Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/03/2001 SOctober 3,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 2001, NAPLES, FLORIDA 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 5:13 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jyceanna J. Rautio Paul Midney Lindy Adelstein Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lora Jean Young Dwight Richardson David Wolfley Mark Strain ALSO PRESENT: Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 October 3,2001 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Call the meeting to order. Collier County Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, October 3rd to consider Land Development Code amendments. Call the roll. Do you have the list with our new members? MS. MURRAY: I do. If you'd like me to call the roll? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd love for you to. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You be the deputy clerk. MS MURRAY: Okay. Sounds good. Paul Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. MS. MURRAY: Lindy Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. MS. MURRAY: Mark Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. MS. MURRAY: Russell Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. MS. MURRAY: Ken Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. MS. MURRAY: Joyceanna Rautio, absent. Lora Jean Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. MS. MURRAY: Dwight Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. MS. MURRAY: David Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Any addenda to the agenda? MS. MURRAY: None from staff. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. Ready to go. MS. MURRAY: I guess I'll start out. I'm Susan Murray, current planning manager. And welcome, new board members. This is the Page 2 October 3, 2001 second of two required night meetings for amendments to the Land Development Code. This is termed the special cycle, and I know for the new members you were not in attendance at the first meeting, and I'm sorry about that. You're kind of jumping in the middle here, but at the first meeting Ray Bellows presented all the amendments that you have in your packet to you, and you had the opportunity to ask questions and make comments. As well the public had an opportunity to speak at that time. I understand you were presented the written information with respect to the changes to the excavation portion of the Land Development Code but were not given a staff presentation. Stan Chrzanowski is here to make that presentation to you tonight, and I would maybe suggest, Mr. Vice Chair, that you would like to start with that since it's new material, and then Ray Bellows is going to carry on from the previous term and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He'll lead us through the rest of them? MS. MURRAY: -- and will lead you through the rest, and I will be here in the background. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Procedurally, how do we handle -- we vote on them this time, do we not? MS. MURRAY: You vote on them this time. You vote-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Individually? One at a time? MS. STUDENT: Generally -- now there's going to be an interesting situation tonight because one planning commissioner has advised that there's one item that he has a conflict with, so we have to break that item out. That's a sunsetting of PUDs issue, and he's -- has a client that's affected by that. So we'll break that out, and we've done that before when there might be a conflict, but usually we have taken them as a whole and voted on the amendments as a whole. And also a finding consistency with the Growth Management Plan Page 3 October 3,200 ! needs to be made as part of your vote. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If a member wants to vote "no" as to a particular item, do we break that out too? MS. STUDENT: Yes. I think you could rather than hold the whole amendment hostage. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess as we go through 'em as we go from one to the next, if somebody anticipates they're going to vote "no," they'll tell me and then we'll be prepared to break those out at the end, if that's satisfactory to people. Okay. Let's get into our excavation explanation. (Ms. Rautio arrives.) MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Stan Chrzanowski. I'm a senior engineer with the development services department, and I'd like to apologize for not making the last meeting. We were out of town at a drainage seminar, and Tom was on vacation. We're probably the only ones that really know about the excavation. I was initially going to just ask if anybody had any questions, but I think I'd like to give you about a ten-minute presentation on excavations in Collier County so you know how we got to where we are. The original ordinance, the one that has been revised, is Section 3.5 of the Land Development Code. It started out as an excavation ordinance long before the existence of the present Land Development Code, and it hasn't been revised much. We've done some housekeeping on it and closed some loopholes over the years, but we have -- we had an issue come up maybe a about a year ago under the new commission where there were a lot of smaller excavations going on in Golden Gate Estates. The Commissioners had a lot of questions. Golden Gate Estates, up until maybe five, six years ago there were no commercial excavations allowed in the estates. You could dig a lake in your backyard by the ordinance; you didn't have to -- you were allowed to get a permit exemption. You Page 4 October 3,2001 didn't even have to apply for a permit with a fee. You could dig up to a 1-acre lake, 12-foot deep on any parcel in Golden Gate Estates or any ag parcel as long as you didn't remove any fill. Well, if you dig a 1-acre lake, 12-feet deep on a 5-acre lot, you fill the other 4 acres, you don't feel it all that much. But we'had a gentleman named A1 McCall probably about five years ago came in front of the board and he wanted to dig a larger lake on his parcel. And he was a Vietnam veteran and combat wounded, I guess. Talked to the board, was pretty eloquent, convinced the board that there was no problem with digging a two-acre lake on his parcel. Problem with that is when you do it on a five-acre parcel, you're going to fill the rest of the parcel with a lot of fill. So his idea was he's going to have somebody haul the fill off. Naturally, he's going to make a little profit. Nobody could really see a problem with that, much the same as putting a car on your front yard with a "For Sale" sign on it. It's not really an ongoing commercial excavation. It's a pile of fill that you're disposing of. So at that time the Board of County Commissioners suggested that we might find some way to let this happen that, you know, people should not be prohibited from digging lakes on their property if they want to. We couldn't see a good engineering reason to stop him from doing it. Not much difference between a one-acre lake and a two-acre lake. Larger lakes are generally, usually healthier. You do have the off-site hauling of the fill, but roads are built to county standards. It takes a couple thousand to three thousand, maybe four thousand yards to build a good-size house pad in Golden Gate, and these lakes were generating twenty, forty thousand cubic yards so, you know, you really weren't doing that many houses, 10, 20 houses. And your average Golden Gate Estates block when you break it down at 2 1/2 acres, I think there's, like, between both sides of the street for every mile there's maybe going to be 64 homes. So the lakes weren't Page 5 October 3,200 ! -- you'd -- you'd be digging a few lakes just to get house pad fill out there, and the way we saw it, it's cheaper-- it's better on the roads if the fill distance is -- the haul distance is shorter hauling from these small excavations than, say, Willow Run Quarry hauling up 951 and out to all the estates. So, you know, for that reason staff didn't see any problem with it, and the board said, "Find a way to do it," and we came up with policies for doing it, and we'd been running that way for many years. When Commissioner Coletta came on board, there were a few people out there all of a sudden saw a lot of holes going in out there, and they objected to just pits. What they didn't realize was that every time we let somebody dig an excavation out there, one of the standard policy items we had was that you had to leave a buildable section on the lot, a buildable envelope, and at the time we figured, you know, quarter-acre lot in Golden Gate is a good-sized buildable envelope, but because of hearings that we've had with Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, this latest change has been reviewed by every department that might have a say in it; utilities, transportation, stormwater management. What you see before you is the end product of all of that. One of the things that the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association wanted was a one-acre buildable lot. So I think that's worked into the new ordinance there. It'll pretty -- pretty much limit these commercial excavations to a five-acre lot. We were allowing 2 1/2 acres to do a - - you know, a 1-acre commercial, because at that sized lot you can actually do a good-sized lake, but you do have to haul the fill off site. So because of the pressure -- not the pressure, but the questioning being put on Commissioner Coletta about why we're allowing all these pits, like I said, they didn't know we were turning them into buildable lots. He brought it up at a couple of board hearings, and it was decided that staff should rewrite the ordinance to Page 6 October 3, 2001 handle these type of excavations. And if you look in there, you'll see a long section on Golden Gate Estates excavations. That's one of the main changes in the ordinance. One of the other changes is you'll notice that there is a lot of different classes of excavation. Under the old system, there were -- if you were Jim Weeks digging a two-acre lake in Golden Gate Estates, you were a commercial excavation. If you were Willow Run Quarry digging 30 million cubic yards over 30 years from a hundred- something acres, you were the same class of commercial excavation. As a matter of fact, when it came to computing the road impact fees, the program that we were given, the computer program, when you substituted the values for the duration of the excavation, the program is based on capacity, road capacity. And fewer trucks over a longer period of time takes up less road capacity, even though a 30-year excavation basically is sort of permanent. You've lot lost a lot of road capacity for a long time, but the program the way it's written cuts their road impact fee contribution down and the shorter excavations; they were less than a penny a cubic yard in some cases simply because of the way of the duration of the excavation. That's average, but still a penny a cubic yard per 30 million cubic yards is a lot of-- is a lot of impact fee. The smaller excavations were paying 15 to 20 cents a cubic yard because there was such a short duration that the capacity program thought that they were using more road capacity, but they only used it for a short time. You know, transportation saw after a while that this was not working right, so we've come up with a new formula, but it's not part of this. But it'll be in the next amendment cycle, and it was generated by the same process where we're going to charge a road- use fee based on the damage done to county roads that we can determine based on how much road and bridge said they paid per year to fix damage to the heavy vehicles moving and the amount of Page 7 October 3,2001 yardage that's hauled. But that's -- that's an issue you will see later. But it's one of the reasons we incorporated so many different types of excavation in here so we could make our distribution of fees more equitable, because it takes a lot more just to permit a larger excavation, and we didn't have that built into the system. One change you'll see in there is in the definition section there was nothing in the ordinance itself that told you what an excavation was. You had to go back to the definition section and look up how an excavation was defined to know whether you needed to get a permit to do the excavation. Well, we took the part out of the definition system and incorporated it into the front of the ordinance so right up front you know what an excavation is by size. I can keep going on about excavations, or I can get into -- that's the major part of what we've done. The rest of this, a lot of it is housekeeping, grammar, spelling, capitalization, simple stuff. And we did get some questions from Commissioner Rautio. I don't know if they were answered to her satisfaction, but I forwarded them to Margie. We can discuss those here if you like. Any other questions anybody has I'll be glad to answer. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got one, Stan, and that's concerning the reduction in Littoral Zone Plannings. Could you explain why -- I could be reading it wrong since I wasn't at the first meeting, but it looks like we reduced it from 10 percent to 2 percent. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Unless that's a misprint. What section? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 3.5.7.2.5. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Make sure the microphone is in front of you. MS. MURRAY: There are some page numbers at the bottom, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fifty-one. MS. MURRAY: Fifty-one. Page 8 October 3,2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I could be reading it wrong, Stan. I'd just like some clarification on it; that's all. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It might have been -- oh, 2 percent of the total area of the lake -- an area of Littoral zone, 2 percent of the total area of the lake. I think we -- I think we think that that's going to be roughly the equivalent of 10 percent of the perimeter around the larger lakes; it might even be more since it's based on area. Like I said, I didn't make the last meeting because I was at a seminar on drainage. One of the things that came up was lakes, and one of the -- Dr. Harvey Harper was asked whether any type of Littoral zone does any type of cleansing on the lake, and he said absolutely not. It's only for wildlife value. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which is my point. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Which is -- which is what we're trying to achieve here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. That's why, if what you're saying -- if the 2 percent of gross area is greater than 10 percent of the lineal foot area, then that's -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I can do a quick calculation and send it to you, but I think that's why we came up with the 2 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As long as it's in that direction, I have no problem with it. I just wanted to be assured it was. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I just need to make a comment. Stan and I have met, and I'm just working through this to tighten up the language, not make any substantive changes but tighten up the language, maybe put some of it a little bit more in, quote, ordinance language and to make things more clear. And to that end, Stan-- and in that division it refers to WSWT, and I think we need to write out what that is and then put WSWT in parentheses. Could you tell me what that means. Page 9 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wet Season Water Table. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Wet Season Water Table. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: of its water elevation. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. Which would be the highest point These lakes peak about wet season water table. The control elevation on the discharge structure is generally wet season water table. That's where the water normally sits during the wet season, and then every time you get a storm the water rises up. That's the storm routing the engineers do. The water rises up six inches, a foot, and then it goes back down and kind of stays at wet season water table. And then the DSWT, if it's in here, would be Dry Season Water Table which is roughly where the water sits at for April and May. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Would it be simpler to refer to that as just control elevation? That's a much more common term, or is that -- would that mess it up somewhere else? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, not all these projects have Water Management District permits, like, a house in Golden Gate Estates wouldn't have a control elevation. They're the same, so you could really put WSWT -- wet season water table or control elevation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That way you're both covered or either. I'm only an engineer, not a lawyer. They are interchangeable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On page 47 of the document that I ended up with, we still have the terminology of "double first class postage." I think we want to deal with sufficient postage or you want to identify that it has to be enough to pay for the weight that you're going to mail out. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. The reason we put double first class postage is that these -- we make the petitioner submit these envelopes up front, a stamped envelope. Now, we could -- and Page 10 October 3, 2001 generally when we stuff them, we found that one first class stamp is not enough. Two first -- because it's usually the same amounts of sheets, six, seven sheets. We send the entire packet, the executive summary plus a map of what's going on plus a shrink-down of the drawing. One first-class postage stamp is not enough. We found that two always is, so that's why we went that way. To go to "sufficient postage," we'd have to put them in the envelope, weigh them, and then bill or somehow get the petitioner to come in and stamp all the envelopes after the fact. I think we're safe with double first class postage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, that seems reasonable to a degree, but double first class postage right now is defined at 68 cents, and you would be sending out 6 pieces of paper at 34 cents plus 23; that's 57. So I think we should find some way to not be wasting -- I mean, if these people are sending out to 1,000 people, it starts adding up. And I think it's encumbant upon us to at least have some language that allows -- that we're actually recognizing that postal rates are -- for the next ounce, it's, what, 23 cents. I know it changes on a regular basis, but -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm just curious of the mechanics of how you think we're going to do that. Stuff the envelopes and give it back to them to mail -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. If you know that six -- -- or stuff the envelopes and have our metered mail send it out and bill them? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, actually, I think isn't it logical that the petitioner has some responsibility to tell you they're going to send out six or eight. They could weigh the whole thing themselves and know what that sufficient postage is. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's not them sending it out. It's us -- CHAIRMAN RUATIO: I know you're sending it out, but Page 11 October 3,2001 you're -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. We get the packet together, not them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: All I can say is there's a better terminology than double first class postage. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you can put sufficient postage if you want. MS. STUDENT: Stan and I talked about this, and he explained the predicament, but we had talked about it. I came up with "sufficient postage" and -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Marjorie, isn't one -- one ounce, that's first class. So just say for two ounces and then whatever -- whatever the fee is it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah. That would make sense, two ounces, because they can check on that week when they've changed the postage rates, and they'll know that now it might be 59 cents, and you don't have to worry about the postage is sufficient, and it's there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because you don't normally mail more than two ounces on these notices. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. Like I say, it's usually two first- class stamps takes most anything we've got. We have gotten them back marked insufficient postage and had to -- anything else? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just change it to "two ounces" and we're okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I agree. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I agree. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Stan, has this latest version or equivalent of that been reviewed now with Golden Gate Estates people? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. This is the version that came out Page 12 October 3, 2001 of the meeting with them, and it was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council at this morning's meeting, and they had, I guess, two questions both of which were simply answered, no comments, no additions, no deletions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Have you had any indication how Mr. Coletta feels about the effort to date? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So far, yes, he likes it. He was at the -- at the estates association meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: that meeting. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you clarify the date of this -- May sometime, I think. So this -- this -- you're saying to us that this version here which I didn't get a chance to go over with a fine-tooth comb is what was written after a May meeting as opposed to our September 19th meeting? You must have incorporated more of our changes in here. I've misunderstood something. This version has been reviewed by the estates association? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: When was it last reviewed, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't remember. It might have been May. I think it was May. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I hope you're not telling me that the document we're looking at here did not incorporate our meeting changes of the 19th of September. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chair, we didn't hear this because Stan was out of town, so it wasn't heard on September 19th. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But we talked about several things which are in the minutes that are before us. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I didn't incorporate any of them, no. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, I mean, for the record, why don't you go ahead, and could you restate what those Page 13 October 3, 2001 recommendations were? I'm-- you know-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, actually, the file that they are in happens to be sitting by my computer at home, and I did not have an opportunity -- getting stuck in traffic -- to go there. I made an effort to send them to staff. We talked about them on the 19th, and if this document, which I will admit I didn't have a chance to go through with a fine-tooth comb, if you're saying that this document has not been changed since our 19 September, I'm not sure why we met on the 19th of September. MS. MURRAY: Well, we have the minutes of the meeting, obviously, and as part of your vote today if you just want to incorporate by verbally placing on the record that if you so choose to recommend approval of this ordinance as it's written with those recommended changes on the 19th, then we will forward that information to the Board of County Commissioners as well, and if we agree with your proposed changes, we'll make those changes prior to the submission to the board and make that quite clear. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let me give that some thought. Are there any other questions on this particular item before us? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. I saw a list with most of your e-mails on it. If you want I can e-mail you my response if I have any objections to any of your comments. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be helpful; however, this is part of the process that we need to be able to know what we're voting on here and, of course, this is a fluid document, and it will change probably by the time the county commissioners look at it also. But it certainly distresses me to think that we might make a major effort to give our suggestions and then be told we're being handed a document that hasn't been changed since May. MS. MURRAY: Well, I don't think that's the case, but -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's been changed since May. I think Page 14 October 3, 2001 you're looking at the August rewrite, but it hasn't been changed as of your September meeting. MS. MURRAY: But the thing to also remember is that we are forwarding a recommendation, not only of yours but of staffs, and there may be times that you make recommendations that may not be an agreeable staff recommendation and what we do with the board is we present both sides of the story. So, in other words, if you've made recommendations that we agree with, we will incorporate into the document and those that we disagree with, we will separate them from the document into our spread cover sheet, and then at the public hearing we call verbal attention to those disagreements forwarding your recommendation and with an explanation as to why we disagree with your recommendation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER BUDD. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm reading the minutes of our September 19th meeting on page 40 of our minutes. It starts the discussion on the excavation section here, and I see there was an early question about trees and blasting, and Mr. Nino clarified it was a typo, and it's been corrected and it's a nonsignificant issue. The second item addressed at the September 19th meeting was the postage which we've addressed again tonight. As I read further, I don't see that we addressed any other item on September 19th. Those were the two items relevant to excavations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And my e-mail had several other questions, so I'm going to just drop it for now. MS. MURRAY: Your e-mails were forwarded to staff, and the ordinance was reviewed and corrected. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: have a copy of that here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: further with this. And I responded to your e-mail, and I Okay. We're not going to go any COMMISSIONER YOUNG, please. Page 15 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Just a question. Then, when we look at these recommendations which presumably you're going to present to the Commission, I see no recommendations whatsoever from the Collier County Planning Commission. MS. MURRAY: Tonight is the night. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I don't see any, and I know that we made some; that's what I'm asking. MS. MURRAY: Tonight is the night you will vote and you will verbally put on the record what your recommendations are as a whole group. So that's why you don't have any in the column. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of Mr. Chrzanowski on this particular item? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you explain why they changed the depth from 12 to 20 feet? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. When the original document was written, they picked an excavation for private excavations of 12 feet - - I don't know why -- and they picked a minimum depth or maximum depth for commercial excavations without using the fetch formula for 20 feet. There was a study done in 1974 by a firm called Black, Crow, Eidsness, the old water management advisory board, and it was on lake depth. If anybody's from up North, they know that northern lakes overturn and that keeps the lake kind of healthy. A lake overturns up North because water is its densest at 4 degrees centigrade, less than 4 degrees centigrade which might be about 38 degrees Fahrenheit, 40, water starts getting less dense. It's the reason that ice floats. It doesn't float because of dissolved oxygen or the water that's trapped or the air that's trapped in there. Ice is simply less dense than the water -- than the cold water it's in or than the water it's in. Well, we don't have overturn down here because we don't have any freeze. The lakes don't ever get down to 4 degrees centigrade. Page 16 October 3, 2001 The mechanism that is used to keep lakes healthier is overturn based on wind, and the Black, Crow, and Eidsness study came up with something called the fetch formula. The fetch formula -- fetch is the distance that wind can blow across a lake. When the wind blows across the lake, the friction causes waves which causes the water to push and build up on one side. That head difference between one side to the other causes a rotation of the water in the lake which aerates the water at the bottom of the lake which stops the lake from - - there's a term, a lake that mixes once a year is monomictic. A lake that mixes twice a year is dimictic. The lake where the bottom doesn't mix is called meromictic. This can happen -- you have thermocline, you know, which is a temperature gradient, and you have chemoclines. We used to worry down here about a chemocline where the chemical content of the water is so great that the water is so dense that it can't overturn, and the bottom would stay -- would become what they call anaerobic, which means that oxygen doesn't reach the bottom, and whatever lives down there is anaerobic. The fetch formula was to -- like I said, was to stop that. The formula that they came up with was that the lake could be 5 feet plus .015 times the average fetch, and the first time they did it they said the east/west -- east/west fetch because they figured a coastal community the predominant winds would be from the east to the west, but then they realized the winds here come from every direction, so they changed it to average fetch. And the average fetch is like the length and then 90 degree parallel to that, that width -- you -- like, for a one-mile lake, like a very large lake like you might find at Willow Run Quarry, the average -- you'd have an average of 5,000 feet of fetch times .015 would be 75 feet plus 5 feet is 80 feet. You could dig that lake 80 feet deep. A lake that's 1,000 feet by 1,000 feet, you could dig 15 plus 5 is 20 feet deep, but our water table fluctuates from wet season to dry Page 17 October 3, 2001 season considerably. You can see it. The more you dig lakes, it drops 6, 7 feet. If you dig a 20 foot -- if you dig a 12-foot deep lake, you've only got 5 foot of water. Dig a 20-foot lake, at least you've got 12 feet of water and we were allowing them for commercial excavations anyway, and it seemed to be a healthier -- we have a lake minimum depth of-- of-- we're not only told 12 feet deep; we told them minimum 12-foot deep. And we also told them that we wanted 6 to 8 feet of water in the dry season. Well, when the water table drops 7 feet, you want 8 feet of water in the dry season; that's 15 feet right there. The reason that we wanted the minimum depth is there was a big hydrilla scare, but there's -- you don't want aquatic vegetation growing in the middle of your lake. And if your lake is too shallow, sunlight can reach the bottom of the lake, and things can grow there. The deeper a lake you have -- and I think they determined 6 to 8 feet was, you know, for the clarity of the water here -- 6 to 8 feet would stop aquatic vegetation growing in the middle of the lake, but as these water tables drop a little more, we thought there might be a problem. Twenty feet we were not having any problems at all. We get the mixing. We get good depth in the dry season. It just seemed like a good number. Twenty foot is generally accepted by some communities. At the seminar I was at, a lot of communities don't have a standard. Nobody knew what the fetch formula was. Some of them said 12 feet, some said 20 feet. They seemed to be common numbers, but that's the reason we do it, and it seemed like a good engineering reason. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want some clarification here. Let's just take a typical lot in the estates, what are they, 2 1/4, 2 1/2 acres, what kind of a lake can that homeowner dig on his property? Page 18 October 3, 2001 site. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if he hauls fill off site-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's just say he leaves it on MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, then, probably 1/4 acre. You see, we tell them they have to have four to one size slope for safety. If somebody falls in we want them to be able to climb out. When you dig four to one for 50 feet, you're down 12 feet; 48 feet you're down 12 feet, and then another 50 feet to come back up. So the smallest lake you can really dig is a 100-foot circle, and that just about fits on a Golden Gate Estates lot if you fence it. And we allow you to go a little closer to your property line if you fence because for safety reasons we don't want the neighbors three year old walking into your lake. So you could dig an elliptical lake. You could dig a circular lake 100 foot -- 100 by 200. We -- we try to -- I recall when MaCall dug his lake he dug a perfect rectangle. It looks awful on the aerials, and it was right after that that they changed the county code so that now you have to have some character to the lake. Like you say, it's an evolving document. Every time somebody does something that meets the code we don't like, we change the code. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So then for five acres you can have a one-acre lake. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. For five acres you can do, I think, 40 percent. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Two acres. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Two acres. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: two acre. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Two-acres of lake. I'm sorry, Okay. And, like I say, it's hard to dig that Page 19 October 3,2001 without -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Other questions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, if there are no other questions, I wonder if you'd entertain a motion so we could just get this one item out of the way? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any further discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd like to offer a motion that the LDC Section 3.15 as submitted be approved by PCC and forwarded -- by the CPC, us, and forwarded to the BCC unless there are additions you would like to see added to the text. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have the attorney raising her hand. MS. STUDENT: Just wanting to make sure that with your final vote you decide on that you include the finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So stated. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN RUATIO: Okay. We have a motion by COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON, a second by COMMISSIONER STRAIN, I believe. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll have some discussion. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Does that include the proposed language change on the postage? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. Certainly. Certainly. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Page 20 October 3,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Being a little late, I am at a slight disadvantage. Are we now just moving through the regularly -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: From the beginning. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Now we'll go through-- for the record, Ray Bellows, planning services staff. We'll go over the information in order that's on the handout sheets, the summary sheet. Basically, we'll start with Section 2.7.2.3.2; this was presented at the last Planning Commission hearing on the 19th. We discussed it, the language in general. This basically deals with increasing the minimum sign area for properties over an acre to 32 square feet. I have it on the visualizer here. Properties that are under an acre shall retain the general language for sign being 1 1/2 square feet in area. Would you like me to go through the entire document again or just answer any questions from the last meeting? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any specific questions, in particular from our new people? COMMISSIONER STRAIN. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are we referring to Items 'T' through five, is that what we're focusing on, all five of them at one time? Is that or -- I have a question about number four and that's all. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Go ahead and ask that question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it refers back to the informational meeting that's to be held by the applicant, and I -- in reading the requirements of that meeting, I was wondering how staff Page 21 October 3, 2001 had proposed the enforcement of some of those because there's some vague issues there. For example, on 2.7.2.3.5, would be page 5 of our document, it says (as read): "Notifications shall also be sent to property owner, condominium and civic associations, and civic organizations whose members are impacted by the land use changes." How does someone determine who the members are and which ones are impacted by those changes? Where does that information come from and how hard would it be for someone to find that out? MR. BELLOWS: Well, that information will come from the property appraiser's. We also have a list of homeowners associations. We would verify that the applicant has contacted the proper homeowners associations based on the list that we have and run -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, I'm all in favor of seeing everybody get properly noticed. I think that's something that would save us all a lot of effort, but I'm worried that if you use it in the manner in which it's written here there's no source for that, and I understand-- for example, I was president of a civic association years ago, and I still get official notices about things that organization should be knowing, and I have no use for those at this point. So I don't know how that's happening, but if it were to happen to someone who was trying to put something through and there was a deficiency there, I'm wondering how their standing would be in their application. MR. BELLOWS: Well, like any type of advertising we do, as long as we follow the general intent of the ordinance, I don't think there's going to be a legal problem. We basically take the list of names that are on the property appraiser, the current tax roll, the current list of homeowners associations. We realize we're dealing with fluid movement of the general populace and it will be impossible to contact everyone all the time, but we're making the best effort, and that's the intent of this is to make what I feel is a good Page 22 October 3, 2001 system in the first place even better. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if someone were to come to the county staff and ask them for all the names of organizations that would be in this realm of influence, you'd be able to provide it to them to the best of your -- could that be added to this then saying that as provided by county staff?. MR. BELLOWS: I don't-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 'Cause if they're not going to get it from you, where are they going to get it? MS. MURRAY: It says here that it's all property owners who are required to receive legal notification from the county pursuant to Section 2.7.2.3.2, which 2.7.2.3.2 references the property appraiser's records as a source as well we also have a list of registered condominium and civic associations at the board office that is regularly maintained so ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Those are the ones I'm concerned about. The individuals are an easy matter. It's more of a concern is how you determine -- I mean, every day there's new organizations cropping up. Golden Gate Estates has seen that happen just recently, and if they had to be notified, where would someone know that? That's -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. were on the county list. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They would only be notified if they Okay. Commissioner Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Wouldn't it address your question, Commissioner Strain, that those parties, those civic associations are required to formally notify the county of their desire to be on the list, and then if some new civic association was to pop up and they did not notify the county, as in the second half of this sentence that you're referencing, then basically tough luck. They're not on the list. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You take out the word "and," and Page 23 October 3, 2001 I think we'd be okay. It says, "Within the general area and who have formally notified the county of their request." Basically you're saying only those that have notified the county of their request. Is that what you're trying-- COMMISSIONER BUDD: No. I'm thinking that you've got to get two things to be notified. You need to be in the area and you need to be on the list, so it would be "and," you have to have both. So if a new civic association forms, they fail to notify the county, they have not successfully satisfied the "and" and gotten on the list, they don't get notified. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that how -- MR. BELLOWS: That's -- that's the intent, but there are other forms that these groups can be notified through, signs on the site, and through newspaper advertising. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if someone were to put-- as the other part of this requires a notice on the site, that would be sufficient to notify these groups in your reading of this? MR. BELLOWS: If they're not on the county's list and they are not formally registering with the county -- and we're trying to get everyone; that's the purpose of the sign and the newspaper advertising. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Speaking to Mr. Budd's point, he suggested that it would just be the associations in the area. I'm not quite clear on that. Is it just -- and how would you determine which ones would be impacted following Mr. Strain's question? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The LDC spells out the distance requirements for notification, and those organizations within that distance requiring that would be notified. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So ifI live in North Naples and if some issue came up in Golden Gate Estates, I wouldn't Page 24 October 3, 2001 be notified by that, even though I might have an interest in pursuing it? MR. BELLOWS: You wouldn't be notified formally by a letter, but you could be notified through the newspaper articles if you read the advertisement. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But the association, per se, wouldn't be given the opportunity -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Only those that are within the area of notification. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind of tricky. Does -- would staff have an objection to being the party responsible for providing those names and addresses -- or those associations to any of the applicants that-- MS. MURRAY: Staffs role will be to direct the applicant to the property appraiser's office for that list. They have the ability to provide that information, and so indirectly planning staff is not the provider of that information. The property appraiser's list or the property appraiser will be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But those are only the property owners. I'm back again to the organizations. That's the only one I'm concerned about. MS. MURRAY: Right. And then we have the board office as well. Our role will be basically if they ask where they can get the information, we will direct them to the property appraiser and the board office. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do we need that clarified in this proposal? MS. MURRAY: No. MR. BELLOWS: I think the intent of having it that way would be difficult for planning services staff, community development to keep an updated list where it's the board would be the better -- Page 25 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's exactly my point. It is difficult to keep an updated list. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. But certainly the best facility would be the board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a point. When we're talking about the notification, I noticed that you have your highlights showing the changes, where you've got the darkness but -- or designee we had on page five one -- about one, two, three, four, five, six lines from the bottom, am I misunderstanding that some of the words that have changed wouldn't be highlighted? You've got them all underlined, but-- MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe the highlighting is significant of anything. The underlying language is the added language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So the assigned to preapplication meeting, that's not relevant, or public information, none of those darkened things on my page are relevant? MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure how they got on there, but it's the underlined language that's the added language. MS. MURRAY: I think it was just an internal marking for ourselves that was not erased. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, okay. MS. MURRAY: But everything underlined is being added. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And we did change a few things like designee and the word "advice," "consulted," "contacted" on that same page that we had that huge discussion about last time. MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think I got it all. Madam Chair, one last Yes, Mr. Richardson. Page 26 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You instructed us that the various recommendations made by the reviewing groups will be noted before they go to the BCC or incorporated in the language if staff agrees with your comments. How am I to currently interpret what the DSAC recommendations which are called out and -- and are not part of the document then? So those are ones that staff did not agree to then, or should I examine the language more carefully to make sure that they are either out or in? MS. MURRAY: My assumption is that as I told you how it worked, it worked. It's in this document. Since I didn't do the document, I want to double-check. MR. BELLOWS: I just want to clarify the information on the DSAC recommendations has been acted upon. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Has been incorporated? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That was not my understanding. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I am confused. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I have some more questions then. I'm not sure why these are objectionable things. It seems to me it further limits the public involvement to not follow these procedures. Am I saying it incorrectly? You're saying these three things that they objected to are now part of the document which is not the way you explained the way the process works. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You're referring to the photograph by the petitioner versus the Planning Commission? Those things -- I mean, planning services. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The one, two, three. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yup. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Everything has been incorporated except for number one, the photograph of the sign by petitioner and submission Page 27 October 3, 2001 to Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, then I go back to Mr. Strain's thrust of his question. It says allow mailing lists other than the official tax roll. I'm not sure that's an appropriate thing to put in here. I thought we agreed that that was the best record possible. MR. BELLOWS: I think we allow for additional mailings, but the official tax roll -- MS. MURRAY: Letme-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Let's focus on one thing, 'cause we did this last time, and I think on page 4 -- let me draw your attention to old 5 now 6, the underlined section of that paragraph there on page four where it says (as read): "And any other persons who have formally requested the county to be notified." Isn't that the concept we're working with here? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct and that's the purpose of that language. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. We had it a few places and, Mr. Strain, that was one of the concerns I had also was whether or not we're looking at the tax rolls, how do we make sure that those people get notified because that's fair to the -- the person doing the changes and the county, but those who formally notify and are on this list that gives an opportunity for them to get information and, unfortunately, as you pointed out, sometimes it does not get updated. But that's what our concept is here, to let other people make that request. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And just practically speaking, how would they be motivated to do this? They'd see a sign on the property, and then they'd say, "Okay, I see a lot things going on here, so I want to have my name in the pot so I'll get notified"? MR. BELLOWS: That's one way, or newspaper articles about a project is another way. Word of mouth is third way. Page 28 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I tell you, this is going to take some real education of the public to have them have enough savvy to know that this sort of thing's going on that they should get their name on -- into a special list for notification. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But, Mr. Richardson, I think that's the point. We want to let people be more involved, and the county's making an effort to do those kinds of things so that more people will get involved in the process earlier, so I don't view this as something detrimental. I do view it as something that could be good for the public participation, and your issue of education is significant. So our county is really making an effort from the Board of County Commissioners down to staff to let more people be involved in the process. So I want to really strongly support this concept. We can work out some of the logistical details later, and I know you support that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Item No. 2, then, requirement to place advertisments in newspaper and public information vehicles, they objected to that so you now also object to that? Is that the way I understand this to be read? I mean, that clearly is something that I think moves in the opposite direction of public participation, if you're not going to let them know when the meeting's taking place. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the first time we went through this we didn't accept any of those three objections of DSAC. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I didn't think so either, but I'm now hearing that the process says that, well, I was misled. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't just incorporate Page 29 October 3, 2001 them because DSAC wanted them or objected to them. MR. BELLOWS: I just want to clarify a point here, confused on the information received on the DSAC recommendations. The information contained in your packet they -- starting on page 1 is the items that we acted on, and as we discussed during the last meeting, we did not incorporate the photograph as signed by petitioner and submission to planning services. We felt that it was the applicant's responsibility. Requirement to place an advertisement in a newspaper and public information meeting is in there. We are requiring that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. You didn't incorporate their objection is what you're saying? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On one and two? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How about three? MR. BELLOWS: We did three. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. Say that again. If they objected to allowing any other mailing list, then the official latest tax roll of December 31 st, the prior year? You're allowing them -- you're adding that we're going to have this list formally requested. MR. BELLOWS: That's the way it would catch the old information or any new information that's not on the list. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I have to butt in here because this was my language that I put in here, and it was actually a board direction and what it was meant to do was that we used the property appraiser's tax roll list, which is at best updated once a year from what I understand. The problem therein being is this is a very transient area, of course, and a lot of people move. We have a better system in place that we have direct access to, planning staff has direct access to. The problem is that our code says we have to use the tax Page 30 October 3,2001 rolls. What I have to do to be legally correct is I have to send out duplicate notifications, one based on the tax roll and one based on anything that's different in our most updated address record that we have access to. What I was trying to do was avoid duplicate mailings by putting in this language that said we had the ability to use another record other than the property appraiser's office. For some reason DSAC didn't like that, and I guess I felt it wasn't worth arguing. I'll continue to mail. I have 10 to 30 percent error that I catch -- that my staff catches on every petition, and we will just continue to send out duplicate mailings and that way where everybody's covered. So that was the genesis of that language. They objected to it. We agreed to pull it out and not argue it -- with it. No harm. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You can still have the fall- back position that you can -- that someone could come in and ask to be notified? MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we now understand the process with your recommendations? If it's in here, except for No. 3 which we've disposed of, 1 and 2 are recommendations by the DSAC to take out, but we've not agreed with it and you've not agreed with it; is that correct? Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I guess at this point we need to know if anybody is going to vote against this when we come back to it; is that right? MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're finished with it otherwise, I think. MR. BELLOWS: If you don't want to vote on it now, then -- MS. MURRAY: Did you want to -- oh, I'm sorry. Madam Page 31 October 3,2001 Chair, did you want to open a public hearing at this point after each item, or did you want to go through everything and open -- for the public to speak. I know there is a person who would like to speak on the public notification issue. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. You didn't mean open a public hearing. We are already in a public hearing. MS. MURRAY: Well, I know, Marjorie, is it proper they open a public hearing for each item-- MS. STUDENT: Well, the close-- MS. MURRAY: -- for public comment? MS. STUDENT: I guess, in this case since we're considering them separately, you close the public hearing before you vote. I don't recall where it's opened. I think you just ask for people to speak after each item-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- before you vote on it. Before you vote on it. Then you close the hearing and then you vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any registered public speakers? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob Mulhere. MS. MURRAY: Bob Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Hi. Bob Mulhere. I didn't register. I thought these were where you just kind of get up if you had something to say. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We might have changed rules since you left, Bob. MR. MULHERE: some minor comments. Well, I wouldn't be surprised. I just have For those members of the Planning Commission that maybe don't know, actually I worked for the county, was the planning director until April of this year and was in part responsible for promoting the enhanced public participation concept and process. And I would-- I would recommend strongly Page 32 October 3, 2001 that -- that the list of civic or community associations be maintained. It doesn't so much matter to me if it's a board office or the planning office. I suspect if you say the board office it's going to be in the planning office. But it seems like it needs to be maintained at the staff level and distributed to an applicant, because I think you're putting the applicant in a very unfair position to expect them for knowing what groups or organizations to notify within a certain geographic area. And that opens up, in my opinion, the opportunity for someone to challenge that and say, "Look, I was over here and I belonged to this association and I didn't get notified." If you -- if you have a list that you maintain that is incumbent upon the association to be added to that list or be reflected to be added to that list or any individual as well, which is fine, that list ought to be updated, maintained, and provided by the government to the applicant. And I don't think it says that here, and I would suggest that it would be pretty easy if you look on page 5, Paragraph No. 1 under 2.7.2.3.5 it would be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine lines down where the -- you have a period. The sentence reads -- in part reads (as read): "Formally notified -- notified the county of the request to be notified," period. And I would add there, "a list of such organizations shall be provided by the county." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Gee, you've said nicely what I said earlier. MR. MULHERE: I think it needs to be that way. I mean, there's just going to be way too much confusion if someone doesn't maintain the list. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So what you're saying is that that list, all of those people who have formally notified the county, should be made available to the applicant by staff MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Seems reasonable to me. How else Page 33 October 3,2001 would they find out? MR. MULHERE: I mean, it will be a little bit difficult. The staff will have to create a process of adding names to that, and you could use the web -- the web site. The county has an excellent web site. People can register there for that purpose alone. There's a lot of ways you could do it, but, otherwise, I can see that there is going to be a lot of confusion, people saying I didn't get notified. We have to have some document that we can refer to to say we did notify everybody on this list as an applicant. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the applicant should have ready access to that. I agree with that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Bob, that sentence applies to associations? MR. MULHERE: Yes, it does. It says it would be associations and individuals who want to be added to the notification. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It doesn't say individuals. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It says property owner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The property owner -- it's -- I think that property owner is talking about associations, not individual people. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It says, comma, sent to property owner, comma -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Condominium. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Condominium, civic association. You're right. MR. MULHERE: It should be plural, property owners. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That would clarify it for me. MR. MULHERE: Then I think it's clarified. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Of course, none of this solves -- Page 34 October 3,2001 MS. STUDENT: Well, I think it means property owner association is the way I -- because it didn't say property. I don't know what the intent was, but I took that property owner to be an adjective rather than -- MR. MULHERE: Well, you know what, it's pretty easy to fix if you want that to apply to both the list of associations as well as to any individuals who might want to be added to that list in addition to the tax roll. I think that staff can figure out where to put that sentence. It may have to go in two places. But, you know, they would maintain that list. In other words, the list would be associations, community groups as well as individuals who want to be added to a notification. By the way, that goes on right now relative to the Planning Commission and board hearings. There is a list that's maintained. There's a lot of people that want to be notified what issues you-all are considering, and they're on a list and they get notified. They may not show up here because there may not be an issue that concerns them. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think it's going to always be an illusory goal, though, because you take somebody up in Vanderbilt Beach; if they're in a condo, they've got a condo association. You've got the Vanderbilt Property Owners Association. You've got the Second District Association which has a different name as well, PONP, whatever, Property Owners of-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: North Naples. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: North Naples. MR. MULHERE: It will be-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How's a developer supposed to know all of that? MR. MULHERE: Well, I agree, and I think if the list is maintained, it will be better than it is now. I'm sure it'll be improved over time, too, but there will be more notification, and I think the list Page 35 October 3,2001 just -- you know, it's something that -- there are a lot of standing organizations, and I don't think they want to know about every variance that occurs -- if you're the Golden Gate Property Owners Association, you want to know about a variance in Ochopee. I don't think so. So there is some geography to it, you know. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there are overlaps is what I'm-- MR. MULHERE: There are overlaps as well. The other just minor comments I had, for the most part, on page 3, the handwritten number page 3 at the bottom. Just had a couple of comments relative to signage. In paragraph 3, trying to get to the actual sentence -- I think the second sentence. The sign shall be erected -- no, the third sentence. "Where the subject property is landlocked, sign shall be" -- I'm trying to get to the right sentence. Okay. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven lines down at the end of that line it starts out (as read): "One sign shall be erected at a spacing of one sign for every 500 linear feet of road frontage and there shall be at least one sign on each fronting road." I have a couple of questions. If you think about a large rezone or a PUD amendment, you can have thousands of feet, thousands -- Pelican Bay, thousands and thousands of feet of road frontage. Now if you have to have a sign for every 500 feet of road frontage, it's pretty expensive, and I don't think it really serves any purpose except to have a whole bunch of unnecessary signs up. On the other hand, if you're talking about 500 foot of road frontage that is on the external boundary of the subject property, it doesn't, in my opinion, say that. So, in other words, a sign shall be erected at a spacing of one sign per every 500 linear feet of road frontage. The projects -- my thought would be that that should be adjacent to the subject -- subject property's external boundaries. The road frontage adjacent to the subject property's external boundaries. Page 36 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wouldn't that cause the same problem, for example, down 41 ? All that's Pelican Bay, but your -- in your example that you just used, does that mean every 500 feet along 41 there would be a sign? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's the second part I was going to get to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Second part I was going to get to is that if you had a very long frontage road external, let's say, more than a couple of thousand feet -- I can think of one that has 4,000 feet of road frontage -- I'm not sure that you need a sign every 500 feet. I think there should be a maximum to that, and maybe it should be four signs. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What's the purpose of this additional language? MR. MULHERE: To make sure there's adequate notice so people can see that, you know, two signs on a big project is not enough. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MR. MULHERE: And I understand that more signs may be necessary. These are 32-square-foot signs. So they're not the little signs that we put out now. They're 32 square feet, and they're expensive. I don't know what they cost, but my guess is they're going to cost -- they're going to cost more than when the county staff put them out. So it seems to me that a maximum number -- I think it's okay to say one sign every 500 feet, but it should say that per road frontage but not to exceed four per road frontage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What's the idea of the board? I can see some heads shaking no. Speak up. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sounds reasonable to me. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It depends on the length of Page 37 October 3,2001 the size of the lot. I mean, if you're talking on right now a 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 square feet that's one thing, but what if it's a larger lot? Why -- how can you say four is a maximum? MR. MULHERE: See, 'cause -- but my rationale would be that four signs spaced on 500 feet at a minimum would be -- would be four signs in 2,000 feet spaced like 500 feet. I mean, do we want to have every 500 foot, 32-foot-square signs saying it's going to be rezoned as you drive down the road? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: There is -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. There's no problem with that if you actually the length, but what if it's double that length and you're still limiting it to four signs? MR. MULHERE: Then you put them a thousand foot. You put them every thousand feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At which point? If you're coming from a different angle, you may miss a sign. The idea you're talking about we've been talking about all day -- all evening is notification. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Anything that might make notification more difficult should be avoided. MR. MULHERE: Well, I agree with that. That's why we wrote these, and that's why the staff brought these forward, but I mean, you also have to look, in my opinion, at reasonableness and practicalness, and you also have to look at something called sign clutter. And I would suggest to you that you're talking about a 32-square-foot sign, which is large. Think about it and -- and, you know, in a hurricane season I'd rather-- these are -- by the way, these are temporary signs. I don't know if they have to meet the hurricane code. If they do that's an engineered sign that's going to cost some money. I suspect because they're temporary signs they don't have to meet 110-mile-an- Page 38 October 3, 2001 hour wind code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: And if there's a hurricane that comes, you're going to have a lot of pieces of plywood flying around. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: This don't make sense. MR. MULHERE: I mean, I'm not trying to be nitpicky. I just think a sign every 500 feet is overkill. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Your suggestion would be on each fronting road? MR. MULHERE: Yes. On each fronting road. And then you don't get away with just putting four on one location. On each fronting road you have to put signs every 500 feet. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if-- so if it has four sides or two sides, you at least have an opportunity. MR. MULHERE: And you know, hey, I'll live with whatever you-all think in your wisdom is right, but I just thought I'd raise those issues. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: very familiar with this county. Just out of curiosity, Bob, are -- you're How many places do you think we're going to have these signs erected and go through this process that we might have more than four signs? MR. MULHERE: There are -- there are probably maybe 8 to 12 circumstances that I could see where you would have road frontage in excess of, you know, a couple thousand feet and, you know -- come in for an amendment or, you know, because this is limited to rezones, public amendments, and conditional use of this provision here. It's smaller signs for variance, which I think is good and was wise in the ordinance to create it that way because there's a lot more of those, and those deal more with individual parcels and not with the whole project. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Page 39 October 3, 2001 MR. MULHERE: The only other thing I would comment is -- it's really minor, but it says in that same sentence it says (as read): "There shall be at least one sign on each fronting road." I'm only suggesting that perhaps the staff look at between now and the board meeting, what does that mean? I think the term "adjacent to the subject properties external boundary" gets to it more, but maybe there are problems with that. I just don't know. My point is "fronting road." Well, what exactly is a fronting road on a project? So, I mean, I think it could be just defined a little bit better. Perhaps these issues won't-- won't even become an issue, but I suspect that's not the case after the fact. On page 5 I had a couple of minor comments. Paragraph one, third line down and the sentence reads (as read): "Application meeting and prior to submitting a sufficient application to Collier County." I know what the intent there was. The intent was that, you know, an application should be sufficient when it's submitted, but if you read that, it almost alludes that, you know, you could have a meeting after the preapplication. I mean, can you submit an insufficient application? The answer I think is no. So, I mean, not knowingly. So to my way of thinking that could just read "submitting an application." The word "sufficient" is not germane because you have to have a sufficient application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, isn't the submission or the sufficiency of the application determined after it's reviewed by staff?. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you could really, then, have an insufficient application? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, you can. You can, but -- but the point is you will already have had the meeting. Anyway, that's -- never mind. We -- we won't deal with that one. How do you know if your application -- my point is how do you know if the application is Page 40 October 3, 2001 sufficient until after submitted. You assume it is, but perhaps it's not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I can tell you I've known cases where they are trying to grandfather things in, and they'll try to submit an application of any type just to get in the door and then worry about how it gels out later so ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a point. Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What are the formalities of submitting an application? Is there something, another adjective that we'd use there, like, is that when people come forward with money? MS. STUDENT: Would "complete" suffice? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or "formal" -- something. I think you need an adjective of some sort. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner-- Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Sufficient is actually a term, an internal term that we use. We actually have a computer program whereby when an application is determined sufficient, it takes another official step in the process, so this is probably going to be confusing to somebody to the outside, but staff is going to understand what's -- MR. MULHERE: That does explain it to me, then. I didn't realize that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: A word of art then. MR. MULHERE: I didn't realize that either, but that -- that makes sense then. What that actually means is that you can have the meeting and you can submit the application. It may be found later on to be not sufficient, but that's okay. Then that makes sense. There was one other just minor revision on that same paragraph, number one, going up one, two, three, four lines. The sentence starts (as read): "However the applicant is expected" -- the phrase starts, "However, the applicant is expected to make a presentation of how it Page 41 October 3,2001 intends to develop the subject property." Oh, I was just -- I'm not sure about the use of the pronoun. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How the subject property is intended to be developed. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure how -- but it seems that it might -- might read -- yeah, something along those lines. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand what you're saying. MR. MULHERE: How the subject property is intended to be developed, what is proposed by the application. MS. STUDENT: Just say -- I have some of these things that are brought up where it wasn't changing the substance, but I was going to wordsmith it a bit with staff and -- MR. MULHERE: These are really very minor except the only reason is I didn't really have the time -- I did talk to Susan about some things, but then I read through them a little more in depth and -- I apologize. I would normally, you know, have resolved these things but since this was the second meeting and I was here, it seemed like I should -- MS. STUDENT: maybe. MR. MULHERE: Could just say the development proposal, Yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good. MR. MULHERE: I tell you, on the whole these are -- these are very good in the fact that there's really nobody here objecting to them I think says a lot, that people are willing to do what it takes to make sure that we do have adequate public notice, and these go a long way towards accomplishing that. They will be a little difficult to implement the first couple -- we'll get to it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How do we know they got their notice, though, of this meeting? MR. MULHERE: Maybe we can expect to have a lot more Page 42 October 3, 2001 people down the road. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Maybe they'll show up at the Board of County Commissioners meeting. Okay. As far as the board's concerned, do you all feel comfortable with these tweaking comments that have just been made by Mr. Mulhere? We all feel good about that? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Some of them, I do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Some of them. Okay. I want to hear just a little bit more elaboration, and if you don't -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I agreed with his comments on page 3, and I agree with at least two of his comments on page 5 -- or three of them I should say. The one that he and I both focused on, the language about providing -- the county staff will provide a list of the organizations to the applicant. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yup. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the county staff will be responsible for maintaining that list. And then the last comment -- and I think Marjorie's solution to that was better than Bob's at this point, and that's to -- fourth line up from the bottom, expect to make a presentation of the development proposed -- of the proposed development. Bob's limitation on the signage to maybe a maximum of four over any single road frontage, I think that's a good idea. Having experience with larger projects, I have one, for example, that's got two miles of frontage, hundreds of signs out. MR. BELLOWS: Also make a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Are you through, COMMISSIONER STRAIN? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: The signs -- I agree with four, but they should not be clustered, so there should be some language in there to say that Page 43 October 3,2001 the signage -- maximum four in the distance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. That's a good point. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's a good point. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. Madam Chair, before we wrap up this discussion on this particular section, I would like to take a moment to publicly thank Mr. Mulhere for his initiative and work in bringing this to fruition. This is a -- I think, a magnum opus, and he's to be complimented. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other thoughts on this particular one? We seem like we're pretty much in agreement with the approach and some of the changes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Take a motion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can just save this one till the last since we're not objecting. So moving right along to the second or third item here. MR. BELLOWS: The second item is on page 7 of your packet. It deals with notification procedures for variance and conditional uses, Section 2.7.4.3. We discussed this at pretty good length at the last meeting, and would you like to ask any more questions? We'll try to go over that. The DSAC had no recommendation on this particular item. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I thought they always recommended approval or changes. I always remember voting every time I was there. MR. BELLOWS: It may be that it was just that it was a plain recommendation of approval with no comments or stipulations. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You might want to double check that so that question doesn't become a problem when you get to the board level, because I suspect that we always did, at least when I was there Page 44 October 3, 2001 as a member, and as a chair we always finished some sort of statement about these. MR. BELLOWS: Do you have any specific questions on this item? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? Okay. Moving along to the next item, page 9. MR. BELLOWS: Starts on page 9, deals with Section 2.2.12.2.1, Section 2.2.14.2.1, and Section 2.2.15.2.1. This was the language that was recommended by the Board of County Commissioners, and staff has incorporated these changes into the LDC, and at the last meeting Planning Commission had no real objections to this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any comments from the board? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One comment. I notice that in the sign ordinance you had time frames in which the sign ordinance would be retroactive on a property owner who was found in nonconformance after a certain period of time from the time this new rule has been enacted. Would that same kind of methodology be able to be applied to this section, meaning that if someone has -- is operating a wrecking service right now, should they not abide by this new ruling that after a certain amount of time it's retroactive? MS. STUDENT: We have provisions for nonconforming uses and the destruction of them or if they're not maintained, and that generally covers all the uses. I have a couple concerns. These are uses in a zoning district, and they coexist with a number of other uses, so if we were to put language in here and that did that, I think we'd have to apply it to all the other uses in this district as well, because then we could possibly have an equal protection problem 'cause signs are different. We treat some of the larger -- the off- premises signs and so forth differently. I don't know without some further staff input whether -- because we do have to treat similarly Page 45 October 3,2001 situated folks in the same manner under the Constitution. And the other problem or concern I would raise is if we start to write this now, I don't want to do anything that's inconsistent with the nonconformity section because that's the section that deals with nonconforming uses, and that's in Division 1.8 of the code. And that's my -- that's my only concern at this juncture. Certainly, I don't know, staff might want to look at something before the board and report to the board and take that direction, but I -- I just have a concern about trying to wordsmith something right here without having Division 1.8 and making sure it all fits together or -- you know, because if you put something in here and it relates to all the -- and let's see, C-1, C-3 and C-4 districts, we have other districts that we aren't dealing with, and that's what the whole nonconforming section deals with. And I just have a concern about trying to do it at this juncture without examining those other sections and having some inconsistencies in the code and possibly some equal protection problems. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, maybe I didn't-- I understand what you're saying, Marjorie. Maybe I didn't make my point. We're requesting an amendment to a current zoning activity to tighten it up, I believe. MS. STUDENT: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Automotive services will specifically not allow wrecker service and towing of automobiles. Right now that's allowed. If someone's operating that way right now by enactment of this provision, down the road can that be removed? Can they be -- can it be applied-- say, they have three years left in which to abide by this ruling-- MS. STUDENT: Mark, what I'm trying to explain is that this is one piece of a whole zoning district, and you have to treat similarly situated properties or uses in a similar manner, and by the virtue of Page 46 October 3, 2001 the fact that they're in a specific zoning district they are similar. So if we put this in here my concern is that we're breaking out certain pieces and having a different nonconformity standard than for all the others, and we have a division of our code and 1.8 that deals with this, and I have a concern about having an inconsistency without first staff review and an equal protection one because this is rendered nonconforming than if there exists one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Marjorie's making the point that I would just like to clarify a little bit more. Section 1.8 is intended to address your concern that if there is a change and we change land uses or permitted uses within zoning districts in the past, that those uses that are currently in effect at the time of the change become legal nonconforming uses, and there are certain guidelines and criteria that allow them to continue to operate, and if they cease to operate and meet those conditions or expiration, then they lose that vesting of the use and then not be able to reassume that use. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So that's the only way someone currently existing could lose that use. They are kind of like grandfathered in until they stop doing business. MR. BELLOWS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's -- that answers -- yeah. I understand what you're saying. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other questions about this one? We feel good about this one. Okay. Moving on to page 10. MR. BELLOWS: This deals with industrial permitted uses amending Section 2.2.16.2.1 of the LDC. Again, we had no real substantive changes during the last meeting, and anyone has any questions, again I'll be happy to answer them or seek staff assistance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just -- you're all looking at me. Page 47 October 3,2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go for it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have one. I think it's great for Immokalee and what works well out there, but by allowing this as a permitted use in an I District, does that open it up to all the I Districts? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because we have a -- MR. BELLOWS: Industrial district is found throughout the county -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. BELLOWS: But land area big enough to have an airport. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Down by the landfill there's a pretty good-sized industrial area which I would be concerned about if there was an airport added out there. So I guess that's where my question comes. Is this -- can this be limited to the area that it's trying to focus on, or do we have to do broad brash across the whole county for any industrial area? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie, I don't think we can. MS. STUDENT: That's a problem because we have light areas, you know, in different parts of the county. MR. BELLOWS: The amendment as we're proposing it would affect, you know, all industrial zoning. I think the way if you want to just apply it to Immokalee only would have to be through some zoning overlay for-- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I think an overlay would do it. MS. MURRAY: I think we can be reasonably assured that we're not going to have any more airports in the area. I mean, we do have three at this point in time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, we've got an airport off of Radio Road called Wing South, I think it is. It's a little small stretch of airport, and we could have one of those in a small industrial Page 48 October 3, 2001 park, is what this is telling us? MS. MURRAY: That's actually a private airstrip as part of a planned unit development. MS. STUDENT: I think it's a PUD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My point is, though, it's a small airport, and if one could fit on that small property, the industrial section in Golden Gate is large enough, I would think, to have an equally sized landing area, and I'm wondering if there's a way to stop that if it were to be -- if it were to become favorably received. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But is it necessary to stop it? I'm not sure what your point is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just -- I want to make sure that -- that's -- everybody understands that if you do this we're adding the ability to have airports or landing strips or whatever you want to call them in industrial property in other areas of the county besides Immokalee. MR. BELLOWS: I think-- if I may -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's my point. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We can alleviate that concern by the wording in the -- in the amendment is general aviation which makes specific criteria they have to have FAA approval would limit or prohibit the Wing Park South type of private airport, so it would be much more difficult, almost impossible to have a general aviation other than the land areas that we have large enough, such as the Naples Airport or the land area in Immokalee. And they'd have to go through FAA approval, and that would be difficult, too, on any other site. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's probably why you chose that phrase; right? Page 49 October 3, 2001 MR. BELLOWS: General aviation, that's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Okay. Do we feel comfortable with -- about that item? All right. Infamous signs, page 12. MS. STUDENT: I want to just point out about the signs, we're not really rehashing signs tonight. There was a glitch in the adoption continuation of the meeting, and this is just to readopt it to fix that problem, but you're not really substantively looking at it. You looked at it before just as it was, and that's the only purpose to readopt it to correct it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, if we have to readopt it, it seems to be me that it's in play. I don't see how you can avoid that. And I have a couple of sections that if I saw them before I certainly had my head up and locked because one of them on page 30, just before Section 2.5.8 says (as read): "Illuminated signs, neon or otherwise installed inside businesses and intended to be seen from the outside." MS. STUDENT: I need to make a point. The advertising said readoption, and that title "readoption" carries with it the idea that you're readopting something that was done before, and I have a concern about the advertise -- that's the way it was advertised, and we're going beyond that and that's my only concern. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. STUDENT: You could-- you could make your recommendation, and we could bring it back and-- and maybe we have a cycle coming up right behind us. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, let me tell you what I'm concerned about. MS. STUDENT: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There are lots of little stores around this county like Schlotsky's and places like that that Page 50 October 3,2001 have an inconspicuous little sign in the window, neon that says "Open." When they're open it's mined on. So when you're driving down the highway and you look over and you want to stop in Schlotsky's -- and I might do that tonight if we get out of here in time -- I can look over and see whether it's open or not. There may be lights on because they're cleaning up, but just because somebody in the county government or relative of somebody in the county government has got this thing about neon doesn't seem to me that we ought to rush to this judgment, and I think it sort of has the potential of a replay of the Truly Nolen thing. That was noted the first time that came through, and nobody said anything, and all of a sudden that was -- MS. STUDENT: I have a suggestion. In the next cycle that's going to come up that Truly Nolen item will be revisited, and maybe we can revisit that in that cycle as well and -- because I really do have a concern about the way the title was written. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm just stating these things for the record. I realize we're going to adopt it. MS. STUDENT: Staff can see what we can do with that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I suspect that the little guy that owns the Subway Shop has no idea that this little sign in his window has come to the official attention of the rule makers of Collier County, and we're going to go through the same thing again, could have been avoided in Truly Nolen perhaps. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does the board feel comfortable in asking staff to review this and come in the next cycle? Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. I feel comfortable in listening to the assistant county attorney and catching this one on the next time around. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Does that feel good? MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next item starts on page 36. Page 51 October 3, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Excuse me just for a minute. Madam Chairman, could we vote on the issues that we've talked about through this one because we've already voted on the last one? This is the one I've got to abstain from. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Which, the signs? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. The one on page 36. We just started PUD procedures. So if we could do a vote up through now, I could be part of that, and I could abstain from discussion and voting on the next one. Is that, Marjorie, consistent with what we talked about? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. We have done that before when there was a conflict with one of our members, actually, with signs, and we broke that out separately. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Budd, do you have a comment? COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'll be glad to make a motion unless we -- there's a public comment or any other comment on these items. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER BUDD go for it and throw in your -- the changes as discussed on the notification procedures and public participation. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I want to make a motion on notification procedures and public participation. Notification procedures and variances conditional uses, C-3 and C-4 permitted uses, industrial permitted uses and signs. MS. STUDENT: And does that mention a finding of consistency with the code? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. In my motion on those five described areas, I recommend that the Planning Commission forward these LDC sections with a recommendation of adoption to the Board of County Commissioners and that further we find that these LDC amendments are consistent with the Land Development Code and under the -- Page 52 October 3, 2001 MS. STUDENT: I think you mean the Comp Plan. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Excuse me. Consistent with the Comp Plan and that under the notification procedures there were several items of clarification discussed and agreed to by consensus among the board members, and I do not recall any modifications to other sections. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't have any. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I second the motion. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, they're going to need for me to be very clear about what you want changed. There was a lot of discussion. You agreed with some of Bob's discussion and some not, and I have notes all over the place. I'd really appreciate a list of exactly what you want so we can make sure -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. I can attempt to cast that. On the Section 2.7.2.3.2, page 3 there were several items discussed and I believe agreed to by consensus regarding the signage, that we would clarify that the signage would be on the external boundary. There would be a maximum of four 32-foot -- 32-square-foot signs per frontage, equal distance spacing. Some clarifying in the wordsmithing on what fronting road means. Back to page 5, same section, that a list of the various organizations would be provided to the petitioner by the county. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the list maintained by the county. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Maintained and provided by the county. Were there any others? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fourth line up on that same paragraph. COMMISSIONER BUDD: The it-- rephrase fourth line up where it says, "However the applicant is expected to make presentation of how it intends"-- MS. STUDENT: Say "development proposal." Also I Page 53 October 3, 2001 mentioned this about the excavations, but I have some wordsmithing issue, solo for clarity here, and this has happened many times before, and it doesn't affect the substance whatsoever, and the motions are always include -- give us a little latitude that way so ... CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This is one of the longest motions I've ever listened to. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Budd and and we have a second by Mr. Adelstein-- Mr. Adelstein. Do we have any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion I call the question. All those in favor state aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. Thank you. On those five items. Now we are at page 36, Section 2.7.3.4, the PUD procedures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Madam Chair, for the record, I will not be participating in discussion or voting on this item for a conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And could you state the nature of the conflict, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: ! am a -- I work for a client that has some property that would be affected by this provision. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. This is the PUD procedures amending Section 2.7.3.4 of the Land Development Code. It deals with recommended time limits for PUDs, construction within three years as opposed to five years adoption of date otherwise subjected to consideration of a PUD. I'd be happy to answer any questions Page 54 October 3,2001 presented at the last hearing, and I think we have -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions from-- MR. BELLOWS: -- addressed all concerns. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- new participants, new commissioners? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The DSAC I think they raised in this instance a reasonable request to have included some acts-of-God kind of things. Were those included? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, those have been. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Acts of God were included? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, acts of the BCC which is tantamount to acts of God, I guess. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: In this county it is. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, we are feisty tonight. MR. BELLOWS: That language is on page 37. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Since this is the last item-- is it not.'? Yes, it is according to my schedule. We did excavations so we don't have any discussion -- I think we could have a motion on this item. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Madam Chairman, I make a motion that Section 2.7.3.4 of the PUD procedures be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of adoption and that further this be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I second it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion by Mr. Budd, a second by Mrs. Young for approval of this particular item. Do we Page 55 October 3, 2001 have any further discussion? Hearing no discussion I call the question. All those in favor, CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Motion carries. abstention. Okay. I think that is the end -- (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Abstain. We have one COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, just one housekeeping item. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. One housekeeping item. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We were handed when we came in the minutes from our last LDC -- first -- first meeting, and I would suggest that we hold approval of that or review of that until tomorrow morning's meeting so we'd have a chance to look at it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds reasonable to me. Do we have any other comments? I believe we were notified that our meeting will be in the supervisor's training room. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We all are aware of that? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Is that where it's going to be? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. That is where it's going to be. We confirmed that, and I've been doing a little review of Robert's Rules of Orders, so hearing no further business I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a motion from COMMISSIONER BUDD and second by COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN. We are adjourned if we say aye. Page 56 October 3, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 57