Loading...
DSAC Minutes 12/06/2000 RDecember 6, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, December 6, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created accordance to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m., in REGULAR SESSION, at Conference Room "F", Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dalas D. Disney, AIA Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. David Correa Robert L. Duane, AICP Marco A. Espinar Blair A. Foley, P.E. Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo Tom Masters, P.E. Thomas R. Peek, P.E. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, AIA Also present: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Since we have a quorum, we'll call to order the December 6, 2000 meeting of the Development Services Advisory Committee. We have an agenda here. Are there any modifications to this agenda before we look for an approval? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, I'll like to, under Miscellaneous, I guess, because I did want to briefly discuss the hearing examiner's proposal which I think you were distributed copies of the executive summary -- and I, with the committee's indulgence, much to Ron's chagrin probably, I wonder if I could take, under Old Business, Item B, before Item A. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Old Business-- MR. MULHERE: That would be taking the Fee Increase issue before the Land -- MR. SAVAGE: That doesn't need a motion; does it? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Huh? MR. MULHERE: Oh, no. That, that change? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I don't think so. I'm sure that we can take B before A. Any other changes in the agenda? MR. PEEK: I have a question. Whether we want to discuss it under Miscellaneous or under Committee Member Comments, we've got four of us whose terms expire next week, and so we may only have a very small committee next month unless something's happening. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you for bringing it up. There is -- I know that there have been letters submitted and advertisements for new members. That's not on this agenda. Is that, is that in a position that we could review those and act upon it today perhaps? MR. MULHERE: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No? MR. MULHERE: I think there's the -- there's a 30-day advertisement period. I'm not sure when it got advertised. Do you know, John? MR. DUNNUCK: I'd have to check with Sue Filson's office. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There's usually 30 days, and then there's some time for us to -- the committee to respond back to them so that probably it's going to go on to January. Page 2 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, you -- unless we're notified otherwise, then I suppose we're -- if our terms expire and we don't show up for the January meeting -- or we do? I happen to be one of those also. MR. MULHERE: I responded. MR. SAVAGE: Well, I'll make a motion that unless you're notified otherwise, we request that you be here. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yeah. MR. SAVAGE: Would that be in order? MR. PEEK: I guess if we want to discuss this right now, I guess it may be in order, but the letter that I received notifying me that my term expires on December the 14th said, said that, period. It didn't say anything else. So under the ordinance, whether we have the opportunity to continue to serve until our replacement, I don't know what the ordinance says. MR. MULHERE: Doesn't the Board's advisory committee resolution allow, with Board discretion, appointees to serve until the appointment? MS. STUDENT: On behalf (inaudible) -- THE REPORTER: May I have your name, Ma'am, and I can't hear you. MS. STUDENT: Yes, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I would have to check on that, Bob. It's been quite a long time since I've looked at this provision, and I have never reviewed the one for the DSAC, so I'd have to look. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, perhaps on that issue, you could send those of us who are expiring terms some notice whether to show up for January or March or -- and, and -- MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, there's no organization I ever heard of that you work still on that which you were appointed to unless you're -- until you're replaced. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any other, any other changes to the agenda first before we -- MR. PEEPLES: I have a question about the agenda. I know we discussed last meeting looking into the possibility of curing the quorum problems we've been having with either staff alternatives -- never mind. That's -- Page 3 December 6, 2000 MR. PEEK: I move the agenda be approved. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hearing none, we'll move on. We need to go back to -- well, Item II is the approval of the minutes for October 4 meeting, which I believe were in the November I package. MR. PEEK: I move the approval. MR. CORREA: I second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You second? Any comments? No? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hearing none. Item 3, Staff Announcements, Summary of Ordinance Amendments. MR. MULHERE: I don't, I don't see that in your agenda package. It was the same -- of course, we're going to go over the I. DC hearing, and I think there's the Weed, Litter & Exotic Control Ordinance later on, so those were the only two that were outstanding. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Item B was Miscellaneous items then? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I had the hearing down right. Does anyone not have a copy of the executive summary for the hearing examiner? If not, I have copies I can -- MR. SAVAGE: That's not one copy you have in your hand; is it? MR. MULHERE: No, that's several. Let me grab one so I can refer to it. By direction of the Board we, the staff, prepared an executive summary to have the Board consider implementation of the hearing examiner program for quasi-judicial land use petitions. We modeled our recommendations to the Board largely after the Lee County Hearing Examiner program. Though it would be limited to quasi-judicial land use hearings, I think we can use it for other types of hearings, as well, perhaps code Page 4 December 6, 2000 enforcement. Not that we couldn't do that down the road, but initially we'd modeled it just for quasi-judicial land use petitions. The rationale, there were a couple of issues. One, the EAC and the CCPC have expressed really a desire to be more involved in the policy development process as opposed to dealing with policy issues on a case-by-case basis as they come up in specific land use petitions, which is really not the appropriate way to deal with those policy issues. Two, the Board, from our perspective, from the staff perspective, the Board will have more time to deal with policy issues as they come up through their advisory committees if they're not spending a lot of time, let's say, on a variance or a boat dock petition or an off-site parking petition. Third thing is that there is in perception, whether valid or not, that some interest groups may have greater access into the development review approval process; and, frankly, the -- I'm not an attorney, but, you know, the Florida law as far as the Supreme Court basically after the advent of required growth management plans, has found that site-specific land use petitions are quasi-judicial, and they really need to take a different format. There has to be a record established, and a board's decision or whoever is making the decision should be based on record there. So using the hearing examiner, there will be a more formalized process, and the way we proposed this, the hearing examiner will be making final decisions on what would be referred to as minor land use petitions that would include various petitions, off-site parking petitions, gas station Iocational restriction waivers, these types of things. For the major rezones and conditional uses, those petitions will go to the hearing examiner; that record would be forwarded to the Board, and the hearing examiner's recommendation would be forwarded to the Board for final decision. The staff would make a recommendation to the hearing examiner; the applicant will have an opportunity to give a presentation; and of course any affected parties or members of the public will have an opportunity to speak at the hearing examiner hearings. For those minor petitions, there will be no appeal process as restructured for the Board. If you're denied a variance or if your Page 5 December 6, 2000 variance is approved and you're an affected property owner and you wish to challenge it, it will be through the circuit court -- I assume the circuit court -- the courts anyway -- but for the -- again, for those major types of petitions, PUD rezones, trade rezones, conditional uses, the Board would still have final say-so. One big difference in the way we structured this from the way Lee County restructured it, Lee County does completely prohibit ex parte communication with the Board. We knew, from talking to the Board, that they did not want to have ex parte communication, because mainly, from their perspective, it was to allow their constituents an opportunity to access them. But it also works for the development community, because we will not prohibit ex parte communication, but we will devise, in conjunction with the County attorney's office, a better methodology for recording that ex parte communication and then subsequently for disclosing it. It's probably a written log some way better than "1 spoke to someone last week about this." So the Board did endorse this and gave us direction to move forward with it. We're in the process right now of submitting to the legislative delegation by December 15. Amendments to the special act for Collier County approved and adopted by the legislature in 1967 specifically calls for the board of zoning appeals to be the body that hears these types of petitions, and we won't, we won't strike through that provision. What we will do is try to develop or amend the special act so that we may also have the alternative of using the hearing examiner so that whichever process ultimately is the one that's preferred, that's the one that was used. So we won't eliminate the opportunity to go back to another methodology, but right now we have Board direction to do this. MR. SAVAGE: Question, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Before we take questions, is this item information only, or are you looking for action from us? MR. MULHERE: I don't need an endorsement. I don't need any action, because the Board directed us to do it, so it's -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So it's really information only. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Mr. Savage, you had a question? MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. You said a while ago that if the staff comes up with a recommendation and it's turned over to the Page 6 December 6, 2000 examiner, the examiner has the right to change the decision of the staff recommending to the Board of the County commission? MR. MULHERE: Yes. Just like right now we go to the planning commission and the planning commission recommendation is forwarded to the BCC, the hearing examiner will weigh the issues, the factual issues and the expert testimony and the competent substantial evidence and make a decision either supporting the staff recommendation, supporting the staff recommendation with conditions, or some other variation thereof. Maybe not. Maybe, if we're recommending denial and they want support, they'll recommend approval. MR. SAVAGE: 'Cause it was amazing to me the other day that it was recommended about a road going through a community, and it was the staff's recommendation, after looking at all the facts, and here the County commission says, no. After -- you know, I think that was a slap in the face personally, and I -- MR. MULHERE: Well, you know, that happens. MR. SAVAGE: Yeah. I don't care whether they like it or not; I just think we're totally -- MR. MULHERE: I guess I can say frankly that there's been little objection to the implementation of the hearing examiner on the part of the development community that I've spoken to or land use attorneys. I would say the reason is because it sets up a very equal playing field for those folks. If they do their job, if the project is consistent and they put on the evidence that's consistent, then we're going to get a recommendation for approval. The likelihood of a petition being overturned as a result of what's termed to be applause-meter zoning, which is a room full of people who are in opposition but have put no substantial evidence into the record that it should be denied with the hearing examiner, I would say that that could still be overturned by the -- you know, the case of a rezone or a conditional use or PUD, because the Board will have final say-so, but you will have a record established that creates an appeal mechanism that would be difficult, I think, to -- MR. WHITE: The one point I want to make, the hearing examiner will be creating a written recommendation that will Page 7 December 6, 2000 take all of the evidence from the applicants, from the staff, and from all of the public, and kind of synthesize it into that hearing examiner's recommendation, or a final decision in the case of the minor, if you will, land use petition. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: I have two questions of Bob. Bob, is there an implementation date, and the second question is, what impact does it have on this committee? MR. MULHERE: Two things, two good questions. There was a tentative schedule in the executive summary target date for implementation of June 2001. Obviously we can't really implement this hearing examiner until we've amended the LDC accordingly, and that process will now happen in the next cycle, which I think is June. Final approval by the Board of the next cycle in June, we can amend the special act, we can amend the LDC, and we can probably move forward with interviews and hiring. As I understand it, the hearing examiner will, like the County attorney's office, work directly for the Board, not for the County attorney's office who represents the Board. The second part of the question was? MR. PEEK: Does it have any impact on this committee? MR. MULHERE: I, I don't think so, because frankly -- I mean, it has an impact on some of what you do from your business perspectives, but-- MR. PEEK: I meant as a committee. MR. MULHERE: -- but as a committee, this committee will continue to look at all of the issues that relate to construction and development, and you also already look at policy issues. I think what we'd like to see a shift in, and it appears that the Board supports that concept -- a shift in the other -- in some other advisory committees to the Board, particularly the EAC and the CCPC, a shift focusing -- obviously, since they won't be dealing with specific land use petitions, we would like to develop a list of the policy-related issues that either they could generate for us or we could generate for them and then prioritize that and begin to look over that. A couple of examples, this -- the rural assessment process is going to necessarily generate some significant policy issues related to wetland protection, listed species, and alternative Page 8 December 6, 2000 land use scenarios; and those wetland protection and listed species issues apply not only in the rural areas, but are going to apply County-wide to some degree or another, and that's a very large policy issue that this committee will need to be involved with, EAC and CCPC, as we move forward with it. I don't see the role of this committee changing. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Dino, did you have a question? MR. I. ONGO: How is it funded? MR. MULHERE: It's funded by petition fees. MR. CORREA: Would that increase the petition fees? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's another issue we're going to discuss momentarily. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Will there be a presumption of correctness that attaches to the hearing officer's recommendation? MR. MULHERE: I'll defer to Mr. White. Pat, don't they have that in Lee County? MR. WHITE: There is no presumption of correctness. I think there's just the typical standard that you have that follows a writ of certiorari, if you will. If there's competent substantial evidence in the record, then I think that you need to have something on the opposite side, if you will. I mean, it pretty much follows the way Snyder goes, but -- the interplay between the applicants and the government, and the answer depends in part upon whether the project is recommended for denial, and then the hearing examiner recommends approval. So it changes as the fact matter changes, but there is no legal presumption built into the process. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I mean, when it goes from the hearing officers to the Board of County Commissioners and it's a recommendation as opposed to a final order that you might issue MR. WHITE: The ordinance will not provide the presumption of correctness. MR. ANDERSON: All right. What -- what's the purpose of going to a hearing officer then, 'cause my understanding of Lee County commission, they have to find some rationale, some error, that the hearing officer made to override it. MR. WHITE: That's true, and that arises more as a question Page 9 December 6, 2000 of black-letter law than something in the ordinance that is a stated presumption. An example would be the sea turtle ordinance. There's a presumption that if there's a shadow that there's a violation on the light in this case, and that's a legal presumption built into a piece of legislation. There is no such thing in this ordinance nor in Lee County's ordinance, but as a matter of law and by operation of black letter law, a judge-made law, that is the way that it's handled. The evidentiary standard is that you have to find something in the record that points out where the hearing examiner was, was incorrect or failed to apply the correct law, you know, the basic standard that all the courts follow. So it's done in the nature of an appellate type of a proceeding, but there is no legal presumption of correctness. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. In the context of the appellate proceeding, how will we deal with the current requirement in the special act for a four-fifths vote for a zoning change? Will that be disposed of? MR. WHITE: No. My understanding is that that will remain the same. MR. ANDERSON: Or will it be a four-fifths vote to change the hearing officer's recommendation? Does it take four-fifths to affirm it, or is this just another layer of expense and bureaucracy? MR. MULHERE: I would say it would take -- well, you know, I don't know, I don't know if -- how we'll structure -- I'm not sure about your question of whether it will affirm it or change it. It will take a super majority to approve a land use petition by the Board just as it does right now. There's no intent to change the super majority requirement. In fact, there's direction not to change the super majority requirement, so -- And right now, I mean, they don't need a super majority vote to change the staff's recommendation or the CCPC's recommendation; they need a super majority vote to approve a land use petition. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but you -- you know, what we're talking about here is, is a true quasi-judicial hearing by someone trained in the law which, with all due respect, you staff members nor the members of the planning commission have -- Page t0 December 6, 2000 MR. MULHERE: Oh, I agree a hundred percent, which is why I favor this. MR. ANDERSON: And the whole purpose is to go to a more factually -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: -- and legally oriented process. MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. ANDERSON: But if it's going to take four-fifths -- MR. MULHERE: It -- there is, there is no intent -- in fact, there's direction not to change that. You can certainly make the argument as this issue arises before the Board or the legislative delegation. MR. ANDERSON: Well, some of the support that you initially saw from the land use community may be disappearing. MR. MULHERE: But, Bruce, let me just say one thing: Regardless of whether it takes a super majority or not, if a record is established and the hearing examiner makes a recommendation, does that -- and a, and a board makes an arbitrary or what in your opinion is a decision that's not supported by competent and substantial evidence, do you not have a greater likelihood of reversing that decision? MR. ANDERSON: It depends on what you-all put in the special act. MR. MULHERE: Well, you're going to get a chance to look at that. MR. WHITE: Very soon, and I think there are options that can exist if you're thinking about this in terms of all or none. For example, if you wanted to retain the four-fifths majority in order for the Board to reverse the hearing examiner's recommendation, that may be an option. You know, there are any number of ways that you can look at this, and I encourage you to not see it as just one way or the other. MR. MULHERE: Just, just in terms of this discussion, you'll recall, I guess it was last year, we proposed to amend the special act for the purpose of deleting some conflicting -- I mean, this thing was approved in 1967. The Florida constitution was approved in 1968. MR. STUDENT: Yeah, the constitution gave us our own power -- Page 11 December 6, 2000 MR. MULHERE: Oh, real powers, so -- MS. STUDENT: -- so that's really rather archaic. MR. MULHERE: So -- but we were unable -- and initially I believe the legislative delegation endorsed the amendment to the bill. Later on it was, I think, pulled by a Senator Sanders, who was concerned about the elimination of the super majority vote, so we've left that in. But anyway, if I can answer any other questions -- there's a very detailed sort of white paper behind the executive summary, if you haven't had a chance to look at it, that gives you the history behind Snyder and quasi-judicial, and of course I had help writing that, so -- MR. LONGO: Yeah, just to clear my head, but this doesn't mean that the Board has to accept the finding -- MR. MULHERE: No. MR. LONGO: -- or the recommendation. MR. MULHERE: No. MR. WHITE: No. There will be a separate hearing in front of the Board for the major land use petitions, the PUDS and that type of thing, where, as Bruce has indicated, one of the things that's essential if you're intending to reverse the recommendation is to point out places where the hearing examiner didn't get it right, and that's where guys like Bruce make their living, if they get an unfavorable recommendation, by bringing those things out of the record and being compelling in front of the Board, so -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage, did you have a question? MR. SAVAGE: I just want to say this: I'm getting sick and tired of hearing all these magnificent plans and details of how to make more money, how to have more paper printed. It's sort of like the roar of a lion and producing a mouse. You know, Tom, Dick, Harry and Mary, little citizens want to do something, they're going to have to pay more and more money to get damn little, and it just irritates me to no end when I see these things happening. MR. MULHERE: No. And, you know, and I understand that. I think though, keep in mind the genesis of something like this is the courts' findings, the courts' determinations in something like Snyder that frankly, when a decision is made that Page t2 December 6, 2000 is contrary to the competent and substantial evidence, the exposure is significantly increased, I think, to the Board, and this, to our mind, creates a process that is really fair to both sides. But does it, does it then make it more incumbent upon, let's say, the public to know what the rules are and how to operate? Yes, it does. MS. STUDENT: Well, Bob, I'd like to make a comment here, too, 'cause every year for the last I don't know how many years I've participated in a panel on growth management school that the Florida Chamber puts on; and I think one of the problems that we have with taking things before a board is, you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, and you come up with all these procedural issues. And some attorneys want to turn proceedings before a board into a mini trial, where literally if that were done and you had discovery, which is depositions and interrogatories, and so on, you know, it could go on forever and ever. And that's not to say that the hearing officer process would be set up like that to require what we call discovery, but there's some problems with, you know, trying to put the square peg in the round hole with ex parte communications and boards being elected officials and then this issue about ex parte and, well, gee, you know, there's issues talking to our constituents, but that's what we're elected to do. And I think all that is, you know, an outgrowth of some of those problems associated with bringing these -- you know, bringing a process that isn't necessarily suited to a political process, you know, before a board, an elected body. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'd like to wrap this up if we can. You had a -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just a quick comment. I think in the conversation, one of the things that concerns me is the appeal process, particularly as it pertains to let's say variances; and oftentimes either the staff or the law doesn't justify a variance, but common sense does. MR. MULHERE: Right. Right. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And it would seem to me that you look at your appeal process and maybe address that issue where there are things that should be able to -- Page 13 December 6, 2000 MR. MULHERE: Great point. That's an excellent point. In fact, we talked about that and that one of the things we would certainly want to do as we move forward was to look at the criteria and make sure that the criteria did provide a mechanism -- we recently amended our variance criteria to say where other circumstances ameliorate the need for the setback, and it's sort of broad, but a hearing examiner is going to want to see something more specific. And we're going to have to work with that person, because I think your point is very, very well -- we can think of examples where everyone wants it to happen, and we're hamstrung. And we certainly don't intend for that to be the case. MS. STUDENT: There's an issue about variances too that if you see enough of them comin9 through and there's enough of a problem it doesn't make sense not to grant it, then that means there's a problem with your code or how it's applied, and the code ought to be amended, because variances are typically designed by somebody -- and it -- you know, strictly, strictly speaking, if you couldn't use your property for anything because performance standards are changed and the lot's too small to meet everythin9 and -- you know, it's a strict, strict hardship when they -- that was the genesis of it, and since then it's been expanded, believe me. But when you see too many of them coming through for certain things, that means there could be a problem with what's in the code. MR. MULNERE: Well, we do intend to look at the criteria on all of those issues and work with the member we bring in as the hearing examiner, and of course we'll bring those back to you in the form of LDC amendments, so I think it's an excellent point. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thanks very much, Bob, for the information. We'll go to Old Business. We were going to take Item B first. MR. MULHERE: Hold on. Bruce is waving his -- MR. ANDERSON: Don't you have an announcement to make about the outcome of the comprehensive planning zoning? MR. MULNERE: Gee, I'm glad you reminded me, Bruce. I'm sorry. We'll add one more item, and I'll defer to Marjorie to make the announcement even though Bruce wanted to give me the limelight. Page 14 December 6, 2000 MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Bob. I appreciate that. I'm happy to say that the County prevailed in the comp plan challenge when we had the hearing last June, and what was being challenged by the Wildlife folks and the Audubon folks were certain provisions of the plan that we did implement in the final order. And I haven't had a chance yet to go through the recommended order from the hearing officer. It's rather thick, and I've been just buried in meetings and such, but -- MR. MULHERE: Just to give you a little perspective, 'cause this gets very confusing even for us over this period of time, what we -- we were -- our interim -- we were required by the final order to repeal the offending portions, adopt interim amendments, and then adopt amendments that ultimately will correct the deficiencies. MS. STUDENT: Right. MR. MULHERE: The interim amendments, I believe, was what was challenged here, including -- MS. STUDENT: It was part of them, the first round of them -- MR. MULHERE: -- including the natural resource protection area -- MS. STUDENT: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- interim natural resource protection area, so remember we were found in compliance with DCA on that, and we had some intervenors. I think your firm intervened, and I don't know who else, but we had some intervenors on behalf of the County, so it was a little bit different than the previous lawsuit that ended up in a final order between the governor and cabinet -- from the governor and cabinet, because in that case we -- I mean, the County and the DCA had found us in noncompliance, and several people intervened with the DCA. In any case, they found us -- let me -- I guess what I'm trying to say is, certainly you're in a little better position when you have the DCA finding you in compliance and then you're challenged, and that was the case here, and so we prevailed on this one. MR. ANDERSON: On all issues? MR. MULHERE: On all issues. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Congratulations. That's great. MR. MULHERE: I have copies -- proposed fee increase -- I have copies in the executive summary that's going to the Board Page 15 December 6, 2000 on the 12th, and I don't think you have those, so I'd like to pass those out. And there's a -- behind it, there's a copy of the proposed fee increase and the existing fees. I don't expect you to have a chance to look through these, but what we would do is go over the executive summary with you right now -- it might take a few minutes, but it's certainly worthwhile -- and let you know what happened with your -- DUANE: We did get those with the packet. MR. MULHERE: You did? DUANE: Yes, without the executive summary. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So not the executive summary. You didn't get the executive summary. So let me just pass out the executive summary then. I don't know how many we need. I'll just keep them coming. Need a few more over there? Is that about it? MR. MULHERE: Let me start out by saying you recall that this issue came up several months ago during the budget process -- and by the way, let me start -- let me just -- I don't know if you-all know Mike Smykowski and Tony Gambino. Mike is the budget director and Tony is our budget analyst, and I asked them to be here because I felt some questions could come up that I certainly couldn't handle, so -- and they also work with the ad hoc committee, as well. We had probably five or six meetings with the ad hoc committee, but the last three meetings have been more in earnest looking at the fee increase issues. Just at the outset, the objective summary explains a couple things that I want to let you know. One is that the new building costs, the budgeted or predicted amount of about 9 million for the parking garage and the new building over here, at this point we're comfortable that that cost is more like at about 7.5 and may actually be even a little less than that, we're not fully sure yet, but about a million and a half less than what we originally projected. Two -- couple of reasons: One, the building is a little bit smaller; we're talking 40,000 square feet, and that reduced the need for some additional parking. I think the parking in the garage is estimated at somewhere around $10,000 a space as you go up, so as you, you know, as you take 50 parking spaces, you're talking about a significant decrease in the cost as we Page t6 December 6, 2000 reduced the size of that building. We did do -- look at all of our needs as well as the needs for the transportation administration staff coming in here, and of course, they will be paying rent when they come in. They're currently in leased space on Horseshoe, and there's sufficient -- with the 40,000, there are sufficient space needs for the next 15 years at a minimum both for the community development division and for transportation and administration with about 6- or 7,000 square feet extra built in, so it's not a significant or real large amount of extra space. We would obviously look to house County staff in that extra space and get more rent generated until we need it, if we do; and then when we do, we'll assume that space. The other aspect that sort of came into play here was, the first few months of this year, we -- our revenue has exceeded our projections, I think about a hundred thousand dollars in the first -- each of the first couple of months. We originally proposed, during the budget process, a 17.5 percent across-the-board fee increase. You'll recall in 1994, I think it was, that we had a 15 percent fee reduction across-the-board, and then the -- really the rationale for the 17.5 percent was not so much to get back that 15 percent. In reality, it was an exercise that the budget office did to say, what is our revenue projections, what are our expenses, and what do we need to bring those together? And on the first -- the second page, there's a spreadsheet and a graph of the executive summary, and that spreadsheet shows that in this fiscal year, FY '01, we're projected to have a deficit or more expenses than revenue to the tune of slightly less than a half a million dollars. That does not include the capital costs of the new building. That number goes down significantly in '02 and '03 to slightly less than $100,000, and the reason for that is that some of those expenses are one-time costs for -- there's some software and some hardware and some things like that that we're only going to buy one time, and that's why that number is higher. In working with your ad hoc committee, one of the directions that they, I think, preferred that we go to was to look at a -- more of an activity -- by activity analysis to look at the fee Page 17 December 6, 2000 structure rather than across-the-board fee increase. And I talked with Mike Smykowski, and based on the reduced construction costs and based on the additional revenue that we've generated beyond projections, at least in the first quarter, we were comfortable that even though we might generate less money from an activity specific fee increase annually than the 17.5, we would still be generating enough, based on what our recommendations are here, that we would cover our deficiencies. The committee spent an awful lot of time, asked a lot of questions. It was, it was very specific and focused on, you know, what are you getting for money when we look at a revenue we're generating, and why are we asking for a fee increase? One of the, one of the, I guess, issues that we settled on was that we have an obligation to you to conduct a very thorough analysis of all the activities that we perform and develop special performance measures. And you know we've had -- those of you that have been around for a long time know we have performance measures, and apparently in some cases we are not living up to those performance measures, and in other cases, they've been around for so long that it's time to go and look at those standards and work with -- we want to work with either an ad hoc committee or a specific committee appointed by this group leading up to -- and with the budget office. And I'm sorry. I should have introduced our business manager -- I don't know if you've met -- have you met Tom Kelley? Actually, John probably would have done that, but as long as I'm in here in this discussion, we hired Tom as a business manager. I think John and Tom Olliff looked at this operation and said, you know, you're taking in $2 million a year; you need to have a business manager here. And so Tom is going to work with Mike and Tony, myself, and the building department and John and whomever you-all want to work with us to look at all of the activities that we conduct on your behalf, the fees that we charge more comprehensively, come back with a comprehensive report. I'm sure you're going to add some things that I've forgotten to that, and we want to do that in con]unction with the budget process Page 18 December 6, 2000 next year. What we're asking for you -- from you right now is for endorsement of this activity specific fee increase that is contained in your packet, understanding that some of those fees percentage-wise are pretty significant, but we based those calculations on the amount of time it takes for us to do those activities. We'll go ahead and look at them again and we'll look at all the ones that we didn't look at. For example, I didn't look at a lot of the stuff in this year, 'cause we had -- we looked at those last year. But we didn't conduct that type of exercise where we look at what's your desired level of service, how long will it take us to provide that level of service, and therefore how much will it cost? And that -- we are agreeing -- we think it was really an excellent suggestion. I think predominantly, you know, it came from Mr. Van Arsdale and the rest of the committee, and we think it's high time to do it, so -- Mike wanted to add something. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Just had a brief point. The subcommittee also focused strongly on looking at planning fees versus the building permit fees. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Obviously, the building permit fees carry the lion's share of the revenue generation within, within the operation. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Over time though, and back when I was an analyst back when development services was created, it was recognized that the planning side would not be self-supporting just because you would make a rezone cost $50,000 in order to make it work, or whatever the case may be, but -- MR. SAVAGE: Work in that direction now-- MR. MULHERE: Well, we are, and in fact I'm glad you raised that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And Bob, fee specific, rather than going across-the-board, Bob looked at the planning side, the planning revenues and expenses; and in an effort to get that closer toward being self-supporting, Bob's taken I think a major stride toward getting closer toward that goal of making it as self-sufficient as Page 19 December 6, 2000 is feasible and relieving some of the burden on the building permit side to carry the greater weight of the entire operation. MR. MULHERE: But we do want to look at that further through this process, but I'll tell you that under the activity specific fee increase, we reduced the degree to which planning arguably is subsidized by building by about 300,000 a year, so we're moving in the right direction. We're certainly not there yet. We need to talk -- we feel like we need to talk more with you-all and do it together so that we decide, you know, are some fees going to be so exorbitant that it's not appropriate to raise them to that level even if it costs that much to do it, and should they be subsidized? And there are some other fees that we talked to the committee about where we really didn't raise them to the level of cost, because we didn't want to discourage people. Now an express permit is an example of that. I mean, if you -- if we don't go on to charge the 200 or 300 or $400 it costs to process a fence permit, basically, people are going to stop getting fence permits. So we recognized that in what we recommended. And I'm sorry. Somebody had a question. Dino, I think. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, Dino did. MR. LONGO: Actually I've got two questions. Number 1, on the special activities fees, you show -- are these fees that you're currently projecting with the increase in it? MR. MULHERE: Oh, let me go over that. I'm glad you did. That's on the -- what page is that on? MR. LONGO.' It's on the third page. MR. MULHERE: Right. That's the graph up here. This is just one sample of a full spreadsheet where I looked at all of like planning activities and some of the building activities the building department looked at, and I put that in there to give the Board an idea of the methodology that we used. And I'm sorry. I do want to go over that with -- We basically evaluated the amount of time on average it takes, in the first case, to do a rezone, a straight rezone. And we multiplied that times, as you can see from the footnotes, an average hourly rate of all of the employees that are involved, everyone that touches it from the processing technician to, you Page 20 December 6, 2000 know, an assistant County attorney to, you know, everyone that touches it through the process, average hourly rate of $18 an hour times an overhead and benefit factor 50 percent, you come up with $27 an hour, multiply that times the average amount in hours it takes to do a petition, and you come up with an average fee per petition. And the reason it's an average, you know, some, some fees, we charge a straight fee for, and other things are based on square footage and other things like that. So we can -- we used that methodology to calculate about how much it costs us to process these types of petitions. We know how much we charge. What's the difference and where should we raise it to? And these two were just put in here, Dino, as an example. We did that for everything, variances and temporary use permits and basically everything that we do in planning and much of what we do in building. Let me give you an example. I think an express permit, the minimum fee for a permit is $36 right now for these minimal permits and express permits. I think Ed and Johnny calculated the cost at something much higher, a couple hundred bucks for just a regular permit just to take it in, process it. And our recommendation is to raise those fees $50, because, again, you know, we didn't want to discourage, so in some cases we didn't go all the way up. In the other cases -- I'll give you an example. Conditional use, we charge $700. It costs us over $2,000 to process the average conditional use. Now, that -- now we only do 12 or 13 of those a year, so we're not going to generate a whole lot of money on conditional uses, but people who apply for a conditional use generally we feel should pay. It really takes a lot of our time. We spend every bit as much time on a conditional use as we do on a PUD, but we're charging much less for it. So that was an example where we took it from $700 up to 2000, significant increase, 500 percent or whatever the percentage is, but it makes sense; but we're not talking about doing a hundred or 200 of those a year. We do -- last year, I think last year we did 14 of them, so that was the rationale. You had some other questions. Page 21 December 6, 2000 MR. LONGO: Well, yeah, the second question is, the new building. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. LONGO: And who is going to be housed in the new building? MR. MULHERE: I don't know that we know the answer to that yet completely. I can tell you who I know is going to be in there, and maybe I should leave it up to John. You probably -- MR. DUNNUCK: Well, we're still in the programming stages of it. We just got an architect hired a couple weeks ago, and right now we're identifying the needs, and part of it is, it starts with the guesstimation of where we need to be from the community development standpoint of it, you know, where our staff has to go, and then it's going to go to -- we talked about moving transportation over, which he -- on a lease basis where they would come over, because, you know, one of the Board's priorities has been, let's get transportation and community development closer together, working closer together and communicating closer together. You know, and we said, let's functionally put them closer together as part of that, but we do not have the answers right now at this point of exactly who's going to be in there. MR. MULHERE: Natural resources will probably move over. Pollution control will not, because the cost of moving that lab is very significant and just would jack up the price to the point of -- actually, there's even some discussion about pollution control perhaps being housed in another division, because that relationship between us and them is not really-- MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, you were talking a $500,000 bite just moving pollution control over and moving that lab over here, and we've decided from an economic standpoint that that doesn't make good business sense, so, you know, right now we're still too early in the programming needs. I'll certainly be able to come back to the next meeting and give you better information on that, 'cause, you know, Ed's working on it back there and -- with Jack Pernelli from facilities, but we don't have a specific answer on it right now. What we have done is done a projection saying, 15, 20 years out, this is the amount of space we're going to need, and that's Page 22 December 6, 2000 how we determined what size the building is going to be. MR. MULHERE: And one other thing, the -- right now we're talking probably 7.5, and we budgeted 9. John won't like this -- there certainly is the potential for that cost to come down even further. We don't know how much, and I certainly don't want to try to give you a figure. MR. LONGO: That's what we assigned the committee on, and I have a problem with using building permit fees -- I personally have a problem using building permit fees to house transportation or other unrelated development services divisions. And the comment was made in one of our meetings, and it's true, and with no offense to anybody, that if you can build 40,000 square feet, we can fill it up in a heartbeat. And my personal gut feeling is that this building will not get filled up in 10 years; it will get filled up in three to five years, and I just have a problem with that, and I'd like to hear comments on it. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think -- and I think what Bob had touched upon previously was, yes, you're right, it will probably get filled up. They will be paying lease value, but it gives us the space as community development and building review, to move our people in as we need it and move them back out to wherever they need to go. MR. MULHERE: I think there's a couple issues you're raising. One issue is, okay, if we build the building with development and permit fees and we charge rent market value to the people that are in here, where does that money go? MR. LONGO: Well, you're asking for a 17 -- you already got the 17-1/2 percent increase based on us building a new building for certain things that need to be housed over there, and basically you're building a building to lease to transportation or other -- MR. MULHERE: Well, they're only taking 7,000 square feet. MR. LONGO: Okay. So you're leasing to other divisions or whatever, and we're funding it and we're increasing our permit fees because we need facilities for -- unrelated to exactly development services. We funded this building years ago, you know, on the premise of how we did it and why we did it, and that was the reason, so that's my concern. Page 23 December 6, 2000 MR. MULHERE: But I -- you know, I agree, but a couple things we're doing: We're trying to move people out of the building that aren't related, and we're trying to look at our long-term needs. I think the only thing I could say is, it probably makes sense to have transportation located close to us, but I also appreciate -- I don't know the answer right here, sitting right here. I appreciate what you're saying, that we're talking about construction costs, and if you're going to bear the construction costs for square footage they are going to occupy, how do you recoup that cost. And I think we need to come back with an answer to you, and I'm not prepared to give that to you -- MR. DUNNUCK: Right, and I think what we're going to look at as part of that is, that the size of the building that we're building right now is going to be your up-front construction costs allowing you to have a community development facility that's going to take you out 15 years, not, not the rest of, you know, the County, transportation and everybody else, but you, as community development, sure, we may look at moving transportation in from -- you know, at a market value and having them in in the time being until we need that space, which is what we're going through right now. I mean, we had a lot -- we've had a lot of functions in here previously that, you know, probably shouldn't have belonged in here from the standpoint of a housing standpoint and what you paid for it. That's why they're going away right now. MR. MULHERE: But we're making a commitment that what we're proposing to build will meet our long-term needs though in the interim will house other-- I mean, see, we've got -- these people are out there paying market value somewhere else. Why not put them in here and generate some revenue? Your question is, where does that revenue go. MR. ABBOTT: A quick comment on that. What Dino's saying, I agree with him, but as long as it's market rent, as long as we have a business manager running this like a business, I think it will shut us up. MR. MULHERE: We're trying to move in the direction that you -- Page 24 December 6, 2000 MR. ABBOTT: We have to have a market rent. We can't be paying to move extraneous people in and out. They have to pay their own. You know, we paid to put the department of revenue in, or at least we started with that fuss. This is just bad business, looks bad to us, 'cause everybody covets our big pile of money. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, and we appreciate that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And as an additional comment, things that I've heard from not only construction but also development folks that I work with is, once a foothold is gained, how do you get folks back out? You've got no place else for them to go, you've got 40,000 square feet sitting here, and it's going to be very difficult for us to recoup the building that is meant for this development community. It needs to be real clear from a programming standpoint in long-term use that the development community is paying for this building, and by George, when we need it, then people need to go away. MR. MULHERE: It has been hard. There's been examples here about, you know, the health department, we're required by statute to have them in here. And you-all want them here, because they're easy to -- but how much, how big? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Right. Well, then there's all sorts of rationale nexus that, that through various studies have been built that these particular departments can come in and stay and they are a part of the development community, when it's really kind of questionable to some of those areas. MR. MULHERE: Well -- well, I think we need to come back to you -- as part of the building expansion program, when we talk about bringing somebody in here with a lease that clearly identifies the fact that in the future, as those needs are required -- because transportation is going to grow too, and I'm not sure that we're going to be able to house them for their future needs. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, is this something that we have to decide today? You know, I understand Bob is leaving here at 4:30; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: I'll stay later if necessary. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, certainly, I think this is -- MR. MULHERE: I'm looking for your recommendation at Page 25 December 6, 2000 least on this interim basis. You know, I -- I've worked with a lot of you. I commit to you, and John does, as well, that we will do what we said in here. You can look at the bullets, the items. I don't think I missed anything, but you can tell me if I did. MR. VAN ARSDALE: The bullets are fine. MR. MULHERE: And we will, over the next four months, work with any or all of you, however you want to deal with that. Maybe we could talk about that at your next meeting, what was the Board's, you know, decision on this. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson has -- MR. ANDERSON: I move we recommend approval of the -- MR. ABBOTT: I second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Moved and seconded. Any additional comments? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah, the only thing I'd like to stipulate is, with the clear understanding that the bullet points -- frankly, I guess there's a detail that we get an action plan to review at our next meeting to implement these prior to the -- let's call it the end of the project formulation cycle, 'cause I think they have to be-- MR. MULHERE: Fine. MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- and, and, and just so we can really get into this, 'cause as I see this, this is like an interim rate increase; and to a certain extent, we're putting the cart ahead of the horse, and a lot of the questions like Dino asked and many others, but I think we need the building, but as we go through, we answer many of these questions and deal with some of the issues. MR. ANDERSON: That was certainly part of it. I mean, everything that they've got outlined here, but as we go through this process, let's not forget, this is not a chicken-and-egg situation. Without a rezone, you don't need any building permits. MR. MULHERE: You're right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. So a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hearing none. Thank you. The next item is Item A, Land Development Code Amendments. Page 26 December 6, 2000 Mr. Nino will handle that. MR. NINO: All right. We've been at this a long time -- Ron Nino -- and a number of amendments have been -- for fine tuning has evolved over the last couple of months. Essentially, essentially, this committee approved the vast majority of the material that's before you; however, there have been certain amendments that have raised some problem. I -- with the Board -- the Board has held their first public hearing. The Board is essentially in accord with all the recommendations, again, with a handful of -- I think this is nearly the same amendment that you folks had a problem with. One -- and so therefore, I would really like to go to those areas that you had a problem with and the Board had a problem with, and we'll assume that you're happy with the rest of it, because you have in fact reviewed all of these amendments. The first one is the Goodland Zoning Overlay. Where we are at with the Goodland overlay zoning is, the Board has essentially approved of the proposition that the overlay -- the VR district ought to be limited to two stories over parking; however, in deference to Mr. Yovanovich, they have agreed that that amendment will be taken out of the approval of the land development code amendment, in other words, postponed for a period of 90 days to give a landowner who would be affected by this the opportunity to submit a PUD that they will collectively come to an agreement with the folks at Goodland. I understand that that PUD dealing with that one vacant piece of property that's zoned VR however will abide by the requirement for two stories over one of parking, but there are some -- MR. SAVAGE: Compared to what? MR. NINO: Compared to what? Compared to the current requirement of three stories over parking, so -- MR. SAVAGE: I can't believe that. MR. NINO: So that's where we're at with the village of Goodland, the Goodland Zoning Overlay amendment, and my question is, what is your reaction on that? What's your disposition of it? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any response to the comments? MR. SAVAGE: Well, I think it's ridiculous establishing two stories is a unique solution to a problem, and three stories is Page 27 December 6, 2000 hardly worthwhile even noticing a difference. You know, I'm talking about the people at Goodland now. Everybody thinks, you know, it's so important. There's nothing wrong with a three-story on parking facility compared to a two-story building on parking. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: Ron, the question to us is, how do we respond to a 90-day delay and enact this as a separate -- MR. NINO: And the decision of the Board -- basically the decision of the body that agrees with the Civic Association of Goodland to limit height to two stories over parking and the 90-day continuance of that. It's going to get done, but in 90 -- 90 days after the Board deal with the majority of the LDC amendment. MR. PEEK: I don't see why we would have a concern about delaying 90 days to -- MR. NINO: But you would also be agreeing with two stories over one-story parking. MR. SAVAGE: I'll vote no on that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It's a reduction in density is what it amounts to essentially. MR. NINO: I don't know. You'd have to ask the chairman. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: What was the question? MR. Yapping: Mr. Chairman, my name's Richard Yovanovich, and I'm dealing with the Goodland people. I don't know if it will help if I can explain a little bit in more detail. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Uh-huh. MR. Yapping: I guess the answer to your one question about reduction of density or not, I don't know the procedures for that. The committee -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Just -- can you clarify any issues you can? MR. Yapping: What happened was -- I know, Herb -- my client agreed that there was no reason to go from three down to two over one, because what happens is, we do lose density. What we've proposed is for the one piece that my client owns is to go to the Goodland people with a PUD, because we also own some single family immediately adjacent; so what we're doing is, we're putting both the single-family piece and the VR piece into one PUD, which will allow us to do two stories over Page 28 December 6, 2000 one on the residential single-family piece of level so we don't lose density, and it's essentially a compromise with the people of Goodland to allow it to happen. What we would really like is the endorsement of the committee to agree with the postponement of hearing the overlay pending the review of the PUD so we can assure that we do not lose our density on, on the VR piece, so that's where this all came about. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Herb Savage. How tall are those boat houses that they have on Goodland? How many feet above the ground, see? MR. Yapping: I think they're 50. MR. SAVAGE: Yeah. There are no two stories above parking level; they're more than that. MR. Yapping: Correct. MR. SAVAGE: And yet they allow an individual living unit to be three stores on stilts. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I would tell every one of them so. MR. ABBOTT: Well, I've got a question. Why can't we take a neutral position on this, leave it in the County commission's lap? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We certainly have the ability to do that; I guess. I'm going to ask you a question and -- is this, is this amendment to the LDC only for one project and one location on Goodland? MR. NINO: No. It's for all of VR-zoned land in the village in Goodland, all land that's zoned VR, and there's several pieces of vacant property in -- MR. Yapping: There are two. MR. NINO: There are two pieces of vacant, but there is, but there is a substantial amount of land that's zoned VR that's developed in the village. MR. LONGO: So you're basically telling us that we're going for an LDC amendment because of one piece of property that's -- and now the LDC amendment will affect all the rest of the piece of properties? MR. NINO: Yes, it will. MR. LONGO: I disagree with that. Page 29 December 6, 2000 MR. NINO: And the wish of the folks in the village, in the village of Goodland -- in Goodland, it's not a village -- is that in any redevelopment scenario and in any scenario that deals with vacant land, that the maximum number of habitable floors would be two stories over one parking in the VR district. And the Board of County Commissioners has essentially endorsed that. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: It's the people of Goodland who would be in favor of this; I presume. MR. NINO: Yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: In favor of delaying it? MR. SAVAGE: In favor of the two-story rather than three-story. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah, of approving it, not postponing it. MR. SAVAGE: My argument is with the people of Goodland, not with the people who own that land who want to build on it, you see, and that -- I don't know how in the world that they can convince the political body, the County commission, that it's okay, then how can we stop that? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Being a -- MR. SAVAGE: I'm totally opposed to it myself, but the city, the people, that is, that live in Goodland -- if you lived -- how many of you have been in Goodland? You know, those boat storage houses look like -- you couldn't -- you think back here on U.S. 41 here where they put all the windows, false windows on the outside of the building. They have the same kind of look down in Marco Island without any windows in the outside walls, and they look terrible; and yet this architectural-designed building where people are going to live, they're opposed to that, you see. Incredible. MR. NINO: That matter has consumed a lot of hours of debate, believe me, a lot of hours of debate, and the Board of County Commissioners has basically spoken to the issue. MR. SAVAGE: Right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: As an advisory committee -- MR. ABBOTT: I don't think this is our business right now. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- I think that we can make our recommendation, and if the County commission decides to do Page 30 December 6, 2000 something else, certainly that's their option, but -- You want us to one by one on this? MR. NINO: I think it would be best on the knotty issues. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Let's -- is there, is there a motion on this particular issue? MR. WHITE: I'd just point out that I think you have two issues here. One is the recommendation with regards to the change to the district rule and whether or not you would delay that for 90 days, so if you want to separate them or combine them in any fashion, that's appropriate; feel free to do so. MR. DUANE: I support combining those motions. Bob Duane. I further speak in favor of the motion. MR. VAN ARSDALE: The motion is to -- MR. DUANE: The motion is to approve the 90 days and approve the amendment to the district -- to the district regulations. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: There's a motion. Is there a second? MR. CORREA: I didn't hear the complete motion. Would you repeat that? MR. DUANE: The motion before us is to amend the zoning district regulations to reduce the height and also have this hiatus period of 90 days where people -- the VR zoning can make applications for PUD zoning, as I understand the issues before US, MR. MASTERS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any additional comments? All those in favor say aye. (Several members voted aye.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those opposed? (Several members voted aye.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Let's do a hand count on the no's. One, two, three, four, five, six no's. Okay. MR. ABBOTT: May I make a comment? May I discuss it first? I have no problem with the 90 days; that doesn't bother me in the least. I think we're messing around with this, and this is a political issue or something. MR. CORREA: I would think if the residents of Goodland would like to see a two-story instead of a three-story, I think we Page 31 December 6, 2000 should go along with that -- MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, but also -- MR. CORREA: Go on. MR. ABBOTT: -- taking somebody's property rights, a little bit, we've got to be real careful with that; I think. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes-- MR. JONES: I just have one -- a problem with writing ordinances for -- to affect one project. I mean, basically, we're talking one project, and I don't think this is a knee-jerk reaction. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Well, we have -- MR. WHITE: I think there's 13 -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We had -- I counted six no's, so that would leave seven yes's? MR. ABBOTT: One -- may I make a comment again? Mr. Yovanovich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. MR. ABBOTT: -- would they build two stories over their parking even if the zoning didn't change? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. ABBOTT: They would go to the three. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. What we're doing as to compromise is to allow us to keep our density and spread it. MR. ABBOTT: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why we want a PUD. And the reason we're asking for the 90-day hiatus is to make sure that we can spread our density and not have the new ordinance language in effect that limits us to two over one on the VR people. MR. ABBOTT: Right. MR. Yapping: And if we don't get our PUD, we've in effect -- we've lost our property rights. That's why we're asking. MR. CORREA: How many residents are we talking about? MR. Yapping: We're talking about 47 dwelling units total. MR. CORREA: Forty-seven dwelling units? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let's do this. We did six no's. Just so that I can be sure, be sure on the count, everyone who voted yes for that, please raise your hand so I can count that. We've got one, two, three, four, five, six. Do we have an abstention? Page 32 December 6, 2000 MR. JONES: My chad was stuck. I'm changing my vote -- am I allowed to do that -- to no. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To no? So we've got seven no's and six yes's. MR. ABBOTT: Mr. Chairman -- MR. JONES: 'Cause I have no problem with the 90 days either. MR. ABBOTT: I agree. MR. JONES: Can we at least maybe split it? I mean -- MR. WHITE: Feel free to make a motion. MR. ABBOTT: Well, Marco makes a motion -- you said -- MR. ESPINAR: I make a motion that we split the two issues, because I have no problem with the 90 days. MR. SAVAGE: Are you on the prevailing side? Did you vote yes? MR. ESPINAR: No, no. I voted no. I voted no. MR. SAVAGE: You lawyers ought to know that, you know, you can't make a motion if you're on the voting -- the negative side. MR. ABBOTT: I second his motion that you have the 90 days. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To do what? Can you be a little more precise? Could you expand your motion to clarify? MR. ESPINAR.' Well, you need 90 days -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We need 90 days to do our PUD. MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Give them the 90 days to do their PUD. MR. NINO: What good is the 90 days? What good is the 90 days if you've recommended no change? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think we're wasting our time then, folks. MR. ESPINAR.' I'll withdraw my motion now. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I don't mean to appear ignorant, but can you tell me why we're doing this? It's a zoning and a planning issue, and if you look at our charter, we're here to assist in the enhancement of operations, efficiency, and budgetary accountability within the community development environmental services division, and maybe to serve as a primary communication link between the community Page 33 December 6, 2000 development and environmental services division, the development industry, and the citizens of the County. I guess -- I mean, I -- I'm confused. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, Peter, it's an LDC amendment, and we're reviewing LDC amendments. It's one of those many issues that -- that's come before us that may or may not be precisely within -- MR. DUANE: We do that so the development community can have some input on the regulations that -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We've put to rest that issue. What's the next one? MR. NINO: The next item that we had some controversy was the institution of a floor area ratio for residential hotels. You recall the first time that this came to you it was with the recommendation for a floor area ratio, and it dealt with properties zoned RT, and for all practical purposes, actually deals with the property along Gulf Shore Drive in North Naples where there is substantial RT zoning. We amended -- our last cycle we amended the provisions to eliminate the 26 units per acre for hotels and reverted to a floor area ratio, which we thought it would maintain the 26 units per acre, and it did, for your conventional type of hotels, your Comfort Inns and your Holiday Inns. We, we didn't conceive that someone would want to build a structure called a, a structure called a hotel in which the rooms might in fact exceed 2,000 square feet that are full housekeeping units. And, in effect, we concluded that in those instances -- for those types of development proposals, we in fact reduced the density, and that was an unintended, that was an unintended effect to that amendment. And this amendment attempted to restore that 26 units per acre for those people who built -- were intended to build something more in the lines of a long-stay full-housekeeping unit type of hotel, and the amendment -- this is when this went to the Board, the Board agreed that we ought to consider an FAR, but we ought to define a residential hotel so that this doesn't become a subterfuge for someone who in fact is building a condominium as -- with the expectation of achieving greater Page 34 December 6, 2000 density than they would if it were a conventional condominium building. Conventional condominium construction in the RT district is 16 units per acre. The amendment that is before you in your package is one that would establish a floor area ratio -- it says 1.15; it really should be 1.28, and we define a residential hotel in a more comprehensive way than we did the first time this came to you, and you have that amendment in your, in your packet; and my question is, you know, what do you think about this amendment? The first time around, I believe you supported it, and however we've had to change it since then, we changed the FAR. Actually, the FAR that you dealt with, I think, was 1.6, if I'm not mistaken, and we reduced it to 1.28. This one is incorrect; it's 1.28. And we've defined a residential hotel as a facility that generally exceeds one week but do not -- are not greater than six weeks and greater than 12 weeks in any calendar year. It has a check-in and check-out area; it has recreational amenities that include at least three of the following or the -- the condominium documents have to clearly attest to the fact that it functions as a hotel. We, we think we've established criteria that will make it difficult for somebody to use this as a subterfuge to build a conventional condominium and call it a hotel. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: I move approval. MR. CORREA: I second that motion. MR. NINO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have a motion and a second. Other comments? Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: I have a -- excuse me -- I have a conflict in this matter. I have a conflict -- voting conflict form that I'm going to give to the court reporter to include in the minutes. Our firm represents one or more clients, including Aquaport Limited Liability Corporation, which would be potentially affected by this amendment, so I'm going to abstain from voting. I do want to make a comment or two before the vote is taken though, which I am permitted to do. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes, you are. Page 35 December 6, 2000 I think we still -- we have a couple of people out of the room; we, we still have a quorum without you -- one, two, three -- okay. Mr. Anderson, go ahead with your comments. MR. ANDERSON: If you'll turn to the second page of this where -- the last two paragraphs where you talk about, "No unit shall be occupied by more than one household," and then the next paragraph talks about one household and it being members all from the same nuclear family. There's a problem with that in that, say if I and Mr. Duane wanted to take our families and share the cost of such a unit, this language would prohibit us from doing that, because we're not members of the same nuclear family. And I don't know why that should be of any interest to the County planning people whether we're the same family members or not, and I just think that that kind of a limitation really doesn't belong in there. And I think that there are some other things that could be put in here, operational characteristics of a hotel, to try to assure that someone does not use this as a subterfuge to just have a more dense condominium. And I think staff has taken a step in the right direction with some of the characteristics they have here, but -- MR. NINO: Let me say, Bruce, that we, between now and the Board meeting, we are going to make an attempt to further insure that the definition is going to protect the density concern that we have over, over having the opportunity to build a residential hotel, and that could very well include the issue you raised about the nuclear family. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I do know -- Herb Savage -- I do know that there are many in -- cases where they have three or four families living in facilities, whether it's a short term or a long term, and I don't know -- I assume that you've looked at the pros and cons of that in this use of the language. MR. NINO: Yes, we have. I was going to suggest to Bruce that he could always say that Bob was his brother-in-law. MR. VAN ARSDALE-' Well, in fact there is -- MR. SAVAGE: Hmm? MR. VAN ARSDALE-' It's unenforceable anyway. MR. SAVAGE: I was going to say, you know, who's going to Page 36 December 6, 2000 enforce it, you know, in the local County or the local city? MR. ANDERSON: But if it's not enforceable, don't put it in the ordinance in the first place. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. ANDERSON: You're just creating a problem for Michelle Arnold and the other code enforcement people. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Uh-huh. That's a very valid point. MR. DUANE: Mr. Disney, for this -- will this model still allow you to accommodate 26 units per acre more or less based on this FAR, but the units can now approach 2,000 or 3,000 feet or whatever you can get in it? MR. NINO: Correct, not 3,000, but the 1.28 will give 2500 square feet. MR. DUANE: You know, I was the only one that was troubled by this amendment when it went through our subcommittee. We used to have -- and this may be irrelevant, but we used to have a limitation on hotel units 3- to 600 feet until we changed the ordinance in 1991. That's why we allowed 26 units per acre for hotels/motels, 16 units per acre for condominiums, 'cause presumably they were smaller units and had less impact. And now we've got to the point where we're still trying to maintain the 26 units per acre, but we're trying to get as large a motel unit as we can on the property, and I would submit to you that a three- or a four-bedroom motel unit is, in reality, is likely to generate more development intensity than would a similar owner-occupied say single-family residence. Maybe that philosophy is -- may be less germane today, but I still don't feel comfortable with it; and while I supported the motion on the previous time, I'm going to not support the motion at this time. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Other comments? MR. VAN ARSDALE: If I may, just a question in terms of, if we were to analyze this and let's say change floor area numbers or recommend changes, does that get into the document or does that just go along with the package? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ron? MR. NINO: If you were to recommend a different floor area, I would report that to the Board when I present the land development code amendments next Wednesday, either report a Page 37 December 6, 2000 different FAR that you have recommended or your recommendation that it not be entertained at all, whatever's -- whatever you decided. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do you, do you have a recommendation? MR. VAN ARSDALE: No, no. I was just -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I mean, I guess the only issue -- I mean, these are very complex issues that we're just sort of either buying them or selling them. I mean, we could spend hours -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And we have -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- on so much of this. MR. DUANE: And the subcommittee has -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And the recommendation of the subcommittee was? MR. DUANE: For approval. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: For approval. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' Yeah, I mean, I -- but I go through them, and I'm not on the subcommittee, and I look at them, and I say, I could pick these apart for eight or ten hours. And I guess I don't -- I mean, part of the question is -- part of the reason I asked you why we do it, and as a Board member, I mean, it's -- you know, not being on the subcommittee, it's hard to just -- when I see something I don't like, to just accept the recommendation, but-- MR. NINO: Mr. Van Arsdale, I'd like to remind you-all that we're long past the time when you were supposed to have completed this process -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Uh-huh. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. NINO: -- and due to a lack of a quorum, you know, at the November meeting, these -- these issues have all been reviewed by the current board, and they were -- simply required some minor wordsmithing by and large. And I would agree with you that next -- the next cycle, you take all the time that you need to make sure that what goes forward is to your liking. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And further, I know just having joined the advisory committee here, I don't know if we've got you Page 38 December 6, 2000 assigned to any of the subcommittees, but this might be one that interests you and we can get you in there so that, so that you can satisfy your concerns. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes. MR. PEEK: I call the question on the motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor of the motion to approve the FAR for residential hotels say aye, please? (Several members voted aye.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any opposed. Two? MR. ANDERSON: And one abstention. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And one abstention. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. MR. NINO: The next amendment is -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ron, if I could ask you a question. Maybe you could just quickly run down -- I don't know how many you have. MR. NINO: There's only four. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Four? Maybe what we could do is, maybe you could identify what they are for us -- MR. SAVAGE: Right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- and if anybody has an issue, then we can pull those and we can get all the issues together. MR. NINO: Vehicles on the beach regulation. When the Board dealt with this last -- at their last -- at their first meeting, the concessionaires who operate on the beach had a problem with the limitation that this amendment would impose upon them, and the Board agreed with them. The Board said, go back and make your ordinance more liberal and accommodate concessionaires. And that's what you have before you. MR. SAVAGE: The next thing -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let's skip through the list, and then we'll -- MR. SAVAGE: All right. MR. NINO: One we had some difficulty with was the Bayshore Overlay District. There was some concern about the height that that allowed and the expansion of the overlay district to include one residential tier of lots which we subsequently Page 39 December 6, 2000 found was regulated by restrictive covenant couldn't be used for commercial purposes in any event, and The Board agreed that we ought to come back with a lower height than we had first recommended, and that is a feature of that amendment change. The next one was the Immokalee Overlay District. There was some concern about the prohibition of cellular towers within the, the Immokalee Overlay District, the Main Street Overlay District, and the Jefferson Avenue Overlay District. And the amendment is one that says they're still prohibited; however, they can be allowed under conditional use if they're for essentially services. The next one was Fences. The Board -- this wasn't one you had a problem with; the Board had a problem with it -- the Board suggested that we come back to them with a prohibition against chainlink fences in all zoning districts along arterial roads, and so we have added to the fence amendment that you-all reviewed that additional prohibition of chainlink fences on our -- the amendment you have says, public streets; but it's going to be changed to, arterial streets. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We've got four items. Is there conversation on any one of them? MR. DUANE: Aren't there some additional amendments that have been added, Mr. Nino, since we last discussed this issue, compact Dumpsters being one? Are there others? MR. NINO: Yes. Yes, compact -- that is, that is the one that you had raised, and we have amended the garbage Dumpster provisions to provide for compactors. You know, the current regulation is, you have to have a Dumpster that has to be -- can't be 500 feet from the nearest residence it serves. The new technology, more developers are wanting to use compactors, and certainly that spacing formula no longer makes any sense, and the amendment to that section of the code dealing with garbage Dumpster accounts for compactors that can be at greater distances than 500 feet from the residences they are to serve. MR. DUANE: With or without curb service. MR. NINO: With or without curb service. MR. DUANE: Thank you. MR. NINO: Correct. And those are basically the sticky Page 40 December 6, 2000 wickets that were in the -- that you folks also had a -- some of which you had a problem with when you-all reviewed these amendments. There was one other change that's -- well, there's a few other changes. The Board had a problem with the artistic expressions in the amendments to the sign ordinance that you'll recall acknowledged that artistic expressions are embellishments along fences, were not signs, for the purposes of signs. Well, the Board had a problem with that, the opportunity to take some real freedoms with artistic expressions, so we changed that to say, logos. I don't know that there were -- we made some changes for landscaping around communication towers which were a little different than the package that you fellows reviewed several months ago. Basically, it basically provides for a wall and a -- some landscape -- and landscaping around the base of cellular towers. I don't-- MR. SAVAGE: How tall are cellular towers? Excuse me. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. I've got a list of five items here. The beach issue, the Bayshore overlay, the Immokalee overlay, fences, and compactors. Which ones do we want to talk about, if any? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say -- Herb Savage -- that I am amazed that we are not going to allow us to build chainlink fences. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well-- MR. SAVAGE: That's what the code, I'm told, is -- MR. NINO: -- okay, let's go to fences. MR. SAVAGE: -- proposing, that we aren't allowing any chainlink fences on arterial roads or anybody else's roads. MR. MASTERS: Actually, that doesn't appear to be the case. If you want to look at page 65 -- MR. SAVAGE: I thought I heard Ron say that it was. MR. MASTERS: He did, but it appears that the chainlink fences are permitted, but there has to be vegetative screen planted. MR. SAVAGE: As an example, I live about 100 feet away from our swimming pool. We have a chainlink fence. I can see Page 41 December 6, 2000 the swimming pool now because it's a chainlink fence. If we get all kinds of vegetation around that -- and this is not an arterial road obviously -- all kinds of vegetation, you wouldn't even see the pool. You get all that kind of fences, you don't see the pool. It's amazing. MR. DUANE: not to see you. MR. SAVAGE: that. It's amazing how we think that plants take care of everything. MR. NINO: Remember, it only applies along -- MR. SAVAGE: I understand that. MR. NINO: -- the frontage, not the interior lot lines or the rear lot line. It's only the street lines in which the commission has expressed the concern that chainlink fences are not in the character that we are looking for in, in the urban coastal area. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: Make one quick comment. So the retention areas that we have along all these County roads and stuff, the chainlink fences are coming down? MR. NINO: No. MR. ABBOTT: Or they're going to put a landscape buffer up? MR. NINO: That's the landscape buffer line. MR. LONGO: Okay. That's my question. MR. ABBOTT: A tree every six feet. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Marco had a question, and we'll go to -- MR. ESPINAR: Are we still on the subject, or are we going on to another, because I want to talk about vehicles on the beach and -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Are we finished with chainlink fences? MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me. Bob, is this retroactive? I mean So we can move on to another subject. MR. LONGO: No. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Individual screening might be for the neighbors Not to see me. Oh. I hadn't thought about MR. NINO: Oh, no. It can't be. It's only for new fences. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. All right. MR. NINO: It can't be retroactive. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Anything else on fences? Okay. Okay? Anything-- Page 42 December 6, 2000 MR. ESPINAR: Just a quick comment regarding the vehicle on the beach. I was adamantly opposed to this ordinance on the last go-around. I'm glad to see the changes have been made specifically prohibited during sea turtle nesting season, and that it's more liberal and fair to everybody, and that it is basically early morning, late evening; and with those stipulations in there, I'm changing my vote to a yes on this one. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, you get a new opportunity. MR. ESPINAR: I will vote yes on that one. Those are my comments on vehicle on the beach, and I've got one other comment for communication towers. MR. SAVAGE: While we're still on that subject, Mr. Chairman, did we not read in the paper that the hotel withdrew this request? MR. NINO: No. No, that's not true. The article was a little misleading. MR. ABBOTT: It was that one guy that Pam Mac'Kie talked about that he was not a beach -- he was the beach concessionaire but not a hotel, and he wanted to use an ATC, as well. MR. ESPINAR: And this helps him right here. MR. NINO: He's the guy who's being satisfied by this. MR. ABBOTT: I understand. I was just offering it to refute the article. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay? Anything else -- MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman, can we deal with Bayshore Overlay District next, please? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sure. Go right ahead. I was going to ask if there's anything else on the beach, but I -- well, okay, we're off the beach and onto the Bayshore. MR. DUANE: You mentioned that the height had changed somewhat, and my question is, the boat storage, is that affected somehow; 'cause I notice that you have -- under conditional uses, that we can have a height of 100 feet for the neighborhood commercial subdistrict. How does that affect boat storages, and can they also be handled conditionally through that process? MR. NINO: Well, I was hoping you guys would have got to that earlier. Deb Preston has left, and I'm going to have a heck of a time Page 43 December 6, 2000 finding where that is now, Bob. MR. PEEK: Did you find it, Bob? MR. DUANE: Yeah, I did. It's on page 33, it's under 2.2.33.9, conditional uses. MR. SAVAGE: I have 36. MR. PEEPLES: 33 in the legal size. MR. NINO: Well, that legal -- that legal size will probably have to be revised to the side sheet, 'cause that's an older legal MR. ABBOTT: This came in our package. MR. NINO: Yeah, that's an older, that's an older ordinance, version of the ordinance. That will be amended -- yeah, I know, but it will be amended. That was printed a long time ago. It shouldn't have been sent to you. MR. DUANE: What is the proposal for height in this overlay district then? MR. CORREA: On page 46 we have, conditional uses, marina. We have, increase building height to a maximum height of 50 feet. MR. ABBOTT: What page? MR. CORREA: On page 46. MR. SAVAGE: This one here, Bob. MR. NINO: On page 41, you have 42 feet and 56 feet. MR. DUANE: So what would be the logic then of being able to have 100-foot commercial building but to not have more than 42 feet for boat storage, particularly if the increased height is going to be conditional and based on existing conditions around the property? I think people's access to the water is becoming increasingly important as we're losing our public marinas and condominiumizing our boat slips, and it seems to me if someone's got the right use and the right location and they want to go above the 42 feet, they can demonstrate that that's an appropriate use, I'd not like to penalize boat storage facilities. In fact, our comp plan encourages water-dependent uses, and I, I think we got this one backwards. MR. NINO: I don't think there's a hundred-foot boat storage building in all of Naples. MR. DUANE: Well, I was looking on my old one -- MR. NINO: The new ones in Naples, the new ones that were Page 44 December 6, 2000 built recently in the city of Naples, I believe, were 56 feet high. MR. MASTERS: This one, the new one is 50 foot on page 46. MR. NINO: Who would build a hundred-foot boat storage facility? MR. DUANE: The hundred foot doesn't make any sense. I just want to make sure we can go above the 42 feet conditionally, and the answer to that is, right now you can go up to 50 feet? MR. NINO: Fifty feet. MR. DUANE: All right. I'm satisfied with that. Thank you. MR. DUNNUCK: I'm not honestly -- I'll put in my two cents -- I'm not honestly convinced that that's accurate. I think it was supposed to be reduced down to 42 feet with the Board stipulation saying that if you want it at 50 feet, you have to come back to a variance process. The other thing that Deb Preston's looking into, and she's been doing this over the last couple days, is, apparently there were some deed restrictions that came up along that property line; and we don't know the extent of what those deed restrictions are at this point in time, so it's kind of hard to tell exactly where we are on this issue until she can establish that. But what the Board had indicated at the LDC hearing was, 42 feet; if you want to do the boat storage, you can come into the variance process and we'll consider it. MR. LONGO: Well, that's not what this says. MR. DUNNUCK: That's, I think, what the original proposal was to them. That's what we had proposed. We proposed 50 feet where they come in with the conditional use. MR. NINO: That's what we proposed to the Board. MR. DUNNUCK: And the Board flipped it around and said, conditional use gives them the indication that we're going to approve it; variance is more of a difficult process. And that's the way the Board went with it. MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with forcing people into a variance process. I think our conditional use criteria -- that would be my recommendation, that we not use that procedure; we use the procedure we've always used for conditional use. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, it sounds to me like, with all the issues that we're being asked to act on this afternoon are still in Page 45 December 6, 2000 a state of flux. They're moving targets that we don't have any answers that we can act on a concrete proposal. So I propose and move that this committee not act on any of them, that whatever is worked out now and when they go to the Board of commissioners, those people that are interested in it appear at the Board and make their comments known. 'Cause I, I feel uncomfortable in trying to vote on anything that we continue to be told is going to be changed before it gets to the Board. MR. ABBOTT: Well said. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. That was made in the form of a motion. Is there a second? MR. LONGO: I'll second it. MR. SAVAGE: Let me ask Ron Nino. Ron, you have to work on this every day. MR. NINO: Well, no, the -- you know, well, you have to appreciate the Bay -- when you're dealing with the overlay district, the Bayshore Overlay District, came out of a series of workshops. MR. SAVAGE: I know that. MR. NINO: That's what the folks out in Bayshore who own the property have agreed to. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. NINO: And I, with all respect, I see the function of this committee as, you know, really not germane to that issue. I mean, if we were dealing with regulations that haven't been workshopped and haven't met a consensus by the people that they're going to affect, quite frankly, I don't know why you have a problem with it. MR. SAVAGE: Very good point. MR. DUANE: Well, in all due respect to Mr. Peek, who I rarely disagree with, this -- I think you were absent at this meeting, Mr. Peek, when we discussed the Bayshore district -- MR. PEEK: No, I wasn't. MR. DUANE: Okay. MR. PEEK: I was present. My whole point at this particular point is, I think we're asking to act on something today that we don't have the information nor the final form of proposal to act on, and we're sitting here trying to second guess what that's going to be. Page 46 December 6, 2000 That's not a criticism of the staff, because they're working to try to catch up to get it in a condition as dictated by the Board of commissioners, which they should be; but we're asked to vote on something -- act on something that we don't have a concrete issue to discuss or to make a motion about, so I think we're in error to try to move ahead. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may piggyback on that and address this gentleman's comment earlier. What I'm going to do is point you to -- I hate to do this, but that's what lawyers do -- to what the actual code is that reflects what the powers and duties of the body are. Functions, powers, and duties section is 2-1037, and in parentheses 10, this is the part that gives you the authority to do what you're doing relative to the LDC. This kind of gives you the charge, if you will: To review proposed ordinances and codes that may affect the community development and environmental services division prior to their submittal to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Now, you're in this state of flux between the first and second public hearings, and I understand your concerns; but I'm just trying to help you focus that what the ordinance, if you will, is asking you to do is to look at these ordinances and consider how they will affect the division and render your recommendations accordingly. MR. CORREA: We're being asked to recommend something that we're not certain of. This -- we were just told that this is in a state of flux and it might change and it's going to be changed. I think we should know what we're voting on. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Which was the point of the motion. Mr. Masters? MR. MASTERS: Let me make one comment to the fact that, I mean, everything that we approve is still going in front of several different boards and will go in front of the Board of commissioners and almost inevitably will change from what we recommend for approval at the early stages here to what finally gets approved or denied by the Board, so -- MR. SAVAGE: They're asking our opinion. MR. MASTERS: Right. So, I mean, based on the information in front of us, I think we can say yea or nay to some of these. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, we have a motion and a second on the table. All those in -- Page 47 December 6, 2000 MR. DUANE: Well, what is the motion with regard to the Bayside -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: The motion was to not act upon these because they're still in a state of flux, if I've summarized that correctly. MR. PEEK: Yeah. MR. CORREA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay? All those in favor of that motion say, aye. (Several members voted aye.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those opposed. (Several members voted aye.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Let's do the hand thing again. MR. SAVAGE: This is more controversy than we've had all year. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor. One, two, three, four, five, six. All right. All those opposed. One, two, three, four, five, six. How can we do that? Did somebody leave? (Inaudible colloquy -- several members speaking at one time.) MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. NINO: I thought you were talking about Bayshore -- JONES: No. NINO: You're talking about all those that are in flux? CORREA: Yeah. NINO: Oh, I didn't-- MR. CORREA: I think we should know what we're voting on or what we're approving or -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Brian? MR. JONES: Brian Jones. As our guide, our attorney has pointed out that we're a sounding board, and the nature of the beast is that these things are in flux. That's the only -- that's the way we're going to get them, and they're looking to us as a sounding board; and if we don't say anything here, we're not fulfilling our obligation as a -- to give them input on what we think is best for, for this group. So at first I agreed with Mr. Peek, but then in listening to what we're supposed to be doing, doing nothing is not the right thing. MR. DUNNUCK.' And maybe I can bring a little bit more Page 48 December 6, 2000 clarity to the Bayshore issue, if that's a driving force on this, that's in flux. Those deed restrictions will only be -- what I've heard is that -- from the committee was that possibly they would like to see it more liberal than what the 42 feet is coming in with the variance process. That's what the Board has directed us to bring back. We know that for certain. The deed restrictions may even make it a little bit more stricter, but if we can make a decision based upon what the Board has given the direction towards, which is 42 feet, come in with a variance process if you want the boat storage facility, if you want to make a recommendation based upon that, that would probably be your best plan of action, because the deed restrictions that are going to come in are only going to be more stricter than that. They may say you can't put a boat storage facility there. We don't know. We're trying to find that out right now, but they're not going to make it more liberal. So, you know, if you want to act upon what the Board decision has been made on that case from what you previously heard, that would probably be the route to go. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, John. Mr. Anderson had a comment. MR. ANDERSON: I have a general question and then a specific comment. My general question is, why is this coming back to us in between the County -- the two County commission hearings? You're not bringing this back to the planning commission to get their recommendation on changes that have been made in between the two hearings. I just -- MR. NINO: Because you folks haven't dealt with any of the amendments in any definitive way. The planning commission has dealt with the, with the packet; however, following the planning commission meeting and en route to the Board, amendments have occurred. If you happen to be the -- you're the beneficiary of not having ever dealt with it at all, we may as well give you the amendments, as well. MR. DUNNUCK: There wasn't a quorum at the last November -- MR. NINO: There wasn't a quorum at that meeting, so rather Page 49 December 6, 2000 than say, here is the original packet and we're not going to tell you about all the amendments that have come along in the process, we may as well give the original story. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. My specific question then is, with regard to the Bayshore districts and how we are measuring building heights, as I look at this, I think this is even more restrictive than the building height referendum that was approved by the voters in the city of Naples, number 1. Number 2, why are we measuring building heights from sidewalk grade? It seems to me that is inconsistent with all the other requirements in this County where we measure from required flood elevation. Let's be consistent. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. Absolutely. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, except if the -- as they did on Fifth Avenue, where they measured from the sidewalk, the purpose of that is to create a meaningful pedestrian environment; and that's one of the big problems with this plan is that it doesn't do it. You know, if you, if you measure and you build to FEMA, essentially whether it's on stilts or some kind of large barrier wall, you're not creating a meaningful pedestrian experience, which is what creates success; so it is done the other way for design reasons, and this is -- I don't know, like I said, this plan needs a lot of work to be anything of quality, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: Bob Duane was saying earlier it's much more practical to go through a -- MR. DUANE: I'd like to make a motion -- thank you, Mr. Savage -- MR. SAVAGE: Okay. MR. DUANE: -- that we utilize the conditional use process -- MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. DUANE: -- for increases in heights in this district. I'm less concerned about commercial structures than I am water-dependent facilities, but I think this places a much greater burden on the applicant to get a variance than to use the conditional use process. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. DUANE: Now maybe that was what the Board's wisdom is. I disagree with them on that issue, and my motion would be that for any increase in height that we use the conditional use Page 50 December 6, 2000 process. And are we going to establish a maximum height in this district? 'Cause we're on a variance that would be done on a case-by-case basis. I'm, I guess, prepared to substitute 50 feet as a place to start from unless someone else has some additional input they'd like to make. MR. SAVAGE: Is that your motion? MR. DUANE= That's my motion. MR. SAVAGE: You did not say anything about -- MR. DUANE= Conditional use process -- MR. SAVAGE: Okay. Okay. MR. DUANE: -- and we establish a maximum height -- MR. SAVAGE: Okay. There's two items -- MR. DUANE: -- with -- for that conditional use process -- MR. SAVAGE: I second that motion. MR. DUANE: -- for either commercial structures or boat facilities. I wish our -- Ms. Preston was here, 'cause -- I'll suggest 50 feet for lack of -- MR. DUNNUCK: That's what was originally -- that was the original proposal. MR. DUANE= And that's what I think this board has previously approved also. I don't think there should be much disagreement there. MR. NINO: You're saying the conditional use to go to 50 feet? MR. DUANE: That's correct. MR. CORREA: What have the residents of Bayshore requested? MR. NINO: They have 42 feet, and buildings containing mixed residential over commercial could go to four stories or 56 feet. MR. DUANE: Okay. You can go even higher for those facilities. I don't know what problem there would be even at 50. MR. DUNNUCK: And there was once again an issue that went specifically to a piece of property and the potential of having boat storage facility. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. MR. SAVAGE: That's all the questions. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: A motion and a second. All those in Page 51 December 6, 2000 favor say aye? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We don't have to count hands. MR. ABBOTT: For once. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Does that put us to end with that? MR. NINO: Did you do vehicles on the beach? MR. MASTERS: Do we need a motion for all the other ones that we didn't -- MR. NINO: You didn't do vehicles on the beach. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, I -- okay. We had an exception on this one. I thought the motion from Mr. Peek and what we voted on six to six -- MR. SAVAGE: It didn't pass. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- was to set it aside, so if you'd like to make a motion on that, we'll, we'll consider it. MR. JONES: Motion to reconsider that vote again. Can we vote on that again? Has anyone changed -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We still have a quorum here, so -- MR. MASTERS: The motion had failed if it's six to six. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Finish your comment, Tom. MR. MASTERS: Yes. I would like to make a new motion that we approve the other items as amended that we haven't heard yet, that we haven't specifically voted on. MR. DUANE: Second. MR. SAVAGE: Those other three. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Which? MR. SAVAGE: The fence and the -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Let's be specific about which ones we're talking about. We've got -- MR. SAVAGE: The beach. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- the beach access issue; Bayshore, I think we just did; the Immokalee overlay; fences, and we had something on the compactors and -- MR. MASTERS: The items -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Finish, finish the items that you're talking about. MR. MASTERS: The items that we're taking about are, in fact, the ones you just listed. Page 52 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Beach access, Immokalee overlay, fences, and compactors. Bayshore was -- okay. Other comments? MR. PEEK: I -- it would appear to me from Ron's comment that we need to make this motion more inclusive than that, because if this committee never acted on the subcommittee's recommendation for the entire amendment process, we need to act on that entire process with these amendments, it would seem appropriate to me. MR. MASTERS: Yeah, and that is -- I mean, any of the ones that we haven't discussed today, and if we haven't voted as of yet on the previous ones, which I think is the case, we need to approve as amended all those, right? MR. NINO: The only action you took at your first meeting was approval in principle. You didn't actually approve any of it. MR. MASTERS: So the only ones that we would take out then would be the two that we specifically voted on previously now, Bayshore and -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We've only done Bayshore. MR. MASTERS: Yeah, okay. MR. NINO: You did FAR with two opposed. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You just didn't write it down. MR. NINO: You did Goodland and FAR and you did Bayshore. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All right. Very good. Well, that's-- MR. MASTERS: And all the rest of them were satisfactory the last time we spoke about them. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Uh-huh, that's true. So that's the motion? There's a motion on the table. Is there a second to the motion? MR. PEEPLES: Mr. Duane seconded it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Duane did? Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I'm going to have to abstain from voting on vehicles on the beach. My firm represents the Ritz Carlton, and it's been involved in negotiation and drafting the documents, so -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. Mr. Anderson, are you okay on these issues? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'd like to abstain on that one, as well. My voting memorandum of conflict deals with the RT zoning district and hotels and motels generally, so that should include vehicles on the beach, and so I'm going to abstain. Page 53 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. All those in favors say aye? (Several members voted aye.) All opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Can I get clarification here for a second? Are we voting on everything on here then? MR. MASTERS: It's all the amendments. MR. ESPINAR: 'Cause there's one amendment here I'd like to discuss, and that's the communication towers and the landscaping and that opaque wall. And I don't want to -- I would vote yes on everything, but I would like to discuss this one item. MR. PEEK: I move to reconsider the landscaping item. MR. SAVAGE: The what? The towers? MR. ESPINAR: The communication towers, yes. The communication towers. MR. PEEPLES: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: There's a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. NINO: Now, Marco, what page -- MR. ESPINAR: Page 56, they're asking for an 8-foot high 100 percent architecturally finished opaque wall, and then they're putting a landscape buffer outside of that wall and then a security fence inside that wall, so we're basically taking the cellular towers and turning them into Fort Knox, it looks like. Now, I do a lot of communication towers, and I know that the communication towers I do, we put them in a lot of pastures, industrial areas; and I think it's a -- sort of. an overkill to sit there and have a landscape buffer and then an 8-foot concrete wall and then a chainlink fence. MR. ABBOTT: That's where you hide the chads. MR. SAVAGE: Who comes up with these ideas anyway? MR. ABBOTT: That's a good point. I agree. MR. NINO: Well, who comes up with these -- let's -- communication towers are ugly, you'll have to admit -- MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, but there's a whole lot of them too. MR. NINO: -- particularly when they're visible from the street, and those in the community with greater aesthetic sensitivities don't want to see those facilities at grade level, and this, this type of amendment is to insure that in fact they won't be visible at street level. Page 54 December 6, 2000 MR. VAN ARSDALE.' But you're missing about 90 feet of them. MR. ABBOTT: Can I make a comment? Think about building or servicing these things. That wall's going to be in the way. MR. ESPINAR: I mean, so -- okay. So 8-foot's okay, but then the rest of the tower you can see from, you know, the rest of 20 miles. MR. NINO: Well, there's nothing we can do about that, Marco. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Grow vines up the tower. MR. ESPINAR: Yeah, opaque vines all the way up the tower. MR. CORREA: Get some bamboo trees. They grow. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do you have a recommendation? MR. ESPINAR: I recommend that we deny this motion. MR. DUNNUCK: Ron, can I ask a quick question? Have we had any disputes from people who actually build these communication towers? MR. NINO: No. No, we haven't. MR. SAVAGE: Well, they're always begging for-- MR. NINO: Our landscaper has discussed these requirements with the industry, and the industry has not indicated in writing or verbally or any presentation to the Board and the planning commission any -- anything to the contrary. MR. LONGO: Well, that's because the last time they were here, they were asking for four more sites -- MR. SAVAGE: That's right. MR. LONGO: -- on Alligator Alley. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Please. MR. ESPINAR: I make a motion that we deny 2-point -- what is this -- 2.4.6.4? MR. LONGO: I'll second that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Wouldn't it be better to maybe send a specific recommendation to the boards? MR. ESPINAR: Well, we already on the books have landscape, but we have to put a landscape buffer on there. If there's existing vegetation, we will preserve that existing vegetation around that tower. What this is doing is adding now another element, and that is having us to put a concrete wall between our security fence Page 55 December 6, 2000 and the landscape buffer. That was already -- it's already on the books. MR. VAN ARSDALE.' But I guess my point though is, shouldn't we just recommend that -- our concerns, you know, make a recommendation to the Board expressing those concerns rather than voting against it? I mean, is that the way it goes to the Board, or will it say that we, we -- will our recommendation come as having voted against the ordinance, or does it go to the County commission with the recommendation that they consider those points? I mean, I think the latter would be preferable. MR. CORREA: I'm inclined to vote against the walls. I think walls are ugly to look at. You know, you drive along and look up and see a wall -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think the point is, it's a little overkill and, and-- MR. ESPINAR: And not to mention that these -- the towers, a lot of these towers are situated in, like I said, in industrial areas. I'm doing a lot of towers myself, and I'm putting them on pastures, on farmlands where the farmer just wants to lease a little piece of-- in a corner, or, like I said, in industrial-zoned areas. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: -- may I ask Ron a question? The procedure -- once we took this paragraph and eliminated it from this ordinance, we would then present it to whom without that paragraph or X'd out? MR. NINO: No. This will go to the Board exactly the way it's written, only we will, we will advise the Board that this committee does not endorse the amendment. MR. DUNNUCK-' Or alternatively you could make a proposal stating that in certain areas like industrial zones or, you know, agriculturally zoned areas, that you would be opposed to this, but then in residential communities, you would support this, or something along those lines. I don't know. You have those options. MR. LONGO: And the Board has those options, as well. MR. NINO: Dino, what the, what the -- it's true this does require a wall; however, the landscaping external to the wall, Page 56 December 6, 2000 there are a number of alternatives. If you're seeing this way back in the back 40, there's a good opportunity that there's native vegetation already in place and that in fact, in reality, all you're talking about is the wall. MR. ESPINAR: Well, why would we have to put a wall if there -- if there's opaque vegetation already, native vegetation? I mean, it's redundant. Then, then there's an added cost of us having to put a wall up even though it's opaque already with the native vegetation. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Patrick? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think Mr. Foley raises a very good point, not only in this particular provision, but in general if you're doing any kind of legislation like this, that if you can provide to the Board so that staff doesn't have to make some kind of an assumption about what your reason was a part of either the motion or just something that helps give the Board a hint that it's more than just a mere denial. MR. NINO:. You don't -- don't you feel there is a security issue around the -- I mean -- MR. ABBOTT: There's already a fence. MR. ESPINAR: There's already a chainlink fence. MR. ABBOTT: Which we discussed earlier. MR. MASTERS: With proper landscaping. MR. ABBOTT: I think Peter Van Arsdale's comment was pretty good about giving them a reason. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: The comments are very good though, Marco, as far as making a recommendation towards -- or for the Board so that they understand what we're doing rather than just a flat out, we don't like this; make it go away. Would you consider amending your motion so that it includes that type of language? MR. ESPINAR: So moved. I mean, how, how would you like to word it, or, I mean -- MR. MASTERS: Leave the wall. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So that the wall that we would -- we would recommend that they not include an 8-foot-high opaque wall within this, within this ordinance. MR. CORREA: We not include it. MR. ESPINAR: Yeah. So moved. MR. SAVAGE: Why can't we just say, an opaque -- Page 57 December 6, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Moved and seconded. MR. LONGO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No. We've already got a second. So we've got that. All in favor of the amended motion say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. NINO: The motion is, no wall. MR. CORREA: No wall. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's correct. MR. PEEPLES: Mr. Chairman, I have somewhere I have to be. (Inaudible colloquy -- several members speaking at one time.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: The meeting's not over, folks. MR. WHITE: This will be handed out when we get to it on the agenda; it's for those individuals who have to leave now. MR. ABBOTT: Well, we have to worry about, we lose our quorum. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ron, we got to the end of your items? MR. NINO: Yes. Yes, you did. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do we still have a quorum? So we've got -- MR. SAVAGE: I shall return. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- one -- who's leaving? (Mr. Masters and Mr. Peeples left the meeting.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One, two, three, four, five, six -- yeah, we're okay. We're okay. All right. Our next item is LDC -- committee reports, LDC reports. Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: I think we have taken care of that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Construction code subcommittees. Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: No report. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Utility code. Mr. Peek. MR. PEEK: No meeting, no report. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ad hoc committee on fees, I think, were taken care of with the previous. All right. New business. Weed, Litter & Exotic Control Ordinance. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm handing out to all of those -- Page 58 December 6, 2000 essentially a revision to the existing litter, weed, exotic control ordinance, and if you'll just take the opportunity before the next meeting to take a quick look at it, we'll have it on the agenda for discussion at that point in time. Essentially what we're doing is creating a scheme where posting can be another option for providing notice in particular to those folks who are repeat offenders of this ordinance. We're also making the liens that result apply not only to the property that the violation is on but also to any real or personal property in the County that the violator may own. And lastly we're introducing a mandatory lot-mowing program for those folks who again, three times or more, violated the ordinance that essentially puts them in a place where they are required to pay for mowing on an annual basis or otherwise post a security to insure that they will be mowed in accordance with the ordinance. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you. And this is for our meeting next month and essentially informational at this point. MR. WHITE: I would appreciate any comments any of you may have as a result of your review. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. MR. ABBOTT: Can you give us a quick summary of what's driving it in particular? MR. WHITE: The fact that there are a number of absentee landowners who repeatedly are noticed of violations, some of whom will and do have contracts for mowing but do not have the property mowed until they get a notice of violation. Mostly it's the absentee landowners that make no provisions for taking care of the property. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Item B under New Business, Alternatives to Gain a Quorum. MR. DUANE: Yes, you-all -- and it's enclosed in your packet -- you-all have asked what opportunities you have, a., from an enforcement standpoint of what this Board can do to repeat offenders who do not show up for this meeting; and I enclosed a copy of the ordinance pertaining to that issue and what options you have on somebody-- if you determine that that person has not attended for two, you know, for two meetings and it hasn't met your satisfaction of why they haven't attended, you do have the option to make a recommendation to the Board of County Page 59 December 6, 2000 Commissioners for removal. The second part was, in an effort to gain quorums, what options we had available. We said, well, we'd just kind of outline it fairly simply for you and see if you wanted to move forward with the change to the ordinance and -- so that we can insure that we do have a quorum. Real quickly -- I know we've been here a while -- I'll take you through the four options that we have. The first one is to adopt an ordinance change that allows a majority vote of those members that are presently in office instead of total committee members. If you're in the process of transition, you got four positions posted, then you could have an 11-member committee effectively allowing only six members to have the quorum. The second option is to adopt an ordinance amendment that will allow the majority of those attending the meeting to make recommendations to the Board. For example, five members attending the meeting, it would take only three votes. You know, that's probably -- you probably wouldn't want to go that way. The third way is to maintain the ordinance as written requiring a majority of total committee members. Fourth option is to adopt an ordinance change that the staff member to act as an ex-offi¢io member to reach a quorum, as well. You know, Heaven knows we have enough staff members in these meetings that we should be able to help you. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: I think they're, you know, good options and explanations. I think option I would be my preference, and if you're looking for a motion, I'd move that we request option number 1 be put into play. MR. DUANE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We've got a motion and a second. Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: Discussion on it. I -- I'm of the feeling that I'd like to think -- and I feel that we could depend upon the staff if we had a problem and had one person we needed to get, I don't know why a person on the staff couldn't handle that. Page 60 December 6, 2000 MR. CORREA: MR. ABBOTT: comment. I was, I was going to lean for that number 4 option myself. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well--Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: I'd just like to make a comment that I'm proud of the fact that we have 15 people that will show up for the meetings for the most part, and we do, for the most part, get a majority of our committee members here; and I think it's real important that we maintain that, because it gives us a good view, good input from different cross-sections of the community as to Board issues. And we stand a danger of people that were slacking off because it's not as important for everybody to be there to vote on the issues. And some of these issues, I'd hate to see a five-to-three vote or something like that happen on real important issues, and I think it's not a true representation of our committee and what it's charged to do in this community, so my recommendation would be for option 3. MR. WHITE: There's a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: There is a motion on the floor. MR. WHITE: We can still discuss it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We can discuss that. Marco? MR. ESPINAR: Just a comment on Mr. Savage's comment. It's sort of, to me, it's like separation of church and state type thing. You know, you got, you got staff coming in here with their proposals; let us review it, and it, you know, it kind of keeps -- has that line of dividing us. MR. SAVAGE: I understand that. I'm in agreement with Marco. That was what I was going to say, my MR. WHITE: But I have to be so obvious as to point out that had you had number 4 last month, you would have been able to opine and make your recommendations with regards to the LDC. MR. SAVAGE: Amen. MR. LONGO: Yeah, but I -- I'll comment back on that. Tom Peek was exactly correct, even though we are asked to give an opinion, it's hard to give an opinion on a moving target. MR. WHITE: It's always going to be moving. MR. LONGO: No. I'll disagree. It's not always moving, Page 61 December 6, 2000 because we've made pains in the last couple of years since I've been on this Board to get our facts straight, to get staff to bring us recommendations and information on a timely basis, and it's the first time I know that -- 'cause I wasn't here last month -- that we really hadn't had a quorum in the six years -- yeah, six years that I've been on this Board. So it's not always going to happen. I think there's always a danger of things not -- getting passed through or not looked at correctly, and it's, and it's obvious by the things we see -- even on the things we see continuously that we catch more things on it. I think we need to be careful. MR. ABBOTT: Patrick might not recall, because it was before his time here, that we used to have -- all the troubles with some of the stuff we passed in our subcommittee construction code came back very differently; and we were -- it was an incredibly frustrating thing, and so bear it in mind that staff don't have the same level of integrity, at that time, that I would have expected. MR. WHITE: My comment with regards to the moving target is that only those that are the controversial ones and only as to that point in time between the first and the second public hearings by the Board. My experience over eight years has been that as to any of those controversial provisions, no matter what the jurisdiction or the provisions themselves, they're essentially moving targets. I agree that giving a precise recommendation is very helpful. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, if I may, certainly a moving target, after it gets through one of our first reviews or out of our subcommittee, various entities reviewing it would, would have options to revise it. But as it set on this table, we couldn't even, we couldn't even decide or understand what it was that we were going to vote on here today; so, fine, if it moves around after it leaves the table and after we've reviewed it, so be it. That's part of the process, and we all can go to those public meetings and express our opinions. But as it sits on this table, if we don't know what we're voting on, how can we reasonably do that? MR. DUANE: What does that have to do with the motion that Page 62 December 6, 2000 Mr. Peek and I made? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Take John's -- John's comment, and then we'll vote. MR. DUNNUCK: I was just going to quickly comment on my history with advisory boards with the County has been, you know, when you go through transitional periods of members leaving, we went through it with the advisory committee, the environment advisory committee, just recently where we were in a rush to try to get two new members on because we had one who was taken ill and one who couldn't serve any longer, and, you know, from the standpoint of option I as being a pretty good opportunity too if you don't want to go the route of an ex-officio member, you know, staff member, you know, that certainly is something that probably I would say history-wise may occur at some point in time on this, you know, on this Board. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. Well, we'll call the question -- MR. SAVAGE: Just a moment. I'd like to have one other -- this is discussing passing number I or not, I'd like to say one other thing, that I think on this staff, how many times we've had to do this? Once, maybe twice. And if we can't find in one of these fine people that work on this staff to be on that particular moment to give us a quorum, they may not vote for it or against it, but it's a matter of getting a body together to have seven people. MR. PEEK: Comment: If item number I had been in place last month, we would have had a quorum sitting here, because we had two, two vacancies on our committee and we had seven people present, so we would have had a quorum last month if we had had item number I in place. MR. ABBOTT: We only had one other time we didn't have a quorum, like August or something? MR. PEEK: Well, I think that person showed up about 15 minutes late, and we did have a quorum before the meeting was over. MR. SAVAGE: But we have to keep a record -- exact record of who is so and so and so and so? I mean, keep it simple. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We had to, we had to wait. MR. SAVAGE: K-I-S-S. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, I agree with what Dino was Page 63 December 6, 2000 talking about. ~1 mean, we always need to be here. We committed to this -- MR. SAVAGE: Well, sure. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- by-- in large part, we do. The odd occasion out that it occurs, I think that option number I gives us a very good alternative for it, so with that, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion to -- I believe we bring this forward to the Board for a change, right -- to suggest that we go forward with option 1. All those in favor say aye? Any opposed? (No response.) MR. VAN ARSDALE: May I just make one point though, on the option of -- I mean, you're actually required, if a member misses two meetings without an adequate excuse, to notify the County commission to basically recommend that person's removal, and that's something that isn't being done; I think. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You're right. We have not done that, Peter, and -- MR. SAVAGE: Because it is a political appointment, you understand. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, all I'm saying, this is what the ordinance says. MR. SAVAGE: Yeah, I know. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And I don't think we have any authority to not obey the ordinance, and that -- frankly, there are some people that don't have perfect attendance records. If you don't want to come, don't fill the slot. To be honest with you, one time, to have all the staff here, to have the public here, and to not have a meeting because we lacked a quorum is inexcusable, and we should -- MR. SAVAGE: That happened last month. MR. VAN ARSDALE: And it should never happen, and it's irresponsible, and we should certainly do -- I mean, everybody's busy as a volunteer, but that's why I think I is a pretty good -- 1 would probably eliminate that from happening. But also I think if we adopt the rules of the ordinance and there's people that can't make it for other reasons, then they shouldn't fill the slot. It's not fair to us, and it's not fair to the Page 64 December 6, 2000 people -- to anybody that comes to the meeting, and it's a big waste of time for us all. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's a valid point, and perhaps the chairman that's selected in January can take care of that issue and follow through. New Business, C, Plans Review Procedure/Single-family Homes - discussion item. MR. DUNNUCK: I asked Ed Perico to come in and update you on an issue that's kind of popped up over the last month and kind of bring this Board up to speed. MR. PERICO: Unfortunately, I was away when this came about when state statues, there was a -- (Inaudible Colloquy-- several members speaking at one time.} Hey, Ron? Ron? Quiet, please? MR. ABBOTT: He can't hear you. MR. PERICO: DBPR came in and responded to a state statute in there that was in effect since 1998, that the lady's -- what was the name? Charlene, was it, Charlene? MR. ABBOTT: Wolf Woman. MR. PERICO: Whatever her name -- Anyway, she came in and quoted the statute that all planning review has to be done by certified planning reviewers, including single-family. We're in the process right now of opposing it. All right? And there was a, there was a building block that was put out and -- stating that effective December 1st that this would be effective. And what was happening is, what they're asking for is drawings to go along with plumbing, mechanical, and electrical. In most cases the drawings are all being done. It's just a small schematic or something that has to be submitted, so we submitted at this point based on the building block that's effective December 1st, this is going in. Patrick White was at a meeting yesterday we had. Dave Ellis, Charlie Abbott, and a few other of the chiefs were at the meeting, and we're going to, like I say -- Patrick, what were we going to do? We're going to get together with the state on this? MR. WHITE: I can advise you that just before this meeting, I received a call from Charlene informing me that she had Page 65 December 6, 2000 discussions with the attorney who is responsible for this part of the state statutes, and an attorney who represents, I believe, the board that reviews violations for building plans, reviewers, and building officials, et cetera, and her opinion was pretty much that of what she had expressed yesterday. I have not yet spoken to either of those attorneys, so I do not know whether the clarity of my argument was raised in a way that I think gave it a fair hearing, nor have we explored what the options we would have would be with regards to getting an opinion from that actual board itself; plus, I'm expecting that this issue has not boiled to a degree that it's raised enough attention throughout the state that perhaps there's maybe a further consideration on the part of DBPR. In short, the argument that I believe Collier County is making is, one, we're presently complying with the law, because under no circumstances are the inappropriate plans reviewers ever looking at a type of plans they are not qualified to look at. Okay? The second thing is that factually Collier County issues essentially a building permit for single-family and two-family homes that has no other part to it, if you will. In Cape Coral there are subpermits for those types of structures for electrical, mechanical, and so forth. And as to those permits, there are specific drawings that the building official has requested and that are brought in as part of the application for those building permits and subpermits. The third thing is, is that each of the technical codes and the building code itself put in the hands of the building official the discretion to determine whether drawings, plans, et cetera, are required in order to establish code compliance. And in sum, the argument that we're raising is, is that the DBPR, in order to apply this statute in Collier County under our facts, is, in effect, usurping the discretion of the building official as to whether you need to have detailed drawings or not. In other words, they're creating the argument that you need to have drawings and making you provide drawings just so you can have the appropriate types of plan reviewer review that. Now, the issue only focuses, as I've probably not made clear, on single-family and two-family homes. All other types of structures in the County, they don't have a problem with; so Page 66 December 6, 2000 where it is presently in terms of our discussions with the other attorneys, I haven't completed those. I had a commitment yesterday that as to January 1, before anything would become hard and fast in terms of them looking to enforce the statutes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So have we implemented that -- the building block then? MR. PERICO: I believe the building block did go out and as of December 1st was implemented, and so, you know, we would be in compliance. In most cases what's happened is -- I mean, I talked with our chiefs, people who have been in the business all their life, and everybody draws a schematic. Doesn't have to be done by a design professional. You have a plumber that's doing a single-family house, he's got to do a layout, give it to his men to do the job, and that's all that's required to have with that set of plans. So somebody's already doing the drawing. It's just a matter of getting it in here and getting it into the, into the system. MR. ABBOTT: One of the issues is, you leave the discretion to the tradesmen in the field to do a plumbing layout, and whether he comes out 4 feet with the sewer, out, or out 4 feet from the corner or he comes in the middle of the house, this is usually done to good practice, and the inspectors recognize that. What she's asking for is all that totally decided up front, and then if you do anything different, you've got to go through all this revision. It's a whole bunch of paper shuffling, but it is no benefit to the end use of the customer or the builder. MR. PERICO: And my directions to my staff is that if in fact the drawing does come in and has to be changed out in the field, as long as it meets the code, we're not asking for revisions; we're not going to be charging for revisions. We don't need the extra inspections, you know, as long as we're complying with what she's asking for. MR. VAN ARSDALE: As long as it meets the law, who cares? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino, you had a comment. MR. LONGO: Yeah. What --just to clarify -- what they wanted is isometric drawings -- THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear you. MR. LONGO: I said, what they wanted are isometric drawings and details on single-family and two-family, and Page 67 December 6, 2000 currently in our construction ordinance, we have at 5,000 square feet, we require design professionals to seal those drawings based on that criteria. There are a number of issues that can pop up for, for the requirements of isometric drawings, and, and how it relate DBPR trying to take a license away from a plan reviewer if he did not review that plan right and an inspector didn't go out there and find it exactly perfect. We're talking about mechanical drawings, for instance, for AC, that says a 21,000-level house has so many side runs and size registers. And you know how it works in construction -- it moves, it joggles, but we still get the same configuration, same -- times the same -- same -- everything else just moves. Technically, it could be wrong and against the law to move your vents or your return air if it's not shown correctly on the plan, and what we're now asking the inspectors to do is go out there with a sheet of paper that shows an AC layout or pick up a plan out of the plan box and make sure it's identical and leave them up -- in charge as to whether they think it's at their discretion whether it could be moved the two feet or not, so forth, so on. They're not a reviewer; they're an inspector at that point. So we had a lot of problems with it. We had builders' roundtable discussions on the Collier Building Industry Association. Ed was on vacation. He got back and kind of quelled the storm, and that's where Patrick came in, so we are trying to fight the interpretation. So basically, this is, this is an informational-type issue as far as this committee is concerned. Everybody that's on the committee needs to be aware Patrick is working on it, on an argument to the case. We effectively did decide to go, on very short notice, to the industry to put the December 1st building block in -- or the building block into effect December 1st. It was, it was -- on the industry side, I did argue that for the most part most plans and most contractors, subcontractors, do have to do -- go through the motions of doing those type of things. We just didn't think the DBPR really had that type of police powers or enforcement powers, and we've asked -- we asked the County staff at the time, last week, to look into it. Page 68 December 6, 2000 Ed came back, Patrick got involved, and that's where we are today. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. I want to clarify an issue though, because I've just, I've just spent a lot of money trying to comply with this dad-burn thing. Are you going to require the design professional within the near term to do these things that are in the building block, or are you going to allow the tradesmen to continue to submit -- MR. PERICO: I'm going to allow the tradesmen -- and I think based on what we're reading there, it doesn't say it has to be done by a design professional. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Fine. Well, that's not what this says. It says right at the bottom, Plans that do not comply with this particular ordinance 98-80 must be signed and sealed by a design professional. So we just need to go back and look at 98-80. All right? So I took this as, not only have I got to do this on this project, and I spent two grand to have it done. MR. PERICO: Is it a commercial project or -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No, it's just -- it's a duplex, for God's sakes. We've never done this before. MR. PERICO: I understand that. That's where I'm having heartburn with it. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman -- MR. ABBOTT: The lady who talked yesterday, she had zero knowledge of building and the code. She had no idea of the practical application of what she was insisting on. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, who is -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: -- Charlene, and what does she do every day? MR. WHITE: Charlene -- if I may, Mr. Chairman -- Charlene Sloser (phonetic) is an investigator or auditor -- I'm not sure what the correct title is -- for the state DBPR. MR. DUANE: Investigation specialist. MR. SAVAGE: Investigation specialist, which -- you know, it's amazing to me -- MR. ABBOTT: I have another name -- MR. SAVAGE: -- I did a job for Marco Beach Realty one time, and I finally told them, I says, construction industry is not an exact science. Page 69 December 6, 2000 And you see that every day, and you see it every day, and I see it every day. And for people who are Ph.D's that come down here on book learning and read an ordinance, page 3, page 4, page 8 and so forth, it's got to be just like that. They don't know what they're talking about nine times out of ten, and I won't hesitate telling this Charlene that and the governor or anybody else about that. You know, this is a practical matter, and I appreciate so much -- but I hope that what -- our attorney and our County is going to be looking at the practical side of these matters. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is not jeopardize the licenses of our plan reviewers -- MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. LONGO: -- by being stick-in-the-muds, and at the same time, trying to give a little bit of notice to design professionals. We're still trying to move our criteria -- correct me if I'm wrong -- up to the 5,000 square feet. Past that, you guys start seeing the plans. We do have a problem with -- there is no stipulation as to size or square footage for these isometric drawings being required, and we've had -- already kind of addressed that in our construction -- years back, and now she's telling us, you know, this was in effect since 1998. If you don't comply, then we're going to start taking all your reviewers' licenses. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, we certainly need to protect the folks that are -- MR. PERICO: We'll have to have a building block, and we'll make whatever necessary changes have to be made on the issues. MR. ABBOTT: But, listen, on the County, we have fought over this issue, and she acted like everybody's in compliance but us, but we heard tell that Lee County told them, you know, buzz off, so-- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, one of the things that concerned me when this first came out was kind of what position that it put the department in, and I think that I guess what I'd like to see maybe at the next meeting, just say, we do not prevail in this interpretation that we have to implement it, that we're fully aware of the consequences that we don't get into a situation where, you know, I think single-family, these particular plans go Page 70 December 6, 2000 in and out in very short order, and I'd hate to see us go to the point where now they get like eight-week reviews or four-week reviews or something like that. And I think we need to be thinking, if nothing else, thinking along those lines and really trying to understand what the ramifications will be if we have to comply. MR. PERICO.' This is my big concern, Peter, that we know the turnaround time, and what I tried to express to her yesterday, we're trying to fix something that isn't broken. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yeah, I know. MR. PERICO: My people out in the field are very well aware of it, they know what they're looking at, regardless of what was improved on a set of plans, if it wasn't for the inspectors, a lot of stuff would just go on out in the field. We'd have a million dollars in inspection fees. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. PERICO: And she doesn't want to hear this. You know, she's very, you know, the way it is. And if need be, if it's going to bog down the system, we might have to take a look at putting on an additional reviewer for single-family just to keep that momentum going. MR. LONGO: And the kicker was, in June or July, if the unified building code actually goes into effect, it kicks out this statute. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sure. Sure. MR. WHITE: Well, the DBPR's position on that, if I may chime in, is that that statute is no different and the proposed code is really no different than the existing statute. And that's part of the great concern our County has, is that it's a slippery slope. Once you start off of this thing, you've essentially got the DBPR trying to tell you how many and what drawings you need to have in order to comply with the various codes. MR. LONGO: Right. Right. MR. WHITE: And I believe that that's the building official's determination, and I think the codes will say that. MR. LONGO: Right. MR. ABBOTT: Her, her issue is defining what's office as opposed to field, and Ed's position is saying to them that what's between the office and the field we thoroughly comply with the Page 71 December 6, 2000 law, and it's the building official's discretion. And she wanted to have it all done up fine, but then, like I said, she had no knowledge of building codes. MR. SAVAGE: No. MR. WHITE: The theoretical thing is, is that there are innumerable, if you will, code requirements in each of those technical codes in the building code. MR. SAVAGE: Right. MR. WHITE: How do you demonstrate through a drawing or a detail or something all of those provisions so that you can, up front in a plan, demonstrate code compliance? I think it's a wrong-headed argument. I don't think that there's anybody out there whose house, if you will, has suffered as a result of the manner in which Collier County has complied with the laws that exist. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Well, it's wrong for the residential that they're trying to press it for; it's not wrong in general, in my opinion. MR. WHITE: That's specifically what I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: This is going more towards a commercial design application for all small residences, which is MR. ABBOTT: But the down side of that, it changes the issue that the builder in the field can no longer make corrections. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I'm not for it. I'm not arguing. MR. SAVAGE: Well, how do we -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It, it gains me funding on one side, from a design standpoint, but I think it does all of the things, particularly usurping the building officials' -- MR. SAVAGE: Do we know anybody in the state of Florida that's in charge of this personally that we can talk to them? (Inaudible colloquy -- several members speaking at one time.) THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't hear-- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Our representatives certainly -- MR. ABBOTT: Well, listen to what Patrick says, 'cause he picked me up on this yesterday. Say it. MR. WHITE: I'm saying that as either a committee or individually I have an opinion about that. I'm always in favor of you contacting the people you believe that are part of the Page 72 December 6, 2000 process. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. MR. SAVAGE: I always write to the governor, and that probably doesn't do any good. MR. WHITE: Theoretically, that's how we got here. I'm telling people who are complaining all the way up to the governor and down, the DBPR, but that's just a hypothesis. MR. SAVAGE: Mariatees, clover, and all those other things. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Thank you. MR. ESPINAR: I just have a comment real quick. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yeah, that's where we are. MR. ESPINAR: DEP is having a meeting December 13th at two a.m. -- excuse me -- two p.m. regarding Golden Gate Estates single-family homes, building in wetlands. They're looking at expanding the law currently for an exemption. You're only allowed 6,000 square feet of clearing, 4,000 square feet of fill. That is very restrictive, and anything above and beyond that, single-family homes in Golden Gate Estates have to do litigation. The U.S. Army Corps allows half an acre of impact on their own nationwide permits, so they're trying to bring their laws more in step with the Corps. For once DEP looks like they're doing something in the right direction. It's open to the public, and I encourage everybody, you know, who is doing any construction in Golden Gate Estates to attend that meeting. MR. DUANE: Where is it at? MR. ESPINAR: It's at DEP on 13th, two p.m., at DEP downstairs; and like I said, they're trying just to bring up their laws more in step with the Corps. MR. DUNNUCK: Can I make one other little minor suggestion real quick? You've got your local legislative delegation meeting in January. If there is some legislative issue that you want to bring forward and get their support by a resolution, I suggest that that may be the opportunity for you on this issue. You know, you may want to vote in support of it tonight if in fact that's something you'd like to pursue, give us some, you know give us some idea. MR. JONES: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I had one comment before you do that, Page 73 December 6, 2000 if I may, as a committee member. January you're going to be electing a new chairman, and I just want to thank everybody for the opportunity to do this this year. It was enlightening and very educational. MR. SAVAGE: Are you asking to be reappointed? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: No, no. No, I'm not. Thank you. I did submit -- MR. SAVAGE: Okay. Fine. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. We had a motion for adjournment? MR. SAVAGE: May I ask -- point of order, point of order?. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Just a second. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Dunnuck had suggested if we had a strong feeling about going to legislate. Why can't we have our subcommittee make an effort to go to this hearing and do some complaining and so forth to our legislative group? Would that not be possible, Dino? MR. LONGO: Actually, we're probably doing it on the industry level. MR. SAVAGE: Well, even show it on our quasi-official level. MR. DUNNUCK: And it doesn't hurt, because the Board of County Commissioners on the January -- or maybe even December 12, they're voting on a slew of issues of what they're going to support for the local delegation, and if you -- may want to make that an item for the Board to consider -- MR. ABBOTT: What day is that? MR. DUNNUCK: -- this may be your opportunity. December the 12th. MR. VAN ARSDALE: When's the legislative delegation meeting? MR. DUNNUCK: Legislative delegation is January 17, which would give you another Board meeting in between that if you wanted -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: All those in favor of adjourning the meeting? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) There being no further business for the good of the County, Page 74 December 6, 2000 the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COM M ITTEE DALAS D. DISNEY, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY SANDRA BROWN, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 75 ,FORM .8B P,a,,ae t/' '~" MEMORANDUM'OF VOTING CONFLICT-FOR _ COONTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL' PUBLIC OFFICERS Anderson, Robert Bruce 1670 Crayton Rd Naples Co~er Development Services Advisory C'ommi.t_~e~I 1H~eO,~qO.~CO~I~t.sK~~~~ ' '-'~', '.'~ Collier . - Q e~CE'CT~ 'kS a, Pl:'eN~4Trel~~ .., .:.- "; December 6', _2_000 _...": WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 Th;s form Ls for use by a~ persoft se~ng at [~ c~ty, ~, cr ~er ~a( {~l ~ ~emment on ~ ap~n~d or elec{ed bo~, ~i~, ~m~to~ a~, ~ c~m~. ~ ~s eq~ to ~em o~ ~ and ~~ ~ who are preenled ~{h a VOt~g Your lespons~i~t. under the law when laced with voting on a measare in whk~ you have a =onfr, ct of ;ntere~t will rapt greatly de~endir, g on whether you h~.ld an elect~'e or appo.~n,Jve po~ilion. Fc4' ~is reason, please pay dose at&ant[on to t~e ~stmctlons o~ IN~ form betore completing the revere side arKJ I~11i3g ~be ~flTt. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person hokf(~lg electra or ac.l:,olntive coufity, mun'~ciFm!. cr other local ~'.,~bEc office MUST At~$TAIN from voti,~j on a measure which [nu.~s t~ hb~ o[ her $0ec~tt! private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed io~el off, car al~o is' proh.:bRed from kno~ingly vo~ing on a mea- ~re which inure,~ to Lqe special gain or loss ol a p,'itlcipal (other tha~l a go',~amr,~ent ager, cy) by wty3m he or she {G ret~'m~d (t,'lci'dEmg the parent o-(janize[iotq or subsidia,"y' of a cot13ora~e principal by ¥~,,ich he or ~ is te'.ained): to the spe~a~ private gain or ~ of a ~elatlv~: or to the apecial priva;¢ gain or toss o~ a busin~.~ et,:socia~e. Corem{as[cream c.t c~mra~tnity. te,Sevelopment agencies unde~ Sec. 163.3~6 or t63.357, F.$., e. nd o{ficer~ o~ irtdepender, t sp~[al tax d~stricts elected on a one. acre. one-vo;e basis Are not proh'bi~ed tram votin9 in that capacity. Far puq3C~e~ ol this law, a '~elative~ iacludes only the off'~et'$ lather, mother', son, daughter. husband. wife. binthee sister. re.that-in-law, ~',other-Lq~aw. sowln-law, and deughte~-':-n-law, A 'bus~ness e~ssoc~ate' means any person or entity engaged i~ o~ cs~cying oR a. business enteq3tise with the offk~er as a partner, jo~t venturer, coowner of property, or c~rpor~te:~;hsreholder f,~here the shares of the coq'~oration are IlOf li~ed on any national or regiof~al ~tock ELECTED OFFICERS: t~ addition to abalatni.qg lrom voli,qg in the situations ct~scfioed NSove, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly !h,e nature of ¥o~ ~nte'.'e,~ m th~ measure on whk:n you ~[e absteinL'lg from voting; and WITh. IN 15 DAYS AFTER 'l'H[ VOTE OCCURS by compte~{Rg and til~g this form w;-th the pe~sor~, respons;b'.e to~ r~or~fmg the u~.es ot tr~e meeting, who should incorporate t,~e fon'n in the minutes. , APPO[NTEO OFFICERS: AJth¢~gh you must abstain from yeSno in fi~e situations descried abo~e. you othenNise may participate in these mate. els- However. you made m~st disctoce the nature of the confi ct be{ore mat<{n.3 any at~efrp, to .,~,tcGnce the deCi~iO~'~, wrtetbe~ orally oT in x,,'fitin¢.4 and whetbee by yO~.l or at your (fl~'ectlon. iF YOU Ir,TENO TO MAKF_ Ably ATTEMPT TO INFL, UE, NCE TI-~E OEC, ISION PRIOR TO THE b~EF_.TiN,"~ ~,T WH[C,H TH~c VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: - You muot c. ornptete end {{!,e lf~ic to~m (b.-~lo~e ,nal~ncj any attefnF-t [o ir]i~uence the dec[s~on) wlth the per3on ra~or~iblo for ~c-c, ordin~ ,.he minutes of (~ ~11eet~ng. who will inco~pOf~tr~ the loon in the mi~u{¢s. (Confinue'~ of 1 other 3~de) ~ pAGE C,C FORM ::1~ - R~V. 1/C~-q * ~e fo;m must ~ re~ ~c~ al ~ ne~ m~ aRe(~e Iorm ;F Y~ ~KE NO A~PT TO' ~U~CE '~E DECIS(ON'~C~T BY DISCLOSURE OP LOCAL'OFFICER'S INTEREST I] Robert Bruce Anderson ,hereb),d/3closethalon December 6, .. (a) A measure came c~ will ccme before my a§ency which [check one} ~ inured Io my special private gain orloss; ~ inured !o the special gain. or loss of my Cus~ess assoc;ale ~ inured to ~he spedel gai~ or Ios~ ot my telalive. ~X inured to lhe special gain or loe~ of LaPlaya, LLC and Aquapor.t, LLC whom I ~m retained; or -- inured to the ~pe~al g~ or loss o! ~s Ihe parenl organ{za§on or ~ubsk~ar~ o! a prk~pal wh~;h h3s re~ed me, ~b) The measure tefore my agenoy ~nd l,he rmlure ~ my confficling in:e~est in lhe meesure is as Iollc~s: vote on recommending amendments to the Land Development Code concerning zoning for Residential Tourist Zoning District and Hotels/Motels generally. Z~ .ZO,_9_: Daze Filed December 6, 2000 Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROV!SIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES {}1~.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REOUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLCWING: IMPEACHMENT: REMOVAL OP, SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $$0.000. CE FORM 8B - PEV. 1~8 ,°AGE z