Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/19/2001 SSeptember 19, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 19, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in the Supervisor of Elections Training Room, Martin Luther King Building, County Government Center, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abemathy Michael Pedone Dwight Richardson Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley NOT PRESENT: Russell A. Priddy ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Ray Bellows, Principal Planner Ron Nino, Principal Planner Page 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD MAUREEN KENYON AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2001, IN THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TRAINING ROOM, MARTIN LUTHER KING BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRI~N OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAIIakBLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. CYCLE 2A - 2001 "SPECIAL" LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) AMENDMENT 4. ADJOURN CCPC AGENDA/SM/lo September 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I'd like to call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. Today is Wednesday, September 19th. Before we call the roll, I'd like to have everyone rise and pledge allegiance to the flag. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Roll call. Mr. Priddy is absent but excused. Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio. Here. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do have a quorum. First item on the -- second item on the agenda is the addenda to the agenda. Do we have any, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff. We have handed out a new packet with information for you. As you can see, it's somewhat thicker than the one you previously received. This revised packet contains the final corrected copy of the excavation ordinance for amendments to the LDC. I've been informed by the engineering staff that they had problems getting the final copy to you. And this is the final copy, so there shouldn't be any other drafts floating around. And the other, which is the bulk of the added information, is the readoption of the sign ordinance that's previously went through the Page 2 September 19, 2001 Planning Commission. And Marjorie's here to -- MS. STUDENT: Good evening. Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney, for the record. And I won't take a long time explaining all the detail. However, there was with this amendment -- the Planning Commission's seen it before. Nothing's changed. It went through the fall 1999 cycle and was adopted by the board on January 5th of-- excuse me, 25th of 2000. However, when the Board of County Commissioners was considering it, there was a bit of a problem with continued meetings. And so in an abundance of caution, we're bringing it back through the process to readopt it, but nothing's changed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. So that would cover pages 11 through 34, I believe, when we get to that discussion. Okay. The first item that we have, we're going to give it over to you, Mr. Bellows. Lead us through it. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The first item is notification procedures and public participation. It's amending section 2.7.2.3 of the Land Development Code. And its purpose is to accomplish the following objectives, and they're listed on your summary sheet: To require property of 1 acre or larger to sign -- to post a sign with a minimum area of 32 square feet and to require the applicant to erect the sign at their cost. They also -- part of this is to enlarge the area where the property owners are notified by mail. Currently we require a 300-foot distance from the subject site when notifying property owners of, say, a rezone request. That's going to be expanded to 500 feet for land within the urban designated area. And because of larger properties in the rural areas or agricultural areas, we've expanded that to 1,000 feet around the property. This is to pull in more of the adjacent property owners and have them have a chance to be aware of petitions as they come forward. Page 3 September 19, 2001 The other items that are being changed as part of this notification procedure is to require written notice to clearly describe what the rezoning application extends in the way of proposed uses and relevant development standards. Many times we just note a posting of rezones to PUD and may not get into specifics as to what the development standards are or uses, and this is to help alleviate that problem. And the fourth one is to create a new subsection in Section 2.7.2.3.5 that requires applicants to hold public informational meetings prior to submitting an application to Collier County for rezoning and conditional uses, and this establishes a procedure to accomplish this objective. So right now when staff has a preapplication meeting, we'll have various staff members review the proposal from engineering-- landscaping, environmental, planning, engineering, and then we all provide comments to the developer. And then from there we prepare the plans, and we go through the review process. And the public is really not made aware that a petition's being submitted until we're ready to advertise and go before the public hearing process. And there's always complaints that there's been very little time for the residents to make their input known to staff. This -- right up front, prior to submitting their applications, these petitioners will have to meet with the local residents, through the procedures established in this amendment, to meet with them on getting their input. And then when staff reviews it, we'll have their comments up front. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So after preapp but before application; is that right? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And the fifth one requires applicants for variances to document contacts with all property owners within 150 feet of the subject site and property owners and Page 4 September 19, 2001 association -- property owners' associations. The intent here is that an applicant for a variance will exert a greater effort to advise nearby property owners concerning the content of the variance. This was brought before the Development Services Advisory Committee, and they recommended approval to this change but objected to the following, and that's listed on your summary sheet too. And they objected to the photograph of the sign by the petitioner and submit it to the planning services department. I guess they feel that county staff should be taking the pictures, and that should be the responsibility of staff and not the applicant. The other one was the requirement to place advertisement in the newspaper and public information -- for the public informational meetings; and to allow any other mailing list than the official latest tax roll of December 31 st of the prior year. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I couldn't find -- MR. BELLOWS: Any comments or questions on this one? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I couldn't find that mailing list. It must be buried in there somewhere, but I didn't run across it. As drafted it allows -- what mailing list can they use if they -- if they don't have to use the December 3 lst? They just use the rolling tax roll, whatever is now current? Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: It's my-- MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. That was what we intended; however, the objection of the DSAC was accommodated, actually. In the way the language currently is crafted, it's the last official assessment roll. So that comment is incorrect at this point in time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's December 3 l st? MR. NINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, I had asked in an e-mail to staff about the phrase that's used several times -- and you see it, I Page 5 September 19, 2001 think, the first time on page 4, where it says "and any other persons who have formally requested the County to be notified." And I wanted the clarification of how that happens. I know homeowners' associations want to be notified, but how do people request or get on this list of notification? MR. BELLOWS: The list that we draw the names from can be only expanded through this proper notification process. And that quote that you mentioned allows property owners who may be outside of the notification limit that we provide, now 500 feet, to request to be notified if they hear it from some other source and want to be on the list. Or people within the notification area but not on the latest tax rolls, they can also be placed on the list and not be on the certain tax roll. So this gets around that requirement that just because your name's not on the tax roll, the latest tax roll, you don't necessarily require to get a notice. If you formally request one, we will provide you with all the notices throughout the process. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So the assumption is that maybe several of the homeowners' associations or condo associations in an active area, such as North Naples, would know that something's happening, and they'd make a written request to you-all? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a little problem with the language there in (v). When I just read that starting out, I got the notion that any contacts that an applicant had with property owners would have to be documented, much in the same way we come in and admit the contacts we've had with petitioners or opponents. The language in this section says they have to contact them all, I think. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And this language that says Page 6 September 19, 2001 make a greater effort to advise, it poses an absolute requirement to advise. MR. BELLOWS: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the language doesn't match up with -- you know, I don't have any objection to it, but the language doesn't match very well. MR. NINO: Appreciate that items sub (i) through (v) are not really part of the change. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I know that. MR. NINO: They're the editorial that leads to the change. Perhaps it wasn't worded as well as it could have been. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, then I think that brings you to the portion on page 5 (2) talking about how the applicants that -- they use the word -- the verb "consulted," and I tripped over that word. I didn't feel that "consulted" was very specific, or I think an attorney might want to discuss that. And I think it's notified, informed, or contacted maybe, because they do have to identify their contacts. Page 5. You do refer to contacts, but consulting has sort of an implication to it that I'm not sure I'm comfortable having the -- MS. STUDENT: I think "contacted" is a better word. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we would want to change the word "consulted" in two places in that paragraph to contacted if the board feels -- MR. BELLOWS: Contacted or informed. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Which paragraph? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're looking on page 5, paragraph 2 where it says "Applicants requesting variance approval." COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It shows up the fourth line down and then five, six, seven, eight, nine lines down in the middle of the paragraph. It's referring to consulting. So if they contact them, then - Page 7 September 19, 2001 MS. STUDENT: would work. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: consulting. MS. STUDENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then -- Contacted or notified. Either one, I think, To the exclusion of COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, just on that narrow issue, in fact don't we want to have them talking to these people? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, contact wouldn't necessarily mean they'd say anything. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That was the gist of my e-mail, is that we wanted to elicit their input and gain their opinions as to -- if we just say "notify," they may just say -- leave you a quick notice and adios, and that-- MS. STUDENT: How about contacted and consulted? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, what about just consulted then? Because you can't consult if you don't contact. MR. NINO: I think that's what staff was intending. Consulting -- consulting goes beyond merely contacting. It means carrying on a discussion, describing the program, and asking, "How do you feel about it?" Now, maybe "consulting" is still the wrong word, and Ken Abemathy is pretty good at word -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we just substitute consultations for contacts, if that's what we want. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And then there's a written account that is made part of the record. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A written account of the consultations, a list of property owner--"contacts" I guess is the word there. Page 8 September 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Contacts works twice -- it would be three times in that sentence. MR. BELLOWS: I think that's something we can have the county attorney's office-- MS. STUDENT: We can work that out. We know what the intent is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And if somebody else doesn't want to mention on the record, further up, the paragraph right above that, No. 1, where we're being very specific -- almost toward the bottom, if you could spot "seven days prior to." All right. So we are going to have the Collier County staff planner assigned to attend the preapplication meeting shall also attend the public informational meeting and shall serve as the facilitator of the meeting. There's a lot of very specific direction there, and I would hate to find people who are opposed to something start arguing that that staff person was not there. I didn't know how to solve that, but it seemed like our specificity here was too great. Could it not be a designee? I know what your point is. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think we could add the words "the staff planner who attended the preapplication meeting or" -- MR. NINO: Designee. MR. BELLOWS: -- "a proper staff" -- MS. STUDENT: His or her designee. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Could you throw that in just in case we get some very interested people who want to complain and say that person was not around; like, Mr. Bellows got called out of town and couldn't appear? Does that create any problems for the informational meeting or not? MS. STUDENT: Somebody might want to make a technical argument out of it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Isle of Capri argument. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just in those paragraphs Page 9 September 19, 2001 could I raise -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sure. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This section is really talking about -- among other things, talking about the distance away from the project that requires notification. And you make a point here that the variances and conditional uses have a lesser requirement for notification consultation than the other sections with PUDs in, etc., which are 500 feet and, you know, agricultural area, which is a thousand feet. I'm just wondering why we want to have -- you know, this is a big push towards public participation. Why don't you have the consultation distance be the same for all contacts? I mean, why is it brought down to 150 feet? Why isn't it the same number as we'd have for any other impact to the neighborhood? I don't see that -- because variances and conditional uses can be very upsetting to a large number of people, and if you -- I think arguably the same number of people -- MR. NINO: It's not for a conditional use. It's for a variance or a parking exemption. And the argument I would make is that a variance is of far lesser import than a conditional use or a regional -- and, you know, you're talking about varying a side yard from 7 feet to 5 feet. I mean, that really impacts a much smaller area than -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would you -- MR. NINO: But, nonetheless, a homeowner association -- in addition to the 150 feet, if there is a particular homeowner association, they're going to be notified. So everybody's going to know about it one way or another. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: There's been degrees of variances, and I would certainly buy into your 7-foot-to-5-foot kind of variance, but other variances have larger impacts. I don't know. I just hate to set up a condition where we exclude the possibility of Page 10 September 19, 2001 more interaction by the public. But if this covers the universe -- if you're satisfied that this universe -- MR. NINO: I don't think that this -- this is far more comprehensive than the current regulation. It's far more effective that you, as an applicant, are required to knock on the door of your neighbors than to merely say that a notice has to be sent out to people within 300 feet, if that seems to be your preference. It doesn't require notification of homeowner associations. It doesn't require you to knock on the door. It doesn't require you to submit a report of the results of your contacts. I mean, you know, this does make a giant leap forward. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just trying to nudge it a little bit further. MR. NINO: I know you are. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So the conditional use falls under the larger -- MR. NINO: Under the rezoning, yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Anything else? MR. NINO: Of course, you all appreciate that these same amendments were discussed before the board at a workshop, and the board directed that they be -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That often doesn't defer us from making comments, however. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And just so the rest of the boards here knows, I did ask staff to make sure they were consistent in their capitalization and consistent in what they actually called the various entities, the departments and that type of thing. If we are the Planning Commission throughout the LDC, we're the Planning Commission, or we are the Collier County Planning Commission, those kinds of things, because my pages are covered with red from an Page 11 September 19, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: something that -- MS. STUDENT: editor's red marks, and I just want to make sure that that does happen, we see that cleaned up next time. I guess the county attorney's office is very good at that. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I'm -- I have not completed my editing for things like that, but I generally catch it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And along that same line, one last verb that caught my eye on page 3, toward the bottom of the page, is now No. 5, talking about the notice, starting with the underline "Where applicable, the notice shall clearly describe the land uses that are intended to be developed." What does that mean, intended to be developed, the land uses? Are they available, or are we going to get very specific this early into the game? MS. STUDENT: It could probably be something like the contemplated land uses. That can be cleaned up. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be -- I think you're correct. Intended means Contemplated land uses is probably -- MR. NINO: Well, if you're dealing with a PUD, I would assume intended means, what are the uses that your PUD purports to allow? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that are available without any question because people out in the public don't seem to understand some of the processes that we go through and what categories of zoning allow what types of activities. And looking at that, "well, that developer didn't intend to do that, and now he's doing it" could create a problem further down the process. MR. BELLOWS: Maybe proposed uses. MS. STUDENT: Proposed would work too. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: The land uses that are planned? MR. BELLOWS: That may also be a problem. If you're saying Page 12 September 19, 2001 you're creating a plan for those specific uses, then you might create unreasonable expectation that that's exactly what's going to happen. I think if we do proposed, that's vague enough to allow flexibility. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The underlined portion on page 3 is-- MR. NINO: The new page 3? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the new page 3, No. 5. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sorry. Let me make sure -- I slipped. I didn't go back to my newest one. Well, I guess I'm not using that because the copier, as Sally pointed out, got a little whacko here. Okay. I think I'm through with dealing with verbs in this particular section. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I have just a larger issue I'd like to discuss with the board and with staff. And I don't think this was intentional, but I believe we have a -- we need to repair some -- put some language in here that will repair a problem that I'll describe. This whole idea about participation is to get the applicants and the citizenry together on a project that's upcoming to see if there's any problems and whether or not the applicant can work those issues out in advance. Would you agree with that as a premise? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What has happened in the past is that the applicant will get together -- and I've been in a number of these meetings -- with citizens, have a discussion, hear their concerns, and then make certain commitments to the citizenry that he or she will do certain things. And the application -- let's call it a PUD -- goes forward, and the -- I guess it goes through the process, references may or may not be made to -- let's say they are made to the commitments that the developer has made. And they might be more than the underlying code actually requires: A higher berm, an invisible fence, more shrubbery than the actual code -- the Land Page 13 September 19, 2001 Development Code might require. The citizenry passes on it. They say, "Okay. We've had our say, and it looks like this thing's going to go through okay." It's going to meet their expectations. And then lo and behold, it gets down to the point where the applicant comes in to get his final papers and start building, and he decides that he doesn't want to do all of the things that he said he would do by way of commitments. And, as a consequence, he comes into the planning groups and says, "Well, instead of doing it this way, I'm going to do the following." And as long as it fits within the Land Development Code, it amounts to an insubstantial change to what had been approved, and they go off to the races. And the citizenry then gets, you know, another bad feeling about the whole process. So to summarize, what I'd like to see is a section in this part of the Land Development Code that memorializes these commitments that are made by developers to the citizenry, and we've got a process here. We've got to get written reports. We've got that information as part of our whole process. And that then -- then that there be specific language that the -- in the processing of this PUD, for instance, that the planning group would not be permitted to make a change that was in violation of the agreements that had flowed from this participation process. In other words, they wouldn't be able to make an insubstantial change and would lose out on what the public had intended to have happen. Maybe I didn't make that clear, but that's the thrust of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I know where you're going. MR. NINO: First of all, you're dealing with a PUD. If you're dealing with a PUD or a conditional use rezoning, those are very specific things. If a public -- if a petitioner represents to the public in their informational meetings that they're going to do this, that, and the other thing in excess of current requirements in the Land Page 14 September 19, 2001 Development Code, then those things better be in the PUD, or the planner who's in charge of that coordinating effort is not doing their job. So those things should be in the PUD. MR. BELLOWS: And I'd like to-- MR. NINO: And in the conditional use development. Now, if it's a standard rezone, this is where you oftentimes get the problem. You know, a standard rezone, C-4 or C-3 or whatever it is, a petitioner is really not required to commit to a specific use or a specific set of development standards in conjunction with a standard rezone because those requirements that are deemed appropriate for the public health, welfare, and safety are already in the codes for that specific rezoning action. So I don't quite understand -- and then the last part of your -- of your statement that we make insubstantial changes to SDPs that reflect conditions that were not promised, I don't believe that that happens, Dwight, at all. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, it has happened, and I can show you cases. But let's just say that -- let's say that it could happen. I'll show you a specific case where it did happen. I don't want to make that part of this record. But if-- MR. NINO: Was it a standard rezone or a PUD? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It was a PUD. MR. NINO: Well, if it wasn't in the PUD and the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It was. It was. And -- but the applicant came to the planning staff and said, "Look, this is what I want to do," and it was viewed as an insubstantial change because it did not -- because it was still above the minimum requirements in the PUD. MR. NINO: That can't hap -- oh, it was above the minimum requirements in the-- MR. BELLOWS: In other words-- Page 15 September 19, 2001 MR. NINO: -- PUD. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: One at a time. And I do know that Mrs. Barker would like to stand up and say something. MR. NINO: If it's above the minimum requirement in the PUD -- in other words, if somebody presents a site development plan to us and they -- and that site development plan increases the standards that are in the PUD that are applicable to that project, they certainly have the right to say we want to amend our site development plan to go back to the standard that's in the PUD. And that's a legal right they have. Now-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In other words, if they made a commitment to the people, that would be gone. MR. NINO: However, if they made a commitment -- the commitment to the people would have had to be made at the rezoning stage, and that should have been reflected in the PUD. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the rezoning is the -- established in the PUD. MR. NINO: Yeah, established in the PUD. If it wasn't in the PUD, then you know that the -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You're saying -- MR. NINO: -- ball was dropped. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What I'm hearing staff say -- and I want to hear it correctly -- is that this problem cannot happen and has never happened in Collier County. MR. NINO: It shouldn't happen if the planner is responsible -- we make darn sure that the zoning order reflects the promises made at public meetings. Now, that has happened, but it's a mistake. It's a -- it's a deficiency. And we're hoping that in the future that that won't happen. MR. BELLOWS: I think what Ron is saying is that there may have been a case where someone wasn't diligent in checking a PUD Page 16 September 19, 2001 document. When a petition comes in, that's our standard procedure. When an insubstantial change comes in for a site development plan, they always are required to pull the PUD document to see if that is consistent with all the stipulations that are incorporated. Now, this process that we're adopting here requiring public input prior to submission and providing proof of that correspondence between agreements made by the developer and the residents, staff will have a copy of that up front and will ensure much easier than we typically do now, because a lot of times these agreements with private property owners never get explained clearly to staff, if at all in some cases, unless they show up at the public hearing. And then they say, "Wait a second. This guy agreed to do this additional landscaping." But if that correspondence was never forwarded to staff, then that's not going to be incorporated into the PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think that's what we're talking about. When somebody -- if they said 8 feet of fence instead of 6 in this conference with the property owners in the neighborhood and it got into the PUD and the planner didn't know why it was in the PUD and then he comes along and says, "Well, 6 is all that's really required. Can I reduce it from 8 to 6?" He wouldn't know that it was a -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And that's an insubstantial change. MR. NINO: But we can't do that. If the PUD -- if the PUD says the fence is 8 feet, then they've got to build an 8-foot -- well, first of all, PUDs don't usually say 8. They don't -- they're not worded that way. They say you can build up to an 8-foot fence. They've never said you have to build an 8- or a 1 O-foot fence. It's usually the maximum you can build. And we've never heard of that being a concern, that somebody builds a fence less than is allowed by the PUD. So, you know, our regulations are structured that the PUD Page 17 September 19, 2001 provides the maximum development standard. If you want to do something greater than that or, in the case of a height, something smaller than that, then you're entitled to do it. MR. BELLOWS: You know, where I see these -- MR. NINO: Now, what I see this doing, though, is this now creates a forum where those promises should come through. And in the past you never had to have this forum. They were simply trans -- you know, things that happened between developers and the public on an informal basis. This now formalizes the process, and those promises made at those public meetings will be documented and better become part of the PUD -- the zoning order. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Now I want to hear from Mrs. Barker, please. MS. BARKER: For the record, my name is Sally Barker, and I am to blame for the problem that Mr. Richardson has just raised because I dumped it on him the other day. And I hate to disagree with Mr. Nino, but there is a case now in North Naples in which this very thing happened. During the approval process, the dexYeloper and the neighboring development -- I'm not going to name names, because this may go to litigation, and I don't want to screw things up for whatever that process is. But anyway, this developer got together with the neighbors, and the neighbors were upset about the amount of buffering that was being provided. And the developer said, "Okay. We will do this nice berm with nice heavy landscaping, put this nice invisible fence through it." And that was okay. They signed an agreement. The agreement was incorporated into the PUD. The ink was barely dry on that PUD and filed with the state when the developer turned around, went back to planning services, and said, "Oh, hey, I would like an insubstantial change." And golly gee, it got approved. So all the fancy landscaping is out. They have a straight fence, buffer now, Page 18 September 19, 2001 and some sort of halfhearted little bushes planted in front of the fence. And at the meeting that was held at planning services, the complaining neighbors were told, "Okay. You had an agreement, but gee, there's no problem here. This meets the county's minimum code; therefore, done deal." And this is exactly the sort of situation that we are trying to prevent in the public participation process, where the public comes together with the developer, and they reach an agreement on what they would like to see done. And then to raise the possibility the developer will then go back later through the insubstantial change process and have all of that eliminated is still very much here. So there needs to be -- I don't know if it's in this particular process or maybe an LDC process down the line, but there has got to be some way to flag those agreements so that a developer who comes in and wants to change that agreement has to be required to bring all the parties back to the table before it's approved. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I understand what you're saying, Sally. And there's another example in North Naples where a particular neighborhood, due to some errors at the county level and errors in changes by the developer, did not have access to Goodlette-Frank Road, and that was part of the master plan that was planned for that neighborhood. And when the adjoining development went in, it was made very clear that there was documents, it made mistakes, etc. No matter where it was in the county, it still did not happen because the next developer talked to a staff person who very clearly said, "We don't have to give them access. They do not have to have egress to Goodlette-Frank Road." And it was all documented very clearly. There was a mistake because of some particular public entity, the sewer treatment plant that was there. But I know exactly what you're talking about. This does happen. I think part of it will be Page 19 September 19, 2001 that staff is much more aware that they have to monitor it, and they have to get the information. MS. BARKER: But they knew about it, and they didn't care because it met the minimum code requirements. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And see, now, that's unfortunate. You have a -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, I would like to see staff-- I'm asking for support from the board -- from the commission to ask for language to be put in -- and I'd be glad to craft some -- and forward it and show it to everyone. But I'd like to see some language in here that ties this thing up so that we can close this gap. Now, Mr. Nino says it can never happen again, but we have several examples where it has happened, where the effect of public participation has been there, and the agreements have been worked on -- you know, I just don't -- I just don't have a comfort level that -- we're a big administrative group, and there's a lot of people looking at a lot of different things. It just seems to me we need to have this tied down more tightly, and I'd like to do it in the code so that we can have a firm basis for it to be in the code. MR. BELLOWS: Before we move on, I'd just like to point out -- I know somewhat of this case that's being discussed. The PUD document contained additional landscaping requirements above code requirements. That is still in effect, and it's still a requirement of the developer to provide that additional landscaping above minimum requirements of code. There was a site development plan for the clubhouse that was submitted and a preliminary subdivision plat that was provided, and those plans are consistent with the PUD document. However, the developer and the -- had reached an agreement with the homeowners' association to provide even additional landscaping, and a time specific for installation of that landscape buffer was not Page 20 September 19, 2001 incorporated into the PUD document. It was a private agreement. Now, this is a perfect case where this new process that we're setting up here would require that information to be provided to staff prior to the submission of the PUD document and that we would have that agreement in hand when reviewing the PUD document and would ensure at that time that those conditions and stipulations are placed in the PUD document. Now, the homeowners' association representative attended the board meeting but failed to make that a stipulation that the board acted on. She was under the impression that that agreement would be automatically incorporated. And unless it's presented to staff and made a part of the record officially, it's only a civil matter between those two entities. But this process -- and you still may want to tweak it a little bit more, but this process is a way to get those private agreements between the developer and the private property owners' association, to get them to staff even prior to submission of that petition or at the same time as that petition. MR. NINO: Let me say I -- I don't -- I don't think you can write into an ordinance that what I tell a person has to be carried out. I don't think you can write into ordinances that kind of thing. I mean, you're venturing into a whole untried area here, and I don't think you can do that. I don't think you can say if I go to a public meeting and I make a bunch of promises, that I have to do all of those things in -- in the legal -- in the legal text of the ordinance. But staffs responsibility as a functionary in dealing with the development order needs to say to that developer, "Look it, if you don't make these changes that you promised at the public hearing, then our staff report is going to be an adverse staff report, and it's going to point out those deficiencies to the county board and make them recommendations for approval." That's the way you get at those things. Page 21 September 19, 2001 MS. STUDENT: It has to go -- MR. NINO: You don't write things into the law. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. It has to find -- whatever is promised, assuming it's legally sufficient -- that's one thing I have to make sure of-- needs to go into the ordinance and become a part of the ordinance. Having side agreements, private agreements and things, I'm concerned if we were to write something like that in there, we're starting to get into some contract zoning stuff which is not permitted in the law. You know where the developer makes a contract over here, and the county says, "Okay. You've got this" without considering it. It needs to be fully considered, not just say, "Okay. You've got this agreement. That's the end of it." Whatever that may be can find its way into the ordinance. And assuming it's legally sufficient and so forth, it can become a part of the ordinance. But I think it has to go through all those things or else we could have a contract zoning problem. And just to say, "Well, there's this agreement here so, you know, ipso facto it's a done deal because it exists," I think there's a problem with that because the regulations have to meet public health, safety, welfare requirements, which I'm sure in most cases such a thing would do. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young wanted to interject real quickly. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I just wondered, Ray, this stipulation, again, page 5, Section 2, where you say the applicant shall provide a written account of the result of such contacts and shall submit all and (sic) written communications to the planning services department, was that your effort to meet this problem? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Exactly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I want to add, too -- I just want to Page 22 September 19, 2001 add, too, that the word -- the reason I objected to the word "intended" when we talked about this before is that there's a lot that you can't commit this early in the process to, to how this particular property's going to be developed, and you don't want to raise those unreasonable expectations. I think that's very obvious, but I'm very sensitive to what you're saying, Mr. Richardson. So if you come up with some language that we could work from but does not create a problem with zoning -- MR. NINO: Remember the scenario. I'm a developer. I have a public hearing on a PUD master plan. And I don't agree to anything, but the people say, "I want this, I want that, and I want this." And he says, "Fine. We'll have those things considered." It goes through the process. We identify those -- if you were to write a statement that says all those promises have to be carried out, you'd be setting up a condition whereby the folks out there hold the developer hostage to an approval. MS. STUDENT: And as an attorney -- MR. NINO: You can't do that. MS. STUDENT: -- if you write something like that, it would violate -- it would probably violate constitutional due process as well, because those things have to be fully and fairly considered by all the bodies that they need to go through instead of just saying, "Well, there's an agreement, so it automatically is part of the regulations." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And in fairness to the developer, some citizens' interpretation of the word "promise" can be totally different than what the staff person or representative of that developer said at a meeting. So we have to try to stay in the middle ground here. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, then it suggests to me that we are developing a feel-good section here without much real help to the public, and I'm really concerned about that. I think -- I thought this was really a -- you know, some nice Page 23 September 19, 2001 words to really push the applicants and the public closer together so that we can work out some of the problems. But if working out the problems doesn't allow us to get that committed into the final document -- which I'm seeing now it's not going to be possible with the administrative attitude we have here -- then I'm really concerned. MR. BELLOWS: It does come down to the Board of County Commissioners, our elected officials, to make whatever determination they deem consistent with applicable codes and ordinances. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I realize we don't have much power, but I just wanted to -- MS. STUDENT: All that-- I need to explain that because it doesn't have anything to do with administrative attitude. We have a constitution in this country, and right now --just editorializing -- it's precious to me. And that constitution provides safeguards, and the safeguards are that if there are any laws passed, they're duly advertised, and everybody gets -- by virtue of the advertisement, gets put on notice. And they come to a hearing to present their views on what's being considered, whether it's before this commission or the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals. So the way I envision this working is that any type of agreement that -- or commitment the developer may make to surrounding property owners will find its way into the document or will be presented to the appropriate bodies with either a recommendation of final approval, up or down, of what was promised. But it is going to get in there, either in the document itself or be made part of the staff report or executive summary, so the board has to consider it. But if you say it's automatically in there because it was agreed to at a meeting, then that violates due process because the code says it's a done deal before it ever gets to a hearing simply because the developer agreed to it, and that violates due process. Due process is Page 24 September 19, 2001 notice and opportunity to be heard. And somebody else in the community may not be happy with what the regulation might be. And if you say it's a done deal and we are not going to hear it anymore, that violates due process because if that person has a problem with it, it's already done, and he doesn't get to come to this body or the board to voice his concerns about it. And that's what due process in our constitution means, and that's -- well, we're here legislatively, so it's a little different but-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. So just a quick question. So if we crafted some language that preserved due process -- and I certainly agree with your constitutional comments -- that would -- MS. STUDENT: I think that if some language were crafted that indicated that those -- the conditions that were agreed to -- and not necessarily an agreement that somebody signs. I get a little nervous about that because that's kind of getting towards contract zoning again. But the requirement that staff, in the staff report or executive summary, take what was agreed to and have it in the staff report, then that would come to you-all. You could make a recommendation whether or not to put it in a PUD. Then that staff report gets attached to the executive summary that goes to the Board of County Commissioners, so it would still be part of the record. And then they would ultimately vote up or down whether they wanted those things in there; or, in the alternative, they could be put in the PUD document. That's probably safer, that once the developer has the meeting with the surrounding residents and agrees to some of these development standards, that it be incorporated into the PUD document that goes through the process. The only concern I have is that it's not, as I said, an automatic done deal that can't be considered at a public hearing because then we have a due process issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I said that, I overstated Page 25 September 19, 2001 the case. This would be in the developer commitment section of the PUD, for instance? What is this -- MS. STUDENT: It could be. Or it could be -- the PUD, as you know, is broken down into subdistricts with their own performance standards, and then it also has sections dealing with, under developer commitments, transportation, utilities, environment, and So forth. So wherever the appropriate subsection and subparagraph would be, that's where it could be in the PUD. And perhaps for cross-reference, staff could maybe identify it in a staff report or something or generally allude to it so the boards would know. MR. NINO: Well, I don't think that really addresses -- your real concern is -- is to supplement or compliment what's proposed in this amendment to include the proposition that you addressed. That's the very purpose of the Planning Commission. You're perfectly -- you know, this staff's not the last word on the amendments. You're perfectly entitled to craft the language and present it at the next meeting. And if your fellow commissioners vote for it, then that recommendation will go on to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, with that encouragement, then, from staff, I would like to craft some language that is not as vitriolic as I had first stated and try to make it meet all the constitutional requirements but at least bring this issue to some sort of focus. And if I may have permission to e-mail it to each of you before the next meeting, would that be okay? MS. STUDENT: I don't think -- I think there may be a Sunshine violation. It would have to go to staff, and then staff could disseminate it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. Would that be permissible, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. That's fine. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you very much. Page 26 September 19, 2001 MR. NINO: I think you could just present it at the next meeting as part of your final deliberation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's fine, but I'd like these thoughts to be duly considered and noted. And sometimes in the -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. If you get it to me, I'll make sure it's e-mailed out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think it needs to go to staff and to us so we can look at it beforehand because I don't want to sit and read something that's this sensitive and convoluted on the moment and try to vote on it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The next meeting is October 10th, so you got to get it to me as soon as you can if you want -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you for your forbearance. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm going to be here October 3rd. MS. STUDENT: MR. BELLOWS: MS. STUDENT: I think it's October 3rd. What date is today? Today is the 19th of September. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The Board of County Commissioners will hopefully be looking at this on the 10th. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You just promoted us all. All right. Are we through with this public notification section? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, in all the places where it says Collier County -- you know, our group, board of -- Planning Commission, when the hearing examiner comes in, I guess we'll have to redo all of this and take all that out? Is that what's proposed? Where do we stand? MS. STUDENT: There will be appropriate -- for the record, Page 27 September 19, 2001 again, Marjorie Student. There will be appropriate amendments made at that time. As you know, the board is taking the hearing examiner -- that process and so forth, and the idea is to get this on the board right now while we're under the current process so we can immediately start to have greater public participation. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next item on your summary sheet is Section 2.7.4.3. These deal with notification procedures for variance and conditional uses. Currently the Land Development Code has separate notification procedures for conditional uses and variances, and this amendment to these sections will -- is intended to implement consistent notice requirements for rezonings and -- similar to the rezoning standards. The conditional use and variance notice procedures are amended to reflect the added public informational meeting requirements that we just discussed and, as to the variance, to delete that section of existing notification procedures and replace them with a cross-reference to the property notification procedures that we're adopting now. The DSAC has not made a specific recommendation to that one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Other than the capitalization issue and what we're actually called for the entity, I'm fine with that particular one. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one deals with the C-3 and C-4 permitted uses. And that deals with Section 2.2.12.2.1, and that's the C-3. MR. NINO: C-1. MR. BELLOWS: And Section 2.2.14.2.1, that's the C-3, and then 2.2.15.2.1 is the C-4. This is a Board of directed -- of County Commission directed change to address the uses that are listed in those specific zoning districts, to eliminate those uses that are deemed not acceptable. Such as in the C-1 they do not wish to have the tow-in parking lots as a permitted use. And you can see there are Page 28 September 19, 2001 SIC codes that are adopted with those specific zoning districts that would include that. This would specifically eliminate those uses. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where are they allowed? MR. BELLOWS: C-5. MR. NINO: Currently they're allowed in all these districts. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about 2, then? MR. NINO: No, it's not allowed in 2. A tow-in parking lot is allowed in 1. A wrecker service and tow-in service is allowed in C-3 and C-4, and the board says we don't want them there. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about C-27 MR. NINO: They're not allowed in C-2 to begin with. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any of them? MR. NINO: That's right. MR. BELLOWS: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: This may be a strange question, but provided that -- I'm on Section 2.2.15.2.1, page 8. Car washes abutting residential zoning districts are not allowed as -- I just wonder how would that impact groups like the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts washing cars to raise money? Am I way off the beam or -- I wouldn't like to stop them from being allowed to wash cars to raise money for good causes, page 8. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think under the new regime here -- MR. NINO: Again, Ron Nino. In the first place, that's really not an amendment that's proposed. That's in the current ordinance, so that's not proposed as an amendment. The only thing this amendment -- this does is eliminate tow-in parking lots from the C-4 district. So the issue you raised is currently in the ordinance. But to speak more directly to it, it doesn't prohibit car washes. It allows car washes subject to criteria, and not all those criteria are here. And that would not prohibit the kind of concern you addressed. Page 29 September 19, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Good. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we're moving along to, I think, permitted-- industrial permitted uses? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. That's Section 2.2.16.2.1. This is to allow a general aviation airport as a permitted use in the industrial zoning district. This primarily pertains to the Immokalee Airport, which is zoned industrial. And since industrial uses do not currently permit airport uses, there's a little conflict there, and this allows for that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I pointed out in a -- in an e-mail the word "or" in the second line looks to me like it should be "as." MR. BELLOWS: On page 107 MR. NINO: That was changed on the revised -- revised summary. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've got the revised. Not the summary. I'm talking about the -- MR. NINO: It was changed. It was changed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- the ordinance. MR. BELLOWS: On page 10, general aviation airport which may include for use of-- during temporary special event activities such as air shows and the like, a recreational vehicle campground and ancillary support facilities, is that where you're talking about? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about -- oh, I see what you're talking about. Change -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yours is in the top part. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mine is in the change up here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're right. The word should be "as." Page 30 September 19, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: Second line? MS. STUDENT: I actually think I may work with staff, not to change the intent of it, but to maybe do a little wordsmithing on that. It's a little strained, I think. MR. NINO: Where is that, Ken? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's in the second line of the description of what you're changing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It really should -- the "or" should be an "as." MR. NINO: You're right. We changed it in some places but not all of them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I guess we're now on 2.5, signs. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And as Marjorie Student previously noted, this is a readoption of something that the Planning Commission previously recommended approval on. I think we can just make that a formal readoption tonight. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe it's next time. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me. That's correct. MS. STUDENT: Next time is when the action's taken. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry. My first time here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's okay. You're doing quite well. So that means we're on page 35 now, if we have no questions about signs, of the new packet? Oh, this is my favorite group. MR. BELLOWS: This is PUD procedures. It deals with Section 2.7.3.4, and this amendment is to require PUDs to continue -- to commence construction within three years as opposed to the five years of their adoption date or otherwise be subject to reconsideration. The Development Services Advisory Committee recommended approval, but the time limit and sunset review requirements to initiate and continue physical development shall be Page 31 September 19, 2001 abated at any time period -- any time periods where physical development is delayed as a result of a moratorium or other permitting delays of governmental agencies. So basically they feel that it shouldn't be counted against the developer if there's a moratorium that delays their ability to construct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How do you define those other planning-- whose fault they are? MR. NINO: You might appreciate that that change -- that one concern of the DSAC is now reflected in the draft that's with you, the last sentence of page 36. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And I think that should say "tolling the limitation" or say "the tolling of the limitation," but there's a word that needs to be changed there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're saying tolling requirement or totaling? MS. STUDENT: I think it should say "tolling of the limitation," or "should not be counted towards tolling the limitation" is probably the simplest way to say it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just realized I don't have, possibly, the e-mail that explained a couple of the other aspects of the use of old page 10, now page 35, the verbiage, because we've got extra verbs. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I think I mentioned in my e-mail that this is something we'll resolve with Marjorie. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because we've got a problem that pops up. And then as far as the project developer, did you have a comment about that phrase, "the assumption of ownership"? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I discussed that with Ron, and property entity is probably a better choice. MR. NINO: The owner entity would be fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So we can stay consistent, then, with Page 32 September 19, 2001 that. Okay. That sounds good to me. So we're really language fixing there from the legal department. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just two questions of staff. The -- you have a difference in the sunsetting for residential portions from nonresidential portions. I'm not sure I understand the thinking. For residential portions they've got a 15 percent, and after -- after certain infrastructure improvements, 15 percent after year three, and then every year after that there has to be another 15 percent until it's a hundred percent done. However, nonresidential you only go to 75 percent, and then they never finish it out. MR. NINO: The reason for that should be quite apparent. Many PUDs -- most PUDs, commercial PUDs, have outparcels. And why should we care if one or -- or two of those outparcels -- as long as 75 percent of the project is developed and all the infrastructure is, why should we care if those outparcels take another 20 years? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. And you have some analysis that 75 percent is kind of a good number of completion that would satisfy -- MR. NINO: Well, 75 percent will certainly indicate that the shopping -- you know, if it's a shopping center PUD, that the shopping center is there, and the only thing that's hanging up is the -- are the outparcels. A good example is Green Tree. There are many PUDs that have outparcels that have gone for 15 years, you know. Why do we care? MR. BELLOWS: I think that's basically the intent. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I thank you for that explanation. My second point -- and I brought this up at our last meeting anticipating that this section would come before us tonight officially -- and that has to do with rolling the effective dates of Page 33 September 19, 2001 PUDs where this re -- as a PUD amendment comes in, we reissue the PUD and start the clock all over again. I'd like to see some wordsmithing in there -- and I can suggest some language -- that would make sure that the PUD would -- timing-wise, the three years we're talking about here, would start with the approval of the first PUD. And if there was ever any amendments to that PUD, we wouldn't change the sunsetting of-- from the first date that the PUD was approved, because otherwise I can see this as the subject of a lot of manipulation where an applicant could come in at year three and make a small amendment, maybe add a little more property. You know, it happens all the time. And for administrative ease, we redo the entire PUD, and the clock starts over again. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Would you consider a compromise in that instead of the current condition in which it always is renewed, instead of a new amendment that says it is never renewed, but it's a specific condition of any PUD amendment that that is a consideration for specific action, whether it is or is not renewed, which could be determined at that time at that process according to how expensive, how relevant, what all the criteria are. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Whether it's substantial or not. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Whether it's substantial or deserving of a renewal. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think that would be the direction I would like to see just so we don't have something that can MR. NINO: Well, let me offer you another suggestion. When the purpose -- if I come in with -- the purpose of the sunsetting is to give us an opportunity that we have a PUD in place that represents, one, that it's consistent with the Land Development Code -- I mean the Growth Management Plan and, two, reflects the most optimum Page 34 September 19, 2001 development standards to give you a good development. Every amendment to that -- every amendment to a PUD opens up the entire PUD. And, theoretically, when one applies for a -- an amendment, the planner should use that opportunity to update the PUD to those standards that would be approved if it came in the door afresh. So, you know, I -- I know where you're coming from. In the past we've kind of taken the view that we wouldn't reopen the PUD for minor amendments. That doesn't have to be the case. Any time you knock on the door for an amendment, you could take the position that an intensive review would be done of the entire PUD to update it to whatever we would be asking if it came in the door today. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And basically that's the case when we do the rezone from PUD to PUD. We're actually -- and the pretext is to amend that PUD to allow for additional changes. But once it comes in as that, we're treating it like a new rezone at -- currently, and it goes to every reviewing agency as if it was a brand-new virgin piece of land coming in for a rezone. And each of those review agencies have a chance to make sure that it's still consistent with their applicable jurisdictional areas of review. So say if the density has changed and the project was approved at, say, eight units per acre and it's now an area -- and they don't -- aren't vested in any way, they're coming in and rezoning the property, they will be faced with being consistent with the density rating system and be lowered to the current consistent density, which may be four or three units per acre. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: When you go from PUD to PUD, you get another three years.9 MR. NINO: You get another three years. But in doing that process -- the purpose of the sunsetting is to make sure that it's a viable PUD. It represents the best of standards. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's supposed to be to get it Page 35 September 19, 2001 built, too, isn't it? MR. NINO: No. No, not necessarily. Not necessarily. MR. BELLOWS: I think the intent was -- and I was there when the county commission -- MR. NINO: You're not-- you're not forced to zone -- you're not forced to develop land following zoning. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Nino. One at a time. She can't type -- MR. NINO: I'm sorry. The purpose is to ensure that land is zoned in accordance with the Future Land Use Element, not that it be developed. Never been a premise of zoning that you get zoning, you got to develop it right away. That's the free market's choice. But we want to make sure we don't have a development order standing out there that if they did decide to develop, we'd be working with a set of outdated development standards, and that's the purpose of sunsetting. So when you make -- when you apply for an amendment, and we do -- because we want to cancel -- we always want to cancel out the previous one because we don't want to have to look at several ordinances to find out what it's all about. That opens up the window to bring that PUD up to today's standards, and that's what we ought to be doing. And whether it gets developed or not is really immaterial. But if it is developed, it's developed with current standards. MR. BELLOWS: And I'd just like to point out what would happen if it didn't go through a PUD amendment and the sunsetting were to occur, that process, we would not necessarily do anything different than what would happen through the PUD amendment process. So the sunsetting petitions that I've handled in the past when the project no longer was consistent, say, in density, we would make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the density is now -- now -- the approved density of that PUD is no Page 36 September 19, 2001 longer consistent with the density rating system, that it should be rezoned either back to -- to a more consistent density, such as what would be consistent; or if many items were inconsistent with that, we could recommend that it go back to its agricultural zoning category. That has also happened in the past in determining zoning reevaluation. But the main thing that would happen with a PUD to PUD amendment, those same issues would be addressed just as it would be if it was vacant land coming in for the first time. We would make sure it was consistent with all of those currently adopted codes and ordinances. So basically we're updating the PUD anyways through a PUD to PUD, and that was one of the reasons we gave them another three years. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I don't agree with Ron, because if the guy's got a PUD that allows a lot more density than he could get today, when the three years is about to run out, he's going to develop it. So that gets it developed. MR. BELLOWS: That's true. If someone's going to see that they're going to lose a vital economic interest, they're going to develop it to try to keep it if possible. They may still not be able to do that. MR. NINO: Ron Nino. Yes. You're right. If they have -- they have to -- this -- under this amendment they now have five years to meet the threshold for retaining the PUD. This is going to require them now to meet that threshold in -- and if I owned the land and I had more density than I'm otherwise entitled to, I'd make sure that I met the threshold required to keep it alive. But if that developer decides in year two of the three-year cycle that they want to amend it, to amend that PUD, they open up the window to having the board-- and the board would have to reduce the density. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. Page 37 September 19, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I just want to ask this one question. I'm not even sure how I should ask it, but on old page 11, page 36, the second paragraph there, No. 2, the residential portions of PUDs and commercial and industrial, etc., where it says in the event floor area is not the defining intensity measure, then the 25 percent of the land area to include, etc., what would be some of the other defining intensity measures? MR. NINO: What we mean there -- if-~ if it's -- I'm sorry. Ron Nino. If it's a PUD that was approved with a maximum allowable floor area, then we would be measuring that 25 percent or 15 percent against that allowable floor area. However, many PUDs are approved without any floor area limitations. They're approved in a manner that says they will do all of these uses, but there's no maximum or minimum floor -- total floor area for the project. In that case we would -- we're saying we want 25 percent of the land area of the PUD to begin development, and in that 25 percent, they have to have some kind of a vertical structure. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So then-- MR. NINO: And we weren't able -- quite frankly, we weren't able to define whether that should be 5,000 or 10,000 or 15,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So then following that, your statement about the maximum allowable floor area being in the PUD and other PUDs having these items that are to be done, then the laundry list of items to occur is the defining intensity measure? MR. NINO: No. Where-- no. Where there is -- where there's no reference to floor area, then -- and the PUD only references land uses, then it's the percentage of the land area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: The land area only. MR. NINO: Only. In other words, that's put in a parking -- that's put in a parking lot. They have to put in the aisle ways, the Page 38 September 19, 2001 access ways to 25 percent of the land in year four where there is no reference to maximum floor area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are there many of those existing today? MR. NINO: Yes, there are. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think there's more the other way than with specific square footages. MR. NINO: There are a few. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because those are somewhat commercial or maybe transient, hotel, lodging-type things? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think the intent of the way most of our PUDs are -- are initiated is that they limit the size of the buildings based on the development standards: Setbacks, building heights, and landscaping, parking requirements. That would fill up the hundred percent of the site, and you could include all of those various issues. However, in some PUDs we say they cannot exceed 100,000 square feet of retail floor area. That would be, then, the defining factor with the first part of that statement. But if they don't list that, whatever square footage, as what they have to build as their maximum, then we could go to this percentage of the site. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: the acreage? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Okay. Percentage of the site based on So if we have a 5-acre commercial parcel that has no limit on square footage other than the development standards, then what-- how do we measure that? And we're saying a percentage of that 5-acre site has to be done. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just a final comment. I -- I'm appreciative of staff's explanation of how this might work. And with that explanation I remove my concerns about the language. Page 39 September 19, 2001 (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Are we down now to excavations? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we are. And as I had mentioned earlier, our engineering staff intended to be here. Unfortunately, several conflicts of interest -- or time, I should say, came up, and they were not able to attend. They passed on their regrets, and they said they will be ready to be here at the next meeting. That's on the 3rd. And this will give you time to look at the revised submission anyways that we presented today, the corrected version. MR. NINO: Ron Nino. But I can tell you that I reviewed both Ken's memo and your memo, and some of the issues you raised were taken care of in the rewrite. Incorrect section citations, for one, they were taken care of. And there was paragraphs cited twice, and that's been taken care of. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm just told that in one -- I believe my memo -- e-mail says instead of "trees," it was "blasting," and one should have been trees, and one should have been for blasting. MR. NINO: No. It was just incorrectly cited twice. It was incorrectly cited twice. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, and I think the other thing I would like to put on the record now so that engineering really does have to look at it is the concept of the stamps. When you're going to notify these people, I don't believe it's a regular approach to mailing to have double first class rate. I think that's going to have to be changed to your first class stamp and your next ounce over, because a double first class rate, the way it was explained to me, would be put two first class stamps. And why make a -- a developer or person notifying all these people put 68 cents on when all that's required, I believe, is 57 for that weight. So I hope that someone's going to look a little more closely at how many pieces of paper go into those and how much Page 40 September 19, 2001 postage you want to require people to put on. You don't want -- we're trying to be specific but-- MS. STUDENT: It seems like we're preempted by postal regulations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah. But it contradicts itself. MS. STUDENT: I don't know why -- I haven't been involved with the engineering, but I'm not quite certain why we'd be regulating -- postal regulations take care of that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, they want -- they want the applicant to provide envelopes with enough postage on them to -- MS. STUDENT: Then they can just say with sufficient postage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That seems right to me. MS. STUDENT: I think that may be -- sufficient postage may be the solution. MR. NINO: Did you e-mail that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did e-mail that. MR. NINO: Stan Chrzanowski is the author of this, and if you want to e-mail Stan, you can e-mail him. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's the old page 19. We're looking at paragraph 4 in 3.5.6 -- excuse me, no. 3.5.6.1.3, and then paragraph 4 refers to first class plus one additional ounce, and then the next paragraph says the infamous stamped double first class rate as if you're going to put-- MR. NINO: You said 3.5.6.1.37 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, in mine -- and apparently I have one of the oldest versions that there could have been, which I studied very closely. I will send you an e-mail, Ron, because I would like that clarified. MR. NINO: E-mail Stan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: He's already answered my question, and I want someone else to answer it. Page 41 September 19, 2001 MS. STUDENT: I see the section. I think just saying sufficient postage would be -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Because then you'd know how many you're going to be sending out the door, and you don't have to keep changing this section. MR. NINO: Marjorie, will you-- MS. STUDENT: I made a note. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I'm sure I'll have more comments when I read the newest version. MS. STUDENT: And, Madam Chair, I know we've talked about it, but just for the record would you announce the date, time, and place of the next meeting, please? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. The next Collier County Planning Commission land development amendment scheduled meeting is Wednesday, October 3rd at 5:05. And I believe that is in the commission chambers. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We can adjourn. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: tomorrow? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. 8:30 in the commission chambers. Any other thoughts, comments? We have a meeting We'll see everyone tomorrow at Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:24 p.m. Page 42 September 19, 2001 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 43