The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 02/21/2019February 21, 2019 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 21, 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "B" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain ALSO PRESENT: Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative -- Page 1 of 81 February 21, 2019 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, February 21st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONERCHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Happy to be here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, we have a full house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next item up is addenda to the agenda. We have one item on the agenda that needs to be continued from today to the March 7th meeting, and it's the LDC amendments for outdoor lighting, tree removal in shopping centers, a few other things, but it's the package we heard a couple of weeks ago. They're going to have the revisions to us, but it won't be till March 7th. So is there a motion to continue -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 9AI to March 7th? Made by Mr. Fry (sic). Next? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by the Fry and Fryer team. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We took that, okay. 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. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. The next item under addenda to the agenda, we're going to have — we have two cases for today. One is the continuation of the Immokalee overlay rewrite, and the Immokalee items on today will probably not get resolved today. There's a lot of additional information that's probably going to be needed. So I don't believe we'll complete it today, but I did want to find out from this panel how long you want to stay today to be talking -- because we'll start on it this morning after Page 2 of 81 February 21, 2019 the first case, and then we'll stay on it until we break. Does anybody have any preferences for breaktime in the afternoon? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm available all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• I've got to leave at 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's assess our position around 3 o'clock, and we'll either leave then or go till 4. But it just depends on where we're at with it. I know that on the additional reading I've done, there's still some information, and I don't believe it's going to be able to be finalized today, so we'll get to that. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: If we go past 3, I'll have to leave, as well, by 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That might be a good time to break. After six hours, that's a lengthy time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Time for me as well. If everybody will -- I agree, at 3 o'clock, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just plan on breaking at 3 unless there's extraordinary circumstance or something. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Next week, next Thursday at 5:05 in this room we're reviewing two LDC amendments. And it might be a couple-bour meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it next Thursday night? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll not be here next Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And for those of you who don't have paper packets, the rest will be emailed out today, or you'll be notified about them today. And as far as our regular meeting, the next one is March 7th. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to March 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it looks like we'll have quorums on both of them. Some minutes were distributed by -- electronically, Item No. 5. January 17th, 2019. Does anybody have any changes? If there is none, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm sorry. I do have one very minor change. Commissioner Fryer requested from Mr. Pritt some notes, and it says, Commissioner Fry, but it was a thread of Commissioner Fryer's. So it's very minor. But I can give you a page number, if that would be helpful. This is Page 64 of 79, Commissioner Fryer requested notes so he could -- for presentation to the Planning Advisory Council, and it's listed under my name. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That was the City Planning Advisory Board. COMMISSIONER FRY: Planning Advisory Board, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Got that. Now, does that motion still stand with the noted correction, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By Ned. Discussion? (No response.) Page 3 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCIB4ITT: Aye. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Ray, BCC report and recaps? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. During the February 12th BCC meeting there were no zoning section items that were presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except for the LDC amendments. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's not zoning section. That's LDC section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're only going to talk to us about that one. Okay. I have nothing on chairman's report for today. There are no consent items. We'll move right into the first public hearing. ***First advertised public hearing is 9A2. It's P1,20180000125. It's to add a motor freight transportation and warehousing SIC code 4225 limited to air-conditioned and mini -self -storage warehousing only, and it's on the East Trail about a thousand feet east of Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Correspondence from Bob and Chris Mitchell, the engineer, and staff. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I didn't have anything. I was introduced to the property owner at the beginning of the meeting before we started today. But other than, we had no discussion about the project itself. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into the presentation. And, Bob, it's all yours. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant. Along with me is Felix Pardo, who is president of Pardo & Associates. Felix is a professional architect. And also here this morning is John Anderson, who's the president of Stor-All Development. The subject site is located on your screen. It is just east of the intersection of Collier Page 4 of 81 February 21, 2019 Boulevard and Tamiami Trail. This is the zoning map, and it shows the subject properties being zoned C5. As you can see, just north of the property is the Falling Waters Beach Resort PUD. As you can see along that strip, there are various commercial zoning districts. The CVS on the corner is zoned C3. There's another C3 parcel. Then there's several C5 parcels, and then the C4 parcel. This is an aerial that shows the subject site, which 1 will point out for you right here. And you can see the access is right here, which is a shared access. This is the Tractor Supply store. And there's various other commercial uses over here. There's a sheriffs substation. There's obviously, as you can see, quite a bit of storage in this particular building right here, and then subcontractor and contractors offices. This is just a survey of the -- basically, there's three lots that are subdivided together. I put this on here because you can see that there is a stormwater area here and a conservation easement right here. It's a little hard to see. I have a better picture of that. This is the conservation tract. This is the subject lot right here. Just a little bit of the conservation easement extends into this subject lot. But these three lots are owned by Inland Properties, LLC, and the folks, Stor-All, that I represent, have a contract to purchase this lot from them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you repeat that, please. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Those three lots are owned by a company called Inland Properties, LLC, and Stor-All has a contract to purchase that lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The three to the northwest? MR. MULHERE: Let me go back ane. So there's three lots here. This is Lot 3, Lot 2, and Lot 1. They did are -plat. Atone point there was four lots there. They re -platted it into three lots, this Inland Properties; they own all three lots. My client has a contract to purchase what is referred to on the plat as Lot 1, which is right next to -- immediately adjacent to the Tractor Supply store. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me for interrupting. I shouldn't do this, but my brief research of this indicated that a company called Crown Holdings -- MR. MULHERE: Ah, yes. I don't know if that's the same as Inland Properties. MR. PARDO: I think Crown is the head company. MR. MULHERE: Right, so they may have created a sub company. You're right, on the Property Appraiser's Office it does identify Crown Holdings as the property owner. You are correct, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: But the application under -- for the plat came in under Inland Properties. So I just wanted to point out a couple things on this. You can see, again, the Stormwater Management Plan. This is the subject lot. There is an easement for a row of parking here that was constructed and is used by the Tractor Supply store to meet their parking requirements. We will not be using that, and I'll get into that in just a minute. So this property was rezoned in '97 from "A" ag to C5 with some restrictions on it. There was a lot of public concern from the Falling Waters folks at that point in time since this property was being rezoned to C5. And I'm not going to -- I remember that because I was the director of planning in Collier County at the time, and I remember those public hearings and the concerns. So there were certain conditions placed on this. So it provided for the following uses: Unless otherwise provided, all permitted uses in C4, the general C4 commercial district are allowed, and then these three C5 uses: Building materials, hardware, garden center. The gentleman that rezoned this had a desire to build a building supply store. That, I Page 5 of 81 February 21, 2019 think, really never got built to my knowledge. I mean, obviously, there's a Lowe's across the street. It would be hard for, sort of, a ma and pa to compete with that. But that was what his desire was. And you can see the other uses are building construction, general construction, builders, and special -trade contractors. So the idea was to have a place where subcontractors and contractors could also be located along with this building supply store. He may have built something, and maybe that became the Tractor Supply store. I don't really remember that, but he didn't get to where he wanted to get with it, and so the property eventually changed hands. There were some other restrictions. One restriction was building height was limited to 28 feet in height, and also there was a required minimum 60 -foot setback from the Falling Waters property. And that basically was that the folks in Falling Waters really didn't want to see a building or see a building that maybe wasn't very attractive, and so reducing the height to 28 feet and having a 60 -foot setback were conditions that were placed on that rezone. We are asking to allow indoor air-conditioned self -storage only on the subject lot, so it's limited. Can't go on the other two lots. It's limited to that one lot. And to increase the building height, again, only for that use, from 28 to 35 feet. Now, in doing so, we have provided for 137 -foot setback from the Falling Waters property. So more than double the minimum 60 -foot setback. And by doing so, we've created a situation where the building really won't be seen. We had a neighborhood information meeting. There were about 70 people there. It was a very good meeting, really nice people. We had a lot of good discussion. A lot of concerns were raised. The main issues that were raised dealt with stonnwater. The plat, as you saw, has a master stormwater plan, and that has been the Florida -- the South Florida Water Management District permit has been modified with that design. And so that will have to be in place prior to this project moving forward for CO, because it is a stonnwater plan that covers all three lots. The other issue that was raised was the lack of, I call it, landscaping on your visualizer. Landscaping maintenance was really the lack of maintenance as it related to the landscape buffer and the wall. There is an 8 -foot wall — and I'll show you that. I have pictures of that -- that runs -- there was a requirement for a 6 -foot wall in the PUD, but it's actually an 8 -foot wall, and it runs along the entire length of the Tractor Supply store and the buildings further to the east as well as running along this vacant parcel and these three lots to the west. It looks like there may have been some damage during one of the storms to at least one or two of the panels. Couldn't really tell if that was on our property or west of Lot 1, but it looks like there was at least one or two panels missing. And I looked at the condition of the wall, and it seemed to me that it did require some maintenance and some upkeep. So we felt like we needed to address that as well. I'll get to that in just one minute. The other issue was, where was the access, the loading, the unloading, lighting, operation, hours, those types of things. This particular exhibit shows you the location of the building. Our parking is primarily out front, a few spaces right here. This is 137 feet from the property line adjacent to Falling Waters, and the loading -- this is all internal. It's air conditioned, inside storage. There are no garage doors that slide up on the outside that you pull up to and unload your stuff. All of it happens at a singular location, which is right here, and I have some architectural exhibits that I'll share with you in just a minute. Again, that's the Inland Village plat. It shows the access right here, the improved access, the conservation easement. This, I realize, is a fairly poor quality. I took a picture of an exhibit that was hand -colored, but it does show you that the plat includes a landscape plan, and we have also an SDP in for review that includes a site-specific landscape plan. So you can see that the Page 6 of 81 February 21, 2019 wall runs right along here. There's landscaping on the Falling Waters side of the wall. There is landscaping around the stormwater management detention area. And this shows our site and the landscaping on the east side as well as along Tamiami Trail. Access is right here. It's a shared access with the Tractor Supply store. Parking out front. Loading and parking right here. Nothing in rear of the building. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I ask a question? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You did mention 137 -foot setback from Falling Waters. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you planning to put that as a condition of approval? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, I'm making notes of things he's committing to, like I usually do. So at the end of the meeting I'll include all those as part of the stipulation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Perfect. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob, rather than make it exactly 137, why don't you round it off to, like, 130. You know, I'm sure nobody would object to that. MR. MULHERE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And it gives you a couple inches if you -- MR. MULHERE: No, I agree. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• Okay. MR. MULHERE: So this is a rendering of the building, an architectural rendering. You can see it's a very attractive building. As I said, no -- those are -- the architectural standards require certain elements, those faux windows. There's actually a wall behind them and a loading area. Everything is internalized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this a front? Is this the back, front, side, or where? What view? MR. MULHERE: That is -- so that's in front of the tractor trailer looking east. MR. PARDO: Southeast looking north. MR. MULHERE: Southeast looking north. So southeast corner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're standing on U.S. 41 looking at the building, and this is what you'll see? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at. MR. MULHERE: And this is from the opposite direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this would be standing on the -- the rear of the building looking at it facing -- as you look towards 41? MR. MULHERE: This is from 41. One was from the east side looking north. This is on the west side looking north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to understand. MR. MULHERE: So this is the loading area. MR. PARDO: This is what you'll see from 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we can't have comments from the audience. You'll have the opportunity to talk here. And before we finish, when you get to a point, I'd like you to refer back to that 137 set book (sic) page that you had with the red outline so we can see how that's orientated. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 7 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. MULHERE: This is a dynamic cross-section. It was requested at the neighborhood information meeting that we provide a view exhibit. This, obviously, is Falling Waters. There are garage structures and also two-story condominiums, and so this is the perspective of someone standing at the ground level. This is a second -story perspective. And with that setback, you know, they had --and I have pictures of this, and I'll show you in just a minute. There's actually an internal drive here. There's landscaping on both sides of that. Then there's the wall. Then there's landscaping, and then there's this setback that we've referred to, before you get to the building. So, really, you wouldn't see anything, maybe a little bit of the top of the building in areas where the vegetation might be a little bit sparse, but it's pretty heavily vegetated, and I'll show you that in just a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- while you -- before you change that page, on the left side you see the height symbol next to the top of the building that you're proposing. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you blow that up so we could read it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think I can. Let me see. Zoom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-two feet. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, 32 -six to the top of the parapet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's your zoned because your top of parapet is actual. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Now, I took a couple pictures. This site -- Stan Chrzanowski asked a couple of questions with respect to the elevations which we provided him some information. I went out to the site. It is low. It, obviously, will be filled, so it catches water right now because it is low. That's the wall back there. I doubt that that has been maintained since it's been constructed some -- you know, quite a few years ago. It looks really nice on the Falling Waters side. They've, obviously, done a good job on the other side. On our side -- well, we don't own the property yet, but on the 41 side it doesn't look like it's been maintained. And its hard to get back there. It's pretty vegetated with exotics and some slash pines. So that is a picture taken from the Falling Waters side. You can see the mature oaks and a hedge and the wall and the roadway on the left side of that picture. Just beyond that, to the left, would be the condominiums. And that's another picture. You can see that there's substantial vegetation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's an 8 -foot wall? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Just another picture. So this is a picture looking towards the Tractor Supply store. That's that shared access that I pointed out to you. I just thought it would be helpful to see that. Right now you -- to get to the Tractor Supply store, you head -- there's no -- you can't make a direct left turn into it. There's no median cut. So you head east and make a U-turn further east, and then you can make a right into -- into the development, the commercial development a little bit further east of here. So this will provide another access point, shared access point. So that's another picture of the wall. This is actuallyjust west of our property. And I couldn't tell, but I thought there was a panel missing right in this area here. It was kind of hard to tell. I don't like snakes, so I didn't go too far in there. But, anyway, that will have to be -- that will have to be repaired. I don't think that's actually on our parcel. I wanted to talk briefly about -- and you haven't seen this yet, and maybe you tell me whether it's something that I can talk about. It has been through the Development Services Advisory Committee and is underway and will be coming to you soon, but I did want to point out that there is an ordinance, a Land Development Code amendment being proposed that would Page 8 of 81 February 21, 2019 provide separation requirements for self -storage facilities on the East Trail, and there's a waiver mechanism in there. But, basically, it's similar to the gas station separation requirement. Requires a minimum separation of 1,320 feet. Now, you haven't looked at that yet. It's coming to you and going to the Board of County Commissioners, but it was directed by the Board to establish this. And this exhibit shows you where that applies. That corridor starts at Price Street, which is west of the intersection of 951, so right here, and it runs all the way to Airport. So that separation requirement applies along U.S. 41 from Price Street to Airport if it gets adopted. This is the subject parcel here. So it's not subject to that. There is an existing self -storage facility right here in front of Falling Waters. I went back and looked at some recent presentations that dealt with future growth along the corridor here, and there are, depending on how you look at it, somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 approved unbuilt residential dwelling units within about a five -mile or six -mile circumference of this property. So west on 41, east on 41, north on Collier Boulevard a few miles, say, up to Rattlesnake Hammock, and south towards Marco. So there is -- Stor-All has done its homework and has looked at the market, and there is a substantial market here for this use. Now, let's talk about other uses that could go onto the site right here. When we had the neighborhood information meeting, we talked about, from our perspective, why this was a better use than other options that are allowed. You have all C4 uses allowed. You have contractors office, subcontractors office, building supply stores. I don't think a building supply store will go there. You've got a Tractor Supply store next to it and Lowe's across the street, but those other uses could certainly go there. You have an owner that's investing into this property getting a re -plat, building a stormwater plan, and building the landscaping for the subdivision. So these are on the market. Something is going to go there. Our position was it's an attractive building. We have avery substantial setback. We're willing to work with the neighbors to address any other concerns they have. We agreed to limit the hours of operation. It's a secure building, but we'll limit the hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. There's no lighting in the rear except low-level security lighting just -- you know, got to have some security. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You said 8 a.m., I think, at the NIM. MR. MULHERE: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Eight is what you said at the NIM. MR. MULHERE: Eight? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I didn't think I said that. But, anyway, we had a subsequent meeting with the HOA. I mean, I trust you. You have it in film and on audio, so... We had a subsequent meeting with the president who's here today and certainly could speak to these issues and several other representatives of the homeowners' association and some other residents within Falling Waters. It was a handful; five people, I think. Felix and I met with thein. And the reason we met with them was to confirm and finalize the conditions that we would agree to that hopefully would address any concerns that they had. One concern that came up at the neighborhood information meeting was the concern that the operator of this existing storage facility had with respect to competition, and it's our position that there's substantial market that will have no bearing of the operations of this facility. It's really kind of a different product today anyway. That was built quite a long time ago. Page 9 of 81 February 21, 2019 Because they're within the Falling Waters PUD, they pay dues to the homeowners' association. There was a request for us to pay dues to the homeowners' association, but we declined that. We're not within the PUD, and we're not a member of that homeowners' association. But we did meet with thein and agreed to hours. At that meeting we talked about 7 a.m. to 10 but, notwithstanding, if I said 8 at the NIM. We also committed to the setback. We also committed to pressure washing, repairing, painting the wall on both sides adjacent to our property. So anything that needs repair, pressure washing, and repainting, we will take care of that, obviously. I think maybe we would have been required to do that anyway, but there hasn't been much maintenance out there, and it seems like a reasonable thing that we should have to do. We, obviously, will install the new landscaping on both sides of the wall. You know, one of the concerns that we heard is this concern that other property owners, not us -- we don't own the property yet -- other property owners, existing property owners, maybe the Tractor Supply store, maybe the other commercial entities further to the east, have not done a good job of maintaining the landscaping or the wall. And we certainly don't have any reason to disagree with that. We don't -- you know, however, in order to provide some level of comfort, what we agreed to was that we would meet once a year with the homeowners' association at one of their meetings, whether they invite all the residents or it's just the officers is up to them, but we would meet once a year. The purpose of that meeting would be for us to hear if they have any issues with operations, maintenance, anything, and we would be able to address that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question either for the Chairman or the County Attorney. Is there away that what you just said can be codified into something that's enforceable? MR. MULHERE: Well, we were going to do a private agreement, but I don't know -- we would agree to do that if that's, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's not an LDC requirement, but go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: So what you're saying is you put into a -- you put into this ordinance requirement that they meet once a year, okay, so now they didn't, so it becomes a code enforcement issue. Code enforcement could bring them before the Code Enforcement Board, and they could be fined for not doing it. So, yeah, you could make it a commitment that's enforceable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And we just -- and I think that was well received by the members that were in attendance at that meeting. You know, we really can't make up for the sins of others, but we can certainly be good neighbors, and we thought that would go a long way towards doing that. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every time we try to do something outside of the regulations that we're supposed to be abiding by here, I get a little concerned how to administrate it. If you were to include language that you were going to meet with this group, you'd have to probably name the group or the people or the individuals or something so that there's -- and if that group changes entities or anything like that, all that would have to be covered in some kind of language then. MR. MULHERE: So I assume there will always be a master association. It would be the Falling Waters Beach Resort Master Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This would be in perpetuity, which -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. As long as that self -storage use is there, we're committed to that. It seems like that's something people should do without being required to do it anyway but, you know, we did want to give some sense of comfort that we were committed to it. Page 10 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure the county wants to be in this business, though. If we're going to start -- we're going to start opening up the county to regulating, you know, how two parties interact with each other, it's not typically what we do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can we ask for a private undertaking then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already suggested on record they're going to do that. What I was worried about is where Jeffs going. Every single PUD and every single project adjacent to existing residential or HOAe or any kind of civic association is going to start asking for the same thing. And I don't know how we'd ever keep track of all that. And I'm not saying it's the wrong thing to do as far as meeting with the group. I'm just saying, to put it on a public document that's law -- MR. MULHERE: That wasn't our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is problematic. MR. MULHERE: That wasn't our intent. I actually drafted an agreement and sent it to the HOA. I'm not sure -- we thought we had some consensus, but it wasn't signed. It wasn't executed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, a private undertaking is all I'm asking for. MR. MULHERE: And that's the point. Look, we're putting on the record that we're willing to do that. We'll do that whether we have a formal agreement or we don't. We've put that on the record. So if something happens that's a problem, we've put on the record that we'll meet with our neighbors formally, and if they don't want to meet with us, that's up to them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Annually? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The problem I see is not all relationships stay cordial permanently. MR. MULHERE: I got it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But, I mean, there's no harm in trying to address any concerns or issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We experience a lot of that. HOAs change and all of a sudden a new group doesn't like what the previous group did, and it becomes problematic. So I think keeping it a private agreement is beneficial to everybody. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Felix just mentioned, what we were trying to address, there was a lack of trust as it related to their previous experience, previous developer, that kind of situation. And, you know, we could stand there and say, well, we're not them and we're going to be good neighbors, I threw out, why not have one meeting a year to ensure that we're hearing any concerns that you have. So, you know, we already committed to that. I don't think it needs to be part of the PUD. We're happy to make a formal private agreement with them to that -- you know pending outcomes of these hearings. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's as far as I wanted you to go. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I just want to make sure -- MR. PARDO: Good morning. For the record, my name is Felix Pardo. I'm the architect for the project. My office address is 2100 Salzido Street Suite 303, Coral Gables, Florida. There are three things that I wanted to stress before concluding our presentation, and then subsequently our rebuttal time. But I wanted to stress two things. First of all, the required Page 11 of 81 February 21, 2019 setback for this type of zoning when it went to the original public hearing was substantially smaller than 60 feet. It was less, rather than 60 feet. I think it was maybe 20 feet or something like that. But at the time of the public hearing, the commission, you know, wanted to have more, so they said 60 feet. The reason that's important is because when this original submittal went in, it did not go in with a plan; in other words, they had no idea what the final building was going to be. We have a very specific building and a very specific use that's going in. So what the commission was trying to do at that time was to safeguard Falling Waters from whatever was going to happen. So they went from, don't quote me, 20 feet to 60 feet. Because of the way that we looked at the project, we wanted to be as close as possible to Tamiami Trail. Based on that, we have 137 feet. And I do appreciate the comment from one of the commissioners that that -- you know, keep it rounded at 130. You never know if we've got to move the building a little bit here or there. But still, 130 feet, which is really 137 feet, is substantially more -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Pardo, please, if you wouldn't mind, don't assume that that's the general will of the Commission because I, for one, would like to keep it at 37 -- 137. MR. PARDO: Okay. I appreciate that. So the second thing is that when it went to the original -- for the original approval, zoning of C5 allows the 35 feet. And it was reduced to 28 feet. There was no building there. So 60 feet, I think that someone probably said, you know, let's reduce it 20 percent. So 35 minus, you know, 7 is exactly 28. We couldn't figure out where the numerical amount of 28 feet came in. But it was still three stories. You just can't build three stories with 28 feet; that's why we're asking for the height back. But by moving it back 137 feet, the reason that we did the dynamic cross-section, which was requested specifically by one of the -- one of the members of Falling Waters -- and we did that gladly -- is we showed that dotted line of where the original 60 feet with the original height of 28 feet, and you could see the further back you place the building, of course, it's basically going to disappear into the horizon. So we did both of those things. What we have now, which is very different from the original public hearing, we have a very, very specific use, a very, very specific site plan with specific numbers, such as 137 feet. And, lastly, when we met at NIM, I cannot blame the neighbors, because they were so upset with the original developer. They stressed that, and we understood that. And I've done many, many public hearings over the state of Florida for many years. When you lose that trust, it's very difficult to gain it back. And whether it was one year ago or 20 years ago, they remember. They live there every single day. When we improve this property, we are not only governed by whatever agreement, but we are governed by agreements with the South Florida Water Management people, with the conservation requirements. That's all going to be part of the plat, and that is something that I want to make sure that it's on the record that we have to comply with the maintenance that is part of the agreements that we have for both the conservation area, also for the drainage, and also for the extensions of water and sewer off Tamiami Trail to be able to supply the type of infrastructure that we need for these particular parcels. When we look at the completion of the project, we made sure that we had no windows, no doors facing Falling Waters in any direction. And, by the way, the parking that exists already on the east side that's shown because of the easement between us and the Tractor Supply company, we cannot use those parking spaces. Those belong to the Tractor Supply business. All of our parking is located parallel and in front of Tamiami Trail, and our loading is interior over on the east side toward Tamiami Trail. Page 12 of 81 February 21, 2019 I have done -- I have designed many of these buildings, many much larger than this building. The type of impact of this type of use is minimal to the surrounding area based on traffic, parking, noise. And it's all internalized. And we do not have any exterior storage of any type on this facility, in this property. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I say something? I'm not a lawyer. I'm only an engineer. I have 10 years building experience, I have 10 years design experience, and 20 years with the government. I assume you put 137 foot because that's where you intend putting the building. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If you put the building at 136 -foot 9 inches or 10 inches, you have a real problem. I have seen over the years so many times where a setback is violated by inches, and you have to come back and get something changed, and that is a real hassle, because then you're violating a setback, and you've got to go in front of the Board of County Commissioners. I'm saying, you know, if you know you're going to put your building at 137 -foot, I'd be comfortable with 130. If you want to make it 135, that's fine. But calling it 137 and hoping you hit that exactly, I don't have a problem with that, really. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, we committed to 137. If 135 is acceptable to the majority of the Planning Commission, it probably gives us a little leeway, but, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll discuss it when we get to stipulations. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Pm only an engineer. What do I know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, Bob, unfortunately 1, like you, have you some experience with this during my time with the county staff. I won't bring up the developer's former name. MR. MULHERE: I didn't bring it up either. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I recall at one time that developer was going to -- even had proposed to put a restaurant here, if I remember. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Restaurants, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Restaurants and some other things. And then this room was filled with folks from Falling Waters. So it appears that what you're proposing here is -- and I'm sure we're going to hear from the folks from Falling Waters. But it appears that you've at least gained their support for this. I guess the real question is, is given to what was proposed there in the past that was pretty aggressively opposed, this is just very passive -- MR. MULHERE: Benign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- type of activity and doesn't seem to be any type of concern other than the appearance and the size of the building, which is going to be screened. So pretty much you've solved everything else with the Falling Waters folks. MR. MULHERE: Well, we think it's obviously a much better use than what could go there, and something is going there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So very low traffic, no odor, no noise, no lights that will impact Falling Waters as opposed to a restaurant, odors, noise, trucks, deliveries, or some building Page 13 of 81 February 21, 2019 supply or contractor store with storage and noise, and so it's a really -- it's a really benign use. You know, obviously, we think it makes a lot of sense, and we feel like we've addressed the other concerns that were raised. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The two lots to the west, then, will also be procured as part of this -- MR. MULHERE: No, just the one lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the one lot? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Those lots will be for sale. We don't own those, and we don't know what will happen with those. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: MR. MULHERE: No, he's out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: MR. MULHERE: He's out. Does our friend, the original developer -- He's gone? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I call him our friend because both you and I have dealt with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Excuse me. One point that was just raised. I think I said this before, but we're ready to move forward once we get approvals. As a result, we will trigger -- I said this, I think, the creation -- the construction of the stormwater facilities and the perimeter landscaping. Even though those other two lots may not be developed yet, that will be a requirement. So that will occur, and the improvements to the wall, all those kinds of things that we've mentioned. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No problem. Most of -- I have a fair number of comments and requests. Most of them go to the objective of assuring that the commitments that were made at the NIM that we received and heard are fulfilled either by means of private undertaking, and that's how we've addressed that first point, or they're included in the ordinance itself. So that's kind of where I'm coming from. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My first comment has to do with the SIC code that was chosen. I don't think that's the right SIC code. I think using the 4225 does introduce these concepts of motor freight transportation and warehousing, and you were really very specific at the NIM saying this is not warehousing. MR. MULHERE: Yep. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so I looked pretty carefully at other SIC codes. I found in 4226, the sub of 0200 hits exactly what you represented to the people at the NIM, and that is household goods and furniture storage. That, to me, is the perfect SIC code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're opening up a whole can of worms if we go there, and I don't know the reason why we would. I think that's more on a gross basis. We're talking individual air-conditioned mini -self -storage leased out to many, many different individuals versus a wholesale operation where they've got a larger configuration for that kind of -- like the one down the street where the Big Cypress flea market used to be, they used that for large wholesale operation for a long time for the Merit Hotel. MR. MULHERE: So I can only tell you that the county has, for probably at least 20 years, used 4225 but limited it with the following language: 4225, comma, air-conditioned and mini -self -storage warehousing only. Now -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. I read that. It's not as -- it doesn't pinpoint the use that you represented at the NIM the way 4226.0200 does. Once you've said that, you have explicitly limited it to household goods and furniture storage. And I would add to that, your Page 14 of 81 February 21, 2019 further limitation that you've undertaken, air-conditioning and units that are 100 square feet or 150 square feet. MR. MULHERE: Indoor, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Indoor, yeah. MR. MULHERE: You know, I really have to defer to staff. The only thing I could think that might help a little bit would be to strike through the word "warehousing" so that we left 4225, air-conditioned and mini -self -storage, only. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, how this one is resolved we can talk about, but my objective is to conform the ordinance exactly to the representations you made to the residents at the NIM. And you repeated household goods and furniture storage and you added air-conditioning and you added mini and you mentioned 100 square feet and 150 square feet, and you added indoor, all of which is good. Now let's find the SIC code that matches that. MR. KLATZKOW: Just a thought. I take it this company is in this business? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And you have similar structures elsewhere? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: We could just get as an example similar structures, and it will be substantially similar to this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And not refer to an SIC. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, in addition to the SIC, and it will be substantially limited to this use. It's like a Taco Bell. Everybody knows what a Taco Bell is. Everybody's going to know what this storage unit is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's about 60 or so of these storage facilities in Collier County. They all are there under 4225. 4226 would be a whole different application, a different section of the code. I don't know why we would want to even go there. I understand your argument; it just doesn't fit the way we've historically done it and the way that we've interpreted it in the code since -- well, ever since I've been here and way before that. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yeah, the self -storage mini is 4225. You could put an additional caveat on that SIC to limit it to what is to be stored in that self -storage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'll move on after saying, with all due respect to how it's been done in the past, you've go an SIC code that hits exactly what has been represented. Why not use it? I'll move on. The next comment I have relates to the Exhibit A to the ordinance, which is the conditions of approval. The following uses are hereby authorized. First of all, in Section 1 it starts with a B rather than an A, so the numbering needs to be corrected. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And my next comment is that as to the property described on Exhibit B, which is the site, this one discreet site as opposed to the other lots, I believe you said that uses C, D, and E would be removed. So I think when you talk about C, D, and E, you have a parentheses that say, "except with respect to the Exhibit B property." MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't say they were going to be removed. We said the self -storage would be limited to that lot. If we build self -storage, they're de facto removed. We didn't say -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that's not how I heard the NIM. MR. MULHERE: I never said that, and I'm positive of that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I heard it the same way as he did. That's what I wrote down. MR. MULHERE: I think what I said was those uses would be removed. Look, we're not Page 15 of 81 February 21, 2019 going to build those uses. I don't think there's any objection to eliminating thein, so it's a moot point. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, then you'll put the exception in parentheses? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that exception, so I get it right, Bob, for stipulations? MR. MULHERE: That we would eliminate uses -- what are presently identified as uses C, D, and E, from Lot 1, from the subject lot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: From B parcels. Exhibit B parcel. MR. MULHERE: Exhibit B, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Okay. Good. All right. Now coming to the NIM. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to say I was -- was there a video as well as an audio? MR. MULHERE: There is, and we sent it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I did not get a video. MR. MULHERE: So there's a little bit of a challenge. We have the equipment and we're taking videos now, which we think is easier for you. We invested in that equipment, but they're large files, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, that may explain a partial answer, at least, to the concern I had. But since I was limited to audio only, I found there to be extremely poor board adherence to the speaker identification requirement, extremely poor, and I was left to guess who was talking. Now, I know your voice, so that one I get. But then there was also Mr. Pardo who is present and an engineer who was present and frankly -- MR. MULHERE: Chris Mitchell. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I think -- I think Mr. Pardo did most of the other talking -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- on behalf of the developer, but I wasn't sure. MR. MULHERE: Yes, Chris Mitchell did speak a little bit about stoimwater, though, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I mean, if you offered a video, that would have partially addressed my concern, but it never got to me. MR. MULHERE: We do provide them. I'm not sure what the challenge is, because we provide them in a number of ways. We provide them on a thumb drive -- they're big files -- and we provide them in a YouTube connection, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just need to know who's talking either by visualization of a video or identification of an audio. MR. MULHERE: I try really hard. We have two microphones set up. We instruct everybody to identify themselves when they -- you know, when they come up to the mike. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't hear any instruction of that nature at any time. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I think he tried really hard to get everybody. MR. MULHERE: I do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. Let's see. MR. MULHERE: And I commit to doing better. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. There was a discussion the applicant was going to look into establishing landscape and perimeter wall maintenance agreement, and you were going to meet again with the homeowners' association. I take it that's the meeting you were referring to earlier? MR. MULHERE: We did, yes. Page 16 of 81 February 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Now, the height limitation, 28 to 35. And you've --is 35 actual or zoned height? MR. MULHERE: Well, so the way things are -- we asked for 35 actual because it's straight zoning. So C5 typically allows 35 feet. That's what we asked for. You saw the exhibit, though, and we want a little bit -- this is where we do want a little bit of flexibility. I'm trying to find the -- ob, I know where it was. It was on this. Let's see. Zoom in. So the roof deck is at elevation 32 -six. So then you have a parapet to -- you know, to screen rooftop equipment and so on and so forth. Typically zoned for -- this type of a flat -roof structure is measured to the top of the flat roof. So our actual height that we believe is 32 feet, 6 inches or, excuse me, or zoned height is 32 feet, 6 inches, and the actual would be 35, let's say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it would be 37-8 by the plan you've got in front of you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the parapet. MR. MULHERE: Thirty-seven eight, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that's not what -- the conditions you've asked for. MR. MULHERE: We asked for 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For actual and zoned. So just to give you a heads -up, that's probably -- MR. MULHERE: Well, no. Straight zoning does not have an actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Read the conditions you wrote. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Butthe difference would be the parapet? MR. MULIIERE: Ion looking for the conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maximum zoned and actual height shall be 35 feet. It says both. That's a small discrepancy in a couple feet, Bob, but it does say zoned and actual height 35 feet. MR. MULHERE: Well, we wanted zoned height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just telling you that's why the question came up. MR. MULHERE: Pm looking for that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 15 of the electronic copy. It's backed up -- it's the backup to the resolution, Exhibit A. It's Item No. 4. MR. MULHERE: Four, okay. Yes, I do see that. Obviously, we wanted the zoned height. This exhibit shows what we need, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I want to know what actual height's going to be, too, including the parapet. MR. PARDO: Commissioner Fryer, to address your comment specifically, our floor to floor is as low as possible. We use air conditioners which are normally called pancake units. They're up -- right up against the ceiling. The issues that we have of the actual height is until we do the construction documents where we put in the drainage for the roof, et cetera, there's a minimum code under the Florida Building Code where there's a quarter -inch slope to the top of the roof. Staff makes sure that the top of the roof, whatever the finished roof is -- and most likely we're going to use a TPO type of roof system -- that slope goes up and down based on the amount of drains that we have, et cetera, because we have to have a minimum slope. The actual amount -- it was suggested by staff that we ask for 35 feet although we're not going to use the entire 35 feet as the actual. It will be probably a couple feet underneath there. But there are gentle slopes there which are -- have a minimum slope for a flat roof per code today of a quarter inch per foot. So, therefore, depending on the amount of roof drains, depending on where they're located, the emergency drains, et cetera, that's when you're going to get the actual one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me, sir, but my question is: What is the actual Page 17 of 81 February 21, 2019 height including the parapet? MR. MULHERE: 37 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight inches. MR. MULHERE: -- eight inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, see -- and that's probably different than other jurisdictions. Our actual height goes to what some land -use attorneys have called the very tippy -top of the structure. And whether it's a flagpole or a dormer or whatever, that's the very highest point of the structure, and in this case it's 37 feet eight inches. MR. MULHERE: And I think that -- I knew that but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm just hying to explain why we look at it that way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. There were several references to expressions like high-end and first-rate, of cetera. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And also a reference to an effort to make the building look like an office facility. The purpose that -- or the image that you displayed this morning, that was the first time I'd seen that. And I must say, it does look to me like an office building as opposed to a self -storage. Is there a way to capture language that would better and more specifically describe what is meant by the appearance of an office than just saying high-end? MR. MULHERE: I think -- we have these exhibits. They're conceptual, so their, you know, colors or something like that could change. But generally we could say the development will substantially -- MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have other facilities that are going to be substantially identical to this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have 60 of these in the county. They're all built like office buildings now because our code requires it. And if you go -- we have two sections of our code. We have an architectural section of our code, then we have a special section for special applications of which storage facilities are. So there's things you can't have roll -up outside doors. You can't do a lot of things. That's why they keep coming out looking like office buildings. That language is in the code. It's in a long section of the code. And that is probably why you've got to where you are today with the design you have here, including the trellises. Those are requirements that we have in that section. MR. MULHERE: And we've had initial review with staff. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. This went through many years of evolution as these things started appearing in the county even back in my day when I was with the staff, and much of what Mark says, especially the architectural embellishments to make these buildings not look like big -box brick warehouses. They're made to look very architecturally pleasing and aesthetics to look like an office building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So in your opinion -- and, Chairman, in your opinion, we don't need any additional language? It's already covered in the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. In fact, that code -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's very detailed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- covers this stuff in detail. That's why they're all looking like they are now, like office buildings. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou. At the NIM there were representations made as to the size of these units, and the way I see it, the smaller the individual units are, the more likely it is that the actual use to be made of them will be what has been represented, namely household furnishings and things of that nature. So my question is, are you willing to commit to -- there were two sizes mentioned, 100 square feet and 150 square feet. Are you willing to, as you represented at the NIM, make a Page 18 of 81 February 21, 2019 commitment with regard to the size of these units? MR. MULHERE: So my recollection of the NIM question was, about what size are these units? And we said typically 100 to 150 square feet. I didn't think we said the maximum, nothing will be larger than 150 square feet. I don't believe we said that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, what are you willing to say this morning? MR. MULHERE: I think the majority of units are that size. MR. PARDO: What was the size? MR. MULHERE: 150. MR. PARDO: Yeah. Our average, Commissioner, is 95 feet. That's an average. We have -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: How large do they go? MR. PARDO: They could go up to -- MR. MULHERE: 200. MR. PARDO: They could go up to 200. Most codes, or many codes in the state of Florida, have a maximum size because they don't want it to be, you know, much bigger than that. But normally we -- you know, our percentages are normally -- our average is 95 feet, and we will not go any larger than that. MR. MULHERE: 200. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any larger than 200? MR. PARDO: Than 200, yes. And we'll put that in the resolution if you desire. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. MR. PARDO: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Now, the operating hours. We've gotten the start time up from 7 to 8. Are you really going to go to 10 p.m. in the evening? That's what you really need? MR. MULHERE: Nine is fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nine, okay. So it's going to be 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Okay. MR. MULHERE: We just didn't want to exclude those early risers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. With respect to lighting, you mentioned at the NIM that there would be no lighting on the back. Presumably there would be some security lighting on the side -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- but it won't be -- will it be directed away from the back? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it will be shielded and directed away. I just think, you know, security -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. MULHERE: People can get behind the building. You want to have a little bit of low-level lighting back there. Ion certainly fine with a condition that says in the rear of the building there will be -- lighting will be limited to low-level security lighting, say, and shielded. MR. PARDO: Shielded. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the rear? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's the rear, facing Falling Waters. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And is that -- the same limitation, would that apply to the sides? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's probably fine. We have a little bit of parking. MR. PARDO: On the east side we can't control. MR. MULHERE: On the east side we don't control the Tractor Supply. That's already in anyway. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Page 19 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to show you we have some --we have some parking right here, so -- MR. PARDO: Instead of putting lighting on the -- MR. MULHERE: Bollards. MR. PARDO: We could put them on the walls and direct it down. MR. MULHERE: I think if you said other than the parking locations, no elevated -- fighting will be low level and shielded so as not to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. When you say "low level," what does that mean? MR. PARDO: It's actually directional. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Directional. but also the fixture will not be higher than what? MR. PARDO: Commissioner, there's -- Commissioner, there are lights -- there are lights and there are lights. We may want to add a couple of lights to accent the architecture, you know, so it just doesn't look turned off. I think what you're trying to achieve is make sure that we don't have lighting going into the residential area to the north of us, which is Falling Waters. I think what your -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the main consideration. But there was discussion at the NIM about the height of the fixture, and I just wanted to know what you were willing to do on that. MR. PARDO: Well, on the height of the fixture, you know, we -- first of all, we have parking in the front. We have -- we haven't designed -- you know, we have a required minimum lighting for those parking areas, and -- but in the rear we would definitely be -- the lighting fixtures would be mounted on the building, and they would be low and directional for security purposes only. That would be the entire north side. MR. MULHERE: How low? MR. PARDO: How low? MR. MULHERE: Ten feet? 12 feet? MR. PARDO: I would say no more than -- no more than 15 feet, Commissioner. Fifteen feet is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to use the microphone, sir. You can't -- I'm sorry. MR. PARDO: On the west side, which is where we have the loading, no higher than 15 feet, and the fight fixtures would be -- we will promise that we will mount them on the building itself In other words, there won't be poles. I would not want to do that on the north side, because I don't know what the master development will do with the parking that they have committed to. MR. MULHERE: That's on the south side. MR. PARDO: That is on the south side; in other words, parallel to Tamiami Trail. MR. MULHERE: He doesn't care about that. MR. PARDO: Right. So on the backside -- on the north side, no higher than the height of the wall that exists there now. MR. MULHERE: So that's eight feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So they will be mounted no higher than the wall in the back? MR. PARDO: On the north side, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On the north. MR. PARDO: Which is facing Falling Waters. The reason I said 15 feet on the west is because of the loading. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get it. That's okay with me. Yeah. Good. Page 20 of 81 February 21, 2019 Okay. There seemed to be -- and with all due respect -- and maybe it was just my impression. And if that's all it was, I'll apologize in advance. But it seemed to me as though there was some degree of evasiveness on the part of those who spoke on behalf of the applicant when it came to the subject of all the lots in gross, the four lots. MR. MULHERE: Three now. They re -platted to the three lots. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So let me just test here a little bit. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And as I say, if I owe an apology after this, then I'll certainly extend it. But when the subject of the ownership came up of the seller, it was mentioned that it was Crown Holdings. I think Mr. Pardo said that. MR. PARDO: No, I did not mention that, sir. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're going to have to use the microphone. MR. MULHERE: I think it was Chris Mitchell. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I couldn't tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this going -- maybe we just settle it, because the County Attorney's Office should have researched all this before it even got this far. Is there an issue of ownership that you're bringing up? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. There's -- well, let me proceed. MR. MULHERE: I have the South Florida Water Management District permit, which is for the entire parcel, which is addressed to Rook at Naples, I think, 2, comma, LLC. And when I went to the Property Appraiser's Office, that's who was identified as the ownership. Rook at Naples, LLC. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let me make a final statement here because -- to get to what I'm concerned about. I value these NIMs as extremely important, and when things are said at the NIMs, they should be able to be taken to the bank. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And when questions are asked, if the applicant chooses not to answer them, for whatever reasons, that's the better statement, I think, than to perhaps mislead and create an impression that is contrary to what is the fact. Now, let me tell you what I think the fact is, and then you tell me if I'm wrong, and I'll apologize. But I think that the two gentlemen are on both sides of this transaction via corporate entities. Am I incorrect? MR. MULHERE: No, no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The ones who have their address at Ashford Dunwoody Road in Atlanta. Schlossberg and Manoah. They were the founders, if I'm not mistaken, of the selling organization, and they are the principals of the new LLC that you're creating on the buyers' side. Is that not correct? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. Look, you know, I don't typically get -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, could we get to relevance. This is going -- who cares who owns it? As long as it's been verified by the County Attorney's Office, they have a legitimate right to ask for changing on the zoning. So what's the history of the ownership have to do with anything? MR. MULHERE: 1 can emphatically state that my clients do not own the other two parcels. They are only contract purchaser, and they're purchasing just one parcel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: To answer the question of the Chairman, once again, I think what is said at NIMs are very important. And I got a sense that there was evasion on the part of Page 21 of 81 February 21, 2019 those answering questions. And I have quotes here, but I won't read them in the interest of time. MR. MULHERE: I mean, it's okay. I don't think there was any intent to be evasive. I probably didn't even know who owned the property, because I didn't care who owned the property, personally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ned, with due respect to you, we need to pay attention more to the Land Development Code issues than some issues that should have been vetted out and researched before the process even got to us. I'm sure they had, because I know the County Attorney's Office checks all that before it even gets this far. MR. MULHERE: I mean, there was no intent to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm not accusing anyone of mal -intent. But, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to you -- and certainly LDC issues are paramount, but when I get a sense that things have been either withheld from or misrepresented to residents at NIM, I'm sorry, but that's important to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they had asked the gentleman if he's married and got children and he didn't answer, I wouldn't care. I mean, that is not an LDC issue, and it's almost similar to this. This is a nonissue for our portion of Land Development Code review, and I'd like us to stay focused on the topics of which we are here for, which is strictly the LDC. So the NIMs do have value, but they're more informal, and the statements made at NIMs can't be taken verbatim. We've got to sort that out and understand the process that we have to deal with, which includes a review of the ownership to make sure it's properly applied for as it comes forward, and that's why I'm trying to get us back on track here. MR. PARDO: Commissioner, the bottom line is, the gentleman from Stor-All, my clients, we're here for one purpose only, to purchase a property, a particular parcel, No. 1, after it's platted, for them to be able to build a building, the type of business that they're in. They have no interest whatsoever on any other parcel there. And they're buying it simply from this particular entity, and that entity has been vetted by the County Attorney's Office and staff to the umpteenth degree. And I don't know exactly what you heard. I was there. I was sitting right next to our civil engineer and right next to our planning consultant, and I think we were more than straightforward. We were more than straightforward with the neighbors. We listened very carefully to their planning and zoning concerns, to the history that they had with the parcel. So I'll just leave it at that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've said everything I'm going to say on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any other questions you were going to ask? COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, did you have something? COMMISSIONER FRY: Bob, I just wanted to request one clarification. You're buying one of three parcels on the site. Did I hear you say that you're committing to honor the agreements for managing all of the preserve land on all three and the water retention and the water management plan for all three parcels, or just your one? MR. MULHERE: No. I appreciate that question. For clarity, when you submit to the South Florida Water Management District for a stonnwater permit that crosses multiple platted lots, you have to create an entity, a commercial property owners association. That entity is the responsible entity for managing those things that are in common, including, you know, landscaping and stormwater; that's part of the plat. So there will be a commercial property owners association for all three lots. We're going to be the first ones in, which puts a little bit more of a burden, I suppose, on us to do some things that we might not have to otherwise do, such as landscaping in the rear of the lot that typically would occur as the plat improvements were made. But the property owner is required to install Page 22 of 81 February 21, 2019 that stormwater plan for all three lots and then, collectively, we're responsible for managing it. What we agreed to was, as far as the wall on our property, as far as the landscaping on our property, as far as any issues on our property, once a year we'll meet with these guys and make sure that they don't have any issues, that everything is fine. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I've got a couple questions. One might -- I know it's not staff report, but it will help me form a question for Bob. How many -- if this was an office building, as it will look like, how many parking spaces would 95,300 square feet take? And if you divide that by one per 300, is that the number you're going to use? That's 317. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is one per 300, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, how many parking spaces are you required to do this? MR. MULHERE: Very few; one, two, three, four -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably 10 or 12? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, about 15. We have more than is required because the plat has some parking along the Trail that's parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So unlike an office building with a parking lot with 12-, 15-, 20 -foot lighting in the back or to the sides, this one is going to reduce that parking apron on asphalt from 317 spaces down to 12 or 15. MR. MULHERE: As well as the trip generation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you -- I understand your discussion about the exterior lighting in the rear. We have used 10 foot as a maximum height on exterior walls of storage facilities before. That would be an easier one to measure than having to go out and measure the wall, especially if it's undulating of any type. So would you — is that something you could comply with? MR. MULHERE: Ten feet and shielded would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it has to be shielded by code, so we don't have any of that anyway. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All units, you said, were going to have interior access. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- so that would be a stipulation? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason that is, we don't want the roll -up doors and things like that occurring. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actual height, now, we do have zoned and actual. You have probably misstated then your conditions. You want them both at 35. That's kind of odd. We never -- I rarely ever see that because one can't be the same as the other, generally. MR. MULHERE: I think I'll be responsible for that. I probably didn't clarify the difference between the two for Felix, and that would be my responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if your actual height was three feet above your zoned height of 35, you could live with that? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 23 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hours of operation, I understand what you've just agreed to. The wall maintenance, you said something about wall maintenance. Do you mean a one-time wall maintenance behind your property or wall maintenance on somebody else's property? How did that -- how is that going to pan out? MR. MULHERE: No. Adjacent to our property, we're going to -- what we agreed to was behind our property, to pressure clean, repair, if anything was missing, paint on both sides of the wall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's all maintenance. MR. MULHERE: -- and then we are obligated -- we are obligated to maintain that wall. That wall is on our property. We are obligated. The concern was, so is everybody else, but they haven't been doing it, which is why we said we would meet with you to make sure that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The common -area association doesn't take care of the wall? MR. MULHERE: No. Falling Waters, no. They may be doing some things to it because they're looking at it; I don't know about that. But I can tell you -- because it looks in better shape on the Falling Waters side than it did on the commercial side. But it is on the commercial property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then you also said during your discussion, new landscaping on both sides of the wall. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to go over on Falling Waters' side and put new landscaping? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Well, we -- well, no. The landscape -- this landscape plan is -- well, it's sort of just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. It looks like the landscaping is right -- it's shown right at the wall on this. I have that plan, but it's hard to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only concern is when you said both sides of the wall, you've got to own both sides. I mean, I don't know how much property you've got on the other side to work on, and I don't know if it's a gated community, and I don't know if you have access. MR. MULHERE: We would need access. What I can tell you is the county will look at the landscape buffer and, typically, if it's deficient on their side, on our property -- there's at least two feet of the commercial property on the other side of the wall, which is done for access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maintenance access of a wall usually. But if you're going to plant something within a 2 -feet area, that's pretty tight. That's all I was trying to clarify. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have a problem, then, with a statement saying "new landscaping on both sides of the wall"? MR. MULHERE: No. I don't think so, no. We committed to that. By the -- well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's all the -- I think that's all the questions I -- Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Bob, on the overhead, slight confusion on my part. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: On the left side of it, where's the property line? MR. MULHERE: Well, the property line -- let me go to another exhibit. So the property line is right here. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. On -- MR. MULHERE: Ob, here? Right here. MR. KLATZKOW: The -- Page 24 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. MULHERE: So there's Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But go back to the slide before. You've got it in red. But that's not your property line, what's in red, is it? MR. MULHERE: The red was the -- sort of the -- just to show the development area. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But your property line is actually right alongside the building, isn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 400 feet -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. I'm talking about the -- I guess it's the western portion. MR. MULHERE: No. It's not right on the building. It is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, do you see the 400 -foot mark on the right side? That's the line. So that dotted line towards the back has to be the property line, because your lot is 400.17 feet deep. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's the rear, but the property line runs right along the edge of this access easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There it is right there. That's where it runs. 1 can show you again. It's a little hard to tell, Jeff, because we don't have the building on this. You can see the property line right there. I don't believe it's right on the building. We do have a setback we have to meet, and I don't believe it's on the building. We are in for SDP, so I'm sure that they'll make sure that we meet our setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have a side -yard setback on that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not asking for a deviation or exception or a variance, SO... process. MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, just out of curiosity, you didn't go with a conditional -use MR. MULHERE: The property is zoned C5. The conditional use is in C4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So you -- okay. MR. MULHERE: I had to think for a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: 1 knew there was a reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're right. C4 is the -- C3 next to it, though, right? MR. MULHERE: C3, not immediately adjacent, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but just the next lot up. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One final clarification, Bob. You showed a photo that you showed was from the Falling Waters side, and it looked like oak trees and a hedge along the wall. So that is on their property? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Your offer is to supplement that? MR. MULHERE: Our offer is to supplement to the degree that we need to to meet the landscape plan. We had a private agreement to also provide Falling Waters with a one-time contribution for them to supplement their own landscaping, but that agreement wasn't executed. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you will take care of the landscaping on their side if this needs to be altered in any way? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, on our property. Page 25 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions before we go to staff report? MR. PARDO: I wanted to add one more thing, Cosnrnissioner. We are committing to painting the entire wall on both sides and pressure cleaning it on both sides; not just adjacent to our property, but what the association -- what will become the three lots that we have there. And the other thing is that you see this, like, dead area right in front of the wall, that's because there was no irrigation or anything put on there. And when we talked to the neighbors, we promised them that we would help them do that and get that going so it not -- so it doesn't look dead behind the hedge there, as you can see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll run by the -- after we finish our meeting, we'll run by the stipulations and see where we're at. We have to have staff report and public input. So let's go to staff report before we take a break, and we'll go to public input after that. MR. MARTINEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Gil Martinez, principal planner. Staff has reviewed the petition with consistency with the Growth Management Plan as well as our LDC code and, therefore, we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We normally take -- Heidi, did you have something? I thought you just waved like you wanted to say something. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just for clarification so that you understand the site plan for this project, the loading area is actually on property that is owned by the applicant, but it's actually zoned C3. So the ordinance that you're amending doesn't include the western part of the property where the loading area is. So just when we do the stipulations, we'll make sure that it clarifies any stipulations regarding the zoning area is for property that's zoned C3 to the east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when this property was platted, it didn't include the parking -- additional parking for Tractor Supply, which they moved onto this lot. So this lot needs that additional space they're moving onto the lot next door. Is that kind of what's happening? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They're going to the west. MR. MULHERE: Not the building, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not the building, but the Tractor Supply didn't move their building either. They just moved their parking. MR. MULHERE: So we did talk to staff about -- the question came up about -- that our loading zone was in C3. And, I mean, you could do a site plan that covers two different zoning districts. The use is limited to the C5, but some of the infrastructure is on the C3, and staff did not have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be like a common accessway or parking? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's what that is is a common shared access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From the County Attorney's Office viewpoint, has the proper easements and other documents been worked out so that it has the ability to use that property? MR. STONE: Scott Stone, for the record. We wouldn't have looked at it at this stage. That would be determined and analyzed at the site development stage, which we're not a part of that review. But if staff has questions about that, they can always come to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from a zoning perspective, it's irrelevant on whether or not that area has its easements to function like it needs to. Page 26 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. STONE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the next question is, is that a required functional part of this building in order to be zoned like it is? I mean, Scott, what I'm getting at is if the building can be built but it can't function without that additional property but yet we're not looking at that additional property until it comes in for Site Development Plan and then they may not get that additional property, then what have we done with the zoning action? MR. STONE: We're concerned at this stage with making sure that there's confirmation and unified ownership of the project. MR. MULHERE: Wait. The lot we're buying includes that portion of the C3. We will own it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're trying to get to. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't have a mobile microphone, but -- so I'm going to have to speak here and then go over there. Oh, here it is. You took it. Hid it on me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He took it. I went into a place yesterday, and the monitor was gone from the ceiling. And I said, where's your monitor? Well, they get stolen every time we put it in, so we can't put one in. So I guess our microphones do, too. Go ahead, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So the boundary of the ordinance that you're talking about today is here. This -- so this is C5 from here over. From here to this way it's C3. My understanding, it's under all the ownership of the application -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- however, the loading area that you're talking about and have spoken about some stipulations is actually on abutting property that is not the subject of the ordinance. So we just need to be clear with our stipulations. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, l agree. I mean, the Exhibit A refers to Parcel B, and it has an attachment. That Parcel B includes all the property that we own, which is both C5 and C3. So it applies to the entire parcel, every condition that you put on it. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: So the loading area will be orientated on the northwest side? MR. MULHERE: It is -- this is -- well, it's really centrally located on the west side, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have. I don't think -- anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break for 15 minutes and come back at 10:40. We'll come back and bear public speakers at that time, then we'll go to rebuttal after that. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back from the break. When we went into break, we were finishing up with our staff comments, and questions, and we'll go right into public speakers. Gilbert or Ray, or whoever's got the speaker slips, is there any registered public speakers? We'll start with that. MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Mr. Frank Ferraiuolo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, sir, if you'd like to come up to the microphone, identify yourself. We ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but we're flexible. MR. FERRAIUOLO: Okay. My name is Frank Ferraiuolo. I'm the president of the master association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name for the court reporter? MR. FERRAIUOLO: F -e -r -r -a -i -u -o -I -o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. FERRAIUOLO: I'm the president of the master association of Falling Waters, but Page 27 of 81 February 21, 2019 I'm not here representing. I'm here as Frank Ferraiuolo. The board met with the gentleman, and we had a couple of good meetings. And I understand what they're doing. I'm not for it; I'm not against it. I just have a couple questions that I'd like to bring up. One of my questions I think you just answered. When you said you're going to do the wall -- CRAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to direct your questions to us. We can ask them afterwards, but there's no -- MR. FERRAIUOLO: Every time I heard them talk about the wall, they said "our property." Now, I think Bob said that he will do Plot 1 and 2 if they're on Plot 3. MR. MULIIERE: Actually, I can confirm. To my surprise -- I did not know this. I always did limit it to our property, but the property owner -- the president of the company was here, and he said they'll do the entire wall for the entire subdivision. So that's Lots 3, 2, 1. MR. FERRAIUOLO: Okay. That clarifies that one point, because just to do that one piece wouldn't really help us that much. They did show some pictures of the wall where it was in pretty good shape. The wall is really -- we've painted it on our side. We've pressure washed it. We've tried to de -rust it and try to keep it looking nice. That place where they showed pictures, it's very nice and neat. That's not what the wall really looks like, and that's not what the landscaping looks like. It's weeds. And we do have it sprayed because there's exotics in there. And twice a year they come by, and we pay somebody to spray the weeds and stuff like that to take care of it. We're trying to keep it as best as possible. So I'm glad to hear that you will do the whole thing. My other big concern is if we allow you to go to 35 feet or 38 feet, whatever it is, what's going to happen with Lot No. 1 and 2? Again, I heard the word "restaurant," and I think that would scare most of us to death, because we smell Carrabba's right now and the Longhorn that's there and Texas, whatever it's called. And if someone was to put that kind of a facility, that wouldn't make us happy. This is a clean facility. We won't get much smell from it. We'll probably get very little garbage from it. And we have a problem now with bears, panthers, coyotes, bobcats because they come around Winding Cypress. They really destroyed most of our buffer zone for the animals. So I do feel sorry for the animals, but it's a problem. So this wouldn't be that type of a place. My other big concern is that as president of the association, we have a master board, and two of those votes on our master board of the six votes belong to the storage facility out front. They vote on all our major issues including the budget of which they really never objected to whatever the budget we submit is. They've always been very agreeable and very good neighbors, as these people may well be. I'm concerned about the $30,000 we get a year from Stor-All, or Store Smart it's called now; that if you put a competitor within 500 or a thousand feet to them, will that damage his business where maybe he won't be able to stay in business, and we'll lose the income, and we'll have a mess at our front entranceway. So that's a really big concern. Like I said, I'm not really for it; I'm not against it. These are just things I'd like you to consider when you snake a decision. If we allowed 35 -foot building on Parcel 3, does that mean I and 2 get a gimme? Do they get to build to 35 or -- well, maybe we can make it 40. Well, they made it 38 feet for them. Can we make it 40 now? That's part of our concerns. We brought this up at our neighborhood meeting. And when I met privately with our board, these are some of the things that they asked me to bring up today. We also talk about that prior builder, and I had at least 10 or 12 meetings with them, and we bad over 300 people in our clubhouse jammed to death where Mario promised us the world Page 28 of 81 February 21, 2019 and delivered nothing. And, again, we're getting all kinds of promises. And I heard the gentleman over here. He doesn't want to put anything in writing. So what's going to protect us to say that this meeting will occur once a year, that the wall will be maintained; that the sprinkler system will be put in? I think we're not getting any kind of a guarantee except two gentlemen. And they might be perfect, and it might work out true. I think we felt that way when we dealt with the previous builder, and it wasn't delivered. I think the 140 feet from our road is a nice buffer for us, you know, 70 feet of water and 60 or 70 feet of vegetation. That's really a good distance. It's a nice distance for us. I think we could live with that. The no bright lights, we had a problem with lights with the previous builders. They built them up in the -- high in the sky. Now, you guys say they're going to keep it at eight or 10 feet. That would be wonderful, because it does affect -- did affect Building 6790 and 6800. That's about my concerns, but I want you to consider all those things when you make your final decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's something — a couple things I want to address that you raised. Anybody else comes on the other two lots, they're going to be left with 28 feet. That's zoned height. So they could go higher with actual height, which means parapets and things like that. If they want to change that, they've got to go through a similar process that you see here today. MR. FERRAIUOLO: Same process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. They've got to come in. They've got to -- height, especially, has to come to this panel, and we'd have to weigh that, and you'd be able to -- you'd be notified, and all that would occur. So it's not an easy task to change the height. And part of the other issues you raised, we are being -- we're going to probably have nine or 10 stipulations on the facility that will hopefully address some of the things. Now, as far as the payment between -- and your arrangements with the one out front and how you want to arrange it with these guys and the competitiveness of this one to the other, that's outside our purview, and those are things that our -- if they want to work something out with you, that's up to them, but we can't demand anything in that regard. MR. FERRAIUOLO: I don't think we're asking for any money. I was just thinking about from Prince Street going to Airport -Pulling Road, they're not going to be able to build any more storage places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not passed yet. MR. FERRAIUOLO: No, but it's a possibility, and it seems like these guys are squeezing in under the wire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. FERRAIUOLO: I do see a lot of storage facilities. And, like I said, I'm not against it. I just don't want to -- I'd like to see them both thrive. That would be the ideal situation, that they both make money and stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So one thing I hope you realize, the way this language is written for the existing facilities, "unless otherwise provided, all permitted uses in the C4 general commercial district" means you could put a nightclub, an eatery place, something like that, Pelican Larry's or one of the places where a lot of people go and they have some outside dining and stuff like that. You could have a much noisier operation here, and I can tell you the storage facilities are some of the quietest benign uses we have in Collier County. So from that perspective, I think you'll end up having a good neighbor, especially if they list all the stipulations and accept them. MR. FERRAIUOLO: I'm sure that it would be the best scenario for us. That's all I'm saying is I'm just worried about Parcel I and 2, because we could still have a problem. And if we Page 29 of 81 February 21, 2019 get lenient -- and I'm not saying this is being lenient, but if we get lenient on one parcel, then the next parcel could be a problem again, too. But, again, we don't know what the future holds. You know, actually, those buildings in front aren't noisy either. Now, the Sheriff moved in there and there's a couple of security companies in there, so they've been very good neighbors, too. They seem to control the property pretty well, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope it continues that way for you. MR. FERRAIUOLO: I do, too. Thank you for giving me the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. And our next registered speaker, Gilbert? (No response.) � CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other member of the public here who would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Bob, did you want any opportunity for a rebuttal? MR. MULHERE: Well, the only -- one clarification, please. Frank mentioned 140 feet, and it is -- what we committed to was, you know, 137 or 135 -- you haven't finalized that discussion yet -- from our property line, and I think what Frank was referring to, if you look at what's on the visualizer right now and assume that our property line is maybe a foot or two off that wall, you can see that there's additional setback on the Falling Waters site. He said 140 feet from their road and it's probably a little bit more, but close to that. So I just wanted to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're -- I'm sorry. You really can't talk from the audience. It's hard for the court reporter. MR. MULHERE: I was just clarifying, it's a minimum of that when you consider the separation on their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else you want to address, Bob? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me walk through some of the suggestions that we've heard for stipulations to make sure that you understand them and that this board has done the best they can to create them. First of all, as far as the setback goes, I know Stan was looking at some flexibility in the distance like that. I don't disagree with that. I've seen a small mistake cost a lot of processing. So at -- 135 feet is only a 2 -foot difference but it gives you that flexibility. You still have the site plan that's going to be shown to the Board of County Commissioners when they see it. So, theoretically, you're going to be stuck somewhat to that plan, but it gives you a little bit wiggle room for any kind of errors in the field, but it's far better than the 60 feet currently allowed by conditions. And is that satisfactory with the Planning Commission? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKL• It's satisfactory with me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll go with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you talked about exterior rear lighting. It's to be low-level security lighting only not to exceed 10 -foot mounted height on building. MR. PARDO: On the north side. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rear. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Page 30 of 81 February 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRY: Wasn't that eight feet to the same height as the wall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the wall is on top of a mound. Rather than get into what the actual height of that wall is and having surveyors having to take it -- troubleshoot it over, we've used 10 feet before, and it's been effective, so... Office and loading areas will be orientated on the west side centrally located on the building. MR. MULHERE: "Office," you mean access? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, access -- yeah, I'll rephrase it. Access and loading areas. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: All units will have interior access. You stated that at the NIM, and that stops roll -up doors and all the other stuff. The actual height, because of the drawings that you've now detailed a little bit better, will be 38 feet with a zoned height of 35 feet. Hours of operation will be 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Wall maintenance will be -- will occur and -- with the painting of the wall and the along all of the -- currently three unimproved lots. That's from your facility northwestward. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New landscaping will happen on both sides of the lot consistent with the -- with code and stipulations to that effect. MR. PARDO: Lots 1, 2, 3. MR. MULHERE: You're going to put in the landscaping on all three? MR. PARDO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Landscaping on both sides of the wall on Lots 1, 2, and 3. Exception -- there was something about exception on -- oh, the uses, the additional uses that are authorized to be allowed, you're going to just do -- you're dropping those off of this parcel. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that fair? MR. MULHERE: We'll limit -- we'll exclude the C5 -- other C5 uses from this parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So C, D, and E will not have -- will be the exception. Those uses will no longer be allowed on that parcel? MR. MULHERE: Right. What's now C, D, and E, which will be something different because they weren't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it will be F. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: B, C, and D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That just applies to the parcel described on Exhibit B. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And last, the maximum storage unit size will be 200 square feet. Does that work for you? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you stated. Does anybody on the Planning Commission have anything they want to add, suggest, or discuss in this regard? COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe they coramitted to having no windows or doors on the site facing Falling Waters. MR. MULHERE: There are no doors. I think there are windows. They're faux windows. There are three faux windows. There's a wall behind them, but that's the architectural standards to make it look like an office. Page 31 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So no functional windows? MR. MULHERE: That's fine. MR. PARDO: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we need to clarify that their offer of the landscape buffers includes irrigation on the -- MR. MULHERE: No. It will be required. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all part of it? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, anybody? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, I think I heard one additional commitment that I didn't hear mentioned, and that was they said that all parking will be on the Tamiami Trail side of the building. MR. MULHERE: Or the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They couldn't be -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Or the west? COMMISSIONER FRY: No parking on the west; just loading, correct? MR. PARDO: No, we have -- MR. MULHERE: I think there's one space or two spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mike. MR. MULHERE: I think there's one or two spaces. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not in the rear, what -- does it matter? MR. MULHERE: If you just limit the parking to the west or south side, that covers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about, just simply, no parking in the rear; does that work for you guys? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've never had a storage facility with so many restrictions. Anybody have anything else? I hate to ask. Oh, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, sorry. First of all, it was mentioned that the units would be air conditioned, also that the average was 95 square feet, and the contents would be limited to household goods and furniture, self -storage only. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's already -- it says air-conditioned self -storage in the actual ordinance, so it has to be air-conditioned. So I don't think you need to re -stipulate that stipulation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Where does it say that? MR. MULHERE: In the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1F, well, which will be changed to IF under Exhibit A. MR. MULHERE: Also it says it in the ordinance. It says -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So my question is, it says mini and self. What does that phrase mean in what's now numbered 1F? MR. MULHERE: Mini storage refers to a storage facility that has the smaller 100-, 150-, 200 -square -foot rented/leased storage spaces as opposed to a big warehouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Self' means they're leased out, and individuals go in and -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. MULHERE: Household. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you need to have the word "warehousing" in there in what's -- MR. MULHERE: That's what I suggested before. I have no problem striking through the word "warehouse." And if staff doesn't object, I think it's very clear without that word. Page 32 of 81 February 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to have it taken out. MR. MULHERE: And I don't have any problem with that. It would read -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just the title from the SIC code. That's why it's there, I believe. And, see, if you take that out, then what are we saying is there if we leave motor freight transportation? MR. MULHERE: No. It would still read motor freight transportation, 4225, air-conditioned -- motor freight transportation and warehousing, 4225, comma, air-conditioning and mini -self -storage, then strike through "warehousing" there. So it would say -- I'll read it again -- "motor freight transportation and warehousing"; that's the SIC title, so we don't want to change that. The number is 4225, comma, air-conditioned and mini -self -storage only. MR. KLATZKOW: It is a warehouse. But this is a warehouse. MR. MULHERE: It is. MR. KLATZKOW: It is. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I think it's clear whether that word's there or not, either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, Ray, if we take the word "warehousing" out, does it matter to you how this will be interpreted at that point? MR. BELLOWS: We will utilize the SIC code, and the mini -storage can be a substitute term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Which is allowed by that SIC code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that doesn't hurt anything. MR. MULHERE: It would only be the second reference to warehousing that comes out. The first one is the actual title from the SIC, so it should be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, in the NEV you had limited yourself to household goods and furniture and the like. Is that not to be a part of this? MR. MULHERE: I mean, people -- I guess household goods is pretty broad. That's what people generally store is, you know, bicycles and sporting equipment and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a guy that owns a business that wants to store some file boxes there, which I used to do when I was in business, he -- MR. MULHERE: He could. Household, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you sure it would be household if he owns a business? MR. MULHERE: But you could store them in your house, too, so, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't -- I don't know what difference it makes at 200 square feet. But if there's a concern and you -- MR. MULHERE: I mean, the only thing is building code limitations. If you're talking about hazardous materials, I'm sure that's restricted by the building code. MR. PARDO: It is restricted by the building code, Commissioner, and on top of that, there are further restrictions that have to do with the -- you can't run a business from it. We have so many restrictions in our leases that not only address what we're concerned with here, but a lot more from an operational standpoint. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. You can't run a business from the unit, but could you store inventory there? MR. MULHERE: Well, there's all kinds of restrictions on what you can store there both by the building code and in the contract that you sign. So somebody who wants to store building supplies or that kind of stuff, they're not going to pay an individual rate that's being charged for these units. They're going to go find a warehouse somewhere to store them in. I mean, I think that the intent is really clear as to what these -- these are going to operate just like every other self -storage facility in Collier County. Page 33 of 81 February 21, 2019 And, you know, whether you put that restriction -- whether you say "generally" or "to be used for household furniture and goods", "the storage of household furniture and goods," they're going to be used the same way as every other self -storage facility. I'm not hying to be evasive. I mean, could we live with that stipulation? We could. It's going to be managed the exact same way as any other self -storage. So 1 just don't know if it's necessary. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This would be the first time that we'd actually be addressing, you know, the contents of a mini -storage unit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Well, how would we police that and how would we control it? Just leave it the way it is in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was a general statement made at the NIM. There's really no way to control it. It is general. So I don't know how we isolate it into a regulation. Why don't we just leave it and let it go? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then it shouldn't be said at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we shouldn't say anything at NIMs any more because never was the intent of the NIM to get to some of this minutiae we're getting at today. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Fryer, honestly, that's generally what they are used for. I mean, that's why we said it. That's what they're used for. People were concerned, was this going to be a warehouse or a self -storage, and that's why the comment was made. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Bob, do you have internal security cameras here? MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Like, how many cameras would somebody have to pass by to get from the outside to their unit? MR. PARDO: From a security standpoint, everything is monitored. The amount of cameras is substantial. The people that use the facility understand that they're there. They're paying for that because it's, you know, several things. Plus, on top of that, you know, it's a manned facility, and you don't have a lot of employees. So they can truly monitor and keep tremendous control of the performance of the facility. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And anybody that's stockpiling weapons and ammunition and explosives is not going to want to pass by a bunch of security cameras. MR. PARDO: No, no, no, no. Very much retardant. It's not proof, but it's very much retardant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All this hypothetical is great, but let's just move onto finishing up this case. We've got 12 stipulations. Does anybody --go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: One further. Did we include the stipulation that the owners will meet with the Falling Waters HOA annually? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We decided not to do that because, again, it's not something allowed but required by code, and it's not -- it's too difficult for us to monitor, and if we start doing it for this one, every single neighborhood throughout the county, every time -- we'll have multiple agencies added -- or reviews added to every single PUD that comes in here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it's going to be a private undertaking. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And just so you know, we do have a draft written agreement that includes that condition in the hands of the HOA, which they haven't executed, so it's really up to them now to have an enforcement mechanism, because that was raised by Frank. You know, what's our enforcement mechanism? You have the opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Page 34 of 81 February 21, 2019 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion subject to those stipulations if the motion maker feels justified doing so. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve with those stipulations. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Karen, seconded by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEAR -BORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. PARDO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now we're going to get into our second item on today's agenda, which I'll pull up here in just a second. Neat up today is a continuation of our review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan that started on January 31st with a meeting held in hnmokalee. We had some public input there. We started moving into the document, and we'll keep moving through it today. Since that time I certainly have had more opportunity to look at some of the details, and I'm sure we'll probably have another meeting on this after this one's over with, but we'll go as far as we feel like going today until we quit at 3:00. We will be taking a break for lunch. You guys want to go quarter to 12 to quarter to 1 or 12 to one? Does it matter? I don't know what your -- last time Terri took off with a bunch of people, went into a restaurant and came back late, and I don't want her coming back late again, if we could help it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move that that be stricken from the record. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: She was properly escorted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm just kidding. I just want to make sure we have enough time. I know some of the restaurants get busy, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What happens in Immokalee stays in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was good to visit Immokalee. It was nice to go out there again. We won't have enough large cases that come up to warrant that trip as often, but it was good to go out and see everybody again. ***With that, we'll move into Item 9A3, which is P1,20180002258. It's a continued review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And, Anita, where did you -- how'd you want to start today? MS. JENKINS: Commissioner Strain, I think we got through the introduction of the document that we were going through. And if we'd just like to continue policy by policy, that works for me. Page 35 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Actually, I think we got a little bit -- yeah, we got a little bit further on that. I think we finished up -- and everybody's got a different electronic page now. I'll try my best to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We got to mitigation banking or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, we got through 1, 2 -- 1.2.2, I believe, home occupations. Isn't that the last thing we discussed, based on your records, Anita, or not? MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we left off at that meeting with a question that Mr. Fryer had brought up concerning financial commitments made in the Immokalee Master Plan. Why don't we tackle that one first because they're all through all the paragraphs. MS. JENKINS: We could -- Mr. Bosi's meeting with the manager now, and if we could just wait until he gets back so he can address that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did everybody get Mike's summary? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's what we'll work from when we get there. So let's move right into the -- we're on Page 18 of the -- my electronic version, Page 8 of the actual document Policy 1.2.3, 1 believe, financial incentives. That's where we left off. So let's go page by page. Does anybody have any questions further on that page? And that's Page 8. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, I've got a strong concern over Policy 1.2.4, and that's the agricultural -related business. And this is the one that I believe allows the offices, headquarters, and apparatuses associated with alternative energy use to be put in the LR district of the hnmokalee urban area. And I'm just concerned that that is not an appropriate use in an LR area depending on the type of alternative energy that ends up being utilized. And, you know, I know we are -- a lot of crops are grown out in hnmokalee. They could produce alternative energy means that take a lot of manufacturing or processes to get there. I visited some of these sites in other states in this country. And one of the things in the prior Immokalee Master Plan had talked about no noxious odors was one of their goals. And I'm not sure how we could meet that. I know that was taken out in this one. But I was just wondering how we expected this to work and be compatible with the low -residential area that it's now destined to go in. MS. JENKINS: Well, the low -residential area, Mr. Strain, is primarily zoned agriculture at this point under large landowner ownership. And the intent here to implement this policy for the community is it to go through the Land Development Code amendments. So that's where you would have the opportunity to really see the details that staff will bring forward to you to regulate these uses. Some of the primary uses for Florida specifically is solar use, which will not produce any noxious energy. So it may be at the time of LDC when you see those details that will help you become more comfortable with exactly what type of alternative use we want to allow in Collier County. And if it becomes more of the alternative energy stock can be grown in the area but the processing has to be done in the industrial area of hamokalee, that might be something that you want to look at at the time of the LDC. COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I follow up? MS. JENKINS: This is a very broad idea of getting Collier County prepared for alternative energy. It's one of the hottest markets in job creation right now, and so we're trying to move in that direction to make it more favorable for Collier County to entertain those job Page 36 of 81 February 21, 2019 creators. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So on Line -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'll finish my question after Ned gets done. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Beginning on Line 20, the new language, "Compatibility criteria and development standards shall be included in proposed LDC amendments," that's what you're talking about? MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. This would not be implemented until the LDC amendments come before you and the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that sentence is an integral part of 1.2.4. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What land zoning surrounds the urban area of hmaokalee outside the urban boundary? MS. JENKINS: Agricultural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why couldn't this go on that agricultural land? MS. JENKINS: It potentially could, but again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- it could, right? That's an answer. MS. JENKINS: Well, it could if in the RLSA or in the ag zoning you modify the LDC to allow it in that area right now. It's not allowed in that area right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And -- MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where I was going. It's not allowed there because that wasn't something deemed to be necessarily compatible with the new town concepts and the other things we have going out there. It could be, but they would have to come in and do a GMP amendment, and then the zoning effort, which I think is a better threshold for the public to understand the process is than just allowing it in the GMP. We have seen so much coming in lately, especially in the last year or two where every single nook and cranny is interpreted in different ways to allow something that we probably never expected. I'm concerned that that opens up a door, an opportunity that doesn't need to be opened up when they can simply change -- if they have that good of a project, they can change the GMP, and they can change and do the appropriate zoning documents to match it. MS. JENKINS: Well, Collier County has lost those opportunities because of the processes that we have in Collier County, that they're going to other communities where that community is more welcoming to alternative energies. So, again, one of the major economic drivers of hnmokalee as defined by the citizens of Immokalee is agribusiness, manufacturing, industrial, and ecotourism, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if those businesses really wanted to use Immokalee, maybe they ought to be looking at taking up some of the additional acreages that they want to utilize for development in the RLSA and put it there, because it's interesting that all the new towns and all the new improvements are going in the RLSA and, because of that, hnmokalee's getting the uses they don't want, and they're also getting a reduction in their density from over -- a predicted 100,000 people down to less than half that. So I don't see the value in putting the things we don't want everywhere else in hnmokalee, and that's what this seems to be doing. And I don't like that kind of language. So it is going to be something that we'll bring up as we work our way through this document, at least on my part. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that finishes any -- nobody else has any questions on Page 8, let's move to the next page. Does anybody have any questions there? Page 9. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't. Page 37 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 1.4.2, education and training programs. Collier County will seek to partner with other organizations including Collier County School Board and CareerSource Southwest Florida to enhance training; that -- they will -- it's not going to be limited to that. They will -- they will work with any other organization, or how is that? Because it says "including," but you're not limiting it to those two, are you? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In Objective 1.5 -- well, I think we've answered this one in Immokalee. That was the one that I had a question about as far as how does the CRA fit into the urban area. It doesn't. It goes outside the urban area in a couple points, doesn't it? MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Page 10, unless someone has a reason not to. Anybody have any questions on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, under 2.1.2, it talks about incorporating the findings with the neighborhood invention -- inventories. Collier County will create neighborhood improvement plans with coordination of all applicable county departments and the CRA. What about the subject neighborhoods with the property owner and resident notification to be included; is that something you couldn't add to this paragraph so that -- MS. JENKINS: Happy to, yeah. I mean, it's always the intent to involve the neighbors. Nobody knows Immokalee like those that live there and worked on this plan. So, of course, we would include the neighbors in any neighborhood to help identify what the needs are in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be good. On that same page, 2.2.2, substandard housing, Collier County will periodically update its programs for the repair, removal, and replacement of standard (sic) housing units. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you read slower, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Terri. I keep forgetting -- in hnmokalee. And Terri has tried to very politely many times ask me to slow down, and I keep forgetting. So I apologize, Terri. I'll do better. 2.2.2, how is it decided what is substandard? MS. JENKINS: That really goes back to the housing program and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which housing program? MS. JENKINS: Collier County housing program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one -- the new one that's being proposed? MS. JENKINS: No. Just the overall -- not the new one that's being proposed, but all of the programs that our Housing Department runs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do they determine what's substandard? I mean, Immokalee has different levels of, let's say, tolerance and how things are done. They certainly don't need the urbanized standards out there that we have to live by because -- and I keep saying the rural area shouldn't have any of these. But as far as Immokalee goes, has someone decided or determined what they consider substandard? MS. JENKINS: So each year -- not each year, but periodically has went through a housing inventory analysis, and I happened to be involved in the last one that they did. And so there is a long list of things that you're looking at. And every single house in hnmokalee is included in a database. And you look at the facade, you look at the roof, from the street. You're not on the property; you're not going inside the property. So you're looking at dilapidation and Page 38 of 81 February 21, 2019 things that are not meeting code, code enforcement cases, things like that. And what we found from the last housing inventory is that housing in himmokalee is on its way up. It's improving, and that says a lot about the organizations in Immokalee that are working hard to improve housing. So it is improving out there, but there's a long list of items that are used in those housing inventories to determine, really, the condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send us a copy of that list that you review them by? Then we'll understand what kind of standards they're talking about. We'll move on, unless there's others. Page 11. Anybody have any questions on Page 11? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This -- up on top, it's 2.2.4, housing code enforcement. Same question on substandard housing. Once you send that list, it will help understand that. Then it says, efforts will focus on properties that are abandoned, owned by an absentee landlord, or not in compliance with Collier County Land Development Code or Code of Laws and Ordinances. What does the idea of an absentee landlord have any effect on whether or not they're consistent or compliant with our Land Development Code and Code of Laws? MS. JENKINS: I don't know why that language was added there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we strike it since we're cleaning it up, if we could. MS. JENKINS: That's fine with me, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under interagency coordination, Collier County will coordinate with the CRA and other housing providers and regulators to review and consider incentives to improve the housing quantity and quality in the Immokalee urban area. And the -- how do -- now, how would you get there? Because this is the policies, objectives, and goals. So housing quantity and quality, is that the density bonuses and things that we're going to be looking at or are looking at in some of these cases? Is that what this is alluding to? MS. JENKINS: So a lot of this alludes to, yes, maybe converting some of the dilapidated homes into multifamily homes that folks could move into. And this also refers back to the housing providers and all of those non-profit organizations that work towards housing in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not quite sure, but -- okay. I'll -- best I can do on that one. Under your housing incentives, 2.3.2, now there it refers to the Collier County Community Housing Plan. What -- how would you use that plan in Immokalee? I mean, that was, I think, derived to generate affordable housing in Collier County, of which Immokalee has mostly affordable housing, or at least it seems to. So how is that plan going to help Immokalee? MS. JENKINS: Well, that plan is a countywide plan. So any strategies that the Board approves from that plan would also apply to Immokalee. So its a countywide plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And do you think the plan is tailored to Immokalee's needs? MS. JENKINS: I think the plan considers housing affordability throughout the county, so it does include Immokalee and, for instance, the density bonuses for affordable housing by hearing also apply to Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know they do. In fact, Immokalee has got some bonuses or density by right that we don't have elsewhere in the county. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: I just --I know the housing plan is something new for --the new one coining out, at least. I was concerned about some of the multipliers they used to get to their numbers, and I didn't know how that would impact Immokalee if anybody's even looked at that, Page 39 of 81 February 21, 2019 because they're now including in the 30 percent cost burdening the same things that banks, basically, include in their mortgage costs, which is not necessarily in line with the definition from the state from what I could read. And I didn't know if that would have an impact on Immokalee or not. MS. JENKINS: Well, the new definitions were just adopted into the LDC as well. Seas the new definitions for affordable housing was adopted, that applies to Immokalee as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number -- Page 12. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Policy 3.1.1, capital projects and studies. "Collier County will coordinate with the Immokalee CRA on an annual basis to develop a prioritized list of Immokalee's specific capital projects and studies that will further the goals and objectives and policies. The county and the Immokalee CRA shall identify potential funding sources for all or a portion of the projected costs associated with these projects and studies." That has been my primary concern with this all along, and certainly these sources will evolve and change over the years. But wouldn't it be nice if, when we pass this on to the County Commission, that we at least had some ideas about what these potential sources might be, private grants, state, or federal money? And, also, to the extent that a project would ultimately be financed in large part by the county taxpayers, will there -- wouldn't there necessarily have to be a corresponding reduction in the funding for other county projects? In other words, wouldn't it be a zero-sum game, or could the zero-sum game concept be avoided by trying to identify return -on -investment type projects that actually create new pieces of the pie? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike's back. Do you want him to pick this up? MS. JENKINS: He was going to address the funding; sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is probably it. So it might make it easier, since he wrote the report, and we can go with that. Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. BOSL Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I'm sorry for -- I was down at the County Manager's Office. 3. 1.1 basically describes the way Collier County does business in terms of allocating budget and resources to the needs of the community and what the individual departments/divisions feel that are required to be undertaken within a one-year or a five-year period. This -- by no means does this obligate the Board of County Commissioners and the county to execute the studies or the activities that are suggested within the individual policies per mandate. They allows us the flexibility of the budgetary process to evaluate what capacities that are contained within the staffing, within the revenue allocations for any one individual division or department to provide for. When we passed out the fiscal memorandum when we started it with 3.1.1, that was the guiding -- that was the policy that we wanted to provide you to make aware that these, by no means, are 100 percent obligations if the available revenue or the available funding or staffing wasn't available, but we also wanted to identify which groups we thought would be performing these individual tasks. And one of the things I wanted to kind of reiterate, what we're doing, this is — you know, this is a Growth Management Plan. And the Growth Management Plan doesn't have a lot of the specifics and the details that the Planning Commission is traditionally used to. It's somewhat at a higher level of a 10,000 -foot level, because if you think about within the first -- within the first policy that we've identified within the -- within that memorandum, it says, mitigation banking and Page 40 of 81 February 21, 2019 targeted land acquisitions, that policy, and within two years we're going to explore the feasibility. What that policy is trying to do, it's trying to say this activity is going to support the goal that has been stated, and that goal is to enhance the diversification of hnmokalee's economy. That's a pretty large and aspirational goal. That's what we want to do within Irnmokalee is expand the economic opportunities and the diversity contained within. We've got some policies and some objectives that get us closer to the details of that, but how are we going to implement that within to the Land Development Code, within to the regulatory fabric of the county? We need activities to understand the details, and those details from those studies will be taken in the form, whether it be a Land Development Code amendment or whether it be a budgetary request or whether it be for a capital allocation, will be framed and evaluated by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as part of the regular -- as part of the regular process of how we do business. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mike, I understand that, and that makes sense. It's getting the -- things have to happen in the proper order of sequence. And I maybe am just a little bit uncertain as to what the expectations on the part of the County Commission with regard to our reviewing and vetting this. And it seemed to me that it would be reasonable for the County Commission, for instance, to have expected a staff memo that wouldn't be a part of the policy, wouldn't be a part of the Growth Management Plan amendments but simply would point out some observations that you have identified right now. Granted, it's going to be reevaluated annually, but state money, federal money, grant money, and also, as I mentioned, Collier taxpayer money that could be obtained outside the framework of a zero-sum game where you have a level of investment that creates more pieces to the pie. If I — it seems to me that that would be a reasonable thing that the County Commission would want to see at the time that this comes before them for enactment. MR. BOSL The level of specificity, I think, that's contained within that request is somewhat, I don't want to say at odds -- or misaligned with the level that we deal with when we talk about our Growth Management planning activities. We could identify potential funding sources, but they would just be identifying sources of funding that could or may be sought. And I'm not sure how much real value that has to a specific individual price tag of what activity that's going to be when we're discussing that on an annual or a year -by -year basis as to whether the Board things it's a priority to move forward with that individual study. I'm not sure how to deal -- I'm not sure how to deal with the request in terms of trying to capture a price tag to all of these activities that we quite don't -- we're not -- we're not aware of the specificity of the activity that -- and what the -- the relationship of that specificity of activity has a bearing upon the price tag of that activity. So trying to -- trying to give an approximation of activities that were not certified of the details, to me, doesn't have a tremendous -- a lot of value from a cost -benefit analysis. So what we've done to try to reassure the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners is that with this policy there is no obligation other than the traditional budgetary process towards how we move forward to say whether these studies can be performed within the time frame that's suggested. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess the question is: What are the County Commission's expectations of our work? And I admit that Ion just not certain. But if I were sitting at that level, I would have expected the Planning Commission to at least ask for a staff memo to get us started on 3.1.1. MR. KLATZKOW: The primary function as a Planning Commission is the Comp Plan. That's your primary function, to answer your question. MR. BOSI: And so what I would say is, from -the goal -- the goal of Goal 1, is, you Page 41 of 81 February 21, 2019 know, to enhance and diversify hnmokalee's economy. Does Policy 1. 1.3 and the activity that's associated with it, will that potentially affect and positively move that goal? That's the evaluation that I think that the Planning Commission makes. Now, there can be fiscal questions. There can be commentary from the Planning Commission that no fiscal analysis was provided about the total cost of the activities; therefore, we're concerned from a budgetary process. Staff has explained 3. 1.1 will -- you know, provides no obligation for all of these to be completed within the time frames but, still, from a budgetary standpoint, the Planning Commission is concerned over these activities, but then I think the evaluation, do you think this policy has value in terms of furthering that individual goal? That's where you as the Planning Commission are making that evaluation, not from a budgetary standpoint but from a planning standpoint do you think that activity will provide or yield the specificity that we're looking forward to advance that individual goal or objective. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mike, may I ask you a quick question? Your summary statement in your memo seems to be that all the requirements for the initiation of these studies that are delineated in the document will be within current county staffing capacities and are expressed with flexibility. What about the need or use of consultants in some of these commitments? MR. BOSI: Oh, I think the use of consultants will be a part of some of these individual studies and will be part of it. It wasn't meant to be inclusive that only the county staff -- and when I say available revenue, that available revenue means available revenue to be able to retain individual outside consultants for -- whether it be for water management, whether it be for specific street scraping improvements, whatever the case may be, whether neighborhood evaluation and neighborhood planning. Eliciting the private sector would be something that, as long as there was revenue available, we may find is an appropriate activity. COMMISSIONER FRY: In this document, though, are we not committing ourselves to expenditure of funds for consultants by committing to all these -- initiation of all these studies? MR. BOSI: Well, you're committing -- what we're committing to is to pursue these activities within the available revenue and staffing. I think that is the long and short of what we're -- of what we're saying. I think there's more concern expressed from the Planning Commission that it's more than that, and that's a fair concern. I'm just not sure how to fully alleviate the Planning Commission of those individual -- you know, that individual concern, other than trying to provide some swags in terms of what we could expect a housing inventory or a housing planning study could possibly cost. But I'm not really sure what value that's going to provide you in terns of real specificity and the real details. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think you stated my concern very well, really, is that these commitments would seem to have a cost impact that we're concerned of where that money would come from. MR. BOSI: And I fully expect the Planning Commission probably to raise that point to the Board of County Commissioners within your recommendation, and the Board most certainly will evaluate and provide the direction to staff or whatever other recommendations the Planning Commission may make related to that pertinent point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: lt's just that when money is spent for studies for certain specific needs or capital improvements, then the county is able to apply for grant money to fulfill those needs. So it's -- you know, instead of spending the taxpayers' money, it's -- Immokalee has received a lot of grant money for their projects; 17 million for the sidewalks and -- what is it? I don't know what it was for, the infrastructure. Page 42 of 81 February 21, 2019 MS. JENKINS: Yeah. The TIGER grant for 17 million for sidewalks and lighting and transit improvements. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: And one of the things in grant writing, it's very important that it's supported by your Collier County Commission and so, therefore, when you're writing a grant, you can point back to a policy that says, yes, this is a project that is supported by the Board of County Commissioners. It's in their Comprehensive Plan. It makes the grant writing more feasible. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not knowing exactly what should or shouldn't be in this document, would it be appropriate to have statements to that effect in this, that we -- high prioritization on pursuit of grants to help alleviate the costs of these commitments? MS. JENKINS: That's fair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, while you're there. I went and read your sheet, or your couple pages, or several, it is, and you listed the policies within this that you thought might have incurred some kind of fiscal commitment. I had noticed you didn't list Policy 3.3.9, transportation concurrency alternatives. And what it says there -- it used to say, "Within two years of the effective date of the policy, Collier County shall identify alternatives." Now it says, "When warranted Collier County shall identify alternatives." Now, "when warranted" in this case means what follows in A, B and I was -- A, B, and C -- or A, B, and -- yeah, A and B, Numbers 1, 2, and 3. You're looking at possibly coming in with a TCEA or TCMA. So wouldn't that be an additional fiscal cost that you should probably include that one in your policies that you've listed on those pages? That's all I'm asking. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. You could list that as well. But "when warranted," what we've learned from Trinity is there are no deficiencies within 10 years, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In hnmokalee? MS. JENKINS: In hmmokalee, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lucky them. MS. JENKINS: Right, because they walk and bicycle a lot and take transit like we should. So when we changed that from a hard two years, because it's not even warranted yet. So rather than taking that tool out of their box, we left it in there and just changed it from two years to when warranted, because with no deficiencies in 10 years, we don't expect that to be warranted until that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand it. Thank you. Mike, the other one I notice you missed is 4.1.1, and it reads, "Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate amendments to the LDC," and it goes on from there with other incentives and innovative land development regulations. I don't know, you may wait to add that one in as one of your sheets, revise your sheet before it goes to the Board, at least, if that's where it is intending to go. And then on another one, this is -- it's not inside the regular language. It's on some of the language towards the end, Page 44. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, are you going beyond Page 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Yes, I am. I'm just going -- this is all back to the fiscal analysis. I wanted to make sure, if we're going to discuss the fiscal analysis on Page 12, that everything that Mike wrote in his report is inclusive at that stage and time. If you've got more you want to add that he missed in his fiscal analysis, jump in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have something on Page 13, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it about the fiscal analysis? Page 43 of 81 February 21, 2019 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Objective 3.3, and it looks like the 4 there -- this is on Line 5 of Page 13. The 4 hasn't been stricken. So I guess what's meant is that Objective 3.3; is that correct? Not 43.3. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. You can't -- on fours you can't see the strikethrough because it lands right on the line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, I see. Oh, okay. In any event, again, the bigger question here is how this objective will be funded. And it's pretty ambitious. Perhaps it was listed in the material that Mike sent out most recently, but it just highlights my concern over funding many aspects of this aspirational list of priorities. MS. JENKINS: So the policies that go -- roll up to objective of the community's idea that they want to have a network of a good transportation system that can support all modes. The specific policies underneath there would give you the full and complete idea of what a cost item might be. So most of these are continuing with our same transportation planning efforts that we do now. And you see the long-range transportation improvements listed. The only -- the one in here is the local transportation network study which, when I spoke to Trinity, she asked me to give her three years to make sure she can get that in her budget and work through that, and that's kind of one of those examples where the idea is in there. The community supports this idea of looking at better connectivity, but until Trinity can look at a real full scope, we don't know the cost of that. But she says within three years we can get that scope worked out and then find the grant money for it, you know, get it funded through the CRA, the MSTU, the -- you know, Collier County. So there's multiple sources for that. But all of the -- the specific policies roll up to that objective of how you're going to make that objective happen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't have Mike's most recent deliverable in front of me. The Chairman does. The point that I just made, is that covered on the fiscal analysis that came out most recently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What number are you on? COMMISSIONER FRYER: 3.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four? The only 3 -- the only policy in 3 that's covered by Mike's -- at least addressed as far as something that would have a fiscal impact is 3.3.4. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I just talked about at the local transportation issue. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if there's a cost associated with the one that you're talking about and it's acknowledged, I think Mike would want to then add that to his list. MR. BOSI: I would add that to the list, but I would say that that's how we do transportation planning in the county currently, trying to find sidewalks or local roads and transportation avenues that provide efficient and safe means of travel. The local -- the local plan is the one exception towards it, and Anita has described how we've made some adjustments to that to be able to allocate the necessary activities to satisfy that individual policy. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while we're still on the fiscal part of this, 4.1.1 has a reference to two years in the last paragraph. Did I mention --is that the one we just --no. MR. BOSI: That was Objective 3. Page 44 of 81 February 21, 2019 CIJAiRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's right. We're on -- so on Page 16, Policy 4.1.1, the very last policy starts out "within two years of adoption." So if we could include that one in your sheet, that would be useful. And if we roll down to -- its Electronic Page 44, its actually underneath the No. 4, industrial and mixed-use commercial district. The first paragraph says, "To implement this overlay, Collier County shall initiate a Land Development Code amendment within two years of adoption." So I think you may want to put that one in your list as well. And I can -- Mike, when we get back to the office, I'll walk you through these. On Page 81, now this is getting into the backup material, but it has another fiscal comment there that I thought might be relevant, and that is on Page 34 of the Attachment B. And Anita -- it says, "Anita reviewed Page 16." It goes into -- she mentioned that this strategy should be considered. Immokalee has great athletes who could promote a clean hnmokalee campaign. Deborah mentioned that a time frame for development implementation needed to be added to this policy. Anita suggested adding a two-year time frame. Is that one that Mike's now included in his review, or could you research that? I don't expect an answer today. MS. JENKINS: Are you back on the Immokalee mixed-use -- or the industrial mixed-use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I did is anything that had a fiscal reference I wanted to bring up to make sure Mike's list was comprehensive. MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This fiscal reference is found under Exhibit B on page -- Attachment B on Page 34, second paragraph from the bottom of the page. Let me roll up and tell you what attachments. It's got many pages to it. It's the hnmokalee Master Plan Restudy Public Workshop No. 5. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could just take a look at that paragraph, and if it was something that was intended to have a fiscal impact, just include it so that Mike's list is comprehensive. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, I guess we can go back to Page 12. Anybody else have anything on Page 12? Let me take a look and see if I got into mine or not. Oh. Neighborhood improvement plans are talked about on Page 12. Can you describe what those are, how they're going to come about? MS. JENKINS: So the idea of the neighborhood improvement plans is -- I mentioned earlier that the Immokalee area did several periodic reviews of housing, and the housing has improved in Immokalee from those studies and from the nonprofits working hard out there. So the idea is to not only concentrate on housing for the community, but they're isolated neighborhoods or independent neighborhoods. So the idea is for us -- for Collier County, the CRA, the neighbors, to look at not only the housing stock and continue with that evaluation of their housing stock, but also what is needed in the neighborhood. Do they need sidewalks in there? Is lighting bad? Is transit -- do they need transit stops in there? So the idea is just to take it from a housing analysis to a neighborhood analysis and in individual neighbors. So you would do Avalon Park and, you know, just different neighborhoods involving the neighborhoods -- the neighbors that live there so they can tell you specifically we got a stormwater management problem here. And then, you know, as Michelle is out in the fields with them, that's noted. So that any time that capital improvements are being done in those neighborhoods, a stormwater project's going on, if the neighborhood plan has also identified, you Page 45 of 81 February 21,2019 know, we need a small area for a pickup soccer game and we can work that into a stormwater project, they do many parks like that, that those could be identified and worked in together in more of a multidisciplinary fashion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I wanted to make sure is it's not changes to the LDC. MS. JENKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These would be plans -- they're not an overlay. They're just localized plans -- MS. JENKINS: Yeah. They're just a localized plan to note what's needed in the neighborhood. So then you can take those through the budgetary process. And then all the departments are aware when transit is going in and looking at transit stops, they now know that these neighbors have indicated that this transit stop is needed in this neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the hnmokalee CRA was created as well as Bayshore, they are -- their creation of those allows them to be funded by a tax increase, like -- considered a TIF, I think we refer to as an acronym. COMMISSIONER SCIB41TT: Tax incremental financing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So hmmokalee has that going on. So as they accrue money, they get to spend it. And if I remember correctly, they spent a considerable amount of money on the last master plan writeup that included LDC language and all, and yet I see all these policies saying that within two years shall, within two years shall, and Mike's writing up a report saying how many commitments there are there, basically. How much of that is expected to be paid out of the CRA? MS. JENKINS: Well, it's part of that 3.11. So the CRA puts together -- and they have the list as well, and when they're going through their budgetary process and they meet annually with the Board of County Commissioners, they can bring forward the list of projects that their CRA advisory board has prioritized and suggest funding sources from the TIF that you suggested, that they have this amount of money and they can -- you know, they have prioritized this project first, and that money's going to go there, and they're applying for this grant there, and its going to go to this. So they are part of the process, certainly a large part of the prioritizing process and part of the budget process as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when Ned focused on the fiscal, which I was glad we were looking at that, part of that fiscal can be accomplished, though, with the CRA funds. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that might help some of the understanding of how it's going to affect the general budget. Okay. Anything on Page 13 by anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Igo all the way to 21, just for your information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, God. We won't get there --I've got a ways to go before I get to 21. COMMISSIONERSCHMITT: Page 14. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14. Sounds good, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question on the safety improvements. And you cite the 2011 hmnokalee walkability community study, or walkable community study. What is the 2011 study, and how does that differ from one that was done in 2001 or '2? I believe there was one. And then I'm going to also -- this has been a significant issue about sidewalks and traffic signals and traffic crossing walks and other things in Immokalee ever since they formed the CRA. So between grant money and CRA money, over the last 18 years, I would have thought Page 46 of 81 February 21, 2019 much of this would have been accomplished, and it apparently hasn't, because it's in here. MS. JENKINS: Right. So the 2011 walkability study was done by the MPO, and what they did, Mr. Schmitt, was really do a level of service for pedestrians and bicycles in Immokalee. So it shows you the streets. And many of them are at Level of Service F for pedestrians because you just don't have the facilities, and you have a lot of use. And so it's just a tool to help them identify where the needs are. And so using that document to help them prioritize needed areas is the intent of that study. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And there's been no updates since 2011? MS. JENKINS: Not -- no, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: But they used that study to get the TIGER grant. MS. JENKINS: They did use that study to get the TIGER grant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They'll put the sidewalks in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that TIGER grant was awarded when? MS. JENKINS: About a year ago. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Seventeen million? MS. JENKINS: Yeah, 17 million. And it's to do a lot of sidewalks around New Market, between New Market and Main Street. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's going on right now? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. They're scoping and -- yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on -- that's Page 14. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 15. I don't have anything. Anybody got anything on 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 16? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, under the incentives and innovative land development regulations, the first paragraph -- and I think when we were out in Immokalee we mentioned this. Collier County -- first paragraph or first sentence says, "Collier County will promote the preservation of native vegetation in the Immokalee urban area exceeding the minimum requirement amounts set forth in Policy CCME," yet we're not going to have the conservation designation area in the Immokalee Master Plan anymore, so how are we going to accomplish that promotion of preservation? MS. JENKINS: So we did verify that, and the CCME has been updated to include the native preservation requirements for that specific area. I think -- let me find it for you real quick so I can go to it specifically. It's in the CCME Policy 6.1.2, and it refers to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, and in that it says that a minimum of 60 percent of native vegetation not to exceed 45 percent of the total site shall be preserved. So it has, in effect, been updated, the CCME, and so that preservation requirement has been taken care of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How do we perfect it as preservation if we don't have a conservation designation? MS. JENKINS: Well, it's still under private ownership. So Collier County doesn't own it to redesignate it as conservation. And this is when any -- so it's preservation requirements if any development was going to go in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they would have to preserve it, put a conservation easement on it, and do all the other stuff. We just wouldn't have a conservation -- has it designated as Page 47 of 81 February 21, 2019 conservation designation on a map. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that same policy, 4.1.1, we struck out the -- one of those two-year commitments. "Within two years of the effective date of this policy, the county will explore the feasibility of adopting a TDR program in the Immokalee urban area to further the objective of Policy 2.1.3." Why is that -- what was the reasoning behind taking that out? MS. JENKINS: For Immokalee, you know, the TDR programs in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area are effectively preserved over 55,000 acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area that's still under private ownership and maintained by private ownerships. In Immokalee -- and they're trading, right? So they're trading those TDRs between the same ownership. In the rural fringe it's different. You have to buy the TDR, right? So that's absorbed in the home price. So in Immokalee, I don't think we want to create a program that's going to increase a hone price through the purchase of a TDR. That's why it was recognized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as a substitute for that, we didn't offer anything as far as -- that's like -- that was -- probably may have been considered as incentivization for either the environmental aspects of a TDR purchase or the ability to cluster or add more density to a property. Do you remember how that would have applied and what we've substituted for it, if anything? MS. JENKINS: There's been no substitution for the TDR program, but I think the following paragraph describes different incentives that can be developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And, in fact, I highlighted the last few words. It says "that do not require an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan." What does that mean? MS. JENKINS: So, again, when you go from the Growth Management Plan and your aspirations and your vision, you get down to the details of the LDC. So if there's an intent here to cavy this policy forward, then the details come out with the Land Development Code, which comes back to you for your review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where it would be fixed or utilized, and it would not be -- you wouldn't re -- again amend the Immokalee Area Master Plan. That's what that was for. MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to Page 17. Anybody have any questions on Page 17? And this is where the conservation designation was struck from. And I wanted -- and I noticed -- I made a note here. It says, "See Page 40." So let me roll down and see why that paragraph had a reference to Page 40 in my previous reading. It will take me a second. Ob, in page -- under that -- under the density and intensity blending provisions, there's language that talks about the natural resource index being used and the conservation easements being placed in perpetuity, but that is not the same thing as a conservation designation. Is that the way you're looking -- MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm working my way back to where I was. Under Page 17 on the bottom it refers to -- first of all, it's Policy 5.1.1, future land -use designation, then it says A, B, and C. Under C, the overlays, you added a No. 3, urban infill and redevelopment area, and it's -- the text seems to be existing, but the number 3 is new. How does -- what section -- what does -- how did that happen? MS. JENKINS: So it's just a formatting glitch, I suppose, as we were hying to reorder things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that is a number -- it's supposed to be number 3, though, Page 48 of 81 February 21, 2019 right? MS. JENKINS: Correct. But from what's adopted now -- the plan that Immokalee is working from currently, what we're -- the current Immokalee Area Master Plan, it's 22 years old, very outdated, and so that's why you're seeing so many changes. And they made a lot of progress in 20 years with the plan that they have, but I think this plan sets forth, you know, the vision for the next 20 years. That urban infill was the only overlay in the — is the only overlay in the current adopted plan. So in the new plan we have added and reorganized a bit these new features in overlays, including the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system overlay, the Seminole reservation, which is just a feature, again, and then the industrial mixed-use commercial overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 18. Anybody have any questions on Page 18? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, this is on 5.1.4. This is for mobile homes within the Immokalee area. "New mobile homes shall be allowed in the Immokalee urban area as temporary residence as defined in LDC section," and then "existing mobile home parks or subdivisions as identified in the LDC, or as a new mobile home park or subdivision improved on lands with existing zoning that permits mobile homes or on individual lots or parcels with existing zoning that permits mobile homes." What do you mean by "existing zoning"? MS. JENKINS: Current zoning that allows mobile homes now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Current zoning today or 1950 or 1990 or 1970? MS. JENKINS: Today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this eliminates -- well, let's put it -- this creates a lot of nonconforming mobile homes then? MS. JENKINS: No, it just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you changed the code and you refer back to this section as the basis now for the allowance of mobile homes in Immokalee. By saying "existing zoning," you're eliminating them from the other zonings that they currently are allowed under and grandfathers in from -- based on a case that you've actually cited here. MS. JENKINS: So the Comp Plan doesn't change the zoning. The Comp Plan just says you can ask for something different. If you're allowed to have mobile homes now under your existing zoning, you can continue to have mobile homes under your existing zoning. But if you're moving from -- into -- your property is now in a commercial mixed-use district, that's what you get to ask for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go back to what this says. "On lands with existing zoning." What time frame does that existing zoning mean? Today or when this is adopted or how that existing zoning transferred from previous zoning, from previous zoning, from previous zoning, whether it was GM -- and it's all -- let's assume it's all GMP consistent. MS. JENKINS: So, again, everyone that comes in for a zoning pre -app will tell you what their existing zoning is at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. JENKINS: So its existing zoning today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then what happens to those that exist today based on decades of allowed uses on mobile homes? Because if you go back -- and we will have to walk through the existing master plan in a similar format that we're doing here, because a lot of those paragraphs refer specifically in all the various areas that they are allowed to have mobile homes. Idon't see that here, and what I see is you keep referring back to this, which is kind of ambiguous in my reading because it says the word "existing," and I'm not sure what that exactly means. And I'm not sure just talking about it today is going to fix it for someone reinterpreting it down the road. That's part of the reason that that court case that you referenced existed. Page 49 of 81 February 21, 2019 MS. JENKINS: Right. So, you know, we can help clean that language up, find a solution here. But I think that when we get back to the land -use designations, you'll see that mobile homes are allowed in the residential land -use designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the VR -- MS. JENKINS: So if this language is creating issues, then we need to clean it up. But it's certainly not the intent to remove -- MR. KLATZKOW: Do we currently have mobile home parks that are legal nonconforming? MS. JENKINS: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe we do, yeah. MS. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quite a few of them. MR. KLATZKOW: As part of this, do you want to clean this up, or do we want to continue the legal nonconforming? (Commissioner Chrzanowski left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, kind of -- trying to find out how we intend to treat the existing mobile homes out there. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what I'm getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Pm worried this is going to say they're no longer allowed, and if that's the case, we need to let those property owners know. MR. KLATZKOW: This is your Comp Plan, all right? You're the local planning agency. This is your Comp Plan, all right? So what I'm asking you is, we have a current situation where we have existing trailer parks in Immokalee that are legal nonconforming. And what I'm asking is, do you want to continue that, or do you want to clean it up and make them all legal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to change any people's property rights out there without their notification and them being part of the process, and that's not what we did in this case. We just did advertisements to meet and talk about stakeholders. We didn't notify property owners. A lot of them may not even know this is happening to them, and that's the part I'm concerned about. And I have a whole process I need to talk to Anita and -- about later as we go on today about stuff that I would like to see before we meet again to understand how much zoning is physically being changed in Immokalee with these changes, because it's hard enough for me to follow. I'm sure some of the people out there may not understand how it's being done either, Jeff. And that's why I'm asking the question about this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ain I correct that if a current trailer is nonconforming, let's say the owner wanted to replace it with a new one, they couldn't do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm worried about. MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why I'm asking the question. Do you want to clean up that issue at this point with the changes to the Comp Plan, or do you want to continue that issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need to make a change to the Comp Plan for those issues. I think the language that was in the old plan needs to stay, unless we want to vet it out properly with all kind of -- with the property rights issues. That's what Ion concerned about. Not only here, but we have changes in the commercial zoning, we have changes in other zoning that I'm not sure how those property owners would see their rights being modified by this plan, and that's what I'm concerned about, so... Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you wouldn't want to clean them up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you say "clean them up." You're assuming then that they're all unclean. MR. KLATZKOW: No. When I mean "clean up," I mean right now instead of Page 50 of 81 February 21, 2019 continuing the legal nonconforming, make them legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they were more legal with the other language than this language. That's what struck my concern, yes. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: But the first policy decision is, what do you want to do with the current legal nonconforms? Do you want to maintain status quo, or do you want to make them legal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a zoning perspective, I don't know why we would want to change them. I think they ought to be -- the status quo ought to be left alone, and that includes all property rights out there. If this plan is going to change someone's zoning in the end, give them a different -- because you've got CMU happening where we've got C5 zoning. C5 zoning is not part of the CMU. Those pose problems. And there's several instances of that, which I think I found -- I know a way to ferret it all out that I brought to talk about today. But those are things that I thought we were going to try to avoid because property rights are a big issue, and we shouldn't be infringing on those. And this language, from my read of it, it's concerning that it may actually make these properties go away, and I don't think that should be the intent. MS. JENKINS: But I think David wants to clarify -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, he can. MS. JENKINS: -- it a bit. And also, in reading these LDC sections that are referenced in here, I think this problem was cleaned up subsequent to this policy, or as part of this policy addressing mobile homes. But, David. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, this policy that we're discussing, proposed 5.1.4, the intent here is simply to clarify the language, make it more clear, but it is not changing what is presently allowed in the hnmokalee Master Plan. We're not changing zoning, so if a mobile home is on a piece of property that's not zoned to allow a mobile home, this will have no effect. The Land Development Code will either require that that nonconforming use or structure cease at some point in time per the provisions of the nonconforming use section of the code or to the extent that there's a provision in the Land Development Code today has been, for years, applicable to hnmokalee that applies to certain nonconforming mobile homes. I know at least one scenario would be where maybe the property's zoned mobile, and based on the acreage, you would be allowed to have 50 units but, in fact, there's 55 mobile home units there. That nonconforming use provision would allow for the owner to come in and have a site plan approved and continue to have the 55. So this is not taking away any rights. It's not changing any zoning. It's just trying to more clearly state it. On the specific point of existing zoning, I would suggest we change that to be zoning in effect maybe as of the date of this plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And why this came up, David, if you look at the old hmmokalee Master Plan, let's say, just pick the commerce center mixed-use subdistrict. I'll tell you what it -- there's a paragraph there. It says, "Mobile home developments shall be permitted only in the form of mobile home subdivisions or parks as defined in the Land Development Code." Why couldn't we keep that simple sentence in, every one of these designated areas that match with that former position, so there's no question about a reinterpretation that I've just brought up in this particular policy? MR. WEEKS: Because that doesn't capture all the scenarios, and that's why -- Page 51 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. You've got that language in almost every one of the scenarios in the old code, the old GMP. MR. WEEKS: No, but specifically what you just read, what is in the existing master plan refers to a mobile home park or subdivision. That does not capture the LDC provisions for where someone wants to have a mobile home on their property temporarily while they're building a house. I think that's only applicable in the ag zoning, which there's a lot of in hrnnokalee. It doesn't capture the scenario where property zoned VR, which allows a mobile home -- but it's not a park or division, you just own one single parcel of land. And so, arguably, someone could say, well, that's not a park. That's not a subdivision. That's a single lot. So the intent here was just to clarify, to capture all of scenarios under which a mobile home is allowed, not to take away anyone's rights. And, again, it does not change zoning, which certainly would change people's rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned that by reference -- we've completed redesignafing all of the zoning -- not -- all of the GMP districts in Immokalee. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're dropping language and then referring it to a cluster of language which in a lot of cases reverts back to Policy -- this one. What is it -- 5.1.4, where before you could go to the district, whether it was low, mixed, or high residential, neighborhood center subdistrict, commercial, and you can read right there. It says clearly. Anybody can understand it. Anybody can pull it up and read it. Here you've got to go back to another policy and try to figure out what that policy meant, and that's what I'm concerned about because -- I'm not worried about you, David, or Anita or anybody else that would look at this. I'm worried about what happens when we're challenged by some land -use action or a group of people or an attorney who reads that differently, interprets it differently, and next thing you know, we never intended this to happen, and we've got a problem on our hands. The simple language is what I'd rather see, if we can keep it. MR. WEEKS: I thought it was simple, and I thought it was clear. It again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't to me. MR. WEEKS: -- captures all the scenarios where the existing language doesn't. The other reason for the policy, in the subdistricts, referring back to this policy, is to avoid redundancy, because we would have the same language repeated over and over again. Instead, we've captured it all within one policy as to how mobile homes are allowed, and then in the subdistrict just refer back to the policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what. I71 read it again, and we're going to take a break for one hour for lunch, and I've got to -- I'll sit down and try to figure it out. My concern is we're going to step into something that we never intended, that people were never notified about, and we're going to end up having more problems than not, and I'd rather not see that. MR. WEEKS: Certainly no intent to change people's rights here. We were trying to make it more clear and more concise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you in Irnmokalee when we had our meeting there last year, or two weeks ago? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may remember a gentleman standing up who I guess was head of -- the president of the Chamber of Commerce. What did he say? We don't like mobile homes. We don't want any more mobile homes. Well, someone's agenda may be pointing in that direction with language that isn't as crystal clear as we need it to be, and that's what I'm worried about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Before we recess, Mr. Chairman, I would like to renew my Page 52 of 81 February 21, 2019 concern that if we stay with the status quo with respect to nonconforming uses rather than make them legal, we are continuing to dis-incent people to improve their mobile home situation. MR. WEEKS: But that's not accomplished through the master plan. That will be accomplished through a change to the Land Development Code. As Anita was saying earlier, the Comprehensive Plan land -use designations identifies what uses are allowed, and that's implemented through a zoning action, rezoning of the property. The Land Development Code contains the details of the zoning districts and what is allowed or maybe not allowed there. And so the Land Development Code deals with the zoning nonconformities, the actual use on the ground. The Comprehensive Plan, of Irnmokalee Master Plan is a part, would be dealing with a nonconforming zoning on the property. You may have zoning that doesn't conform to the Future Land Use Map designation. But I think the point you're raising is a nonconforming use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Use. MR. WEEKS: And that ties to zoning, not Comprehensive Plan designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we come back at 10 after 1 and resume the meeting, and we'll go till 3 o'clock. MS. JENKINS: And I just wanted to further point out to you, Commissioner, that beginning on Page 24, if you look at the residential land -use designations, low residential mobile homes are allowed pursuant to medium and the high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where my problem aroused, to be honest with you. When I saw that you were referring everything back to that paragraph, that's what got me concerned. MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the language there, instead, said -- stated like the previous master plan did, this is what's allowed for mobile homes, it would have been easier for me to not be so concerned about it. So let's break and come back at 10 after 1. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. VAN LENG'EN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is Bosi? He's one minute early? MR. BOSI: I told him better to be early than late. CHARMIAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kris. During the break, I did have a few conversations with staff and the County Attorney's Office, and I think I'm going to defer my mobile home discussion until after I can meet with staff and everybody and try to figure out what it is I'm missing or I'm not communicating properly to make this resolution. So I'm going to go past that one now, but before I do and before the day's over, I've got to ask the staff to do something that I think would help me understand it and then, if the Planning Commissioners agree, we'll move forward with it. I wanted to show you three different documents. And this is the 2018 zoning map of Immokalee. It's as it's zoned today. Now, the reason this is important is our new map of the GMP shows different designations for commercial and residential and all that. And it shows some changes. For example, the CMU can have Cl through C4 uses and some residential uses. I don't know how that fits up with this on -the -ground zoning map that we have today. Now, I did check some of the zoning atlas pages against the new FLUE, and I found some inconsistencies that were downzoning some properties, which is a little problematic, because that's not what we're supposed to be doing. But I think that's just the tip --I can't go through all the zoning maps and all the overlays effectively. It takes too much time. So what I'd like to ask you guys to do is have this map overlaid on the new FLUE in Page 53 of 81 February 21, 2019 some manner where we can visually see where the old zoning was compared to the new zoning, and then we can find out the changes and see how effective they are as far as either upzoning or downzoning. That's this one. And, Kris, if you go to the next one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On this one -- may I add on a question to that, Mr. Chairman? I noticed that there were changes in the nomenclature. And my question is, is that absolutely necessary? You just couldn't fit the new zoning into the current nomenclature? MS. JENKINS: We're not talking about zoning a master plan. We're talking about Comprehensive Plan designation. So, Mr. Fryer, can you explain a little bit? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you've got -- well, CMU, for instance, does that exist today? MS. JENKINS: It does not exist today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's what I'm talking about. MS. JENKINS: Okay. So you're asking about why all of the different commercial areas collapsed into one, one designation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. JENKINS: Is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why new nomenclature? Is it necessary? If it's necessary, fine. MS. JENKINS: Well, the community thought it was. And you said you take the NIMs very seriously, and this is a 10 -year NIM with the Immokalee community. And so they felt that rather than having all these different commercial districts where different standards apply, they would like the same standards to apply in all their commercial districts. So to get down to one commercial district that basically says it's commercial mixed-use, collapses all of those into one. So it's easier to write Land Development Code standards, have all the uses lining up, and to help implement their vision. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The only reason I'm raising it is it made it more difficult for me to get apples and apples together so I could understand the present versus the new. But it sounds like it works, and that's fine with me. MR. VAN LENGEN: In the staff report itself, on Page 5, I think there's a pretty handy chart that shows you how it migrated from one designation to another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But let me explain my problem. I just heard you say this isn't zoning. Okay. But the CMU district only allows Cl through C4 and some residential. I don't even know what pieces of residential. So if you institute this new map and you've got the CMU area over a previous C5 lot, that person no longer has C5 capabilities. He's got Cl through C4 because CMU is only Cl through C4. MS. JENKINS: No, it doesn't change their underlying zoning. They can continue with their C5 uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it would be nonconforming. MS. JENKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, would you -- MR. WEEKS: For the record, again, David Weeks of Comprehensive Planning section. The future land -use designation identifies the allowable zoning districts typically, sometimes specifies uses but more typically says, in this subdistrict you're eligible for these zoning districts, then you implement through a rezoning of the property. However, the underlining zoning is -- you know, was there on the property, and the Page 54 of 81 February 21, 2019 property is allowed to be developed per that underlying zoning. So in your example, even though the Future Land Use Map would be changing to say you're only eligible for Cl through C4 zoning, the fact that you already have C5 zoning on the property allows you to develop it as C5. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Without being a nonconforming use? MR. WEEKS: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're saying that the new Comp Plan's going to be inconsistent with the current zoning? MR. WEEKS: Its -- it recognizes the -- I mean, this -- Jeff, this is a legal principle that -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is -- look, I fully understand it. The Comp Plan comes first, and then you implement the Comp Plan through your LDC. What you're saying is that we've got an existing LDC, but we're going to change the Comp Plan, all right? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: And you're going to have inconsistent -- your Comp Plan is now going to be not consistent with your LDC. But you're going to say the LDC trumps the Comp Plan. MR. WEEKS: Okay. I see where you're going. MR. KLATZKOW: Which is opposite of what you should be doing. So if Mark's saying that you're getting rid of C5 zoning, don't get rid of C5 zoning. MS. JENKINS: Well, if you can point specifically to where that's at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish the direction I was heading in, and with your help, we can resolve this, not maybe today, but by the next time we come back, because Jeff hit the nail on the head. You've got issues here that -- if you're saying -- staff member -- someone comes -- and, David, you're like me -- well, you're younger than me, thank God, but we're getting older, and you may not be here forever, and what if someone replaces you? They pick up this plan, and they said, yeah, you've got CMU. Gee, you've got a C5 you're asking for a use there. We can't give that to you and -- because it's not consistent with the master plan. That is why we have the case that you guys cite, because inconsistencies between prior plans got lost by subsequent staff members or whoever to a point where we had to go back and fix it. And I'm trying to avoid that. That's the whole argument. MR. WEEKS: And I think the solution is what we do in the Future Land Use Element, and we identify properties that we call consistent by policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you make a notation on the -- that's why Ion asking staff to take a zoning map such as this and overlay it on this FLUE in a color coordination that we can tell where the discrepancies are so we can identify them and start approaching it that way so nobody's property rights are lost. That's the whole objective. MR. WEEKS: That makes sense. That codifies what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm trying to go. And that's all I was trying to get to, Dave. Could you put the next one on, Kris. On top of the zoning we have in Immokalee, we have, what, half a dozen, maybe, one, two, three, four, five, and there's another overlay within an overlay on Main Street. So we've got, actually, five or six overlays in Immokalee. These are the overlays. Now, they add uses to underlying zoning that's outside some of the ordinary zoning that those uses call for. You're shaking your head, Anita. Why? MS. JENKINS: Well, the overlays here, basically, are for land development standards. They don't identify the uses outside of what they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to the -- when we meet and I'm able to walk through the old master plan, I will show you where my concerns are from that particular Page 55 of 81 February 21, 2019 statement, because they clearly say some uses there that I can fmd that are not necessarily consistent with CMU, or I don't know if they are or not, and I need answers to that. And then could you put the last chart I gave you. Thank you, Kris. This is a chart of acreage. And if you blow it up a little bit if you can -- and it's one I made up -- basically it starts out what the land use is, the abbreviation, then, of course, the comparison for each -- for the change between the current plan and the new plan, and then the change, and the net result is at the bottom. This helps me understand the changes overall in the plan. I'm not saying they're good or bad. I'm just trying to understand them. Could you take a look at this and try to tell me if there's anything that I made a mistakes on? I'm sure there is, but I need help finding it out. Because I did my best ability to understand it. That's what I came up with. And it would help me understand the whole program if I knew how much commercial was being changed, how much residential was being changed, and then the bottom line is the maximum units that are produced by each, based on this plan we're reducing the number of units, even though we're increasing the density in some areas. I don't know if it's as much as I'm predicting there, but that's what I need your help with. So is that something that you would mind doing so I could understand it better? MS. JENKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we could get that -- those three things accomplished, Kris and Anita, that would, I think -- I don't know about the rest of you, but it would help me. And -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do have a followup on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So when you're going to do the overlay, the present uses versus the proposed ones with the different nomenclature, that a property owner who lies within the overlap area gets the greater of the two uses without having to be considered a nonconforming use; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my concern is not someone who's getting a better use out of it, because we're not taking away from them anything, but it's always what are we taking away from someone who doesn't know we're taking it away. We did that in about 2000 when we changed all of the C3 uses to limitations on square footage. You know, a lot of people didn't know we did that. And I just talked to a guy two weeks ago who couldn't understand when be bought the property, he could build this, and now he can't build it anymore because there's a square -foot maximum, and we changed it in early 2000s. And we don't notify property owners specifically. We do these broad ads in the paper or notifications maybe through, I don't know, Internet or something like that, but it isn't site specific, so people don't see the changes. And now that we have an opportunity to fix -- to do this in a better way, I'd like to see us try to do it. So that's what's driving the train for me on this, so... And with that, if that takes care of the general items, we'll move into -- we left off on Page 14, or was it 15? Do you remember? Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought we'd gotten beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixteen. COMMISSIONER FRY: We were on 18. COMMISSIONER SCF1MITT: We were up to 18. COMMISSIONER FRY: We're on mobile homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're moving -- we're flying through here. Yes. Okay. Page 56 of 81 February 21, 2019 Let's go to Page 20. Okay. Anybody got anything on Page 20? I have some notes up on the top paragraph, and it's Policy 5.1.6, and I think what you're going to do is going to answer my first question, so I will just go beyond that, all the way towards the bottom. And so a property owner can still develop under the old zoning; is that what you previously said? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you say "old zoning," how far old are you getting? MS. JENKINS: Existing zoning. Whatever they have on their property now, they can -- they can either develop under that existing zoning or request to upzone through the process of zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they wanted to come in and they want to develop wider the CMU instead of the C1 or whatever they've got, they could go to -- now a CMU, if I'm not mistaken, takes Cl through C4 uses in addition to some residential? MS. JENKINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a property that's in CMU, if it only has got C1 right now, they could actually build C4 on it. MS. JENKINS: They could request it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just -- again, I don't quite understand, so forgive me, okay. But a development order cannot be inconsistent with the Comp Plan, all right? So your Comp Plan says you're C4. A guy wants to do C5 because he currently has that right or he had it before the this change, anyway, how are we going to issue a development order that's going to be consistent with the new Comp Plan? MS. JENKINS: I think we would go back to this consistency -by -policy language that we have. We'll see if we have any C5, because I'm not sure that we're doing anything to C5, but -- that I have seen. We're not downzoning or taking away the ability to change their zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we meet, I'll bring you the zoning maps that show the C5 that's being changed, and we'll take a look at it. David, did you have something you wanted -- MR. WEEKS: The example you just gave of a property zoned Cl and the owner wants to rezone it to C4, as would be allowed by the future land -use designation, that's not a nonconformity. It's not inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map. And the property owner simply has the right to come in and request a zoning change to implement that subdistrict. If they're zoned Cl now or if they were zoned agriculture now, I mean, we have that all over the place here in the urban area, a piece of property is zoned ag, they're in a designation that allows commercial development, they come in and rezone their property to be commercial as allowed by the future land -use designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a little different in the sense that we already have a map that lays out what people can find and expect to be next door to them. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're going to produce another map that says even though you were limited to Cl before, we have a new overlay or a new color on the land -use map that says you can ask up to C4 on this lot -- on this, and that's -- those are much more intense, as you know, than Cl or C2. And when they're all lumped together like this, I'm worried about compatibility issues and things like that that are going to come up, and someone buying in this neighborhood would never know that that CMU could have probably those intense uses. They would look for our standard classifications and all of a sudden realize the CMU lumps everything together, and you've got a -- I mean, there's 142 uses alone in C4. I mean, that's a big jump. Page 57 of 81 February 21, 2019 MR. WEEKS: We go through this each time we go through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Typically what we're dealing with here, the county -implemented, is usually on a broader scale as opposed to the private sector where the property owner or their agent comes in just for their piece of property to change the future land -use designation and then subsequently the zoning change. When the county makes future land -use changes, typically it's through an exercise like this where its a much broader applicability, greater properties being affected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and, David, things like VR, village residential, that's a pretty -- we don't have a lot of that. We have -- Goodland's got some, and there's different parts, but Immokalee had a lot of it. That's all gone, and now it's replaced with MR or HR. In fact, they're overlapping in both. So are we to assume, then, that the setback standards of a VR were -- are equivalent to the MR and the HR? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, you're mixing up zoning again with future land -use designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. What I'm trying to say is the future land -use designations now asks -- allows you to go do something beyond what may be already zoned for that area, which is VR. So this HR and MR have standards that go beyond the VR zoning. Can you do more like -- CMU can have C 1 through C4. So we've got spreads in the HR and MR, and they're probably wider spreads than what was in VR. Well, you don't know. MR. WEEKS: No, because of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The density changed. I know that. MR. WEEKS: Because the LR, the MR, and the HR are subdistricts, and they have density ranges that are allowed. The VR, being a zoning district, has a fixed density in that particular case depending on which unit type, single-family, multifamily, mobile home. And so I'm sorry, but its a little bit of apples and oranges. Its just not a fair -- it's not an even comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, again, I fall back on bow's someone going to know, is this what they're moving in next to? And if they look at the old map versus this one, they're different maps. MR. WEEKS: It sounds like maybe there's two things that you would like staff to do. One you've already mentioned, and that is identify properties where the new proposed future land -use designation would allow lesser uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: — than the existing zoning allows. But it sounds like, conversely, you would like to see where uses are going to be expanded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- yes. And I did a bunch of circles and things trying to figure it out, and there was so much of it, I thought, you know, if we could visually see, like, a gray underlying trap with the red outlined of all the commercial -- all the zoning as it is today and we can see how it matches up, it might explain it all. That's the only -- I don't know another way to do it, David. So that's what I was trying to get to. So thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, are you ultimately seeing the need to look at it at a property -by -property level because of these concerns? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm trying to avoid doing that by seeing -- if we can get this overlay, especially if it's electronic, we can keep blowing it up. And I can only — I can look at the trouble spots and pull just those zoning atlas pages up and see how they match up to what's being done, which I've done for two or three locations already that I suspected might be a Page 58 of 81 February 21, 2019 problem. I believe they still might be, but research will hopefully resolve it, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: So try to find the areas of greatest concern and then see if a detailed analysis is needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the CMU extension past a certain point wasn't necessarily intended to change something, then all we've got to do is point it out and it gets re -drawn in the right location, and that's what I'm trying to do is say, let's not produce a map that says something wrong, and we get a big fight going on later down the road because we didn't look at that kind of detail. COMMISSIONER FRY: Anita, I just want to make sure that I understand the intent of, like, the commercial mixed-use is to expand the use, the flexibility that -- and the opportunities that property owners have to create greater opportunities and greater centers for -- to help the community grow, correct? So it's expand opportunity -- MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- make the community more diverse and -- MS. JENKINS: You know, one way to think about this with this -- with their CMU -- can you put the Future Land Use Map back up there? No, that's the zoning map. Here you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I didn't give you, Kris. There you go. MS. JENKINS: So if -- so there were several different commercial districts with varying uses. So if you can think about this similar to how we think about commercial areas in the coastal areas in an activity center. So the CMU is really intended to be the activity center, and it's not just one little square because, you know, you're serving an entire town and you're trying to create a main street and provide for the full range of uses that are needed in any town. So that would be a better comparison, I think, to compare it to an activity center that goes through there. COMMISSIONER FRY: So making the entire main corridor an activity center -- MS. JENKINS: To -- yeah, to accommodate those types of uses and goods and services that people need on a daily basis. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that upzones a lot. The problem with the upzoning is is the people that move there not expecting that intensity, and that's the other piece I wanted to understand is how it works both ways up and down. MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, it does not upzone until they request for a zoning and come through and declare compatibility and it's approved by the Board of County Commissioners. We're only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, I know that. I understand that. The problem is, we have to face land -use attorneys making the point that it's in the GMP, I have a right to ask for it. And then they push all kinds of interpretations to demand they're right and we're not. I'd rather not go there if we don't have to. That's all I'm trying to get at. And that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Pointwelltaken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 19 towards the bottom it talks about property owners affected by the IAMP may utilize the procedure in Chapter 9, vested rights and taking determinations within one -- if they know about it, within one year from the date of the IMAP (sic). How -- and that's part of the problem. First of all, if they don't know about it right now, they probably are never going to know about it until they come in and ask for a permit, and when they come in and ask for a permit, the first reaction, well, it's over a year, you don't get to do that now. That's the piece that I think David suggested we look at the ZRO process or other Page 59 of 81 February 21, 2019 processes that we've used in the past, and that's occurred a lot along East Naples. There's a lot of areas that deal with those kind of things. That's the pieces I'd like to see added to this plan so that we don't get mixed up into something inadvertently. And that paragraph right there is not a solution in the end, because I can tell you the people to this day, now that the market's hot and they're looking at these in pieces -- these little infill pieces, had never realized they got rezoned, or they got re -limited back in the early 2000s when we put caps on all the zoning square footages in C3, so... That takes -- anybody else on 19? If not, we'll go to 20. Anybody got anything on 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go to 21 -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Goal 7, with the new added language, would say to coordinate and provide for the continual exchange of information, and then we added the Seminole nation, the school board, along with the other governmental agencies, utility providers and the like. So we're looking here for exchange of information only. Shouldn't we also consider making a reference to potential cost-sharing with these same groups? MS. JENKINS: I'm just reading through the policies to see if there's language to that effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think one of the most challenging aspects of implementing much of this amended GMP is going to be to find the funding sources. And if -- well, the Seminole nation, the school board, if we can identify things that are -- that we want to do that are important to the school district, for instance, sufficiently so that it would be willing to, perhaps, contribute toward achieving that objective, I think that we at least should have that as an opportunity that's listed in Goal 7. MS. JENKINS: I don't have an issue with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JENKINS: As long as the attorney doesn't, just so long as we don't put any onerous (sic) on another agency that we don't control. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other. MS. JENKINS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Tom. MR. EASTMAN: I would agree with Mr. Klatzkow. We've worked and done joint projects with the county on behalf of the school district. We usually have separate agreements or memorandums of understanding. So it occurs without express language saying that we would do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it doesn't hurt to add the language, though, to make it clearer, is what I think you're saying. MR. EASTMAN: It's fine, yeah, as long as it doesn't force any unilateral deals. We need to agree and comply with the Hillsborough case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else, Ned, on that page? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we look at Policy 6.1.4, can you -- I know -- I understand it, but I'd like to hear you tell me what you think form -based guidelines. MS. JENKINS: Form -based guidelines are an LDC code tool that you could use to basically better illustrate and describe how buildings should be set within any given parcel. So that's what a form -based guideline is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically, you get a box to build within, and there's your form. MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of any place in the LDC that we've currently used such form -based guidelines? Page 60 of 81 February 21, 2019 MS. JENKINS: We use them without the illustrations. So there's -- we've migrated in more urban LDC contexts. The RLSA -- the SRAs are one of those, that you have the idea of what you're hying to achieve with a form -based code, but it's written in our typical LDC language, but this is something that's also coming from the community and the CRA for a specific area. So the form -based code would only apply to Main Street, and the commitment here is just to look at it again and see if it wants to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But another piece of the form -based guidelines, especially in the RLSA, with the towns and villages, you have requirements for FARs for specific uses. So from a form -based guideline viewpoint, they aren't unlimited. They're capped. You build within this box but, still, you can't exceed the box in any manner or form. And that's important because at some point something has to cap density and -- or intensity, either one, and form -based guidelines, if it's not mentioned in this document for Immokalee, then I assume the intent would be to fall back on the base language of the LDC if it's not specified in this document as the cap that you would look at an FAR or something else. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. Generally, the master plan sets forth the density and intensity of uses, and then your LDC specifics square footage and all the details for development standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So form -based guideline isn't a free-for-all; it has limitations? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I needed to know. Move on to Page 22. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Policy 7.1.5, satellite emergency operations center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you'd be on that one. So am I. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. First of all, I just need to know a little more about what is contemplated here within context. As you know, the City of Naples recently built -- to replace its new Fire Station No. 1 with a full-fledged EOC that I believe has been designed that it could service the entire county if the EOC, the existing EOC became incapacitated somehow. Are you thinking about the same kind of a full-fledged operation center for Immokalee, that if things were wiped out, you know, south of there that they'd be able to move the whole operation up there? MS. JENKINS: No. I'm not making that predetermination. I think that that's to be worked out with Director Summers of what can be accomplished there, and maybe it would be better or clearer if it wasn't capitalized as Emergency Operations Center, because they might find what happened, you know, after Inna and Immokalee was hit so bad, all of the volunteers and the staff and the residents, they didn't really know where to go, what to do; there was a lot of chaos. So this policy is really about, let's learn those lessons and let's put a plan together and let's know, where does staff, the CRA staff, the MSTU staff, all the staff that's in Immokalee now, and all the volunteers, where's the central point after an emergency? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's not an EOC, though. An EOC is 75 or 80 percent or maybe or technology, communications equipment, high-tech stuff. What you're talking about is a place where the volunteers can come together and get assigned and things. MS. JENKINS: It could be, but I think that's up -- to be determined when they work that out with Dan Summers of exactly what that's going to be. But -- so maybe we should not be capitalizing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you or do you not agree with Dan Summers' email? MS. JENKINS: What email? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The email that you were received (sic) from Christine Betancourt on January 7th telling you what Dan Summers would like to see changed in Policy Page 61 of 81 February 21, 2019 7.1.5. And I just didn't know if you had gotten it, because if you have and he's now in agreement with that language, then I think we've solved the problem. That may help ned see what Dan had wanted. So you probably should circulate that email, then, to everybody. MS. JENKINS: And that's what I'm saying. Maybe it needs to be little -- you know, not necessarily what we explained as the EOC but, you know, something that's different than that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, if Dan Summers believes that we need a satellite that could take over all the EOC operations for the entire county north of where it exists now, that sounds like it might be a good idea. But if all we're talking about is just human resources and the like, I think you don't want to use the EOC term because that has a special meaning. MS. JENKINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you could, see if you -- if Dan Summers' language is acceptable to you, why don't we start with that as the next round to make -- and then if there's a problem with it, we'll hear from there. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to comment on the statement made about it being a good idea. Given that the current facility is built for a Category 5 hurricane, are we talking about a full-blown 911 center and everything else? I mean, to me that is a considerable expense. Of course, that's up to the Board, but -- so all that's really needed out there is some place to set up an operation prior to the storm and monitoring what's going on. And that's the kind of EOC -- it would be an EOC satellite. I don't know. I'd be interested to see what Dan Summers says. But I also want to go back to 7.1.4, the hnmokalee Civic Center. Again, I'm just puzzled. Within one year, we're going to identify -- this is another one that's been going on for almost 15, 18 years. Is this going to be funded by the CRA? Are you going to ask the Board to fund this for a new civic center? And, if so, what's the fiscal impact of that? MS. JENKINS: So if we look at that closely, it just says "explore opportunities." And this was put in here specifically within the last year because it was very important to the community. That's probably one of the things that I heard most is Immokalee needs a civic center. So there may be opportunities to remodel an existing building, to buy an existing building, you know, to put it in Parks and Recreation for a civic center. So I think the idea there, Commissioner Schmitt, is let's explore all the opportunities to fulfill this need for Immokalee to have this civic center without predetermining what it is right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, again, that's an issue in the funding process, Parks and Recreation, which is really where it should be, and the Board making a decision whether it's a priority, and are they going to -- I mean, we're -- you know, you know where we're spending money. I'm not going to get into that. That's a political issue. But certainly some rather what I would call significant initiatives being made for parks and facilities in this part of Collier County when they're really is a dire need. I'm, again, just astounded by it saying within one year. It should be we will do this, and it will be done in a year. Not explore, but we will build it. MS. JENKINS: Please make that part of your recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, that will my recommendation, that we write it in there. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the cost? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The Board could figure that out. Oh, I know. They can get some money maybe from a sports park that's going to be built. Page 62 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to see us put a commitment in here we can't -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know it. I just say it. But I think it should be more forthright that the CRA will make it a priority in its budget request to the Board or some other type of thing, because just making the statement -- if it's deemed that important to the people, it ought to be made that important for the Board that it's a priority. MS. JENKINS: And -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I look at Deb back there. She's saying, yeah, go for it. MS. JENKINS: Well -- and part of that one year, I think when you see things in here that are one year, you can understand that that's a priority over three years. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but continuing to put obligations within two years of this, within one year of that begs the question of what happens when we don't do that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good question. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I don't know why we have all this "within one year we shall do this, within two years we shall do that," rather than, simply, "we shall do this" or "we shall do that." Give us some flexibility. MS. JENKINS: And that's fine with me. But generally what we've heard is that they need to be measurable with timelines so -- MR. KLATZKOW: And when we don't meet the timelines for budgetary purposes or for whatever reason, now what? The county's not following its own Comp Plan? I mean, that requirement is just creating the opportunity for us to fail. MS. JENKINS: I don't mind taking the timelines out. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, this goes back to the discussion we had in hmnokalee is what really is needed when this goes to the Board is a clearly defined fiscal impact as to all these commitments. And the Board will say we either are going to fund this or we're not. I mean, that's the Board's decision. You say, these are all the commitments. And I know Mike laid that out, but he didn't -- again, what really needs to be done is identify what are the real costs of this, and the Board will make a decision and say, no, we're not going to fund it. That's their job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us into Page 23. Anybody got any questions on Page 23? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have some, but I'm going to wait until after I have another meeting with staff to figure it out, so I'll move on to Page 24. Anybody have any questions on Page 24? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita, in the low residential subdistrict, on the map you've got in front of us is a good example. I mean, it shows where all the LR is, but it also includes the flowway on the southwestern side of town; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means you're looking in that flowway for the ability to populate it as the low residential allows, or what are the limitations? Because that's a really enviromnentally sensitive area, and I just want to make sure the right restraints are there. MS. JENKINS: Yeah, we can less (sic) that out. That's not a problem. MR. VAN LENGEN: Downzoning. MS. JENKINS: No, just saying that -- I'm sorry. Was your question about the ag uses in the Lake Trafford area? Low residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. See the LR where it's got that green outline on it? MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last time the master plan cane through back, what, six or Page 63 of 81 February 21, 2019 eight years ago, Paul Midney sat on this panel, and he as well as the environmental groups were real concerned about how that flowway is treated and the protections on that flowway. And I'm just wondering what protections we have on that based on the language that's in -- that's allowable here for residential use. CCME. MS. JENKINS: That was the increase in native vegetation and preservation in the (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that 60 percent, that's it? MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also on that same area, even with 60 percent -- say they take a 100 -acre parcel and they put 60 acres aside for flowway, they could build an alternative energy plant on 40 acres. MS. JENKINS: Well, we can certainly, in the Comp Plan or in the LDC, remove the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Slough as defined on the master plan from the eligibility for those facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that and the increased density or any additional allowances that they currently have a right to. We shouldn't be giving them an upzoning for anything. MS. JENKINS: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, LR, the way this is written, I'm not sure if it gives them more density or not. MS. JENKINS: It does not. The density didn't change in any of the residential districts. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You have to look at the provisions in the overlay. It's at the end that essentially says they get the base density in the district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought the base -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: They only get the base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the base densities did increase. I'm not sure -- this one, base density is four, but the maximum density is eight. So when we meet and I go back and pull the old master plan up and we start comparing those densities, you're telling me I won't find an increase in that LR. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the alternative energy, again, that's a light to heavy industrial use. It's not something we would normally allow in a residential area. I know it's technically ag until they change it through the LR process, but the very fact that we're encouraging LR to be there as noted in the master plan, it seems not to lend itself to industrial. But I do notice that we've got a lot of industrial areas already allocated on the master plan. In fact, the biggest single industrial area, I think, in the county is the airport. It's at five million square feet as a PUD that's commercial, light industrial, and heavy. There's a lot of heavy uses in there. Why are we providing that alternative to go anywhere in this LR area when we've got the industrial in Immokalee where it could go, and it's already planned for? MS. JENKINS: Well, a lot of it has to do with what they're actually manufacturing, mud it is crops, right? So if you're going to do biofuels, you have the crops that you're growing there and you're manufacturing there to create an alternative energy. Alternatively, if you have solar energy, you could have big solar fields that you don't necessarily want to have taking up all your industrial space, but a solar field has very low impact and can take up a significant amount of land in the agricultural area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you wouldn't expect to see a solar field taking up part of the more sought after urban areas of a town or a city. Here we're taking -- we're saying, all your Page 64 of 81 February 21, 2019 outlying residential -- if you look at Ave Maria and how it developed, you know that. You've got all that outlying residential on the, what, east side, north side, different portions of Ave Maria. You wouldn't stick an alternative energy plant right in the middle of that, because that's where you want your population to cluster and focus so that the rest of it isn't as dense or as intense as those areas are. And here we're saying, well, let's not mess with the RLSA because that's ag land, which we're not going to have a lot of ag land left if they develop it like they want to. Let's go ahead and put it in the urban area of Immokalee so we don't have so many houses there in the end. I'm not sure that's the right idea for an urban area. It just seems kind of odd to put that kind of intensity in an urban area. MS. JENKINS: Well, it's similar to Babcock Ranch. They have a 400 -acre solar field that's servicing that town right now, and it's within their development area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you think that Immokalee would be serviced by solar energy? MS. JENKINS: Wouldn't that be great? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be, but do you really think that's practical? MS. JENKINS: Until we get into the research and get more detail for that for the solar energy -- I'm certainly not the expert. But, you know, I think that the way that energy is going today, that we should be prepared for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. I don't believe that adding it to this document is necessary. I think the document can be amended if needed in the future, and we can then customize it more uniformly to that low residential area. So that's a second sighting of this that's in this document, and that's why I'm bringing it up now. On that same page, under medium residential, MR, the purpose of the subdistrict -- and I'm going to slow down, Terri -- is to provide for a mixture of housing types and supporting ancillary uses. Do you mean accessory uses? MS. JENKINS: It could be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's the same thing. When you say -- because the school system, when we talk about their uses, they have ancillary uses in their bus barns. So here you mean accessory uses, right? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. They use -- I notice they use that term under low residential -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They do, too. MS. JENKINS: So whatever's consistent with the FLUM. David, do we use accessory rather than ancillary? It's semantics. MR. WEEKS: We don't often mention accessory uses in the FLUE, but that would be the preferred term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Accessory, I think so. We're used to that term. David, I didn't mean to ignore you. Did you have something you wanted to jump in at? MR. WEEKS: I did, a couple of things. One, back on the discussion about low residential and density, I was going to remind the Commission that one of the proposals with this master plan is to allow the density blending provision to apply to the low residential area. So, potentially, that area, which includes the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand overlay, that wetland system there, that allows the potential, at least, for density to be transferred out into the RLSA thereby helping to protect those lands. And, secondly, it's totally unrelated, and it's over on Page 23. I fell asleep at the wheel when you were on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't go back. MR. WEEKS: Oh, darn. Page 65 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: It's a -- I'm going to call it a cleanup. I want to put this -- oh, this is messy. That mess is, that's the bottom of the page, the Immokalee Master Plan language. It's urban mixed-use district on Page 23. And the second sentence begins as you see there, mixed uses can be located, so on, so on. All of the language that is underlined staff would recommend be added, and where that comes from is the Future Land Use Element's identification of uses that are allowed in the urban mixed-use district. Staff received a call, I don't know, two, three weeks ago, perhaps, by one of the planning agents in town, and they asked the question, why does the hnrnokalee Master Plan when it's this location generally identifying nonresidential uses that are allowed differ from that in the countywide Future Land Use Element? And what I've identified there in the bold underlined text are those uses that exist in the FLUE urban mixed-use district that are missing here from the Immokalee, and so Pm suggesting it be added. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you proposing deletion of the strikethrough language? MR. WEEKS: No, no. That's what the -- that's the messy part of this. That was for my own use in making a comparison. So no strikethroughs, only adding what you see in bold underlined. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're going to allow earth mining in residential areas? MR. WEEKS: In the urban designated area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's residential, LR, right? MR. WEEKS: LR, MR, HR, might be CMU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to put an earth mine in the heart of -- MR. WEEKS: This is what the Comprehensive Plan would allow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we add it. If we don't add it -- MR. WEEKS: If we add it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if we don't add it? MR. WEEKS: If we don't add it, then all of those properties which, again, is a significant amount of the Immokalee urban area that's zoned agricultural right now. It's allowed by that zoning district right now. This would -- adding this doesn't take away anybody's rights. So that property that is zoned ag right now has the right to come in, submit their conditional -use application for earth mining. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now, though, if they submitted it for earth mining under the ag use in the urban area of Immokalee, because it's an LR, it wouldn't be consistent with the roaster plan because the LR doesn't allow that. MR. WEEKS: I would interpret differently, and I have since the master plan was adopted in 1991. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would you interpret it differently? MR. WEEKS: Because the urban designated area, I believe the intent for the urban area here is the same as it is in the Future Land Use Element and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why wouldn't have that language carried through, since you have been doing this probably when it was originally written? MR. WEEKS: I was not the author of this in 1991. And I don't mean to speak ill of the former employee that still works for the county that authored this, this is the worst -- the most poorly written of the master plans in the Future Land Use Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And this would be one of the other efforts to try to get it in sync. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It wasn't me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Joe thinks it was him. Boy, David, you're digging a hole. Page 66 of 81 February 21, 2019 Speaking of mining. MR. WEEKS: I probably shouldn't have said that. Anyway -- I hope she's not listening. Oh. I better stop. Anyway, this is an effort to clean up -- because, again, we have zoning districts right now within this designation that allow another -- example up there is the group housing, which is your ALFs, your nursing homes. We allow those, the zoning districts in place, all of the ag estates and residential zoning districts allow group housing by conditional use. We, in fact, have approved those; the county has approved those under this master plan. And we never said, no, that use is not allowed. It's not listed here. We interpret that it is. So, again, the intent is to clean this up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. We'll just have to -- MR. KLATZKOW: I find it fascinating that mixed-use includes earth mining and oil extraction. I just --for residential. I just wouldn't have thought that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I didn't want to make it any other worse by adding all the alternative energy sources that could be there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Didn't some of that -- wasn't some of that written in as a result of mining rights that certain companies had in that area stili? MR. WEEKS: That might relate to the oil extraction part, but the earth mining, that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, oil and -- MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Specifically the Colliers and some of the others still had a lot of mining rights and oil -drilling rights, and that's why some of this maybe had been written because of that. MR. WEEKS: But, again, let me stress, this is the urban mixed-use district. This is not a specific zoning district that this is applicable to, just like the same language appears in the Future Land Use Element applying to the urban mixed-use district which you go back to when the GMP was adopted in 1989, similar to Immokalee, a significant amount of the urban area was zoned agricultural at the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send that page to us so we have a copy of it? MR. WEEKS: Oh, absolutely, in a clean form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at some point all the changes and discussions we've had for those that are going to be implemented, we need a highlighted version of our changes to make sure we can cross-check those against what we had asked for before we can vote on it. So that will all be coming up. But this would be one that we would highlight the changed language here that you've just described so we can consider it at that point again. MR. WEEKS: And, Mr. Chairman, while I've stepped up out of order, there's something back on Page 19, and it ties into our earlier discussion about the zoning. Go back to your example of a piece of property zoned C5 and yet the proposed designation would only allow Cl through C4. If you'll look on Page 19, the proposed Policy 5.1.6, that is the consistent -by -policy language. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Could I request that we defer the discussion on the 5.1.6 with the discussion -- the future discussion on the mobile homes? Because there were some revisions, and this is changed back to the old text, and we need to work through that and present something that everyone's comfortable with. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, do you want to go back any further for anything or... MR. WEEKS: I'd like to take back my comment a moment ago about the master plan writing, but other than that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem. We won't tell anybody. Page 67 of 81 6 February 21, 2019 MR. KLATZKOW: There's nobody watching this anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike will be rather upset about that comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 24 towards the bottom, under medium residential, MR, it refers to IMAP (sic) policies -- new Policy 5.1.4. This is, again, the mobile home issue, but it previously referred to 6.1.6, 6.1.7, and 6.1.9. I could not find 6.1.6, 6.1.7 and 6.1.9. Did I not look hard enough? Where are those from? They're crossed out, so they possibly did exist at one time. MS. JENKINS: Right. So let me -- sevens became sixes, so -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: This goes back to the mobile home discussion, and I think that those sections refer to the 2011 plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah, okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- which I have the text, but you might, too -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got it, too. That's fine. But we'll defer it to that discussion we're going to have on that. Okay. I just wanted to — I couldn't find them, so I wasn't sure it was relevant to the mobile home or what, so -- MS. JENKINS: Right, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- now that I know, okay. That takes care of that. On to the Page 25, ancillary uses are brought up again in No. 3. You probably should change it to "accessory." Anybody got any questions on Page 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your CMU, this is where it goes from Cl to C4. Was there any consideration to include C5? I mean, obviously, you left it out for a reason. And I'm not complaining; I just didn't know what the thought process was. MS. JENKINS: The C5 uses are now allowed in the industrial mixed-use area, so I think that they were, you know, trying to say the Main Street and the commercial areas are intended for commercial uses. The more heavier use as a C5 would be more appropriate in the industrial mixed-use area, which allows some commercial uses as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I will have some questions on that when we get to it. The RT district, is that only -- that's the only piece around Lake Trafford. That's that only green piece on here. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the fourth bullet, mix of uses, you struck the last line. Why did you strike that? What was the thought process there? MS. JENKINS: Let me read it real quick. Oh, that's referring to the entire CMU district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. JENKINS: Seventy percent of uses as nonresidential projects. So I think it's better to -- it's nearly all commercial right now, so I don't think that that's incredibly important, and I don't think it's something that that Collier County staff needs to track, per se. If it -- you know, if it doesn't hit exactly 70 percent, I think we need to provide a little bit more flexibility for the property owners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There is quite a bit of residential in the CMU, I mean underlying zoning, but -- I'll see -- I'm going to wait for your maps. When we take a look at that zoning map and the overlay, that will help us understand -- at least help me understand it. If there's nothing else on 25, why don't we go to 26. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Starting with Line 25. There's a reference, it says, within any project the acreage -- average size of a single-family lot shall not exceed 6,000 square feet, and in no case shall any individual single-family lot exceed 12,000 square feet. May I ask for the thought process behind that? Page 68 of 81 February 21, 2019 MS. JENKINS: And that was the intent, to try to preserve this designated area as RT for more of the ecotourism uses. So I think they put these qualifiers in there so it doesn't proliferate into just single-family and multifamily housing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will anybody lose vested rights? MS. JENKINS: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They won't? MS. JENKINS: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Well, it just surprises me because one of the objectives here is economic diversity. That phrase is used a lot. And I'm not saying whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it seems that a conscious decision has been made to continue the prohibition of what could be an affluent subcommittee -- subcommunity in Immokalee, and -- MS. JENKINS: Well, the RT district is intended for recreational uses and to support ecotourism. So you want people coming there more as weekenders and more as economic development to enjoy Lake Trafford and Pepper Ranch and things like that in that specific location, so -- and it's a small area just -- could you put the master plan back up? CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: It's about a third the size -- a pretty good size compared to Lake Trafford. I mean, it's the RT area, right? MS. JENKINS: Scoot it over just a little bit, Kris, so we see the lake. Yeah. So it's just that green area, Mr. Fryer, around the lake there that's the RT district. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What's currently permitted to be done there in that RT district with respect to private ownership and residential? CHAII2MAN STRAIN: It would be on that map I gave you, Kris. Can you see what the zoning map says it should be? MS. JENKINS: The zoning map is now agriculture, but if you're asking what the Comprehensive Plan allows now -- is that your question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MS. JENKINS: Okay. Let me find it for you real quick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But whatever it is -- MS. JENKINS: So it's very similar. It's passive parks, nature preserves, museums, cultural facilities, recreational camps, low -intensity retail uses, single-family homes. So all the uses are still there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. But is there any square -foot limitation on single-family homes? MS. JENKINS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- see, that's what we did when we changed C3 in'99 or 2000. We capped it, and all of a sudden people didn't know they had a cap where they previously bought -- where there wasn't one, and it sounds like you're doing the same thing here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think you've got a vested -rights issue. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. A third of -- the RT district that you're showing up on the map that's on the visualizer, a third of that is currently LR for the low residential. MS. JENKINS: We did check, at Heidi's direction there, and those are five -acre tracts, things like that. So there's no limitation now, but I hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, this would put a limitation on it, so good catch. Anything else on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Towards the bottom we talk about the density rating system, and acreage -- in the last sentence, "Acreage used for the calculation of density is exclusive of commercial portions of the project except within the Cl through C3 commercial zoning districts and except within the commercial mixed-use district wherein residential project densities will be Page 69 of 81 February 21, 2019 calculated on total gross acres and except portions of the project for land uses having an established equivalent residential density in the Collier County LDC." Okay. What are you trying to tell us there? Basically, you can use commercial portions for the calculation of density as long as they're in Cl through C3, or in the CMU, which is Cl through C4? I'm kind of lost at what -- how all that flows together and works. MS. JENKINS: Go ahead, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, David, please. MR. WEEKS: The references to the Cl through C3 zoning districts is an existing LDC provision where, by conditional use, a mixed-use project is allowed, mixture of commercial and residential. So we're saying in that case you get to double dip. You get to count the acreage of the entire site. The same principle for the commercial mixed-use subdistrict. If a mixed-use project is developed that would allow to capture -- utilize the entire acreage of the site to calculate density. It's a means of promoting mixed use. And the last scenario -- the last scenario, that's language that's in the Future Land Use Element. So we're just being consistent with that. We actually do not have any such provision in the LDC. There actually is no residential equivalency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was asking for it -- yeah, I had a note, give me an example, but there isn't one, is there? MR. WEEKS: No. Even for the -- as you note, probably the ALF, nursing homes, so forth, those are calculated by FARs. And I know sometimes this panel and the Board will not allow the double counting. I think there's been instances where you've said you don't think that's appropriate. But the Future Land Use -- you know, the Comprehensive Planning level would allow for that double counting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on, then, to Page 27. Anybody have any questions on Page 27? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number C, that refers back, 5.1 -- I've got to go turn back to the pages. Hang on a second. 5.1.6. Okay. That's one of the pages we're going to be talking about. Anything on -- we're still on 27 or -- yeah, still on 27. Back on -- Page 28, anybody on Page 28? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your affordable housing bonus, the last sentence, "This bonus may be applied to an entire portion or portions of a project provided that the project is located within a commercial mixed-use CMU subdistrict or any residential subdistrict." So if someone has, say, the CMU overlapping an MR, they get the bonus in the whole thing; is that how it works? So they get the bonus in the CMU part of the acreage and spreads out through the whole thing? MS. JENKINS: David, how do you interpret that? I'll ask David for the density bonus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, yeah. MR. WEEKS: This would just be allowing if someone wanted to come in, for whatever reason, and only apply the affordable housing for a portion of their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if they have a CMU piece that allows the higher amount, they could take that -- a higher amount and spread it off into the lower -- it's density blending across the line, basically, then, right? Wouldn't you then blend the CMU higher densities with the property you may own in the MR, even though the MR doesn't normally allow that high of a density? You could just go higher because of your blending? Is that -- MR. WEEKS: I don't read this to be contemplating two different subdistricts. There's Page 70 of 81 February 21,2019 the divider word "or." This bonus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you had two parcels, all of them CMU, you can move the density back and forth between them, which you wouldn't need to do because you're already allowed to do it. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- okay. Then how would this work? MR. WEEKS: I read this simply to be allowing for -- if someone came in to rezone just a portion of their property that they wanted to use this density bonus for. That seems a bit unusual, but it would allow for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't the density bonus apply by acre? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they want to just use, say, that 10 -acre parcel but they only want to develop five of it, they would get five times the density? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why -- so that's all this is saying is that you get what you could calculate based on the acreage you want to develop? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Am I passing 312 yet? I'm trying. 312 is the new magic number, by the way. Okay. I'm just wondering what the value of that sentence is. It's just practical application. MR. WEEKS: Yeah. I'll take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you could. MR. WEEKS: That may be superfluous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Page 29. Anybody have anything from 29? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under road access, E, if a project has direct access to two or more arterial or collector roads or if there is a project commitment for provisions of interconnection to roads accessible to the public with exist (sic) or future abutting parcels instead of adjacent, that does change things. One dwelling unit may be added above the density. Now, "adjacent" means you can be separated by a road, a canal, an easement, or something like that. "Abutting" meets "uh-uh," you're touching. So now we've basically taken away the ability for someone to get an additional unit if they're adjacent to something, but they're not -- they're only -- if they're only abutting, they don't get it anymore. Is that -- was the -- so we're actually reducing the dwelling unit count ability? MS. JENKINS: Well, you have to be abutting now, not adjacent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So if you were adjacent -- say you had two parcels and one was across the canal or an easement, there's still -- they still will get that one -unit -per -acre base density added to the base density, but now they wouldn't because they're no longer -- they're not abutting, and that's the word change. MS. JENKINS: Right. And that has to go back to the provision of interconnection. So if you're abutting, the interconnection can be there. If you're adjacent, you may or may not be able to interconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not the -- yeah, I understand. That's not what I was worried about. I was worried about someone -- you just lost -- someone lost one unit of density. Is that how it could happen? MR. WEEKS: This is really a cleanup because of what you just said, the actual definition of adjacent. If you have two properties that are adjacent so they do, in fact, have an intervening local street, you can't have an interconnection. Each of those projects could have a Page 71 of 81 February 21, 2019 connection to that intervening road, but you cannot have an interconnection. For an interconnection there could not be an intervening road so that it would be property to property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But then when we Look at the second line where it says -- at the end of the first line, "or collector roads or if there is a project commitment for provisions of interconnections of roads accessible to the public." How does that fit in? How does the word "commitment" fit the abutting parcel thing? I mean, what would -- if you're going to "abutting" instead of "adjacent," do you need the commitment for an interconnection for those collector and arterial roads? If you get time to look at it, David, you can come -- I mean, it's just a thought. I'm trying to figure out how it fits, and I just -- with that word change, it seemed to mess it up a little bit. MS. JENKINS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then at the -- Page 30. Anybody have any questions on Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we go to No. 2 on Page 30, it says, "It must be demonstrated that the lands designated urban have a high natural resource value as indicated by the presence of Group I or Group 2 FLUCCS codes and a score of greater than 1.2 both as identified in the stewardship credit worksheet in the RLSA." Now, that 1.21 is the natural resource index you're referring to. Is that not correct? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just say that, 1.2 according to the natural resource index, and that way it's clear what we're pointing to. And then lands above 1.2 are not to be disturbed. Is that the point that this was supposed to make? MS. JENKINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could we just add that for clarification as well? MS. JENKINS: Well, that's what you have to blend, so you need to be above 1.2 to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To blend it. MS. JENKINS: -- to blend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in blending it, you don't develop it. You blend the density from there to something else, so you're really not going to disturb anything above 1.2, right? MS. JENKINS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On No. 4, "Lands within the urban area from which the density and/or intensity has been shifted shall be placed in a" -- oh, this is the one I asked you about earlier. Never mind. That's the one about the conservation designation that went away. B, the whole section of B, where did that come from? I couldn't find it in the old code, so at some point how was this -- did you come up with that, Anita? MS. JENKINS: I did not, so it was in the 10 years of the Immokalee community working on it to come with this. But, you know, from a professional planning standpoint, I had no problems with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wanted to -- I couldn't find it, and I couldn't figure out how it got here, so I think you just answered that. I'll read it again. MS. JENKINS: Again, it just says, if you have a property that is in both MR and LR, you get the full density. So in LR, if you're eligible for four units, in MR you're eligible for six units, you can do that and then blend across your entire project. So you don't have to keep four in the LR and six. So you can just blend the total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But your blended total won't exceed the acreage applied to each one individually. MS. JENKINS: Right. Page 72 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So, I mean, if you've got 10 acres of six and you've got 10 acres of four, you've got 100. So when you build and blend them, you've still got 100 no matter which crisscross you do. MS. JENKINS: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the bottom of that page, urban industrial district, I wanted to have a little bit of conversation here. I noticed above the Immokalee airport you've granted somebody a nice hit. You've taken their agricultural land and made it industrial. I'm wondering why. MS. JENKINS: Well, in part it's really to provide a security buffer to the airport, and so you have that whole airport in the blue area there. And so to try to buffer that area back into industrial and commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the applicant -- the land -- that's all one property owner, Big Citrus Company. They didn't ask for that. We're just --I mean, that's a nice windfall to have this whole thing rezoned from agricultural to industrial MU. I don't know what our expansion concerns might be with the airport, nor do I know about why we would want to do something voluntarily to compete against ourselves since we have five million square feet in the airport. I can't understand why we would want to do that. It makes no sense. If they want their property to be turned into industrial, let them come in and ask for it, and we can put the criteria on it. All right. Well, it just seemed like a substantial giveaway, and I would hope we didn't have to go there, so -- okay. I would suggest that come off the map. MS. JENKINS: Well, let me talk with the airport authority and Justin and see, you know, what's needed. If that, in fact, is -- if something from the FAA that's, you know, come from the 911 standards to protect airport boundaries and things like that, so -- if there has to be different uses. So let me follow up with him as well, make sure that we are protecting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What my underlying concern is, too, is if we have to expand for those very same reasons, for example, and we've got to buy that land so that we can restrict it for airport protection uses, we just shot ourselves in the foot for valuation, and I'd rather not open that door if we don't have to. MS. JENKINS: Any expansion of the airport is going to be east, not north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for right now. MS. JENKINS: That's in their plan. That's their master plan for the next few years to expand the runways is basically it, so they all go east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was here when we approved that master plan. I am familiar with it. Okay. The industrial mixed-use, IMU, what is the difference between the IM and the IMU -- or IN and IMU? MS. JENKINS: The IMU allows the C5 uses, the commercial uses, as well as the industrial uses. So it's a different type of use that's allowed. And when you mentioned the C5 uses that I look on the zoning map and I see the big blob of C5 uses around the airport, that's now industrial mixed-use. So they went -- in a zoning -- they went from zoning only to CS to now they could go to industrial mixed-use if they wanted to come in and rezone their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's start with the IN. You added -- first of all, you could do industrial manufacturing, processing, high technology industries, and with the word "commercial uses" was added, so you can do commercial uses in the IN. MS. JENKINS: And I think it's limited to a percentage of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't see that in here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I didn't see that. MS. JENKINS: Maybe that's -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioners? Page 73 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. MR. WEEKS: Sorry. Under the IN, industrial, the commercial that is allowed there are support uses. You can see the examples to serve the needs of employees and visitors such as daycare centers, restaurants, and convenience stores. That's similar language to what we have in the industrial subdistrict over here in the urban area. They're trying -- we're trying to limit the industrial designated areas to your basic industrial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And did you see what we just did with City Gate? I mean, we didn't quite adhere to that. MR. WEEKS: Well, City Gate was different because it was -- CHAIIZMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Because it bad a PUD on it, notwithstanding that it was industrially designated, or at least a portion of it, but it had a PUD that gave them rights that we're not dealing with here; however, I would tell you that some heavy commercial uses are allowed in the IN district because they're spelled out specifically. This is one of those districts that doesn't identify zoning districts -- excuse me -- the subdistrict. It doesn't correlate directly with zoning districts. It doesn't say the "I" zoning district is what's allowed in this subdistrict. Instead it spells out specific uses: Storage, warehousing, processing, distribution, I think packinghouses. Some of those uses, they're heavy uses. They might be allowed in the industrial district, but some of those allowed in the C5 zoning district as well. But put aside those specifically identified uses that may be commercial, 'the balance of the types of commercial uses would be like the example of daycare and restaurant. The intent being to support the users of the industrial area. So we're envisioning something like an industrial park. We don't want those employees or those patrons or visitors to have to leave the industrial park to go get lunch or to drop off their child for daycare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- so the IN is the more intense industrial of the two; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the IMU, then, if you were to institute an IMU where an "I" used to be in the old master plan, then you're really limiting -- you're really downzoning the former industrial area to an IMU area that doesn't have the same intensity as the former industrial, because that's happened north of New Market Road where it turns and bends southward, and that area now is IMU, and I think a portion of it -- pieces of it -- and I'll know more when you guys finish with this new zoning map, used to be "L" And "I" now -- in this industrial, IMU, you removed the C 1 through C3 uses of the old industrial limiting it to C4 and C5, and you've got -- I think you have -- subdistrict uses it also allows for, and you got into a whole series of packinghouses, warehouses, high technology. And then just before that were -- the red subdistrict also allows for, you've got similar industrial uses. So I'm kind of mixed up as to what's allowed and what's not allowed in these two districts, especially if we're separately identifying them on the plan. And some of those are changing the underlying potential uses. So maybe when -- we get the zoning overlay we can sort that out. And that takes us to Page 32. Does anybody have any questions? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm somewhat confused here. The reference on 31 that begins with industrial mixed-use subdistrict, there's language that has been stricken, and it continues onto Page 32 with a reference to the fact that it's moved to overlays and features IMU commercial overlay. Now, the language that was stricken refers to 75 -foot setbacks, 80 percent opacity, 20 -foot -wide landscapes, et cetera, et cetera. Now, am I to understand that this is being removed Page 74 of 81 February 21, 2019 in order to accomplish greater density, and if it has been moved, has it been moved verbatim? MS. JENKINS: Yes, it's been moved verbatim. And, really, this language that's been stricken is an overlay, so we moved it under the overlay section rather than here. And where that applies, Mr. Fryer, if you Look at the map on your overhead, you can see the FVfU district to the west and south of the airport, that light gray, and then you see it on the north side of the airport where it's hatched. Where its hatched is where the overlay applies with those more restrictive development standards in the Growth Management Plan, and that was to help provide that buffering and that transition between the airport and then back to the agriculture uses. So that overlay doesn't necessarily apply to the IMIJ that is west and south of the airport, but the overlay development standards only apply to the north. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So in the north, you're preserving the 75 -foot setback? MS. JENKINS: Yes, yes. And you'll see that transfer back to Page 33. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I wasn't able to do a word comparison, but you're telling me that it's verbatim, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that an affirmative? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I mean, it looks verbatim, but I didn't check it. MS. JENKINS: Right. This is not in the existing master plan. It's a new designation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the language that was stricken on 32 -- MS. JENKINS: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER PRYER: -- does that reappear verbatim on 34? MS. JENKINS: It looks like it went through -- when I'm looking at 34, I see a few cross -outs, and it looks like it's just language cleanup to me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. When you come back, would you please redline -- just give us, like, a sidebar or a side document or something that shows how you have changed it as well as having moved it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the IMU, where is the reference to the uses as a mobile home area as well? MS. JENKINS: That is on Page 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, I don't mean the case. I mean someone coming in putting in mobile homes. MS. JENKINS: Mobile homes are not allowed in IMU with the exception of these areas, these parcels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More reason why we need that zoning map. So I think there's a conflict, but we'll look at it when we get the map, then. The industrial area under the Immokalee Regional Airport on Page 32, at the end there's a long sentence that starts about two-thirds of the way down, "In addition to all uses permitted in the industrial subdistrict," then it goes on with a bunch of things. The current language includes campgrounds. In fact, they have gotten -- they actually got a grant at one time to put a campground in out there, and it still sits there today. I don't know if we -- I don't see it in here, so my assumption is it didn't get carried over. It's one of those compatibles we'll talk about when we meet, but it's something that you may want to take a look at. Anybody else on Page 32? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom of Page 32, the redline cross -out, why was that crossed out? MS. JENKINS: Because it's already been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it has -- it's all completed? MS. JENKINS: That's when I referred back to the 60 percent. That was completed. Page 75 of 81 February 21,2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the next page, on Page 33, does anybody have anything on 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second -- well, the first full paragraph, third line -- or first, "Density and intensity blending provisions may be utilized for the LT/CKSSO, the maximum allowed gross density for lands within that is the base density established by the applicable district." How does that tie into wherever the -- and I need help on that. Where is the LT/CKSSO? MS. JENKINS: That is the Lake Trafford Slough that's outlined in green on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we were talking about earlier. So how does that work with the base density? That you can blend into that slough or out of the slough? MS. JENKINS: You're blending out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted. And then on Page 34, anybody have anything there? MS. JENKINS: And I think it's important to note, too, that this says that no density bonuses are allowed in this area as well. So you get the base of four, and that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- on Page 34, the top one, that was formally an industrial area, and we're changing it to C4/C5? MS. JENKINS: No. If you're on the top of Page 34, you are in the industrial mixed-use commercial overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Isn't that -- MS. JENKINS: That's the hatched area north of the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. That's the piece I was asking about earlier. MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that's why I'm asking why it changed. That's was what my note was. The piece after that talks about the buffers I think Ned was asking about. MS. JENKINS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we have that kind of detail in the GMP? Usually -- I know David doesn't like that kind of detail. I'm trying to uphold his standards. MS. JENKINS: Well, I can -- yeah. I can only compare it to Golden Gate Estates processes where they feel that sometimes if you put it in the Comp Plan you have more surety than putting it in the LDC where it's easy to change with deviations and such, so it was important for the community to put it in the Comp Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the same reason I want to be careful what we put in the Comp Plan about alternative energy. Interesting. Okay. That takes us to the end of that portion of the document. I don't know if -- where the questions may come. Let me see what is in store for the rest of the document. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the report follows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got them on Page 35. Page 35 is the FLUE. Pm going to wait until we get the zoning back to do that. And Page 36 is the old plan. I'll wait until we get those overlays done so we call see how they match up. I think 37 -- I'm trying to think, where is 37? No, that -- never mind. I'm all the way past that. Ned, I see you scrolling. I'm already past you. Okay. That's the questions I have. Does anybody else have any questions from this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a series of questions I wanted to talk about, but, Page 76 of 81 February 21, 2019 you know, I can save everybody here a lot of time if I -- if you guys are willing to meet with me for a couple hours some scheduled day, maybe if David or whoever else is involved. We can walk through a lot of these questions then, and I don't have to tie everybody here at this meeting up, because I don't -- I probably have a different aspect of looking at this than some of the others, so if that works for you -all, it will work for me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It works for me. My comments going forward are very scarce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have anything else you want to bring up today? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd suggest is if we have anything we want to bring up that will be needed at the next meeting, bring it up today; otherwise, what I'll do is I'll meet with staff, and by the next meeting hopefully we'll have some of these plans overlaid on one another, and we can finalize -- we can finalize our discussions on this at the next meeting. And then the only thing we need to do is make up -- see the cleanup document to be finished with it. Does that work for all of you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. How did we finalize the RT issue that was raised that right now there is potential for single-family dwellings but we're going to put a square -foot limit on that? How will -- will you be coming back to us somehow on that or -- MS. JENKINS: Well, if you'd like to make that part of a recommendation to remove those, then that's fine. You know, to remove the square -foot limitations. Again, it's the idea of how you can promote natural resource protection and, you know, make the lots larger and not proliferate the area. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, do you suppose there are any multi -acre single-family dwellings in that area right now? MS. JENKINS: There are much larger lots in that area right now. So there's nothing that would be inconsistent with that. It would just be if they go forward and want to build, they would have to build to these standards. But as we looked at it and did the research, there was nothing there that would put -- that would disqualify anyone right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How is that not taking away from vested rights? MS. JENKINS: Well, I think it's because its a development standard. It's not taking away their right to build a single-family home but, you know, as we change development standards all the time in the Land Development Code, you're just changing the Land Development Code standards, not necessarily the use. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if I buy three acres at a time when I could build one single-family dwelling on there on a 3 -acre parcel, and I hold it for a while, and five, six years later the zoning has been changed to 6,000 square feet max, do I have any legal recourse? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you right now, I'm very uncomfortable every time we take away vested right during these things, and if staff has the inclination to do so, then we'll have a list of all the vested rights that staff is recommending be eliminated. And I'll tell the Board, you've got a litigation exposure to this, but it's your ability to pass it if you want, and then we'll take it from there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other piece I'd like to mention -- oh, Heidi, go ahead. I'm sorry. You've got to turn your mike on. You know, yours doesn't come on automatically. Everybody else's does. Sorry about that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's okay. I have a question on Page 27 of your packet, just for clarification. It's under Item B, and it refers to accessory dwelling or accessory structures. And can we clarify what we mean? And the reason I'm asking for that is, are we talking about accessory dwelling units that we have in the Page 77 of 81 February 21, 2019 Rural Lands Stewardship Area? 1 don't know that we have it yet in Immokalee. I just want to make sure we're on the same page as to what we're talking about. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. So, basically, you can't get density bonuses for accessory dwelling units, and I think accessory dwelling units are defined in our LDC now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, they are under the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and I just wanted to make sure we weren't adding a new -- you know, like in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, accessory dwelling units do not.count, so they're, like, free units, so I wanted to -- MS. JENKINS: No. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- make sure that's not what we're talking about or, if it was, that everybody understood. MR. WEEKS: Heidi, we'll check. I'll look in the Future Land Use Element. I know what -- the intent is there would be something like guest house, for example. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well, that's what I thought we were talking about, but I'm not sure if that language opens up the door in the future for the private sector. MR. WEEKS: We'll look at it, especially if there's a definition of that term in the LDC; we don't want any confusion. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One point I was -- Ned had pointed it out. The change in the lot size in the maximum area that could be built on in that LR for the -- that -- for the density blending and the other piece of it, Immokalee doesn't have a lot of high-end retail, or not retail, but residential. We've got a lot of it in the urban area, and that's helped our tax base, and it's helped us grow and pay for a lot of things. If we can encourage or not limit Immokalee from having some enclaves that are higher valued, it might be beneficial to their tax base so if they ever do want to incorporate, it might make it a little easier for them. Because right now I'm not sure their tax base is that lucrative for incorporation, and some day I think they'd greatly benefit by running their own destiny, but -- that's another reason I think -- I'd rather not see some of these things change that could provide a better opportunity for the town as a whole, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I agree. And I think that when -- one of your stated objectives is diversity, economic diversity, this would be in keeping with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to bring up before we wrap up our issues on the Immokalee Master Plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are all tired of it today, huh? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Straightforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish it was straightforward. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings us to the end of today's meeting on this matter. We'll just wait -- I don't know what's the best for you to schedule, a comeback. We've got to continue to a point in the future. Is it two weeks? Four weeks? What would you prefer? MS. JENKINS: I can come back in the next meeting, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't know how much data you'll have collected by then, if you can get these -- MS. JENKINS: We can make it a priority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That and the LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. They're not doing those yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the next meeting. Page 78 of 81 February 21, 2019 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the next meeting, yes, but I mean for the Immokalee Master Plan is the only thing I'm worried about. We already continued the LDC amendments. So we need to continue this to the next meeting, which is March 7th. Is that going to work for you? MS. JENKINS: That works for me fine. But before we conclude today, Mr. Strain, I'd kind of like to go back through the list to make sure that we have it, all the information that's needed and your comments today so we can wrap it up and make sure that we're -- we went through a lot of information today, and hopefully we're narrowing the issues that we'll talk about again on March 7th and what those are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be something you -- do you have a list in front of you that you've checked off as we've talked today? MS. JENKINS: Oh, I've written all over the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't you consolidate those, send them out to us ahead of time, and we can correct them all at the next meeting, and if there's something minor, we can just fix it on the fly. I mean, to walk through them all again right now, that might be a time-consuming effort, and I'm not sure we need to. MS. JENKINS: Okay. I was just want to make sure that I bring you back what you want and what you need and we have a good summary of what you talked about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a not of that may change, depending on how these new maps come out, because if we have a lot of issues that have changes in zoning either more intense or less, it's going to be subjects that we're going to have to deal with. So I'd just as soon wait and go the next round all together, one package, if that words. MS. JENKINS: I'll read the minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, guys? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, we need a continuous -- a motion to continue the Immokalee Master Plan PL20180002258 to March 7th. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second, and a point of information. C1L4iRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What else is the agenda for that day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we have LDC amendments, and I'm not sure there's anything else, because it was going to be -- oh, pollution control. Pollution control, LDC amendments, and this. So this would be last, because pollution control's already scheduled for first, LDC amendments will be second, then this will be third. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. The pollution control is just -- they're followup, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they're followup. They're responses. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the LDC amendments are the ones we've already seen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Followup again. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Followup again. That was primarily the power generation or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a whole bunch; yeah, there was four or five of them. And then we're also -- next week we'll do two of them that we could follow up potentially on the 7th. If there's any changes, we do a final if we can't do it next week. COMMISSIONER SC14MITT: That was my next question. What you do on the 28th, will they come back on the 7th then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they can't make it. If the changes aren't too extensive, I would Page 79 of 81 February 21, 2019 assume so. So the 7th will be a cleanup for all of these issues, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Noland use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There hasn't been anything scheduled that I saw in the last request for advertising. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is there a motion to continue 20180002258 to the March 7th meeting? COM 41SSIONERDEARBORN: Second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It was moved and seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, you did. You got into conversation. I forgot. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been moved, seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're now down to 6-0, motion passes. And with that, is there -- no new business listed, no old business is listed. Anybody in the public wish to comment? And there's just one young lady sitting back there typing away on her computer. And so she's not moving, so I'm assuming she hasn't got a comment. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONERFRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONERDEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're out of here. Page 80 of 81 February 21, 2019 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:42 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (V` MARK $TRAIN, CIAIRVAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on 3 ` 'Z( " `Q , as presented {/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 81 of 81