Loading...
DSAC Minutes 08/22/2001 RAugust 22, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, August 22, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "E," Community Development Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Thomas Masters, PE Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Dalas D. Disney, AIA Robert L. Duane, AICP Marco A. Espinar, PE Brian E. Jones Dino J. Longo C. Perry Peeples, Esquire Herbert R. Savage, AIA Peter H. Van Arsdale Page 1 August 22, 2001 MEMBERS ABSENT: Blair A. Foley, PE Bryan P. Milk Thomas R. Peek STAFF PRESENT: Ronald Nino John Dunnuck Denny Baker Ed Perico Patrick White, Esquire Tom Kuck Page 2 August 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Now that we have Ron here, let's get on with what we're here for. The only thing on the agenda is -- MR. NINO: First of all, I handed out an amendment for the airport-related development. I think that's page 2 in your agenda. I handed out a substitute for that. The beginning or the first item is just an amendment to several commercial sections that currently allow tow-in parking and wrecker services and other services relative to C-1 and C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. That became an issue of some concern through members of the county Board of Commissioners at a meeting not too long ago. They directed us to immediately make those adjustments and to delete as permitted uses from those districts tow-in parking lots and wrecker service towing type of businesses. MR. DUANE: Incidentally, our subcommittee achieved a consensus on almost all of these PUD sunset provisions. There's some new language that was provided to us since our meeting, but I wanted to start out saying that even though we-had a small meeting, we were able to agree on most of these. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, if it's okay with you, I would like to ask Bruce something. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure. MR. LONGO: I mean, if the subcommittee has pretty much gone through all of this, I would ask that the panel or the committee here that if there are not any objections that we let Bruce make that recommendation so we don't have to go through all of this line by line. Those who have not read any of these or have questions ask them now. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That seems reasonable. I mean, the only one we didn't have open was the sunsetting. If we would like to just go ahead and go along with the subcommittee recommendations to approve the other ones and then spend some time on the sunsetting. If someone would like to make that-- Page 3 August 22, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: I wasn't able to attend the subcommittee meeting, and there are some inconsistencies in this ordinance that I want to bring to your attention. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any specific ones, or should we pass through them all quickly? MR. ANDERSON: Well, when are we going to deal with the airport? MR. NINO: Right now. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MR. NINO: I handed out an amendment to the one that's in your packet and -- MR. LONGO: What page are you on, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's the new handout. MR. LONGO: The two-page one? MR. ANDERSON: It's about slipping in RV parks under an airport. If the private sector was trying to pull this kind of crap, they would be screaming to beat the band. I think -- MR. DUANE: I take exception to that. MR. ANDERSON: Well, fine. You do that, Bob. I think RV parks are different enough from an airport that they ought to have their own category and maybe make them a conditional use in the industrial district. So they could be allowed, but they just would require a separate hearing. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I think the intent of this was to allow RVs to congregate at events, like air shows, which is a fairly common practice. It may -- I don't think this is meant to establish a continuing ongoing use of RV campgrounds but -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, then it needs to say that because that's what it would allow. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. I think the intent is just -- when you have these air-show weekends or Page 4 August 22, 2001 something, people come in motor homes. Or, let's say they put a racetrack out there at the airport, a lot of people come in motor homes and camp out for two or three nights. So maybe it should just have the word "temporary" recreation of a vehicle at a campground. I mean, you're the lawyer. I mean, I think there's a need. Otherwise, you have a show and then somebody code violates them because there's some campers parked there. MR. LONGO: Item 18 doesn't address that? MR. NINO: I thought the revised one does address that, which may include a recreational vehicle campground and ancillary support facilities for temporary special-event activities. Now, obviously the facilities or the allocation of space and some of the improvements to accommodate that weekend-type event needs to be in place all the time. So you need to recognize that. I mean, the port-o-johns and the restrooms, whatever, that's going to be a permanent facility, but it will only be operated at those times that there's a special event in place. I think the amendment does step up to the plate and do that. It's not unusual for general aviation airports to be a permitted use in industrial zoning districts as opposed to a conditional use. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm not saying the airport ought to be. My concern was about the RV park. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, is that clear enough language to mean temporary? Does this language mean temporary as you read it? MR. ANDERSON: No. If ! were the lawyer for the RV campground guy, I'd say, "Hey, this allows me to have one yearround on industrial-zoned property as long as it's got some loose tie-in with the airport." MR. DUANE: The actual area is about 20 acres that's planned for the airport authority. It's located more or less internally to the property, just as Ron said, to accommodate these temporary events. Page 5 August 22, 2001 So there actually is a real intended use moving forward. Actually, there's a process for-- MR. ANDERSON: Which may include on a temporary basis recreational vehicle use. MR. NINO: I don't see a problem with adding those words "on a temporary basis" in a recreational vehicle campground because that was our intent. It certainly was not our intent to -- MR. LONGO: Well, he's saying strike the word "campground." He's saying on a temporary basis, recreational vehicle use -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? It might be a little simpler to take the phrase that starts with the word "for" in the second line near the end, add after it the words "use during," and take all the rest of that text and insert it after the word "include" in the first line. So it would read as follows: "General Aviation Airport which may include for use during temporary special event activities such as air shows and the like a recreational vehicle campground and ancillary support facilities." MR. SAVAGE: Sounds good. MR. LONGO: That's good. Do you need a motion to that effect? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you want to just do a general motion at the end as amended? MR. NINO: You were going to give me that language. I'll get it from you later. MR. SAVAGE: Thank god the lawyer's on top of these things. THE COURT REPORTER: Wait a second. You guys are all talking at the same time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: If we have a close one on something, we can go ahead and take a separate vote. Otherwise, let's just pick them all up at the end. MR. LONGO: Okay. Page 6 August 22, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Is there a big demand for RV campgrounds out in Immokalee? MR. NINO: The other issue the committee had some concern with is the sunsetting provision. MR. LONGO: They're $600,000. MR. NINO: What is in your package is in response to the committee's recommendation to the best of my ability, however you may still have some problems, and that's why we're here. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It does seem to address most of our concerns. The one remaining issue that we discussed in the meeting was, basically, on some of these larger PUDs, by the time you get your PUD from the county and then go to the water management district and coordinate your permit, that can take more than the three years allotted before you have to have some work done on the grounds. We would like to see some way that that's accommodated in there. As it is right now, you have to have 15 percent of your work done before you have all your permits, theoretically, in hand. I don't know how we can show diligence on the permittee's behalf without what we discussed, showing that they were indeed making an effort to address the core of the water management district permitting issues on a timely basis. That would show some forward progress. MR. NINO: You know, I don't know how to respond to that other than -- our perceived direction from the county board is that we're to shorten the time frame for revisiting PUDs. Our response to that is three years. Well, actually, the suggestion was three years. Quite frankly, I don't think this is as much of a change as is inherent in the suggestion of going from 5 to 3 because, remember, we changed the parameters of what qualified. We no longer talk about 15 percent of dwelling units. We finally came to the Page 7 August 22, 2001 realization, "Why do we care about dwelling units?" We care that the infrastructure is in place in a timely manner in accordance with our requirements. Whether or not it becomes another Cape Coral of streets and infrastructure is really not our concern. We're concerned about the infrastructure that's in place. That's our highest priority, which wasn't before-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. NINO: -- and, likewise, with commercial development. We acknowledge that under this opportunity to revisit the program that there are other parcels that sometimes take 10 and 15 years to be developed. We said commercial PUDs would be capped out at 75 percent. So in some respects this is, you might say, more lenient than the current regulations with the exception of the issue that you're raising in really large -- not necessarily large, but PUDs with a lot of environmental hangups like I suspect Mirasol is going to be. It may take, maybe, five years in the permitting phase, but the board has said -- basically, I understand the board's action to be, "So be it. We want to revisit that PUD." So for those PUDs it simply means that they will have to be revisited by the board. There may not be any changes, but at least the board has an opportunity to revisit them. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: What is the board's intent to do during that review process then? I mean, if they deny it, then you'd have to come back and go through the whole process again. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think the board's intent is, as we continue to change land development code, to make sure that we are consistent with the code or with transportation policy. That was the main issue that's been driving this. It's the fact that we had commitments out there at the PUD level that we shouldn't have had commitments on. The board has said overall, "Hey, we need to be taking a more proactive look at this and, you know, not wait five Page 8 August 22, 2001 years to see it." So they've asked us to come back and visit the three- year policy. CHAIRMAN MASTERS' Overall, I think that's probably a good idea, except there are those instances as the process of environmental permitting goes on and on that it's going to become a four- and five-year process to get those permits based on a PUD you have in hand that you had to have before you went through that process. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Explain again what it is you said about transportation commitments in the PUD and things. What do you mean? MR. DUNNUCK: We've had commitments in PUDs that have talked about where -- you know, where the intersections are going to be located in PUDs, and transportation has said, "Without us knowing what the project is, how are we committing to these type of level of decisions?" The board has been put in a difficult position because we've got commitments that have been out there for a number of years that we've changed policy on through that time, because that was an acceptable policy, you know, several years ago, but now it's not. But we're stuck with these PUDs out there, and they're saying, "We want to be able to proactively look at these," you know, and not waiting five years to do so, especially if the work hasn't been done. MR. ANDERSON: Well, it seems to me that the transportation department can do like the other departments in the county and that is to have stipulations in the PUD that say whatever is in effect at the time you pull a permit will apply instead of using the sledgehammer approach, like we've got here, that doesn't take into account permitting difficulties. MR. LONGO: I agree. MR. PEEPLES: I've got a question. Ron, has anybody from the Page 9 August 22, 2001 banking industry contacted you or contacted our subcommittee to weigh in on this? The reason I ask is usually a developer will acquire his PUD zoning and then attempt to get his infrastructure loan. Construction lenders in this county have become comfortable with the five-year sunset provision. If there's a three-year sunset provision -- I'm speaking strictly of residential now -- and then a 15 percent absorption rate every year after that, I just don't know how banks will react to that and if there will be construction lending available. Again, they may like it better. I don't know. I was just wondering if anybody weighed in on it. MR. NINO: Well, appreciate that we're not grandfathering in the PUDs that are already approved. The three-year sunsetting only triggers in with those that are approved -- MR. PEEPLES: After the adoption. I understand. My concern is that after the adoption of this, not including all the PUDs already on the books, when that particular developer goes to the commercial lender looking for his infrastructure, his acquisition, development loan, whatever, when the lender's attorney looks at the PUD that we know where it is. MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. PEEPLES: So we haven't heard-- MR. NINO: We haven't heard -- MR. DUNNUCK: I think the board -- what they wanted to see is they want to start seeing the site development plans come in very close to PUD. MR. PEEPLES: Right behind the PUD. MR. DUNNUCK: They don't like the idea of PUDs being used as a marketing tool out there and being used as a sales tool. We've already heard loud and clear that they don't want us making those commitments at that level of the PUD as far as whether it's transportation intersections or not, and we're getting away from that. Page 10 August 22, 2001 But at the same time, you know, what we've heard from the board is that we would like to see these projects coming in. When you come in for the PUD, we want to see the SDP coming in very soon thereafter and not waiting. Now, understanding the permitting issues, you know, that may be something for the board to consider because we've gotten this in the cycle at the board's request, and then that's something that I think you-all bring up a very valid point on. MR. SAVAGE: I know for a fact on Marco Island on one particular case the State of Florida has been seven years trying to get a permit. You know, it's ridiculous. MR. DUNNUCK: We've got you beat. We're 11 years on a stormwater permit. MR. VAN ARSDALE: What's the hurry? MR. SAVAGE: That's right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: There's also no provision in here for projects that can't go forward because of concurrency problems. So I make a motion that we recommend that this not be approved and that we leave things as they are. MR. PEEPLES: I'll second that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Don't you think -- how about -- I mean, I thought your recommendation about the stipulation made sense, I mean, even for five years. There should be some mechanism to manage these issues as they come up. They weren't foreseen when the PUD was originally approved, so why don't we recommend leaving it at five years, but adopting, you know, that sort of language or, you know, stipulations that deal with whether it be transportation or infrastructure or utilities or whatever that those be included. You know, that that kind of language be in the PUD rather than -- I mean, I'm guessing it's probably legal, but it doesn't seem to be fair. That Page 11 August 22, 2001 being the case, we should review all zoning every three years and make everybody come back in every zoning classification for the county's review to see if it's appropriate, whether it's a PUD or a zoning that's been adopted 50 years ago. MR. ANDERSON: I mean, I could move my retirement up by five years if we did that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. How about recommend that it stay at five and we have those sort of stipulations that you mentioned? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you care to amend that? MR. ANDERSON: I would accept that as an amendment if you'll throw in tolling of the time limit for concurrency or other moratoriums. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. I mean, you have the feeling for what this should say. MR. SAVAGE: The language. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Rather than just turn it down, why don't we make, like, a constructive recommendation that, "We think we understand the problem. We don't think this is a good way to deal with it because, frankly, it still doesn't deal with it." Let's say-- you know, because if the PUD sets something out even at three years, it may be in a year and a half that transportation comes up that wasn't addressed in the PUD and that ignores that. So we would be better off to have it open-ended than deal with the issue as it comes along. MR. NINO: Let me tell you that problem is not going to exist in the future because the structure of the PUD is going to include an open-ended provision that should transportation conditions change within any time frame, that we have the opportunity to invoke those. So that's not going to be a problem in the future given the way that we're going to be taking control of PUDs in the near future. The Page 12 August 22, 2001 board is trying to get a handle on what's out there. It already has a window of opportunity that may be inconsistent with our current optimum wishes. MR. LONGO: But you just said this takes place with the issuance of this new one. MR. NINO: No, it's not retroactive at all. It will only take place with respect to those that are coming in the door now. It will have no effect on what's out there. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah, but you say you're -- MR. NINO: And concurrency can't be a problem because we're not supposed to approve anything that's not concurrent with the regulations in any event. So I don't understand the concurrency relationship. MR. LONGO: I have a hard time with allowing someone to permit or apply for a PUD and in three or five years from now because of a policy change telling that developer or contractor that they can't do what they set out to do. They did all their long-term planning, financing, marketing, and everything. Because of, you know, tangents or whatever holding up the project, whether it be a permitting issue or environmental issue or whatever, they're not able to do it just because a new board three or four years from now decides to change their mind and doesn't want a red light at that comer or something like that. If you want to restate your motion -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hang on. Do you have a comment? MR. SAVAGE: I was just going to ask a question. When you talk about changing during the five-year period -- all of a sudden the county establishes an ordinance that says the building cannot be so tall, it only can be shorter than that; are you talking about concurrent -- they'd have to change when they start building that building three years from now? MR. ANDERSON: No. I'm saying-- for example, the recent Page 13 August 22, 2001 problem we had with the North Naples sewage plant. We couldn't hook some people up. It may be with roads in the future where building permits cannot be issued because there is a concurrency problem with the roads. In that case the counting of however many years it is should be suspended because those people can't pull permits. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, it sounded like Ron was inserting different language that made this -- at least made the concerns moot. Didn't you say that? MR. NINO: Well, that does cover the issue that Bruce just described. That is a possibility. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. MR. NINO: That is indeed a possibility. However, our history is not -- it has a very long window to it. The only time it's ever happened I think it had an effect of-- I didn't think it had any effect on precluding building permits, but, you know, that's a likely possibility in the future. The question is, does the board have a mind that in spite of that likely condition they want the opportunity to look at PUDs that are three years old or five years old, whatever the case may be, even with that condition that Bruce identified? MR. LONGO: Is this subject to mediation or our new mediator if four years from now the board decides to nix something in a permitted PUD? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That would go back to the board, wouldn't it? MR. PEEPLES: I think so. Maybe that's a question for Patrick. On a sunset provision, if it's three years instead of five, at that time -- I don't think that's something for the hearing officer, but perhaps I'm wrong. MR. DUANE: I think we put that in. The sunset reviews was going to be something that the hearing examiner would look at. We Page 14 August 22, 2001 brought that up a couple of times at our prior board meetings. MR. WHITE: I don't recall. MR. NINO: For the record, we're really not talking about three years. We're talking about four years. These provisions trigger in the fourth year. We're really talking about four years versus five years and six years respectively under the current regulations. We changed the parameters to the point that I think we don't have any restrictions here that are more onerous than the current regulations. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Having said that, would you care to restate your motion? MR. NINO: Because the conditions Bruce identified also apply to the five year ones. So, you know, you're just talking about that window of four years versus five years. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let me restate my motion. I move that we recommend denial of this, period. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do we have a second? MR. PEEPLES: I'll second that. Having seconded that I would like to say that I think the board's intent is very clear, and if we would like to have input on this, we would be better served to make a recommendation other than denial because I think the Board of County Commissioners are very clear on what they want to do. MR. DUANE: That's a good point. I was philosophically opposed to these provisions when they came forward. Ron seems to have found some middle ground here. I was particularly appreciative that he put the grandfather provision in so that people didn't get stopped cold. I heard the board discuss this issue before, and it seems like -- I don't want to prejudge it when they get to the hearing, but in the discussions I heard previously it seems they were predisposed to three years across the board, period. They hadn't thought about grandfathering provisions. I think we would be much better served by a compromise position such as this than end up with something that Page 15 August 22, 2001 may be worse than that. But I appreciate Bruce's position, and I started from there, but I'm kind of in between right now. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think I would add to that I think the way of looking at PUDs based on infrastructure in the ground as opposed to numbers of units as they've previously done, too, is an advancement over what we had. I hate to totally toss that out as well with a flat recommendation to deny it. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'll withdraw my motion. MR. PEEPLES: I'll withdraw my second. MR. LONGO: Well, why can't we add to this then? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I'd rather craft what we want. MR. ANDERSON: Have at it. MR. LONGO: You brought it up. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bob, would you care to -- MR. DUANE: While I'm comfortable with this language, Bruce brought up a very good point. There may be some stops and starts that are beyond the control of the applicant here, and I think those should not be -- an applicant should not be penalized for that. So if the four years can be tempered with some language that this period of time, you know, is an interrupted period not affected by any moratoriums or, for lack of a better word -- I can't think of another one -- that you could go beyond that time frame, you know, for those kinds of reasons. I don't think I can draft that sentence here at the table. MR. SAVAGE: You ought to be able to -- MR. ANDERSON: agencies. MR. NINO: Yeah. Or permitting delays of governmental Why not just say you support the intent of this amendment with the added provision that it not apply to PUDs that are prevented from going forward by any permitting agencies. MR. DUANE: In an orderly manner. Page 16 August 22, 2001 MR. LONG: So you'll amend this as we said? MR. NINO: No, I won't amend it, but that recommendation will be brought to the attention of the board. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. PEEPLES: Who made that motion? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think that was coming from Ron. MR. SAVAGE: That was coming from Bob, but you heard it through Ron's month. MR. ANDERSON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I'm hearing none. Barring that, I think we were pretty much in favor of everything else unless Bruce has some additional comments on any of the remaining ones. MR. ANDERSON: I do. Let's turn to page 3, please. Item IV states that one of the objectives is to require applicants to hold a public informational meeting prior to submitting an application for rezoning and conditional uses. In fact, the language requires that the informational meeting be held after the application is submitted. MR. NINO: Well, we'll take care of that. That wasn't the -- MR. ANDERSON: I think there needs to be some flexibility language built in with those time lines that you have to hold your informational meeting with within X days of submittal. You need to give a little bit of room there for just normal scheduling problems. Maybe you want to say prior to the Planning Commission hearing. MR. DUNNUCK: So X amount of time prior to the Planning Commission meeting? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. LONGO: Can I ask a question? Page 17 August 22, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: And also -- MR. NINO: Bruce, on that first issue, this says that the public informational meeting will be held within 30 days of submitting an application. That means from my reading of it that the public informational meeting has to precede the filing of the application by 30 days. MR. ANDERSON: I read that exactly opposite. MR. WHITE: Page 7, bottom of the page, paragraph one. MR. NINO: Is that the way you read it, Patrick? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: What's your interpretation? MR. WHITE: Well, it seems that the condition precedent is submitting a sufficient application. And the event which would then occur within 30 days is the one public informational meeting. MR. NINO: So before the submitting of the application or after? MR. WHITE: After. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: After. MR. NINO: We had intended that it be before the submitting of the application. We can certainly, with Patrick's help, make that change. MR. MR. MR. MR. PEEPLES: Change "of" to "prior to." NINO: Yeah, prior to. LONGO: Is this new? PEEPLES: Yeah. MR. ANDERSON: Can we say -- instead of within 30 days of submitting the application, put "prior to" or X days in advance of-- "at least X days in advance of any Planning Commission hearing"? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, if he's saying to do it prior to the application, you wouldn't schedule a Planning Commission hearing until you had the application in. MR. NINO: That's right. Page 18 August 22, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: I thought we were past the before- application period. MR. LONGO: No. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think we changed it to after the application period. MR. NINO: Remember, the purpose of the public informational meeting is to effect the type of application you're going to submit. It may have some dramatic implication on what you would normally submit as your request. MR. ANDERSON: I thought it was to encourage greater public participation. I didn't understand it was to -- MR. SAVAGE: Help him on that. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. NINO: I think the purpose of it is to insure that you come in with an application that's going to meet the minimum amount of objections, and to satisfy that objective you're going to have to incorporate in your application the kind of concerns you've heard from that public hearing. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Instead of having to revise everything and resubmit. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Why don't you just let them vote on it. MR. NINO: Let's face it, we're moving towards an environment where your applications -- developers are going to have to come in with applications that have been massaged by what the people in the area affected want. MR. LONGO: I'm not quite understanding that philosophy. I mean, we have zoning and growth management laws and everything put in place, but then we give the opportunity for everybody else to come in and say maybe you should and maybe you shouldn't? I don't understand that. MR. SAVAGE: Before you apply, you mean? Page 19 August 22, 2001 MR. LONGO: Yeah. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think the whole purpose of government and what we do is we set these laws out to be abided by and not give everybody the opportunity to change them every time the wind changes. I mean, can you imagine every time somebody goes to do a development what's going to happen? The first neighbor that gets up and starts raising his hand or raising a stink about it and gets five more to think like him can hold up a whole development or something just based on having to go to public hearing and going to a hearing examiner. I think that's ludicrous. MR. DUNNUCK: I think, you know, what you're saying is it doesn't keep the person from putting an application in. They get the feedback. We get a record of the feedback. Whether the developer or whoever it is decides to listen to the feedback or not, you know, it's still going to be the issue of how does it fit within the codes, you know, from the application standpoint, but they will at least know what the issues are out in the community. That's been the big stink that we've gotten from everybody. MR. LONGO: And I understand that. I guess my point is, why should there be an issue? If you're allowed to do something, you're allowed to do something. MR. SAVAGE: Based on the code. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Perry. MR. PEEPLES: I just wanted to kind of reiterate what John was saying, and that is the developer is under no obligation to make changes required by the public. I think the developer would be well-served to take them under consideration, and those that can be accomplished without adversely affecting the project should probably be incorporated into the project. Just to be realistic, notwithstanding what the zoning regulations say and the other regulations affecting development in Collier Page 20 August 22, 2001 County, it would be naive to say that the Board of County Commissioners does not listen to neighbors. I think it's actually in the developer's best interest to listen and do what they can do. That's just my personal opinion. MR. SAVAGE: It seems to me, though, there should be some sort of an official action of record. After we've taken this action, then we will talk to the neighborhood and so forth and so forth and get their review. I just can't see this starting out informally running around the neighborhood saying, "Hey, what do you think of this? We're going to go to the county and apply." There should be some actual application done before you have a public hearing with Tom, Dick, Harry, and Mary. I don't know why I believe that, but that's sort of what you're saying. MR. LONGO: I understand Perry's point, and I agree with him to a large degree, but I think it opens the door for people who don't want development to stop development even though the developer or whoever doesn't have to abide by it. Once you've opened that door, you've opened the door to a County Commission that on a given day, depending on whose mood is what, can nix a project based on a few vocal people. That seems to be in our business or in our industry what typically happens. We have environmental sides of the business where three or four very vocal and well-funded people or associations can stop a project just based on them vocalizing and swaying the philosophy or politics of the moment. I don't think it should always be the politics of the moment. I understand what Perry is saying, the good-neighbor type of thing, and I agree with a lot of it. I'm just afraid that it opens the door for a lot of things down the road. MR. BAKER: It's already open. MR. NINO: It does that, but the downside of it is developers get themselves put into an irrevocable position or a situation that they Page 21 August 22, 2001 can no longer change. By the time they've made their application, they may have made financial obligations. And the truth of the matter is, in the environment we work in, you're not going to prevent the public from accessing the decision-making process. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Right. This allows it to come in. MR. NINO: You may get stopped at a point where it can cost you a lot of money, as opposed to having met with the folks and massaging the project. While not destroying all of your objective, it will be in your best interest -- the developer's best interest. MR. LONGO: Well, then I agree with Herb. But there should be some sort of finding at that public hearing that the developer -- that tells him that it's his public-participation requirement per this Land Development Code that out of that finding someone three months from now who decides to change their mind can't bring it back up again. MR. SAVAGE: Maybe its an intent to file as a notice. Maybe it isn't the actual application but some written piece of paper that says we intend to file an application. MR. LONGO: Here's my point. You require the developer to do all this, but you don't require the public to do anything except complain or object or listen. But you don't require the public to make a commitment on their side, yet you're forcing the developer to do that. MR. NINO: Well, I can tell you that there are developers today that even though these regulations aren't in effect are doing exactly this -- MR. LONGO: And I understand that. I'm not -- MR. NINO: -- because they see the handwriting on the wall. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I mean, my clients all do that, but we sure as hell don't do it before we file. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead, Dalis. Page 22 August 22, 2001 MR. DISNEY: In response to what you're talking about, Herb, if you guys look at page 8, you're going to have a Collier County staff planner there. It's going to be recorded. The people who state their names and take a position at this point -- MR. SAVAGE: Before the application is filed? MR. DISNEY: If they flip-flop later on, you've got them on tape. I mean, it's pretty well laid out. As the person planning the project, I would much rather have the upfront before I spend a lot of effort and bum a lot of hours up designing something and putting my heart into it. Get that information out on the table so I can put it into the program as early as possible. It makes good sense. MR. SAVAGE: You mean to tell me that if I haven't filed anything with the county and I haven't paid a fee, I'm getting a planner who's being paid by the county, you know, offices to come and be there? MR. DISNEY: That's what it says. MR. PEEPLES: I also have a question about that. It seems to indicate -- it says the "staff planner assigned to coordinating petition." What petition? MR. SAVAGE: Yeah. What petition? MR. NINO: First of all, you'd probably call for a pre- application. You have a pre-application, but you're not submitting the application. Normally an application is filed 30 or 40 days after the pre-ap, particularly for PUDs. It's that window following the pre-ap. You've had the pre-ap. The planner's assigned to it. You go out there and hold your public informational session which dictates to some degree the content of your application so, you know, if flows. There is a planner because you've had a pre-application meeting. MR. PEEPLES: Is that a requirement in here, the pre- application meeting? MR. NINO: The pre-application meeting is an automatic -- it's a Page 23 August 22,2001 requirement within the code. MR. PEEPLES: I understand. I'm just-- MR. SAVAGE: That's what I was talking about. MR. DUANE: It needs to be clarified. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. So we need to clarify that. After the pre-application meeting, prior to the application being submitted -- MR. NINO: We can do that. MR. DUNNUCK: Okay. It makes sense. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, it just seems there's only one issue that comes to mind and that is whether comments received at the public meeting -- whether the developer's team would have sufficient time within 30 days or not to make whatever amendments to their proposed application that may be necessary and that they agree to. MR. ANDERSON: That's exactly right. MR. ESPINAR: May I add, isn't this a little premature, especially when you start dealing with the water management district and the corps and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services that can comment afterwards and drastically change a site plan? So you have this public participation, you know, and everybody agrees to this thing, you take it to the agency, and it's denied or changed or modified dramatically. MR. SAVAGE: Four years later. MR. ESPINAR: Yeah, four years later. I mean, then you get the public participation saying, "Well, this is not what we agreed upon." MR. WHITE: There's going to be at least two hearings in front of the hearing examiner, I believe, ultimately, when these are -- MR. ESPINAR: So why even have this? Just air it out with the hearing officer instead of creating this other stuff. MR. WHITE: I'm not trying to speak for the board. I believe their intent was to focus as much attention as possible on potential Page 24 August22,2001 issues as early as possible in the development cycle and to recognize that if they're unresolved in the sense that the developer chooses to not heed whatever comments they may have received, then they'll be heard through the hearing examiner or the CCPC or the EAC process and ultimately be heard and decided by the board. MR. NINO: A good example of where the hearing officer hasn't been an adequate forum for public input is -- I will remind you of the Fountain Lakes new car agency, now a used car agency, debacle up in Lee County. That's a good example of where that developer would have been well-advised to have gone out there and said, "Look, it's either 10 acres of used cars or a nice new car sales agency." So it's a good example where the hearing examiner does not necessarily provide a public forum -- public participation that we're talking about at this point in time. MR. WHITE: I don't want to comment about this in too great of detail, but I was working for Lee County when that project was discussed in the pre-application, and I can assure you it was developers and attorneys intent to have it be heard regardless of what anybody said at any point in time. MR. LONGO: The other question I have is, who pays for the planning examiner or the staff person that goes to these meeting? MR. NINO: The county does. MR. WHITE: County taxes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So later on it gets picked up in the application fee? MR. NINO: Presumably the application fee. MR. DUNNUCK: We would probably look at that through our audit process, keeping in mind the board's direction to us has been to give them options. We are selecting the option of being our planner. They told us to look at having an independent ombudsman type of attorney representing the community. We disagree with that. We Page 25 August 22, 2001 believe that our planners represent the code, and those are the people who should be there. That's why we've written the language this way. But the long story short, it would be development service fees that would pay for it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: motion? MR. MR. comment generally Is anyone prepared to make a VAN ARSDALE: You mean building permit fees. DISNEY: Dalis Disney for the record. The only other I had here in reading all of this was that this -- and I'm in support of doing all of this. I had some questions on the MR. LONGO: MR. DISNEY: comments. MR. LONGO: sign, and I'll hold that for another time maybe. This is fine and dandy as far as the process is concerned. It puts more responsibility on the project developer, if you will. MR. SAVAGE: Page number? MR. DISNEY: I'm on page 8 where I made my comment, but the comment I wrote down here is this: "We're requiring all of this plus the cost. Can we get the level of service for the planning department to an acceptable point where we get a reciprocal?" I think that requiring all of this from the developers, again, is fine, but when it comes in and it takes, you know, 12 or 15 or 20 weeks to respond to something, I'm concerned on the other side about the level of service and the response once it gets in here. If we have this additional burden, fine, but I'm just pushing in our continuing effort to work towards a responsible level of service and turnaround time within the planning department. I think I can respond to that. I was late, so maybe I missed some of your Yeah. Well, earlier today we took a look at both the planning side and the permitting side. October 10th John's come back to the ad hoc committee with a report, an internal audit report, Page 26 August 22, 2001 on the planning side of how long it's taking to get permits issued out on that side. Ed's coming back on the permitting side with a standard of measurement for both sides so at the ad hoc committee level we can agree to the standard of service at that point in time, which now establishes your level of service, and John can gauge manpower requirements, budget people, bonuses, salaries, toll budgets. We may wind up changing our fees on the development side because of that. We are looking at reducing the expense side of the 113 Fund because of that. In answer to your question, yeah, we think we'll be able to get it to that point at some point in time. It's not going to be next month, of course, but that's what our goal is to work toward, to get at some point in time a pre-emptor of service that says a PUD will take two weeks to get out. I know that's an exaggeration, but at that point there's a guidance to go by, and there's a level of service to meet. John and his staff and the rest of the staff has a standard to work towards. MR. DISNEY: Great. That's wonderful. Let me finalize and ask about the size as part of the same issue here. We're going from a 1 1/2 square foot sign to a 32 square foot sign, which is essentially a 4 foot by 8 foot sign. There's no mention, unless I missed it in here, about the minimum text size. I put up a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood, and I put 2-inch letters on it, and nobody can read it. I mean, I've complied with your requirement. I think you might want to deal with that. MR. NINO: I'll get you the prototype. MR. DISNEY: You might want to get some clarification on that. referenced someplace on this, fine. in it for zoning change. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: They have a prototype. MR. DISNEY: If you've got a standard someplace that is You've generally got the big "Z" Page 27 August 22, 2001 MR. SAVAGE: MR. DISNEY: square feet. Is the intent to read it while you're in a moving car? You know, is the text big enough? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, without a doubt, that's a great subject for me. I'm being told my sign is too large in front of my 100-foot lot. The Chamber of Commerce Plaza just built a $7,500 sign with the names of all of their tenants in their building. It's 15 feet from the property line, and the names are about 1 1/2 inch tall, which means that nobody can read the sign. (Holding up sign.) What's that last word in the fourth sentence? We have to imagine that 4 feet by 8 feet, 32 MR. NINO: Just blow it up to 4 x 8. MR. DISNEY: Is there something, though, that -- I didn't pick up on that, Ron. Something in here needs to say or, I think, give us a reference or a clue back to some text size and some approved layout or something. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, one thing I have to ask is, what influence does this person bringing the sign have? Do you see the name there? Bill Jones. Brian, do you know him? MR. JONES: I like John Smith. MR. PEEPLES: Wouldn't it be mathematics on reduction and density? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Is anyone prepared to make a motion on this? MR. ANDERSON: I will. I make -- and I've got some other inconsistencies here, but let's deal with the main part. I'll make a motion to require the public informational meeting prior to submittal of an application, 'but without regard to any specific time frame. Just say that it has to be prior to submitting an application, but eliminiate that "within 30 days." Page 28 August 22, 2001 MR. LONGO: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any discussion? MR. SAVAGE: May I -- I'd like to ask a question. I heard you say earlier the pre-ap is necessary -- MR. NINO: Pre-ap. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's already in the code. MR. PEEPLES: Well, that's in the code, but it's not in this. You're talking about adding it. MR. NINO: We'll take care of it. MR. PEEPLES: In order to prevent meetings that are so far in advance as to not have any value to the community or to what the board is trying to accomplish, would it be reasonable, Bruce, to put in here the requirement that the meeting occur after the pre-application meeting and before submittal to the planning staff?. MR. ANDERSON: How about just within six months prior to submittal of an application. Because if we're going to start requiring this -- and I think it's a good idea -- we shouldn't tie it to them having to have a pre-application meeting necessarily. Of course, then you wouldn't have a county planner assigned to it. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think the challenge you would have with that issue is, as with every seasonal issue we get, "You had the meeting in November, but we're all here in February, and now you're trying to get it approved." I think that -- you know, we would bring that point to the board. MR. LONGO: Sorry about your luck. MR. DISNEY: It's going to happen anyway. MR. DUNNUCK: I understand. I know if you give that too long of a leeway that's what they're going to say. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Questions? MR. JONES: Ron, are we fixing something that's not broken? I mean, a developer wants peace in the neighborhood. He wants to Page 29 August 22, 2001 have -- every developer I know is working with the people proactively. We're legislating common sense. It seems to me, unless there's a few of the old black-hat developers on a black horse that are trying to -- those days are gone. That's a bygone era. Are we legislating and creating a whole department of something that's being done on its own? MR. NINO: There are a lot of people who think it is broke in the sense that there's not enough opportunity for public participation. We're in an agreement, and I suspect we're going to remain in this environment where we've got to recognize that public decision- making has got to have a higher degree of public involvement whether we like it or not. MR. LONGO: Well, we currently do that by rezoning hearings and stuff like that. You change this from 300 feet to 500 feet, and you're now requiring the public participation -- now you're making it a public participation requirement, whereas what Brian is saying is it's pretty much the norm today anyhow. MR. JONES: This is like a pre-ap for the hearing before it goes to -- it's like on deck, in the hole, and up at bat. It all seems, maybe, excessive. MR. PEEPLES: I don't know ifRon has said it, but I'm going to say the same thing I said about the last item we discussed. This is clearly what the Board of County Commissioners wants to do. They've told me personally and privately that this is something that they are very concerned about having done. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion on the floor. Is MR. ANDERSON: I will amend it to simply state that the public informational meeting must be held after the pre-application meeting but prior to submittal of the application. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any second? Page 30 August 22, 2001 MR. LONGO: CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) I'll amend my second. All in favor? Any opposed? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. A couple other items here on this -- MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, just before he does that, I just want to say about the County Commission -- if they wanted us to be "yes" men or women, that's one thing. But if they asked us for our cross-section of thought processes in this entire county, then listen to us. They don't have to agree with us. But this idea of doing it just because the County Commission wants it that way, I'm not for that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think Brian admitted that most people are doing that. They're following a reasonable sense of business anyway. So be it if there's a sequence that sets in front of everybody so they understand what should occur. MR. JONES: They're motivated by common sense and their pocketbook because it won't get approved if there's a -- MR. DUNNUCK: Well, this helps us as a tool with the hearing examiner proposal, frankly. You know, this tells us that we're putting the foot forward through our code to insure that we're protecting the public as much as we possibly can, and that's why I think it's a good thing. MR. JONES: I just see -- because this one, quote, unquote, doesn't count from the residents that are going to show up in mass or-- "Well, who's there? Is there a hearing examiner?" "No." "Are the commissioners there?" "No. It's just with" -- Page 31 August22,2001 "Oh, I'll wait until"-- MR. VAN ARSDALE: When the TV's running. MR. JONES: "Are the newspapers there?" "No." You're causing a lot of-- I don't see the turnout, and it's not going to maybe have the impact that it could have because people won't take it seriously. I think that's going to be the real effect of it, quite honestly. MR. NINO: Our only experience with that was, you know, when Cocohatchee and The Dunes were coming back. I mean, was the first public information -- that was their first experience with the developer going out and setting a public informational meeting. The auditorium was packed. I mean, there were 200 people there. As a result of that, those projects went through relatively unscathed. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. NINO: So the proof is in the pudding. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Give it a shot. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Was there another one of concern? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. At the bottom of page 4, we talk about posting signs for which rezoning conditional use or variances sought, yet the last sentence of that same paragraph says that the posting of signs is only required where the zoning amendment changes the zoning classification, so we have an internal conflict here. We have that same conflict in the next paragraph that's numbered 3. MR. NINO: I'll seek out Pat White's assistance to clarify whatever that conflict is. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: You'll get the bill. At the top of page 6, midway down through that first paragraph there's a sentence that says, "The second notice shall be sent at least 15 days in advance of the hearing." Let's specify which hearing. My Page 32 August 22, 2001 guess is that the intent is 15 days in advance of the hearing by the hearing examiner or the Planning Commission, so let's state that. Also, who sent these notices? It doesn't say. We need to specify whose responsibility it is to send the notices. MR. NINO: Well, basically, it's the same language that's currently in the ordinance. We always send the notices. But if you feel more comfortable with "the county shall send the notices" -- MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, let's do it. Let's just be clear about it because we've got these new requirements on the developer to hold the informational meetings and send out those meetings notices. Let's be clear about -- we need to clean all this up. Lastly, the very last addition to this paragraph says, "or from other county records deemed by the Planning Services Department to be more recent." Let's get rid of that. Let's just go with whatever is on the latest tax rolls. Otherwise, you're going to have people up arguing at public hearings about, "Well, you could have used other records that are more reliable or more recent," and that's going to put everybody in a bad situation. Let's just rely on the tax rolls. If it's good enough to squeeze people for their taxes, it ought to be good enough to notify them about public hearings. MR. PEEPLES: I guess I have a question. From the county's perspective, why was that additional language added? MR. NINO: Because if you go with the strict interpretation of the law, tax rolls are cut off December 31st of each year. You may have a zoning petition in November, and that list is 11 months out of date. MR. PEEPLES: What other records would be more complete or up to date? MR. DUNNUCK: They may call us and say, "I want to be listed." You know, we don't know. But, I mean, what Bruce is saying is we'd preclude them if they called and said, "I want to be on Page 33 August 22, 2001 that notification list." We'd say, "You can't because you're not on the tax rolls." MR. ANDERSON: No. You could have -- of course, you'd get into -- or who has requested in writing that they be notified. MR. NINO: We also feel that property appraisals -- it's not on the last list. They're on a property tax appraiser's -- they're on the tax rolls. When we get to GIS, the GIS system is going to be interfaced with the county appraiser's office, and we're going to be able to bring up a current property owners list, as I understand it. The law currently says we use December 31 st. We don't want to use December 31st because it's out of date oftentimes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, it's probably 99 percent of your people in most cases. I mean, it's not that out of date; right? MR. NINO: That's true. MR. ANDERSON: My concern is that we have an objective measurement, and this is not. MR. NINO: Objective measurement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Why don't we just say most up-to-date tax rolls available, if that's what we're using? MR. LONGO: That's what he just said. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe you ought to wait and amend this after you get the GIS system up and operational. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I bought a piece of property in July. I'm not on the tax rolls now until next year. There's a function coming up that I'm very concerned about in September. I didn't get a notice on it. Why not? MR. ANDERSON: That's why we post the sign on the property, to catch those other people that might not be on the tax roll list. That's also why we publish it in the newspaper. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. The other thing is, is that citizen Page 34 August 22, 2001 supposed to have some responsibility to go and make sure he is on the new tax rolls? It's all published now. MR. PEEPLES: No. MR. VAN ARSDALE: They'll get you. MR. LONGO: Well, I think it's a citizen's responsibility to keep himself informed, and Bruce is exactly correct. If you didn't make the tax -- that's why these things are already set in place. If you didn't make the tax rolls and you bought a piece of property after that, then there's a public notice that's sent out in the newspaper, and there's a public notice that's posted on the property. If you drive by there every day and you're not paying attention to it, that's your bed. MR. DISNEY: Especially with a 32-square-foot sign. MR. PEEPLES: My concern is there will always be people who don't -- who legitimately don't get notice. They're out of town, and they buy in the middle of the year, and that happens. My concern that Bruce raised -- and I think he's correct -- is if we open the door for that to be a legitimate challenge of a properly adopted PUD or conditional use, then if it's a litigious matter, then that's something for that one person to undermine the entire process and come back and say, "I was left out. There was a more recent method. You could have checked something else. You didn't." MR. VAN ARSDALE: That came out in August. You end up in circuit court. They didn't check the Yellow Pages. MR. WHITE: There are plenty of cases out there that state when things such as the property appraiser's or tax collector's rolls are to be used, that that is sufficient legal notice. MR. PEEPLES: And in this case we have the property appraiser's or the tax collector's rolls plus the newspaper plus the signage on the -- the 32-foot sign on the property. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So we would like to see this Page 35 August22,2001 stricken? MR. DISNEY: Yes, I'd say so. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I believe we do from the discussion. MR. LONGO: We're going to strike it from "other county records deemed by the planning services department." MR. JONES: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Go ahead. MR. JONES: It's addressing Herb's Citizen X on the street who sees the sign. If we see something like that, maybe if we had an internet address where someone could call in and register to be informed of anything, and that way if they're not on tax rolls they can get on the internet and find out more information, and maybe there's a couple of pages explaining what the project involves and density and so forth. Why not use the internet by putting it -- if that's available. MR. NINO: It will be available -- excuse me. available. MR. JONES: MR. NINO: MR. JONES: It is Would it be appropriate to have that listed? It will be. It will be. Oh, okay. Sorry. MR. LONGO: Yeah. But the intent of the ordinance or this paragraph I don't think is to be the babysitter for the community. It's just to give them a better opportunity to participate in the process. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Next one. MR. ANDERSON: The next one's on the top of page 7. The title says we're striking the Planning Commission, but the text does not in Paragraph No. 1. MR. NINO: Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: hearing examiner. MR. ANDERSON: Commission. It should be "Or"... It's consistently the Planning Commission or But, see, this is striking the Planning Page 36 August22,2001 MR. DUNNUCK: MR. ANDERSON: MR. DUNNUCK: MR. ANDERSON: MR. DUNNUCK: Right. That's what I'm saying. So you want to keep it in. Well, we don't have a hearing examiner yet. Okay. But my point is, that's an error. Yeah, that's what I was saying. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: The next page where we talk about the public informational meeting, the sixth line down, "The location shall be convenient...and shall be large enough to accommodate expected attendance." I would like to suggest that the "shall" be changed to "should" in both instances. Again, we'll get into arguments about, "Well, this wasn't convenient for me," and "You should have known that this room isn't large enough to accommodate the kind of crowd that you should have reasonably expected." There may not be a location close by and convenient that's large enough to accommodate, and how do you know how many people to expect? MR. LONGO: So why don't we just strike the whole sentence. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question about that. MR. DISNEY: Change the word to "should." MR. PEEPLES: I'm going to have to disagree with Bruce this time in that if the concern is the developer's, you know, a black-hat developer who doesn't do things the right way, is there anything that prevents them from holding a meeting in their office on Marco Island, you know, that seats three people when the property's up in North Naples? I mean, sometimes we do legislate for the worst possible element. MR. LONGO' I'm trying to figure out the difference between the words "should" and "shall." MR. ANDERSON: Shall is mandatory. CHAIRMAN MASTERS' You have to anticipate that 5,000 people are going to show up to this hearing. Page 37 August 22, 2001 MR. LONGO: So how is "should" enforceable in court? MR. ANDERSON: It's not. It's a directive. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think that's kind of up to the planner assigned to this to determine that, no, that's not a reasonable location to have that meeting. MR. DUNNUCK: I think the word is "reasonable." MR. NINO: We can live with that. MR. PEEPLES: Or insert "reasonable." MR. NINO: I mean, there's going to be dialogue that's going to be following the pre-application meeting. Hopefully there's some dialogue. If a developer has a large project and has suggested the clubhouse at some condominium that can only hold 15 people, hopefully the planner will indicate that. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, maybe we should say it should be approved by the planner. MR. PEEPLES: What about just adding the word "reasonably." MR. DUNNUCK: "Reasonably" works for me. MR. PEEPLES: "Should reasonably." MR. ESPINAR: I'll second. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, grammatically, in terms of "will" and "shall," it's a third person, "they shall." "They will" is the normal action to be taken. "They shall" is mandatory. I'm just wondering if "they will" is correct grammatically as a normal expectation. I mean, you lawyers and everybody says, "Well, that's an old Army term. You shall do this." But wouldn't "will" be just as well? It's a normal procedure that they will set up a hearing -- or "reasonably," it doesn't matter to me, but I just can't agree. I agree the word "shall" certainly shouldn't be there. MR. ANDERSON: I like the suggestion about "reasonably." MR. DUNNUCK: Yeah, I do too. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a consensus, I believe, on Page 38 August 22, 2001 "should reasonably." MR. SAVAGE: "Should reasonably." Okay. MR. ANDERSON: The next item, if you'll go to the very next sentence where you're required to cause an announcement to be published in the paper, I think that should be struck. I think if you send out notice and you have to give a notarized statement that you sent out notice to people, you shouldn't also have to publish it and go to that expense in the newspaper. Because once you do it there, then you're opening it up to anybody, not just the people that you had to send notice to. MR. LONGO: Aren't you also getting yourself in a pickle by specifying the Naples Daily News? What if it changes its name? MR. WHITE: It's the only newspaper of general circulation that I'm aware of. Generally the task is a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction. MR. LONGO: Why don't you just say the local newspaper instead of the Naples Daily News in case they decide to change it next year or sell it. MR. ANDERSON: This may be a required meeting, but it is by invitation. The invitation may be required to be sent. I'm going to move that we strike the next sentence. I don't think we should require an advertisement in the paper. I think that's going too far. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody disagree with that? MR. DISNEY: No, I agree. MR. PEEPLES: I agree. MR. DUANE: Since we're on this train here, the applicant now is required to provide evidence that the signs were erected by furnishing photographs. I think that's done to date by county staff. There are a lot of functions that are getting usurped by the developer here. When we get back to the schedule, I'm going to ask someone to calculate how much staff time was spent doing all of these things that Page 39 August 22, 2001 the developer now has to pay. But doesn't the staff still have some responsibility themselves, like, for signage for their own records to make sure that this is up? I would think so. I think that that ought to travel with the staff. MR. NINO: The problem is, this is a contracted sign. I mean, the signs we take pictures of are signs that we put up. The person putting the picture up -- I mean, putting the sign up has a camera with them. We're talking about a contract sign. You would have to call the planner and say, "Look, the sign contractor is erecting a sign at three o'clock on Wednesday" and for us to be there with a camera. It seems to me that that would be so much easier for the guy you hired. Now, you're going to hire a sign contractor, and he's going to go there -- as they're all aware, they're going to go there with a camera, and they're going to provide the photo and the proof that it was erected. MR. LONGO: I don't know any of my sign contractors that carry cameras with them. MR. DISNEY: Yeah. I was going to say, Ron, can't you just when the planner shows up for the assigned meeting that the developer is arranging just snap a picture of it at that point? I know I'm being modest, but that just -- MR. SAVAGE: I have a camera in my car. MR. LONGO: Well, at least proof that you've got the signed permit, because you have to get a permit for a 4 by 8 sign. MR. DUANE: I move that the staff be delegated to photograph for evidentiary functions that are associated with this provision in this ordinance unless anyone can provide me any compelling reasons to do otherwise. MR. JONES: What about faith? Why are we checking to see if the sign was put up there? We've got people going around with cameras to make sure a sign-- it's getting crazy. Page 40 August 22, 2001 MR. DISNEY: So when the County Commission gets sued for issuing approval, they've got backup. MR. DUANE: I have a motion on the floor. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? MR. VAN ARSDALE: It's just a piece of dirt. What kind of proof do you have? MR. LONGO: Bruce, would you restate your motion, please. MR. DUANE: The motion is, whatever evidentiary information needs to be provided as to when the sign shall be placed and a picture thereof shall be the function of county staff and not the developer. MR. VAN ARSDALE: It will probably be better anyway because otherwise you just go out in the field and take a picture of your sign, and "Here you go, Ron." CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Suddenly all the pictures look the same. MR. VAN ARSDALE: "Is this the right lot?" You have no clue. MR. LONGO: I'll second your motion. MR. DUANE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of that? (Unanimous response.) MR. SAVAGE: It comes out of 113 Fund? MR. ANDERSON: The last item I had here was the fourth line from the bottom of Paragraph No. 2. It begins, "A written account of the discussions," and I wanted to suggest that you strike the word "discussions" and put "a written account of the contact may" because you may have made contact but not had any discussion. And then, lastly, I wanted to say something positive. I noticed that you have deleted an earlier draft version of this that would have required some kind of a report be filed about the public-information Page 41 August 22, 2001 meeting that you held. I'm glad to see that you dropped that requirement because I noted that even before the very first report had ever been filed, developers were being criticized for what they put in the report at a public hearing. It was a no-win situation, and I'm glad to see that that requirement isn't in there. MR. LONGO: I have one quick question. What happens if after this meeting happens the applicant has audiotaped this proceeding and by chance he loses it or deletes it or whatever? Is he going to be required to have another meeting? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: He better make two tapes. MR. WHITE: We'll deal with that procedural due process when it arises. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: The only other item that I had in the rest of this packet is on page 23 where it says, "hours of operation." This would be applied to pre-existing pre-approved excavations, would it not? MR. NINO: Tom, do you want me to get Stan? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah, please. MR. NINO: Do you want me to get him? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. MR. KUCK: What was the question? MR. ANDERSON: If this would be applied to excavation operations that are already in existence, you're cutting short their operation by an hour. I think you ought to notify all the existing operators in Collier County of this proposal -- MR. KUCK: I agree with that. MR. ANDERSON: -- since we're encouraging public participation. MR. NINO: He'll be here in a second. MR. ANDERSON: What was the rationale to cut it short an Page 42 August22,2001 hour? MR. LONGO: Yeah. I don't -- we do have daylight savings time. I mean, come on. Daylight savings time allows us to operate longer hours during the course of the day. We currently have county ordinance that goes to seven o'clock for construction. I guess the excavation just goes to six right at the moment. (Mr. Chrzanowski now present.) MR. NINO: Okay. We're on page 23. The concern is the hours of operation. How did you come up with seven o'clock? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think the real concern is how do you treat the existing excavation projects. THE COURT REPORTER: His name is -- MR. DUNNUCK: Stan Chrzanowski. MR. SAVAGE: The last three letters are s-k-i. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's probably a mistake. It was meant to be 7 to 5 for Type I and Type II, which is estates excavations, and not for the others. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had to put that line down there about Type I and Type II. It was meant to be five o'clock for the estates excavations. The others are still six o'clock. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So that remains at six? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Because that's what everything else in the Land Development Code says. That's a mistake. Good catch. Is that the only mistake I made? MR. PEEPLES: It's the only one we found. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Thank you for your astute observations there, Bruce. MR. DUANE: I have one other item. When we went through the hearing examiner's ordinance, I had a very clear recollection that the PUD sunset review that we're going to have is a very factual kind of fact-finding review by the hearing examiner so we can depoliticalize the tampering with these PUDs when they went before Page 43 August 22, 2001 the board. God forbid it should be done on a willy-nilly basis. If that language is not in the hearing examiner's ordinance, Mr. White, could you report back to us at our next meeting? There is going to be a cycle later in the fall here, and if that needs to be inserted in there, I'd like some consideration given to that. I don't think you have the ordinance in front of you today, but could you report back to us at our next meeting, please, Patrick? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. MR. DUANE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We've made it through another LDC cycle. Any final comments? MR. DUNNUCK: You need to bring them up to speed on the subcommittee. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a final comment about this review. ! just trust that the County Commissioners will sit and read and at least understand what this board is doing for it and for the people in Collier County. I compliment -- thank goodness we have some attorneys aboard and engineers who have been dealing with this all the time and developers, you know. It's a great tribute to this county to have this board, not because I'm on it, but I'm very impressed when I hear all the comments that are made by people who have been there. I hope the County Commission listens to this. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I need to bring something before the subcommittee -- or this full committee real quick. As you know, the ad hoc committee has been -- (Charles Abbott is now present.) MR. JONES: Better late than never. MR. LONGO: As you-all know, we've been working on an ad hoc level on the budget for both the development -- or planning side and permitting side of development services. We came to the Page 44 August 22, 2001 conclusion today that there are some -- there is some funds on the general fund side that we would like to see go back to the 113 side. We have identified a substantial amount of money. John is in the process of doing an internal audit both on the planning side and the permitting side. What we decided to do is come back in October with a set of standards for both sides, a gauge of measurement with some internal departmental type of changes and/or appropriations that will streamline some things. Hopefully, we'll get some things on track as far as speed, expediency of getting things out. We're going to set these time frames or these parameters for them to live up to based on us saying, "Okay, it does take -- we think it's seven days to get a single-family building permit out" and so forth and so on, both on the permitting and development side. It will mean that the budget will have to change, but since the Collier County Commissioners are going to vote on the budget next month or next week, we're not going to make that recommendation. John's going to go before them and tell them what we're doing and make a recommendation that we come out of our subcommittee and our full committee meetings with a plan for next year that will change some of the funding sides of both planning and permitting. The intent is to get, on the permitting side, a level of service based on the appropriations of money and necessarily -- and maybe having to redo our fee schedule on the planning side. That internal audit should identify the current level of service that we have, and we'll have to agree to that based on our subcommittee, and we'll bring it back to the full committee. MR. DUNNUCK: The long and short of it is, I think you guys are going to be pleasantly surprised when we come back with our audit numbers. I think there's going to be a lot of benefits to the 113 Fund. Page 45 August22,2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's nice to hear. MR. JONES: I have a comment also. John, the tweaking that we do -- we spend a lot of time, as you pointed out, on that it's better to get some direction than to be a martyr and have it ramrodded. They're going to do it anyway. Okay. I better get a little direction than to have no say at all. That's three or four of those issues that we had today and that we've had them in the past where that's the sentiment, so we do that. Is there some way -- do you or can someone express the intent that this group has? Does that get communicated to them? I wonder that a lot at night. MR. DUNNUCK: Yep. I always bring back, you know, your recommendations. A perfect example is this issue with the budget. You know, our recommendation is going to be to the board because they ask what you-all thought about the positions we had asked for in the budget. I think the subcommittee came out and said, "We don't mind the positions that John has asked for in this budget; however, we have concern on the overall funding between the general fund and the development fees, and we want to take a look at it." I'm going to say, "The sentiment was strongly that there are some things that we need to take a look at that were discovered by the Development Services Advisory Committee, and we're doing that audit right now and are going to come back with recommendations." Yeah, ! pass along the sentiment of this committee every single time. MR. JONES: I didn't know when you had that opportunity, if it was just at the commission meetings or if you meet with commissioners individually. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, usually we're bringing policy-level issues forward, and that's when we express it. Like, in the Land Development Code, we have a section that says DSAC recommendations or changes. We may differ on a couple of staff recommendations and what you recommended today, but we will Page 46 August 22, 2001 point that out to the board and let them know sentiment-wise there. MR. JONES: The contract. MR. LONGO: You need a motion -- you need a recommendation on your staff approvals. MR. DUNNUCK: I would like to have a recommendation. MR. LONGO: I'm going to recommend that we -- (Mr. Duane leaving.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hang on one minute. Do we have a quorum? Okay. MR. DUANE: I'm here now. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. LONGO: I'm going to make the recommendation that we go ahead and accept John's proposal to the Board of County Commissioners for additional staff with the caveat that we know that we're coming back with an internal audit and things may change this time next year. The intent is to hopefully not increase permit fees this time, but maybe have more revenues coming in on the permit side -- or not coming in, but our expenses coming down so, in effect, we don't have to raise permit fees or be looking for more permit fees or whatever. We'll have enough money or more monies there because our expenses will come down to hire additional people to the level of service that we ask for and we set for in October. It gives us a measurement to go by for all sorts of things: Efficiency, production, bonuses, salaries, manpower requirements. You can take a look at all those things once we set those parameters and those levels of service. Once we identify them and we agree to them as a subgroup, we'll bring them to the full group, and if you guys all agree to them, then he has something to go by. This time next year you can come back and say, "Well, we had 50,000 permits. We had 10 plan reviewers. They did 500 apiece, but Page 47 August22,2001 we need 50 plan reviewers because they can only do so many in a day." You can take all those things, the measurements, and start breaking things down all the way down to who shares space in this building and how much they're paying for it and whether they're under the 113 Fund or the general fund. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do I have a second? MR. SAVAGE: Was that a motion? MR. ANDERSON: Could you please restate it. MR. DISNEY: Three words or less. MR. LONGO: The motion is simply to accept John's proposed recommendation for his budget. MR. DISNEY: I second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries unanimously. MR. SAVAGE: I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we express appreciation to the staff of this, including our young director, John Dunnuck, for all the efforts that they have gone through to support this action today as well as all the actions of this board. It's tremendous. I hope the County Commission sees that. I hope you report that to the County Commission. MR. JONES: He presents them with ceremonial minutes. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you. I meant to do this earlier. MR. ESPINAR: Hey, John, what's the status of the current positions that we have, the planning director and everything? Have you guys conducted your interviews yet? MR. DUNNUCK: Well, Dino can probably give you guys the update since he's a representative. Dino, do you want me to do it, or do you want to do it? Page 48 August 22,2001 MR. LONGO: You go ahead. MR. DUNNUCK: We've gone through interviews over the last couple of days for the administrative position, and we really -- I think it's the sentiment of the nominating committee that we haven't found really any strong candidates. We're going to be making a couple recommendations to the county manager. We're doing one more interview on Friday. We're going to make a short list of recommendations to the county manager, and they will probably be recommendations that, "If you decide to interview these people, here's what we want you to look for specifically." We haven't seen any clear-cut person come forward yet. We may end up having to readvertise it or hire a headhunter or do something creative in that sense. The planning director -- we don't think we can get a planning director in until we get the administrative position filled. The last applicant there was really weak for the overall part as well. I think the sentiment is nobody's going to want to come in and not know who their boss is. The other positions in planning, you know, we're going outside. We've got chief planner positions and all kinds of-- I mean, we're down about four or five positions in the planning department between current planning and comprehensive planning. We're trying to fill those as quick as we can, but it's not a good market for us right now. I mean, we're offering way above minimum salaries. We're getting way into the range in these areas, and we're doing all we can. You know, it's a challenge. MR. LONGO: It's just amazing the level of-- some of these people come from pretty good positions in their respective counties, and the simplest of questions they just didn't answer right or what we thought should be right down to -- I'll give you a quick example. One of the questions is, a news reporter comes to you or a Page 49 August 22, 2001 gentleman comes to you and asks you to tell the difference between the future land-use map and the zoning map. I guess most of our answers would be, "Well, we're going to hand it off to someone else to give the answer." They go off on this big spiel about the difference between a future-use map and a land-zoning map. We know that. That's not what we're looking for. We're looking for somebody really on top of things who has good manageability from the county manager's standpoint, plus can manage this group of 200-plus individuals with 6 or 7 divisions within this building here, and we just haven't seen it. I mean, there's some sharp people, but their overall skills -- they're just not top dog that's just blown us away on the interview. MR. SAVAGE: Dino, are we looking for a person who is planner-oriented construction developer, or are we looking for an administrator who knows about procedures, etc.? MR. LONGO: I think, Herb, to answer your question, we're looking for, No. 1, an administrator that has a pretty good backgrounod in what he's administering over. He doesn't necessarily have to be a planner of 20 years because that can be singularly, you know, focused. So we're looking for a strong person that can take direction from the county commission and the county manager and still have enough smarts and fortitude to look into things if he doesn't know the answers or go get the answers, but still have the presence of mind to make good decisions based on information given to him. You don't necessarily have to have a guy 30 years in the business overall, but he has to be able to manage people, No. 1. He has to be very efficient organizationally-wise. I guess he has to be politically astitute to some degree. From my viewpoint, I'm looking for someone who's kind of been in Florida maybe or used to Florida issues when it comes to concurrency and growth management, environmental Page 50 August 22, 2001 planning, all those type of things that currently Collier County is faced with, you know, on a daily basis. When I told one guy -- you know, it was one of the stronger guys. I said, "Did you know currently Collier's under a consent order from DEP, two or three consent orders?" The guy's mouth about dropped. He was a strong candidate up to that point, I think. We need somebody who's going to take the heat as well. You have a county commission that gives direction on a given day and takes it away on the second day. MR. SAVAGE: Let me just ask, is one of the candidates you've interviewed a fellow by the name of John Dunnuck? MR. LONGO: No, it's not been John Dunnuck. MR. SAVAGE: You know, sometimes we get so excited about somebody from out of town -- you said, "We're looking for somebody that's familiar with Florida." MR. LONGO: Well, quite frankly-- and I'll say it in front of John -- we're a little remiss as to why Tom didn't set the criteria to allow John to interview. MR. SAVAGE: Well, can't he change his criteria? MR. LONGO: That is totally up to Tom Olliff, and that may be one of our recommendations. I personally think that if someone's in a position for nine or ten months and they're doing a great job at it, they should be given a chance to interview. The criteria set for the selection panel candidates was set by Tom Olliff. One criteria was, in all fairness, John, ten years in planning or have had ten years in planning. John has had seven years with the county, but he doesn't have ten years vested with anybody. I don't think that should preclude John from being able to interview or from Tom to sit back and say, you know, "We've gone through 12 candidates. I don't think anybody's in position to fill it. We're going to stay with John," if John wants to do that. Page 51 August22,2001 MR. ABBOTT: Make his hair a little grayer and bring him on in. MR. DUNNUCK: MR. ANDERSON: motion -- Give me time over here, and it will be. Well, along that line I'll throw out a MR. LONGO: Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: -- that we ask the county manager to consider John Dunnuck as the permanent -- MR. SAVAGE: Absolutely. If it was a motion we could make, I'd make it. I'll be glad to second it if you make it. MR. LONGO: I'll second that motion. You'll be glad to carry it on over to him. MR. ABBOTT: A little comment. MR. ANDERSON: We shouldn't put him on the spot. MR. ABBOTT: That's what gets the school board in trouble all the time. MR. LONGO: What's that? MR. ABBOTT: Hiring within and -- making a big show of searching everywhere and then hiring within. I think it would be better to go suggest it to Tom Olliff, and let it come that way to us. MR. LONGO: Well, Bruce just made the motion. That could possibly be the selection panel's -- MR. ABBOTT: I have no objection to it. It's just that I think that has the wrong appearance for how to go about business. MR. LONGO: I kind of agree with you, Charlie, and I understand the perception, but I'm under the school that I really don't care what a whole lot of people think sometimes, and I'm not that adverse to stating my piece of mind when ! have to. MR. ABBOTT: Oh, you know how underspoken I am. MR. LONGO: Yeah, I know, but -- MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's coming from the grass roots. It's Page 52 August 22, 2001 not like the commissions cooked it up. MR. LONGO: I understand that. I mean, if they took them from solid waste -- THE COURT REPORTER: Wait, wait, wait. Thank you. MR. LONGO: If they just took him from solid waste or something like that and he knew nothing about it -- MR. ABBOTT: Solid waste? We can pick a better example. MR. LONGO: My point is -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: One at a time, guys. MR. LONGO: I'm exaggerating. Here you have a man, no matter whether it's John or not, but you have a person that's been in this position for nine months. He's fulfilled everything that we would have had a full-time director doing, and we didn't give him the opportunity to interview. Now, that's up to John whether -- if Tom were to come back and say, "Would you be interested in the position?" if he would want to take that, and that's kind of up to Tom as to what the fallout might be from that. But I think Tom's a big boy, and I think he's a good manager. MR. SAVAGE: A very sharp young man. MR. LONGO: If he's smart enough and he sees the conflict we have currently with getting new planners in, new chief planners in -- you just lost your assistant county manager as well. Mike McNees has just accepted a job as city manager for Sarasota. We're going to be in a little bit of an upheaval here with the new code coming in January 1st. I'd rather see someone in place right now that's been aware of it, that's been on top of our issues, and so forth and so on, and if we can't get through the selection process and find someone qualified to do that, in my mind and my heart, then that would be my recommendation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Page 53 August 22, 2001 MR. LONGO: I second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) All in favor of that motion? Any opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Can I ask one quick question? John, you're on the spot but, I mean, are you interested in the position? MR. DUNNUCK: Are we on the record or off the record? MR. ANDERSON: We've done our business. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. With that, we'll adjourn the meeting. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION THOMAS MASTERS, PE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET A. SMITH, RPR Page 54