Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/04/2007 R January 4, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 4, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Ko I flat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Corby Schmidt, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 2007 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 T AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MA TERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2006, PC WORKSHOP 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 12,2006, DECEMBER 13,2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS: 1. SUMMARY OF PAST EAR ELEMENT AND SUB-ELEMENT ACTION 2. HOUSING ELEMENT 3. RECREATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (CIE) & FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) 5. EAR GMP A REQUESTED ACTION - RECOMMEND A TION ON COMPLETED ELEMENTS & SUB-ELEMENTS 1 B. Petition: BD-2006-AR-IOI18, Richard S. Downs, represented by Davidson Engineering, requesting a 55-foot boat dock extension, from the 20 feet allowed for a 75 foot total protrusion, authorizing a boat dock facility with boat lift to accommodate a vessel. The subject property is located at 25 Pelican Street West, Lot 74, Isles of Capri No.1, in Section 32, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: David Hedrich) C. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-7271 , Collier County Public Utilities Department, represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Public Use (P) zoning district limited to Essential Service use only. The subject property, consisting of 42.2 acres, is located at 1300 Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) D. Petition:PUDZ-2004-AR-68l0, Livingston Greens, LLC, represented by George L. Varnadoe of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district by submitting a PUD document and Master Plan for Hamilton Greens, which will consist of 88 residential units on 29.68 acres. The subject property is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately 3/4 of a mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Carolina Valera) 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINES 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 1/4/07CCPC AgendaIRB/hr 2 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning everyone, and thank you for attending today's meeting. If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this is the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, January 4th. We have an agenda that will start with the EAR. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY CLERK First let's do roll call by the clerk. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: 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 is absent. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mr. Midney is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is here. Thank you. Item #3 Page 2 January 4, 2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Okay, the addenda to the agenda. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: At our last meeting we reviewed PUDA-2006-AR-100-30, which was Hammock Park. And because there were discrepancies or inconsistencies between the PUD, we continued that. And I wondered why that wasn't on the agenda today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I spoke with the applicant yesterday. They had not had all the issues resolved in getting the clean copy to us. That's going to be -- we're going to hear that on the 18th of January instead of today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were two things that we were going to continue over, one thing, that is, from last month's meeting. And -- last year's meeting, for that matter. Under old business, Mr. Schiffer, did you still want to retain the issue on the setback issue you had brought up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that will be under old business, 9(A). And Mr. Murray, you had asked for some time to address the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not prepared this morning. Thank you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last thing I would suggest to this board is that Petition PUDZ-2004-AR-681 0, which is Item D, called Livingston Greens, LLC, presented by George Varnadoe, that this item be continued to January 18th due to a problem in the package that we received. There was some incomplete documentation, as well as incomplete review -- I should say a complete review but incomplete implementation into the PUD from legal. Page 3 January 4, 2007 So with that in mind, I talked to the applicant and the applicant has agreed that they would have no problem with the continuation. So that is another addendum to the agenda that I would suggest for today. Is there any comments? Mr. Schiffer. MS. DESELEM: Excuse me, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer is first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just going to say, what was missing? I know that the Exhibit D, which is the site plan, was missing. Is there other stuff missing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In my package there was, yes. And I made note of it. Ms. Deselem? MS. DESELEM: I was going to back up, if I could, to the other issue, the old business issue. Ray or Susan are not here, neither one is here to address the issue under old business, so we really can't discuss it today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, do you have-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move it to next meeting, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move it to our next meeting then. MS. DESELEM: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Strain, if I might, on the continuation, in response to Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Schiffer, there were some clean-up items from the county attorney's office which unfortunately did not reach my office until Tuesday. I have cleaned those up now and I'd like, really, for the record to reflect a receipt by the planning commission of a complete PUD. But we have no problem at all with continuing this to the 18th so we're all on the same page as to what we review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a much better idea. Page 4 January 4, 2007 MS. VALERA: If I may, Commissioner. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. Just for the record, Commissioner, we have not had the time to review this document that is being presented to you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize you haven't, and I would assume that we're going to get it today, you're going to have a copy of it. I would like your comments on it before the 18th so that we all know we're working from a document that you've reviewed. MS. VALERA: Because of internal deadlines, Commissioner, the deadline for it to have everything, the packets ready for the 18th, are past due. I mean, they're gone. So the next available hearing date for the staff to be ready and have all the packets for you with the new revisions and review the new documents that you have today will be February the 1st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we already have a packet. All of us have a packet here. This is a supplement to make it complete and collated in a manner that we can read it so we're not reading scattered pieces of it throughout the document. I can't see what necessitates more work on your part. If anything, this is less work. MS . VALERA: Okay, typically staff are required to do a supplemental staff report to the one that, you know, we give to you when an item is continued. If you decide that you don't need that then, you know, staff definitely -- I mean, it's up to you, the board, if you do not need that supplemental packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the -- we've got a rather thick packet on this already. The problem was it was not too comprehensible the way it was presented. So I'd just as soon we take this. If you see this as in any way inappropriate in regards to what you reviewed, notify us, and in that case we'll have to delay it. But assuming this does meet all the criteria you've previously reviewed for, I'd rather see us continue this meeting until the 18th and be just done with it. Page 5 January 4, 2007 Does anybody on this -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Does this packet include the site drawing that Brad referred to? MR. VARNADOE: It's Exhibit D, the last page, Mr. Kolflat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, it does. This is a complete packet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it is complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well, we hope it is. But I would rather move forward under that premise for the 18th, and if staff has some grave concerns that they can point out between now and then and so justify further continuance, fine, but let's just get this done. MS. VALERA: Will do so. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be voting on the addenda to the agenda. Are there any other addenda to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda as recommended with changes? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. Page 6 January 4, 2007 For people in the audience who are attending, the Livingston Greens LLC, which is the last one on today's agenda, that's off Livingston Road, will be -- has been postponed to January 18th. The other remaining items on the agenda stay in place. Just for your reference, those include the public utilities department on Manatee Road and the dock extension on Pelican Street in Isles of Capri. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ADSENCES With that, we'll move into the first item -- well, wait a minute, we've got to go through planning commission absences. Our next meeting I believe is February 1st, did I hear -- or January 18th and then February 1st. As far as the 18th of January, is everybody planning to be here? Okay. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2006, PC WORKSHOP Approval of minutes for November 20th, 2006, which was a PC workshop. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Tuff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 7 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Item #6 BCC - REPORT - RECAPS - DECEMBER 12, 2006, DECEMBER 13~ 2006~ REGULAR MEETING Is someone here to provide the BCC recaps, or is that -- MS. DESELEM: Yes, I can do that. Hang on just a second. Thank you for waiting. Sorry for the delay. For the record, Kay Deselem. And you have -- the only meeting that the board has had since our last meeting with you was December 12th/13th meeting. There were several petitions on that particular agenda, Summit Place being one. And that one was approved. The others were continued. There was -- there was a PUD for Lakeview Drive of Naples, Clay Brooker, Windstar. That was continued to February 13th. And Whippoorwill was approved on that agenda 5-0. And as I mentioned, the Waterways Joint Venture, which was Summit Lakes, was also continued -- I'm sorry, approved, as was its accompanying affordable housing density bonus agreement and the developer's contribution agreement that went with it. Those were the only land use items that were on that agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you, Ms. Deselem. Page 8 January 4, 2007 Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman's report. I have a lot of issues, but I think we'll be bringing those up in the discussion of the EAR. I'll wait for them to go into them. Item #8A CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS With that, we'll go into the advertised public hearings, the first of which is the continuation and hopefully the near finalization of the EAR-based amendments. And I don't know who on staffs presenting it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. The initial item on your agenda is a summary of the past EAR-based amendment elements, as well as sub-element actions. Corby Schmidt will be presenting that on behalf of the department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had sent us quite a stack of paperwork. I hope that we're going to walk through each of those items as well somewhere in this discussion today. MR. COHEN: The items related to population will be run through in conjunction with the CIE and the future land element as they predominantly apply to those particular elements. And the other stuff that was provided will be addressed with the respective elements as they apply or with the summary as they apply in this particular instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, in previous action, the planning Page 9 January 4, 2007 commission -- for the record, Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner with Planning Staff. In previous action, you took informal action on the sanitary sewer sub-element, potable water sub-element, the CCME, the drainage sub-elements and the transportation element. The FLUE and housing elements are still under your consideration, and you've taken no action on the recreation and open space elements and the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as your beginning statement, you said we took a preliminary position on those? I mean, how -- are you looking for a formal conclusion to all the elements at today's meeting? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Each individual element requires a formal vote on its own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, I guess the next up on the agenda is the housing element. And Cormac is here. Good. Is that where we're going to go? Oh, Michelle, okay. MS. MOSCA: Yes, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michelle Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning Staff. And I'll also have Cormac come up so we can address any of your concerns. Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is first present the outstanding issues related to the ORC Report. And then we had correspondence from the Department of Community Affairs in an e-mail dated 11/14 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Michelle, we've received a lot of paperwork since the last couple of meetings on the EAR. Can you refer us to whatever paperwork you want us to be reviewing this off of as you speak? MS. MOSCA: Well, generally what I want to first address are the ORC-related issues. All of you have received the ORC Report in the past, the objection one and objection two, specifically. And I believe in your most recent staff report dated -- well, the hearing date Page 10 January 4, 2007 of January 4th, which is today. Do you all have a copy of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got an ORC Report titled on the top of the page, 7/28/06 ORC Report and Collier County response. Is that the document you'll be working off? MS. MOSCA: That will be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Than that's -- MS. MOSCA: I'm just going to refer -- excuse me, I'm just going to refer to the objections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's numbered 1 through Page 44. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you get into a topic that's referenced in here that's in one of those pages, could you just kindly refer us to the pages? MS. MOSCA: What I might need to do instead, then, Mr. Chairman, is probably just refer you to the most recent staff report on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you identify the most recent staff report? MS. MOSCA: Yes. It's hearing date January 4th, 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one with the multiple colored strike-throughs. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, let's start with a page on that. MS. MOSCA: Number four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody familiar with that particular document on the planning commission? We're going -- we may spend some extra time trying to get on the same page. I think that's going to be important, since this has been a confusing, lingering issue. Thank you. Okay, Page 4 of the staff report. Go ahead, Michelle. MS. MOSCA: The first objective, objective one, that was Page 11 January 4, 2007 rewritten to include legal resident. And that was at the request of the planning commission. So if you don't have any questions, I'll continue with that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On 1.4, if you're looking at the yellow area right under that? MS. MOSCA: I was actually looking at objective one first, and then we'll continue on to Policy 1.4 under objective one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And where does it say legal resident? MS. MOSCA: Under objective one on Page 4 -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I see. MS. MOSCA: -- in the highlighted area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: May I ask, we're basing this on population, are we not? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And for example, Immokalee has as certain population, and a certain population is documented and a certain population is undocumented. That means that we totally exclude the undocumented from our estimates of the need for housing? Because doesn't that impact everybody's housing if certain people are occupying housing -- you know, a large percentage of the people who are occupying the low-income housing are probably undocumented. Doesn't that influence the amount of housing that's needed for the other ones, if you're counting the number of units? MS. MOSCA: I would say that it does. But the population counts are for permanent residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, if they're undocumented, how would you count somebody that's not here? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the Department of Community Affairs wants to know the population. Isn't that what they're asking for? Or are they only asking for the population of Page 12 January 4, 2007 people that -- because when we do census counts, United States census, they count everybody, because they want to know what the population is. In order to plan for needs such as housing and other things, you have to know how many people are living someplace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We use the census for the population basis. So if they're counted in the census, they're counted in this number. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But the census counts people who are documented and those who are undocumented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, they use the -- Randy, if I'm wrong, let me know, but I think your basis and BEBR's basis is the 2000 census. Is that -- MR. COHEN: Yeah, the base year for BEBR is 2000. And any extrapolation that's done by BEBR subsequent to that takes the building that transpires in the county and basically extrapolates out each additional year. The question that you would have is, based off that 2000 year, has the population in Immokalee changed any from 2000. And there's really no way to address that until we do our next census in 2010. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But why does it say documented only then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says legal. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Legal. Well, that's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this board recommended that language change, and I think I was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The BCC confirmed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think if they're not legal, then I think you need to take it up with the Sheriffs Department. If you're filing a complaint against all the undocumented maybe illegal residents of Immokalee, maybe you should talk to the Sheriffs Department. Page 13 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, it's not a law enforcement issue. What we're trying to do is plan for the future of this county, things like roads, housing and so forth, needs that people will be having. So I'm not looking at it from a law enforcement issue, I'm looking at it from a county planning issue. Because in order to plan for what the needs of the county are, the starting point is the actual population. And I think that's what DCA is interested in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Paul, I mean, I guess we can debate it, but I think the two boards have already found issue that legal is the right word to use. Are you saying you don't agree with that? I'm trying to understand what you think needs to be changed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, do you want -- I guess we can take that language change up then as far as the first correction that we had on here was changing the word from current and future to legal residents, which was also agreed to by the BCC. Is there a motion on this panel that wishes to see that changed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, the motion dies for lack of a second. We will move on to the next portion. MS. MOSCA: We'll just go ahead and go into Policy 1.4, if there are any questions. I know Chairman Strain had a question regarding the term in the second line, adequate infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've resolved my issue with that, thank you. We're on objective one, Policy 1.4 in the housing element. MS. MOSCA: Still on Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question about density by right. It's my understanding that we do not have density by right in Page 14 January 4,2007 this county, with the exception of Immokalee's overlay. And they have set up a specific policy there. But as far as the county is concerned, I think this -- we voted and the BCC voted that there isn't density by right. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. And this would apply to Immokalee. It was a general listing of the programs in place. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I think we need to say density by right in Immokalee. MS. MOSCA: Would "where applicable" be acceptable? COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on 1.4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we can move on. MS. MOSCA: Going on to Policy 1.5. Again, Chairman Strain had a question with one of the words approved, affordable workforce and what the intent is. And my understanding, and Cormac can correct me, approved would apply to the LDC standards for approved affordable workforce housing. With the exception of Ave Maria that's listed, what is most likely to happen, anything that is approved beyond the requirements of the LDC for the affordable workforce housing requirement would be listed in a separate category, if they don't in fact meet all of those requirements of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is Ave Maria listed when it is not meeting the approved standards of Collier County in regards to affordable housing? MS. MOSCA: Well, it is an approved project and -- Cormac can address that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every project in Collier County that has as permit is an approved project.o Page 15 January 4, 2007 MR. GIBLIN: That's correct, Chairman. Cormac Giblin for the record, the Housing and Grants Manager. Ave Maria is on our list of affordable -- of projects containing affordable units or affordable housing commitments. As evidenced by this very amendment here, prior to this there was no formal requirement by the DCA that we maintain a list. That's what this amendment does, is it puts that in writing that we maintain a list of projects that include affordable housing commitments. Ave Maria being a D RI made certain commitments to this commission and to the Board of County Commissioners of affordable housing that they would include. And in negotiation with staff and with this commission and with the Board of County Commissioners, their development order was approved with those stipulations. So while the stipulations that apply to the affordable housing units in Ave Maria or other DRI's that may come forward may not mirror exactly the affordable housing restrictions as someone getting a density bonus as part of the LDC, nonetheless, they still do have affordable housing restrictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Cormac, in Policy 1.5 the word approved should be struck. Because Ave Maria's 2,100 units are not meeting the standards of the approved affordable workforce housing in Collier County. In fact, only 200 of those do out of2,100. So either your table's got to be changed to reflect 200, which are actually approved under the standards of this county, or the word approved doesn't apply in Policy 1.5. Or if it does apply, and approved now includes homes that are only deed restricted for two years, as is Ave Maria for 1,000 or 1,700 of their units or so, then you need to include all of that kind of housing in Collier County, not limit it to just listing Ave Maria's. MR. GIBLIN: I believe that the word approved in this sentence is talking about an approved development order that includes affordable housing. It's not -- this sentence does not necessarily refer January 4, 2007 you back to the LDC definition of an approved affordable housing unit using a density bonus. There may be a development that voluntarily includes a certain number of affordable housing units with or without a density bonus, like Ave Maria did. The word approved in this sentence, I take it to mean an approved development, not an approved -- approval within some guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about straight zoning? So if you have affordable housing in straight zoning, it doesn't count? MR. GIBLIN: No, I would say it would count. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we don't -- then approved in this case means anything that's got a building permit -- MR. GIBLIN: With an affordable housing commitment tied to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A commitment. But the commitment now doesn't have to meet the county standards? MR. GIBLIN: Well the county standard, again, only applies right now when someone requests a density bonus. So you can have an approved affordable housing unit that -- of varying different commitments like we do have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now instead of 15 years being the time frame in which housing has to be restricted in Collier County, it's whatever anybody wants to come forward with, and you'll accept that as an affordable housing unit? MR. GIBLIN: If they're outside the scope of the LDC, if they're outside the scope of a density bonus agreement, it is negotiated between the planning commission, the Board of County Commissioners, the developer and staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except in conventional zoning, which doesn't come before those boards. MR. GIBLIN: Again, if they're getting a density bonus, it would. If they're not, it would just be a voluntary contribution to the affordable housing stock, and tough to track anyway and tough to hold anyone's feet to the fire. Page 17 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You provided us with a list that's rather lengthy of all the projects that have affordable housing. Are any projects on this list not providing IS-year contract -- the relationships that we're normally used to seeing in regards to duration for affordable housing deed restricted? MR. GIBLIN: Of course I'd say Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only one. MR. GIBLIN: It's outside the norm. Some of these others, for example, Palermo Cove, is a project on this list that again includes affordable housing but does not include a density bonus. I don't know if -- I don't remember off the top of my head -- Heritage Bay includes some affordable housing units. But again, off the top of my head, I don't remember the exact details of their agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering why Ave Maria keeps getting singled out as a special district that's providing excessive affordable housing, when in reality the affordable housing they provide, only 200 of the units really meet the program that we're used to seeing, which is a IS-year deed restriction. I just think it's not -- it's disingenuous to put that kind of information on a list that says we have the affordable housing component that we're used to dealing with in this county. MR. GIBLIN: I agree, Mr. Strain. And like Michelle prefaced, when we ultimately provide the list, as required by this new language, we would expect to have another column that details exactly what the affordability restrictions on each development are. So it would be very easy for someone to see these are 15 years, these are 10 years, these are five years, these are two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would just -- Cormac, on this list, when the Ave Maria units drop off their time frame, will you take them off the list? MR. GIBLIN : Yes, sir. Page 18 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then we're going to end up with a bigger problem in the future. We're going to be backing this list. You tend to go backwards faster than forwards. MR. GIBLIN: That holds true, though, with any of the units on this list. When they are no longer affordable, then they would not be considered on the list anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And so when we're coming up with figures like the jump that we're making here from going from 500 affordable units a year to 1,000 -- or what was offered was 1,500 initially -- it was based on essentially taking these numbers and doing a little math, just a little division saying this is how many units we've approved in the past, you know, "X" number of years and coming up with the fact that the average was whatever, 1,000 units a year. Well, in reality, it's numbers like Ave Maria that skew this and throw it all out of whack and then we're not going to be able to keep pace with what you're trying -- MR. GIBLIN: No, ma'am, I don't -- the target number of500 or 1,000, or 1,500 or whatever the board ultimately approves, is not arrived at by taking what we've approved in the past and dividing it out by year. It's arrived at by looking at projections for future demand as we get from the Shimberg center and from population studies and demand studies. So we didn't arrive at that number by looking at what we've approved in the past, we arrived at that number by looking at what we're going to need in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wonder relative to this would it be useful to create a second row along the Ave Maria area to segregate the housing that is truly appropriate to the standard, leaving Page 19 January 4, 2007 the other in some way indicated. And that might be helpful to keep everybody on track in that regard. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir, that's what we would plan on doing. And track them by income level and affordability restriction and number of bedrooms and income range and those kinds of things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then you would plan on modifying this document in any way? MR. GIBLIN: Certainly. As soon as this-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That might be a start toward making it clearer. Because I do agree with the chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While we're adjusting the form, Cormac, could you also take the affordable units and split it up to what's built and what's approved, or at least in the process? Because it's hard to go through this. MR. GIBLIN: There is a column. Number of affordable units and then number of units built to date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I didn't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, another issue on the affordable housing, and I was provided, and I think everybody was, an affordable housing contribution list. And in that list it lists various projects that are contributing to the Collier County affordable housing something. It tells the time frame and the values and comes up to about $3 million. As you well know, there have been many, many projects coming before this commission that have been required to contribute to the alliance of -- some program in Immokalee, I think it's called the Endowment or Empowerment Alliance of Immokalee, and Habitat for Humanity, and maybe others. Where are their contributions shown on here? MR. GIBLIN: This is a listing that Corby is putting on the visualizer now, and it may be even updated from the one you have, to Page 20 January 4, 2007 include the very latest -- the last board meetings. This is a listing of contributions that are due to the county. Now, there have been other PUD stipulations that occurred prior to the beginning of this list that have been certain commitments made to private not-for-profit groups, the Empowerment Alliance, Habitat for Humanity, the Housing Development Corporation. Those are contributions or commitments that are included in those PUD documents and tracked as a function of the regular PUD monitoring reports in the community development division. The purpose of this list was only to show those contributions made to the county. I mean, we do have a list of everything that's been contributed. But this list was specifically for monies that are going to be made due to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Weren't those others affordable housing contributions? Weren't they considered that? MR. GIBLIN: They are, but not to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, they are, in the sense that you or somebody -- and maybe the county legal staff needs to opine on this. Through those development documents, we have provided credits against any future county impact fees, inclusionary zoning ordinances or any other ordinances. So in essence those fees or those contributions to other non-profits become a credit against the county-generated revenues we would normally have expected. So isn't that to the county but indirectly? MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. Those contributions that go to the private organizations do not count against future linkage fees or county-imposed fees. In fact, developments have tried to slip that in and make that a point. But time after time we have pointed out that the only way they can be credited against a future county fee is if the payment or the donation comes to the county and not to a third party. In fact, the latest example was Summit Lakes at the last board Page 21 January 4, 2007 meeting was asking the board for that very thing for a contribution they were making to Habitat for Humanity. And the county attorney advised them that it would be improper to credit a donation to a third party against a county-imposed fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about Palermo Cove, a quarter million dollars that went to the Endowment Alliance of Immokalee. Are you telling me that that quarter million dollars is not being credited against their future requirements of any fees they may have? MR. GIBLIN: Sir, I don't have that PUD in front of me, I don't know. But it's been the practice of the staff and the county attorney not to allow those fees to be credited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's new to this board, because the various applicants have come before this board and they stipulate as part of their condition of contribution that they be credited against those such fees. And the recommendation from this board to the BCC was to accept those statements. And I was always under the assumption, because I hadn't been told otherwise till now, that the BCC was also accepting that condition from the contribution provided by the applicant. Mr. -- the county attorney, do you have any knowledge of this issue? MR. KLATZKOW: The ones that I've worked on, I've kept a wall of separation between monies going to the county and monies going to outside entities so that no credits would be going to the outside entities. That doesn't mean there have not been PUDs or other arrangements made that other attorneys worked on that that wasn't so. You're really getting into an accounting issue. And I think you're right. If there are any DCAs or other agreements where these things should be credited, then there should be a ledger showing that. I just don't know that there are. And I think Cormac's recollection is that there is not. But if there is such, then it should be shown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would certainly like staff to find that out. And if that language is as we suspect it might be or might not, Page 22 January 4, 2007 include it, because it should be in this document. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't the Collier County Housing Development Corporation be included? You said the housing development corporation was -- MR. GIBLIN: They're a private not- for-profit group not associated with Collier County government, in much the same way that the Empowerment Alliance is structured or Habitat for Humanity is structured. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: When we've talked about these voluntary contributions in the past, hasn't the entity been called the Affordable Housing Trust Fund? And what is that? MR. GIBLIN: Well, that's not an entity, that's the name of a fund over in the county's accounting office. It's a depository where these funds will be deposited. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it's not going to Collier County? The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is holding it for private entities such as Habitat? MR. GIBLIN: No, sir, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the name of a county-controlled fund. It's a fund just like we have a road impact fee trust fund and things -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that's what these payments here were going towards. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think we all thought. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So I'm confused. You're saying that it's not part of the county but yet that it's being held by the county and it's not going to a private entity. Could you try to clarify that for me? MR. GIBLIN: The Collier County Housing Development Corporation, Inc. is a private not- for-profit group. The Collier County Page 23 January 4, 2007 Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a county fund. It's a county-controlled fund. They're two separate issues, two separate -- the name Collier County appears in both, but that's their only similarity, I assure you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I thought the contributions were going to the trust fund. MR. GIBLIN: They are. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, I'm confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am, too. We've got a county trust fund and then we have, what, at least three private non-profits which have received contributions from some rezoning methodology that's occurred. Is that a true statement? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The three non-profits are not linked to the county in reality, just the trust fund is. And the sheet you have in front of us is the monies going to the trust fund; is that right? MR. GIBLIN: To the trust fund, which means to the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that help? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Shakes head, no.) Because you're saying that it doesn't count towards any county fees or obligations that a developer has, but yet it's going to the county . MR. GIBLIN: No. Let me back up. This started about 18 months ago when developers took it upon themselves to address the affordable housing issue. Some at the request of this commission or other commissions. To address the issue, they really have a few options. They can either include some affordable units to address the problem, they can make a monetary donation of whatever they felt was an appropriate amount to another entity to address the problem. In the beginning, those donations were funneled directly from the development developer to a nonprofit affordable housing provider: Collier County Housing Development Corporation, the Empowerment Page 24 January 4, 2007 Alliance of Southwest Florida, Habitat for Humanity, maybe the Shelter For Abused Women, maybe the St. Matthew's House, those types of affordable housing providers. Those contributions that were made directly or to third parties cannot count, or historically in staffs opinion do not count against any future county-imposed fee that may happen. About maybe 12 months ago we started receiving monies donated directly to the county. And since then, it's been steady. Since then no more have gone to these third-party entities, and they've gone to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is Collier County. Fees or contributions made to Collier County may apply to a future county-imposed fee. And those are the ones on the list in front of you now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: A future county-imposed fee. Because there is none now. MR. GIBLIN: If one should be -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think I understand now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You indicated there were three entities that might receive some of these funds. Could you articulate which three those are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from what Cormac has just said, there may be more than three. The three that I recall in our discussions on this board, Habitat for Humanity is one. I think it's called the Endowment Alliance ofImmokalee? MR. GIBLIN: Empowerment Alliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Empowerment Alliance of Immokalee. And then the Collier County Housing Development Authority? MR. GIBLIN: Corporation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corporation. Those three. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. Page 25 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be more, but those are the three that I recall coming before this board. Cormac, in relation to your objective one and your changes here, the ORC Report also did respond to some affordable housing issues that were raised. Is it appropriate now to bring up those issues in the ORC Report as they relate to affordable housing for our discussion, or is that something we're going to be re-presented with later in today's meeting? MR. GIBLIN: I'll be happy to address any concerns you have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just trying to make sure that all of our questions get responded to. And the ORC Report did have affordable housing issues in it. And I guess I'm trying to figure out where they started. Page 25 of the ORC Report response, we're talking about the Shimberg Center and a cost per households in Collier County. And I brought this issue up when you weren't here prior to the holidays. Michelle was kind enough to provide me with some information from the Shimberg Center. However, that information basically discussed how they obtained their population statistics. It did not tell me what was in the 26,663 very low, low and moderate income cost-burdened households, meaning how did they derive that number. I went to their site, and I went to the University of Florida's site for Shimberg. I could not find that figure anywhere in either site on the Internet. Maybe I just didn't look at the right place. My concern is that if Shimberg is saying we have 26,663 shortages in households, is that what they're trying to say, is that what you're trying to say in your ORC response? MR. GIBLIN: Well, the Shimberg numbers are not -- do not translate directly to a shortage in affordable housing. Shimberg reports the number of cost-burdened households. Page 26 January 4, 2007 So they look at the people already living in Collier County, they look at what they're currently paying in housing expenses and what their income is. And those that are determined to be cost-burdened, in other words, they're spending more than 30 percent of their gross monthly income on housing expenses, make up that 26,000 household number. So you could maybe extrapolate or logically maybe deduce that okay, well, if there are 26,000 households in Collier County that are cost-burdened, paying more than -- essentially living here unaffordably, then they would be prime candidates for something more affordable. But that you do have to consciously make that step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But also, that would include people who want to buy into a neighborhood that is above their means just because that's where they want to be and they don't want to be in another neighborhood. Is that a fair statement? MR. GIBLIN: It does. But I think that -- I mean, if you look at the gross number, it would include people like that. But when you look at the net number, which is only a very low, low, and moderate income households, I think the likelihood of that diminishes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm bringing it up is because it seems that that use of that 26,663 and then the projections for the future were what became the basis to equate the approximate 1 ,OOO-unit need per year of affordable housing. And if that 26,663 is maybe inappropriately applied, then that would certainly have an impact on the amount of affordable housing that we mayor may not need. I'm not saying we don't need it, that would be a wrong statement. But I certainly want to make sure that the number we come up with is accurate as a goal. And I'm just wondering, if you use the 26,663, how does the 1,000 equate to that, if it isn't really low-income affordable housing? Or if it is, I just need to know that. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. The new goal of 1,000 units per year Page 27 January 4, 2007 encompasses everything from low income, very low income, homeless, all the way up to the new definition of gap housing. So in a sense the target pool has increased from what it used to be in the past. But using the Shimberg numbers as a base, a starting point, is really -- Shimberg is the state-approved, the DCA-approved authority for affordable housing needs assessment. To use anything else would -- needs very substantial documentation and approval by the DCA. So however Shimberg determines their numbers or whatever their methodology is, that is the state-approved methodology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I reviewed their site in detail, and I don't doubt what you say, that they do a very thorough job. I couldn't find, though, a differentiation between people in the low-income bracket who are truly needing an affordable house versus those in a low-income bracket who have bought into a neighborhood that they purposely bought into because that's where they wanted their kids to go to school or something, so they generated their own problem. I didn't see where Shimberg differentiated that all, and that was just my concern. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. Cormac, the Shimberg data, that is not at all related to our population estimates here that we're going to be talking about shortly? MR. GIBLIN : Well, Shimberg is based on population. They use mainly the census data to establish their population. And I think what we've done in an effort to arrive at this 1,000 unit per year goal is try to merge the Shimberg population estimates and their housing needs assessment with our population growth projections to try to obtain a number based on fact. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, I have a problem with the population estimate for Immokalee, especially the migrant. But since we're going to get to that, why don't we wait till we get to that point, even though it does relate to this estimate of housing need. Page 28 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll probably have a lot of questions on population. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen. I just wanted to clarify, you raised the point pertaining to the ORC Report as it applied to this particular objection raised by DCA. Ms. Mosca and I spoke with Bernard Piowa with DCA to make sure what does DCA want back from us. And the root of what they wanted was from the Shimberg study. Obviously, Ms. Mosca modified the Shimberg study data with respect to population to match our projections. And if you would like her to clarify what she's done and how she did it and why, she's here to do so. But the methodology that we used we discussed at length with DCA, and they seemed to be satisfied with the route that we were . gOIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need any further -- I'm getting the clarification I need from Cormac. Thank you. Cormac, on the ORC Report, we also talked about making sure the City of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City provide their proportionate share of affordable workforce housing. And we're going to do that through some financial equivalent methodology. Could you tell me, right now you currently are floating a document around internally called an inclusionary zoning ordinance. You're working on an inclusionary zoning ordinance. If you're not, that would be news. MR. GIBLIN: Well, work on that has taken a back seat to what we're referring to now as the linkage fee ordinance. The linkage fee ordinance needs to come first and then an inclusionary zoning ordinance would follow. But there was a draft of an inclusionary zoning ordinance prepared seven, eight months ago. But since then it has not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the buy-out proposed or thoughty Page 29 January 4, 2007 about in the inclusionary zoning ordinance? MR. GIBLIN: See, that's the reason we need the linkage fee ordinance first, because the linkage fee ordinance establishes a buy-out fee. So we're working with Dr. Nicholas and various outside legal counsel to develop and really develop a study to put hard dollars to what is the value of not providing an affordable unit or what is the value of providing one. And so when the linkage fee ordinance is finalized and then hopefully approved by the Board of County Commissioners, that will establish the buy-out fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Linkage fee, though, applies to commercial, not residential; is that -- MR. GIBLIN: The way it's being written is we're encompassing both residential and commercial. And the residential would essentially establish that buy-out fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then you're eliminating the inclusionary zoning ordinance? MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to have an ordinance -- a linkage fee ordinance that establishes commercial and residential tie-ins to affordable housing. And you're going to have an inclusionary zoning ordinance that does it as well? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- the buy-out for the inclusionary zoning ordinance, because that's the one most related to residential, which creates an affordable housing element, what are the current thoughts as far as the ranges go for the buy-out of that? I'm just -- out of curiosity. MR. GIBLIN: For residential development it's a square footage basis. We've only seen estimates to this point. We don't have any hard data. It would be close to what the development community has Page 30 January 4, 2007 come forward to in terms of their voluntary contributions, I would think. Close to or maybe a little bit more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: $1,000 a unit? MR. GIBLIN: Close to or maybe a little bit more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You shouldn't be wasting your time with inclusionary zoning then, because that sure isn't going to buy an affordable housing unit. Where I was trying to go with this is we've got current documents arranged with the City of Naples and the City of Everglades or Marco Island in regards to their affordable housing. Basically they supply us a small contribution. And if I remember correctly with discussions of this panel a year ago, those contributions weren't even enough to provide one affordable housing unit. They're very minor. I notice this language that you have in the ORC Report response says that we are going to have a financial -- there's going to be a proportionate share and financial equivalent will be evaluated and substantiated by the most current data, studies and methodologies available to the county. I'm just trying to understand how you're going to establish that. If you're going to the trouble to have a linkage fee and/or an inclusionary zoning ordinance, it would seem practical that any affordable housing buy-out recommended by those ordinances would also be applicable as a financial equivalent for a unit in regards to how the city should be buying out of their obligations. Is that something that someone is going to be considering? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else on the affordable housing from your side, Cormac, or Michelle's? MS. MOSCA: No, I don't have anything else, unless you have any additional questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we in a position that you want us to Page 31 January 4, 2007 vote on this particular issue at this time, or are we going to do this somewhere where you walk them all through to the end and do them one at a time at the end? MR. COHEN: I would it would be appropriate to establish a preliminary position with respect to each of the questions that you raised in the element. And then at the end of the day, go ahead and take a vote on each individual element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one comment to make. Back to -- let's just make sure it's the same on everything. Objective two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm actually looking at what we had received last time, objective two, Policy 2.1. Now, I don't see that -- oh, yes, I do see that included. It says here the Collier County Housing Development Corporation shall assist the county in reaching its affordable workforce housing goal. So why wouldn't -- back to my question earlier, why aren't they counted in your chart? I mean, they are very much part of this county. We gave them the grant to get started, they are part of our GMP, and yet nothing they do will be counted? MR. GIBLIN: They are part of the county, again, much in the same way that a Habitat for Humanity, Incorporated is. We give Habitat for Humanity grants, we give -- Habitat for Humanity builds units. COMMISSIONER CARON: But they are not part of our GMP, Habitat for Humanity. MR. GIBLIN: They were added by name here in this amendment because, if you recall, the prior objective was that by 2002, Collier County will assist in the creation of a new not- for-profit housing development corporation. We did that. Collier County assisted in the creation of the Collier County Housing DevelopmentA Page 32 January 4, 2007 Corporation, Incorporated. And then the ORC request from the DCA was okay, you told us you did it, but now what will they do? COMMISSIONER CARON: And the big thing we're going to ask them to do is hold workshops and fairs to raise awareness? Somebody's -- MR. GIBLIN: And work with other nonprofits to purchase developed parcels contributing -- COMMISSIONER CARON: All sort of squishy kind of semi commitments. I just don't get it. MR. GIBLIN : Well, those workshops, fairs, partnering with developers, purchasing land, contributing funds towards the purchase of land, those are all things that need to occur in the entire affordable housing world here. And those are things that Collier County does not necessarily do ourselves. And so we need to have those types of nonprofit partners to help us achieve those goals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe a solution would be to provide a little more generic references to it by saying something to the effect not-for-profit entities such as the Collier County Housing Development Corporation may assist Collier County. That way -- MR. GIBLIN: I very much agree with that suggestion. Because we don't know if this organization may change its name or may merge with something else in two years, and then we've got their name in black and white here in the GMP. So I agree with that suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In terms of the -- we talk about creating 1,000 new units. I'm a little bit concerned, especially from what's happening in Immokalee, they're talking about destruction or demolition of 833 units within the near future, most of them -- well, all of them serving the low-income people of Immokalee. Some of them are uninhabitable, but others are just substandard. And to me it would seem that it would be much cheaper to rehabilitate existing Page 33 January 4, 2007 units than to build a new unit. To build a new, you know, apartment or home is many, many, many thousands of dollars. And I think that we could get more efficiency with our money if we put in our goal something to be more aggressive about rehabilitating existing units instead of demolishing them. MR. GIBLIN: In some of the other objectives and policies, there is specific language about rehabilitation of affordable units as one of our policy goals. In fact, it is one of my department's main task is rehabilitation, specifically in Immokalee. I don't believe that that belongs in the 1,000 new units goal. But-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to see it on an equal par, because it's a much more efficient way of saving housing or creating, if you will, housing, by preventing the destruction of housing that is now slated to be destroyed. And I'd like to see it put in here that yes, we will create this, but we will also -- I'd like to see more emphasis on rehabilitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Cormac, didn't you just say there already was a policy that does that? It's just that it's not being changed, so it isn't in this portion of what you're seeing. This document we have in front of us only reflects the changes that are being suggested. The other elements and policies that are in place and are being used aren't shown here. Cormac's indicating there is one that does what you're indicating. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. And even if you just look at objective one, when we talked about the number of new affordable workforce housing units shall increase by 1,000 units each year. That doesn't say that they all need to be new construction or they should all be rehabilitation units. So that does give us the flexibility built in there that those units can come to the market or come to the surface through whatever means necessary or whatever means appropriate by the county. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'd like to see something Page 34 January 4, 2007 about creating 1,000 units. But I'd also like to see some expansion of the plans for renovation, because I think that will be very efficient in terms of cost effectiveness. And maybe we need some new initiative for that to increase it. Because right now in the Immokalee master plan, they're talking about very soon demolishing 833 units, most of which will be serving migrant farm workers, which will cut out a very large percent of the housing stock that services those people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you're saying, Paul. Maybe at the next round of GMP issues, if that paragraph or that policy needs to be addressed, staff can bring it forward. It isn't up for discussion today because it's not one of the policies that are listed here. If you have it with you and you've got changes suggested to it, I would suggest giving it to staff so we can implement it at a time and notification process. But I don't know how you're going to do that on a policy that's not in front of us for changing today. That's the only reason I bring it up. MR. GIBLIN: Mr. Schmitt wanted me to clarify that the migrant housing issues for the county are for the most part handled by Collier County Housing Authority and the Collier County Health Department. Both are separate. I know the word Collier County again is in the title of both of those entities, but those are separate. But I assure Commissioner Midney that housing rehabilitation and specifically housing rehabilitation in Immokalee is a top priority of our department. And in fact we're going to be coming to the Board of County Commissioners in a couple of weeks with some state housing disaster dollars that for the most part is all dedicated to Immokalee. And for the most part the majority of it is going to be funneled to rehabilitation of existing substandard and dilapidated units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we've made some text suggested Page 35 January 4, 2007 changes that I know staff has taken note of. And we've also made some previous comments earlier that have now been incorporated into the language in front of us. I think what is recommended by staff later this morning, we will vote on each element one at a time in finality. But conceptually at this point to move past this one, is there a motion as from concept that this is so noted -- from a concept basis this is okay to more forward? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Thank you. Corby, just out of curiosity, so I know when to stop, is there any public speakers registered for any parts of the EAR today? MR. SCHMIDT: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move on to wherever staff wants to go next. MR. COHEN: The next element on the agenda is the recreation and open space element. Page 36 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be starting on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, while people are coming up, could I just make a suggestion that we don't use magenta as a highlight color again? Especially in the dim lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about light magenta next time. MR. SCHMIDT: So noted. MR. COHEN: It just happens to be Corby's favorite color. MR. SCHMIDT: The recreation and open space only has a few revisions there. And yes, they are shadowed in, but it's a simple removal of references to the old -- or the soon to be old population methodology or terminology regarding weighted average population calculations. Otherwise, there were no changes to bring before you for the recreation and open space element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, a few weeks ago we had to deal with the AUIR, and we did it jointly with the productivity committee. And if I recall, I know this panel as well as I think the members of the productivity committee felt questionable about the values used for the acreages and even the values in dollars from the recreation for both community and regional parks. If I'm not mistaken, we were instructed that because those values were locked into the GMP, we had to use those in last year's A UIR. And the panel's requested a review of the basis for those so that next year's A UIR might need to be changed based on some different statistics or evaluations. So now my concern is under Policy 1.1.1, A and Band C, you've locked in values again. And I don't want staff to be in a position where they have to come back to us next year and say well, you're right, we should look at this again, but we can't because it's approved in the GMP based on last year's EAR. So I don't want us today to put us in the same situation we were told we couldn't change a month ago in regards to the statistics used to Page 37 January 4, 2007 multiply for the AUIR. So tell me how we get around that little problem, based on what we have here in front of us. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, it's probably more appropriate for me to answer that question for you, rather than Mr. Schmidt. As part of this year's EAR-based amendments, they go back to the 2005 AUIR. And we've incorporated that particular AUIR numbers into these particular EAR-based amendments. However, under instruction from both this board and also from the Board of County Commissioners, you asked us to take a look at population. And in conjunction with the objection from DCA, we did so accordingly as well, too. As part of this year's AUIR process, you're well aware that yourself and also the productivity committee raised some major issues with respect to how we measure levels of service. Are we tied to those particular levels of service. It's not unusual to revisit levels of service at various increments, and then if you decide to make a change to go ahead and to incorporate then into a future AUIR as well as a future GMP. Please take note that if you're going to do that also, that there's going to be ancillary effects with regard to things like impact fee ordinances and some other items as well, too. So there's going to need to be some study with regard to that. If we have a level of service, for example, for recreation and a decision is made to change that level of service based upon whatever factor that may be. For example, I know our parks and recreation department right now is doing an inventory of all our facilities and making a determination of what they have and what their respective needs would be with regard to a variety of different facilities. That would very well change how we go about doing things. And I know that's the direction that we've received from you. So are we tied into something? Any time we want to change the CIE, whether it's in a narrative form or whether it's part of a table or Page 38 January 4, 2007 changing the timing of an improvement or removing or adding an improvement, we're going to be required to revisit this document on an annual basis. That's a requirement starting March 1st, 2008. In subsequent years we will have to by statute provide DCA with an update of this element and any respective changes that you decide to make or recommend to be made to be changed and the BCC acts on, what we've provided the DCA with the proper data and analysis. So you're not tied in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, when that question was specifically asked of you during the AUIR, we were told we were tied in. And because it was tied into last year's -- or to the prior CIE, we couldn't change the AUIR. MR. COHEN : We're tied into the population methodology as adopted. We're tied into -- which is the basis for the CIE. And I think we wanted to change population methodology at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We brought up -- we specifically brought these numbers up. This 1.2882 and 2.9412 were brought into question by this panel at the AUIR. We were told because it was adopted in the GMP, we could not change it, but that next year you guys would look at coming back with a possible change to it. N ow I'm wondering how you can do that based on your previous statements if it's locked into this EAR through the GMP? MR. COHEN: I don't believe that absolute statement was made that you can't change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, we can't change the AUIR use of it because it's in the GMP. MR. COHEN: Well, that was a problem with this year's AUIR because of the EAR-based amendments going through the process. This AUIR is for this particular year, because of the EAR-based amendments going through the process -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She can't hear you. MR. COHEN: Excuse me. Page 39 January 4, 2007 This AUIR, because of the EAR-based amendments going through the process the way they have been for about a year and a half or two years is kind of like an anomaly. It's not the normal AUIR that you're going to be using because it's based on -- and this is where the problem is: It's based on the population methodology as set forth in the GMP, which is different than the population methodology that's going forward with the EAR-based amendments. So for all practical purposes, this year's AUIR becomes more a planning tool for this year as opposed to a mechanism for something that would go in to create a CIE for this particular year. Because what would happen is if we were to provide a CIE based on this year's particular AUIR, it would be based on a population methodology which DCA says now is unacceptable. However, it is the accepted population methodology by this Board of County Commissioners and will not change until we go through the EAR-based amendment process and DCA finds it in compliance. There's no objections or it doesn't go to hearing and then finally gets adopted. So the AUIR this particular year is really -- it's an anomaly, it's something that in future AUIRs you will be able to do what you feel in terms of recommending changes to levels of service based on the new population methodology, whether you decide to change from a population-based methodology to some other type of methodology. And the supporting data analysis to do so, you can revisit that as well, too. So this AUIR this year was really not the time to do it because of the problem with the population basis, which is flawed, in DCA's opinion, and asked us to change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, let's go back to Policy 1.1.I.A. It says, 1.2882 acres of community park for 1,000 population. It really doesn't matter then if the population in this county is 300,000 or 400,000, the 1.2882 is per 1,000. Page 40 January 4, 2007 Now, are you telling me -- and I'm going to ask the county attorney to opine that this is correct, so that at the next AUIR, which will be sitting here for, we can tell you you're wrong and we can go forward and change the AUIR -- are you telling me that if this is approved in the EAR as 1.2882 per 1,000 population and 2.9412 per 1,000 population and $270 per capita of population, that those numbers in the EAR now, adopted in the GMP, do not have to apply to next year's AUIR? Is that what you're telling me? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, you can make recommendations in the AUIR process to change the levels of service, okay. If you do that -- for example, the 270 that's in there used to be, if I recall correctly, 245, and there was a recommendation at one point in time to change the 245 to 270. So the mechanism exists in the A UIR process to modify a level of service if you find it to be inadequate. That would then translate into a respective change in the CIE, based on your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, okay, concurred with that recommendation and determined to proffer that to DCA as part of a change in the CIE. F or example, and this is a hypothetical, we have potable water and sanitary sewer, we have levels of service with respect to consumption. If that consumption, for whatever reason was to change based on, say, use of gray water, okay, and as a result of that we no longer were needing that much potable water for consumption purposes in a certain area, it would be incumbent on us to visit that item in the AUIR with a reduction obviously in that consumption, and make a respective change also in the CIE. So are we stuck with certain numbers? The answer is no. You have the right to revisit them. Jurisdictions statewide revisit their levels of service at various times and make respective changes based on data and analysis. You may find for recreation purposes when our recreation department comes back and they do their analysis of Page 41 ----------1 January 4, 2007 existing facilities in conjunction with facilities in PUDs that you do not need certain acreages or certain facilities and as a result of that data that's being collected make a subsequent change. They didn't have that data analysis for four years as part of this AUIR or CIE, but they indicated that they would probably have it for the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: You can change it next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I want to ask you, when you say we can change this, I'm specifically talking about the two numerics. One -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. You can make a recommendation to the board that the board relook at this and make a change to it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in order to change the number that's used in the AUIR, the board first would have to go back in and change the CIE; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the problem we ran into this year. We were told we could not change the AUIR statistics because they were locked in by approval of the GMP. You're asking us today to do the same thing -- not you, sir, but staff -- to approve the numbers that we questioned last year in the AUIR, again approve them in this GMP amendment that gets locked in and that can't be changed before the next A UIR comes out. So how is that accomplishing any of the goals that this panel and the others talked about over the AUIR process? I'm just -- this isn't going to work under this basis, at least as far as my vote goes. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no more to say on the recreation and open space elements. Does anybody here? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Are we getting an answer yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to get a round and Page 42 January 4, 2007 round answer. I mean, we've been going around this for 15 minutes now and gotten nothing. So I think the conclusion is if this EAR is approved with these numbers, that's what's got to be used in the AUIR, unless you go back in and change this first, which I don't think there would be enough time to because you've got to go to DCA and the whole process before the AUIR can be recalculated. So in the end we're locking ourselves into another AUIR. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What if you don't approve it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's up to this board. We can vote any way we want. Right now I'm inclined not to, so -- there's a huddle going on, does that mean we should wait to proceed? COMMISSIONER CARON: Take a pause. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a pause here for a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, thank you. I'm not clear, are you more having problems with the population estimates or the levels of service? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's the numbers 1.2882 and 2.9412. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The levels of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to call them a level of service, yes. And the $270. I am not comfortable with any of those as far as how they would apply in next year's AUIR. We specifically asked that all departments in the AUIR look for alternatives for measurements of level of service. That is items like calls for service. The one gentleman from the productivity committee specifically said the libraries have accurate door counts. Why aren't we using those to generate the need for new libraries? Whether they're good or bad ideas isn't the issue. We want the Page 43 -..-1 January 4, 2007 right to be able to explore those. And this document would take that right away, based on what I'm hearing from our attorney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, could you suggest like an alternative methodology for determining, you know, the, quote, level of service or level of provision of opportunity for parks and recreation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we asked staff to come back with to us in our last AUIR meeting. Yes, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator of Community Development and Environmental Services Division. I understand exactly what you're saying. You're kind of thinking you're caught in a do-loop. It says it, therefore you have to apply it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A do-loop. I like that. Is that military? MR. SCHMITT: A do-loop is the old Fortran, don't you remember? Anybody that did Fortran years ago, Fortran programming. That's like really ancient, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: I was there. MR. SCHMITT: Those were punch card days, you know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I remember those. MR. SCHMITT: Why don't we make this more generic in a sense that a level of service will be established annually as part of the CIE and applied during the AUIR process or some verbiage to that, that gives the Board of County Commissioners the option annually to change the level of service certainly based on budget, based on need, or based on perceived or assessed needs or whatever. Because you're right, if it's in the GMP, then we apply it. And if we want to amend it or change it, I need to go back and amend the GMP. So maybe a more generic sentence would work. But I have to defer to Randy. You've been talking to the DCA and Bernard. Would they accept a more generic type of statement in here? Page 44 January 4, 2007 MR. COHEN: What we would need to do is to include a policy in the CIE which would actually -- similar to population where they ask us to review it on an annual basis, where we could put something in the policy in the CIE that says that we will be reviewing levels of service on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you put that policy in the CIE and have it effective so that when this future AUIR comes up, which I know is going to come up around midterm in 2007 -- MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see that early . We're going to be starting that probably in the May, June, July time frame. You may see it as early as August or September this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to see, though, I'd like make sure that we have and the other board has the flexibility to question these kind of things so we're not locked into it, so we don't have the do-loop you're talking about. And as long as the language in this policy can be flexible enough to provide that, then I think we're in good shape. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, obviously we can include the language in the policy. The key is the effective date of that policy. If we don't get tied up in an appeal or administrative hearing, it will be effective before the AUIR goes before this body, as well as the BCC. And then you'll be fine to go ahead and move along along the lines that you want to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this document in front of us today, if it's written flexibly, should have ample time before August to be effective. Is that a good assumption? MR. COHEN: The problem with the assumption is is that if it goes through the process and it's not appealed and it doesn't go to hearing, then we're fine. If it does, then it wouldn't have an effective date until such time that those issues are resolved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we fall back on what's currently in place -- MR. COHEN: Yes. Page 45 T - January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which is last year's, so we can't do any worse than that. MR. COHEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, I think you need to come back to us on this one, though. Do we have time before the BCC? MR. COHEN: We go to the BCC on the 25th and 26th, but we can provide you with language -- you mean on the 17th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 18th-- MR. COHEN: A simple language statement? MR. SCHMITT: I would propose one of two things. Let's at least table this. I think maybe between now and by the end of the meeting that we can come back with some language, we'll bring it back at the end of the meeting. Because you're going to be hearing some land use petitions. Otherwise we'll have to bring it back the next meeting and discuss it. But I understand exactly what you're saying. And in fact your logic to me is absolutely correct. I think I'd just make this generic. I just need to figure out at the point where we would change the level of service, because the board makes that final decision, and it's certainly based on budget and assessed needs, kind of balancing both. But we want to give the latitude to change this level of service, similar to what we did with the EMS and some other type of levels of service where we ought to have some generic statement in here that that applies. So we'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just for my own clarification again. You don't have a problem with tying level of service to population, so as the population grows then the level of service would grow by proportionate amount. You want to attack the level of service, how they come at that level of service, how could they calculate it, right? I'm asking Mark. Page 46 .... T January 4, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: That's what I understood the chairman argued -- or probably not argued, but addressed during the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there needs to be a truthing of how that's calculated. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then that truthing needs to be applied in a manner that we can use it in the AUIR, which would then require some flexibility in the language in this EAR. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But there's no problem with the linkage to the growth of population? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not if they can justify it. I think if there's a better way to do it -- now, we had suggested each department look for possible better ways. I'm not sure parks and rec. has a better way. They refer to a document that they use also called SCORP from the state. But in looking and reviewing the 300 pages of SCORP, I found out they're not following SCORP either. So somewhere there needs to be some standardization that we can rely on. And that's what we asked each department to look at before the next AUIR. And all I'm trying to assure is that if they come up with a better system, it can be implemented and we're not locked into an archaic system based on the GMP language. That's it. Okay, so we'll just table this one until later today or possibly the 18th. And you'll come back to us today on that. Corby, where are we going to next -- is there any other comments on parks or on rec. open space? (No response.) MR. SCHMIDT: At this time, Mr. Chairman, I think I would suggest going to the beginning of the staff report and returning to the capital improvement elements and population calculation methodologies, of which Mr. Cohen is prepared to address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we normally take a break Page 47 r-- January 4, 2007 at 10:00. I think that's going to be a rather entwined subject, so let's take a IS-minute break and come back here at five after 10:00. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we resume the meeting. But before we do, I just spoke with the county attorney about the -- during the break, I spoke with the county attorney about an issue concerning our agenda today. First of all, I want to know if anybody is here from the public to speak on any of the elements of the EAR. Okay. With that in mind then, and based on the comments I've received from the county attorney, we can modify the agenda to move forward with the two public hearings we have to accommodate those in the public who are here to address those two and then come back and do the EAR afterwards. And since we're here to serve the public, I think that that would be the best thing we could possibly do. So I need a recommendation from this board -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to modify the agenda to go forward with the two public hearings, which are items 8(B) and 8(C). Mr. Kolflat, you -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 48 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Item #8B PETITION: BD-2006-AR-I0118 Great. We will move into the first of the two public hearings, which is a boat dock amendment. It's Petition BD-2006-AR-I0118, Richard S. Downs, represented by Davidson Engineering. And it involves 25 Pelican Street West, lot 74, Isles of Capri No. 1. Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me, for clarification to the public, if anybody is willing -- is wishing to speak on any subject, they have to fill out a little one of these speaker cards. They're out front on the desk out there and you have to turn them in to the county attorney right here. Even on this issue or even on the next one, the one on Manatee Road, if you want to speak, fill out one of those cards and please give it to the county attorney, and that way you're registered to speak. Are there any disclosures on the part of the planning commission on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got a phone call from Mr. Hancock, asked me if I had any issues with this. I told him at the time he called me I did not have any and I'd like to see what came out of today' s meeting. Any others? (No response.) Page 49 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, Mr. Hancock, it's all yours. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, here today representing the property owner and the applicant Richard and Ann Downs of 25 Pelican Street West in Isles of Capri, Florida. The item before you today, Boat Dock Extension 2006-AR-I0-118. It deals with property that is located to the south of Pompano Bay in Isles of Capri. If you're looking at the aerial in front of you, the westerly view is to your left. Easterly view is to your right. And the property lies on the south end of this bay. A little bit closer, what you can see here and this really graphically illustrates the basis and reasoning for the request. Pompano Bay at its narrowest point extending to the north is about 900 feet. The bay is seawalled on three sides. And as you can see in certain areas, accretion has occurred to varying degrees. Some homes on the bay need only go out the required 20 feet or are allowed 20 feet to have access to water deep enough for a small craft. Other properties, such as the ones to the west of the Downs', have to go out considerably further, in some cases in excess of 100 feet, in order to achieve a depth that allows for the use by watercraft. And by watercraft what we're talking about really are small boats. This property has already received a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers to allow for a dock and to moor a vessel up to 26 feet in length. So we're not talking about large cabin cruisers, although I'll tell you, some of these properties have been configured in such a way that allow that. The Downs are currently building a house on the property and wish to have this dock constructed so that they have use and access to the water in a reasonable fashion consistent with the completion of the house. This picture is fairly recent, taken yesterday. As you're standing behind the property and look to the west, this Page 50 r --- January 4, 2007 is the dock that you saw on the aerial that extends through a mangrove area and out some 100 feet plus or minus to allow for the mooring of this particular vessel. As you look to the east, the grassy lot here, the home has been torn down and is under construction. As you can see, we're assuming this dock is going to be replaced or modified at some point. The planks have been taken up. But again, similarly to what you're going to be seeing with the Downs' property, this dock extends out approximately 50 feet from the seawall, again to reach a depth suitable for small craft. The dock, as proposed and approved by the FDEP, is roughly centered on the property with a four-foot walkway extending seaward to a terminal platform and a small walkway here. There would be four mooring pilings that would support a boat lift ultimately. And what's shown here is an approximate 23-foot boat with an eight-foot beam. The facility itself, according to DEP standards, is less than 500 square feet in total area. There are no sea grasses present. And the issues dealing with the manatee are minimal, if any. Again, the water's really not deep enough to accommodate the manatees in this area. I would like to clarify, the request for the extension today is actually a request for a total of 55 feet. There was a simple math error in your staff report that added the 20 foot to the 55. The truth is the 20- foot line, as you can see from this example, expends out to right here, and the water depth at mean low is 1.3 feet. Certainly not suitable for anything but the skinniest of flatboats. The 55 feet is a total distance from the existing seawall which has been recently reconstructed under permit to the outside of the mooring piling. The actual dock itself extends approximately 42 and a half feet, and then we have an outboard mooring piling which will eventually support a boat lift in this location. The purpose for that link is quite honestly simply to get to a point where the landward side of the dock is sitting in four feet of water at Page 51 .---,--- January 4, 2007 mean low tide. This will accommodate small to medium-sized vessels, certainly up to the 26- foot lengths that are approved by the FDEP. To give you an idea of just how shallow the water is, yesterday this nice lady was up to her calves halfway out to her boat and her dog is standing right here. So it's fairly shallow. I appreciate them deciding to exercise while I was out there taking pictures. But this shoal's out a little bit further than the Downs' property does. As you can see it's a little bit shallower here. So the request here is based on a couple of basic facts: Number one, this is waterfront property, and reasonable right of use of the water is inherent in the purchase of waterfront property. Number two, the conditions that exist behind the Downs' property are not of their creation. They are in essence a result of development of the Isles of Capri and the natural accretion that occurs many times in bays like this that don't have a tremendous flushing action. We believe it's stable enough that -- the bottom is stable enough that the dock length that's being proposed is the minimum variance required in order to obtain reasonable use of the land. And we think the dock that is proposed is -- there's no boathouse proposed with this that would require a separate process. It's simply a four-foot walkway out to a terminal platform with mooring pilings for a boat lift at the end. The Downs have also installed or will be installing two sets of ladders. They're avid kayakers and look forward to continuing doing that in the surrounding waters. With the exception of the one change to the staff report that the total distance of the dock is 55 feet, not the 75 feet that was proposed, so the variance is actually a 35-foot variance beyond the 20 feet, we are in concurrence with the recommendations and findings of staff that deem this application to be consistent with the Land Development Code. Page 52 January 4, 2007 And at this time we would be happy to address any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you for the correction. That was very important. Just as a point of reference, will your dock extension bring you approximately in line with the boathouse? MR. HANCOCK: The one to this side over here? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, to your right. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, very close. The bottom topography is a little bit different. We drop off a little faster here but we still don't get to that minus four any faster than they do. So I've walked the area out there at low tide and it's going to be roughly similar to that existing boathouse. I think if someone were looking at this and thinking 75 feet they would have thought, hey, that sticks out much further than what sits there today, particularly if you're on this side looking towards the west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, could you put the plan view on again that you had just previous to this? MR. HANCOCK: You want the plan view from the top, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The plan view. That one. Those red lines that run vertically on that slide, what do they represent? MR. HANCOCK: These red lines represent where the setback from the property line will be. For example, the property line is over here, and this is a setback line. The entire dock and the boat itself must be within the land development code setbacks. So you can't have -- in other words, you can't put your dock right against the setback and have your boat overhanging into the side yard setback. Page 53 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And this is located approximately in the center of the lot line, isn't it? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. It's slightly offset, but not by much. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The staffreport recommendations contain four stipulation. Are you familiar with those? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, and we are in concurrence with those stipulations. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've got a little problem here. The SPGP. It said your project has been reviewed and in compliance. But it also says the authority granted under this SPGP expires December 17th, 2006. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The -- we submitted this application in July of last year. We expected to be through the process before December, but there were a lot of workload issues at development services and -- there really weren't any delays in the sense of us responding to staff requests, I think we just got caught in the system and it took a little longer to get through the process than anticipated. The FDEP permit does not expire until 2011 or 2021. It's a long time out. The Army Corps of Engineers has a six-month period on SPGP. They do not have an extension vehicle. What we have done is we have resubmitted the original information to Skip Bergmann of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and requested a reissuance of their approval. We cannot receive a building permit for this until we have the reissuance from the Army Corps of Engineers. So unfortunately, due to the time in process, that date has passed. But we are requesting a reissuance and we will be unable to obtain a building permit for this dock until that occurs. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, how can we approve it until we know that again that situation comes forward and again thee Page 54 January 4, 2007 SPGP approve it again until you have another length of time to get it done? Because right now they're saying you don't have the time to get it done, it's expired. MR. HANCOCK: I believe that the answer to that lies in the staff stipulations which requires that your Army Corps of Engineers permit and DEP permit be in place prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is incumbent upon us to have that reissued. Obviously, we didn't anticipate being here in January. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. MR. HANCOCK: So -- and we notified the Corps voluntarily ahead of time and they indicated if we resubmit the original application, they will put it through the review process. There's no fee. But they simply don't have an extension mechanism, which is -- in the time it takes to even get building permits these days, that makes it a little difficult. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand what you're saying, and I understand (sic) it when I read it. And I just can't conceive of how I could turn around and say well, I'm sure you're going to get it again, but I really don't know that. It mean, it should happen. You're going to send it. Until it comes, I can't see how we can vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Adelstein, we vote on all projects before they get building permits. He can't get a building permit without a Corps permit. Which means we're not in jeopardy at all. We're simply saying this is okay to go ahead, if that's what we decide, but you have to still go through the process of getting a building permit, which he can't get unless he has the Corps permit you've got questions about. So he's locked into getting it no matter what. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel or the applicant before we hear staff report? Page 55 IW January 4, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. MR. HEDRICH: Good morning, all. For the record, my name is Dave Hedrich, I'm a Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review, Collier County. Mr. Hancock covered everything very well. His photographs nearly mimic every one that I have taken. I would like to pass out at this time -- we had received one letter of objection on this project, as well as one letter of recommendation from the residents in the area that did not make it into your packet. And these letters came just before -- the day before Christmas break. So I made . copIes. And at this time if you allow, my associate will pass those out for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Thank you. We'll have to review them and if so, admit them into evidence. Yes, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, where are those letters from? Are there any from the immediate neighbors? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, there is one -- actually, one's just down the street around the corner from where we were speaking of the boathouse. And the other one is -- and the one for approval is around the corner where the other docks extend out greatly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But not the immediate neighbors? MR. HEDRICH: No, none from the immediate neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I'll move to put it into evidence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to put it into evidence? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. And for the record, it's two letters. One is dated December 18th, 2006 from Joanne and George Moore, and the other dated December Page 56 T January 4, 2007 18th, 2006 from Eleanor D. Hughes. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In this letter of objection, which just happened to be the one on top, it says that there was a picture included, which you did not attach here, which we should have a copy of. At any rate, this letter also is under the misconception that this would be 75 feet as opposed to 55 feet in total. Did you notify -- have you talked to these people? Have you let them know that it's actually not 75 feet, it's only 55 feet. MR. HEDRICH: I believe one of our speakers from this letter of objection is here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, looks like this is going to be easy for you so far. Thank you. MR. HEDRICH: I also wanted to address that time period Page 57 'r-"-' January 4,2007 concern there. It was due to a lack of getting the legal right. It seems that even the Army Corps of Engineers, our own property appraiser's office, everybody had a wrong legal description for this particular site as far as section and township range was concerned. And trying to iron that out with all the departments was a great monthly process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe they bought a lot in Port Royal and don't know it. Okay, thank you. Hearing no other questions of staff, I'll ask for public speakers. MS. DESELEM: Yes, we have one registered speakers. We have Joanne Moore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Moore, if you'd like to come up to either podium, that would be great. MS. MOORE: Yes, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull that a little closer. There you go. MS. MOORE: This one right here? Okay. I am a close neighbor of the property they're talking about. It's -- it is a shallow area, that whole side of the bay. And I dispute the fact that everyone is entitled to the use of the water. I believe everybody is entitled to enjoy the beauty of the water. And nature is going to change those sands back and forth. So I don't think that is a reason to allow such a large, long dock. It obstructs half of our living room, the view that they propose. I never -- I didn't realize that they're not going to go out 75 feet, but to me 20 feet allowance is adequate, and it destroys longer docks. I disputed the one that's over on the west corner as well. It's an eyesore to us. I think you have to realize that Florida draws their residents and their people here because of the natural beauty, and because a newcomer comes along and wants to have his wishes shouldn't override those who have lived here a long time. I've owned this property since 1958 and I've seen a lot of changes. A lot of those problems with shallow water were because an early man who owned that property left it as a beach for his grandchildren. And of course nature took over and built more shallow water. Page 58 r January 4, 2007 So I'd like for you to consider the options of allowing people to put in things for their pleasure and allowing others to enjoy nature as it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, for the record -- Ms. Moore, for the record, would you state your full name, please? MS. MOORE: My name is Joanne Moore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And one question, would you mind somehow pointing to the house that you own? You maybe won't be able to reach that. MS. MOORE: I can't reach it. Right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you own that very first house? MS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. Very first house from Hawk's Nest in from this property. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers, Kay? MS. DESELEM: That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now last, is there any rebuttal by the applicant? Thank you, David, we're all set. Appreciate it. MR. HANCOCK: By using the scale on the aerial photograph, I think it's important to note that you can see the line extending outward from the property. The furthest reach of that is 75 feet. That is approximately at the end of the existing Tahitian-style boathouse that currently lies to the west of Ms. Moore's property. The line closer to shore is approximately 55 feet. So we actually are going to be some 20 feet landward of an existing boathouse which currently is within her view window. So the actual effect of this visually of existing conditions I expect to be nominal, if any. Page 59 ""'---'--''1- January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And that -- well, you're saying 50 feet here. Is that what it's going to be really? MR. HANCOCK: The number is 55 feet to the outward mooring piling. And that's the outside edge of that piling. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's my question. So I'm interested in the outside of your boat dock lift piling. MR. HANCOCK: That would be 55 feet -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So that would be another five feet out beyond -- what you're showing here is the inside line. MR. HANCOCK: This was scaled, so it's -- that number is plus or minus. I think the important thing, the point of reference is the existing Tahitian boat dock-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. HANCOCK: -- is some 75 feet offshore already. COMMISSIONER CARON: But included in your 55 feet is the outside of that piling for the boat dock lift? MR. HANCOCK: If that helps clarify it, that is the extent of the variance. And it's 55 feet to give us that six -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I wanted on the record, 55 feet is to the outside of that piling. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just have a question about what are the legal rights of a waterfront property owner? Mr. Hancock had said that that includes the right to moor a boat. Is that true? MR. KLATZKOW: As a general proposition, that is true. You have a right to use the water as a riparian line. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But does that refer to a specific depth of water that you need in order to moor? MR. KLATZKOW: You should have reasonable access to that Page 60 --- r January 4, 2007 water. So that what the applicant's asking for I believe is absolutely reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock, are you finished? MR. HANCOCK: I am done, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Commissioner Adelstein, you indicated you want to make a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we approve BD-2006-1 0 118, subject to staff approval -- recommendation, pardon me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would that be at the 55-foot total? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Excuse me. If they include the stipulations of the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what Mr. Adelstein said, yes, sir. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 61 I ---- January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. Item #8C PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-7271 And now we will probably go into the one that everybody's been waiting for. This will be Petition RZ-2005-AR-7271, and it's the Collier County public utilities department, represented by Frank (sic) Reischl, involving property located at 1300 Manatee Road. Will all those wishing to speak on this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If any members of the public are going to speak on this, you have to stand up and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there disclosures on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we will move forward with the applicant's presentation. And I know Fred Reischl, and you're not him. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How did you guess that? MR. AMICO: As soon as I get this right, I'll tell you who I am. Good morning. For the record, Dominick Amico with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, representing Collier County public utilities. This project is a very important element to my client and to the future -- current and future potable water users in the southeast area of Page 62 ~ ~-----r--- ~ January 4, 2007 Collier County. The main purpose of this rezone is to provide information. My client has a good neighbor policy where their plants and their facilities are concerned. And it's their policy to try and provide the public and the neighbors with information at the earliest possible convenience. And that's really what this is about. It's a rezone to P, public use, limited to essential services. The essential services that we're limiting this zoning application to can already be done on this site. They're allowed in all zoning districts except for a few of the environmentally sensitive zoning districts. They are -- the limitations are very innocuous uses. They're buried utilities, power lines, buried gas lines, anything that you would find in any neighborhood. So that's what we're limiting this to. The goal of the rezone is to have this property tagged with a public use zoning, as opposed to its existing agricultural zoning so that the current and future neighbors know that there's a water plant some day coming on this site. And I can explain the some day part. The Growth Management Plan, the potable water element of the Growth Management Plan currently shows this site as an approved location for a water treatment plant. Potable water. That plan has been approved -- or that -- this location has been approved in that plan every year since 2000. The county acquired this site in 1983. Prior to 1983, the site was part of the Capri Water Services District, or Capri Utilities. As early as 1979, we have records of there being an active water treatment plant on this site. Obviously when the county obtained the Capri water system, that plant was discontinued and served -- those uses were served from existing county plants. Like I said before, the goal of the rezone is to tag the property with the P zoning or some other sort of zoning such that the public would know something was coming here. In order to achieve that, we have basically three choices of zoning activity that we can do on this Page 63 '~----'1 January 4, 2007 site. The first and the most common one for this type of use would have been a conditional use, which was what we initially set out to do. The unfortunate part of the conditional use is that they expire in two years. And we have a seven to 10-year time horizon of when this plant will be designed and built. So the conditional use option didn't work, because we'd have to go back through the process every two years to keep it active. The second choice of zoning activity that we pursued or looked into was of course a PUD. PUD would allow us to specify all these uses on this site, but the unfortunate part about a PUD is they sunset in five years. So a PUD didn't really work for us. That left the P rezone, straight rezone, which is what we're pursuing at this time. If I can get some of the slides up for you. Okay, this is a site location, located south of Manatee Road. You can see there are existing neighbors to the north and to the east. To the west and south are currently vacant. The westerly property is zoned, I believe, multi-family. And the southerly property is also zoned multi-family, if I remember correctly. My client attempted to purchase those properties and was unable to do it. They wanted a larger property so they could further buffer this plant from the neighbors. They were beat to the punch by private developers, so it's The second slide is just a blow-up of the site. You can see there are currently existing water -- potable water facilities existing on the site. These consist of the ASR project and a water storage tank, both of which do not rely on this zoning for approval. They are allowed uses of the existing agricultural zoning. This is an exhibit out of the Growth Management Plan that indicates the location of this site is an approved location for a water treatment plant, or a required location. The site is in a flood zone. It's in FEMA zone AE. Elevation is 6.3 NGVD. The existing site grades are roughly a foot below that, so there is not an inordinate amount of Page 64 -- r January 4, 2007 fill that will need to be used to elevate this site to achieve flood zone compliance. This is a conceptual site plan that was presented to the EAB, showing how the plant would fit in and avoid all the environmentally sensitive areas on the site. Being a rezone to straight zoning, a site plan isn't really required. But we felt like there was sufficient interest in knowing if it would fit or not that we provided a site plan. And these are the essential service limitations that we're limiting this rezone to. As you can see, these uses are allowed in any zoning district. So the result of what we're doing here won't really change anything that can happen on the site today other than it will be tagged with P zoning in the official zoning atlas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that conclude-- MR. AMICO: If you have any questions, I can give you more information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other questions? Mr. Kolflat, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, not you? Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Under essential services, does that include fire or EMS or police or anything of that nature? MR. AMICO: No, sir. The essential services list is up. It's directly out of the LDC, and those use are not permitted under essential services. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On the first page of the staff report, it refers to public hearing item number eight in the application for public hearing. I don't find that being the same. What I have under eight there is whether the proposed change would create a drainage problem. MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. I'm sorry, the evaluation in the application for public hearing, the Page 65 -- 1 January 4, 2007 standard rezone considerations are item eight. And we are referencing the applicant's response of those. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that item eight does not refer to the item eight there in the application? This one? MS. DESELEM: Yes, it is. It's -- the application that you have, application for public hearing, and the pages are not numbered. But you'll see that number seven is rezone request. Number eight is evaluation criteria. And it goes on to standard rezone considerations per LDC Section 10.03.05.G. And it lists 1 through 18. In addition, those were supplemented by narrative statements provided by the petitioner. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you, Kay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell Tuff after you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Obviously these essential services are allowed in any zoning, and the water tank I guess is an ancillary facility for number seven, correct? MR. AMICO: My understanding is that the water tank is an approved allowable use under the ago zone that it is currently zoned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The big question is when you determine that it's a P zone, what additional things is it now allowed to do that it's not allowed to do under ag.? MR. AMICO: Nothing. Under the proposal that we're making to limit the P zone to essential services, there is nothing we'd be able to do if you approve it versus if you don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And-- MR. AMICO: The water treatment plant that is proposed to go on this site in the future will require a conditional use before it can go forward. Even if we didn't limit it to essential services. If we just Page 66 1 -, January 4, 2007 rezoned P with no limitations, a water plant would still require a conditional use to be built on this site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how are we limiting that then? I'm looking at the resolution, it doesn't do it. So how do we limit it to what's allowed in 2.01 or .03? Once it goes into Pit's -- I think this building is in P zoning, isn't it? MR. AMICO: No, sir, we're PUD on this whole courthouse site. The original zoning was P, but it was since revised. I'm not sure how staff has proposed to write the resolution to limit the uses, but that is our intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way it's written, it's just going to flip it to P and then all the rights of P would be yours. MS. DESELEM: If I may, for the record again, Kay Deselem. I can respond to that, since I'm the one that prepared that. Apparently we did not get that update yet. We can do that update once it's approved. But it would be limited as stipulated by the petitioner. That would be the only use allowed, if in fact that's the way the approval's written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will be only the uses allowed in this -- MS. DESELEM: The essential services. And we can cite this section of the LDC, as has been done in the rest of them. This is how it was advertised, to not be approved anything more intense than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is there any way to control height of that? For example, if you wanted to build a 100- foot tall water tank, could you do it? MR. AMICO: I believe that is true at this time. I think we could. I know the way Collier County's facilities are built currently, they don't build water tanks anymore, but that's obviously not a zoning guarantee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the concern I really have is that since you chose not to use a PUD, which would give us the ability Page 67 1.--.... January 4, 2007 to put limitations on it, this is the way it's proposed, the way it's written. MR. AMICO: No, sir. The way the process works, as defined in the LDC, is we still have to come back for a conditional use. You can put those conditions on the conditional use, those height limitations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To obtain these essential services, you would have to go through the conditional use process? MR. AMICO: No, sir. To do the water plant we would have to go back through the conditional use process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the water plant would not be considered number seven on this list. MR. AMICO: That's correct. That is staffs opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, my main concern is you drive on Collier Boulevard and there's a water treatment plant there and it reeks an awful lot, and so if I -- I think it's admirable to want to try and put that zoning in so people know that it's there and it's going to be there. Since you're asking for that, is there a way that we could stipulate somehow that there's -- odor is going to be taken care of? Because that's the main -- like I think I'd rather have that there if there was no smell if I lived there than some other things that could be there. But I just know I would not want to have that next to my home if I was there. MR. AMICO: Well, I'm not sure that we have the ability to make that condition at this point, at this stage of the project. It would seem that the appropriate time to do that might be during the conditional use and -- oh, we have an expert. MS. ABBOTT: For the record, I'm Alicia Abbott. I'm the Project Manager. I'm with Public Utilities Engineering in Collier County. Page 68 <M"r January 4, 2007 With regards to odor control, we have been using state-of-the-art odor control on our treatment plants, and we plan to use that on all the treatment plants going forward. So we're currently doing that, retrofitting some of our plants and moving forward. We're also putting it in all of the new plants. So we will-- that's already considered. So once you get into design we'll be doing that. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Now where are you at with the Collier Boulevard one, if that one has been retrofitted and is supposed to be working? It doesn't work at all. MS. ABBOTT: I'm sorry, I'm just looking at the -- because that's not my proj ect, so -- MR. GRAMATGES: For the record, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Engineering. I am the project manager for the expansion of the south water plant. And as part of that expansion project, we are updating the odor control system within that plant. It has not been updated at this time. But we are in the process of doing that. And in fact the equipment is already on-site and is being assembled and will be connected before the project is completed, which is scheduled to be completed sometime late this year. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's the one on 951 ? MR. GRAMATGES: That's the one on 951 just north of 1-75, . yes, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray, then Mr. -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, what tank will be put in there? There will be ASR wells, and there will be a tank, right? There will be large tank at the plant? MR. GRAMATGES: It's currently existing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's -- currently there's a tank there, but I thought I read that there would be an expansion, there would be a second tank. Page 69 -I January 4, 2007 MR. AMICO: There is a current SDP, which is in administrative approval, underway to add a second tank. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct, okay, fine. Could you give me an idea of what we're -- and that's going to be buried, if I'm not mistaken, as well. That's not going to be buried? That's interesting. MR. AMICO: I believe it will be similar to what's there now. And that isn't the subject of this zoning. Once again, those uses -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Are you saying I'm not allowed to ask you questions? MR. AMICO: No, sir, I'm just trying to answer your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. What I'd like to know is what the size of the current tank is, if you may. MS. LIBBY: That one is two million gallons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to identify yourself. MS. LIBBY: This is Pam Libby, Water Operations Manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you tell me how high that is right now? The height of it, roughly? Roughly. I don't have to have it exact. MS. LIBBY: Forty feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forty feet. So you anticipate -- you're going to build a volume of some greater amount, and it will be roughly the same height, regardless of volume? MS. LIBBY: Industry standards, there is about two million gallons a tank, so there would be probably -- there's one going in right now as part of an additional ASR project that's in the process right now. And then as part of the plant expansion there's a possibility there would be a third. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And these tanks then would be Page 70 . I January 4, 2007 set back? I know I saw the plan, okay. They don't look to be set back, they look to be more on the avenue, so to speak. Is it because of the plant life, the protection of the preserve that we didn't set them back further? MS. LIBBY: I will have to let Alicia speak to that issue, because she's involved in the design of the project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just wondering from a visual point of view, it would seem -- you know, we try to protect the view of people. And I just wondered if there's a basis for putting them on the avenue. That's one thing. But I wonder. MS. ABBOTT: Yeah. Well, currently because, you know, we're at this stage, we haven't hired design consultants, we haven't gone into it, really we had just a very basic site plan put together. But the plan is to put, you know, setbacks. And usually we go a little bit more than what the required goals are to try -- and we use buffering as well on our plants to try and, you know, not have it quite as visible, that type of thing. So that's not been designed. I mean, that's going to be in the future. And as Dominick said, it's all going to come back to you once we come back for conditional use. You will see what we have come up with at that point. But it's way too early. Like I said, I don't have -- the only consultants I have are the ones helping with this zoning. We haven't gotten to the point of design or even pre-design for this facility yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I can appreciate what this is, it's an effort to put the foot in the door, so to speak. But at the same time, once the foot is in the door, eventually the body follows. And we want to make sure that the body is pretty. And so my concern would be that we need to be cognizant of that, and the neighborhood deserves to have the same, perhaps even better treatment in terms of visualization. It's 40 feet high, it's a tank, it's not a home and so forth. So I don't know that we here as a body can do much, you're right, Page 71 January 4, 2007 in the context of this rezoning, but who knows who's going to be here eight or 10 years from now? So I thought maybe we might be able to say something about it. So thank you. MS. ABBOTT: No, we will take all that into consideration, definitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That was the one question I had having to do with -- I think you've answered my questions, especially, since I've listened to the questions of the other commissioners. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question I'd like to point out -- I'm sorry, Mr. Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. Are you willing to commit that this is only going to be for water treatment and not vvastevvatertreatnnent? MR. AMICO: That is the intent, that is the commitment. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's the commitment? Then my question is, what chemical odors are with talking about? I'm familiar with wastewater treatment odors but I'm not familiar with water treatment odors. MR. AMICO: There shouldn't be any odors to the neighbors. The chlorine smell that people have talked about shouldn't be any stronger than what's coming out of your tap. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is that what you were talking about, Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, it's a rotten egg smell. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That sounds more like wastewater. COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, sulfur. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, sulfur. MS. LIBBY: For the record again, Pam Libby, Water Operations Manager. The odors that I think Mr. Tuff was referring to, it's the hydrogen sulfide. It's a degasification process for all the treatment. It's Page 72 I -- January 4, 2007 not really coming from chemicals themselves. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MS. LIBBY: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Libby, I think you were the one that testified to the size of the existing tank and the proposed new tank? I thought you had said two million gallons, but the records I have in front of me suggest you're putting in a six million gallon tank. Is that correct? MS. LIBBY: I'd have to go back and look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll just read it. It is proposed that the dry retention area -- MS. LIBBY: The existing tank is two million gallons. That's what I was stating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mr. Murray may have been asking about what your intention was for the next tank, and I think your next tank, from what -- MS. LIBBY: Okay, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, it's six million gallons. So just so the record's clear, you're looking at a six million gallon tank. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And a second one on top of that would make it 12 million, in fact. That's big. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staff, but I'll wait for staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got some of staff, too. Thank you, . su. MS. LIBBY: Again, Pam Libby. The tanks go wider, they don't go higher, as they get larger. Just to kind of allay what I think Mr. Murray's alluding to. They don't get higher. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. You have received a copy of the staff report. Staff is Page 73 January 4, 2007 recommending that this petition be found consistent with Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of it. And we have noted, as has been discussed, that the applicant has limited the approval to just seeking essential service facilities uses. In addition, just a little while ago I heard a commitment also that seems to clarify number six shown on that list, and I'll ask for clarification on that, that would not allow sewage lift stations, would only allow water pumping stations. But I wanted to get clarification on that later. The applicant has provided you with a purpose and description explaining to you what this is about, and noting that under the proposed rezoning they're not going to be allowed to do anything other than what's already actually allowed to be done in the ago zoning district that already exists. Anything like a water treatment facility, if you had the addition that is A that you're seeing there, if it went on to B, C, D and the others, it would note that many of those uses like fire station and the other uses do require conditional use approval. That's where the petitioner is telling you that anything else other than this limited use right through here would require conditional use approval. The petitioner explained to you what the surrounding zoning is. I would note that to the south it's zoned mobile home. It is undeveloped. We've had several petitions in and out as far as pre-aps speculating about some development, but no petitions have been submitted. Just interest in the surrounding area, but nothing has been submitted. In the staff report on Page 2 it goes into a discussion of the Growth Management Plan consistency, noting that this particular parcel is an urban mixed use district, urban coastal fringe subdistrict, and notes that the proposed use is allowable. You also have on Page 3 the transportation element analysis, and it's important to note here that this petition did go through analysis by the transportation planning staff, and it was determined that because of Page 74 ..1 January 4, 2007 issues with roadway access available in this area that they could not support the petition unless it was limited to essential services uses. Things like fairgrounds and other things that would have been allowed in the public zoning district would have incurred additional traffic that the area would not have accommodated. Therefore, that's one of the reasons why this petition's been limited to essential services uses. That's the only way transportation planning would support it. And that is a stipulation therefore of staffs approval. You also have a discussion of the coastal and conservation management element. And this petition was heard by the EAC. In actuality it was heard twice by the EAC. And again, they've made a change based on the first finding of the EAC to limit the use. Once they limited the use, they were unanimously supported in their rezoning petition by the EAC. You have the zoning analysis included in the staff report. You have a brief synopsis of the EAC council meeting. You have also in the staff report on Page 4 the neighborhood information notes. Noting that, if I may, when this particular petition was involved in the neighborhood information process, at that time the petitioner had not agreed to any limitations on the uses. And many of the comments that you see in here were based on other uses that would have been allowed in that zoning district. And it seems in staffs opinion as though most of those concerns would go away based on the limitation you now have. And as I noted, staff is recommending that this particular petition be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and we are recommending approval of it. I'd be happy to address any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you indicate you had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, I'm still concerned with the height limitations on this site. If it goes to P, and I just read in here Page 75 January 4, 2007 that a building -- and we could argue whether the water tank's a building or not, but let's not do that. If it's within -- if it's greater than 100 feet from a property line, there's really unlimited height. So is there a way that we can, while we're changing it to P, put limitations on what it can be? MS. DESELEM: Certainly. You can offer suggestions and include those in your recommendation. If you have determined that a specific height is appropriate or nothing above and beyond a specific height is appropriate, you can offer that as part of the conditions in your recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question was, the tank that's in there now, was that done through a public hearing? MS. DESELEM: No, I don't believe so. As any use now within the zoning district, if it's an allowable use in the zoning district, doesn't require any kind of a conditional use or a rezone approval, the action or process by which you now get approvals to put structures on sites is administrative. That is the site development process wherein an applicant submits a site development plan application and that is reviewed by the county staff. It is not acted upon in any public hearing forum situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if they were to build that today, they wouldn't have a public hearing in the A zoning? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. And as noted, there is an SDP application in-house now. It's being reviewed. And it was submitted, as is appropriate, under the existing zoning, and it is being reviewed for that. That would allow for an expansion at the existing facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not requiring a conditional use? We heard earlier that there was going to be a conditional use for a water plant. MS. DESELEM: A water treatment plant would require -- Page 76 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A well on a tank. MS. DESELEM: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the height of those facilities that are in SDP right now? MS. DESELEM: I must admit, I don't know. Perhaps the applicant can address that, because I believe it's their petition as well. I'm not the reviewer on that SDP and I'm not certain what it is. I apologize, I should have had that information for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, sorry, I can't let you off that easy. MS. DESELEM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this is being presented by the utility division to put the public on notice that something is going to go there involving essential services or the like. Do you know of any place in the county where they've utilized 42 acres under the by right essential services? MS. DESELEM: I'm not aware of any that -- or I haven't looked. I mean, it's not like I did any research to find it. I'm not aware of any because I didn't look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the fact that the fire department and EMS have tried to -- have added their uses to the essential service list, and that that recently was defeated? MS. DESELEM: I was aware there was something going on with the LDC amendment seeking that, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- and I understand they're going to try it again next year. If they were to succeed in doing that, in adding fire and EMS to this list of2.01.03 and this approval was provided subject to the LDC of2.01.03, would they then be allowed to put a fire station and EMS station there as well? MS. DESELEM: In my estimation, yes, they would. If it's stated Page 77 January 4, 2007 in the approval that they can do what's allowed within the zoning district in effect at the time they seek development plan approval, then that would allow that if in fact that is approved. However, you again have the authority to add conditions to your recommendations, should you desire to recommend approval, that would limit and prohibit specific uses, if you so desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or we could limit it to the essential services as stated in today's LDC. MS. DESELEM: The best way to do that is to actually list it in the resolution and just call them out, and staff will just pull up that and plug it into the resolution itself. Because again, if the LDC changes, nobody's going to be able to go back and find it. It's better to just have the actual language and limitations within the ordinance itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you -- there was a note I caught on the pre-ap. Or did you attend the pre-ap? MS. DESELEM: I believe so. I'd have to go back and look, but I believe I did, yes. Oh, yes, I know I did, because there was confusion in the pre-ap. as to whether it was a conditional use or a rezone. Therefore you have two different sets of pre-ap. notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In one of the pre-ap. notes, in one of the last pages of the piece I'm looking at it says in someone's handwriting, probably a member of staff, address concerns about placing a critical public facility within a special flood hazard area. Potential impacts to the community rating system and the national flood emergency program. Has that issue been resolved? MS. DESELEM: To my knowledge, no, because I believe that was on the conditional use pre-ap. notes. And I believe the staff person that might have made that, and I'm not certain, but I think it was Robert Wiley, who is in engineering. But that issue has come up at the EAC and the applicant did Page 78 --- r January 4, 2007 address it at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how did they address it? MS. DESELEM: I would rather that they -- rather than me try to paraphrase, they can respond to that better than 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to them, I have one other question. MS. DESELEM: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You recommended -- you suggested this meets the intent of the comprehensive plan; is that right? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the CCME we have a policy titled 12.2.8. Offhand, you probably don't know what that is, do you? MS. DESELEM: Offhand, you're right, I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking, is because if you knew it offhand, that means you'd be prepared to answer my question. But if you don't, I will read it to you. It says, public facilities that are dependent upon county funding shall not be built in a coastal high hazard area unless the facility is designed for public access or for resource and restoration. Public access you're referring to obviously is the beaches and launch ramps. Now, how do we get around Policy 12.2.8 in regards to this publicly funded facility? MS. DESELEM: Without looking at the whole thing in context, I don't know. And we didn't -- sometimes it's tied to something else, and I don't know. And I don't have that in front of me so I'd have to say at this point I don't know. And I'd be more than happy to look it up and respond to you, but I don't have it in front of me right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for my part of this meeting, that's going to be important. It may not be for others, but I will tell you right now, that has got to be overcome in my concerns. And so depending on how this meeting gels up, we may want to get that answer before the day is over. Page 79 1- January 4, 2007 MS. DESELEM: Could I ask that you cite that again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 12.2.8. It's a-- MS. DESELEM: Eight or A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight, E-I-G-H-T. It's a one-sentence policy. And the reason I knew about it is on Coconilla -- remember that project that was in the coastal high hazard area? We went through and pulled every piece of coastal high hazard references we could in discussing that project at the public meetings. And the public funding of facilities was an issue there. And of course there wasn't going to be any public funding of facilities in regards to additional facilities, there was only going to be piping and stuff that you would have to put to supply existing -- or approved dwelling units. This is a little different. This is an entire treatment facility. And I want to understand how the county funding of that treatment facility can be provided in a coastal high hazard area. And of course if it is, I imagine the applicant realizes that they have to have special flood control and flood prevention costs that will have to go into that facility. And that's another policy in the CCME for flood prone areas. So anyway, if you could look at 12.2.8, I'd appreciate it. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. And again, we've got to take it into context with the other maps that the applicant showed you, where the board has actually approved this site for this use. So I'm going to have to go back and do some coordination as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you brought it up. Mr. Klatzkow, does the Growth Management Plan language take precedent over subsequent documents such as master plan by the utility department that was approved by the board, or would the board have to physically go back and amend the GMP if the utility master plan differed from the GMP? MR. KLATZKOW: GMP trumps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, I think it's important Page 80 -"->>', January 4, 2007 that that question get answered. MS. DESELEM: Certainly, I'd be happy to look into that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, for a water treatment plant, do you need 40 acres? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, pardon me? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For this water treatment plant, do you need 40 acres? MS. DESELEM: Let me clarify. It's not a water treatment at this point. What it is, it's a rezoning to P to allow essential service facilities, as limited in that list. The water treatment facility would require a conditional use, and that would come back to you if at such time they decide to pursue that approval. At this point we don't know. And there's no assurances if or if not the P zoning is approved whether or not they're going to get any conditional use. It would be reviewed on its own merit when and if it's submitted. So right now it's not a specific use, other than the limit we have. And I just wanted to say that before -- because I can't really respond until I clarify the question. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I was just interested to find that out, because I wasn't aware that you would need that big of an area in order to do water treatment. And that leads to the question, are they planning to do anything else besides that? MS. DESELEM: They can better address that than I, because all I'm reviewing is the actual petition with the limitations set forth by the petitioner. Joe wants to respond to your question about the 12.2.8. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, I'm well aware of the prohibition and construction in the coastal high hazard. And of course we have the guidance from the board regarding the -- at least applying those rules to approve our CRS community rating system. And we Page 81 January 4, 2007 recently of course established the floodplain management ordinance to do the kind of things that are expressly directed in that policy. The issue here would be that when they come back for a conditional use, any type of conditional use or any type of proposal for a plant in that facility would have to meet the requirements of that policy, and that would be a criteria established under the conditional use that there would have to be berming or flood protection or other type or -- and we would certainly point out to the board that this conditional use could be in direct conflict with the stated policy of not putting those type of facilities in a coastal high hazard area. The problem here is most of those policies were developed of course after -- this land has been owned and -- since 1983, I believe, the county has owned this land. This is the first action. What happens after this is the follow-on or subsequent application that comes to the board for the conditional use for the property. And Mr. Midney, in regards to the size of the property, most of that would be retained as buffering. That would be the intent. But I would have to defer to the applicant. I don't even know if they have a conceptual design. But the intent would be to ensure that there was certainly adequate buffering if any type of plant would go in there. But I don't know, Mr. Strain, if your questions have been answered. I think most of that would have to come in the follow-on hearings, pointing out the conflict between a proposal to develop a facility which clearly now is going to be in conflict with another stated policy in the GMP which says not to build in the coastal-- these type of essential services in a coastal hazard area. We had this same problem when we dealt with the EMS station. It didn't come to you for rezoning, but the EMS station essentially is the same thing, it was deemed to be in the coastal high hazard, the facility that's being built in the Lely site, which is well north of 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, my question wasn't answered in the sense, it doesn't say that you can build it there if you berm it. It Page 82 l' January 4, 2007 says public facilities that are dependent on county funding shall not be built in the coastal high hazard area. So it's not saying you can build it and protect it. It's saying you won't build it. And I'm saying we're here today to talk about changing the essential services -- or approving this to put the public on notice that something's going to happen there. Even though all the items in front of us can be done without doing that. So the intent is something further than what's in front of us. MR. SCHMITT: And I have to defer to the public utilities, what their plans are for this. We're of course the staff bringing this forward. This just happens to be the county. But we as the review agent are doing nothing more than bringing this forward for a rezone for a P public use. Naturally, certainly there is a presumption that that public use will later be used and come in for a conditional use for a plant facility. But that is not part of this petition. But where you go with this, that is under your authority as the local planning authority . You can certainly extrapolate and take it one step further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Joe, where I was trying to finish this at, if you guys have a different use for this, then you don't really need to establish the fact you can do essential services there because you can do that by right. Then all of this effort may be for naught if the GMP doesn't allow it to begin with. So I would think that someone would want to resolve that GMP issue first rather than waste all this effort into putting something there that can't transpire in the future anyway, because then you're going to have change the zoning again to resell the property to do something else with it. MR. SCHMITT: And I don't argue that. Part of the review for any type of facility in the future, we would have -- staff would have to point out to the board that the conditional use is in direct conflict with Page 83 - ! January 4, 2007 a policy in the GMP. And that would have to be the board to make that decision as to whether they want to basically violate the guidance in the GMP. The board can do that. Then certainly then they can later be challenged. But I don't know, I have to defer to the applicant. I don't even know if the applicant even had considered whether this type of facility would be deemed in direct conflict with the GMP. I agree with you, the policy's in there, and it's very clear. And it's also part of our new floodplain management ordinance and some of the other ordinances that clearly state, and it's part of the community rating system in regards to there are so many points associated with preventing those kind of things from taking place and have a direct bearing on -- every member of the county or every homeowner of the county who pays flood insurance could be impacted by a plus or minus point in the community rating system. There is a direct correlation. We are now -- we are now CRS 7, which 15 percent discount. Every member of -- every homeowner of the county who pays flood insurance who are in a flood zone has a 15 percent discount. And anything that we do that could impact that and increase our -- say we go to an eight, it has a direct impact on what residents pay in flood . Insurance. I think we're getting into a lot more than you probably wanted to know, but yes, it does impact the CRS and it does impact -- I mean, it would be in direct conflict with a stated policy within the GMP. And I guess I have to defer to the applicant if they're aware that any future expansion isn't in conflict with what's stated in the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question. Because if you look at the staff report on Page 2, this -- it says that it is consistent with the GMP. And I want to know why or if 12.2.8 was ever brought to the attention of the petitioner. Was there ever a discussion about it in those hearings? I mean, it certainly should be -- Page 84 ---T- January 4, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: It's consistent under the P use. This was reviewed for rezoning to P, not for future expansion of a water treatment plant. Even though conceptually we realize that that potentially could be the use. But that would be dealt with at the CU. And I know this is being somewhat obfuscating what you're asking. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it really is, Joe, because in reality, everybody on staff, and certainly the department who brought it forward knows what they want to put there. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so shouldn't that discussion have happened already? Why would we go through a silly exercise of saying well, we'll just approve it as P first and then we'll deal with everything else later? I'm not understanding the logic. MR. SCHMITT: I defer to the applicant to answer that question. Because their intent was to come in and zone it P so that it would be identified as a public use site. COMMISSIONER CARON: But then in this hearing they said that they wanted to limit it to a water treatment plant, and that they would take everything else off the table except that. I can't believe that was never brought up in any meeting that their intent was to have a water treatment plant there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I think --let us go through with the community's response and the applicant's and let us see where this gels out. Go ahead. MR. AMICO: I think this issue was discussed with staff. Robert Wiley was the person who brought it up. And I think the conclusion was that since the Growth Management Plan potable water element shows the site as a water treatment plant site, as a required water treatment plant site, that it overruled -- and it's been that way since before that rule was written, 12.02.08, I believe. So the staffs thought in my mind was that look, this site is grandfathered. It's been on the books. It's been a water treatment Page 85 January 4, 2007 plant site since 1972. Before that. I don't know how long Capri Water's been around, but they've been around a long time. That was the line of reasoning with staff. It was discussed and that's where it ended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the intent, unspoken intent, is grandfathered? And that's pretty interesting, because if that applies, we've got a pile of developments out there that have got zoning they don't even know they own. I'm not saying your whole thing is wrong, but to believe that you've grandfathered something that hasn't been really in the public's -- through the public process would be real difficult to understand how that could be. If that's your only argument, I don't -- MR. AMICO: It's not an argument I'm making to you. It's not an attempt to convince you. I'm just telling you that is how it was discussed with staff and that's where it ended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we probably will-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still have a staff question that was punted to the applicant, so let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. You're the applicant, Dominick, sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dominick, the height of the existing tank you said now is what, like 40 feet? MR. AMICO: We don't have an exact measurement, but typically they're about 45 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about the new one? Aren't you doing the new plant? MR. AMICO: No, sir, I'm just doing the zoning. Someone else is designing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then who knows the height of the new one? And the reason I bring that up is agricultural, you have a height of 35 feet. So could the reason for this P be that it would be -- now Page 86 ---or January 4, 2007 allow you to build the things that you can build? You can't build anything on that site greater than 35 feet now. MR. AMICO: Okay, well, I would have to assume -- here again, I'm not doing the SDP on the tank expansion -- that that tank expansion project is consistent with the requirements of the ago zoning. There's no guarantee we're going to be successful on this. That's not the intent of what we're doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent of what you're doing is just to notify the neighbors that the county owns this site. MR. AMICO: That is what's written on my work order with the county . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. There may be additional benefits. MR. AMICO: It's possible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, for the applicant, I don't think Mr. Midney's question has been answered. He asked about 42 acres, whether that was a reasonable amount of land for the water treatment facility, considering, or whether that's oversized or it's undersized. I'd like to hear the answer to that also. MR. AMICO: Basically the site is oversized on purpose. They want to provide additional buffers for the neighbors. They want buffers on all four sides. There are some additional wetlands on the site that we also are avoiding. I think they total some 10 acres. So the usable is only about 30. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, if it's oversized, that would mean that in future should fire and EMS or other facilities be declared an essential service that would qualify for P, they might also take some of that land for their use; is that correct? MR. AMICO: Well, I don't know how exactly to define take. The property is owned by the water-sewer district. It isn't owned by Page 87 I"" " . January 4, 2007 the fire district, it isn't owned by the Board of County Commissioners. It's owned by the water-sewer district. I don't know what the legal maneuvering would take in order to give a piece of it to the fire department or to give a piece of it to EMS. But right now the property is owned by the water-sewer district. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But it could be sold, or parts of it could be sold. MR. AMICO: Could be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. AMICO: There was one other point that staff wanted some clarification on. On number six, we cannot commit to not build a sewage lift station. I think the water plant is going to have a small sewage lift station associated with it. And staff needed clarification on that, so I just wanted to make that clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a difference between a sewage lift station and a sewage treatment plant? MR. AMICO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would commit there would be no sewage treatment plant? MR. AMICO: That's correct. But the project will need a sewage lift station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would. Any other questions of the applicant or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, are you finished with your presentation at this point? MS. DESELEM: I just wanted -- thank you for bringing up the issue about that policy. I was unaware of the conflict. It does appear as though there is an inherent conflict in the GMP where we have potable water policies in one section that indicate that this site's to be used for that, and then a conflict in another section stating that it shouldn't be used for that because it's in a flood zone. Page 88 I" January 4, 2007 So at this point staff did recommend that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Exactly how we can get past that dilemma, you make a recommendation to the board. You can determine if you want to go that way, to say that it's inconsistent based on that policy. It's basically going to become a board decision as to which policy the board determines to be the overriding policy. At least that seems to be the way it's turning out, in staffs opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So based upon the Growth Management Plan, the board then has a right to override their own plan without amending it? MS. DESELEM: I don't know exactly how that's going to work. But like I said, we have conflicting policies, objectives and goals within the Growth Management Plan in two different elements. And I don't know how to resolve that dilemma. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that whatever way it gets revolved, it's done fairly and openly and accurately, so that we don't have a challenge down the road to whatever decision is made. And maybe that's something the county attorney can tell us procedurally - wise. First of all, if this board has an issue that is now questionable in regards to consistency with the GMP, is it something that we can move forward? Is it better to maybe get the issue resolved before we go further, or is the board someone who can override their own GMP policies without amending them? MR. KLATZKOW: I think one of the things you're struggling with is that there's no real case of controversy here, in that what they're asking you to do is not really what they want, all right? So that you're struggling with issues as to whether or not they should put a water treatment plant here, but they're not asking you for that now, but they might ask you for that later. Page 89 January 4, 2007 And I'm not really sure what it is that they're asking you for, because they want it changed from ago to public, but they don't really want the public, what they really want is the water treatment. But they really don't want to talk about the water treatment because they're not ready to go there now. And there may need to be changes to the LDC or the GMP before they can actually go there. So you're being presented with a very difficult task here, because you don't really have a specific request that you can deal with. And I don't know how to untangle that for you, other than for you to tell them no, come back when you actually have a plan what you want to do with this. And then you can actually focus on an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jeff. Appreciate it. I guess we need to hear from the public, if you're done with all the questions and comments from staff and the applicant at this point. Kay, how many public speakers do we have? MS. ABBOTT: Can I make one comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ABBOTT: Alicia Abbott again, for the record. I'd just like to say that we do know what we want to do. We do want to have P zoning to essential services. This is a problem that comes up on all our projects. We have county property that a lot of people believe what's is what's going to remain there. If we could have gone to the PUD process or the conditional use, we would have. It's just that the time frame, those would have expired. And then it would have been, you know, all that work started all over again. So we thought the best way, to notify not only those who are there, a water plant has been on that site since the Sixties. Just because we have modified that over the years and only used it for a pumping station doesn't mean that we don't plan to ultimately go back to a water treatment plant on that site. So the whole thing is we haven't really changed the use. It has Page 90 January 4, 2007 been owned by the water-sewer district which is under, you know, the board. But we want them to know this is coming. So we're not asking you to approve the conditional use or the design, because we don't have that yet. But we want the future development -- what they see right now is agricultural zoning and I get a lot of but we thought it was only going to -- it was only a preserve, a tank with a preserve in the back. And we want to say no, what we have here is not the future. We will be coming in with a water -- and that's what we're trying to do. So I just want to make that last comment before you go to public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a very good point that you've made. And I appreciate it because that is a very positive point in regards to notification of the public. And I don't disagree with that. I'm not even to a point where I disagree with the use that you're trying to put there. My concern is consistency that this board and that the other board has to go for on the basis of the Growth Management Plan. These consistency issues that we're talking about in regards to the public expending of funds in the coastal high hazard has come up before, and we dealt with it before by saying we wouldn't do that. And basically I'm talking about the Coconilla project. And I remember specifically asking about issues on that project because they were going to increase and change density and we wanted to make sure there would be no other public expenditures. Well, yet we're doing what we weren't going to do there by the same issue in the GMP that we may do here. I think that it would be incumbent on your department to make sure you're not going to have this problem or trigger future problems for the rest of the county by building in a flood zone before you jump to this stage. I'm just wondering if maybe after we hear public testimony and get a little more input, you may want to consider continuing this to look at this a little bit further and come back with a Page 91 January 4, 2007 more cleaner approach to it so that everybody's got it on the table as to where this has got to go and how it's got to be there. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just simply saying we ought to make sure it's done as absolutely lock tight as possible. And that policy is a pretty big flaw. And I don't think you want that hanging over your head. Because if you really plan for this and you lock it all in and 10 years from now you go to build it and this is brought up, you've got a real problem on your hands. So it might be something to be better and wiser looked at now. So I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Kay, how many speakers do we have? MS. DESELEM: We have three public speakers. The first one would be Bruce Nelson, followed by Jack Dowling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'll each come up and use one of the podiums, one at a time. And we have to ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes. And we'll let you go from there. You need to state your name for the record, first thing. MR. NELSON: My name is Bruce Nelson. I am a resident of Enchanting Shores. And my only -- my concern here is that this site map is erroneous. The west end of Enchanting Shores, the way you have it laid out here, is not the way it is. The streets -- or the individual lots are wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The site map that was given to you as a legal notice? MR. NELSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you might want to take a look at that and then we need to see -- weigh in with the county attorney if the legal notice has to be accurate if in fact it is inaccurate. MR. NELSON: Well, that's my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's a good point. Again, we'll have to see what it comes out to. Page 92 --_._-- ~ T --.- M"__ January 4, 2007 MS. DESELEM: I have to ask, is this the document that he's referring to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to come up back to the speaker, sir. You might want to just stand there for just a few minutes in case there's any other questions. MR. NELSON: Yes, that's the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, that doesn't match the aerial in regards to layout. But I'm not sure how definitive we need to be in the public notice, so I think that's -- MS. DESELEM: The legal is the defining document, the legal description. This is a depiction. It's not a scaled drawing in any case. It just has a north arrow. It's just a general depiction. It's a location map. And it's called a site map as far as this is the general depiction of the site itself. It's not a site plan that's going to be approved as part of the petition. It's a general information document that's sent out with public notices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree it's not a site plan, but if this was sent out to the residents in the neighborhood in regards to whether they were in proximity to this plant, but the streets and the houses and the lots that were currently on the aerial that are in our package aren't on this, and you can look at the aerial on Page 2 and see there's an entire housing development to the east that's not shown on this plan here. MS. DESELEM: It's not a, quote, unquote, development, per see It's a mobile home park. They're not platted lots, it's a rental park. Therefore, the lot depictions aren't shown on this graphic display. You only get lot depictions on a platted subdivision. If it's zoned mobile home, it's one ID number for the county and it's shown as one tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, that does explain why it came out that way. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first then Mr. Kolflat. Page 93 l"-"~ January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, why then are there streets and -- to the north, which is labeled mobile home? MS. DESELEM: Apparently that may be a co-op or some kind of ownership entity that identifies lots. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, do you have a large copy of this aerial photo? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm apparently missing where the discrepancy is, because it looks to me like we're pretty -- all right, thank you, I was misreading it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I think that supplies an answer to your question. It may not be one that you like, but it does supply an answer. MR. NELSON : Well, if you're going to have any further action on this type of thing here, I would recommend that you upgrade your plot maps. Evidently this is really, really ancient, and it does not in any way depict what's there right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that the plat maps are based on recorded plats, and maybe the plat for the area that you're referring to isn't delineated any different than here. But we'll check that. I'm sure that we can check that in the future. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MS. DESELEM: Trying to be two people at the same time, here. The next speaker is Jack Dowling, followed by, it looks like Karl Ristow. MR. DOWLING: Just a couple of questions. Adjacent to this property there is another unit. Is that a water treatment unit? Can anybody answer that question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the property currently there is a water storage tank. Is that -- Page 94 January 4, 2007 MR. DOWLING: Is that what it is? Okay. And if you approve this, are you approving it for a water treatment plant or are you giving them carte blanche, they could put anything in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the approval of this would allow them to put more storage tanks on there. But they could do that anyway with or without the approval today. This approval today really will really have no bearing on what they could do there today. They're asking for the approval only to put the difference -- right now if you look at the map that's up there, see the little letter A in the middle of that property? That A would change to P. P would then tell anybody building in the area that that isn't agricultural zoning anymore, that's public use zoning. And under public use zoning you can have different things than you can have under A. MR. DOWLING: Can you have a sewage treatment plant in there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not without going through an additional step in the process, which involves more public hearings. That's called a conditional use process. You would be renotified that they want to do something more intense than what they're asking for today. Then you have the opportunity to come back there and talk to us . agaIn. MR. DOWLING: What will you approve today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is approved today we approve no different than the uses that are there right now or that they could put there right now. Right now it's zoned ago with essential services as a right. They're talking about zoning it P with the same limitation that the essential services that are already allowed there be the only thing still be allowed there with the exception of they would eliminate the sewage treatment plant opportunity. And we're talking about limitation of height of the structures that would be there. That's what would happen iftoday's motions were approved. Page 95 January 4, 2007 MR. DOWLING: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: If I can for the record. I was just informed that Robert Wiley is on his way here now to address your questions about the growth management plan coastal construction element. So I would ask that before you take any motion and make any votes that you wait till he comes and can address your questions. He's on his way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But while we're getting information, could you call down and find out what the height of the tanks are in the SDP that's being processed now? MS. DESELEM: Yes, I will attempt to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you call the next speaker, since you've got so little to do this morning. MS. DESELEM: I think it's Karl Ristow. MR. RISTOW: That's correct. First of all, I'd like to thank you for moving this up in your agenda today. That was very nice of you. And I appreciate your spirited talks here with the applicants and the staff and everything. It's something I didn't expect coming here. I came here mainly for two reasons: Number one, I received a letter from you and I'm a homeowner in Enchanting Shores. I live at 26 Peridot Avenue, and I'm also a director on the board of directors for Enchanting Shores. And I'm interested -- we're all interested, obviously, in what the intent is of using these 42 acres. I think a couple of years ago we also received a letter which I did not attend those meetings and everything for a rezoning. Does anybody know what happened two years ago when they sent out a letter to rezone this property? MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I missed that. I was trying to get ahold of the information on the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman indicated that a couple of years ago this property had sent out a letter indicating it might be rezoned, but nothing ever materialized. Do you know what the status Page 96 n__" I January 4, 2007 MS. DESELEM: As far as I know, what he's talking about is the neighborhood information notice that went out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is still a continuation of that original letter that was sent out? MS. DESELEM: (Nods.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DESELEM: Because it's -- I can go back and look in the staff report. The date of the neighborhood information meeting is in there. I don't have it in front of me. But it has been a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This process takes a long time. And that's -- it started when you got your other letter. MR. RISTOW: Oh, okay. So it's a continuation, actually. Nothing happened before, basically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. MR. RISTOW: -- other than notification. MS. DESELEM: That meeting was May 19th, 2005. MR. RISTOW: I'd like to address the site plan, which one of my colleagues in the plant talked about. We are a co-op, okay, and we do have plot plans that are filed with the county. They were originally filed when we became a co-op back in 1987. So you do have accurate records of the plats there. We do have many more streets than what are depicted there. We have another end of our park that's not depicted here. And you also probably would want to show the Marco Shores, who are immediately east of your 42 acres here. They're not shown in here. I don't think there's anybody here from their organization, and I don't know if they were given a letter as we were so that they could come and speak at this hearing. One thing I think that would help us, and especially me, to address our people and our park who also received letters and everything is maybe some information from the county somehow. I made some notes here. You had the -- we read that you're going to use Page 97 January 4, 2007 this for essential services, and what that means and everything. You put the chart up there but it's very difficult. Could we get a copy of that? Would that be possible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you were to leave your address with Ms. Deselem before you left today -- MR. RISTOW: She has it on my speaker card there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Kay, would you have any problem getting a copy of the essential services to this gentleman? MS. DESELEM: Not at all. Plus I can offer that if you have access to the Internet, it is available on the Internet. I'd be more than happy to explain to you how to find it. MR. RISTOW: Okay. MS. DESELEM: But in any case, I can give it to you. MR. RISTOW: I would prefer a copy, if you don't mind. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. No problem. MR. RISTOW: Okay. We were talking about the height of the tanks. I heard you talking about them. I believe they're probably not over 25 foot tall. We go by them just about every day. I don't think they're forties. For informational purposes. I think we have a better understanding that if there's anything put there, such as a sewage treatment plant, if that were in the works or something like that, that that requires a conditional hearing or whatever you call them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they've already waived the right to put a sewage treatment plant there, so most likely that is not something that would happen there now. MR. RISTOW: When would we know what the real intent here is of the applicant for this? It seems like that was a ball that was bounced back and forth here a number of times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've provided information that this would greater than five years but maybe less than 10, somewhere in that neighborhood. Page 98 - .--.- ! January 4, 2007 MR. RISTOW: Okay. And primarily it would probably be a water treatment plant? The way I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the indications have been so far, yes, sir. MR. RISTOW: Okay, that's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Kay, are there any other speakers? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, that's all the speakers that are listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dominick? MR. AMICO: We have that information. The existing tank height, the one that's there now, is 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman was right on the dollar. MR. AMICO: And the proposed one is 35. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any final comments from the applicant, staff? Questions from the board? MS. DESELEM: The only thing I would ask is if you wanted to wait for Robert Wiley, but that's your call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, based on the public input, we may be able to put something together that doesn't need Mr. Wiley's input at this point. Because we could always preface it that it's subject to clarification of that particular section of the GMP. So with that in mind, I will close the public hearing and entertain any comments from the planning commission. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it may have been premature to close it, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can open it back up again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. There was something in there about the EAC twice hearing it and they had concerns about water treatment, they had concerns about anything being put there that might have been impacted by flood. And I just wondered, you know, based on that, you folks came Page 99 .. ."r January 4, 2007 back to the EAC and you satisfied them by saying what? MR. AMICO: The main concern the EAC had was the lack of specificity. You know, when we first went to them it was a PUD rezone, period, no limitations. They were concerned with traffic because the P could allow us to put a fairgrounds there. Well, it's not our intent. By limiting the conditions to essential services, they were comfortable that they weren't giving us the keys to the neighborhood. And that's really what helped them through it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the issue was not really fixed on the notion of a water treatment plant or the need for buffering and flood control and all those other aspects of it? MR. AMICO: Their issue was primarily and mostly uncertainty of what we were trying to do by asking for plain PUD rezone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant at this time before we try again to close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will close the public hearing and we can entertain a motion. Is there a motion from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward with a recommendation of approval -- I'm trying to find out what we're forwarding -- Petition RZ-2005-AR-7271. And I'd like to add the following conditions: Number one be that it is limited to 2.01.03, essential services uses only. And I think I wouldn't mind if you in that put as per January 1 st, 2007. That would eliminate creep into the -- I'd like to set, and it's an actual height, of 60 feet for the site. Sixty . We can discuss it. Page 100 -- . I January 4, 2007 Because the next thing might cure that. And a minimum setback of 100 feet. That answers Paul's need. Pardon? MS. DESELEM: Just to clarify, on what sides? All sides? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's inconsistent with the current. But anyway, let's go for a second. We can discuss -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion just to get it started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer with certain stipulations. Motion's been seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now we'll open it for discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think we need to address the inconsistency with -- that Mr. Strain brought up of 12.2.8. And I don't think it should go forward before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to recommend a stipulation that this go forward, if it does go forward, with a stipulation that the Policy 12.2.8 of the Growth Management Plan be dealt with in a manner for consistency -- determine if it's consistent or not as it moves forward in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Additionally, they've limited to a water treatment plant only. And, you know, if they're going to put that limitation on themselves, obviously having to deal with the GMP issue first. But I don't see why we would add all the other essential services and make that limitation as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It needs some of them to operate the water treatment plant. You need a sewage lift station, you need utility lines. And those are not -- anything that the public hasn't had to deal with all over the county anyway, so I don't think they're a problem. But those in conjunction with a limitation that they have no sewage treatment plant may solve all the public's concerns we've Page 101 ..-........, January 4, 2007 heard. COMMISSIONER CARON: That works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've got the setback, but I think it can't apply to the existing facilities but maybe to new facilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, new facilities only, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the height that Mr. Schiffer brought in at 60 feet I think is extraordinary compared to the fact that it's only 25 feet now and they only need 35 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They only need 30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the agricultural is 35. But the problem I have is that if we just with P without limiting it. P, the requirement is that if you're within 100 feet of a boundary line, you match that boundary line; otherwise there's no limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying limit it, but not to 60 feet. They don't need 60 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They said 30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think somewhere in the future with the water treatment plant they might want further height than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but they've stated now that the current one is 25 feet, the future one is 35 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's tanks, that's not a water treatment plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we leave it -- go ahead, Dominick, do you have any input on the height? MR. AMICO: Yeah. I think we're getting a little confused between the tanks and the actual treatment plant. The treatment plants that the county's been building recently have been two-story treatment plants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us a number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and I've looked at the one Page 102 ,_. 1 January 4, 2007 that's on Goodlette-Frank. That's a tall -- that's not -- that's a tall structure. And remember, I'm also saying actual height, which means it's measured from the road to the top of the uppermost part of the building. I'm not saying zoned height. MS. ABBOTT: I'm concerned with limiting the height of the structures. I mean, what we have been talking about are the tanks. But we also have degasifier units and odor control and that type of thing that might provide height there. We may need -- I don't want to say cellular tower but we may need a communication tower, you know, for our telemetry because all our plants, we are trying to link that and get all the data back. So I'm concerned about you limiting heights without having a design in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but towers aren't a building. I'm talking about building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, I think what you're talking about is when you come in for your conditional use, you have a concern about limiting height. So if we limit height under the current application but your conditional use comes in and raises it and you're approved for that conditional use, you'll have what you want, or at least you'll have whatever comes out of the public process. I think right now we're worried that if we give you the P zoning with unlimited height on the essential services, you can come in there with a stacked tank 100 feet high versus the zoning district now only allows, I think, 35 feet. I think that's where our concern is and what you're asking for now, not what you're so much asking for in the future. MS. ABBOTT: Okay. As long as we can, if we need to change that, when we come in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, is there any reason in our conditional use application, if we limited the height in the P district now today and they want to come back in with a conditional use for an Page 103 . I January 4, 2007 expanded or different use in the future but that's allowed by conditional use, could then they ask for a revision to the height for that conditional use application? MS. DESELEM: I'll defer that question to the county attorney's office. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. I think they would have to come for a variance to go above the height that's established in a zoning -- for this rezone. Because the zoning is the controlling thing. And the way to get around the height or dimensional requirement like that is through a variance process, not the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they be done simultaneously? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They could, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So either way you've got an avenue to do it, if that's the way it ends up. Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Schiffer, is there any reason why you -- because these changes can be made that you want to use 65 now instead of 35 that they brought up just the past two minutes ago? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, based on just what Margie said, 35 could be a disaster. The concern I have is that they've promoted this thing as if it's just changing the letter A to P. But there really is something sleeping in there and that's the height that you would be allowed. And I don't think it's fair to the neighbors that all of a sudden they look out their window and they see, essentially it's an unlimited height once you get 100 feet away from the property line. Who knows what they could come up with. So the point is that I think it's okay to change it to P. They're not asking for anything that's unreasonable now anyway. But I do think Page 104 - --"j January 4, 2007 we've got to put a limit on the height for it also. MS. ABBOTT: And at this point you're talking about 60 feet is what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actual height. That means from the centerline of the roads that these neighbors are on, there will be nothing taller than 60 feet. You know, in other words, the roof structure of the penthouse will be at 60 feet. Remember, I'm also having there 100- foot setbacks, so there's 100 foot of vegetation before that P. MR. AMICO: If I could, maybe a way to get to where we're really trying to get to here is to modify the language a little bit to limit the height of the essential services so that we don't have to come back for a variance when we do a conditional use for the water treatment plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, you're shaking your head no. MR. KLATZKOW: Again, we're trying to put conditions on something that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doesn't exist. MR. KLATZKOW: -- doesn't exist. It's -- the time to do this is when you come in for your conditional use and you can see what the site development plan looks like or what the site looks like anyway, and you can go back and forth what do you really need. They're just asking for P now, and I don't know that any conditions on that really are such a good idea at this point in time. Because now when they come in with what they really want to come in with seven years from now, you know, at that point in time they may be looking for variances as well as everything else because they came in too early here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, then Mr. Schiffer. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. There's also case law that when you rezone to a straight district, the board that's doing the rezoning cannot, unless the applicant agrees, pick and choose which Page 105 January 4, 2007 standards of that district will apply to that particular rezone. In other words, if you come in for P, you get P with the setbacks and the height and the uses that are part of that district. And if the applicant disagrees with it and were taken to court, then it's likely that the local government would not prevail. In this case I understand the local government is the applicant. And so if the applicant -- and not likely to take ourselves to court or anything like that. But if the applicant agrees to these, it's okay and you could prevail legally if they do. But otherwise it's questionable when you go to a straight zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Kay, at the neighborhood meeting did anybody point out the fact that you could build unlimited height buildings in the center of this site? MS. DESELEM: Right off the top of my head I don't recall. I'd have to go back and look at the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the purpose of this thing to us even is to provide notice to the surrounding property owners. That's not notice. That's not fair to have something like that sleeping in there and them not be aware of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be a solution here before we get done. I'll simply ask the applicant what they can live with it. But Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah, just trying to put a height restriction on it will have negative impact all the way around because I think at the BCC the argument might change and we have no way of inputting then. I've been to the water treatment plants, and they're higher than 60 feet, at least some of the ancillary items are. They have scrubbers and they have other items that extend higher than that. And so we're really asking to create issues that I would rather stay with the zoning that is being requested. Although I think I fully Page 106t [ . January 4,2007 well understand what it's intended to do. And in seven years in the future they have a means by which they can qualify it. So I would ask that maybe you would withdraw the 60 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me tell you, I think the height's an issue. I'll withdraw the whole motion and I'm going to vote for it to stay at agricultural zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. Before you go -- why don't we let him finish talking this out. You're jumping the gun -- are you withdrawing your motion now after all this work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm going to vote to keep it at agricultural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you withdrew your motion. So now we're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that we recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners Petition RZ-2005-AR-7271, public facilities rezone to that ofP with the restrictions associated with P, and that there will be no sewage treatment plant contemplated, requested or built, and that the condition that exists as a contradiction in the Growth Management Plan be resolved before any activity goes forward to the BCC with a recommendation from staff. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Now we'll have some discussion and try to sort it out. Are you limiting it to the listed essential services that are in the Land Development Code as stated today and recommending that those be stipulated in the resolution on an item by item basis? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The list that we saw on the Page 107 -,-. January 4, 2007 screen, yes, that's what I was referring to. With an additional aspect of deleting sewage treatment plant but leaving sewage lift in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But sewage treatment plant's not in there to begin with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry -- yes, sewage, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And sewage lift station can stay there . SInce you -- COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Stay there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- don't want to delete it. So let's just not -- let's go back to what we were trying to leave in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I saw it here again-- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you're both talking at the same time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry about that. I'll try to answer the question. The answer is the listing that was shown before, that's the one I'm recommending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you considering any issues involving the setbacks? Mr. Schiffer had previously stated 100-foot setback. It won't work on all sides, but it will work for any new construction. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: See, I don't know where the new tank is supposed to go so I don't know what their plan is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, let me help you. Will the applicant come to the microphone, please. Dominick, this 100- foot setback idea, I'm trying to get as many votes one way on this motion or the other. So I want to make sure we have everything in there that anybody could want. And if they still don't want it, that's okay, too. The 100-foot setbacks, if that was limited to any new construction on the site, would you as an applicant be able to live with that? MR. AMICO: Would that apply to the SDP that's currently under review? The SDP that's currently under review places a tank Page 108 January 4, 2007 right next to the other tank -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not an essential service application. That doesn't need this zoning today, correct? MR. AMICO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't think it should apply to that. Does anybody have any feelings one way or the other? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm in agreement with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No, it would not apply. MR. AMICO: I don't think the 100-foot setback is a problem to the future plants -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as the applicant you would accept the 100-foot setback to any future plans beyond the SDP that's in the works today. MR. AMICO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the applicant, would you accept a height limit -- go ahead. MS. DESELEM: I just wanted the county attorney's office to clarify that. Because that SDP has not been approved. And I don't know what effect a rezoning action might have on something that's pending but not approved, if in fact there's some limitation on a setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not limiting the SDP. The SDP can have whatever it wants to have. That's why -- MS. DESELEM: The zoning would follow with whatever you approve if the board adopts the approval of the zoning. And if that SDP isn't approved until after the zoning is approved, that has a more stringent limitation. I just want to make sure that the applicant-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't understand, the SDP is unaffected by what we're commenting on in regards to this setback issue. Is that what you're trying to -- because that's what we're discussing. Are you discussing something different than that? Page 109 January 4, 2007 MS. DESELEM: No, I'm not certain that that's the case, because the zoning runs with the land, and if it's rezoned in the process before that SDP is approved, the zoning would affect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why are they here at all? Why didn't we bring this up in the beginning of today's meeting? So now we're just bringing up a new issue, basically, not one related to the motion. MS. DESELEM: Well, no. If you start adding setback limitations and stuff with which the applicant's site plans that are under review are not consistent with, there is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Kay, we very explicitly just said it would accept the current SDP application. The SDP application that's in now would not -- would not come under the setback criteria. MR. SCHMITT: That was in the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask Mr. Murray to clarify? You made the statement, though, in your motion that no plan would be -- no water treatment plant would be planned, conceived or otherwise planned for until such -- and I didn't quite understand that, because it is being planned and it is already in the planning. And I thought I heard that as part of your motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know what? I don't actually recall the context of all of that, but I can tell you that that is the truth, that's why we're having such a trouble with this. It is being planned, but it's not part of this. And what I was attempting to do, if I'm not mistaken, was to eliminate all of that and focus on trying to get this P designation in place. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and that the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I over-committed it, and I'm not sure that I did, if I was too stringent, I don't think I was, but if you're looking for clarification, what I was trying to do is focus on just Page 110 January 4, 2007 making this happen -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, let me try to cut to the chase. Basically the motion as I understand it was that for the essential services shown right here on the screen, we don't need to get into whether or not there's a water treatment plant being proposed there because that's a separate -- it's not included in this. MR. SCHMITT: That's right-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is no sewage treatment plant in this either. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not even -- that doesn't even need to be on the table. Simply the motion should be for the essential services that are in front of us here on this screen today, incorporated into -- MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. You clarified that as the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first part of the motion. The second part was concerning the setbacks, which got into some confusion, because the setbacks were suggested by one member of the panel at 100 feet for any new construction, and that did not include what was there today, and did not include what was in the process in the county under the SDP. The applicant, as Margie had indicated to us, needed to agree to that. The applicant has agreed to that. So the 100- foot setback for new construction, other than those exceptions, would be part of the stipulation. The next one we were trying to get into is the height. Does the applicant have a recommended height that they could live with for this portion of their process, and then worry about the rest when they come back in for any conditional use? Because it may mean a vote or two on this board. You may want to the consider that. MR. AMICO: They're indicating that they cannot commit to a Page 111 January 4, 2007 height right now without the plant being designed, especially if it's measured from the road elevation, as has been mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you think that in this future plant you may come in with a conditional use, you may need the full 100 feet? MR. AMICO: It's possible. The appurtenances to the plant are the things that get high. The degasifiers, the scrubbing towers. And you know, who's to know what the technology's going to look like seven, 10 years from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just trying to make the P process simpler. But if the P process needs to remain with that height in it, then you'll have to deal with that height when you come back before the public to do this thing all over again to get a conditional use. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to clarify. There is no height limit of 100 feet. What the P height is, within 100 feet of the property line you have to match the height limitation of the adjoining zoning district. It's silent past that 100 feet. Essentially it's unlimited. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my concern with this is, first of all, they're not asking for anything they need. The only thing they claim is that it's just to notify the neighbors. But I'm afraid that this could be a Trojan horse. I mean, that height thing was never pointed out to the neighbors. My point is that there's no need for this. I think that what the county needs to do is design this plant, come before the neighbors, work out the issues with the neighbors, come before the boards and build the plant. That handles the coastal issues, that handles the neighbors issues. This A to P is just a Trojan horse, I feel. Or I fear. It may not be. MS. ABBOTT: That wasn't our intent. I'm currently working on Page 112 January 4, 2007 a new facility where we were able because it was more accelerated in the master plan, so it's going to construction in 2009. And when we got ready to do our design, we set up a citizen's advisory panel made up of homeowners so they could be a part of the input. I believe our highest structure right now, I believe is at about 60 feet. However, this is a smaller site. You're squeezing us in tighter. Especially with 100-foot setback. You know, we're squeezing it in. And we do try to do a good setback of at least 100 feet. That's what we would look at under our design and so on. We also try to limit height. And we did that with this other facility, because we realize people don't want these tall structures in their backyard. But if it means that when we're on the design one structure has to move 62 feet, I'm looking at a variance. And we also try not to go back and do a lot of variances, or any variances at all. We prefer to stay within the codes or policies, whatever has been set for a certain proj ect. And on the northeast, as we said, we have tried to work with the neighbors and with the citizens and -- throughout the design process. We have them look at it, you know . We moved one building because they didn't like where we had put it. And we moved it into another area -- you know, we do things like that. So I don't think -- my goal is never to come in with a Trojan horse where we're going to go ad infinitum under this P. It really was for notification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But ma'am, I think -- go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why do you need this P zoning? If you're that far along with your designs and you have conflicts, why don't you come in for the conditional use, we can discuss the coastal area, we can discuss would it affect the neighbors, we could discuss what they see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the conditional use would only be Page 113 January 4, 2007 good for two years, that's why they can't come in with it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's wait till -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you're talking over one another. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's wait till, you're, you know, at the appropriate time. I mean, this P doesn't give you anything. I mean, you're saying this P doesn't mean anything. You're saying this P is only a notice to the neighborhoods. I mean, I could do that with a Christmas card. So I don't know why we're doing this P, and the P has stuff in it that could be dangerous to the neighbors. MS. ABBOTT: Without me having a design, I mean, you're asking me on the spot to limit my height. I think that's a tough decision to have me make right now. I mean, if you gave me something, you know, a bit taller. But even so, it may be too high. I may not need that. But I feel like I'm being limited. And I know what you're saying. We don't normally do this. We normally just go for conditional use, we normally just go for a PUD. This is just something that we thought would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to let them know what we're doing in the future. Our design probably will not start maybe 2011. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why can't you just live with the A and then come in in 2011? What is this P giving you? I mean, you started out saying it's giving you nothing. There's no reason for it. But it does have stuff in it that could be a problem. MS. ABBOTT: On other sites where we have that ago zoning, people think it's a preserve because nothing's going on there. We feel that if they see it has a P zoning, they will realize something else is coming. I don't know that people who are buying property go into the master plans of the utilities. Some might, because they're aware of that's where you look at what the transportation is doing. But most people don't do that. Page 114 January 4, 2007 And some might look at the zoning. If they look at the zoning, they will see that this is a P zoning, so something could come here. And that's what we're trying. It will make them ask questions and realize early that this is what we plan to do. Just by this process. And then the homeowners realize that they're going to have a water treatment plant here between 2014 and 2018; whereas before they didn't know that. They probably thought it's just going to stay the way the way it is, we'll put in a couple more tanks and the rest will be a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you had a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I don't have a question at all. I have a statement I wanted to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: As I understand it, what we're trying to send to the County Commissioners is a recommendation to approve something that is not consistent with the GMP that and can have an unlimited height and can be built on sometime in the future, and I don't think that's good planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat -- okay, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I come to the same conclusion. I think I would be very foolish if I voted for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, we are not sending something to the Board of County Commissioners that is inconsistent with the GMP at this time. We're sending a P use. And what we would be recommending by stipulation is that they consider the inconsistency of what the intended use would be should the applicant come back in with a conditional use in the future. And then because if the whole purpose of this is to eventually get that conditional use, it may be for naught, because the GMP has a direct conflict in it. But that conflict doesn't apply to this P zoning. P zoning is for essential services which are allowed there right now as it is today. It's Page 115 January 4,2007 simply a notification to the public that this is not agricultural property and not intended to be in the future. How they deal with it in the future, consistency with the GMP, would be something we're recommending they look at now instead of waiting till then. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the future is no mystery to us. Everybody has declared what the intent is to build there eventually. I mean, it's not a matter of we don't know what the future is. The future is to put a water treatment plant there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that is why we're asking them to look at the GMP consistency now. So they don't go any further with that if it can't be done. I mean, it's up to this board. Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just add a little bit more oil to the fire here. If you consider some of your comments, ma'am, about what you're intending to do, which I applaud, I think it's good that government should notify neighbors of its intent in some fashion, and I'm sure nobody planned for this to get this confusing. But thinking about it, if we don't put any kind of -- I don't want to use the word limitation, but statements of qualification such as height and setback, then the questions for the next five to seven years will always be from adjoining neighbors, what are you going to build there, how high, and what is it going to do? And your answer will have to be, we don't know because we haven't designed it yet. And that will in fact impact the value of property and how people perceive what they should or should not build. And so I would say that it may not resolve what it is you intend to resolve, the way I perceived it anyway. I'm willing to go forward with my motion. I did not answer your question, didn't have the chance to answer your question. A 100- foot setback is fine for me. I am concerned about the height. I do not think that we should have an unlimited height there. But I am also concerned that we don't want to constrain any future structure which inevitably is intended to be Page 116 January 4, 2007 built there. So I myself, Mr. Chairman, am in a quandary with regard to the height. And I would ask you, with your very good knowledge, to help me in that regard, if you have a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Schiffer's previous recommendation of 60 feet to me is generous, considering this is only a P use and the intent has been clearly stated, they don't want do anything extraordinary there and that this is strictly for notification purposes. If it was over 60 feet, to me that is due notice to the public. So I could live with the 60 feet. And if they have to come in for a variance concurrent with a conditional use in the future, so be it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I accept that qualification, and I would look for a nod. Well, I've already heard that they're not happy with that notion. And I can appreciate that. But just as a conditional use could be turned down, a variance could be turned down, just as it can be -- you go forward and so can a variance go forward. So I'm going to add that to my motion. I will make it 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other point. Marjorie Student made it very clear that if they don't agree with the 60 feet, basically it doesn't really stick. Because it could be subject to successful challenge. So I think contingent on whether or not this board votes on it, it's going to be on their answer whether or not they'll agree to the 60- foot limitation on the record. Because if they don't, that will affect some votes. And if they do, it may affect others. So I'm going to ask the water plant question, do you guys -- will you guys accept the 60- foot limitation of actual height on your project as well? MS. ABBOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an acknowledgment in thea Page 11 7 January 4, 2007 affirmative, okay. Now with that, the motion is to limit it to essential services shown on our screen here and be stipulated in the resolution. Limit the height to 60 feet of actual height. The setbacks on all sides for the future construction, excluding what's there today and excluding the current SD P that's in process shall be 100 feet. And the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that they seriously review the application of the GMP 12.02.08 section in regards to future uses of this property in their consideration of this particular application. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's an excellent recap of my motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept the recap? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. Did you limit the date for the essential services to be the current date? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In our original discussion we did, but we'll reemphasize that, that the essential services of 2.0 1.03 as shown today on the screen will be stipulated in the resolution. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That I thought we had done, but okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second includes it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dominick, you're going to -- be careful. MR. AMICO: Yeah, a quick question. The 60-foot height limitation, that applies to the building or to all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything 60 feet. MR. AMICO: Everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything 60 feet. MR. AMICO: Well, the applicant's indicating they can't accept Page 118 January 4, 2007 that because their communications tower is typically a lot higher than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not willing to address that during the variance or conditional use process? They might want to reconsider doing that at that time. MS. DESELEM: If I may, while they're discussing that, also tell you that Robert Wiley is here if you wish to have any input regarding that policy and the position of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we can try to get through as it is now. Yes, sir. MR. MULLIN: For the record, Bill Mullin, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities. None of us here are design engineers, so we really don't know the complete design. And 60 feet sounds like a reasonable compromise. But we do know that we will need a communications tower. A lot of those towers have a line of sight that are above 60 feet, and we have those at all of our other facilities. By limiting the total -- any structure to 60 feet would minimize our ability to have radio communications with all of our other facilities. It would be something that is just not -- wouldn't be good for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a reasonable request. I would suggest we consider eliminating the 60- foot height for communication towers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In my motion I originally had the building height to be 60 feet. MR. MULLIN: I thought that was the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Antennas and communication towers would not fall under that requirement, they have their own section of the code. So the intent -- and I guess I may have to vote for this, is the building height to be 60 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like that the motion Page 119 January 4, 2007 maker gets an opportunity to look at the motion and revise that, if I can. May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion as we previously stated, with the exception of the limit to the building height will be 60 feet of actual height. Is that acceptable to you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before I do, a tower would be a conditional use in any event, would it not? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's automatically a conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, number four allows communication towers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to have a problem with modifying that. If we want to exclude -- do we want to also exclude scrubbers? Or are we just talking about -- MR. MULLIN: Those facilities would fall under the 60 feet. But the communications towers is really a critical link. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let's exclude the towers as being subject to the limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, do you accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you have this down? Do you feel adequate with this discussion? MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem. I believe I do. And did he just add a specific exclusion of communication towers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we did. MS. DESELEM: That's what I thought, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, back to -- very complex motion has been made and seconded. We've had a lot of lengthy discussion. Call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Page 120 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One opposed. Motion carries 7-1. And with that, we will take a break until 1 :00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's got to be later than 1 :00. I've got to go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Later than 1:00, okay. MS. DESELEM: Would it be possible to give you the calendars that I have so you can have those before you take your break so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Calendars for? MS. DESELEM: The year. Pursuant to Ray Bellows and your request with Joe and Ray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can pass them out, but yeah, that's fine. We'll just take them as we leave. This board will break until 1: 15. (A lunch break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll bring the meeting back to order. And we have a roomful of people that are interested, as usual. Item #8A CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS Okay, we're back on the schedule for the planning commission. Page 121 January 4, 2007 We're going to resume the continuation of the EAR-based amendments. We left off by just starting to go into the population portion of our discussion. I don't know who from staff is going to present it, but I hope one of you guys are. MR. COHEN: Before we get to that, Mr. Chairman, I know you raised the question with respect to the CIE and the review of that on an annual basis. And we wanted to provide some language to you. You asked us to come back and do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You ready to do that now? That's fine. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And if you turn to Policy 1.3 in the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us a page? MR. COHEN: I'll try to do it from your staff report. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not here. MR. COHEN: It's in the CIE itself. It's not part of your unamended version. I'll read that policy to you and then I'll tell you what we would add on to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've gone the CIE, so I'll turn to it real quick. 1.3, which would be on Page 4 of the original document you guys gave us, if I'm not mistaken. MR. COHEN: Currently 1.3 reads, the determination of location of improvements to expand public facilities will take into consideration the projected growth patterns as identified in the county's annual population projections. And the next sentence says, where applicable public facility improvements will be coordinated with the capital facility plans of any other governmental entity providing public facilities within Collier County. The part that we would add on would be, levels of service standards for public facilities may be adjusted annually based on more recent data and analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you had shown me that language earlier, my comment to you was -- and I guess now that Marge is here Page 122 January 4, 2007 she can weigh in on it -- if we have an element in the CIE which we currently have under, let's use parks and recs as an example because that's what start this whole discussion. On Page 5 of our amended document, they actually have specific acreages listed as the level of service. 1.2882 as an example. The language you're saying says that that can be amended any time in the future. But I want to -- what I'm concerned about is the AUIR -- I don't want the AUIR to be contingent on the 1.2882 if that's not the number that we intend to use. So we have to go back and amend it before we're allowed to use it in the AUIR. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think for the AUIR, that -- well, we all understand that amendments to the CIE are based upon the A UIR. So I think if something changes in the A UIR, then we go ahead and we amend our plan in keeping with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie, at the last AUIR discussion we had just a month or two ago, we were told, this panel and the productivity committee, when we questioned some of these numbers, we were told we had to use them because they were in the adopted part of the GMP. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. And there was a disconnect there because of some time lags associated between when the AUIR was done and the -- because of the EAR when the compo plan amendments were done. I think the long and short of it is that if we have to do a special cycle or something to bring that, you know, in closer harmony, then we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you are saying that if we adopt this today with the 1.2822 in it, that we have to use that LOS in the upcoming AUIR, or we have to go in and change the CIE again. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I don't think -- I didn't mean to say it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why don't you tell me the process. Page 123 January 4, 2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. This is in the plan for now. Then we do our new AUIR. And we're not bound by -- I don't feel that we're bound by this for the new AUIR because the purpose of the new AUIR is to see what we've got and see if we need to adjust this. So then we have this, then we do the new AUIR, and then we adopt the compo plan language based on the new AUIR of the new level of service if we have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Maybe I'm -- maybe I fell asleep during the AUIR process. Maybe I didn't hear it right. I'm the only one -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mark, what I was talking about-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, let me finish. Any other members of this commission recall the discussion in which we tried to change the level of service and we were told we couldn't because of the adoption of the GMP? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're right. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Very specific, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I think you're saying we don't -- if we adopt it, it doesn't apply to the AUIR. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, because I don't do doublespeak. But what I'm trying to say is in that other situation, it was an anomaly because of the EAR -- we were -- the EAR amendments were lagging behind and it was an anomaly. MR. COHEN: What was transpiring is the EAR-based amendments were based on a new population projection, and the AUIR was based on the adopted population methodology. So the problem that we had going forward at two times -- at the same time is in essence two different methodologies, and that's where the problem arose at that particular time. Whereas, normally an AUIR serves the purpose of modifying the CIE. Because of the EAR-based amendments going forward and not being adopted, we ran into what Margie said, an anomaly with different methodologies. In the intent Page 124 January 4, 2007 behind this particular AUIR for this year, she used it as a planning tool but it's not to move forward with it to modify the CIE. Subsequent AUIRs that you'll see in every other year that come forward now, they will be used as a planning tool but in addition to that, as in the past, to modify the CIA. This year's is not. And that's the anomaly, because of EAR-based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you're saying, and I understand the language you want to add. Margie, what you're telling us is in your legal opinion, when the AUIR comes up before us, we can basically change whatever we want in that document. We're not tied to this GMP amendment or this EAR or any GMP references. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. I don't think so, because that's the purpose of the A UIR, to serve as a basis to change this, except for that anomalous situation that we had this last year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I remember we had this problem years before, too. It wasn't just last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm completely baffled by it myself. Because it was convenient two months ago to leave it the way it was. We wanted to change it, we strongly recommended changes. The argument was that staff didn't have time to change it. So then we were hit with well, we can't change it anyway because the GMP was adopted with this language in it. Okay, with that argument, we had to put it to rest. MR. COHEN: What I can tell you is -- and this is the problem associated with modifying the CIE itself, the levels of service standards, is there are other sections of the GMP that would have to be modified in addition to that, okay. So in conjunction with this language, what I would do from a staff perspective is also tell you to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that when we change level of service Page 125 January 4, 2007 standards in the CIE because we have different elements like recreation and open space and potable water sub-element and water-sewer that also have levels of service standards, that we only do one cycle of amendments on an annual basis and when we can do two, that we do some staff-generated GMP amendments as a second cycle, which would allow us to make those changes at the same time so we don't have conflicting provisions in the GMP. For example, if you were to change the level of service provisions for recreation like we discussed today, you would also want to make changes to the recreation and open space element at the same time or you're going to have that lag until some cycle comes about and you're going to have conflicting provisions. We couldn't have that happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're -- well, are we going to come back to the recreation and open space? Or I guess this is the time we best discuss it. Are you recommending then we leave these calculations 1.2882 in here, and 2.9412 per acre in there? MR. COHEN: I'm personally not making any recommendations with that. If this board has a recommendation that's contrary to that that you feel should be made where you adjust the level of service standard with respect to any part of the GMP, then it's in your purview to do just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I believe that as was discussed earlier with Mr. Schmitt, he agreed that the language should be changed and become more generic. And that's partly why you changed the CIE language. But it also needs to be changed here as well. And that's what he was talking about was making this language be more generic. I wrote it down when he said it, change the language to be more generic. MR. COHEN: And the intent would be to modify the CIE. And that's where the levels of service standards are set forth for everything. Page 126 January 4, 2007 If you're asking us to go through and put policies which would be basically, you know, analogous provisions in all different elements that have levels of service standards, obviously we can do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is I don't want to recommend for approval Policy 1.1.1 with definitive levels of service in it. So that's where my position is. MR. COHEN: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, from the county attorney's perspective, but pursuant to 9J-5, we have to have a definitive level of service -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We have to establish the level of . serVIce -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you might say that. Then I'd like to see the backup for the numbers that are shown here. Because I don't know how those are derived. And I specifically know that when parks and recreation came before us during the AUIR in reference to the fact they used the SCORP standards, in reading the SCORP standards it was shown they don't use those as a true guideline. So now I'd like to know how they got those specific numbers that they're using for level of service. MR. COHEN: And Commissioner, quite frankly I can't answer that because since I've been here with the county for four years, those standards have remained the same since I've been here. I would imagine they probably came about during the adoption of the '97 plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know where you want to go with it, but I've already stated my concern. The rest of the planning commission, do you have any issues on this one while we lay them out? If not, let's just move back to the population discussion. We'll have to deal with this when we come to it. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the population discussion is the methodology paper you gave us, starting with Policy 4.8; is that correct, Randy? Page 127 January 4, 2007 MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And it's dated December 20th, 2006. And on the first page of that memorandum, the item that's outlined in red, that's the language that was provided to us by the Department of Community Affairs. I think the important part of that particular provision is one, that it reflects that the county will be using the medium BEBR numbers adjusted by a seasonal population rate. And it does not specify a specific percentage. Which allows us -- in addition, if you look at the second sentence in there, to adjust things annually as we determine. And the reason that's important is that allows us to take a look at the projections as they come forward, whether or not we're building at an accelerated rate or a slower rate or if our seasonal population changes. And we all know from past history we were building at a very high rate, and now it's slowed down. And that's probably more obvious when you look at BEBR, which made additional estimates of what our population was going to be, for example, this past year. And then when they looked at the real data that came in, I think it was reduced by about 4,000 people, based on actual building trends that occurred in the county. So looking at it on an annual basis is very important from a planning perspective, and we will do that every CIE. I think what I'd like to do is to run through what I've done. And first, one of the things that we did do is I had Corby go back and take exhaustive notes of some of the things that you told us to take a look at. One of the things you told us to take a look at as a group was to take a look at all the BEBR bulletins from 2001 to the present, which we did. You told us to take a look at the block data, census data within the water and sewer district, which we did do. You asked us to verify with BEBR, you know, their methodology . We had conversations with them, obviously not of a seasonal population variety, because they don't do seasonal population projections, they just base their permanent population off the 2000 census and then move forward from that, that Page 128 January 4, 2007 point. In addition to that, we tried to look at some local sources of seasonal population data to see if we could grasp something from another source that could provide something to us. And we contacted the Naples area Board of Realtors to see if we could get a gauge from them as far as what their vacancy rates are and how their units actually worked in terms of their listings. And what we found out from that particular conversation was that there's such a limited amount of seasonal rentals that are put on the market, and most are handled differently, that it really was less than three percent of the units that are seasonal that were currently rented through them. And that just wasn't a good source of information, so we had to discount that. So the intent was to take a look at the variety of sources that you asked us to identify. I think of really good importance was looking at the population within the water and sewer districts. And I want point out that what we did is we went back to the year 2000, so we didn't double count anything. We used the basis for the year 2000, which established our permanent population, but also a seasonal population rate of23.8 percent. And what you've got up on the visualizer right now is a map of the water-sewer -- water and sewer districts, but only those blocks that are contained within those -- in their entirety within those districts. We didn't use any of the blocks that straddle the districts because we didn't want to try to interpolate data within those in the short amount of time that we had. But it gave us a very large representative sample, which we believe is statistically sound from a statistics standpoint, at least within most statistical realms. What we did find from that analysis is that when we took a look at the water district itself, we ended up with about a 56.9 percent sample of all the population within the water district. And when we looked at the units, 23.9 percent of those were Page 129 January 4, 2007 actually held for seasonal use. When we did it for the sewer district, which is when you -- if you refer back to that large map, we were able to capture a lot larger amount of the population. And in a number of units it actually came out to about a 78 percent sample. And about 19.9 percent of those units were held for seasonal use. When you looked at the seasonal population for the entire county, which was 23.8, it's kind of interesting that that number kind of correlated a little bit with the sample that we had for the sewer district. But, you know, numbers are just what they are. We're trying to get the most representative numbers that we can to provide what the board provided us, which was direction to come back to them with a very conservative population estimate. In particular to make sure that they don't run into a situation where we have not addressed our water and sewer concerns, where we run into a problem like we did in, I think it was in 2001. And that's what we've done in terms of addressing a conservative approach. The main problem that we had in undertaking an analysis of this type, and it's something that's going to be cumbersome or almost impossible to address, is what is the peak occupancy of those seasonal units at any given time. It's obviously not 100 percent. And we used a factor of 85 percent just to be on the conservative side. To be able to actually go out and determine at anyone given point in time what is the exact peak season, you know, in terms of how many of those units are occupied, you'd have to do it on one given day and find out what it would be. And I think that's extremely difficult to do. We do know that January typically is the peak month for most season-driven economies. But the question is how do you do that in such a timely fashion to where you get a sample of such a large size to give you an exact number of what that peak occupancy is. I don't think you really can do it. What I can tell you is that looking at trends, hotel and motel trends and looking at the occupancy of those units, I know the highest Page 130 January 4, 2007 month that we had, which I think was February, had 90 percent occupancy. And that's why I chose the 85 percent number, in addition to trying to err on the side of being conservative as the board directed. Is that an exact number? No, it's not. Is the methodology flawed in that respect? I'd have to say yes, it is. But I think it's a good conservative estimate of what the peak season could be. The other thing that we didn't put into the equation, and you may notice that, is hotel and motel units. We did not factor them into the peak season. The rationale for that is a lot of those are located in the incorporated areas and not served by Collier County public infrastructure. But in some instances they are. And the board pointed out deliberately to us that when we apply these percentages -- and we have to have one methodology across the board, we can't vary, which is problematic in some respects -- that when we look at certain public facilities, we need to apply like solid waste across the county, because we do collect solid waste across the county. But at the same time we have different populations for water and the sewer districts. Regional parks are done on a countywide basis. Community parks are done just for the incorporated area. So it becomes kind of problematic when I see numbers that differentiate sometimes when you have a water district seasonal use -- seasonal peak population that differs by four percentage points from a sewer -- from the sewer district's peak -- seasonal population. Where do you draw the line and how do you come up with a definitive number? And I think what's really important is that when you look at the numbers themselves, when you look at the graphic that's near the end and which is in the chart itself, I think what's really important -- this is the second to last page of what I've put together. If you look at that black line that's on that particular page, what that is is that represents the weighted average as it exists today applied to determining population when we determine what our capital infrastructure needs Page 131 January 4, 2007 are. And if you take a look at that line, because it's based on high BEBR numbers, and then what equates to about an 11 percent seasonal factor, because of the way the high population numbers continue to go on up, it rises above the medium BEBR numbers with probably any percentage increase on seasonal population after a certain point in time up to about, I guess probably around the 24, 25 percent level. That red line at the top, what that represents is if we were to use medium BEBR plus the seasonal population rate as it exists in today's comprehensive plan, which is 33 percent, that red line up top would be that number. What I did is, based on the numbers that I had and discounting them based on the 85 percent seasonal population rate, I took a look at what I thought were percentages that were representative of the various different numbers that we looked at for the water district, the sewer district when we took Naples and Marco Island out of the equation, and used a variety of items to take a look at what would be the effect on capital facilities if we used a 15 percent seasonal population, up to 20 percent. And what's kind of interesting with that is in any given year-- because if you go out five years, which is to the year of 20 11, you know, based on the prior methodology that exists today we would have had, you know, 491,147. And if you look at all the other, you know, percentages based on medium BEBR plus a seasonal adjustment, every one of them actually was less than the five-year horizon. That provided a decent comfort level, because we know in the past that our water and sewer projections have been pretty close to where they need to be in projecting population, as well as projecting needs ever since we changed the methodology. The other interesting point is if you look in that same year of 2011, whether it's 15, 16, 17, 18 percent, you know, each year kind of represents a 4,000 -- each percentage point represents an increase of Page 132 January 4, 2007 4,000 people, approximately. Which is not a major increase. However, erring on the side of caution, you know, we looked at it from the perspective of we need to be as conservative as possible. And when we looked at things from the perspective of conservative as possible, we looked at the water and sewer districts and we had the one that had that 23.4 percent seasonal population. And that's where the due care came in coming up with the right -- and doing the recommendation of the 20 percent. So the recommendation is based on a variety of factors, I think statistically sound samples which exist in the water sewer district. Starting also by looking at the 23.8 percent countywide seasonal population. But also knowing that when we took out the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island that the seasonal population outside of those areas was only 19.4 percent. So we tried to come up with a figure that was adequate to address what our actual seasonal population was at some type of peak usage and at the same time being conservative within the approach as dictated by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to water and sewer. So that's what you've got. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. I'm sure you may. It's not an exact science. But in talking with DCA, and I had that conversation with them, it is data analysis that would appear to be acceptable to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 4, about halfway down where you talk about the seasonal population of Immokalee, I see where it's crossed out increased by 15,000 persons and substituted 20 percent, which would be about -- going from about a $15,000-- 15,000 person rise in population during season down to 5,000, which is a very substantial decrease. Could you tell me the methodology you used to justify that? MR. COHEN: Which page are you on? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Page 4 of the objections, Page 133 January 4,2007 recommendations and comments report. MR. COHEN: That's not in the memo that -- or attachments that I provided to you, if I recall correctly. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This is the one that I got this weekend. MR. COHEN: Excuse me, you're in the staffreport? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's the ORC Report and Collier County response. MR. COHEN: A different document. Let me try and find where you are, Mr. Midney; bear with me here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, he's in the -- remember the paperwork we had for the meeting that was canceled when we got there? It's in that paperwork on the cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to get to that document today at some point, just so you know. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was that Page 4, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Page 4. MR. COHEN: Well, Mr. Midney, I think the concern was that the except Immokalee portion was taken out, because we realized that the peak -- the seasonal population of Immokalee didn't increase by 20 percent, and that's why that language was taken out. You know, if you have any suggestions, we'd be more than happy to take them into consideration. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I do. The way I read it is that it says the seasonal population is going to be 20 percent for all areas of the county. And crossed out is except Immokalee. So does that mean that you're saying that the seasonal population of Immokalee only increases by 20 percent? MR. COHEN: No, sir. And I think that probably should be reworded. I think what's happening is the way the 20 percent would factor in for public facilities would be an across-the-board 20 percent Page 134 January 4, 2007 for whatever that particular public facility would be. Say it's regional parks, the 20 percent would apply across the board countywide, just like it does today. Same thing for solid waste. I think the intent there, and I didn't work on that particular provision, was to address the 15,000 population that was there. And I think that came across in the wrong manner, and we need to address that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm a little bit confused. Are we talking about the amount of county services or capital investments that we need or are we talking about population? MR. COHEN: Well, we're in two different documents, okay, and that's kind of -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's what confused me because I thought we were talking about population. MR. COHEN: We are. And the population that we're talking about is the population methodology memorandum that I provided under separate cover, and you're in a different document from that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But that document excludes Immokalee? MR. COHEN: The document that pertains to population pertains to establishing a new population methodology countywide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There might be a solution to this. That document that Paul's talking about, I have a lot of questions on, as other board members may have. At some point we were going to get into that document. And that may be -- by the time we get into that, maybe some of this other population stuffwill be resolved. We're not into this document yet, we're still on the first one. So maybe if we work our way through the documents, when we get to that it might help understand it better. MR. COHEN: And the intent here is, obviously this is one section that I did for your review and consideration. And Mr. Weeks is going to be back to discuss the provisions as they pertain to the future land use element and the CIE as well, as well as Mr. Schmidt Page 135 January 4, 2007 here. So it's kind of a little tandem effect here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's try to get through the population methodology document first, which is the one with the BEBR information in it, and then we'll work our way through the rest of the two or three documents that were provided to us. So Randy, you were working from the population methodology document in your discussion just now? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is a multi-page document with a lot of tables. Is there any questions from the planning commission on the way the population methodology has come about? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to ask, you made a comment that currently we're using BEBR high plus 11 percent? Is that what I heard you say? MR. COHEN: Yeah. The way the formula works, which is how we calculate weighted average, which is two-thirds times the permanent population plus one-third times the peak population, it equates out to an 11 percent seasonal adjustment. COMMISSIONER CARON: Including Naples and Marco Island? MR. COHEN: It includes the entirety of the whole county, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: The whole county. Using BEBR high. Then you move on to these other figures, and we step down to BEBR medium -- MR. COHEN: Yes, ma'am. And the rationale for that is that the medium BEBR numbers that were provided -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood. And we take out Naples and Marco Island. MR. COHEN: The numbers that you have in this particular Page 136 January 4, 2007 graphic do not take out Naples and Marco Island. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. MR. COHEN: The way you would take out Naples and Marco Island would be is when you apply the factor to like, say, community parks and -- I'm trying to think, community parks and the water and sewer districts, which will have different populations. That's when the different numbers will come about, as we address specific populations that do not include those geographic areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm still back to Immokalee, because -- is this graph here including the Immokalee change, which is a much different type of change than the rest of the county? MR. COHEN: From the standpoint of providing, you know, public services countywide, it addresses -- I guess the best way of looking at it, say we were looking at original parks, which includes Immokalee. Obviously we're including the seasonal factor that includes the population countywide because that's not only your existing population that's in your CIE, it's also the board's direction. Community parks for Immokalee and for the rest of the county would include a discount that would take out the incorporated areas of Naples and Marco Island. The water and sewer district for Immokalee would obviously not be affected whatsoever because it's a separate water and sewer district that sits out there. So it affects it in some respects and in others it does not, based on the percentages that are there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because the problem I have is if the rest of the county increases 20 percent and Immokalee increases let's say 60 percent or more -- you know, traditionally it's been thought of as more than that -- then the services for Immokalee should be affected by that increased amount. MR. COHEN: I think what ends up happening, Mr. Midney, is when we start breaking out data in terms of respective needs for Page 137 January 4, 2007 different parts of the county -- let's use recreation as an example. When they do their planning, I would anticipate, based especially on past trends and the increases in population for example in District 5 that has transpired as that district grows -- that the needs for certain services in that area obviously are going to increase. And that would be an area that they would highlight where population growth is . occurrIng. So when you ask that question you look at population growth on a countywide basis, but at the same time when you do your planning for capital improvements in providing things, you have to look at respective need where that growth is transpiring. And that's how the area of Immokalee and the area in eastern Collier County would be addressed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. COHEN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, you provided us with a flyer from Florida Population Studies, BEBR. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the purpose of that? It had some tables in it. MR. COHEN: The reason I provided that to everybody is there were questions that were raised previously about what the BEBR methodology was and how it applied statewide as well, too. So I -- my understanding was that most people on the commission had not seen anything from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. So what I wanted to provide you with was a typical population study so you were aware, one, of the methodology. Two, how it applied to Collier County. And three, how it applied statewide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you -- you had provided a data table Page 138 January 4, 2007 after the charts. And in it you broke down the existing -- I found it more useful than the charts, because it was a little easier to follow. You talked about existing methodology and then 15 percent plus BEBR medium and 16 percent. I went and tried to take that chart, match it up to numbers in the document I just asked you about called Florida Population Studies. And the first one that should match up is on Page 4. The estimate for Collier County on April 1st, 2005 was 317,788. I'm wondering why that doesn't appear anywhere in 2005 on the data table that you've provided. MR. COHEN: Normally what's going to happen, a lot of our population projections that we do, David takes the April 1 population projections and he does an October 1 projection from that. Usually they're not -- they're never going to match up exactly because of that. And that's where you have a lot of the differentiation that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this has a six-month adjustment backwards and forwards? MR. COHEN: It should, yes, sir. The numbers should be fairly close, though. They shouldn't be that far apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do the cities, Marco and Naples in particular, have to provide any type of similar document to DCA, like an EAR document? MR. COHEN: The EAR for the City of Naples has been lagging behind. They do have to provide an EAR. Every governmental entity in the State of Florida, whether they're a city or a county have to provide one. And Naples, as far as I know I think they have one that's under review. I don't think it's complete as of yet. I know they haven't started the EAR-based amendments yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why if they're doing one and the City Marco and whatever other city happens to be involved are doing their own, why do we include them in our tables? MR. COHEN: I think one of the reasons we include them in Page 139 January 4, 2007 some of the areas is we provide services to them. We do for solid waste, for example. We do for regional parks. And I think that's where when we look at the CIE, when we look at the different populations, you know, that's where the percentages are applied differently . Well, they're applied the same but to different numbered populations. And I think that's where it comes into play. When I looked at the seasonal population, for example, for the county countywide, which was the 23.8 percent, and then when you looked at the numbers for the cities of Marco Island and Naples, it was very apparent how skewed, you know, the countywide percentage was as a result of that. And that's one of the reasons, you know, you have to take a look at all the data sets in their entirety when coming up with some type of seasonal adjustment. Your point's well taken. The board brought up the same point, you know, why are we looking at the cities of Naples and Marco Island with regard to providing certain services when they provide their own? And they asked us to take those -- you know, to not apply those percentages to the county as a whole with regard to those services. At the same time, they made a point with regard to solid waste, please make sure that you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In regards to the City of Naples and Marco, do we get to see their EAR? Because I had asked at the last, well, I don't know, two meetings ago, pursuant to 9J-5, there were other studies available from other municipalities. And 9J-5 clearly said that all you had to do was ask DCA for them and they would give them to you. I haven't seen any of those. So did we not ask? MR. COHEN: We're supposed to be provided with a copy as a neighboring jurisdiction by anyone that does their EAR, as well as with compo plan amendments. We never have received an EAR from the City of Naples. The last I knew was that they were working on their EAR, okay. Page 140 January 4, 2007 So I haven't seen it. I know they had a transition in their staff. And we provided them with a copy. It's fairly typical as a commenting agency, which we are with regard to their EAR, any of their compo plan amendments, they're required to provide it to us. DCA, in my conversations with them, I don't recall them saying whether or not the status of their -- what the status is of Naples' EAR. All I can tell you is that I got a listing from DCA of who was delinquent and who was not with regard to the EARs, and Naples wasn't on the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had requested that you obtain the methodology for the neighboring municipalities. And we actually talked about Lee and Charlotte and the other counties. I still haven't seen any of that. Did we not get that? MR. COHEN: We actually had conversations with -- and I discussed this with you at the last meeting on population. The discussions with Lee County with regard to their population methodology, I spoke with Paul O'Connor, who's their planning director and asked them about their permanent population calculations and actually how they use the seasonal adjustment rate. And in particular with respect to certain facilities, one being recreation and open space, the other one being potable water and sewer. Lee County's methodology for using seasonal population for community parks and regional parks, they do not have a seasonal adjustment whatsoever. They provide parks just based on permanent population. For water and sewer, they have a very limited amount of service that they provide as a governmental entity. They almost have all private utilities, in talking with Mr. O'Connor. And their water/sewer districts pretty much include certain planning communities and track data, so they have certain figures for those private utilities, but it's not a publicly-provided service. So it really differs a lot from Collier County. When I spoke with Sarasota County -- excuse me, when I had one of my staff speak with Sarasota County, what they use is a seasonal adjustment factor of 18 percent. Page 141 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reference in 9J-5 to the fact that we could request the population methodologies for other jurisdictions, we didn't follow up and do that? MR. COHEN: What I can tell you is there's no data and analysis, okay, behind the methodologies that exists. So when you ask me did we follow up on it, yes, we did. They gave us their numbers. But was there any data and analysis to support it because it's a very old methodology? The answer is no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does DCA understand what they're doing? MR. COHEN: Well, what I can tell you is, and when I spoke with Mr. O'Connor -- because they're not at the stage that we're at-- that he anticipated they were probably going to undergo the same type of scrutiny that we're undergoing right now. So do they understand the methodology and rationale? Probably not. Was it approved in the past just like ours was in 2003? Yes, it was, with little scrutiny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the population methodology that's in front of us right now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In this document here, Florida BEBR, on the second page, third paragraph down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic. is turned away. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. Thank you. I'll go again. Page 2 of that document, third paragraph down, it says projections of foreign immigration were also based on data from census 2000. A question was raised this morning with regard to whether legal and illegal immigration were considered. And I wonder, is this -- would you know, is this immigration strictly legal? I would assume so. MR. COHEN: It would be legal, Mr. Murray. Page 142 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I assumed. Okay, so we would not realistically know. And that's why in this country we don't know whether we have seven million or 20 million illegals. MR. COHEN : We would not be able to address the question that Mr. Midney asked earlier today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wanted just to have that clear for myself. And that was it for me on that. This is -- looking at your chart here, it is really quite interesting. I'm not sure yet what numbers we should be picking in any event. It would look like, if we gave it a second thought, which is what we're doing, we're going to go lower than what has been in the past where we're using the BEBR high. MR. COHEN: I think the direction obviously from DCA is that we should be using from a permanent population perspective the medium BEBR numbers. The question then becomes what do we do from a seasonal perspective, and that's based on your recommendations to the board, based on the analysis and the numbers that we provided to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we coming down? I'm not really clear on this, that's why I'm asking. Are we coming down in terms of our numbers? It would appear from the conversations that the numbers are coming down from original calculations. MR. COHEN: If you look at the chart, which is the second page, and if you look at the year of2011, I guess that's probably a good year to look at. If you were using the 20 percent seasonal adjustment, your number would be approximately 5,000 less than the old methodology that was in place, which was the weighted population. And as you go on out further into the horizon years, the numbers started getting farther and farther apart because the BEBR high numbers obviously grossly overestimated what our growth would be. So from that five-year increment out, definitely coming down. In Page 143 January 4, 2007 the first five years, the numbers are relatively close to what exists today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what I'm gathering out of this is that the questions having been asked here, we now -- and between DCA saying let's go to the medium, it's a more realistic number, but the real juice is I think found in the fact that we're zeroing in a lot more effectively on the peak population question. And that seems to be coming down as well. MR. COHEN: I think we -- well, the old methodology was flawed from the standpoint because it didn't really take into account the 33 percent factor. It had a formula which was kind of odd in its own way. But I think what we've done is we've tried to take a realistic look at the permanent population as well as the seasonal population using that base year 2000 census and coming up with something that's more realistic based on our current growth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My comment is simply that although this was very tedious for all of us, I think it was an exercise that was very good to do, important to do and will benefit us in the long term by bringing us to a more realistic number for our planning purposes. MR. COHEN: And I'd like to point out, it's really important from a long-term horizon. Especially in an area like solid waste. Because as you see that number being lower, when you apply that to your capital improvements element, what that's going to show is that you actually have extra capacity at your landfill. That's an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, getting back to the quote, unquote, legal and illegal thing, do you -- these data are supposedly based on U.S. census data. And as a volunteer census worker in 2000, we were instructed that we had to count everybody, didn't matter what their legal status was. Page 144 January 4, 2007 So that's confusing to me, because my understanding is that we're looking for population, we're not making that distinction. But you said that it's -- we're only counting legal people? MR. COHEN: That was my understanding in my conversations with BEBR. But I can obviously contact them again and clarify it. But that's my understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the population methodology? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Randy, there's two other documents we need to plow through today. One is the ORC Report and the other is the staff report. I'd like to get through the ORC Report so we can have everything on the table and done with for discussion so when we get into the staff report we can just finalize our discussions. MR. COHEN: I think with that probably David ought to join us up here as well, and I'll take my seat back at the other side and we'll see if we can do this all in tandem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, this is the report that you had brought your question up, so that we can get into that as we move in to the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The staffreport is first, though? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, the ORC Report. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: ORC Report is first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. David, would it be easiest if we just went through the document and asked what questions we had as we made notes on pages, or do you feel like you want to do a presentation of some kind? MR. WEEKS: The former. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's start. We're all on the same page. This is the ORC Report. It has a black planner across the top that says 7/28/06 ORC Report, Collier County Response. Most of Page 145 January 4, 2007 what is pertinent in here is the highlighted sections. The first section of that occurs on Page 4 and actually comes into play for Mr. Midney's question from an earlier point. And I think, David, Paul was questioning the change from 20 percent overall county, not excluding or treating Immokalee differently. So I guess he was looking for an explanation as how that works for Immokalee. Is that a fair statement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David looks at Corby, now he's going to look over at Randy, Randy's going to look at Margie. MR. COHEN: I think the appropriate thing to do would be to remove the words excluding Immokalee from that provision. I think the provisions for determining countywide population do apply across the board. And as I explained earlier, in providing capital facilities we looked at population based on where the actual growth is transpiring. So I think that would be appropriate to remove the excluding Immokalee from that provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, the 20 percent that you guys are dealing with is the median across the county. Because I know Golden Gate has like a four percent vacancy rate. The population on the coast is much higher. Immokalee will have even a different one. So by the time you take out all those vacancy different rates and average them together, 20 percent across the county picks up everything that used to be there, including the higher peak rate for the farm season in Immokalee. Is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what I was trying to get the point, Paul, is that instead of pegging a number, the 20 percent as an average across the county brings everything into the same realm. Page 146 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think that you shouldn't strike out except Immokalee. You should have -- you should leave it in that says except Immokalee to reflect the increase of part-time seasonal residents. Because Immokalee is different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is Golden Gate. So is Vanderbilt Beach. So is East Naples. Every one has a different population. That's why they averaged them together to come up with 20 percent countywide. So if you exclude one, you've got to exclude them all and do separate percentages for every single CDM -- CDP for the county. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think it's a question of magnitude really. Because Immokalee's -- you know, where the average of the other areas of the county is maybe around 20 percent, Immokalee's is at least 60 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, that's not true. Golden Gate is not 20 percent. I've got the CPD from Golden Gate in this packet. If you give me a minute, I'll find it for you. But it's below five percent. So I understand what you're trying to do, and you're -- it's good you're doing it. But the point is that some areas are going to have far, far less. And when you take the ones that are extreme and you average them with the less, if you use a percentage across the board that's been justified by the staffs studies, that's what they're saying comes up, the 20 percent. Now, if I'm wrong, fellows, tell me. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: Paul, just so you're not concerned, what it was in the old methodology they would take out Immokalee and just add 15,000 to that and then use some other method. So this is changing the methodology. So what they're saying is rather than exempt Immokalee and then add it back in later, it's just going to be 20 percent across the board, including Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, wouldn't it be more Page 147 January 4, 2007 accurate to have the 15,000 people in Immokalee? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's figured in. It's not like that's going away. MR. COHEN: It's calculated in with the percentage. The problem is, is with that 15,000 number -- and DCA came back with a comment, you know, what's the justification for the 15,000. And those numbers continue to change on a regular basis. Probably agricultural has a downward trend that that seasonal population would decrease. So rather than going with an exception for Immokalee, it was probably more appropriate to take a look at the block data and also the census point data countywide and take a look at that from the perspective of what is those seasonal rates and then coming up with a figure that would apply countywide. And that's what Commissioner Strain was eluding to. We have a differentiation countywide. Golden Gate I think was four percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : It was four percent, yeah, I just checked. MR. COHEN: Naples I think was in the 30-something percent range. Marco Island was over 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. COHEN: So we're looking at numbers that go all the way across the board. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, let me just make a comment about Immokalee, since we're on the subject. I spoke to Dr. Fritz Roka, who is the agricultural economist with IF AS at the University of Florida center in Immokalee about that, because I was wondering why the change. And he said that there has been no decrease in the amount of agricultural acreage. I asked him about the Ave Maria and the acreage that has been or will be taken out of production there, and he said it's already been replanted somewhere else. And I also asked him if farmworker housing has moved out of the area, maybe to LaBelle or to Hendry County. He said, no, there Page 148 January 4, 2007 really hasn't been any increase in farm worker housing in the other areas. So -- I also asked about -- let's see, I guess that just about covers everything. Basically there hasn't been any decrease in the amount of farmworkers in the Immokalee area. MR. COHEN: And I don't think the existing methodology as proposed is discounting any changes in the population that would occur in Immokalee. The intent behind that is to have a static, you know, across-the-board population countywide population methodology. And then when the board sees, as well as this body as a recommendary (sic) body does, they see certain needs that occur based on population growth or trends, you would recommend where certain capital infrastructure should go as part of your AUIR process in conjunction with your staffs, based on that population growth. And we all know a lot of that growth is going to occur out east. So if that occurs, then you'll make those recommendations based on those trends. So the key is making sure that we adequately address our permanent population; at the same time make sure that we appropriately address our peak seasonal population at the same time. And that's what the methodology with the 20 percent seasonal adjustment tends to do. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just one more comment with regard to housing. Usually when you talk about seasonal housing it's people who are coming down for vacation or for recreation or tourism to Collier County. In the Immokalee area the seasonal housing is talking about homes where people need to live. And they're almost uniformly low-income housing. And so I think that that needs to be taken into account when you get into the housing element. Page 149 January 4,2007 MR. COHEN: I think if you look at the definition based on the census -- and David, correct me if I'm wrong -- when we looked at what a seasonal unit is, if it's occupied for, I guess it's a minimum of one week and less than a certain amount of time, it qualifies as a seasonal unit as long as it's not for permanent residency. So it takes into account those units in Immokalee, as well as that broad spectrum as to somebody that may come down here for six or seven months of the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 4. Is there any other questions from the markups on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, I have one. It involves the paragraph after the one that Paul had a question on. Actually, it's the last sentence of that paragraph and continues to that next paragraph. It says peak population calculations will no longer be used. Seasonal population projections will be uniformly used consistent with state law. Then I think it jumps down to for calculating the need for regional parks, solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer and drainage facilities. Is that how it reads? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. It's meant to close up those two paragraphs and make one longer one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question is, we had asked during the AUIR that the departments look at other methods of calculating their needs and levels of service. I'm going back to the same argument I had earlier today. This doesn't appear to allow that flexibility. And the reason I'm concerned is the utility department doesn't build the sewer and water plants based on seasonal occupation -- use of units, or seasonally occupied units. It builds it based on housing units and COs, and COs of infrastructure, meaning hotels, COs of commercial buildings and COs of residential buildings. Every time you want a building permit you have to go in Page 150 January 4, 2007 and they have to acknowledge they have the capacity. And with that acknowledgement, they build the capacity. So why do we need to calculate their needs based on population if their needs are based on actual on-the-ground construction? And that's what we asked them to explore as an alternative. Now, they haven't gotten back to us yet and I don't expect they would for some time. But I don't want this to lock us out of being able to look at a better alternative for their connections, because their connections are locked in by permits. They're not going to have a change of the number of permits they issue based on seasonal. A hotel is there whether it's occupied or not, and they've got capacity for it whether it's occupied or not. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, your point is well taken. As most of you are well aware, that was one of the recommendations that came from this body as well as the productivity committee as part of the AUIR. The AUIR will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on January the 24th. In that, obviously, your report, as well as the report from the productivity committee is going forward to the Board of County Commissioners where we are asking them for direction with regard to looking at alternative methods of looking at different levels of service, based on your recommendation. If -- you know, and my -- what I would anticipate is they're going to provide us with that direction. And what would transpire then is that as part of your next AUIR process, we would probably have a meeting after the AUIR by the board as a group of staff to formulate how to go about coming up with different alternative methodologies for you to consider as part of the AUIR. And also whether or not they work or not. I think you need to know whether or not what works for, say, EMS, whether it be a time, distance type of study; what works with potable water, does it need to be based on population or do you need to use the ERCs, whatever the case may be? And those are the items that you wanted us to take a Page 151 January 4, 2007 look at. Right now obviously we're tied into this existing population methodology. Are we bound by it? As the county attorney opined earlier, when we go through the AUIR process that can form the foundation again for changes to the CIE in upcoming years as you deem necessary and recommend accordingly. And that's the route that we would prefer to go at this time. And I would anticipate in the future you're going to revisit the AUIR and the CIE and make recommendations in some areas to change the level of service based on some different methodology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie, you'll be probably sitting in that seat when the next AUIR comes up. So I want to ask you the question: Will this language lock us into this particular methodology, or will we have the flexibility to look at a new and utilize a new system -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- than the ones introduced? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- what I'm going to do, I'm going to get the minutes from the prior meeting, and I would -- and based on what was asked today, and I'm going to try and put it all together and explain it so we're clear and consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I guess -- well, then we aren't -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I hopefully will be sitting here and we'll pick it up again. (Telephone ringing.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's probably a security guard. In the next paragraph it reads, the unincorporated area seasonal population is the seasonal population figure described above for unincorporated Collier County only, adjusted to represent how seasonal residents utilize certain park facilities differently. Well, how do you do that? What statistic do you have that's Page 152 January 4, 2007 going to give you that kind of information? Because I haven't heard it during the whole AUIR, and it would have been nice to know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's called Quigi Board. MR. SCHMIDT: That may be one of the methods used. But seriously, I believe Amanda Townsend did address that at a previous AUIR hearing. And the language here is not proposed for change from previous versions, because her explanation was simply that the seasonal population uses parks differently. They use parks more locally when they visit, they use the community parks differently, the regional parks differently. And this was the one item the community parks set off from the others in the characteristics of the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Corby, my question was not so much saying that that's wrong. I'm just curious, if you've got that kind of statistic that tells you that, can we see it? The reason, because it's a valuable statistic. If you know specifically how these parks are utilized by the seasonal population, that's going to have a good impact on justifying how many units, what parks we need to increase for that season. I'd like to see that statistic. That's the only reason I pointed it out. You reference it, so if you have it, it would be handy. Page 5, there's a lot of yellow cross-outs. Are there any questions on Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6, there's a change in the last-- bottom of the page. Page 7, we have a series of cross-outs and referencing the new methodol -- basically crossing out the old references to the population methodology. It carries over on Page 8, correcting the methodology agaIn. Page 9, regarding the utilities service master plan, mostly cross-outs and corrections. MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Page 153 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: A point, returning to Page 8, about a third-- Page 8. This may be stated on other pages, but this is the language for adoption proposed. In the entry for seasonal population, about a third of the way down, it now reads seasonal population is the BEBR population figure converted to its October 1 figure increased by 20 percent for all areas of the county to reflect the increase of seasonal part-time residents and visitors based on the 2000 U.S. Bureau of Census occupancy-vacancy data, gasoline tax, gasoline sales data, retail sales data and hotel-motel occupancy rates. That finishing phrase in the second half of that entry is no longer necessary, because those individual criteria, the occupancy-vacancy data, the gasoline data and so forth, are no longer used in what you just talked about for the last hour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to cross that language out? MR. SCHMIDT: From based to the end, yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns with that? Does that work for you, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We left off on Page 10, correction to eliminate the essential sewer service area, because it isn't existing. The rest of the pages have not been changed all the way up to Page 14. There's a reference to an addition to some text. Now, this is just the ORC Report. It is not the staff report. So we're just reviewing the ORC Report at this point. Page 16, there's a small deletion. There's a revision on Page 20, referencing, yes, the population methodology. Page 21, there's a correction on the last paragraph. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: The highlighted portion of Page 21 is actually Page 154 January 4, 2007 a staff note to self and not part of text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not an addition? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 24. Are you including that methodology report, I guess, with this document or something to DCA? MR. SCHMIDT: A few pages back where you had a large section of a single page crossed out, the new methodology explanation will replace that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 25 and 26 refer for the most part to the affordable housing issues, a lot of which we discussed with Cormac this morning. And Page 27 as well. Are there any questions for any of that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 28 brings into play the issues involving the parks and rec. department in regards to their levels of service. There's some cross-outs on weighted population. Except on C-1, you left weighted in after the last word of that sentence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mine's crossed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 28. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's on 29 on mine it's crossed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get one at a time. Let's let Corby look at it and then Mr. Adelstein, you can bring up your question. Corby, on Page 28, C-1, the very last word is parentheses weighted, underlined. MR. SCHMIDT: It should show that way in that portion where that was the language transmitted the first time to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Twenty-seven, Policy 1.5. Collier County shall maintain an inventory of affordable workforce Page 155 January 4, 2007 housing. Are we talking about those that are being applied to or those that are being built or are being built? Because I can't get a number. I've tried that to see how many affordable housing units have actually been built. F or example, go back the last year. The amount of those that were applied for and were acceptable and those that were being built were substantially different numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, the document that was passed out this morning provides all that information. There is your contributions and this is your inventory. This is what we discussed when Cormac was here this morning. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. But this is from now or is this going back -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This goes back to the year 2000. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine. Then I have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 29 on mine is the one that has it crossed out. I've been following up to this point but you and I departed at that point. The weighted average was crossed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine is too. It was on Page 28, the one that is not crossed out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't find that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not highlighted. It's up in C-1, towards the middle of the page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here it is, got it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TUFF: You're still on 28? Are you still there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER TUFF: On C, it just says the 179 and 270, both numbers there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, that's the numbers that Page 156 January 4, 2007 we've got problems with on the other document that we brought up. MR. SCHMIDT: I see where you mean that, though. COMMISSIONER CARON: One should be crossed out. MR. SCHMIDT: So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 29 we just discussed the one cross-out there. The next change is on Page 32. Similar one on page -- same change on page 33, and it's all referencing the population methodology. There's some changes on Page 35 involving preserve areas. David or Corby, my question on the preserve areas that are listed on Page 35, 9(A) references the word rarity. I thought we had -- we may have asked this question before. Is rarity the right word? Is that what -- MR. SCHMIDT: The question was asked and answered previously. It was explained I believe by Mr. Lorenz as to what was intended to be meant by that term. And it was at least understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're going to define that in the LDC, I believe. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36. Page 37. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This seems like a pretty ambitious goal is that we're going to have everybody in a safe refuge prior to the arrival of the storm. How are we going to do that? We're going to build refuges for 300,000 people? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that dovetails with another question. Mr. Schiffer's at the right point. It talks about refuges, yet we're referring everything else to shelters. You don't want people evacuating to a refuge, don't you want them heading to a shelter? There is a big different between the two by Florida Statute. MR. SCHMIDT: And I believe this may be the only remaining Page 157 January 4, 2007 place where refuge was missed in the first time around of changes. You'll notice in here the remaining portion of the document, it has been changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the refuge should be shelter, but then that even makes Mr. Schiffer's question more relevant. I guess it's the school system that we would be relying upon for shelters for the most part. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Depending on the extent of the storm, maybe a small one, Category 1, we could do. Two we're going to start getting in trouble. Three -- I mean, first of all, people are going to head out of town, probably. So what does that sentence actually mean? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it doesn't say all residents or all visitors. MR. SCHMIDT: This is apparently the language proposed by the staff who handles this portion of it. My understanding of the shelter system and the way it works is people from different kinds of housing head to different kinds of shelters. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and try to address that a little bit more, because Mr. Summers' department provided that particular language. And I think the intent behind that is, one, to address their statutory mandates as required by the state with respect to emergency operations when we have a storm of that nature. And that's why that language reads the way it does. Mr. Schiffer's point is that it's, I guess, aspirational in some respects. Maybe it is, but it's the requirement that needs to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Then perhaps that's why the word refuge was in there and not shelter. And perhaps we should just double check that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- Page 158 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Because having someone in an appropriate refuge could mean sending them out of town, you know, as opposed to a shelter, which the county would have to build and temporarily house people. And so perhaps the wise move is to double check with Mr. Summers and his crew on the actual language. MR. COHEN: What we can do is we will check with Mr. Summers, and whatever language that he deems appropriate we can incorporate in there based on the recommendation of this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to page -- next change is Page 39. This refers to a density bonus provision referencing affordable, and shall be defined in Chapter 420. Does that match the fact that we consider affordable up to 150 percent of medium income? Because if it doesn't, because we do have a matrix that gives density bonuses, I believe, for what's called gap housing, which is a higher level of what we now look at as affordable housing. Does anybody know? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the insertion of the as defined by Chapter was to simply distinguish what statutorily is affordable housing from what in Collier County we've introduced as workforce housing. So the two would not cross lines or be confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This says you basically -- is that defining when you get a density bonus? As used in this density bonus provision the term affordable shall be as defined in Chapter 420. Does that mean it's limiting to that definition? Because if it's different than the definition we have, it could have an impact. MR. SCHMIDT: It is not a limiting factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you saying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you saying that we give Page 159 January 4, 2007 density bonuses now for gap housing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what that matrix table does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to visualize the table. But it doesn't under the -- I guess where my question is really rooted in the federal and state system that doesn't recognize the gap. So I was wondering whether or not you want to also include that matrix in there or whether this does the job. You raised the question and I saw what you were going after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? No? The next question is on -- the next mark-up is it. That's the last mark-up in the book, or last highlight in the book. That really wraps up the ORC Report. Anybody else have any questions on the ORC Report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff need anything from us other than our review like we just did, or are you looking for -- you're just sending that out to DCA, right? You're looking puzzled. MR. COHEN: Well, what's going to transpire obviously is we're going to incorporate your recommendations into a staff report to the Board of County Commissioners. And obviously if there's any difference between what this board recommends and what the staff does, we'll point out what our differences are. But your document will go to the Board of County Commissioners. So what we're going to need from you is action on each individual element which incorporates the changes that you want at the appropriate time, which would be near the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was only talking about the ORC Report. MR. COHEN: I think the ORC Report, as it pertains to each element, those changes that are in there, if you concur with that, then what I would say is that you make a motion to incorporate those into the elements and then we'll deal with each one of those elements at the Page 160 January 4, 2007 end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go through the staffreport then and move through that. Then we'll see where we agree or disagree. The staff report is the second document received. It's the one with the chartreuse, pink, magenta, you name it, whatever Corby's favorite color is. That's the one that Brad was talking about earlier. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Regarding those colors too on those graphs that we had, I think white and yellow ought to be deleted, because you can't read the numbers or follow the lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think overall we'll try to have more readable graphs and charts and colors when we come to -- you guys really think about the colors before you send them to us. Let's start, if you don't mind, unless staff has a better idea. You just want to go page by page? MR. WEEKS: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to work. The changes on-- all the pages in front of us. So let's start with Page 2. Are there any questions on the changes on Page 2, which mostly center around the population issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 3, utility issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4, we start to get into the housing issue we spoke to Cormac about earlier. We did recommend some changes on that. Policy 1.4, for example, after the density by right, it would be where applicable. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question, going back to Page 161 January 4, 2007 Page 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We talked about the ability of changing level of service standards. And I see here that in the Collier County sewer facilities, they've changed some of the level of service standards, so it's obviously something that can be done. It's the question of who decides to do it and how do you get it to that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's timing mostly. That was what my concern was, was timing. And as far as how it gets changed, staffs probably going to recommend something that they'll spend hours backing up that we will only have a few minutes to understand. So we're not going to challenge it too much. But I think it's the timing of it. If something needs to be done, can we do it without having to wait for the CIE to be amended? And I think they've answered that question earlier today, if that's what you're getting at. Anything else on three? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Other than the change you mentioned, Page 5? We talked about rewording policy 2.1 concerning the reference to the Collier County Housing Development Corporation. MR. SCHMIDT: So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Policy 1.1.1 involves the statistics for the acres of community park and regional park that are going to be entered in for level of service. I want to -- and Margie, you're telling us that those numbers don't need to be used in the upcoming AUIR; is that a fair statement? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I'm saying that the level that -- maybe I misunderstood the question, but the purpose of the AUIR is to Page 162 January 4, 2007 see if you're meeting your levels of service. And then if there's a problem meeting them, based on the facilities that you have in the inventory and all the rest of it, you can lower the level of service, you can throw more money at it, and there's options that you have to do. So I'm saying based on what you learn in the AUIR, you can then amend the plan to lower level of service or raise it or whatever you need to do. But the AUIR is the basis, generally speaking, for what you later do in amendments to the capital improvement element. And that serves as the data and the rationale to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, for the upcoming AUIR that we're going to probably receive in August, do these numbers under Policy 1.1.1.A, Band C, are we locked into using those -- seeing those numbers used into the AUIR? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think staff will use these numbers to show you whether we're meeting it or not. But what I'm trying to say is after you look at the AUIR, if there's a problem you don't have to keep these numbers in the CIE forever. The CIE can be amended to change them, based on the A UIR. But yes, I think these numbers -- and I don't put together the AUIR, but I think these numbers would have to be looked at as part of the AUIR to see if you're meeting your standard. And then if you're not meeting your standard, you can throw more money at it to meet it or you can lower the level of service standard. But you would do that in a later plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me ask-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me ask the question again. We have an upcoming AUIR. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that AUIR, parks and rec. will be Page 163 January 4, 2007 calculating their needs. Do they have to use the numbers stated in Policy 1.1.1.A, B, C as stated here in front of -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think they look at those numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't ask you if they have to look at them. I can look at them right now. I'm saying do they have to use them in their calculations? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, because that's the baseline. And then from there, you go to see if you need to change them, which is what I said earlier today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If they have to use these in the AUIR and we don't agree or the board actually doesn't agree through some kind of process that the basis for these numbers is justified, can they then change the AUIR in August, or whenever it gets to them for that upcoming year that would be different than the numbers in this policy? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think you have-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes or no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: God, it's so hard to get an answer here. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it's complicated, and I don't prepare the A UIR myself. But the way I understand that it works is that they use this basis in the AUIR. I don't think they change the level of service in the AUIR. You change the level of service later in the amendment to the plan. Because the AUIR is only the data to do it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can help out a little bit here. Your direction to us and also as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the AUIR is to take a look at alternative methods of looking at different levels of service. I think probably it could be taken a step further, and that's from the standpoint of can you justify the existing level of service as it's set forth in the CIE? What's the basis for this particular number, which Page 164 January 4, 2007 hasn't probably been looked at in over 10 years. And I think that's the point that he's getting at. I think the Board of County Commissioners as part of the AUIR this year could direct the staff to do just that, as the justification for that number and to provide the basis for that in the upcoming AUIR which we provide -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, then you amend the plan-- MR. COHEN: Then the data analysis for the CIE. And then I think that would be the appropriate way to do it. So I think the answer to Margie's question probably is yes, but the staff needs to be directed to one, take a look at the existing methodologies, which were justified probably 10, 12, I don't know, maybe even in the '87 plan, '89 plan, and make sure that they're actually up to date. And if they're not, then adjust them accordingly. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And say okay, here's the problem, we need to fix it and then you amend the plan after the AUIR to fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the AUIR coming up, staff comes forward, does the calculations based on 1.2882. After-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, and then they-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, don't interrupt me, please. We have a court reporter who's trying to take notes. One at a time. After they come forward with that, we go through a long dissertation on whether or not that's relevant or not. We find out that 1.6 should be used instead. Can the AUIR then be immediately amended at that point in time using 1.6 as the level of service to placate the following year's needs? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But you need to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just yes or no. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- then amend the plan as well, after the A UIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to ask this, but can I just get a yes or a no? Page 165 January 4, 2007 So no, we cannot then change the AUIR with that new numeric until this plan then is reamended. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You can change the AUIR with direction to later -- to then amend the CIE to make it consistent with the AUIR as a basis for the amendment to the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these numbers can be changed then in the AUIR. Wow, took a bit to get there, but I think we finally did. Are there any other questions on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a question about what we're discussing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a meeting in February to look at the -- at least I thought we were, can't find it -- to look at the CIE. Wouldn't we do that then? MR. COHEN: Mr. Schiffer, let me help you out with that a little bit. The original CIE meeting for you, you should have gotten a new schedule today. It should have been taken off of there. The CIE, was it crossed off of there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not even on -- there's no CIE meeting referenced in here. MR. COHEN: It should have been removed. And the rationale for that was because the 2006 AUIR was based on the old methodology. It would be pretty much useless to send forward a CIE based on last year's A UIR to DCA to review that would conflict with the population methodology that was in the EAR-based amendments. So that meeting is not going to transpire, and I briefed the board on that when I provided them with the population methodology and will be very deliberate with them in the AUIR as well that they're not going to see a CIE this year. But I think it would be appropriate, you know, from this board at this time, okay, as we go forward with the EAR-based amendments Page 166 January 4, 2007 that you would like to see the level of service standards both in the -- in the CIE addressed at the AUIR level. You can make that as a recommendation. We could include that as a staff report. Because it obviously provides the foundation for the CIE in upcoming years. We can do that on an annual basis, obviously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we just got acknowledgement from the county attorney that it can be done, so we will look forward to doing that. Cherie', what time do you have a switch-over coming, or do you? THE COURT REPORTER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a break here in a couple of minutes. We'll hopefully finish up shortly after that. Page 6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question I have is that what does it mean that -- it's the start of the first large magenta block -- if applicable, the boundary of a natural wetland flowway or slough shall reflect elevated surface water elevations caused by surrounding development? How will that be figured out? Through historic data or through prediction? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, through historic data from flooding or through prediction or how will that be -- what does that really mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you answer, you might want to consider the fact that that seems to indicate that you are allowed then to raise the water elevations on someone else's property by diversion of the water that was coming from your property. And if that's the case, I don't know how we can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's prediction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's the issue that I think Golden Gate Estates is partly suffering for because no one predicted that and allowed it to happen. And now we have flooded homes out there. Mr. Wiley was here earlier. He left. He was probably the one Page 167 January 4, 2007 that could answer this, I bet. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sure. MR. WEEKS: My comment was simply going to be that I know this is something that was discussed quite a bit at one of your previous meetings. I know Mr. Wiley was involved in coming up with this language that you see here. MR. COHEN: And I think the caveat that's on there, the applicable is there for an obvious reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it seems like by consenting that -- by acknowledging that such a thing can occur and may occur is almost giving it permission to occur. And I thought that that was not what we were not trying to do with our water management system. You're not allowed to dump water on your neighboring properties. That's what every project in here is supposedly not doing. I'm just worried this might open the door to something negative if it's not explained properly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if the water level is rising by historical data, then obviously that map would change. But this looks like you're predicting development has caused a rise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, it's 2:45. You could call Mr. Wiley, get an -- if there's an explanation or maybe a strike-out, we can take a IS-minute break and be back here at 3:00. How does that sound? Okay, we'll take a break until 3:00. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we'll resume our meeting. We left off on Page 6. Staffwas going to get ahold of Mr. Wiley concerning the added language in the bright color on the bottom of Page 6. Did that happen? MR. SCHMIDT: It did, Mr. Chairman. And inasmuch as his discussion helped me to understand it a bit better, his understanding of the entry is it had been discussed to some extent here. After Page 168 January 4, 2007 discussion there was a sentence that was added by Mr. Lorenz, or suggested by Mr. Lorenz. And because there are no ideal situations out there to be able to surveyor measure or predict how these things may happen, there's at least not an easily explainable way to enforce this, or to explain this to you now. So I guess what I would suggest is ask Mr. Lorenz to explain further to you or on to the BCC if there's more explanation necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sir, I want to get this done today. We've dragged this thing out for months waiting for responses. I just assume that that language -- my idea would be to strike it because it's too ambiguous and we don't know what connotations it has with it. And if he wants to argue this case in front of the BCC, then more power to him. Does anybody else -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, Mark, and -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the sentence before that gives him what he wants. And that's where you can determine where that line is, by field investigation, by historical trends, not by predictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's too many unknown consequences to that ambiguous language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we strike it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The board -- anybody here object to the striking of that sentence? COMMISSIONER TUFF: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? From at least our perspective and recommendation, would you show that as being removed? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 7. This is references to the geological survey data. Page 8. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just take a look. All right, Page 169 January 4, 2007 I'm just going to make a comment here. In Policy 6.1.1, within one year of the effective date of these amendments, the county shall adopt land development regulations that allow for a process whereby a property owner may submit a petition requesting that all or a portion of the native vegetation preservation retention requirement to be satisfied by a monetary payment. I just have a problem with us allowing everybody to buy their way out of everything. And I think this is bad policy. I'd just like to make that comment on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's not a bad comment. I'mjust thinking, to make this a little bit more palatable, where the highlighting words end where the word "that" is, why don't we just cross out all or? So that a portion -- so that something has to be retained. Maybe that would make it a little more acceptable so that we have some area of green space left in the county in those conditions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like a plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What are the thoughts of the panel? Marj orie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just -- and staff can correct me if I'm wrong if they know, but I think we had this situation up by Immokalee Road where we had a PUD, and then after the PUD came in, the -- there was a situation where another loop could be built or something for the interstate. And if the landowner gave up the preserve area to the state, then they would help us with this facility. And if Don Scott were here, he could give -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the Target you're referring to. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're referring to the Target project. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that's correct. And I think there was actually nothing left. So there could -- I'm just saying there might be a situation where because of a circumstance like that, there may be nothing whatsoever left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the applicant could have decided not Page 1 70 January 4, 2007 to build so much on the property. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. And really, that becomes the bottom line is do we have to max out every square inch on every square inch? And I have a problem with it. MR. WEEKS: I think one of the other concerns -- one of the concerns, and I think the reason for wanting this language is there's some instances where the amount of native vegetation is very small on-site, and from an environmental perspective, habitat value-wise it may be meaningless. That is, if you have maybe a third of an acre, a quarter of an acre, some very small amount that from a standpoint of open space it may have some value, but from a habitat value standpoint, it simply does not exist. And in that instance it may be better served -- the county may be better served by allowing that development to occur, the clearing of that vegetation, and compensate for it elsewhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then I would go back to Mr. Strain's suggestion that a portion is probably a better -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think what's David's pointed out is there's a difference between green space or open space and native vegetation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this doesn't -- that's where the problem lies with this statement. It doesn't take in the fact that if you've got native vegetation that can exist -- that cannot exist, instead of buying it all out as an option, they should be required to keep some of it as open space. Now, unfortunately open space has a huge definition. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Bruce Anderson had that one where we -- does this apply to that too, where he had the photos, where what he had was better than what they had? They were going to remove all theirs but this was going to be better. Is that reflective of this? Page 171 January 4,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was Estey Avenue they were talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a little different than that. This would be like -- if you remember the Wal-Mart in North Naples. In North Naples, that Wal-Mart, if you drive through the parking lot, you see these pine trees coming up through the road. Well, you look over the edge, there's an eight-foot wall. And down at the bottom of this wall is where these pine are rooted to the ground. They were forced to leave those and build these giant retaining walls around their project. Now that might be an impractical application for native vegetation. There probably isn't a thing in the world that's going to use that successfully. Maybe in that case monetary compensation would have been good. But I think where Ms. Caron's coming from is if that extreme situation does occur, there ought to be some requirement to leave something. Maybe not native but at least some green space on the property. Maybe that's -- is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I just see it as a -- the statement as it reads now I just see as wide open. And I think you're going to find a lot of people in here buying their way out, as opposed to doing what they should be doing. And I just would like to put some qualifiers on it. MR. WEEKS: Well, I point out two things: One thing about the language, it does say -- and of course you specifically touch on this point -- all or a portion. Granted, if you take out all of them, that means there's only the ability for a portion of it, which means there must be a retention of some portion. And that goes back to my point where there may be some instances where that just doesn't make sense. The second thing I would point out, though, is that the language is saying that we're going to establish a process in the LDC, there's going to be a petition process, which means there's going to be some Page 1 72 January 4, 2007 application that has to be submitted, there's going to be some criteria established in the LDC. So it's going to be fleshed out further through an LDC amendment, which of course this body will see. COMMISSIONER CARON: And they do further describe that further down in this paragraph. I mean, I will grant you that. I just -- and that -- maybe it will all work out in the Land Development Code. I just -- my initial reaction to reading this paragraph is that I just don't want to leave open-ended opportunities for people to try to get around things that we really want in this county. And that's my -- and maybe the end of this paragraph where we talk about the Land Development Code regulations and the criteria that they'll be based on, perhaps that suffices to handle everything. If the board could just take a minute and read it, maybe everybody will be comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the least we can do is assure that when this comes through in the LDC amendments that it's tightened up to a point we feel comfortable with it that we could correct the deficiencies there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm fine with that. But I will be watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you won't. Page 9, references to the Belle Meade changed and moved. Page 10. This question on Page 10 involves the sheltering -- changing refuge to shelter, which is the right thing, I would believe. And it references in mobile home parks. Don't we have a prohibition -- well, I think it says mobile home parks and subdivisions -- mobile home parks or subdivisions. My concern there is a lot of subdivisions are in the coastal high hazard area. If I'm not mistaken, you're not allowed to put a shelter in a coastal high hazard area, because it encourages people to seek shelter in the danger zones. Is that correct? Let's put it this way: When Ken Pineau was in charge of emergency services, he would not Page 1 73 January 4, 2007 allow shelters in the coastal high hazard. Instead he required developers to buyout of it and make contributions to other projects away from the coastal high hazard under the premise that people seeking shelter should not seek it where the flood waters are certainly going to come. Now, based on that and the fact that this references not only mobile home parks, which can't be put in coastal hazard areas anymore, I felt comfortable with that. But then it says or subdivision residences. I'm just wondering if that pertains to more than just mobile home subdivisions. MR. WEEKS: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it's saying that. I think it's saying mobile home divisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That was a clarification requested by the planning commission in the past because of -- it simply said mobile home parks. And the question came about, well, what about subdivisions, they're all mobile home subdivisions. In both cases it's referring to mobile homes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'd just like to point out in a subsequent sentence it does say mobile home subdivision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In one of them it says mobile home park or subdivision, so I wanted to make sure that it meant just mobile home subdivisions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or is struck out. It's the magenta problem again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I'm seeing and, not or. So I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what staffs telling us, it's mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. So maybe that clarification needs to be made. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Because in the fifth line down, if Page 174 January 4, 2007 you look at the fifth line down, it says -- it starts on the fourth, such mobile home parks or mobile home subdivisions. And there it has the qualifier by the subdivisions where it doesn't earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the second sentence it refers to mobile home parks but does not use the word mobile home in front, so MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I know. And I think it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe just clean that up, I think that's what would be required. Make sure it references mobile home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, are we allowed to build mobile home parks in coastal high hazard areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't believe so, David. MR. WEEKS: No. But there are some instances where there's existing mobile home zoning that is undeveloped. There's no new mobile home zoning is allowed, but the development of existing zoning is allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if someone in that -- we just had the Manatee Road issue come up. And there's mobile home zoning to the south and west of that particular facility, it was pointed out to us today. If someone comes in for a mobile home park there, would this require them to put a shelter on that site? Because if it does I believe that may be in conflict with some other provisions somewhere else of having a shelter in a coastal high hazard area that is subject to inundation during a minimum event. MR. WEEKS: The first answer is yes, this would require that. I think there's a threshold of, I think it's at 26 -- if they cross a certain threshold, yes, they would be. And we'll definitely check to see. I know the CCME and subsequent close to this area objectives and policies deals with public expenditures for shelters. I'm not sure if that's the only limitation. Because in this case you're talking about a privately provided shelter, and that may be viewed differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I remember the discussion I myself Page 175 January 4, 2007 had with Ken Pineau years ago. And there was something involving -- it's either Florida statues or 9J-5. So you may want to check, because I'd hate to see our document be in conflict with either one of those. MR. WEEKS: We'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11 doesn't have anything. Page 12 has one word. Page 13. And 14 ends it. David, when you check on that issue with the coastal hazard, could someone send some message to us to let us know? I'm curious as to the result of that. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of the staff report, the ORC Report and the methodology for population. What is the staffs-- how do you want to see this finish out? MR. SCHMIDT: If you'll allow me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SCHMIDT: -- to return to the recreation and open space element where you've had no action and make a recommendation on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the panel on the recreation and open space element? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Move to pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion. I will myselfvote for the affirmative as well on the condition that we've been -- that's been expressed to us by the county attorney involving our ability not to have to follow the guidelines in here and that we can actually utilize different and some flexible methodology in the AUIR. So that is the only reason I'm recommending -- I would go along with it. Ms. Caron? Page 176 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and I would just like to add to that, I think we should check with Mr. Schmitt. He may have had some language. Because I note he specifically said that this language could be changed to be slightly more generic. And if that's the case, perhaps that helps everybody in the long run. So I would just request that before this is final, final, that you double check with Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMIDT: I can do that for you, but I thought our discussions covered that, knowing that we must show levels of service in the CIE, and all other elements for levels of service are part of that element. My note to self, when Mr. Schmitt made that statement, I told myself to check that state regs may not allow a generic phrase to be changed and replace those levels of service. And since that time, with discussions here, I've come to understand that we can't replace those levels of service. If you'd like me to triple check, I can. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the fact that we can modify those at the AUIR level is going to be a big help in getting all this passed. Any other discussion on the conceptual approval of the parks and rec. and open space? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 1 77 January 4, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. There are several lingering outstanding overall elements, Corby. I know you're going to ask us to now do the whole document. But I want to make sure that you're going to add some language to CIE Policy 1.3. That was already something you volunteered to do. MR. COHEN: The language that I provided to you will be added accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had mentioned earlier that we should recommend and include in our recommendation that the level of service be addressed through the AUIR implementation as well. MR. COHEN: And I think that would take place just in the staff report but not be a part of the response to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the panel, does anybody object to the inclusion of those two general languages in regards to our recommendations to move forward? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Corby, how do you want to format the balance of these approvals? MR. SCHMIDT: I still have the outstanding informal approvals of the CIE, which you're just covering now. And the FLUE. And then on to the formal approval of each. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Want to take the CIE first? Is there a recommendation to approve the CIE subj ect to the changes we have discussed and of course the fact that the elements are going to be able to be flexible enough for us to utilize in the AUIR. Mr. Kolflat, are you making that recommendation? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Make the recommendation. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Mr. Tuff. Page 178 January 4, 2007 Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries unanimously. Corby, the next one was the FLUE? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to make a recommendation for the FLUE under the same conditions we did the CIE? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 1 79 January 4,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. SCHMIDT: Now for each of the elements. The CIE, the sanitary sewer sub-element, potable water sub-element, housing, recreation and open space, the CCME, the FLUE, the drainage sub-element and transportation. Formal individual votes on each of those, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, you're a slave driver, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: So I'm told. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me pull my book out and we'll try to do it in some kind of order. First one that I've got in the book, and I'll take them in the order that they were presented to us originally. The CIE is the first one, is that -- MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I have. Okay, so now we're looking for formal recommendation. And let me set the criteria so we can move through these pretty fast. Of the various elements of the EAR, the approvals will be subject to all the conditions, suggestions and approvals that we've done conceptually and recommended to staff throughout our discussions on this process and the general policy suggestions that we just made a little while ago. So based on that and the input from the county attorney concerning the flexibility of their language in regards to the AUIR usage, I'm looking for a motion to approve the capital improvement element as submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Page 180 January 4, 2007 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 8-0. The next element would be the transportation element. Is there a motion to recommend approval of the transportation element? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Page 181 January 4, 2007 Sanitary sewer sub-element. Is there a motion to recommend approval for the sanitary sewer sub-element? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, and seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. The potable water sub-element. Is there a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Adelstein. You guys are getting mixed up here. You were on a roll. Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 182 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The drainage sub-element. We even had some discussion on that today. We struck a sentence. I'm sure staff understands that's included in our motion. Is there a motion to recommend approval for the drainage sub-element? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer approved (sic), Mr. Tuff seconded. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 8-0. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 183 January 4, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The solid waste sub-element, is there a motion to approve -- recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Tuffseconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the -- MR. SCHMIDT: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, the solid waste sub-element, my note says had no ORC or DCA concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't care if we approve it then or not? MR. SCHMIDT: Go for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Succinct. We're already there, it's in our book. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made to recommend approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Corby, why don't you tell me what next one you'd like us to discuss? Groundwater? Page 184 January 4, 2007 MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, let's go to housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation to move for approval to the BCC for the housing sub-element? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recreation and open space. MR. SCHMIDT: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve recreation and open space. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, please Page 185 January 4, 2007 signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. CCME? MR. SCHMIDT: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve the CCME. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. His hand was faster than yours on that one. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I want to hear from Mr. Midneyonce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got to raise his hand or something. He's just sitting back. Call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 186 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. ICE or FLUE? MR. SCHMIDT: The FLUE, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to recommend approval of the future land use element? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Corby, is that the end of it? MR. SCHMIDT: The ICE. We'll go back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to go back to the ICE? You're not allowed to go back, Corby. Is there a motion to recommend approval of the ICE? Page 187 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: Natural ground water should be your last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not last in my book. Recommendation to approve the natural ground water sub-element? Mr. Midney, did you want to recommend approval on that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney, seconded by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 188 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Anything else, Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: There is. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping Ms. Caron had an opportunity to recommend something. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought we had already done those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the Golden Gate master plan. Do you like that one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron recommended approval of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 189 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. SCHMIDT: Immokalee area master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Paul, if you don't make this one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We haven't finalized our master plan, how can we vote on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the changes to the existing portion of it. Yours will come through under a separate amendment to the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The ones that -- okay, yeah. I move that we approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Paul Midney, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Page 190 January 4, 2007 MR. SCHMIDT: And with two remaining. Marco Island Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, there is no Marco Island Master Plan. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It was taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it was taken out. Okay, want to recommend the approval of removing Marco Island from Collier County. Boy is that a good one. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll rephrase that in my notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to approve the changes to Marco Island Master Plan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you want the economic element last. Page 191 January 4, 2007 MR. SCHMIDT: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval of the economic element? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Tuff. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Corby, is that it? MR. SCHMIDT: That is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll be darned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see where we are with our agenda. We've got like six more items here, guys. No, I'm just kidding. Item #9 OLD BUSINESS Page 192 January 4, 2007 The old business, which is Brad's issue, has been postponed to the next regular meeting, which would be the 18th. Mr. Murray, you had something you may want to add at that time? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll do it at that time I think, yeah. Item #10 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new business. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'd like to just introduce something, if I could. At our next meeting, I wanted to bring up the subject and I wanted to advise you of where the area is in case you might want to take a look at it. On Golden Gate Parkway between Airport Road and U.S. 41, there is a development called The Estuary, which is on the south side of Golden Gate going west, and they have an eight-foot wall there with some beautiful landscaping in front of it. I'd like to bring that subject up at our next meet. I'd like to have an opportunity to pass that out to take a look at that landscaping and make a judgment as to what your opinion is of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can discuss anything you'd like, Mr. Kolflat. I'm not sure we can do anything about it, but we certainly can discuss it. And if there's any issues that staff may have as far as background research, maybe that can be addressed at the same -- provide that information to us to help with the discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But I just want to alert you that I'll be bringing it up. So if you have the opportunity to go take look at Page 193 January 4, 2007 it, I'd appreciate it. Because I'll give you a little bit of background on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Kolflat, for the record, because Kay Deselem's not here, do you want any information provided to you for that meeting with regard to that subject matter like aerials, anything in particular? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, your intention is to do what with that, so we know how to prepare for it? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I want to ask your opinion as far as what you think that could be as a standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, well, I think that's something that staff would really -- that's an LDC issue, so you're getting into a whole Pandora's Box of standards that would have to be brought into play with the land development code. So maybe Michael Sawyer or one of those landscaping fellows might just want to attend at some point at the end of that meeting just to answer any questions we have about the applicability of Land Development Code for that kind of a use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I don't think that's necessary, because this would apply to one of the petitioners that will be on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you've got me confused. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now you got us in trouble. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You know ofa petition coming up on the 18th that involves the landscaping of The Estuary? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not the -- doesn't involve the Estuary, but involves that type of landscape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, if you think that that landscaping is something that may be needed in regards to the petition, instead of adding it as a separate item on our next agenda, you may want to incorporate that into your deliberations on that particular application when it comes through and bring with you Page 194 January 4,2007 anything that you feel is applicable to it to reemphasize the position you'd like to take. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I will, and I intend to do that. But I just want to alert you that in the event that you are traveling that way, if you could get a look at it, that might give you some opinion in your mind that I bring it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't think, Randy, we're going to look at it as a separate issue. It will be part of a discussion on the application. Anything else for new business? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the Immokalee master plan will be coming up this year, I think, before this planning commission. And we've never, since I've been on the board, had a meeting in Immokalee. Just sort of a word to staff to think about it, having that meeting in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already had decided that would happen. We've already asked staff. In fact, we even suggested that we have a preliminary meeting with that committee to move it along, if that was helpful. So I think -- no, Paul, you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just to refresh their memory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When that comes up, if you see it coming up on the agenda, please let us know ahead of time, because that will have to have a separate meeting special for Immokalee. And if it's one that is needed in the evening over the daytime, I think that may -- you may want to consider that too if you could find out for us what best works for the people out there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, evenings are always better. Is this board open to evening meetings for something like that? Because other people might want to say well, we want evening meetings too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be an LDC or GMP. I don't see why we couldn't meet in the evening. Page 195 January 4, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would prefer that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What day are the meetings normally? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out there we haven't set a time. We usually meet on Thursdays. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I know what you were saying. We usually have our master plan meetings in the evenings, half in the evenings and half in the daytime. But for our CCPC to discuss the Immokalee master plan I'd like to see that in Immokalee in the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've already kind of mentioned that to staff that's what we'd like to see happen, too. MR. COHEN: And Mr. Chairman, Tom Greenwood from my office acts as staff to that particular committee and works with Mr. Midney, and I'll have him coordinate with Mr. Midney as they get closer to that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #11 PUBLIC COMMENT Are there any other -- there's no public comment, because nobody from the public is here. Discussion of the -- no, that's it. Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, meeting is adjourned. ***** Page 196 January 4,2007 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 197