Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/19/2006 LDC July 19, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 19, 2006 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION for the Land Development Code Amendments, 2006 - Cycle 1, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff Paul Midney ( absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services Catherine Fabacher, Zoning and Land Development Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 July 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good evening, everyone. It's 5:05, and the meeting will start. If you all could rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Welcome back. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, this night's meeting-- this evening's meeting is probably the first of many on the second -- or the first cycle of the LDC amendments for 2006. I'm going to go through some preliminary agenda issues. I'd like to also remind everybody that we have a court reporter here tonight, and we need to try to speak as slowly as we can practically do so, and not talk over one another and allow other people to finish their statements before we begin ours. I'm tired enough that I will be Page 2 July 19, 2006 slower tonight for sure. Some things to clean up the agenda. If anybody is here for inclusionary zoning, it will not occur on this cycle nor will it occur tonight, nor will it occur tomorrow. Inclusionary zoning has been put off to a special cycle that is yet to be announced, thankfully so, because the draft document we have would have taken days to correct. The other changes to the agenda would be, the smart growth issues will not be heard tonight. They will be heard tomorrow, assuming that when we get into discussions of a continuation, the board agrees tomorrow will be a good day to continue. Smart growth is an important issue, and I want it to be able to be heard and finished in the same day it starts, so that will happen tomorrow. The transportation issues on tonight -- that are in this packet will not be heard tonight. They will be heard at a continuation of the meetings that will most likely occur sometime after this week. So it will be next week or later. Then the way we're going to proceed with the meeting is, I'm going to ask the number of people in the audience interested in each subject, and the subject with the most public interest in is the one we'll take first. We'll work on down the chain from there. Now, before we go too far, I'd like to ask the Planning Commission members if they have any objection to continuing, after we finish today -- we'll make the announcement after we get done. But does anybody object to tomorrow as a carryover day? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't know -- Catherine, I got your email about other dates available. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. SCHMITT: Tomorrow though, just to make sure that we announce that it is a regularly scheduled Planning Commission Page 3 July 19, 2006 meeting, and we do have a petition to be heard at 8:30. So it would be after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And I figured we'd get into more of the detail as we close tonight's meeting, because that's when we normally ask for a continuance. MR. SCHMITT: Just in case anybody's listening or whatever. There is a petition, Keewaydin Island, rather -- probably will be a rather contentious issue, so it may be a lengthy, at least few hours minimum so -- those who are planning their day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it will be more informative than contentious. We'll have an interesting meeting for sure. Catherine, the dates that you have provided to us, when do you need -- when do you need us to respond to you on these? MS. FABACHER: Tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if the Planning Commissioners have not seen them yet, the dates that she has suggested is August 1 st and August 8th and August 9th, all from nine to five p.m. Either all of those dates -- MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I didn't mean you would meet that whole time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know that-- MS. F ABACHER: I just meant you have the room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I'm just indicating those are the dates available. And if you all could think about it so that when we have to go into a continuation tomorrow afternoon, we can do so with all this having been put behind us. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, we'd only need one of those dates? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I think we ought to pick the earliest one we can meet at, and then if we have to carry it over to another date we have one. Just for safety sakes, I would suggest we pick two dates, because I don't think we're going to get through this Page 4 July 19, 2006 cycle that quickly. There's just too much in this one. So with that in mind, there are a couple other things we need to clean up. At 6:30 tonight we are going to take a 15-minute break for the court reporter. I would like to suggest that we end this meeting at eight o'clock -- or not end it, but we stop at eight o'clock tonight and continue it to the next meeting date. If the board so agrees, we'll set eight o'clock for the ending date (sic). Is that objectionable to anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, okay. And then the last thing I'd like to ask the County Attorney -- and Jeff, if you're prepared, or Margie, just to refresh our memory on how we can handle this in regards to how many hearings. There are issues that we could probably resolve, minor issues, at one hearing, and then there are others that we'll want to have two hearings on. And for the sake of the new board members, I just would like a short discussion on what that involves. And Margie, every meeting we go over this, whether we have one or two hearings, and there was some criteria for having one hearing, we can vote on -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If you're changing the actual list of permitted conditional or prohibited uses -- I understand that's being done in this cycle -- and we've had the two -- I just want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the past we have, in issues that weren't distributed, we basically accepted those and voted on them at one hearing. Is that still acceptable? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. And I think that's entirely proper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then for those that aren't, we're going to have a second hearing; is that proper? That's all I needed to know. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Although, if there is anything Page 5 July 19, 2006 that involves a conditional permitted or prohibited use, I would take the vote on that at the second meeting because that's the trigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Margie, is there a requirement that items be brought up in the evening first? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think if it's a continuation and it starts out in the evening we're fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I'd like to go into the first topic of this evening's meeting. We need to find out how many slips have been turned in and the subjects. And does anybody -- MS. FABACHER: I have two environmental, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And-- MR. SCHMITT: I have one over here which is environmental, and I think Bob is probably environmental, and many more, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people here are for the environmental issues that we're going to be discussing? One, two, three. Okay. And I know Barbara and Bill Lorenz, because staff is -- and Mack, so that's six. MS. FABACHER: Boat canopies might be the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many people are going to be here for speaking on boat canopies tonight? One, two. Okay. So we'll go environmental first, and if we have time, which is going to be lucky, we'll get into boat canopies second at this point. With that, Catherine, do you want to take us into the first section on- LCD AMENDMENTS - 2006 CYCLE #1 Page 6 July 19,2006 MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely. I think we should probably start, I think, with the shapes, the -- that would be section 3.05.07.h on page 89, the shape factor ratio for preserves. I believe Mr. Lorenz has a presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the audience's sake, the numbers that we have are different than the numbers that you have in regards to page numbers, so you'll have to go by section numbers. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I have two for the boat canopies, and then I have one, two, three, four for the environmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As we have decided, we'll go forward with the environmental first. Bill, it's all yours; Bill or Barbara. MR. LORENZ: Okay. Thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director. I did have a PowerPoint presentation, but I thought in the interest of time, I wouldn't go through it. I'll go through some of!llY materials here and try to explain this particular component with some other types of visuals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as a heads-up, if you have any visuals on this shape factor ratio, I have read it multiple times and I cannot understand it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you may want to try to help us understand it, because right now it's extremely confusing. MR. LORENZ: Okay, certainly. The --let me first start off in terms of the purpose of it, and then I can work my way through some of the other details to it. Essentially, staff is in a position where, as we apply the Growth Management Plan requirements for preserve areas which says to put the preserve into the largest contiguous area possible, that's the concern of what we have in terms of staff with trying to apply those words to a particular site development plan. Stepping -- stepping back, the Growth Management Plan and the Page 7 July 19, 2006 LDC requires that a particular proj ect, for instance, set aside a certain amount of vegetation, and that's specified. And let's assume, we'll use the 25 percent. So let's say if you apply that 25 percent to a site, maybe you're looking at 10 acres that you have to set aside as preserve. Furthermore, the plan does provide for the priorities for which that -- that area is to be set aside. So all of that -- all of those requirements are not changed by this amendment. But let's work ourselves down to the point. Now you've identified that you've got 10 acres set aside, you've identified the appropriate acreage based upon the priorities that have been set forth, and now you're free as a -- as an applicant to put that area into a -- into a shape with regard to your project, and the guidance that you have is the largest, most -- the largest contiguous area possible, but what does that mean? The problem we've received in terms of staff is sometimes we will get a proposal at, let's say the most extreme, you have a 20-foot strip all the way around your property, and that's the proposed preserve area. That, of course, does not provide for some of the other goals that existed in Growth Management Plan for preservation of -- or trying to address wildlife habitat or having the vegetative communities to be as functional as possible. The question -- now, I'll back off of it a little bit more and say, okay. Well, let's say somebody comes in with a strip that's 25 or 50 feet by 150 feet. Is that adequate? We don't have the quantitative criteria to be able to determine the adequacy of those proposals. So what we dropped back trying to do is trying to determine what would be an appropriate objective criteria to evaluate the shape of those proposed preserve areas. And what we've -- what we've looked at is, one kind of a scientific or biological concept is what's known as edge effects. If we look at a preserve boundary at the -- that boundary is the edge. It's the Page 8 July 19, 2006 edge of the preserve, and then you have the boundary, and then you go into some type of land use that could very much conflict with the functionality of the preserve. Let's say you go right up to a back yard of a bunch of homes. We know that at that edge that those back -- that that back -- those back yards start to encroach into the preserve area, and that boundary then becomes a point where we want to try to minimize the amount of boundary for the preserve against those conflicting land uses. So that's the -- that's the concept of trying to reduce that edge effect for the integrity of the preserve area. Now, once you use that as your scientific basis, then the question comes is, well, how do you minimize that boundary for a particular amount of area that you're required to set aside as a preserve? Then we look at just kind of geometric -- principles of geometry here. If you look at a circle, a circle will have the smallest amount of edge or smallest amount of boundary for a given area. You can't do any better than a circle in terms of minimizing that amount of edge for the area that's required to be set aside. So the circle just is your, quote, most perfect shape from a standpoint of minimizing edge effect. So the next question -- then the next question comes is, well, how do I look at other kinds of shapes? And then you can utilize -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you don't want to let him finish? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I -- I'm going to -- all right. I'm going to try to remember the darn question. Minimize edge effects was the issue. Circle, minimize edge effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like just for -- if staff can get through their presentation, we can make notes and then we can get a whole picture. It might be easier to ask our questions in one chunk at the end. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think it's fast anymore. I wish I did. Thank you. MR. LORENZ: So once you look at -- unfortunately I see now that the visualization here is skewed, but you can see the numbers. July 19, 2006 Where if we look at the circle as being a -- that perfect shape of -- it gets a shape factor ratio of one, if we compare other regular shapes to a circle, you can see that a square has a calculated value of .88. In other words, it's -- think about it, it's 88 percent as efficient as the circle is to minimize edge effect for that given area. And you can work your way through just the geometry and you can see that for a variety of different rectangles there, that all the way down to a rectangle that has a 10-to-l length-to-width ratio, its ratio is 0.51. So that gives you some sense of range. So that that becomes -- that becomes a quantifiable criteria to evaluate a shape of a preserve to minimize edge effects. Again, the best -- the best number you could get would be 1.0 if you had a circular preserve. Now, we can also -- those are for regular shapes that I showed you. You can make -- also make the calculation for a variety of irregular shapes as well, and it's simply a matter of making some comparisons, running through the math, and the equation that you have on page 90, although probably most folks are not used to using square root signs, et cetera, et cetera, it becomes a mathematical boiling down of the concepts that I just explained into two parameters that are typically utilized in the design process. One is the acreage of a preserve, so if you have the acreage and the acres of a preserve, and also the boundary, preserve boundary or the perimeter in feet, you can utilize those two perimeters and make your calculation to what the shape factor ratio is. Now, the policy for -- the policy decision is to what shape factor ratio, what numerical value to establish as the value for which we create as the minimum standard. You'll see in your current draft that the shape factor ratio of a preserve, the minimum requirement is 0.7. Again, thinking a little bit, that's -- if you compare it to your regular shape factor ratios there, 0.7 is approximately a rectangle of a 4-to-l length-to-width ratio. Just -- Page 10 July 19, 2006 again, just trying to boil that down into something visually that you can think about. The Environmental Advisory Council, we've worked through this particular concept with a subcommittee for a variety of subcommittee meetings, and then two meetings of the full EAC. And at the last meeting, they made a recommendation that the minimum factor ratio should be 0.7. So the utility of this is, a site designer is submitting a set of plans to the county and going through the requirements of the native vegetation area requirement, then showing on the site plan what the shape of that preserve is, simply makes the calculation through this formula. And if it's greater than 0.7 according to the current proposal, staff would check off yes, approved. Again, it gets us away from the problems that we have now of, how do we evaluate that shape of that preserve when we're actually doing the review? And then -- and the answer to the question back to the designer is, well, why isn't it good enough? This would provide us that objective criteria through the reVIew process. Now, you'll notice in your -- in your text of the amendment we're also talking about what we call a qualifying perimeter. And I just want to cover the reason why we're calling it a qualifying perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just when you get to a point where you want to break on a subj ect before you go into another one, just for the sake of the members who want to have the freshest questions possible MR. LORENZ: Maybe that's a good point to break in terms of answering questions, perhaps, on the overall concept, and then I can get into a little bit more detailed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think that Mr. Murray's, I bet, got a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You'd be right about that. I Page 11 July 19, 2006 listened very carefully, I tried to listen very carefully, and you threw me off. I thought I was following you when you gave an example of, say, there's a structure, there's a building, right, and then you have a space that's a back yard, I think you indicated, and then you have a preserve, and then you spoke about the edge, and you talk about a boundary that you wanted to have to protect the edge. Did I misunderstand that? MR. LORENZ: The edge and the boundary are synonymous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, they're synonymous. MR. LORENZ:' They're synonymous. And we use the term perimeter, too. But that's synonymous. That's -- the boundary of the preserve becomes the edge of the preserve against the boundary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The way you phrased it, I think -- or I misheard it, because I believed -- I thought I was hearing a boundary after an edge, and I didn't -- if they're synonymous, then that question goes away. MR. LORENZ: Yes, they're synonymous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that I understand it all the way -- I can understand the geometry, I've tried to work it out. I understood it was a square root. But it seems to be a very onerous process. But that's just a comment. Go ahead, please. I want to learn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- and I have questions, but I'll wait till you're completely done. Mr. Schiffer has a question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple. One is, the information we have, DSAC, have they finished review of this -- I'm sorry. Not DSAC -- the EAC? MR. LORENZ: The EAC has completed their review of it. I believe DSAC -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the recommendation of the EAC? MR. LORENZ: The EAC's recommendation was utilization of Page 12 July 19, 2006 the shape factor ratio of .7. Because originally staff had proposed a .6. And there was discussion -- and I believe Catherine, you've got it in the -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I do. I have it kind of misplaced, but it's in Roman numeral xii on your summary sheets. And instead of putting it in the EAC column, I have second meeting under the proposed amendment there, and it -- recommend approval with the following conditions: Amend SFR ratio from 0.6 to 0.7, delete the descriptive SFR formula, which has been done, and then evaluate the need for a minimum preserve size that the SFR would not be applied to. Bill may want to address those. MR. LORENZ: Yes. The -- well, as we said, we talked already about the .7 recommendation is in the current draft. At one point in subsequent drafts or previous drafts, we had a descriptive formula. We took that out and we just have the one formula that makes the calculation. I think it's important to talk about their recommendation number three because I think this does -- this does bring up a discussion to have with regard to this particular proposal and the EAR amendments that are working their way through the process now, and that deals with looking at some minimum size as to when this particular procedure would apply. Minimum size of either a proj ect size, site size of a total site that comes in, or a minimum size of whenever there's a preserve area that you're trying to develop a shape for, that maybe this may not apply, this procedure may not apply to those . . . mInImum sIzes. And that's certainly worthy of some discussion at a later point, and I can get into that as well. But I -- but anyway, that were (sic) the questions from the EAC, and I believe the DSAC committee, although I was not at the full DSAC committee -- and I think they're deferring that to the August 2nd meeting. And they -- and the subcommittee, Page 13 July 19,2006 we also had some discussion about minimum size thresholds as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, and then we'll go back to you, Bob. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The formula you have, essentially what it says is that the greater the perimeter, the lower the number? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The permit is the denominator. I'm not sure how you got the numbers above, but I don't think I want to know. MR. LORENZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- but the concern is like, if somebody did a kidney shape design, he would be really penalized for that, right? MR. LORENZ: A kidney shape? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just, I mean anything-- in other words, you really -- the pure geometry -- let's say the man-made geometry shapes are the ones that are rewarded by the formula. MR. LORENZ: The -- I haven't shown you the -- let's see if I can -- these wide screens actually distort the -- your proportion, so I want to make sure that you can kind of pick up some size and shapes here. For instance, item number six, this is actually a -- these are a set of preserves that have been previously approved. Now, these were approved prior to the Growth Management Plan, its current requirement. So you'll see a variety of a number of preserves that they probably would not have been able to approve in today's requirements in terms of habitat selection. But I think that this is at least illustrative of, if you want to call it natural areas or irregular shapes that you actually create the shape factor ratio for. Page 14 July 19, 2006 But you can see here that for this particular item number six, that actually has a calculation of 0.82, and I'll use this example for some other examples as well. The kidney shape -- let me paint two extremes of your kidney shape example. You could have a kidney shape that's, quite frankly, close to a circle. And in that sense -- and just qualifying it now, qualitatively making a statement, that's probably going to come up with a very high shape factor ratio. On the other hand, you could have a kidney shape that's much more elongated. At some particular point, the calculation of those two extremes, you can actually -- or you can make the calculation of the shape factor ratio. So this is -- this is kind of our meatball and spaghetti kind of analogy here, and we'll apply it to the kidney shape. The more rounder you get, of course, you're getting closer and closer to a shape factor ratio of one. The more strung out you are, the shape factor ratio starts to go lower and lower and lower. So it doesn't matter what actual shape you've got. The point is, you can make the calculation of a shape factor ratio, compare it to the standard, and if you're below the standard, one of the EAC members would say, well, just maybe make it more chubbier, and that's a descriptive term. But mathematically you can do that, and you can certainly have some control of that in a design function. And certainly from a staff review standpoint, we can simply look at the number that you can calculate and compare it to, if it's more than .7, check, you're on your way. If it's less than .7, we've got to check some other types of exceptions here if you're going to go into some of the exceptions that we've listed in the code. But that's the point. So your kidney shape, depending upon the exact shape of your kidney, can be calculated with a shape factor ratio. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- look at number 7 Page 15 July 19, 2006 there. It has a failing ratio yet it does feather out and go alongside a roadway. It looks nice. You remember -- and this edge thing I'm not so sure of yet because the other side of the edge is human beings, and the more edge, the happier the humans are, so we've got to weigh that. But that worked out really nice. It showed a preserve along the edge of the roadway. I mean, your argument, there may be limited species that live on that point, but why is that bad? I mean, to me, if that was squared off or rounded out and preserve was taken off of the roadway to make this equation work, that wouldn't be as desirable as what is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- again, we're coming back to the concern about the edge with the preserve area. The edge for a preserve is always a location where the integrity of a preserve, in some way, shape or form, can be compromised. So having -- taking that as your -- that's -- taking that as the assumed concept, then you try to minimize the amount of edge that you have. Now, we can't -- there's no way we can say that it's, you know, actually -- you know, 0.4 is -- there's no definitive study that says it has to be a 0.4 or it has to be a 0.7. What we're trying to do is we're trying to minimize the edge effect and trying to develop a standard that we can apply through the review process. But it is based upon the amount of edge that you have, and the least amount of edge is the most desirable for the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why is that? What is this compromise that occurs? Because I've been to a lot of places in Naples where the edge is in the back yard, it's a beautiful view. It's an amenity for the people living there. And kind of what you're saying is that the edge is where humans interface with the preserve. So why is that bad again? Why is that not an asset? MR. LORENZ: Well, there could be a variety of reasons. We Page 16 July 19, 2006 start seeing grass, just the Floratam Grass encroaching into the preserve boundary . You start seeing a lot of situations where the residents don't even realize where that preserve boundary is, so now their activities are going into the preserve boundary and removing the integrity of the reason of why you set aside that native vegetation in the first place. There's some other -- and I'm not a biologist, but some of the summary work that some of my staff provided me, some information showed me is that, for instance, you start getting different temperature effects at the edge or a greater amount of sunlight starting to encroach into it, and so your vegetative community starts to change its character at the edge. You get more blow-down from trees at the edge. There's concerns about the compaction along the root zone of the plants at the edge. The whole point is, there are a variety of number of impacts that are proportional to the amount of edge that you have. And again, I come back to the -- that's the working concept. You minimize the edge -- the smaller the edge, the better the preserve has the potential to function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that -- Bob, we're going to need to -- Bob Murray had the question next, then Bob Vigliotti. So go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me get something clear in my head at least, that we're talking about preserves that already exist there, correct? These are preserves? MR. LORENZ: No. We're talking about having this amendment to apply to all new submittals. What you're seeing on the screen is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, no. I didn't phrase it correctly. I realize that. I'm talking about, these are actual physical preserves that we may be looking at in the future if we adopt this, correct? I'm on target with you now? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Page 1 7 July 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if they are natural preserve, they're configured in the way nature, Mother Nature made them, whether they're strung this way, whether they're radial or whether they're linear; whatever they may be, they exist as such. You used a word from the EAC, somebody in the EAC would say, make it chubbier. Are we talking about modifying preserves? MR. LORENZ: Let's -- let me work off one example here. You have a site that's rough -- let's say 100 percent vegetative, and it's one -- one vegetative community that's on site. So you have to set aside whatever, 25 percent of that whole area. That -- the shape of that preserve that will come into us for review is based upon the applicant's proposal as to how it's going to fit into his proposed site development plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. LORENZ: So at that particular point we're not talking about a -- we're not talking about a, quote, preserve boundary that exists in nature. We're talking about what's going to be the result of a clearing plan to be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. MR. LORENZ: Now, there are situations -- and we've addressed them in the rest of the language and now I'm getting into the ideas of exceptions -- that where, for instance, you may have a natural boundary of, let's say, jurisdictional wetland and that scores out as the highest vegetative community to be set aside, and when you draw that jurisdictional wetland boundary and take into account its area, you get a shape factor ratio of less than. 7 . We've created an exception for that. If, indeed, that is truly the natural boundary in that situation, then you can have -- then you will have an exception to the. 7 minimum threshold. And then there's other exceptions built in there as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A net-effect question. Does this have the impact of reconfiguring for a developer where they mayor Page 18 July 19, 2006 may not choose to put their development? Where they choose to put -- where it might very well be most effective from a visual point of view, from the human occupation point of view, does this now limit a developer by telling them that because of -- this is the better format, you must use this area here, and even though it's not attractive, not effective, you must use it because we're focusing exclusively on the preserve? Is that what that net effect will be? MR. LORENZ: Well, let me work backwards. The first set a conditions we already have. You have to set side a certain amount of area by the code in GMP, you have to -- it will specify what types of vegetation you have to set aside within that order. The shape of it is -- will be constrained by this process. So as long as you come in with a shape factor ratio of greater than .7, then you're okay. But yes, this does provide an additional -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Constraint. MR. LORENZ: -- restriction on the shape of the preserve-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I read it correctly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Two things. The EAC came up with a .7 and staff came up with what? What was staffs recommendation? MR. LORENZ: Staff -- we initially put it in as a placeholder of 0.6. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Which is less restrictive. MR. LORENZ: Which would be less restrictive, and that 0.6 was -- and I'm calling it a placeholder. And when we worked through some of -- most of that that you see up on the screen, we had about 70 preserve areas that we just developed, and .6 was about the median value. Half as many, you know, were above .6, and half were below .6. And so we just initially put .6 as being the placeholder. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And you keep referring Page 19 July 19, 2006 to a circle as supposedly the perfect situation. MR. LORENZ: The circle is -- I won't call it the perfect preserve necessarily because there's other kinds of biological constraints in there. But the circle provides for the least amount of edge for the area that it contains and, therefore, is a benchmark to compare other irregular shapes to it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But as far as attractiveness and utility of a piece of property and how to you develop it with -- you have 25 percent hypothetically set aside for landscaping, you have water retention, you have a lot of other factors, to try and take what is basically a flexible thing -- roads are not flexible, utilities are not flexible, but these preserve are flexible -- to try and make them round is putting a lot of constraint, and I think you're going to create more of a problem than you will with the idea that the staff has to spend some time discussing with the developer on how to do it properly. MR. LORENZ: Well, the preserves aren't flexible to the degree that you have to set aside a certain area and you have to set aside the amount, type of habitat. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But the shape. MR. LORENZ: But the shape -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's -- the constraints that the developer's concerned with makes it tough to layout. MR. LORENZ: And the flexibility, of course, the greater -- there's no question, the greater the number -- the higher the shape factor ratio, the less flexibility the developer will have, absolutely. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the whole thing is done just to reduce the amount of time staff spends basically with the developer going through this? Is that the whole reason for the amendment? MR. LORENZ: That's one of the reasons, but quite frankly, the other reason is, when we talk about, what is the largest contiguous Page 20 July 19,2006 area possible, what is the meaning of that phrase? And what we're trying to establish, or at least certainly was the intent, in my mind back when that language was put in place back in the -- for the final order, was to try to come up with a fairly large substantial area that was not going to be long and narrow and have a lot of edge effects. I mean, that's -- when you're looking at -- and I know I'm speaking from the environmental viewpoint here. And you all, as recommendations of the Planning Commission, obviously take into account more than just the environmental component. But from an environmental viewpoint, to try to minimize those edge effects, is really -- is the purpose of trying to come up with a quantitive method to define largest contiguous area, and with a quantitive method and set of objective criteria, we can -- we can minimize the time and the reviews that we go through with applicants when we are looking at a preserve that we're saying is too long and narrow. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But you've only looked at it from the environmental point of view and not from an aesthetic point of view, not from a practical point of view, not from a point of view of what will look nicest for the people that live there and the environment around it, correct? MR. LORENZ: Well, I would say that the Growth Management Plan does use the phrase largest contiguous area, and I'm trying to adhere to what that means. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But it doesn't right now offer the most flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to talk one at a time. She can't get you both. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. But that will offer the most flexibility the way it is now? MR. LORENZ: I'll answer the question this way: Lack of any criteria always provides the most flexibility. The question is, how do Page 21 July 19, 2006 you review it and how do you make a determination as to what is acceptable or not. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, this piece of the LDC amendment is from page 89 to 91, so when you finish with your presentation on those three pages, then we'll finish our questions. So if you want to continue, I think we've got all the questions at this breakpoint unless -- did you have another one, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got some more. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too, but if it's more appropriate now, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, we can let him finish it. MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- once we get down to, on page 90 under the calculation requirement where we talk about the qualifying perimeters, that's a concept, again, that kind of deals with some other questions we came up here with as, what do you deal -- when you have a natural -- let's say a natural boundary, and applying that natural boundary to shape factor ratio gives you a lower number. And we're saying, no, that -- we're not going to allow that natural boundary to -- we're not going to penalize you because that natural boundary brings you below the shape factor ratio of 0.7. And the other example is -- take a look at this particular shape here. This is a good example where number one has a shape factor ratio of 0.59. And we're saying, well, that's a pretty good large size preserve, and why would it not qualify? And the reason is -- and not only is it a very large preserve, but the basic point is is that its boundary over in here abuts either a natural feature, like the estuarine system, or a conservation area. And so what we're saying is is that the qualifying perimeter is going to be reduced by the amount that the boundary is shared with a natural feature, such as an estuarine or a river, or conservation lands, Page 22 July 19,2006 lands that are already in preservation because that is not -- that is not a, let's call it an onerous edge. And I think Commissioner Schiffer had earlier made the point that as you -- as you make your qualifying perimeter smaller, the shape factor ratio itself increases. So that's the point of qual-- what the qualifying perimeter is. So we've added some language in there to ensure that, strictly speaking from a mathematical standpoint, we don't have it a -- let's call it an unintended consequence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that point -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you go first because you'll probably ask it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For clarification on number one, I thought I heard you say that connecting it to other natural features, preserves, actually reduces its perimeter. MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which then-- MR. LORENZ: Qualifying perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Which then reduces its SFR value. MR. LORENZ: No, it would increase it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would increase its SFR value. Okay. So in the number one, let's say the dark areas in the top and bottom are natural facilities or natural preserves. Those boundaries then are not counted in the SFR of the areas that are up against the, let's say, urban development areas? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The qualifying perimeter is only that perimeter that would have the conflicting edge in terms of land use. So the natural water feature or what we've identified here in B and also, I think, in C as well, accounts for that, let's call it, deduction. So the net effect is to increase the shape factor ratio. And also that incentivizes to place -- Page 23 July 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doing that. MR. LORENZ: -- the preserve area to some of these areas that we'd like to see it be placed, whether it's a natural feature or some other preserve or conservation area, and it's accounted for in the calculation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's good. I just wanted to make sure that that number -- you just deduct that number from your perimeter, which is a good reward -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're on page 90, right, or 91? MR. LORENZ: Ninety-one. I think the only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's 92 also. MR. LORENZ: -- thing that I would like to cover again is the exceptions in parentheses, C. And again, I've kind of touched base on some of those exceptions. Again, those are those exceptions where -- and then I'm talking about from an environmental perspective is that -- is that we can utilize -- you can come in with a shape factor ratio of less than 0.7 if you qualify for any of these exceptions. And in working with the stakeholders group through some discussion, these were certainly the exceptions that I tried to glean from the discussion and add into the code. Again, that comes at the idea of well, we don't want to have any unintended consequences where we may have a good biological design and we -- you know, we're stuck to this rigorous application of the math. And when you're looking at it from a common sense standpoint, it just doesn't work. So we've attempted to add those exceptions in here to the degree that we can forecast them. And that's really -- Mr. Chair, that really covers my discussion, Page 24 July 19,2006 except for if we want to discuss the idea of a minimum size threshold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got questions, but I know others have. Did anybody want to start? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to find out more about the minimum size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we -- I'll just go into my questions and my issues. You just talked on page 92D, the applicability. The requirement specified in the SFR shall not apply to projects where a complete and sufficient application's been accepted prior to the effective date of these regulations. What level of application are you thinking this applies to? I mean, you have applications for DRI PUDs, you have applications for SDPs and plats and all the others. Are you -- MS. BURGESON: We would rely on probably the zoning department staff to make that determination as to when an application is sufficient. But when we're look at identifying preserves, we're looking at identifying them at the time of the first development order, which has always been something that staff has requested, so at the time of that first development order when the zoning department has determined that that application is sufficient. So if there is a PUD that's already in-house and sufficient, then the subsequent submittals that are covered by that PUD are also covered by this exception. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So first of all, I think that any application, whether it's an exception, it needs to be defined. I mean, just to sayan application isn't definitive. So we can't wait for zoning staff to come back and say there needs to be -- let them make that determination, I think, would have to be part of this document. And the reason I was going in that direction first is that if you Page 25 July 19, 2006 have a PUD that we've really already approved by a master plan showing 75 percent of the preserve areas on the PUD, and they have to change their master plan because of something like this, that would trigger a massive influx of needed changes probably to almost every PUD in the county. That's why I'm asking the question. How practical were you looking at in regards to when this would apply? So before our next hearing, I think that if this goes -- how far ever it goes, we certainly would need that addressed. The current system apparently in your minds is broken. Can you tell me why it's broken and what projects recently have we heard that have -- that have this problem? Do you have any examples? MS. BURGESON: I don't have the names of specific problems where we've had this problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mercado? Does that come into play? You guys complained about Mercado quite a bit, and you've -- and I know the Kraft Construction building had some issues. Are those examples of issues that are broken in this regards? MS. BURGESON: Those were for recreated preserves. That was an Issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if this isn't broken, I'm wondering why we're going into such an onerous system that -- I mean, I honestly -- it took -- I know that I may not be the sharpest pencil in the pack, but I tried to understand this. I went through this repeatedly. I went on the Internet. What I found on the Internet certainly had nothing to do with this kind of subj ect. So I found no help in figuring this out. Now, your explanation today does help, but you know what, for future generations that look at this and the future people that come into this county, they aren't going to have you sitting there with your patience today explaining this to them, and that, to me, is a real concern because it should be user-friendly. And I think you've lost the user-friendliness here, and I'm real concerned about that. Page 26 July 19,2006 And it's for that reason I'd ask, have you looked at alternatives to that like a length-width ratio? Like taking the current minimum standards and maybe adding a wider feature to those so that you're not ending up with these perimeter boundaries? And have you thought of, like we do for lakes, showing shapes that are acceptable and are unacceptable like we do for lake shapes in the Land Development Code? Those are all options that I was wondering if we've fully explored. MR. LORENZ: Yes, that was a question we asked the stakeholder group to look at. One method, for instance, would be to show what is acceptable, what is not acceptable with some schematic. And so I've put together -- this particular schematic together. And remember, with the caveat that, remember, you can get all kinds of proposals and shapes, whether it's in the middle of the project, in the corner, as this is kind of set up to show, along the edge of the project, or whatever examples. But if you begin to work through an idea of schematics, what I'm going to kind of show you is it kind of pulls you down into the same dilemma, at least from my perspective, the same dilemma, and that is, let's say if -- again, I'm constraining this to, though, a corner location. And so we're showing preserve boundaries. Certainly this kind of quarter circle, this square, this triangle, are all acceptable and actually -- now, these were developed -- I mean, I can calculate a shape factor ratio for all of those. What I just showed you there is the highest going to the lowest. And this is -- this would also be acceptable. But at this particular point, this does not become acceptable. Now, how do we get from calling this acceptable to this not acceptable in the absence of some other kinds of quantitative or numerical criteria? The shape factor ratio does that. It makes the calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't a length-width ratio do the same Page 27 July 19, 2006 thing? MR. LORENZ: The length-width ratio -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Bill, I can understand the pictures. They're great. I think someone turning through the LDC could figure out what you're trying to do. That's where I'm coming from. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. Let me see where -- St. Lucy County has established -- and this is just for kind of my notes here, but -- has established a length-width ratio of 3-to-l, and their minimum width is 100 feet. So if you start working that through, that sounds good, but then what's the length-width ratio of an irregular shape? It works for the rectangular shape. What is the length-width ratio of an irregular shape? The other -- and St. Lucy County does, in their code, they also indicate that the purpose of that length-width ratio is to minimize edge effects, so I get back to what the concept is. One of the purposes is to minimize the edge effect. They specify a length-width ratio of no greater than 3-to-l, minimum width of 100 feet, and then they have a comma, and then it says, except where ecological benefits can be determined. So the proposal that you're seeing from staff goes beyond the simple length-width ratio. You can see here that St. -- in applying our shape factor ratio to St. Lucy County's nominal 300 by 100 foot gives you a shape factor ratio of .77. The point is, you can make the calculation. But the question is, is how do you apply their length-width ratio to an irregular shape, and that's where -- that's where that effort puts me in the same dilemma where the shape factor ratio at least allows me to make that calculation for irregular shapes. Additionally, in St. Lucy's county where it says, except for when their ecological/environmental benefits can be determined, we've tried to add those as very specific criteria in our code. Page 28 July 19, 2006 So those are -- Mr. Chair, those are two examples of some options that we have taken a look at, and from our perspective, rejected, because, again, they -- it's difficult for us to deal with, for irregular shapes and the shape factor ratio allows us to make that calculation for irregular shapes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me of any other municipality using the shape factor ration? I mean, I looked on the Internet. I couldn't find any. MR. LORENZ: No, I'm not aware of -- I'm not aware of -- St. Lucy County was the closest that we could see that had a -- close to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have an example of where this is broken, we don't have anybody else who's using it, and we're going to pioneer that. You actually earlier talked about the Planning Commission having to balance between the environment and the needs of the public, and you're right. That's what we have to do. Compatibility has always been a big issue to this commission, and it's been a big issue with staff. What I see a lot of times happening is these preserve areas, because they are allowed to be on the perimeter of the projects, heighten the compatibility of the project in the perception of the public. That's a good thing. People would rather see preserves next to their adjoining property than somebody's three-story building staring down at them. So I'm not sure that by using this shape factor ratio we're going to give the public what they like. And my biggest concern is in the urban area. I saw the pictures you showed. It looked like it was Pelican Marsh. Maybe it wasn't. The shape looked like Vanderbilt Beach Road. Those preserves, even though they're in the urban area, I doubt if you're going to have a lot of beneficial species utilizing them. Where you need to be focusing is in the rural area, and I think that you need to look at a different standard for the urban than you do Page 29 July 19, 2006 the rural area, and the shape factor ratio may not be the right one for the urban area. And the other issue I have that I think is a big concern is affordable housing. Weare constantly looking for more affordable housing. That involves flexibility and design, intensity and density. Where do you want that? You want that in the urban area. This is going to be working totally against those options of making the -- providing the flexibility and the intensity in the urban area where we would want to place affordable housing, and larger parcels in the rural area. It might be more easily done with projects of that nature. I don't -- I mean, I'm really concerned about it in the urban area. You talked about compromising the edge. That's a compliance issue. I mean, maybe code enforcement needs to work on exterior compliance issues instead of someone's drywall in their garage. Maybe that would help resolve some of the compliance issues and your edges won't be so badly hampered by intrusion by the public. And let me see if I got all my notes. If I haven't, I'm sure somebody else has got some. That's, I guess, as much of a summary as I can give you on my thoughts on this. And Bill, I tried to understand it. I know you and I spoke about it. In the urban area, I just see this as a real serious problem for all numbers of reasons. And the urban area is probably where we should be looking at focusing more density and saving as much as we can in the rural area. I think there's a big difference between open space and preserves. Open space is what you get in the rural area. Preserves you may want to try to get, but I think the functioning of those is impractical in a lot of ways, so that's my thoughts on it. Sure, go ahead. MR. LORENZ: With regard to the compliance issues, I mean, what I would try to advance is establish a system whereby we avoid problems of compliance for the future, so I'd just like to offer that as Page 30 July 19, 2006 opposed to simply relying upon it to be a problem being taken care of later on, so -- but that's -- that's what we're trying to establish there again, minimizing those conflicts up front in the proj ect design. With regard to the examples, I mean, our estimate from staff is 10 to 15 percent of our time and applicant's time is tied up with this. In fact, it was just last Thursday I was just overseeing one staff member on the phone with a particular project. I don't remember the name. But the initial submittal, the preserve boundary was judged as okay by staff. There was a different -- there was a redo of the proj ect, and they strung out the preserve boundary a lot further, and then all of a sudden, from staffs judgment, it became a, wait a minute, this is not acceptable now. So that was just -- I mean, just as recently as last week, just overseeing what the staff member was talking about on the phone, we got into those discussions in having the applicant now to redo it. Again, my dilemma as someone overseeing the staff, number one, is, how do we make those judgments and how do we make it easy for the applicant to know when they submit something that they're submitting it, it will get approved, and provided some degree of certainty? So I mean, there's some examples. I don't know if Barbara has any additional examples, but that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, and then Donna. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, one of the other things you're doing is, item ii, you're actually increasing, which in some cases was 20 feet, the minimum dimension of 50 feet for a preserve. Why is that happening? And isn't that a major increase or-- MR. LORENZ: It's currently 25 feet, 20 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's different depending on acreage, but -- MR. LORENZ: Maybe Barbara can detail a little bit. But yes, we are, and our judgment is 20 feet is just too small. The example of Page 3 1 July 19, 2006 St. Lucy County is 100 feet. That's twice as much as what we're proposing here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wouldn't that depend on the acreage? I mean, you couldn't get that on some sites. MS. BURGESON: Our minimum -- for the record, Barbara Burgeson. Our minimum widths vary on the size of the project. Twenty feet is the minimum on the smallest projects. And as the projects go larger, the minimum width is 50 feet, or averaging 50 feet with a minimum of 20 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But aren't you striking that out in this proposal? MS. BURGESON: We are proposing to increase that to 50 feet as a minimum, because the 20 feet does end up being encroached upon. Typically if you have a 20- foot width and you've got lots adjacent to it on both sides, you're going to get a 10-foot encroachment on both sides. The preserve disappears. This was recently an issue with Lee County as well. And where their preserves used to be 20 feet, they've increased the minimum width for their preserves to be 40 feet. We're just -- the same issues occurred there where the integrity of the preserve was impacted by the minimum size of the width of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MS. BURGESON: Now, we are proposing language in here that's even more flexible than the current language in the exception where we're saying that where the minimum dimension doesn't exist, then it may be reduced to the size of the width of the existing native vegetation. So if on a small parcel the existing native vegetation is only 30 feet wide, then that will qualify for the minimum width for that smaller parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Bill, for you, in the Landscape Ordinance, there is mention -- and I remember when this was being advised to create water bodies that are natural shape. Aren't Page 32 July 19, 2006 you afraid this is going to create preserve shapes that aren't natural? You're going to -- you know, rectilinear, circular preserves, instead of natural preserves? MR. LORENZ: No. MS. BURGESON: I think you need to look at the criteria first in terms of determining where the preserve will be, because the shape is not the determining factor. The determining factor is the type of habitat on site. So for instance, if you've got listed species on site, that directs you to where the preserve will be and the shape of that preserve. And in fact, one of the exceptions is that if your listed species on site is bounded by an irregular shape in the habitat, then that is exempted -- or excepted from this criteria or this shape factor ratio. So you look at where the preserve is an obligation of the GMP to be placed. If it's not the listed species habitat, then it would be falling down in that -- in that list of descending criteria for where there is an absolute obligation to place the preserve, and the shape factor ratio where it comes into play is it just allows the applicant to understand how by, for instance, rounding off sharp edges or by cutting off a very long tail strip of a fairly large rounding preserve, you can greatly increase the viability of that preserve. So the shape is not at all the first criteria. It's only to assist us in identifying what that largest contiguous area is. MR. LORENZ: And you asked me whether I think it would drive the preserves into these rectilinear shapes. I don't see that at all. My presentation in developing the conceptual understanding in showing you what shape factor ratio is for a variety of different regular shapes may skew the idea that we're trying to force it into a regular shape or even a circle. That's not true at all. We're simply trying to minimize the edge effects using the shape factor ratio as the criteria to reduce those -- the amount of perimeter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the one concern is, if Page 33 July 19, 2006 somebody -- let's take -- he had the regular shape where any slightly in and out is adding so much length to that that it's going to penalize him. So people -- and you know, this is going to be the tail that wags the dog, and the straight-line preserve is going to benefit somebody. MS. BURGESON: Well, and actually it benefits the developer as well. When you have to be set back 25 feet from the edge of the preserve for your principal structure, the less edges effect that you have along the preserve, the less impact to the design of the development as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was just going to comment -- and I think that Bill and Barbara made the point is -- this is not the beginning of this process. You come to this shape after you've gone through a bunch of other criteria here in order to get here. I think because this is a new concept, everybody's, you know, just a little antsy about it. I sort of saw it as something that eventually the development community would like and appreciate because they would know, they can calculate it, and they can figure it out, and then you have no choice but to check them off and approve them. I think, though, that because it is a new concept, you are going to have to use some sort of visuals to help people get started. I do believe that if you just run across this equation, it is not, as Commissioner Strain said, terribly user-friendly, and that certainly putting some sort of diagrams in here would help people through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, I had one other point. And we do need to hear from the public, and there may be some members of the public who are in the development industry that would respond to your concern too, Donna. In your fiscal and operational impacts you define the operational Page 34 July 19, 2006 impacts by saying that we'll reduce staff time, but I thought from LDC amendment cycles in the past, the fiscal part of it needed to be defined too, and that included the fiscal impact on the private sector. I see no attempt here to tell us what the fiscal impacts might be. Have you any way of calculating that? MR. LORENZ: Well, the fiscal impact that I would say in terms of the processing of the application would be right now they're required -- the applicant is required to provide the area for all the preserves, so they're already doing the area. The only other additional requirement in the application would be to calculate the perimeter of the -- of your preserve area, which would be some additional GIS time and then show the actual calculation. I would find that would be in the order of, let's say, less than a half a dozen hours, you know, for a total project. Now, that's the, let's say, the processing time. I'm not sure I would have a handle on it at all as to what -- the property. Let's say, if you're saying that certain components of the development would not be able to be utilized as a result of this restriction, I'm not sure I can be able to make those calculations, but I would offer this, is that the -- again, this value here is simply establishing the criteria for which to design the largest, most -- largest contiguous area. MS. BURGESON: The other component -- excuse me. I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm sorry, Barbara, I didn't know you were going to speak. Go ahead. MS. BURGESON: The other component of this is that if -- when the projects that come in where we're going back and forth -- and typically it may be three or four meetings one on one with the applicant to readjust -- and as I started to say before, about 15 percent of these projects come in with a problem, we really reduce that greatly to probably only, if it's less than 5 percent that end up being the type Page 35 July 19, 2006 of problem that Bill has even brought into -- that gets raised to that level. But what happens with those 10 percent that staff resolved is the time and the money between the staff and the applicant coming back and forth on modifying their plans. But also when they get to that last phase and they've got the third or fourth submittal, now all of the other review staff have to go back and re-review their plans as well because they've modified their drawings, and maybe other issues in the site plan drawing have been shifted or modified and have to be re- reviewed. So it's not just the effect on environmental review staff. It's also the fiscal -- potential fiscal savings from the applicant not having to resubmit and not have to redo their drawings and other staff not having to re-review these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand those fiscal issues, but the real fiscal issue is a lack of efficiency in which a development in the high intensity urban area needs to develop in order to be productive and profitable. And the bottom line is, even in affordable housing, somebody's got to have a way to make some money. We talked about incentivizing affordable housing yet we're doing -- the county is probably the biggest problem in making the affordable problem work by the restrictions we put on it in areas where we shouldn't be putting those restrictions. So I understand your fiscal analysis from an input -- review and input process, but I think the land costs and the loss of efficiency may be a bigger fiscal loss that we haven't calculated here. The other thing I might want to comment on, we have a, probably the most intense code enforcement division that I've ever experienced. They do a very good job in documenting their issues. Have you got a listing for us of the -- where you have seen problems in the edge that code enforcement has addressed? Could you get that -- MR. LORENZ: We can work on that. Page 36 July 19,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we know how big of a problem the edge factor really is and how many sites have got that problem and the resulting impact of that? Okay. And with that, unless anybody else has any questions, I'd like to hear from the public. And Catherine, could you -- MS. FABACHER: All right, Mr. Chair. Everybody's indicated just environmental issues, so I'll read their names out, and if they want to talk on the shape factor, then they could come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many do we have total? MS. FABACHER: We have four for environmental amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'd like to remind everybody that I'd like you to keep your statements as brief as possible, and we will be taking a break around 6:30, so we'll just have to stop where we are. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere. I think most of the issues and concern that I have or that I feel are problematic to clients that I represent have been raised by members of the Planning Commission. Starting with the fiscal impact, it's really -- you know, I mean, it's one sentence, and the fact of the matter is that it's my belief these changes will impact particularly -- and I know the staff disagrees with this, but in my view, I think there are going to be some unintended consequences, particularly associated with smaller infill parcels, maybe 100 acres or less in the urban area, the very parcels that we ought to be targeting for higher density, affordable and workforce housing. It's going to reduce the yield that you can derive from those parcels. You know, if you don't have listed species and you don't have Page 37 July 19, 2006 wetlands, then maybe it's appropriate to use a perimeter preserve and to buffer that project from some other use as I think, Mr. Strain, you indicated. The current process works. I recognize there are some problems, perhaps some graphics, as I think Commissioner Caron suggested, that might help. You know, do this, don't do this, these kinds of types of-- like we use in the architectural portion of the code. Sorry, I forgot I had this thing in my ear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you had a hearing aid, and I was going to wonder there. MR. MULHERE: I've gotten so used to it, it's become an attachment. You know, there are some other things here that are somewhat concerning basically -- and I guess staff would argue that these changes are not really driven by this formula as much as they're driven by the comprehensive plan which prioritizes the quality of the natural environment within a project and says, this is the highest priority because it has this listed species. This is the second highest priority and this is the third highest priority. I've had several projects where there were multiple high priorities. I'm not sure which one was a higher priority, whether it was the gopher tortoise, whether it was the bald eagle, whether -- they were all existing on site -- whether it was panther habitat. So, again, I think you're still going to have to use your head in examples, in opportunities, where there's going to have to be a process to determine what is appropriate and there's still going to be give and take. And I just think you cannot necessarily formulize every single situation. As I looked through this, there were some specific questions where we talk about, on page 91, the preserve area being used to buffer a natural feature, and I think Bill helped a little bit. By the way, I do want to say I appreciate some of the changes Page 38 July 19, 2006 that staff made. If this was to go forward, there were some positive changes made between the DSAC subcommittee meeting and full meeting and now, which I didn't have a chance to look at until tonight. A couple of exceptions were added that I think are appropriate. The reason the DSAC, which I'm a member of, didn't take action was they didn't have a chance to look at those changes after their last meeting, so they didn't want to vote on something they hadn't seen. But, you know, the natural -- the preserve area is being used as a buffer, a natural feature. I assume that is, what, is a lake? Bill, I don't really know exactly what a natural feature is. So, I mean, you know, there's no definition really. I mean, I'm assuming it's -- and I'll tie that to you also where the preserve area abuts a natural reservation, which is limited to an NRP A or a conservation designation. And I'm wondering why that wouldn't include a conservation area that is maybe not designated conservation, maybe not designated NRP A but was a recorded conservation easement set forth in perpetuity. You would think you would want to put a buffer next to those, and that might be excluded. I don't really support the amendment, but I'm throwing out some, what I think hasn't been worked through fully and I think it needs a little bit more work if it was to go forward. And I thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. MS. FABACHER: Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, after this speaker we'll take a 15-minute break. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. Rich Y ovanovich, for the record. I will tell you that I wish we could come up with a -- first, this is a process comment, and then I'll get into the details of this. But we got handed a book today that you may have had longer than we have had. But the last version of the amendments I saw were Page 39 July 19, 2006 the amendments that went to the EAC originally, which would have been five or six weeks ago. So my comments are really working from that draft of the documents. And Bill has been -- I think Bill has actually shown a good example of how the process ought to work. He has continually kept us informed whenever he's made a change to the document, so we're in the loop continuously when this document changes. And I would like to see if we can come up with a cut-off date where there's no more changes to the document so we're all reviewing the same document and we can make comments based on there just being one document and not multiple documents so I don't confuse you with some of my comments because I'm reviewing an older draft. So that's a preliminary comment. I think that there's -- I don't know why we're going through this process and making such a big deal out of probably a handful of projects that have gone through the system that, perhaps, staff doesn't care for. The standard of largest contiguous area has been in the comprehensive plan for a while. In fact, staff has confirmed to me that the existing requirements, the 20- foot requirement, was added to the LDC after the largest contiguous area requirement existed. So the existing regulations implement the largest contiguous area. It seems to me we're coming up with a new concept now, is the shape factor. And I don't think the comprehensive plan talks about a shape factor. It talks about the largest contiguous area, but now we're introducing a new concept of shape factor, and I don't see where that's found in any of the EAR-based amendments that we're talking about or the comprehensive plan. Staff has admitted that we're talking about maybe 15 percent of the projects that they review yet we're going to change our whole scheme of regulation to address 15 percent of the projects when we have a system when staff and the applicant don't agree, we go to the Page 40 July 19, 2006 EAC and they make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. We go to the Planning Commission and you all make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners is going to say, yes, this preserve complies with the comprehensive plan or no, it doesn't. So there's already a process in place to resolve these issues. I don't know that we need to totally change the regulations. I don't believe that this new calculation adds any more certainty to the process. I know what a 25 -- what a 20-foot wide preserve is. I mean, I know what that standard is. It's very easy. Sometimes staff doesn't agree with us that they like what it results in, but it's rare that you will actually see a project that only has a preserve that's 20-foot wide around the entire perimeter of the proj ect. More than likely you're going to see a project that has some wetlands on it or it has some areas that are being used by listed species. So those are going to be factored into how you ultimately do your development. You're -- I think we're -- in law school they kind of taught us, bad facts make bad law, and I think they're giving you some bad facts and we're getting some bad law as a result of those bad facts. So I think we should leave it the way we have it. It has been working. There is a process to break an impasse between staff and an applicant, and we should continue to live with that process. I don't know that this shape factor does anything from an environmental perspective. I mean, we already have some pretty, I think, progressive regulations in our comprehensive plan. I doubt that these other counties that staffs talking about with this minimum 100- foot requirement has a stewardship area like Collier County has or has rural fringe mixed -- you know, the rural fringe area regulations like Collier County has. We have gone above many, many communities in dealing with Page 41 July 19, 2006 environmental issues. And now we're talking about not only -- these regulations not only apply to the urban area, but they're now being applied to the rural area, and why? Didn't we go through that process for three years and come up with appropriate regulations? The urban area, you know, it's an area where you're supposed to be developing. What they're trying to do is call a green space requirement a preserve, and that's not really what it always is. Sometimes the 25 percent native preservation requirement is really just a green space requirement because it's not serving a listed species function or a wetland function. So we submit that you should leave it like it is. There are some EAR-based amendments that are going through that are talking about exceptions to various regulations. Maybe we could come back with something later when we're dealing with those EAR-based amendments, but right now we think the shape factor is not necessary. Mr. Chairman, I don't know when it would be appropriate, but I have a feeling that we're not going to get through all of the LDC amendments tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can assure you we will not be doing that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I might not be able to be here tomorrow afternoon, so I have prepared a letter that would address not only some -- we may not get through all the environmental issues tonight -- that would address not only that but also others. Is it appropriate for me to hand it out and have you all review it and consider it at you second hearing? Should I do that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I'll leave it with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished with your-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the shape factor, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Richard, I want you to know that I think we all heard you say many times that the current Page 42 July 19, 2006 system is not broken, and we will remember that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I said there's a process to resolve disputes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that we'll break until 6:45. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone will resume their seats. At this point I should at least let everybody know that, practically speaking, we aren't going to get through the environmental issues alone tonight without anything else. So if you're here for anything other than the environmental, we will not get to it tonight. We will continue with the environmental. We'll probably stay with the environmental today and continue with it tomorrow after the smart growth issues are discussed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We need a time certain to start that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. When we finish, we will provide a time certain. I would expect that it will be about one o'clock in the afternoon, but that won't be confirmed until we close today's meeting, or at least end today's portion of the meeting. So with that, we have two more speakers, Catherine, on this first issue? MS. FABACHER: Yes, we do. We have Mike Myers. MR. MYERS: Good evening. For the record, my name is Mike Myers. I'm a senior ecologist with Passarella & Associates. I'm here to not support the shape factor ratio for many of the reasons that have already been articulated by previous speakers, especially Commissioner Strain. I think it will remove some of the flexibility from the process, and I do have a concern that it's currently not tied to a project size or location, many projects located in more urban areas, green space. The Page 43 July 19, 2006 edge effect, I think, has probably already occurred in many of those type situations with existing surrounding development. The county's concept plan that they drafted mentioned edge effects being felt for two to 600 meters, which equates to an area ranging anywhere from 35 to 300 acres. So I think size -- preserves may not receive justifiable benefit from the proposed preserve design changes being proposed by the SFR. The other thing I'd like to mention is, edge effect is a secondary impact. That's something that hasn't been brought up here. That's already often mitigated through lower RAP (phonetic) scores and UMAM scores and existing wetland preserves that often occur on site, and through the purchase of off-site mitigation credits which, by design, are intended to minimize secondary impacts like edge effects elsewhere in larger preserve areas. And then finally, I've designed a number of preserve areas and have done follow-up maintenance and monitoring on many of these. And what I see is the primary edge effect quite often is exotic invasion, as has been mentioned here from neighboring properties, as well as trash. And there are already conditions, requirements, in the Collier County's Land Development Code that prohibit these kind of activities. So I do agree with Commissioner Strain that I do see it as somewhat of an enforcement issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Catherine, our next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, our last speaker will be Wayne Arnold on the environmental issue. MR. ARNOLD: Hi. I'm Wayne Arnold, and I wanted to address the preserve shape factor. And for the reasons that have already been expressed, I don't support it, and I would hope that we could recognize that we are moving forward with EAR-based amendments that are going to significantly change how we view preserve areas on our sites. Page 44 July 19, 2006 And even making provisions for off-site mitigation on those very parcels, that I'm assuming are LDC criteria, will establish for those that aren't adjacent to flowways and waterways and natural features and habitat so that we can maybe more appropriately locate something that -- I think Mr. Y ovanovich said it -- we're really dealing with the green space and aesthetics issues, which I think is very important to our urban area. But I think to take a factor of going from a minimum 20- foot preserve that may actually be the appropriate standard for a very urban site, to take it to 50 feet, that's a very exponential change in that requirement. If you take a 330-foot wide site from our urban area and now you're required to preserve potentially a width that's 20 percent of it and now you're going to a 60 percent -- you know, a factor that's huge. It really ends up being, you know, the 6 percent to maybe 15 percent of your width. But when you take that times the land value in the urban area, if there's not a correspondence benefit to larger environmental issue, I don't know that that's worth it. I think you'd be better off to look for those forms of mitigation elsewhere so you can get more bang for your buck. And I think that it's one of the standards that, whatever we address in the future, needs to be dictated by either the acreage of the preserve or the acreage of the project to help establish those thresholds. Your code currently does it. You have preserve standards that are based on the size of your project, and it increases as your project size increases. And I guess I disagree with staff a little bit in the sense that I think the impact is much more so on a smaller proj ect, especially in the urban area, than the larger master plan communities that we've seen where you have a lot more flexibility in siting a golf course or your preserve areas or dealing with the multitude of issues that you Page 45 July 19,2006 have regarding open space and native preservation and habitat for our animals. But again, I just want to say, we don't support it for many of those reasons. I'd like to see how the EAR-based amendments filter out and how the LDC amendments can implement those changes, and maybe some of these things can be integrated into those at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Wayne. Any other public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, one thing that has come out of several discussions from the public is the EAR-based amendments. Can you kind of highlight us on where that interacts with this so we understand a little bit better what they're saying? MR. LORENZ: Yes, I'd like to cover that, in addition go back a little bit when we talked before about the minimum size. And I think, Commissioner Vigliotti, you mentioned that -- concerning a minimum size as well. The EAR-based amendments, you may recall, that we're -- had transmitted and will be back to the board for adoption, I think sometime in the fall is the schedule -- looked at trying to create some additional flexibility in the urban area with regard to preserves, preserving the -- providing the preservation requirements on site. One of the -- one of the ideas or the amendments that has gone forward is to try to establish some, let's say, minimum size thresholds of either -- either of the preserve itself or looking at project size such that the preserve requirements could be met off site. And some of the ideas of -- in terms of an alternative, may be payment in lieu of, of the area to the Conservation Collier fund, for instance, or a donation of land that may abut some other additional conservation lands. The idea that in the urban is to provide some flexibility because right now we do not have any -- there is -- the Growth Management Page 46 July 19, 2006 Plan is quite clear, you have to preserve whatever the minimum requirement is on site. And we recognize that some of the very smaller preserves that are being calculated definitely are not functioning from an ecological standpoint. So we do have that going forward in the EAR-based amendments. Additionally some of -- some of the preserve requirements, at least as an off-site, may be offset or -- by the amount of affordable housing units, and that was another component of those amendments. And I know that that has been brought up a couple of times in discussion just in the shape factor ratio. We initially -- when we were working with shape factor ratio and the amendments, we were initially developing the amendments with some minimum size requirements already in those amendments. It was then decided that we wanted to have a little bit more flexibility, not build those size thresholds into the amendments, and come up with a Land Development Code -- or land development regulations that would address those size requirements. And I must admit that that concept should be married with the shape factor ratio. So some of the -- some of the comments made both by the public input and the commissioners here tonight was looking at possibly utilizing the shape factor ratio in a manner, either that it would not apply to some smaller size either projects or preserve requirements and/or maybe not even be limited to the urban area, but maybe be more appropriate in, let's say, the rural fringe area, something where we're outside of the present urban limits. And those are all ideas that have come forward in the past, let's say, four to six weeks that, I think, staff is definitely entertaining. Part of what I would want to be able to do is, with tonight's input, sit down with the administrator, Joe Schmitt, and determine as to what -- where we may want to take this. And it may well be that as a result of the EAR-based amendments, that we need to develop the Land Development Code amendments for, that we may want to marry this Page 47 July 19, 2006 idea to those and maybe have more of a comprehensive package that would come back to you in some way, shape or form in the next Land Development Code cycle after we have adopted these EAR-based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, you know, for you to consider that is a very good idea, because right now -- and I'm speaking for myself because I don't know how all of you have weighed in on this, but there are too many unknowns about this. I don't believe that we've improved a system that is badly broken. I don't like the fact that nobody else has experimented with this. I hate to see us breaking ground on something when we don't know if we really need it because we don't know how broken we are, and I think the testimony has been, it may not be that badly broken. The application. Where this applies and the exceptions. The lack of clarity there is concerning. The fact that it's not plain and simple language, thus making it not user-friendly is very troublesome. The reliance of these preserves in the urban area for compatibility determinations is a big factor for this Planning Commission because those work as natural buffers to other proj ects, and that is a big wish with the public, both in perception and how that proj ect is built out. The loss of the flexibility on a site plan in the urban area where we should be doing just the opposite, providing more as incentives, I think all those are important issues for me. And I -- for those reasons, I'm not favoring this particular Land Development Code amendment, the way it's written now. If you're going to suggest that maybe you need to regroup and talk to the other members of staff and maybe pull it and come back with a better plan when the EAR-based amendments get finalized, I would highly think that's a good idea, but I'd sure like to hear what the rest of the Planning Commission has to say about it because we're supposed to give a collective direction and it might be useful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a good idea. But, Page 48 July 19, 2006 Bill, if you do withdraw, one thing I would want you to do is try to voluntarily get the applications to start calculating this formula so we can kind of see what that formula looks like from real-world situations, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to weigh in on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just very simply. I would completely concur. I think the effort is a good try, but I believe that it is more complicated. It's hard to get the arms around the beast, I know, but it's -- it's not necessarily the right way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also agree with that comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Bill-- Mr. Vigliotti, did you -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. Bill, I explained my concerns before about the lack of flexibility. And my concern here, the cure just might be worse than the illness. And it's a lot of work you put into it, I realize that. But I just think, as Mark had said, I don't want to be the first one to try this complicated process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, we'll let you take it from here, and I'm sure you'll get back to us before we go further on this one, and the next time it might come up or not come up. With that -- MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I think the next one we should do is on page 93, that seems to be very controversial, the treated stormwater and preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, I bet this is one of yours agaIn. MR. LORENZ: Yes, it is. Going back to the EAR-based amendments. You'll recall that in the amendments that we added to Page 49 July 19,2006 the uses of a preserve of allowing for stormwater within preserves. The growth management -- current Growth Management Plan simply states that preserves are -- I mean, excuse me, passive recreational uses are allowed in preserves, and it provides some standards. Those standards are pretty much mirrored in the Land Development Code presently. There was, over time, a -- I'll say a disagreement with staff. Staff was applying that requirement to preserves as an exclusionary requirement for stormwater and preserves. We were taking the Growth Management Plan that simply said, recreational uses are allowed as being restricted to just recreational uses, and staff was not allowing for stormwater to go in the preserves. That was -- that was kind of challenged through a variety of reviews. The direction that staff has was to try to evaluate the ability of having stormwater to go in the preserves. We wanted to make it more clear in the Growth Management Plan, and that's why we proposed the amendment to the current plan that stormwater would be allowed in preserves subj ect to basically ensuring that the preserves would have no adverse impact. And that's -- that was the amendment that we have just transmitted through the Growth Management Plan. So as we were working that amendment through, I also established a stakeholders' group with the consultant, the development community, to determine how we could draft a set of regulations to be consistent with the idea that the stormwater would not provide for adverse impacts to the preserve. So there is some -- there is -- of course there's opportunity to utilize the preserves to help with the stormwater management problem within the county, and so there's some opportunity there, and these amendments are trying to maximize that opportunity but, at the same time, provide up-front criteria to ensure that the preserves themselves are not going to be adversely impacted as a result of the stormwater going into the preserves. Page 50 July 19,2006 So that's the basis for the amendment that, I believe, starts on page -- substantively starts on page 94. We tried to establish the criteria where I refer to as presumptive criteria to allow for the stormwater to go into the preserves such that we can then say, there will be no adverse impacts to the preserves. And we looked at trying to establish the criteria in a couple of different general areas. And number one was recognizing that when you're looking at native vegetative communities within Florida, South Florida, of course, we range from, let's say, wetlands all the way up to uplands, and that the water regime that those natural communities are used to helps to -- helps us to try to establish some criteria to evaluate whether stormwater is going to have some adverse impact on those systems. And so we work through a framework by which we broke out the preserves in terms of what types of -- and I'll just use the term FLUCCS code because that's an awful acronym that you see there, F-L-U-C-F-C-S, and that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're going to have a long discussion on acronyms, I can tell you, so -- MR. LORENZ: That's -- I guess that's -- Catherine, that's in the definitions, right, in the section? So we're trying to be consistent with what have been in the definitions. But that's the old FLUCCS, the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System, that when a -- maps out the vegetative communities. So we were able to look at -- we tried to break out the vegetative community into three general classifications. One is, let's say, call it true uplands. Your Sand Pine or Zerico (sic) as examples. And those -- those communities exist -- and are not very used -- or not used at all to inundation from any type of flooding. They're high and dry and they're not going to flood very frequently at all. When they do go under water, we've got an awful lot of rainfall. Page 51 July 19, 2006 So the idea here is if you have those communities within a preserve area, we want to make -- really make sure that they're not going to be subject to increased inundation as a result of stormwater going into the preserve. On the other end of the spectrum you have, let's say, true wetlands. And in fact, in Collier County, some of our wetlands we know that have been altered hydrologically and, quite frankly, will benefit from receiving some additional water through the stormwater management process. And so we've identified that when we have wetland systems that exist that are jurisdictional wetlands, that the stormwater is going to be allowed in those systems subject to the permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management District if they are a very high-quality wetlands, and I can go into a little bit of detail there. So we are allowing these -- this code does allow for stormwater to go into the wetlands if wetlands are part of the county's required preserve. There's a set of habitats or vegetative communities that are, let's say, somewhat in the middle. The Palmetto Prairie and Pine Flatwoods on page 94a whereby, unlike wetlands, they can go under water. They are typically in a natural system. Maybe, let's say, two to six inches depth for maybe 30 -- 30 days in the wettest part of the year. So there's a recognition that those areas will receive -- can go under water, can be inundated and -- but, again, we want to make sure that they're not used to receiving -- being under water for five months out of the year. So we broke -- we broke the vegetative communities down into those classifications for purposes of the criteria. I'm not sure how this is going to show up, but let's just say -- let's just say we have a preserve area that's made up of the three classifications that we have. And if you think about the stormwater that's going to go into that preserve area, obviously the uplands are Page 52 July 19, 2006 going to be of higher elevation than the wetlands, and the Pine Flatwoods are somewhere in between in terms of elevation. Stormwater goes into that preserve area boundary and the water level, of course, rises depending upon how much storm runoff that you get for a particular event storm. And, of course, from an engineering stormwater management perspective, all of those volumes and elevations can be calculated. And what controls those elevations is the -- is the control elevation that the stormwater system has been established by, and that's a function or a permitting requirement of the South Florida Water Management District. But that control elevation is important for us because that control elevation has been set to mimic the natural, let's say, the seasonal high groundwater table within that project site, roughly speaking. And so if that control elevation is functioning the way it should be functioning, it's going to replicate what the natural community will have seen in the past with regard to groundwater levels, you know, in the wet season. Because where we're concerned is during the wet season we don't want to have some of our upland systems to go under water when under natural conditions they would not have gone under water. So we've utilized the control elevation as a point of departure to establish our criteria for the purposes of the vegetative communities. And this is just a schematic. If you think about that preserve area, what you'd see in profile view, here's your control elevation here. Again, that's kind of establishing the normal high groundwater table. And if you have a true wetland system, of course, it's going to be inundated for a fair amount of that wet season. And then what we've done is we've said, let's come over here to our upland communities. And we've found, when we're looking at the soils data, that those types of upland communities that we've listed in the code typically are found -- their elevation about one point -- one Page 53 July 19, 2006 and a half to three and a half feet above seasonal high groundwater table elevations. So what we established as a criteria in the Land Development Code that if, for instance, we use -- we selected three feet, although we can look at -- assess the data a little bit more, but we've initially established three feet as a default value such that -- if within your preserve boundary that these upland systems are three feet higher than your control elevation, that's our presumptive criteria to say we would not expect any adverse impact of stormwater going into the preserve and adversely affecting those inland communities. So that was -- that's the three-foot value that you see on page 94a to say that those -- if you come in with a set of plans to us and you have those communities and you can show that those -- the ground elevation of those vegetative communities is three foot or higher -- three foot or higher than the control elevation, then we're saying, that's fine. We would not expect an adverse impact as a result of stormwater adversely affecting those communities. Similarly, we did the same thing with, when we looked at the pine -- the Pine Flatwoods in the Palmetto Prairie, and the default value there is one foot above the control elevation. The data that we've been able to inspect would be that if those communities -- ground elevations are about one foot above control elevation, we would not, again, expect an adverse impact from those communities as a result of stormwater coming into the system. We -- working this kind of through with the development community and the consultants, we also recognize that our data and information, you know, is not perfect, and we wanted to be able to establish some ability to look at those values from an exceptions standpoint. And, for instance, with the palmetto prairie and the Pine Flatwoods, that, again, on page 94a, that we would -- we would accept a deviation from that one-foot level. For instance, if the elevations are Page 54 July 19, 2006 a half a foot above control elevation but the consultant is able to show us through what's termed hydro biological indicators like in lines or a soil -- or hydric soils or other kinds of information that that particular vegetative community, even though it was only a half a foot above control, those water -- those indicator levels are higher than -- than a half a foot, then we can then say, yes, that system is going to be able to tolerate stormwater appropriately and we'll look at that. So that allows us to have some type of exceptional process to review something if it doesn't come in as one foot above the control elevation. Similarly we've looked at the same thing with the upland systems, and we did it a little bit differently for this. Those systems, again, inundation is not normal for those systems. They're not going to have biological indicators to show that water levels have gotten up to a particular level in the systems. So what we've -- what we've attempted to do is to say, if you are -- if you're less than the three-foot threshold, what we would like to see you do is a modeling exercise, a stormwater model, so that you can show that if a 10- year storm event coming into the preserve area -- a 10-year storm event is roughly about eight and a half inches, a three-day -- three-day, 10-year storm event, eight and a half inches of rainfall. If you can show that that storm event is going to drop below your ground elevations within 24 hours, then we're saying that that's going to protect that system. Now, a 25-year storm event is 10 and a half inches. So when you starting to look at which storm event to pick, we're trying to pick somewhere in the middle between -- a 25-year event is, all bets are off anyway, because at that point all the flow is overtop of the berms of the system anyway. But a 10-year event will happen maybe once every 10 years. That seems to be a reasonable frequency to require a modeling exercise on. Is there a lot of data and information that you can go to Page 55 July 19, 2006 the literature and say, yeah, 10-year event, this is where these systems are sensitive to? No, there isn't. A little bit of a discussion and some give and take with the development community through some of our stakeholder groups that we focused in on that particular return event as an exceptional value. But we wanted to recognize that in all cases, the three-foot -- three- foot elevation may be too rigorous, and we definitely think that if you -- if an applicant can demonstrate that the groundwater levels will go below those upland communities within 24 hours, we think that our best -- the best consensus is is that that would protect those systems. We have had some technical assistance from some other staff from that -- from the state agencies, and I'll mention specifically Jim Beaver. Barbara Burgeson was corresponding with him. There was concern that any input of -- into some of these wetland systems where there are listed species present could, over a period of time, have some problems with listed species concerns. But with -- so I have to admit, we're working -- walking a little bit of a balance here in trying to allow these systems to be in a preserve area to receive some stormwater, at the same time, provide some criteria to minimize any adverse impacts. But that's the framework that we work through with our stakeholders group to try to establish, let's say, how the hydrologic regime could be utilized to establish these presumptive criteria. That's part of the -- part of the code that exists in terms of looking at the quantity -- let's say the quantity of water going into the system. There was another consideration, and that is the quality of the stormwater to go into the preserve area. And is it 94 -- 94c? I'm trying to look at -- seems like I've got a duplication of a page or so. If you just go to -- let's say if we can go to -- yeah, let's work off of 94c and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: D or C and -- Page 56 July 19, 2006 MR. LORENZ: And we look at -- the concerns of d, e, and f, and I'll kind of walk you through some of those -- well, let's say starting with f. A couple of points where we tried to establish in these amendments. One was that the storm -- these areas as preserve areas are not to be utilized as treatment -- the treatment requirements of the South Florida Water Management District for water quality. If they become the actual treatment system, then, of course, they are going to pick up nutrients. They will have some adverse impacts. We'll see shifts in vegetative communities, et cetera. So a little bit of the way you kind of think about this is that they're not to be utilized as the -- as the stormwater volumetric requirements that the district requires for treating stormwater. But as stormwater gets through the treatment system within the stormwater system, that these areas can then be utilized for volumetric storage for flooding concerns. And so that's kind of the general idea. Now, that's why we provided some criteria in here on, let's say, 94d where, prior to discharge to the preserve areas, that we have some minimal treatment standards. In other words, you just can't have stormwater to go into the area without -- with zero treatment, so you have some best management practices, such as in paren B. And then paren C talks about some protective devices so that if the stormwater enters your preserve area, we're not going to get scour or create any type of erosion through the preserve area system -- preserve area. So those were the requirements that we established there for some -- what I'm calling our minimal work quality treatment requirements. Now, for -- otherwise we rely upon water management district with regard to its water quality permitting. Where we -- where we have established under paren two on page 94d, we -- as we understand and through our discussions with district personnel, we understand that if your preserve area has wetlands of high quality wetlands, that Page 57 July 19,2006 the water management district will not allow any discharge into high quality wetlands unless it goes through what we're dubbing or I'll call the full water quality volumetric stormwater -- volumetric water quality treatment requirements of the water management district. Now, when we talked with the district and we looked at, how do you make a determination of whether a wetland is high quality or not, you can utilize a UMAM score, which is a UMAM, unified -- unified -- I forgot the acronym, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uniform-- MR. LORENZ: Uniform-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wetland mitigation methodology, that's it. MR. LORENZ: Area. Yeah, I can't think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assessment, yeah. MR. LORENZ: I'm blowing it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Something or other. MR. LORENZ: But I know we've identified it before. But paren 2 where you see that. 7, that's a -- that is a statewide process of evaluating the wetland system. So what we're saying is, is that if you have high quality wetlands, you're going to have to provide that full water quality treatment that we understand the district would require also, but we have it specified in our standard in the code, otherwise -- otherwise, again, we'll simply accept the water management district's water quality requirements for a particular system. So that deals with -- gives you a little bit of an overview of how we're dealing with water quality treatment. There was another -- another question that came out. It was a fairly lengthy discussion with regard to the EAC, and that was a concept of monitoring. We did beef up the monitoring program for preserves that will be receiving stormwater on page 94e. That's item I -- HI. Page 58 July 19, 2006 And so we have established a monitoring program that we think is somewhat consistent with what typically the district would require for wetland -- in wetlands within their -- within their stormwater systems, within their wetlands. So we think that we're not -- we're not increasing a level of effort in our monitoring program, but it would be set up and geared towards providing ground surface water levels and vegetation surveys so that if we begin seeing some type of shift in the preserve vegetation, that that information would help demonstrate it. It would also help to provide information to ensure that if there needs to be replanting of a different type of vegetation that is now going to be more acclimated to the new hydro period of the system, that that will provide us information to then require that part of the preserve management plan. And again, that was a -- that was a point of EAC discussion that we provided. I talked about water quality concerns. I believe that the EAC, however, is recommending that -- Barbara, help me here -- that any stormwater into any preserve needs to require the full treatment; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: At their meeting two weeks ago today, they recommended approval of the amendment with the following suggested changes, and that was to require that the stormwater be fully treated per South Florida Water Management District's wetland criteria. They requested or required in that motion that staff evaluate a future need for stormwater quality monitoring and reporting and a stipulation of approval that if the vegetation monitoring, which is identified in that last monitoring paragraph, identifies a problem, that they would -- that would require additional water quality testing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LORENZ: That provides essentially an overview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you've indicated you had a question? Page 59 July 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a noble purpose. I think it is. I hope it is. I believe I understand it as well in terms of your intent to come from the uplands to the wetlands, and maybe that will help out. These are preserves that are strictly under the jurisdiction of South Water (sic) Management District? MR. LORENZ: No, they're not. When the county -- the county has the preserve requirements that are dictated through the Growth Management Plan of -- again, I'll talk about it, that 25 percent of the native vegetation. Typically that would be the one that you typically see of native vegetation that's on site. And again, we'll follow the same guidelines or priority setting of the Growth Management Plan, and that will translate into a county required preserve. That preserve mayor may not be part of a South Florida Water Management District's preserve requirements. I mean, typically if it's a wetland that is established -- typically if it's a high quality wetland that the district is requiring to be preserved on site, it could -- it could match up, but it doesn't necessarily have to, because if it's an upland system, then it would be the county's preserve requirements. The water management district may have -- certainly is requiring stormwater management, but would not -- but our preserve may not at all match their preserve requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And these are case-by case basis, right? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me understand in my visual approach to this thing, there's a lot of piping involved. And I'm going now from where there's this outlet into a preserve, and whatever that outlet is is to prevent scour, which I was concerned about, so now we're running pipes into the preserve, and the pipe system has to cross God knows how much property to get to a water treatment facility, right, some kind of water treatment method that's used? Page 60 July 19, 2006 Because you've indicated that they've become effectively excess reservoirs for the moment in time. They will -- the water will be given to that area or areas after it has received treatment. What constitutes treatment then? MR. LORENZ: If you're -- if, for instance, the preserve is high quality wetland that we've defined, that's going to require that full water quality treatment, the full detention requirement of, is it, half an inch of -- half inch of the runoff has to be -- has to be retained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The water -- if you're going to utilize that high quality wetland in your preserve for stormwater, now that water will definitely have to pass through that particular detention requirement before it passes into that high quality wetland preserve. On the other hand, if it's not a high quality wetland preserve, what we're saying is that the discharge to a preserve would have to meet the requirements on 94d, page 94d. That's in paren 1 -- that would be 1 B at the top where there's some -- a minimal treatment requirement. And when I'm going to say minimal, what I'm talking about is that would basically be removal of floatables and solids. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: Now, that doesn't remove nutrients. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. But we do that by what, a weir, skimmers? How do we do it? MR. LORENZ: Well, the nutrients typically is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I'm talking about the oils, the sediments, the other material. MR. LORENZ: Okay, yes, yes. Other devices that -- I mean, there are a number of proprietary devices that can be used. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think it seems -- on the face of it, it seems to be a useful, beneficial thing. I'm not sure -- I thought originally the concept of preserves were, we were to leave them alone. But we will more and more be faced by what to do with Page 61 July 19, 2006 all the impervious surface, by what to do with the excess water, and maybe this is a good thing. I don't -- I'm not smart enough to know, but I think it's an interesting approach. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think that's a little bit of the heart of the issue from an environmental standpoint, as I said. And when I prefaced my remarks is that our, I want to say staff, understanding was that the preserve areas were not to be utilized for stormwater. But that -- we're not completely clear in the Growth Management Plan in the existing plan, although we are proposing the stormwater be utilized in preserves with the EAR-based amendments. But in -- and we talked early about the urban area, and the urban area with regard to infill and flexibility, and this does provide some additional flexibility for utilizing the site as -- to the maximum extent, but then finding the balance to ensure that the preserves are not going to be adversely impacted. And as I said, some of my initial concept of thinking is that, again, the preserves are not going to be utilized for the stormwater treatment, but they can be -- they can now be utilized to help provide additional storage volume for flood control. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, how badly is the system broken now? MR. LORENZ: Well, the system is broken in the sense that we don't have any criteria to evaluate the plans as they come in to ensure there's no adverse impact to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got any proven adverse impact? MR. LORENZ: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you got any records of proven adverse impact to water management area -- wetlands at this point from this inundation? MR. LORENZ: We don't have any data to show us that we've Page 62 July 19, 2006 got some type of shift. MS. BURGESON: But also, for the record, staff has not actively or knowingly permitted any stormwater to go into any preserves other than those that were jurisdictional wetlands as determined by the agencIes. Any other stormwater that's gone into those systems -- and historically, if you go back a few years, the stormwater areas were separated from the preserves in most cases by accommodating with a dry detention area or a wet detention area, or sometimes as they refer to them as retention areas, and they were separate from the preserve areas. There have been some examples more recently, probably as a result of the cost of land, and the requirements may be, that might be a little bit more onerous by South Florida Water Management District's permitting process, requests for the applicants to allow stormwater in the preserves. And as a result of the GMP's not specifically permitting it, and our legal advice to that effect being that if you want to permit any, you really need to address that and specifically identify that as a permissible use in the preserves, which is why the GMP language is going forward that way. And we're looking to identify when it's appropriate and when staff would want that stormwater to go into preserves. But environmental staff has not approved any stormwater in any preserves. Now, it may be that the engineering reviews and the stormwater reviews have permitted that, but that's not something environmental staff has been involved in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I was just going to say, the only reason for this is because we've sent an EAR-based amendment forward, and so you're going to need criteria in order to implement the Growth Management Plan -- Page 63 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which I think was a bad move on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disagreeing with you. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- our part to begin with. But now there's no choice but to set up some criteria, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't that far, but I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just trying to get to a point as to understanding how this came about. And my first question was, how are we broken? And I got a long dissertation, but I haven't had an example yet. Mr. Vigliotti, do you have a comment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. Are you saying that applicants have submitted site plans trying to do this particular process and it's been denied? MR. LORENZ: We have been working with the applicants in trying to have them provide us data to show that there's no adverse impacts. And typically what that has been in the past was trying to go through some modeling exercises that we were trying to compare some -- and I'm going to use the term return event efforts and compare it with some average water depths of inundation, and that's just not working -- working well. And so the point of these standards is to provide up-front standards so that we can actually evaluate a project with -- MS. BURGESON: And as staff reviews the projects, the initial response is always to reject any request or to ask them not to put the stormwater in anything that's in upland. And then when they respond back to that, if there's any -- if the applicant wants to pursue that, then we work on them on a very specific case-by-base basis. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, if I could -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have any comments? MR. SCHMITT: -- jump in. You had asked, are there any Page 64 July 19, 2006 examples? The most recent and probably the only one that comes to mind that was the most controversial was Kraft Construction proj ect, to put a name to a project. It came in, staff denied it. There were some -- wanted mutual use of the property because of the limited site of the limited -- I guess the limitations on the site and the size of the buildings and whatever. Anyways, that went to the board, the board ruled for staff to approve it. We had no guidance really to approve that, so this was a response to provide some methodology and some criteria for staff to review those kind of requests and for a recommendation of approval or denial. But we didn't have anything in regards to that case, and that caused some concern, both with the board and with staff. I said to Bill, let's solve this. I need for you to develop some criteria. Marjorie Student was also involved in the meeting in regards to trying to figure out if we could develop some tools for the industry to, for all intent and purposes, for short periods of time, use the preserves for temporary storage of stormwater whereas before -- and as Barbara pointed out -- we have no criteria to allow it, and basically we deny it. There are other examples where, again, petitioners have come in and asked for mutual use for short periods of time, 72 hours or less. That's really where we are. Now, this is kind of a -- it is a long amendment, but the amendment was designed to give some specific criteria so that the industry would have something that they could use to develop if they wanted to have joint use. I hope -- that's a long answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. In fact, that's the answer I expected that I didn't get out of Bill and Barbara. But thank you for clarifying it, because I thought that was the issue. MR. SCHMITT: It was definitely -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then because of your answer and Page 65 July 19, 2006 because of what I thought they would have answered the same way, I simply had a follow-up question, and that is, will this prevent -- would this have prevented Kraft from doing what they're doing on their site today? MR. SCHMITT: Basically yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why are we going against what the Board of County Commissioners has suggested was okay? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's -- that opens another door in regards to what was done there, and I don't want go down that avenue because CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what my concern is-- MR. SCHMITT: But yeah, Kraft was a creation issue. This was -- this is not a creation issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then this does or does not apply to Kraft, that was my question. MR. SCHMITT: The issue was stormwater preserves. The other issue there was a creation issue as well, and the stormwater creation issue -- well, to answer your question, no, because there are other issues associated with that. They were trying to create hydric preserves in what was deemed upland areas, and that was -- that's the other issue. Isn't that basically what had happened? They were trying to create hydric preserves in what was deemed to be upland areas? This wouldn't solve that problem, but we responded to the board and said we would come back with criteria for stormwater in preserves. So in a nutshell, no, this would not have solved that problem because the problem is more than simply this. It was the type of preserve that was being recreated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I'm rather confused then. If Kraft is the example, that site that you were using -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the board directed staff to come Page 66 July 19, 2006 back with a resolution that would apply -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- now you're saying this doesn't apply to that site and it wouldn't have cured the problem, so why are we even bringing this up? I mean, I'm just trying to get to why this is here. And I thought it was because of that project, and now I'm just finding out it's -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, it answers part of that, but not specifically dealing with that because it dealt with another issue. But the issue was exactly that, to provide the -- as we said we would do, is come back with an amendment for stormwater -- storage of stormwater and preserves. This does provide for that. It doesn't answer all the questions for that, and that was -- that was a site-specific and a design-specific related to that proj ect, but it was also a different strata of preserves that were in question. So that -- this does not address that. I'll turn to Barbara. I'm going to turn to my experts, Barbara and Bill. MR. LORENZ: I'll answer that too. I mean, when I created this -- quite frankly, this amendment, I didn't have Kraft in my mind as trying to -- trying to exclude it or include it in the criteria. I simply worked from the criteria. And this is through the stakeholders' group, the criteria that came out. And as Barbara said, too, Kraft was more complicated in that they were scraping down an upland system and recreating it. So that was completely different. Really, Kraft, from my -- my thinking, Kraft's more -- was driven from a -- how do we develop criteria to recreate preserves as opposed to allowing a -- let's say, a preserve that's not going to be graded down the way Kraft did it. So to me it's different. MR. SCHMITT: But it did bring up the point about the competing demands by the limited use of the land. That's when you Page 67 July 19, 2006 took -- when you take stormwater, you take preserves, you do your parking, you do your building envelope, you do your setbacks, you do your landscaping. A part of that envelope had to give. And we've encountered this in other areas. We told the board we would come back at least with a criteria that would deal with temporary storage of stormwater in preserves so that your preserve would -- the rules now basically say no stormwater in preserves. Nothing in preserve. Here's your preserve. Go deal with your stormwater. This does create some opportunity for some mutual use of that preserve, though for a short period of time it does create that. I think what you're trying to derive, what's the utility of this, and is it something that's going to be useful? I would have to, again, turn to the folks here representing the industry if they believe that this is something that ought to remain or is it something we just remove. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on that analysis, it's got to be more useful than what's there because what's there is zero, so -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- this has got to be better than what's there. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out what it's responding to. That's where my question started. I think you've told me now this doesn't respond to what the board's concerns were. It's another issue. MR. SCHMITT: It does with the stormwater piece but it -- again, we didn't get into that with the board because -- as far as the recreation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- Mr. Strain, we did not get into that. The issue that we addressed with the board and that the board responded to was specifically dealing with the stormwater in preserves. The rest of Page 68 July 19, 2006 the more technical aspect of this we never even discussed with the board, quite frankly, because it just never got to that level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have more questions, but Mr. Murray seems to have a question, so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope it's pertinent; I think it is. If we look on page 93 with the -- the reason says, there are times -- and this is what you've said. There are times when it is appropriate for stormwater to be directed into preserves. And if the biology that you're using or the foundation that you're using is adequate, then all the rest follows. So it -- in my mind it rests on this single statement here. So I -- that's the key. You've made that assertion. I know that it's complete -- is it not a complete change from what has historically been the case? MR. SCHMITT: Let me throw another one; Cirrus Pointe. I think that was another one we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't ask -- I'm not going to try to stop you, Joe, but I don't want another example. I just want to understand whether or not that reason is as clear to me -- you know, it's clear to me, if it hadn't been the case before but you now believe that the biology says that that's right, then it should stand on that merit. And I don't think that it should stand on any given example of what had happened, if it's true and valid for the future. That's what we're talking about, right? MR. LORENZ: Yes. My point was to try to develop, as I said, presumptive criteria to ensure that preserves would not be, quote, adversely impacted, because that's the policy statement that we've adopted from the EAR-based amendments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying there are times it is appropriate for stormwater to go there? MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you've indicated how it should go there and how it should be cleaned, et cetera, et cetera. Page 69 July 19, 2006 Now, I don't -- I don't -- we could get into all the blister packs about why everything else does or doesn't work. But if that's valid-- and I know in the urban area as we build we're going to need -- we're going to have to feel -- deal with the facts that we have limited space, and the current conditions limit the potential for building. So I haven't got any real argument with any of the other statements in there, but I think, you know, from my point of view, it rests on that. I don't know how anybody else feels about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to finish my questions. Mr. Vigliotti, did you have anything to say? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, but Joe had something to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the only other project was Cirrus Pointe, we had a similar situation at Bayshore and Gateway, which is a good example of an infill. And again, that was where all the -- it's an affordable housing project, the maximization of the use of the available land, and a little bit of dual use of the preserves to deal with some of the stormwater. This provides a tool to do that. It is technically complicated, but it does provide a tool to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe. On page 94c, Bill, the top of the page, you talk about the 10-year storm, and then you mention different areas that you can inundate if it has a -- or you can flood if it has a certain elevation. But under C, you have a 5 percent factor in C. I notice you didn't put that in B. Why? MR. LORENZ: It makes -- for B, for the uplands, it's -- that makes it more restrictive in the uplands because the uplands are more sensitive to stormwater. So if there's any amount of uplands that fluxes out, these -- even the smallest amount, then we would require that analysis to occur. For C, I mean -- yes, for C, where we talk about 5 percent, it's kind of -- using that 5 percent a little bit as a de minimis value, Page 70 July 19,2006 recognizing that you could flux out some of these areas. But since they are, by nature, a little bit more tolerant of additional inundation, we felt that that was valid as opposed to having it completely zero like the upland system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your control elevations, generally you're about two and a half to three foot, your control is above the water table, at least that's what I'm used to seeing, and then you're asking for another three foot above that for -- you're saying that you basically can't discharge into it if you're not another three foot above that. So you've got six feet above the water table. Is that the -- MR. LORENZ: The control elevation usually is trying to match the seasonal high water table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm talking about dry season water table. MR. LORENZ: Well, this -- well, we're concerned at the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: High period. MR. LORENZ: Right, the wet season. So control-- so if the water inundation and control is set at that seasonal high water table -- and that's why we've set everything according to control elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you want to be three foot above -- MR. LORENZ: For instance, and I know having some discussion with some of the industry, for instance, we are proposing at the moment that the uplands be three feet above the control elevation, their ground elevation. That's based upon a survey that staff looked at that, that the soils that typically contain those vegetative communities are typically -- the ground elevation for those communities are typically one and a half to three and a half feet above seasonal high groundwater. So since control elevation is trying to mirror seasonal high groundwater elevation, that's why we utilize that three foot. Now, you could -- we could say, well, the midpoint of that range is like two and Page 71 July 19, 2006 a half feet, or maybe that could be something that we may want to tweak instead of having three feet, maybe have two and a half. But it's geared toward these -- it's geared towards the seasonal high water table because of the data that we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 94d, item 2C, you use the term short-circuiting. Do you have any definition of that provided anywhere so everybody knows what that means? MR. LORENZ: I think that's a -- well, maybe looking at -- I'm sure we've got some engineering folks here. That's typically a term of art from an engineering standpoint of having a -- having a system where you don't have a straight shot. You would be utilizing -- trying to utilize the vast majority of your treatment system. At one particular point, actually I proposed some additional language, and the development community though it was better to use the term short-circuit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Short-circuit. Okay. When you take water out of an area such as this, especially your higher soils, part of the need for the water table is to cleanse the water as it perks through the soil. Actually what you're doing here is forcing more of the water -- and we have currently been doing it -- into canals for quicker runoff into our bays and estuaries and the Gulf. Is that a proper assumption of what could be happening? MR. LORENZ: My -- maybe you can run that by me again because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The less water we retain on site to perk through on site systems, the more water's going to be shunted off into canals and taken away faster rather than perking and purifying through the natural layers that we have on that ground; is that -- MR. LORENZ: That would be true if the Water Management District did not have the -- their water -- their water -- Stormwater Management requirements. You still have to follow their requirements to hold water on site Page 72 July 19, 2006 so that your post-development runoff is not greater than your predevelopment runoff. Now, that's on a rate basis. That's not volume. But that's what -- the district's stormwater requirements are designed to reduce those adverse effects that you just mentions. This particular amendment doesn't change any of that. It just identifies, under what circumstances can you use a county required preserve as part of your stormwater system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know the EAC, and a lot of people, are concerned about the monitoring of the water quality. It would seem that if we stopped putting more into the water that would hurt as quality, we would have less to worry about. Have we ever thought of, as an implementation, as part of this kind of process, mandatory BMPs for everything, for every permit issued in the county? MR. LORENZ: No. I mean, I haven't. I know that the Water Management District now is looking at some potential revision to their regulations to allow for additional treatment through BMPs. But at the county level, we've pretty much stayed away from requiring any additional water quality regulations for stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just suggesting it might be something to look at. I think we might accomplish the goal faster that way. MR. LORENZ: Well, just to add, there is another initiative apparently at the state level where, right now, the actual agency for water quality and standards for waters of the state is Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP. They have delegated a lot of the rule-making down to the various separate water management districts. It appears that they're actually going to be taking that back -- looking at a uniform stormwater rule that all the water management districts will have to follow. So there's another -- there's another set of -- potential 'another set of rule-making in the works for water quality concerns. Page 73 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like to get into -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a question. BMPs, better management practices? Just wanted to qualify that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew what it is. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, under the current standards now if we develop a site, essentially -- and we had wetlands on it, we would isolate those wetlands from our new construction, thus any water that was existing that was flowing into them, we'd interrupt right now? MS. BURGESON: There's a couple different ways that the agency would handle permitting, and staff currently supports stormwater going into wetlands. And one way they can do that is, the South Florida Water Management District requirement is that the water leaving the site has to be at that high quality. You can either treat it prior to it going into the preserve -- and the berm would be on the inside edge of that preserve, and the preserve, if it were on the downside of the -- of the flow would actually be outside of the stormwater system. The other way they can do it, and they do it right now also, is that -- with the berm around the edge of the property. And in the higher quality preserves, they still require that the treatment be full into that preserve but that preserve would and is currently used as part of the stormwater system. So depending on how the agency permit is issued, that wetland is either part of or excluded from their stormwater system and it's part of that permitting process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And-- MS. BURGESON: They work both ways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would this change that? In any way? Page 74 July 19, 2006 MS. BURGESON: This wouldn't change that at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I think we have time for the speakers at least. Would you mind bearing with us, Ms. Court Reporter, just for a little while? THE COURT REPORTER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everybody? I'd like to get to the speakers. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have the same list, so I'll just call out the names. Bob Mulhere, did you want to talk on it? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry? MS. FABACHER: Did you want to speak on this? MR. MULHERE: Oh, you're calling me? Yes, I would, briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask that you try to keep it brief and not be redundant. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Okay. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere. And not being a civil engineer or an ecologist, I really don't have any expertise on the more technical aspects of this. I did want to say, I think this version is -- from what I understand, having spoken to a number of civil engineers, an ecologist on this matter, the concerns that were expressed, I think this version is a lot closer to -- I think has addressed a lot of those concerns by allowing utilization of other types of habitat areas that were previously . prohibited in earlier versions. I do know there are several people who wish to speak on this matter -- I suppose you won't make any final disposition on it tonight -- that were unable to come tonight, so I do think there will be some folks to speak on the matter at a subsequent meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Rich Yovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree with what Bob just said. It's better. I would like someone to explain to me what the differences Page 75 July 19, 2006 between pages 94a, b, c and d are. They seem repetitive. It's the first time I saw them tonight. So I was hoping that someone could explain that to us. And, you know, just on a basic concept of my understanding is the reason uplands are uplands is because they drain well, they perk well. So perhaps it would make some sense to allow water to go in the uplands since we know it will perk. And I do know that Mike's got some comments regarding this as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Bill, 94a is a repeat of94c or VIce versa. MS. F ABACHER: That's a staff error. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So they're the same? MS. F ABACHER: It's staff error. Same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I thought. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. Myers, did you want to speak again on this? MR. MYERS: Sure, thank you. I'll try to make this quick here. Regarding scrub habitat, I just would like to offer that I did take a look at Collier County Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey and kind of reviewed Collier County for the areas that contain scrub habitat and found that they're usually associated with two soil types, and one's Pomelo Fine Sand and the other is Urban Land Satellite Complex. And per the soil survey, it typically indicated that the seasonal high water table could get 18 to 24 inches within the seasonal high water table of the soil surface. Based on that, I would offer that the three feet might be able to be changed to 18 to 24 inches. And then a couple other -- can I ask for clarification on some things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. MYERS: Item E below that where we talk about treated stormwater generated from less than a 25-year three-day event for -- Page 76 July 19,2006 as it relates to Gopher Tortoises and Burrowing Owls. The term preserve area. In our effort to design preserves, largest, most contiguous area, it's not inconceivable that we're going to have uplands that may have tortoises in it in association with wetlands that are all wrapped into one preserve. Does this language mean that if that is the case, that we can't use that wetland area for stormwater? MR. LORENZ: At the very least, it would have to be somehow hydraulically disconnected -- MR. MYERS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: -- with a berm or something along those lines. Now, we -- that was some of the discussion that we had originally, is that's why we wanted to allow for these areas to be within a preserve area that may have a multiple -- the uplands with the wetlands together so we don't have to fragment the preserve area with the berms or not. But when it comes to -- and maybe I'll add this too, is this paragraph also talks about burrowing owls. As we were going through some of the information, we would offer that we can delete burrowing owls from this list, from the basis of the information we have received. But when it comes to gopher tortoises, we're still very concerned that for Gopher Tortoises, we would not be able to have Gopher Tortoises in a situation where all of a sudden we're increasing the amount of water that's going to be staged up in those habitats. And maybe Barbara could talk a little more about the biology of that, but certainly that could be something we would look at for a more technical -- MR. MYERS: Right. MR. LORENZ: -- criteria. MR. MYERS: I certainly understand your concern. I'mjust hoping that it's not reviewed where if the wetland and the uplands are combined into one preserve, because there are tortoises on the site, Page 77 July 19,2006 we're precluded from using the wetland preserve from receiving any kind of water after it's been treated. MS. BURGESON: No, not at all. I mean, you could choose to actually separate those two. The other thing you might consider is that often that upland Gopher Tortoise preserve is not part of your South Florida Water Management District permit on your stormwater area. But if you want that to qualify as the required Gopher Tortoise preserve for Collier County, you can either do that with probably a small berm that would -- that would separate the hydrology or just separate those two, and you'd have the wetland preserve and the upland preserve. MR. MYERS: Okay. MS. BURGESON: But this wouldn't affect that at all. MR. MYERS: I might offer that we provide some more language in this where we can do some modeling or monitoring of some sort, that if we can demonstrate the stormwater management system as designed not to inundate the Gopher Tortoises in the upland but still provide a benefit by providing hydrology to the wetland, that that is a more desirable effect. MS. BURGESON: But that's not actually necessary if they're separated. You don't need to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe this is something that you guys can work on, because you're going to be coming back in here with this agaIn. MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come back to us, and if there's any revision needed, you can provide it. MS. BURGESON: Right. And also in response to the listed species issue, I wanted to add on the record that the technical assistance that we got from Jim Beaver, his recommendation was to expand this list, to expand it to include also Scrub Jays and Indigo Snakes. Page 78 July 19, 2006 So habitats or preserve areas that had Scrub Jays and Indigo Snakes were also very susceptible to pattern changes in vegetative communities as a result of the change in the hydrology. MR. MYERS: Okay. Just moving on. Item number two where it talks about the preserve areas comprised of wetlands having a UMAM score of 7 or greater, .7 or greater. Again, just a technical thing for the commission. The way we evaluate wetlands, if it's one large wetland, for instance, it has a cypress head in the center, could be surrounded by Pine Cypress Wetlands around that, and then further surround by Hydric Pine. We assess all three different habitat types or FLUCCS categories. Each of them have their own UMAM score. So would it be an average of those for that wetland preserve, or how would that be evaluated? MS. BURGESON: We evaluate it the way we'd evaluate all required native vegetation preservation areas, and that would be the specific individual FLUCCS areas. For instance, that cypress area with the higher FLUCCS might qualify for a preserve area, and the other areas adjacent to it that are FLUCCS'ed differently might or might not qualify for our preserve, in which case that would fall out of this criteria anyway so you wouldn't -- you wouldn't have to worry about anything outside of that central preserve if it didn't qualify for Collier County's preserve areas. MR. MYERS: All right. I think I'll talk to you more on that, if I can, at another time. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, that would be good, because I think your question is, if you have, may be looking at some type of weighted average. MR. MYERS: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: Something along that, if we've got multiple wetlands or multiple UMAM scores -- MR. MYERS: Well, if I have one FLUCCS code that's scored at Page 79 July 19, 2006 4 of 7, and the other is scored at 6 and 5 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You guys might want to hear this outside the meeting. MR. MYERS: Okay. Thank you. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a final speaker? MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, I think Wayne Arnold's our last speaker. MR. ARNOLD: All right. Wayne Arnold, and I'll make it very brief. I just wanted to remind you that this isn't that new of a concept. The Golden Gate Master Plan, for many years, has made a provision for you to allow water management in those preservation areas and allows that. I think this goes a long way toward establishing criteria. I think out of all the criteria I've looked at, the only question I had was whether or not, which Mike raised, is the three-foot standard above control elevation, the right number, or should it be a little lower or some allowance for flexibility depending on modeling or something. But I think we're getting there, and I appreciate staffs efforts. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Is there any more questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Bill, I think you've heard enough input. When we come back to discuss this further we can see your reaction to it and we'll go from there. And with that, Catherine, I think we're -- at this point we can suggest a continuation of the meeting? MS. FABACHER: Yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might I suggest till-- starting at one o'clock or later tomorrow depending on when the first item in the day gets over with. Is that in agreement with the Planning Commission? Do we need a motion on that? Page 80 July 19, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made to continue this meeting till one o'clock tomorrow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Just for the record, we will start tomorrow at one o'clock, assuming we've finished the morning session, and we will put it off until that morning session is complete. That's got to be the first thing done tomorrow morning starting at 8:30. When this meeting resumes tomorrow, the first issue will be smart growth. The addition of the preservation area, the environmental issues will not start until at least 3:30 tomorrow because staff cannot be here until 3:30 tomorrow; is that fair to say? You guys -- there's one shaking yes, there's one shaking no. MS. BURGESON: The meeting-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That way they can't be wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three-thirty tomorrow is the earliest we'll start with environmental issues; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Four o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four o'clock, okay. Well-- because weE Page 81 July 19, 2006 have plenty to fill in in the meantime. I just want to make sure that those four people that have been speaking, four o'clock tomorrow is the beginning of when we'll do our environmental, not before that. Okay. With that, we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman Page 82 Commissioner Mark Strain LDC Amendments Page 1 of 3 7/ ILi fOu' Cc Pc / L.//O- ;[.(;0 (yr: 1(' J GOODLETTE COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Kevin G. Coleman J. Dudley Goodlette Kenneth R. Johnson Richard D. Y ovanovich Edmond E. Koester Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiarni Trail North Naples, F134103 (239) 435-3535 (239) 435-1218 Facsimile Linda C. Brinkman Stephen C. Pierce Gregory 1. Urbancic William M. Burke Craig D. Grider Matthew 1. Grabinski Matthew R. Galloway Matthew M. Jackson Alex R. Figares Jeffrey 1. Beihoff Writer's e-mail: rvovanovich@qcilaw.com July 19, 2006 Via Hand Delivery Chairman Mark Strain Collier County Planning Commission Community Development Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Land Development Code Amendments Dear Chairman Strain: Our firm represents several clients that will be impacted by the proposed amendments to the Land Development Code. I intend to present our suggested revisions to the LDC in person this evening. However, there is a substantial likelihood that not all amendments will be heard this evening and the hearing will be continued to tomorrow. I can be present tomorrow morning but not tomorrow afternoon. I am submitting my comments in writing to the Collier County Planning Commission because I may not be able to present them in person. It is my hope that the CCPC will consider these comments and I can discuss them in greater detail at the second public hearing before the CCPC. Our comments are as follows: A. 2.01.03. We need to clarify that roads can be built anywhere in the County. B. 3.0S.07(A) This change is an attempt by staff to eliminate a property owner from using the preserves as part of the project's buffers. We see no reason for this change. In addition, this proposed change has to be studied for the potential fiscal impact on projects. No analysis has been done. I have clients who will lose substantial development area if this change is allowed. Our environmental consultants believe this change has no impact on the functionality of the preserve. Staff claims this revision is needed to address the term "largest continuous area" in Commissioner Mark Strain LDC Amendments Page 2 of 3 the Comprehensive Plan. That term existed at the time the existing regulations were adopted. Accordingly, the existing regulations already address the "largest contiguous area." This change is proposed to address 15% of the projects when staff and the applicant don't agree. The current process provides for staff to make a recommendation to the EAC, CCPC and BCC with the BCC making the ultimate decision works. This process has worked well. Why change the code to address a non-issue? C. 3.0S.07(H) This change has some merit. We agree that uplands should be allowed to be incorporated into a water management system. The changes need to be expanded to allow all uplands to be utilized under established criteria. In our opinion the rule does not go far enough and should be revised to include criteria to utilize Sand Pine, Xeric Oak, Sand Live Oak and Upland Scrub as part of the water management system. D. 3.0S.07(H) Staff is proposing that 100% of the preserves be identified at PUD rezone instead of 75%. To do so will require a property owner to submit for SFWMD and ACOE permits prior to zoning. That is a substantial expense to incur before you know if you have zoning. We propose that the preserves be identified at the time the PUD is approved and that the preserve areas be based upon the EIS submitted by the consultant. Staff should do a site visit to make sure there are no glaring errors in the EIS. If the preserve areas in the consultant's report are not approved by the permitting agencies, the PUO should provide that the preserves shall be adjusted to be consistent with the agency permits. We see no downside to County if this approach is followed. E. 6.02.02 Allowing the County Manager or his designee to refuse to approve a project even though it complies with the concurrency management system because he feels the intent of the concurrency management system has not been met is vague and too broad. The County Manager would have too much discretion. If there are specific concerns, those concerns should be addressed in the LOC. F. 10.02.03 The rationale for this change is there is not sufficient time to complete work authorized by a SOP. Requiring completion of all work authorized by a SOP within 2 years of SOP approval with a 1 year extension is actually a decrease in time. The two year period to commence work needs to stay in the LDC. Many times a developer will not commence the site work until building permits are issued. Also, getting a contractor hired can take time. We recommend that the LOC allow 2 years to start work, 2 years to complete the work and a 1 year extension to complete the work for good cause. G. 10.02.13 This change would require notice to the county for every parcel, lot and unit sale. We assume the real issue is turn over of the common areas to the property owners association. The notice to the county should be limited to turn over. H. 10.02.13 These are changes to the PUO sunsetting provisions. We recommend that the provisions applicable to the 5 year sunsetting be expanded to allow tolling for government action, moratorium and the government's failure to construct needed infrastructure. A PUD should not be sunsetted if the County does not build roads, etc. to serve the project. The new language, which sunsets approved units if the units are not permitted within 2 years of the build out period included in the TIS should be revised to require the obtaining of a plat or SOP not building permit before units are sunsetted because the build out period has been reached. If a plat or SOP is approved Yz of the road impact fees are paid. There is no reason to lose these .. III ____,..~."'''''''''''*_'''_"~__..._..._...,,.__'"____.~_--.,,-~ Commissioner Mark Strain LDC Amendments Page 3 of 3 units if Yz of the road impact fees have been paid. Also, we recommend that the period be expanded from 2 years to 3 years. Permit timelines and market conditions could impact how quickly a developer can proceed. We think 3 years is more realistic. I stand ready to answer any questions you have about the above comments and I appreciate your consideration. Very truly yours, --JlL.. i::I d ~ Richard D. Yovanovich RDY:tlm cc: Commissioner Lindy Adelstein, Vice Chairman Commissioner Robert Murray Commissioner Donna Reed-Caron Commissioner Brad Schiffer Commissioner Russell Tuff Commissioner Robert Vigliotti Commissioner Tor Kolflat Commissioner Paul Midney Oavid Weigel, County Attorney Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Oevelopment & Environmental Services Oivision William Lorenz, Oirector of Environmental Services Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Project Manager Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner S:\DATA\WPDATA\LAND USE\LDC AMENDMENTS\LTR TO CCPC LDC AMEND.DOC