically not consistent with the proposed plan that's going to come up and you're reserving the right to review that, that takes us through Page 28. So are there any questions from the transportation perspectives through Page 28? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of it now I guess is moot with regards to analysis, so -- okay, then we start on Page 29 with the environmental services section. And that goes for several pages. And I see Laura's here from environmental. If she's the one that wrote this, I would certainly like to ask her the same kind of questions we just asked of John so we know how much to credit -- or to dive into these things for. Page 33 6 1 March 4, 2010 MS. GIBSON: Laura Gibson, Environmental Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, did you primarily provide the write -up and response to the hnmokalee Area Master Plan for the environmental services section comment? MS. GIBSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you see your comments and positions being modified based on the discussions and changes that we've directed here? MS. GIBSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will this go back possibly through the LAC; do you know? I don't think it will, because it comes back -- MS. GIBSON: No, not until adoption hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there issues in re -- do you believe most of their issues have been addressed or will be addressed in the final write -up? MS. GIBSON: Yes. All of their items from their motion have been addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? And that would take us all the way up through Page 33, because that's the environmental section. Does anybody have any questions through those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically on the rewrite l think we're going to have all new staff reports and new staff input and further staff analysis. Okay, thank you, Laura. MS. GIBSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The conclusion page is Page 34, and there's a couple maps after that. Any final comments on those pages'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, since you've had all these negotiations, are you still going to be recommending not to transmit? MR. WEEKS: That remains to be seen. We're definitely -- our position's definitely moved away from I'll say a firm position of we can't support this to a maybe we can. We've made a -- there's been a lot of changes made, concessions made, and that may result in a different recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have had provided to us both in -- some in hard copy and a lot in CD Rom backup data analysis on this entire plan. And 1 want to make sure that if we had any -- if those of us that reviewed all of those had any specific questions about the data analysis that we asked about and had an opportunity to discuss it. It's going to be a haphazard way to approach it because there's -- some of it's on CD Rom and some of it's attached in our hard copy. So I'm just going to probably ask the members how you want to go forward. If you all have specific areas you want to question now, that may be one way to start. I have read all of it and I have quite a few questions. Not extensive, but enough that maybe it will spur interest from those of you that have read it to understand some questions you may want to ask. If you want, I can approach it with my questions first, and you all run off those, unless anybody here has any question they want to start with. Anybody? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- we had one provision in your document that dealt with the density and intensity blending provision around Lake Trafford. That provision originally was put in the RLSA to accommodate one specific property owner for a 200 -acre size that was — 1 forgot why it happened, but I remember they specifically approached us during the process. And now you're moving that density blending into a lot broader effort in the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And one of the things that 1 think is going to be very concerning is its impacts on the SRAs. The reason that's going to be so problematic I think is because there's an urgency or strong need by some that there be a cap on the SRA acreage. So if you start dumping more credits into that acreage and use it up by acre to acre swaps, as is being Page 34 161 1 p March 4, 2010 proposed, and this all goes beyond what's already been accepted, which is the basic 200 acres that was in the original density blending provisions -- MR. MULHERE: Back to 2002. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --you have a --yeah, you have the possibility of a challenge in regards to those issues. So have you thought about how to handle all that? MR. MULHERE: Well, based on your comments previously -- not your individual but the Planning Commission's comments -- based on staff comments, Mike Bosi's comments at your last hearing, I think our direction from you all at that point was that was not supported. Our intention was to go back to the way that it was, a limited transferable. Just exactly the way that it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. So that's ignoring the EAC recommendation that was to allow this to happen? Or going against the EAC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going against anybody, I'm just expressing -- I honestly don't remember what the EAC suggested. You attended the meetings so it might be more relevant to you. But I don't necessarily always agree with the EAC anyway. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no, that's -- MR. MULHERE: I can tell you what it was, very briefly, is that we had a single property owner -- and I put this on the record before, we had a single property owner come in who owned land come to the sub - committee meetings -- or the committee meetings out in hnmokalee, who owned land both within the overlay and within the RLSA. That landowner had representation, consultant representation, and asked the committee to expand the density blending to allow their property to be able to take advantage of density blending. The committee agreed and we put it in the plan. Then at the EAC hearings The Conservancy said if this is a good idea, it's a good idea to let any property owner within this overlay, because we'll have an opportunity perhaps to take the development rights off of the overlay; so that any property owner that owns land in the overlay to transfer -- to take advantage of the density blending. The EAC supported it and the committee report -- and we reflected that in our proposal, in our draft. If I understand, you're not supporting that and starts not supporting that and there is no data and analysis that's been done, as I put on the record before, as it relates to the impacts in the RLSA, we have not done any data and analysis. So that's a legitimate concern. But I wanted to mention for Mr. Midney that that doesn't mean that there aren't other opportunities that the plan calls for to address protection measures for the Camp Keais Strand overlay, including the mitigation and acquisition map. Because that did show up very high on the map that was, you know, put on the screen as an example. And the TDR program. So we have a couple of other programs that we need to try to understand better. We're not going to have the detail as part of this process, it's subsequent to this process. But those policies give us an opportunity to prioritize the preservation, protection, acquisition and utilization for mitigation of the overlay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So you're saying that you're still having it apply to this one landowner who owned 200 acres but to nobody else? MR. MULHERE: Well, that one landowner, it already applied to him. That was from 2002. That was the original one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So that's existing -- MR. MULHERE: That's existing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- you can't take that away. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would not be in favor of --I think that just relying on mitigation banking, just relying on transfer, development rights or acquisition, those are three possibilities. But I don't know if that's going to be --if any of those will betaken advantage of by the landowners. And I think just to have the RLSA transfer as a possibility, not that it's going to be used, I think it should be left in there. Page 35 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have points of disagreement as we go down the road. And that may be one of them. So you handle it the way you need to, Bob. And I certainly think we'll actually vote on some issues where we all disagree. The RLSA program is a county -wide issue, not just an Immokalee issue. And without a -- it's — right now it's problematic enough with the issues that it currently has. To put more into that area and expect to see changes to that acreage and all the rest of it, I don't know how you can justify it through what your proposals are. MR. MULHERE: Not to beat a dead horse, but just to add one quick comment. And I suggested this before. It's almost 1,300 acres within that overlay, or slightly over 1,300 acres. So if that is allowed to be transferred on an acre -to -acre basis, you're talking about the potential, the potential -- and I agree with Mr. Midney, I don't think too many people -- I don't think there's a real market for it because most of the people in the RLSA already have their sending land and receiving land. It was done in case there was some market. But you have the potential to increase the receiving lands in the RLSA by as much as an equal amount of acres within the overlay. So it is significant. My feeling was that you were never going to see that happen, but on paper through the policy, that is a potential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, if that worked without any further increase in developable area in the RLSA, then it doesn't hurt anything, it's fine -- MR. MULHERE: Right, we can take that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I have a feeling that's going to be -- MR. MULHERE: I can't make that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a problem. And we don't know yet. That's my only concern. And anyway that was the question there. There was a -- in your data analysis on Page 83, you provided a couple of tables. One of them was titled Table 6 -15, difference between adopted and proposed future land use maximum facility demand potential. And I want through the projected population and the adopted levels of service that you used there. While I understand your solid waste and parks, police and EMS adopted levels of service, I notice that your adopted level of service for potable water and wastewater was significantly less than the standard adopted level of service in Collier County. The potable water is 170 and the wastewater is 120. You're proposing 105 and 100. I'm not sure how that works as you go forward being different than our plan. I know that different sections of the county had acceptable deviations. That's a substantial change. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It is the adopted level of service for the Immokalee Sewer and Water District, which is the provider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is their adopted level of service so much lower than general Collier County's; do we know? MR. MULHERE: They must have some data to support it, but I certainly don't know. MR. WEEKS: That was the water? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Water's the worst one. The county's adopted level of service is 170 gpd and Immokalee's is 105. MR. WEEKS: I have an opinion, and that's probably that landscape irrigation is significantly less in the Immokalee community. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good point. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just the pattern of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's tine. Ijust needed to understand if there was a reason. Mr. Podczerwinsky. John Pod. There's a TIS from Tindale- Oliver in the supporting documentation. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read you a sentence. Because I thought it was unique you decided to -- not you. Somebody pulled this on hnmokalee, but every time it's been brought up for the balance of the county, nobody's bothered to pay any attention to it. Page 36 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 If traffic volumes rebound the roads -- and by the way, it's SR 29 they're talking about -- the road status as a hurricane evacuation route will preclude any new development or expansion of an existing development without an improvement to restore the adopted level of service standard. Florida Statute 1633180 (6). Now, I have repeatedly used that reference for concerns over approvals of projects in relationship to 1 -75. It's a state road, or actually what is it, federal road? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Federal highway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why is it that we're now using it apply it to Immokalee but we've not applied it to the road systems in Collier County? Every time it's been brought up it's been basically not addressed. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Actually, in some cases we have. We've applied it similarly on Davis Boulevard and I believe we used Policy 5.8 of the transportation element. There is a mitigation requirement for failing hurricane evacuation routes. We do not address hurricane routes that are not currently failing. We'd address them through the concurrency system like any other roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to that section of statute, a road is failing if it's below the adopted level of service. And of course for years 1 -75 was below the adopted level of service until just recently when it got expanded, but yet we kept approving things be put on that road. On State Road 29 the -- and we're going to have a debate over the adopted level of service of State Road 29 here in a moment, because some of the data shows it's different than what the other data shows. But if State Road 29 fails and goes below its adopted level of service, you're saying to Immokalee no more development? And I'd like to know where you've done that in Collier County before, based on the hurricane evacuation section of our statutes. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Right. If it were consistent with the transportation element, the policies that we have, particularly Policy 5.1 which governs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Build -out or build date'? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yeah, right. And then also Policy 5.8, which is the failing hurricane mitigation -- hurricane route mitigation. And as long as mitigation is provided to obtain consistency with those, then we wouldn't be holding development up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but 29 is a state road. We don't have any control over it in our documents in your plan, do you? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Correct, we don't have con -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't make the state improve it. Otherwise you would have done that to Davis Boulevard a long time ago. MR. MULHERE: Unless you come up with funding. Then they'll be happy to, you know, support that improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to do that right now. MR. MULHERE: 1 did want to add, though, one --just to illustrate a point. One form of mitigation maybe in the event of a hurricane it's how you operationally control those roads. You do have an alternate truck route, for example, and that's New Market Road. If you have an emergency situation, the failing segment being that segment of Main Street, you may be able to adopt a policy that says in an emergency event you could allow only one -way traffic, you know, because you can re -route traffic locally the other way using New Market. So there are ways to mitigate in an emergency event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just thought it was interesting this was used — first time I've seen it actually used in a county document, and it happened to be Immokalee they decided to use it on. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: We've also used it similarly, like I said, on I believe it was Taormina was the zoning action, down on Davis Boulevard at Santa Barbara extension recently. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I know that there was discussion atone point prior to the approval of the second span across the -- to Marco right now of allowing, in a hurricane, traffic to proceed off of the island in one direction because you have the Goodland Bridge so you have an alternate, you know, means. Now, that never occurred. But could that occur to address -- yes, could it. I mean, that's an operational consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I want to point out that in the same traffic report you're referencing at least one, maybe two sections of road Page 37 161 1 �3 March 4, 2010 that are going to be failing in 2016. One of them is 29 north of the CRA and 82, west of 29 are both estimated to operate at 99 percent of their respective service standards by 2016. Now, does that mean that if the state hasn't factored in some programs to expand it then they're going to have a problem in approving any new development? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir, we're going to have the same problems that we faced with Davis Boulevard to this point; similar problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County's found a way to prove almost everything on Davis Boulevard. Okay. 'Thank you, John, I appreciate it. MR. PODCZF,RWINSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on that issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not -- MR. MULHERE: I just did want to add, there are some improvements that could minimize that time frame for estimated failure of the League Road. There are some other improvements that will have some beneficial impacts. I just want to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I brought this up to you before, and I just want to make a point of it: You refer to a business economic model that is done by the University of Florida. In the data analysis, part of it's on Page 18, there's another reference I think on 19 and some of the others about the FIAM that was used for that model? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also found references in the CRA language we'll get to soon that shows they base their standards or some of their performance standards for the business sector on that model. It's more critical that we know what the FIAM said. And you know that in that document there is one page of data input allowed by the applicant who is using the document. That data input has been shown to vary from county to county and standard to standard. In this county, for example, when it was used on the Ave Maria project, one of the key notes there was the persons per household. They actually used the lower value than standards for the county. And it had a dramatic impact on their outcome of the FIAM. We don't know what was used in this business model. We don't know if the standards used there were either consistent with the county or consistent with the rest of the documentation that you're basing some of your performance standards on or policies on. So I'm suggesting if you have any way of finding it, that we get. I'd like to know what the standards were in that model. MR. MULHERE: For persons per household. We use the higher standard provided for the county. In our analysis we use persons per household provided for, which is higher in Immokalee, as calculated by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Now, I can't say what -- I think it's Dr. Gary Jackson from the -- it's FGCU, Florida Gulf Coast University. We can call him again. He did not -- he was unable to provide any backup or any additional data, but we can ask him that question and see if he can figure that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that document paid for by the CRA? 1 mean, if it was a pro bono document you don't have a lot of demand potential. But if it was paid for with taxpayers' dollars, it would be interesting to get the backup for it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it was done by the previous consultant or -- at their behest. The Immokalee Master Plan Study Economic Analysis. I assume that he was paid a fee. I don't know that for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can get it -- here's another reason it's important -- MR. MULHERE: Maybe we can ask him to come here. I -- you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's another reason it's important. In the Enterprise Zone documentation that I was able to find, let me read you a paragraph -- or a sentence. It says, a key element of the master plan update is the Economic Feasibility Study now being prepared by the Regional Economic Research Institute of the Lutgert College of Business of the Florida Gulf Coast University which is under subcontract with the CRA consultant. This study will lay the groundwork for future physical development of lmmokalee's economic base. That's why -- MR. MULHERE: So there was a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to understand how he put that together and what standards he used. Page 38 161 1 A-� March 4, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Well, we'll call them and we'll see if we can't get him here I guess for the -- or at least put something in writing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need him here, because he can tell me he used anything. He has got a physical document that shows us what he did. MR. MULHERE: You know, and we've asked him directly, and we've got, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that's -- if that's -- MR. MULHERE: We'll try again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as far as we can go, fine. Ijust -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it sounds like there was a contract for him to do that -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in which case he would have to give you -- MR. MULHERE: I'm going to have to defer to somebody else. It's certainly not part of my contract to go looking for other people's contracts, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just do the best you can. It may not have as much bearing on the next rewrite as it did in the previous one. MR. MULHERE: I will do everything in my power. I will personally call Gary Jackson and see if I can't find out what the deal is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked about another referral document you had, and that was the CRA document that you guys kept referring to. That only was Bayshore /Gateway. Remember that discussion? MR. MULHERE: I do remember the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just made a note to make sure that I emphasized, I hope that's in that disc you've passed out. Okay, I see a nod of the head so that means most likely. MR. MULHERE: Yep. I like that, most likely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CRA is based on incremental tax increases, and that's how you get your funding. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your cumulative tax increase through 2010 of this year should have been 1.2 million. Do you know what the actual is? MR. MULHERE: I've got to defer to Penny. MS. PHILLIPPI: I don't know the exact number. I can get that for you in a matter of a few minutes. But we're right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time we meet, if you could provide it. And the reason I was concerned is, the incremental tax increase is based on assessed values. And assessed values are radically changing in the county. And I'm curious as to how that is impacting the CRA and their either commitments to the bond, if they've gotten any, or to their future work program. MS. PHILLIPPL Well, we have no bonds out, first of all. And we were expecting a substantial decrease in the upcoming year. We're expecting it to be about 650,000 -- 689,000, I'm sorry. But we have a considerable reserve that's built up and we are not in debt at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't worried about — I was more concerned about the policies where there are things that need to be done -- MS. PHILLIPPI: Going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that the CRA was expecting to pay for and the timing of those, can they now be done within the time frames that are being used. So Ijust wanted to check it and make sure it's been looked at. MS. PHILLIPPI: I think we've gone pretty liberal with the time changes. I think we've moved some of those forward. And I think that will be largely driven with the internal document that RWA is creating with us for the CIP. And I think that's going to -- you know, to be able to answer that question I'll have to wait till I get that document in hand. But I will tell you that we're moving forward with many of these, with substantial grants as opposed to relying sol -- and partnerships, as opposed to solely relying on the TIF funds to do what we need to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: So there's a spreadsheet on the -- that was part of the data analysis that estimates, you Page 39 161 143 March 4, 2010 know, the tax increment financing moving forward. The tax increment financing. It does. It's actually only through 2010, so I guess it's only estimating for one year at this point. Yeah, that's from the original redevelopment plan, the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going through the rest of my notes, and I have some transportation stuff. But since we've already had comment from Mr. Podczerwinsky, it's going to be re -done, I'm not going to waste everybody's time with that. MR. MULHERE: I can answer those for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, your redo is going to take care of a lot of issues in your data analysis. Are you going to be supplying us with a revised data analysis as well, supporting data? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think my -- my thought was to provide you with an entirely new document that would include all the data that we didn't provide you with that you asked for, as well as the completely revised IAMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that will help. I've just eliminated a lot of questions. MR. MULHERE: Without a binder. Trying to save costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. In your data analysis on Page 11 -- MR. MULHERE: Or we'll find some used binders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's another reference to this economic analysis that we don't have the FIAM for, and it says -- MR. MULHERE: Page 11? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It says, the Immokalee Master Plan Study Economic Analysis also includes forecasts in the future of the agricultural area. The report forecasts an annual growth rate in agricultural employment of between a negative one percent and a negative 2.6 percent. So you're actually looking to drop in agriculture production. MR. MULHERE: Well, agricultural -- what's happened, the data shows that the acreage dedicated to agricultural production in Collier County has reduced, but the revenues have increased because of efficiencies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, and I -- in looking at that data, I tried to think okay, but we're getting -- and this was in your previous life, your previous plan where you wanted more density. I think now that you're not asking for more density the question isn't as relevant. Because if you're seeing a decline in the kind of-- a need for that high density, low cost that you were having that you were trying to justify with a drop in the expectation for the employment market that would need a lot of that, I didn't see it, but since -- MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to clarify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's all gone away, I don't think the issue is as relevant now. MR. MULHERE: I just want to clarify, they're proposing a reduction in ag. related employment. That is not necessarily correlating to a reduction in employment. It's a change in employment. The idea was that other jobs such as construction, less transient jobs have taken the place and actually have taken the place over the last several years of some of the agricultural jobs that went away as a result of efficiencies. Because production dollars associated with agriculture increased. Jobs and acres decreased. So, you know, I mean, right now it's a whole different ballgame anyway because, I mean, we're in such a different economic market right now that employment's down across the board across the nation, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just about done, Bob. Does anybody else have anything that they -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: In this document, Map 1.1 is the incentive programs areas. But I'm interested in the page that lists those incentives, which is Page 4 in your document here. MR. MULHERE: Uh -huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is the rural area of critical economic concern that's been in effect since 2006-- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the Florida Enterprise Empowerment Zone that's been in effect since'99, and the Immokalee Brownfield designation that's been in effect since 2004. Page 40 161 1 .3 March 4, 2010 My question is, has anyone taken advantage of these incentives so far? MR. MULHERE: I think the answer is yes. There aren't many advantages associated with the rural area of critical state concern. That was a gubernatorial designation intended to provide some opportunity, but I don't think there was a great deal of funding that was put forth associated with it, if any. So that one's not been as effective as hopefully it could be. As far as the other ones, I'll defer to Penny. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Bob, I mean, the first thing is a qualified industry tax refund. So I think there was some incentive. MS. PHILLIPPI: The couple of things that you talked about, the Federal Empowerment Zone, has now sunset for the Immokalee area. But the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida hugely took advantage of that, doing a lot of -- a great deal of affordable housing. The State Enterprise Zone is very much in -- alive and well. We awarded -- or facilitated the award of, gosh, I can't even remember, it was almost $300,000 just last year alone. So a lot of businesses have benefited from the State Enterprise Zone. The Brownfield Designation is something that a developer would specifically go seek. And the one that sought it -- the two, one was the airport -- and that's available. And the other one was of course at Arrowhead where they found no environmental concerns at all. So it maintains that designation, but there's no requirement for any funding to address anything, so it stays there. That's available to anyone in the county any time. If you want to designate a site, a Brownfield, you can do that. But as far as the RACIK (phonetic), that's a hugely valuable tool for economic development for us. We're part of -- I think I mentioned previously we're part of FHREDI, which is the Florida's Heartland Rural Economic Development Initiative, through the Governor's Office on Trade and Tourism, and they ranked which projects were most ready to move forward that they were going to support with advertising and promotion throughout the state and the world, actually. And the first one that ranked number one was Sebring Airport. The second one ready to step up to the plate is the hnmokalee Airport. So that, although we can't say we've designated hundreds of thousands of dollars to this particular project, we're next in line. As the Sebring Airport is taking off like crazy, Immokalee is the next one that's going to receive all the marketing and the advertising and the promotion from -- the state's ready in the Govemor's Office on Trade and Tourism. So I can't say to you there's something that I can put my hands on and say here it is, but it's in line. MR. MULHERE: I think the -- I think the heading is a little misleading, because it says rural area of critical economic concern, which was a designation through Governor Bush at the time. But really what the program is really that provides the incentive is FHREDI or REDI, Rural Economic Development Initiative. It's through that designation as a RACIK (phonetic) that that you get to qualify for that, so -- but that's the program that actually has the beneficial programs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Bob, I've got one final comment from my end, a discrepancy. I'd like you not to answer today, but to take a look at. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 66 of your data analysis, you provide a table 6.5, and it's about the current level of service on a series of streets. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it does not seem to be consistent with table one of the same year regarding the Tindale- Oliver study. So if you could just take a close look at those two. Because Tindale- Oliver shows them D and C -- CB and 29, all the rest D. And the other table shows them being B and C, B as in boy. So if you could take a look at some of those and make sure the tables coincide. They're written for different periods of measurement. But I do want to make sure they're consistent, so -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? And that's the last series of questions I have before we get into one more general discussion. Go ahead, Paul. Page 41 16 1 1 +3 March 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I was just curious. The CRA was supposed to have a discussion of this issue of the affordable density --affordable housing density by right. Did that take place? MR. MULHERE: Their meeting's on March 17th. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: Wear your green hat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into finish up with a general discussion of timing, are there any other questions on the Immokalee Area Master Plan from the Planning Commission? Three days we haven't had enough discussion. Go ahead, Bob. MR. MULHERE: I did have one thing I wanted to add, because I don't want to forget, because think it's really important. And Pat reminded me of this. Soon behalf of the CRA and on behalf of RWA, we'd like to express our gratitude to the Planning Commission for the effort that you put into this, which was very substantial. And I think the same holds true for the EAC, they really did a substantial job of reviewing this. In particular, though, I want to thank the staff, right from Leo Ochs to Nick Casalanguida to Mike Bosi to John Podczerwinsky -- I got that close to right, right? Laura Gibson. But in particular, I think I have to really express my gratitude to David and Carolina, because the meetings that we've had over the last few weeks have been so much different than the other meetings that we had a few months back, and it's really refreshing, we've accomplished a great deal, you know, and that's the way things ought to work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. MR. MULHERE: And we're appreciative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think that's a good move. And that's why I was going to ask you about some of those little insinuations in some of these back and forth letters, but I decided no, I'm not going to go there. MR. MULHERE: It was fun while it lasted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's talk about timing. It is real important that you get time to make all the necessary changes you need to make to cover as much as you got to cover. It is equally important for staff to get back with you, you to get back with staff, so you guys are coming in here mostly on the same plate. MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it is extremely important, and 1 don't know how to stress this as much either, that the County Attorney's Office has ample time to read the final result and have final comments on it. That's going to be critical. Because I'm certainly going to be looking at legal office to tell us certain things like how the property owners deal with this that are being changed, how do things happen in regards to other issues. So I want to ask each department right now, and Bob, I think it starts with you, how much time do you need to get not only the rewrite done, but you're going to need to rewrite your -- provide data analysis and amend your data analysis to coincide with your new rewrite. What's your timing? MR. MULHERE: You know, we had this discussion with staff, not in great detail, but just sort of looking at dates and moving backward. For us, I think we could get this done by that third week in March. I don't know, you know, I don't have a calendar in front of me, but we could pick a day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not going to come back and review your staff until everybody else gets done with it. So 1 need to -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. So 1 was thinking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- know how many weeks from today do you need to get a new draft to staff? MR. MULHERE: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, David, assuming you get this new draft in three weeks, how much time do you need to respond to it? And I'm meaning environmental, transportation, everybody involved. COMMISSIONER CARON: And County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, that comes after. MS. VALERA: What was that magic number they used in the policy, two years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa. Page 42 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good one. MS. VALERA: Sorry. MR. WEEKS: I'm thinking between three and four weeks. Because we'll have to review of course their entire submittal, just as you will, the data and analysis, the change maps and texts. And as you've acknowledged, it's not just comprehensive planning staff but it's the other support staff that are involved, including environmental and transportation. We would want to run it past other departments as well. Their review may be more cursory but none the like (sic) Parks and Rec. I think we should plan for four weeks. If it can be less, then great, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, between the two of you, are you expecting a sufficiency letter to be issued? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your review would be done, you don't expect Bob to have to react to it, you would just write your report up. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Chen it would be ready for the County Attorney's Office. MR. WEEKS: I had thought that the County Attorney's Office would be reviewing the document the same time as staff, not after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I hate to see is changes made and then the County Attorney's Office not having time to react to the changes. So Heidi, what's your department's position? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, David, are you going to -- are they going to be making changes, or Bob, are you making changes based on staffs -- MR. MULHERE: No, nothing's going to change. We're going to get it done, we're going to submit it, staffs going to review it and we're hoping you'll review it at the same time. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, then I can review it during the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then so that -- and I'm going to use your four -week number, not your three -week number. I don't want this to be rushed. I don't want you guys to come in and say we ran out of time, we couldn't get it there -- MR. MULHERE: I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want it done within the time frames you've committed to. In other words, seven weeks from today, that's when we would see the plan. Is that a good assumption? MR. MULHERE: Seven weeks was the complete review. That's not when you'll see the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when do you think we'd see the plan? Because we're going to need -- I would suggest that we get it not just one week in advance, but a little bit more than that, two or three weeks at least. Especially you're going to redo your data analysis. So we're not going to redo and reread just the policies. This board has to review -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all the plans. And then if you keep doing this little routine where you keep pulling other documents into it, every one of those documents has to be reviewed as part of the plan. MR. MULHERE: We're only responding to your request for those documents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm requesting them because you stuck them in the first one. And I hope you took that as a hint. MR. MULHERE: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because honestly, Bob, if you have this realm plan in there, we're going to have to go into the realm plan. Every issue has to be -- everything you refer to that's brought in -- MR. MULHERE: It's been provided to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. But we haven't -- you notice we haven't walked through the pages? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, well the public realm plan is a reference document, you know. I mean, I don't know, I guess we could probably pull it out and not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's incom -- what I'm real concerned about is your form base guidelines. And I think Mr. Schiffer will be a key person to coordinate that with on your own. I would suggest you guys maybe get time to get together. Because those are all architectural guidelines. Page 43 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 MR. MULHERE: And those would come back to you in the form of LDC amendments, the ones that we want to mandate. So you will see those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think all those supplemental plans need to be carefully considered in how you refer to them in the GMP. MR. MULHERE: We're going to pull them out of the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be tremendous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're going to take three weeks, I think you said, four weeks. MR. MULHERE: No, ► didn't say four, ► said three. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going to provide David and you're going to provide the Attorney's Office with your documents. And no changes will be attempted during the period of review? MR. MULHERE: No, we won't -- no, we're going to make all the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nothing. MR. MULHERE: We know what we have to change. We've had 20 hours or 22 hours of testimony. We know what we have to change. And we'll change that and we'll submit it to staff. We're not going to make any changes after that. If there are changes that occur after that, we're going to hear those from you at your hearing, whenever that is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The purpose of the review by the County Attorney is to determine whether or not everything comports legally. If the County Attorney's Office finds issues, you're going to wait until you get to us? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, they may provide us with those issues, but we're not going to make -- otherwise, I mean, there --isn't this how it always works? Is it different than the way it typically works? I mean, the County Attorney's Office is going to review it. If we're going to wait and get their comments and then change it again, we've got to redistribute it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's what I think's going to happen. During the three weeks in which you write this up and during the four weeks that staff reviews it, you guys can be going back and forth. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter how many times. The County Attorney comes back to you and says well, this sentence is against Florida Statutes, you've got to take it out. You don't give it to us with that in it. By the time we get it, it's gone. MR. MULHERE: But we're talking after we've submitted it now is the way -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But your submittal is like a -- I'm assuming it's a back and forth. You guys aren't going to sit there in the cold and the dark and not talk to one another for four weeks, are you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I asked the question. MR. MULHERE: No. I guess I'm confused. Let me say this: After we've completed the staff review and the staff has written their staff report, I didn't think we would be making any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I thought you'd be going through the review hand in hand. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I'm having trouble communicating. Maybe it's the language barrier, I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying you're going to get the staff report, it's going -- your document's going to be done at the same time. MR. MULHERE: I'm saying are you expecting us to make changes after we've provided it to staff, they've taken their four -week review period and written the staff report are we still expecting to make changes to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It happens all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yeah, the typical process is the application is submitted, staff makes its review, we write a staff report that typically would include some recommended changes to text. And 1 think the -- and then, I mean, that's in our staff report, it's presented to you. And then we have our hearing and it gets vetted. And I think the question that's being asked is during staffs four weeks to review this, as we identify issues Page 44 161 1 A3 March 4, 2010 and concerns and maybe proposed language changes, will we have dialogue with the petitioner to the extent that they might agree and say okay, we'll make some more changes and submit those pages that might be effective. Is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's the -- MR. WEEKS: That's the question. MR. MULHERE: We would do that, yeah, we would do that. MR. WEEKS: I could say that that is staffs intent. That's what we would hope to be able to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think that answer Mr. Murray's concern and mine as well. MR. MULHERE: Then I misunderstood. MR. WEEKS: That's what we hope to do. We do often find it seems like no matter how much time we have, we end up in a position where we're writing a staff report, we're identifying some changes that need to be made, and they do get surprised if you will when they get the staff report. MR. MULHERE: And that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't want that to happen. MR. WEEKS: We want that to be minimal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: After staff and applicant reach agreement on the language, we need two weeks to review it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: But it would be helpful if I get the package that they deliver to staff so that I can review the data analysis in the initial draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, three weeks, David four, Heidi two. That's a total of seven weeks -- no, nine weeks. I forgot Heidi. Nine weeks. We would like at least two weeks with it, does that work for members of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two weeks is good. MR. MULHERE: We're at 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're at l 1 weeks. And it's got to be scheduled as either a dedicated regular meeting in which we have nothing else, or it's got to be in between one of those so we're not trying to do too many things at once. So with that in mind, I'll let you guys figure out when you're going to come back to us. But I want to make sure we all agree on the time table. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And let's try for a Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. If it's in between, it's a Thursday. If we can get Ray Bellows to not schedule something because we're not pressed for a regular hearing then we'll do it on a Thursday. I suggest we figure one meeting right now, unless you're -- unless it's so back we need more. But let's just do one meeting at this point, one full day's meeting. MR. MULHERE: So you're talking about probably a May time frame based on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: The 27th is what it's looking like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be my birthday gift. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: We'll have to look at the BCC issues. MS. VALERA: We'll coordinate with Ray Bellows in zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys come in with that on the 27th and I'm 60 years old the same day. Oh, boy, that's the way to kill me. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You're just getting to your prime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I hope so. Okay. Well, then that's how we'll leave it. And I don't think we can continue this, because you've got to re- advertise it; is that right, Heidi? Or do we just adjourn? How do you want to handle it? Page 45 161 1X3 March 4, 2010 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, we'll need to re- advertise it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, if there's no other continents. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continent was -- let's make sure. There's a side bar going on here. MR. MULHERE: I mean, Penny was just asking about the board's schedule. We had a board schedule. I mean, that's going to have to change: can't help that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the board would appreciate a more thorough rewrite and review, to me. That would make sense. Okay, is there any other business? Old business, new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In other public comment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Monkey business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Cherie', thank you very much. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:37 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAU STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on _ , _� ' I ( as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 46 =1aia galas f Henning l :.., Coyle AH1 r Coletta TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF HE yaaa� at County c, ,_ LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 10, 2010 161 1A3 ✓ March 10, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti (absent) David J. Wolfley Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, Interim Director for CDES Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Corres: Date: Page 1 Item #: Genies to: 161 1 1�3 March 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon. Welcome to the March 10th meeting of the Collier Comity Planning Commission. This is a continuation of the Land Development Code amendments. We'll go to 4:50 today, a little before 5:00 is when we'll continue to. With that, everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY _ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a couple of housekeeping -- first of all, roll call by the secretary, who's not here. Ms. Caron, would you mind? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vighotti is not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER CARON: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I heard you say Paul wasn't, but I didn't know if you got Tor. He's moved his position. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planting Commission absences. More than likely -- well, definitely we're not going to finish today. So the next meeting date will most likely be our regular meeting on the I Sth. On that day we have a couple items in the morning. One is a variance and one is a boat dock extension. Ray, are those both still on the agenda? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, they arc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It would be -- after those we would close our regular meeting, then reopen the continuation of the LDC meeting, probably around midmorning on that day. So at the end of today's meeting, we need to continue to that time. Does everybody here -- anybody here know if they're not going to make it on the 18th? (No response.) Item #4A Page 2 161 1 h3 March 10, 2010 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENTS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item up and the only item up for today are Land Development Code amendments. In regards to those, there are three of them that will not be heard today. One is the C -5 commercial surgical manufacturing, that's been continued again. Another one is the Immokalee overlay. As we discussed last time, that's going to take a few weeks to come back to us. Maybe in May. That's the second one on today's agenda --or on the top of today's agenda. And the third one on the top of today's agenda is the MPP shoreline calculations. That one has been continued to another date. I don't know what date yet, but we'll have to keep watching the agendas as they come out to see when the issues are resolved with those and when they're reposted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just back on the agenda, our agenda today lists three future meeting dates coming up on the back page of the sheet. No time is given for those. I believe the 1:00 is a Wednesday meeting; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one on March 18th is 8:30 in the morning. That's our regular meeting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one on March 24th I believe is 1:00 to 4:00; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the next one after that again is a regular meeting, so that's at 8:30. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. It's just the times were missing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, with that, we'll move into the -- basically they're consent items. And I remember from times past that we have to cull out each one individually, ask for a motion and a vote, discussion and then vote on that. So I'll go through these. Those were ones we went over during the very first meeting when we weren't able to take a vote. They're on today's agenda to clean them up and get done with them. First one is the 3.06.06.C, regulated wellfields in Golden Gate. Is there a motion for approval or denial? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. The next one is 30.60.6.E. Again, it's regulated wellfields. Is there a motion to approve or deny? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move motion, recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? Page 3 161 1 A'3 March 10, 2010 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, could you identify the page number when you announce each one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. The one that we're talking about now is on Page 3. It would be the Page 3 of the very first packet that we did several weeks ago. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 3.06.06.F. Again, it's regulated wellfields. It's on Page 5. Is there a motion to approve? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded, same motion makers. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLXL Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 3.06.06.11, regulated wellfields, Page 7. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay, motion made by the same motion maker and second for approval. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Next one is 3.06.06.14 again. It's the Ave Maria. This one is on Page 9. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move a recommendation of approval. Page 4 161 I� March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Same motion makers. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. We've got two more. Next one is 10.02.07.C, submittal requirements for COAs. This was in our first packet on Page 11. Is there a motion for recommendation or denial? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move for recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Same motion makers. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. The last consent item is 2.03.07.D.4, early entry TDR bonus extension. It's on Page 99 of our original packet. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So move a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same motion maker, same motion for approval. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. Now we'll move into our regular agenda. And the first one up is the Sections 1.08.02 and 2.05.01 on Page 29 of packet three. That's the packet we recently received. This particular issue is density standards and housing types. Page 5 161 16 March 10, 2010 It's a private petition by Mr. Duane and Mr. Yovanovich. MS. ISTENES: Would you like a brief summary, Mr. Chairman, of the changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes for the record. If you look on Page 29 under the word change, all of the changes that were provided -- or that are being made as a result of this amendment are outlined. I won't go through them all, but if you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to answer them. One of the highlights, if you turn the page to Page 30, is the old definitions for timeshare estate, timeshare estate facility and timeshare unit are being added back in. They are then being struck, and then they're being changed per our discussion at the first hearing. So I hope that didn't confuse anybody. But in order to keep the record straight, we needed to add them, take them out and then change them. On Page 31, under the RT designation on the left -hand side of the column, the superscript 17 was added as a reference point for those items. And if you turn the page to 32, that also was added under VBRTO. And the superscript 17, which is on Page 34, references the lock -off units that we discussed. And so if you'll flip real quick to Page 34, you'll see at the top of the page highlighted, it says superscript 17 and then lock -off unit, and then you have the definition of lock -off unit. So that was added. As well on Page 31 the reference to 17 is at the top of the page on the right -hand corner under maximum density, because the lock -off units talk about the calculation of density. On Page 32, if you see on the bottom --or the second half on the right -hand side, the units were added for the VBRTO overlay to clarify that this amendment does not change the units for the VBRT overlay and they would remain at 16 for timeshare and multi - family and townhouses and 26 for hotels and motels, which they are currently. And that was referenced also on Page 29 in the list of changes. So the VBRTO will remain as it is with respect to the densities for RT. If you go to Page 33, under number three, it was requested that we add some language to ensure clarification that the standard is to meet the floor area requirements. So that was added there. And same with under number four, there's two references there that meet the floor area requirements twice. And then of the RT district, if you see that highlighted there, that was added as well per our discussion. And then that brings us to Page 34, which I already talked about, the lock -off units. I believe that covers all the changes that we discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go through page at a time, does the applicant have any comments they want to make? MR. YOVANOVICH: Only that I believe that -- I've worked with Susan since the last meeting, and these I understand are the changes that was originally requested by the Planning Commission, and we're comfortable with those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the last meeting there were some people here from the Vanderbilt Beach overlay area because they had an issue on the agenda. When they heard this was on the agenda, they wanted to have some discussion about it. Did you have any discussions with any of them? MR. YOVANOVICH: I talked briefly with them, and then the approach was to specifically exclude this amendment from applying to the VBRTO. So 1 didn't pursue it any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 1 just wanted to make sure their concerns were addressed and if there were no concerns because of its exclusion, then that may solve the problem. Okay, Susan? MS. ISTENES: One additional thing. We had a kind of lengthy discussion about whether or not it was appropriate to regulate by form of ownership, that being listing time share as a permitted or conditional use. After our meeting, I really batted that around and did some research and basically came to the conclusion that although that may not technically be the correct way to do it, it's not incorrect in that I think it makes it very clear to people where timeshare are and are not. And we to my recollection haven't had any issues trying to figure out where time shares are and are not because it's very clear in the code. If it's listed as a permitted use, then that's the district in which it's permitted in. So I did not make any changes relative to the wording of time shares or anything like that. So we continue to Page 6 161 1� March 10, 2010 regulate by form of ownership, but in talking with Rich about that as well, we just kind of came to the conclusion that at least people understand it and they know how to apply it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the more we can help people understand this code, the better off we are. I don't know if that -- the code's difficult enough. Okay, are there any -- let's start with Page 29. Are there any questions on Page 29 from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and it talks -- this is where -- getting into the changes. Has this -- is it my understanding that they're trying to make this basically equivalent to hotels and motels? I don't care who answers. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the purpose -- the purpose of this amendment was to have time shares that operate as a hotel get the density that's allowed for hotel. And the timeshares that operate as a multi - family unit would have the density that's allowed for a multi - family unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I bring it up is a recent issue that's come up. Hotels and motels have accessory uses that are commercial in nature. And I'm not sure if time shares are envisioned to contain the same allowable accessory uses to a timeshare that we have in hotels and motels. Because typically in hotels and motels we have restaurants, we have concessionaires. I mean, look at the Marco Marriott. I know it's no longer in Collier County but it was at one time, and it's got a lot of nice concessions. Nothing's wrong with it. I want to make sure, though, that the understanding to everyone is that when we say timeshare from now on based on this change, we are actually going to mean a full hotel operation with its concession issues. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now there's an issue with the jet skis on the beach up in Vanderbilt because they're being used with a timeshare, I believe. And there's a concern that that was never meant to be, it was meant to be with a hotel -motel operation. This language seems to now make those the same, which would make that question almost moot. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, mine had to do with the differentiation of the zoning, whether they had kitchens or not. The difference between a hotel room and a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Hotels are allowed to have kitchens. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I -- well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Under the code you can have cooking facilities in the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's never been the distinguishing factor between whether you're a multi - family versus -- I don't think that's me -- versus -- that's never been the distinguishing factor between a hotel and a multi - family unit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, back to my point of my question, do you see then the timeshare issue allowing all the commercial issues that hotels and motels use? Is that part of what is being acknowledged as acceptable here? Or do you want time to think about it? MS. ISTENES: I'd like a little time to think about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I put my two cents in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: For what it's worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You always do. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're slipping back into the discussion about ownership again. Remember, distinguish between a timeshare hotel, which is what we're asking for, we're going to operate like a hotel, but the rooms will be owned in a timeshare format versus a timeshare condominium, if you will. The timeshare condominium would not be allowed to have those accessory uses because it's not a hotel. If Page 7 161 13 March 10, 2010 it's a hotel, you can have those accessory uses, if it's a condominium, if those are not normal accessory uses for a condominium project, you wouldn't be allowed to have those. Timeshare is a form of ownership, it's not a use. So -- and remember, this is the RT district where it's a mixture of -- you're allowed to have commercial and residential within the same zoning district anyway. And it doesn't apply to Vanderbilt Beach where I believe the issue about -- that you're raising regarding the types of uses with whether it's really a timeshare multi - family project versus a timeshare hotel is not really being addressed through this change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a couple of points. It does apply to Vanderbilt Beach, just changes the density in Vanderbilt Beach. So in essence, the way I'm reading this, the density in Vanderbilt Beach for the timeshare would be 16. But it doesn't say that for all the other elements of the relationships of liotels and motels, the timeshare aren't changed. MR. YOVANOVICH: What I read this as, it says timeshares will be basically considered. If you look at number -- I think it's under Page 32, and it's under maximum density? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: When you look -- you look at that column, the density is for timeshares, it's a timeshare, they're still calling it a use. For a multi - family and for townhouses, you're allowed 16 units per acre. And then 26 units for hotels and motels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: So in Vanderbilt Beach you're still distinguishing between a timeshare as a use versus not being a use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're telling me then that on Vanderbilt Beach because of the way it's written, you believe that 16 is referring to 16 timeshares in the form of a condominium versus 16 timeshares in the form of a hotel operation. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not giving you 26 units for -- you can always have a hotel of less than 26 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And that's where I'm going, Richard. You just made my point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is 16 timeshares in the form of hotels, my original question was then can that timeshare operate with the same concessions and standards as hotels do? MR. YOVANOVICH: But they always have been able to, Commissioner Strain. This regulation's not changing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But there is a question about the accessory usage applicable to timeshares. And if we make timeshares equivalent to hotels, I'm not sure how that all fits. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, aren't they limited by the size of the unit? In other words, if you have a unit that exceeds the hotel -- essentially if you took an apartment building, a condo unit and said now it's a timeshare, it doesn't get all the goodie accessory uses -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It does. Remember, because we added that language clearly to say that the units had to meet the unit size for hotels, which I believe is roughly 400 square feet. Three to five -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's a kitchen unit. And I think you can have so many percentages -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you can have a percentage that are suites that can be a little bigger. But it's not a large percent. I think it it's around 10. 1 could be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. I was going to get to that language. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I think you're covered by that, Mr. Strain, because I doubt that you're going to have a lower density, smaller unit project try to be a timeshare multi- family that is trying to get around those regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I never thought I'd see a multi - family building called a single - family unit either. But that happened, if you remember, in Sumrmt Place when you brought forward the 22 -foot wide units that were in a four -unit building. They now are not a four -unit building, they're single- families attached. That's an anomaly too, so I -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the code. 'that's not -- it depends on whether you're buying the ground below Page 8 161 1 March 10, 2010 or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we always move forward knowing what we're talking about. Ray, did you and Susan come to a conclusion? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. In regards to this particular amendment, it is for the purposes of adding that clarification to hotels - motels as a timeshare facility. (Audio interruption.) MR. BELLOWS: That's me, maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That didn't sound -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope it wasn't a taxpayer's phone, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Okay, where was I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Throwing your phone against the wall, but we don't want to talk about that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Gosh, that's my phone. Sony, Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned about the accessory uses that are normally applicable to hotel - motels. Does this mean anything that is now considered a timeshare would be able to have those uses, or would they be limited to the timeshare units that are -- timeshare facilities where all the units are of a size equal to or smaller than a hotel - motel? I guess that would be the caveat. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The RT district allows all of those size rooms. And I don't see a problem with a timeshare if a hotel was at some point being converted to that purpose as long as, you know, they met those minimum size requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going in different directions. (Audio interruption.) MR. BELLOWS: That's not me this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not your phone. You can salvage your phone now. I don't know who that is. It can't be mine. Okay, I don't mean to belabor the point, but this could be a point of contention down the road. So if you have a timeshare hotel -motel and you qualify for the room size, I would then expect you would be able to then have the same concessions in the hotel -motel that any hotel -motel is used to. But if you have a timeshare that is not hotel- motel, it's a standard above because of square footage, say it's a timeshare condominium, my question was, does that timeshare then have the same rights as the concessions of a hotel -motel even though the square footage per unit is beyond the hotel -motel capability? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and I thank you for the clarification of the question. And I still think it's a form of transient lodging where those things would be normally expected, especially if they're hotel -motel timeshares. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so are you saying then a hotel condominium would probably regulate the amount of rental rates or time periods that you could have? Most of the condominiums, it's got to be, I think it's 30 days, no more than three times as year. I'm not sure how often a timeshare, maybe a timeshare can go down to weekly. So you're saying a condominium then can have the concessions that a hotel -motel has? MR. BELLOWS: Well, that's a form of transient lodging. And that was one of the concerns I first had when I read this amendment. I said what do you do with a condominium transient lodging? And in regards to something like a jet ski, as long as the condominium timeshare facility provided an office, there's nothing preventing them from obtaining a permit to have a concession on the beach. That's kind of a permit issued by Parks and Rec. In regards to the other things, such as hotels and motels, I think we probably need to look at that a little bit more. That is still a concern of mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I want to -- almost what you said is we're opening up any place for a commercial operation, which I'm not sure you really meant that. Because if a condominium has an office, they can have a commercial operation allowed on the beach in front of them? MS. ISTENES: No, hotels and transient lodging are defined -- not transient lodging, timeshares are defined Page 9 161 March 10, 2010 specifically. So I don't think you could have a condominium and then have commercial uses associated with that. It's either going to be a hotel or it's going to be a timeshare as a transient lodging facility. You see what I'm saying? That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's either going to be a timeshare as a hotel or a timeshare as a condominium; is that what you meant to say? MS.ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you meant to say that and you're telling me now that condominiums would not be subject to the same commercial accessory uses as hotel - motels, that makes -- I understand that and it makes sense. Is that where you're going? MS. ISTENF,S: I don't want to split hairs over words, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, somebody will. MS. ISTENES: Condominium is a form of ownership, timeshare is a form of ownership. And they're different. Do you agree, Rich? I mean, this is your amendment, so chime in. And I think where you can lump timeshare and hotel more closely than you can lump condominium and timeshare, or condominium and hotel. And so the question is can timeshare share in some of the --a timeshare use share in some of the uses that you may commonly see at a hotel such as meeting rooms, a restaurant, a bar, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In any zoning district that you may have a timeshare in. That's what I'm trying to find out. MR. YOVANOVICH: In an attempt not to confuse the issue, but I probably will, the old Registry Resort was a condominium hotel. Nobody had any problems with that. The rooms were owned as individual condominium units. It didn't convert it to a multi - family project. It looked like, it smelled like and it walked like a hotel. If the timeshare does the same as far as ownership, looks like, operates like a hotel, it can have the typical accessory uses that a hotel can have. If the timeshare looks like and operates like a multi -- typical multi - family project, it could only have the accessory uses that the multi - family project can have. That's what the code I think would allow. Forget about the form of ownership, look at how it operates. Because condo is a form of ownership, timeshare is a form of ownership. It shouldn't even be part of the discussion but it is because it's being treated as a use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And 1 am trying to get the answer you just said out of staff. I know you'll give me an answer most certainly. But I would like to have staff-- like to know how staffs going to look at it. Because they're the ones that's going to have to interpret what you submit in the future if you do submit something along those lines. And that's why 1 started asking the question of uses. MS. ISTENES: No, I appreciate that. And I think honestly, 1 mean, just kind of based on our discussion, I think we all have a little different ideas. Although I agree, I agree fundamentally with what Rich is saying. But maybe -- my recommendation would be maybe you all forward a recommendation to the board that says this needs to be clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not leave here till it's clarified. Because we might have three opinions and one might be ours. When you gave your little explanation of walks like and talks like a thing, what distinguishes between the condo version and the hotel version? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, one is going to be unit size -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The square footage -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If you get bigger units, you're no longer within the definition of a hotel or a motel unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you're a little duck, you're a hotel. A big duck, you're a unit -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It's got to be transient use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Meaning less than 30 days occupancy -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Typically -- yeah, I don't know how the county defines it. I think Susan and I have talked before about 30 days is probably a pretty good measure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's how the state -- that's how the building code defines it. Page 10 161 143 March 10, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So, you know, it's got to be a transient use, it's got to have the smaller units. Some hotels and motels have restaurants, some don't. Some have -- you know, if they're waterfront some of them have concessions, some don't. I think those are things you would typically find with a hotel on the waterfront. Then you look at if you're talking about a multi - family building, you're probably talking about bigger units. You probably don't have a desk, a front desk taking reservations and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be concierge and all that on a family unit. But you wouldn't normally find a residential -- a restaurant certainly in a condo, would you? So what happens -- here's the problem I'm worried about. When does it become halfway between? In other words, I have a condo. I start to divide them, they start sizing out to be more like motel units. Can a building have a mixed use? Can a building have timeshares in it yet also have condos in it? Or could the developer take certain floors that become, by remodeling the size, they become timeshare hotel and the rest of the building is condo? In other words, how could that split or what could happen if someone starts doing that? The building can have mixed uses in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't have a mixed use building in a zoning district that it doesn't qualify for all the mixed uses, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But let's take Vanderbilt Beach where they do. In other words, there's a condo there that could — I have nothing in mind, but a condo there could start subdividing some of its floors, essentially creating timeshare hotel on some of its floors. What is it then? And could they now start to bring those uses in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's directed at staff. MS. ISTENES: The -- I think it's theoretically possible. They obviously have to meet the density requirements. And the use has to be allowed in the district. So, an example, in RT, you have multi - family and -- I keep wanting to say transient lodging -- timeshare. Timeshare permitted. So yeah, theoretically somebody could do it if they met all the district regulations. I don't know if that's possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this condo starts -- let's say there's no percentage or anything so essentially they could take one floor, make six timeshare hotel type units and then now they can have all the commercial amenities that would go with it; is that right? Or where would you start to say, you know -- MS. ISTENES: I think that's where the code breaks down a little bit. And Rich gave a good example, it was individual ownerships in a hotel with typical hotel facilities. In this case like -- let's just take a typical timeshare that looks — from the outside looks like a condominium type of multi - family building but it's operating on a transient basis. You're talking about weekly turnover essentially of rooms. I call that transient. That's certainly under 30 days like we discussed. So then the gray area becomes what is allowed under that. And we have an example of in the county that's been operating that way. But we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the size of-- the Registry I assume are hotel size rooms. In other words, wouldn't the difference be that if you have a condo that's renting itself out weekly, essentially pure transient, it's not a hotel -motel yet. It certainly doesn't get the rights of a hotel -motel because it's still the size of a condo. Back to his walks like analogy, it's a duck. It's a big duck, not the little duck. MS. ISTENES: Well, then the issue is -- and this is again where I think the code falls short is placing time limits on rentals. I mean, we're assuming -- a timeshare, as Rich defined, is going to meet all the Florida statutes. And it has to do with form of ownership. A condominium is not a timeshare unless it complies with all those statutes. So if somebody's renting out their condominium for less than 30 days at a time, I'm not sure the code addresses that. But in a twisted sort of way somebody could look at it possibly as a transient lodging facility, be it a timeshare or hotel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think transient is less than 30 days. It could be a single - family house rented -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- for less than 30 days, that's a transient house. I mean, building code, Page I 1 161 1 A� March 10, 2010 everybody accepts that. [Jere we're saying things like that's where the code falls short. How can we let this thing out the gate until we patch that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make a suggestion. Why don't we address this issue in relationship to the concerns of the concessions -- or the accessory uses by something similar to this, and I know you'll massage it: Timeshares that do not meet the hotel -motel standards shall not be afforded the hotel -motel accessory uses and cannot be mixed with other zoning uses on the same parcel of property or in the same building. But I think there's where our concerns are. Mixing multi - family timeshare with multi - family -- with timeshare condo -- hotel- motel, and the accessory uses afforded with one or the other. If we put those limitations into this, we're not infringing the right of a timeshare as a means of ownership, we're simply clarifying when that particular use is -- or when that particular operation is at hand, it has different limitations based on the size it decides to go in under. Is that something that is reasonable to put in the code to clarify the problems that we may be seeing? MS. ISTENES: I think so. But I only got the first half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Timeshares that do not meet hotel -motel standards are not afforded the hotel -motel accessory uses and cannot be modified with other zoning -- I don't know if you want to call them categories, uses or -- I'm referring to Brad's concern over the mix of multi - family on one floor and hotel on the other. I'm sure you can think about and come up with language that tits that. But I think that would cure the problem. And does that have any problems from the applicant's viewpoint? Are you cooking up something that isn't -- you want to tell us straight up what you're cooking up? Maybe that would be the -- because you've got something planned. You wouldn't waste somebody's money coming in here without something planned. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not cooking up anything. But Mr. Schiffer brought up an interesting question, because -- I mean, I've seen -- I haven't seen it here, but I've seen it in New York where you have very tall buildings and the first several floors are condo and then -- or vice versa, condo on the first several floors and hotel above it or vice versa. Usually put the condos up for the view and hotel on the lower view. So you do have mixed use buildings. And we do have mixed use buildings in Collier County. Mercato is a good example and others where you do have uses that -- I don't know the answer to the question of when -- maybe it should be a function of percentage of the building where you -- so you can't have one hotel unit in a building to convert it to now all of a sudden it gets all the commercial standards or accessory uses. So to answer your question is someone may say, you know what, Rich, I'd like to have some units of condo in the same building as where I have some hotel units, and we need to address that very concern you raise about now having this really residential building masquerade, if you will, as a hotel so you can have these other uses. So I'm not prepared to give you a total answer today on how to address that. I know it needs to be addressed, Ijust don't know how. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's something that we can have fixed by the next time this comes back. Brad, and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, Rich, is we don't want to deny a situation where you do build a timeshare hotel and Howard Hughes wants to live on the top penthouse and that's a big unit and that would disqualify it, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So I think we need to -- there probably needs to be something related to percentages of the building to address the limitation you're trying to impose, Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you do do that for the density, do come up with a thing like we do in the building code where you would put the number of timeshares over the allowable, the number of condos over the allowable, and that can't be greater than one. And then you could ration your density out. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're going to trust me with math? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, somebody will figure that out in your office. MR. YOVANOVICH: That and directions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm a little concerned that we are changing our Land Development Code for someone, we don't know who that someone is, and we are just going to wholesale change our code to serve some Page 12 161 1 10 March 10, 2010 purpose that no one is willing to actually tell us about. And I don't think that that's the way we should be changing our code. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not fair. 1 told you right from the get -go that I'm representing Sunstream who has a parcel in Port of the Islands. And that's exactly what this -- that's who I'm representing right now. Now, you have a general code provision -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think a lot of us may have picked that up. You've originally said -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Because I was asked that at the very beginning, who does this apply to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I remember that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I said that. And that's where this is coming from. Unfortunately it's a general code provision that incorrectly calls timeshare a use versus a form of ownership that we're just trying to fix for that particular project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think fixing the code is the right thing to do. I just want to make sure in the fix we don't forget to address something that should be addressed. And that's the point of this whole discussion here today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. I just didn't want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Page 29 before we go to the other pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about Page 30, any questions on Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Page 31? Let's go to 31, 32, they're all the same chart. Any questions on those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, in the footnotes where you made the change, it says including timeshare units that meet the floor area requirements. Does that mean does not exceed the floor area requirements? MS. ISTENES: We could write it that way. Yeah, I think that's probably a little more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's clearer, yeah. Because this isn't all -- once you exceed those, you're going to flip into something else. So why don't we state it that way. MS. ISTENES: Do not exceed the floor area requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, for hotels and motels. Anything else on Page 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Page 34? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's the definition of lock -off. And Heidi, I guess this is really to you, to make sure that that -- obviously the intent is that if they have lock -off units, each of the little units become a dwelling unit in the count. So my suggestion is you see where it says such lock -off accommodations? I would feel a little bit better if it said each lock -off accommodation, rather than such. Because you're defining a unit that has a subset and then you're going back and saying that unit counts as one, when I think the word each would make it really clear that -- do you see what I'm saying? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, I agree. I think that clarifies the language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I have another issue with that, not Brad's so much as the lock -off reference. On Page 30 we refer to Florida Statutes for definition of a timeshare unit, Section 7.21.05(41). Well, I pulled that Florida statute. In reading it, it addresses lock -off units. And it says, timeshare unit means an accommodation of a timeshare plan which is divided into timeshare periods. Any timeshare unit in which a door or doors connecting two or more separate rooms are capable of being locked to create two or more private dwellings shall only constitute one Page 13 M1 h 10, 010 1 A3 timeshare unit for purposes of this chapter. Now, my concern is if -- the definition we have chosen to use is the statute's definition, and it's saying there that basically a lock -off unit constitutes one timeshare unit for the way you look at a unit. Does our reference of lock -off unit and the way we're trying to add it as a separate unit for density calculations run into any conflict with the definition in the statute? And I don't know if anybody's had time to research it, but I think it needs to be looked at. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We can take a look at that and report at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would be tine. MS. ISTENES: I think that that's kind of the danger of trying to reference another sta -- somebody else's law. Because they change it and it could change or be in conflict with yours, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know we brought this up last time, but we've gone through so many hours of these meetings I can't remember the response. Why are we not just stating the definition in our code instead of referring to a statute? Because 1 remember bringing it up, I can't remember the answer. MS. ISTENES: Rich will have to answer that. That was his suggestion. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe your County Attorney agreed with that, is that you're really talking about a statutory regulatory scheme. And that is what's applicable to the definitions of timeshare. If you believe that there's a change you need to make to that particular definition -- because keep in mind, it's how you operate the timeshare, whether it's multi - family or a hotel - motel. So you can regulate a use, hotel -motel use, you can't regulate the form of ownership. So if you want to define hotel and motel units as separate units, 1 think you can do that and create an exception under 721, l think you said 0541 is where you found that, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you can go ahead and make that change. But other than that, I think you ought to just rely on the state statutes that are really not -- because that's a strict -- you don't go in and restate all the condominium definitions because, you know, there's some risk of conflict there. And then I think in that one where you noted a conflict, I think we should address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But at the same time, in the statutes, the definitions there are for that document, which by us moving them into our document we're saying in the same attitude that the statutes effectively use that definition in which they say for the purposes of this chapter, they're talking about the chapter of the Florida Statutes. We've now taken their purpose, which they intended for it, stuck it in our code and say it applies unilaterally across our code in the same manner. I'm not sure that's the right way to do things, nor do I like the idea we're subject to changes without actually having to go through and think it out in our code and see if we have options to those our changes, just like you're suggesting right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, you have to understand, and it's in my memo, that section of the statute prohibits the county from regulating timeshares as a form of use. Just like there's a similar statute in the condominium, it says you can't regulate condominiums as a use, it's a form of ownership. So that's why I came and I said, you know, we ought to just live with the statutes. If there's an issue --and we don't --we understand on our particular project that if you're going to have a lock -off unit and it's going to be a separate unit, it should count for purposes against the 26. We don't have an objection to that. If that's a problem for the county, let's amend that. But when you start getting too tar where you now have inconsistencies with what the state says a timeshare ought to be and what the county says a timeshare ought to be, you could be running into some regulatory issues with the state that I'd rather see not happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're really aware ofthe issue for the people you're working for right now and you're on record for that. But you or some other attorney in the future may come forward to us -- forward and say, you know, the statute says this and all of a sudden we have a conflict that we knew about and we didn't resolve in the process we got in front of us today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which you're suggesting we resolve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think in the resolution it's obvious then that we can state a definition in our code. And I certainly am going to go back to that. Page 14 161 1 A March 10, 2010 Our code is way too complicated. By now using our code to refer to other codes and statutes makes it even more so. Someone going to Municode can't look up and see what timeshare status is, they're going to have to go now to the Florida statutes section of the state and find out what it means there after they go through, and that's a massive section. So I still think we ought to be putting a definition in here. If we want to parenthetical it, you know, see section of the code, state statute or something like that. But I think we ought to make sure that our code tells us what it is, rather than referring to other codes. What's staffs base line position on that? I haven't seen us refer to other codes for things. Normally we refer to other sections of our code. But our code usually has everything, and then from there we refer to other sections of it. MS. ISTENES: Historically we've just proffered our own definitions and our own codes. That doesn't mean you can't. I think in this case we're somewhat trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. But the inherent danger is codes -- other codes that you reference change and you have no control or no knowledge of it even until it's too late or you have an issue or a conflict. Our preference is to write our own, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then how would we have knowledge of it by the reference to the Florida statute? We still wouldn't have any knowledge. As it's written herein front of us today, the timeshare status simply says see section of the Florida Statute. So you go to that statute today and it's whatever it is. It could change six months from now or a year from now. We wouldn't know it. Ours still says refer to that section. So we're no better off. At least if we have it in our code and if statute changes and we have to change our code, we all have the opportunity to discuss it and look at ways that we can maybe modify the way we interpret it or the way we use it, just like we have in the lock -off units that you're suggesting we change now. So that could be an advantage to the county on a whole. Anyway, that's my thoughts on it. Anybody else have anything up to that point that we want to talk about? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from my perspective to staff, I would suggest we put a definition in our code and see where it goes. MR. YOVANOVICH: For all three, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, all three. Only because we've got to get away way from the reference to the statute -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I know we were only talking about units, so Ijust wanted to make sure you were referring to all these three of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not worth the argument from our perspective, you know. If it makes you all the more comfortable, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're so agreeable, Richard, now I got to -- we have find something here. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, from an attorney's standpoint, if there's a conflict between the two definitions, which one would prevail? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm going to tell you the state will prevail but, you know, you're probably going to make me take you to court to prove that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or we negotiate a settlement that's more compromising for everybody. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking (sic). The legal answer is state wins. But the practical answer is different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the problem, Ray, ofjust referencing it in our definition? Just to make sure somebody is aware of that and checks it, and if it's changed they're aware of that. And get Municode to hyperlink to it. Wouldn't that be nice? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think the concern is if there is something changed in the -- by the state, and we're not aware of that change and a project comes in and turns out it has some issues at the local level, we wouldn't be able to address it. If the definition was set by the county, then any development comes in, we would have a better grasp of knowing what Page 15 161 1 A3 March 10, 2010 exactly we're approving when a permit or application comes in. If there is at some point a difference between the two, the applicant can always discuss amendment to the LDC to change the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just as with this lock -off language that we want to put in our code, it can certainly be stricter than what the state code is. And we have every right to do that. So putting whatever definition we want for all of these things into our code is the smart thing to do. Then we can change it as we desire. Obviously we can't be less than what the state has, but we can be greater than, so -- and we can have a stricter standard here in Collier County than anywhere else in the world. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And in many cases we do. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off on Page 34. We're on the last two pages, 35 and 36. Does anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 35 in the center of the page is a definition for accommodations. And in the end there's a parenthetical that says, emphasis applied. Do you know where the emphasis is? Because the sheet I have has no emphasis on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe my original document probably underlined hotel and motel. But I'd have to reread this. You know, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I because pulled the same definition from Florida Statutes. There is no change between the two, including the quotation marks around the word accommodations, so I couldn't figure out what emphasis you were -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe I must have underlined hotel and motel room to emphasize that it is considered a timeshare, that a timeshare can be a hotel and motel room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'd have to look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it isn't there any more, but that's what you had done maybe originally on. Page 36, I just want to make sure everybody understands the section referenced, 721.25. The zoning and building sentence that's there is in the statute. The second paragraph I believe is not. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's my analysis of that previous paragraph. It should have been indented or moved over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay - -1 just wanted -- that is not a -- the last paragraph on Page 36 is not a Florida statute, that's just a legal opinion by one attorney, maybe two, maybe three, who knows. MR. YOVANOVICH: Shared by colleagues, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions through Page 36? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I think there's direction to both staff and maybe the county attorney for the research that's going to have to come back again. Are we on the same page on that'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before we move on, can I ask a question of staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, of course. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, in the conversation you mentioned something that if a condominium is using -- maybe 1 got it wrong, has short-term rentals, that they get access to the commercial uses that a hotel would have? Did I hear that wrong? MR. BELLOWS: Not commercial uses, but it's my understanding how the jet ski permitting operation works, the Parks and Recreation issues a permit to allow the vending ofjet skis as long as the property -- it's associated with a property that can provide office space. And I believe that has been done in the past where those are kind of a condo timeshare. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but let me -- here's the thing is -- okay, so -- and we do have a situation. So that building is a condo timeshare. In other words, it's not the people that live -- that own the condo that Page 16 161 1 43 March 10, 2010 are renting it out, it's an office that is managing the rentals of those units. MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're units that are larger than what would be considered a hotel- motel. And because of that, they can have a use like a jet ski rental then. And that jet ski rental is available to who? MR. BELLOWS: My understanding would be the -- primarily the customers of the timeshare facility. But I don't see how you could stop people walking on the beach from also becoming customers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. I mean, so in the permit for that, wouldn't you have that conversation as to how you're going to stop people from walking up that are not -- in other words, I could understand if you're on an island and you have a -- this situation that you want to offer amenities to the guests of that building. But essentially there's no control over who has access to that amenity then. MR. BELLOWS: I would say it would be the same for a hotel offering that same service. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this isn't a hotel. I'm with you on the hotel. I'm not with you here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the bigger picture though is how does Parks and Rec get to offer commercial uses on a residential piece of property'? Where did that come from? MR. BELLOWS: RTzoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter. MS. ISTENES: There is a separate ordinance. I was going to suggest maybe we at least bring back that ordinance or have you all -- if I could e-mail it to you and you all maybe look at -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Please do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, please e -mail it. MS. ISTENES: That may answer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, to let Parks and Rec decide if something's in the right zoning district or not is a huge mistake. That's what your department's for. MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe the timeshares are allowed in standard residential districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, let me -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let's not talk about that again, please. Can we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you want to back away from that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me keep the floor a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the limit? What if the guests all want hot dogs? So are they allowed a hot dog stand on the beach because they have an -- I mean, do they go to Parks and Rees and get a hot dog vendor license? What if they want drinks served -- MR. BELLOWS: We'll get the ordinance. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of the ordinance. And Pmjust recalling from months ago from this other issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they get a business license from Parks and Rec. MR. BELLOWS: Not a business license from Parks and Rec. They're only licensed to be able to have a permit to be on the beach. And there's certain criteria they have to meet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it sounds like it's recreational. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the hot dog catching game. That would be the next thing they have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You find a recreational activity around it and then you can get it. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think, Ray, that it would be -- I know you guys need time to think about it. And I apologize for putting you on the spot on that issue today, it just seemed to be spontaneous. But if you could bring whatever information that would help clarify it to us. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a sidebar issue, but it is one relevant to the Planning Commission. Since we do a lot of zoning issues, it would be helpful for us to understand it. MS. ISTENES: Is it okay if wejust e-mail it to you so you -- Page 17 161 13 March 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, that would be just as fine. Anybody else have any questions before we let Mr. Yovanovich go? (No response.) MR. YOVANOVICH: When are we coming back? MS. ISTENES: The 24th of March. MR. YOVANOVICH: Of March, okay. MS. ISTENES: So I'll need your changes by Friday. MR. YOVANOVICH: I have changes? What am I changing? MS. ISTENES: Your amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you wanted staff to put in the definitions from the statute. Is that something you want me to provide now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you guys going to split hairs over -- MS. ISTENES: I'll work -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I just wanted to make --it's okay, I just don't want to be the cause of not making the timeline if -- that's why I asked. If I need to do -- MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, I misspoke. I'll go ahead and make the changes based on my understanding. I'll need your -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be happy to -- MS. ISTENES: -- approval by Friday. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure, absolutely. Absolutely. MS. ISTENES: How's that? CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't forget that mixed use issue. I mean, that's -- who's going to write that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan. MS. ISTENES: We will. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will talk to my client about the mixed use question that was raised and then I'll make a proposal to Susan on what I think ought to be an appropriate standard on that. And then if she'll put in the definitions from the statute and I'll coordinate with her so we're done by Friday so we don't delay anything. Is that okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. Let's move on. The next item on the agenda is Section 1.08.02, definitions, dwelling, multi - family. Now, we're back on Page 1 of Book 3. And Cherie', are we doing okay today? THE COURT REPORTER: If you could speak a little slower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I will do so. 'Thank you. Okay, so we're on Page 1 of our Book 3. Susan, you want to make an introduction to it? MS. ISTENES: Sure. Actually, Ijust made the changes you suggested. However, there is a typo. I guess my trigger finger was a little fast. On the first page under the definition of dwelling, multi - family, in that first sentence, it will be Line 39 I struck out "is ". And I believe that should stay in. So it would read, for purposes of determining whether a lot is for multi - family dwelling use. So Ijust needed to make that correction. Right above that we removed the word "conventional ". I'm not sure if that was your direction or DSAC, but it was removed. Page 2, B, line one, "servants" was changed to "employee ". And we had a discussion about C and D, and we opted to leave this in. And I believe this discussion kind of tied back to the item we just heard from Mr. Yovanovich. But my notes say to look at this and decide if there was a conflict between what he was proposing and what this language was proposing. And my conclusion was there was no conflict, and therefore it was left in. Page 18 161 1 March 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we may have a couple more questions to refresh our memory. Page 1, anybody have any questions on Page 1? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under dwelling, multi - family, a group of three or more dwelling units within a single building. I don't remember, I probably asked the question, I need you to refresh me a little bit. How did we address it in the condition of these now multi attached single families in a single row? Because it -- a group of three or more dwellings within a single building, we have -- and where it all started I think was that project called Summit Place where they had multiple 22 -foot wide units in a row. They classified them and sold them as fee simple, qualifying them as single - family. But they would be in a multi - family, possibly according to this definition. MS. ISTENES: Yes. And I'll throw in my recollection of that whole thing and then Ray can add to it if I leave something out. They are still considered multi - family per the definition. It just has to do with ownership. And I don't know if we had put an attached single - family definition in or not. That kind of is coming to my mind, and I'll look that up here shortly. But I think the main issue there at the time, at least with regard to Summit Place, was how we reviewed that project per the requirements of the code. Because the thought was having both a plat review and a site development plan review, because the site development plan review was required because it is multi - family, was overkill. And so the change we made was I would call it somewhat of a hybrid process where we didn't make them go through a review of two separate types of development orders, that being a plat and a site plan, we combined them into one process where we could review the plat and the site plan simultaneously for those very specific type of structures, those being townhouses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, here's my concern. The condominium laws, because of the foreclosures and the crisis in the banking and financial world have changed. And I believe that is causing a lot of restructuring in the way developers now are planning their units. So the example that started as Summit Place with a series of units together as single - family with the parting walls being a common property lines, that now is going becoming more relevant. It's going to be coining through the county a lot more often and we're going to see it in a lot more projects. If you qualify that building as a multi - family but yet it's platted as a single - family, how do you determine the levels of services? Because the level of services for multi - family are different than single - family, roads being one of them. So how would you qualify --and for impact fees? How do you sort that all out? I mean, these are questions I know -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I can answer the traffic impact statement, makes the distinction between multi - family and single - family and these types of townhome type things. So there is a traffic category for townhomes. You have a good question about the impact fees. We'll have to look into that. In regards to this particular amendment, I just wanted to make it clear that we're just restoring the definition that was inadvertently left out with recodification. And there's other parts of this definition I think we should address with a future amendment. And one is you can have a multi- family situation with three or more independent buildings on one lot, which ends up being like three separate buildings on a lot with one unit in each building, like three single - family homes on one lot, which would constitute a multi - family. And we would require a site development plan to be issued instead of trying to plat something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you're bringing this definition forward, but that code that you're bringing it forward from ceased in the early 2000's. This whole idea of Summit Place came in after we had -- I mean, it wasn't even visioned, I don't believe, in that early code. So this definition being brought forward from that '91 code really may not take into consideration the issue that we're now talking about -- MR. BELLOWS: I agree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this new hybrid that we've got for a use. Page 19 161 16 March 10, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: And I agree. And I think the purpose of what I was trying to say is that this amendment really doesn't address those issues. It really is just to restore the missing language. But I think we should look at a future amendment to look at the townhome issue plus all the other issues what concerns multi - family housing, such as three independent buildings or homes or dwellings on a lot, which is also a multi - family situation. And the definitions don't address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I don't think I'd worry about it too much. In the building code we have an Attorney General's thing that we use that three or more units are multi - family. Even townhouses are multi - family. And obviously the battleground therein the past has been whether you sprinkler or not. But it's pretty clear that what Summit Place does does not exist, at least in the building code, unless they build four -hour walls to isolate their units. And remember, we discussed go see the building department because you're going to have a problem. So I like this because it essentially matches, you know, the Attorney General's thing. Heidi, if you want, I'll try to find that. I know it's even in part of the building code, to make sure that people don't get confused as to what's single - family, what's multi. So in the building code Summit Place is a multi - family unit. Even townhouses are multi - family. MS. ISTENES: That's not unusual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just curious how we address it. I'm curious how we address impact fees. Do we have -- MS. ISTENES: I can't say definitively, but I would be very surprised if it didn't cull them out as townhomes or the like. But I'm happy to look that up for you and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's something you can e -mail me when you get time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're still multi- family. You know, even townhouse is a multi - family building. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2, does anybody have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Last time I was pretending I was a rich guy on B. Let me pretend I'm Frank Lloyd Wright. Could I -- does this allow me to build a bunch of cottages and have apprentices live on the grounds with me and -- since one of the regulations of a home occupation license is you can't have people come in, this would work perfect, because now they're living there, they're employees. And could I build a Taliesin Naples via this clause'? MS. ISTENES: I guess -- I mean, the intent here is not for multiple servants quarters. I mean, and I don't know how Frank -- but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have guesthouses, plural, and employee quarters, plural. So I think I can build quite an empire. MS. ISTENES: I don't -- if you're asking me if there's a specific regulation that precludes that, I'm not aware of one, unless Ray is -- MR. BELLOWS: For guesthouses? MS. ISTENES: For guesthouses, yeah, and employee quarters. I mean, there's a regulation I think that says you can only have one per unit unless --do you know of any, Ray? I'm just -- off the top of my head. But, I mean, I think if a plan comes in and it's showing, you know, 10 guest units, that's not the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is it in black and white in the code? That's all. MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, what is black and white is there's a provision for guest homes, and that regulates the size of the unit and the number of the units. Now, the employee quarters for a condo type of situation is different. And I don't believe there's any real specific criteria on that. We'll have to took at it a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it would be nice. Page 20 161 13 March 10, 2010 The second one is C is why do we choose a week versus the infamous transient 30 days or -- MS. ISTENES: It's just been in there that way for a while. I can't answer that. Do you know historically? MR. BELLOWS: No. MS. ISTENES: It's been that way as long as I've been here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That kind of -- MS. ISTENES: 'Pies back to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it dovetails to my question that I'm going to have on B. If someone -- say you're in a 50 -unit building and there's some couple guest units on the ground floor, first of all — and I heard your statement earlier, it wasn't intended to mean you can have a bunch of guest units. I think you said 10 in the example. Why don't we look at the guest units in a percentage of the overall allowable countable units, guesthouses and employees' quarters not to exceed 10 percent of the total units in the building or something like that? And that way we know where there's a not to exceed number. And what about guesthouses that are -- you've got left for a length of time with the same guest. If someone is a guest and stays there for a year, is that still a guesthouse? And if they're operating it that way or if it's always occupied by even short-term guests, even though it's in a multi- family it wouldn't be considered transient, but it still would be a usable unit and it would have an impact both from the road impacts, sewer, water and all the other things. By not considering it a unit or a quarter, wouldn't we then not get impact fees from it or anything else? MS. ISTENES: Well, I believe guesthouses have their -- and servants quarters probably have their own impact fees as well. That's my recollection. So yeah, you just can't build a guesthouse free and clear, so to speak. And don't forget also guesthouses -- and Ray, chime in -- you guys are really quizzing us today. I should have brought my photographic memory. MR. BELLOWS: I'm trying to look it up on the LDC here. MS. ISTENES: Guesthouses in the Estates are a little bit different than guesthouses here. We're working within the context of multi - family dwelling units, so there are separate -- guesthouses in the Estates are regulated a little bit differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And my question -- MS. ISTENES: So I don't want to -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question was intended as a multi - family operation. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. And I think the answer is right now it's just not regulated. And your suggestion of doing a percentage is an option. There may be different ways to do it, depending on what your concerns are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look at a way -- well, I've got the same concern you expressed, is that it wasn't intended to have a slew of -- MS. ISTENES: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --these units. So would you look at a way of tightening that up so that we don't get that unintended consequence? Because I can just see someone finding a flexible loop in our system and end up using it to say well, I've got 40 of these guesthouses out there, but guess what, they're not units, you can't count them. MS. ISTENES: Well, I mean, the difficulty comes in as somebody submits a plan, let's say, for a single- family home and they have five guesthouses. And then we're left with saying I don't really think that's a true single- family and they're saying prove it, and we've got a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, the way they prove it is they say that you define what's a multi - family zoning, this excludes these buildings I'm building as part of multi - family zoning, therefore even though I have one big house and all these little cottages for employees in the back, I'm still single- family. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I mean, there's -- it's amazing. So we can certainly look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry to be quizzing you harder today. It's the 1:00 start time that allowed that to happen. Page 21 161 1t,�3 March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what do we want to do about the 30 days? Do we want to change that? I mean, if you don't know why it says one week, shouldn't we know why we pick a time frame? MS. ISTENES: I honestly don't disagree with you, but it's one of those things I think was never really addressed as far as the breakdown between what's transient and what's not transient. And why this one week is in here, I don't know, but to me, Commissioner, it opens up a really big issue. And the reason I say that is because I've seen it in other communities where the municipality attempts to regulate the amount of time somebody can rent out their dwelling unit, and there's a huge conflict. We don't have that so much here. And so 1 guess I'm just cautioning you, if you want to go down that road, and if I'm making sense, then I think it's a bigger issue than just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's where the issue is if we work it backwards. What this phrase is saying is that if you have a multi - family dwelling and you're renting it, you're describing -- if you're saying if you rent it for less than one week, then you've got to go out and play with the hotel boys in zoning. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what if I rent it for two weeks? Now l don't have to go out and play with the hotel. So essentially I can rent eight -day rentals so I am not in the hotel, or I don't have defined any of these zoning necessary for that, so -- MS. ISTENES: You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I could build a -- easily build essentially a hotel with eight -day rentals minimum and I can build it in conventional multi - family zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you can because the minimum size you would need to qualify for multi - family is greater than that for hotel rental, wouldn't you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Brad's Suites, or Frank Lloyd Wright's Suites, now that I have that big estate going. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I mean, I think somebody could probably do it, but it would be hard. I don't know. I'm not explaining it very well, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think when you see how it can be abused, don't read what it says, read what it's not saying. In other words, go out of that time frame and think of what can happen. MS. ISTENES: No, I understand. And that's why I'm saying this code has a shortcoming in it and that is it takes a stab at regulating the time frame upon which somebody can rent a dwelling unit -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, it was pulled out -- MS. ISTENES: -- whether it's multi - family or single - family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're trying to bring something back in, and maybe there's a good reason it was pulled out, that it was a trouble clause to begin with. MS. ISTENES: No, it was left out on the recoditication. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the recoditication people were thinking at the time. MS. ISTENES: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They weren't'? Well, I was at some meetings where they were pretending they were thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to be looking at B over again. And we talked a little bit on the front. When you come back with this, could you give C some thought, and if you have a better solution, suggest this to us at that time and we'll hash it up and see what we can do with it. Does that work, Brad'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Page 3. Now, three's a really difficult one. It's one page. And we're taking out a definition that apparently is not needed anymore. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, at your first hearing you requested that we expand upon the reason. So if you have re -read the reason, that is the expanded version from Mr. Holdorth (phonetic), and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any now issues with Page 3? (No response.) Page 22 161 13 March 10, 2010 MS. ISTENES: Can you take a vote on that one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, we're going to. We're cleaning these up as we go along. Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval, I'm assuming, or denial of 1.08.02? MS. ISTENES: And also a finding of consistency, if you would, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, finding of consistency -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will move that we forward this with a recommendation of approval with the consistency that it matches the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. And by the way, Heidi, I guess for the record, I certainly missed it, but when the motion makers, which were Brad and Ms. Homiak on the first seven items on our consent agenda, did your motion for each one of those include the fact they were found to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that suffice, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Brad. Because you just reminded me we had to do that by adding it to this one. Okay, next swipe is Page 5. That goes on for a couple pages. Take the whole thing at once. Go ahead. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, you ready? Okay. This, if you look at the change and the reason on Page 5, the explanations were expanded. Again, this is one that was left out when the LDC was recodified. We are modifying them a little bit and referencing different figures to help explain them a little bit better, hopefully. That's the intent. And so they were added back in and then amended as shown. Really, the big change, which isn't that big, is -- I'm now on the top of Page 6, is in the middle of the page you'll see interior lot line 24 is a reference to a figure 9 -C, and that's the new part of that. And then if you go down on Line 37 for through lot, is a reference to figure 9 -C as well. However, I do have a request in reviewing that this morning on Page 38. I would like to change in the middle of that line maybe referred to as to the words is considered a. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereabouts are you now? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, I'm on Page 6, Line 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I thought you said 30 A. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty - eight, okay. Let's start over again. Where is that now, what change did you want to make? MS. ISTENES: If you go to the middle of the sentence where may be referred to as. I would like to modify that to say is considered a, or something more definitive. I can't see any reason to leave it open. May means may or may not be. And I can't think of any reason why a Page 23 161 143 March 10, 2010 through lot would not be as defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that your change then would be through lots abutting two streets is considered -- are considered double frontage lots. MS. ISTENES: Yes. And then you can -- I'll leave you to contemplate that. But then the pictures or the illustrations on seven and eight are referenced in the document. And I apologize, I had intended to put the 9 -C and the figures, and I didn't figure that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you have a -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I thought it was me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to be on record when you speak. So just -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: For the record, Dave Wolfley. On Page 7, is that 9 -A? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We are recommending that if you're going to put these definitions back into the LDC that you stick with the original definitions and not make the modification that's listed in your lines 11 through 14, as this relates to some pending litigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to make that point when we got to it. It's kind of like the other one, I don't know why we're messing with this at this time. I certainly understood the lot comer in the old code that was still in effect, and -- it's clear to me, and I'm not sure why we want to change it. So at this point I'm not sure it's needed. Well, let's take questions on Pages 5 through 8. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, Susan, there's two definitions. Is that --you're adding for both of these, is that we get to choose or is that legislative stutter? MS. ISTENES: I like that, legislative stutter. Yes, it was the only way I could think of on my own to make the record clear when something is missing. Because ofthe way the recodification was handled, i£ there's something missing, it's still in effect. And so in order to change it, we put it in, remove it and then change it. Hopefully that's clear. That was the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one of the things, Collier County, not all communities have any street frontage or any lot line that's on the street is considered frontage, setbacks and everything else, correct? I mean, I know there's some tiny exception and we delineate that. Why are these necessary then? What are we gaining from this? Because any time I'm up against a street right -of -way I have to consider that a front setback. And again, other communities where you do have comer lots where you'll choose one to be the frontage and the other one to be a side street lot, I could see these definitions are necessary. But in our town where everything on the street is frontage, why do we really need these definitions? MS. ISTENES: Are you asking why do we need the definitions or why do we need a regulation that requires anything that borders a street to have a front setback'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The regulation exists and we live with that. I'm saying why do we need these definitions? In other words, like a comer lot definition would be important in a community that you would determine which lot has frontage and which side is a side street. In our town that's a moot point. So why do we need these definitions? MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm not understanding the question. It's -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're changing -- you think we need these definitions? Why do we need them? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. You have to be able to distinguish -- the definitions all have different regular -- the type of lot would set forth in some cases the type of regulations you would apply, mostly for setbacks. But you have minimum standards such as width, lot width, and then you have to have points at which to measure that, and that's related to frontage in some cases. So I guess I'm -- it's more -- I'm not thinking of any other reason other than for us to be able to apply the Page 24 161 1 A3 March 10, 2010 development standards that are related to frontage and side and rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Stan's here, he can actually help. Is it the answer that in the subdivision requirements these are tetras that you use to establish requirements in the subdivision ordinance, or -- MS. ISTENES: No, in the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code sets forth the minimum lot standards. You have PUDs that do the same thing. A PUD's part of your land development code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in our code it states that the minimum width on a interior lot is such and such. The minimum lot width on a comer lot is such and such. I mean, does it use these terms? That's what -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. Yes, there's distinctions between various lots and they're regulated differently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then on 9 -C, the sketch 9 -C, the lot that you determine is not a corner lot, is that a double frontage lot then? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I guess you could call it that. I mean, we may -- you would look at it as one continuous frontage. So whether you call it double or not, it just is one continuous frontage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But by your definition it's a double frontage. I mean, I think -- if you think it is, I would add double frontage lot, not a comer lot would be good. I mean you're -- MS. ISTENES: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it is two streets that it's on. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: No, I understand what you're saying, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on Page 80 on Packet 2. 1, 1 think we discuss this same issue, don't we? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 80 of Packet 1. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 80 of Packet 1. The summary says definition of lots, comer, interior and through. I don't understand why we're addressing this twice. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How the heck do you remember that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were talking about changes last time, and staffs come back and made some changes, 1 believe. MS. ISTENES: Yes. Yes. That's -- the notes I had was -- were that under the reason section it implied that we were putting back the old code and we weren't needing to clean this up is what my thing said. But I said make sure the changes are clear. So that's why I rewrote the reason section. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I suppose I then should repeat my recusals from discussing the issue or voting on it, which I did at the beginning of this session on the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was the -- there was another one that was -- what was -- MS. ISTENES: There were two that were withdrawn. That is the cord methodology and lot line adjustments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, the lot line adjustment you recused yourself on. This one I didn't know -- if you want to, that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except we'll lose a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we've got six, we only need five. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I recuse myself from all three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's go forward with any other questions then on Pages 5 through 8. Now, first of all, the suggestion was made, and I think it was well founded, that we not change the lot corner definition that's up on top. That definition's clear, we continue using it. We change the lot interior and the lot through. The lot through has a verbiage change to be -- that Susan articulated two streets are considered double frontage lots instead of two streets may be referred to as. I'd also like to ask you, Susan, on lot interior refers to figure 9 -C. Don't you mean 9 -A? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is everybody in agreement with that discussion? Everybody but Mr. Kolflat. We're going to leave the lot comer as it is on the top of the page. Lot interior will be the same with the Page 25 161 113 March 10, 2010 exception the reference will be 9 -A instead of 9 -C for the figure. And lot through will have the minor verbiage change we discussed. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're going to ignore the County Attorney's suggestion that we don't do -- make any changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the one on top does not have any changes. The one on top is the one brought forward from the old code. If I'm not mistaken, that's how I remember it. Is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it just that one, Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, that's correct. Line 1 through 4 on Page 6 is the language that was in the prior code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I just wanted to make sure it didn't go down further than -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No. It goes one through four. And then from six through nine you've got the strike three of that And then the 11 through 14 is the new proposed language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with those recommendations --go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Discussion. I never understood the old definition of comer lot. So Ray, to vote on it, could you draw that on the overhead what that means? Especially the one -- the first sentence I understand. MS. ISTF.NES: Stan needs to draw it. Stan, did you bring your pictures? Here, I've got the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one you understand'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The first part of-- I know what a lot located on the intersection of two or more streets means. It's the second one, a lot abutting a curved street or streets sliall be considered a comer lot if a straight line drawn from the foremost points -- Stan, walk through it as you're drawing it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Any chance I could get something turned on? Oh, that easy. Fantastic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Electronic age, Stan. We're stuck with it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, I'm going to feel like Mr. Wizard here, or John Nagy or something. The problem that we had with the lot that caused all the problems was that the main lot was -- or the main road was here. A road came off it. And any time you have a road coming off at an angle, it comes off at tangent, 90- degree angle. And it was a cul -de -sac. And that's the centerline of the road. Well, the road is 60 feet wide. We're still there, good. And when it came around like this, it did that. And of course this other road is 60 feet wide, too. Okay, this comer here, there was a lot. And the lot came to here, and something like this. And the definition -- it's located at the intersection of two streets -- where are we here? MS.ISTENES: Top. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. If the straight lines drawn from the foremost points of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle of less than 135 degrees -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, do me a favor. I'm not sure we should talk about this. But also could you show me on a simple lot, not on the most complicated situation you could come up with? In other words, show me on a curve, on a road. You know, draw a curve and pretend that it's an interior lot. Or I don't know, just show me what it means, not on a cull -de -sac, because I don't want to get into the conversations of why -- why you're on a cul -de -sac. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, simple enough. You're getting a 90- degree lot. Simple as 1 can get. That is, this is centerline of one road, this is -- I was going to use a straight edge, but why bother. This is centerline of the other road. This is your lot, your corner lot. Now, what they're saying is, is if you draw a line from -- this is always a circle. It's always a perfect circle. Point of tangency, point of curvature. Point of tangency. If you want to draw a line to the foremost point of the lot, you have to start at the back corner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the side lot lines, go ahead. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You have to start at the back comer. If the lot looks like this, this is the back comer. This is the radius point of the circle. To get to your foremost point for this lot, your foremost point -- I'm Page 26 1613 March 10, 2010 sorry, I missed that. Your foremost point is here. For this lot here, your foremost point is here, okay? So based on the shape of the lot, you have two different foremost points. Then if you go from here, this comer, and on this lot it's to here, and to here, that has to be less than 135 degrees. And on this comer, on this lot, you'd have to go from here to here to here. And that would have to be less than 135 degrees. Now I can widen that up a little, but that's the basic premise behind it. It's complex in that you have to do coordinate geometry to get from the back comer through the radius point of the curve to the foremost point of the lot. It's extremely difficult to do for a person sitting at the front desk with nothing to work with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't get it yet. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have no idea what -- you know, I've tried to draw that off of this definition, and I never came up with anything that looked like that, so -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And neither did any of the surveyors either. But they do that for a living. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Which is why we want to change it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Heidi, why do have to -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If I may make a suggestion. Why don't we reevaluate these definitions and bring it back and look at where these definitions are in the code. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Can I second that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 don't think we need them at all. And I think, so -- but Stan, that's crazy. How do you come up with the -- foremost points, is that a concern -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was not written by an engineer, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the recommendation from the County Attorney's office was to look at these again and come back with a re -- why don't we stick with that for this meeting. MS. ISTENES: With all due respect, I'm not going to have time to do this in the time we have. This has been missing since'04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then if it needs to come back to another LDC amendment, that's fine too. MS. ISTENES: No problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I snake a motion that we throw it out of this cycle -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the staffs going to withdraw it, if I'm not mistaken. MS. ISTENES: I have no reason to withdraw it, but you guys seem to want to, so I'm not going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad, what motion do you want to make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make a motion that because of the complexity of the situation and the definitions, that we withdraw it from this cycle and put it in a future cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will not support the motion because I don't see this as a complex issue. I think the definitions that were in the code were self - explanatory, were readily understood, and so I would like to see it denied, but not for the reason of complexity. It's just I think it needs -- if staff wants to come back and provide a different clarification to Mr. Schiffer, then that can be done at a different time. But right now I can't see it going forward like this. MS. ISTENES: Well, the other thing to consider is we still have to operate under these definitions, so it doesn't change anything except itjust makes things more complicated for people that can't find them in the code and don't know what to apply. And that's -- I mean, we were trying to just simplify them a little bit so it was a little bit easier to understand how to do the 135 thing. And that was really the intent of the drawings and the couple minor word changes. So I'm not sure what it will accomplish, other than if you want to revise them then, you know, we would do that. But we still have to operate with them. Page 27 161 1k March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask Susan a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just let me get Heidi's input first. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: If you don't have the definitions in the code and you're not going back to the 1991 ordinance, then common sense is what would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but right now we are going to back to the'91 ordinance. So those'91 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is what we've been using. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, the illustration you have, 9 -C, shows the calculation of those angles, correct? Is the outcome of the definition that was removed from the code, essentially the one Stan worked on just now, supposed to have the same outcome'? Would it have the same outcome on that lot? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would you ever get that to a situation? MS. ISTENES: The -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't you draw it for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. I think the recommendation was to table it until we can let staff have more time with it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, actually 1 was suggesting that the County Attorney's Office will look at it and see where it's defined in the LDC and make a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the second -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Nodding head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So at this point the recommendation -- there's no recommendation because the County Attorney is going to spend some time and come back to us with it. And I'm sure that will be done in discussions with your office as well, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Okay, is that in this cycle or not'? Because we're trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know yet. We'll see what happens. I think it needs to be resolved legally and then through your office, and we'll see what happens with it. So let's move on to Page -- Cherie', I bet you'd like a break for about 15 minutes right now. Okay, let's come back at 2:50 and resume. (Recess.) (Mr. Eastman is not present for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. And just so as we get later in the day, especially on these land development codes, we'll probably take another break in an hour for about 10 minutes,just to give everybody a little breather, including Cherie', our court reporter. So with that let's move on to Page 9. This is an item that goes on for several pages. Any introduction, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Sure. This was -- the Board of County Commissioners directed a temporary use permit to allow youth residing in the Estates to raise hogs on a temporary basis for presentation at the Collier County Fair. And when we last discussed this, you had some suggested changes. And I believe all of those appear on Page And if you're looking on Page I 1 under line -- at Line 20, you had suggested adding the term bona fide related to 4 -H youth development programs. So what we did was we added bona tide, that's the first word in the sentence, so it reads bona fide 4 -H youth development programs. And then it would be period. And then the regulation would talk about for those bona fide 4 -H youth development programs, you could have a non- renewable 16 -week permit for the keeping of up to two hogs. None of that changed. You had looked at that previously. So we added bona fide. And then if you look down on C, we added once removed for showing and/or sale. So the /or was added to the word and. And you had requested that as well. And those were the only changes my records show you had requested. Page 28 161 13 March 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions on that entire section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to ask you a question because it's the second time around, but it doesn't mean we've got to change anything. The 16 -week temporary use length, how was the time frame decided on? Because in the documentation for back -up, they talked about up to six months in age for final weigh -in. Sixteen weeks, is that what everybody felt comfortable with that you got this approach from? MS. ISTENES: Gosh, that was such a long time ago. Four months. That's four months. Trying to think if there's any other regulation pursuant to that. I can't answer that, Commissioner. I think that was just determined to be an adequate amount of time. And this — honestly, this amendment's kind of been floating around, and it's -- with these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to make sure we're not -- it's really for a 4 -H program, it's a good thing, it's not a problem. I just want to make sure that -- MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, John had confirmed that we had discussed it with the 4 -H people and that they felt that was adequate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron'? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, on Page 11, starting at Line 1, there is an underlined paragraph that just seems to be hanging out. Is -- should there be some stars above that so that I know there's other language? It doesn't seem to follow from B, accessory uses, over to A. MS. ISTENES: That is a very good question. Maybe I could have John look at that too. John, if you look at the top of Page 11 -A, if you could confirm where that goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Shouldn't that have been a single little i, because it would have been B.4, little i. Because you have it under four, keeping -- MS. ISTENES: Accessory -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and livestock except for hogs. And then you get into the deft -- of what hogs can happen. MS. ISTENES: Yes. That would make more sense. Well, hold on a second. If I look on I 1 -- yes, I believe so. Let me have John confirm that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it could even be a five. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just make it five. MS. ISTENES: Five, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While we're on that paragraph, could we come up with a spelling for bona fide? Is it bona fide or is it bonafide? MS. ISTENES: We'll fix it. I see what you're saying. It's separated in A and not separated in D.1. I'll look in the dictionary and see. I think it's actually two words, but I'll double check. It may be either way is acceptable, but I'll make them consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the only thing we're waiting on is to find out about the indentation -- I think that just needs to get corrected, whatever the correction is needed that would work. Are there any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we find this amendment to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to be subject to obviously the clarification of that paragraph A. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Page 29 161 1�5 March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLF,Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. Okay, move on to Page 21. MS. ISTENES: Yes. And Jeff Wright will be up to discuss this with you. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: While Mr. Wright is coming up, do you want to clarify your prior motion like you did on your previous ones that this is consistent -- you find this consistent with the GMP? I'm sorry, it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did, yeah, with the rest of them. That's how Mr. Schiffer saying that reminded me we hadn't done that in the first ones. So that's -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay, I didn't hear it as the part of this motion that was just made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was the first part, I said that -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh, you said that first -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- consistent with the GMP and recommend approval. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Comn issioners. I'm here reporting back. Last time you heard this item was on January 28th. And during that hearing I gave a brief presentation. There was some discussion. And I'm summarizing here, but we were requested to look into limiting excavation to the extent that the excavated material is necessary for construction of the above- ground facility. And due to the timing of the packets going out, we didn't get that language in there. But we have on the overhead here in highlighted the language that we've added in addition to what you see in your packet. So this would be --this appears on Page 22 and 24 of your packets. And again, that highlighted language would be added to the end. We came up with that language after hearing your suggestion. I think it was aimed at limiting infringement on private property rights and rights that are provided under Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, trying to figure out the best way to phrase this. This would seem to cover a facility, for example, they wanted to have a -- they had to have water management areas or something like that for any pervious they may have on the site. Then they would be able to provide this excavation. But what I'm concerned about is the reference to above - ground facilities. I had envisioned -- first of all, if someone goes out -- the whole purpose was to try to not allow this to be an excuse to have a commercial excavation going on under the premise of farming. If we limit this to above - ground facilities, we're still not accomplishing any savings to the environmental native position that the property was in because the above - ground facilities would destroy all the vegetation. Wouldn't we have an advantage then to let them excavate enough material and go down in the ground far enough so that the material they needed on -site was what they use to support the above — the remaining facilities that were above ground? So in essence the shallow area they dig may be two or three feet to create enough sloping and fill to go around the outside to support whatever constructed walls they have would be equal to that amount they would need. But then the facilities themselves wouldn't all be above ground anymore, they would be actually below ground partially. How do you tit that? Page 30 16 1 1 March 10, 2010 MR. WRIGHT: Well, I think, and I kind of went through the same process in my head, because when you do draw a line between above ground and below ground -- I went online and there's tons of aquaculture configurations, and a lot of them are the standard sieve net where you drag it along. And that is underground. So I think that in response to your concern, we could, and with your recommendation to the board, we could word it beginning with the term excavation. Start with that highlighted area that you see, excavation for aquaculture shall be limited in quantity to the amount necessary for construction of the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree, that would make it a lot better. But now, would someone take that, though, as the facilities being primarily all the way down to whatever depth they needed and then they would excavate the whole thing out we would be back in the process we have now. MR. WRIGHT: It's a bit of a Catch -22, because they could point to a state best management practice and say under the state law I am allowed to dig -- in other words, the amount necessary for construction of my facility is a huge pit's worth, and that's what they could say. So it's a 1 ittle bit of a Catch -22. Again, this is board - directed and we did want to make an effort to come up with something to limit the use of aquaculture as maybe a guise for digging dirt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think this puts us in any worse position. I'm not sure it really accomplishes what we wanted to get, and I'm not sure that the limitation by saying above - ground facilities doesn't hamper aquaculture. Because in essence if you dig the dirt out, you can't put the facility in it, even if it's shallow and was only intended for the support of the structure. And I think that would be a hindrance to someone wanting to economically do aquaculture. I would prefer we just take the words above ground out and leave it construction of the facilities. And I know that doesn't help us a lot, but maybe that's -- I don't know, anybody else have any suggestions? Heidi? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Do you want to add to that and on -site improvements? Because it sounds like you're trying to expand what you're referring to as facilities. And I don't know that that would be interpreted to be other facilities other than just the above - ground facilities the way it's written. So I think if you want more, you ought to try to clarify it a little bit more. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from my perspective, and anybody else that wants to weigh in on it, please do. Most -- a lot of us sat here during the aquaculture case that came before us and we were very concerned because of the different things that weren't known, that the applicant could just use the fill and leave a hole. And that's what I think the genesis of this was, was to avoid that. But at the same time, I don't think we ought to be hindering true aquaculture, because it's a very positive thing. This isn't -- this could be a hindrance the way it's written because you're limiting them to above - ground facilities even when they acknowledge -- when you acknowledge they may need some excavation to support those facilities. Well, the excavation to support them would be in the location most likely they're going in so it's semi - recessed. That wouldn't be a bad way to do it. And maybe we ought to say that, for the construction of the above - ground or semi- recessed facilities. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that semi - recessed puts a limitation there, understanding it's vague, but it's better than none at all. What do you think, Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: I think that's great. My biggest concern is as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, last time, Florida Statutes do -- there's a chapter in the Florida Statutes, Chapter 597, that basically says the state is in charge of licensing aquaculture. And within that regulatory authority they have best management practices and a whole regulatory scheme to govern that. So that's what we have to look out for here. 1 didn't want to neglect Commissioner Schiffer's comment last time about standard trench width. I tried to cover that in my introductory remarks that it's hard to pin down a specific width, given the variety of operations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't wejust state that no fill can be removed from the site. No fill from the excavation can be removed from the site. So if the guy wants to dig a big hole, let him, but he's got a big mountain that goes with it. Page 31 161 143 March 10, 2010 I think what we're preventing is somebody doing aquaculture which is essentially a borrow pit in aquaculture disguise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I think then we need to strike the above ground and leave it the facilities, and then add something, some language to the effect that this does not allow any fill to be removed from the site, or something to that effect. Is that what you're getting at, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's straight to the point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wasjust going to say, I think that's getting to the point. And I think we should be as clear as possible. And it was a specific thing we were trying to prevent happening, and that was people just going out and digging pits and hauling the dirt away and making a lot of money on the dirt and we're left with a hole and we've spoiled environmentally sensitive lands in the process. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here is the danger. I mean, I could buy a piece of land, dig a nice big lake, use the fill to elevate my houses around the lake, and in the name of aquaculture I dug a lake and built a subdivision. MR. WRIGHT: I have also heard the concern -- I'm not a soils scientist, but I have heard that once the dirt is removed from the ground and put in a pile, the leachates from that dirt might be different than they otherwise would be. So I don't want to get too detailed because it's not my area of expertise, but that was a concern that I heard, in fact, when I talked to Stan Chrzanowski about that, piling it up on -site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What if we noted that the fill can't be removed and the fill could only be used for the construction of the aquaculture ponds? Essentially what, Mark, I thought you were getting at last time is you [night want to half dig in the ground and half put on the ground, and you have a nice -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To me that would be an economical way to approach a holding area for aquaculture activity. Plus it would be really much easier to maintain and operate. So I wouldn't want to see that prohibited. I'm not sure, though, limiting the use of the material to strictly that facility is all — because you're going to have a driveway, you're going to have working areas, you're going to have operation areas, you are going to have minor buildings, maybe, for pump houses. So 1 don't know if you want to do that. Jeff, I think your first sentence is probably in error because you're limiting it to above - ground facilities only. But that the -- we ought to figure out some way to limit the excavation for remaining on -site and I think -- and if there's a way, to encourage semi - recessed facilities so that we keep away from this fully excavated facility. I don't know how to get there, but I don't think this language that's proposed here gets to it, so -- MR. WRIGHT: If the commission is amenable to this, what 1 would suggest, based on your comments, would be to begin the sentence with the word excavation. And that would be excavation for such facilities shall be limited to the amount necessary for construction of the facilities. In addition, no fill can be removed from the site and can only be used for construction of the facilities. I put in brackets semi - recessed because I guess 1 can't think quickly enough to incorporate that into the suggested language. But I could capture that first sentence, the concept that no fill can be removed from the site and that fill can only be used for construction of the facilities, and bring that back next time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because one of the concerns is they could pile it and damage, you know the condition of the site. So make sure they don't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think your mic needs to be a little closer to you too, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, the concern is they could pile it on the site, and we don't want a guy having a nice fishing operation with a big pile of dirt in the back of it. It took up twice the land as needed to in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs more work, Jeff, if you don't mind coming back again. MR. WRIGHT: Not at all. And we'll get the changes into the next packet. I think it should be for the 24th that you'll see this language up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are coming back on the 18th -- well, I'm assuming we're going to come back on the 18th. I'll talk to Susan. If need be, we can -- we also might be here next week as well. We will be for a Page 32 16J k3 March 10, 2010 regular hearing. And if we haven't finished the regular agenda, I guess the 24th will be a good day for cleanup, so it doesn't matter. MR. WRIGHT: Either way, I'll hustle the amendment over to John. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That item takes us through to Page 28. Were there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, then we will move on to Page -- this one's interesting -- 229. Okay, that's in a different packet. That's in the -- yeah, that's in Packet 1. It's on Page 229. Steve, good morning -- afternoon, I'm song. MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. For the record, Steven Lenberger, Department of Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services. That was easy to say. This amendment, which is the vehicle on the beach permits amendment, had no revisions from the last time we met. There was just a question regarding violations and if there would be a problem suspending permits. We looked at the language in the amendment. We don't see any problems with enforcing violations. Violations normally proceed with a Notice of Violation. And if the activity continues, they issue citations. We also took a look at the language here regarding the enforcement section, and it talked about suspension of permitted activities for 70 days or the balance of sea turtle nesting season. So having a one -time vehicle registration should not affect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody have any questions on any of the pages? It goes through Page 236. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 231, just a grammatical question. On line 13 it says beach nourishment. I notice in other places we use the word renourishment. Do you want -- should that read renourishment or is beach nourishment fine? Does that cover everything? MR. LENBERGER: I think beach nourishment covers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. I've seen both used. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we find this to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and that we move it forward with a reconnnendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Ms. Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you. The next one is on Page 37. Now, is that of our -- I can't remember, is it packet -- what packet? Page 33 161 1 , _,+ March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three? COMMISSIONER CARON: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 37, back to Packet 3. MR. LENBERGER: There were a few revisions. I can tell you where they are. I'll give you a second to find CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead, sir. MR. LENBERGER: The first revision was on Page 43, under references. And we reworded it to say management guidelines contained in publications, and then we used the words utilized by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Conunission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as their technical assistance. And then it continues, shall be used for developing required management plans. The next change is on Page 47, line 16. You wanted clarification that these areas would only have to be identified in areas where gopher tortoise were going to be relocated from. So I added in the beginning of the sentence there, in areas where relocation of gopher tortoises is required. And then it continues, location of these thickets shall be identified in the protection/management plan and any gopher tortoises within these areas shall also be relocated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: 1 don't think there are any more changes. No, there were no more changes to that amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's quite a few pages to this amendment. And we have talked about it before, but that doesn't mean we don't have questions again. So with that in mind, I'll just ask for the whole section, and it goes from Page 37 all the way to Page 54. Do we have any additional questions on the bulk of that document? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: True or false, on single - family plotted lots, the only management that they have to do is that which was defined in the subdivision or the platting of the lots, correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) MR. LENBERGER: There was one also thing too, is the only section that it applies to single - family other than when it's part of the subdivision is beach lighting compliance, for those houses abutting the beach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, when you drafted this, I know it came to us a long time ago the first time, and we sent it back, I believe, for stakeholders' meetings and group meetings. And you've had a lot of those being carried out over the course of what, a year or so? MR. LENBERGER Over a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you copied me with the massive e -mail list. Everybody that I can think of in the county that could have been involved in this seems to be on that list. Has this document now more or less been reviewed -- have you got any input on this document orjust everybody ignore your e -mail? Were you getting feedback? Because we're talking going into whole new territory. We're going from listed species now to listed plants. And your list of plants, while it may not be that large, it still opens up another cost and another associated study and everything else. 1 just want to make sure --because I don't see anybody --I don't know if-- unless Bruce is going to talk on this, and he's shaking his head no, nobody from the industry is here again. And I just want to make sure we've vetted this, because 1 hate to see them come back in later and say oh, my God, how could we do this. So can you just explain to us the process you went through to get here and the kind of feedback you got? MR. LENBERGER: Sure. After the LDC cycle last year we started initiating stakeholders' meetings. I also coordinated with a lot of these amendments different members of the environmental consultant community to try to draw on their knowledge, because they do a lot of the permitting and I needed to see what a lot of Page 34 161 �3 March 10, 2010 processes they take. We've had a lot of meetings. This particular amendment went through a lot of review. I included changes in the beginning, and a lot of those were to address the stakeholders' coneems. As you wanted to see in the Environmental Advisory Council, the stakeholders also wanted to see a lot of sections revised and brought up to date. The listed plants was a concern. Once we did the evaluation, there was a lot less of a concern. Plants fall in two categories, basically: Really rare plants and plants which are less rare, but to only move if you didn't have them in the preserve that you were going to create. Epiphytic plants was a concern initially that you have to go way in the canopy to grab these plants. That's why we decided on the eight -foot maximum level. If they're within eight foot, it's easy to move these plants. And that seemed to address their concerns. Other concerns from last year were not to have -- well, no, pretty much it. So anyway, this has been thoroughly vetted. COMMISSIONER CARON: I wasjust going to comment that there was an 11 -0 from the DSAC, so I think they vetted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure, because I'm surprised there aren't people here talking about it. Anybody else have any questions on this particular item? It's the second time we've seen it. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I figured you were going to make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward this to — and with a finding that it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. Thank you, Steve, for your efforts with that. Now we're getting into the more exciting ones. MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment under new items is recreational uses in preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 55 of our Packet 3. Okay. MR. LENBERGER: This went through quite an extensive review as well. I did a little research. As you can see in the beginning, it's quite lengthy, a little analysis. You had asked me to take a look at existing structures in preserves. I also consulted with various staff regarding some of the regulations that they use, and basically put it all together in the amendment you have before you. If you wish to go by it page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, we'll do that. I know Brad isn't here, but he'll catch up when we get here then. Page 35 161 1A3 March 10, 2010 On Pages 55 and 56, anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty- seven? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 58,59? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty to 61? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody watching, this is mostly the explanation of the language and how it got to where it's at. And the language itself we haven't even got to yet. Language starts on Page 62. We'll take 62 and 63 at one time. Anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, on Page 62, item -- on line 44, actually, the sentence starts on line 42, it says loss of function to the reserve includes unacceptable changes in vegetation within the preserve or harming any listed species present in the preserve. The next sentence talks about what is unacceptable. Where do we understand what is hanning? MR. LENBERGER: We're talking about listed species, hanning listed species? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: That would be determined by the agencies. On Page 60 -- let me -- 63.V.i. That will be determined by the agencies during permitting. The environmental consultant community came up to me regarding listed species, and they said why don't we just permit structures through the agencies and make them make the determination whether it's harming them or not, since the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are the agencies with the knowledge to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I'd like to suggest then is where the word banning is, after it refer to the section that you just referred us to so it's clear, that everybody understands what you mean by that. Is that something you can easily do? MR. LENBERGER: So you just want to make a reference -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To V.i. MR. LENBERGER: To V.i? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're going to have to say H.1 -- yeah, or H -- yeah, H.1.J.V.i, I think that's -- H.1.A.V.i. Something ofthat nature. Just so that when you're talking about harming, that's the way in which you're referring to it. MR. LENBERGER: I will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 64 and 65, are there any questions on 64 and 65? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am generally not carrying the flag for land use attorneys and development interests, but I know that Richard Yovanovich had been sitting here all day for one of these three items. I'm not sure which one it was. And out of fairness for the fact that he had been here, I think we at least ought to give him the opportunity to comment on it, if that's what he was waiting for. Does anybody know what -- MS. ISTENES: I'll go ask. I saw him out -- MR. LENBERGER: I think he's still here. I had spoken to Rich earlier. He was interested in the vesting language. Vesting language was included in this amendment. He was more interested in the stormwater amendment because nothing was included there. Here he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll probably never get returned the favor, but at least I was trying to be fair to Richard in this regard. Richard, with that introduction, did you have any issues that you were waiting for to discuss on the recreational uses in preserves? Page 36 161 1 A3 March 10, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what we're on. And I know when you asked me I didn't know if we'd even get to it today, and we got to it quicker than I thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I will of course repay the favor, if you'll tell me what page we're on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page -- well, it starts on -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Sixty - three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty -two is where the language starts. We're talking about through Page -- we're actually finished our discussion on the whole thing. So if you have any comments, you're more than welcome to make them. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. And I -- what I would like to see, and I don't know what Steve said. I went to -- originally when this was going through the process, I attended the very first meeting. And I represent the Pelican Bay Foundation, and the Pelican Bay Foundation has a lot of existing facilities that go through preserves. Instead of going through and worrying about whether they met the new code requirements, I had asked for an exemption for all existing facilities for not only for the repair or maintenance but also the replacement of those facilities, as long as they're within the same footprint that is out there today. So I'm requesting that there be an exception for all existing facilities that are in preserves, so they can be repaired, they can be maintained and they can be replaced if necessary. And it probably benefits the county as well. I mean, the boardwalk that goes to Clam Pass Park, I don't know if it meets the width requirements or not. But let's just say it ends up a little bit wider. It should probably have an exception so you can replace it should you need to in the future. And that's all I'm asking for is a general exemption for those types of facilities so we don't have to go through the expense to figure out if they meet the current code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I think then what we would -- did you explore that exemption or that exception to this language? MR. LENBERGER: For the vesting language I turned to the County Attorney's Office. They had provided language regarding the trails. As an aside, I did do a little research on Pelican Bay. I put the conservation area on the visualizer. The Pelican Bay residents north and south beach facilities were carved out of the conservation area. They're not included. So the facility that's in there now would be the Clam Pass Park facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the tram going out to the beach, I would assume, and the bridge and all the other parts. MR. LENBERGER: Right, so that the trail's out there. Language was added in the amendment vesting the trails. I did look at the Pelican Bay ordinance. I do have portions of it in front of me. It was pretty interesting when I looked at it. I noticed that the park facility was carved out a little differently than the main preserve. The main preserve is 530 acres, but the other portion, the 36 -acre park facility where the Clam Pass Park is located was supposed to be to the citizens of Collier County, and I believe it was for a beach access. But I can put this on the visualizer, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're focusing mostly on Pelican Bay, and that really isn't the issue. The issue is shouldn't existing facilities, both their repair and replacement be exempted, so long as they retain the existing footprints. Let's just talk about that. Let's not focus on Pelican Bay or any particular project. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. I thought you wanted me to answer Pelican Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he brought it up as the example as why he's here. But it applies to more than just Pelican Bay, it's across the board. MR. LENBERGER: I looked to the County Attorney's Office regarding this. I had spoken to some of the stakeholders. Their intent was not to bring permitted projects in compliance with this, requiring them to go to the upgraded standards if they wanted to be repaired. That's what they conveyed to me, the ones I spoke to. I looked to the County Attorney's Office for this exemption language, so I still have to look to them to address this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is that something you can come forward with by the -- say, by the 24th when Page 37 161 1A3 March 10, 2010 we meet again? MR. YOVANOVICH: I had some prepared language, if that will help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We still -- yes. I mean, it would help if you want to air it right now, we'll talk about it, but I still want the County Attorney's Office to look it over and come back with it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. What language do you have? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's actually on Page 64. And you have started an exemption. It's Roman numeral VIII. I would simply add to the end of that — because what it talks about, I would add the following: Existing pathways may be repaired or replaced, provided such replacement is within the footprint of the existing pathway. And that way you're -- if you end up -- and Pelican Bay, and not that this is just — it's just by way of example, there are boardwalks that run through the preserve area to the restaurants for the residents of Pelican Bay. So there -- if they need to replace that boardwalk, if they keep it within the same footprint, why shouldn't they be allowed to replace it? That's why that language. So if I need to read it again, Mr. Wolfley? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can read it again, but I want to ask you something about it. You're still sticking to pathways. There are viewing platforms, there are seating alcoves, there are issues like that that I want to make sure all permitted existing facilities are covered. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree with that. And I mentioned that to Steve. They seem to be parts of the boardwalk, if you will. Is that correct, Mr. Strain? I don't know if everything out there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They may be in Pelican Bay. And I would agree with you, they are. But that is not where they occur everywhere. Besides, in addition to the boardwalk in Pelican Bay you've got a bridge that you may not consider a boardwalk. It's a functioning bridge, although it rarely functions. It's the one leading from outer Clam Bay to the mouth of the pass. MR. YOVANOVICH: The way they define pathway, I think it includes that boardwalk, which includes the bridge on that boardwalk. But we can tinker with that and make sure it's all encompassing. But you're right, there are other communities that have improvements besides pathways and boardwalks that probably should be allowed to continue and be replaced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that needs to be all inclusive. If someone's legally permitted this should not infringe on that legal permitting. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was my intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, is that something that you could work on to a more inclusive language so we've got people covered who are out there reasonably permitted now? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, we'll review the language proposed by Mr. Yovanovich and work with Steve and Rich to come up with a final product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because his language isn't comprehensive enough. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was just going to say, let's remember that we want it for all the structures. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just not pathways. I hear you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is the second time this has come back. We're talking about tweaking the vesting language. Go ahead, Nicole. MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I did -- we support the language, the concept that Rich is proposing. We never intended for this to be retroactive to existing preserves. So we're fine with that. I did want to point out, and I can't recall ifthis was something that I had mentioned to you before or not. But on the bottom of Page 62 under the new little h, the last sentence where it says unacceptable changes in vegetation within preserves, including replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native or weedy species. And I have a real problem with the terry weedy species. What is a weed? The Weed Society of North Page 38 161 1 A3 March 10, 2010 America defines a weed as anything that is growing in a place that you don't want to it grow. In a preserve, if it's native then it really does belong there. So I think that we capture what we need to capture by simply saying replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native species, because it's a preserve, you don't want those non - native. Weedy opens up the -- again, the Weed Society of America, they have about 3,600 species they define as weeds, including live oak and laurel oak. We don't mean that. So let's not put this language in there because it could be open for misinterpretation in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask you for -- there is a Weed Society of America? MS. RYAN: There is. There is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MS. RYAN: And I have to say that a PUD that has in their conservation easement that they can remove weeds has used this list of 3,600 species to say it's a weed, we should be able to remove all of them. So let's not do that in our LDC. It's messy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. I['sjust the little bits and pieces of information we team at some of these meetings. I had never imagined there would be a weed society. I hope the wrong law enforcement agencies aren't watching that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to say, what kind of weeds are you talking about -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They meet every other Thursday with the lawyers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, do you have any problem with that suggested change? MR. LENBERGER: I'm looking through the language now. I would suggest just deleting it. Because changes and -- it goes on and talks about changes in vegetative composition which are inconsistent with target communities. That would cover it. If something was native and was invasive, like a vine or something, it would still be covered, so I would suggest we just delete weed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, let's look at the sentence. Because if you -- you've got to delete more than I think one word to make it work. MR. LENBERGER: It says unacceptable changes in vegetation within preserves includes replacement of indigenous vegetation with non - native species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so or weedy comes out. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's a good catch. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll hear this when we comeback on the 18th or 24th. Okay, next one up is on Page 67. It's 3.05.07.H.1.h.ii. Steve? MR. LENBERGER: This is the stormwater in preserves amendment. This went through a lot of review by stakeholders, and finally the stakeholders decided to write it themselves, which they did. There was -- of course some of the -- for one of the modeling criteria, which is in here, I had sent you an e -mail. And I sent that on the behalf of stakeholders. But I -- they are going to talk about that. There are a couple -- well, I know Nicole is going to talk about it, additional modeling. And I'll put it on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Other than that, I'm prepared to go through it page by page. There are stakeholders here. You may want to have them speak first. I think you did that last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may expedite our questions. So certainly, I think that's a good idea, if that's okay with the rest of the board. I guess, Bruce, you must be here for this one? MR. LEHMANN: I'm here for answering questions. I don't have anything specific to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Richard's coming up, so we have two speakers so far. Page 39 161 1�3 March 10, 2010 MS. RYAN: Again, Nicole Ryan, hereon behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And as Steven mentioned, this really has been a very long -term collaborative effort that you directed the stakeholders to essentially sit down and talk it out until we could get something that everyone could agree upon. And the language that is before you is that consensus document. We spent a lot of time in trying to figure out what would be that good middle ground. As you'll recall, initially The Conservancy believed that stormwater should not be allowed into any preserves. So we've really discussed through and compromised from that. There are four key elements to the proposed language in front of you from The Conservancy's perspective. The first is that it protects the really high and dry communities, those xeric upland communities, from receiving any stormwater into those systems. That is under provision -- let's see on Page -- whoops, the wrong one. I don't have your pages, actually, I have my copy, which is just Pages 1 through 5. But it protects the xeric uplands from receiving any stormwater, which we felt was very, very important. It references several vegetative community types. It's under E -- MR. LEN13ERGER: It would be under Page 70. MS. RYAN: Page 70, E, little 3. MR. LENBERGER: Line seven. MR. RYAN: Where stormwater can't be directly discharged into those three land use codes. So we felt that that was something that was very important. Secondly is the issue of water quality and ensuring that any stormwater that is allowed into the preserves meets all of their Water Management District basis of review water quality treatment outside of the preserve. In other words, the preserve can't be used to actually treat the stormwater. So treatment is done outside. And then if there is pop -over during storm events, then that water can go into the preserves. So that was another thing that we felt was very, very important. And that is contained in little b. MR. LENBERGER: That's on Page 68, line 47. MS. RYAN: The third component is the water quantity component. Because too much water in a preserve, even if it's a wetland preserve, is going to be damaging that system. So that was really the sticking point that we discussed for a very long time with the consultants. And the language that we came up with is under E, little ii. And I am certainly not an engineer, so if you have specific questions on that language and especially the new language that is proposed, I can say that our hydrologist discussed the language with Bruce Lehmann and we came to a consensus agreement. And I'll have turn --if you have questions specifically on how this works, I will have him answer that. And the fourth component that we felt was key was the idea of monitoring and remediation, that if you're going to be inputting additional stormwater into a preserve area, you're going to have to make sure that it isn't doing damage. And if it is doing damage, then you're going to have to nutigate for that, remediate for that and make sure that vegetation is replanted. So those were the four key things that The Conservancy felt they needed to see in this language. We believe that it's there and we're comfortable and support this as it moves forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLBLEY: Nicole, who is going to monitor all of these locations? MS. RYAN: It will be up to the developer, the landowner, whoever owns the land to monitor that. So developer or the homeowners association at some point in the future when that's turned over. COMMISSIONER WOLFLF.Y: They would do that at the same time they would remove any new exotics that -- MS. RYAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Nicole -- I'm sorry, is this of Nicole before we go to -- we have more public speakers. I thought we'd get through them all and get their questions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have one more little -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Of Nicole? Page 40 161 1 �3 March 10, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: The original premise here was to add criteria for when treated stormwater is allowed in preserves. Most of this document now takes the word treated out. Are you comfortable everywhere it's been taken out? MS. RYAN: We are. Because with little b, untreated stormwater will not be allowed in the preserves. So the treated stormwater component is taken care of in little b. So we're comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We are not taking away little e, subsection I or 1.1 are we? Because on your overhead, it shows that as I. You meant double I there? I just wanted to make sure we're not eliminating -- MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. I apologize, that is double I. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No need for an apology, I just want to make sure we didn't eliminate the little i. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, do you want to have anything to say? Thank you, Nicole. MR. YOVANOVICH: Similar to the previous item, I would like to see an exemption for projects that have water management systems that do discharge into preserves be allowed to continue to do that. And again, Pelican Bay Foundation has facilities that -- they have a backbone system, it discharges into the preserve. I don't know if it's consistent with these requirements or not. But not just Pelican Bay, but there are probably other permits out there that have been issued by the Water Management District and/or the county that does allow discharges into preserves that are probably not consistent with these, and we should have an exemption for those permits as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good idea. I do think the Pelican Bay system discharges on the west of the berm road after it's water treated on the east of the berm road. So I think that's covered, but may not always -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not sure. We always figure it's probably safer to have the exemption in there than have to figure out if you have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would ask that you get together with County Attorney's office to get language similar to what we've talked about in the recreation in preserves one as well, and then that will cover it. Any questions of Richard? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's go back to our regular format and start with the first page on Page 67. Does anybody have any questions on Page 67? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I've got a couple. And on line 31 and line 42 you again refer to harming listed species. I would just like there to be a reference there as to what the word harming is intended to mean. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. That was line 31? And what's the other line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty -two. MR. LENBERGER: Forty -two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to comment that that's not in the code, that's just the explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. LENBERGER: That's the GMP language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Just quoting the GMP language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay, move on to pages two at a time, 68 and 69. Brad? Page 41 March 1 §210 1 V COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question would go here, it's not really on a particular point. Steve, are the adjoining landowners protected from this'? Because the preserve essentially could be owned by or connected to multiple properties. Hopefully it is, right? Or is this something that's solely on one site? MR. LENBERGER: Permitting for discharge of water. Well, permitting the water management system will be the responsibility of the Water Management District. The countyjust has these criteria in place to ensure that it won't negatively affect the preserve. But the Water Management District will be the entity permitting it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would protect people that also have part of that preserve on their property? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the preserve would be under unified ownership. And some preserves obviously have -- are not completely bermed off, I should say, and flow onto other properties, as they do today. And that permitting is done by the Water Management District. This is to ensure that upland areas and also treatment ofwater prior to that discharge is achieved according to the standards we're proposing here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, so you're comfortable that the other agency will protect other people that share the -- you know, the wetland area that the preserves has. MR. LENBERGER: Well, no, this language here is to protect the preserves. This language is worked out by the stakeholders. This is to ensure we're not going to have adverse impacts to the preserve. As far as connectivity of preserves to other properties, that is permitted by the Water Management District. They determine the flows off -site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages then 70 to 71. Any questions on pages 70 to 71? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To save Nicole a trip, weedy shows up on G again, so -- MR. LENBERGER: Where was that on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Line 33. So we'd cross out or weedy. MR. LENBERGER: Delete weedy, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 70 and 71? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Line 27, after vegetative, should it also -- should there be the word composition or is it taken out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's vegetation. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, it's vegetation. I had caught that on the master already. But yeah, I apologize for that. Yeah, that should be vegetation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 70 or 71? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, H, isn't that already part of our code? I mean, if you want to know what to do in the RLSA -- MR. LENBERGER: Right, it's already -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --especially the W RA, it's in very elaborate detail in the RLSA section of our code. So why would we want to minimize that here as a referral? Wouldn't wejust -- if they're in the RLSA they're going to the RLSA section of the code. It's a redundancy. I'mjust wondering, do we need it'? MR. LENBERGER: It's a cross - reference, you know. And I don't think it's harming by having it in there. And someone's permitting stornwater, that's an easy reference, oh, the RLSA, I go to this section, you know. Obviously the consultants who work in this area are very familiar with that. But that doesn't mean an outside consultant might be as familiar with it. It's a good cross - reference, I think. But either way, it could be deleted if you wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 1 just didn't want -- I wanted to make -- if it's not hurting anything, I don't Page 42 161 1 .o March 10, 2010 disagree with you. But redundancy in our code has been a problem, so -- it's small enough, I'm not too concerned. Up in F, talks about discharges in preserves and then the creation of berms, swales and outfall structures. And I can think of one example. I drive by a lot on Pine Ridge Road where it extends into the Estates. I think it's the -- there's a church along there. And they had this preserve area and then had to go and cut up the preserve area to put a berm in. And the berm provided water, I guess it allowed something not to go onto the property next door, which was all more trees like their preserve. So even if we require a berm in those instances, because --and I don't seethe necessity for that berm. I didn't quite understand why we're requiring native areas to be destroyed by more berms if they're up against native areas already. They're not allowed to count that destroyed area as part of the area they had to preserve? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. Whether --the decision whether the berm --a preserve off from another preserve, that's going to be made by the Water Management District. We're not going to make that choice. But yes, it does not count toward the native vegetation requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it become part of the conservation easement that would override the preserve, or would they have to disallow it from being within the easement area? MR. LENBERGER: Well, it says they could be located within the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it would be within the preserve but it wouldn't be counted as part of the preserve. MR. LENBERGER: Wouldn't be counted as part of the native vegetation requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Any other questions through Page 72? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the only thing this has to come back for, basically a couple small cleanup things, but mostly the vesting language that you're going to create in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office and just bring that back. Does that work for you? MR. LENBERGER: That works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item we can -- Cherie', how are you doing? THE COURT REPORTER: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll probably finish up then with the next item. It starts on Page 73. It's Section 10.02.02.A, it's the Environmental Impact Statement. It's a long one. MR. LENBERGER: It's a long one. There's a lot of cross -out language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: There was one error I noticed -- when I was going through code, the drafts here, somehow the computer messed up language, and I did catch one of them here. It's on Page 88 under F. That would be line 20 on Page 88. See where it says additional data? It says information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. It's missing the first part of the sentence. The computer -- it was on the master form, but it didn't go through on your copy. It should read the county manager or designee may require additional data or. And then it continues with the language, information necessary, et cetera. That was a computer glitch. It is on the master, but when it got printed on a number version, it didn't print. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a -- this is a rather long lead -in. Then there's a lot of crossed out pages. Let'sjust go through all that first. That will take us all the way through Page 83. Are there any questions through Page 83? Which is all your background data and crossed out sections of this proposed changes. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Steve, my assumption is, is this all went through all the same stakeholders' exercise that the others did. MR. LFNBF,RGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no questions through Page 83, then let's start on the new active language, two pages at a time, 84 and 85. Are there any questions on Pages 84 and 85? (No response.) Page 43 161 1A3 March 10, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 86 and 87? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty- seven. The triple in down on 24, what is your intent there, that if the sea level rises six inches -- how does somebody deal with that, just out of -- and you can make a 25 words or less answer. MR. LENBERGER: t wish I could. This discussion came up at the DSAC meeting. This is currently language that's in the Growth Management Plan. And I still have to discuss this further with staff. And we haven't got an answer yet fully right now. And it's left in here. It was crossed out. We put it back in this section because it is a GMP requirement. But I have not got an answer for you on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to come back with an answer? MR. LENBERGER: I brought it up to management and to discuss, and they told me to leave it in for now and they were going to look at it. I have discussed it with them, and they have not gotten back with me on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess then we'll just -- this one, after we get done with our discussion, whether we have other issues or not, this one is going to be holding it until we get a clarification. MR. LENBERGER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on 86 and 87. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 86, Item D, little i, you start out with for sites with known environmental contamination. How do you know they've got environmental contamination? Known to who and how? I'mjust curious. MR. LENBERGER: Well, for the environmental assessment, most projects will have an environmental audit of a property when they purchase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are confidential. I mean, I know they're confidential because I have a lot of them done. And part of the whole deal is you don't tell anybody unless you want them to know. And it's usually done as part of a due diligence where you work with the owner of the property and it becomes part of that discussion. So how is anybody going to know it outside that group of people? MR. LENBERGER: I had this discussion with the County Attorney's Office, and I can let them respond, if they'd like. I was told that we could request that information. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't recall that I was the person that you spoke to. MR. LENBERGER: It was Steve Williams. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Heidi, you're going to come back with things. This one's going to come back anyway. Could you take a look at that language? I just don't know how we can quantify some of the verbiage. I'm going to have others too. Line 38, up the site or encapsulate the contamination. I think you mean remediate. Because that's usually what they require is that you remediate it through digging it up, filtering it out, running water through it, doing all kinds of -- I'm not sure encapsulating it is the only solution. Remediation I believe, through DEP's process covers everything, so maybe that's a better word to use. MR. LENBERGER: Well, they also do allow encapsulating contamination as well. I've seen that personally on products I've permitted, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's not the only solution. You could remediate. MR. LENBERGER: Not the only solution. I'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Double 1, soil and/or groundwater sampling shall be required -- MR. LENBERGER: Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt you. What line was that for the remediation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was on line 38. It occurs again on Page 87, line 14. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, line 14, and what was it, 38? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty- eight, yes. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By double I we're making the assumption that all farm fields are contaminated? Page 44 March lo1zolo + -3 Because they're requiring sampling of all farm fields. I mean, is that just standard policy? MR. LENBERGER: This had come up last year. And that's why we put in the parentheses, field crops, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas, trying to pinpoint that. We can say farm fields which were used for crop fields, had cattle dipping ponds or chemical mixing areas. We can spell it out more. But that was in response to your comments last year. We included those parentheses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if it's a grazing field, it wouldn't be --if someone's using a pasture for grazing, you wouldn't require that. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're talking the next one where there's hazardous products exceeding certain gallonages and pounds. And then you say on line 47, excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time when generated or stored. How would someone go back to any point in time and know that answer? I mean, DEP keeps historical locations of underground storage tanks and things like that, but this goes beyond that. And I'mjust wondering, how do you think you're going to know that? Is there a data base that provides that? Let's put it that way. Do you know of one? MR. LENBERGER: I don't know, I'd have to contact our pollution control people. That was language for those amounts and per month are all right out of the code. And I could put that up for you right now if you'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't -- I'm not questioning that. This is up for opportunity for discussion, I'm just wondering how we handle it. Who in the county knows that? When some applicant comes in and says, well, this has not been done, how do we dispute something like that? Do we have a data base that we use that gives you that information? And I don't know of one. If there is, I'd sure like to know it. Maybe you could tell us that when you come back. If not, that's fine, but I'd -- MR. LENBERGER: We'll have to consult with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those data base -- it would be nice to know of those data bases' existence. Okay, we'll move to Page 88 and 89. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? On your number four on Page 88, it looks like you're going to require a single EIS prior to the public hearings, but after all staff reviews. What does -- how do you see that working? Because you would want the EIS before the staff reviewed it in order to make sure that the layout in the site plan and everything else fits, right? MR. LENBERGER: No, the whole idea here is to eliminate the separate process of an EIS review. Staff would still get the environmental data. Number four was in response to discussions I had with the Environmental Advisory Council. Staff did not propose that initially. It was to just be able to package the environmental data so the EAC and this board, if you wish, would have it all consolidated and organized. So when you reviewed a project you wouldn't have lots of pieces of information, you would just have it all in a binder. So as a result of their concern regarding that, I put together this language in order to do away with a review of a separate document. What we're saying is after we're all done reviewing all this information, we ironed out everything, just put it all together right before public hearing so we can give it to you guys and you have it all in one consolidated package. That's what this is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does that mean someone on staff would then review that package again to make sure it's the one that you all reviewed the first time'? MR. LENBERGER: No, you have to get away from the idea of reviewing a package, okay. We're just reviewing the data. We would -- it would require more work on staff, because we'd have to get all the data in and we'd have to compare it to what we reviewed. So yes, it would involve an additional step. I did bring that out to the EAC members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to think of how it's going to function. Let's say the applicant comes in with a PUD or rezone or whatever and they submit the package to staff. Normally we've gotten a copy of the Page 45 161 1 A3 March 10, 2010 package. So now we're going to get the package but it's going to be tied together differently? MR. LENBERGER: No, actually it will probably just appear the same as the EIS you're getting now, only in this format. It will appear the same. It's just how staff's going to review it. We're not going to review a separate EIS document and we're not going to go through a separate approval process for an EIS document. What we're saying is we're just going to get the environmental data to review the project, and once we review the project, if it's a conditional use or rezone, we're going to get all that pieces of information, put it in this order here for you to review so it would help you with your review. And the EAC had a concern because they didn't want lots of pieces, they wanted to have a package. They felt the EIS was a worthwhile document in that respect. So that's why we included this language, that it wouldjust be consolidated when the project was completed with review and then given to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did the stakeholders have any problem with it? MR. LENBERGER: We don't go back to stakeholders after the public hearing, okay. Some of the stakeholders, I know Bruce was there, he was one of them. He said what does that mean? Basically what Ijust told you. He didn't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: I guess I would have to ask you, would you want to see a consolidated package given to you of this material? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter to me. 1 read it whether it's consolidated or in a thousand pieces. I'm not sure what the value is having it all bound together, but if no one's objecting to it, I'm tine with it. Ijust -- MR. LENBERGER: "this was in response to the EAC's request, but I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I still don't -- if that's the way they've got to read something, that's up to them. I don't -- myself, it doesn't matter, I'll still read it whether it's in 100 pieces or one big piece. If somebody has a problem, we'll just keep going forward. Five B, single - family or duplex uses on a single lot or parcel. Duplexes usually have a common property line and they split down the middle. This is a -- so you have two lots. You have a fee simple on each side. So if it was done that way -- or they shouldn't usually have, I said they can have. That's what I meant. So if it was done that way, this wouldn't apply. The exemption wouldn't apply. So if you have a duplex on two lots with a common wall down the middle, then they wouldn't be exempted from the EIS; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: Okay, well, first, we're not going to have an EIS for just this -- okay, this is environmental data. So we could --and I'm not an expert on zoning, and I would tum to Ray here. But if that is indeed the case, then we'll just say single- family use on a single lot and we can do duplex use on a single lot or two lots, depending on whether it's split or not. I'm just -- 1 would have to turn to Ray to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if it's single- family or duplex uses on a lot or parcel, then that just covers it. And just take out the -- MR. LENBERGER: On a lot or parcel? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, a lot or parcel. Your intention is not to require single - family or duplexes, correct? So who cares what they're built on. Is there an issue there? MR. BELLOWS: I like the way you phrase it. I think that would cover it. MR. LENBERGER: So we'lljust cross out single? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, that's tine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the intent that it's to prevent somebody who has a large lot with multiple duplexes on it? I mean, is that what -- first of all, a duplex to me wouldn't have a common property line within it. That would be two single - families with zero setback, essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it wouldn't be --but 1 mean, if you do that, what I think you don't want is I take a piece of property, large piece of property and put multiple duplexes or stuff, would that still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the intention here, does anybody know? Page 46 161 13 March 10, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: I don't know what the intention was, but -- MR. LENBERGER: I guess our perspective on it, we don't do zoning single - family -- and my understand is zoning handles duplex uses as a single- family. When you start having three, you have site development plans. That was my understanding. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MR. LENBERGER: So it's to exempt duplex use or single - family. Whether a lot is two lots or one lot, you know, whether they could be sold separately, I would have to look to zoning to give me an answer on that. If this could be worded better, I'm open to suggestions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the problem comes in because of the hybrid uses we're now finding because of the changes in the laws. And I think you might want to be real careful how this is worded versus what you're intending. Brad's point is right, if you've got a big parcel, say a five -acre parcel, and you have four duplexes on it, was your intention to exempt all those duplex -- that entire parcel? Isn't that where you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. That's exactly right. And that's what the problem we had earlier when we talked about multi - family units, they were giving the example of multiple small buildings to avoid the multi - family unit thing. So they have to solve it there first and then that might help us here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you work that area with Ray and this office and come back with something that fits more to what you're trying to get to so it doesn't give us something with unintended consequences, that would be helpful. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we'll work with them. I believe there's some adequate language in the code that if you're dealing with more than three units on a lot anyways, it's going to be deemed multi - family, even if they're three separate structures. But we'll review the language with Steve and make sure we're clear on that definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be good to verify it, Ray. Okay, and that takes us through Page 89. Anything on the last two pages, 90 and 91? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, you're going to come back with some cleanup on a couple of them, Steve. And now I guess the next question, because that takes us to the end of our agenda items, for Cherie's benefit. We won't take another break, we'll just finish up. Ray, do you know how soon we can schedule the next LDC meeting? Because we do have time on the 18th, but I don't want to schedule it if it's not productive and we can wait till the 24th and do it all at once. What's staffs position? MR. BELLOWS: Advertising for the 24th would be almost past that, I believe, it looks like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a regular -- it's been a scheduled LDC meeting, so it would be 1:00 to 4:00 -- we have four hours on the 24th if we want to use it. We have a regular meeting on the 18th, in which we probably will have two or three hours there we could use. And we have a regular meet on Thursday, April 1 st. April Fools Day, that ought to be a good meeting. Is anybody scheduled for that day? MR. BELLOWS: On the 1st? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: Currently the chart shows we have five items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be a full day. So we basically have the 18th and the 24th. I don't know if you want to use the 18th, but we have to continue this meeting to some point. Why don't we continue it to the 18th to the extent you need it. If we get to the 18th and we don't need it, we're going to be here anyway and we can just continue it again to the 24th. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a motion to continue today's Land Development Code amendment hearing until March 18th? And let's just set a time at no sooner than 10:30 in the morning because that will give us time to clean up our regular agenda items and take a break. Page 47 March ]0,2010 MR. BELLOWS: That will work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Koltlat, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. We are continued until the 18th at 10:30. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 � i MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on Liu, , as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 48 n,.nT.._ O'rwngS� W H,y Fiala Hales Coyle Coletta GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 February 9, 2010 AGENDA Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes- January 12, 2009 V. Transportation Maintenance Report — Hannula VI. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Design A. Landscape Update Vlll. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado B. West Entry Sign IX. Old Business X. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment 1 Q-t Misc. Corres: The next meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2010 at Q00% - L [0 At Goiden Gate Community Center - Napies. 1 �46,=;- %,E-IVED APR 0 5 2010 .n.ua or', i:untf Commissioners Fiala Halas Hennin Coyle Coletta GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U., ADVISORY COMMITTEE-" 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes- February 9, 2010 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard C. FY -2011 Budget VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL Design A. Landscape Update VIII. Landscape Architects Report- McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado B. West Entry Sign IX. Old Business -L b 1. 1 0 X. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles XI. Public Comments Misc. Corres: XII. Adjournment Date: a`.J _ �i 1f7`iF it "Ci. Al Gai k- t r. -'-m' t 3i's 1 "es to 161 1 K) GOLDEN GATE M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Fl. 34104 t r f ; 3. MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. A quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris, Barbara Segura, Richard Sims, Pat Spencer (Excused) County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery - MST[ Operations Coordinator Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, Andrew Eisele — JRL Design, James Stephens - Hannula, Sue Flynn — Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Richard Sims moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes — January 12, 2010 Change: Page 3, last sentence to read — "The Committee could not reach a compromise. " Richard Sims moved to approve the minutes as amended Second by Peggy Harris. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. 161 1 At V. Transportation Maintenance Report Darryl Richard stated the Staff and James Stephen of Hannula Landscape did several drive -bys and decided additional work was needed on Green Boulevard. He distributed and reviewed a proposal for additional items for Green Boulevard not covered on any other proposal. (See attached) James Stephen stated the proposal in the amount of $7.848 included the • Cost of Plants and Installing Flax Lily, Demi and Pink Cadillac Crown of Thorns • Site preparation • Debris removal • Plant installation and irrigation work • Green Boulevard median plants are 9 years old Discussion was made on the cost to maintain medians and the need to budget maintenance costs over several years. It was suggested the Committee review each median to decide which plants needed to be replaced. Staff recommended funds from Capital Outlay or Landscape Materials be used for the Project as an incidental. Pam Lulich noted in 2013 CR951 is scheduled for widening and it would not be a good street to plant due to the future road construction. James Stephens recommended tearing out the plants that do not look healthy and filling in with mulch. Mike McElroy suggested the Committee wait until the spring to see how the Green Boulevard medians look at that time. Darryl Richard stated the nursery stock had been hurt from the cold weather and stock would be better in the spring. Richard Sims tabled proposal until next meeting. VI. Transportation Operations Report — Discussed after V11. VII. Landscape Architects Report — JRL Design C. Landscape Update Andrew Eisele distributed and reviewed Report 44 - Landscape Architect's Field Report. (See attached) He reported the following - Understory plant material recently pruned. S Plants are showing signs of weather related stress from the cold and JRL will continue to monitor. ➢ The removal "spent" flower spikes from Flax Lily for aesthetics Medians are being monitored for ant hills and will be treated with Amdro when necessary. Dead Plumbago removal had been completed The following recommendations were made - 16 1 1 A�t ➢ Big Red Crown of Thorns to replace the Plumbago on Sunshine Boulevard. Y Seed pod removal, fertilization and thinning of the Crepe Myrtle on Sunshine Boulevard. ➢ Replacement of Crown of Thorn beds in front of Golden Gate Signs or cutting back due to plants showing signs of stress. It was suggested rye seed be planted in front of the signs due to the low cost and how fast it grows. VL Transportation Operations Report A. Budget — Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed the February 2010 Budget Report. (See attached) • Available Investment Interest - $3,144.00 • Available Operating Expense - $54,476.24 • Available Improvements General - $1,363,050.00 • Purchase Orders to be Paid - $191,336.48 • Purchase Orders Paid - $106,015.78 A. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard distributed and reviewed Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report. (See attached) • G -30 -New Sign at Median #1 Golden Gate Parkway (at Santa Barbara) — Berm has been installed by Hannula Landscaping. Signeraft is scheduled to install sign on February 9. • G- 31- Hunter & Coronado Design will be discussed by Mike McGee in VIII. • G- 25- Golden Gate Master Plan (Revision) Staff confirmed "Final Submittal' has been received from McGee & Associates. Final Submittal is under review by Staff. Darryl Richard recommended Committee approval on McGee & Associates Change Order to add "Additional Reimbursable" for Water Use Permit and related permitting fees. (See attached) Barbara Segura moved to approve (McGee & Associates) Change Order (Task 7.1) to cover additional costs (for Water Use Permit and related permitting fees) in the amount of $1250. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. VIII. Landscape Architects Report — McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee reviewed the Coronado and Hunter Median Improvement Plans. Project is on schedule for the commitment on 90% Plan on February 23. 161 1 At Changed to 55 -58' short stack turn lane on both direction on Coronado at the Canal Bridge. Coronado Parkway Landscape Plan — Sheet No. LD -7A was distributed and reviewed. (See attached) Richard Sims moved to approve the stack turn lane changes at the Canal on Coronado. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Mike McGee stated the Coronado and Hunter Revisions will be provided to Staff in the next 10 days for review and approval. Darryl Richard recommended project go out to bid as soon as possible. B. West Entry Sign — Covered in VL A. IX. Old Business — None. X. New Business A. FPL Vertical Light Poles - None XI. Public Comments — None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee chard Sims, Cha r These minutes approved by the Committee /Board on 3 ` Z 3 > O as presented -- or amended__ The next meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2010 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center Naples, FL 4 161 1 February 09, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Golden Gate MSTU Project Status (G -30): ACTIVE — New Sign at Median #1 Golden Gate Pkwy (at Santa Barbara) 01- 28 -10: Southern Signal installation of conduit for electrical completed. 02- 04 -10: Installation of Berm by Hannula Landscape Completed 02- 09 -10: Signcraft to install sign; McGee recommends 'waiting period' for soil to settle. (G -31): ACTIVE — Hunter & Coronado Design; Curbing, Landscape, and Irrigation Project Name: (2009 -003P) Golden Gate Beautification MSTU — Landscape, Irrigation, Curbing Final Design. ( Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.) 10- 13 -09: Plans are at 30% completion 11- 10 -09: Plans are at 60% completion; staff confirms Coronado will remain 4 lane roadway per 'Pre- Design Conference" held on June 22, 2009. 12- 07 -09: Staff confirms that TECM will allow for 16 inch Type F curb (vs. standard 24 inch) to allow for additional plantings vs. pavers in medians. 01- 12 -10: Golden Gate MSTU Committee motions to go with 16 inch curb in lieu of 24 inch curb and add landscaping in turn lane locations (G -25) ACTIVE — Golden Gate Master Plan — revision; (PO 4500100242; Work Order: TLO- MA- 3614- 07 -04; Original Contract Time -Line: NTP 12/8/2006 to Final Completion 12/30/2007; Original PO Amount: $4,800) 10- 13 -09: Final Review comments and response from consultant received, requires final delivery of revised documents (including updated strike - through) 11 -10 -09 Updated 'strike- through' per staff/Committee comments pending from McGee & Associates 12- 08 -09: Revised Master Plan document is due from McGee & Associates (attn: Mike McGee) 01- 22 -10: Staff confirms'Final Submittal' has been received from McGee & Associates, Final Submittal is under review by staff (G -26) ONGOING— Maintenance Contract 01- 06 -09: Committee approved at Jan. 6 2009; BCC Approved Jan. 27, 2009 meeting; Bid Documents and Bid Tabulation for Bid 09 -5153 Golden Gate MSTU /MSTD Maintenance; Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. for $267,418.64 (G -29) ONGOING— Maintenance Consulting Contract 10 -9 -09: Notice to Proceed sent to JRL Design per BVO #08 -5060 — 1 Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Golden Gate MSTU I F I D E S I O N LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51h AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 landscape architect's field report, COPY TO: ® OWNER ❑ ARCHITECT ❑ ENGINEER ❑ CONSULTANT ® MSTU Committee PROJECT: Golden Gate MSTU REPORT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: Hannula Landscaping - Jim Stephens JRL COMM No: Dates: 02/03/10 Weather: Mostly cloudy Estimate % Complete: N/A Times: 3:00 -4:30 Temp Low 60s Schedule Unknown Range: Conformance: PRESENT: 02/03/10 David Cosslett 02/08/10 Andrew Eisele WORK IN PROGRESS: Workers present - weeding, irrigation checks, etc. OBSERVATIONS: General Conditions - Landscape Maintenance Review REVIEWS: REPORT: Review of Golden Gate MSTU Requests - JRL to create a "Wish List" of recommendations for the replacement of struggling plant species in the MSTU medians. Quantities to be determined and field verified by Landscape Architect. (In Progress) Areas Covered (02/03/10): 1. Golden Gate Parkway (from Santa Barbara to Collier Blvd) 2. Sunshine Boulevard 3. Collier Blvd / CR 951 (from southern sign to northern sign) 4. Tropicana Blvd 5. Median on 18th Ave at 401" Terrace 6. Median on 18th PI at Sunset Rd 7. Median on Greene Blvd at Collier Blvd ' = Included in Maintenance Report presented by JRL Design on 01 /08/10 Overall Median Comments • Understory plant material had been recently pruned • There were many areas, of certain plant materials, throughout the MSTU District that were showing signs of weather related stress from the prolonged cold snap during mid January. JRL will continue to monitor. • Remove "spent" flower spikes from Flax Lily for aesthetics • Monitor medians for ant - hills. Treat with Amdro as necessary (in progress) Area 1: Golden Gate Parkway • Yellow spots in Juniper beds need to be monitored. Possible fungal problem - send samples to A &L Laboratories for testing. • ' Crepe Myrtle are competing with canopy trees and Sabal Palms. JRL recommends seed pod removal, thinning, lowering, and proper pruning 1 k� 161 1 A RL D E• I a M LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 51h AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES, FLORIDA 239 -261 -4007 to take place in fall /winter months to encourage new growth and blooming, as well as, to reduce the competition between species. Work is in progress. • * Fill in Indian Hawthorne in first median west of Collier Blvd (951). • * Foxtail Palms west of new pedestrian bridges are yellowing and have been treated by Hannula - JRL will continue to monitor. • * Dry Spots present at eastern end of Parkway (near Golden Gate Country Club) (Due to Pump being down - Pump replacement scheduled for December 12, 2009) - JRL will continue to monitor. Hannula is consistent about maintaining plantings in Site Lines at 24" in all areas. JRL will continue to monitor. • Dead spots in Floratam turf where crab grass has been treated. Continue to monitor for re- growth of Floratam. Hannula to provide proposal on excessive areas that are in need of total replacement. Area 2: Sunshine Boulevard • Dead Plumbago removal done; replacement needed. According to Hannula's Reports remaining plants have been sprayed with pesticide; showing little signs of recovery and may also need to be removed and replaced. JRL recommends 'Big Red' Crown of Thorns to replace Plumbago. Hannula to provide proposal. • Bare soil caused by constant foot traffic where pedestrians are crossing from multi - family community to Golden Gate Community Center and CAT Bus Stop. Needs further review in determining solution. • * Crepe Myrtle recommendations: Seed pod removal, fertilization, thinning, and proper pruning to take place in fall /winter months to encourage new growth and blooming. Work is in progress. Area 3: Collier Boulevard (from western sign to eastern sign) • Crown of Thorn beds in front of Golden Gate Signs (North and South) are showing signs of stress and appear unhealthy and unattractive; need replacement. Hannula to provide proposal for replacement. In the mean time, existing Crown of Thorns shall be removed. • *West of GG Pkwy on median tips, Yellow Crown of Thorn appears unhealthy and void of any new leaf growth. Hannula has fertilized. JRL will continue to monitor. • *Bougainvillea on southwest side of median west of GG Pkwy are showing signs of stress and appear very thin /unhealthy. Hannula has fertilized. JRL will continue to monitor. • Frost Damaged Bougainvillea shall continue to be monitored. • Juniper Bed with considerable dead North of 20th place SW to be replaced with Flax lily. Hannula's proposal under review. Area 4: Tropicana Boulevard • JRL has completed a review of the intersection of Tropicana and 26th PI. SW for DOT Standards regarding site lines & found it to be in compliance. • * Planting design has been completed (01 /08/10) for entire stretch of Tropicana Blvd's medians. Hannula to revise and resubmit proposal. • * Live Oak near school appears to have been recently hit causing a large wound in the trunk's bark and needs monitoring and possible treatment. 161 1 A� J.RL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN 405 5m AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 5 NAPLES. FLORIDA 239 - 261 -4007 • ' Cassia leaning into roadway is competing with Sobals and shall be removed. Hannula to review contract for debris removal for certain sizes of tree and provide quote if applicable. Area 5: Median on 18m Ave at 40m Terrace • Regular maintenance completed. JRL will continue to monitor. Area 6: Median on W PI of Sunset Rd. • Regular maintenance completed. JRL will continue to monitor. Area 7: Median on Greene Blvd at Collier Blvd • Planting design has been completed (01 /08/10) for entire stretch of Tropicana Blvd's medians. Hannula to revise and resubmit proposal. ACTION REQUIRED: Review report for actions required. Reported by: Andrew Eisele, ASLA, registered landscape architect David Cosslett, professional associate 161 CHANGE ORDER TO WORKORDER TO: McGee & Associates FROM: ATM Department PO Box 8052 Transportation Division Naples, Florida 34101 2885 S. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Fl 34104 (2009 -003P) Golden Gate Beautification MSTU — Landscape, Irrigation, Curbing Final Design. ( Coronado Parkway & Hunter Blvd.) 4500107120 (dated 05/19/2009) PO Notice to Proceed date: 5/21/09 CO #2 (two) PO 4500107120 02 -03 -2010 Change Order Description: Change is to add additional services per Contract 08 -5060 Annual Landscape Architect Services PO 4500107120: This change order will: ® Add/Increase to existing Task 3.1.2 for $1,740.00 ® Add /Increase to existing Task 3.1.2 for $4,000.00 ® Add/Increase to existing Task 4.1.2 for $1,740.00 ® Add /Increase to existing Task 7.1 for $1.250.00 TOTAL CHANGE: $8,730.00 Describe the change(s): Task 3.1.2 for $1,740.00 Additional fee paid to Prime Consultant (McGee & Asso.) Task 3.1.2 for $4,000.00 Additional fee paid to Sub - Consultant (Norm Trebilcock, P.E.) Task 4.1.2 for $1,740.00 Additional fee paid to Prim Consultant (McGee & Asso.) for update to irrigation plans Task 7.1 for $1,250.00 Additional reimbursable for Water Use Permit, and related permitting fees Explanation for Time Added: 120 days additional time is added to contract for `Contract Administration' time allocation which is 120 days construction contract time period. Original agreement amount ........... ............................... .....................$73,401.00 Stun of Previous Changes .............................. .....................$13,250.00 This Change Order No. 1 Amount (add or sebtrttet) ... ......................$8.730.00 Revised Agreement Amount ......... ............................... .....................$95,381.00 Original contract time in calendar days ................. ............................120 days Adjusted number of calendar days due to previous change orders .............. 316 days This change order adjusted time is ........................ ............................120 days Revised Contract Tine in working days ........ ............................... 556 days Original Notice to Proceed date ................... ............................... May 21, 2009 Completion date based on original contract time ......................... September 19, 2010 Revised completion date due to change order(s) ........................ November 28, 2010 1 N� IJ + S O S V U N A 4 N +OOP V P U A Y N+ O M P V P U A Y N+ O P P V N N A Y N mvTi oo�ab v�Am�yiyi mziZ�_�c^�voiiio[i G) �G)zx�� <mm�ma 6 AA fZ/i lOiiT f=p fA y0 DD2 ArN=� 1 yIZ,T �tiTy ,TZ .:N e A �NN ZAT DD W, XTl p m0 r0 m ZOpv DpT��y MnDn OyTOD-iy� TItTQ BRIT T1 � << NOOabD N� Crr I" mOm ,lTplmO m,lml Z T ATK OzM00Z Wj'X x rT N-iZ Apr, nZt/1m C D N yymmAo -1 (IpT < ~�CIyTT 'OT D D OO C Z�mA _ (~] 9 Z< m Z 2 m W Zy T MM N� T m A m Z< O O D T Z 3 nA O ZTf/1 OO 2ZS �� DZ3 y.: A �TXmAmTTD m A N p m w r NSA Z Z OA 1fi ��M X T v m n o T T ti m 33CC3 lj3 }� B igx b aaHHHaHHaHaaHHaH O to U O O O O O O O O N N O A O O O O O O O O O O O O O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I N UI �, I.. V1 W Vr Jr Vl 4� f I b, V . G -+ N O N C rn � ➢ m G � m m ➢➢ m o aHaaaaaaaaHaHaHH w N b J L N frail P O W m N N W w m O m m O N O O O P P O op o O mmoN o00 Y W IT + N O O f0 N N S W N m V O p O O O O O O U P O O+ O O W O N W O O O O O O O O 10 O V� 0 0 N O A w O O O O O J O O V O O m O O A o O w O O O o O N o o U o 0 0 0 0 (pNN V �3'l+$JC� j —S SS TT T T Ip� NPow 3nmom olm Z� r% 1 D D D v o °w w ro °-' n O. s m 3 m j. � m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A> N N m U N U m U {li N U N O N m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 41 O N O m N m N fp N V y N J P O 0 O m N m N m J N N m N O S10 A� J J n �j J N C N A j �,Q O N V d 9 2n n X n m m w of m °5'.H F' s ��'o I`�mA a g D D D� m W D v N � OJ m M o.✓ N m p 1p b A ?D m L N O m N m m O P O P (A :n 6. fn In EO In m w m n m m c5 fl E/1 ci vl of A ➢ N� A m N N m � J O WO O J U W O A n A O O O 1D O - O O O O to N O➢ H H H H N H H H H H H H H H H H H H H W N O L fp A N O m U O+ U P N N P G O O N m O O O N Um tD � OOOm � NNE O H O f0 O O O O O + U m N W HHHM�a �aaaHb I_ W 0 a m N W V O m W Ip f0 J � O W f0 A R61 z a ml> > m N w N O A m + O N � O V m o m+ O O 1 A� Q O r M T Z P i c�T `P Z m Zp> � C O u T o D _y O Z 3 c d - O M 7 /`^^ 7 to ' to m (D M p w c° n o G) m n o G) m n n G) m n N fD = (D 3 (n .0 r (D N U1 n (�� CD 7 fl. ,• n 17 01 :3 c O D) :3 �_ fl1 O :3 c D) r 0 O N 0 v 7 0 0 v 3 N 7 90 A (A O 0000000000 A o O A U1 O U1 O p U1 0 A U1 O p (T O A (T O A U1 0 A 0 O A U1 O D A U1 O O A U1 O� O Q M A ()7 O O A U1 O O A U1 O O v tJ N' -� O d0 O O Ut W c0 O O N O O V O N A— N O O � N Ut N N O O V W N A6 N O W O Ui N O O a fA fA fA fA 69 fA fA fA fA fA 60 6A fA fA fA 69 fA fA fA 69 O O V N N O A N CDD O O O O W N w W T O fA Efl N 6A N 41 fA fA fp 69 6A 6A A fA fA fA 69 EA fA fA = V QI f A V V (WT N O O W W V w (T O O W V W U W O O O O O W OD V Cr> T O M 6A fA fA 6A fA 6A f!) 6A 69 fA (A fA 69 69 fA EA W 6A 69 fA W OD C" to � O N N V N p O 40 wN W O O (n O m p j (T O p p in (A fA fA 69 fA N fA fA 69 EA fA bA fA fA (A Vi fA EA [A fA J W W O N L to O W O (D O O O (P O OD O O m _< O fA 6A EA co Vi 6A 69 fA w 6A 69 iA 69 EA fA fA fA fA E9 fA fA co O � O A OD � p C) m O N O p O 3 m T O D v 0 d T J 0 L C p T O 1 T Gi O O � T � � C � CL y cm N w a, CD W O C Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone: (239) 992-2210 Fax: (239) 498 -6818 Collier County Transportation Naples, FL Darryl Richard, (239) 252 -5775 darrylrichard@colliergov.net 161 1AIA Proposal Date" Proposal 2/8/10 10 -00216 Project 9.1669M Golden Gate MSTD /... Descilptlon Qty U/M cost Total s Golden Gate MSTU: Tropicana Blvd. (pricing per contract 09.5153) Site preparation, debris removal, plant installation, and irrigation work. Trash pick -up and removal (whole project) (4 men) (3 days) 96 38.00 3,648.00 Laborer (Site preparation / soil prep) (4 men) (2 days) 64 45.00 2,880.00 (1) Irrigation Supervisor (1) Irrigation Technician (2 days) 32 55.00 1,760.00 Saw Palmetto 3 gal. (9 cu. yds. Top Soil) 6 19.00 114.00 Crown of Thoms, 1 Gal. (Pink Cadillac) 515 4.00 2,060.00 Crown of Thorns, 1 Gal. (Deni) 885 4.00 3,540.00 Crown of Thorns, 1 Gal. (Big Rose) 560 4.00 2,240.00 Thryallis 3 gal. (Varigated Flax Lily, 3g) 445 6.00 2,670.00 Thryallis 3 gal. (Dwarf Fakahatchee Grass, 3g) 190 6.00 1,140.00 Plumbago 3g 35 6.00 210.00 Total $20,262.00 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE Person signing this agreement must be authorized to enter such agreements and have read and agree to all specifications, terms, amounts, payments and procedures contained herein. Customer Title n o O � O z z a n b ry � O 0 n a7 d I D -1 v a 8 O�2 �i'SNOA�x'T��y51 2 p1ri OT�_Y��A c��^ A In �1 �m 7f 61 rmm a*TO LN .` VI y r N� Om2 �• A�i ° ti O xx pp� ' NneA T O= a p (A IZ�1$ r��'TC YTT =O lh A �Cyy A;C�� O �_TyyI A 'n ZW 1p�11prrrIII N_�brnIO !A r i CAI II �I I 1 I II 19' y I W I II II I. L� - H?RAC -E- 1 I I 1 1 1 II I I I II 1 y Y 1 1 1 I I I I I I x $ O 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 o � I Z 18 �I I D I I I I 1 i I I I I I a 11 at m a a � N o I' � � �{ N s h I, 16 VO, 17 n O r O 1 N O Ir+l A e N i CAI II �I I 1 I II 19' y I W I II II I. L� - H?RAC -E- 1 I I 1 1 1 II I I I II 1 y Y 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I II 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 O ZI I I I II o � I Z 18 �I I D I� I I I I 1 i I I I I I a 11 II a II III o O I I I I I I I I 1 I I i 1 I I 1 I I II I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 i I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I QI Um WPM" 141 1 StREET S.W. ZI Q 11 •• Ow RE a S.W. N w 0 161 §kPti i�eu azm H ?"E �x. w' %C � .. V, :m _A `rn9a Of wrn 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:20 p.m. by Chairman Richard Sims. No quorum was established. II. Attendance Members: Michael McElroy (Excused), Peggy Harris (Excused), Barbara Segura (Excused), Richard Sims, Pat Spencer County: Darryl Richard — MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich, Landscape Operations Manager, Caroline Soto — Management Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator Others: Michael McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens - Hannula, Sue Flynn - Kelly Services Darryl Richard distributed the GG MSTU FY -2011 Budget. (See attached) He recommended the Committee have a Special Meeting to approval budget before April 1. He suggested the Committee review the work sheet prior to the Special Meeting. Ile reviewed the following — Y Staff hours are hours served. Time reported on Projects. Revenue stream — Once a year an adjustment is made on property values. o- Millage was capped at 0.5074 FY 2010. Discussion was made on landscape maintenance, trimming Juniper and removing grasses and Ixoras, instead of replacing them. It was suggested to do top - pruning on Juniper more often. Staff stated yellow Crown of Thorns in stock and could be used on Tropicana. 161 1H Darryl Richard stated the Committee had already approved $12,000 for replacement of Ixoras on "Tropicana. Richard Sims asked why JRL Design, Landscape Architect was not at today's meeting. Architect was chosen through the Collier County BVO Process. Darryl Richard reported the `BVO Process" is being challenged in court. The County has placed a Stop Work Order on all BVO chosen vendors. Darryl Richard reported Stormwater has plans to install culvers and piping. The installation will tear up the road. The road will require some replacement and patching of the road. Staff stated they have not reviewed the plans at this time. It was noted Brandy Otero, Project Manager would speak regarding the plans at the Golden Gate Civic Association and at a future GG MSTU Beautification Advisory Committee meeting. A Special Meeting to approve the Budget FY -2011 was scheduled for March 23 at 4:00 P.M. at 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for March 23, 2010 4:00 PM at 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL N+ S m W V W N A Y M+ 0 0 0 Y T N r Pr 41 N+ O m W r Jr W N A u N+ O W W V W N A u N+ 'Imm ~pCC �p,T�,T11 D Q 9�m�Iris C1 A� D C�ymO�DZ 22 y Z oo,ll1Dti pppDti AZ Z T OO 1 NN DOO DD ti0 TT-piT Z-ZI H OC1=C n�TO]I T=�)Z �p.lpiL Z I�i1�NI D ■ mmzOOZZ .DDU p P' mmmyymOOmz�pi(�pm D m=_n mom1 wx mm oomm Cfmi�3i�o p> py �mD C m-y]�m- < N p O` z m + ~= X O Mr m A O m N 0 2 Z m y Q O N .p �C .iT1 A X' O_ A O ,ZMW wti DD Z � m23>y 3 pm yi �ZI C �n� �T O<A.'0 i3 n0'�z m�^ ? 1C m n 2 by mCC) OO D'T D W C m3 N z 00�y> C Omyr� - Op O m 0 zZS r Dym p mz mm mmm�yy 2 C r r — z m 0 p X L7 p T N NTH m� C O Z Op -1 ~m r O m v m O r m 1 y5 6 b" S 3 3 3 '0 8 $ 3 b &� 8 6 a yy S aHwHHHHHHHHHHaHHH O D U O O O O O O O O U N O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O o O O O ..... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O HwaawHHHHHHHaHHHu W N N O m d N (mJ W O O m V O A lmJ m O mm o 0 omom Imo O+ O O m+ O N O O O H H H H a a H H H H H H H H H H -. NOl 'O ; X j j 222TT TTT n n m a Y mwor Z2 -m 3 r3 N N W 3.0 R 0 p p -3 Ip ry� 0 W$ W D C, Bm Y X m p � w w a a d d A A a a a A A A A d a a a U N U U U U U U U U N N U O D U U U 0 o O + N W U p A v U O N N n n f Ap A S T A my A a� n m O b+ O m N m N m V N N m m N O r S c j ._1 m r r ff r] n< � m T .... m o N .Y3 � O a _D >> o o m b 5 m R 'gd 51 Y N � r O bmm� N N fpD pU W W N prn U W N OI m W J N p O S O o 0 0 0 0 0 �D moo m W Nm (D (D (D N W N W N m m U m W W W fG N U O .......... H H H H H H a a H U 4mf N O A IVp � W O O m N A W m N N m m W O O m O m O W T »HwwawwHHHH N o �D n a a e 3 Ewa m inQ °m �� q b� N U w N p W W W 0 W ........... 7 O O =^ O O O O H H H H H H H H H H O O J m O V 3 Y 3 a' m » H H H H H H H H H H 1�A D 3 m " "m =zm C N + � � W T O n O z 3 y C N o w Wnc n N m O b W q b� N U w N p W W W 0 W ........... =^ D J m O V O m 0 dm Y 1�A D 3 m " "m =zm C N + � � W T O n O z 3 y C c - U)UJU) p �0 CD � - — —— 7 y d X09090 � nni v �p m o O m o m m vi c°� o m m U) n o m m� 0 U) n v n— v (D ��n, CD 30.00 m z r N N c'i O m w 0 Q �' � -• o � 3 111 N 7 c w CD 7 c m N 7 c n> 11 r it O0 CD .. U) c m I f v > 11 CL a. —o "3 o) ) ' 3. Q° A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A o (n Cn (n (71 Cn (n m Cn Cn U7 cn 0 Q Cn Cn CP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000"000 O O O (D O O O �� NW CnA 000�.1_l V Cn0N(n �C�CiAA- �-1�..� �mAA�f7 (-) O)O(nO •CO ON-IA O)NO - •NN O(nvN O W A w W (nO -I OOCO- >OON0mm vNN O)NO w (A FA FA *0 fA fA fA EA EA Fn fA lA to !fl fA EA EA EA fA !A O CD (n N A W (P p v _ w co A O W T V W N N CA O N W co O O O N W O W V9 N fA EA N d1 "q w iA EA Eli W *,9 fA CA fA EA EA 1.9 (A Z CO W CA (A of w K) _ Cn D. m -+ t V A V V O N O O W O V w (n p O W " W O p O O (n O O p OD W OD V CA CA CD m T O j fA EA /fl <-A W dn i (A W fA IA fA N "9 69 f(O A ii CA A R tN O co co + O N V O n ' C? OD CO O T N W O N O j O O ( O J . n O )1 V O O O < O M fA fA EA fA N (A fA EA <A EA Hi EA N EA (A di di fA EA (A d W W N O N W OD O N m w w (n w v of 01 QD o O (O in O O o O N (n O aD ( , O O � (n < o fA fA to EA to to w to H CA EA EA Vi CA di CA EA fA [A fA T W J 0) A CD (n ID - Q N w N (A N A CP O ODD (n O N O O OODD A V W N V O d J EA 4A (fl fA A ",9 A "9 'j, fA (A W Vi fA EA A fA CA (A W A m y N (VD N cn 0) OD O W O V A O CNi+ O O (po (n O A (D v O co OD 7, < r O D T < O d < J L C T O 1 M 3 C CL -n -n N O C CD d0 N CT N O W 3 o CA 1 C 161 cr, �1 w w; N N N NHN N ... ..... .. , m m 00 00 + g u m 8'd'$8 a8 8 8 §8$ 88 0 0 �� 8�P+'TSB o$ o'o apy,myy %y JZ yyq p?y -i (y(ynnp000 ,•1 yWN y r �r r... _.rN i.y. �.. i.y. .. r.. _. S2< CmT�NFTOTC aoC OC yyS A'a 'Lm .pp4 -1 0; r mm TT $QNm ;'T 'U T(T/1 IINn11I1y C2ZA !(1� �mNT TT _ .12 1110 SJ�2 y oA OA $ •1 T -N1 •Sj xA Z ^F} '�1 � 0 -1 �1 y ilMMyl y N N O p m 9m CO A' pm� p rys iii` �T2Cp$�j r 0_ R O yO y m ii � � •TyO�+�O��j y�01 � �� y A �j STlpp�i r�e 000N 0 m o$��Q1q< �p Ct(N// q pp< O O C,A •$� y HZ D' Tn 11xr1111 f• ii In -0TZ T y 9s F 0 RIA gNND <( T2 op [o .L4, pp yy oo y y p eo yyyp y XO y A'111 pym 4yR y"yFmAA y0 p N(((pT��joZ 'jZNm y a �y iFm 0OA 0i d oA (y01AB mC �- _D1��; y �T 2 N�Z� � �QQQm �Nja o� �_� � Bill w� O 0y i 2200 im O �{ �0 O P T O T D1 N Nm T Om 0 K pJN Or -T1 !'jb-1 O 0 T 4Ti0 pp O @.O NN K T O QKNC 5 N_ br1 n D 3P Z m c m Z T 0 Z, T m o ., ' 1 y$ o w T n y �Ai m Z Y o m g I a A k A N T l � p j it yq pa yyaa yyyyN NN NN11��QQ N U .� .i O -U J NNb �$ e O Ne� Y04�OgiGS 0+0 VJ1j J O mo O o P o $ $ �'e1�Ei ^�� _o�000000�S Y ur�miv �`§' oS um Q ro Na n O o ueo � 00000r:lgmSoo �ou $� �, o �^�_� Oc0000000N� U N P Q S � rrr }a� �y }}Y O!ggJ NN W mW tyyY pP Tg +gQO Py� +QUQ QONgUQ+p O Wg+pN UU eoo 00 8�� 60000000008 �3$S 8 0 $o 08o ea 2i ' �gSO ES3ooSESSo$ 3oE HA [ge Hi }}�� yy QQ •y iw gY 1y1yo W yuy r, §}Y gg a r N eoo eo Hi Bm o OOOOOOOB m E7a$ S$ o Sc oSo 0o e+�O ' io�oeo��og am> 8 8iL m W Uv qq++ {{ uu o E 000 a eoo oaoocoa0000 JP Oo 0o eo E�g }o�ou00000&mSoOO ooS m o eo 0 $oco yO O O O O' P O O O O O O O O O S fY trail S$ O O O O O O W ' Ego +� oWm o�co�000r:l$d000 �o1d' o °o °Wo 0 a + a tI Z:y QW@ 2yyl 911 � � I � W,,� 8 of o eo i' IJp� +�� 000 �•C E'G {fb� 13 1 ,.1P.. 5 I I Ne YN a uf$Q1g J y 1 PyQ y. Jy yy •gg pp yy.� • y ��11 mmQ QNQ ��i1 QNQ ygj� lga QAQ QGQ fQQJ Sr�pssj A.Q0 Ag 5 moo eoE2S boocoeoocoE ESa �e3 o 60 00 0o EE25OSOSaS000a a'So 6 SS 3oa 0 m m 3 pg 7 000 eoo 00000000000 a eoo Oo 0 o G 00 0o eo 000 000c0000000000 000 Oo o + � K _ g y'1Qg Sty ym eco oc a2S8 800cocccccPS t C25S $C o C AL eo p + Q Q+ 8 m + �� o oo8�oee6�beco o $ v 000 eo SS8 S000000 ob$ '+$ 000 rr o 0 0$0 00 89,§ m�u m8 � m �1Op8�ocpOco8��0g p88� o � ZCo {,A�11 U N yy Q Q Q UQ qqO q Oq O QQO J qqq qpO q$q q$q O q gq N O p X DDD DD yyJe �� er1�� y�.J QQco � QQ� �e� iF %XX XlKFDiFXXMbDXOMXDM XM� ;R X u i�XX XDDDDDD DXM X XXX XX D i�D bXD DD a�D< eoo eo e8 boo 9 15 8 88 S R moo U em 1,4x Y T'T KTr s y a 0 m 1p0 w 3 °s i 0 m 3 161 m °m�mm 0 o -oo- Nas i smes� °moo s Ml84 V j a Seffi 2 T9 9-99i9� m = �AAAAA R �' yF F FAA yF yF A j �AAAAA S m[n0�0pp0 n00 y it�T FL] mmmm nti i0�vm o ii 2 K A m m ymy yy «ASZi 10000 CICCCC mmmm .1) 0 00, 00001;- $ mmmW U � 9 °0000 oho e o 8 $oo oiS i e °oo °om O b E G O O O O O :�s�s -oss Par A o G o B� gGyg s g Sb0000a 'm i� Knsnaa� 1 1 9 141 n° <3 Fiala RECEIVED Halas 17F� 61 1 November 19, 2009 MAR 1 o 2010 Henning Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, November 19, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3"' floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Vice- Chair: ALSO PRESENT: Tatiana K. Gust, Staff Liaison Valaree D. Maxwell Manuel Gonzalez David Correa Renato F. Fernandez Bill Forbes Ileana Ramos Mario Ortiz Zetty Rivera Excused: Alex Baldn Misc. Cares: Ddb: 041a_l Ito 16 1� November 19, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:00 PM and a Quorum was established. II. Approval Meeting Agenda Mario Ortiz made a motion to approve the Meeting Agenda. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried 5 -0. Lleana Ramos joined the meeting at 6 :01. III. Approval of Minutes from September 17, 2009 Meeting: Renato Femandez made a motion to approve the Minutes of October 22, 2009 as submitted. Second by Mario Ortiz. Motion carried, 6 -0. IV. Old Business A. Housing Report — Zetty Rivera Manny Gonzalez joined the meeting at 6:03 pm. Mrs. Rivera indicated that there are government programs to help the people in Immokalee in regards to housing problems. Mrs. Rivera would like this committee to help people in bnmokalee to apply for affordable housing and financing. David Correa joined the meeting at 6:07 pm. Mr. Gonzalez advised Mrs. Rivera that she can be involved, participate and help the Immokalee community as long as she doesn't state representation of the Hispanic Affair Advisory Board or Collier County. Anyone can help in their own time. Other members of the board also expressed their opinions. B. Law Enforcement Report — Manny Gonzalez • This report was focused in traffic violations. Mr. Gonzalez met with lieutenant Harold Minch and share the following information with the group, - Naples currently has 12 operative traffic cameras -The intersection with the highest rate of violations is Golden Gate Parkway and 951_ The second point with a high rate of violations is Vanderbilt Beach Road and US. 41. Cameras are not installed in state roads. -The cameras take pictures and videos on a steady red light. This means that if the light is red and the driver doesn't stop, the driver will get a ticket. -The fine for this violation was originally $125.00, and then was negotiated to be $100 and thru further negotiations the current fine is $62.00. -This program is run by the Code Enforcement; they regulate the enforcement of law in Collier County. -To avoid a ticket, stop in a red light. In right turn, you still have to stop. 161 November 19, 2009 -About 12,000 violations have been issued. -Since the cameras have been installed, there have been no collisions at those intersections. -If a traffic ticket is issued for running a red light there are no points assigned to your license. Citation will get thru the mail in a registered citation. It has 3 pictures of your car. if you lend the car you are responsible and liable. -In a red light STOP, STOP, STOP. Members made further comments in regards to this topic. The next meeting of minority task force will be held in Immokalee and the topic for discussion will be immigration issues. Mr. Gonzalez invite any member that is interested in participate. If more than one member assist to the meeting there shall be no discussion in any subject between HAAB members due to the Sunshine Law. C. Census Report: David Correa • Mr. Correa provided an update in regards to the preparedness for the next 2010 census. The census is recruiting people for test givers and census takers; they are in need of multilingual volunteers. Mr. Correa indicated that it is important that all people are counted because funding to communities is based on population numbers. Census workers will be sent -out to homes up to 5 times, if form has not been filled -out. There is a debate among some political groups in regards to count illegal immigants. Some of the immigrant don't want to be counted but obtaining the actual number of people living in a specific area is very important not only for the federal government but for the county as well. Projections for city planning and infrastructure use the census findings to develop a plan. If the census does not represent the actual number of people living in a specific area, then the planning is affected as well. The federal government tried to pass a law that the illegal are not counted because it will increase the political representatives in the government. The federal government and some political parties feel that that representation shall be for citizens only. They are also trying to go after the adult migrant population because they can be educated. The goal is majorly for funding purposes. Discussion by the members followed this report. Members expressed their different opinions in regards to the subject of counting the illegal immigrants. V. New Business A. Objectives for Hispanic Affair Advisory Board during year 2010. Members decide that they will think about goals that each of them would like to accomplish for the next year and will discuss it during the next schedule HAAB meeting. Renato Fernandez excused himself from the meeting at 7:01 pm. 1 161 1 �y November 19, 2009 Mr. Ortiz found an interesting DVD named Immokalee USA. It highlights social problems found in the Immokalee community. He will do a presentation at his community and extend the invitation to the HAAB members. VI. Member and Staff Comments • Ms. Gust request help from the members in regards to the motion process and speaking directly to the microphone to keep and maintain accurate records. • Ms. Gust will be contacting the members two weeks before each meeting to include in the agenda any relevant topic that the members would like to discuss. • A good source of information about Hispanic population is the Naples Daily News edition named "Vista Semanal ". • Hodges University, is preparing a document for the Hispanic community. • Holiday wishes were given by the Board members. • No meeting during December. VII. Public Comments (None) VIII. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (None) IX. Next Meetings: January 28, 2009 Valaree Maxwell made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30. Second by Bill Forbes. Motion carried 7 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:30 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Valaree D. Maxwell, Chairman The Minutes were app�ed by the Board/Committee on 2 11J�U as presented V or as amended Fiala ��E� l6 I �y Halas %j RECEIVED January 28, 204 MAR 3 0 2010 Henning Cyle/'�oI1�{� i12i 3: pl LO',i p(1 i.01illi11551611Li v ColeIW MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, January 28, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3`a floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Manuel Gonzalez- Vice-Chair: Mario Ortiz Renato F. Fernandez- Bill Forbes Alex Balan Valaree D. Maxwell Excused: Ileana Ramos David Correa Zetty Rivera ALSO PRESENT: Tatiana K. Gust, Staff Liaison Mr. Victor A. Valdes, public Misc. Cares: Date: Item 9 c er" s to 16 1 1 lky January 28, 2010 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:06 PM and a Quorum was established. I1. Approval Meeting Agenda Manuel Gonzalez made a motion to approve the Meeting Agenda. Second by Bill Forbes. Motion carried 5 -0. III. Approval of Minutes from November 19, 2009 Meeting: Renato Femandez made a motion to approve the Minutes of November 19, 2009 as submitted. Second by Bill Forbes. Motion carried, 5 -0. Mario Ortiz joined the meeting at 6:11. IV. New Business A. Selection of new chairman Manuel Gonzalez was nominated for chairman by Renato Fernandez, second by Bill Forbes. Motion Carried 6 -0. Mr. Gonzalez accepted position as the new chairman. B. Selection of new vice- chair Mario Ortiz was nominated for vice -chair by Bill Forbes, second by Alex Balan. Motion Carried 6 -0. Mr. Ortiz accepted position as the new vice- chair. V. Old Business A. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare — Alex Balfin Mr. Balan presented a report and he identified four factors affecting healthcare within Hispanic population: 1. Many Hispanic are less likely to be offered health insurance by employer 2. Language barrier. There are not enough practitioners that speak Spanish 3. Lack of familiarity leads to fear, Hispanics fear the system 4. Lack or deficient healthcare system in their native country, so Hispanics keep the tradition in here. Hispanic do not use preventive healthcare, people wait for the condition to get better and just go to the doctor when is late The average charge in Collier County for emergency services is around $2,000.00 which is a lot more expensive that the regular doctor visit. This cost causes insurance companies to raise the premiums or the charge is absorbed by others when people don't have money to pay for it. A local company has an in house doctor to take care 161 1 A5 January 28, 2010 of the people. Since the doctor has been in staff, the insurance premium has been reduced by half. Solutions, the most important is education, talk to people to do annual checkups, go to the doctor when they feel bad, teach them that there are other options when they don't feel good. Some other solutions are that hospitals or physicians shall provide interpreters. The floor was open to member's opinions in regards to this subject. Mr. Fernandez indicated that the government is already doing what they can with publicity in Spanish. Mr. Ortiz indicated that limited English speakers in its majority are immigrant laborers. They have very limited education and he understands why is a problem for this segment not been able to access to healthcare. The better education that the immigrants have, help them to better manage themselves and manage their life. Ms. Maxwell also stated that is not only Spanish, it is everybody. People live from pay check to paycheck. People know that if they go to the emergency room, the hospital won't turn them away even if they don't have money to pay the bill. The interesting thing is that the kids than have gone to 12 years of high school but they are undocumented follow the same pattern because they were brought here when they were little and know they don't have any options. They don't have the means to go to a regular doctor. Mr. Forbes: Wellness is a new concept for non Hispanic as well. People fear the system and they don't want to use it unless is necessary. Mr. Gonzalez: Is a lot of merit of what Alex discovered. There is a lot of fear among undocumented because they can be sent back to their country. Many Hispanics rely in natural remedies and they go to the doctor only when they cannot take care of the problem by themselves. The real problem is when people come to the country with problems such as tuberculosis, aids, etc. The question is, are these people legally in the country? Is the government responsible for the education of these illegal persons? The hospitals will find the way to get pay. You brought attention to a great topic. C. Educational report — Valaree Maxwell We are becoming the majority race. It is amazing the amount of Latinos in this country that still not fixing many of the problems that we have. One of her biggest concern is those that immigrate with small children 18 -20 years ago and they have been undocumented. Their children, now young adults cannot go to college because they are undocumented as well. For those that don't have money there are stimulus package to go to college, it won't pay for everything but it will cover a good portion. Basically they have to go to 3 161 l i�y January 28, 2010 workforce development and they help them. This is for people with high school education to get a degree. To help kids that didn't have another choice. Help them with financial aid and to pay the loans back. In collier county we have a lot of money available, even for the county schools and private schools, so certain people can get tutors paid by collier county. We will be paying for it? Yes, but it will help people. Mr. Ortiz: Who is eligible for it, for the stimulus package? Ms. Maxwell: Is based in income. You are responsible for your child education until the age of 23. If it turns out that the parent can't help the student, then they will let the student seek financial aid if they are over 21. This help is for people returning to school, there is not limitation in the age group, this is for everybody. Mr. Gonzalez: He is a firm believer that the road to success is paved by education. Not everyone can be a doctor or a lawyer or a professor. College can be a catalyst for success. From personal research, he found out that junior colleges thru ought the country put out 83% of our fast response members EMT, police and fire. Not everyone is geared to go thru college. Many people don't have the drive to get education but they can pick up trades. Ms. Maxwell: Edison College has 6 bachelor programs, so now the State the Florida still recognizes them as a community college so students are eligible for scholarship. The scholarship award is not based in income, is based in academic grades giving the students the opportunities to excel no matter from where they come. Mr. Gonzalez: Another way that student get help is thru the military so they get US citizenship, and they can go to college. However, many candidates do not pass the physical exam. B. Objectives for Hispanic Affair Advisory Board during year 2010. They will get back to this point later in the meeting. Vl. Member and Staff Comments Mr. Forbes informed the HAAB members that Vista Seminal is emphasizing in Collier County only. Within the month they will be identifying certain zip codes and they will be including vista seminal within the regular newspaper. Mr. Forbes also mentioned that the Hispanic Institute at Hodges Institute will be publishing 200 pages report in Hispanic Demographics in Lee and Collier County, this is a downloadable report an accessible for anyone with a computer. This was done to encourage County Government to follow the implication and conclusions of demographics that we are dealing with. This year with the census will be updated regularly. The document can be found at www.hodges.edu. Mr. Gonzalez gave an update in the documentation required to obtain a driver license. Anyone obtaining a driver license in United States, need to provide a proof of birth. 161 1Wc2 January 28, 2010 Then the department of motor vehicle will verify with the birth town. This is part of the REAL id act. Many people that is driving today and is undocumented will not be able to obtain a driver license in the future. This is important for the Hispanic community to be aware. Mr. Gonzalez also stated that if you find yourself idle or in need of doing something you can contact habitat for humanity and help people that does not qualify for affordable housing. They can put houses up in one day. This is a voluntary group. So if you can find a group, habitat for humanity will find work for everyone to do and they provide food. Back to Old business B. Objectives for Hispanic Affair Advisory Board during year 2010. In previous meeting each member selected an area to report about. Bill Forbes selection is not clear. Mr. Gonzalez, indicated that in the past HAAB had set mission statement and goals, however they have been difficult to attain, measure and determine success. Essentially, many of those are the committees that we have formed for topics of interest to the Hispanic community. These committees are within limitation and parameters of our ordinance. Which sympathetically identify or evaluate problems within the Hispanic community or shall review and recommend ways to ensure communication between the Hispanic community and the government, or shall provide periodic report directly the BCC for review. The board may have meeting with other advisory board to evaluate problems. HAAB must focus on the issues that affect the county. VII. Public Comments Mr. Victor Valdes is the national commissioner for civil rights of the largest and oldest organization for civil rights in American LULAC, the right commissioner in the state of Florida for LULAC, State director for district #7 and president of council #7115. LULAC stands for the older organization of civil rights. They are 80 years old and they stand for better life for Hispanic people, to build a bridge within all communities, we are for the civil rights and against civil rights violation, for education among many other things. LULAC is the oldest and biggest organization of civil rights in USA. Mr. Valdes was the founder of the older newspaper in SW Florida, "Las Naciones Newspaper" they found it 26 years ago. He is the publisher and editor of the newspaper. He wants to tell us that he was one of the first members of the HAAB. Mr. Valdes has a comment in regards to the objectives of the Hispanic Affair Advisory Board. This board was created for people from the county could come and present their issues and or suggestions to the BCC thru the HAAB. He suggests that the board needs to communicate more with the people in the streets. There are many Hispanic newspapers and other media to communicate that you are here for the Hispanics. If you don't listen to people you don't know what is happening in the community. Let people know that you are here. Try to reach for the people. When they start this board they had 100 participants and they were getting smaller until what it is today. 16 1 1 k5 January 28, 2010 Valaree left the room at 7:23. We can work together so people can come and know about the different topics of interest, and you will be happy to have people here. Mr. Valdes will help to spread the word thm his news paper. You cannot fix everything but you can listen. Valaree came back at 7:25. Mr. Valdes is part of the council for the city of Cape Coral in regards to Hispanic issues. Mr. Gonzalez: HAAB is bounded by rules. If you think that there is an issue that is affecting the Hispanic community, please bring it to us so we can take it to the BCC. Mr. Valdes also provided some background in regards to his past experience with a former sheriff of Collier County Mr. Hunter. VIII. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (None) IX, Next Meetings: February 25, 2010 Manuel C. Gonzalez made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:43. Second by Bill Forbes. Motion carried 6 -0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:43 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE — i , (Icey-- 0 " (05�� Manuel C. Gon–Aler, Cha an The Minutes weret apBroved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended ?F ,0VED ialA 161 1 k5 tr MAR 3 0 2010 1 -ialae Henning February 25, 2010 •t i,m,i ^ry t'.ormissionsrs Moyle "'Oletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COIA IER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, February 25, 2010 1,FT IT BF RFMFMBF,RFD that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3`d floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Manuel GOnZ£IICZ. David Correa Alex Balan (Excused) Renato F. Fernandez (Excused) Bill Forbes (Absent) Valarce D. Maxwell (Excused) Mario Ortiz (Excused) Ileana Ramos (Excused) Zetty Rivera (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Tatiana K. Gust, Staff Liaison Mr. Victor A. Valdes, public Misc. Corres: Date: Item " ",es to: 161 j 4s February 25, 2 0 1. Call to Order/Welcome A quorum was not established. At 6:15 Mr. Gonzalez invited the member from the public, Mr. Valdes to present his message so he did not assist to the meeting in vain. Mr. Valdes editor of "Las Naciones" news paper and "Nuevos Fcos" wants to get the attention of the Conun till ity towards the hispanic Af fairs Advisory Board. Mr. A'aldes knows that not everything can be resolved but at least the board can listen to people and pass the concerns of the public to the BCC. Starting now Mr. Valdes will have some space in his newspaper to communicate with the community affairs related to the HAAB. Mr. Valdes requires that emails are sent to him for press releases on or before the 10`s of each month. In this way Mr. Valdes will cooperate with the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board to spread the word. Mr. Gonzalez: What kind of information are you looking for? Dates of the meeting or what are we planning or projecting for the next months. For example today Mr. Gonzalez wanted to establish the committees. Mr. Valdes: is in general to let people know that this is open to the public and they can present their concern. Mr. Valdes: In that regards we will appreciate your help to spread the word around. Chairman Gonzalez announced at 6:30 pm that, due to the failure to achieve a quorum, the meeting of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board would not be held. All business will be continued to the next scheduled meeting. Next Meeting: March 25, 2010. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was concluded by order of the Chair at 6:45 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE anuel,3C zalez, Chatrman These Minutes were approved by the Board /Committee on as presented V or as amended Fiala ( RECEIVED 161 1 ' Halas APR 0 8 2010 Coyle Coletta i Fcbruary 19, 2010 ioo,.q d J ^u07y "ommis� =0:��r:. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, February 18, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the Immokalee Sports Complex, Immokalee, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN VICE CHAIRMAN John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phillip Brougham Kerry Geroy David Saletko William Shafer (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager Miss. Conw: Date: ( I , To� O Item #:.. L �J L �� 161 1 A February 18, 2010 If. (Call to Order Cbairman Ribes called the meeting to order at 2:OOpnn and a quorum was established. ll. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. Ill. Approval of Agenda Mr. Oleskv moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following addition: Item V.1 — Chuck McMahon, Golden Gate Little League Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried uttaniruousty 5-0. IV. Approval of Jlanuary 20, 2010 anuhmies M;-. Brougham? moved to approve the rriraates of the .laimary 20, 2010 meeting subject to tlxe,foltowing correction:. Page 2 — Item IV. - from "Second by Ms. Brougham" to "Second by Mr. Brougham." Second iiy Als. Geroy. Carried unerdinotisty 6 -0. aI. New Business A. Chuck McMahon — Goldeaa (vate Little League Chuck McMahon, Golden Gate Little !League presented petition signed by approximately 70 persons and photographs which document concerns over the condition of the Little League fields at Golden Gate Community Park. The League had opening ceremony on February 13, 2010 and found the facilities sub standard. He addressed the Board highlighting: • Poor drainage on the fields • Lack of pitchers mounds • Electrical box in disrepair • t to has been informed the Staff will only "line" the playing field once a week, which is unacceptable based on the amount of play. The bathrooms were inaccessible. Concern on enforcement of parking regulations for the boat ramp spaces after 5:00 pm He expressed concern the facility has been "abandoned" by the County since Panics and Recreation Department Administrative Staffrelocated to North Collier Regional Park. The League pays fees to use the facility and the existing conditions of the fields are unacceptable. I le requested the Board and Staff-to take action to address the problems. Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation requested the League supply Staff with their schedule of evenLs in advance. Mr. McMahon noted Staff, at some Icvel was aware of the event. He will provide a schedule to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams noted Staff would conduct a site visit on February 24, 2010 to address the concerns. a) Employee of the Month for (December 161 1 _p February 18, 2010 The Board recognized Greg Torres as Employee of the Month for Dceember. V1. 'Old Business a) Bayview Park Parking Plans — Gary McAlpin Barry Williams provided tine update noting the concept to increase the number of parking spaces at Bayview Park in the area of the existing parking and play area will he heard by the Board of County Commissioners in March. The County has not determined the future status of the parcels acquired in the neighborhood for the original concept of expanding the parking in the area. Indications are the new plan addresses the concerns expressed by the homeowners who reside in the area. Nlr. Saletko arrived at 2.-301)m b) Vagle Lakes Community Cen'ier — Paarry Williams Barry Williams provided an update on the concept of utilizing the approximately $2.5M reserved for the development of Manatee Park for construction of a Community Center, Fitness Center and Aquatic Center at Eagle Lakes Community Park The current economy has caused a delay in the construction of Manatee Park which may not be constructed for 5 -- 10 years. In March the County intends to open up public dialogue on the concept to assist in providing a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. lie noted it is the County's intent to ensure the residents affected by a decision are in favor of the concept before proceeding. VIL 10�[ iarketingHighlights — 5r. Expo, Spring Events —Annie Alvarez Senior Expo was held at Golden Gate Community Center on February 10, 2010 with approximately 50 vendors in attendance. Staff is pursuing a .S'unrmer event with the inclusion of various non profit organizations who provide recreational programs to the public (YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, etc.) At the March meeting, the Summer Camp Campaign will be presented to the Board. VIII. Recreation highlights — Immokalee After School & 13oot Camp 1'.+ftness Classes — Annie Alvarea. A major renovation of the Immokalee Sports Complex continues. To date, the locker rooms, etc. have been renovated. Staff is currently obtaining estimates for the replacement of the basketball court flooring and bleachers. The Complex is home to a large summer camp program which serves the residents of Everglade City, Immokalee, Labelle, Lehigh Acres, etc. An overview was provided on the Immokalee After School & Boot Camp Fitness Classes. IX. Capital Projects — Immokalee South Park - Tony Roberto An update on the status of the renovations proposed for the Park was provided noting: • The project has a budget of approximately $1 M and includes the construction of a Community Center. • 'there are existing structures on site which will be removed via demolition or Fire Department Training exercises. 161 1M February 18, 2010 ® A $147,000 Federal Grant was received to help fund the project. • The project will be bid out utilizing the Best Value Offer (BVO) Program. c The proposed Community Center will be 4100 square feet with an estimated construction cost of $200 a square foot. O It is anticipated the project will be completed by July 2010. It ivas noted Staff should consider the concept of alloxving the buildings currently on site be acquired by any interested individuals and relocated off site. 2�. Adopt a Park— Kerry Geroy A written report "Adopt a Park, Sudgen Regional Park— February 2010" was presented to the Board for review. She recommended Staff consider evaluating the manner information is made available to the public regarding the Recreational Programs provided at various facilities. As an example, consideration of web pages dedicated to the individual facilities activities, etc. Xl. Director Highlights — Barr -y NiMams Barry Williams noted he was provided very little advance notice of Mr. McMahon's presentation regarding the conditions of the Little Lcague fields at Golden Gate Community Park. I Le Look issue with the concept of the County "abandoning the Park." In the past 3 years, the County has invested approximately $13M in the Park including drainage improvements, re- grading soccer and baseball fields, new playground equipment, new picnic shelter, new boat ramp, new fencing, resurfacing of tennis courts, new water slide, construction of a maintenance shed. Ile provided the following Director I Iighlights: o The Senior Games are underway. o Staff met with Brandon Dowdy, CEO of YMCA to discuss the opportunities available for partnering activities and events between his organization and Parks and Recreation. It was noted this concept should be expanded to other non profit organizations involved in recreational activities (Boys and Girls Club, Step by Step, ctc.) e The development of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan required by the Growth Management Plan moves forward with a proposal for development of the plan being provided by Tinclale- Oliver and Associates, Inc. A scope of work for development of the Plan should be available in April. • The drawings for Airport Park in Immokalee have been completed. • The expansion to the 951 boat ramp has been completed. XII. Informational Items Submitted X111. Public Comments /Board Member Comments Ms. Geroy requested Staff to conduct a site visit orthe boat facilities- at Bayview Park. There are some pylons which should be padded as there screws sticking out posing a safety 4 161 l �� I,_hlwily IS.'_(II(I an, .l 1)11I11iI! 11x117 LI. nl,ac rb-Cat, :!Cr, III, b" in, ;atI cd I ,I tie „iI , MI,I z h „at::I, I „ad ,Ind mll,,.Il I h „.rt:. Barn AA illiaar. 51, 'l, titan v. i4i ,:,:n!.�r! di, 11,111 11, I.,1 a ,uc I i'il_ S:u-n l \illi:nu�: � ,�rl� ;, .u�i mamrnl� o.i!I h clnh:iie�i ,� ��.Ili,a� their rr Iclrnc�: tur I'i CCiA ii7•• I11C�Iii1J Ill It JL_ (.'I,tiln,nl- ;nail. �JIC.I N1 r. "aled,f)!C,- nnr.:nd Ill W,I wil ut PM �`.:eilitIc...i, nrcc „an I,, rn.,lil111 til. huhli, ,,f ii0111, I',cl Alec lw-' lls% d. Ill. Il iir i I I I;i,u1Irturc (!,t_I�i�tp .ncccr i� Ill- Ih ,��t ��r•l.>r _Ind hillnl_ i "tn-halk ;I'll, h I. I lit v.I, Ild I cdu(: .ill ,;In,l 1:MI 1t11 ;I:: I IIlII IIl :1tt lkhl)r I, .III I'll i III, 'lecoilir, tic, lN1P INt N,idMt I hers hcin;; nn further' business (ur the �,�,ond of the ('Imnt�. the nlretiu,I, �IaN adjutn-ned In order of the ('hair of 3:31) P \l. (I)lLIFR(v)1iYfV PARR,ti& RE( RlA11011 AD%ItiOR1 Bt'I'l,RD ( hairma .lnhn I ltibcs I hc« Alinutr; .q,ni„�ril h� 1hr 13,cu',I (umnntice m � a �.� � �� - a.,lllc.,rntcil x I,r;r,.unclnfi,i RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2010 ,ioanl or County Commissioners MINUTES OF Fiala nF /_rte______ 161 1 a Halas Henning December 10, 2009 Coyle OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Naples, Florida, December 10, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM, in REGULAR SESSION, in the Human Resources Conference Room, Building `B," 3301 East Tamiami Trail, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle, BCC Commissioner Stephen Russell, State Attorney Sheriff Kevin Rambosk, Chief Correctional Officer Mike Orlando, Supervising Assistant Public Defender, (Designee for Public Defender Kathy A. Smith) Pamela Donelson, Circuit Administrator, State Probation Office Charles Rice, Director, County Probation Office David Schimmel, Chief Executive Officer, David Lawrence Center Christine Holmes, Admin., Batterers Intervention Program NON - VOTING: Rich Montecalvo, Assistant State Attorney, (Designee for St. Attorney Stephen Russell) Mark Middlebrook, Collier County Court Administration Chief Scott Salley, Sheriffs Office ALSO PRESENT: Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Skip Camp, Director, Facilities Management Mike Sheffield, Assistant to County Manager Dab: Cwres: 161 161 December 10, 2009 I. Introduction A. Call to Order Commissioner Fred Coyle called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM and a quorum was established. B. Approval of PSCC Meeting Minutes from June 11, 2009 Correction: On Page 4 — under "Item IV — Member Comments /Suggestions," change Chief Sally to Chief Salley. Chairman Coyle asked for a clarification of "Item B. — Jail "Snap- Shot" Report" on Page 3 concerning the number of documented gang members - average daily population. Chief Salley explained that "a -d -p" referred to the total number of inmates incarcerated averaged out during a thirty -day period. Chairman Coyle suggested substituting "per average jail population" in the sentence as follows: • Number of documented gang member has increased from 35 to 59 per average jail population David Schimmel moved to approve the Minutes of the June 11, 2009 Meeting as amended. Second by Sheriff Rambosk. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. II. Old Business A. Update on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement /Collier County Sheriff's Office Partnership — Chief Scott Salley A PowerPoint Presentation entitled "Corrections — Descriptive Statistics and Program Activity (October 1, 2007 — October 31, 2009) " was given. • CATF ( "Criminal Alien Task Force ") conducted a total of 8,912 inmate interviews to date and 5,654 were determined to be illegally present (63 %) • Criminal illegal aliens average charge: one felony and six arrests • No "profiling" is conducted — all illegal aliens are subject to review regardless of country of origin • 2,034 inmates were transported to the ICE ( "Immigration & Customs Enforcement ") detention facilities at Krome Avenue by the U.S. Marshall's Office • Daily cost to house an illegal alien is approximately $118 • Savings to Collier County: $4.23M Chairman Coyle noted it was decided to establish a Re- Integration Subcommittee at the June 11, 2009 meeting, and asked for a progress report. (See "New Business — A. ") III. New Business A. Discussion regarding the Criminal Justice, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant — David Schimmel 161 1 61 December 10, 2009 Approximately two years ago, the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Corporation was awarded funding to provide Diversionary Grants to counties, but Collier County was not eligible at the time During 2010, the MHSAC will distribute funding for Implementation Grants (approximately $300,000 for three years) The David Lawrence Center requested an endorsement from the PSCC to create an Advisory Group to develop a Strategic Plan which will address several issues including re- integration, diversion, Mental Health & Substance Abuse, and Crisis Intervention Training o DLC will work in conjunction with the Collier County Sheriffs Office to develop the Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan must be in place in order to apply for an Implementation Grant and should analyze which in -place services have been effective and where there are "gaps" in the system The David Lawrence Center will offer its administrative services to prepare required paperwork and coordinate with Housing & Human Services to complete the Grant application which will be filed by the County Chairman Coyle asked about who would participate in the Advisory Group. Mr. Schimmel stated members from the PSCC were welcome as well as participation from various community groups as consumers, and that he and Chief Salley would provide initial leadership. He stated a report will be prepared and presented to the PSCC within six months after the Advisory Group has been formed. Chairman Coyle noted the meetings must be advertised in order to conform with Sunshine Law regulations if PSCC members are part of the Advisory Group. Assistant County Attorney Zachary clarified the Advisory Group will be a separate entity and not a Subcommittee of the Public Safety Coordinating Council. SherifjRambosk moved to endorse establishing an Advisory Group in cooperation with the David Lawrence Center and requested a report be presented to the PSCC. Second by Stephen Russell. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. Mike Sheffield stated he will schedule and advertise the meetings. Terri Daniels confirmed Housing & Human Services is available to assist the Advisory Group with grant writing and application preparation as needed. IV. Member Comments /Suggestions Mark Middlebrook referenced recent proposed legislation concerning pre -trial release and noted a recent statewide movement by bail bonding agencies to limit a County's ability to establish the criteria for pre -trial release. He stated pre -trial release is a cooperative effort between the Courts and counties to keep jail populations under control. The Pre -trial Release Program is currently supervised by the Sheriff s Office while the legislation would permit bail bondsman, as a for -profit company, to supervise Program participants for a fee. fie requested the PSCC send a letter to the Legislature opposing the legislation. 161 1 8, December 10, 2009 Chairman Coyle asked Mr. Middlebrook to draft a letter, stated he would sign it, and suggested sending a copy to the Board of County Commissioners. Charles Rice moved to approve drafting a letter for signature by the Chairman to be sent to the Legislature opposing any legislation that limits the authority of a County and/or Sheriff's Department to supervise a pre -trial release program and to petition the Board of County Commissioners to send a similar letter. Second by Pamela Donelson. Carried unanimously, 8 -0. Chairman Coyle asked for the topic to be added to the Agenda for the next meeting Chairman Coyle asked about the electronic monitoring system. Mark Middlebrook stated while more people have been placed on Electronic Monitoring, the system failed on three occasions and one of the monitoring agencies has been taken off line. The Probation Department may begin monitoring the program instead of using private providers. V. Public Comment (None) VI. Next Meeting: Schedule for 2010 will be announced There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL Commissioner The Minutes wer pproved by the Board/Committee on 3 Z� as presented or as amended