Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/28/2008 LDC August 28, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CYCLEILDC Naples, Florida August 28,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Page 1 .<+.-~_.._. - AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI 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 MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENT A TIONS 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 VERBATIM 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 SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments: . 4.07.02 E&G Design [PUDs} neighborhood park DeRuntz August 13 LDC pkt. p. 33 . 1.04.0419.03.07 Reduced Design Stds. After Take Bob MuIhere August 13 LDC pkt. p.91 . l.08.02 Definition: Passive Recreation Fabacher July 30 LDC pkt. p. 139 . 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Vegetation wlnest Burgeson August 13 LDC pkt. p.157 . 3.05.07 Lake Trafford Wetland Lenberger July 30 LDC pkt. p.173 . 3.05.07 H.l.b. Dimensional criteria Lenberger July 30 LDC pkt. p.18I . 3.05.07 H.l.d. Preserve Standards Lenberger July 30 LDC pkt. p.185 . 3.05.07 H.1.e. Preserve Standards Len berger August 13 LDC pkt. p.I87 . 3.05.07 H. I.g. Preserve Mg'mt. Plans Lenberger August 13 LDC pkt. p.193 . 3.05.07 H. I.h.i. Preserve Uses Burgeson August 13 LDC pkt. p.I97 . 3.05.07 H.I.h.ii. Stormwater in preserves Burgeson August 13 LDC pkt. p. 201 . 3.06.04 Groundwater Protection Lenberger August 13 LDC pkt. p. 205 . 4.08.07 SRA Designation Lenberger July 30 LDC pkt. p. 209 . 8.06.03 [EAC] Powers and Duties Burgeson August 13 LDC pkt. p. 21 I 1 , "..-....,-..'"... ~,.,---_..- -_.---'- ..-.--.- . 10.02.06 Submittal Requirements for Permits [VOB] Len berger July 30 LDC pkt. p. 237 . 4.07.02 G Design requirements openspace credits Gramatges revision attached p.1 . 5.05.12 Specific stds. for public utility ancillary systems Gramatges revision attached p. 3 . 2.03.04 Industrial Zoning in Immokalee DeRuntz August13 LDC pkt. p. 23 . 2.06.00 AHDB for ImmokaIeeArea Valera August 13 LDC pkt. p. 49 . 4.02.03 Specific stds. For location of accessories Zoning staff August 13 LDC pkt. p. 59 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. 8. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING DATES CCPC Regular Meeting: September 4 , 2008 2 -..--....-.. - -....----------. August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 28th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. It is the continuation of the Land Development Code Cycle 1 for 2008. If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 Page 2 August 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMSSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences for tomorrow. We have another meeting on the GMP adoptions tomorrow starting at 8:30. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I won't be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney won't be here. Mr. Schiffer won't be here. Tor, are you planning to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will not be here? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two -- we have a problem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I'm not sure about Mr. Wolfley either. He said just today, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, yeah. We have -- tomorrow appears to be a problem. We have three commissioners that won't be here after all. We thought we'd have all but one. So now Mr. Wolfley is going to be the key. So can someone try to reach him today and make sure before the meeting's over today that he's going to be here tomorrow? Otherwise, we don't have a meeting tomorrow. MR. SCHMITT: The note I of course got yesterday was he would not be at today's meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand-- MR. SCHMITT: I don't know about tomorrow. We'll find out. And ifhe's not here tomorrow then of course we don't have a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Last week when I'd asked, I know Page 3 August 28, 2008 Brad wasn't going to be here -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine's new that I can't be here but -- and I could be here a couple hours in the morning if I had to. So if Mr. Wolfley has a problem early morning, we can maybe cover each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have to see how that pans out as the day goes on. We had all these plans figured out and something disrupted them. We have a couple of changes to today's agenda. We have an addition -- I shouldn't say it's an addition, it was passed out to us at last meeting of the Cycle 1 and it just didn't find its way into the list. And that is the streetlights, Page 111. We will review those today. And also, number two on today's agenda, Page 91, is one written by Bob Mulhere. He is going to be running a little late this morning, so if he isn't here by the time that one comes up, we'll move on to the ones after that and then go back to that one when he gets here. And the other thing I would like to announce to everybody who is wanting to speak on issues today, we will not be using the little tickets that you're asked to fill out to speak. I'll simply at the end of every one of these items, I will ask if members of the public want to speak. If you do, please raise your hand, and one at a time will come to the mic., you'll state your name, be recognized, we'll go from there. So that way everybody will get to speak on every issue if they want to and we haven't got to keep track of those little cards. And I also ask that staff members involved in any of the EAR criteria today, LDC amendments as the result of an EAR issue, please, on the overhead projector, while you're doing your presentation, if you have it available, put the paragraph related in the EAR that you believe the issue relates to so we can see it while you're talking, and that will Page 4 -..,..-....- August 28, 2008 help us understand the interpretation better. At least I hope it will. So that's -- we can just keep that in the background. Other than that, we'll move right into the meeting. Item #4 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - LDC CYCLE I The first item on today's meeting is 4.07.02, G, design requirements PUD's for neighborhood parks. Michael DeRuntz. MR. DeRUNTZ: Page 33 of your books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul's the guy with the short hair; Brad's the guy with the long hair. MR. SCHMITT: I think -- and we lost Paul's name tag. I think he took it home with him, has it on his desk somewhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: They're all on order, the missing ones. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you ever find David Wolfley's? MS. ISTENES: No. MR. SCHMITT: We don't know what happened to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you make that a little larger. MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, so folks know, these are LDC amendments that you are hearing for the first time. We're going to go through this list. This will complete the first hearing. Then we're going to go back and hit the ones that you had comments on. There are four LDC amendments we will be handing out today, which are still being worked on, they're changes from the DSAC and from the EAC. We'll be handing those out and we will continue this Page 5 August 28, 2008 hearing, and we'll talk about that at the end of the meeting, to a date to be determined. And we can discuss that at the end of the meeting. So we'll have to make some decisions on how we're going to treat ones that come back that we deal with today, ones that we don't finish today and then of course the four that we're going to be handing out that you'll be hearing for the first time that we will certainly want to allow a 15-day increment for folks to deal with those LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Thank you, sir. Okay, Michael, it's all yours. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with the Department of Comprehensive Planning. During the 2004 EAR-based amendments, the Growth Management Plan Section or Policy 2.12 was proposed to be amended. This amendment is the -- meeting that need. And in -- as you can see on the visualizer there, that the neighborhood park was identified under Policy 2.12. It is stricken here. And it was proposed that the county shall amend the Land Development Code as required -- to require the developer of a residential PUD or a PUD having a residential component to provide its residential and -- residents and guests with a suitable neighborhood park, as determined on a case-by-case basis, which is as required by Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element, compatible with the surrounding development. This has been through the review by DSAC, and they were not recommending approval of this. And they felt that it was onerous for the developer, that they have been providing adequate park area. But this is, as mentioned earlier, an outcome of the EAR-based amendment that was approved previously in 2006. And Barry Williams with the Park Department would like to Page 6 August 28, 2008 further explain this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. And certainly I'll do my best to explain. I just wanted to say I appreciate the opportunity to come before you and talk to this issue. We do have a couple of staff members with us today that we wanted to give you some more information than what you have. And we have with us Murdo Smith. Murdo has been with our department for approximately 30 years and been involved in the development of our park system in Collier County, has a lot of the historical perspective. We also have Amanda Townsend. And Amanda, as you know, wears many hats with the county currently. But one of the hats that she continues to wear is our park planner. And so with that, in may, in could just introduce Amanda and ask her to go over the presentation, and certainly am available to answer any questions you might have about this proposal and consideration for it. So in may, just -- Amanda? MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning, Commissioners. Amanda Townsend with Public Services Division. The EAR-based amendment that we discussed back in October of 2006 was -- something that was introduced, language that was introduced into the recreation and open space element at the request of the smart growth committee, as were several changes to the ROSE at that time. The -- basically the smart growth committee recommended a series of changes to the recreation and open space element that defined a park system in three categories: Neighborhood, community and regional park. This EAR-based amendment to the LDC is a reflection Page 7 . ----- August 28, 2008 of the change to the Growth Management Plan that Mike ran through for you. I think that what we've come up with here is a reflection of what we talked about in October of 2006. We talked about when a neighborhood park would be required. We talked about proximity to other -- open to the public recreation areas. We talked about the crossing of arterial roads. We talked about a dwelling unit threshold. So I believe that the language that you see proposed as an LDC amendment reflects all those conversations that we had two years ago. And I'm happy to answer any of the questions, if you have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions of any member of staff at this point? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Amanda, I have two problems with this: One, we're asking the builders and developers to put parks in. They pay impact fees to the county, Parks and Rec' s share in that. That's one problem I have similar to the sidewalks. They pay for sidewalks and roads and then we make them put sidewalks in. I have a real problem with that, especially in today's economic times. Also, it says as determined on a case-by-case basis. Who determines that and how can that fairly be done? MS. TOWNSEND: To answer your -- to address your first issue of impact fees, again, the park system within the recreation and open space element and the way that the impact fees are administrated, the way we look at things in the AUIR is a three-tiered system: Regional parks, community parks and neighborhood parks. Impact fees are assessed on regional parks and community parks. Impact fees are not assessed on neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks are not accounted for otherwise in the Growth Management Plan. Page 8 August 28, 2008 We do not inventory them in the AUIR. So they're sort ofa completely separate category from regional and community, which yes, impact fees are paid on those but not on neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's a choice you decided to make when you created the system? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, that originates back with the very first Growth Management Plan, that we have a Growth Management Plan requirement and a CIE requirement on regional and community parks, not on neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As far as the case-by-case basis? MS. TOWNSEND: As far as the case-by-case basis goes, the language in the EAR, the new language in the Growth Management Plan says that the developer will be required to provide a suitable neighborhood park as determined on a case-by-case basis. It was my interpretation of that language that what was determined on a case-by-case basis was the suitability of the park. That is to say, what sort of elements should the park include, where should it be located, how big should it be, et cetera. That has translated into the LDC amendment to -- let me find my place here -- to the sort of -- okay, here we are, I'm sorry. Provide its residents and guests with an appropriate neighborhood park as determined by the case-by-case basis. I am also confused, I must admit, as to whether that now refers to the suitability or the requirement to provide. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it doesn't make sense to you. MS. TOWNSEND: To me the spirit of it is to reflect what is in the GMP, and that is to say that again it's the suitability that is determined on a case-by-case basis. Page 9 August 28, 2008 And farther down in the proposed amendment you have language that says, in making these determinations the BCC will take into consideration, and there's that long laundry list, again, the things that we've talked about when we approved that EAR language two years ago. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So at this point the interpretation is totally unknown by standards. MS. TOWNSEND: The language should be cleared up. I'm more than happy to listen to feedback from the commission on how we might do that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the way I read it right now, it says the BCC decides. But that seems like it's something that you don't want to have to take to such a high level. MS. TOWNSEND: I would agree. Firmer language that gave -- that would help guide the BCC by allowing staff to make more definitive determinations would improve the amendment. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, if it's a PUD it's going before the board on a rezoning action. It would be part of the rezoning petition, either identified by staff in the presentation both to the Planning Commission and to the board as part of a stipulation and approval of the PUD. So it would be defined and it would be addressed at that time during the public hearing process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd just like to add that I think that the need for these little neighborhood parks reflects changes in the pattern of residential development, where a PUD is more or less a Page 10 August 28, 2008 self-contained development. It used to be each house would have a house per acre of land and children would have more opportunity to play. But since the population is more and more concentrated, I think that there's a need for parks where children can go in a walkable or at least a bikeable distance, instead of having to have their parents drive them, you know, several miles to get to a park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just -- on Page 35 under H, I'm just having a problem understanding appropriate neighborhood park. I recognize the intent, providing an appropriate neighborhood park. It's kind of difficult, no matter what we do with this, because what's appropriate, you know? Was it passive in one situation or is it for little tots? And if we designed it for elderly people, sometime in the future maybe you're going to change the population. What happens then? It's like a spin-off, isn't it? I mean, you don't have control over the neighborhood parks once they're initiated, do you? MS. TOWNSEND: No, generally speaking. We have had-- we've had several different instances in the past several years. We've attempted to retrofit neighborhood parks into existing neighborhoods. That has met only limited success. We have had developer commitments for public parks within PUD's. That has had extremely limited success. It appears that the best method for achieving neighborhood parks within residential PUD's is when the developer initiates that themselves Page 11 August 28, 2008 and also then either the developer or the homeowners association assumes full responsibility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Based on their plans, and I understand that. One of the things I recall in earlier conversation regarding this matter is we were speaking about how the neighborhood parks are counted relative to amenities. And an example of a bocce court was used and so forth. And so that comes down to the question of appropriateness. In other words, in a given area there may not be a bocce court in a public park, so in a neighborhood park we're going to put a bocce court; however, that park is not available to the citizens. And so again, I come back to the question of an appropriate neighborhood park. From my thoughts, while I understand its intent, I don't think it captures yet what it is we really want to do. But that's just me. MS. TOWNSEND: Commissioner, if! may, are you suggesting that the language be more specific to spell out exactly what appropriate is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to think we could make it more specific. I'm not sure it can be. I think it may be going through a needle's eye, okay. But I realize the problem, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney, I agree with you totally. The only problem is the builder/developer now has to do this in addition to any other course. He's not getting any credit; he's paying into Parks and Rec. And it sounds good that we can ask the builders and developers to do this kind of thing, but now it just raised the prices of housing and costs and it's all going to get passed on to the Page 12 -~,- August 28, 2008 consumer. I like the idea of parks within a PUD, but the builder should get some kind of credit for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on Page 36, the paragraph development. It states in there that the commissioners could require playground equipment. And then the second sentence says, the BCC may require such equipment to meet certain standards. Shouldn't we say that if the equipment's required it should meet those standards? MS. TOWNSEND: Most definitely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, rather than the option. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is I kind of wonder if we should do a reference to the Fair Housing Act. I know that would go without saying, but I think it would be a good idea to, you know, remind these people that if they do a development in a residential thing, especially if it's multi-family or anything other than single, they're going to have to require, you know, Fair Housing requirements, accessibility and stuff. So the thought maybe a sentence in there that says it should be compliant with the Fair Housing Act. That way we can always count that. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Brad, that would be -- it's part of the SDP process. That's a mandatory review for accessibility and ADA accessibility. Parking and all those other kind ofthings are inherent in part of the review process. We could put that in there. Page 13 '"_.._n_ August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it goes without saying, it would definitely be covered, but -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it has to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just think as a reminder to start. Because what that does is if you do bring a park, you bring requirements that the development didn't have before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, my question is actually for the county attorney. On Page 36, the last line reads, the BCC may, at its discretion, provide appropriate compensation to the PUD applicant for provision of the neighborhood park. Such compensation may include impact fee credits for community and/or regional parks. That language passes muster with you? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if it's necessary, but yes, it passes muster with me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amanda, if a development has a recreational center in it for the residents, would they still need to abide by this? MS. TOWNSEND: When you say recreational center, you mean like a meeting facility, an indoor facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, rec. centers -- all club -- in fact, I don't know of a PUD that's not come before us that didn't have a -- some kind of center where the community could meet. But they also have swimming pools, some have tennis courts, some have playgrounds, some have all kinds of variety of things for the residents. Page 14 ..~._-~ August 28, 2008 Some are even connected to golf courses. Are you not counting those in regards to this issue? MS. TOWNSEND: I think what we would do is we would consider the -- we would be looking for an open green space and a playground as part of that complex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it says suitable neighborhood park. It doesn't say it has to have a playground. And in a lot of developments the playground need may not be what someone in staff may feel it needs to be. The market conditions generally dictate that a developer will put in what he feels his market profile needs in order to get people to buy there. What is so broken that we have to institute a kid's playground for the age's two to 12 in a park when we have recreation facilities? And I know plenty of communities where if you go to them the kids are enjoying the pools and everything else, they're not out in some distant park with some plastic parts in it. I'm just wondering why that all of a sudden is a necessity. MS. TOWNSEND: Well, we certainly wouldn't encourage the park to be distant either. The idea is that this serves the exact same purpose of the other types of amenities that you are talking about. And there's almost -- there's almost no difference. I'm seeing them all as part of whatever recreational suite of amenities the developer would provide within the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you've got a recreation center in a development, in a PUD, as this is aiming for, and especially the larger ones that it seems to be aiming for, the people and the parents that take their kids to the parks more than likely will go to the one that has more conveniences for them, like a place to get out of the heat once in a Page 15 -.--. August 28, 2008 while, like where they have chairs, decks and pools, where they have things they can sit around and do while the kids play. I don't see a small park sitting somewhere with some plastic gear in it that attractive for the parents when they've got the alternative that they'll use. And so in the end what we may be doing is creating a huge additional cost that really doesn't get its impact from the people. And I also understand it's not going to be counted in the AUIR. And I know because I heard you say you only count community and regional. That's a great technicality, but you're not going to lower your level of services either, are you, for community and regional? So that means that everybody that has the benefit of these parks, the public doesn't get the benefit in the sense of reduced tax dollars by level of service standards that you're still going to insist on because you qualify everything as a regional or community need. So in essence we're double dipping but we're doing it technically legal. I just don't see the interpretation that you've come up with in regards to this issue coming from what we intended in these policies that you're citing here. In fact, also it says if it is to be provided, it's for residents and guests and it's a suitable park. And I see language in here that the BCC will weigh their judgment on whether or not these are required on if they're open to the public. Where does that have anything to do with the intention of Policy 2.12? MS. TOWNSEND: That was a very long question. Can you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where in 2.12 does it say it shall be open to the public and that's a reason for criteria from which the case-by-case basis determination should be made by the BCC? MS. TOWNSEND: 2.12 does say residents and guests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 16 ----..--..- August 28, 2008 MS. TOWNSEND: Would not the BCC look favorably upon a developer who magnanimously opened that park to the general public? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will not be a magnanimously (sic) developer doing that unless staff tells him they're not going to move their processes through until you agree to do a donation, just like the utility department's doing to everybody. So no, I don't think that's even a logical or realistic conclusion to come to. I think that this whole intent of Policy 2.12 has been misconstrued by what you've done here. When I voted on that, I voted on the idea that every development should have some kind of recreational facilities for their residents. I don't know one since I've been on this panel that hasn't come forward with something for the residents. You've twisted that around to make it look like it's an addition to the residents. And even if it is, which the consumer ends up paying for, the residents got to maintain, someone's got to have insurance on that property in perpetuity. Now all of a sudden it becomes an additional burden on those taxpayers, and plus, the taxpayers of the county wouldn't even get the benefit from it from the additional recreation facilities that theoretically should be reduced in the level of service or the AUIR demands. So this whole thing is out of whack from my concern, my opinion. You don't have to defend that, you don't have to respond to it, because it's a long question, I understand. But it's just very frustrating to see this come through with this interpretation to it and no offset to the benefit of either the taxpayers or the developer through either impact fees on their side or level of service reductions on the taxpayers' side. So I'm not in favor of this as it's written, and that's all I've got to say on the matter, so -- Mr. Midney? Page 17 ^-.'-- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry to respond again, but I think that -- I mean, hopefully developers already are doing something like this for the people in their PUD's. But with -- I'm not sure that the needs of the children are being met at the present time. We have a huge increase in childhood obesity, and I think that it's something that could be overlooked when people are planning developments. But I do agree with you that if there is some sort of a requirement for this, that it should be offset by reduction in impact fees in other areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, I agree with you wholeheartedly on your statement that we need something in these developments. Every development that's come through, we've actually reviewed it to make sure there were things like this in it. Most all of them -- I don't know one that hasn't offered it. I think that if there was any time that one didn't, it would have been pointed out either by us or staff. So we still have that opportunity. We still have the opportunity during the process, if we don't see any recreational facilities there, to ask the developer wouldn't they want to put one in, without instituting one in a document like this that becomes so wide, so overpowering that we lose control in of it in the manner we have now and it becomes another one of those donations that's extracted through the process that I've been wholeheartedly against for quite some time now. So anyway, that's my reasoning on it. I don't know if anybody else wants to comment before we go to public speakers. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mark, maybe one thing we do is that -- just to meet the intent of the Growth Management Plan, Page 18 August 28, 2008 is we allow them to put in the definition, we allow them to put in H. But I would change the word providing a suitable to match the GMP instead of appropriate. And then we kill five entirely. We've essentially done what the GMP asked. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, that's a very good comment. That covers the need that Mr. Midney was talking about in the sense that we've got then the ability to request the park be put in. We can review the size of it, and that can happen through the case-by-case process as it goes through the boards, and all of a sudden it doesn't become so much of an exaction by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, my only question to the board as a matter of public policy is that the way this LDC provision is written, and I don't mean this as a criticism, just as a comment, is that it kicks in at 250 dwelling units. If you look at the GMP amendment, however, the GMP amendment would seem to encompass all residential PUD's or all PUD's that have a residential component. And from a public policy standpoint, I don't know if this board wants to limit it to 250 units or more or to require it to be for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer's suggestion just to drop five completely and just put in the same language that's in the GMP I think is a very good suggestion. It does seem to make it a lot more palatable and it can be brought out through the rezoning process as we develop. So thank you, Mr. Klatzkow, that's a point. Any other comments before we go to public speakers? Okay, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I offer a suggestion as well, that suitable Page 19 August 28, 2008 and you insert words possibly in the LDC recreational facilities and/or neighborhood park. Because your statement, you seem to want to include other -- you want to make sure that other recreational facilities are inclusive of the evaluation, such as tennis courts or other type of things. Do you want to do that, or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's a good idea. Ms. Caron, though, obviously doesn't. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just saying, it doesn't go along with the GMP. And if we're trying to mirror the language in the GMP, that's not what the GMP says. MR. SCHMITT: I disagree. It does certainly comply with the GMP. The GMP is guidance. All we're doing in the LDC is narrowing it down. You can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might go back -- when this was introduced, a neighborhood park is thought of as a recreational area. And if tennis is a recreational area and we can accomplish tennis courts and other things because the community is more geared towards that and the residents and marketing ability of the people that potentially move there are looking for that, haven't we accomplished the same thing, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I believe the intent of this was because there was no mechanism, how do I want to say, during the AUIR process to somehow allow and recognize that the recreational facilities that are being provided within developments as meeting the needs of the residents. Now, certainly we need ball parks, we may need soccer fields, those kinds of things. But certainly other communities are providing amenities that are meeting the needs of the residents. And I think we need to make sure we capture that, whether it's a golf course, I don't Page 20 . "-_."--- August 28, 2008 know, maybe -- but if you're looking at tennis courts, if you're looking at basketball courts or you're looking at, you know, whatever, bocce courts or whatever you're looking at, shuffle boards, you're meeting the needs of the residents through providing recreational facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the objection to the GMP and everything was exactly as Mr. Midney has said, that every project needs to have something in it to address the recreational ability or needs and desires of the public that it serves. I think that's still a very good idea. And I think to accomplish that, rather than get into all this language in five, just simply say that's what each PUD coming forward will have, then we will make sure it has that. And I think that's a very positive way to resolve it. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: So Mr. Schmitt, you would like to say what in H, providing a suitable recreation and/or? MR. SCHMITT: Well, either recreation facilities and a neighborhood park or and/or. Because I think what Mr. Strain was stressing was we want to ensure we look at the other facilities that are being provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. SCHMITT: Whether they're pools with slides. I mean, those are recreational facilities. MS. TOWNSEND: In may, one concern that the Parks and Recreation Department continually has is making sure that the recreational needs of children are met. And golf courses and tennis courts rarely meet the recreational needs of children. One of the roles of government is to make sure that people who can't speak for themselves are spoken for. And the reason we are so Page 21 August 28, 2008 insistent on requesting at this point, because we cannot require, that residential PUD's provide playgrounds is to meet the needs of the children in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer was next, Bob. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the reason, though, taking out D is that suitable really leaves it up to the developer to design. We're saying he has to do something. Because of the fact that in the wording in five is that the BCC does it essentially at the end of the public hearing process, they're the ones that put the requirements when it would be better I think when staff looks at it, they think what suitable is, when the Planning Commission looks at it we discuss suitable. And then the commission has the final suitable say, not the way this it is really written. That's the time in which it would be determined. So I think that any developer, it's really up to him to provide what's suitable, which is -- what's marketable. If we're not taking care of the kids, we'll be watching that through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In recall correctly, under the smart growth principles the idea was that you need to institute neighborhood parks, recreation opportunities because of density and population as changes over the years, as we do away with sprawl, if that's possible. And I recall the original concept was that it was going to be kiddie parks, basically. But the long discussion the last time we had had to do with well, gee, maybe the community is not intended to have Page 22 -"'--'.-.--~_..' "",' ---,,".~..-,,".'-'. August 28, 2008 children, what do we do then. And then we got into passive recreation and so forth. So it's become very circular. And I'm not sure that we're going to get an answer today. But ifthe intent is to remain with the concept of the smart growth principles, then the idea of providing children's amenities is probably on target or as close to target as possible. How you accommodate the need for other recreation and still consider it a neighborhood park is something that comes down to the definition. And I think that's where the problem lies. I hope that helps in some way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any of the members of the public who would like to speak on this issue? If so, just please raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to offer a suggestion that on this particular one under H, the language that might work out is that providing a suitable neighborhood park or recreational facility. And then that -- as that comes through the process, everybody knows they have to do one or both of those things. And we can have further review of it as it comes before this board. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Your issue still goes back to your GMP, and your GMP is requiring a neighborhood park. And as Mr. Murray said, your problem is a definition, all right. So simply saying a neighborhood park or recreational area doesn't cut it. You need to define here what you mean by this neighborhood park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you go over to the definition, park neighborhood means an area which serves the population of a neighborhood and is generally accessible by bicycle Page 23 _M__"'_ '_""'_".'__"_"""^"__",,_"_.'.___.w""__ _'_'_'_"'__."__'_'~' ,.', August 28, 2008 and pedestrian ways. Is that -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just think, Mark, not to do that, because I think they could put the park next to the recreational area. In other words, somewhere this means that we're going to be looking for a patch of exterior land, not a recreational building or -- that's going to have something that is a neighborhood park. And then we can discuss as it comes through the process what's appropriate for that development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we get around the fact that if they have a recreational facility it doesn't meet the intention of being a neighborhood park? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they could -- if they have a recreation facility, they could easily outline part of the exterior of that as the park area and they could be, you know, joined. I don't think they'll have trouble with that. And if they have swimming pools and tennis we're going to obviously consider that the park. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Maybe just to make it a little bit more specific, instead of saying the population of a neighborhood, I think the intent is to get to the demographics of the population, meaning children, if there are children there. If you add the word demographics, that might spell it out a little bit more clearly that it should be reflective of the ages that are served. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this neighborhood park definition used in other places of the code besides this one spot? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. DeRuntz is nodding his head yes. MR. DeRUNTZ: Mike DeRuntz. This definition is not in our code in other areas. It was found in Page 24 <--- August 28, 2008 other communities, and it was borrowed from them. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't currently have a definition in the code for park neighborhood? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, yes, we do. It's what has been stricken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the one that's been stricken, okay. MS. ISTENES: I think what he's asking is, is neighborhood park as a term used elsewhere in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: Is that -- do you know, Mike, offhand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm saying, if we change it here for this purpose, does it affect other parts of the code? That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. DeRUNTZ: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Midney's suggestion, the definition means a park which serves the demographics of a neighborhood and is generally accessible by bicycle or pedestrian way. Is that what you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Schiffer's suggestion was to strike five. And then in H, leaving the statement basically the same except providing a suitable neighborhood park and then period at that point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, from staffs perspective, if a development were to come through with a recreational facility, an area, clubhouse area or whatever, and they were to say within the back of that clubhouse where their pool is and where their tot lot may be or whatever they have, they would say this is our neighborhood park area. Is there anything that would prohibit a developer from doing that? Page 25 _"~.v_,._" _ August 28, 2008 Is there a size issue? Is there a demand that they could be made of through staffs review referencing the code that would force an unintended consequence that this board is not contemplating at this time? MR. SCHMITT: I have to turn to Amanda, but nothing from -- that I can think of if they have -- I don't know, a swing set type of jungle gym or whatever you want to call it that meets the standards, ASCM standards -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no, that would be -- the suggestion is to strike five completely. We just leave H in but change the word appropriate to suitable. And under park neighborhood, change the word population to demographics. MR. SCHMITT: But you're basically saying size. If it's, say, a 20 by 40 little section, I'm not sure -- MS. TOWNSEND: I think what you're describing, Commissioner Strain, is that the neighborhood park would be co-located with other recreation amenities. There would still be an open green space and there would still be a playground for children, and that would be perfectly appropriate. Mr. Weeks has some suggestions from language -- for some language that would I believe help us keep the intent of providing amenities for children. And I'll just let him address that. MR. WEEKS: If you don't mind, Commissioners, David Weeks, of the Comprehensive Planning Department. One of the concerns that you've heard Amanda express representing Parks and Rec perspective is that making sure that if recreational facilities are provided for children, that they meet these standards that are identified in sub-paragraph five, which you've suggested deleting in its entirety. Page 26 August 28, 2008 And I would like to offer that you not delete it in its entirety but modify it as I'm about to propose. And so on -- I think it's on Page 48, on the second line of number five, I would suggest deleting the phrase "and containing at least 250 units" and the comma. And on the third line, "an appropriate" would be changed to "a suitable." MR. SCHMITT: What page? MS. ISTENES: 36, actually. MR. WEEKS: Oh, I've got an old -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, just out of curiosity, you're in Comprehensive Planning, did you write this LDC amendment? MR. WEEKS: I helped with it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't know you did the LDC stuff. MR. SCHMITT: Reviewed it for compo plan consistency. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: May I ask a question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before you go too far, Joe, if somebody was proposing playground equipment, wouldn't it have to meet these standards anyway by building codes and state codes? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're back to that redundant -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Dave, the word suitable that we've placed in front of the word neighborhood in H, if it's not meeting those criteria, it may not be considered suitable then, which we could evaluate as well as the BCC. So I'm not sure where you're trying to go trying to clean up a paragraph that's riddled with problems. Page 27 '-^-'.~~' .",--,-.,~-.-.~...-,~,~.,_. August 28, 2008 MR. WEEKS: Well, in light of Joe's comment then, maybe it's not. Because I was trying to get to a way to keep the specific standards in the LDC. My concern was that, and I think Amanda's, was that by removing this paragraph five there is no standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is. MR. WEEKS: So the developer comes in and says well, I want to put in a XYZ playground to whatever standard I choose. And the county's trying to say, well, no, we want you to use this standard. And they say, well, where's it required? And if we have no place to say it's required, then we get into that battle. But in light of Joe's comment that that -- if that's a given that they're going to have to follow those requirements, then I'll withdraw my -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to turn to Brad, but normally when you buy one of these kits, and they -- the product safety, all the product safety information comes in with the building code or with the building permit, and those are the standards. Unless he builds something they call a -- MS. TOWNSEND: The issue we're trying to avoid here is you can go to anyone of your big box home improvement type stores and purchase a -- and purchase a jungle gym climbing apparatus kind of thing. Those do not meet these standards. We're talking about commercial grade playground equipment. And the reason for that is simply safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, under the word suitable, when this comes through through a rezone, as it will, and we review and scrutinize the area that the developer is now calling his park to meet -- and it's co-located is a good term to use as you aptly put, wouldn't then Page 28 August 28, 2008 your department be able to recommend to this board as part of the PUD requirements that certain standards be assured of? And then we've got it done without having redundancy in the LDC. MS. TOWNSEND: Well, we currently make recommendations, but we currently can't make requirements. And that's sort of my issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you make a recommendation under the auspices of a suitable neighborhood park, and part of that suitability is the safety of the products involved and it's highlighted in the PUD where it stays there forever, not subject to change like the code is periodically, maybe we'd be better off doing it that way than trying to put it in the code. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, one thing maybe we should do is research the building code to see what -- if they could get away with it. I think that under the circumstances we're talking here, they would have to provide -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, the building codes don't address specifically how to construct the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It might have the same -- MR. SCHMITT: -- facilities. But it will turn to the manufacturer's specifications. And if it's certified with the manufacturer's specifications, that meets the requirement. It's also a concern here about liability. Normally an HOA or another entity is going to have to put in that type of facility in order to reduce the insurance burden that's going to be put on them if they put something up that doesn't meet acceptable standards. Are we getting way too much into this? And again, those kinds of specifications can be made at site development plan review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, this thing would have Page 29 ..._"--~._.. __....~_" ~_,._ -."'...'''''''....w_.,.____._._h._.-.__ .'----" August 28, 2008 to get a permit -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that meets the requirements. In Collier we're pretty tough, Florida is really tough on -- you can't even get walls without permits. So this thing would be a permitted object. At that time all the standards would be reviewed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At this point we've been discussing it for 15 minutes. We can't seem to come up with any logical conclusions the way it's written. It's ambiguous, we don't know where to go with it. I would suggest one of two things: Either completely rewrite it or we just follow the recommendation of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like a better suggestion, and that is we make two changes to it -- three changes to it, and it combines what quite a few of this board panel has been saying. Under the words park neighborhood, put the definition, we change the word population to demographics. Under H we change the words an appropriate to a suitable. And we strike number five. And I think that cleans it up and covers everything that everybody wants. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one comment. You know, demographics here could be a problem. This thing could be an over 55 community and we may want a playground for the grandparents to take the kid to. Would that stop us, because they're going to say the demographics of this is not going to use a playground. Yet the word population, we could have always had the argument that even though it's all elderly living there, a small playground for Page 30 ._,~.- August 28, 2008 grandchildren might be appropriate or suitable. MS. TOWNSEND: And an additional concern would be that the character of a certain neighborhood changes over time. So what may have once been an over 55 community in the future would be appropriate for young families. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, could you live with the word population, based on the comments? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so now we're down to two changes: Correcting the H to make it consistent with the EAR, and then dropping five. Anybody have any other -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question, anyway. Have we now brought this down to it clearly whenever we talk neighborhood park to basically being a tot park? It is this a child's park in every case? Is that what we're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think by the definition it wouldn't be. It means a park which serves a population. So we could -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's still ambiguous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- and then the word suitability means we would take all that into consideration by what's proposed. I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if we eliminate the 250, that means a small, let's say, 80-unit condo would have to have a park as well, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody would have to do something, which I think is probably a good thing to do. Even the small -- Page 3 1 a~_~~.__ .n._.._ August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that certainly complies with the smart growth principles' intent, that's for sure. I'm not sure it wouldn't have unintended consequences. But okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are you suggesting we change the 250? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No sir. Let me go through it again. Two changes -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's five, I'm sorry. It's part of five so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop all of five and just change the H to the word suitable instead of appropriate. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine, then I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if that's where we're at, we've already asked for public comments and received none. Is there a motion to recommend approval of -- or approval with stipulations 4.07.02? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to approve as amended, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommend approval as amended. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Is staff clear on the amendments? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, two amendments. H goes to providing a suitable neighborhood park and five is struck. That's it. MS. ISTENES: No change to the definition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ISTENES: And no addition of recreational facilities? Page 32 -._--_.~ . ~._. "..-.----,.------^' ....._,. ..,-.".~.,...._~--~'-, August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney said he's comfortable with-- pardon me? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're not going to add to H recreational facilities? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it turns out we don't need to because we can co-locate their neighborhood park over the top of the recreational facilities so it meets the same intent and purpose, and in that way kind of brings in the issue of suitability whether or not we need tot lots and things like that. MR. SCHMITT: Go back to Page 34. We're not going to go with the strike-through on the first wording where you said a park that serves the demographics? Are you just saying that serves the population? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two changes. H will be changed to providing a suitable neighborhood park and five will be struck. Those are the only two changes, if I'm understanding the motion maker and the second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in our discussions. Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 33 ,...-._-_.~- ~---- August 28, 2008 Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -- no, we're down to 7-0. And the intention of the board was that that meets the intent of the EAR? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker and second, all the board members, everybody agree to that? (Nods.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for purposes of clarity, do you not want this brought back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need it brought back, no. Too simple of a change. MR. SCHMITT: And five is eliminated completely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Okay, let me -- normally we would go to Mr. Mulhere. Bob, you're -- I was going to say, you're so tall how could I not see you, but you're sitting down. We don't have to change the agenda, we'll go right on to Page 91. MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A, here this morning on behalf of transportation services division. Worked with transportation services division, as well as with planning staff, as well as with the county attorney's office, as well as with development services advisory committee and a number of other entities on this amendment. I guess maybe let me give you a little bit of background. And I think part of the reason that they asked me to assist with this is that I Page 34 --- ----..-.--- August 28, 2008 have worked over the last seven or eight years in the private sector, and prior to that during my time with Collier County on these -- on properties that are affected by a taking, particularly developed properties that are affected by a taking, and in the process of creating cure plans to address the impacts of a take on a developed piece of property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I hate to interrupt you. Before you go forward -- and Nick may not have told you this, but we would want to hopefully have the GMP EAR-based amendment that your whole issue is about put on the screen while you're talking. MR. MULHERE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you don't mind putting that on the overhead next to Susan, that would be very helpful. Then at least we know where you all are coming from. MR. MULHERE: I don't know if we'll fit all of it on there. So we can move up or do whatever we need to do. Can you see that? Because that is kind of all of it. Is that easy for you do read? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: I can't see it from here. That's all right. To the degree that I need to, I'll take my glasses on or off as appropriate. Yes, that amendment to the GMP is the basis for this amendment, or allows for or promotes this land code amendment. However -- thank you -- however, you know, it's -- it is rather general, as a comprehensive plan amendment should be. Your Land Development Code is more -- proposed amendment to the Land Development Code is more specific and does provide for a specific process to accomplish those objectives set forth in the objective and the policy in the Growth Management Plan. The language that existed in the LDC was at best I think unclear. Page 35 ._--_..._.._.._.._--"...~.,'_.."'---'.__..._._._..'" .,..,...._-_._,,-,-.__...._..,..-.,- ".-- August 28, 2008 And I don't think there's any disagreement on the part of staff with respect to that. It never really provided for a clear process, a clear method of dealing with a piece of property. And it wasn't so much in the terms of the immediate impact of a take, because it was clear that the code always intended to allow for a reduction equal to the amount of the take as it related to a setback or a landscape buffer. But where it became problematic is in some future treatment of that property. And it wasn't clear with respect to that. And I can attest to the fact as I've described in the body of the land code amendment, the narrative explanation portion, to a number of circumstances where the county was potentially subject to significant damages because there was no easy process or understandable process or clear process that a landowner or their legal representative, in most cases, could use to fully understand, empirically understand how the property would be treated in some future scenario. If they just did a facade treatment, would they then be required to replace a portion of the lost landscape buffer or setback? If they did do that, would they then be required to eliminate a row of parking spaces? Well, when you do that, you're talking millions of dollars in severance damages. So we started to do some research in terms of how other communities handle this. We found that there were a couple of communities that provided for a process where the local government could approve a cure plan, or in this case we called it a post-take plan, and that that could be recorded in the public record so the property owner could rely on that. The variance process is not the appropriate process to go through this. And I think many of you commented on that. I remember I did the Wendy's variance, which was related to a buffer and a setback and, you Page 36 ~~-'"._,.--.._.". "---_.-- . .".~-~. August 28, 2008 know, why are we looking at this. And the board asked the same question. It's an onerous process, and it involves a land-related hardship, which doesn't always exist. It doesn't allow you to consider the economic impacts, which is exactly primarily what we're talking about here. And so a process -- and also, it can only be initiated by the landowner. And we may want as a county in some cases to initiate this post-take cure plan, we may still end in front -- by the way, there are two, I guess two legal proceedings that are guaranteed to, unless settled, end up at a jury trial, that's a capital offend -- murder and eminent domain. And, you know, typically the county tries to do everything that's appropriate for the private property owner to cure the issue, as they're required to by law, prior to ending up in front of a jury trial. So one of the things that could be done is to submit this -- to have the county submit this post-take plan where a property owner doesn't agree or often cases it's their legal representation that doesn't agree. They say we're going to court, we're going to get millions of dollars in damages. Why? We've created a cure for those issues, we've remedied those issues to the best of our ability. We don't care, we're going to court. Well, in this case the local government could bring that cure plan, get it approved by the board and then at least in court that could be held up as an evidence of a remedy. So I hope that that adequately summarizes why we're coming forward with this process. We have still, even under these economic downturn times, there's still an aggressive road building program. There Page 37 ....~_.,~-".~,.~,... ",-"~,,,-,-'-""--'---~--"'- August 28, 2008 are lots of properties that are being impacted by right-of-way improvements. This has nothing to do with the corridor management or corridor preservation plan. This actually has to do with existing under development, planned, funded roadway improvements affecting existing developed properties, or even in some cases undeveloped properties, but along a corridor that's being improved. I spent a fair amount of time I think trying to layout the rationale in this report. I also spent a lot of time talking about the fiscal and operational impacts. I hope that was helpful. We haven't set a price for this, but the transportation department will be responsible to pay whatever fee is appropriate to develop and service, process these. We spent 10, 12, 15 hours with development services, so we think it's a good product. It was very helpful to have that time because in the end the product is a lot better than it was had we not spent that time. It was a collaborative effort I guess is what I'm trying to say. And I guess with that I'd defer to any -- oh, there are a couple of changes that were made. Let's see, we brought this before the DSAC under an earlier version that was approved. And then we met with staff and also Mark White, who is the -- I think you saw Mark White, he's the outside counsel that the county hired to help with the LDC. So we met with him as well. And between Susan Istenes and Mark, there were some additional changes we needed to make. And we did that. And then we had to go back to DSAC. And that was just this past Wednesday, we went to the sub-committee, which the full committee endorsed to have the authority to review it and make any additional changes. There were some very minor changes that they recommended. I Page 38 ,---'-"'~'-""'--'"'~'"'-- "-'"'---'--~"--'".' _.._-_.~ August 28, 2008 think they're good changes, and I'd like to go over those with you. The first is on Page 97, sub -- paragraph C, the post-take plan should actually be paragraph D. That's -- you know, if you look at it, I think we have two C's. On Page 98, there is a typo on the top of the page on paragraph two. It should say the property owner or the county attorney. I hope I'm getting some of your flags, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not mine. I don't waste time with grammar. This is all that the DSAC had to correct? MR. MULHERE: Well, they'd already reviewed it once. No, there was one substantive change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well let's work on those, because the grammar can take care of itself. MR. MULHERE: Okay, no problem. I would say the substantive change would be in paragraph four on Page 99. And their recommendation was -- I think Clay Brooker raised the issue that the language here is very, very broad. Anybody in Collier County could argue that they were adversely impacted. And so the recommendation was to -- I want to say one, two, three, four, five, sixth line down in that paragraph four it would read, the sentence would read: For the purposes of this section an aggrieved or adversely affected party is defined as any person or group of persons who received notice under 3(C) above. And then it would go on to read: And who will suffer an adverse and so on and so forth. If you go to 3(C) that's referenced -- that will be referenced there, that specifically identifies the property owners who receive notice in the urban area, if they're within 500 feet, Susan, is it, in the urban area? Page 39 ,....._--~-~.._,,~.. .-,-. -......----.- August 28, 2008 MS. ISTENES: In the urban area? I'm sorry, I was thinking something else. MR. MULHERE: 500 and 1,000 feet in the rural area. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. MULHERE: So it's kind of focusing on the folks who are nearby or close to the property, within 500 feet they're going to get noticed, within 1,000 feet in the rural area. So that was their substantive change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go into the Planning Commission's processing questions of this, this is a longer one, and I should have started this with the last one. We'll take it page by page for questions, and that way it's a little organized and we can get through it quicker. Mr. Murray, did you have something on Page 91 or-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, while you don't concern yourself with the grammatical issues, on Page 94, I'm going to help you out a little bit. On the first line you use the word analyses, I believe it should be singular, analysis. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Does your version have line numbers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have version 08/08-- MR. MULHERE: But it doesn't have line numbers. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MS. ISTENES: No. MR. MULHERE: This to me is an example of a fairly long one that would be a lot better if we were able to reference a line when we were talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll hit it page by page. It will Page 40 ..~, August 28, 2008 keep it somewhat orderly. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Just trying to improve the process. I guess I'll stop trying to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have questions on Page 91? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have one. Under post-take plan, your fourth line, it says minimize or resolve site impacts to an improved property caused by a take. What's your definition of improved? I mean, you may be taking a piece of property and reducing its size to a point where it's improved in the fact it's got zoning but it doesn't have a building on it, and your size reduction then has an impact on what can be built there. So would that be considered improved property if it's vacant, or not improved? MR. MULHERE: No. And there won't be a post-take plan for a vacant piece of property. That will be dealt with within the ordinance, within the proposed ordinance, but it's not dealt with through a post-take plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your only improved property is the ones that are developed. MR. MULHERE: Physical improvements, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And physical improvements meaning structures or site -- MR. MULHERE: No, site-related improvements also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 92, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 93? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 94? Page 41 .____._~.._.m~_.___.'~.~_ ...-.- August 28, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bob, you did a very good on the fiscal analysis and operational impacts. We appreciate that. I was hoping that we'd have that on more of them. It was helpful, so thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. By the way, I did forget to also put another change in the record that Mr. Anderson brought to my attention. So when we get to it, I'll address that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start on 95 then, it's the actual text of the document. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And mine's on paragraph A. A suggestion, Bob. Since the last sentence, which distinguishes what acquisition means, a thought I had is if you could break A down into an A-I and an A-2 and move the last sentence up as A-I, and then the balance of the paragraph is A-2. In other words, you're discussing-- MR. MULHERE: Under applicability? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. In other words, I think that if you defined what acquisition meant before you go even into the first -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, so for the purpose of this section, we would take that whole sentence and move that up to the beginning, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then a thought maybe is to -- I mean, you could leave it like that if you want, or break it up into an A-lor A-2, either one would be fine with me. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think what I'd prefer to do is take that sentence and put it at the beginning. I mean, that makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 42 _.,-.._-,-_. '-'''--~ August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think where Brad's going is a little bit further. You have A, applicability, period. Then you have one. One would be the last sentence. Then you have two. Two would be your first sentence. Is that what you're trying to say, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if it's important, he can keep it the other way. The first thing is I think we should tell people what acquisition means before we use the term. And then the only other question I had is, this is retroactive back to Valentine's Day 2006. Is there a reason for that or -- I mean -- MR. MULHERE: That comes -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, just out of curiosity. MR. MULHERE: It's language that's in the code today and it's just a carryover -- I didn't want to affect anybody's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. Thanks. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, on that same paragraph, I want to have clarity of understanding. When you refer to a private party when the heading is public acquisition, now I'm sure that there are ways that I'm unaware of that that happens but -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, there are. This was reviewed by three or four sets of attorneys. There are examples, such as private utilities, that may have eminent domain powers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's what I wanted to be sure about, that that's what that represented. People are very sensitive to the possibility of takings by private entities. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 95? Page 43 . -.---.-. ,....-.,-- August 28, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, in that same paragraph, in acquisition, after the word including on the last full line, could you say including but not limited to? MR. MULHERE: I want to make sure I'm in the right spot. You're talking about paragraph A, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paragraph A, very last full line, of acquiring private property for public use, including but not limited to dedication, condemnation and purchase. MR. MULHERE: That's a good point. I believe I had that in there. Somehow that fell out. MS. ISTENES: Well, what we're trying to do is get this back into Mark White's format with not putting a lot of extraneous words and trying to shorten it. So that was a lot of -- some of the work I did in trying to keep -- and when we met with Mark. So I will be commenting on things like that if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm more concerned, though, that if someone reads this and they have like a prescriptive easement that was forced upon them through time and it becomes a public roadway, how does that fit in here? Someone could argue that it's not listed, therefore it doesn't fit. I just want to make sure that you would accept other means. MS. ISTENES: Right, the list is not -- I believe the list is not-- MR. MULHERE: It's not, just is including -- MS. ISTENES: -- as specific as -- yeah. MR. MULHERE: I didn't mean to interrupt. MS. ISTENES: The word included to me means it's just an example. There could be others. Page 44 ,..,_..",-^_._.".--,~.. "",~,-"'-~"--""-"'--'-'-~-' '---".-'-. ...-"' --~,,,,,=,,,,,.~,......,. --- August 28, 2008 MR. MULHERE: I think Mark, his position is that that's superfluous legalese. MS. ISTENES: Exactly. MR. MULHERE: And, you know -- that's Mark White, by the way, not Mark Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of superfluous legalese in there -- MR. MULHERE: And so, you know, I had it in but I didn't mind striking it through because I agree with Susan, it's not exhaustive. I mean, it says including, therefore it's not limited to those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On B(l), the last line, couldn't we strike that? The Board of County Commissioners can do whatever they want. They set the law in this county. Why are we limiting them? MR. MULHERE: Typically they won't. They'll been constrained by their own adopted policy when it comes to things like that, unless you specifically state that as far as this minimum goes if there's some reason they can reduce it. I mean, it's certainly up to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to tie their hands, though? If elected officials want to change something, I don't know why a code would want to tie their hands, especially a code they adopt. MR. MULHERE: As long as it's clear that they -- you know, I mean, I don't have a problem striking through that sentence. MS. ISTENES: I wouldn't. I'm not going to agree with that. What we're doing is we're essentially watering down the nonconformity section here, and I think -- and I believe, and I don't want to speak for Mark White, but I believe he agreed that 80 percent would be the minimum. Page 45 v_._>>_ August 28, 2008 And we start going beyond that, and why have the limitation? MR. MULHERE: But I just want to -- and I don't have a problem. I mean, it's a policy decision. I just want to say one thing: Right now basically the code doesn't have that. Let's go to the strike-through language for a minute. I think if we can find that. It's hard to find. I've got to see if I can find it in the strike-through language. I think it might be on Page 100, on the last paragraph. No, I'm not finding it there. Well, it's always hard for me to find it in here. But there's some existing language in here that says that if you could subdivide before the take, you can still subdivide after the take. And it limits it to I think three or fewer lots. I don't know that it even -- I put the 80 percent limitation in there because I thought that was an appropriate limitation. You don't want a lot that's -- I think the county ought to take the whole lot if it goes less than 80 percent, because you can't really use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you came by that as arbitrarily then, you just put it in there at 80 percent. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And see, that's more reason why I think the last paragraph -- I don't know what circumstance the Board of County Commissioners may want to intervene in an issue like this. But if they want to they should have the right to, they shouldn't be hampered by the very code that -- MR. MULHERE: But that's what that sentence gives them, in my view. It gives them the ability to reduce that. And it makes it clear in the code, which is I think probably what Susan is coming to, unless there's extraordinary circumstances. But at least the Board has a -- and I'll tell you where I saw it, is you could have an ago lot, which is fairly Page 46 ---,,_. -,-~,"''''. >.._.-..- __._~~fi August 28, 2008 large, or an Estates lot, which is fairly large. In the Estates you have tons of lots that are legal nonconforming that are an acre and a quarter, when the regular lot size is two and a quarter or, you know, in that range. There's tons of them. And now you go in and take somebody's property, and maybe you reduce them by 50 percent but they're still the same size as all those legal nonconforming lots. They ought to be able to use it and/or subdivide it after we took their property rights away from them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sentence I'm concerned about is: The Board of County Commissioners may not modify this minimum required lot area requirement. That's the sentence. I don't see why we would want to leave that in. So anyway, that's my thought-- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. I'll follow your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll probably carry my question through the end of our -- till we get to the end today, too. Any other questions on 95? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going to 96, questions on 96? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Bob. The concept of more legally nonconforming seemed confusing to me. So essentially what you're saying, if there's an existing nonconforming lot and you chopped some more, that's a more legally -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, there's a ton of lots that already have been reduced in terms of, let's say, setback or something like that as a result of a previous take. I mean, think about U.S. 41 and Airport Road. And then you come in again. So they're already nonconforming to today's code. You come in Page 47 ,~"._._---_.-----"....._",."._., -.'.-.-.- August 28, 2008 again, you take another 50 feet to widen again, you're making it more nonconforming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. 2-A, a concern I had is you're saying the transportation services administrator is going to determine an unsafe condition. My concern is the converse of that. So if he doesn't say anything, everybody has to assume this is perfectly safe? MR. MULHERE: Well, what happens is the transportation services administrator is the name of the entity that would force the Issue. But what happens is they hire a civil engineer to develop, to look at the impacts of the take -- and a planner, but the civil engineer is really the one that does this -- to look at the impacts of the take and typically to also prepare a cure plan, you know, licensed in the State of Florida. And that person typically would be the entity that they would turn to and say, you know, you have design responsibility, and is this a safe or unsafe condition. But we had that in there and I think Mark White particularly felt that it would be better to sort of broadly leave it at the transportation services administrator. And he knew that practically speaking that was going to occur by -- it could be done by an engineer working for transportation services or it could be done by an engineer that they hired. And I think that was the reason for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And so if they don't deem it unsafe, then it has to be assumed somebody took responsibility for deeming that it was safe. MR. MULHERE: Yes. And the county would be the one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And 2(e), in there we're playing with the value of the building. That always gets kind of sloppy. I know Page 48 ...-..,.,..-------.,-.- - --,--- August 28, 2008 you're trying to do it in there, but what is the intent of that? That would be ii. MR. MULHERE: Okay. What we're trying to do there actually is give the benefit of the doubt to the property owner in this circumstance. By the way, this is fairly common language. Some valuation as the trigger for when something would have to conform, some degree of valuation. And we're using 50 percent of the replacement value of the structure, and what we've added to that is also the site improvements. And we value this stuff -- I don't say we. When I say we, the team that the county hires always includes an appraiser. Usually that's the lead person on the team. And that appraiser is used to valuing site improvements and structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it only goes to improvements. For example, let's say you enlarged a road and you took away a guy's drive-through window. Essentially you didn't hurt his -- MR. MULHERE: Well, that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the building yet, but you obviously hurt his business. MR. MULHERE: But that's an improvement. I mean, he's going to have a driveway, he's going to have a window. That's an improvement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the appraiser would pick that up -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, absolutely -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and he would note the loss of business based on that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only -- down on three, you Page 49 __. _.__._.__....., _._O".,__~_,__"____ --".- August 28, 2008 reference -- like look from the fourth line up from the bottom, you're referencing, you know, how to deal with properties based on the structure thing. You know, my concern was like, for example, 2(C) is a -- under the structure rules, somehow it was starting to lose the fact that it made sense. You know, you're outside of structures in three, but you're using the rules of two as to what to do. MR. MULHERE: Three deals with any other site-related nonconformities or site-related condition resulting from the acquisition. So anything other than what's discussed above is being dealt with in number three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're comfortable dealing with it under the structural rules? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 96. Any other questions on Page 96? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to make sure, Bob, here. So if the take just affects the landscape buffer, for example, what we've dealt with up on Immokalee, you want the entire site to be legally nonconforming? MR. MULHERE: No, it would be whatever that aspect is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just the aspect. MR. MULHERE: Whatever that aspect -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: It's sort of like -- you know, I just want to throw out a little something to that answer additional. It's kind of -- the staff would look at the site as being nonconforming even if that was the one issue that was -- they've got a nonconforming issue that ultimately Page 50 "..------...... ....~_.,....-_._~ .--.------..-..,---.-- ----_."'-~._..-.. ... _..~.._~ August 28, 2008 they've got to deal with, even if it's just the landscaping. When do you deal with it is the question, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, on the top of Page 96, the third line. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, number one, it talks about the reduction. It says, results of a portion being acquired for public use may be reduced by the same dimension area or amount involved in a dedication, condemnation or purchase. Does that mean, say you had a 10- foot setback and they took 80 percent of the property, their setback reduces to two feet? MR. MULHERE: Well, it does mean that, except that there's a condition, there's a caveat that no -- when you're talking about a setback, you're talking about a measurement to a structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: And there's a minimum. You have to have 10 foot between the property line and any structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's take a setback to something else. So what this does is reduces everything on the site. MR. MULHERE: By the amount of the take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you take 80 percent of the lot, you have 80 percent reductions. Is that width and buffers, say? MR. MULHERE: Everything by the amount of the take. Now, but I would tell you something, Mark, if an improved property is being impacted by 80 percent of a take, they're going to have to take the whole thing. We're not going to have that situation. I know you're just trying to make an example, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm reading -- I know how difficult it is when developers come up with -- or attorneys, especially attorneys, Page 51 ._..,--,~ -------- August 28, 2008 come up with extreme variations and interpretations of the code. Then they present them to staff as an argument saying it doesn't say that; see, I can do this. And I want to make sure we button it up. So if 80 is not practical because you're saying well, we wouldn't do that, then maybe the 80 percent needs to drop back to 70 or 60 or whatever it is. MR. MULHERE: I mean, this is the way the code -- as far as this language goes, the code has always said that the dimensional standard can be reduced by the amount of the take, but there shall never be less than a lO-foot setback to a structure. It has always said that. Always. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, and that's fine, but-- MR. MULHERE: And nobody has had really a problem with that part of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, nobody has a problem with that part of the code because since I've been on this board you cannot go back and question things that aren't underlined. Well, guess what, you took it all out of the old code, you underlined it all, so it's open for discussion. MR. MULHERE: No, I appreciate that. But what I'm trying to give you some sense of comfort is that that is an appropriate allowance. You should allow someone to have whatever dimension is affected by the take to be reduced by an amount equal to the take. If not, you've got to take the whole property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just concerned about unknown consequences. And I would feel more comfortable under one to understand either there's a minimum which can never say below the 50 percent of the standard as it originated for that particular element, like landscaping or something, so we don't know, we get down to a ridiculous scenario that could be forced upon staff because of a legal interpretation this doesn't address. Page 52 --.._---~- August 28, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. What Bob explained is true in fact. You can't put a quantifier. Because if you say 50 percent of that particular setback, let's say a buffer, and it's 20 feet, if you limit that to 50 percent and it drops down to 10 and we want to go past that and we can't, then that puts us in that same situation we've been in all along. So if you blanket that to a percentage for every requirement for every setback, practically speaking, it protects itself. As Bob pointed out, when you get into an improved lot and you start encroaching into 30 to 40 percent of the lot, it becomes a whole take. And to quantify that to say what it would be, whether it be 10, 20 or 30 percent, it depends on the lot. If the building is set back far back on the lot and you take 100 feet of that lot but he can practically still use that land, that would be what the consideration would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you just said if it's a 30 or 40 percent take, we take the whole lot. Well, that's not what this document says. Now it says 80 percent you take the whole lot. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, that's on unimproved lots. MR. MULHERE: No, it doesn't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unimproved lots. So 30 or 40 percent you're referring to improved lots. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Improved lots, yes, sir. MR. MULHERE: This is always improved for post-take plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as the application, though, to all the -- the required yards, it says, required yards and improved lots, lot coverage, unimproved lots and lot dimensions rendered nonconforming and more legally non-conforming. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Page 53 _ '.. 'W' ,,",,~._"...'.__ '_'__~'"__"""--'W .,__,_'___',._..,._,'w .,~.,,' ... m _.._...., '_._,'~~_'_"" w..........._,~__",.~_ August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me some examples of how this -- say you took 80 percent of an unimproved lot but the unim -- how would this apply? Would there be any application in which this would apply? If it's unimproved then -- MR. MULHERE: On an unimproved lot? Yes, lot area. That's why this is worded this way. That's why it says yards on improved lots, coverage on improved lots and lot dimensions, but doesn't use the word improved lots. Because either lot width or lot area could be reduced on an unimproved lot and we would allow that reduct -- you could still use the lot, unless the economics drive the taking of the property. So how does that happen? Well, a property owner says you've rendered this lot unusable, unmarketable, because you've taken my size down to "X", from "X" to "X". Then the transportation staff legally has to review that and make a determination to take the whole thing or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the response is it wouldn't really apply to the improvements on the lot based on the language here, then I'm comfortable with that. Now that's what you're saying. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under 2(C), sixth line up, seventh line up from the bottom. It says, the replacement value shall be calculated by a Florida licensed property appraiser, civil engineer or general contractor. I would like to consider you striking civil engineer or general contractor. They're not -- I mean, while they can produce elements of cost, the appraiser's the one that's on the hook with his professional license. I'd rather we keep it that way. MR. MULHERE: You know, I think you're right. Because what happens in my experience is that the county hires the appraiser, the appraiser asks the engineer to value X, Y and Z, and the contractor to Page 54 _.......w__,~, August 28, 2008 value a sign or some other -- and it all becomes part of the appraiser's report. So I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number three, it talks on the third line -- well, first of all you're talking about conditions resulting from the acquisition, including those rendered more nonconforming shall be considered legally nonconforming included. Then you go into a series of elements: Stormwater management, landscaping, open space, on and off-site parking, vehicle stacking and throat lengths. Items like that, I would -- could we consider adding some language in there that suggests that it would not -- it would -- provided they do not -- provided they remain functional for their intended purpose and/or future purposes. I wouldn't want to see you come in and take something and because of the take it doesn't function right, but because of this language it's allowed to exist. Stormwater is a good one. And I'm just wondering, is that -- am I reading it right and would it be better to put some kind of disclaimer in there about functional ability so we're covered? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, no, I think that's a good suggestion. And I think what we would do is create a sentence that's very similar to where we talked about the engineer determining a safety issue. I think we would talk about something that there would be an analysis that those improvements still functioned adequately to meet their intended purpose. And I thought we had something like that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to have to come back to us, and so hopefully someone's making notes of these items. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Assuming the board accepts all that. The third line up from the bottom on that same page says, Page 55 ___,~___N_'~_"_"___."~_ ..._....'_.____~..__. . .,~_.....,., ._-~._... August 28, 2008 transportation services administrator. We normally see county manager or designee. I don't know why the transportation administrator would know about some of these things, especially the costs and issues involving those. So why wouldn't we just put county manager or designee? MR. SCHMITT: That's been the accepted terminology. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure how that happened. MS. ISTENES: Actually, I think that was Mark White again kind of trying to get away from that and be a little bit more specific. So we may see more of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to -- we just got away from the more specific to allow the flexibility that certainly was needed because so many department heads changed names. So maybe Mark needs to kind of be straightened out on that issue. MS. ISTENES: We -- I did. It kind of goes the other way too. It's interesting, I'll just throw this in. What's interesting is people decide that the county manager or designee means somebody else that the county manager hasn't designated because they don't like the answer they're getting from the person that the county manager has designated. So then they start going to the county attorney's office and the county manager himself and the assistant county manager. So we're experiencing that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, everywhere in the code where it said county manager or designee about a year and a half ago we went through and identified every position that is delegated that authority by the county manager. He has a delegation authority chart that says this is where it says and this is who I'm delegating. MS. ISTENES: Maybe a better language would be as designated Page 56 .'--"'.-. ,---,- August 28, 2008 by the county manager, and that way it doesn't open up for, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MS. ISTENES: -- this either/or situation that we're getting arguments about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to be consistent. By naming each individual department -- person, we've gotten away from that. And I think it was a good thing we did because the titles change so much. So somehow we need to get it into more of a generic mode. That's fine. MR. MULHERE: So where do we stand with that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's going to change. When you guys come back for the rewrite, whatever Susan -- MR. MULHERE: But should I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is the current flavor of the day we'll get, I'm sure. MS. ISTENES: I guess my suggestion was as designated by the county manager. And that way it narrows it rather than leaving it either/or, which is I think what we have now. And that would I think solve both problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Okay, we're on to Page 97. Any questions on Page 977 Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is one for me, to educate me. On D, under one, the most recent available aerial of the site. I know that they're available through the -- MR. MULHERE: County -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- appraiser's office and such. MR. MULHERE: Property appraiser. Page 57 .-"-',- ,.,..--..,,- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we know for a fact that that's the most recent -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it's easy to check. The aerial will have a date. And you can certainly check with the property appraiser's to see when it was flown. Let me tell you why -- I mean, that changes, too, because I think based on the current economics they've chosen not to fly I think annually this year and do it by biannually. So the most recent one might be a couple of years old. It's not to suggest that someone would have to go out and fly that to get a recent aerial. You know, we could -- we could say the most recent available aerial from the property appraiser's office -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have to change it if it's well understood. MR. MULHERE: The reason I didn't do that is because sometimes the property owner does have a more recent aerial and might as well use it if they do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine's on C(1)(c). And what that is is just add in there that the survey is prepared by a Florida licensed surveyor. I mean, you wouldn't want -- you want it signed and sealed but -- and essentially that means that, I think, Bob, but somebody else may make a drawing. Is there a problem adding to it? MR. MULHERE: No, I don't think so. Prepared by a licensed surveyor in the State of Florida or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Whatever. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on Page 97? Page 58 . _._-".-". m.__._.."..'_ ...._M._._ August 28, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I've got one. D(1) says a post-take plan may be substituted for staff review and approval. MR. MULHERE: Submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: May be submitted, I'm sorry. MR. MULHERE: You scared me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How soon after the initial taking can the post-take plan be submitted? MR. MULHERE: The timing is -- I'm going to try, and Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, but the timing is -- you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a limitation, I guess -- I'll tell you what, I'm more concerned that if there is a limitation it be stated here so someone knows it. That's kind of where I'm going. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Any time. MR. MULHERE: Any time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. That works. That's all I needed to know. Page 98? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at the top, obviously a little scrivener's, there's ort, I think it means or. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 2(A), is the intent of that where you state that the acquisition -- or if the buffer's eliminated it can be replaced beyond the acquisition area. Does that mean into the acquisition area? MR. MULHERE: No, it means into the property. Let's see, landscape buffers which have been completely eliminated by the Page 59 ----,"-.,--....,-.--,.,.-.--..-.--..------,,--.<.-.- - -'~+- August 28, 2008 acquisition may be replaced beyond the acquisition area but shall not result in a buffer less than five feet. So if you took the whole buffer but you had room to replace the buffer, you would not have -- and you didn't have enough room to replace the required buffer again, you know, you would be able to put in some landscape buffer, and the minimum here is five feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this allows you to create a new small buffer -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it's better than nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Thanks. I'm done. MR. MULHERE: Slow down -- oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I apologize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm done. MR. MULHERE: I didn't mean to step over your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But they don't have to be replaced at all, so we could end up with nothing. MR. MULHERE: Not in -- I don't think that would be the case in a post-take cure plan. You could end up with nothing -- you can end up with nothing if the property owner chose to do nothing and the county chose to do nothing. There's no requirement -- there is no requirement if you took a landscape buffer for that to be replaced. And that I think you're going to find is -- that's going to be a legal question. I mean, they get paid for damages but they don't have to spend that money to fix the property, which is why often we do it, or the county does it. Actually, this should create less of that. Because by allowing for this post-take cure plan, you're going to lock somebody into whatever improvements are approved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Page 60 __._._._0........_ ....,.. _, ._.._.._ ._.___~__ --,-- August 28,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 98? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: I had a couple I forgot. And I apologize -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have questions of your own document? MR. MULHERE: No, sorry. Not questions, but comments that I've got to get on the record. One thing is Mr. Anderson mentioned to me in paragraph three, deviations other than those set forth, et cetera. On the second line it says, exceeding the minimums. And I want to add to that on Bruce's suggestion, or maximums. Because it does provide for both minimums and maximums in the referenced paragraph. So that should read deviations other than those set forth in paragraph A through C above or exceeding the minimums or maximums established therein. And then the other one was there is a typo or incorrectly cited in paragraph 3(B), where it talks about the notice shall, number one, list the requested deviations other than those set forth in paragraph three above. That should be paragraph two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's time for a break for Cherie' and Kady. So let's take a break tilllO:15 and we'll resume at that time. Thank you. (Short break.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you'll all resume your seats, we'll go back to where we left off, and that is on Page 98. And Mr. Mulhere, I have a couple of questions. MR. MULHERE: Okay, sir. That didn't sound good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, these are ones you probably should like. Page 61 ~ ---_._--~ -- -_.-._,.- August 28, 2008 On 2(C), it says may be reduced up to 10 percent. How about not exceeding 10 percent? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On 3(C) it talks about the Planning Commission meeting. Does it go without saying or should it be here that the applicant has the ability to appeal this to the BCC, or is that something that's a given without a statement? MR. MULHERE: I had it in there. I don't remember where it is now. Hold on one second, Mark. I'll find it. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's on four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I didn't hear the percentage of what did you change it to, the vegetation, from 10 percent to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on four? Okay, never mind then. On 2(e), Bob, what I did was we just changed, instead of up to, it says not exceeding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I missed that. My ears. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine then. MR. MULHERE: Paragraph four, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to Page 99 then. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But along the way, just to go back for a little bit, if you submit a post-take plan, the only review is a staff reView. MR. MULHERE: Only at those de minimis levels that we established. Anything that is either -- anything that contravenes those minimums, either -- as we said, minimum or maximums established in there, then you would be required to go through this process. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, except that when you get Page 62 ",--"..- August 28, 2008 back to three in deviations, you go, or any other deviations can be approved -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- administratively. So you're taking -- MR. MULHERE: Tell me where you're at, because I'm looking at number three, deviations -- COMMISSIONER CARON: 98,(3). MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm actually reading paragraph three right now, which says, deviations other than those set forth in paragraph A through C above or exceeding the minimum or maximums established may also be approved -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Approved administratively. MR. MULHERE: Oh, you know what? That -- I don't know where that language -- at what point someone inserted that language, but I agree with you, it doesn't belong there. It does not below there. It should just say subject to the following procedures. I don't remember where that came in. I think I kind of do, but I'm not saying. MS. ISTENES: It's not my fault. MR. MULHERE: No, I'm not saying -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I think there are a lot of areas that will be very negatively affected if we totally take out the public process here. And while that may be convenient -- MR. MULHERE: That's a good catch. That's a very good catch. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Darn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 99? Any other questions on Page 99? Page 63 ~~,,-,_......' " -'-_._-,,---- August 28, 2008 (No response.) MS. ISTENES: May I make a comment on what DSAC had recommended as a change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After mine. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you and I may have the same comment. MS. ISTENES: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But first, under -- the top of Page 99, you have a little i, a little ii, and those are the elements in which the CCPC can approve the conditions or deny the take plan. I would like to make sure we have a iii to possibly saying something like compatibility with other provisions of the LDC or compatibility issues. I don't think we should be limited to those two. We certainly want to open it up to any compatibility issues we feel warranted apply. MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, when you and I met briefly a long time ago on this, this is probably a third or fourth version since this, you mentioned that to me. And I thought maybe I had adequately addressed it in paragraph two where I added some language that says, third line, neighboring properties by maintaining or enhancing compatibility through various measures. But now I think you're actually asking for something a little bit larger than that, and that is that you be able to consider basically all the provisions of the LDC that might apply and whether or not it contravenes them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: So that's a little bit -- I mean, I probably misunderstood you because I thought we were talking strictly Page 64 - ,---- August 28, 2008 compatibility as it affects nearby or adjacent properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If somebody comes in with a post-take plan that is for some reason abhorrent and it shouldn't be approved, that would give us the ability to turn it down. MR. MULHERE: Compatibility, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that's kind of why I'm suggesting it. MR. MULHERE: So your thoughts again were to put -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Compatibility with other provisions of the LDC. But you need to massage that -- MR. MULHERE: For consistency? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, consistency with the -- however you would normally massage such language. MR. MULHERE: I think if you use the word applicable, that's good, because you don't want to have somebody going to all kind of gyrations through the LDC to find a reason. But if you say applicable proVisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. You understand the-- MR. MULHERE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n I'm just wanting compatibility in there stronger. MR. MULHERE: Yep, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to where Susan may be headed, I don't know. MR. MULHERE: The notice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The notice. I'm concerned about the suggested change by DSAC in which it limits it to just 3(C) above, and that's the noticed property owners. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Page 65 _...._._._.-_..._~.".. -...---. August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The general public in many cases may be an affected party by the process of a take. And I don't think it needs to be limited to just those under notification. So I'd rather the language stay as written and not take DSAC's suggestion into consideration. MR. SCHMITT: And anybody has the right to file an appeal under the Code of Laws and Ordinances anyway. Can file an appeal of a decision of a public official. So -- MR. MULHERE: And I think that was consistent with Susan's recommendation. MR. SCHMITT: And I think with Bob's recommendation, we end up -- MR. MULHERE: Not mine -- MR. SCHMITT: -- if we restrict it, it becomes more refined -- MR. MULHERE: It wasn't mine. MR. SCHMITT: All right, good. MR. MULHERE: It was the DSAC subcommittee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you're doing it again. Cherie's trying to write when you're talking, he's talking too. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So kind of try to be silent for a little bit and you'll be okay. Under E, the condemnation proceeding relating to the property acquired has not reached final disposition. I would rather say, has not exhausted all appeals. Is that a more definitive statement? Because final disposition could be done at a lower court but it could be appealed to an upper court and then we still are dealing with it. MR. MULHERE: I think that's good language. Has not reached final appeal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, has not -- Page 66 ,.--.---"'''......--- -~.._--- ....---. August 28, 2008 MR. MULHERE: Exhausted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- exhausted all appeals. Or has -- I'm sorry, has exhausted all appeals, not has not. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's on 99. That's all I had. The rest of the document is strike-through. Anybody have any questions on the strike-through? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staffhave a clear indication, or Bob, do you, of the suggestions that we've made? Because this will have to come back for rewrite. MR. MULHERE: I do. I made notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go final up, I want to see if there's anybody from the general public would like to speak on this particular issue. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. MULHERE: And I apologize for stepping on everyone's words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: **Next item on the agenda is -- will be added to the streetlights on Page 111. MS. KOEHLER: Good morning. Lisa Koehler, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. KOEHLER: You will find the changes that we've made on Page 112 of this amendment. And there's really three. The first one is changing the word subdivision. And we've added Page 67 ------" August 28, 2008 that to be residential or commercial development as approved through an SDP, SDPA, PPL. The second is again allowing flexibility so that if the lighting code conflicts with another lighting requirement we have the room to make sure that -- I guess it just gives us the flexibility to do the right thing so that we can try to maintain proper lighting levels for pedestrian ways. And then the third one is in B(2), and we are amending the paragraph so that if you have a single lane driveway and you can meet the lighting requirement, that you're not having to add a second lighting fixture. And also, what was recommended by the DSAC subcommittee was the part that you're seeing shaded, and that is if that you can show through a photometric lighting plan that you can meet your lighting requirement through existing street-level lighting, again you do not have to add another fixture. So the amendments that you're seeing today add additional flexibility for us, as well as the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on B. Essentially what you're doing now, prior to this requirement was as you enter into a subdivision such as a group of lots. MS. KOEHLER: Right. And there was confusion over what that term meant. And so there was always a point of contention with staff and the developer, was subdivision actually meaning like a residential subdivision. And what it was intended to meet was commercial development Page 68 ,.",,--- August 28, 2008 so as you have a walkway, a pedestrian way, as you're approaching that commercial development, it's adequately lit for bicyclists or people walking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then by adding what you've done, essentially everything's going to go through an SDP process or one of these. So your intent is to capture every single project ranging from PUD's to building on a single lot, a single conventionally zoned lot. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. What you're not going to capture is say a single-family home that's built on a collector or arterial, but developments. And actually that was one of the changes we had originally had was development as a defined term, but it was too broad in our definition section. So that came back as a recommendation from actually the county attorney's office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there an ERP (sic) relationship to this? I mean, EAR, I'm sorry. ERP, I'm thinking ofDEP. Too many acronyms, Tor. Gotta help me out here. MS. KOEHLER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay, because you didn't put any on the screen. So what initiated it? Why was this initiated? I mean, I understand your reasoning, I read it. But I mean, where's -- how badly is the system broken that we need to add this? MS. KOEHLER: It was just brought up because of complaints from developers. And as we're going through staff reviews it's, you know, points of contention as we're going through those reviews of things. So it was, you know, looked at by staff. We felt they had a Page 69 ._-,,--- August 28, 2008 really good argument and we needed to create some flexibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the complaints from developers were that you weren't requiring enough lighting at the -- where roads -- where driveways and roads intersected? MS. KOEHLER: No, that they had to add additional lighting even though that lighting level was being met. So it's an additional cost. Why add another light pole if you're meeting your foot candle requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got an e-mail from an engineer locally, and I'd like -- they have five questions. I'd like to read them into the record and I'd like a response to them. Because they're more into issues beyond my understanding in some cases. So I'll just start with that. Number one, the county is trying to apply this now to all developments, even ones that generate very little traffic, such as a small office building and smaller churches that generate very little traffic. We believe there should be a trips threshold. Historically, i.e. beyond two years ago, this code provision was only applied to subdivisions and not to all projects. What warrants a new requirement and have there been documented cases where lighting would have helped in an accident situation? MS. KOEHLER: I think -- well, obviously I think what we're trying to do is create safe pedestrian ways. And regardless if it's a church or an office building, if you've got a pedestrian going through that at night and there's a correct amount of street level lighting, it makes it for a safe passage for that pedestrian. The point about it, you know, it only applied to subdivisions, and I think that was the contention was, you know, between staff and developers. We were saying no, the code does require additional lighting, we need to have safe access for our pedestrians, and so Page 70 "~._---'"_...- August 28, 2008 regardless if it's a church or an office building you need to have this lighting to provide, you know, safe passage. Does that answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it answers what warrants the requirement, but it doesn't answer what happened -- do you know of any documented accidents as a result of lack of lighting? Well, I mean that's hard to say, so -- I'd imagine you wouldn't come ready with that information. MS. KOEHLER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, the CDOT for road design requires only .6 to 1.0 FC along the roadways and have constructed all the new roads that way. Why the higher standard for the private? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida, from Transportation. That's an average. These requirements were taken out of the International Engineers Society of Electrical Engineers. They came from there. They're actually more strict than we are here. And we actually went out as staff, believe it or not, at 4:00 in the morning on a moonless night and took measurements and found that two to five, which was within the range of International Engineers Society recommendations, met that requirement. The number you're quoting is an average they take along the roadway length, not where the conflict point of the pedestrian meets the roadway or the vehicle entry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so you believe that conflict point needs to be two to five times greater than what the county standard is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you, if you drive by an Albertson's it's 20-foot candles. You drive by DeVoe it's almost 29. You drive by Ibis Cove, which barely meets that requirement as Page 71 -_.,--- August 28, 2008 measured, was two. So I believe through field measurements and what the International Engineers have recommended, we are within guidelines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And almost all the lighting that has been installed in accordance with this code in the past is back at the right-of-way line, a long distance from the intersection of a sidewalk crossing, making them useless. One drive around town, you can spot them all. If it is needed, then it should be within the right-of-way or not installed at all. What do you think of that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We review these things, and if -- I'd ask that they show me where they are. Because the light fixture themselves can extend out almost 10 feet if they want them to. So we make them try and light where that crossing of the pedestrian meets that turn lane commg m. And these are only for arterials and collectors. So our defined right-of-ways on say Airport Road are pretty clear. It's easy to see where that is. So if they have an issue, bring it to us and we'll look at it. But I don't see -- that's not been a problem in review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with the oncoming -- this lighting level's being blinding to oncoming traffic, where other surrounding lighting is low? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're full cut-off objects, so you shouldn't be able to see them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are it, thank you. I understand your answers. I don't understand all about lighting and CF's and all that, but hopefully we're on the right path. Does anybody have any questions on the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. Page 72 ,...~.~~- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --lighting item as amended? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing is there -- I mean, the concern I have is having these lights on all night long. Is there a way we could limit the hours or let them shut them off at certain hours? I mean -- and the reason I'm bringing it up, we're essentially doing an anti-green move here by requiring lighting in areas that are not going to be used that much. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are you talking about roadway lighting or the development lighting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The development -- the lighting at the entrance. MS. KOEHLER: Well, this lighting would be achieved or could be achieved through the roadway lighting. So I don't think we're going to be turning off our roadway lights. Certainly I would think developments, if they want to turn down their lighting on their development in their parking lot, that's their choice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they can shut this down at certain hours when they're not in operation or something? MS. KOEHLER: Well, this section pertains to streetlights, not like the parking lot lighting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, all right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But along those lines of which Brad was asking, part of the cost of electricity and thus the use of more oil is the candle power that you're asking for. Do you really feel that you have to have this range of candle power there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The candle power won't be affected. Page 73 --.--..--- August 28, 2008 The hours that he's asking about, I can understand what -- his question, do you want these on at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning when your pedestrian conflicts would be low. I mean, if that's -- you want it to say that they can be turned down at a certain time, and I can tell you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not going there. What I'm suggesting is if you have a 50-watt bulb versus a 500-watt bulb, you're going to use more electricity for the higher wattage bulb which produces more candle power. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But if you're within those minimums, the watt bulb, the candle, the electricity used, you have to maintain those minimums. Ifhe's asking can we go with a lower foot candle -- ifhe's asking for us if we could reduce the amount of time or the amount of energy, you have to maintain that foot candle. So I don't know how we could do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think that's the question I'm -- I think the engineers had asked me is that why does the foot candle have to be so high. I understand your response, it has to be an average. But if you're on a road that's got lights and you're going down, and the average is lower, say 1.0 instead of two to five, and you've got this one big bright light standing out there at two to five, is there any way of averaging it so that the light that goes installed might be the most efficient for the neighborhood? Not overly bright. And in that efficiency we're saving electricity. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think I'd want to lower them below two, and that's a minimum. And you know, because you said 1.8. When you talk about going from .3 to .5 foot candles, that's almost immeasurable. The maximum is five. So the minimum is two, the Page 74 C_~_"'_,__' ----~., August 28, 2008 maximum is five. We don't want you to put up a light that's blowing everybody away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the county road design requires .6 to 1.0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As an average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And that's as you're driving down the road, you're taking averages as you go. So your 2.0 is a minimum, it's very dim. When you drive by an entrance, that's dim. But when they put two lights up sometimes they get up to five. So we said don't get above five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we look at looking at the average on the road system that this is opening onto? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're driving at an average speed of 45 miles an hour. That conflict point is fixed. So it's always meant to be a little brighter by IESNA. That's a conflict point in the road. It's where someone slows down and turns their headlights and all of a sudden barn, there's a pedestrian or someone crossing that road. It's not that high. I can give you a couple of examples when you drive out, you know, on the roadways what 2.0 is like. If you're on Immokalee Road, look at Ibis Cove or Laurel Lakes, they're not that bright. And they're at 2.8. It's dim. We almost said that's almost too low. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 112 or l13? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask to make sure I understand because you were saying it's in the public road. But essentially what this is where driveways, and now by the changing you're picking up everything, even an office building, any Page 75 August 28, 2008 development whatsoever is going to be picked up. Where that driveway goes out onto the roadways, on the private property side you want a light source that's going to illuminate that sidewalk at that driveway crossing that driveway, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what this is, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Arterials and collectors. MS. KOEHLER: Unless the lighting level could already be met by the existing street level lighting, then they don't have to add anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that existing street level lighting that they -- in order to be applicable would have to not be the average, it would have to be 2.0 or above. MS. KOEHLER: At that particular point where that conflict occurs, they would take that measurement. And if they're between two and five then they don't have to add another light fixture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they take the measurement with the lights on at night, obviously, and the full moon, does that help them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's your answer right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. Mark, go back to your thing. Why was this necessary? What happened? Was somebody going around complaining with pedestrians? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All your PUD's from the Eighties to Nineties says, shall provide arterial level street lighting at the project entrance prior to first C.O. It was never defined. Then it was defined and then they wanted clarifications. Page 76 August 28, 2008 And then we brought it down to we don't want it throughout the county, we want it on main roads, arterials and collectors. So it's been a requirement for 20 years, but never defined. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're not adding is you don't -- you want it now not just on subdivisions, you want it on every project. And the concern I have is that you go down, you know, a conventionally zoned street, there's going to be multiple projects, multiple driveways, and now we're going to have multiple lighting on those, where I really think the lighting should come from the street system itself. And if there's a deficiency -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good point if you want the county to pay for it and to light those entrance points. But I've got to tell you, when you deal with pedestrians, they don't decide -- they walk in front of commercial developments as much as they walk in front of residential developments on arterials and collectors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're not saying is that there's a perceived danger at these driveways. I mean, these -- are people getting hit at night because they don't see? I mean, the cars coming out if it's nighttime, it's got lights on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's the point. They are. It is a danger. It's a conflict point identified by, you know, our design standards, FDOT design standards, by International Electrical Engineering design standards. They say they're conflict points and should be well lit. Any time a car is traveling 45 miles an hour, slowing down and turning into a driveway, that entrance should be lit so the pedestrian crossing that road can cross safely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. Page 77 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have those design standards, you can stick them up on the screen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know, Nick -- and I would just ask you relative to the entrance to this administration area here, at night coming in it's darker than all get-out, and what about that service? That's something there as a good example, isn't it? I mean, I almost -- I saw the person, but had I not seen this person on a bike, I might very well have killed somebody. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county government center would have to meet that requirement per this code when they do an additional SDP. So that would have to be lit up per our standards as well, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We never had this in the code before that required it on collectors and arterials that you had to have adequate foot candles? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was in PUD's, it's written in PUD's that they had to put them in, because that was always a concern if a project entrance is commercial or residential. And our code said developments, and that was always an argument point, or subdivisions. And we're trying to clarify that on all arterials and collectors, any conflict point where a pedestrian can come in and out of should be adequately lit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How will this, and if it will, correct the condition that I just related? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will. You'll have to have lights there, so when you pull around you'll see -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Retroactively? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As they update through SDP's and SDP Page 78 August 28, 2008 amendments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will the county be updating its SDP -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for the campus? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this is not EAR-based. And I'm real concerned about language that comes out of GMP and EAR references and how they're interpreted and brought into the code. We've made some mistakes, and they're now coming to light from a year or two ago. We'll soon be hearing about those on this board, unfortunately. I don't want to make a mistake here. I know it's not EAR-based, but I would like more data on -- myself personally. And I don't know what the rest of this board -- if you all feel comfortable, fine, you can vote on it. My recommendation today would be to provide the basis and the traffic code that Nick is referring to that recommends this candle power at these intersections. And I don't mean giving us a 300-page book, just the parts that pertain to this so we haven't got to read 300 pages to get to the meat. I would like to see that before I make a recommendation on this. I don't know about the rest -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would too, Mark. And the concern I have is that we're taking a requirement that is to be the entrance of a subdivision and now we're applying it to essentially multiple lots which could be very close. So I would like to see if it applies, if it's recommended to Page 79 August 28, 2008 individual building lots also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you thought of how to address the proximity, or did I miss that in here, of other -- say you have multiple commercial parcels with driveways coming on a collector? Would you want a light along each one of those, or would they benefit from the lights of their neighbors in the spread of the candle power? MS. KOEHLER: Along each of those driveways? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Along each of the intersections where they -- the conflict point. MS. KOEHLER: I think what we're trying to do with that new language that you're seeing in the shaded gray area is that if they can show through a field measurement photometric plan that that lighting level at the conflict point is two or five, they don't need to add an additional structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone in a multiple drive -- say a close pattern of commercial sites together, they have multiple openings going on the roadway, if their neighbor puts their light up first, they may benefit from their neighbor's light? MS. KOEHLER: I suppose it's feasible. I can't imagine that the driveways would be that close that one light at somebody's intersection. Chances are it would be another streetlight that would benefit that next property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you believe the cost is to put one of these lights in, including the engineering, the process through the county, the underground conduits, the metering light box, if needed, and the light fixture and post itself and installation? Do you have an estimate of the cost? MS. KOEHLER: No, sir, we don't. But we could get that for you, if you'd like. Page 80 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be important to have when you come back. Because in times like this when we're imposing additional costs on very, very small businesses, as this could be imposed upon, I think that would be important to know. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Also, I think the operation of it. It mean, we're -- the state actually said we should be doing energy efficient judgments in the code. I mean, I'd like to see what this is doing in terms of energy use. Because if you add a lot of these lights, it's going to be a lot of energy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MS. KOEHLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that comfortable with everybody on the panel? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We'll see you during the rewrite. Oh, are there any speakers on the public on this issue before we stop this issue today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much, Lisa. Next item on today's agenda is starting on Page 139. And it is the 1.08.02 definition for passive recreation. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, I do have kind of a presentation of just different -- from different jurisdictions, the definitions they have for passive parks, if you're interested in seeing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you making the presentation on this one? MS. F ABACHER: I can. Page 81 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, someone has to, so I guess if you're -- whoever's going to speak on it, then let's do what you need to do. And Catherine, this is not EAR-based? MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. This was back in 2006. And a definition of passive recreation was included when we looked at all those Conservation Collier lands amendments. And a lot of stuff got struck. And the one thing the board said was bring back that definition, you know, we like that definition. But no, it's not EAR-based, so-- MR. SCHMITT: But it was board directed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. I just want to make sure we're clear, because if it's EAR-based, then I would like to see the language. If not, I understand. You know, the drop-down menus in bubbles like that, you can make that not happen under the new office program. MS. F ABACHER: I don't know exactly how to do the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just thought I'd mention it to you. Right click up on your top left icon. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, this is the new one here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the one next to it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I was just -- it's a neat new program, but it takes a lot of learning. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, it's the -- where is this thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's next to the icon -- there, up, up, up. Right click there. And it says minimize the ribbon. There you go. MR. SCHMITT: No, but I want to go to slide show. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you were just trying to minimize the -- MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Joe. Some of us haven't quite Page 82 August 28, 2008 converted yet. I'm not going to tell you which one is -- I mean, you know for yourself what we've suggested. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, can you give a little background on why we're looking at this now? I believe this was BCC-directed, is that correct, some time ago? MS. F ABACHER: Some time ago. And like I said, it was part of the Conservation Collier stuff. Some of it got deleted. And the one thing in -- that's what I said, the one thing in 2006 cycle was they said, but we do need a definition, bring the definition back in, you know, the next cycle or so. So actually, I think it was in '07. I'm sorry, Susan, that's the only -- MS. ISTENES: Tell them. I know. I wasn't sure the board knew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We heard her. MS. ISTENES: But yes, this is the -- the reason it's before you is the BCC wanted us to come back with a definition for passive recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now what is this slide that you've put on the -- MS. F ABACHER: What I have here is just examples from other jurisdictions and what they've used for passive recreation. And somewhere mixed in here is ours. Okay, so non-motorized recreation, not requiring development, not requiring any alteration of existing topography. Such passive recreation shall include but not be limited to hiking, hang gliding, bicycling, picnicking and bird watching. Another one: Recreation activities that generally do not require a developed site include such activities as hiking, horseback riding and Page 83 ..---- August 28, 2008 picnicking. Recreation involves existing natural resources and has minimal impact on the habitat. Those recreational pursuits which can be carried out with little alteration or disruption to the area in which they're performed. Such uses include but are not limited to hiking and picnicking. The point of all this is to show you what definitions other people have used. And it's pretty generic. And I think that's what we want is a generic. Because specifically, Conservation Collier lands does state in its own provisions what are the allowed recreational use -- you know, passive recreational uses. The Parks and Recs talk about passive recreational uses. And their idea is completely different from -- this is the problem. We just really need a generic. Because in their own sections they provide what they consider to be passive recreation. Activities characterized by natural resource emphasis in non-motorized vehicles. These activities are deemed to have a minimal negative impact on natural resources or are consistent with goals for habitat conservation. Examples of passive recreation include but are not limited to bird watching, nature study, swimming, picnicking, hiking and fishing. That is actually ours with a little modification. Just recreational activities that generally do not require a developed site. This generally includes such activities as hiking, horseback riding and picnicking. A non-motorized activity that offers constructive, restorative and pleasurable human benefits and fosters appreciation and understanding of open space and its purposes. A non-motorized activity that is compatible with other passive recreational uses. Does not significantly impact natural, cultural, Page 84 ._~~._'"".- ----- August 28, 2008 scientific or agricultural values. Requires only minimal visitor facilities and services directly related to safety, and minimizes passive recreation impacts. Generally an undeveloped space or environmentally sensitive area that requires minimum development. Passive recreation areas provide for the health and wellbeing of the public for the preservation of wildlife and the environment. The quality of the environment and naturalness of an area is the focus of the recreational experience in a passive recreation area. An area of land set aside for public use. A piece of land with few or no buildings within or adjoining a town maintained for residential and recreational or ornamental purposes. A landscaped city square. A large tract of rural land kept in its natural state and usually reserved for the enjoyment and recreation of visitors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to save the court reporter from having -- MS. FABACHER: Well, that was my last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we get the drift. Boy, they're all pretty ambiguous, aren't they? You need the mic. if you're going to talk, Catherine. And I think this board experienced the -- let's say the flexibility of the word passive recreation when we had I think it was the Cocohatchee Bert Harris claim project in which we had a multiple page listing of all the different things that could or could not happen there under the word passive recreation. So it's probably important we understand what this means. MS. FABACHER: Well, as I mentioned earlier, trying to get a definition, which we tried to do the last time we worked on this, trying Page 85 ,__~",<m.'." August 28, 2008 to get a definition that could be agreed upon by Parks and Recs, Conservation Collier lands and also the environmental people, because they have passive recreational uses in preserves, so -- but as I mentioned, each one of them lists within their own provisions and requirements exactly what the uses are. So this is more or less a genenc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't have we -- I mean, to benefit this board, it might have been helpful to know two things. See the list that Conservation Collier thinks is passive. And I would certainly like to see the list that Parks and Recs thinks is passive. And then understand the differences between the two to help come to a conclusion that might give definitiveness. This particular definition I don't think still tells us anything. It seems pretty vague and ambiguous in the way it's written. And I would rather see -- rather look at a -- maybe even consider a listing with some, like we do in our zoning districts, with some conclusion at the end that allows some flexibility to reinterpret that listing by either a board or administratively, depending on the intensity of it. But this is pretty flexible. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And if -- and there may be really truly valid reasons why the lists will vary between Parks and Rec and Conservation Collier. For example, perhaps we need to reference that somehow here at the very minimum. MS. FABACHER: I think that's a good idea. My thought was just to be very generic like everybody else is, and then we can reference for Parks and Recreation, see section yada yada n COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to see those. MS. F ABACHER: n Conservation Collier lands. Page 86 ...._<.,'-~. August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's right, we really need to see what each -- as many entities as you believe have input in this and what they think is passive that you can collect, I'd like to see all those. And I think that the Bert Harris claim that we had that we actually accepted some uses as passive, whether right or wrong, I think we ought to see those too to get a good feel about the magnitude of what issues there are out there. I for one would rather see definitiveness in the code than lack of that. Because lack of that always means developers or his attorney is going make interpret it one way and make a good argument if it isn't clear. And then we're going to be sitting in a position trying to defend that. And I'd not be in that position. I'd rather say this is what we have, this is it, and it's pretty defined. And where it isn't, there's some kind of a way to address that. So that's my take on this paragraph that is in front of us here. So does anybody else have any comments? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, also, Mark, we might have them look at the Keewaydin project that we reviewed some time ago, because I believe they referenced passive recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good idea. They were looking at a complete club operation as passive recreation with structures and I don't know how many people. So maybe all those things ought to be considered in a listing to us and then we can help understand how this would either change that. And maybe you could tell us as we look at that list what items on there this definition would meet and what items they wouldn't. And then we would better understand the definition and maybe build limitations into it so we wouldn't have any ambiguity in this, or at least Page 87 -..,.-.-.-- August 28, 2008 less ambiguity than we have now. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, maybe a suggestion of what would be prohibited or would not be would be more helpful than this, which is rather -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might be. Might be another way to look at it. We'd have to -- but I think we kind of need to get a better handle on it than just the statement that's here, so that's my thought. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I wish I could remember the PUD, but I do remember a PUD we dealt with that actually called for the creation of a passive park or passive recreation park. And you have natural resource emphasis, so there might be something there which you want to look at as well. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the board before we hear any public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers on this particular matter? Two of you guys seem to be moving around. Okay, Bruce and Doug, one of you take a mic. and the other just wait till one's finished. MR. KLATZKOW: I want to see them disagree. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson, from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. And with me today is my partner, Doug Lewis. Mr. Lewis and I are here for two specific clients on two different amendments which we will state at the time when the amendments Page 88 -,,-"-- August 28, 2008 come up. We're also going to be commenting on other amendments as well, but not on behalf of a client yet. Some of these proposed amendments simply cannot go unchallenged, even if the market is slow and people are not paying attention. I'm going to ask Mr. Lewis to go ahead and address the passive recreation definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. You're the intro and Doug's the entertainment, huh? MR. LEWIS: Well, hopefully we'll be entertaining. For the record, I'm Doug Lewis, an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress. I am a registered lobbyist. I appreciate the comments by my partner, Bruce Anderson. This amendment that we're looking at today addresses the issue of what can and cannot be done within a preserve area. Allowable uses within a preserve area are limited to passive recreational uses and the receipt of treated stormwater. And that's per the Comprehensive Plan, Policy 6.1.1.5. And the first thing I want to address here is that staff is seeking to define passive recreational uses. Just a minor comment, the definition is labeled passive recreation, not passive recreational uses. We should -- as referred to in the Growth Management Plan. And as a lawyer, it's important that we keep the terms the same to avoid a confusion later about what we're referring to. More importantly, when we think about the word that was omitted, the word uses, I think it's important to think about a distinction between uses in a land development context and regulating human activity within a preserve area. The Comprehensive Plan addresses the type of development, Page 89 --_.-._- . August 28, 2008 quote, unquote uses, not human activity that can occur within a preserve area. Use regulation in the context ofland development regulation, e.g., when someone comes in for a building permit, what can you put in the preserve area, what can you construct, what can you not construct is very distinct from regulating once the construction, the activities are put there, the boardwalk or the pathways put there, what you can do within that preserve area. And there's a very important distinction there. Per the element dealing with the -- the conservation coastal element 6.1.15, the land development regulations will also provide criteria to define appropriate passive recreational uses. The emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan is placed on land development regulations. And that's important. Staff goes well beyond development standards in a land regulation context, what you can build, what you can't build, and they get into regulating human activity within a preserve area. In my opinion the Comprehensive Plan did not contemplate the issuance of a code violation, for example, when someone flies a motorized model airplane over an urban preserve area, or where a disabled person takes an electric scooter on a nature trail boardwalk, or where a motorized activity is utilized to construct or maintain improvements such as a boardwalk or a pathway within a preserve area. They're very, very distinct types of regulation. The third point I'd like to make is that what -- and if you look at the Compo Plan, it really doesn't jive with the definition. In their definition that staff is proposing, they're looking at passive recreation as activities that are characterized by a natural resource emphasis. Well, what does that mean? Does -- the definition, for example, lists swimming among other examples. Again, these are human Page 90 ..~--_.~--.. - August 28, 2008 activities that are examples of passive recreational uses. Is swimming something that one would say in a fair context it would be an activity that would be characterized by a natural resource emphasis per the definition of passive recreation per the county? I'm not sure that we can say that swimming has a natural resource emphasis. It may be something that's fun to do on a hot day, but I think that's really not a fair characterization of swimming as being something that has a natural resource emphasis. Again, they're getting into the area of regulating human conduct or activity within the preserve. Swimming can occur within a natural resource. It's not the emphasis. My point is that defining passive recreational uses as uses that are characterized by a natural resource emphasis goes well beyond what the Comprehensive Plan intended. Again, the Comprehensive Plan, if you look at the language on the board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit. MR. LEWIS: Sure. If you look at the language, the emphasis again is on land use regulation. Again, regulating what's constructed within the area. For me, I think that concept works. Ifwe limit the regulation to what we can and can't build, I think that works, based on the Comprehensive Plan. Aren't we really saying that passive recreational use are any uses that do not impact the minimum required vegetation or cause loss of function? I put up on the screen here the language right out of the GMP. And it really is -- the primary issue or the impetus here is to protect the minimum required vegetation or to prevent loss of function on the preserve. If that's the standard that's set out in our own Comprehensive Plan, then I would suggest that we say that in our definition. And as such I've put a proposed definition that would address Page 91 ----~."_.._. . August 28, 2008 some of the concerns that you have about Bert Harris, when we start getting into a litany of human activity or conduct in the Land Development Code. We're not talking about the Code of Ordinances where we say under police powers there are reasons why we don't want these kinds of things happening in certain parts of our county. But in the land development context, I think that if we look at passive recreational, we could say that it would constitute any use having minimal negative impacts on the minimum required vegetation or that does not cause a loss of function in the preserve area or that is consistent with preservation, enhancement, restoration and maintenance goals for the purpose of habitat conservation. I think that's more consistent, if you look at what the GMP Criteria 5 under Policy 6.1.1, subsection five, that really meets the intent of what the GMP would do. And that would be my recommendation to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's better, but I'm still concerned about some of it. And I certainly still would like to see what various possibilities could come out of this and how they would fit. That exercise I think would go a long way to understanding the definition. Your first minimal negative impact, and I keep looking at words like minimal. I know the second minimum, where it says the minimum vegetation, that's a defined element. You can to the LDC and you can see what your required vegetation is. But how do you define minimal negative impact? Is it defined in the LDC anywhere? MR. LEWIS: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get back into the same argument, where you come in with a client who you decide that this negative impact you may have is minimal, but someone in staff most Page 92 ~-~~._~.- .. August 28, 2008 likely will say it's not. And then we get into the fight that we're trying to avoid by having this definition. So you're in a better -- I think this is better than what we have, but it's not as good as I think it needs to be. MR. LEWIS: Yeah, I think what we're really driving here is that I think if you look at the GMP, the thrust here is regulation ofland development construction. It in no way extends to regulation of human conduct within a preserve once the improvements are constructed, once the boardwalk -- the example I gave is a gentleman who wants to go out and fly a remote control motorized airplane over a preserve or someone who would like to go out on their Lark or their machine to be able to enjoy the preserve area. That's conduct within the preserve, and that's not what the GMP -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put your prior page up there first, because I think the second sentence you highlighted actually does what you're now saying it doesn't. The first highlighted sentence does regulate and address various types of construction compatible with the preserve. The second sentence says the land development regulations will also provide criteria to define appropriate passive recreational uses. Now isn't that what you're saying it doesn't say? MR. LEWIS: That's in the context of construction uses in terms of what you can construct and what you can't construct, not what specific activities can occur within a constructed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Doug, I think there's a bone of contention. It says the land development regs will also provide. The word also means it's in addition to what the prior sentence would entertain. MR. LEWIS: Sure, there's some take there. But I think the Page 93 ._.."..."~ August 28, 2008 emphasis is the land development regulation. Normally when you talk about regulating, for example, noise or sound or things, you would look at police powers in an ordinance context, not necessarily in a land use context where you're talking about construction, what types of things can be put into an area, what kinds of things cannot be put in an area. And I think that when you start getting into regulating human conduct, what type of activity is permitted, what type of specific human conduct is not permitted, that goes beyond I think what the GMP contemplated. That's an argument now, maybe a disagreement, but I think that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we have two separate sentences addressing two different issues. But regardless, I think the whole point here is that what we have in this definition doesn't quite get us there. I think what we need is to go through the exercise of the examples that we can garner and put together, and then staff needs to be, when this -- however this is written and whoever wrote it, it would be important to correlate it as closely as you possibly can to the language in the GMP. Then we're safer all the way around. MR. LEWIS: So yeah -- and I think that that -- you know, again, in the context of appropriate uses, the criteria could be, you know, the type of boardwalk or the type of materials or how it's built. Once you define what's an appropriate use, I think there's lots of things you can do in the Land Development Code to deal with how you construct it, what you can and can't construct. But again I think this is -- I just wanted to articulate that this is well beyond development restrictions. This goes into regulating conduct within that preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one of the other examples of passive recreation, you use the example of swimming. Well, someone Page 94 ,.'-.-"..-- August 28, 2008 might make the argument that, well if swimming's an allowable use, the only way you can do that is in a swimming pool, that means we get to build a pool. And I would hate to see that argument come forward. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the last public speaker? Okay, I think you've got enough direction, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had your hand up for something, is that just to acknowledge? MS. FABACHER: Well, what I wanted to say was that the provision in the GMP that Doug cited had to do specifically with preserves, passive uses and preserves. And I think that Barbara and Bill do at some point in the GMP address specifically that. But then you've got Parks and Recs. This is the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, bring back everything as we've described that pertains to this and let us try to chew on it for a while and come back with something that fits. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. Can they bring back those two pages of the GMP that they just put on this visualizer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, yeah, we can have that come back. Any parts of the GMP that relate to this, it would be good to see those as well. This small paragraph will have huge impacts across the county if it's not done right. So I think we need to spend some more time on it and make sure we got it nailed down as tight as we can. Okay, just for the sake of everybody's understanding, at 11 :45 we're going to take an hour break for lunch. So with that in mind, we'll Page 95 .-----".-...- "'. August 28, 2008 proceed on with the rest of it. The next item is on Page l57. It's 3.05.05, criteria for removal of a vegetation with a nest. MS. BURGESON: Good morning. For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Engineering and Environmental Services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, before we go too far, just so I -- we need to know if -- I don't believe this is EAR-based, so you don't have an EAR reference to put on the screen for us, or do you? MS. BURGESON: This was directed by the EAC -- I'm not sure I'm speaking loud enough. This was directed by the EAC and the Planning Commission in the last cycle, and continued to this cycle because we were not able to complete it. So it may not be directly related to any of the EAR-based, but it is direction from two advisory boards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I know. I just want everybody to start out with a definition of that, how it got here. And if it is EAR-based all then we would want to do is see the language on the screen. So thank you. MS. BURGESON: You're welcome. Do you want me to go through this or do you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to -- if you have a presentation to make, we're certainly willing to hear it, then we'll go into questions, or however you want to approach it, it's up to you. MS. BURGESON: Well, I guess maybe the easiest way is just to provide you with the background. And that was -- it started -- it came to our attention with the removal of an eagle's nest that was on a single-family home, and it was determined by the state that the nest was -- the structure was not a nest and so they were given permission to remove the tree. Page 96 ----...- .. ._,.--,_.-,"...- August 28, 2008 Our staff and members of the public, members of the Planning Commission and members of the EAC questioned the authority for that to occur without Collier County becoming involved and providing additional protection or providing protection for that eagle nest tree. So we went through our code, took a look at the language, identified that there really was a couple of small areas where there were loopholes in the system, and we wanted to make sure that we were going to fill those by providing the additional protection. Also, the second part of this is that when the code was recodified several years ago, a definition was simply left out of the code. So we wanted to make sure that that definition was put back in the code. And putting it back in, we modified it slightly to make sure that nest trees such as eagle nest trees could be protected if those trees were dead. Otherwise, dead trees were provided no protection. But we do have some listed species or protected species for eagles utilizing dead trees. So we wanted to make sure that we captured that in this amendment. So the first change on Page 159, to add protected vegetation, is directly from the pre-recodified code or pre-codified code, with one exception, and that's to identify that dead woody plants having nests or cavities of listed animal species or bald eagles would be protected. And the application there would be that you would just be required to go to the vegetation removal section of the code and identify when a permit would be necessary and when a permit could be issued. So if you look on Page 161, we've added criteria to the criteria for removal of protected vegetation, which is 3.05.05. And P is the letter that identifies the protection provided to n or the criteria provided to allow, limit or not permit the removal of vegetation with either listed species or with eagle nests. Page 97 -'~'--"-"'-" ^ __. _.,.....+-0_ August 28, 2008 On Page 162 we are just adding some language to the application to provide for additional information for staff to make the evaluation so that we know if listed species are on-site. And then on Page 163 we are providing for fines under the enforcement and penalties. And these fines are written specifically to bald eagle or listed animal species, with the subject fines being up to 5,000, which was the limitation that we were told through the county attorney's office we could apply. We could not apply a higher fine than that. And that fine would be determined or decided by either the special magistrate or the Code Enforcement Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll start from the beginning and work our way through page by page. And we'll start on Page 157. Anybody have any questions on Page 157? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go to Page 158. Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one on your fiscal. Do we know how much the permit will be? It says it will be required but it doesn't tell us how much it will be. MS. BURGESON: It's just a regular vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know how much the vegetation permit is? MS. BURGESON: Vegetation removal permits are $250. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From now on, staff, if they know a price like that, why don't we just put it in here -- MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we can be done with it. Is there any additional paperwork required on the part of the Page 98 __M.___.,". August 28, 2008 property owner in regards to cost? Would they have a study necessary or they simply have to come in and tell you there's a dead tree on the property? MS. BURGESON: No, we -- on single-family homes we do not require listed species surveys. This would just be if they have a known tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 158. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 159-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa, whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They come in if they have a known tree. What about the underbrush? Not just cavities in a tree, but the groundcover. Are they obligated to know that or -- you limited your statement to a tree, and this is far beyond the tree. So in the case of the single- family. MS. BURGESON: Well, the protection is afforded to trees, shrubs and groundcover that have nests. So for instance, if the tree is an eagle's nest tree, this does not identifY protecting the grass from being mowed if they can get permits from the agencies to do that. That would be something that they need to get technical assistance from the agencIes. This would apply, for instance, if you have shrubs that have scrub jay nests in them, or groundcover, it applies where we have gopher -- small gopher tortoise burrows that are actually completely covered in some cases by small groundcover and we know by surveys that they are there. We want to make sure that the immature or the juvenile gopher tortoise burrows are protected and that those areas are not just mowed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know by surveys that the Page 99 '-'~'-'-'~-'""'- -'~_._-'-- August 28, 2008 tortoise is there. But you also mentioned a jay or woodpecker or any number of other -- are all of these species known? Do we have records on every parcel of land in this county relative to where improvements can be made? MS. BURGESON: They are identified by listed species surveys when they are on projects that come in for review. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, I'm talking only about single-family homes is all I'm limiting to myself at this time. MS. BURGESON: Right. Single-family homes we are at the mercy of the property owner. And usually it's the adjacent property owners that know and notifY us. And for instance, on eagle nests, they are reported and they were mapped on a GIS system with the county. So for every known bald eagle nest that's in the county, and like I said, a number of them are provided to us from single-family property owners, they call in, they either call in to the state or they call into the county. As soon as we have that information, we put that into the GIS system and map it with a protection zone around that. So if a building permit comes in on that property, that's flagged and notified to environmental staff to provide some additional review of that application. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So then the homeowner, the potential homeowner or the builder of that premises has at least a chance of not being caught in a gotcha; is that correct? MS. BURGESON: If they've done their homework and come to the county and asked for information. Or if they've just taken a look at the property, it's pretty easy to identifY those nests. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you had a bald eagle's nest located there and the eagle's abandoned it, isn't there a five-year Page 100 .._-_._-~... -'-.-.. .-.... .....-,....-.- August 28, 2008 window that that nest is to be protected? MS. BURGESON: There is a five-year window that protects the nest and then there's also -- there's also protection for two years for nests that are partially destroyed. So there's a couple of different levels of protection afforded to that eagle nest. The protection zones have been reduced as a result of the bald eagle management plan that the state approved on April 11th of2008. So there's been some modifications to that since the eagle was de-listed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I admire the fact that we want to protect animals. I certainly agree with that. But I think we also have to have a balance and protect the people who might unknowingly, unwittingly go in and do something and then be nailed for $5,000. I hope that we have the -- MS. BURGESON: Right, which is why there's criteria on Page 161 that says that a vegetation removal permit can be issued if the principal structure cannot be constructed or if all access to the property is impeded. And that falls under the vegetation is located on a single-family lot and is located in such a manner that either the principal structure cannot be constructed. And then there's also safety issues in here, too. The protected vegetation poses an imminent threat to human safety or an adjacent principal or accessory structure. So if they're concerned that there's imminent safety issues on that single- family lot, then they can request a permit to -- it can be issued under that criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, we'll continue to listen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, you had said you keep track of some of these, this information, so if you have someone report a gopher Page 10 1 ....~._....... _%.-..-..-.,,,-..." August 28, 2008 tortoise burrow, say on a property that they've seen it on, you're able to keep track of that in your records at the county and you note that the property that they said they saw it on is flagged so that it's protected? MS. BURGESON: It's flagged for informational purposes. Gopher tortoise -- for instance, when the wetland surveys are done out in Golden Gate Estates and our staff notices or recognizes listed or protected species on the property, they will come back in, they'll notifY the property owner because that is being -- that's usually identified through an application process. And then there's a red flag or notification placed on the property as well. So n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me try to rephrase it. So staff goes out -- because you had previously said a neighboring property owner. I'm not sure what you mean now. Is it staff or a neighboring property owner? MS. BURGESON: Well, staff goes out when the property owner asks or requests a permit for Golden Gate Estates wetland permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a neighboring property owner wouldn't request a permit on their neighbor's property. They would be requesting it on their property. So you meant the property owner, not the neighboring property owner? MS. BURGESON: In both cases. You could have a property owner who just happens to know that there is an eagle's nest or listed species on-site and they will contact us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about a gopher tortoise burrow. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neighboring property owner calls your department and says there's a gopher tortoise burrow next door on land next door to me. And you send staff out to investigate that gopher tortoise burrow? Page 102 --.-..... August 28, 2008 MS. BURGESON: Not at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you do? MS. BURGESON: We would make notation in the CD-Plus or the computer system that it had been reported, but we would make notation that it had not been verified at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean that you made notation in the file? MS. BURGESON: That means that when the property owner comes in, they are just made aware that that note is in the file. It doesn't stop the building permit from being issued. Gopher tortoise permitting on single-family homes doesn't go through our county staff review at this time. And so it would just be up to the homeowner to contact the state and make sure that they've got all the necessary permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would the homeowner have to contact the state if the -- you've got a neighbor who sees a hole in the property next door. He doesn't want to see development happen there very readily. So he calls your department -- because if this works, I'll call on all my neighbors' lots and say Barbara, I saw a bird fly on this lot next door. You'll note in the file that there's a problem or there might be a problem, and that elevates that homeowner's ability then to get a permit because they're now advised they have to go to another agency to seek a process -- MS. BURGESON: No, it doesn't n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do we even put such notations in the file? They're not done by professionals is what I'm getting at. MS. BURGESON: It does not hinder the review process of the building permit, nor the issuance of the building permit. Page 103 ,_...._~-"_.."'---_. ...-., ..--.....-.... ._~ -'-- . .. ~,,~..'-----~'-' ' August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why put it in the file? MS. BURGESON: It's to the benefit ofthe property owner. If the property owner has some notation that there may be listed species on the site, if we suspect that there are listed species on the site, then it would be to the benefit of that property owner to at least take a look at that and contact the state. It's very simple to speak to the local office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, there isn't a piece of property in this county that someone wouldn't say there might be something on the site. To flag lots because unprofessionals call in and just drop a dime on their neighbor or on some empty lot I don't think is appropriate for this county . I didn't know your department was doing that. I'm shocked that it IS. MS. BURGESON: I can't tell you of more than maybe two times that that's happened in the 20 years I've been with the county, so it does not happen very often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's n I don't know how we would have -- I don't know why it would even be considered from unprofessionals. I mean, if you had a survey that says there's property -_ either it's there and it was verified, that's one way to approach it. But unsolicited non-professionals, I'm not sure that's a good practice to be in for a property owner next door. We're on Page 158. Move to Page 159. Any questions on Page 159? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a suggestion for your vegetation protected definition. It says, any living woody plant, tree, shrub or groundcover and any dead woody plant, tree, shrub or groundcover that has a nest. Page 104 August 28, 2008 I would suggest dropping out or cavity and leave in of a. Drop out listed species, see Section 3.04 or, and include bald eagle. And then continue with it. The whole purpose of this exercise is to address the bald eagle nest, not any dreamt up listed species that we haven't had historic problems with. Nor does a property owner or non-professional readily know that they have a problem. Because as you have already said, those aren't generally surveyed; they aren't listed like a bald eagle's nest IS. SO if this wanted to get back to the bald eagle's nest, I would be in favor of it. But I'm not in favor of the broadness of this and the way it's written now. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with the Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that's what we had asked for when we sent it back the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We did. COMMISSIONER CARON: We said that the issue was the bald eagle nest, not animals that people can't find. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And this whole process, and it's redundant on the following pages, too, it goes beyond the bald eagle. And I honestly don't think that's what we're trying to do, and that was what spurred this whole issue. On Page 159, I've suggested some changes. You focus back on the bald eagle nest issue. Does anybody have any concerns on this panel? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it should come back and focus in on the issue that we had asked about. Page 105 -~----_...- -_.~--_._.---,- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do too. MS. BURGESON: The EAC also had concerns on listed species. If you want, we could add just the specific list of animals, and that would include eagle, red-cockaded woodpeckers, Big Cypress fox squirrels, scrub jay, Caracara, and wood stork-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, you might as well stop. Lookit, this whole thing started because a neighborhood person in a residential home cut down an eagle's nest. I was outraged at it, as I think a lot of people are. To develop it into something more is going to get that to fail. And I don't think we want to see that fail. And I'm steadfastly against what you're suggesting here today. So that's -- you can go on with reading your nest (sic) but I don't thing it's n MR. SCHMITT: I need to clarifY. This is not staff -- we're bringing to you the changes that were made by the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I don't care. MR. SCHMITT: But I want to make sure your frustration is targeted at the right direction -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Duly directed. Duly directed, yes. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 159? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Page 160 and 161. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're at bringing it back, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine, I have no problem with it. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have something new on 161. Page 106 "~'-~--'--'-"--'-'-"^-'-"'---'-'---< August 28, 2008 Since we're discussing now we're actually bringing in dead vegetation for the first time. Should -- up in P where it says removal of the living or dead, my thought is add the word standing. Because if the tree falls over, is it still part of this category? In other words, eagles do tend to live in dead trees. So the wind can knock the tree over. So my thought is add the word standing vegetation or something else. Because if the tree falls over, you certainly don't mind them removing it, do you, unless an endangered frog moves in or something? Right, Barbara? I mean, do you see my point? MS. BURGESON: I understand your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, before this comes back to us, could your department review it for practicality? In particular, I was going to get into issues on P talking about all access to property is impeded. I understand what we're here to do, and I want to see that what happened doesn't happen again, but I also don't want the ambiguity of some of the language that's here. MR. KLATZKOW: The language is not ambiguous, it just encompasses more than I think you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you understand where we're gomg. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think all you want is any living or dead tree that has an eagle's nest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what you said last time and that's what we all concurred, too. MR. KLATZKOW: So you can get rid of pretty much most ofthe rest of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, I believe we've Page 107 ",__", .......,......... _'H.~.___._.__ August 28, 2008 given direction and we'll move on to the next item here today. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, before you do that, on the penalty phase, which is Page 163, the LDC is so hard to change. I'd recommend that the fine be up to $5,000 or the maximum permitted by law, whichever is greater. So we don't have to come back every time the state changes it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I agree with you. Y '? es, SIr. MR. SCHMITT: I want to point out, he said $5,000 or whichever is greater -- MR. KLATZKOW: Up to. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. It says the fine up to $5,000. MR. KLATZKOW: Or whichever is n or the maximum permitted by law, whichever is greater. This way when the legislature changes it one way or the other, we don't have to come back to you. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, because the fine is imposed by the adjudicating authority -- MR. KLATZKOW: Code Enforcement-- MR. SCHMITT: n either the Code Enforcement Board or the special magistrate. MR. KLA TZKOW: That's right, but they're capped by the state statutes. MS. BURGESON: Okay. So that language would be up to 5,000 or the maximum afforded? MR. KLA TZKOW: Or the maximum permitted by law, whichever is greater. MS. BURGESON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Tim, I'll get to you. I forgot to ask about public speakers. Page 108 .-"--".,-_._....._._-~...._-~-,._~--_.~._. . August 28, 2008 Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Barbara, this is just going to be about eagle's nests, is that where you're thing to? MS. BURGESON: Yes, that's what your direction has been. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, I just don't want to go down this whole path again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just said that. MS. BURGESON: We will-- staff will discuss this. And since the EAC was also one of the two boards that directed this amendment, I can't say for certain -- MR. SCHMITT: We just need to point n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you're dealing with the Planning Commission. We're asking for a rewrite. You can bring it back like we asked. If -- the Board of County Commissioners will get all the data. If they want to go back and open it up to more, they're more than welcome to. But they're going to get our recommendation. MR. SCHMITT: Exactly right. You have to make the final recommendation. The EAC is an advisory committee. I just need to point out to the board what the EAC recommended that may not be inclusive in your recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly. Ms. Caron? MR. SCHMITT: You are the recommending authority. They are an advisory authority. COMMISSIONER CARON: And any member of the EAC could be sitting right here and get up to speak and tell us their concerns about why we should not eliminate it, why we should not limit it to what we wanted in the first place. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Normally in the summary sheet I Page 109 -"'__~_'_'"_~"'__'_'_"_'__""_"__" '_'_"'_"_~r" August 28, 2008 will point out and make sure that the board is aware of the other advisory committees so that they're aware of what they recommended. But you are the authority that deems it to be consistent with the GMP and forwards it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did this go before DSAC? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And? MR. SCHMITT: You're looking at what they recommended. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Although there was quite a bit of discussion and they certainly were aware or expected that this panel would take the action it just took. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public speakers. Mr. Hancock? Sorry I didn't ask you the first time around, I'm sometimes forgetting. Oh, and there's others. Good, we'll get everybody in turn. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission. For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, not representing any particular parcel or client. Understanding the direction you have given staff, I would ask you to give due consideration to a requested addition on Page 162. In the middle of the page under number four, for vegetation removal permit exceptions it states, the following exceptions shall apply when there are no listed animal species or bald eagle utilizing the vegetation. That is sufficiently vague to allow for a single bird who may have temporarily roosted in a tree because there's roadkill 30 feet below him to encompass the entire parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular -- this was also -- I mean, Page 110 _~__.~_._~'~"",._ _'u~~___m__. _.", August 28, 2008 this would have to be changed in order to coincide with what we had just directed staff, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Correct. Just because that was a specific topic of discussion. And the second thing I want to add is that when we talk about technical assistance from agencies such as Fish & Wildlife, those memos of technical assistance can take 12 or more months to get from those agencies. So it's not as simple as filling out a form and getting a response. And I just ask that we keep that in mind as a process-related issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, appreciate it. Next speaker. And I don't know your name, so I'd otherwise would say Tim, come on up and speak, but -- MR. STERK: For the record, Jeremy Sterk, Davidson Engineering. I'm Director of Environmental Services. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You have to speak up, I couldn't hear you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you'll need to say your name a little clearer too. MR. STERK: Jeremy Sterk, Davidson Engineering. I think you guys addressed most of the things in this that I was getting heartburn over. Just a quick point of clarification on the fiscal operational impacts. A vegetation removal permit is $250 plus $50 an acre incremental. Just to point that out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: But there would be no acreage criteria involved in this. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right. Page 111 _.__..__,...._..~__M.__._'___,_~~.'"~._._...._ August 28, 2008 MR. STERK: In my experience, I've had to calculate acreage, you know, if you're talking -- I mean, with a tree obviously you may not be talking acreage -- MR. SCHMITT: Single tree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the cost is, staff will bring it back to us in detail on the fiscal part of this. Thank you. MR. STERK: Thank you. On Page 159, the vegetation protected definition. I mean, the way I read this, and tell me if I'm wrong, any living woody plant, basically tree, shrub or groundcover. Under that definition you're talking Melaleuca, Java plum, any of the exotics. There really isn't the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where we would change it is if it had a nest of a bald eagle. So you really -- even if it says that, it's only going to apply if the bald eagle's got his nest in that Java plum, which isn't going to likely happen. MR. STERK: I guess maybe I'm misreading the and dead woody plant tree that has a nest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, anything that's got a bald eagle's nest. I don't care if it's a telephone pole. That's what we're getting at. MR. STERK: And I definitely agree with your wanting to focus this on the bald eagle's nest. A lot of this, probably 95 percent of this amendment is redundant. It's covered by -- any living tree is going to be covered by the FWC or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. So this is really just adding another layer. And in concerns with dead vegetation, I have concerns about how biology based this is. I mean, when you're talking a cavity tree, that's an RCW. When that tree dies, that RCW is going to quit using that tree. Nature's going to take its course on that. Page 112 -~--'- August 28, 2008 And also with bald eagles' nests even, you know, the nests do carry over into a dead tree. But essentially the time frame for that tree and that nest is numbered. I mean, the first big blow that comes is going to take that tree down. And in a sense you're putting that nest in jeopardy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're digging a hole for yourself. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're digging yourself a hole in that respect. Please don't go there, because I can point out trees in this county that have been dead for years with nests in them utilized by eagles, and they've been through all kinds of hurricanes, including Wilma, and they're still standing. And every biologist I've ever had stand up before me has said the tree's going to go down, blow on it too heavy and this tree's -- a nest is going to go down. Wrong. So just don't dig that hole. MR. STERK: And obviously that's not the preferred situation. I mean, I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Jeremy, what the crux of this meeting is, we've directed staff to bring this back strictly dealing with the bald eagle. If that meets the criteria you're trying to layout, I think we're already there. That direction's been provided. So thank you. And would you please monitor the language and if there's still some problems with the new language that comes out, we'd like to hear your input. MR. STERK: Certainly will. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tim Hall? MR. HALL: Ijust -- sorry. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell, Hall and Associates. Again, I'm not here representing anybody. But I had some of the Page 113 .._._-^~ - --~ ""- --'"'-~_." August 28, 2008 same concerns that were brought up by the board and by Jeremy. If I could make a suggestion under that protected vegetation. The way I read it was kind of the same as Jeremy, that it's basically saying any living woody plant is protected, as well as any dead plant that might have a tree (sic) in it. So if I could suggest that you could just say any woody plant, living or dead, that has a nest in it, I think that clears the language up some. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think iftwo people now involved in the business have difficulty with it, we need to clarifY that language. MR. HALL: So that n and then the other one under P on Page 161, there's a requirement in there that says, permits shall be provided from Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Fish & Wildlife Service. Both of those agencies don't always issue permits for these activities. So there should be some kind of allowance for that. Only if they're required from those agencies do they need to be provided. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was going to bring that up. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, they are required, so they haven't been doing their job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to the extent permits are required, they shall be provided -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely -- MR. HALL: Yeah, they would be provided. But if they're not required, then the way that reads you have to force them to give you a permit for something that may not be required. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Page 114 -~._..,--~- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. HALL: That was it with relation to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you monitor the new language. Thank you, Tim. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And if the Planning Commission feels more comfortable really focusing this back to where it began, with the bald eagle's nest in the dead trees, I certainly would support going in that direction. It does seem to have inserted a lot of additional and unnecessary confusion by expanding that out. Though we do still have to remember that protected species must be protected. But getting back to what this really does, this fills in that gap where you have dead trees that do not require vegetation removal permits per se. And if you have a bald eagle's nest, Collier County may not know if some of the state and federal agencies send something which we consider inappropriate such as an e-mail that state it's a skinny tree, go ahead and take it down. That happened in the instance that started this and Collier County didn't know about it. So this is making sure that the county has some level of oversight. It's making sure that if proper permits have not been issued Collier County has the ability to make those agencies issue the appropriate permits. So we consider this very, very important for oversight and will certainly be looking forward to the next draft, and we do hope that you move it forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, is it the consensus of this board then this will be rewritten Page 1 ] 5 ._--_._.".__._._,,_._._.,,_._._---_.~,,_.._. August 28, 2008 and brought back to us? Does anybody have any problems with that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's five minutes before we would take our break for lunch, and rather than start on a new section that we're only going to have to interrupt with lunch, why don't we take our lunch now and come back here at 20 minutes to 1 :00, 12:40, 20 minutes to 1 :00, and we'll resume this meeting. Thank you. (Lunch recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from lunch, everyone. And if you think paint drying is a slow process, wait till you see what the rest of the afternoon's got in store. **Okay, the next item up is on Page 173. It's Section 3.05.07, Lake Trafford Wetland. And Steve, I guess this is one of your many. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Steven Lenberger, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. Let me just back up here a minute and tell you where we came. We originally -- I was originally tasked this assignment last year. And I got together with a sub-committee from the Environmental Advisory Council, along with all the stakeholders, and we originally threw out ideas about all the Compo Plan amendments and started crafting language. Then we went through all the different groups. And the -- I guess the gist of all this was to try to establish criteria which we could create some flexibility in some of the environmental regulations, as well as fulfill some of the other GMP requirements. Obviously with all the stakeholders, there's a lot of differences in opinions, and ultimately staff had to sit down, and ultimately it's management's decision on how we proceed. Page 116 --~..","....>._-" ,... '.u_~"_...'_"~",__,, August 28, 2008 But in any case, I'm ready to go through the amendments. The first one being the Lake Trafford wetlands. I put the Compo Plan requirement on the screen. The Compo Plan requirement is conservation and coastal management element Policy 6.2.4(4). And basically it's dealing with the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, the wetlands within that that fall within the Immokalee urban designated area. And basically what the policy says, and I'll just read the first line here. Within the Immokalee urban designated area there may exist high quality wetland systems connected to the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system. These wetland requirements -- these wetlands require greater protection measures than wetlands located in other portions of the urban designated area. And therefore, the wetland protection standards set forth in Policy 6.2.5 shall apply to this area. So that's why I have the policy below that. It's a long policy, so Policy 6.2.5 is only part of it on the screen and you were given the complete policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess, Steve, the best way to approach it is let's just start asking questions from the beginning page, which is Page 173. Anybody have any questions on Page 173? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, this is something that I'm probably going to bring up each time, the fiscal and operational impacts. It just says increase mitigational costs. That doesn't tell us a lot. As far as review time goes, preparation of studies goes, preparation of any mitigation land, can at some point we be provided -- if you know what mitigation acreage costs, a range, could that be put in here so we know Page 117 ^-~-_. .-.....^. -'-.""'.-....-------..- August 28, 2008 what we're talking about imposing on people? MR. LENBERGER: We might be able to provide some language regarding mitigation costs in regards to wetland permitting at the state and federal government. But the Policy 6.2.5 talks about other wetland requirements -- mitigation requirements specific to the fringe that the county has. And how I would quantify that, I'm not sure how to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only reason it's important to know, if we're putting a heavier burden on property owners than before and by how much, that n Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we're going to increase mitigation costs, we have no idea how much and what formula to get there? MR. LENBERGER: It would depend on what the habitat is. And there's a lot of systems, how they rate properties on the UMAM and WRAP scores, and then providing mitigation on-site. And there's all kinds of things to look at, quality of habitat being one ofthe major. So it's very difficult to estimate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We're not asking anything here different from what we're already doing in the rural fringe, so if we're not worried about it in the rural fringe, why should we be worried about it here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I've been finding out through meetings with a lot of people in the community that there's been interpretations in different parts of the code that have meant something different after we've approved it that I didn't know at the time we approved it, and maybe the rest of us didn't. Page 118 -_..,.,.,-, ---"--~_."'''--''--'' ~"'--~._.....~--, August 28, 2008 So we made a mistake once. I'm not going to make it again. At least personally I don't want to. I see no reason why if we failed to define a fiscal impact previously, why we wouldn't want to clarifY that now if we can. And I'm not trying to be different, I'm just trying to be more complete in our analysis. And all I'm asking for is if you know that you have different ranges of mitigation acreage, from Big Panther Island or other places, one acre cost 8,000 or 6,000 or 1,000, but it's dependent on the quality of the wetland, at least tell us what an average acre of mitigation land may cost. And then we know that, okay, if this is going to impact somebody by 10 acres, the minimum they're going to have is 10 times that number. And they could have more if the acreage that's impacting is very valuable on environmental lands. That's all I'm trying to get at, is get a handle on where the costs are. MR. LENBERGER: And we can research that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Page 174? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 175 is where the changes start. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve -- oh, Ms. Caron, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question. There's a whole paragraph D at the bottom of the page that is struck. Would you tell me how it differs from the top of the next page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same thing I found too. MR. LENBERGER: That's no difference, it's just the formatting, to have the D line up with the other letters above it. That's all it is. And to line up with the letters below it. Page 119 .~___~O"_ -"._~-._'_._-- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Just for reference, and I think Commissioner Strain referenced this a little while ago as well, if you underline it or strike it, then it's up for debate, as opposed to using code that already exists. And if all you wanted to change was the D in the -- whether it's a small D or a big D or whatever, then I'd be very careful. It may not affect anything in this one, but it certainly could affect things in others. MR. LENBERGER: I would have to speak to Catherine about actually how to go about that process, other than what I've done here. COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't even see that it changed the -- MR. LENBERGER: I don't believe there were any changes at all, other than reformatting. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the D either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It supposedly moved it in under C. COMMISSIONER CARON: In -- yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 176 and 177. Any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER CARON: The same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 178? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under B, where it says Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional wetlands, is that a penalty intent, or what's its purpose there? MR. LENBERGER: That was language existing from when we had the Compo Plan change due to the final order. And that was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mean it's not new language? Because it's underlined. Page 120 --'_..--,~-_._..- -_._---,_._~.. August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: That's right, it's from the previous strike-through above it. And often mitigation from the agencies will allow things such as exotic removal to count as mitigation, where in Collier County it's a requirement so it doesn't count towards mitigation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could it be construed as a penalty somehow, you know, we're going to make you do more than? Or is it used in the context of a greater benefit? Presumably it's in that context. MR. LENBERGER: I believe it was for greater protection of the wetlands. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Certainly the way it's phrased, though, almost seems punitive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, if you recall, this is one I had spoke to you about. Starting with the word exceeding. We would drop the end of that sentence, and after the word mitigation just put consistent with this section. Doesn't that clarifY the -- MR. LENBERGER: You'll have to -- which letter now? I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same one Mr. Murray's been talking about, same sentence. MS. F ABACHER: B. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, what are you saying now? . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three -- or G(I)(b), the last sentence, the last full line, starting with the word exceeding. It says exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies. This is the same one Mr. Murray was just talking about. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe strike the words exceeding that of jurisdictional agencies and replace it with, consistent with this section, then we've really not gone to a punitive or any other framework, we've Page 121 '_.O""'_n""'__,'_____,_,_.._.__.._, August 28, 2008 simply gone to what the LDC says, which I think Mr. Murray was trying to get at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- anybody have a concern with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's correct what you've cited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 178. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on G(I)(a), kind of explain what you intend there. What you're saying is that if somehow you lose storage within the wetland, you have to provide a volume that doesn't exist today to compensate for that? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, you have to compensate for the loss of storage, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially you would have to dig a hole somewhere of that volume. Or you could create a structure to hold that water? MR. LENBERGER: It doesn't say, so I guess either one would be an option. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you give an example? MR. LENBERGER: I would say -- well, I didn't write this, but I would say it would be floodplain compensation. If you're filling in part of a floodplain, you're going to displace water, so you have to make up that volume difference, otherwise you're going to pass that additional elevation on to your neighbors. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to compensate on-site for any volume that you take up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But one of the sad solutions is Page 122 "._n~~ August 28, 2008 somebody could just dig a hole that doesn't exist just to add volume, negative volume. MR. LENBERGER: Generally the products that I have seen dealing with this issue, floodplain compensation, we've had a few products in the county, they usually dig in a marsh system. That's how they handle it. And they make it part of their stormwater retention area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I have a more general question. This is based on the protections that are in the rural fringe. Is everything here in the rural fringe, or does this go beyond what the rural fringe rules are stating? MR. LENBERGER: This mitigation I believe is under the rural fringe category under three on Page 175. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because the EAR, it just stated that the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais system would be protected the same way as the rural fringe. Now, do these regulations go beyond what the rural fringe does, or are they equal to or -- why are they -- MR. LENBERGER: They're equal to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They're just equal to, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that was my whole point. You don't need to have any of this language, it was already there. They underlined -- they crossed out and they underlined, and now it's open for interpretation on something that is the exact same language that's already there. MR. LENBERGER: It's a reformatting. I'll have to handle it with Catherine how to do that in the future. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So it's really not a substantive Page 123 --'"~'-"''''~''-'''"--'^'-- August 28, 2008 change. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Other than on Page 175 where you've added in Lake Trafford and Camp Keais Strand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then it becomes all-- MR. LENBERGER: 175. Yes, that was the requirement of the GMP. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ofthe GMP. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's the only thing that's substantive here. And the rest of it should never have been crossed out. MR. LENBERGER: There is one other little addition. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did I miss something maybe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll move through our pages. What page -- yeah, there is an addition to Item C on Page 179, the last portion of the second half of that paragraph was added. COMMISSIONER CARON: On C? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 179. Here, I'll show you, starting with the word and. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was added. It wasn't in the original strike-through. MR. LENBERGER: Right, and that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically makes it consistent with the first two paragraphs. MR. LENBERGER: Right. And we stated that in the change reason section in the beginning of the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Page 179 now that we're there? Page 124 -.---..,..........-....---.--..-...-.--"...&...-. August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would just -- it starts on 178 at the bottom there, mitigation incentives. And I think I understand the reasons why in general. I would also make a recommendation to use semicolons rather than a simple comma, but that's a small point. The bigger point is you get to a point where you have a 50 percent reduction in required littoral zones subject based on any of the following. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that advantageous in any way to make such a market reduction? Is that the conception there that a littoral zone will spread over time or something? What -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, I imagine it could. That's a pretty onerous requirement, 30 percent littoral requirement in the rural fringe. That's quite high. And the Compo Plan allows for some flexibility there, so we created these incentives. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what you're saying is that perhaps the original numbers were really higher than they should have been, so this is by compensation? MR. LENBERGER: Well, I don't know if they're higher than they should have been. The idea was to afford greater protection for water quality and things of that nature in the fringe. But these things here that you're doing would also benefit the environment too in the rural fringe to offset that littoral requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate. I would think that we would want to start today as it were for everything that we can preserve and effectively keep in good shape. And that would be n I just Page 125 -,-~_.._.,. -.------,,-'"--. , August 28,2008 don't know if we want to allow reductions of any sort. But I understand the need for incentive. Okay, thank you. MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 179. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, up on top it says, fifth line, requirements may be granted for projects that do any of the following. As far as may be granted, who does the granting? MR. LENBERGER: That would be administrative. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my question, too, and I missed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So ifthey -- administratively you can grant those but the word may is in there. So that means if someone does do A, Band C, you still don't have to grant it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't read that. MR. LENBERGER: Well, we would grant it if they did those mitigation. So you're saying take out the word may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says do any of the following. So if someone comes in and does A or does B or does C, the way that language is written, and since it's administrative, you guys could say fine, you've done that but we're not going to grant it. MR. LENBERGER: You want me to put shall? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, that's where I'm going. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, on Page 180, any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just one small point. The word I think re-creation is a hyphenated word up on the top. I'm sorry, Page 126 .,.._,,_..,~..,- "....._-~. August 28, 2008 179(A), just up at the first sentence of that, stepping back. It may not be. MS. F ABACHER: I believe you're correct, Commissioner. Otherwise it's recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it passive then or is it active? MS. F ABACHER: Oh, God, don't ask me. Sorry. I got it, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: You got it? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other -- through the end of this, Page 180, are there any other comments, questions? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe, has this been through DSAC yet? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, these all have been through DSAC. Everything you're looking at has the changes that have been incorporated through DSAC. Changes or we will point out -- and which one are you looking at? Are you looking at -- Catherine just handed out a new sheet that -- yeah, that's the one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It says DSAC not heard. MR. SCHMITT: DSAC has heard this one. That sheet is incorrect. I sat through the meeting when they heard this one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what was DSAC's recommendation? MR. SCHMITT: You made the changes, Steve. Were they approved as written? MR. LENBERGER: We've had so many changes. I don't remember them all. Catherine, could you help me here? MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, yeah, they were just -- we didn't get it in there. It was the August 21 st meeting. So, I mean, I can provide Page 127 -~~--'-'"" .-.......- -~.~".- August 28, 2008 those minutes for you. I just didn't get a chance to update the sheet and I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've got minor suggestions. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think this whole thing's going to come back anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? We've only got two changes. We're going to suggest that on Page 178, the last sentence of that, B, from exceeding that of jurisdictional agencies be changed to consistent with this section. And on 179 the word may gets changed to shall. Other than that, it wouldn't need to come back. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My only concern is increased mitigation costs, they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that they can include these next time. And as far as this one goes, I just wanted to make the point it wasn't included. I don't really want us to clutter our day up just for that. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Also, I think if something is destroyed, it should be mitigated. I mean, it's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the point, but yeah -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. But, I mean, you want to get a fair price for it, but you're sort of bringing into question whether it should be mitigated if it's too expensive or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the question that this board's supposed to review is part of analysis is supposed to be fiscal and operational impacts. Without a number, we can't provide -- we can't really say we've done that analysis, and so I was looking for a blank to fill in. I don't have any problem protecting wetlands in this case. And the Page 128 . ~-_.,-~~_..><----~._--_. .-...- --~-'..~~--'.-._. August 28, 2008 way the language is, it's basically language we've already utilized, so there's no harm done. I just want to make sure we cross the T's and dot the I's. But I didn't see -- I wasn't going to suggest this come back for that purpose. If it had been others -- Mr. Vigliotti, this one is so simple, I thought we'd finish with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Is there a motion to recommend approval of 3.05.07, subject to the two changes that we suggested? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: n Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 7 to --6-1. MR. KLATZKOW: And the reason for the opposition, so the Page 129 ~'__.._~_m..._.___._._~__"__.__..___"",_ _ August 28, 2008 board may know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the reason? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Excuse me. They can't come up with the increased mitigation fees, the cost. Is that all right? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 181 is our next one, and it's -- oh, I'm sorry. Doug or anybody, did you guys have any questions on that one? I will do better to remember. MR. LAYMAN: I have a comment, but it's not going to affect -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on up and use the microphone. I apologize. We'll certainly reconsider if we have to. MR. LAYMAN: My name is Bruce Layman, I'm a Senior Ecologist with WilsonMiller. I'm not here representing any specific interest. I do have a comment, kind of possibly clarifYing what Steve was saying and the questions that were being asked about why underline and strike-through and everything else simply to move a paragraph over to get it into alignment. If you look at the way the old text followed from Page 172, 173 and on, you'll start on 172(F), sub-one, sub-two, A, B, C. You turn the page. The next D that's in line is the drawdowns or diversion of groundwater. Now, granted, you shouldn't have looked over the sub-three, because that would be the next larger number ahead of it, but yet you follow this down even to the next two pages later to 175 where the mitigation discussion has been struck through is out on its own bullet as sub- four. Page 130 "'---._- -...,..-.-.'...,'.---- August 28, 2008 Because it's as its own bullet of sub-four, that would indicate that that's for all through the urban area. It's not specifically for the rural fringe area, because the rural fringe area has its own sub-three. So I think what happened was when this was realized and the mitigation was designed to be applied to the rural fringe, it was determined that shoot, we've got to realign these things and renumber them so that it's associated with the proper next higher bullet item. So anyway, I don't think it's -- you know, granted, it opens it up for discussion again, but I think it was necessary to alleviate the confusion as it was being applied to the various areas in the county. So anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, again, I was not talking about formatting. I understand that it needed to be reformatted, and I think that could have been stated. And what needed to be reformatted could have been stated in a paragraph as opposed to underlining things that then get opened up for changes or comments. Now, that can also be a good thing, sometimes it can be a bad thing, so at any rate. THE COURT REPORTER: May I have the spelling of your name, please? MR. LAYMAN: L-A-Y-M-A-N. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I will do better to ask before we close the discussion. Sometimes I forget. On Page 181 is our next issue. It's 3.05.07(H)(1)(b), dimensional criteria. And Steve, it's another one of yours. And did you want to discuss it or just want us to ask questions of you? MR. LENBERGER: Well, I guess I could just talk a little bit first before you go page by page. Page 131 "--,- -. -----._---_._----~ August 28, 2008 I guess the reason for this amendment, and it the reason for the amendment, is to try to have a preserve that's the largest contiguous area possible for the benefit of the habitat and the listed species utilizing that preserve. When you deal with natural reservations, preserves, whatever you want to call them, you always have to deal with the effects that the edge has from other uses and how they affect the edge of the preserve. They can affect it through exotic infestation, they can have, through drying effects of that -- edge effect for the different type of use next to it. And so staff looked at this and they're n we looked to some other counties, typically St. Lucie County and how they handled this. They basically used an area to perimeter ratio to try to minimize some of this edge. I do have an exhibit here. Let me just put this up here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be good. MR. LENBERGER: And basically what you have here is -- this is through the help of our department director, Bill Lorenz. We basically looked at edge. And to minimize edge, I guess it would be a circle. That would have the minimum amount of edge. Once you start creating squares, rectangles, the amount of edge increases. So what we did is we calculated the shape factor ratio, and basically we created a formula. Excuse me, I don't have my glasses on so it's hard to see distance. And that formula there is basically compared to a circle which has a surface factor ratio of one, and everything else would be less. And you can calculate it out through geometry by getting the feet distance of the perimeter and the acres, the acreage of the site, and you can calculate that surface factor ratio. To give you an idea of what that looks like in the real world, this exhibit was also produced. This particular product I think is Glen Eagle, Page 132 .-----.....--.----...,.-.-.--- August 28, 2008 I'm not positive. But you can see the different shaped preserves and how they would equate as far as a surface factor ratio. I need my other exhibit. I want to go back. If you look at this here you can see the different surface factor ratios. One for a circle, square .88. This rectangle's .83. And what that would equate to as far as the length to width ratio, two-to-one, four-to-one, eight-to-one, 10-to-one. And what we put in the amendment on Page 182 is that the preserve boundaries shall have a length to width ratio of no greater than three-to-one. Now, there are some concerns -- there were some concerns when we went through the stakeholders, what happens when a preserve gets really big, and also when you have it really small. So we added criteria on Page 183, that being Roman numeral IV and Roman numeral V, as far stating that if the existing native vegetation does not meet the minimum dimension specified above and is required to be preserved pursuant to the preserve selection criteria in Section 3.05.07, then the existing native vegetation may be used to satisfY the preservation requirement. The structure language below that should not be there, so please, I apologize for that, I have to remove that. As far as the larger preserves, we created basically a 200-foot max. It says, the length to width ratio requirement specified above shall not apply to preserves 200 feet or greater in width. 200 feet is basically the minimum requirement for wildlife corridors that we have received from technical assistance through the wildlife agencies. I believe it's also the minimum width for the green belts around rural fringe villages. So once you get 200 feet, this criteria three-to-one does not apply. And that's pretty much my presentation. I'd be glad to answer any Page 133 ._--~-^',. .". __..___n'..'____..._.__. H~~_~~...._._.,_ August 28, 2008 questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with Page 181. And my concern on 181 is the same as it was on the last one regarding fiscal impacts. This will take a larger mass area within a project. Not that that's bad, I'm just suggesting that there is a cost associated with that and there's no cost associated with the fiscal impact given to us in this document. MR. LENBERGER: This would be hard to quantifY, obviously, depending on the product zoning and whatnot. We did write maximize development of the site, but it obviously affects site planning. So there's a lot of things it does affect. But quantifYing it would probably be very difficult. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the connotation of that which you've just referenced, to maximize the development, is pretty disingenuous to this board to say something like that, because you don't know that's the reasoning that every developer wants to utilize property for. They could be doing it for compatibility reasons, layout reasons, adjacent -- access reasons, flowways, other things. So I really think that's more of a political statement than needs to be in this kind of a context. But if we don't have any fiscal information -- I understand your dilemma. I don't know the solution to it, but I wanted to point it out. Page 182 -- MS. BURGESON: I might also add to that answer. Barbara Burgeson, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. Even though we do not have the three-to-one language in the code right now, it is roughly what staff has been applying. So it really would not be much of a difference in terms of how we are asking the applicant Page 134 .......-- ..-. ._~~-_. -- August 28, 2008 to minimize the edge effect by creating a preserve that's as close to -- it really is very close to using that language by what is already in the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How have you been applying it -- MS. BURGESON: Through the Growth Management Plan language that identifies minimizing the edge effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the ratio come out ofthe Growth Management Plan language? Is that in there too? You took the language off, so I can't see it. MS. BURGESON: The ratio language is not part of that. But in minimize -- and we don't use the ratio language when someone comes in right now, but roughly that shape is what staff has been recommending because it does minimize the edge effect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't staff want to be looking at what the minimum widths shall apply are under the dimension criteria ofH(1)(b)? MS. BURGESON: No, the minimum widths are less of a criteria than the large preserves. The minimum widths is just to be assured that, for instance, on the edge of a preserve that it not come to a point or that on small preserves that there be a minimum width required. If it's going below that, then in amendments that we're proposing, they would not qualifY as preserve, we would not require them to be preserve. So the minimum width is not as important as the shape. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone comes in with a minimum width and all the other criteria that were in the code before the strike-throughs but they didn't meet the three-to-one ratio, is it your policy then to ensure that they do? MS. BURGESON: It is our policy to -- or our application of the Growth Management Plan to make sure that it's the largest preserve Page 135 "--_.._-"~ -""'--->'.._- _"w._ '-'--~ August 28, 2008 possible. For instance, with that minimum width you could end up with some projects that used to -- we used to get, we don't anymore, because we've not accepted them -- but with a minimum width preserve around the entire perimeter ofthe property. Because that's how that could be applied then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand how your department came to a three-to-one, using a three-to-one ratio now when it's not in the code and it's not in the GMP. MS. BURGESON: We did some research on other land development codes. And I know that Indian River County for one has that adopted in their land development code, and there are other counties that have length to width ratios. Some of them are two-to-one, some of them have had numbers such as 100 feet to 300 feet as examples. And if you'd like, I can get you some of the copies of those other ordinances. But that's -- we did some research on it as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't concerned about the research you did, and I was certainly not concerned about what other counties do. I'm more concerned how this county operates and institutes policies without a sound basis for them. If three-to-one wasn't in our code and it wasn't spelled out in our GMP, I don't know how you would have used it. And now that you've said you've used it in the past, and that's what you're using now, I'm a little concerned. MS. BURGESON: I did not say that we used the three-to-one ratio, I said we used the shape. Roughly that shape that is reflected with the three-to-one ratio is where staff attempts to have the applicant provide a preserve to that shape, because it -- for instance, the circle is actually what we should be asking for if we're looking for something Page 136 '---~,,_.- _'U_"__'_'~"_____.___.._u August 28, 2008 that is going to provide the reduced impacts to the edge effect that the Growth Management Plan requires. And we've been a little more flexible than requiring that everyone come in and provide a shape that's a circle. And so we have looked at minimizing the impacts and allowing a little more flexibility. And that shape is roughly a three-to-one shape. But we have not told people they have to come in and provide us a three-to-one ratio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, go on to Page 182. Does anybody -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, following up on that to some degree, anyway. I think this is problematic here. Especially -- help me understand now. You said before, was it 200 feet, you felt that was a corridor. Circle wouldn't work for the corridor. But 200 feet. And you have this -- and you showed on your sheet before you showed a number of examples. MR. LENBERGER: I can do that, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I think I'd like to call your attention to something so you can help me understand something more clearly. Not the calculation but the actual pictures -- MS. BURGESON: Glen Eagle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- examples. Yeah, that's good. Now, let's say just for the sake of argument that item number three over there had 200 feet on the -- we'll call it the northerly side, and went down to something closer to 50 feet as you went south. And yet the length of the number three for the 200 feet was considerable. Does that then go to Page 183 on V, the length specified above shall not apply to preserves 200 feet greater in width? In other words, I don't know of any preserve necessarily that is, Page 13 7 ~_"'_.'..._.w.__. _._...._..__.. August 28, 2008 you know, just a rectangle. They're usually contoured to some degree, they follow topography, they follow moisture and so forth. So in trying to put human standards to Mother Nature, how would you deal with the 200 feet that then got into a narrow, and perhaps got out again to 200 feet? Would you still -- would you exclude that from the -- would you apply V on there? MR. LENBERGER: The 200 would be a minimum. So it couldn't go any less than that for this criteria not to apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, the length to width ratio, once established, you get 200 feet in any section, in any portion of that? MR. LENBERGER: No, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, I'm trying to understand whether -- MR. LENBERGER: If a preserve has a minimum width of 200 feet, then this criteria of the three-to-one ratio would not apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Even if it narrows considerably? MR. LENBERGER: If it narrows, it would apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Simply because it narrowed. MR. LENBERGER: Because it's less than 200 feet minimum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So something could be a quarter mile long, better than 200 feet, and then for a brief period go down to something like 30 feet, 40 feet, 80 feet, and go back up again, and then the ratio would apply? MR. LENBERGER: The ratio would apply. But also we have criteria number four, too. Says if the existing native vegetation -- let's just say that was the only vegetation in that narrow portion, okay, it says, if the existing native vegetation does not meet the minimum dimensions specified above and is required to be preserved pursuant to Page 138 .---.........-...,.-- _.+---- .-'----..,., ._~.,._- August 28, 2008 the preserve selection criteria, then the existing native vegetation may be used to satisfY the preservation requirement. So I would say if that narrow area less than 200 feet was the only vegetation you had there, and it was required to be preserved, yes, it would meet the criteria and you would not apply the three-to-one ratio. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you understand it, because to me it's vapor. I'm having a hard time appreciating. I understand you're trying to change -- you're trying to make things work, and I'm not criticizing that. MR. LENBERGER: I'd like to also just mention something here. I know this board reviews a lot of land use petitions, conditional uses, PUD's, and you're used to seeing larger preserves, you know, and they have irregular shapes. At staff level we also deal with administrative stuff, a lot of site development plans under straight zoning, which -- where this is more problematic, particularly to have a preserve maintain its integrity because it's a small project, you know, that often we see something like a very linear rectangle, trying to use it more as a buffer as opposed to a preserve. So you don't see those at least on as common basis at this board, at least I don't believe you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In your perfect world you're looking for circle preserves throughout a development instead of having something that maybe meander around and be -- MR. LENBERGER: No, we're not looking -- we're just comparing it to a circle. What we're looking for is not to have lots of very narrow pieces that don't function as preserve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But in a perfect world you're Page 139 --~-"-~_. -_..__......~....._,~... <._....,~,--- ._----. - -"'-'._~"-~_.'- August 28, 2008 comparing it all to a circle. MR. LENBERGER: The calculations are. But we recognize preserves have irregular shapes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 182. Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, just, you know, when you observe preserves that don't function, you can just really see that this is true. They're the linear preserves. And I mean, just when this came up I could call to mind any number, you know, that don't work. And I think that it's a good idea to try to make something that -- make the preserves more functional but also more predictable for the developer so that they have something mathematical to work with instead of just something that's just sort of vague. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. And I'm kind of fumbling sometimes with the length and width. The length is always the longest dimension, correct? Width would always be the shortest. MR. LENBERGER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, how do you measure something that is -- in other words, I don't think the goal is to have, like Mr. Vigliotti is saying, circle preserves. So when someone does an organic shape, what do you measure to, the outside edges? MR. LENBERGER: You measure the perimeter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not -- the calculation's not part of our code. This isn't part of -- MR. LENBERGER: Right, this is how staff would calculate it. We would look at the perimeter -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, now, that's -- Page 140 ---~,-" '"-'."-- August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: Perimeter in feet and also the acreage of the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And where does this calculation come into the Land Development Code? MR. LENBERGER: It doesn't. It's what staff would use to calculate the length to width ratio. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's talk about what we have here. In other words, if I have an organic shaped thing, the outer edge to outer edge would be my length, and then my width would be the perpendicular dimension to that or something, correct? Like take for example -- well, take the one in the center, I think it's nine. Show me where the length is on nine. MR. LENBERGER: We would calculate the length to width ratio using that calculation. We wouldn't necessarily try to pick out a length and width. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do this, let's put the calculation in the code. And I know we tried that last time. The problem I'm having is that if you pull that down a second. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Show me where the length is on nine and the width is on nine. Because the ratio -- that could fit your ratio, but you certainly don't want to encourage that. MR. LENBERGER: Nine is a surface factor ratio of .51. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at the ordinance that we're looking at now. MR. LENBERGER: So three-to-one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I want to see if it's greater than three-to-one. What do I do with nine? I know what to do in geometry land and I know what to do in math land, I just don't know Page 141 <-----.'- '" ..._.,"~.._.".. ..-- .--".-. .~.~--+ August 28, 2008 what to do in this amendment. MR. LENBERGER: Roughly equal to this rectangle here, a length and width of lO-to-one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go back to the picture of nine. MR. LENBERGER: Of nine. I understand there are wide areas as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think if! went to the longest bounding rectangle that I could draw with nine would comply with this code. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just cut off the little arm. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the little arm's helping me. Anyway, my point is that, you know, first of all, we don't want to encourage a geometric shaped preserve, I don't think. And we don't want to penalize people for doing organic shaped preserves either. I know what you want to do, is you want to keep the perimeter as small as possible, but -- in other words, the method that you're asking us to approve today, I think I could get nine to pass because the length of that would be rather long and the width of that would be such that it would be within three-to-one, probably. MR. LENBERGER: You'd have to make the calculation the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's make an LDC amendment with the calculation. MR. LENBERGER: So you would like to see the formula in the amendment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you tried that last time and that didn't work. But if you're going to go into behind the scenes, you know, you're going to go behind the curtain and come back out with a calculation, then I think as a designer and the people in the industry Page 142 -~,.__.... m'_"~_~,_>_"___,_,,,._~_,,, _ '_""'_M___...'__. r_"~_'._. August 28, 2008 should know that ahead of time, and that should be part of our code. And I don't think you -- you don't want to argue a situation where you're arguing on your staff method versus what's in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Brad, aren't you saying that because they use it in the back room even when they were told by the boards the last time that it wasn't to be used, they're using it anyway. You as a designer know you have to deal with it, so why don't we put it in the code. That's kind of -- I'm trying to think of a polite way to say backwards. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Back door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's a three-letter word in front of backwards that I could have put there. Why is staff doing something that is inconsistent with code so that now you have to do something to change the code because they're doing it anyway so that you meet the design? I think we're going backwards in the way we should be approaching this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what I'd do, my predictable result is I would read what they're saying here. And they're saying the length is the longest dimension of the thing. Even if it's organic, you take the outside dimension. So I think the worst example they have here is nine. And I think nine works with the new code, which I think is the only thing that staff can stand on is the actual wording of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, which I had tried to point out earlier when we had some comments made that they're doing what they're asking for now anyway. So I'm just wondering what's broken that we have to change all this language. And when we're looking at language to change, that we can't even get answers from the people that are supposed to be Page 143 ---~_...--"'-"~'. -.'-.----.---. ----..__.~ August 28, 2008 reviewing it that we're trying to understand. So something is definitely backwards here. Mr. Lorenz, did you want to speak? MR. LORENZ: Yes, let me put this a little bit in some order here. The Growth Management Plan talks about, as Steve has noted, is minimizing that I'm going to call the edge effect to the degree that you do not want to have an acreage that goes into a preserve be strung out in such a linear fashion that you have a huge amount of boundary ofthat preserve in relationship to its acreage. So when you begin to look at just the regular geometry and you want to say you minimize that edge effect, the circular shape is the shape that for a given area minimizes the boundary. Any other shape other than that circle is going to be, and I'm going to use the term less efficient of that circle's ability to minimize that boundary condition. Now, we have a Growth Management Plan. The EAR amendment said that that's -- we're trying to minimize that edge effect. Now the question comes is how do we quantifY and how do we develop a process to, number one, decide on what that minimization is. And number two, what's the process to make that calculation or at least for the designer to understand what they have to design against and for staff to understand what they're reviewing a proposal against. The current proposal here in the code, there was -- St. Lucie County had an example where they had proposed a shape that would be a -- and they used the term a rectangle of three-to-one length to width ratio. Now, you can create -- through that one formula that Steve showed on the visualizer, you can show that a rectangle with a length to width ratio of three- to-one for that calculation comes up to a ratio of Page 144 .'~"_.._.' --'--- "--- August 28, 2008 0.77. Or if you want to think about it as 77 percent as efficient as that circle in minimizing that area to edge ratio. If that becomes -- that can become a policy decision to at least establish that benchmark to say we're not requiring 100 percent of what a circle can do, but we're going to drop down. A three-to-one -- a three-to-one rectangle ratio gets you down to .77. And as those notes that Steve showed before, you could take any rectangular shape, make those calculations and you can get a feel for what that number would be. If you establish that number and a rectangle of three- to-one is .77, if that becomes the standard, then we can evaluate any type of shape with that formula to make sure that that length of that acreage does not violate the .77 number, the equivalency. And that would be the process. You could either adopt the formula or you could adopt the equivalency. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for him to finish, because Tor was next after you're done. So go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we get that, Bill. Unfortunately, here is what happens. Our job is to kind of make sure that the predictability of these words is what you mean. So I can understand that you want that ratio, and the ratio is not in the code. What's in the code is a length to width ratio. In an organic shape, how do you measure the length? And again, for example, in nine I think the length is the longest dimension -- or the long -- you know, I can bound that shape with a rectangle. With the computers today, this is an easy task. And when I do put a rectangle around that shape, that's going to give me length and width. It's actually going to probably make this shape comply, which isn't your intent. Page 145 .~,,-,-_.,. . ".-...--- '.'-'-~, August 28, 2008 So what you said in your introduction there, we got that last time when you had the equation. But the point is, these words, you know, like how would you handle that shape? What is the length of number nine? MR. LORENZ: I can see that. Because in B it does not have the phrase that I was using, the equivalent, the equivalency. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it doesn't equate it to the back room calculations. MR. LORENZ: It doesn't have that language. I see where that's the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But maybe that if this is the way you're bringing the calculation in, I would rather see the calculation with the. 77 than making the logical connection between the three-to-one to .77. That isn't even in the LDC. MR. LORENZ: Yes, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's done. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Brad asked a question I don't think I heard the answer of. Perhaps I missed it. But if you look at item nine that's designated on the overhead, would you draw for me on that with a pencil point or your finger point what constitutes the length, from what to what is the length and then is what to what is the width. MR. LORENZ: The language here -- we should have specified in the language of an equivalency; in other words, the equivalent ratio of a three-to-one rectangle. So therefore the answer to your question, we would not have a length or a width to item nine. What we would calculate is we would calculate through that formula what the efficiency ratio is or that shape factor ratio is. And in that table, nine shows that it would be 0.51. A Page 146 ~-,.~..,.,._.._,..._---,_..._..,-,.__...~. ,-~-_.. .---.'.'..."..-. --"~.,~"~,,,,._'-'-'" ---'-- August 28, 2008 three-to-one ratio has an equivalent ratio -- three-to-one rectangle has an equivalent ratio of 0.77. So this would be less than the 0.77. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So there is no length or width that you can direct on that -- MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's correct. And that's where this paragraph here should have said equivalent, not just a length to width. And I thought we had that language in at one point, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. LORENZ: -- I see it's not there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bill, I don't think -- if we want that equation, which you did last time and for some reason it went -- then let's just use the equation. Because making the illusion that the bounding box ratio has anything to do with that equation is false. So what you're going to end up with is somebody coming in with a rectangle bounding number nine saying I comply and you saying no, you don't because of a number. Then get rid of the bounding box concept and let's just look at the number and go that way. It made sense last time how you derive the number, whether we like .77 or something. MR. LORENZ: That would be my preference. It seems as though that wasn't making an understanding for that last time, so we went back to this particular way of phrasing it. So I'm certainly -- I'm certainly -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you would miss getting that point across if you stood with somebody who said that the reason you say three-to-one is a way to derive. 77 in the equation that you really use behind the doors, you know. MR. LORENZ: And then what you have here on this chart is some sense of proportionality of what that number would be so that you can have some -- and then -- well, unfortunately the visualizer distorts Page 147 ,,-"~_......._...__._--_.., '-"--'~--~ -"_.".._,--,-~,..~-,. -- August 28, 2008 this a little bit, but you can now have a benchmark compared to the circle for that number to make that policy decision. And we showed you some real live examples of what those preserves would look like with their companion number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I personally would favor the equation and a number like .75 and that does it. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. You said apparently St. Lucie or some other county was your basis for arriving at the three-to-one ratio; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Were there any other counties that gave you information on your research, or just that one county? MS. BURGESON: There were other counties. I believe that --I'm trying to think of what I said. I just mentioned it earlier in the meeting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But three-to-one was more of a composite generalization of those? MS. BURGESON: No, there was another one that had -- I believe the ratio was written in there to be equivalent to 100 to 300. As opposed to saying a length to width ratio of three-to-one, they had minimum widths and minimum lengths of 100 and 300. And I think that was Orange County, but I will get that information for you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. LORENZ: There is on the visualizer here, if you take that equation and you look at -- and this is prepared to show you a different set of regular shapes so you have those shapes in mind, and let's just take a preserve that's 10 acres. The best you can do with that 10-acre preserve in a circular shape would be having roughly let's say 2,200 Page 148 _.~-~-,. _._.._--_._~_._-- - -.--....- August 28, 2008 feet. If you went up to let's say a three-to-one rectangle, which is this blue shape here, you could have it around 3,100 feet. That's based upon that equation. That then shows you what type of length you can have for a preserve of acreage from let's say zero to 25 acres the way we set this one up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think maybe a way to handle this is two things: Step one is in the Growth Management Plan it says that we have to reduce interface. They're determined that that means the perimeter of the preserve. Calculating that is the way to balance what that means. So if we accept that then I think we should really just go with the equation. It's a two-step process. One, does the Growth Management wording reduce interface mean the perimeter. And if that's the case, then let's just use the equation. If they're using that with people in applications, it's not fair to keep that hidden. I think we should definitely put that into the LDC. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still on Page 182. Are there any other questions on Page 182? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, would you put the Glen Eagle's picture back up there, please, for me? Based on what we have in front of us, is it correct reading of a new language that only items seven and 10 would be permissible? MR. LENBERGER: I don't have the scale on this diagram. But remember that if the minimum width is 200 feet or greater, then more than nine -- you were saying 10? Page 149 __~___'__"'_'_' _'~'__'_"W'_'_'__'"'__''' _ . ,.". '_O__~___'._"'__'___ August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, SFR. Didn't you need an SFR above.77? Isn't that what you're telling us has to be reached? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look on the right column under the SFR, are only two parcels above. 77 -- MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- parcel seven and parcel10? So based on your example, only those two parcels on this example would meet the criteria of this particular change in the code; is that right or not? MR. LENBERGER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is part of the problem. I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to do and I am lost. MR. LENBERGER: It meets the calculation. Those are the only two that meet the calculation requirements, but there are also criteria four and five which says once you get to 200 feet wide as a minimum width it doesn't apply, the calculation doesn't apply. Or if your existing vegetation that you had originally was only -- was less than the minimum width and you were required to retain it, then it wouldn't apply as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would number seven meet the criteria in your current language? Just yes or no. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would number 10 meet the criteria in your current language? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the original question I asked is yes. You just said not necessarily. MR. LENBERGER: There's more criteria than the calculation. Page 150 ,-"~-,-"-_. .- -. .-----,---.-.-.--.--..-- --- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All the criteria on Page 182 and 183, does number seven meet that criteria? MR. LENBERGER: Seven and 10 meet the criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Schiffer. I still got a page of questions. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Under the current process, you get to review everything that comes before you, correct? MR. LENBERGER: Preserve criteria, our department does, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. What's not working? What problems are you having that we have to create a more complicated system that I don't know who else on the board is having a problem understanding it? MR. LENBERGER: The problem relates to smaller projects where you create linear type preserves which are basically narrow and do not function as preserves. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But yet you used an example for a large PUD and not a small one. If your problem is with the smaller projects, why are we using this as an example? MS. BURGESON: For instance, one of the things in this project that can show an example of how you can make the preserve number nine compliant with this rule is to take the extension off of that preserve and make that a separate preserve. Then number nine has that shape factor ratio that is not being impeded or infringed upon by -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just think we're getting more confused as we go along. Again, we're talking about smaller projects. This is a larger project. Are you getting me something on a small project? Page 151 --_._--- "-"_... ,-. --~- .'-'-' .._~._. August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: I was looking at the examples I had, but this is the closest I have with some really smaller pieces there like five and nme. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you make that brighter, please? MR. LENBERGER: Can I what? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Brighter? MR. LENBERGER: Brighter? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Bring the illumination up, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This is another large-scale project, though. MR. LENBERGER: I don't know how to make this brighter. This is the only example that I have that has some smaller pieces in there, tucked in here. Nine, five. But I don't have any small examples of the site development plan type products that are smaller. No, I don't. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But they're the ones you're having problems with. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then this wouldn't apply because there's not a problem with this. MR. LENBERGER: Well, actually, some of these preserves are very linear, like number nine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you take the sheet from underneath away and that might give us a little bit more clarity? MR. LENBERGER: It looks worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you finish with your question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 152 . ----_._._.._.__..._......__._-"---_._-~---~....._._- +.._~ August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I just wanted to add that based on the code they gave us, preserve number nine also applies, because by the concept of length and width bounding the preserve, that one would then come into compliance, not with the calculation, but with their code as written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Page 182? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Steve, let's go back to my question. On the example you've got in front of us, which preserves would meet the code based on the new language you're proposing? MR. LENBERGER: I don't have a scale of the diagram so I don't know which ones meet the 200-foot criteria. So I can't answer that question fully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On number nine, Barbara mentioned if they put a cart path -- well, she didn't say this, but it could be done this way, put a lO-foot wide car path between the big body of nine and the long skinny arm of nine, then nine works. I'm not sure what we've accomplished by doing that. But if -- that seems to be an acceptable practice. MR. LENBERGER: You mean severing this arm from nine; is that what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She said if that arm wasn't connected to nine, it might work. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, nine would work, but the arm that she left off would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But all you got to do is sever that arm from nine and it works. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. MS. BURGESON: What we're doing is saying that that long Page 153 ._.__..,........K.._."..,,_.__ ".-." August 28, 2008 extension that gets impacted does not function as a preserve and should not count as a preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a preserve? MR. LENBERGER: On the diagram, you're referring? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what's a preserve? What's the function of a preserve? I'm sorry if I'm -- what's the function of a preserve? MR. LENBERGER: Preserve is to maintain the biological community within it, that being plants and animals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What plants and animals are in these preserves? MR. LENBERGER: Are you talking with my familiarity with this project in general? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyone. I mean, if you're looking at maintaining plants and animals, you're in the urban area, you're surrounded by thousands of units in the middle of the heaviest urban area in the county. You've got excavated lakes, which certainly have drained all the wetlands and changed the hydroperiod. You've got a golf course next door. You've got roads on different points of it. I'm just wondering what we're trying to preserve here. And if we're trying to preserve something that's so valuable, I would have a better understanding of where you're trying to go. I'm not sure why we're mixing the code up like this to make it more complicated. I haven't seen the need yet. And that's a just statement, not a question. On Item H(I)(a) or (b), under minimum dimensions, you have in order for preserves to function as intended. When? At the time they were untouched? At the time the lakes were digging and changed the hydrology? At the time they were overrun by exotics? When would that Page 154 m_~~_......~, . .-.-..-..-.... ....__....__~,'.."N -"-'-'~-" August 28, 2008 function come into play? At what point in time would that function kick in? Do we know, or how would you grade that? MR. LENBERGER: Normally you would look at a time that it's permitted. But if a project needed restoration, you would try to improve it based on the factors you just mentioned earlier, which could have had influence on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think, though, that preserve and anyone of those you're showing in this example will ever function as they were, as nature intended or as they were intended at any time, based on where they are in the context of Collier County with all the excavations around that certainly affect their hydroperiods, and residences right up next to them? I mean, I'm just -- we're going to a lot of extreme examples here to try to fix something that may not be broken for the area in which it's being applied. And your second -- under (b), the length of a preserve boundary may be greater if the preserve shares a common boundary with another preserve. Who decides that? Is that decided by staff? How is that determined? MR. LENBERGER: If it adjoins another preserve, you look at the whole combination of preserves together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if it joins another preserve that's only a strip along the outside of a project? Would that give you a better -- MR. LENBERGER: You still could use it in the calculations, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the word targeted lands. Who's targeted them? Targeted for what? MR. LENBERGER: Government targeted. Page 155 -.----'..-..---- ""-.__.-'''-~'''''--' .--"--_.---- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For acquisition for right-of-way? MR. LENBERGER: No, it'd be conservation lands. And that would be things like the CARL program or Crew lands where there's funding available. MS. BURGESON: It says targeted for preservation purposes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 183, anybody have any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that same vein, we have two preserves. You indicated that if you had one, it was on another property, I know that that can be considered joined. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then you'll do your calculation. MR. LENBERGER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, what's the guarantee that when that other parcel is developed that that will remain a preserve, and therefore, if it were not to remain a preserve wouldn't that impact on the judgment made in the first instance? MR. LENBERGER: I understand staffhas developed criteria, not to be heard today, but for off-site criteria, and I realize that could happen. But we haven't factored it into this. What we're saying is that with the time you're permitting it you would use this ratio, and you would use the combined preserves together to calculate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's a gimme, basically. It's a deal -- MR. LENBERGER: There are instances -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for the first opportunity. MR. LENBERGER: It could happen that you could do off-site Page 156 , ,'-~ -..-.-..,.., _._._" August 28, 2008 criteria based on the other amendments we're proposing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I submit that that's a weakness that you've got to look at when you take this on as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 183? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing I never did get the answer is on nine. But one thing, Mark, you said remember how they cut the wing, the arm off of nine and then they said it complied? Well, theoretically, I guess you can go in three-to-one little rectangles up that line, cut off some more, that will not work, up that line, cut off some more. So it seems like bringing it into compliance is to removing pieces of it. That doesn't seem sound like a good idea. But before we go, what is the length and the width of number nine as shown, per the code that you've proposing today? You've never come to that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like that parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Tor even asked them for it, we're not getting it, because I think it points out a problem. MR. LENBERGER: We understand what point you're making. We don't have the length and width on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done. MR. LENBERGER: Now remember too, when you do preserve selection criteria, you try to establish the largest contiguous area as possible. There's also different criteria for selecting different types of habitats, based on listed species use and whatnot. And it all factors in. Just because there's an arm and you want to chop it up into lots of little pieces, when we evaluate a project we look at all the different criteria in determining preserves initially. Page 157 .~-_._-_.. ,---- .._,_.~ _..."~_._- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And to answer, Steve, I'm the one -- if you're going to use the calculation behind the curtain, let's use it in front of the curtain and put it in the code. MR. LENBERGER: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: At the very least this all has to come back for a rewrite, because we're getting -- we have one thing in here that specifically ties everything to length and width. Mr. Lorenz gets up and testifies that it should be an equivalent ratio. And so, I mean, there's really no sense in discussing this any further. If you want this to go anywhere, you're going to have to bring it back and figure out what you actually mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thanks. I think that this could make sense. I think that it just has to be formulated in terms of perimeter instead of length and width. To me it makes sense. And with regard to your point, Mark, about what is the value of a preserve that's sort of in the middle of developed lakes and middle of an urban area? I think preserves still can function. They're not going to be as good as it was, you know, in its natural state. But as we live in more and more urban areas, places like that that are in a somewhat natural state are valuable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I certainly would not agree that preserves like nine have no function at all. My house backs up to a preserve. And I'll tell you, I have both plenty of native vegetation and plenty of critters that live in there and use that as habitat. So, you know, just saying that they have absolutely no value is just not correct. Page 158 __.....,_ .....u~..,~._.._w.,,__. -'-.-'-.--.-" ---..-- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree. I don't know who said that, but n I never said it didn't have value. I question the fact that they're a preserve functioning as they were intended to function. Nature wouldn't be operating on those preserves in this urban area as it may have been before that urban area was there. That was my point. I wasn't saying they do not have function. In fact, some of your best amenities in projects are preserves. They sell better with houses on them than most of your golf course frontages do. So I have no concern and no problem with that at all. It's just a matter of what we're calling it, why we're calling it that, and why we're putting a certain level of need on it. They are open space, and open space is treated differently than preserves. Okay, are there any other questions from this panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, I'll see if there's any public speakers. Any public speakers? Doug? He's kicking you out, Steve. He's trying to be very polite in the way he's doing it, though. MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm here on behalf of Youth Haven. I think I heard correctly, and we can go back and look at the record, but I think staff indicated that they currently look at shape as a factor in evaluating preserve. And I hope I didn't mis-hear that. If I did hear that correctly, and I'll go back and listen to the tape, I think that's something the county attorney may want to look at. I can tell you that clearly the Land Development Code does not specifically have a shape factor requirement. There was some mention about the GMP, and I want to discuss Page 159 ~."....~ .-- "'_~_M_ August 28, 2008 that in detail right now. But I will tell you that for purposes of the Land Development Code, I don't n I'm not aware of a shape factor that currently exists in the code. In connection with the Comprehensive Plan, the reason proffered by environmental staff in their amendment request for the changes to Section 3.05.07(H)(I)(a) and (b) is that the change in the minimal dimensional requirements in the LDC need to implement the requirements of the GMP conservation and coastal management element Policy 6.1.2. And so that's the reason -- and it's up here on the visualizer. And you can see that they've stated to you as the Planning Commission that's the reason why they are here. I'd like to present and put on the visualizer for you as well the language from the GMP. If I can, I think it would be helpful to read that language so that you could see it. In sub-two it says that the preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy, understory and groundcover, emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, which may include connection to off-site preserves. So the emphasis under the GMP is the largest contiguous area possible, meaning we don't want to have -- where we can emphasize contiguous preserve areas, that's better than having isolated, detached preserve areas. So the emphasis being on the largest contiguous preserve area. Now, that doesn't -- that's very distinct from saying that we want to have not isolated preserve areas, but we'd like to encourage, emphasize large contiguous preserve areas. That's very distinct from saying now that we have a large contiguous area, do we have a rectangle, do we have a circle? Those relate to the shape of the largest Page 160 ___m__"w.'_ _'~"_"~'''''''.__ --" ..<..".,"~ , ,._,- August 28, 2008 contiguous area. And that's not in any way discussed or addressed as a policy directive under the Growth Management Plan. Now, the new language that they discuss is the purpose for identifYing the largest continuous area. In other words, the reason why we need to identifY the largest contiguous area. It doesn't say the reason why we need to identifY a shape factor once we've got this largest contiguous area. It may be a rectangle, it may be a box. It doesn't say we need to have a shape factor. It says the reason why we have this large contiguous area is to provide for a core area that has the greatest potential for wildlife habitat by, the key word by, reducing what they're going to talk about as edge effect. So the purpose is to have this large contiguous area to provide a core area that has the greatest potential for wildlife habitat. Now I don't know if staff has done any analysis. I don't personally know. I think as you mentioned, Commissioner Caron, there may be some great areas in the urban environment that contain wildlife habitat that needs to be looked at. But I think that's something that in terms of a reason to identifY the largest contiguous area, we would want to have some analysis as to the biological value. Do we treat all areas in the county like a one-size- fits-all approach or do we say that there are some areas, maybe not in the urban area, other areas that maybe have more of a wildlife habitat. That's the basis for this edge. But again, the edge concept is in context with the largest contiguous area test, e.g., we have one area, not multiple isolated areas. And not once we have a large area how that shape looks. And so I want to make that very clear, and I thought the language would be helpful in analyzing that issue. The policy under 6.1.2 emphasizes the largest area possible. The Page 161 ---..-".- --.-...-.---.-.""-..- .-m.___ ~k_'_,,_ August 28, 2008 emphasis is on seeking to create contiguous preserves, not multiple isolated preserves. Further, the LDC currently contains criteria for determining dimensional standards. And we've gone over those. While the GMP emphasizes contiguous area, it is silent on the issue of the preserve shape or the issue of mandating one preserve shape over another shape. As such, why are these changes being proffered to the Land Development Code? Environmental staff should be directed to rewrite this section to provide the reason or provide a supporting basis for this shape or withdraw the item. Further, the GMP's reference to the greatest potential area for wildlife habitat is in the context of the largest preserve area, not in context with the shape factor. In the context of wildlife habitat, staff should demonstrate by competent evidence the ecological benefit of adoption of a shape factor, which is not, as I've discussed, it's not mandated by the GMP. I want to be very clear on that. I think there was some testimony by staff that it is not mandated by the GMP -- and you see the language above -- for native preserves located in the urban area of less than five acres. As a matter of policy do we want to have a one-size- fits-all? Do we say that there are different approaches we take in the urban area versus other areas? This benefit if any should be weighed against the fiscal impact of dictating shape in the cost of development. There may be many reasons why we look at shape other than just more density or more intensity. There may be very practical reasons. And I think as a board, I think we need to consider the fiscal impacts and weigh the benefits with the cost. Staff should quantifY the cost from a cost benefit approach to justifY its own initiative on the shape preserve. Again, its own initiative. Page 162 '''-_.'^-~--'- ---,-~----~._....~- .-._---- August 28, 2008 If staff cannot do this, I would recommend that the amendment be withdrawn. In addition, the Land Development Code currently contains preserve setback requirements. Now, there was discussion about other counties and how there are other counties that have shape factors. Well, they may have different Growth Management Plans. Do they have their own preserve setbacks? Now, preserve setbacks essentially dictate how -- the proximity of development, principal structures, accessory structures, interference, construction within 10 feet of a preserve area. Those I would assume are designed -- those preserve setbacks which we already have in the Land Development Code, I would presume are designed to help ameliorate some of the edge effect of development. And so I think given the fact that the code already provides in the Land Development Code preserve setbacks, staff should demonstrate by competent study what is broken and why from a cost benefit analysis perspective this amendment is needed. If we're addressing an edge effect through preserve setbacks, why do we need additional standards? Finally, this amendment should contain an exception (sic) for existing preserve areas. Now, without this exemption, many existing preserves created by this amendment might be deemed by staff to be legally non-conforming. Staff could make the argument that there would be no expansion of the nonconformity or enlargement of the nonconformity without some sort of off-site mitigation or some compensation or additional on-site preservation. And so that's something that I think we need to look at. You have many projects that have been through the process. They've identified their preserve area. There's conservation easements Page 163 -"--"~,--, August 28, 2008 that are on those sites. I would like to see an exemption that says look, you've gone through the process, you've done exactly what you were asked to do at the time, and you've preserved those lands. They mayor may not comply with the shape factor, so they should be exempt. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Lewis, does four do that? MR. LEWIS: I've looked at that. And I'm kind of twisted a little bit. I think it could be an argument. I certainly would come in on a project and say yeah, that would be a basis. I would just say if it's a policy decision that we want to recognize projects that have already defined their preserve areas and exempt them, I think we need to make it clearer to avoid confusion. Not today, but next time we meet when we discuss 3.05.07(a) and (b), I have a situation currently with the Youth Haven where I'm looking at very, very clear language. I mean, I don't think as a lawyer I could draft language any clearer. There's a blanket exemption for my client and I have an issue with staff over that. So I would just say I would rather err on the side of clarity. And I will have more to proffer about that in the next meeting. But I am concerned. Further in the PUD process that we've just redone the applicant must identifY at least 75 percent of the preserve area on their master plan. Properties that have obtained a PUD approval and have identified their preserve areas, they may currently meet the shape requirements and the preserve requirements, but we have PUD's that have been recently approved and approved that may not meet the shape requirements. And we would have a problem here. When these owners come in for site development plan approval or they come in to amend their SDP or even in a phased development where you may have sold off Page 164 -'---."'. _...o>_,',,~_ August 28, 2008 outparcels and you have a what you think is a preserve master plan that you can rely on, this preserve area that was set aside in the -- identified in the PUD master plan may not comply with these new requirements. This could result in the need to rework the preserve area in the PUD at the time that we come in for an SDP or a site plan. Increasing or changing the preserve area impacts development layout and could reduce density and intensity. In fact, in a moment I'm going to ask Tim Hancock to come forward and he'll actually present to you an example of something that they're finding right now. And we would see a loss of density in that example. These types of changes create lots of unintended consequences that have not been disclosed to you, in fairness, in the report to this body. And we would ask that you consider carefully the basis for what we're doing, why we're doing it, is it directed by the Compo Plan. I would suggest very strongly in the language that is there, it is not. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Hold on a second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question. Do you think in your opinion -- obviously what they're saying is they're trying to create the greatest core area that has the greatest potential for wildlife habitat. And it says by reducing the interface between the preserve area and the development, which decreases conflicts of other land uses. Do you think that means the perimeter, or does that n MR. LEWIS: Yeah, I think you could make the argument that in the context of the largest contiguous area test. In other words, you're Page 165 -"-"~--_." ," ^ -'-.~----~' August 28, 2008 saying that instead of an isolated, multiple isolated preserves, when you have one large preserve, it could be a rectangle, that it does -- in that instance, the policy is we want to preserve wildlife because it's a larger area of land. And I think the point I'm trying to make is that the policy addresses the issue of the largest contiguous area versus multiple isolated preserves on a site. That's the emphasis. And the benefit of that is the edge. You have less of an edge, less of a disturbance when you have a larger parcel. What they're doing is taking it one step further, and they're saying once we have this large area defined, now we're going to actually mandate the shape of that large area. That's not what the -- if you look at the language, and I strongly encourage you to look at that language, it reads very clearly, the purpose for identifYing the largest contiguous area -- it doesn't say the purpose for identifYing or creating a shape factor or for reducing edge. It says the purpose, the reason why we have this emphasis on the largest contiguous area is exactly that, in answer to your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock? Thank you, Doug. MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. The project you see before you is currently undergoing review as a rezone. I would like to point out that this was not the first preserve alignment we proposed to the county. On this side of the project is a recorded preserve as a part of the Royal Palm International Academy. On this side is proposed development, building, schools, parking. Page 166 --.......-.., '-'."--< August 28, 2008 On this side is a stadium, or again, additional development. And on this side is existing homes. Originally the preserve requirement of approximately 1.1 acres was shown adjacent to the existing preserve here in, yes, a linear fashion. The reason it was linear, even though it was 90 feet wide, is because there's no real differentiation on this portion of the site. There's nothing significant about this area versus that area. It's about 70 percent Melaleuca. When the Melaleuca is removed you'll have a straggle pine here and there. It's going to require replanting of all three strata. So there's nothing distinctive about it. There's no natural line to follow, per se. But in order to meet the county's current LDC requirements, that's what we proposed. We then submitted to the South Florida Water Management District an application for an environmental resource permit. In their initial review, they didn't care so much about this area over here. They said this area over here's got a little more quality to it. We'd like to see you set that aside. Okay. Well, if we set that aside and we set aside the acre the county requires, the yield of the project got so low. And I'd like to point out, the yield you see here is around 2.6 units per acre. This is not a pack-'em-in project. So what we did, using the existing LDC standards, is we drew a line around the area that the district said they felt was priority, yet we had to be contiguous to the preserve over here. So what we did is we used the existing LDC standards, which are a minimum of 20 feet wide, and we used as much width as we could until we got to right here trying to n and again, it's a balancing act of trying not to lose a reasonable yield on the property. This area is 20 feet wide. So this particular layout meets the letter of the code. Is that what we initially tried to do by being adjacent to an existing preserve? No. Is Page 167 ".---.--- .'--~._'--,- ---- August 28, 2008 it the preferred? No. But it's a hybrid by trying to achieve and accomplish what multiple agencies in this case are looking for. This particular -- and to answer your question earlier about how are things being enforced, Mr. Strain, the response we get to this preserve from county staff is not that you don't meet the land development code standard, it's that you don't meet the Growth Management Plan standard. This doesn't meet the GMP. Yet it does meet the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How is that possible? MR. HANCOCK: Well, it's possible if you are applying the Growth Management Plan instead of the Land Development Code. That's how it's possible. And we get rejection comments. And the rejection comment is based on GMP language, not LDC language. I have a problem with that. I've always had a problem with it, I continue to have a problem with it. That being said, let me show you what the proposed language does to this project. You asked about what the financial impact would be. In order to meet the district's requirement of keeping this as a part of the preserve, yet to meet the new shape requirement of width to length ratio, three-to-one, and meet the contiguous requirement, the preserve would have to take a shape somewhat similar to what you see here. You can see very clearly that -- the application here as this project goes from 27 units to 23 units. What do you believe the fiscal impact is when you lose 15 percent of your developable area? That's the fiscal impact. These are both 1.89 acres. And again, I want to point out, what we're proposing, we're only required to set aside 1.1 acres in this project, but we're proposing 1.89 to attempt to address both the county's Page 168 .-..-'---- August 28, 2008 requirements and the district's desires. So we're already exceeding the county's standard on amount of acreage. The current shape, or the proposed shape requirement basically is the same acreage, but the orientation results in a loss of developable land. Let me give you a second example. Those of you that have been struggling with the neighborhood centers in the Estates may recognize something like this. This is a case where the requirements in the Growth Management Plan have a 50-foot buffer bordering the adjacent properties here and here. In addition to that, there's a 25 percent landscape buffer. Under the current LDC standards, we can take a portion of that 50-foot buffer which is left as native vegetation. On this site 100 percent is native; there's no argument there. And at a 50-foot width we can meet our preserve requirement. Now, this preserve requirement is a little bit lower because there's a degree of take that's going on on two sides of the property. But ideally this would be a .75-acre preserve, but because of the take it's down around .4 acres. Under the proposed shape requirement the property owner loses in addition -- because they don't meet the three-to-one in this area, they have to in essence create a block and drop that block in. And where this particular project had only 2.05 acres of yield remaining, they lose 12 percent of it. So what is the fiscal impact of going from 2.05 acres and losing 12 percent of your developable land? And it goes one step further. We have yet to put in the required turn radiuses for fire access, which have to be interior 25 feet. There's another encroachment in the design of the project. Page 169 ____._~._." u ,.. .-~___._. _"'__~_~'__ ~. -'-_._~._--- August 28, 2008 The point of these two examples -- I guess I should say the intended point of these examples -- is to show that the shape requirement does not work for small parcels. The two projects they put up on the visualizer, I'd like to point out, are 20 years old each. They weren't permitted five years ago under the current standard. You could not permit either one of those in anything close to their condition that was put up on the visualizer, yet that's the problem we're told we're trying to fix is a 20-year old project. Let's look at something done four years ago. Let's look at something that's in review now and determine, Mr. Vigliotti, what's the problem that we're trying to fix. What I would suggest in looking at this language is, first of all, obviously for small parcels a three-to-one ratio, whether it be through the -- via the formula or through trying to apply three-to-one are the worst cases you could draw out for how it adversely affects the parcel, because you have the fewest limitations on how you can redesign your site. We're dealing with 2,000 acres, we have significant wetlands, we've got a variety of things we can point to and set aside an ability to address our site plan. We have flexibility. When I have 10 acres and I've got a half acre over here that's pretty good stuff, but yet I've got to get somehow to an acre and I have to use a three-to-one ratio, I'm dead in the water. I can't get it done. One of the questions is what is a preserve. And I think the reason we're finding ourselves in this position is three-to-one by itself is not a death blow. But when you look at how we define preserves, and then that is one of your questions, Mr. Strain, is what is a preserve. A preserve used to be, when we started this years ago, where all three strata were present. It was indigenous vegetation that was naturally functioning, native vegetation and the word viable was used. Page 170 .,..._.~__, .' .._._....._. '.n_. _______,~..__._.__.__.....__ '---- August 28, 2008 We have turned that definition on its ear now. Instead of saving a piece of the good stuff, we're saving 15 percent of just about everything. Because the new definition is you only need 25 percent of one strata. Which means you can have Melaleuca trees covering your site, but if I look at an aerial and circle the treetops of the pine trees add them up and get to 25 percent, the whole thing is native. So we've gone from a piece of the good stuff to upending that and now making everything qualifY. So now it's more or less 15 percent of your site unless it is greater than 75 percent exotic. Everything else. Grasses. If you have no trees but you have 25 percent native grasses under this proposed definition, that's native vegetation. But here's what I ask: Go in and ask to make that a preserve and you're told, doesn't qualifY, you need all three strata to count it as a preserve. So we're reaching out and encompassing a larger amount of land and now we're adding on top of that a three-to-one shape requirement which greatly reduces flexibility and keeps us from doing things like on a 20-acre project putting 100-foot native vegetation buffer across the back of it next to the residences. That doesn't count as native preserve anymore. Under the county's proposed language, any project over 18.4 acres must have a 200-foot minimum width to their preserve, based on a three-to-one. If you do the math, any preserve over 2.75 acres must now be 200 feet in width. It doesn't make sense. And when I try and apply it to projects, particularly projects that are in process right now that they've spent six or nine months trying to get them done, if they're approved with the preserve the way it is now, when we come in for a plat or site development plan, they're not worth the paper they're written on, because they won't meet this requirement. And they're going to have to be fully and totally redesigned, and they're going to have to give up 15 percent or 12 percent of their land that they Page 171 .~.__._..~._..._.. . "~-,...,, ....-.,---..-...... '-"-.-- August 28, 2008 thought they had. That's the fiscal impact. When somebody can address for me how that's being handled, then I think we've got something to build on. My recommendation is simple: If we're going to go forward with any changes in this area, first and foremost maintain minimum widths. They are important, I'm not minimizing that. But the South Florida Water Management District for years has used an average width. I know, there's issues in measurement, I understand that. But a minimum and an average allows you to shape and move the preserve in such a way that the intent is to have an average of "X" amount of width. But in areas where it's not practical or it doesn't make sense, you don't have to go through a severe series of steps to prove that, it's just understood. It could be that simple. My point today is to show you that the proposed recommendations will actually kill small projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Any other members of the public wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, I appreciate-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There's a stand-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Come on up, Bruce. I appreciate your clarity today in your presentation. You've expressed concerns I've not only heard from the business community, but I've actually heard them from homeowners groups and civic groups, in, issues they were trying to resolve. There's a huge frustration out there, and I think you pointed out some very viable issues. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, sir. MR. LAYMAN: Bruce Layman, WilsonMiller. That will be a hard act to follow. Page 172 --_..~_. ."---'---.-.".-' August 28, 2008 A lot of what I was going to talk about has already been discussed. But going back a little bit, this particular amendment started last year, went through the process and fizzled when it came before your commISSIon. Basically the shape factor, SFR, ratio was generated. There was a lot of discussion, there were many, many n much analysis. They looked at existing projects, many of them we've seen on the visualizer, showing what the SFR was for various shape preserves. And at the time it was identified that SFR of 0.6 was a reasonable minimum for a shape of a preserve that would still minimize the edge effect on the preserve from people planting, you know, Boston ferns in their backyard in the preserve edge or hanging a bird feed or trimming a branch, whatever, the negative effect of having an adjacent land use next to a preserve. We started with a .6. It went to the EAC. And paraphrasing they said, well, if.6 is good, .7 must be better. So they changed it to .7 and approved it. Then it came before your board and for various reasons it was withdrawn. This year the same concept is coming back. It's been given a different name, the three-to-one ratio, which is a much easier concept to grasp than that complicated mathematics as we've seen. However, then it came time to try to calculate what three-to-one really meant, and you're told, well, go back and use the SFR calculation to verifY whether you meet the minimum. And as you've heard, the SFR for a rectangular three-to-one ratio is .77. So we've gone to .6 that had a whole lot of input from the both the public, the consulting community, the county staff. We went from.6 to .7 to .77. I feel like I'm on a runaway train. And we're seeing that it really is becoming problematic to design appropriately, particularly for Page 173 ~. -.--. August 28, 2008 small projects. I've looked at -- one of the projects that was not put up on the visualizer that I'm familiar with is -- let me get it out here. This is -- sorry . This is Pelican Marsh, and the Cocohatchee Strand is the preserve two, three and four. Those are three wetlands end to end. They flow from north to south, they're all interconnected. If you use the .77 SFR, none of those three wetlands qualify. If you use the .7 SFR, none of those three wetlands qualifY. If you use the .6, the top one, number two qualifies. Yet this is an award-winning preserve. It really scares me when we start going down this path based on mathematics, based on trying to minimize the potential for what the Joneses will do to the edge of the preserve next to their property. It was also mentioned earlier that, you know, what are preserves. We see them in the urban area. What kind of wildlife and stuff would use them. Do we see deer, bobcat, panther in there that might need a big court area so that the edge effect doesn't disturb them? I don't think so. We're going to see snakes, lizards, rabbits, raccoons, a lot of those critters thrive on the edge effect. So I -- the whole concept of moving forward really is a scary one. And I would beg that you consider either going back to the SFR where we started last year with a .6 and still revisit it, because it still had some rough edges on it, or possibly take this -- well, as we said, we really don't want the ratio of three-to-one, but the appropriate ratio that would be equivalent to the .6 SFR would be about a seven-to-one ratio. But again, we want to get away from the ratio, because it's not really -- you're not calling apples, apples. So let me see ifthere's anything else. Page 174 .--"~-".-.- ... ~ _.._-,--_.._--.~"_. -- August 28, 2008 Oh, one thing that did occur to me while I was sitting in the audience is the justification for coming up with some method to quantifY a minimum shape of the preserve is -- where are we here -- to reduce the interface between the preserve area and development which decreases the conflicts from other land uses. Now, we've taken that as a quantified -- a quantification associated with the linear feet around the preserve. You could also probably interpret that is if you have a less impactive land use adjacent to your preserve, you are also decreasing the conflict from the adjacent land use. Have a passive recreation park adjacent to the preserve, have a lake adjacent to the preserve, have a golf course rough adjacent to a preserve, relative to having more other more impactive land uses adjacent to the preserve. And I don't think that's been addressed even in the SFR analysis that was done last year and has been carried forward to some degree this year. So anyway, I throw all that out there because I know there's going to be a lot of discussion, but that's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, you had a question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I just had a comment. I was glad to hear him say that math models for dealing with Mother Nature are sometimes more than just a little problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? Oh, Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. Is it about this particular gentleman? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, is yours? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney, you're first, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I appreciate all the Page 175 -----...-- ._."~ August 28, 2008 comments that we've had so far. Just a comment. I think we can all agree that the edge effect is real. Preserves do serve a purpose, and preserves that are all scraggily shaped turn into weed lots. They tend to get invaded and they don't get their purpose. If you have better design preserves it's better for the developer because it's easier to maintain, it's better for the residents and it's better for the whole county. So I think that we can develop an ordinance and it should be based on some sort of a mathematical model, but we're just not there yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question just from experience, when you're dealing with the staff now, are they using the SFR ratio to judge preserves? MR. LAYMAN: No, it's more of a gut feeling. Is the shape the largest, most contiguous. And that's a very, very subjective -- you know, there's not a quantification to it, other than the minimums, you know, the 20-foot minimum width, that type of thing, the minimums are discussed, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I just have a comment after listening to everything. And just so the Planning Commission understands, probably all the issues I deal with with the development community, this is the most contentious. Absolutely. Because it impacts what can be put on a piece of property. I think Tim had some great examples. What we're trying -- what we set out to try to do last year and again this year, we're trying to establish some certainty and something that defines the parameters. Page 176 '~__'._^u' ,'_.n.,'_"_' August 28, 2008 The problem now is it's so subjective. You apply the Growth Management Plan, it says the largest and most contiguous. What does that mean? That's what we were trying to define here. If we don't do that -- and somehow what happens is a developer who maximizes the package on a piece of property wants to then put the preserve around the perimeter and have a 10- foot or 20- foot wide preserve and call that a preserve. It's nothing more than becomes a perimeter buffer. So I guess from the standpoint -- what I really need here is something that provides -- if we don't want preserves, we don't want preserves. If you want a minimum preserve, a minimum width, minimum length, let's just state that and anything that applies we will allow. And I think that's what I'm looking for, I'm looking for some certainty and something that provides guidance both to the applicant and to my staff so that we can objectively evaluate, rather than subjectively evaluate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, if your staff paid attention to the Land Development Code instead of trying to interpret the GMP, maybe we wouldn't have such a problem. But it sounds to me like the problems arise because they're interpreting the GMP, and that's what the Land Development Code's supposed to do, as approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And if they were to stick to the Land Development Code, maybe we could follow some guidelines. And I think that seems to be a problem I've heard from at least two people talking today. I really think that's a problem. I really think that's the wrong approach to take. If they feel the GMP is not interpreted right, the opportunity is to change the Land Development Code through the process, which includes the Board of County Commissioners, and until Page 177 .,,_____~..._,.__.,._._._...'__.M...._...__.___ .. -'--'--~-~-'" ---- August 28, 2008 this changes, they live by what the LDC says. MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. And that's exactly what we're trying to do through this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hope that before the amendment's passed other projects in the pipeline get looked at pursuant to the Land Development Code and not someone's interpretation of the GMP that mayor may not be consistent with the Land Development Code. Because that's what we heard here today, and I really don't think that's the right way to approach things. But anybody else have any comments? Mr. Vigliotti, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I'm waiting for him. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess we're going to send this back to the drawing board, so to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's the problem I have. This advertised by what it is today. Through a variety of testimony and through a variety of comments, I don't think it even comes close to what the GMP is looking for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sending it back will change it substantially to a point where I don't think it's ready to be -- needs to be sent back. I think it needs to come back in another cycle with a better conclusion rather than what we've got here today. This is no gain. And as far as I'm concerned, it ought to be recommended for denial. And if staff wants to re-attempt it with a better procedure through public stakeholders and people involved, then that's how it ought to be done. Then at least the public is aware. Page 178 .".-.,-.-.-- "--.......---...- .'-'-"'.'- '--'-~--". August 28, 2008 The issues we heard today, the impact on some of these small projects is extreme. We'd be wiping out small businesses unknowingly. And I don't want to see that mistake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you make a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, as Chair I don't think it's appropriate to make a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then I'll so make the motion that we forward this to the BCC with a recommendation of denial. Do we need explanation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the basis that it isn't consistent with the GMP. Based on the n it doesn't meet the intent of the GMP. Mr. Klatzkow, how definitive do you want that to be? MR. KLATZKOW: If it's your opinion that this does not meet the GMP, that's a heck of a reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all you need? MR. KLATZKOW: That's all you need, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you second it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it, but I have a concern, is that what if the Commission looks at it and accepts this methods? Because there's a lot of flaws in the method. For one, they can't give me the answer on number nine. This could go before the commission and then they could actually override us and approve it. So rather than run the risk of that, I think we should rewrite it before we sent it to them with a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- motion for denial. Page 179 .--, ---.---. ~, ..~---"_._. ..~...._~. August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a better idea is to bring it back in another cycle and that way you've got plenty of time to do it, as opposed to just denying it. MR. SCHMITT: Look, another cycle's going to be a year, year and a half away, all right? And I'm looking at this and even if I just take the wording minimum dimensions and add that sentence, the minimum width standards. See, I need to define some criteria. And it says, the minimum width standards shall apply. 20 feet then. Even if! add that one sentence then, that's a change. It at least defines the minimum criteria. What you're doing now is just throwing this thing out and we're back -- I think even with this I can make some changes that provide some details as to how to apply it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is the current code broken? The only broken part I've heard today is the interpretation of the GMP that staffs trying to institute because they don't think the code is apparently strict enough. I don't believe that is a good reason. Where is the current code broken? MR. SCHMITT: The GMP says largest and most contiguous. Now, that is -- that debate goes on between staff and the applicant back and forth into my office, and what the debate is, is this 20- foot preserve that runs three-quarters of a mile around a development, does that meet the requirement? Well, is that the largest and most contiguous? It probably is not. But if you want to add cri -- again, what you're doing is allowing the situation to continue. If that's what you want, we will apply with what's written. I think within here, even if you took out minimum dimensions, even if you just left the one sentence in and said the following minimum width shall apply, that one sentence. And then 20 feet for Page 180 .,..u_._,..__.._____ .._-"----- August 28, 2008 property less than 10 acres, and then it goes on. But that's your call. If you don't even want to deal with it, then I will bring it back a year, year and a half from now, whenever the cycle comes back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, this is talking about PUD's as one. I mean, basically the preserves are mostly in PUD's, are they not? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct -- no, any development requires a PUD. You come in for a development of a plat, has a conditional use and they're going to develop a church, we will apply the preserves standards. Commercial as well as residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the most -- the biggest potential to gain preserves would be through the PUD process, or rezone process, and that goes through the boards. And the preserves that come under those have to be justified in front of a public process. They can be set aside, they can be worked accordingly. This minimum width rarely applies. In fact, the only time I know it applied in this DeVoe or whatever that Germain Auto recently, I was surprised at that, but that got approval of staff. So I'm not sure we have as broke of a problem that needs to be rushed through and fixed with a fix that isn't well thought out. And this one hasn't been well thought out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: n Mark, one thing -- and again, because they can't give me that dimension of the length and width, the bounding box concept is really what they're describing. The things that Tim showed us comply. The first one was essentially a square. That's a one-to-one preserve. That's not what I think they mean, but that's what they're describing verbally. So I don't think the minimum dimension standards work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments, discussion? Page 181 ,~-,,~,._--". , .~.-.~- August 28, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point the recommendation is for denial. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed. Motion carries 5-2. Okay, with that we'll take a break and we'll come back at 2:50. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. And I think the first order of business besides me going to get a cup of coffee is to find out what the -- Bob, you've got two cups. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You want one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay, you keep your two cups, Bob, I don't need any. First order of business is timing ofthis commission's meeting today. When do you think we'll be wrapping up? I was thinking 5:00. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, sure. 6:00, 7:00 is good, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 7:00 Mr. Murray wants. What about the rest -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's get it done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have to be somewhere by 5:30. Page 182 ----- -^,--,""~-._--",~'-'-" ". ..._--,- . ..-..-.--- '-"""'-',-- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've got a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5:00? COMMISSIONER CARON: 5:00 is good. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Whatever you say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 5:00 sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's set it up for 5:00 then, because we're going to need another day. Mr. Schmitt, has there been any -- do you have any days picked to when we would be able to continue to? We're going to go till 5:00 today. MR. SCHMITT: You want to talk about that now, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather get it over now so we n MR. SCHMITT: Basically what I got is -- okay, you have meetings on the 4th of September and the 18th of September. I have four petitions that you have not seen, nor have they been publicly vetted. They've been publicly vetted for everything, but you have not seen it because they've been under amendment. You cannot even review those until the 18th. You're going to get those today. I'm going to hand those out today. There's four. John will hand them out, and I'll go over them. It's your Page 133, 141, 165 and 219. Those are all amendments that have been back and forth between committees, sub-committees, we have final language. To give it the 15-day criteria, I'm going to ask that those be delayed and those be part of your 18th September regular meeting. I talked to Ray yesterday. I think your meeting will allow for those four to be heard on that day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 18th? MR. SCHMITT: On the 18th of September, yes. Page 183 -- August 28, 2008 And John will hand those out. If they're up there, John, we can hand those out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Now, let me go back to 4 September. September 4th your agenda again has changed. There were some compo plan amendments and other things. Those have now since been continued. You do have some Planning Commission items. And I think we can hear some of these amendments. I don't know how much time you want to spend in your regular meeting on the 4th. The other day I can offer is the entire day here on the 26th of September. So based on what you got, you got that list in front of you that we're working off today, plus the four amendments that we're handing out, and the ones that were going to go today that have to come back to you. So I've got three different days that we're looking at. Two are your regular meeting days, the 4th and the 18th, and then a full day on the 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody have any preferences? MR. SCHMITT: But I'd like to deal with the four I just handed out for your, quote, first hearing on the 18th. So I just want to lock that in for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that on the 18th. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's do that on the 18th. MR. SCHMITT: And then I don't know what we can -- we'll try and continue from today to the 4th. Your schedule isn't that bad, but it -- you know, we just -- yeah, that's one of those you don't know until you know. Page 184 .._,--- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm just not sure you have time with the holiday to do that for the 4th -- MR. SCHMITT: No, someone -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to revise language and-- MR. SCHMITT: You're not going to finish today. Do you want to -- the ones we don't get through today, do you want to -- at the end of the day you're going to -- we can still continue those to the 4th. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, all right, that's fine, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Should we book the 26th anyway? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we should. MR. SCHMITT: And then I can book the 26th for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we should. MR. SCHMITT: -- everything that's got to be reheard, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Let's do the 4th, the 18th and the 26th, just like you said. Let's hit all of them. MR. SCHMITT: All right, so the 4th -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will continue where we leave off today on the 4th. MR. SCHMITT: Where we leave off today. The 18th will be those four items that are rather contentious because it's the EIS. Where's Steve? Steve, the EIS -- a few other nice juicy ones. MR. LENBERGER: Native vegetation. MR. SCHMITT: Native vegetation, all those noncontroversial issues. And then we'll set up the 26th as a -- as sort of the -- finish any hearings and then try to do the rehearing on the 26th. Page 185 ".-- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good. Thank you, sir. Okay, so we'll go to 5:00 today. The next item up today is oh, let's see, we're on Page 185, the item is 3.05.07 H.1.d, preserve standards. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page did you say, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 185 and 186. Steve, it's all yours. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. This one is conservation mechanisms. I put the compo plan language up on the visualizer. And basically we required conservation easements for all preserves. And the compo plan required that, but was amended. And now it says conservation mechanism to prohibit further development. And it says the type of permanent conservation mechanism, including conservation easements, required for a specific development may vary, based on preserve area size, type of development approval and other factors as set forth in the county's land development regulations. I solicited the help of the county attorney's office on this, since I'm not an attorney, and the existing language had all kinds of legal language in it. So I did solicit their help, and I have the language in front of you. Also, we asked assistance from our surveyor in our department relating to some of the language as well. And I'm here to answer any questions the best I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take the -- all on two pages. So anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Page 186 -'--'-'- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 186, on D, third paragraph, it says that separate tracts or easements with legal access. What is legal access, just vehicle access to the site? MR. LENBERGER: I don't think it necessarily includes legal access, but just so we can get to the property from a right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it could be a pathway? MR. LENBERGER: Pathway or something was my interpretation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then down at the next paragraph where it states you can't dig into a preserve area with a non-compatible use or allowable use. Where were those listed, or are they listed? What is a non-compatible use? Other than everything, you know. MR. LENBERGER: Well, it will be uses that are inconsistent with the language of Chapter 7.04.06, which I unfortunately don't have in front of me right now. But that's your standard conservation easement language that the state uses for conservation easements. And it prohibits changing the soil, excavating, digging, altering the fauna and flora, basic things like that. It does allow for permitted activities, though, such as restoration activities. So if it's incompatible with that language, that's what it would be referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So essentially somebody could have an access drive through their property beyond the preserve go through it. Is that allowed or -- MR. LENBERGER: If there was an easement going through the preserve, it would be excluded from the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 187 -.-....- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I want to understand about that non-inclusive easement. Is that for ingress and egress only? What's its purpose? MR. LENBERGER: Which paragraph here? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. It's under D, it's the second paragraph, a non-exclusive easement in favor of the county wherein you take no maintenance obligations on should be provided for areas -- MR. LENBERGER: Right. That's referring to a conservation easement and that was from the existing language that we struck out above it where if you look about halfway down on the struck-through language above it, on the right side it says A. A non-exclusive easement or tract in favor of Collier County. We tried to keep the language consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but you don't know what that easement is for then, huh? MR. LENBERGER: I would have to turn to Jeff on how to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just wondering if you have an easement that you want to enter into that's your purpose, what about the right to cross other property to gain entrance to the easement that you want to get into? MR. LENBERGER: This is dealing with the conservation easement itself, not access. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. I don't think I made myself clear. But I was wondering what the easement is in the first place. And if it's an ingress and egress, I can understand it. MR. LENBERGER: No, it's a conservation easement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you said it was a Page 188 .---,--- August 28, 2008 conservation easement? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: In that same paragraph, what happens -- what kind of mechanism do you have for protecting preserves under an acre? MR. LENBERGER: The procedure set out, and we coordinated this with the county attorney's office on current projects, but we would include the preserve -- legal description on the site plan, whether it's construction plans or site a development plan, along with protective covenants language, the 7.04.06 language, we would include that language on the site development plan as well. And that's what we're proposmg. COMMISSIONER CARON: So no matter what size. MR. LENBERGER: Right. Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? Oh, I'm sorry, were you done, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's fine. I just need to see that that's exactly what this language says. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If the county has no obligation to maintain the easement but it's their property, who will maintain it? MR. LENBERGER: We have an easement over it but we don't own the property. The -- it would stay with the homeowners association or whatever entity owned it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They would still be required -- MR. LENBERGER: And they would be responsible for maintenance obligations. Page 189 .----- August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on either of the two pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, this is to -- they're not going to be required to record a conservation easement for the county unless created through the platting process. If it isn't created by plat and it isn't recorded, how does it show up on someone's title? MR. LENBERGER: A conservation easement, separate conservation easement will be required -- if a project is not platted, it will be required for all preserves over an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but say it's under an acre. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, under an acre there's no conservation easement required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we don't really have a preserve, do we? MR. LENBERGER: We have a preserve that's identified on a site with a management plan and with protective covenants language, but no, it's not a conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- a lot of times buyers come in and shame on them if they're not smart enough to do due diligence. How do they in a title policy know that they have any conservation area on their property? MR. LENBERGER: They would have to look at the site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which most of them wouldn't even know where that is or how to find it. I'm just wondering how the public is protected in that regard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A lot ofland mines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara? Page 190 -...-- August 28, 2008 MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson again. The conservation easements were only required post the final order and the GMP amendments that required us to do that. Prior to that we only had conservation easements placed on large preserves. So all smaller preserves prior to that point were called preserves on site plans. And I know that that doesn't answer your question in terms of whether that protects people or makes it easier, but it makes it much less expensive and less onerous for the smaller preserves to not have to place a conservation easement on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they have to draw up the legal for the conservation easement to place it on -- do they have to -- like on the SDP, do they have to legally lay it out? How would they define it on an SDP, just put the word preserve on a spot and say from line to line it's a preserve, or would they show a legal description? MR. LENBERGER: It would have a sketch and legal description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it only cost a buck a page or something like that to go down and record it. Why wouldn't you just want them to record that legal description so that the -- I'm real concerned -- here's a scenario that could happen. Someone could buy a home from a bank on a foreclosure, whatever they want. Nobody knows that that preserve's there except for the original person. They don't know that they can go down, look at an SDP, and even if they did, it's a tough process to figure out the SDP number, then try to find it and everything else. And here they go use the area and then find out they've created a huge problem for themselves because they went in and cleared it and put a picnic table there and a basketball court, and the next thing you know, they've got big problems. Page 191 -...-- August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: I understand your concern, but it doesn't relate to single-family lots. There's no preserve requirement for single- family homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What would this relate to then? MR. LENBERGER: Open space areas on a site development plan or plat construction plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Site development plan-- MR. LENBERGER: You would have areas that weren't designated for single-family homes or multi-family tract, but you have open areas. That's where your preserves would be. So it would be the area in the common ownership as opposed to a single-family lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be where I -- where's the-- how did you exempt single-family lots? Maybe it's exempt in another section. MR. LENBERGER: Single-family homes are exempt from the preservation requirement. We do have that spelled out in one of the other amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wasn't it struck in one of the other amendments, too? MR. LENBERGER: We clarified it. It's in one of the other amendments. I don't remember which one. But single-family homes are exempt from preserve requirements. They're not required to have preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under D, protective covenants, all preserve areas shall be designated as preserves on all site plans. Instead of just saying site plans, could we say site development plans? MR. LENBERGER: We could. Page 192 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then any time you use the word site plans, you refer to the site development plan. I know SDP's aren't required for single-family homes. You just don't do those for small homes. That would have helped me understand this out of the context that it was taken. MR. LENBERGER: We can make that change. MR. SCHMITT: I prefer to have that, because sometimes a single-family home comes in on a plat, that is called a site plan. I mean, you know, that terminology is used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can change that to SD n site plans? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: Yeah, that's fine, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the third paragraph down -- well, the second one talks about there will be no maintenance obligation shall be provided for all preserve areas that are one acre or more. And in the third paragraph, it says all preserve areas shall be shown on the preliminary and final plats. But this is supposed to exempt some from being on the final plat; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: No. If the project is platted, you're supposed to plat the preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you don't know it at the time of platting? MR. LENBERGER: I don't quite understand your question. If someone comes in for a project and they plat it and there are preserves, they will have to be platted as preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if they're under one acre? MR. LENBERGER: Yes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter the size. Page 193 '__'_'T'''V'_~ --,_._--,. August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: -- that's correct for plats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I think I meant by the word all. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you raised the idea of recording this. And I'm trying to figure out why that's not a bad idea. I mean, it's a minimal expense, $15 or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it's not a big deal. MR. KLATZKOW: And I think, you know, records get lost, we know that. But once you record it with the clerk, you know, those are pretty easy to find. MS. BURGESON: I think some of the complication comes in -- again, Barbara Burgeson -- with the creation of the conservation easement document, the review of that, having that document go through the process of having environmental review staff look at it, then it's subsequently sent over to the county attorney's office for their reVIew. There are four or five parts that have to be done with that conservation easement, including an obligation for staff to do two site visits for every conservation easement that's accepted. And it's very time-consuming for both the county staff and for the property owner to create that conservation easement, to provide the other documents -- Steve, maybe you could tell me what the other documents -- MR. LENBERGER: Gap title opinion. Opinion. We have to review all this material and require it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is -- when I started the questioning was that if -- and I understand you kind of took away a lot of it when you said it wasn't single-family homes and then we redefined it as site development plans. Now I know it wouldn't be single-family Page 194 ---_.- August 28, 2008 homes. But would we need an SDP for a duplex? MR. LENBERGER: I think it's three or more units, isn't it, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Three or more. MR. LENBERGER: Three or more, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so a triplex or four-plex or something like that. If someone had a small development, three or four-unit development and they wanted to do an SDP, they could do it and they could have a preserve less than an acre, they wouldn't have to record it. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If someone bought that facility and then started utilizing the preserve for manners that were inconsistent with our code, code enforcement could then go out and make them restore the property and do whatever else they have to do. Is that a scenario that could happen? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only part I'm concerned about, because we know those kind of things do happen, especially when someone inadvertently stumbles on what they think are inconsistencies with our codes. I don't know, what's the concern of the commission? Anything at all? One acre may not be big enough to replant, maybe, but -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just wondering if for those that are one acre or less, if it had to be that complicated in order to register it, as the county attorney was talking about. If it's one acre or less, do you have to make two site visits? Do you have to -- you know, how much staff time do you really have to spend with it? If it's on a site plan at that point, not a site development Page 195 - August 28, 2008 plan or even -- couldn't they record that somehow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your legal and graphic are what you need that the surveyors draw up. And they're just stuck on a site plan. So they could be put on an eight and a half by 11 for recordation -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, so it's on a site plan already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think it's the easement language that has to be formatted and reviewed by the department -- MR. KLATZKOW: This easement language is always the same. The only thing that's changing is the legal description. I'm assuming that we're requiring legal description anyway, so I'm not entirely sure why this is difficult. But I may be wrong. I don't do this every day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would rather, before we go too far with this, that you guys get together with the county attorney's office, come back with a process that could be -- that these -- where we could record these. And if it is as onerous as you say it is, maybe then there's a better reason not to. But I'm not sure that I'm hearing the same thing from both departments. Anybody else have any -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the thing, if it's simple, could we put it in here, just the wording that it should be and just essentially do it in the LDC? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if the concern is two site visits, we can waive that for these. Whatever makes this onerous we could put in here that whatever -- these are not required. My understanding is you do require the legal description. Every single one of these should be the same, these easements, and -- MR. LENBERGER: Some of them vary, depending on uses allowed. We've had a few variations come in. Page 196 . ,~~-,-----",.... ~--,.~~ August 28, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: If it's hard, I understand that. I just don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather the two departments got together and came back to us with a recommendation after that discussion occurs. I'd sure like to know if -- you could call it a special easement and record it as something that's restrictive under the conservation manner, but maybe not as intense as a conservation easement. MR. KLATZKOW: You could even just refer to the site development plan for the specifics. The point is to just put somebody on notice there's this easement out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We need to see that mechanism, so we need to come back with it. MR. LENBERGER: I'll coordinate with the county attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item on the agenda is 3.05.07(H)(1)(e), preserve standards, on Page 187. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, did you have something on the previous one? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I'm glad you reminded me. I'm-- MR. ANDERSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- getting to that age where I can't remember anything anymore, it seems. MR. ANDERSON: And I'll be glad to take this up with the county attorney if it would save you time, since you're going to be hearing this again. We have concerns about the conservation easement form being Page 197 ~ _._,-~... . _W"~__'.. August 28, 2008 used. It's from the statutes. It's apparently much more restrictive than the standard conservation easement that the county has used in the past and would prohibit some uses that are allowed still by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since this is supposed to be a minor issue for an acre or less, we would rather keep it as simple as possible. And if there's a method that you could talk with the county attorney and any suggestion as his maybe just a reference to the SDP is all that's needed. I would highly suggest that would be the way to go. And then we come back with hopefully something that works for everybody. Does that work for you? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll remember again to call everybody. I keep forgetting. Just stand up ifI do. MR. ANDERSON: Also, on the current county conservation easement form, it provides a right of access -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it does? MR. ANDERSON: -- to the conservation area. So there's really no reason to clutter up the legal record even more by recording access easements which may have their own setback requirements, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll move to Page 187. And that goes to Page 192. Steve, it's -- how much of a presentation did you want to make on this one? MR. LENBERGER: Just writing down last notes, excuse me. This is -- 187 would be creation, restoration of native vegetation. I have the GMP policy on the visualizer. Page 198 ----'.-- August 28, 2008 And basically we're to determine the circumstances when the creation or restoration is allowed and to specify criteria for creation and restoration. And that being preserves. Any questions you have, I'll be more than glad to answer them. I really don't have a presentation on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with Page 187 and 188. Questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 187, Steve, the fiscal analysis. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming you're -- do you have an idea of what a created acre of native vegetation costs that you could provide for us? MR. LENBERGER: We could probably figure that out for basic planting. It would depend on the type of habitat. But we can kind of give you an estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that would be helpful. Page 188. I noticed you took out the word reasonably accommodate. What was the thought process there? MS. BURGESON: The reason for that -- again, Barbara Burgeson -- is that created preserves are the least successful preserves. We want to really discourage that any time we can. We want to discourage creating preserves. We want to make sure that there's an absolute need to do that because of the high failure rate of preserves. And you can get that information from organizations like South Florida Water Management Page 199 August 28, 2008 District. When an area is completely recreated, it's usually very difficult to have that succeed. And so we have identified the criteria below where we feel it's necessary to allow somebody to create preserves. But the intent is to absolutely discourage that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under E(I)(a) you added a sentence. Does this apply to single-family home sites? I know in the prior one I didn't think it did. MR. LENBERGER: There's no preserve requirement for single-family homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no created preserve requirement either? MR. LENBERGER: Right, there's no preserve requirement, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it wouldn't matter if someone had a homesite on seven or 10 acres, it wouldn't be required. MR. LENBERGER: That's right, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under B, why are we putting in the new language and why are we taking out the old? What's wrong with the old language? I mean, if someone has -- if they have to work around it and they can't, why would we want to force them to? MS. BURGESON: Again, we're just trying to tighten up the opportunity for someone to -- a developer to say well, my site plan -- the way I want to design it, I would like to, I would prefer to have this building over here when the code would allow them to redesign that and not have to create a preserve. So again, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they do create a preserve and we end up with some more preserve acreage, what's wrong with that? Page 200 ..-....,..-. August 28, 2008 MS. BURGESON: Created preserves fail more often than if we require that they just provide retained native vegetation as preserves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't we have monitoring requirements so that created preserves don't fail as often? MS. BURGESON: We have monitoring requirements. And I can tell you that if we went out to all of the preserves that we know in the past five years that have been created, we'd probably find that most of them are in violation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would -- if you went out to all the preserves that were left because they were native, are they still in as good of a shape as they would have expected to be in? Won't you have that same scenario whether it's native or not? MS. BURGESON: No. It's the wrong vegetation and the wrong soil. The elevation is not proper. The vegetation type that they've chosen in the created preserves may not be proper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I read language in one of these changes, and I'm not sure which one it is, it may be further on in this one, I've read so much of this stufflately, that was very specific about how someone chooses the material and plants it and how it's monitored to make sure it survives. MS. BURGESON: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe're doing all that, then why is there a detriment for created preserves, especially if it is to accommodate -- oh, it's right there. MS. BURGESON: Because you're looking at vegetation that's been established in an area with, for instance, that exact elevation. When they're creating preserves, they're usually changing the elevation slightly, so you're going to have a slightly different hydrology. It's just not exactly the same when you're creating a preserve. Page 201 August 28, 2008 And what the language is in the code that identifies the best criteria when somebody absolutely has to create a preserve in our hopes that it will be successful and to the best degree will be successful for the property owner. MR. LENBERGER: We also added language in this section talking about the soils and things like that, because we find when you have this fill material added to preserves or to areas for created preserves, the plant material just doesn't do well. So we're trying to add some language in here so hopefully a higher percentage of these will be successful. But they have not shown to be successful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anybody else on 188? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go to 189. Any questions on page -- Mr. Murray, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, at i -- ii, where you start out where created preserves are approved, the planting plan, ta da, ta da, ta da, and you spoke about larger -- utilizing larger plants materials. Larger than what? I think it's a little vague. MR. LENBERGER: The amendment gives the size criteria. But yeah, that was the language that has been used. The minimum landscape requirements, for example, would be smaller than these size material. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Don't they expressly -- don't we ordinarily expressly relate to them in terms of gallonage for plants and so forth? MR. LENBERGER: We specify the criteria on the next page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but you're saying that you're referencing me to the next page for the answer to this page; is that what you're telling me? Page 202 ,"---.. .,---- August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, let me go down further in that next paragraph: Or must demonstrate at least five years experience with successful environmental restoration in Florida. Is that as an employee, is that an owner? How is that person -- how are they charged with that responsibility to be five years in expertise? And how does that -- MR. LENBERGER: Five years experience doing restoration projects. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the experience can be as an employee of a company? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that if they were an employee of a company for six years and they decided to have their own business, they would not be tossed out, they would be given the opportunity. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, they would. As long as they met the criteria, the credentials in the EIS section, yes, they would. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What evidence would they provide for you that would give you that knowledge that they've got that experience? Experience is a personal subjective thing -- MR. LENBERGER: I understand. But they can demonstrate any way they want. We haven't set that criteria out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you did when you said five years -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, we said five years -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would agree with you they can demonstrate it in other ways. But five years is a requirement you put upon them. MR. LENBERGER: Right. Page 203 ..~._-,-_. August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that's the most ideal way of going about it. I understand what I think the intent it. MR. LENBERGER: How would you phrase that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you want me to decide that I'd-- , MR. LENBERGER: I'd like to hear your suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Demonstrated experience would have to be based on either a rendering -- not a rendering, but a provision to you of some kind of a document that gives their expenence. Now, I would have preferred that you had some kind of set criteria for them that they could relate to it. And I have no objection to five years, as long as you don't preclude someone from taking a shot at getting a job and doing it -- MR. LENBERGER: I'm not precluding them. As long as they meet the credentials in the EIS section, we're fine -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So when you're in that transaction that you'd be meeting Josephine Doakes, that's Joe's sister. When you're doing that, what will you be looking for in that five years? They could be doing it one month a year -- MR. LENBERGER: Evidence that they worked on products, this type of product. Usually they can give time frames when they worked on a project through permits from different agencies. There's any way they can demonstrate it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would be the way you would knock them out, that they wouldn't be qualified? I mean, you're just telling me that you -- MR. LENBERGER: If they couldn't provide any evidence that they've worked on any projects within the time frame -- or within the Page 204 - ,-._-- August 28, 2008 five years we require. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand your intent. I'm not sure you've gotten there. Okay, thank you. MR. LENBERGER: A lot of consultants will list on resumes products they've worked on over the years, and they'll give dates and they'll give all kinds ofprojects. And a lot of them do relate to different agency permitting, and I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for them to give us those permits too, if they want to document that way. But we don't want to create an onerous type situation here -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, and my motivation is -- my concern is associated with someone being denied the opportunity, if they're a new business, for them to be able to practice their trade. And I'm just wondering whether or not this is our best method. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, on the bottom of Page 189 where you talk about where available, surface soils indigenous to the site shall be used to create a preserve. Where native surface soils are not present or where existing surface soils are heavily overgrown with highly invasive groundcovers, a minimum of one foot of native topsoil shall be used. How can you get one foot of native topsoil to put somewhere without destroying the natural soil somewhere else? MR. LENBERGER: Hopefully that would have been from another development project. But generally it's -- we don't want fill placed in the area where the vegetation is not going to do well. Generally when you have a project, if you have disturbed areas like that, you'll have other areas that are undisturbed that you're going to develop. And we'd like you to use those soils if they're in the area for Page 205 .- August 28, 2008 clearing and you can't retain the vegetation and you have to create, well, then use that soil, that surface foot and move it into the preserve. Use that as a base, that's all we're asking. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, I'm a little bit sceptical, because usually in Florida the layer of topsoil is quite thin in most areas. And to try to recreate it in the different strata I would think would be pretty tough. MR. LENBERGER: Well, first, just a clarification. We're using surface soils, so I don't want you to just -- kind of just -- it's not just topsoil. It's the natural sands with the acidity, for example, in a pine flatwoods that would occupy a certain amount of feet on the upper layer as opposed to the fill underneath that has a lot of limerock and gets hard when you bring it up on the surface and it compacts. That kind of stuff. So it's not just topsoil, it's the surface soil. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 189. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, the top of Page 189 continues an item started on Page 188. When state and federal permits mandate the creation of flowways needed to provide assurance that the overall wetland system will function. And I would suggest we insert the word or requires creation of native habitat on-site. Because if the state or federal permits require that, why wouldn't that be an allowable reason for created preserves? Why would we strike that language? MS. BURGESON: Again, that's just to minimize the creation of habitat. If they're requiring flowways to be created and then they're requiring native habitat on-site, it's just to minimize acceptance of that created system. And the flowway systems, when we've talked to South Page 206 '-~~"."-""'" --.. August 28, 2008 Florida Water Management District, are critical for them. So we've tried to give them the benefit of the doubt that even when those flowway systems may not fulfill our descending criteria requirements in our code for preserve areas, that we are allowing them to use those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe I missed my point. If the state or federal permits require you to do something, whether it be a flowway or to create additional native habitat, you're going to have to do it. Why don't we let them do it? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we crossing the language out? Why don't we just put or -- MS. BURGESON: Because there may be vegetation or habitat on-site that's of greater value and is required by our code to be preserved before that upland area that may be created by the agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the agency is going to require it to be created regardless. So aren't we double dipping then? Now they're caught in the limbo of the state and feds and then they're caught in the limbo of us having this language taken out and not giving them an exception for it. Why would we do that? Either way, we're creating -- something positive's being done. And if that's the goal, then why wouldn't we want either one to be applicable? MS. BURGESON: We'll put it back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last line, this exception may be granted regardless of the size of the project. Again, if it's a state and federal issue, why are we debating it? It's done. The state and feds require it. Someone has to do it. So why wouldn't we want them to be able to benefit from that? Page 207 ._-,-"---'..~ August 28, 2008 Anyway, that's my thoughts. You don't have to answer me, because I think I'm -- I'm just offering a practical explanation. And as far as I'm concerned, I think it needs to be left in, and we'll go from there. Item E. Item E talks about access points. When an access point to a project cannot be relocated to comply with obligatory health and safety mandates such as road alignments required for the federal, state and county transportation departments. This changes "such as" to "for". So then it seems that it can only be for that reason of health and safety mandates. Maybe there are other reasons. I'm not sure what they would be, but what would we care if they're safety and health mandated such as road alignments? Why wouldn't we want to leave that in? Make it -- because it seems like we're making it more strict and more limited by using the -- putting the word "for" in there, because it could only be for road alignments. Whereas such as, that allows other things that may happen. Why would we want to take that out? MR. LENBERGER: You want to keep such as and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strike "for". MR. LENBERGER: Strike "for". Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 190. Anybody have any questions on Page -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, carries over from 190. Steve, could you kind of walk me through, I guess it's B(i)(ii) and (iii), it looks like what you're saying in the first I is pretty simple, that you can't build isolated ones greater than an acre. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second one, a corridor. What exactly does a corridor mean? Is that a-- MR. LENBERGER: Okay, we have two criteria, ii and iii. One is Page 208 _..."",,-"_...._-- ~...,'- August 28, 2008 corridor connection and one is adjacent preserves. And basically it's just to connect to preserves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But in that case what you're saying is what you build on your site can't be greater than half the area of the preserve you're connecting to? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's the concern there? That the preserve you're connecting to is a viable concern and you're recreating one. Why wouldn't you encourage greater than -- MR. LENBERGER: We have no strong feeling. We started on what language we could use. What size would you want as far as a created preserve? I mean, you could have two big preserves and then have a smaller connection, which is -- most people might visualize. Or you could have two tiny little preserves with this big created preserve in the middle to attach two tiny preserves. Do you want to put a size constraint on the amount of created habitat based on the size of the preserves you're trying to connect? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, if that's the explanation, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 190 and 191. Anybody else have any questions on those two pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, on Page 190, in the middle of the first paragraph on the top of the page, you've added the language, in order to promote diversity. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The whole sentence says, minimum sizes for plant material may be reduced for scrub and other xeric habitats in Page 209 .._._~._~-~'- August 28, 2008 order to promote diversity and where smaller plant size -- plant material is better suited for establishment of native plant community. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to reduce the size of the plant material because it's better suited for reestablishment of the native plant community, you now can't do it unless it's in order to promote diversity; is that right? MR. LENBERGER: No, that's in addition to. It's in order to promote diversity and where smaller such material is better suited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's in addition, that's what I'm getting at. So that means if you have a minimum size -- if you feel a minimum size plant may be reduced -- say you want to go to a smaller size plant for that habitat because it's better suited for the establishment of the native plant community. In this case you couldn't do it now unless it was in order to promote diversity. Is that right? MR. LENBERGER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, explain it to me then. I'm sorry, I'm not grasping it. MR. LENBERGER: What we're saying here is you have scrub and other xeric habitats. We recognize that because the habitat's limited, the availability of nursery material for those type species is going to be limited. Also, a lot of scrub material and a lot of other xeric habitats are harder to grow commercially and they are easier to establish if you put it in a smaller container and put it into the habitat. When you start growing them large, sometimes it's not feasible in scrub material. And even if it was, to get a fairly large plant in a container it would probably die once you put it in habitat. So this is just recognizing that smaller size material is better and it Page 210 -_._-~" August 28, 2008 also helps if you want to promote diversity, which goes, in effect, with some of the Compo Plan language dealing with preserve management plans and trying to promote diversity. It's not meant to be more restrictive, the language. If it doesn't read clear, maybe I should take a look at it. It's not meant to be more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's appears to me the only way I think you could now only use smaller size plant material is if you were going to use it for -- to create a diversity of material. And that's how I'm reading it. And maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's just what it seems to say. MR. LENBERGER: We could just put "or" instead of "and". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. LENBERGER: We can put "or" instead of "and". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be helpful. That would take care of it. MR. LENBERGER: It wasn't meant to be more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under B, one, two, and three were crossed out. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And i, ii and iii were added in. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we want to use all six instead of just adding the three new ones? Leave the three old ones and the three new ones. MR. LENBERGER: We're trying to cap creation of preserves at one acre if they're isolated, unless -- okay, if they're isolated, period. But allowing for larger created preserves where we have a corridor connection or they're adjacent to another preserve. Not just to have the Page 211 _..._..__'m August 28, 2008 acreage requirement specified in one, two and three. When you have -- well, as explained earlier, when you have created preserves adjacent to natural habitats, you have a better chance of them taking the plant material -- or restoring the habitat is what I should say -- just because of its proximity to another seed source and the other habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What part of the EAR is providing the ability to come up with this idea that we need to be more restrictive or more -- less tolerant where we're allowed to use created preserves? MR. LENBERGER: The GMP language is on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I see it. I'm just saying, where does it say you have to be -- MR. LENBERGER: It says determine the circumstances for when creation or restoration is allowed and to specify criteria for creation and restoration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it doesn't say that the intent of the circumstances should be to minimize the creation of preserves. And this whole context that we're seeing here today seems to want to lessen the ability for landowners to utilize created preserves. It heard that stated I thought earlier. I'm trying to see where the policy says that. It just says we will provide the opportunity, I think, to create preserves, which you're doing and which you had done with the original language. I'm just wondering why we're going through this exercise. It doesn't seem to be that -- I can't relate it to the EAR-based argument that I thought these were supposed to be about. I guess that's more of a statement. MS. BURGESON: Well, and since we are supposed to adopt LDR's to determine the circumstances when the created or restoration is allowed, and we know that created, restored or created preserves fail a Page 212 .-..- August 28, 2008 great deal of the time, then we want to limit the amount of times or the circumstances when we would allow them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I don't see any language like that in this policy. I just think it says we should provide for the creation and restoration. Is allowed to specify the criteria, which we have in the existing -- MS. BURGESON: It says we should determine the circumstances -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, you've got to let -- one of us has to finish speaking before the other speaks. So anyway, go ahead, ma'am. What did you want to say? I couldn't hear you when you were talking over me. MR. LENBERGER: Staffs supposed to determine the circumstances when using created preserves. That's what we try to do, limit it for isolated where we know it usually fails. And as far as the acreage requirement. And understand that when you're adjacent to another preserve or a corridor connection, that's where it's more beneficial and they will succeed more often, and to allow for more flexibility there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 190 or 191? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think on your diversity issue it pops up again on the paragraph that's at the end of 191. MR. LENBERGER: 191. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any adjustment there I think the word "or" needs to be substituted in. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your added language in the bottom, the third line, it says, and take into consideration requirements of any Page 213 --,,--.~-- August 28, 2008 listed or protected species using the site. What do you mean by that? How would you enforce that? That's why I'm asking what you mean by that. MR. LENBERGER: A lot of that's going to depend on the habitat. A lot of times certain species require very open habitats and certain types of vegetation. So we wouldn't want you planting hammock material in a pine flatwoods where you would have red-cockaded woodpeckers which need a pine canopy with a very sparse understory. So that would be contradictory. So that's what that means. We just need to take into consideration the species utilizing the habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the last page is Page 192. Does anybody have any questions on Page 192? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that page it continues over from the prior page, the last sentence of the prior page where it continues on 192, it says, if within a two-year period groundcovers have not sufficiently regenerated. Do we have a way to determine what sufficiently regenerated means? MR. LENBERGER: We could put in a percent requirement. I don't know if the -- I don't know the exact language the Water Management District uses. They generally require sufficient cover of the groundcover recruitment within one growing season. We were allowing a little more flexibility with two years, and we use sufficiently regenerated. We could put a percent cover. But like I said, it's going to depend on the habitat type, and that's not always easy to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who would determine then if it's Page 214 .._~...-....,.~-'. .--".._-,-~ August 28, 2008 sufficiently regenerated? MR. LENBERGER: I guess it would have to be staff in coordination with the preserve manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be more comfortable ifthere was some criteria on which staff then could make that judgment call. And then supplemental planting with native groundcover shall be required. Now, the supplemental planting will be to the extent needed to make up the percentage that didn't get regenerated, I would assume? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. We could put language in, regenerated based on percentages typical for the type of environment, as opposed to a percentage, I think would be better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This entire policy was EAR-based. But it seems that the way it was written also met the EAR. I'm just a little puzzled as to why we have it here today. But that was just a -- I'm trying to understand that. Maybe somebody's who's going to -- maybe we have a speaker. Do we have any public speakers on this matter? Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hancock. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. Mr. Strain, you raised, as always, good questions about why this set of amendments is before you. We already have criteria in the Land Development Code for when we can do creation on-site of preserve areas. Why are these changes being made? Staff should either be required to rewrite the reason that these amendments are before you or to withdraw it. Particularly the three standards for re-creation at the bottom of Page 190 should be retained. First of all, allowing on-site native vegetation, creation or Page 215 _.._,-_..,"~.-.. -- ----_._-~-, -.........- August 28, 2008 restoration is an exception created by the Growth Management Plan to the native preserve location requirements. And the LDC should expressly recognize that it is an exception to the preserve location requirements. Second, there needs to be some degree of reasonability as to when and how the on-site creation exception is applied. The Growth Management Plan permits creation and restoration to permit responsible development to occur on-site without compromising a workable site plan. This degree of reasonability is recognized in Conservation Coastal Management Element Policy 6.1.1(7) which provides an exception to the native preserve location requirements where, quote, parcels cannot reasonably accommodate both the preservation area and the proposed activity, unquote. The key phrase is cannot reasonably accommodate. That is not in there anymore. It's proposed to be struck. It's our position that's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments want to place a limit of five acres on the right to recreate. That's not in the Comprehensive Plan. There's no such acreage limitation. Additionally, there's a proposal that you can only recreate where, quote, no other location for the site improvement is allowed by the code, unquote. Again, that's not called for in the Comprehensive Plan. That is a tightening that is not needed and not called for in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. It says, where the proposed use cannot reasonably be accommodated with preserving vegetation on-site. The current LDC language is consistent with the Growth Management Plan and ought to be retained. Lastly, again where it gets -- goes farther than the Growth Page 216 --.----..-. August 28, 2008 Management Plan requires, the proposal in those cases where it's not possible, it says, to satisfy all or a portion of the vegetation retention requirements. The proposed amendment would remove the option to recreate all and limit it to just a portion. Again, that's inconsistent with the language in the Comprehensive Plan. So this really doesn't implement the policy that it refers to. It takes away from it, and recreates and takes away the language that's already in the Land Development Code that implements this policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ANDERSON: That's all I have to say on that one, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, members ofthe Planning Commission, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. I want to echo Mr. Anderson's sentiments. The word reasonably should remain in. Any time we remove the element of reasonableness from government regulation, we are indeed moving in the wrong direction. This tightening up I think is chasing after a ghost that may not exist. On the one hand I think there are some positives in this if we require that the individuals that create these management and planting plans have a degree of experience, have a background of success. I think that's a positive step. But to then take that increased requirement of experience and success and to tell them how to do their job by putting a foot oftopsoil on regardless of the conditions, by then saying that you have to do it this way, so you need to have this set amount of experience and now we're going to tell you how to do your job. Page 217 -",...--,--,'''." August 28, 2008 I think this simply could boil down to requiring that someone meet a minimum set of criteria, who is educated in the field, meet those standards, and then you propose the plan. But it must contain an element of reasonableness. I do think that there is -- and one area I want to thank staff for putting something in that I think opens the door to what a true professional in the field would come here and tell you, and that is that when you require someone to try and mimic native vegetation in three strata, you are all but setting them up for failure. And the reason is there's a degree of natural propagation that occurs. And when you come in and you in essence cover every square foot with something, you are denying the natural propagation. I think there is a recognition on staffs part on Page 191 of what they're trying to do, particularly with regard to groundcover. And I know that discussion occurred in our EAC/LDC subcommittee meetings, that you're really not allowing for natural propagation. So my suggestion would be, number one, please don't remove the word reasonable. Number two is let's back this down to where we require that somebody with the adequate qualifications present a reasonable planting plan and let's not restrict something that has not been proven or shown to be broken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think my thought on this is it's like some of the others. And we've had some we've approved and some we've questioned. If it ain't broke, I don't know why we're fixing it. The language that's there already seems to meet the intent of the Page 218 ..a~..._.. '", .---.-.. August 28, 2008 GMP. This is one ofthem that I don't think needs to be changed at this time. I certainly would like us to take a breather from making so many changes to the Land Development Code, at least until it gets rewritten by Mr. White and we figure out what we're dealing with. And this just is going to make it harder to understand. That's my thought on it. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need a motion from the Planning Commission. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I make a motion that we recommend this to the BCC -- I'm sorry, we send this to the BCC with our recommendation of disapproval and we deny it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the basis that the GMP already addresses the issue in the existing language? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly, it's not necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: That the LDC already addresses the GMP. MR. SCHMITT: Current LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that the current Land Development Code already addresses the GMP language and there's no need to further it at this time. I'll second the motion. Discussion? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. You might add that, if you feel this way, that it's inconsistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's what we're trying to say. I see what you're saying. That just strengthens that part of it, Page 219 .--_._-- August 28, 2008 talking about strengthening things. Sure, I mean, I don't -- it's up to the motion maker. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion would be that we recommend denial because it's inconsistent with the GMP and that the language as it already is written in the Land Development Code is already consistent with the GMP. And I seconded the motion. The motion maker made it. Is there a discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I strongly agree with the points that Tim made that, you know, the part about putting in the expertise and reasonableness and so forth should be in whatever comes out of it eventually. But I'm going to vote along with the motion just because there's too many extraneous things in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to let you know, reasonable will go back in by the old language. What won't go back in, however, are the criteria for the plantings, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 220 .'.,-,.-.----. August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Okay, next one up is Page 193, 3.05.07(H)(1)(g), preserve management plans. Boy, Steve, we get to see a lot of you today. MR. LENBERGER: It's my assignment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you do very well in the way you present, so thank you. MR. LENBERGER: 193, preserve management plans. I have the underlying strike-through language in the -- on the visualizer. And basically it's, a management plan shall be submitted for preserve areas, identified by specific criteria in the Land Development Code regulations to identify actions that must be taken to ensure that preserves will maintain natural diversity and will function as proposed. There were some things added too in the back, on the bottom of that. The plan shall include methods to address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, bar management, stormwater management, if applicable, and maintenance of permitted facilities. If applicable, a listed species monitoring program shall be submitted pursuant to Policy 7. 12(2)(i). State and federal management plans consistent with the requirements of the LDC will be accepted. I don't have really a presentation, but I'd be more than glad to answer your questions regarding the specifics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll start with Page 193 and 194. Anybody have any questions on the first two pages? (No response.) Page 221 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No questions. I've got a question under the first paragraph, 1 (g), last line. A preserve management plan shall be included on the approved site plans and shall include the following. We're back to the word site plans. If your intention here is site development plans -- MR. LENBERGER: It's site development plans and construction plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what do you mean by construction plans? Like -- MR. LENBERGER: In conjunction with a plat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FSP, final subdivision plat? MR. SCHMITT: Or a PPL or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we note that? Because my reading with the site plans, and I keep thinking you could be calling it a house site plan. I know you don't intend that to be. MR. LENBERGER: We could change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 195. Any questions on Page 195? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the bottom of Page 195 where it says, the county will accept state and federal management plans as long as they are consistent with the requirements. Could we drop the words as long as they are and just say the county will accept state and federal management plans consistent with the requirements? It says the same thing, but less wordy. MR. LENBERGER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 196? Anybody have any questions? Ms. Caron, did you have one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Under seven-- Page 222 August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- where it says monitoring for stormwater in preserves. Shouldn't it be -- I think it should be treated stormwater in preserves. Additionally the monitoring program must include appropriate protocols, and I'm not sure what that means. Again, I think that's language we need to define. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I think that was for you to react to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Make a note, bring it back. Whatever you want to say to that. MR. LENBERGER: We've gone through a lot of changes particularly on stormwater issues. And this is related to the stormwater issue. And we were asked not to put specific criteria, and then we're asked to put specific criteria, and we've gone back and forth on this issue. Perhaps we'll just have a monitoring program to address, you know, vegetation surveys, surface water. We will have to look at rewording that, because I don't know if we want to get into a bunch of details on protocols. But I'll discuss that with management and see where they want to go on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? We're on Page 196. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, you can go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the bottom of Roman VII where it says compatible vegetation must be planted to replace any vegetation that may be lost over time in the preserve. This is again having to do with time. And based on what Ms. Burgeson said earlier about if they were able to get out there and look at every one of these places, they'd find probably a lot ofthem in trouble. But when should this happen? Should Page 223 ---..-.". "'-'-'-" August 28, 2008 we be more clear on when this should happen? Is it based upon an investigation, an inspection, time, of what sort? MR. LENBERGER: Most likely an inspection of a subdivision or inspections that are associated with site development plan would trigger this, and that would probably be a couple of years later or whatever the case may be. Then you would know if your stormwater system design was affecting any of the vegetation in a negative way. Once the design is built, it's very difficult to change that. Obviously it's already constructed. So that's why we have compatible vegetation, is to create some kind of situation. Theoretically if you've created some sort of situation where the vegetation died, you'd have to kind of look at what you have now and what is the type of compatible vegetation that would exist in that area now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand you. You're saying that they planted all of this -- MR. LENBERGER: The preserve existed with native vegetation, you set your control elevations, you allow treated stormwater to go into a preserve. If for some reason it wasn't appropriate for the vegetation for whatever reason, elevation, duration of flooding, whatever the case may be in relation to the types of vegetation, then you would look at it and say well, we've got to fix it. We're not going to put the same type of vegetation if it's going to die, you're going to have to put something that's going to survive there. So you're going to have to analyze it. It's just some kind a safety net to say hey, it's failing, we need to address the situation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you had to have a plan in the first instance to do all of this because you're going to receive stormwater anyway. MR. LENBERGER: Right. And we have criteria -- Page 224 _.''".'.'n_____ August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So shouldn't there be -- likewise, shouldn't there be a plan than talks about the other side of that when time goes by and we recognize the potential for failure for whatever number of reasons that there are. And I recognize the key word there is compatible vegetation, and I understand all the ground rules. But what I'm asking for is okay, how do we make sure that it happens? Because one of the key elements that I remember here, the argument being is we didn't want to put water into preserves. And if we are going to put water into preserves and we expect some degradation, we ought to have a plan and a place that we follow up to verify and make sure that we didn't fail in the first instance. Am I wrong? MR. LENBERGER: Well, we have specific criteria in an amendment here that you're going to hear regarding when stormwater should be put into preserves. And we've had all kinds of arguments back and forth on that. Hopefully those criteria are some safeguards to prevent this type of situation from happening where you'd have a die-off. We were asked to put some criteria in here to address that in case it did happen. And that's where we went here. We didn't add a time frame there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you did in a sense by saying five years. (Commissioner Midney exits the boardroom.) MR. LENBERGER: Well, yeah, the monitoring -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And really, isn't that the only recourse that you have? Because nobody else is going to put that in their little blue book and go around on their weekends. MR. LENBERGER: And I understand. It would have to be Page 225 .,-- ~"'~.'-,. August 28, 2008 complaint driven or something like that or just a routine inspection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My argument is this: We cause-- and I don't think it's a bad thing to necessarily want to do, but we cause people to expend funds to achieve a certain result that everyone applauds, and then we let it hang out in the breeze, so to speak. My concern is if we're going to require people to spend money to do something that we think is appropriate, we ought to have a means by which we can follow up. Now, I recognize the limitations of staff and all the rest of it, but something needs to be done. Five years seems to me an enormous time. MR. LENBERGER: Weare requiring in general monitoring. Each preserve is required at minimum to do an annual inspection once a year at minimum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who does that, the preserve -- MR. LENBERGER: The preserve manager that is required under this section of the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is not an employee of the county, though, right? MR. LENBERGER: That's right, it's someone that's a professional, that's hired -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they're hired by the associations if it's -- whatever. MR. LENBERGER: Well, initially the developer and the association can change who they contract with at any time. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And is there anything that requires the association to make sure that they hire people who have the adequate experience and the technical skills and so forth? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, the codes here. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You're comfortable that we're Page 226 .. ~-~, --.-.---- August 28, 2008 good, that we're okay? MR. LENBERGER: I'm just thinking about the time frames. We're requiring -- obviously we have this monitoring period for five years but we're still going to have annual inspections. That annual inspection should document any die-off, and that would trigger county involvement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you have a high confidence rate on this whole thing as being successful for the future? MR. LENBERGER: I think the system would work. But I will talk it over with my supervisors and see if they want to put different criteria in there as a better safeguard -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's something to think about perhaps. That's my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 196. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I actually have to go back to Page 194. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Don't we right in the beginning need to talk about -- specifically about management plans for stormwater in that first paragraph of G? MR. LENBERGER: First paragraph of G? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: H(1)(g) on Page 194. MR. LENBERGER: Well, it's in there. Are you talking the first sentence, the criteria? And the stormwater is number seven, so it is there. So that's required, if applicable. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see, okay. Well, in G it says that we're only concerned with five acres or more. What about stormwater that's going to be dumped into -- MR. LENBERGER: Well, the first sentence is required whether Page 227 ._-,---_.~"'~-,,- ,--,--_._. August 28, 2008 you do a preserve management plan or not. It says criteria 1(3) six and seven below are required for all preserves, whether a management plan for the preserve has been approved or not. We can say required -- but if you don't meet the threshold for requiring a preserve, you still have to do the stormwater monitoring if you're putting stormwater in your preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 196. Steve, the first item, five up on top, you're talking about fire management or other types of control for management plan, prescribed burns are not an option. Habitat plans shall include removal of dead vegetation and periodic thinning of vegetation. If they have to do that, do they have to go through a permit process all over again to get that accomplished? I mean, they have a preserve management plan, it says they will thin -- MR. LENBERGER: If their preserve management plan requires trimming and removal of dead excess material, that would not trigger any other county requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about periodic thinning of vegetation? MR. LENBERGER: That would be vegetation removal. That could. Some vegetation springs back, for example, if you cut it, like Saw palmetto, when it burns or if you cut it off it springs right back. That's kind of a different scenario. But if you're cutting something and it would kill the vegetation, that requires a vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if they have a preserve management plan and they've done all this work at this time, and certainly these plans change as the future goes on, you would require when they came back in to enact their preserve management plan to Page 228 ""--,,--_. August 28, 2008 take down dead trees or thin vegetation another permit? MR. LENBERGER: Only if they're removing vegetation. In other words, when you trim vegetation, you're just trimming it in accordance to your preserve management plan. That would not trigger another county permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it has, Steve, because I'm actually talking to a homeowners association who has had that problem with your department. MR. LENBERGER: What we could do is we could add language here that removal of vegetation in accordance with the management plan would not require a separate vegetation removal permit. We can address that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, the problem is in a lot of cases these plans were put into effect when our code started asking for them years ago. And over the years we have started to, as I heard earlier the term, tighten up. Okay, so now we have new requirements for preserve management plans. They're tighter than they were 10 years ago. So now someone comes in and wants to thin or trim based on their earlier preserve management plan, which clearly allowed them to do that. But now they're told they have to get a vegetation removal permit or a trimming permit. But in order to get that they have to update their preserve management plan, which now requires huge amount of criteria on top of the plan they originally had. How is all that fair to the public? MR. LENBERGER: We can address that right here. We can put in that they don't have to do a vegetation removal permit as long as it's in accordance with the preserve management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you denote a level of frustration today, I've had so many people talk about issues like this happening. Page 229 '".- August 28, 2008 And we've heard multiple experiences today. Changing the code so much is not accomplishing it, making it any simpler. If we can clarify problems out there, that's what we need to be doing and so -- MR. LENBERGER: We'll address that here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that, Page 196.1. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the last page of this item. There's a reference in the third line from the top that says, owner shall retain copies of written monitoring reports. How long are they expected to retain the copies? MR. LENBERGER: There is no time frame they have to retain them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that might be -- I mean, people change hard drives, they change data, they change everything they do. So if we require them to retain copies and they don't, I'd hate to see someone inadvertently in trouble. Could we just peg a time frame? MR. LENBERGER: We can do that for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or can they just turn them to the county, and if the county wants to retain them for 100 years, the county can do it. MR. LENBERGER: What would you prefer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The simplest way, the county. I hate to put it on the backs of individuals, especially when HOA's change presidents and -- MR. LENBERGER: Then we would have to require that they be submitted, not just upon request, and then we'd have to retain them. Page 230 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how long will that have to go on for? MR. SCHMITT: Once it comes into the county, I have to retain it as a public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long would they have to submit them for? Five years, is it? MR. LENBERGER: No, they have to do annual monitoring reports at a minimum in perpetuity to ensure that the preserve function's as intended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then you guys have to keep it in perpetuity. That means you have to accept it. That means you have to have someone do that, you have to make sure they submit it and you have to make sure you collect it, right? MR. SCHMITT: I want to question what is the value of me retaining it for perpetuity. Why not add five years or something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going. Why don't we just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Condo is generally seven years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Retain copies for the past previous five-year period. MR. LENBERGER: Five-year period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, does that work? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. MR. LENBERGER: The applicant or the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant. MR. SCHMITT: The applicant. MR. LENBERGER: Okay, applicant for five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then under nine -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, one second. The applicant Page 231 August 28, 2008 can be a developer initially and then does it pass on -- it passes on to an association? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Preserve manager, then, whoever is in charge. You guys figure out the wording on that. But it says preserve manager, as long as they are retained, so I would assume it would be the preserve manager would keep it for the five year priors. Every sixth year they get to throw the prior one out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the HOA or the condo association has a seven-year requirement, ifI'm not mistaken -- I know for condo anyway that's true -- preserve manager may change. So you might want to keep it with the association's records. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't know there's an association in every case where there's a monitoring plan. MR. SCHMITT: The association can follow its own rules. If they want to keep it seven, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just leave it with the preserve manager, that keeps it simpler. MR. LENBERGER: With the preserve manager? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, for five years. MR. LENBERGER: What if they're not retained? You're just going to say they have to keep it no matter what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you didn't have a condition in here if it wasn't -- what were you thinking? You didn't have a provision in here, so you want to put a penalty in now for them not retaining a -- MR. LENBERGER: We were saying initially that the homeowners would retain it, but it will have the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just leave it for five years. And if they don't retain it and they come in and there's a problem, you Page 232 ~-_.- August 28, 2008 can always say let me see your five-year plans, that's kind of like a trigger. We're becoming too onerous on things. Under nine, the last two words are site plan, we need to replace those with the FSP, PPL and SDP language we previously talked about. And if there's no other discussion from the panel, I'll ask for public speakers. Anybody in the public wishing to speak? Mr. Anderson, Mr. Layman and Jeremy, right, and Nicole. You're going to let the lady go last. You guys aren't gentlemen. But that's okay. MR. ANDERSON: I always like to have the last word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does she. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to have environmental staff confirm on the record that any preserve areas that were identified or created prior to June 13,2003 are exempt from these preservation management plan requirements. The basis for that would be that subsection 3.05.07(H)(4)(b) of the Land Development Code says applications for development orders authorizing site improvements such as an SDP or FSP and on a case-by-case basis a PSP that are submitted and deemed sufficient prior to June 19,2003 are not required to comply with the provisions of this Section 3.05.07(H), which were adopted on or after June 19th, 2003. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do I have an affirmation from staff on that point? MS. BURGESON: Yeah, I think we can read over that and get back to you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will have to come back for a rewrite anyway, so-- MR. SCHMITT: If that's what the code says, I don't have it in front me, Bruce, so -- but if it says that, then of course that's how it's applied. Page 233 _n_... August 28, 2008 MR. LENBERGER: Can you repeat the section, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: 3.05.07(H)(4)(b). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this comes back with a rewrite, would you please make sure that you address that issue, either in your executive statement in the front under change, reasoning, or whatever, but at least let's see it addressed so it's on record. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I hope they don't recommend deleting it. That's the danger we run. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now that's a good point. I vaguely remember the section from another incident, but yes. MR. ANDERSON: Few more comments. From a practical standpoint, why is this requirement tied only -- not tied only to areas that already are going to have a recorded conservation easement? Because there are other areas I think as you noted, Mr. Strain, that don't have -- may not have a management plan requirement right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what was your question again? MR. ANDERSON: Why is this requirement not tied only to preserve areas that are identified and located with a county conservation easement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a bad question. Steve, do you have an answer? MR. LENBERGER: I'm not sure of the question, to be quite honest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically if you have a conservation easement, it's a preserve area, this would apply -- why wouldn't it only apply to those areas that are under conservation easement. Is that kind of a -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Page 234 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the short way of saying that. MR. LENBERGER: We've always had preserve management plans for preserves. And we've only had the conservation easement requirement just recently, the last few years, so it does apply. MR. ANDERSON: We really ought to modify the county's conservation easement form to put people on record notice that a management plan is a required in connection with that conservation easement. These are expensive obligations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they are. MR. ANDERSON: How was the five-acre exemption arrived at? And how many preserve areas in the county that will be impacted by this? Shouldn't it matter if the preserve area is located in the urban area? And again, we don't have a quantification of the costs, which will be enormous. And lastly, at the -- on Page 195, the last sentence, where it says the county will accept state and federal management plans. And you modified it consistent with the requirements of the LDC. Policy 13.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element states: There will be no unnecessary duplication of existing regional, state or federal permitting programs. That's what this is. The county, if it's good enough for the regulatory agencies that have real expertise, then it ought to be acceptable to the county. And you shouldn't have to come up with two different management plans. Go with the one that the state or federal regulatory agency imposes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I must have missed it, Bruce. It's saying that. It says the county will accept state and federal management plans. MR. ANDERSON: As long as -- well, as long as they are consistent. You're taking that out is not going to end the interpretation Page 235 _.~._-_.._- August 28, 2008 question there that a management plan approved by the state may not be consistent with the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, my intention of taking it out wasn't to change anything. It was simply to make it simpler to say. Now I'm trying to understand what your interpretation of this sentence is that may be different than what I had foreseen it to be from the beginning. The county will accept state and federal management plans consistent with the requirements of the LDC. So what that seems to be saying is if you've got a management plan that the state accepts, county may require you to tweak it a bit to be further consistent with theirs, but they'll accept basically the state and federal management plan, is that -- MR. ANDERSON: It may involve much more than tweaking. That's the concern. If we've got a management plan that has been approved by a state or federal regulatory agency, we don't need to unnecessarily duplicate it by adding that it also has to comply with the Land Development Code, which may have differing requirements. MR. KLATZKOW: We're entitled to have stricter regulations than the states or feds, and that's what this is getting at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We kind of just did that in regards to the eagle's nest in the dead tree. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a stricter now enforcement on protecting eagles than we do by what the state seems to have. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps that's appropriate on a species by species basis. But this is a blanket statement. Policy n let me read you the other policy that I think is applicable here, 13.1.3. Prior to adopting any new regulations to implement this element, the following guidelines shall be met. Page 236 ^~-"...~~-~_.'. .. August 28, 2008 A, the regulation fulfills an important need that is not adequately addressed by existing regional, state or federal regulations. B, the regulation can be effectively and efficiently administered by existing county staff or by an authorized expansion of county staff. And C, the cost to the county of implementing the regulation has been identified and considered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we haven't got the cost is one of those -- MR. ANDERSON: No. We haven't had any explanation why on a blanket basis that it fulfills an important need that the state and the feds aren't already addressing. If we need to do it on a species by species basis like you've done with the bald eagle, that's one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you fear from this language? What is it that you feel is going to be most problematic? Because the way I saw this, I mean, I am not in agreement with as many changes we got this in the environmental section of this code, I can assure you that. Some of them, though, I thought were doable in the sense they were just redefining it and making it clearer, trying to help us get to the point we started to. This one I didn't see much of a problem with it except for some of the issues I've brought up. What is your underlying concern here? It's a management plan than if it's more clearer defined, the problems I'm seeing from the homeowners that have contacted me when they've tried to get their management plan maintenance done and they can't do it because when they walk in they get hit with more permits, and then oh, to get a permit now you have to redo your management plan. Those kind of things are very frustrating. I saw this as possibly a Page 237 .,._"..._..~ August 28, 2008 way to clean some of it up. What is your concern with this? Where's the negative side you see? MR. ANDERSON: The negative side is you go through an extensive federal or state regulatory process. You come to an understanding and agreement that this is the management plan you shall implement. And then you bring it to the county to get the local permits and they say oh, no, that's not acceptable. We need you to do more. We need you to do X, Y and Z added on top of it. We will not accept the federal or state management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, if there was some language that addressed the fact that if we accept the state and federal management plan consistent with the requirements of the LDC, so long as those LDC requirements didn't cause any inconsistency with the state -- I shouldn't say inconsistency, didn't cause any -- I'm trying to think ofthe right word here. If we have LDC requirements that are more stringent but yet they don't trigger a re-issuance or revocation of the state and federal plan, then that's our option to be able to do that, and that may be a better thing. But at such time as our LDC causes a state and federal plan to become invalid, that may be a problem. I'm not sure how to word that, but would that solve the issue? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think that's an issue here. I think the only issue is Bruce wants to lessen our standards. And I understand that from the development community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, see, he's been -- his stuffs been pretty practical. If Richard was there, I might be able to say that. This is -- Page 238 -_.._-,- August 28, 2008 MR. ANDERSON: By analogy -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead, finish your -- MR. ANDERSON: By analogy, in the rural fringe area, we have a requirement that the county has to accept as an -- has to accept as a management plan any management plan that has been imposed by a state or federal regulatory agency in connection with mitigation. That's what I'm trying to achieve here. That if it's good enough for the feds -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But if we require additional mitigation for whatever reason, you should have to follow that additional mitigation. We have it there for a reason. Again, I think the county attorney is right. In this case, Bruce, I think you're just trying to lessen standards that we mayor may not have. It may be just fine. And I think in the 99 percent of the cases, you're not going to have any issue. I'm not sure what -- MR. ANDERSON: I wish I felt comfortable with your percentages. COMMISSIONER CARON: I wish I knew what little scheme you had, then maybe I would feel more comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, this has got to come back to us. By the time it comes back could you bring back an example that doesn't taint anything you're working on but just kind of give us an idea what you're talking about more specifically. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not working on anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then can you give us an example then based on -- when you come back, that -- I'm trying to understand your concern. And you have been reasonable in what you've asked, so I really want to understand it so we don't do something that has a really bad outfall, like some of the things we've inadvertently done. Page 239 August 28, 2008 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. Bruce, I recognize that you're not working on anything, and that's a shame but that's good for this particular purpose. MR. ANDERSON: You tell me it's a shame. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to lose my thought process on this, and I'm about to. Here's the thing -- I lost my thought process. Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Long day. MS. BURGESON: I might be able to help a little. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With Bob's thought process? MS. BURGESON: Maybe. Maybe. For the record, Barbara Burgeson again. There are times when the state management plan or -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I was going to ask. MS. BURGESON: You want to go? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, go ahead. MS. BURGESON: When the state management plan might accept say exotic removal as all they need to fulfill the mitigation for that property and the county requires much more than just that. There may be times when they say in their management plan that they would allow the property to maintain all of the exotics standing, and we require that the outside 75 feet of exotics be removed. Sometimes they allow Teepeeing, which provides some obstruction. Sometimes they allow all the vegetation that's down to remain in place, which provides some obstruction. And there are other issues on a case-by-case basis that we would just want to make sure that we were not just blanketly accepting their permits. Page 240 August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've got the point. I think when we get back from a rewrite if we still have as grave of a problem, you can better relate to us what your concerns are. Jeremy, I think you were next. Bruce was after that, then Nicole. And this will probably wrap up the issues we get to today, based on the amount of -- well, I shouldn't say that, these might go fast. So Brian, don't run off yet. Go ahead, Jeremy. MR. STERK: Jeremy Sterk, Davidson Engineering. I have really just a couple of quick kind of comments and maybe clarifications on Page 196, both dealing with the monitoring for stormwater in preserves. I guess I'm envisioning myself writing these reports in the future and what I might face when I turn them in and they get reviewed by the staff. And I think one of my questions is the surface and groundwater monitoring, you know, some kind of frequency requirement for that. Obviously it's extremely expensive for an applicant to send me out once a week to check the level of the water in a preserve, you know, are we talking once a week, once a month. I think it would be helpful to have some little minimum criteria in there to give people guidance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I did ask them to come back with language that told us what appropriate protocols would be. And that's directly related to what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better yet, why don't we ask staff when they bring this one back to bring an example of a typical monitoring program that they would expect to see. Then we can weigh that in. You all can review it, and if there's problems there -- I mean, this is the kind of detail we need to get into with these LDC amendments. And I'd Page 241 August 28, 2008 rather do it now than have the negative experience six months from now. So can staff do that for us? I see heads nodding yes. Okay, go ahead, sir. MR. STERK: One other question. And maybe this is implied by the paragraph it's in, but the last sentence, the compatible vegetation, that bothers me. I guess I see down the road having fights with staff again about why something died, whether it was stormwater related or not. Examples might be lightning, fire, pine beetles, hurricanes. The way I read that, I'm replacing anything that dies for whatever reason. And I'd maybe like to see that clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've already brought up the fact that was a little bit too vague for us, too. MR. STERK: That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, Bruce? MR. LAYMAN: Hi, this is Bruce Layman, WilsonMiller again. I wanted to comment on who would be maintaining the preserve management plans for the five-year period. Because I know that myself as an example of a preserve manager on several projects, I may be a preserve manager at a particular site this year, I may not be the preserve manager on that property next year, it might be somebody else. They may hold it for a couple of years and another person comes in. I don't know that it -- if the preserve manager had to hold on to the sum total of the prior four years -- the monitoring reports or that type of information, you would literally have to past the torch from yourself to your successor and their successor and their successor, which would be rather cumbersome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent of this says, the preserve Page 242 ~._--- . August 28, 2008 manager as long as they are retained as the preserve manager and the property owner shall retain copies. So what I would expect, you personally ought to keep it for a while just to protect your personal licensing. But the property owner is going to have to keep them for five years, period. MR. LAYMAN: And that's fine. I wasn't sure if the requirement for the preserve manager to hang on to the ones that they accomplished -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you're retained. If you're no longer retained, I don't think it applies. MR. LAYMAN: And there's one other comment I'd like to make, and it's in reference to the distinction where the state management plan and the county management plan may be different because the county may not accept exotic removal as mitigation. As far as I know, I don't believe that the county has the authority to assess impacts to quantify mitigation needs and to require mitigation take place as an individual entity. I believe that gets deferred to the state. So I don't know that that's a fair comparison of why mitigation plans would be different between county and state plans. That's all I have, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Nicole? MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. My comments are to the monitoring for the stormwater in preserves, and they probably would have had more context had this come after the discussion of stormwater in preserves. But to give you some perspective on this, this proposed amendment is to help Page 243 .._",." August 28, 2008 implement the Growth Management Plan CCME, Policy 6.1.l5(B), the allowable uses within preserves. And I think it's important to read that because really what we're doing in the preserve management plans and in the stormwater in preserves section needs to implement the fact that receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such uses including conveyance, treatment and discharge structures does not result in adverse impacts to the naturally occurring native vegetation, and it continues on from there. So when we look at what is required within the preserve management plan, the monitoring really doesn't get us to where we need to be. The monitoring looks at is there an adverse impact but it doesn't really get to if yes, then what. And what the Conservancy has proposed for potential language within that stormwater in preserves section is that monitoring is absolutely necessary, but ifthere is a problem, there needs to be some sort of remediation plan, a plan to fix that problem. Because again, if the standard is no adverse impacts to those naturally occurring vegetative communities, then remediation needs to be part of that. And we suggest that the remediation plan looks at alternative storage, if there is a problem, too much stormwater is going into a preserve, how are you going to fix it? Well, you're going to have to store that additional stormwater elsewhere. Which gets to the point, and I believe that Steve brought that up of once that stormwater system is built it's very hard to change, so we need to make sure that were any stormwater going into preserves really is going to not create an adverse impact. But in looking at monitoring, remediation, we also need to take a close look at that last sentence, and the compatible vegetation that needs to be replanted. Compatible with what? Compatible with the new Page 244 ..-- August 28, 2008 hydroperiod that you've established or compatible with the vegetation that was there previously that you have now adversely impacted? We believe that there should be replanting to the vegetative community that was there previously. And I understand the concern about what if it wasn't the stormwater that created the impact. Well, if was fire, I think it would be pretty easy to see it was fire, not additional stormwater. I think there are some indicators that could show if it was too much water why vegetation was dying. And again, the appropriate protocols, I think that's very important to have. And I did like the suggestion from Commissioner Caron about monitoring for treated stormwater in preserves. I think that's an important inclusion. And one final comment. In the stormwater in preserves section, which I guess you'll be hearing now on the 4th, it indicates that there's going to be a preserve management plan if stormwater is placed into preserves. And while the language in the preserve management plan section says that you'll have to do monitoring for stormwater in preserves, than isn't a full preserve management plan if that preserve is under five acres. Now, I'm not sure that you need to have a full preserve management plan with the fire management, but I think that that monitoring for a greater period of time than five years could be very important, because you're looking at changing the hydroperiod of a preserve, and five years may not be enough time to really determine are you impacting that hydroperiod in an adverse manner. So we would like to see continued monitoring for all preserves where stormwater is going to be placed, as you would have for all preserves over the five acres. Thank you. Page 245 . -"_._-,,~ August 28, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think, Nicole, that what I was told here, and correct me if I'm wrong, preserve management plans under G here, it says seven, criteria number seven, are required for all preserves whether a management plan for the preserve has been adopted or not. So size is not an issue there. It doesn't matter what size it is, correct? MS. RYAN: Correct, for number seven to apply. But the question would be that longer term monitoring, which is number eight -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. MS. RYAN: -- that -- I don't believe that that applies, and I think that it should for all preserves receiving treated stormwater, regardless of whether they're less than the five acres. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: IfI understand you, what you'd really like to see happen, you're questioning, as I did, the use of the word compatible. And Steve did qualify, he did say that perhaps because of changes we'll put in a new type of vegetation, something more compatible. MS. RYAN: And we believe that that is inconsistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and that's what I'm hearing you. So you're saying the position of the Conservancy is you'd rather go to the alternative storage, some -- rather than just going back and trying hit or miss, is that what it is? MS. RYAN: It's in how you answer the question of there's a problem, how do we fix it. Do we fix it by simply replanting with new vegetation because perhaps we're making a preserve wetter than it used Page 246 -~_... August 28, 2008 to be or should be. Or do we fix it by saying we need to create a remediation plan, we need to no longer put this stormwater into the preserve, it needs to be treated in a different manner, and we need to try to restore the hydroperiod and the vegetation that was there previous to putting the stormwater in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, that relates to my original thought and concern about time and how often it's inspected, and then the degree of degradation, which is another factor. So I think there are some open ends that really need to be -- and maybe the escape clause as it were is alternative storage that needs to be put in there somewhere, time relevant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, if a project is approved for stormwater in preserves and it's built, and the years go on and they're monitored for five years or say seven or whatever the time is, and say the seventh year they discover that the material isn't faring well because of the stormwater going into the preserve. You're saying the solution there ought to be looking for alternative sources of attenuation of that water and then the vegetation replanting ought to be to what the preserve was originally. Now, the reason I'm pointing this out is because you're doing something seven years, let's say, for this argument after the fact. You have structures build, you have parking lots installed, you have everything done on that project. There is no other place to put water attenuation. So if that is the case and this changes to have compatible vegetation to what was in the original preserve, we're going to be forever having vegetation die and a cost incurred upon people. I'm not sure that may be the right procedure. So I just kind of want to point that out to you. That scenario bothers me because I see Page 247 -._-_.,,-" August 28, 2008 sites built out on all the time. When you get a site done, it's done. And usually they don't have any more room, they build it to everything they can. MS. RYAN: Correct. And that really gets to the point that I'll be making when we talk about stormwater in preserves, because once you build the stormwater system and you have everything designed and constructed, there isn't a whole lot that you can do. So you need to make darn sure that what you have designed isn't going to negatively impact those preserves. So really, I think that a lot of the problems with this could be solved by making sure that when stormwater is placed into preserves it is done in the most environmentally compatible manner and you're not putting stormwater into inappropriate soil types and preserve areas. So I think that if the stormwater in preserves section is designed properly then we won't have a whole lot of problems with preserve management planning because it will be designed to function and retain the native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I also think there's a different need and a different level of need when the preserves that we're talking about harbor listed species versus preserves that are just there for the sake of keeping open space. Big difference. And so maybe that's another way to look at an approach to this whole problem and what your concerns are in regards to stormwater. So with that, I'll thank you for your time. MS. RYAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think the synopsis is based on what we've been through here so far today is staff is going to come back with this one as a rewrite. And this is on Page 193. Joe, you know, when we were talking earlier kind of laughing Page 248 August 28, 2008 about the fact that this may not get done this year, you know what, it may not get done this year. MR. SCHMITT: It may not get done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the rewrite, Steve, could you bring back situations where you don't think the state or federal management plans would cover everything we do in Collier County. I know Barbara gave a kind of a brief list. But could you just kind of give us a paragraph or brief on that so we could make -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have 20 minutes or so-- MS. BURGESON: I'll bring site development plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have 20 minutes or so left, so let's try to -- you want two? Oh, Cherie', you can't have two minutes now. Okay, let's -- we'll just come back at 4:45 okay? How's four minutes, that'll get you there? (Short break.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mic.'s back on, everyone. Okay, welcome back. That was a Cherie' break. And we had a little change in plans. The next item, although it's only two pages, Brian MacKenzie has probably a lengthy dissertation that wouldn't get done today. He has a handout that he wants to give us. So I suggested that since we only have ten minutes left of this meeting, why didn't Brian provide us with a handout, explain to us what the highlighted points are, and then we'll wrap it up and come back and he will start on the 4th in the afternoon, because I don't expect we'll be here -- it will be after 12:00 on the 4th based on the agenda I've currently seen. MR. MacKENZIE: For the record, my name is Brian MacKenzie and I represent Collier Resources Company, which is the oil and gas Page 249 .-"-~-,._-,.~ August 28, 2008 minerals management entity for the Collier families. Brian MacKenzie with Collier Resources Company. We manage the underground subsurface oil and gas minerals estate for the Collier family, which constitutes about better than 800,000 acres here in Collier County. And I guess my basic concern with the issue at hand with the preservation standards allowable uses is that we now have created a few allowable uses in preserves that exclude oil and gas exploration and production operations, potentially over zoning designations, which would be agricultural, rural and conservation, which is where we have traditionally been -- where our minerals lie and where we have been allowed to operate. As development moves east away from the urban area we're now facing with this as written basically a nullification of our subsurface estate. And that's what this is about. And I just wanted to hand this out. I have suggested language which is identical except for one word to what we worked out for the RLSA, the flowway stewardship areas, with all the conditions and operating stipulations. So I'll just pass this out and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be great. And Brian, what you have come up with and your presence here is exactly the issue that we need -- exactly the type of issue that we need to thoroughly ferret out these LDC amendments for, because had you not been here today, I can honestly think, I doubt if anybody would have realized this was an issue. And it's a major, major issue. So I'm certainly pleased that you were aware of our LDC changes and came here today. MR. MacKENZIE: I've been going to these meetings since last August, when the EAC subcommittee started to meet. And it took me Page 250 ..---.--..- August 28, 2008 probably till April or May to realize the magnitude of what was happening here. And that's -- you know, we've been running a little behind the tidal wave since then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd much prefer to catch that magnitude early on than get sidetracked -- MR. MacKENZIE: After today I have much more to talk about relative to this. And I think it's better just to wait and give me a chance to digest it a little more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you'll -- MR. MacKENZIE: So I'll pass these out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: And staff has a copy of this already or you'll be giving it to them today as well -- MR. MacKENZIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this the one that was in the e-mail? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, Brian needs to respond on the mic., so you've got to be a little careful on how we ask him questions, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking and wondering if it is what I've got. MR. MacKENZIE: It's identical, should be identical. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't talk till you get to a mic. For the record, you have given staff copies of these? MR. MacKENZIE: No, I haven't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You will before you leave? MR. MacKENZIE: I have one to give, and I can certainly e-mail the rest. This is identical. I sent this out in an e-mail late last night because I didn't finish it until after 9:00. So I didn't expect you'd read it. Page 251 _ _.u.,."_',".~M_ August 28, 2008 But I guess the men on the Titanic were shooting off flares right to the bitter end too, so that's what I was doing. This is just the same thing that I e-mailed you last night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole, I know this is an issue you're sensitive to, too. Have you seen this write-up? I can forward you the e-mail that I got and then you'll can have that as well. Every other item on the agenda is going to be time consuming. With nine minutes left, it doesn't make a lot of sense to get into anything else at this point. Mr. MacKenzie was enough to wait around all day long to give this paper to us, and it will help for our next review, which needs to be on September 4th. I have the agenda for September 4th in front of me, and it's lengthy. Moraya Bay is one of the issues on there, we have Silver Strand, we have a few others. So I feel confident, and I need this board to tell me otherwise, if we shouldn't get through Moraya Bay, the Naples Baptist Church, the Silver Lakes Property Owners and the Naples Church of Christ. I don't see us getting through those until at least after the morning. So if we continue this meeting to sometime noon or thereafter on the 4th of September, that ought to be sufficient. Is that okay, Mr. Klatzkow? Good. Is there a motion to continue to the 4th, noon or thereafter? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, but I have an additional question. Go ahead, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron and seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Page 252 ~- "._-.---'---~""",",,.~..".--~-'_., '.--....--"....0_..- August 28, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: You do intend to take lunch, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I don't know if we'll take lunch at 11:30 to 12:30 or -- that's why I'm saying, if we schedule at noon or thereafter, whenever we come back from lunch is when we'll start. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, you had one other question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are we going to get this packet delivered today for next week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I always pick mine up and they were nice enough to drop mine off while I was here, so it's being delivered to you guys like usual. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So we'll be getting it today then, Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I never get mine delivered. Whenever you normally get them, you'll get them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Have you confirmed that you have a quorum for tomorrow without me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we have, sir. Thank you very much. And we certainly appreciate your effort to try to be here even in spite of all the things you have going for yourself. So thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Still give me a 9-1-1 call if you want, early in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's nice of you, Mr. Kolflat. We appreciate it. Thank you. With that we are out of here until the 4th. Thank you all. Page 253 ._,,~_.".~~,-",-~'~'.' ,. ...'....--.- August 28, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, we're out of here until tomorrow morning. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:53 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 254 _..u._u......_.~_"_ _.,._.,-,.,_..._.._.~.._-,.-._-,..~---',--~-,.__._,...".~