Loading...
CCPC Agenda 02/28/2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 2/21/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 February 28, 2019 5: 05 PM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. February 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 2/21/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. LDCA-PL20180003429 - Plantation Island Overlay-2.03.07 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to create the Plantation Island Overlay which will allow single family detached dwelling units as permitted uses in addition to the uses permitted by the underlying zoning district; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two - Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] February 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 2/21/2019 2. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow communications towers as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands and Conservation District; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.01.03 Essential Services and Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts, and Section 2.03.09 Open Space District; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 02/28/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 02/28/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 02/13/2019 11:39 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 02/13/2019 11:39 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/13/2019 11:39 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/28/2019 5:05 PM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 48 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 31, 2019 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 10:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION at Careersource, 750 South Fifth Street, Immokalee, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 48 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on. Good morning. Welcome to the January 31st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And as a special meeting, we're holding this meeting today in the career center -- Careersource at 750 South Street (sic) in Immokalee. And with that, we'll first start out with Pledge of Allegiance. If everybody will please rise. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman. MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice-chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn has an excused absence. He's on another matter he had to attend to today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chair, we have a quorum of six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addenda to the agenda, we have one item on today's agenda, and that is the beginning review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. This particular plan we've been -- this has been going on for quite a while. We were here back in 2010 or 2012, somewhere in that neighborhood, and attempted a similar plan at the time. We're back again. And as a startout to how we're going to do today, we're out here to listen to the citizens of Immokalee and what you think about the plan and what your perceptions are that the plan provides. And then over the course of today and other days, we'll be reviewing the plan, and your input will help us understand what you're expecting out of it. Today's meeting will go on till 2 o'clock, and at that time, if all the public speakers have at least had time to speak, we'll be breaking our equipment down and heading out, too. We will have a lunch period. The court reporter normally gets a break about every hour and a half or so, so we'll probably break for lunch at about 11:30, quarter to 12 and come back after lunch and finish up till 2 o'clock. And then another matter of today's meeting will be the way the presentation's going to occur. Staff is going to do a rather detailed presentation, I hope, in the beginning, and then after staff gets done, we may have some general questions from this panel, but I'm hoping that before we go too far we'll hear from the public that are here, hear your thoughts on what the presentation is based on. And so with that, let us move into the first public and only public hearing. It's PL20180002258. Now, this is -- Heidi, I believe -- and our County Attorney's Office is sitting on my left, your right, and county staff will be on the other side. This is legislative today, so we do not need swearing in. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 3 of 48 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that will save some time right there. And with that, I'll turn the beginning of the meeting over to the county staff, Anita Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: Thank you. Anita Jenkins with Community Planning, for the record. And as we mentioned, we're going to only talk about the Immokalee Area Master Plan today. And I'm going to review with you the plan amendments, and I'm going to go through the process, the community's visions and goals, and then do a little deeper dive into the substantial changes that were made to the adopted plan and then, again, like Mr. Strain said, we'll hear from the public, and then your discussion as well. And, Mr. Strain, it's okay with me if anybody wants to ask a question when I have a graphic up there or when I say something. It's okay with me, but it's up to you how you want to manage questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if someone has a question that they might lose the train of thought on if they don't ask it right away, that's great. We'll work with them. MS. JENKINS: If there's a graphic that's helpful to you as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So, first of all, in the process, the Immokalee Area Master Plan was first adopted in 1991, and it went through the last major change and revision back in 1997. From 2003 to 2008, this community established a master plan and visioning committee to rewrite the plan and to review, update, refine it. So at that time what they found is that the plan was not serving them well. It was a bit outdated from 1997. So they did a substantial rewrite of the plan, and that rewrite then was presented to the Planning Commission. And were any other planning commissioners other than Mr. Strain on the Board at this time? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) MS. JENKINS: And you were here. So you remember. So a long process of public hearings on the proposed plan. Also at that time it went through transmittal. The Planning Commission recommended transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners at that time, and through a series of adoption hearings, ultimately it did not reach the four votes to achieve adoption. So back in 2015 the Board of County Commissioners directed the planning staff to do a restudy of Immokalee and four other master plans in the Eastern Collier County area. So when we came back out to the community to say we're going to look at this again, just beginning at the beginning of 2018 with public workshops, we started that process with them, and we'll get into the changes that were made. But to describe what you have in your binders and what was in the staff report, the staff reports and the documents in 2012, what was presented as proposed and what was adopted, was a complete strikethrough of the adopted plan presented with a new plan, and we're going to go through those changes in detail. But why you don't have a strikethrough underline of the adopted plan compared to this plan is because it would kind of look like a Manafort indictment with redactions of everything except one word on a page. So it's rewritten so much that it was a just a complete strikethrough at that time. So that is the resolution that you have in your packet. Attachment A in your packet shows you a strikethrough underline of what we have done to date. So it shows you how it has evolved and how the community continues to work on this plan and the significant amount of time and public input that has went into the proposed plan that you have before you today. So the master planning process, the restudies today, we went through a series of public workshops, we refined the plan, we went back out to the public, refined the plan again. We met 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 4 of 48 with the chamber of commerce. We were at the CRA meetings each time. And that has led us to where we are today. And so today is a transmittal hearing, which ultimately results in a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners hopefully to transmit to the Department of Economic Opportunity, and then it goes to the State for review, they make some comments, then it comes back to you again for adoption with another recommendation to the Board of County Commission to adopt with any changes that are recommended by the Planning Commission. So that's our process. As you can see on this graphic, we're about halfway through it. We're at the beginning of our public hearings, and we have a ways to go to proceed through those. At the beginning of this restudy in 2008, one of the things that I do as a professional planner with the community or with the client is always try to establish a vision. What are you trying to accomplish? What's your vision? And, particularly, in this scenario, I thought that was important with the community because we wanted to make sure that every goal, objective, policy that we are proposing reflects back to that vision and furthers that vision. So it's very important. So I think this community and the vision that you can see on the slide here and that you had in your packets is one that many communities want. You want an attractive, quality community that supports the residents of all ages and all mobilities as far as automobiles down to pedestrians, and also it's focused on economic drivers that are important to Immokalee. So that's trade and distribution, manufacturing, agribusiness, and ecotourism. So when you read through some of the proposed policies, you'll notice that those are very specific to those industries. So let's look a little bit about how -- the adopted and the proposed change. And you can see up here on the slide that -- the adopted goals on the left, you had six of them; the proposed goals on the right, you now have seven of them. But when they -- when we started the public outreach process again this time, we put forth to the community the adopted goals and their proposed goals and said, are you sure this is -- the proposed goals are still serving your needs? Is there anything in the adopted goals that we want to keep? And what we found was that in these goals you can see No. 1 of the adopted goals, land use is now No. 5. Land use -- housing becomes quality neighbors. Natural resource protection is still there, No. 3 to No. 4. So the intent of the bigger picture remains in these goals, but the goals were simplified, substantially simplified. So I think they're clear, they're more concise, and easier to follow. So we're going to take a little bit closer look on these changes, but when the Board directed staff to look at these restudies, they specifically wanted us to look at these categories of land use, economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and also environmental sustainability. So for the purposes of helping the Board understand what our proposals are under those categories, I've arranged our presentation and the changes from "adopted" to "proposed" under these categories for you to look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Anita. One item about the replanning effort. There are four areas involved in the replanning effort. Those areas first got done back in the -- partly because of Governor Bush's order back in 1999. Then we got into the RFMUD, RLSA, Immokalee and Golden Gate Estates. The purpose of the replanning effort was that the time frames for each planning section were supposed to overlap the beginning of one of the other sections adjacent to it. For example, the RFMUD impacts Golden Gate Estates. So the RFMUD was supposed to concurrently be happening while Golden Gate Estates was reviewed, and the RLSA affects the Estates on the eastern side. So the RLSA was supposed to start up and have some elements known so that people in the Golden Gate 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 5 of 48 Estates area would know how their community is affected. Now, likewise, for Immokalee. Immokalee is surrounded by the RLSA. In fact, a meeting I had with you, what, a month ago you mentioned that Immokalee 's projected population is going to be about 47,000 at buildout. Well, in 2007, the county had projected Immokalee's population at 107,000. So, obviously, then, the RLSA's having an impact on Immokalee. But with the town's proximities that are on some of the early sheets showing where towns could possibly go in the RLSA, part of this effort was to see how those towns are going to impact the urban area of Immokalee. I didn't see any discussion about that in this document. And now may be a good time for you to tell me, how did you approach that? Since they haven't -- you haven't gone too far with the RLSA yet. MS. JENKINS: Right. So we're just finishing up the public workshops for the RLSA, and we'll be coming to -- with a white paper towards the middle of the year to show you how that's affected. But I think while the Board had this idea that it was going to flow very nicely, things don't usually work out that way. And we have an oversight committee that is helping Kris and I direct this process. So when they see things kind of not moving as quickly, we don't want to waste time on the full time frame to go ahead and start talking with other communities. Now, how that relates to the RLSA, we know that the RLSA is going to have a series of towns and villages that will be providing some of the housing that previous to that adoption may have been located in Immokalee. We also know that as agricultural is changed over to a town or village, that's going to take more agriculture land out of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. So it's going to be important that our policies for the agriculture zoning areas in Immokalee serve Immokalee. So I think that we're considering these things at all times and following our committee's direction in their scheduling of how we approach these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your committee's direction. What committee? MS. JENKINS: It's the Growth Management Plan Oversight Committee. We meet quarterly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they are the ones that basically modified the calendar so that we don't have the ability to see the impacts of the RLSA? The people of Immokalee wouldn't necessarily -- if their plan is completed before the RLSA is far enough long to know the impacts, they're not going to be able to modify their plan because by then their plan's already through the process. MS. JENKINS: Well, if we find at any time that there's a substantial change to the RLSA that will greatly impact Immokalee, you can always go back and amend a plan. This amendment is not the last amendment. You can see in the Immokalee plan that's adopted, there's been several private amendments or changes to the plan from other staff direction that has come to fruition. But right now, as the RLSA is adopted and the changes that we have heard from that huge review process, there's nothing that has come to mind specifically other than as the RLSA develops, agriculture's reduced in that area, so let's pay attention to agriculture in this area and also make sure that we have the housing opportunities in Immokalee that will further the goal for diversification for Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And just -- and we don't need to continue on with this point; I just wanted to make one more comment. Part of the purpose of the overlap was to be aware of the impacts from infrastructure viewpoints and from proximity of uses in the RLSA to the urban boundary of each -- of Immokalee and then, of course, for the Estates folks, the Estates side of it. So anyway, thank you. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 6 of 48 MS. JENKINS: So beginning with land use, this chart and the two maps are a comparison of how the land-use categories changed. And there was not substantial changes in the land-use descriptions and categories, but there were a few. And I'll just kind of go through this. On the left column of the table is the existing, an adopted plan, on the right column is the proposed changes. So what you have is low residential and low residential. There were no changes in the descriptions of low residential. There's no changes to the density in low residential. From adopted, they stay the same as proposed. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There was a change in the maximum density, though, that's allowed under the land-use category since the adopted, so how would that not increase the density? MS. JENKINS: Well, you'll have to be more specific for me because -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under the adopted plan -- MS. JENKINS: It's four units per acre. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. And under the proposal, you've got a base of four but a max of eight. MS. JENKINS: So that max of eight comes from something that's unique to Immokalee that has not changed from adopted to existing. That max of eight is affordable housing by right. So in Immokalee, unlike the coastal area, you have an opportunity to ask for, or not even ask for. You have it by right. You can do affordable housing to increase that density without going to a hearing. Now, if you're using the density bonus provision, that will now be changed -- is changed by the Board and adopted up to 12. If you ask for more than what's by right of eight, then you have to go to a public hearing to achieve that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because I notice some of the other districts like the medium residential has a max of 14, high residential, 16, and the recreation tourist went from 10 units an acre for transient lodging to 26 units an acre. MS. JENKINS: Right. And so that's applying that "by right" affordable housing and when they talk about -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the transient lodge? MS. JENKINS: -- maximums. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the transient lodging? MS. JENKINS: I don't believe the transient lodging is -- affordable housing is not available to the transient lodging. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right, and that one went up from 10 in the residential tourist to 26. So I just wanted to make sure that it was clear. MS. JENKINS: Okay. I'll look at that again. I don't have it here, but I'll look at that again for you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: -- Heidi, and address that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm trying to find the chart or the table that you have up here in the materials, and the thing that looks closest to it is Table 1. Is that the case? My eyes just aren't good enough to -- MS. JENKINS: That's the table, Table 1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you very much. MS. JENKINS: And the map on the top is the adopted land-use map. The map on the bottom is the proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what the lighting system is -- goes on and off right 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 7 of 48 here. But if that front row of lights go off, it might help clarity for that picture. That's much better. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: The other major change in the land-use designations are dealing with commercial. In the original plan -- I'm going to use this pointer -- you can see some of these green or turquoise areas, this blue area, this green area, this red area. There were several different commercial categories, and they allowed from basic C1 uses up to C4 uses in the different categories. The proposed master plan collapses those different categories of commercial uses into one category of commercial mixed-use, and this is shown in the pink or magenta, so you can see where this was turquoise, it's now pink; where this was red, it's now pink; blue, it's now pink. So it just -- it collapses those areas. The CMU also brought in some of the residential uses that are now changed to CMU. So the idea was to get commercial uses where commercial uses are best served along the major roadways, and then to diversify the density back from that but allow the higher densities adjacent to these commercial use, because in Immokalee, 47 percent of the population walk or bicycle to work. So you have a far higher population that need close proximity to goods and services in Immokalee. So that's the idea of making sure these uses serve that purpose. Okay. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That 47 percent, that's a kind of accurate figure. How did you come with that? MS. JENKINS: That is from the MPO's latest report from their Long Range Transportation Plan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How do they -- what, do they ask everybody in Immokalee? MS. JENKINS: Well, I should say also transit's involved with that. Well, I know that they have been doing a lot of trip counts, so there are -- they have boxes out there now. They now are measuring this -- and that, but I couldn't tell you their specific methodology. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I don't doubt that it's close but, you know, 47 o-r 50 or whatever, I just. MS. JENKINS: Yeah, 47 percent. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It just seemed like a very accurate number for something that was very hard to figure out. MS. JENKINS: Right. So that's just the working residents of Immokalee, but all the children here walk or bicycle for the most part. They do use the public transit system after football practice and things like that. So the majority of children also are walking and bicycling. So you have a large population out here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They have public transit out here? MS. JENKINS: They do. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is that in that 47 percent or -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah, that 47 percent includes public transit, walking, and bicycling. So it's basically, you know, half the population is not a car-ownership family. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. That's a high number. That's good. MS. JENKINS: Okay. So following the commercial uses, the changes in the industrial uses include -- the categories of the airport is now its own district, so it went from industrial to the airport district, but you can see it's still surrounded by industrial. There's a new category as well as industrial mixed use. And you can see that change here to, again, help with a boundary around the entire airport. So that's kind of how the changes from the adopted plan in the land-use designations have changed to the proposed plan. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 8 of 48 Now, if you were here in 2012, the community with this restudy did not suggest any further changes to what was transmitted before with these land-use designations and the map. So we have not made any further changes to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question while you're on that. When you all -- because we reviewed the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, and at that time there were parties involved who wanted to initiate some private amendments in that plan, and you didn't see that as something that should happen during that period. Just so we know the changes in the land uses, were any of these private initiatives? MS. JENKINS: No, not through our restudy process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you know from the 2012 study, which you weren't part of, that none of those introduced land-use changes were privately initiated? MS. JENKINS: I can't say there were someone talking to someone that asked that, but I'm relying on the public record from the hearings that did not unveil that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The public record probably wouldn't have. I mean, it wouldn't have done that in the case, generally, necessarily for Golden Gate Estates either. I was just curious because you have a lot of upgrading of land uses here. You're making a lot of land more valuable. And, generally, that happens at private initiatives, and I just didn't know if you allowed any or not. MS. JENKINS: So, really, the changes -- when you say "more valuable" -- and that's good for Immokalee and that's good for their economy, but I think that, you know, a lot of the changes are getting the density right so you don't have this low residential density right up against the major arterials where you should be serving the public with goods and services and the CRA can do their job. So you also see some changes that -- you know, what maybe went from medium residential; well, it's up against, again, a road. Let's go make it high residential. It's up against commercial. So, you know, that was the reason for those changes is the location, and is the density appropriate in the location that can better support the walking and bicycling for Immokalee. And, also, it gives an opportunity for these property owners to provide a different type of housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't -- only the last -- the old master plan, from what I can recall, only had one -- one point where low residential was fronting on Main Street, so just to clarify. Because you had said there were a lot of low residential along Main Street. I can't catch where that's happening. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. You can see that right up here and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, you've got a strip on both sides of Main Street of commercial. MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you've got neighborhood centers, and then just south of where the Walmart was going to go, that's the only piece of low residential that was fronting on Main Street that I could see in the entire length of Main Street until you get over to the east side somewhere. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. You can see this one right here where I'm pointing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not on -- well, according to -- well -- MS. JENKINS: Well, I'm saying major arterial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the map. It doesn't front Main. MS. JENKINS: It's on 29. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll get into it when we get into the maps. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question as well, if I may, as it relates to that. Did I understand you to say -- well, first of all, that 47 percent of the people do not use privately owned vehicles for -- maybe they don't own or they don't use them? MS. JENKINS: That's right. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 9 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Yet we're relocating goods and services to the major arterials. MS. JENKINS: Well, a lot of it is already there. So the idea is not to relocate it but to better define it. So this goods and services that was green, it just becomes pink. So we're changing the name of it, the description of what the commercial is, but where the low residential -- and this is a good example of it right here. So you see right here it was low residential next to this commercial, and the proposal is let's make that high residential so you can have a different type of housing that is more suitable to someone that needs to bicycle and walk in close proximity to the goods and service that they need. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would it be a fair statement that under your plan, the 47 percent who do not use privately owned vehicles are going to find goods and services more or less accessible? MS. JENKINS: More accessible. There's an opportunity for them to live closer to them. So rather than, you know, a 15-minute walk to get to the store, you know, if they have an opportunity to live closer to it, it might be a five-minute walk. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Would it be a safe assumption that, of the 47 percent you described, most of that population would be focused in the medium and high-residential areas rather than the low-residential areas? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. Right now all of this yellow that you see low residential -- and when I get to another topic that shows you a zoning map, we'll talk about that -- but it will show you that all this low residential that's designated that we did not change substantially, that's all zoned agriculture. So, really, the developed area of Immokalee -- this is about 17,000 acres, the boundary. The developed area is about 7,000 acres. So you have about 10,000 acres of zoned active agriculture within the urban boundary. So a little bit more specifics on how some of the changes were made. I mentioned before that the airport and industrial district, they went through a PUD rezone at the same time, almost, that this was going through, but the designation has changed; that is that APO designation is for the airport property only, so that's very specific to that. So what the changes were in the land use was about 680 acres approximately, and the first one that's about 360 acres is right here around the airport. And you can see that that was low residential. If you kind of look at that corner right there, it's easier to see where that airport boundary and where the old industrial boundary comes. So that was changed to switch over to the industrial mixed-use subdistrict. And in the plan, in the proposed plan, it actually has an overlay with very specific development regulations that we generally don't put in a comprehensive plan, but the public here thinks it's very important to make sure that we have some regulations that are followed as far as setbacks and buffers to the residential area. It's the same property owner between these two, but at that time, you know, like other plans that we have -- Golden Gate Estates is a good comparison, that there are times that the public wants more specificity in a comp plan, and that's why that's in there, and it applies to that industrial mixed-use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the airport wanted to expand its PUD outside that purple area, because they'd be under the -- I'm assuming, then, they'd have to fit under the purple area category, the airport -- the regional -- the airport subdistrict, so they would have to modify the master plan. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 10 of 48 MS. JENKINS: Well, right now -- can you hold that question, because I have a map that will describe that better, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And I'll write it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'll remember. I wrote it down. Don't worry. MS. JENKINS: I might not remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So other than the industrial mixed -use, we have the commercial mixed-use that we've talked about quite a bit. And from those little changes, it's about 120 acres that were added to that commercial mixed-use area. Also, the residential tourist area. It's here along Lake Trafford. And, again, if you remember, one of the economic drivers for Immokalee is ecotourism. That includes this very important Lake Trafford. So where is it good to promote the use of Lake Trafford in a recreational forum is around the lake. So that was expanded about 200 acres to buffer the lake here for the residential, or the recreational tourist. And I might have that -- I say residential first. I think it's recreational tourist. So I apologize for that. In the chart we talked about the three commercial subdistricts that -- these green ones again, the red ones, all these different colors. They're all now under one commercial mixed-use district. And, again, that makes it much easier for you to have the same development standards for the commercial that's going to be developed in Immokalee. Mobile homes was a point of concern through the previous process that went on, and so we have not made any changes. Mobile homes are still allowed in all residential districts. And following the last process, there was a settlement with Collier County that actually allowed existing mobile homes that were located around Alachua Street, which is in this area here -- it is designated industrial mixed-use, but they have a right to continue their mobile homes per the settlement agreement. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Was that settlement based on a code case that went on for years? Is that the same settlement? MS. JENKINS: I think the code case might have been a impetus for that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The famous site that -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well aware of it. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Yes. But in the updated plan that we just did, we made sure to recognize that in the Comprehensive Plan. So if the property owner ever came in or wanted to sell their property, they can go to this Comp Plan and say it's right here. You know, you don't have to remember there's a -- planning staff doesn't have to remember if we changed -- David Weeks ever leaves us -- then we have it in the plan to say, hey, there's a settlement agreement that allows this. So even though it's not listed on the industrial mixed-use, go to the settlement plan and make sure that you understand that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does that settlement agreement allow for replacement of mobile homes so there -- it's an accepted use for perpetuity unless they come in and redevelop? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can they redevelop into another park? MS. JENKINS: So they can -- any time anyone wants to redevelop, as long as they're consistent with this -- and this is the purpose, you know, is to kind of drive the vision, and then any changes come through the rezone process. And how, you know, that settlement agreement works out and how they might be able to change that, I would defer to the legal staff to answer those 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 11 of 48 questions about a settlement agreement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave this page, just for clarification, where it says, CMU only proposed density increase from 12 to 16. Actually, you show the maximum density in new language as the 20 dwelling units. MS. JENKINS: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you really could have 20 in all the CMU. MS. JENKINS: Right. And that goes back again to -- the 20 didn't change from, you know, what was previously proposed, but the 16 is what's changing, and that's the base density. Again, if they want to get to 20, they have to have an affordable-housing-by-right component to get to the 20 maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the 20 or the 16 -- the 16, I understand how that happened, but the 20 is more -- you said it's the same as the previous proposed plan, but it's more the adopted plan. MS. JENKINS: That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, we're looking at this from the adopted plan. MS. JENKINS: I understand. Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm trying to make sure everybody understands. We're supposed to compare the adopted plan to what you're presenting. MS. JENKINS: Right. And that was the same. The adopted is 12 in the commercial areas. Okay. So it's the same in the commercial areas as it is in this commercial area. The density that was allowed in those commercial areas was up to 12 units per acre, and so that's why I'm saying -- MR. STONE: You're -- MS. JENKINS: You know, it's changing from -- MR. STONE: You're referring to the base density. Mark's referring to the maximum density. What's the maximum under the current plan? Is it 20? MS. JENKINS: Let me look. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: She's saying the base is 20, but it's 16 here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The original -- the adopted plan doesn't break it down that way, which is why it's making it harder to track what she's trying to explain, which is why the adopted plan was the plan we have to keep going back to, and that's not the one we necessarily have seen the strikethrough on. So that's where we're getting some confusion. MS. JENKINS: So we're happy to try to answer all of these questions. We're talking about the commercial, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a commercial mixed-use subdistrict. That's probably the one that is corresponding to the CMU as well. It's on Page 10 of your adopted plan. MS. JENKINS: Right. Right. So in the adopted plan in the CMU, you could go to 12 units per acre. And the way that this is organized, I don't see that they had a maximum. So their maximums would be by applying the affordable housing by right or affordable housing by hearing. That would determine their maximum. So we established the maximums in the proposed plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that probably answers the question, at least for now. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: So actually -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But the base in both the neighborhood center and the commercial center mixed-use districts, which are being eliminated, both of them, the maximum -- not the maximum. MS. JENKINS: The base. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know if it had a maximum. It just said 12 units an acre 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 12 of 48 and -- for both of them, and now the base is 16 units an acre. MS. JENKINS: Right. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thanks. MS. JENKINS: So what we changed was the base, and we put a maximum on it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MS. JENKINS: Before -- again, the adopted plan, the maximum -- you would have to apply the affordable housing bonuses for the maximum. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. MS. JENKINS: So Mr. Weeks just reminded me that in the adopted plan the max would be 16, because that would hit the cap of what was allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like it is in the urban area. MS. JENKINS: Yes. Thank you, David. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question that goes back to the -- I guess the settlement. The use as mobile home, is that a permitted use in all of these zoning districts? MS. JENKINS: It's a permitted use in residential districts, not in the commercial or industrial. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. JENKINS: Only that settlement agreement applies to that industrial district in that specific parcel and location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But mobile homes are allowed in the former adopted plan under neighborhood commercial, and I believe they're allowed under commercial -- yes, under commercial center mixed-use subdistrict. So they're more than residential in the adopted plan, which is one of the issues that will probably get discussed as we get into the details of the other plan -- the new plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So will there be nonconforming uses if the proposed plan is adopted with respect to mobile homes? MS. JENKINS: No. What happened is that at the time they rezone -- right? So this gives them an opportunity to rezone their property from mobile home, whatever their existing zoning is, they're compliant with the zoning. So at the time they wanted to rezone the property, then they could go from mobile home to a commercial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the problem is that some of the properties are not here today, including that piece that is under settlement based on the existing zoning. They're based on the zoning that was in place at one time at a prior period of time. Immokalee has had different changes in mobile home locations since the '60s, or some of them go back ages. I've actually looked at the research on some of those. So that is how some of the issues that the new plan -- I'm not sure how clear it addresses the vesting of those 1960 zoning locations, and that's a piece we'll get into when we get into the more finite language. MS. JENKINS: And there is very specific language in here that actually Heidi and David Weeks drafted to address those compatibility issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.1.4. And what you do is you refer to that subsection through every other section instead of putting it under each category like it is in the adopted plan. But that's relying on that Subsection 5.1.4 accurately affects and takes into consideration the potential vesting of all the existing properties. And I'm not sure the language does, but we'll get into that when we get into the various -- MS. JENKINS: And for that more legal, I'll defer to the county attorney and Mr. Weeks that wrote the language to protect. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, actually, he's referring to the mobile home section, and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 13 of 48 what you're referring to is the rezonings and growth management section. MS. JENKINS: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I think he's referring to the new language that's added to 5.1.4; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And you're referring to the end of the first paragraph? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mostly, yes. But that's -- we can get into that when we get into the details. I just wanted to point out during the discussion on the bottom bullet that we've got to make sure if, they're supposed -- the intent is to retain, then we've got to make sure it can happen. And I'm concerned about the way some of the language is written, but we can chew on that stuff as we get closer to that point in the discussion. I didn't mean to interrupt your presentation completely. Just trying to catch a point as we go through. MS. JENKINS: No, that's fine. And if there's, you know, improvements that we can make to the language, that's what we want to accomplish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what we're here to do, especially after we hear from the public on their comments. So thank you. MS. JENKINS: So economic development, I mentioned that through this process we really tried to work with the community to hone in on what are the economic drivers for Immokalee? So that -- the Comp Plan and the economic policies in the Comp Plan are what's followed by the CRA and the work that they do with redevelopment and also our Office of Business and Economic Development. So when they read these plans and they know, you know, we're really trying to focus on manufacturing, distribution, agribusiness, what are some of the tools that you can help us do that with, and this gives the Board the ability with, by policy, to direct staff to help us with some of that. The economic policies were kind of spread throughout the plan. The proposed plan puts it under one goal and really updates it to today's, from 1997 to what's happening today. So some of the new proposed language in the plan is dealing with proposed certified site programs, and that's a program that's dealing with getting the site shovel-ready. So when a manufacturing or a distribution company comes in, we are -- Collier County is ready to say, here's your location. You don't have to go through a comp plan amendment. You don't have to go through zoning. It is all ready to go for you. So that's something that the business and economic development team is working on, and so this gives them the ability to focus that program on Immokalee as well. There are some new uses that we added with this restudy to support agriculture, and those new uses -- and here's the zoning map that I wanted to refer to here. So this is the proposed plan, which you saw the comparison. The low residential areas are primarily the same as they surround Immokalee. And you can see that those low residential areas are primarily agriculture zoning and active agriculture and citrus and other crops and cattle. So to support and further that driver for agribusiness, we've added three uses that would be allowed subject to Land Development Code amendments in that area. So if you have property that is in low residential, the yellow areas, and it's zoned agriculture, then you have a new use for agriculture research and development facilities, agribusiness offices and headquarters, and also alternative energy facilities and apparatuses. All of those new uses, again, in the plan we tried to make it clear. We can work on that to say that we -- the Land Development Code team is going to add these uses if approved in here to the agriculture zoning district in Immokalee to provide those uses and the development standards 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 14 of 48 that are suitable for those uses, and those development standards are primarily going to be buffers and setbacks and how it all works together. So those are just in this restudy that we did to try to look at how we can better support the economic drivers with our land use. Those are the three things that we had an idea about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I had talked with you, I thought you'd mentioned that one of the large agricultural growers had suggested the possibility of enter -- alternative energy location in that area. Is that -- MS. JENKINS: That is something that occurred back in the last hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we do have a private initiative influencing the language then? MS. JENKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: When I listen to all input, it's does it makes sense to me or not? Is it something that staff would support or not? It doesn't happen on just that one private owner's land. It's not that specific. It happens on all of the land that would be suitable for that use, and so it wouldn't just be for one landowner. It would be for all landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever been in and take a look at what an ethanol plant likes? MS. JENKINS: I have not seen an ethanol plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My wife is from Ohio, so I periodically drive up there with her. They're big plants. They're well made. They're extremely well lit. You can smell them a long ways away. It's not a bad odor. But I was surprised to see that kind of potential lining up in a low-residential area, LR, especially when you've got high residential nearby and up against other locations where families may not have thought they're living that close to that kind of a plant, especially when outside of the urban area it's still surrounded by plenty of ag land that could put that in as a potential ag use. So I'm just wondering why you thought it was reasonable to take up the little bit of urban area that Immokalee has with plants of magnitude that may influence how the rest of Immokalee ends up developing because of how they operate. That's another question for a further round. But I wanted to at least point it out since you brought it up in this slide. MS. JENKINS: Right. So this language is broad language, right? So we're talking about alternative energy. In the LDC we're going to get specific on what that is and what that means. Is that alternative energy in Collier County only solar panel field, or does it include the apparatuses necessary to change some of the fuel that they can grow into the energy? So we might find in the LDCs process that if it's -- if that type of use is obnoxious -- we don't know what the size of it is, but maybe we need to limit to it a very small size, or maybe we say, yeah, you can do the fuel here. You can do your headquarters here, but you need to process that in the industrial area. And I think that different alternative energies are going to require different regulations. So that's the point of the Land Development Code specification and why these uses won't be available until that LDC is amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the problems this panel has had continuously, especially in our current urban area closer to the coast where infill is happening a lot, and that land is so valuable everybody's trying to find a creative way to use it, the interpretations that are thrown at us from land-use attorneys arguing the intent of the language in the GMP because it is so ambiguous in the way it's worded. They argue they have rights, and while we all may disagree with that, the arguments are there. And if it's only left to the LDCs to define this but the argument is more broader in the GMP, it's much easier to change the LDC than it is the GMP. And we're opening the door to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 15 of 48 potential problems if we're concerned about such intensities in that low-residential area. That's just a point for further discussion as we go into the details. But I just wanted to let you know when I saw that, that's quite a change from -- that is certainly nothing like low residential, and it's much more like heavy industrial, much heavier than we probably already have in this area. It's just -- it's a big step, so... MS. JENKINS: And I think that -- you know, through the LDC process, we can say solar panels are okay. What was the one that you had? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ethanol. MS. JENKINS: Ethanol? Ethanol is not okay. That's not -- that's not a use that we want to support in the LDC. But I think as long as we can make sure that the language here says "subject to the Land Development Code amendments being approved," then that will give staff an interpretation to say, hold on. So the Land Development Code team we've been working with through these restudy processes very closely, and I go through every policy and say, what's going to require a Land Development Code amendment? We meet with the team and go, do you have the capacity to make these changes in a reasonable amount of time, and the direction we've heard so far is yes, we have -- we can do that. So, you know, there's people that are very interested in this policy and already, you know, digging into the research, but I think the idea here, Chairman, is that we need to look for new ideas and new economy for Immokalee to use these agriculture areas if we anticipate that the lower residential housing will likely be accommodated in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area in these new towns and new villages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want to open a door so that all of these shiny new towns surrounding Immokalee in the RLSA have all these great requirements, aesthetic appeal, recreational components, but all the stuff that nobody wants anywhere else gets put in the urban area of Immokalee, and I don't think that -- well, we'll see today if that's the intent of what the residents here want. But it would seem surprising to me that that kind of relationship would be the one they're looking for. So, thank you. MS. JENKINS: One of the new policies that's not in the adopted plan but is now in the proposed plan is under urban design. And you'll see a whole list of goals, objectives, and policies on urban design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have to announce, Paul Midney just entered. Paul, it's a pleasure to see you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've missed you on this panel. He was on the Planning Commission for many years, and he protected Immokalee impeccably. So, Paul, it's very good to see you here today. MR. MIDNEY: It's really good to see you. MS. JENKINS: And Mr. Midney participated in our workshops with us, too, so we were happy to have his continued input. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, he's been growing a beard finally. I tried to get him to do that while he was here. MS. JENKINS: He's growing up. Back to the urban design, there's a brand new goal, objective, and policies that deal with urban design in Immokalee, and the idea is for a Land Development Code that is specific to Immokalee. So we're not applying the coastal Land Development Code regulations to Immokalee. And the map that you see here, those are Land Development Code overlays that we 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 16 of 48 currently already have for Immokalee. So the process is kind of already going. But when you look at the overlays, for instance, the agribusiness district, which is that orange district, the overlay basically says we don't have to meet architectural requirements. That's the only thing that the overlay did. Some of the other ones on Main Street, it's very specific to get to more building placement and walkability and things like that. So there's a variety of them, but it's something that's specific to recognize that this is something the community wants. And these overlays can be amended as we go through the process, but we'll also want to look and see what are the regulations for the residential areas as well, and do they need to be changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the things that I thought was going to come out of this, and it was one of my first questions to ask you from the document. The language doesn't seem strong enough in this new plan to say that Immokalee needs its own Land Development Code, and that like the Rural Lands Stewardship Area where they've got, what, 56 pages of their details, including architectural setback standards and everything are in the section for the RLSA, with the right to do deviations and things like that. Those -- that is the magnitude I was hoping was the intent of your writing. I did not see it clearly spelled out, but I wanted that clarification for our discussion to see if that's where this was going to end up going. It would be a -- MS. JENKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- complete writeup of all categories, not just the development standard tables, for example. We still revert back to the urban area development standard tables. Immokalee should be something on its own. MS. JENKINS: Right. So if you look at Attachment A, I think that's easiest for me to look at on Page 20, that's where we start talking about these urban design -- the goal. And under Policy 6.1.1, development of Land Development Code standards, it specifics those standards that will include density, intensity, signage, landscaping, buffering, native preservation, off-street and on-street parking loading, architectural designs, development standards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's got to -- that poor lady's got to type as fast as you talk, so slow down a little bit. MS. JENKINS: I'm sorry. So I knew you knew all those words, so I was speaking quickly. But I just wanted to point out that the policy directs the Land Development Code to address all those issues. So those things would be -- you would see those by this policy included in the LDC, and if they did not address it in the LDC, you can go back to this policy and say, well, where's this? You were supposed to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was going to suggest that we even further refine it. So put a separate section in the Land Development Code like we did for the SRAs for Immokalee, not -- because right now Immokalee's scattered throughout our LDC. You've got to pick up bits and pieces and overlays here and something there. That's all I was trying to do is get -- I think the strength of that would make everybody that's wanting to build here know exactly what they's got to do. MS. JENKINS: Right. And I think that when the LDC staff gets ahold of this and they say we have to do that, I think that's exactly that idea, Mr. Strain, is to say, here's the development standards for Immokalee. So it would be -- it's a whole new LDC section. On the housing goal that was previously adopted, the housing goal just talked about safe and sanitary housing. And when I came out and worked with the community and saw some of this language still in here, I said, let's elevate that language a little bit, because in a past life as a 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 17 of 48 consultant when I had read through a Comprehensive Plan or an LDC and I would see derogatory words, it would lead me to believe, well, they're not safe, and they're not sani -- if you have that. So let's change the words around. Let's elevate this just from housing. Let's talk about the entire neighborhoods. So the idea in the proposed master plan is to really get down to looking at not just housing but let's look at the -- let's define the neighborhoods, let's look at how the neighborhoods function in both housing and how their mobility is working, sidewalks, lighting, transit stops. There's stormwater management. We've been doing a tremendous amount of work in stormwater management here, and also in that neighborhood recreation. So the idea is to create these neighborhood plans that the CRA can then take from there and say, well, if we're doing a stormwater management project out here and it's on the list, let's look at the opportunity. We've identified the need in this neighborhood for a little neighborhood pickup ballfield for the children or a basketball court. Can we fit this in with other projects that you're doing, or if there's a transit stop, you know. So it's that idea, is to look at these things more holistically rather than just housing; to look at the full neighborhood. There are -- and this is -- I've put this under land use, a couple of these things, because that's kind of where it fell. But it kind of goes throughout. In the adopted plan there were a few policies scattered throughout that talked about the need for intergovernmental coordination with the school and with the sheriff with other agencies. So what the community did -- and this was back in the first restudy -- they recognized the importance of intergovernmental coordination in Immokalee, because you have a tremendous amount of agency help out here, nonprofits working out here, and they decided to put an entire goal on that and propose that we need to continue to collaborate, coordinate, and partner with all of the different entities that are in Immokalee. So that's a brand new goal, brand new policies for the plan. Under transportation, in the adopted plan you had one goal, one objective, and four policies on transportation, and those were recognizing primarily the need for pedestrian and bicycle improvements in Immokalee. So the proposed plan really did tackle transportation for this community. And the proposed goals or policies are to continue coordination with FDOT and the MPO, and that's important and it's kind of illustrated here. In the old plan they refer to a loop road. That language is no longer included in the proposed plan, but I can tell you that that project is one of FDOT's strategic intermodal system projects to help freight move throughout the rural parts of Florida. So you can see the airport right here and that -- New Market Road's right here. This brand new facility is going to hook into 29, go closer to the airport, and then on down to 29. So the policy: To continue coordination and pay attention to the FDOT projects, making sure that the community is aware of them and participating in their public workshops to know what's going on. This is another one. This is a great project that the Transportation Department of Collier County achieved a $13 million or more grant, a TIGER grant for Immokalee, and those red and yellow lines on that graphic illustrate new sidewalks, new bike paths, new transit stops, and that is also all around New Market Road in this area over here. So the loop road's going to come up here, and then while that's moving all the freight and the heavy trucks, the local and collector roads are going to be improved for the bicycles and pedestrians. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the reference that you keep using "loop road," is that considered the same as the bypass? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. All those old words were used, but, you know, they analyzed four 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 18 of 48 different alternatives. So it used to be called the loop road, I think, because it went way out there, you know. But now it's closer in. After FDOT did their PD&E study recognizing the impacts that they were having in that location, they looked for other locations. So, yeah, it was lots of different terms used for that road in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, before I forget, would you make sure you send your presentation to the Planning Commission? MS. JENKINS: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I might add that I've been trying to follow finding context in the materials that we were sent to help me understand better what you're saying in the presentation, and I'm really having considerable difficulty. For instance, I did an electronic word search for transportation and mobility; not in here. The phrase isn't in here. MS. JENKINS: Right. So transportation and mobility was the categories that the Board directed us to look at. It's just an organizational form that I'm showing you how we addressed these things, how the Board asked us to address transportation and mobility. But if you would like me to refer to the goal for you, I'm happy to do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be helpful for me. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Let me find the goal on transportation. And, actually, if you remember the goals went back. The old goals of recreation and transportation, they're collapsed now into infrastructure, because there's many more things that we need to address in Immokalee besides just those two for public infrastructure. So in the proposed plan, it is under the infrastructure goal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. JENKINS: And if anybody finds it quicker than I do, just feel free to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will be Policy 3.3.3, I believe. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The third goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the third goal. That's roads, sidewalks, and bike paths. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. So in addition to continuing to coordinate with MPO and FDOT, there's a new policy in here also that addresses complete streets. It implements the Board's recent action and ordinance on a complete-street ordinance, and the complete streets is simply recognizing we need to consider all modes. So in Immokalee we need to consider the freight. We've got big trucks out here that we need out here. We also have pedestrians out here. So in all of our road improvements, how are we considering those interactive and moving around in each new road design or road improvement? So that's what the complete-streets policy says, that we're going to consider all modes when we do road projects in Immokalee. One of the new proposed policies also deals with moving away from the MPO and FDOT, which deals with the bigger system down to the local system, and what we found through the public workshops is that up in the northwest portion of Immokalee going out to Lake Trafford -- Lake Trafford provides kind of one way in to many neighborhoods in that area. So it's a challenging -- and some of the local roads in there are not connected well, and so it's an inhibitor to transit, and it's an inhibitor to bicycles and pedestrians who are trying to find the shortest route possible. So the policy basically says that within three years Transportation will initiate, not complete, but just initiate a study of this local collector system to see if we can find some little connections to provide for bicycle and pedestrian access, better transit service, and also provide for the autos that if there is a public emergency, a fire or a wreck, some other emergency, if it's blocked off, they have another way out. So that's the idea of that policy. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 19 of 48 We also added a policy that I think goes a little bit beyond Immokalee, but it does include Immokalee. In Immokalee you do have a lot of private roads. And I think some of our county commissioners have been struggling on how to incentivize those private roads being updated, improved, and possibly turned over to the county. But recognizing that, we have put a policy in here to incentivize those private-road improvements being updated. Now, basically, the policy just says that we're going to come up with some incentives to help that happen. And it doesn't just apply to Immokalee, but it applies to other areas of Collier County where we have private roads. And we're looking at incentives to help move that along. Lastly, there is a proposed policy in here for transportation concurrency alternatives when warranted. This is a policy that was in there through the first restudy that they added in there, and that policy -- it was not in the adopted plan. But I just want to tell you how we changed it a little bit with this restudy process and honoring what the community had done before. The last one said we're going to do this in two years. Well, when I talked to Transportation, Transportation says, we have no transportation deficiencies in the next 10 years in Immokalee. We don't need this policy. But the policy is in there; it's changed to say "when warranted." So it may never come to fruition. It may never be warranted, but it's simply a tool that staff can use and take to the Board for their consideration if it's ever warranted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're looking at the TCMA and TCEA's. MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we just had a debate on TCMA's that was troubling, to say the least. Okay. MS. JENKINS: Yes. So I don't know that it will ever be warranted to have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would strongly encourage Immokalee not to go that way, but anyway. MS. JENKINS: I understand. Lastly, our last look at the substantial changes are environmental sustainability. And this is the natural resource policies and goals that you found in the adopted plan and in the proposed plan. The adopted plan has some high-level we want to protect natural resources, but there wasn't a lot of specificity as how do you get there. What's the tools you're going to use? So through the last plan, planning process, the restudy, a couple of things happened. And, again, they completely struck through their natural resource goals and policies, completely redacted, rewritten and so one of the major things that happened -- and this was a staff-driven change at the time through the last process. And you'll see it on this map. And this map is a map that shows you what change from the adopted plan to the proposed plan. So it's got some hatches on there to help you understand what we're proposing, what's changed. So I wanted to use this map to show you, this green line was the old Lake Trafford/Camp Keais system, wetland boundary. And, again, this was a 1997 boundary. Well, by the time that we, you know, got into 2008, we had much better technology, much better information to better define what that wetland boundary should be. So it was a staff proposed amendment to better define that boundary. There was no objection to it at the time. The EAC at the time really liked that change. And in doing so, well, what do we want to do with that boundary? What do you want to do with that slough? This was a major wetland slough that goes from Lake Trafford down through town. So it's one of their most important natural resources for Immokalee. So one of the ideas in the policies here is let's make sure that we have some LDC amendments that addresses water quality. So if you're flowing into this area, what are the techniques that are going to be used for water quality in that area? And the specific policy does 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 20 of 48 this in cooperation with DEP in the South Florida Water Management district, and it refers to a basin that is this map here. It shows you the whole basin that needs to be addressed to make sure that the millions of dollars that we spent to clean up Lake Trafford, we're addressing at this end before the water gets in there. So what are the water-quality measurements that can be taken in that area? Another proposed policy is to explore the feasibility of a mitigation bank out here. And the idea was that if you're developing out here, you can achieve your mitigation credits needed here as well. That's just -- it's not a policy. It's not a directive. It's just a policy that says this is a good idea. It's a tool in the toolbox that, when directed, we can take a look at that and to see where that might happen with willing property owners. Lastly, the density blending. Currently adopted there's a provision for density blending up around the lake. They can remove that density there and move it out into other areas that are surrounding that area. That's a tool that's used, again, to protect natural resources without having to buy the property. And so the policy's expanded to say if the tool is appropriate here, let's use that tool also in the slough so we can remove that density, blend it into other areas of Immokalee or the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, the Lake Trafford Slough, the area in the red, what district of the new plan would that be under? What area of the new plan would that be considered? Is it a RT district? Is it a CMU -- it's not a CMU district, obviously, but -- MS. JENKINS: No. The underlying land use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: The underlying land use is low residential. You see that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you wouldn't -- but how are we assuring that that property isn't going to be used for residential because it's in low residential? MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what provisions do you -- are we looking at? Because previously we had conservation designations, and I notice on Page 28 that's struck. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the purpose for it to be struck is that you want to be able to do ecotourism, but ecotourism got changed. It's an RT district. Instead of 10 transient lodging units per acre, it can go up to 26 now. So that's, like, 150 percent more. So if you take away the conservation designation and it's open to one of the other uses, how is it protected? MS. JENKINS: Well, we can't remove their property rights. That's privately owned property. Right now they're able to have low residential. So the attorneys' direction to us always is do not remove property rights in any of your suggested proposals. So, therefore, the Board as well directs us to use incentives more than regulations for these accommodating protection of natural resources. So we have to put the incentive tools in there to move those units out of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are those tools? MS. JENKINS: Well, one of them -- one of them would be the density blending. So that's very, very wet in there. So they would be able to then move that completely out of there and into other areas that they would own to achieve that right to still have that land use but put it in a better area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you take the -- so through density blending you take the developed density off of it, like a TDR maybe? Is that what your thought process is? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. You know, and they had suggested a TDR program in their last restudy, and I struck through that, too, because they're so complicated, and we don't want to add cost to housing development in Immokalee. So we're suggesting we're not going to make you pay for that. We're just going to allow 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 21 of 48 you to blend it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then if you've created this RT district, where, theoretically, would that apply in the Immokalee urban area? I didn't necessarily see it on the plan. Maybe I missed it. Oh, other than around Lake Okeechobee (sic). But, I mean, it's not intended for that to ever be used in the slough? MS. JENKINS: Well, that just allows -- that's an adopted plan right now. I mean, that's an adopted provision, density blending out at the RT district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's different -- your new plan is different than the old plan. But, regardless, I agree, it's an existing district but, we were -- MS. JENKINS: The provision -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- concerned in 2012 about the protection of that Lake Trafford Slough, and I don't see this document enhancing that at all. MS. JENKINS: So the idea, again, Chairman, is that we're trying to give them a tool to move the density out of that slough without -- without a property owner having to buy a TDR to do that, we're suggesting water-quality management tools which might affect development standards, and we're suggesting exploring a mitigation bank. So those are the tools and incentives that we're using to encourage property owners to move density out of that slough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A property owner in the slough wouldn't buy a TDC. He would create a TDR to be bought, right? MS. JENKINS: But still, then that makes that much more expensive for housing in Immokalee if you have to buy a TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but it is incentive to sell the TDR to create density somewhere else to get it off of that property. They don't buy the TDRs. They actually sell them. MS. JENKINS: They would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If I may, if you look at the LiDAR of Golden Gate Estates, you'll see the sloughs that exist, the Horse Pen Strand coming down from Winchester Head. Very few people -- I mean, it's built on both sides of the slough, but very few people build in the slough. It's kind of self-limiting. It's difficult to -- unless you have utilities in there, it's very difficult to dispose of your waste by drilling your wells and all; it's difficult. You have to raise everything up so high. It's almost impossible to build in a lot of those sloughs. I think you'll find a lot of this is self-limiting. If you give people an opportunity to sell, they're going to get out of there just because it's so difficult to build in a slough for those reasons. MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, I don't disagree with you. I understand that part of it. But the language in Policy 5.1.4 that was struck -- Policy 5.1.4 in the new language from 2012 designate -- had a conservation designation. This new -- what we're seeing today takes that conservation designation and strikes it out completely with the following reasoning: Designating the properties as conservation may bring about unintended consequences to the detriment of ecotourism by limiting the recreational access to the properties. I don't -- so we take it out of conservation designation, the property can fall under whatever eventually becomes defined as ecotourism. That could be anything possibly that's in the RT district. It could be -- I don't know what that is, and I was worried about taking out a real tight designation that's conservation and opening it up for anything at all. MS. JENKINS: If we designate it conservation, we're taking away their property rights. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 22 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, but eventually if the property rights are voluntarily sold, then why wouldn't we still want to use it as conservation designation? MS. JENKINS: So that's kind of a process down the line. So if they decide to blend it, then -- and there's LDC provisions that address density blending so, therefore, you would want to say, if you blend this and you move your designation, then what's the mechanism to protect that? And it should be an easement of some sort to say that this has changed, those property designations have changed similar to in the rural fringe when we do sending and receiving, if they get rid of their property rights and send those away, there's then a conservation easement or an SSA easement in the RLSA stewardship easement. So there would be some type of mechanism to show that there's a change, that you've moved those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why wouldn't we want to leave the policy in? At least to show that there is an opportunity here to permanently preserve something and keep it natural. It doesn't hurt to leave it in. I think that gives us a better argument to go that direction. Taking it out completely, now we've got a void in that segment of the GMP, so... MS. JENKINS: So part of that was that we're saying we're going to designate properties conservation, and those people that own property that, you know, you might be thinking, they're thinking that you're going to take my property and designate it conservation. MR. STONE: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to point out that that proposed language indicated that it would apply to lands owned by a public entity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. STONE: So you're referring to private development? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone sold off the TDR rights and they wanted to convert it over to a public entity and we wanted to make it conservation designation -- MR. STONE: I'm saying the conservation designation would have only applied to public -- land owned by the public entity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But either way, no matter how we get it, why wouldn't we want to use that designation if it was available to assure in perpetuality nothing can happen to that property? I mean, I don't know what would be wrong with that. MS. JENKINS: Well, you can always go back -- if that happens and if they decide to move their -- they're going to blend that, so they're giving up their rights for their residential property in the slough, and they go through that process as prescribed in the LDC and they put an easement over that, that -- it's just like the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. You go back and you designate those areas on our Future Land Use Map where those SSAs are happening. So you can go back and amend your Future Land Use Map to illustrate that if it ever happens in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it helps to have the designation already in there so that we can just apply it to that paragraph. You've twice now told me that we can go back and amend the plan. I know we can. But we've been trying to do this since what, 2008 -- 1997. Well, the last amendment, you're right, was a newer amendment, but amending the GMP is not easy. It's much easier to amend the LDC, which is unfortunate for some things, like alternative energy, but it's real hard to amend the GMP. So I'd rather keep opportunities there to do better if we can and use them if they're there then take them out and not have that opportunity at all. That's all I was trying to get to. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Well, the concern there, too, as Scott pointed out in some of the language, I think, is that if you have a conservation use designation policy in here, where is it on the map? It's not on there, so, you know, it's going to have to be some language that says in the future, if this happens, it can be conservation. But there might be an opportunity as well that they -- in the LDC in the density blending provisions, when they get into the detail, they might say, yeah, we're going to be removing our right to build homes, but we still want to run cattle through 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 23 of 48 there, so that's an ag use. It's not down to exactly conservation, and then if it's conservation, is it -- you know, is it now the public's responsibility to maintain that in perpetuity, or do we set it up where it's still maintained by the property owner with some right to run cattle in that area? So I think there's all kinds of different abilities to effectuate that change and protect these natural resources without -- if you designate conservation, as well there's some concerns that you're now actually limiting the recreation, and that's why Pepper Ranch is not designated as conservation, because we have recreational opportunities out there. And we wanted to make sure that if -- you can still do these things as it's further defined in the future if somebody takes advantage of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a process called the EAR which is required to happen periodically. The language that was in this new plan in 2012 allowed that process to identify any conservation designations that occurred over the prior period of time. Again, I don't know why we couldn't leave that as it was, so -- and I'll bring that up again when we go through our dissertation. MS. JENKINS: So that was the last major slide that I had for these changes but, you know, I just want to take a minute now to thank the Immokalee community who, since 2003, has been trying to kick this can down the road; very difficult process. So on their behalf and on behalf of all the staff, again, that has worked so hard on this and the attorneys that have worked so hard on this -- you guys have been involved for years -- that we thank you for that, and we would like to make a recommendation to move this forward to propose the IMP amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Department of Economic Opportunity with any changes that you would like to add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any global questions from this panel? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I might have a global question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned, because we're going to get into the document page by page. We may not even be able to start that today, but I want to make sure we don't go too far into anything before we hear the public. But if there's some pressing global comment, I'd just like to get those on the table right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe I've missed the references to this but, first of all , it's acknowledged. I certainly knowledge that everyone wants the very best that we can possibly do for Immokalee. There's such great potential in the community that we want to extend ourselves in any possible way to accomplish that. But my concern has to do with finances. And it's one thing to identify some really great things that could be done for the community, perhaps there is federal and state money available, but undoubtedly there's also going to have to be a county-level cost, and shouldn't we have that quantified or at least estimated and in front of us before we consider -- MS. JENKINS: So there is a policy in here, and I'll find it real quick for you, if it's helpful. But Immokalee has this dynamic and really strong Community Redevelopment Agency and an MSTU. So their boundaries actually extend a little bit beyond the boundaries of Immokalee. So that advisory committee for both MSTU and the CRA and their staff are constantly identifying infrastructure improvements or anything that's needed. So there's a policy in here that directs the CRA to bring to the Board of County Commissioners a list of items that require their direction for budget. Now, they do have their own, you know, taxing increment that they can use out here, and they do that a lot with projects specific to Immokalee. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you suggesting that we should act upon this when the time comes to act upon it without regard to the funding and the cost? MS. JENKINS: I can -- I'm happy to answer any specific question that you have regarding that. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 24 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: How much will all this cost? MS. JENKINS: Well, it depends on what it is I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question you're asking was one of the major points in the 2012 discussion, and the County Attorney's Office had written a rather strong suggestion as to that needs to be addressed in 2012. I had found it the other day. I will find it again and provide it back to the County Attorney's Office in case they don't have those records from that time. But it's a relevant question. It was brought up before, and we need to get that one answered. MS. JENKINS: Well, this process is no different than we just went through for Golden Gate Estates with some major changes for the city. The costs of development are at the time the development comes in. So if a new development comes in, they have to pay their fair share. They have to extend their utilities, just like we do in the coastal area, and then they have to pay their fair share for any improvements that are needed. If there are transportation improvements that are needed, it's up, again, to the developer to pay for those transportation improvements or their fair share. The more global ideas of the sidewalks that are needed out here, the CRA is considering that in their budget process. We work closely with Transportation and grant writing to find funding for some of this, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. So you're suggesting that we should defer consideration of the finances of the CRA? MS. JENKINS: Well, I'm happy to -- if there's anything specific, but I guess I'm just not -- when we're talking about inner-government or coordination and economic development, there was nothing that jumped out at me through this process that said that is a big-ticket item that we need to address right now without going through the same process that we go through in the coastal area and we just went through in Golden Gate Estates to add land uses to that activity center without saying, you know, those costs for redevelopment are borne by the developer. There's no -- there's no transportation -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not concerned about the developer costs. I'm concerned about the county costs. MS. JENKINS: I haven't identified anything -- any changes in that plan that are going to be a substantial cost to the county. There's no deficiencies in the transportation network. These land uses are simply rearranged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it was those kind of costs that were the focus last time. There's numerous paragraphs where you or someone has indicated, as they did last time, that something's going to happen within two years or one year or three years. Those time frames mean that somebody has got to do that work, that study, that rewriting of the language, whatever comes out of that. No one's saying we don't want it done. We just want to make sure that if you have to have it and it's part of this plan, it's budgeted, and that budget process is then part of the whole solution to how to get things happening out here. Right now -- in fact, the DEO, I believe, had sent back a comment about the fact that we have some unfunded mandates listed in this -- in the previous document, and that was one of the issues that was raised before. And that's the one, I think, that Ned's kind of recognizing now. He's now seen it -- he wasn't here in 2012, but he's now seeing probably the same thing that others of us saw back then. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why can't you just tell us that you'll look at that and come back with an answer? MS. JENKINS: Well, I want to do my best to try to answer it to you, because this didn't come up for Golden Gate, right? So -- when we did that process -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 25 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't do any -- we don't have any time frames like that in Golden Gate. MS. JENKINS: Well, we did, and they were mostly related to Land Development Code amendments, and everything that's in here is a study or a development amendment that I discussed with staff. Do you have the capacity to do this? Yes, we do. And so it's really staff resources, and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me interject, if I may. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm certainly willing to have explained to me why the budgetary side of this is not the province of the Planning Commission, but from my perspective at this point, I don't see how I could vote in favor of this without having a much clearer understanding of where the money is coming from that the county is going to have to come up with. And when you say there's no one significant item, what about in the aggregate? Are they -- does it become significant if you aggregate all of them? And if so, where is that money coming from? MS. JENKINS: So there's no policy in here that says Collier County's going to build this loop road in a year. The policies basically direct staff to do further studies and further work, but there's no policies in here that I can think of standing up here that directs infrastructure and improvements that's going to cost the county any differently than any other of the planning studies that we're doing right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you're suggesting that this is expenditure neutral? MS. JENKINS: I'm saying that the county -- if there's a policy in here that says we want to explore a new civic center, for instance, that would cost money. I gotcha. But then that is something that the CRA and the MSTU put on their list, take to the Board of County Commissioners, say this is something that we want. When the budget's available, it can happen. But there's nothing in here that says we have to do this within five years or -- on any infrastructure or any improvement to that effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's just basically these are things that we hope that we could do in the future, but we haven't identified any funding resources? MS. JENKINS: We need to identify the funding resources to make this happen. And that's generally how these policies work, and that's the big infrastructure policy that, when they list out these priorities, the CRA specifically, they're going to list these out as unfunded, and when the funding becomes available either through the Board of County Commissioners -- they're looking for grants constantly working with FDOT for improvements. So there's all kinds of different funding sources. So when the funding becomes available, then they can move forward with, you know, the hard construction of the project. But nothing in here says we're going to build anything within a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for timing, the court reporter's going to need a break, and we're close to that time we were going to take a lunch break. How many members of the public are here that intend to speak today? Could you just raise your hands. Okay. Would you be here -- would you be able to come back after lunch break? No, no. Paul? Then we'll hear the public speakers next. And, by the way, I did find that legal considerations. The County Attorney's Office did write it. Heidi Ashton wrote it back in 2012. I'll provide you with a copy so you can see it. It was the same issue that Ned's been asking about, so. Mike? MR. BOSI: And, Mr. Chair, just to let you know, we will coordinate with the County 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 26 of 48 Attorney's Office in review of the 2012 policy memo related to fiscal cost, and we will come back and address it appropriately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the answer we've been looking for. Thank you, Mike. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For those members of the public that wish to speak, please come up to the microphone, identify yourself. And if your last name is not Smith or Jones, spell it, because the court reporter's got to get it right. And, Paul, if -- we sure know Paul Midney, M-i-n-d-y (sic). It's good to see you back, Paul. MR. MIDNEY: It's great to see you, too, and to be here and see all the members of the community. I just have a brief question about the Lake Trafford Slough. What's the percentage of native vegetation that's supposed to be retained by property owners when they develop within the slough? MS. JENKINS: I think it's 10 in the slough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone. MS. JENKINS: I think the CCME sets forth the native vegetation depending on the size of the project, but there's also an idea that for anything that you preserve above the requirements, that you can have some bonuses or some different incentives for that. MR. MIDNEY: I have a memory that it was either 40 or 60 percent. MS. JENKINS: That could be right. MR. MIDNEY: But you don't know? MS. JENKINS: Not without the CCME right in front of me, no. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Paul. Next speaker, please come on up. Use the microphone. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. My name is Danny Gonzalez, president of the Chamber of Commerce here in Immokalee. My question to the Board is on this master plan that we -- I mean, I've been here since 2010. I was one of them that I was active on this plan, and I was kind of disappointed because some of these landlords they didn't give us an opportunity to expand Immokalee, and that's been my issue. My issue for the Chamber is to bring business, jobs here and housing, and that's an issue that -- you know, that's a problem here. Too many mobile homes here. The population here is -- I think it's off here. The population during the season in Immokalee, you know, that's about 16,000 people. This is from September to May. And these mobile homes, there's too many that are overpopulated inside their homes. That's why we want more housing here, more apartments here, more job creation here. And some of these landlords kind of set us back here a lot, especially on Main Street. So we never had a chance to move forward and get an (sic) Immokalee updated. Down the road at Ave Maria, they've been there five or 10 years, and there's a city itself. And we never had an opportunity here, and here we are again 2019 fighting for our master plan to be completed. And some of the cities down the road got parks, got housing, got jobs. I mean, I've been one of the lucky ones that have been here all my life in Immokalee. I did live in a mobile home, too, but I wanted to do better for myself and my family. And, again, this master plan is -- we need to move forward. I've been active here all my life here in Immokalee, and I'm going to keep on fighting for the residents here in Immokalee and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 27 of 48 hopefully -- so you need to give us a chance here to move forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, are you generally satisfied with the direction that the proposed amendments would take us? MR. GONZALEZ: In some of these areas I am. Like, the airport, I've been active for the airport. The airport -- it's a vital thing to us here in Immokalee. I have a business with my family. We own a restaurant. We've been one of the lucky ones that have been here 20 years in the restaurant business, but not too many people who have been here that long having a business. This master plan gives us hope, more than hope here. I do work with the CRA, MSTU. Maybe we can, you know, do a better job as we go forward and give you a better presentation as we go forward. But I am happy where I'm at with the master plan that -- the work that they've done here, and I'm also supportive of them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. GONZALEZ: Thank you. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. Anybody else wish to speak? Sir. MR. NAPPO: My name is Frank Nappo. I'm the chair of the CRA here in Immokalee. That 47 percent number is high for me. It's just a gut reaction. But I can understand how it might happen because the Florida Department of Transportation is giving us a new light on Third Street. We'll have one now on First, Third, and Ninth predominantly because workers in large numbers cross early in the morning and late in the evening and has really boosted the numbers of crossings, and I suspect that 47 percent could be in that category. I don't know if other folks here think 47 is high, but we do have a large walking and biking population. There's no doubt about that. But I want to thank Anita and the staff for how they conducted their business here, because it was difficult for us to get started after the last round, especially the number of people that worked on it, and the vote didn't go our way. And so it's been a long road, and I appreciate all the questions that you're asking and especially the one on finances. We have a large number of nonprofits here which reduces our ability to raise dollars through taxes, yet the nonprofits are providing services that the county does not. So it's a double-edged sword. And we were making great progress here until the hurricane last year, year-and-a-half ago, which set us back a bit. But this is a community that wants to move forward. We need your help. We need your expertise as well. What we don't need is this to be a protracted process of another year or two, because we will lose support in the community because it will be understood that this is just the same old, same old. Immokalee is last, last on everything. And we need help to just move the process forward. And I appreciate all of the questions that you're asking, and I hope they will get answered. And, Mark, we understand who you are and the fact that you've always been that person that has been concerned about Immokalee, and we appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We're going to look out and try to make sure the language meets what you guys expect, and that's why we're going to be very careful with it. Thank you. Anybody else from the community right now that would like to speak? Or we will be resuming after lunch, so we can also have questions at that time as well. Okay. With that, we'll take a break for lunch, and it's about 20 minutes to 12. Let's come back at 12:45; that will give everybody a chance to find a place to eat. I'm going to be staying here, but the rest of you, whatever you want to do, it's up to you-all. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 28 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. We're back on record. Now that Ned won all the money at the casino, we can -- that takes care of his fiscal question. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Are we on TV now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we left previously we had some of the members of the public speak at the -- during the lunch hour a couple of them came up and asked me if they could speak when we resumed. Nobody's here yet. So when the public starts wandering back in, we will fit them into the questions that we start with of the panel. And what happened to Karl? MR. BOSI: Karl went to the bathroom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad everybody in TV land knows that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Terri, did you get that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you guys had a great party while you were at lunch. MS. JENKINS: Lozano's margaritas, was it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where we'll pick up is there are some issues we may want to -- at least I've got some questions concerning more global issues that aren't necessarily in line with the page-by-page review, and I think some of you, if you do have any, why don't we hit those first, and then we'll start going through the document a page at a time. We will continue till 2 o'clock, but at 2 o'clock we will be closing for the day and continuing to a new date. And, Mike, do you know -- probably we would want to continue to the second meeting in February -- MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we have only one case in the morning, and then we could just take part of that day and go through till about mid-afternoon that day. MR. BOSI: That was going to be staff's recommendation to -- concurrence with the Chair -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- is that we continue the item to the 21st of February, and we'll pick it back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll announce that as we finish with today. And, Karl, welcome back. We heard where you were. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while you were busy, we discussed right now let's take a look at any questions outside of the page-by-page review that we -- we would typically go into these documents and go three or four pages at a time and walk our way through them. Before we do that, though, because of the detailed presentation we got, if there are any questions from a more global perspective or broad perspective that we can hit on before we get into the rest of it, I'll look -- turn to anybody that wants to speak right now. Anybody have any issues on the overall program that we heard this morning? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was just a little interested in -- I was asking Anita before what she knows about why Immokalee is Immokalee. Who determined the boundary. It's not a city. It's not a government. It's some kind of planning entity, according to Heidi, and I guess somebody just figured out, well, this is Immokalee, and this isn't. So is that about right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if it's that simple, but go ahead. MS. JENKINS: I think that probably our best historian with us today is David Weeks. He might be able to shed some light on how the boundary was determined back in the time that they determined that. David, do you have any information? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 29 of 48 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I didn't know -- in all the years I've known David, I did not know it, but we were driving around -- and he grew up here. And I did not know that. MS. JENKINS: Yes. Yes, he did. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is his hometown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, what have you got to say, or would you rather not say? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, for the record, Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, I don't know the exact answer to that. I know when the countywide Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, it defined boundaries of Immokalee as we see today, and its predecessor, the 1983 Comprehensive Plan, to the best of my recollection, also had the same boundaries as we see today. So it at least goes back into the '80s when the boundary was established, the Immokalee urban area boundary was established, but I don't know exactly how that was chosen. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, Mark had a map he was showing me from the '20s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah -- yeah, 1923 we formed Collier County, but Immokalee was already here. (Multiple speakers speaking.) THE COURT REPORTER: I can't get you all at the same time. MR. WEEKS: Now, as a community, Immokalee does go all the way back to early part of the development of the county, but I don't know what that boundary was. I would suspect at that point, that far back, that there was no specific boundary. It was more like we see just a dot on the map. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So this is fairly arbitrary as far as -- MR. WEEKS: I don't want to use the word "arbitrary." I just -- I don't know exactly how the boundary was selected. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few, and as you guys come up with thoughts on them, jump in. I'll go for the -- let me look at the ones that -- okay. First one, in 2012 during the reviews, this planning commission, or different members at the time, but also the Board of County Commissioners did have some concerns expressed and some changes requested to that previous plan. Did you review those, and have you incorporated those in -- I mean, I don't believe all of them have been, but have you -- did you address the concerns from the prior review? MS. JENKINS: Yes, and they changed, right, because we went through a series of hearings. And I know that the Planning Commission recommended against the density blending provision and the other provision. The Board's action was to not incorporate those. So I did look at those. The Board didn't incorporate the CCPC's recommendations, so we went from there as what the Board's preview (sic) was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the issue concerning the density concentrating along the main hurricane evacuation route, which is State Road 29? I notice that didn't seem to be addressed in here because you've got the same plan. You're putting the density -- piling the density on the main street. Right now traffic is reduced substantially on 29. When a bypass is in, that may work just fine, but right now if that kind of density was maximized along 29, I'd be concerned about, as I was then, about the ability for people to evacuate. MS. JENKINS: I have a picture to show you, if it's helpful, with a little information. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 30 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So the density changes were in the commercial mixed-use area, and it went from 12, which was the original commercial density -- and the adopted plan was 12. We increased it to 16. So when we look at that, what's the reality of that? So the reality is is that right now we know that redevelopment takes a long, long time in Immokalee. And they're not out here, you know, knocking down existing buildings and redeveloping at any quick pace. So to look at the reality of an evacuation situation, first of all -- let me get the light. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to do that. MS. JENKINS: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Well, this is beyond my capacity. MS. JENKINS: The second one on your left. The second one on your left. The square button. The other second one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The other second one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other left. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He went second from the bottom instead of second from the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So where is the density potential for change in Immokalee? And we know that redevelopment is not occurring here. Many of the buildings that you see have been existing here. And the property owners are not inclined to change them to any great degree right now. They'll change their lease agreements and those that are doing business in their buildings, but they're not substantially changing it. So that density increase then, realistically, can happen on about 120 acres of vacant property. And you can see those scattered around in those little black dots. There's a lot of little teeny ones. It's about 120 acres. But the size of the parcels go from about a half acre to a maximum of 10 acres here by different landowners. So we're seeing a maximum potential -- if all of those properties said, oh, we're going to -- that's good for us, we want to take advantage of that opportunity and build multifamily housing here, the maximum total units from, you know, 16 to the maximum of 20 would be about 1,900 to 2,400. There's no concerns on the evacuation route with the increased density here, and this is why. And I went through that concern, because I heard that concern before. So I wanted to understand that from Dan Summers, who's our Emergency Management director. Evacuation routes are not planned any differently than the regular capacity of all of our roadways in Collier County. So what they look at is if you have capacity on that road network to handle new development, we have capacity on that network to handle evacuation. So that's the first thing. The other thing that Dan shared is that Immokalee does not evacuate. So Immokalee is not adding on the evacuation route. Immokalee is sheltered. They do not evacuate in these storms. And I think that through this conversation, we had the benefit of talking about Irma that just came through and were there any challenges on that evacuation route, or any evacuation routes for that matter in Collier County. And the point was shared that nothing that couldn't be handled by the Sheriff -- and, typically, in evacuation scenarios, we all evacuate at a different time based on our own needs and where we live in the community and what our evacuation needs are. So as evacuations are staggered in Collier County and the capacity is on this roadway with no deficiencies, there's no determination from Emergency Management that a little bit of increased density here is going to impact that evacuation route. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 31 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The route that I'm most concerned about is all this pink right up along both sides of Main Street that's right there. That's going from the uses that are there today, which are a lot of commercial uses, neighborhood commercial, another in a couple of overlays, to up to 20 units per acre. To get that 20 units per acre, I would imagine we're going to have to have some kind of ability to go high. So I would expect we're going to have multi-story buildings there. I don't know how high they'll be, but you can't put 20 acres on -- 20 units on one acre very easily, so you're going to have to probably go up. You're going to have two things. All those people will be basically hugging the main corridor. One of the things that we saw as a problem with Rural Lands West is they were putting a town plan over the top of Oil Well Road. Oil Well Road is one of the primary east/west freight lines in Collier County. The capacity of Oil Well Road right now is based on the speed limit of Oil Well Road. If you put a town across Oil Well Road, you're going to have to reduce that speed limit. The same is going to apply here. The more people that are there, the more people that are going to have to be going in and out is going to clog up that artery before State Road 29 potentially is built. I mean, the bypass route or the loop road, whatever you want to call it. So my concern is that we're going to be basically incentivizing residential because of density to go along the corridor that isn't really functioning as well as it should, as it could be if it was an evacuation route. Now, I understand what you're saying; Irma was the example. Right, but that's today's density as it is today, as it might build out today. The density you're proposing and the way it's being proposed may incentivize more changes along that corridor before an alternative route is in. All I'm suggesting is, has anybody looked at time frames of the possible alternative route and how this area is going to develop out at these higher densities? MS. JENKINS: Yes, in that we know that redevelopment is slow moving here. Right now you have 120 acres that's vacant that could happen over the next few years, but it is not anticipated that the property owners with commercial uses are going to forego those commercial uses to build multifamily now. The other thing that was pointed out is this evacuation route is not publicly prioritized or influenced by our Emergency Management. They rarely say go out this way. So it's not a publicly encouraged evacuation route. So from our perspective, there was no concern with the evacuation with adding this type of density knowing that it's going to happen over a long term, and we're going to have another loop road to have additional capacity for that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My other question is concerning the idea of an Immokalee segment of the LDC. Is that something that can -- how -- is that something that if this board would -- likes the idea, it would be recommended to the Board to be added, or is that something that would be put in here to create -- incentivize Immokalee or allow Immokalee to create its own land development segment like we have an SRA segment and RLSA segment in our code? MS. JENKINS: That was a lot. I didn't catch -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said this question earlier. We have a segment of the code for the RLSA. Is there a reason we can't have a segment of our code pertaining strictly to Immokalee? MS. JENKINS: That's in the policy. That's what the intent is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. I didn't get that out of there. So when we get to that policy, maybe you can point it out to me. MS. JENKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The second thing is Immokalee used to have it's own 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 32 of 48 Planning Commission. And I really think it might be better for the people out here to have that experience, and I was wondering if that idea has anywhere showed up or a possibility to have the language you're preparing. MS. JENKINS: No, it hasn't, and it wasn't proposed during this restudy process. I'm not sure that it has to be in the Comp Plan to achieve that. If the Board directed to establish a CCPC for Immokalee, I don't think it has to be in the Comp Plan to do that. But, no, it wasn't contemplated or asked for during this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 18, when we get to that -- but it's about that alternative energy. I would hope that we could have more explanation of how that would function, and I'll just point that out for later on. Oh, you tie the housing to the county housing plan in one of your policies. I don't know if that's the right way to approach housing in Immokalee. I'm not sure the parameters in which that plan's multipliers and other factors are, let's say, geared to Immokalee housing. They're more geared to a countywide housing need in that as it applies to the urban area. So there may be some -- there may be some way to look at that where we can gear it more towards Immokalee. MS. JENKINS: The idea there was to reference that and include it by policy just in case there are provisions in the housing plan that would benefit Immokalee so we didn't miss that opportunity to incorporate those. The density bonuses the Board has already adopted, they already apply to Immokalee, but the housing plan itself, if there were things in there that needed to apply here, we didn't want to miss that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was concerned about the way they reached the ranges of categories in the housing plan, the multiple they used. They're different than what I believe the state recommends. And I don't know how that would positively or negativity affect Immokalee, but it was a concern that I don't know if anybody's looked at. You have a reference to neighborhood improvement plans. Do you have any of those we could have a copy of? MS. JENKINS: That's a policy to be created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So neighborhood improvement plans have not been created yet? MS. JENKINS: No, that's a policy we -- remember in the presentation I said that it was very focused on housing in the beginning? And so the housing policy, the old housing policy became really broad and to consider the entire neighborhood. So the process is going to be that a group from Immokalee, along with the Community Redevelopment Agency, MSTU, county staff, works through identifying the boundaries of different neighborhoods, and then also what those conditions of the neighborhoods are and what the improvements would be needed in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How did this -- how do they decide for each separate community how that community should be improved? Is it the residents that will tell them what they're looking for? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I think it's always the residents. I mean, the people that live here know this area better than we do in working through this plan. So, absolutely. We went through that process during our public workshops to identify neighborhoods. So the community in those workshops have already kind of defined that, and we were thinking about adopting that plan, or the map of neighborhoods, into this plan, but we thought it might be too hard to change -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would -- MS. JENKINS: -- so we backed off doing that. So the issue is now we go forward with identifying the neighborhoods, creating a plan, and then when Collier County is doing other infrastructure work in a neighborhood and there's an opportunity that comes up, it goes on the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 33 of 48 CRA's list for future budget items to bring forward, and it's a more cohesive approach to elevating these neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you implement the plan? What mechanism would you use to make it implementable, regulate it -- regulatory? Is it going to be something that's going to have to be adopted as an LDC change or what? MS. JENKINS: Well, I think once they understand what the needs are, I don't think it has to be an LDC change. It's basically going to be a list of projects for a neighborhood. These -- lighting is needed in this neighborhood, sidewalks, a transit stop is needed. So it's going to be up to the county staff that's working collectively in Immokalee to put those into the CRA's budget, to the county budget, to bring that forward, and I don't think it necessarily needs to be an LDC regulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now that I know what it is, when we get to that paragraph in the discussion, I want to, again -- and that may fall back on a fiscal issue if it's not written appropriately. And I wouldn't want us bound to a plan that's going to require those kind of improvements unless we know the fiscal cost. So reviewing the plan and assisting with understanding what the neighborhood needs versus building the plan and doing the plan are two different things, so... MS. JENKINS: Right. There's nothing in the policies that say we're going to build anything. They're studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, the CRA. You had referenced two documents for this -- in the Immokalee master plan. And let me see if I can find them. One was 2000-082, and the other was 2004-384. They're basically about the CRA. One thing that I couldn't match up is the map on the reference 2004-384 that showed the additional areas of the CRA being added to the Immokalee CRA and whether or not it was even added to the urban area. I wasn't sure, because the map was so sketchy. Does somebody have an overlay of where the CRA fits into the Immokalee urban area? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. Actually, the CRA boundary -- and this goes back to when they established the CRA. The CRA boundary actually goes out a little bit beyond the urban area, and that changed because they changed that boundary slightly. So that was the difference between those two ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the new Immokalee master plan does not follow Ordinance 2004-384 as far as land area goes because it doesn't incorporate those new areas, plus the exhibit that's on the document you told us, that's incorporated into the master plan, is not the same layout as the urban area that's on the IMAP. So how do these documents coordinate? MS. JENKINS: So they coordinate -- the master plan and the Future Land Use Map are one, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying "one." What does that mean? You're saying that the CRA is identical to the Immokalee urban area? MS. JENKINS: So the master plan, the urban -- the Immokalee Area Master Plan is governed with a boundary of the Future Land Use Map, that one. That's our boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I just said. So you're saying that the CRA is the same outline as that urban area with the exception of those two added pieces? MS. JENKINS: So the CRA is governed by their own plan which has a different boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you show me the CRA area, please, the area that the CRA governs. MS. JENKINS: If you give me five minutes, and we'll come back to that. And I'll ask Deborah -- she probably has a -- yeah. I'll ask the CRA to bring in -- I know that they have those maps, so we'll bring those in and show you the difference. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 34 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just would like to understand how one is coordinated over the top of the other, and that's what I couldn't figure out because of that reference in the GMP for that 2004 resolution. The backup to that resolution was different than the Immokalee urban area. MR. STONE: Mr. Chairman, would it be helpful if, in fact, they don't match up exactly, that you add language clarifying that it's to the extent that the Immokalee Area Master Plan overlaps the redevelopment area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just like to know how much of the urban area may not be in the CRA, and part of that is, okay, if it isn't, then who is -- who was involved in that area of this rewrite to represent those property owners who weren't in the CRA? I'm assuming the CRA, being the body it is, had some input from the neighborhoods it represents. But I don't know if there's anything outside them that haven't been representing or discussed with. MS. JENKINS: So outside of the urban area boundaries -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, outside of the CRA boundaries. MS. JENKINS: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the CRA represents an area, but I don't know if it's the same area as we're producing in the IM. MS. JENKINS: It's a little bit larger, and it's just to collect taxes with TIFF. The CRA boundary's a little bit larger than the urban boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why wouldn't the 2004 ordinance, the resolution have a -- I mean, did you look at the backup to that? It's a small portion of the urban area. It's not small, but it's not the whole -- clearly not the whole urban area. And I just don't know why we would have a resolution that only shows a partial -- again, it's back trying to understand how the Immokalee Area Master Plan fits with the CRA and how the CRA represented everything in that urban area. That's all I was trying to get to. MS. JENKINS: Correct. So the CRA covers the entire urban area and a little bit area outside of it. The little bit of area outside of it would fall under the RLSA and is governed by the land-use designation of the RLSA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to produce a map to show us? MS. JENKINS: They're going to bring some maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the only thing I keep saying is the resolution doesn't say that. That's what I'm trying to get at. So the native vegetation question that Paul Midney had for the FLUE, did we get a definitive answer on what that is, just out of -- David, I know I had a discussion, a sidebar with Paul, and I don't know if that was resolved. Maybe, David, you could share that information with us, if you have it. MR. WEEKS: We, as staff, actually discussed that a little bit during lunch. The proposed master plan strikes through a reference to a CCME policy. That CCME policy is applicable to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Connecting the dots, Paul's recollection was accurate that the policy that is being referenced with the -- it's either 40 percent or the 60 percent, that is receiving lands or neutral lands native vegetation retention requirements. At the staff level, we're not -- so it's shown as being stricken through here, the reference to the CCME policy. So the question for us, staff to answer -- because our intent, I believe, is not to change the preservation requirement, is to see if the CCME policy explicitly refers to this Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay area, and if it does, then we may be good to go, that is okay with striking the reference, but if it's not in the CCME policy, then we definitely would want to keep the reference to that CCME policy. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 35 of 48 But, again, the overarching point here is that the intent is not to lessen the preservation standards. Staff will check and make sure that we're doing that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think, David, you're saying lessen the standards from the adopted or from the 2012 proposed? Because 2012 proposed did have a CCME text amendment to increase the preservation standards for the Lake Trafford overlay. MR. WEEKS: I know it was in the proposed master plan, but my recollection was that the CCME policy did include language that applied to it, but we'll figure that out. That's a positive thing in the sense that this hearing's going to be continued, because that will give us a chance to clean this up, make sure it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Thank you, David. That's the questions I had before we go through the document. Does anybody else have any others at this time? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in the brief public comments, the leader of the Chamber of Commerce expressed a concern over mobile homes, and I'm wondering, he felt that in some ways the prevalence of mobile homes in some key areas, I think maybe highly visible areas, was detrimental to the appeal of Immokalee for people to invest and to help the community grow. Is there any provision in the plan, incentive to convert mobile home areas? I know they seem to be grandfathered in in certain areas through an agreement. They're allowed in all the different levels of residential. Is there any provision in the plan that would incentivize owners to change mobile home parks to multifamily, or is that an issue that you see on the radar screen and something that there's a solution for in the plan? MS. JENKINS: Well, my understanding is historically that has been a challenge with Immokalee, is that there's a lot of need for mobile homes out here, and there's folks that want improvements, that want those mobile homes to change over, and that's part of changing the land-use plan to say let's provide higher density. Let's change this low density to commercial or medium or high so it gives that property owner maybe an incentive that they can provide additional or more housing than they can with mobile homes. But I think through the last process what I read and what I remember is that the mobile home park owners are very protective of their rights to continue with their mobile home uses. So I think it's -- yes, we want it to change. We want better housing, particularly in, you know, different situations, but I think that we recognize, too, that it's providing housing that's needed right now. So it's a balance to try to increase and change the designation and the densities a little bit in some areas, change them from low to medium so they could have better opportunity to provide different housing. So that's how it was addressed. But the larger community in the past restudy was very vocal about needing to keep some mobile homes in Immokalee. So we're trying to satisfy both. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the homeowners or property owners that mobile homes are currently located do have some additional options in the plan -- MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and some, in a way, incentives to make a change if they decide that's best for them? MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I just noticed the plan went up. So is that the -- is that intended to represent -- the green, the CRA area? MS. JENKINS: The green is the CRA, and then the black line is the Immokalee urban boundary. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 36 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Perfect. That's just what I was trying to understand. So the CRA encompasses all of the urban area; therefore, the group that's helped you with this does represent everybody in the urban area, so that's what I was trying to get to. MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the red, the big red line? What is that? MS. JENKINS: Maybe the Promise -- Promise Zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Enterprise Zone. MS. JENKINS: It could be. I can't read it. I'll be happy to go up there and read it, if you'd like. Oh, it's the rural area of opportunity, the boundary. Thank you, Christy. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You said something before about Immokalee used to have their own Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why did they do away with it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It seem -- I mean, you wouldn't need seven people. It seems like a great idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I do, too. I mean, they could better understand the applications when people came to see them in one of these buildings instead of driving all the way to the urban area, because we don't get a lot of participation on some of these -- most of it's been minor stuff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They have different issues out here than we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. David may have an answer, it looks like. MR. WEEKS: I do. Prior to 1982, the Immokalee area versus the remainder of the county had their own separate zoning ordinances; two different zoning ordinances, two different planning areas that coincided with the zoning ordinances; therefore, a separate planning commission for each of those separate zoning ordinances. In 1982, we adopted a single-zoning ordinance applicable to the entire unincorporated county, and it was subsequent to that that we, likewise, followed up with having a single countywide planning commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: For the record, I think that was a bad idea. But what would be the chance of going back to the old system? And where would you divide the Planning Commission area of authority? By that big red line? Because it wouldn't be just -- it would be, like, everything from Immokalee north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd be getting into the RLSA if you go outside the Immokalee urban boundary. So I would suggest if it were to happen it only be the Immokalee urban boundary, because then you're getting into the RLSA, which is a countywide application that would probably not necessarily be applicable as much to Immokalee as it is to the whole county's transportation system and infrastructure. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Did you get all that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She knows I'm talking real slow. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What is the chance of this ever happening? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I think that's for you. He's trying to hide, walk away. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What's the chance we can get it done? I really can't see -- I think my attitude about Immokalee -- I don't understand their attitude. No, I do understand their attitude, and I think we ought to be separate from them. MR. WEEKS: I think it's a matter of the community's desire. If the community has the desire to have their own regulations and their own planning commission, then I think it becomes a matter of the political will, unless there's some legal reason that it can't be done. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 37 of 48 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They petition the Board? We just stay out of it? MR. WEEKS: That would be one way, petition the Board collectively or speak to their own commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think us discussing it when we finally make recommendations -- not as a recommendation as part of this plan. It's a more of a recommendation for the Board to consider separately, and let the Board decide. I mean, but at least it's floated to the top and it got aired. I think that would be the way to handle it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Wondering about the mechanism to get it done. I don't know if anybody else thinks it's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get towards the end, we'll have to vote on it. Mike? MR. BOSI: I was just going to say there's going to be some fiscal consideration with that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know there would be. That's why I think we keep it separate from the discussion on the plan, but it's an idea that may warrant a further consideration by the Board. So anyway. Okay. With that, let's turn to any public speakers, because someone -- one or two people had said they wanted to talk when they got back. I don't know if they came back in or not. Does anybody here, as a member of the public, wish to speak? Don't be shy. Come on up. We're here to hear from you, and this is a pretty informal setting. So we definitely want to hear what you have to say. Say your name for the record, and spell it if it's not easy to spell. MS. HALMAN: Sure. My name is Andrea Halman, That's A-n-d-r-e-a, H-a-l-m-a-n. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HALMAN: I'm a 10-year resident of Immokalee. I'm on the CRA and the MSTU board. So I participated in our rewrite of the document. I think Immokalee is going to make progress whether you all want it to or not or whether anyone wants it to or not, because there are people out here that want the community to progress. We do have use of staff from Naples that will come out -- from the county that will come out and help us to do the things we need, but we are also, with the CRA's help, getting grants. We just got a $16 million grant to do infrastructure. We out here in Immokalee are going to make some changes. We would hope that you-all would be a part of that and help us to do that, but it's going to happen, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't think anybody up here thinks it's not. We just want to make sure, with your input and the others that have spoke, that the direction that actually comes out of this study is the one that you-all think it will, and we're just trying to get there like you are, so... MS. HALMAN: We have looked at this document, and we have worked on it, and the CRA has brought it to meetings. We have had lots of people to attend those meetings. We don't have many here today because a lot of people out in Immokalee work during the day. They're not able to get off and come to these type situations, but they have participated in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Does anybody else wish to speak? Okay. Let's move on, then. Why don't we start in the document. The document we need to work off of is the agenda item, which is the 9A item. It's 152 pages. The first part of the agenda item is a staff report to the Planning Commission. Staff report, I believe, is six pages, and it basically rolls out what we're going to be discussing today. Why don't we just take those six pages first and see if there's any questions from the Planning Commission on the first six pages of the staff report, which is in an introductory format. It's not part of the Immokalee Are Master Plan itself. Does anybody have any comments? Go 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 38 of 48 ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for making reference to the 152-page denominator, because there are a couple of versions out there, and that happens to be the one I'm keyed to. This is -- my question has to do with Page 7 of Page 152, but I think that's Page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- 5 of the staff report, yeah, and it relates back to this 47 percent number. And I think the concept within that number is going to be real important to us as we evaluate this further. And could you say another word or two about the extent, if any, to which it was a scientifically arrived-at number; what was really done in order to yield this percentage? MS. JENKINS: That percentage number is referenced in this document from an MPO document. So it is not a number that we derived through this study, but it's a reference back to an MPO study that they did. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do we know where they got it? MS. JENKINS: I can find out for you. If you want to know their methodology specifically of how they derived at that number, I'm happy to share that with you. But I referenced it from the MPO's transportation study. And I don't know if Trinity or anyone else can help with that number, but that's where that -- the source is the MPOs. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. For my purposes, then, I'm going to want to see more support for that. I think we heard, actually, three different opinions this morning, the 47 percent. Someone spoke out that it was lower; someone else said it's higher. I, for one, would like to know to the extent that we can quantify it. Really, what the scientific people who have thought about this and analyzed it, what they think and how they arrived at that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To further his question, also, just for your background, you might want to check with the fire chief during break. When he was leaving, he pulled me aside and said that he has looked at it. He believes it's about 60 percent. I don't know where he got his numbers from. But that would be another one to check and see if there's any study that he looked at. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That is all I have from the first five, Mr. Chairman -- first seven, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else from the first introduction? On the same page that Ned was on, Page 5 of the staff report, Page 7 electronically, there's a table there that says FLUE designation changes. Now, you're eliminating neighborhood centers, commercial center mixed-use, planning and development commercial. You're changing some of the others to different categories. Did you send any notices out to property owners affected by these changes? MS. JENKINS: No specific notices, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there any -- MS. JENKINS: Now, they may have, Mr. Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's they? MS. JENKINS: With the original -- the original study that made these changes before. We did not change it in our process. So if they sent out specific letters -- certainly, all of our public workshops were noticed and sent out by various means to encourage people to attend, but I have not received any communications from any property owner that has any issue with any of the changes to the land use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they don't know about it, they may have a hard time having an issue. That's why I was asking. You are -- in some categories it appears that some of the uses they have now are not going to be uses they can use in the future, and that could pose a 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 39 of 48 problem. MS. JENKINS: Well, I don't think that's the case. Maybe you could be more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know you don't know, but as we go through the document, I'll try to point it out to you. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the only reason I was asking if anybody got noticed on some of those situations. Now, that table, I guess they were considered substantial land-use changes. That's why the table was produced. What was the issue about the Immokalee Civic Center and the Satellite Emergency Operations Center? Is that something that is being included as part of the IMAP as a -- I don't know. Does it have a commitment? MS. JENKINS: It's a commitment to consider them and study the opportunity for them. These two things came up in this restudy as very important to the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: So we included those two items we heard again and again. So there's no commitment to them. It's basic -- and it might happen in a building that we already have. It might happen here. We might find that this is a good place for a civic center, so it's not necessarily a new structure, but it's just recognizing two items that were very important in this go-around to the public. So I wanted to make sure I reflected that, I heard them, and we showed that we heard them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. No, I just wanted to understand what it meant. That's fine. There's the transportation piece there, too, but my biggest question about the transportation piece, do you have a timing of when the -- I don't care if we call it a bypass, a loop road, or whatever, the alternative routing. Is there any timing on that as to when it might happen? MS. JENKINS: So the PD&E study is finished. They've selected -- their route is in place. And it's not funded right now, but that's an FDOT project that, with the PD&E being complete, it may move up in funding much more quickly because it is part of the FDOT strategic intermodal system for freight throughout the rural area of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason -- if the density's -- and the discussion when we get into the densities in the CMU, if there's no -- we need some comfort level there, and the bypass routing may be a concern -- may be something that will help, so... You had a discussion on the next page of that, which is Page 6 of the staff report, concerning the Policy 3.3.4 using the word "evacuation." And it seems like you were encouraged to change the reference to "evacuation" to "public safety." Is it an evacuation -- is 3.3.4 -- and I'd have to pull it up again. Maybe you could, you know -- I probably highlighted it, when we get to it. Was 3.3.4 something to do with 29, or is that a -- why would "evacuation" be the -- be used there in the first place; do you know? MS. JENKINS: So when we talked with the -- this is the CRA's final recommendations for their final review of the proposed plan. These were two suggestions that were made. When we talked about that transportation study that can be initiated within three years to look at that northwest corner for better connectivity on collector and local roadways, we were talking about pedestrian/bicycle transient access. The CRA and the folks that live here say, well, it's really important for us to be able to evacuate if there's a fire, if there is, you know, a crash, but we changed -- that was part of the conversation with Dan Summers is that -- he was concerned about calling it evacuation because of the term "evacuation route." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand. That's a good point. I'm glad you got it fixed. I just couldn't -- I was wondering why Dan was so concerned about it if it involved a road 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 40 of 48 that was designated as evacuation. It doesn't. It's just everybody was referring to any road they would use to leave an area as evacuation. So that clears it up. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to the actual proposed Immokalee Master Plan, which starts on Page 10 of the agenda item. And then we go right into an introduction. And why don't we just start with the first page. Does anybody have any questions on the introduction? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I have, there is a table of contents in the existing plan. And I notice the table of contents includes a whole pile of support documents, list of tables, and list of figures, as well as appendices. Now, those documents, apparently, were vital in the original adopted master plan. Are you planning to have a table of contents and documents as support documents to this and, if so, when can we see that? MS. JENKINS: So in discussing this with David -- and, Scott, I think you might have been part of this discussion -- we talked about that. We found that that lists document, that it is very outdated, so it was not helpful in moving it forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No,I realize that. MS. JENKINS: So it's not intended to be in there anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I wouldn't expect the old document to support the new -- the old document support documents to be the support documents to be the support documents for the new, but where are your support documents, appendices, and other things that you would need to show why you -- MS. JENKINS: So I'll let David explain his thoughts behind why we changed the table of contents and why they're not there now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I realize, David, why the old one isn't there; it wouldn't apply. But you're not going to have a new table of contents providing the backup for future people to understand why this new plan was modified and changed the way it is? Was that your intent? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, we could certainly do that. The way I was looking at it was what we've done with the Future Land Use Element, which applies to the other parts of the county, everything but Immokalee, and even certain policies of that apply here. We've gone through significant amendments to the Future Land Use Element over time, most particularly as a result of the state-mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. And what we have not done each time that we have amended the Future Land Use Element is incorporate or, excuse me, add those studies and support documents that were a part of those amendments, that is with a foundation, the basis for those amendments, into the Future Land Use Element. So that each individual amendment, again, whether it's EAR based, you know, major, or if it's a private amendment or one particular piece of property, we have not added to the support document listing of those additional documents. So the rationale was simply the same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the FLUE has a table of contents based on what's in the first 140 pages of the FLUE, and then it adds subdistricts as they come up, maybe through the EAR or something else. What I'm suggesting is you're not going to put in any table of contents at all so if someone wants to look through -- I don't even know how many pages the new one is, 50 pages, whatever -- they have -- there's not going to be a table of contents. You just start scrolling through it until you find the section you want? MR. WEEKS: That's what we were thinking. I mean, one option certainly is to keep it in place and either continue to reference the old documents as well as those created through this process, for this restudy as well as those that were used in the, I'll say, 2008 through 2012 effort, or 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 41 of 48 we could just include the more recent ones. I think it's a policy decision which way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand why there wasn't, and that's something we can chew on if we want to at the end. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: David, is there a consistent "by policy" map for the Immokalee Area Master Plan? MR. WEEKS: Not in the master plan. It's part of the countywide Future Land Use Element map series. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to the next -- the same page, about midway down, second paragraph from the bottom, it says in the second sentence of that -- or third sentence of that second paragraph from the bottom, the Immokalee Area Master Plan addresses conservation, future land use, population, recreation, transportation, housing, and local economy. What -- as far as conservation goes, since we took out the conservation designation and we don't have another real designation except for the RT around Lake Okeechobee (sic), was that the conservation that this paragraph refers to? MS. JENKINS: I think it's natural resources. It's how we're looking at protecting natural resources rather than using the term "conservation." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to -- if that's the case, might you not want to change that wording in paragraph -- second paragraph from the bottom on Page 1 of the Immokalee Master Plan? MS. JENKINS: Are you in the introduction or the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Introduction, yes. Line 26. And I think your idea is good. MS. JENKINS: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you should have it. I think it would clarify it. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the next page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2? Anybody on Page 3? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I go to Page 22, for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. We're going to be a long time before we get to Page 22. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 3 of the master plan, Line 14, it's Page 13 of the electronic version. It says, for the purpose of this plan, the Immokalee CRA is defined to reference the Immokalee component of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. What do you mean by that? MS. JENKINS: So the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency not only includes Immokalee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayshore, too. MS. JENKINS: -- it also includes Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. JENKINS: So Immokalee is a segment of the overall CRA. So we can't just use CRA, because that would include Bayshore as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I couldn't figure out why the clarification was made. Now I do. Some of the questions have been answered, so I'm moving on. Oh, on Page 4, anybody have any questions on Page 4? If you go to Page 4, you'll see a discussion starting on Line 5 of Lake Trafford. It's about ecotourism and all that. That's all going to happen in the LR zoning district? MS. JENKINS: Well, we think of economic -- or ecotourism not only affecting just the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 42 of 48 RT district. That would provide some of the housing and things like that. But for ecotourism, they might be staying at the hotel in the CMU district. They're, you know, enjoying the restaurants in the other districts. So it's a little -- ecotourism's a little bit broader than just that recreational tourism district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it can be done in the LR district? MS. JENKINS: What can be done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can have ecotourism to the extent it's needed as an actability -- active use in the LR, or is that something we're going to define in the LDC? MS. JENKINS: Well, the ecotourism, you think about more -- what are the activities that you're doing for tourism, right? So they're enjoying Lake Trafford. They're going to Pepper Ranch, but their housing could be in the RT district, which allows for RV parks and transient housing and other accommodations for tourists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. I just didn't know if it had to be separately mentioned in the LR, and I think you've answered that. As we go to the bottom of that page, Line 34, it says, the IMM provides direct access to 2,000 acres of industrial-zoned property and two paved runways and a global positioning system. But if you go to the PUD of the Immokalee Master Plan, it's not 2,000 acres. It's 692 in the paragraphs within the PUD, and it's 712.72 on the PUD master plan. So do you want to -- how do you get to 2,000? MS. JENKINS: So we recognize -- I'm sorry? We recognized that some of that could have been updated a little bit better in the interaction from the airport staff, and they have pointed that out to me. So we can make those changes to clarify. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, I just have a general question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- since we're talking about the airport. Did you look at any ideas around integrating the airport with the proposal that's still being talked about in Hendry County, the Air Glades, large airport? You know, they keep on saying that may become a reality as an alternative to cargo in Miami, but we're pretty close to where that's going to be proposed. MS. JENKINS: Right. So the master plan addresses the airport as far as the land use and what's allowed, but the airport actually has their own master planning process, and I understand that they're taking their master plan to the Board of County Commissioners towards the end of March. So that kind of describes what they -- how they intend to operate and grow that airport, so it's more specific to the airport master plan and how they want to change. Now, this plan will accommodate, you know, the things that the airport wants to do. We will make sure the list of uses is right. And they have their own underlining PUD zoning for the airport as well that controls. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are you familiar with what's being proposed in Hendry County? I'm sure you are. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. We want to get them down here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, that's what I mean. Of course, that's an existing facility up there as well, but there's some big players who own the land. I won't use their names. I know who they are. But it's a significant project. But even if it comes to fruition, we're close enough that we can have, certainly -- Immokalee can share in some of the economic growth and development that may be, from a standpoint, spin-off from whatever's developed in Hendry County. MS. JENKINS: Right. And I know that's on the radar of, of course, the airport authority and the commissioner, commissioner of District 5 here. So I think there's a lot of people trying to encourage that, and we're just making sure that the land uses are correct for them to be able to do what they want to do. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 43 of 48 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they've got a tough hurdle as far as permitting, but that's another issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're onto Page 5. Anybody have any questions on Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move to Page 6. I don't know if Ned -- Ned's not till 22, so he's good. Page 7. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Policy -- it looks -- I don't know if that's 1 point -- well, it's the mitigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the lines on the left side of the page. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, Line 7. MS. JENKINS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seven, 8, 9, and that was a bold initiative that the county's going to explore the feasibility of using privately owned land to develop, basically, mitigation banking. You're well aware, I'm sure, of what it takes to -- MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- permit and get approval for a mitigation bank. I'm just curious in regards to -- what is the county going to do? Will this just identify potential sites? Because it's a pretty extensive process to get it permitted, get it approved -- MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- to verify through the Section 4.04 process that it's a viable project and it's going to -- someone be able to manage it. But just identifying land doesn't seem to be -- other than a goal -- I don't know, what else is the county going to do? That's private land. Somebody would run that as a private enterprise. MS. JENKINS: Right. So I think that the first step, what you mentioned, is getting together the county experts in mitigation banking along with the property owners to initiate that exploration. Is there even willingness to go forward with the next step? This was identified as a tool that we can use to protect natural resources in Immokalee but realizing the cost associated. That's why it doesn't say we're going to do a feasibility study. It says that we're going to explore the opportunities of willing property owners and the county to look at this option. Does it really make sense? Because through the Comp Plan process, we're not diving into that kind of detail, but we're saying this is a tool that we can start the first process, the first dialogue. And if, in fact, we find that, yeah, it looks like we have some willing property owners and, you know, our first blush looks like we've got some good locations, that recommendation has to go back, then, to the Board of County Commissioners for direction to spend that money in that budget and to move it to the next step. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I, as a private landowner, can decide to do it myself and go through the process, if I own the land -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and I get a jurisdictional determination from the Corps and basically say, yeah, this is a feasible option. But I just don't understand why that is in this plan and why the county would want to assume some kind of oversight responsibility for this, because it -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I don't know if it would go as far as oversight. And it might just be the first step is education. Do you-all know that this tool is available to you, mitigation banking? We now have water farming, right? So there's all these different tools. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 44 of 48 So I think the first step is looking at the tools that we can utilize in the Comp Plan and then engage the public to say, this is what it's going to take, and this is the tool and what you can expect your outcome to be with it, and then move forward from that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Who's our experts in the county on mitigation banking. MS. JENKINS: Kris Van Lengen. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, Kris. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same page, Anita, when Ned was talking about fiscal costs. I don't know if he meant this. I know I would have expected it. If you look at Line 7, there's a reference for something to be done within two years. If you look at Line 37, there's something to be done within one year. If you look at Line 43, there's something to be done in two years. Those are the kinds of things that are going to have to have people doing things and costing money. That's part of what I expected to see in fiscal cost analysis. MS. JENKINS: So those are all things that say we're going to initiate it. So every one says we're going to initiate it. So to us, identifying it in the policy and initiating it then gives Mike the ability to talk with his other staff to see if we have capacity -- you know, we have a whole LDC team that does this for the entire Collier County all the time, LDC amendments. So when can we line that up, when can we initiate it, and when do we get the direction from the Board to do that? So we were very careful. And you can see that that "initiate" line replaced the "adoption" language, because if you are saying you're going to adopt it then, yes, you are committing to expending funds and resources to do that. But with the word "initiate," that gives you a little bit more flexibility to do it when you have staff capacity and Board direction with funding, if you need funding to do anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with Line 7. It reads, within two years of adoption, Collier County will explore the feasibility of utilizing of privately owned undeveloped parcels. "Will explore" is something that is like "shall." You've got to do it. So if we commit to doing that, I don't care if it's one year or 10 years from now, the commitment's in what we would be recommending for approval to the Board when this is done. So if we're going to make a recommendation of that to happen, I need to know the cost. And we get to the same thing on Line 37 and Line 40. That's all I'm trying to ask. MR. BOSI: And we're going to work with the County's Attorney's Office to provide qualified language that's going to maybe change that "will" to recognize an available budget because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Initiate -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. BOSI: -- we may not be able to do, but we're going to work with the County's Attorney's Office based upon the 2012 fiscal memo that was provided just to make sure that we can provide the language that doesn't lock us into something but qualifies it within the available budgets within -- within some sort of qualifier that's going to be more -- I think more addressing the points that you've raised. MS. JENKINS: And, too, just to qualify that back again to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that you all have reviewed. The language is the same. So we had lots of LDC overlays and whatnot to be initiated. So the language in this plan is the same as the language that you saw in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The LDC team will initiate overlays within two years and so on and so forth. So the budgetary constraints and the process for this is the same as it was and transmitted in Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the Golden Gate Master Plan been adopted? MS. JENKINS: It's been transmitted, and we're in transmittal hearing with the Board of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 45 of 48 County Commissioners as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board transmitted it? MS. JENKINS: We're hoping for transmittal in February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it hasn't been transmitted. MS. JENKINS: Right. It's been recommended by this board to transmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it hasn't been adopted. And if there needs to be changes in the fiscal costing, now we can -- that can still happen. If there was something that this board missed and I failed to miss (sic) in reviewing that, then I'm certainly going to bring it up between now and the time they have transmittal. That may be something that should be looked at, so... Go ahead, yes, sir. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all right. The issue that I am trying to wrestle with is what exactly does the Board of County Commissioners -- what do they expect of us at this stage? Is it simply to say, yes, staff, you've done a great job in putting together a wish list? This is a great wish list, and if we had unlimited funds, we'd say go right ahead and follow through with all these things. Or are we looking at issues like cost efficiency or absolute costs in order to determine whether something is really feasible given the knowledge that we have of the restrictions and limitations in the county budget? MR. BOSI: When you address and review of the Growth Management Plan, you have to understand the purpose and the intent of the Growth Management Plan is to set the goals, the policies, and objectives, the things, the priorities that the community has identified as what they would like to work to. The specifics of those, the cost specifics, that actual step process, there may be some illusionary -- or some illustration toward -- within the GMP, but those are fleshed out and worked out at the Land Development Code level. The Planning Commission is used to PUD zoning action. You're used to working within the Land Development Code. We're up above -- we're up a level. So there are aspirational goals that are contained within a Growth Management Plan. Those are your goals. Then your policies are at those levels to try to say, here's techniques that we want to try to achieve. What do we want to bring to individual neighborhoods; what do we want to bring to the community? The specifics are contained within your PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I do get that. But let me use, perhaps, an absurd example to point out the direction in which my concern's going. Let's say that there was a notion that a second airport in Immokalee would be a good idea perhaps for, you know, regional shipping or something and that it would cost, oh, I don't know, whatever an airport costs. Let's throw a number out. And we all say, well, yeah, we probably could -- that could probably be a good idea for the county, or would we want to draw the line at this point and say, that's just not going to be feasible? Now, that's one extreme. The other extreme is the idea of a satellite emergency operations center. Again, pretty good idea, but it sounds like it's going to involve a not insignificant cost. Shouldn't we be evaluating a potential cost before we decide to include that item in the aspirational list, or do we go back and say this is just -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think you should raise issues if you have concerns with the feasibility. You know, you are the planning board, but if something jumps out as this is not going to be feasible, especially within the time frame it's presented, then, you know, I think you have a responsibility to raise it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. And then to that point, certainly there's a mix of funding sources. There would be grants, there would be state money, federal money, private money and the like. It would help for us to know as we evaluate the feasibility what could reasonably be expected from other funding sources besides the county taxpayers. And I'm trying to set at least what my hopes and expectations are 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 46 of 48 for what I will be shown before we meet again on this, unless that sounds totally unreasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. One time we used to have a practice in the county, put the fiscal impact. Won't you still do that when it goes to the Board as part of the executive summary, or we no longer do that? MR. BOSI: No. We have a fiscal impact analysis as part of the executive summary. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So we should review that as well if you're providing it to the commission, right? MR. BOSI: And the response normally at the GMP level is the fiscal impacts that are associated with any one of the policies, goals, or objectives within the Future Land Use Element or the GMP are not known at this time; will be provided specifically when each of those items are brought for budgetary consideration for initiation. But we -- we're going to work -- we understand the fiscal issue is an issue that the Planning Commission has concerns over. We're going to work with the County's Attorney's Office to make sure that we can get you as close to what you're looking for. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And just estimates is all I'm looking for right now, reasonable estimates. Not absolute. You know, can't spend more than this or it's going to cost at least that. And, also, I second what the chairman said. If I overlooked budgetary issues in the Golden Gate plan, when it comes back for adoption, I'm going to want to see that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So will I, so... I don't know how numerous they are. This plan has numerous references. The next page after this one has more. So it's pointed out quite often here. I don't know how much -- because the Golden Gate Master Plan had a very minor amount of changes compared to this, so I don't know how often it is picked up or not, but we'll look at it. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm looking at Lines 33 through 40, precertified commercial/industrial sites. I understand, but can you explain, the county will encourage the development of targeted -- well, it goes on, and I won't read it all. But can you explain what this is compared to what we've been doing over the last 15 or so years? This has been around since the CRA as well. This is one of the principal goals of the CRA. It also says within one year of adoption we're going to initiate a review of the Certified Sites Program. Can you explain what the Certified Sites Program is? I have no idea. I have no recollection of what that is. I mean, it's a lofty goal, but I'm puzzled because this is the basic -- the basis and premise of the CRA. That's what they should have been doing for the last 15 years. MS. JENKINS: Right. And so the CRA works with a lot of different property owners. This -- the Certified Sites Program is not only subject to the CRA. It's a countywide initiative right now with the Office of Business and Economic Development, that they are looking at this countywide, because what they continue to hear working with the Chamber as well is that a great business opportunity comes to Collier County, but we have to go through a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone, and they're gone before, you know, the second meeting. So the idea is to get out in front of that a little bit, identify areas for target industries in Collier County, look at what is needed to get them shovel ready and help begin that process. So this is real -- it's not necessarily a CRA program. It's really a broader county program within the Office of Budget and Economic Development. So it's to make sure that, you know, if we want -- we're trying to target manufacturing at 10,000 square feet. Where do we have that vacant property or abandoned property that that might occur, and is it ready with the Comp Plan? Is it consistent? Is zoning in place? So that's kind of the precertification to make sure it's ready to go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, there's a cost associated with that because the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 47 of 48 county -- or you look on that -- county to partner with a public/private partnership, identifying a private landowner, and then going through the process and, as you said, make it a shovel-ready site for a 10,000-square-foot industrial complex. MS. JENKINS: Right. And that's coming out of the Office of Business and Economic Development, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a lofty goal, but that's what they want to do, but that's -- again, it is a fiscal impact, and it should be identified as such. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We are on Page 7 of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Before we go to Page 8, we will need to continue this meeting to our time -- date certain on February 21st after our regular agenda. It will be the last thing on our agenda on that particular date. So with that in mind, it's past 2 o'clock. I know that the staff -- facilities staff have to get all this stuff wrapped up and out of here today, so is there a motion to continue Item 9A, PL20180002258/CPSP-18-5, to the February 21st Planning Commission meeting after our regular agenda item that's already scheduled? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion as stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. What have we got, six? Yeah, 6-0. Okay. With that, I want to thank everybody for your hospitality, allowing us out in Immokalee, and especially for the conveniences of the coffee. That worked wonders for me. It didn't work so good for Terri because the more coffee I drink, the faster I talk. Thank you, members of staff, and especially Troy and your people for setting everything up today. We certainly appreciate it. And with that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Been made. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are adjourned. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) January 31, 2019 Page 48 of 48 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:08 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 1-31-2019 CCPC Minutes (8029 : January 31, 2019, CCPC Minutes) 02/28/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: LDCA-PL20180003429 - Plantation Island Overlay-2.03.07 - An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to create the Plantation Island Overlay which will allow single family detached dwelling units as permitted uses in addition to the uses permitted by the underlying zoning district; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two - Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] Meeting Date: 02/28/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Jeremy Frantz 02/12/2019 3:25 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 02/12/2019 3:25 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 02/13/2019 8:23 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/13/2019 11:35 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/14/2019 10:39 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 02/14/2019 11:14 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/20/2019 11:53 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/21/2019 8:59 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 02/21/2019 9:03 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/28/2019 5:05 PM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 1 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003429 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment adds single-family homes as permitted uses in the geographic area known as Plantation Island through the creation of a new overlay zoning district. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts ZONING ATLAS MAPS TO BE AMENDED 3924N 391314 ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/28/2019 DSAC 12/05/2018 DSAC-LDR N/A ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR N/A DSAC Approval CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On June 26, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow single family homes as a permitted use in the Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District within the area known as Plantation Island (Item 11.A), in part to provide new options for rebuilding after storm damage with more resilient structures in an area vulnerable to storm hazards. During the vetting process, staff was also asked to solicit community input on the option of adding recreational vehicles (RVs) as a permitted use. This amendment creates a new zoning overlay district, called the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO), which covers all of the properties within Plantation Island that are currently zoned MH-ACSC/ST and two adjacent parcels that are currently zoned RSF-1-ACSC/ST and MH(4)-ACSC/ST. With the creation of the PIO, these properties will be designated MH-ACSC/ST-PIO, RSF-1-ACSC/ST-PIO, and MH(4)-ACSC/ST-PIO, respectively. See changes to the Zoning Atlas in Exhibit A. Within the PIO, the development standards of the underlying zoning district will apply (e.g. minimum yards, maximum building heights, minimum floor area of buildings, etc.). Additionally, none of the properties within the PIO will be exempt from any local, state, or federal requirements that are currently applicable to development within the area, including development restrictions placed upon the Area of Critical State Concern-ST (ACSC- ST) overlay. A Neighborhood Information Meeting was attended by 67 members of the public at the Museum of the Everglades, in Everglades City, on November 15, 2018. The question of including RVs as an allowed use was discussed extensively. While some individuals favored allowing RVs, the community consensus was to maintain the underlying MH zoning and limit the overlay to single family home construction as the only allowable alternative. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with GMP for the addition of single family dwelling units only. EXHIBITS: A) Amended Zoning Atlas Maps B) Current Code References to Plantation Island 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.03.07 – Overlay Zoning Districts 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Q. Plantation Island Overlay (PIO). 6 7 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) is to provide for 8 additional permitted uses within the geographic area known as Plantation Island. 9 The PIO allows single-family dwellings as permitted uses in addition to the uses 10 allowed by the underlying zoning district. 11 12 2. Applicability. The PIO boundary is delineated on the map below. Unless specified 13 otherwise in this section, the development standards shall be per the underlying 14 zoning district and applicable standards of the Area of Critical State Concern-15 Special Treatment (ACSC-ST) zoning overlay district. 16 17 18 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx 3. Permitted Uses. 1 2 a. All principal and accessory uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning 3 district as identified in LDC section 2.03.02. 4 5 b. Single family dwellings. 6 7 4. Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Nothing herein shall exempt any land use 8 from complying with the applicable design standards for development in the Area 9 of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment (ACSC-ST) zoning overlay district 10 under LDC section 4.02.14. 11 12 5. Floodplain Protection. Nothing herein shall exempt any land use from complying 13 with the applicable Floodplain Protection standards under LDC section 3.02.00. 14 15 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 16 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 4 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19.docx MAP TO BE REMOVED 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 5 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19.docx MAP TO BE ADDED 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 6 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19.docx MAP TO BE REMOVED 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 7 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19.docx MAP TO BE ADDED 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 8 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx Table of Contents Page Definitions 9 (LDC Section 1.08.02) Temporary Recreational Vehicle storage and use provisions 9 (Code of Ordinances Sec. 130-96) Mobile Home Zoning District 10 (LDC Section 2.03.02.G) Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in MH District 12 (LDC Section 4.02.01) Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts 13 (LDC Section 4.02.14) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 9 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx Definitions (LDC Section 1.08.02) Dwelling, single-family or one-family: A building that contains only 1 dwelling unit. Dwelling (also called dwelling unit): Any building, or part thereof, constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for no more than 1 family, and physically separated from any other rooms or housekeeping establishments which may be in the same structure. A dwelling unit contains sleeping facilities, sanitary facilities, and a kitchen. Mobile home: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is 8 body feet or more in width and which is built on an integral chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling when connected to the required utilities and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. Principal building, structure, or use: The main or primary use on a lot or parcel, or the building in which the main or primary use is housed or carried out. Recreational vehicle: A vehicular-type portable structure without permanent foundation which can be towed, hauled or driven and primarily designed as temporary living accommodation for recreation, camping, and travel use and including, but not limited to, travel trailer, truck campers, camping trailers, and self-propelled motor homes. Temporary Recreational Vehicle storage and use provisions (Code of Ordinances Sec. 130-96) Code of Ordinances Sec. 130-96. - Limitation on the parking, storage or use of recreational vehicles. (a) No Recreational Vehicle shall be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored on a lot in a Residential District, or any location not approved for such use. In Residential Districts permitting single-family homes or mobile homes, a Recreational Vehicle may be parked or stored only in a rear yard, or in a completely enclosed building, or in a carport, or on davits or cradles adjacent to waterways on residentially zoned property; provided, however, that such Recreational Vehicle may be parked anywhere on residential premises, other than on county rights-of-way or right-of-way easements for a period not to exceed six hours within a time period of seven days for loading and unloading, and/or cleaning prior to or after a trip. For the purpose of this section, the rear yard for a corner lot shall be considered to be that portion of the lot opposite the street with the least frontage. For through lots, the rear yard shall be considered to be that portion of the lot lying between the rear elevation (by design) of the residence and the street. (b) The following exceptions may be granted by the County Manager or his designee: (1) Recreational Vehicles may be parked only on a driveway located within the front yard and/or on a driveway located within the side yard of a single-family or mobile home residence other 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 10 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx than on County rights-of-way or right-of-way easements for a period not to exceed 48 hours within any given 7-day time period so long as a permit is obtained from the Collier County Code Enforcement Department. Said permit must be affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is visible from the street. Such permits shall be available on-line at the Collier County Code Enforcement Department website. (2) Recreational Vehicles may be parked upon the premises of the resident for a period not exceeding seven days for the purpose of repairing and/or cleaning prior to or after a trip. A temporary use permit must be obtained from the Collier County Code Enforcement Department to authorize this activity. Said permit must be affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is visible from the street. No more than two consecutive permits may be issued and the maximum number of permits issued during one calendar year shall be restricted to four. (3) Nonresident: Such car, trailer, bus or motorhome, when used for transportation of visitors to this county to visit friends or members of the visitor's family residing in this county may be parked upon the premises of the visited family for a period not exceeding seven days. A temporary use permit must be obtained from the Collier County Code Enforcement Department to authorize this activity. Said permit must be affixed to the Recreational Vehicle in such a way that the permit is visible from the street. This does not allow for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes. No more than two consecutive permits may be issued and the maximum number of permits issued during one calendar year shall be restricted to four. (Ord. No. 10-26, § 6) Mobile Home Zoning District (LDC Section 2.03.02.G) G. Mobile Home District (MH). The purpose and intent of the mobile home district (MH) is to provide land for mobile homes and modular built homes, as defined in this Land Development Code, that are consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The MH District corresponds to and implements the urban mixed-use land use designation on the future land-use map of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible in the MH district and the urban mixed use land use designation shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in the MH district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system, except as permitted by policies contained in the future land use element, or as identified in the Immokalee future land use map of the GMP. 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the mobile home district (MH). a. Permitted uses. 1. Mobile homes. 2. Modular built homes. 3. Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04. 4. Recreational vehicles (RV) as defined in the TTRVC district for those areas zoned MHTT or MHRP prior to November 13, 1991, in accordance with an approved master development plan designating specific areas for RV spaces. The development standards 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 11 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx of the TTRVC district (excluding lot size and area) shall apply to the placement and uses of land in said RV areas. 5. Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14; however, any high school located in this district is subject to a compatibility review as described in LDC section 10.02.03. b. Accessory Uses. 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with mobile home development such as administration buildings, service buildings, utilities, and additions which complement a mobile home. 2. Private docks and boathouses, subject to section 5.03.06. 3. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat for that development. Recreational facilities may include, but are not limited to, golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields. 4. One single-family dwelling in conjunction with the operation of the mobile home park. c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the mobile home district (MH), subject to the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00. 1. Child care centers and adult day care centers. 2. Churches. 3. Civic and cultural facilities. 4. Schools, private. 5. Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing and/or developing residential community as represented by all of the properties/ lots/parcels included in an approved preliminary subdivision plat, PUD or site development plan. The use of said recreational facilities shall be limited to the owners of property or occupants of residential dwellings units and their guests within the area of approved preliminary subdivision plat, or site development plan. 6. Model homes and model sales centers, subject to compliance with all other LDC requirements, to include but not limited to, section 5.04.04. 7. Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14. Additional standards in LDC section 5.05.14 shall also apply; however, any high school located in this district is subject to a compatibility review as described in LDC section 10.02.03. d. Prohibited animals in residential districts. The following animals are to be considered farm animals and are not permitted to be kept in residential districts except as provided for in zoning district regulations: turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese, pigs, horses, cows, goats, hogs, and the like. (Ord. No. 08-11, § 3.E; Ord. No. 16-27, § 3.C) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 12 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts (MH) (LDC Section 4.02.01) A. The following tables describe the dimensional standards pertaining to base zoning districts. Site design requirements apply to the principal building on each site. Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Minimum Lot Area (square feet) Minimum Lot Width (linear feet) Maximum Building Coverage (%) MH 6,000 60 None Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Maximum Building Height (feet) Minimum Distance Between Buildings Minimum Floor Area of Buildings (square feet) Floor Area Ratio (%) MH 30 None None None Table 2.1 - TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS (SETBACKS) FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS Note as to setback line measurement: minimum setback lines are typically measured from the legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot, with the exception of easements that comprise a road right-of-way where the minimum setback line is to be measured from the road right-of-way easement line. Zoning district Minimum Front Yard (feet) Minimum Side Yard (feet) Minimum Rear Yard (feet) Public School Requirements MH 1 25 Waterfront 10 Non-waterfront 7.5 10 x 1 MH District - additional yard requirements: side yard setback from a public road that is external to the boundary of the park = 50 ft.; the minimum setback on any side from the exterior boundary of the park = 15 ft. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 13 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts (LDC Section 4.02.14) A. All development orders issued within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC-ST) shall comply with the Florida Administrative Code, as amended, Bou ndary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, except as provided by Agreement pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), F.S. B. All development orders issued for projects within the ACSC-ST shall be transmitted to the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity, for review with the potential for appeal to the administration commission pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, development order Requirements for Areas of Critical State Concern. C. Site alteration within the ACSC-ST. 1. Site alteration shall be limited to ten (10) percent of the total site size, and installation of nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of any such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. 2. Any nonpermeable surface greater than 20,000 square feet shall provide for release of surface runoff, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the natural surface water flow regime of the area. 3. Soils exposed during site alteration shall be stabilized and retention ponds or performance equivalent structures or system maintained in order to retain runoff and siltation on the construction site. Restoration of vegetation to site alteration areas shall be substantially completed within 180 da ys following completion of a development. Revegetation shall be accomplished with preexisting species except that undesirable exotic species shall not be replanted or propagated. Undesirable exotic species included are those enumerated in LDC section 3.05.08 of this code and the following: a. Bishopwood (Bischofia javanica); b. Castor bean (Ricinus communis); c. Common papaya (Carica papaya); d. Common snakeplant (Sanseviera trifasciata); e. Day jessamine (Cestrum diurnum); f. Hunters robe (Raphidophora aurea); g. Queensland umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla); h. Trailing wedelia (Wedelia trilobata). 4. No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include: a. Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle); b. Black mangrove (Avicennia nitida); c. White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa); d. Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus); e. Salt cordgrasses (Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosuroides, S. spartinae); f. Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). 5. Fill areas and related dredge or borrow ponds shall be aligned substantially in the direction of local surface water flows and shall be separated from other fill areas and ponds by unaltered areas of vegetation of comparable size. Dredge or borrow ponds shall provide for the release of stormwaters as sheet flow from the downstream end into unaltered areas of vegetation. Access roads to and between fill areas shall provide for the passage of water in a manner approximating the natural flow regime and designed to accommodate the fifty (50)-year storm. Fill areas and related ponds shall not substantially retain or divert the tidal flow in or to a slough or strand or significantly impede tidal action in any portion of the estuarine zone. 6. Manmade lakes, ponds, or other containment works shall be constructed with a maximum slope of thirty (30) degrees to a depth of six (6) feet of water. When mineral extraction is completed in new quarrying lakes, shoreline sloping, planting of littoral shelves with nursery-grown aquatic vegetation, restoration or revegetation of the property, and disposal of spoils or tailings shall be completed before abandonment of the site. Existing quarrying lakes are exempt from this provision, except that whenever any person carries 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 14 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx out an activity defined in § 380.04, F.S. as amended, as development or applies for a development permit as defined in § 380.031, F.S. as amended, to develop any existing quarrying lake area, these regulatio ns shall apply. 7. Finger canals shall not be constructed in the ACSC-ST area. 8. This rule shall not apply to site alterations undertaken in connection with the agricultural use of land or for the conversion of land to agricultural use. 9. Drainage. a. Existing drainage facilities shall not be modified so as to discharge water to any coastal waters, either directly or through existing drainage facilities. Existing drainage facilities shall not be expanded in capacity or length except in conformance with subsection 4.02.14 C.9.b. immediately following; however, modifications may be made to existing facilities that will raise the groundwater table or limit saltwater intrusion. b. New drainage facilities shall release water in a manner approximating the natural local surface flow regime, through a spreader pond or performance equivalent structure or system, either on-site or to a natural retention or filtration and flow area. New drainage facilities shall also maintain a groundwater level sufficient to protect wetland vegetation through the use of weirs or performance equivalent structures or system. Said facilities shall not retain, divert, or otherwise block or channel the naturally occurring flows in a strand, slough or estuarine area. c. New drainage facilities shall not discharge water into any coastal waters whether directly or thro ugh existing drainage facilities. d. This rule shall not apply to drainage facilities modified or constructed in order to use land for agricultural purposes or to convert land to such use. 10. Transportation. a. Transportation facilities which would retain, divert or otherwise block surface water flows shall provide for the reestablishment of sheet flow through the use of interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures and shall provide for the passage of stream, strand, or slough waters through the use of bridges, culverts, piling construction, or performance-equivalent structures or systems. b. Transportation facilities shall be constructed parallel to the local surface flow, and shall maintain a historic ground level sufficient to protect wetland vegetation through the use of weirs or performance- equivalent structures or systems and as feasible, the flows in such works shall be released to natural retention filtration and flows areas. c. Transportation facility construction sites shall provide for siltation and runoff control through the use of settling ponds, soil fixing, or performance-equivalent structures or systems. 11. Structure installation. a. Placement of structures shall be accomplished in a manner that will not adversely affect surface water flow or tidal action. b. Minimum low floor elevation permitted for structures shall be at or above the 100-year flood level, as established by the administrator of the federal flood Insurance Administration. The construction of any structure shall meet additional federal flood insurance land management and use criteria. c. This rule shall not apply to structures used or intended for use in connection with the agricultural use of the land. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 15 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx N/A to Plantation Island per 4.02.14.D Special conditions applicable to Plantation Island N/A to Plantation Island per 4.02.14.D D. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island are developments located within the Urban Designated Area, but are also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. A portion of the Port of the Islands development was determined "vested" by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of ch. 380, F.S. There is an existing development agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Development within Port of the Islands shall be regulated by the development agreement and the residential density and commercial intensities shall not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of the GMP. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County Manager or designee for compliance with Area of Critical State Concern regulations. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall not be required to go through the process of filing a petition for site alteration or site development plan approval, pursuant to 4.02.14 G, and not be required to follow the procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval pursuant to 4.02.14 E, 4.02.14 F.2 and 4.02.14 F.3. This does not exempt development orders required pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code. There is also an agreement for Plantation Island, between the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs, to allow site alteration, including dredging and filling of up to 2,500 square feet, regardless of the predevelopment vegetation. This Agreement is recorded in the Official Records, Book 3788, Page 3788, in the public records of Collier County. E. Site alteration plan or site development plan approval required. Prior to the clearing, alteration, or development of any land designated ST or ACSC-ST, property owners or their legally designated agent shall apply for and receive approval of a site alteration plan or site development plan, as the case may be, by the BCC as provided in 4.02.14 F (below). F. Procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for development in ST or ACSC-ST designated land. 1. Preapplication conference. Prior to filing a petition for site alteration or site development approval of ST or ACSC-ST land, the petitioner shall request and hold a preapplication conference with the County Manager or designee. The preapplication conference is for the purpose of guidance and information, and for ensuring insofar as is possible, that the petition is in conformity with these regulations. 2. Review and recommendation by the County Manager or designee, Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council. The site alteration plan or site development plan shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee who shall have it reviewed by th e appropriate county staff. The County Manager or designee shall then forward the site alteration plan or site development plan and the county staff recommendations to the Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) for review a nd recommendation. Hearings before the CCPC and EAC are not required to be legally advertised and not required to provide notice to abutting property owners, but shall be held in a regular meeting. Recommendations from the CCPC, EAC and staff shall be forwarded to the BCC for final action. 3. Final action by Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Final action on the site alteration plan or site development plan lies with the BCC. The BCC shall review the proposed site alteration plan or site development plan in a regular meeting and shall act formally by resolution stipulating reasons for approval, or approval with modification, or denial of the site alteration plan or development plan. 4. Other permits required. The petitioner may at any time during the c ounty review process apply for the appropriate local, state and federal permits for the alteration or development of the subject property. 5. Commencement of site alteration or site development. Upon obtaining all required local, state and federal permits in order to alter or develop the subject property, the petitioner may commence alteration or development in accordance with the conditions and requirements of said permits. G. Submission requirements for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for development in ST or ACSC-ST designated land. The following shall be submitted in a petition for site alteration or site development approval of ST or ACSC-ST land, where applicable: 1. Submission requirements pursuant to 10.02.00 and 10.08.00, as applicable. 2. Locations for beach access as required the Beach Access Ordinance No. 76-20 [Code ch. 146, art. III] or its successor in function. 3. Document that the project is consistent with 3.03.00 and the Objectives and Policies in Goal 10 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. N/A to Plantation Island per 4.02.14.D 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit B - Background Information for the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) District - Current Code References 16 H:\20140000\20149700-185 - Plantation Island LDC\02-28-19 - CCPC\Final SS edits - 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12- 19.docx H. Exceptions from public hearing requirements. The County Manager or designee may administratively approve a site alteration plan or site development plan for land designated ST or ACSC-ST without the public hearing otherwise required by this section if: 1. The area of the proposed alteration or development is five (5) acres or less in gross area; there are no transfer of development rights involved, and the following conditions, where applicable, exist: a. The proposed site alteration or site development will occur on land that was lawfully cleared and no more than ten percent of the cleared lands have re-grown with native vegetation. b. Where the proposed alteration or development involves a single-family principal structure or the renovation or replacement of a single-family structure and the proposed site alteration or site development plan will not require any significant modification of topography, drainage, flora, or fauna on the site. "Significant modification" shall mean modification greater than 15 percent of the site. c. No pollutants will be discharged from the area that will further degrade the air, water or soil. d. Water management berms and structures proposed for the protection and/or enhancement of the ST areas will meet the minimum dimensions permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. 2. Temporary site alteration for oil and gas geophysical surveys and testing. "Temporary site" alteration shall mean only those alterations involving and cutting of vegetation for surveys and equipment entry, drill shot holes not exceeding six inches in diameter and rutting associated with vehicle access. Trimming of vegetation for access routes shall be kept to the minimum width necessary for surveying and testing. The site shall be restored as required by federal, state and county permits within 90 days of the start of the project. 3. A conditional use has been approved. 4. Site alteration or site development around existing communication towers to expand or construct accessory structures associated with an already existing tower, not to exceed five acres. 5. All other site alteration or site development plan approvals of any size shall be as required to comply with the provisions in 4.02.14 D, E and F, as applicable. I. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the requirements of 4.02.14 E and F. 1. Removal and control of exotic vegetation as defined in Chapter 3 of this Code. 2. Prescribed fires and associated firebreaks as approved by the Florida Department of Forestry. 3. Removal of non-native vegetation pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Code. (Ord. No. 06-07, § 3.G; Ord. No. 12-38, § 3.I; Ord. No. 18-18, § 3.K) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 02-12-19 (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 26, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Andy Solis William L. McDaniel, Jr. Donna Fiala Burt L. Saunders Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts & Comptroller Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 129 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? No response.) CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11A EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR THE REZONING OF LOTS 88 AND 89 WEST FLAMINGO DRIVE FROM MOBILE HOME- AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN ZONING (MH-ACSC), AS REQUESTED AT THE MAY 22, 2018, PUBLIC HEARING UNDER AGENDA ITEM #7, PUBLIC PETITION AND APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PROCEED WITH A SELF-INITIATED REZONE – MOTION TO APPROVE THE OVERLAY ON PLANTATION ISLAND W/COUNTY TO ABSORB COSTS – CONSENSUS We move now to County Manager's report, Item 11A. This is a recommendation to evaluate the options for the rezoning of Lots 88 and 89, West Flamingo Drive for a mobile home area of critical state concern zoning as requested at the May 22nd, 2018, public hearing, and recommendation further that the property owner proceed with a self-initiated rezone petition. Mr. Bosi will make the presentation. MR. BOSI: Good afternoon. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. We're going to have to revise our recommendation in the sense that that's the traditional manner for an individual who wanted to rezone the property when the current zoning doesn't provide for the use that they're seeking. The problem with the recommendation is the size 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 130 of the parcel. The size of the parcel is only .2 acres. It's below our threshold for what a rezone would -- a requirement requires 40,000 square feet, and they would not meet that. They could seek a variance, but they would have to seek a rezone with a variance, so it becomes a little bit more complicated. These parcels of land zoned mobile home area of critical state concern do not provide for the opportunity for a traditional home construction. The recommendation that -- from staff would either to do nothing or direct staff to develop an overlay that would allow for the construction of a single-family house within that zoning district, create a zoning overlay to allow for that type of a -- that type of additional residential use. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm going to let him finish. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. BOSI: But with that, I wanted to put on the record the revised recommendation because of the size issue related to the rezoning requirement. And if the Board was to direct to allow for the construction of a traditional stick-built house, we could do that, but it would be based upon an overlay to allow for that to -- a zoning overlay over neath (sic) the entire zoning district. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's exactly what I was going to suggest here. I didn't understand, other than size of the property and being in -- the size of the property and then the state's area of critical concern, why we weren't necessarily doing an overall map for the entire island, knowing that it was going to have to be vetted, applicable to all of the residents that own property there, size, shape, color, how big and where, and what you can and can't do and the like. It's always been my thought that that would maker -- make more 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 131 sense. I think the folks in Copeland have a similar allowance to be able to request individually for a single-family home to be constructed on a mobile home lot as well. So I would prefer that we -- that that's the path that we go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Single-family home on a mobile home lot? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To allow for that request to be done and do it in a whole for the entire overlay of Plantation. MR. FRENCH: So, traditionally -- I'm sorry, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're also doing that on Bayshore, you know. With the trailers that we'd moved off years ago, they're putting single-family homes now on those little trailer lots. MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am. We are visiting that zoning. There is an approach that we're taking through the Bayshore CRA. In this particular case, however, there would be a charge for this, as identified within your fee schedule. That fee schedule -- it's a 6,000 application fee and $25 per acre -- and the overlay would affect the entire area of Plantation -- so you've got about 140 lots in there that it would affect, and then on top of which it's about a six- to nine-month process because it must go through advertising, public hearings, it would go to your Planning Commission as well, and then to you for final consideration. But because of the 2005 agreement that we have with the state, because this area is considered an area of critical state concern, there was a 45-day appeal period that the state would maintain after the Board made its final decision. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: County Manager, you know, this is post-Irma days. We all know what happened down in Plantation Island. We know what happened in Everglades City and that whole area down there. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 132 I'd like to see if we could have some consideration of putting through an overlay without charges to folks who are trying to rebuild their lives and rebuild their homes. I don't expect you to make a decision right now, but I'd like to see what we could waive and also to expedite the process. MR. OCHS: Sure. I don't waive those fees, but I can come back with recommendations to the Board. I would like Mr. Bosi just to talk about the area of critical state concern and how that may either complicate the project or add some additional requirements. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Leo. The area is designated area of critical state concern, meaning any permit, any activity has to be signed off by the state as well. There's development restrictions in terms of how much square footage of any individual lot can be impacted, and that's regulated by the state as well. The one question and concern that I would have is we are going to -- by allowing for the construction of a traditional single-family home, we're going to be increasing the value of structures placed in an area that we know is prone to storm surge. So there may be issues with the state. We'll have to further communicate and elaborate what we're doing with the state, and they will have to sign off on any proposed rezoning action. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think that's fair. I do understand that. I'm understanding from the folks that would like to do this is that the state is saying that they don't think there's very much -- they need to review it, but it's not as serious as it's been portrayed. I guess we'll know in the end. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's go through the process -- the entire motion -- I mean, the entire -- go through the process. Find out what the state says, deal with what the state says as opposed to hypothecating what they might say. So do it as a map change. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 133 Now, Jamie, were you saying that it's 6,000 per lot for us to do a map change, or is it 6,000 in aggregate for the hundred-and-some-odd owners? MR. FRENCH: No. It's a $6,000 application fee, and then it's 25 per acre. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For us to do a map change? MR. FRENCH: That's -- so this is an Enterprise Fund. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. FRENCH: So if you were -- whether a church, you were a new business coming forward, so that you not burden the taxpayers with this benefit that you'd receive as a private property owner, that cost is basically paid by the property owner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Per lot? MR. FRENCH: Not per lot, sir. Per acre. So it's $25 per acre on top of -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, what's the $6,000 fee for? MR. FRENCH: That's the application fee, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's for us, the county, to change the entire Island of Plantation? MR. FRENCH: That would be to rezone any property, sir. It's a set fee. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Per lot. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per lot. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not per lot. MR. FRENCH: No, sir. It would be for the application, and then the $25 is based off your size of the property. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Size of the property. And so, basically, the county is the one -- if my understanding is correct, the county would be the one that would bear that expense of 6,000 plus 25 per acre to re-map or make the map adjustment to Plantation Island 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 134 itself. MR. FRENCH: That's a policy decision of the Board, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: We do this all the time. The Board often will ask -- will direct a zoning change somewhere. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: And it comes out of ad valorem. The Enterprise Funds gets, you know, their payment from the Board, but this happens all the time. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We do zoning overlays. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, all the time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're working on one in Golden Gate City, as a matter of fact, and we're not charging anybody for the overlay, and I think that's all we're talking about now is -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think maybe Commissioner Taylor might have misunderstood. We weren't talking about laying a $6,000 per lot expense on the homeowners. It's a zoning overlay. That's what I was talking about when I said the map change. That was what I suggested that we do do, allow for the -- allow for the property owner to ask permission to build a single-family home. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don't forget, I have a question. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm going to call on you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, you are? Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So, County Attorney, we spoke about this on Friday, and it's my understanding that you said that nothing will be -- when it's an overlay, it doesn't make the mobile homes that are existing nonconforming; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Look, I think we can structure this so 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 135 nothing becomes nonconforming. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if folks want to stay with a mobile home, they can. If they want to build a home, they can. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's what this community needs, is that freedom. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're just enhancing the property rights of the people that are there. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only comment I was going to make -- and I support moving forward with this. You mentioned that one of the lots is .2 acres, which I think is 8,600 square feet. I don't know what kind of house you can build on -- so I assume that the overlay's going to have some minimum lot sizes. I mean, at .2 acres for a single-family house would be pretty tight. MR. BOSI: Well, there's no doubt. And they currently have development standards, and we'll look at the current development standards and the minimum lot size, and that will be part of the overlay. MR. FRENCH: So, Commissioner, the way the agreement reads is they can impact up to 10 percent of the overall property square footage with a minimum impact of 2,500 square feet of developable space. So they cannot develop on a .2-acre lot. You would not be able to develop. So even if you were .1, you would still be subject to up to 2,500 square feet, and that's inclusive of developable space, not just roof line, not just impervious. But that's the developable space, and that's per the agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: Does that include the piers for the boats, docks? MR. FRENCH: No. Thank you. So those are considered primarily because they're suspended. So long as there's not concrete 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 136 underneath of a walkway, it's not impervious; it's pervious surface. So we do not attribute that as part of the 2,500 square feet of developable space; however, if you had to put in a sanitary sewer such as elevated septic, big driveway, roof line, things like that, those all go into that consideration. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Very good. So the recommendation is that staff would bring this back with the recommendation for an overlay? That's not what we're -- what is staff looking for now? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Overlay. MR. OCHS: No, that wasn't our recommendation, but we're looking to get the guidance now that the Board does want to direct, and I understand it's to -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. MR. OCHS: -- provide an overlay for the entire island of Plantation Island to allow for the construction of single-family homes, and you want to do that at the Board's expense. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. I would have made that as a motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs made the motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we want to hear from our 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 137 public speakers on this item? MR. JOHNSON, JR.: I've just got one thing to add, if you don't mind. MR. MILLER: Can I have you come to the -- you're Gary Johnson, Jr. MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Grady Johnson. MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. Grady Johnson. That's what it says. MR. JOHNSON, JR.: I appreciate you guys doing what you just did. It's very important. And I want you to know, the reason there ain't other people from the island here today is the way it was put on the agenda. It looked like it was for me personally, but it was an issue for the whole island. And also, I'd like to bring to your attention -- and I just got a phone message from Tallahassee, and I want to get them the lady's name right, so excuse me for a minute. Let me look at my notes. I've done a lot of legwork on this, Commissioners. Ms. Barbara Powell from Regional Planning Administrator of the area of critical concern, she oversees the Big Cypress area, which we fall under. Not only does Plantation Island, but Copeland does. She left me a message and said that she supports this 100 percent; that it only makes sense because it's going to limit liability for the state and the federal government in the future for disasters, because if we can build, she called them, site built homes or stick built homes, it's going to be better construction and less destruction and less cost in the future for us. So I appreciate you guys looking at this, and it's -- from me to you-all, thank you. It was well needed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for being here and bringing it to our attention. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's one more issue before we leave this. Is there any way, County Manager, that we can move this 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 138 along a little bit? MR. OCHS: Well, we'll move it along as quickly as we can, ma'am -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: -- without jeopardizing the public hearing process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. All right. No, I don't want that jeopardized. MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Mr. Johnson, Sr., Grady, also registered to speak. Did you want to speak, sir? MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, sir, if I may. Thank you. Again, I want to back that up. My son's done a lot of legwork. And I've had quite a bit of experience with that through my commissioner and the other county. And you're right, it's just sort of -- everybody that he's talked to, I've talked to, and just what -- Ms. Taylor, I thank you so much. Just makes sense, and there shouldn't be and that's where I appreciate them -- there shouldn't be any obstacles to this, like you said, the map overlay and stuff like that. And I understand the size of the property. That's all in it with those folks up in Tallahassee, every bit of it, the 2,500 square feet, all that, their kind of thing. So I'm glad we're beyond this, and hopefully that we can get this thing and get it done where my son can -- he's very important in my life. But guess what, he's also got some grand-youngins for me. Those grand-youngins, now that means a lot to me. And so, again, for whatever that's worth, I thank you for your time. So this will be moving forward then? And it looks like they will, not only him, but each and everybody down there will have an opportunity to build? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: An overlay for the entire area. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, sir. 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 139 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But he just made a statement that I want to correct, because you said that each and every owner will be able to build, and -- CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: If they so desire. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The concern -- all I'm saying is that if an owner has a .2 acres or .1 acres -- MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that may be a problem, so -- MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- don't go back and say, hey, everybody that owns a small lot out there will be able to build. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Well, no, I agree. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't know that yet. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: That way you don't -- and exactly. And that's something -- MR. JOHNSON, JR.: We currently can build on those lots, Commissioner. We can build a mobile home or a modular home currently under the zoning. And the lot that I personally have that I'm trying to build my new home on had a mobile home existing on it. And we're well versed on the regulations. The only difference we're talking about here is currently, with us to meet the new FEMA guidelines with elevation and everything, I'm going to have to build a permanent concrete block foundation to put whatever structure I'm going to stick up on top of it. I have to build that foundation to meet the code. So whether it's a mobile home or a modular or a stick-built home or a brick, concrete -- I personally want concrete block and metal roofs just like we got in our schools. We build our schools for our children. They're our number one resources, and they're also our hurricane shelters. So I want my home to meet the same standards as one of our 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 140 schools and our hurricane shelters. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for carrying your hat. I thought that such a gentlemanly thing of you to do. I just had to comment on that. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, ma'am. But beins you brought that up, if I may, Ms. Fiala. I think you've sat (sic) here 44 years. Where is the hat rack that was in here in 1969? Sixty-nine and '70, numerous times we was in here all the way up to little eight date (sic). We had a hat rack. Is it all right if I bring you a set of bullhorns or something we can put -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Thank you so much. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you-all. MR. OCHS: Just to clarify, nobody can do anything until the overlay is approved by the Board. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. And staff's going to bring back some specifics as to what that's going to mean and the dimensional standards and all that. MR. OCHS: Yes. After it goes through the public hearing process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so just because I'm going to continue this discussion about time, which you're shaking your head because I always do, what do you think is your best guess? MR. OCHS: Nine months. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing less? MR. OCHS: Eight months. MR. FRENCH: Yeah. Don't forgot you've got a 45-day period. And although we appreciate the conversation that happened at the 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 141 DEO, they've gotten more information out of them than I've gotten out of them in 15 years. So I would only tell you is it's -- typically we send an application to the state. They have a 45-day appeal process, and it's yes or no. There's not much conversation about it. This there is an appellate process. But I also wanted to put on the record that the regulatory standards with regards to the developing in this area will not change. It's just going to allow for a different type of construction. So this is an AE flood zone that is considered a high hazard for coastal surge. It is the elevation of these properties are just under one foot above NAVD, so they have to be built at 10 feet to the Florida Building Code no matter what, and the wind load category within this area is exposure of 2, so it's about 165 miles an hour of sustained winds, not 30-second gusts. So we follow the Florida Building Code no matter what type of structure you put there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, of course, of course. But what about the lot size now? What about the -- is that not our regulation? That's not the state? MR. FRENCH: That's our agreement from 2005 with the state that basically says that you're allowed to impact that site up to 2,500 square feet. So that means you can clear vegetation. If you were going to assemble a lot -- so in this particular case, as Commissioner Saunders pointed out, each lot is about a tenth of an acre. So if you put together 10 lots, you would have an acre, so that's about 800,000 square feet, or 80,000 square feet. So you could apply the 10 percent principle so that you could impact that site 8,000 square feet. But these are typically 2,500-square-foot areas of development, and that's what we stick them to. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just as a point, these will all be vetted when they bring back the actual overlay, the parameters of 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 142 the overlay, the side yard setbacks in construction and the like, so, I mean -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. But if there's any wiggle room that we can assist a community trying to rebuild after Irma to make it more storm tolerant, I think we would be well advised, if there's a consensus up here, to do it legally, but to maybe work with them as much as we can, if there's a consensus to do that. Is there? CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think the analysis will include what the restrictions are based upon the agreement and, I mean, we have to look at all of that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And it isn't going to happen any quicker than what, in fact, it can happen. It wouldn't happen any quicker if Mr. Johnson came to us and did his own application, did his own rezone, variance request, and the whole thing. The whole process would take -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe we can -- maybe you can give the name of that lady that you talked to up in Tallahassee to Mr. French. MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Yes, ma'am, I just did, but I can do it again. It's Ms. Barbara Powell, the regional planning administrator. And my wife actually spoke to her, and she actually left a message on my cell phone while I was sitting here in the commission meeting, and that was her response to me. She's 100 percent behind us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wonderful. That's great. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: And the only other thing -- I know you already know this. It's fascinated me doing the background, doing a little work in trying to get to the bottom of where we understood. But when you have as many areas as you've already got, you've got Bayshore Road over here right now. Right down there there's houses being put up alongside mobile homes. You've got Chokoloskee, Goodland, Everglades City. And, by the way, Copeland, as I 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) June 26, 2018 Page 143 understand it, my son's got it, is in the same district as foundation -- Plantation with all this area of critical concern but yet they can build something out there and Plantation can't. So I know -- and I think before -- some of you-all have already made it clear, and it is. And when you get into it, all of it, and everything, you talk to everybody, it just don't make no sense. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sir, I think it's moving forward and -- MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right. But that's what I'm saying. I appreciate the overlay, because everybody we talk to, and going back on it, that's the very thing they said. This is not all that difficult. Yes, there is some -- you know, the overlay is the thing. CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And staff is bringing it back, so we'll be here, and we'll consider it. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Well, thank you so much. Item #11D DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD CREATE THE INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER NO. 9 INNOVATION ZONE, TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF I-75 AND COLLIER BLVD., TO FACILITATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TRUST FUND, SETTING A BASE TAX YEAR FOR THE FUND, AND REIMBURSING ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES AS AUTHORIZED IN ADVANCE BY THE BOARD FOR USE IN ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC GROWTH – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11D. This is a recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: BCC Minutes 06262018 R - excerpt (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 11/15/18 Public Workshop Summary Page 1 Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting Summary November 15th, 2018 – Museum of the Everglades 105 Broadway Avenue West, Everglades City, Florida 34139 5:30 p.m. The Neighborhood Information Meeting was noticed by County mailing of letters to property owners within 500 feet of the Plantation Island area depicted below. The meeting was also noticed by display advertisement in the Naples Daily News. Approximately 67 members of the public attended the meeting. See Attachments for the sign in sheets, display boards that were positioned in the room, the documents that were provided as handouts, and the completed comment cards received at the meeting. Collier County Director of Planning and Zoning Mike Bosi welcomed the attendees around 5:33 p.m. He provided background, noting that in January 2018 a property owner asked the Board of County Commissioners to allow for a traditional “stick built” single family home in Plantation Island. The current zoning that applies to Plantation Island is the “MH” Mobile Home zoning district, which only allows mobile homes or modular homes, and does not allow such construction. He explained that the Board of County Commissioners directed staff on June 26, 2018 to prepare an overlay zoning district for Plantation Island. This overlay zoning district is intended to allow property owners to have the option to build traditional “stick built” homes as a permitted use in addition to the current options for homes to be mobile homes or manufactured homes. He added that the District Commissioner also suggested that the community consider whether recreational vehicles (RVs) should be allowed as another principle dwelling option. The purpose of the Neighborhood Information Meeting is to gather feedback on the proposed overlay district as drafted to allow traditional single family dwellings and recreational vehicles (RVs). Mr. Bosi said that Laura DeJohn of Johnson Engineering is assisting the County with the project and provided the visual and handout materials for the meeting. He explained how the option for RVs would be subject to 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 11/15/18 Public Workshop Summary Page 2 County requirements that they be either: tied down and elevated above based flood elevation, or be highway ready. He said there are no proposed changes to development standards; the only change is the additional allowance of the two uses. He highlighted that regulations associated with the Area of Critical State Concern are applicable to Plantation Island, requiring that all building permits are sent from the County to the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. There is also a maximum development area per lot of 2,500 square feet. Mr. Bosi reiterated that the proposed overlay zoning district would not change any standards associated with the Area of Critical State Concern or other development standards of the zoning as it currently applies to Plantation lsland. Mr. Bosi opened the floor to the audience for comments and feedback. Grady Johnson (Lot #83 West Flamingo Drive) stated that he initiated the request to build a “stick built” home. He maintains that mobile homes and modular homes should remain allowed per current zoning, and he only seeks to build a concrete block home with metal roof and impact windows 16 feet in the air to be prepared for the next hurricane. Mr. Bosi clarified that “stick built” home is terminology meant to refer to traditional construction, which includes concrete block. He also clarified that the additional use of RVs came up after Mr. Johnson’s request to the Board of County Commissioners, and County staff has only been asked to solicit feedback from the community on the question of RVs as a permitted use. James Reid (Lot #66 West Flamingo Drive) questioned whether parking an RV is allowed within the confines of his lot where his home is located while he’s staying on Plantation Island for six months out of the year. Mr. Bosi clarified that RV parking regulations are not being addressed by the proposed overlay. RV parking is already addressed in the County Code. He said the idea of an RV for permanent occupancy is the question. Buddy Grimm (Lot #27 East Flamingo) explained that he’d prefer to live in an RV for the years that it takes to rebuild his home, and he asked if sewage provisions must be changed on his homesite if he changes the number of bedrooms in his home. Mr. Bosi explained that the proposed changes have nothing to do with changing rules that apply to expansions of homes or existing utility provision requirements. Debra Trujillo (Lot ##48 Beaver Lane) said she chooses to live on Plantation Island and wants thing to be kept as they are. She said permanent RVs would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She described a bad experience with an RV that was located onsite for six months and sewage was dumped in the canal. She said she heard of older regulations requiring homes to be brought in on wheels, and this should not be the case today, and owners should have the option to build a traditionally constructed home. Danny Swisher (Lot #81 West Flamingo Drive) said the original zoning for Plantation Island allowed traditionally constructed homes, and he favors returning to the original conditions that allowed constructing a traditionally built home for protection from hurricanes. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 11/15/18 Public Workshop Summary Page 3 Jeremy Kee (Lot #5 Pelican Drive) said RVs should be allowed for situations where the homeowner is rebuilding a home. He explained how the County informed him that his RV must be parked in the rear, which he said is impossible because the rear of his house is a canal. Mr. Bosi explained that the AE-9 Flood Zone requires a floor elevation of 10 feet for homes, and RVs used for residential purposes would be required to meet this elevation or be highway ready. He explained that the County Code allows the County to authorize RVs for temporary residential use in situations where an owner has an active building permit for construction of a residential home. He said this would be allowed within a timeframe of a one-year period, not five years, and not permanently. Mr. Bosi asked the audience who is in favor of traditional home construction being permitted? Approximately 30 hands were raised in favor, and roughly 3 hands were raised against this idea. Mr. Bosi asked the audience who is in favor of RVs being permitted as an option for permanent residence? Approximately 5 hands were raised in favor, and roughly 30 hands were raised against this idea. An audience member expressed disfavor for RVs being elevated. Josh Maxwell said the issue of RVs may have come about due to his situation. He explained that the need for extensive renovation to his home and septic system and the associated costs are the reasons he would like the option to use an RV or fifth wheel to occupy his property. Mr. Bosi thanked Mr. Maxwell for sharing his information. He went on to explain how the input received during this neighborhood meeting gets captured during the processing of the proposed overlay district language, and it will then proceed to the Planning Commission and then to the Board of County Commissioners. Butch Sellers (West Flamingo Drive) explained that the septic tank regulations enforced by the Health Department have been a significant challenge because there are inconsistencies in the application of rules. He said that when replacements are required by the Health Department, it can cost $17,000. Bob Hustead (Lot #15 Spoonbill Avenue) expressed concern about availability of affordable housing which is an issue for the entire County. He said it’s concerning to see the introduction of traditionally constructed homes as a gentrifying influence which could cause de facto displacement of the mobile or modular homes due to escalating real estate values. Jeanne Simmons (Lot #17 Spoonbill Avenue) said the ambiance of Plantation Island will change if very expensive homes get built on the island. An audience member shared his thought that motor homes are viable options for visiting and fishing. He noted that the Save Our Homes program is a controlling factor on the tax impacts as real estate conditions change. Sherron Cooper (Lot #60 Coon Court) spoke against RVs because she does not want to see them coming and going and has concerns about utility connections. Mr. Bosi reiterated that an RV would be subject to requirements to hook up to electric, septic, and central water. Rena Magolnick (Lot #15 Spoonbill Avenue) asked for clarification of park models versus RVs? Mr. Bosi explained that RVs are recreational vehicles, and modular homes are homes that are constructed off-site. He 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 11/15/18 Public Workshop Summary Page 4 said modular homes are allowed by the current MH zoning district. Audience members offered that a park model is a small structure that is more similar to an RV and would not be allowed. An audience member described a property that is for sale, and she is concerned that the property would be used for RVs. Another audience member shared that he favors allowing traditional stick built homes. Mr. Bosi said the voices are being heard. An audience member said she can support stick built homes, and she can support RVs that are properly placed and connected to a septic tank. She said mobile homes or modular homes should be grandfathered in and not subject to removal in the future as more conventional homes move into the area. Ms. DeJohn described that the current zoning is the Mobile Home zoning district, and that is not changing and will run with the land. The “overlay” is a zoning term that adds additional rights to the current Mobile Home zoning. An audience member described that he has an RV with electrical connections to his house to keep it charged. He said the RV is not connected to septic, and he does not believe it would be legal to add the RV as a connection to the septic tank because of Department of Health permitting requirements for sizing of the tank. Mr. Bosi explained the allowance for RVs would not be in addition to an existing home; RVs are proposed to be allowed as the only use on the site. Ronald Bales (72 West Flamingo Drive) said that with sixty-foot lots the RV could be the only thing on the lot. He said he lost everything in Hurricane Irma, and he comes to Plantation Island from November to April. He would prefer occupying his site with an RV. An audience member said he’s been told the cost is $117,000 - $270,000 for a modular home, and he’d prefer to build a stick built home with his own hands. Samantha Feller (Lot #25 Plantation Drive) asked what a single family homes consists of, and can a home be built on two lots? Mr. Bosi said there is no minimum floor area or bathroom requirement, however the developable area of a lot is limited based on setbacks and the 2,500-square foot limitation. An audience member shared that two lots may be built upon, with the development footprint limitation of 2,500 square feet or 10% of the property. Ms. Feller asked if zoning can be changed to eliminate mobile homes. Mr. Bosi explained that such a change would have to be initiated by the County Commissioners, and it would go through a process including a neighborhood meeting, a Planning Commission meeting, and Board of County Commissioner meetings. When an audience member advocated for the original zoning that he said allowed traditionally built homes or mobile homes or modular homes, Mr. Bosi reiterated that the proposed overlay district would not infringe on the underlying Mobile Home zoning that allows mobile homes and modular homes, it would add the ability to construct a traditionally constructed home. An audience member expressed concern that mobile homes would be gentrified by newcomers who don’t like the look of the mobile or modular homes. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 11/15/18 Public Workshop Summary Page 5 Sherry Geiger (Lot #36 Plantation Parkway) asked about the classification of RVs, and Ms. DeJohn said the County definition of RVs does not specify based on classification A, B, etc. An audience member said adding more septic connections is concerning, because central sewer has long been desired. Mr. Bosi said public comment can be gathered about the idea of centralized sewer, but the scope of the overlay district does not address that issue and is only about the allowance of a traditionally constructed home. An audience member asked if an RV and travel trailer are the same thing. Ms. DeJohn said motor-in or motor- out vehicles for occupancy that can qualify as highway ready do meet the definition of an RV. Mr. Bosi summarized that a majority of attendees have been heard to be opposed to RVs. He noted community support for allowing traditionally built homes. Ms. DeJohn added that education can be done to help explain how RVs can be allowed temporarily when a building permit is in process. An audience member spoke in favor of short-term weekend RV parking but was against permanent RV residences on parcels. An audience member said she’s in favor of stick built homes. She said all the other concerns raised need to be addressed through enforcement to prevent blighted conditions. Mr. Bosi said Code Enforcement is a useful mechanism, and he advised the agency acts reactively, not proactively. An audience member asked if there can be two separate overlays for stick built homes and RVs so that the allowance for stick built homes can move forward? Mr. Bosi summed up that the neighborhood is pretty clearly not supportive of RVs. He explained that the proposal will move forward for stick-built homes, and that the lack of support for RVs will be reported back to the County Commissioner who only wanted to know the community’s position on the idea of RVs as an option. Mr. Bosi announced that comment cards should be submitted and closed the meeting. Attachments: Sign in Sheets Display boards Handouts: Mobile Home District Current Zoning and Development Standards LDC Section 4.02.14 Area of Critical State Concern Current Standards Proposed Plantation Island Overlay Completed Comment Cards 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Sign in Sheets 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Display Boards 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Proposed Plantation Island Overlay BoundaryPlantation Island Overlay AUGUST 2018 20149700-185 As Shown 1W:\2014\20149700-185\ArcGIS\20149700-185 Aerial Boundary 11-13-18.mxdSHEETSCALEFILE NO.PROJECTDATE JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.2122 JOHNSON STREETP.O. BOX 1550FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550PHONE (239) 334-0046FAX (239) 334-3661E.B. #642 & L.B. #642 REVISIONS 0 100 20050Feet Collier County Growth Management Department PLANTATION PKWY Notes:1. Parcel data source Collier County Property Appraiser, March 2017.2. Aerial imagery source Collier County, December 2017 13+24/53/29 PROPOSED PLANTATIONISLAND OVERLAY PLANTATION DR EGRET LN9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Zoning MapPlantation Island Overlay AUGUST 2018 20149700-185 As Shown 1 EVERGLADES CITY W:\2014\20149700-185\ArcGIS\20149700-185 Aerial Zoning Overlay 11-13-18.mxdSHEETSCALEFILE NO.PROJECTDATE JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.2122 JOHNSON STREETP.O. BOX 1550FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-1550PHONE (239) 334-0046FAX (239) 334-3661E.B. #642 & L.B. #642 REVISIONS 0 0.05 0.10.025 Miles Collier County Growth Management Department RSF-1-ACSC/ST MH(4)-ACSC/ST MH-ACSC/ST A-ACSC/ST Notes:1. Zoning data source Collier County GIS Services, July 2018.2. Aerial imagery source Collier County, December 2017 13+24/53/29 Plantation Parkway Copeland AveC h o k o l o s k e e B a y PROPOSED PLANTATIONISLAND OVERLAY 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) SINGLE FAMILY HOME MOBILE HOME RECREATIONAL VEHICLE Allowed by the Overlay Allowed by MH Zoning Allowed by the Overlay as primary use • Must be either highway-ready or elevated on a permanent foundation above based flood elevation and anchored • Must be connected to available central water, sewer, and electricity All mobile homes to be placed, or substantially improved, in an existing mobile home park or subdivision must be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the mobile home is at or above the base flood elevation, and securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system (LDC Section 3.02.09.C) • Limitations apply to the parking, storage or use of recreational vehicles • Limitations apply to the parking, storage or use of recreational vehicles Allowed by MH Zoning PROPOSED PROPOSED 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Handout: Mobile Home District Current Zoning and Development Standards 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 2.03.02 ‐ Residential Zoning Districts (current)  G. Mobile Home District (MH). The purpose and intent of the mobile home district (MH) is to provide land for mobile homes and modular built homes, as defined in this Land Development Code, that are consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The MH District corresponds to and implements the urban mixed-use land use designation on the future land-use map of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible in the MH district and the urban mixed use land use designation shall be guided, in part, by the density rating system contained in the future land use element of the Collier County GMP. The maximum density permissible or permitted in the MH district shall not exceed the density permissible under the density rating system, except as permitted by policies contained in the future land use element, or as identified in the Immokalee future land use map of the GMP. 1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the mobile home district (MH). a.Permitted uses. 1. Mobile homes. 2. Modular built homes. 3. Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04. 4. Recreational vehicles (RV) as defined in the TTRVC district for those areas zoned MHTT or MHRP prior to November 13, 1991, in accordance with an approved master development plan designating specific areas for RV spaces. The development standards of the TTRVC district (excluding lot size and area) shall apply to the placement and uses of land in said RV areas. 5. Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14; however, any high school located in this district is subject to a compatibility review as described in LDC section 10.02.03. b.Accessory Uses. 1. Uses and structures customarily associated with mobile home development such as administration buildings, service buildings, utilities, and additions which complement a mobile home. 2. Private docks and boathouses, subject to section 5.03.06. 3. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development and have been designated, reviewed and approved on a site development plan or preliminary subdivision plat for that development. Recreational facilities may include, but are not limited to, golf course, clubhouse, community center building and tennis facilities, parks, playgrounds and playfields. 4. One single-family dwelling in conjunction with the operation of the mobile home park. c.Conditional uses. The following uses are permissible as conditional uses in the mobile home district (MH), subject to the standards and procedures established in LDC section 10.08.00. 1. Child care centers and adult day care centers. 2. Churches. 3. Civic and cultural facilities. 4. Schools, private. 5. Recreational facilities intended to serve an existing and/or developing residential community as represented by all of the properties/ lots/parcels included in an approved preliminary subdivision plat, PUD or site development plan. The use of said recreational facilities shall be limited to the owners of property or occupants of November 15, 2018 Page 1 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 2.03.02 ‐ Residential Zoning Districts (current)  residential dwellings units and their guests within the area of approved preliminary subdivision plat, or site development plan. 6. Model homes and model sales centers, subject to compliance with all other LDC requirements, to include but not limited to, section 5.04.04. 7. Educational plants and public schools with an agreement with Collier County, as described in LDC section 5.05.14. Additional standards in LDC section 5.05.14 shall also apply; however, any high school located in this district is subject to a compatibility review as described in LDC section 10.02.03. d.Prohibited animals in residential districts. The following animals are to be considered farm animals and are not permitted to be kept in residential districts except as provided for in zoning district regulations: turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese, pigs, horses, cows, goats, hogs, and the like. (Ord. No. 08-11, § 3.E; Ord. No. 16-27, § 3.C) November 15, 2018 Page 2 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 4.02.01 - Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts (current) A.The following tables describe the dimensional standards pertaining to base zoning districts. Sitedesign requirements apply to the principal building on each site. Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Minimum Lot Area (square feet) Minimum Lot Width (linear feet) Maximum Building Coverage (%) MH 6,000 60 None Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Zoning District Maximum Building Height (feet) Minimum Distance Between Buildings Minimum Floor Area of Buildings (square feet) Floor Area Ratio (%) MH 30 None None None Table 2.1 - TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS (SETBACKS) FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS Note as to setback line measurement: minimum setback lines are typically measured from the legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot , with the exception of easements that comprise a road right-of-way where the minimum setback line is to be measured from the road right-of- way easement line. Zoning district Minimum Front Yard (feet) Minimum Side Yard (feet) Minimum Rear Yard (feet) Public School Requirements MH 1 25 Waterfront 10 Non-waterfront 7.5 10 x 1 MH District - additional yard requirements: side yard setback from a public road that is external to the boundary of the park = 50 ft.; the minimum setback on any side from the exterior boundary of the park = 15ft. November 15, 2018 Page 3 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Handout: LDC Section 4.02.14 Area of Critical State Concern Current Standards 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Collier County Land Development Code (Current) November 15, 2018 Page 1 4.02.14 - Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts A. All development orders issued within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern Special Treatment Overlay (ACSC-ST) shall comply with the Florida Administrative Code, as am ended, Boundary and Regulations for the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, except as provided by Agreement pursuant to Chapter 380.032(3), F.S. B. All development orders issued for projects within the ACSC-ST shall be transmitted to the State of Florida, Department of Economic Opportunity, for review with the potential for appeal to the administration commission pursuant to Florida Administrative Code, development order Requirements for Areas of Critical State Concern. C. Site alteration within the ACSC-ST. 1. Site alteration shall be limited to ten (10) percent of the total site size, and installation of nonpermeable surfaces shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of any such area. However, a minimum of 2,500 square feet may be altered on any permitted site. 2. Any nonpermeable surface greater than 20,000 square feet shall provide for release of surface runoff, collected or uncollected, in a manner approximating the natural surface water flow regime of the area. 3. Soils exposed during site alteration shall be stabilized and retention ponds or performance equivalent structures or system maintained in order to retain runoff and siltation on the construction site. Restoration of vegetation to site alteration areas shall be substantially completed within 180 days following completion of a development. Revegetation shall be accomplished with preexisting species except that undesirable exotic species shall not be replanted or propagated. Undesirable exotic species included are those enumerated in LDC section 3.05.08 of this code and the following: a. Bishopwood (Bischofia javanica); b. Castor bean (Ricinus communis); c. Common papaya (Carica papaya); d. Common snakeplant (Sanseviera trifasciata); e. Day jessamine (Cestrum diurnum); f. Hunters robe (Raphidophora aurea); g. Queensland umbrella tree (Schefflera actinophylla); h. Trailing wedelia (Wedelia trilobata). 4. No mangrove trees or salt marsh grasses shall be destroyed or otherwise altered. Plants specifically protected by this regulation include: a. Red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle); b. Black mangrove (Avicennia nitida); c. White mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa); d. Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus); e. Salt cordgrasses (Spartina alterniflora, S. patens, S. cynosuroides, S. spartinae); f. Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). 5. Fill areas and related dredge or borrow ponds shall be aligned substantially in the direction of local surface water flows and shall be separated from other fill areas and ponds by unaltered areas of vegetation of comparable size. Dredge or borrow ponds shall provide for the release of stormwaters as sheet flow from the downstream end into unaltered areas of vegetation. Access roads to and between fill areas shall provide for the passage of water in a manner 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Collier County Land Development Code (Current) November 15, 2018 Page 2 approximating the natural flow regime and designed to accommodate the fifty (50)-year storm. Fill areas and related ponds shall not substantially retain or divert the tidal flow in or to a slough or strand or significantly impede tidal action in any portion of the estuarine zone. 6. Manmade lakes, ponds, or other containment works shall be constructed with a maximum slope of thirty (30) degrees to a depth of six (6) feet of water. When mineral extraction is completed in new quarrying lakes, shoreline sloping, planting of littoral shelves with nursery-grown aquatic vegetation, restoration or revegetation of the property, and disposal of spoils or tailings shall be completed before abandonment of the site. Existing quarrying lakes are exempt from this provision, except that whenever any person carries out an activity defined in § 380.04, F.S. as amended, as development or applies for a development permit as defined in § 380.031, F.S. as amended, to develop any existing quarrying lake area, these regulations shall apply. 7. Finger canals shall not be constructed in the ACSC-ST area. 8. This rule shall not apply to site alterations undertaken in connection with the agricultural use of land or for the conversion of land to agricultural use . 9. Drainage. a. Existing drainage facilities shall not be modified so as to discharge water to any coastal waters, either directly or through existing drainage facilities . Existing drainage facilities shall not be expanded in capacity or length except in conformance with subsection 4.02.14 C.9.b. immediately following; however, modifications may be made to existing facilities that will raise the groundwater table or limit saltwater intrusion. b. New drainage facilities shall release water in a manner approximating the natural local surface flow regime, through a spreader pond or performance equivalent structure or system, either on-site or to a natural retention or filtration and flow area. New drainage facilities shall also maintain a groundwater level sufficient to protect wetland vegetation through the use of weirs or performance equivalent structures or system. Said facilities shall not retain, divert, or otherwise block or channel the naturally occurring flows in a strand, slough or estuarine area. c. New drainage facilities shall not discharge water into any coastal waters whether directly or through existing drainage facilities . d. This rule shall not apply to drainage facilities modified or constructed in order to use land for agricultural purposes or to convert land to such use. 10. Transportation. a. Transportation facilities which would retain, divert or otherwise block surface water flows shall provide for the reestablishment of sheet flow through the use of interceptor spreader systems or performance equivalent structures and shall provide for the passage of stream, strand, or slough waters through the use of bridges, culverts, piling construction, or performance-equivalent structures or systems. b. Transportation facilities shall be constructed parallel to the local surface flow, and shall maintain a historic ground level sufficient to protect wetland vegetation through the use of weirs or performance-equivalent structures or systems and as feasible, the flows in such works shall be released to natural retention filtration and flows areas. c. Transportation facility construction sites shall provide for siltation and runoff control through the use of settling ponds, soil fixing, or performance-equivalent structures or systems. 11. Structure installation. a. Placement of structures shall be accomplished in a manner that will not adversely affect surface water flow or tidal action. b. Minimum low floor elevation permitted for structures shall be at or above the 100-year flood level, as established by the administrator of the federal flood Insurance 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Collier County Land Development Code (Current) November 15, 2018 Page 3 Administration. The construction of any structure shall meet additional federal flood insurance land management and use criteria. c. This rule shall not apply to structures used or intended for use in connection with the agricultural use of the land. D. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island. Port of the Islands, Copeland, and Plantation Island are developments located within the Urban Designated Area, but are also located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. A portion of the Port of the Islands development was determined "vested" by the State of Florida, thus exempting it from the requirements of ch. 380, F.S. There is an existing development agreement between Port of the Islands, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, dated July 2, 1985, which regulates land uses at Port of the Islands. Development within Port of the Islands shall be regulated by the development agreement and the residential density and commercial intensities shall not exceed that permitted under zoning at time of adoption of the GMP. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall be reviewed and approved administratively by the County Manager or designee for compliance with Area of Critical State Concern regulations. Development within the Urban Designated Areas of Copeland and Plantation Island shall not be required to go through the process of filing a petition for site alteration or site development plan approval, pursuant to 4.02.14 G, and not be required to follow the procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval pursuant to 4.02.14 E, 4.02.14 F.2 and 4.02.14 F.3. This does not exempt development orders required pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code. There is also an agreement for Plantation Island, between the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs, to allow site alteration, including dredging and filling of up to 2,500 square feet, regardless of the predevelopment vegetation. This Agreement is recorded in the Official Records, Book 3788, Page 3788, in the public records of Collier County. E. Site alteration plan or site development plan approval required. Prior to the clearing, alteration , or development of any land designated ST or ACSC-ST, property owners or their legally designated agent shall apply for and receive approval of a site alteration plan or site development plan, as the case may be, by the BCC as provided in 4.02.14 F (below). F. Procedures for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for development in ST or ACSC-ST designated land. 1. Preapplication conference. Prior to filing a petition for site alteration or site development approval of ST or ACSC-ST land, the petitioner shall request and hold a preapplication conference with the County Manager or designee. The preapplication conference is for the purpose of guidance and information, and for ensuring insofar as is possible, that the petition is in conformity with these regulations. 2. Review and recommendation by the County Manager or designee, Planning Commission and Environmental Advisory Council. The site alteration plan or site development plan shall be submitted to the County Manager or designee who shall have it reviewed by the appropriate county staff. The County Manager or designee shall then forward the site alteration plan or site development plan and the county staff recommendations to the Planning Commission (CCPC) and the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) for review and recommendation. Hearings before the CCPC and EAC are not required to be legally advertised and not required to provide notice to abutting property owners, but shall be held in a regular meeting. Recommendations from the CCPC, EAC and staff shall be forwarded to the BCC for final action. 3. Final action by Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Final action on the site alteration plan or site development plan lies with the BCC. The BCC shall review the proposed site alteration plan or site development plan in a regular meeting and shall act formally by resolution stipulating reasons for approval, or approval with modification, or denial of the site alteration plan or development plan. 4. Other permits required. The petitioner may at any time during the county review process apply for the appropriate local, state and federal permits for the alteration or development of the subject property. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Collier County Land Development Code (Current) November 15, 2018 Page 4 5. Commencement of site alteration or site development. Upon obtaining all required local, state and federal permits in order to alter or develop the subject property, the petitioner may commence alteration or development in accordance with the conditions and requirements of said permits. G. Submission requirements for site alteration plan or site development plan approval for development in ST or ACSC-ST designated land. The following shall be submitted in a petition for site alteration or site development approval of ST or ACSC-ST land, where applicable: 1. Submission requirements pursuant to 10.02.00 and 10.08.00, as applicable. 2. Locations for beach access as required the Beach Access Ordinance No. 76-20 [Code ch. 146, art. III] or its successor in function. 3. Document that the project is consistent with 3.03.00 and the Objectives and Policies in Goal 10 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. H. Exceptions from public hearing requirements. The County Manager or designee may administratively approve a site alteration plan or site development plan for land designated ST or ACSC-ST without the public hearing otherwise required by this section if: 1. The area of the proposed alteration or development is five (5) acres or less in gross area; there are no transfer of development rights involved, and the following conditions, where applicable, exist: a. The proposed site alteration or site development will occur on land that was lawfully cleared and no more than ten percent of the cleared lands have re-grown with native vegetation . b. Where the proposed alteration or development involves a single-family principal structure or the renovation or replacement of a single-family structure and the proposed site alteration or site development plan will not require any significant modification of topography, drainage, flora, or fauna on the site. "Significant modification" shall mean modification greater than 15 percent of the site. c. No pollutants will be discharged from the area that will further degrade the air, water or soil. d. Water management berms and structures proposed for the protection and/or enhancement of the ST areas will meet the minimum dimensions permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. 2. Temporary site alteration for oil and gas geophysical surveys and testing. "Temporary site" alteration shall mean only those alterations involving and cutting of vegetation for surveys and equipment entry, drill shot holes not exceeding six inches in diameter and rutting associated with vehicle access . Trimming of vegetation for access routes shall be kept to the minimum width necessary for surveying and testing. The site shall be restored as required by federal, state and county permits within 90 days of the start of the project. 3. A conditional use has been approved. 4. Site alteration or site development around existing communication towers to expand or construct accessory structures associated with an already existing tower, not to exceed five acres. 5. All other site alteration or site development plan approvals of any size shall be as required to comply with the provisions in 4.02.14 D, E and F, as applicable. I. Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempt from the requirements of 4.02.14 E and F. 1. Removal and control of exotic vegetation as defined in Chapter 3 of this Code. 2. Prescribed fires and associated firebreaks as approved by the Florida Department of Forestry. 3. Removal of non-native vegetation pursuant to Chapter 3 of this Code. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Handout: Proposed Plantation Island Overlay 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment)   1 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL2018000XXXX SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment adds single-family homes and recreational vehicles as permitted uses in the geographic area known as Plantation Island through the creation of a new overlay zoning district. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts ZONING ATLAS MAPS TO BE AMENDED 3924N 391314 ORIGIN Board of County Commissioners HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC TBD DSAC 12/05/2018 DSAC-LDR N/A   ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR N/A DSAC TBD CCPC TBD   BACKGROUND On June 26, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to allow single family homes in the Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District within the area known as Plantation Island (Item 11.A), in part to provide new options for rebuilding after storm damage with more resilient structures in an area vulnerable to storm hazards. During the vetting process, staff was also asked to consider adding recreational vehicles (RVs) as an allowed use. This amendment creates a new overlay district, called the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO), which covers all of the properties within Plantation Island that are currently zoned MH-ACSC/ST and two adjacent parcels that are currently zoned RSF-1-ACSC/ST and MH(4)-ACSC/ST. With the creation of the PIO, these properties will be designated MH-ACSC/ST-PIO, RSF-1-ACSC/ST-PIO, and MH(4)-ACSC/ST-PIO, respectively. See changes to the Zoning Atlas in Exhibit A. Within the PIO, the development standards of the underlying zoning district will apply (e.g. minimum yards, maximum building heights, minimum floor area of buildings, etc.). Additionally, none of the properties within the PIO will be exempt from any local, State, or Federal requirements that are currently applicable to development within the area, including development restrictions placed upon the Area of Critical State Concern-ST (ACSC- ST) overlay. Additionally, RVs within the PIO must be either highway-ready or anchored and must be connected to available central water, sewer, and electricity. A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held at the Museum of the Everglades, in Everglades City, on November 15, 2018. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY To be provided by Comprehensive Planning Staff. EXHIBITS: A) Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added  Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.03.07 – Overlay Zoning Districts 2 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 5 Q. Plantation Island Overlay (PIO). 6 7 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Plantation Island Overlay (PIO) is to provide for 8 additional permitted uses within the geographic area known as Plantation Island. 9 The PIO allows traditional single-family detached dwellings and recreational 10 vehicles as permitted uses in addition to the uses allowed by the underlying MH-11 ACSC/ST zoning. 12 13 2. Applicability. The PIO boundary is delineated on the map below. Unless specified 14 otherwise in this section of the code, the development standards shall be per the 15 underlying zoning district and applicable code standards. In the event of conflict 16 between the underlying zoning district requirements and those contained in the 17 PIO, the requirements of the PIO shall supersede the underlying zoning 18 requirements. 19 20 21 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added  Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx 1 3. Permitted Uses. 2 3 a. All principal and accessory uses permitted by right in the underlying zoning 4 district as identified in LDC section 2.03.02. 5 6 b. Single family dwellings. 7 8 c. Recreational vehicles (RV), subject to the following: 9 10 i. Floodplain protection regulations of LDC sections 3.02.09 E and 11 3.02.09 F, and 12 13 ii. Connection to available central water, sewer and electricity. 14 15 4. Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). Nothing herein shall exempt any land use 16 from complying with the applicable design standards and requirements of the Area 17 of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment (ACSC-ST) overlay per LDC section 18 4.02.14. 19 20 5. Floodplain Protection. Nothing herein shall exempt any land use from complying 21 with the applicable Floodplain Protection standards under LDC section 3.02.00. 22 23 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 24 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 4 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx MAP TO BE REMOVED 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 114Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 5 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx MAP TO BE ADDED 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 115Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 6 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx MAP TO BE REMOVED9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 116Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Exhibit A – Amended Zoning Atlas Maps 7 C:\Users\LKS\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\PUQUEQCO\2.03.07 Plantation Island Overlay 11-14-18.docx MAP TO BE ADDED 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 117Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) Completed Comment Cards 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 119Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 120Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 121Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 122Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 123Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 124Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 125Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 126Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 127Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 128Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 129Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 130Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 131Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 132Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 133Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 134Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 135Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 136Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 137Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 138Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 139Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 140Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 141Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 142Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 143Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 144Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 145Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 146Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 147Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 148Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 11-15-18 - NIM Notes and Attachments (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 1 FrantzJeremy From:Powell, Barbara <Barbara.Powell@deo.myflorida.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 9:09 AM To:FrantzJeremy Cc:BosiMichael; Laura S. DeJohn; FrenchJames Subject:RE: Ordinance to allow single family homes in Plantation Island area Thank you for providing me with this information. I support this effort to allow the residents of Plantation Island to  rebuild with less vulnerable housing. If I can be of any further assistance or if you’d like to discuss this matter, I’m  available.      Barbara Ellen Powell, Program Manager  Area of Critical State Concern  Department of Economic Opportunity  Division of Community Planning and Development  107 E. Madison Street  Caldwell Bldg., MSC 160  Tallahassee, FL 32399  Phone (850) 717‐8504  Fax (850) 717‐8522  E‐mail:  barbara.powell@deo.myflorida.com            From: FrantzJeremy [mailto:Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov]   Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 4:24 PM  To: Powell, Barbara <Barbara.Powell@deo.myflorida.com>  Cc: BosiMichael <Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>; Laura S. DeJohn <LKS@johnsoneng.com>; FrenchJames  <James.French@colliercountyfl.gov>  Subject: Ordinance to allow single family homes in Plantation Island area    Ms. Powell, Collier County has prepared a draft ordinance to allow single family homes in the Mobile Home Zoning District within the area known as Plantation Island through the creation of a new overlay zoning district, the Plantation Island Overlay. The proposed change will provide new options for rebuilding after storm damage with more resilient structures in an area vulnerable to storm hazards. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Email of Support from Department of Economic Opportunity (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 2 As a courtesy, I’ve attached the amendment for your review. Please feel free to respond with any questions or comments you may have. The proposed ordinance will be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission on February 28th, 2019, at 5:05 p.m. Please note that within the Overlay, the development standards of the underlying zoning district will apply (e.g. minimum yards, maximum building heights, minimum floor area of buildings, etc.). Additionally, none of the properties will be exempt from any local, State, or Federal requirements that are currently applicable to development within the area, including development restrictions placed upon the Area of Critical State Concern-ST (ACSC-ST) overlay. Additional information is also available at www.colliercountyfl.gov/ldcamendments   Respectfully,    Jeremy Frantz, AICP  Land Development Code Manager   Zoning Division Exceeding Expectations Everyday 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.2305 www.colliergov.net/ldcamendments   Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning.    Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.   This email communication may contain confidential information protected from disclosure by privacy laws and is intended for the use of the individual named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, this is notice to you that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment to it may be a violation of federal and state privacy laws. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message. Please note that Florida has a broad public records law, and that all correspondence to me via email may be subject to disclosure. Under Florida law email addresses are public records.  9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Email of Support from Department of Economic Opportunity (7738 : Plantation Island Overlay LDC Amendment) 02/28/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to allow communications towers as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands and Conservation District; by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.01.03 Essential Services and Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts, and Section 2.03.09 Open Space District; Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] Meeting Date: 02/28/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Jeremy Frantz 01/31/2019 10:29 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 01/31/2019 10:29 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 01/31/2019 12:12 PM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 02/01/2019 2:03 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 02/04/2019 3:54 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 02/06/2019 11:24 AM Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 02/07/2019 2:03 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 02/08/2019 3:13 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 02/08/2019 4:28 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 02/28/2019 5:05 PM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 153 1 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PETITION PL20180003474 SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT This amendment adds communication towers as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands and the Conservation District (CON) as an essential service. LDC SECTION TO BE AMENDED 2.01.03 Essential Services 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts ORIGIN Growth Management Department (GMD) HEARING DATES BCC TBD CCPC 02/07/2019 DSAC 02/06/2019 DSAC-LDR 12/18/2018 ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS DSAC-LDR N/A DSAC TBD CCPC TBD BACKGROUND On November 13, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) directed staff to draft an ordinance to address Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending Lands (See Exhibit A). Currently, communication towers are not allowed as permitted or conditional uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)-Sending Lands or Conservation (CON) Districts. Therefore, communication towers are prohibited in the RFMUD-Sending Lands and CON Districts. However, the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 USC 332) states that local governments “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” (Section 332(c)(3)(7)(B)(i)(II)) This LDC amendment would ensure compliance with the US Telecommunications Act of 1996 by defining communications towers as an essential service and allowing communications towers as a conditional use in the RFMUD-Sending Lands and CON Districts. Additionally, communication towers would still be required to comply with all other applicable development standards. Corresponding cross-references to this new conditional use are also added to LDC sections 2.03.08 and 2.03.09. DSAC-LDR Subcommittee Review The DSAC-LDR Subcommittee reviewed this amendment on December 18, 2018. Lacking a quorum, no action was taken, but the amendment was forwarded to the full DSAC with no comments or suggested changes. FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated fiscal or operational impacts associated with this amendment. GMP CONSISTENCY The proposed LDC amendment may be deemed consistent with the GMP. EXHIBITS: A) Executive Summary Approved by BCC 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 2 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx Amend the LDC as follows: 1 2.01.03 - Essential Services 2 3 Essential services are hereby defined as services designed and operated to provide water, 4 sewer, gas, telephone, electricity, cable television or communications to the general public by 5 providers which have been approved and authorized according to laws having appropriate 6 jurisdiction, and government facilities. Essential services are allowed in any zoning district subject 7 to the following conditions: 8 9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 11 G. Conditional uses. The following uses require approval pursuant to section 10.08.00 12 conditional uses: 13 14 1. Conditional essential services in every zoning district excluding the RFMU district 15 sending lands, CON districts, NRPAs, and RLSA designated HSAs and FSAs. In 16 every zoning district, unless otherwise identified as permitted uses, and excluding 17 RFMU district Sending Lands, CON districts, and NRPAs, the following uses shall 18 be allowed as conditional uses: 19 20 a. Electric or gas generating plants; 21 22 b. Effluent tanks; 23 24 c. Major re-pump stations sewage treatment plants, including percolation 25 ponds, and water aeration or treatment plants, 26 27 d. Hospitals and hospices; 28 29 e. Government facilities, including where not identified as a permitted use in 30 this section, safety service facilities such as including law enforcement, fire, 31 emergency medical services; and 32 33 f. Conservation Collier lands which provide for permitted, nondestructive, 34 passive natural resource based recreational and educational activities, 35 when such sites require major improvements to accommodate public 36 access and use. These major improvements shall include, but are not 37 limited to: parking areas of 21 parking spaces or more; nature centers; 38 equestrian paths; biking trails; canoe and kayak launch sites; public 39 restroom facilities, greater than 500 square feet; signage beyond that 40 allowed in sections 2.01.03 A.9. and 2.01.03 B.1.e. of this Code and other 41 nondestructive passive recreational activities as identified by the County 42 Manager or designee. The provisions for Conservation Collier lands in this 43 Code do not affect the underlying zoning districts or land use designations 44 in any district where Conservation Collier lands are established, such that 45 no expansion or diminution of the various zoning district conditional uses is 46 intended or implied by these provisions, except as stated above for major 47 improvements. Oil and gas field development and production as defined 48 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 3 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx and regulated in this Code remains a conditional use on or beneath 1 Conservation Collier lands established in zoning districts providing for oil 2 and gas field development and production as a conditional use, subject to 3 subsection 2.03.09 B.1.c.i. 4 5 2. Conditional essential services in RFMU sending lands, NRPAs, CON districts, and 6 RLSA designated HSAs and FSAs. Within RFMU District Sending Lands, NRPAs, 7 CON districts, and the RFLA designated HSAs and FSAs subject to the limitations 8 set forth in section 4.08.08 C.2., in addition to the essential services identified as 9 allowed conditional uses in subsection 2.01.03 G.1. above, the following additional 10 essential services are allowed as conditional uses: 11 12 a. Sewer lines and lift stations necessary to serve a publicly owned or 13 privately owned central sewer system providing service to urban areas; or 14 the Rural Transition Water and Sewer District, as delineated on the Urban-15 Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Element 16 of the GMP, when not located within already cleared portions of existing 17 rights-of-way or easements; 18 19 b. Safety Services limited to law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical 20 services; and 21 22 c. Oil and gas field development and production, as defined and regulated in 23 this Code, remains a conditional use on or beneath Conservation Collier 24 lands established in the CON zoning district subject to subsection 2.03.09 25 B.1.c.i. 26 27 3. Additional conditional uses in residential, and estate zoned districts, and in RFMU 28 receiving and neutral lands. In residential, agricultural, and estate zoned districts 29 and in RFMU Receiving and neutral lands, in addition to those essential services 30 identified as conditional uses in section 2.01.03 G.1. above, the following essential 31 services shall also be allowed as conditional uses: 32 33 a. Regional parks and community parks; 34 35 b. Public parks and public library facilities; 36 37 c. Safety service facilities; 38 39 d. Other similar facilities, except as otherwise specified herein. 40 41 4. Additional conditional uses in the RFMU sending lands and CON districts. The 42 following essential services shall be allowed as conditional uses: 43 44 a. Communications towers, subject to all applicable provisions of LDC 45 section 5.05.09. 46 47 4. 5. Conditional uses that include the installation of structures: 48 49 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 4 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx a. Where structures are involved other than structures supporting lines or 1 cables, such structures shall comply with the regulations for the district in 2 which they are located, or as may be required on an approved site 3 development plan under section 10.02.03. In addition, the structures shall 4 conform insofar as possible to the character of the district in which they are 5 located as to development standards, as well as architecture and 6 landscaping, with utilization of screening and buffering to ensure 7 compatible with the surrounding and nearby existing and future uses. 8 9 b. Within the RFMU district sending lands, NRPAs, Conservation Districts, 10 and the RLSA HSAs and FSAs, structures supporting the conditional use 11 shall be located so as to minimize any impacts on native vegetation and on 12 wildlife and wildlife habitat. 13 14 c. Essential services shall not be deemed to include the erection of structures 15 for commercial activities such as sales or the collection of bills in districts 16 from which such activities would otherwise be barred. Unstaffed billing 17 services, which are accessory uses to the normal operations of the 18 essential service, may be permitted. 19 20 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 21 22 2.03.08 – Rural Fringe Zoning Districts 23 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 26 A. Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMU District). 27 28 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 29 30 4. RFMU sending lands. RFMU sending lands are those lands that have the highe st 31 degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant 32 wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. RFMU sending lands are the 33 principal target for preservation and conservation. Density may be transferred from 34 RFMU sending lands as provided in LDC section 2.03.07 D.4.c. All NRPAs within 35 the RFMU district are also RFMU sending lands. With the exception of specific 36 provisions applicable only to NBMO neutral lands, the following standards shall 37 apply within all RFMU sending lands: 38 39 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 40 41 a. Allowable uses where TDR credits have not been severed. 42 43 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 44 45 (3) Conditional Uses. 46 47 (a) Those essential services identified in LDC section 2.01.03 48 G.2 and 4. 49 50 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 5 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 2 b. Uses allowed where TDR credits have been severed. 3 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 6 (2) Conditional uses: 7 8 (a) Those Essential Uses identified in LDC section 2.01.03 G.2 and 4. 9 10 # # # # # # # # # # # # # 11 12 2.03.09 – Open Space Zoning Districts 13 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 16 B. Conservation District "CON". The purpose and intent of the conservation district "CON" is 17 to conserve, protect and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier 18 County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats possess ecological and 19 physical characteristics that justify attempts to maintain these important natural resources. 20 Barrier islands, coastal bays, wetlands, and habitat for listed species deserve particular 21 attention because of their ecological value and their sensitivity to perturbation. All 22 proposals for development in the CON district must be subject to rigorous review to ensure 23 that the impacts of the development do not destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent 24 functional values. The CON District includes such public lands as Everglades National 25 Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, portions 26 of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, 27 Collier-Seminole State Park, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary Research 28 Reserve, Delnor-Wiggins State Park, and the National Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp 29 Sanctuary (privately owned), and C.R.E.W. It is the intent of the CON District to require 30 review of all development proposed within the CON District to ensure that the inherent 31 value of the County's natural resources is not destroyed or unacceptably altered. The CON 32 District corresponds to and implements the conservation land use designation on the 33 future land use map of the Collier County GMP. 34 35 1. Allowable uses. The following uses are allowed in the CON District. 36 37 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 39 c. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in 40 the CON, subject to the standards and procedures established in section 41 10.08.00 and further subject to: 1) submission of a plan for development as 42 part of the required EIS that demonstrates that wetlands , listed species 43 and their habitat are adequately protected; and 2) conditions which may be 44 imposed by the Board of County Commissioners, as deemed appropriate, 45 to limit the size, location, and access to the conditional use. 46 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending DRAFT Text underlined is new text to be added Text strikethrough is current text to be deleted 6 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 3 2. Those essential services set forth in subsection 2.01.03 G.2. and 4. 4 5 # # # # # # # # # # # # #6 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending Exhibit A – Executive Summary Approved by BCC 7 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending Exhibit A – Executive Summary Approved by BCC 8 L:\LDC Amendments\Current Work\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending (PL20180003474)\Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19.docx 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Communication Towers in RFMU Sending Lands 1-29-19 FOR DSAC-CCPC (7741 : Communication Towers in the RFMUD Sending