Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/10/2001 S (LDC Amendments)October 1 O, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 10, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:11 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie James Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: John M. Dunnuck III, Community Development Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 October 1 O, 2001 Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager Page 2 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF 1 June 6,2001 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 2, ZONING, DIVISION 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.7 ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.5 EXCAVATION; AND READOPTING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO DIVISION 2.5 SIGNS, SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATES. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 June 6, 2001 October 1 O, 2001 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE- SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 24~ 2001 (The proceedings commenced with Commissioner Mac'Kie and Mr. Weigel not present.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our first of two sessions on Land Development Codes. This is an additional cycle that was put in this year to deal with the concerns and adjustments that have been expressed to us by the community and by staff so that we can do a better job of doing and meeting our Land Development Codes as that ties to zoning, as it ties to our Growth Management Plan. So thank you for joining us. Good evening, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good evening. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we will go to Mr. John Dunnuck, who will go to Susan Murray. MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, and I -- excuse me. Excuse me. We have the pledge of allegiance. Thank you, Commissioner. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner. I think my mind's been about two hours behind the rest of my body today. Maybe it'll catch up now. Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. I just want to point out that this is the first of two public hearings. This is a legislative hearing and one in which we will be discussing policy changes to the Land Development Code, as stated by Commissioner Carter. The second meeting will be held on October 24th at 5:05 p.m. I would state to the audience that we need to turn off beepers, but we really don't have an audience today. And public slips -- sign- Page 3 October 1 O, 2001 up slips are out the hallway, if anybody would like to speak on any particular item. But seeing as how we have a limited crowd this evening, I will just mm it over to Susan Murray. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Susan Murray, current planning manager. As John mentioned, this is the first of two public hearings. Especially important in this public hearing is to take public comment and also to receive your comments back to staff in light of the LDC amendments that you have before you. I've taken the liberty -- well, first of all, let me start out by just saying we kind of need to organize how we're going to proceed through the amendments, as is usual. If you'll notice, I have handed out a revised copy to you. Unfortunately, we're going to have to kind of work off two copies. We'll start with the revised copy I handed out, and we'll go through page 8. And then once we get to page 9, you'll go back to the original copy you received with your packet. And I'll remind you of that. We will also be working from page numbers that are handwritten in the middle of the page at the bottom. But you'll notice the first four sheets are your typical summary sheet that we provide for you. So rather than having to read through the entire ordinance, we normally -- this process normally works off that summary sheet and then allows, of course, public input and comment and questions from you. So if that's acceptable, I'd like to go ahead and continue with (sic) that format. COMMISSIONER FIALA: MS. MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask a fast, easy question? Thank you. What is Department Services Advisory Committee? I don't know what that is. MS. MURRAY: That's the Development Services Advisory Page 4 October 1 O, 2001 Committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. MURRAY: And that's actually-- is it-- John, do you want to explain it a little bit? MR. DUNNUCK: Sure. The Board of County Commissioners several years back created this committee by ordinance as a means of reviewing all pertinent codes or land development or law changes that would affect the development community. As part of that process through the ordinance, we have to take every potential change, proposed change, through that committee for recommendation. It's about a 13-member committee comprised of people from the development community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: And going back to your spreadsheet, the first four pages, you'll notice that the LD -- on the far left-hand side of the page, the LDC sections that we are amending are highlighted. And then there's a summary of the proposed amendment in the next column. Then you have your Development Services Advisory Committee recommendation, your Environmental Advisory Committee recommendation, and then the Planning Commission recommendation all outlined. One of the highlights of this cycle is the public participation process. And I think you were briefed pretty thoroughly on this during one of the workshops we held with you earlier this year, so a lot of the material that I'm presenting tonight really is probably going to be repetitive. You heard the plan at the workshop, and we've essentially implemented the plan we discussed with you at the workshop into code amendments. So from that aspect, I've taken the liberty of just highlighting on this sheet -- and I hope you-all can read this -- just the highlights of the code changes and the highlights of the public participation Page 5 October 10, 2001 process and what will be new. And this is a first adventure for us, so we're kind of envisioning this as a work in progress. (Mr. Weigel entered the boardroom.) MS. MURRAY: If the amendments are adopted as proposed, we will go through the public hearing processes with various petitions, see how things work, and then I would anticipate later we may be coming back in front of you to say we could probably work-- get better public participation by changing a few things in the code, or things are working, or they are not working. So this is a new step. It's really exciting. I'm really proud to be able to bring this before you because I know you've been anticipating this and -- as the public has, most importantly. So I'd like to go ahead and start with that, if you don't mind. I've just highlighted on this sheet -- and we're talking here about rezonings, and that's PUD rezonings, PUD amendments, and conditional use approval processes. The new things that we're proposing in the code is -- and I've highlighted them here, new -- the project will be described -- as far as signage goes, the project will be described in legal format and plain English. And I think you can appreciate that. So when we post our signs, not only will we have the legal title that we're required to post by law, but we will also have staff describe in plain-English detail exactly what the nature of the project is so that it'll be understandable, hopefully. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have this that you're reading from, do we? MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Another new feature of the signage requirement of the code will be that properties that are 1 acre or more in area will be signed along all street frontages with one 32-square- foot sign. And I actually brought a sample of that sign. It's sitting Page 6 October 1 O, 2001 right back there. And maybe, Stan, if you don't mind, would you mind pulling that out a little bit so they can get an idea of what a 32-square-feet sign looks like. So any property in excess -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that 4 by 8? MS. MURRAY: -- of 1 acre -- that's 4 by 8 -- will be required to sign -- be signed with a sign of that size on each street frontage. And where the frontage exceeds 1320 linear feet, the signs will be required to be equidistant apart, a maximum of a thousand feet apart with a maximum of four signs. The other new thing with the signage will be that the large sign, this posting, will be the responsibility of the applicant, and they will -- to post, and they will be required to provide evidence to the planning department that the sign has been posted in accordance with the code. The second aspect of the public participation process or public hearing process will be the newspaper ads. Presently we're required to place newspaper ads, and the newspaper ads have your typical -- again, your legal title language, which can be very difficult for the public to understand at times. So we're also proposing that through this process that the newspaper ads provide more detail. And they'll provide just plain-English detail about the intensity and density, you know, floor area, number of dwelling units per acre; describe the land uses, commercial, residential, etc. And any institutional or recreational uses. And one really nice feature about this will be that we'll be required to provide a location map, as well, showing the general location of the project site. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now I have to say something again. I think it's great that you're doing this because being in plain English and location map, it invites the public to participate. It -- it shows them that nobody's trying to hide anything, and -- and I think that it encourages them to participate, or at least they feel that nothing's Page 7 October 1 O, 2001 being hidden from them. Thanks. MS. MURRAY: And the third feature is the mail notification. Presently we notify by mail to affected property owners, and affected property owners are defined as property owners that are located within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property. We are required to notify them 15 days -- at least 15 days in advance of the public hearing. What we're proposing is that mail notification will be done twice. The first time the notification will go out is 30 days after the planning department has received a sufficient application. So if somebody submits a PUD rezoning application, we will review it to ensure it's sufficient. And then once we deem it sufficient, we will send a mail notification to affected property owners noting that we have received an application. We'll note the location, and we will note the description of the project as well. We'll have a planner- contact name, phone number, e-mail address so that they can contact us. Before the petition even gets into the review process with county staff, they can contact us and ask us what the petition's all about, can they come in and see it, that sort of thing. And this addresses one of the chief complaints that I know you've heard and that we've often been the subject of, and that is that the mail notifications go out a couple weeks in advance of the hearing, and people don't have time to prepare. So this will provide people ample opportunity to prepare and analyze any of the petitions that are scheduled to come before you at a later date. And then the second notification by mail will be as it is currently, and that is at least 15 days in advance of the hearing. (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Susan, may I ask a question there? What happens if a petitioner fails to meet that 10 days prior to that for, let's say, circumstances beyond their control, if it could be Page 8 October 1 O, 2001 determined what that might be? Does that mean that meeting is canceled, and then they have to renotify and start all over again? MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, are you referring to the evidence of the sign posting? I see the ten days here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I'm looking at 2.7.2.3.5, written notification to property owners and other organization associations, you know, ten days prior to the public information meeting. And I'm just saying what if it was shorter? And, you know, it says it's got to be notarized. I just want to be clear that if they don't meet the date, they've got to start the process all over again. MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: Yes. We're subject to the same -- same rules as well. If we miss our notification, we continue a hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, you and I spoke this afternoon about the notification and the number of feet being -- the urban area and the rural area being different. And I know there are -- the reason they are different. In the rural area, a thousand feet, any affected property owner, they need to be notified. In the urban area, it's 500 feet. Looking at some of the scenarios in the urban areas, especially in East Naples, there might not be any neighbors in that area that could be affected. Can we put in there if no residentials -- properties are affected, the closest ten single-family residents, something in that order? MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure I -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In the -- if you can't find any single-family homes within the 500 foot of the property being changed, can we put in language that if none is found, then the closest ten single-family homes be notified? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're speaking of, like, in East Naples, for instance, where they have properties of 2 1/2, 3 acres, 5 Page 9 October 1 O, 2001 acres, so there's nobody within 500 feet, but yet people are on the same street? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. What I'm saying is there's some cases -- and it's probably in everybody's district. East 41 is a good example. There's thousands of agricultural land out there that we know is going to be rezoned residential or mixed use or whatever. It's going to be rezoned. In some cases, depending on where it's rezoned -- let's say it's in the middle, and there's, like, a mile down in the east trail that there is ag land that's not been rezoned. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then what I think you're suggesting is 500 feet or potential adjacent property owners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you don't want to say "or" because it could fall back to a minimum. What I'm saying is if no single-family residence is within 500 feet, notify the next ten single-family residents. MS. MURRAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't we measure from property lines anyway, though? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, so no matter if it's a giant parcel, we're going to go to the very edge of the property and measure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about if you have an owner that has a section of land in the middle of that giant land? Nobody's going to be affected. And we just want more public input as we can get. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I see where you're going with this, Commissioner Henning, and I understand your concerns. But if you have something that's really isolated out in the middle of nowhere and you're going to be posting signs on it, I think that would suffice to reach everyone. Or else you're going to reach the point Page 10 October 1 O, 2001 where there'll be a letter going out to everyone within Collier County and-- but I understand your concerns. The signs will still be in place; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the signs in itself would almost be notice for everyone past that. That's to pick up the people that would be immediately impacted by this. I've been working on parts of this all summer long with staff, and I understand what your concerns are on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a very good point. So why do we even do any notification at all? MS. MURRAY: Well, even if there are no developed properties, there's still property owners, and they still have an interest in the property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And sometimes they live out of state or somewhere away, and so they don't drive by the sign. And we'd like for them to have notice. MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or they're gone for the summer, and they always accuse of us of having these things during the summer when they're gone. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it seems to me that if we try the signs and we try the other, if we encounter any exceptional situations, we deal with that. If there's more than one or two instances, it comes back for review in the next code process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good game plan, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: One question on wording, if I might. We use the term "shall" often in this. That almost seems to me -- and I'm not a wordsmith, but some legal counsels begin to -- I get calls already, that "shall" may say that it has to be. Or should we say Page 11 October 1 O, 2001 "should" versus "shall," which gives flexibility in terms of room size and that kind of stuff?. So I -- MS. MURRAY: "Shall" is mandatory, and I guess if there's very specific instances in which you feel that it shouldn't be mandatory, then I would say we could change the word. I guess I would ask if you could point those out to me because we use shall quite a bit, and I do feel that we need to have "shall" in -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me just go to public information meetings. Are we going to say they shall be large enough to accommodate expected audience or should be, never knowing who's going to show up? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think "shall be large enough to" -- I mean, I think -- I understand your point. I hear you. But this is where we're trying to gin up some confidence that we're trying to get -- trying to make adequate accommodations for the public, and that's where we should be saying "shall," that we "shall." We don't have any choice. We are going to provide a -- a room big enough for the anticipated audience. If the anticipated audience is three people, that's my office. If it's 300, it's a high school auditorium. But not you should, but if you can't or if you have to pay a hundred bucks to rent the room, we understand. I don't want to give wiggle room here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I really think those -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm raising the questions, Counselors (sic), only because there's that issue out there. But if we say "shall," then we can deal with it. I guess it gets right back to my other statement. We'll see if it causes any problems. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So "shall" means will. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It will. It's got to be big enough. And if they overflow some night, let's see what happens from there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, like, those Ten Page 12 October 10, 2001 Commandments, they don't say, "Thou should not commit murder," you know. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It depends on who's interpreting them. I'm not going to go there. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Sure. As Commissioner Henning pointed out, the mail-out distance is increased from 300 to 500 feet in the urban area and 300 to a thousand feet in the nonurban area and to any person formally requested to receive notice, which we do receive quite a bit of those requests. One of the best features of this ordinance, I think, is the public participation process, and that is the public informational meetings that I know you and I hear a lot of complaints about. And with the new ordinance, we're requiring that there'll be a minimum of one public information meeting after the preapplication meeting and before the applicant submits an application. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the staff will be there. MS. MURRAY: The staff will be there. They're -- the applicant is required to provide written notice to all property owners that are required to receive the legal notice -- which would be the 500-foot and thousand-foot requirement -- plus the condo and civic associations and any civic organizations that are impacted and that have formally notified the county of their request to be notified. We do maintain a list-- actually, the Board of County Commissioners' office does maintain a list of all registered condo and civic associations in the county. As well, we have a copy of that list in our office. I don't know if this is of interest to you, but something was brought up to me that -- thought that this language may hold the county accountable for proper notification, when it's actually the Page 13 October 1 O, 2001 applicants' responsibility, in the case of the public participation notice, to notice those individuals. And I didn't know if there was an interest in putting in some language. I'm reading from page 5, Section 2.7.2.3.5. Just after the highlighted sentence about a quarter of the way down, that -- if you'll see that highlighted sentence, "A list of such organizations shall be provided and maintained by the county, but the applicant shall bear the responsibility of ensuring all required parties are notified." I thought that may -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from legal. MS. MURRAY: Legal may have an opinion. Sorry, Marjorie. They want your opinion. And I've kind of caught you off guard, but I don't think it's that complicated. MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. We were discussing the mandatory nature of the term "shall." Would you please direct me to the -- MS. MURRAY: Certainly. I'm working off page 5. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry I raised the question. Three attorneys will be debating it the rest of the night. God forgive me. MS. MURRAY: I'm working from page 5. And if you see the highlighted sentence about a fourth of the way -- MS. STUDENT: "A list of such organizations shall be provided and maintained by the county"? MS. MURRAY: And my suggestion was to put after that "list," "but the applicant shall bear the responsibility of ensuring that all required parties are notified." MS. STUDENT: I have no problem with that whatsoever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The applicant will have no responsibility? MS. MURRAY: No. The applicant shall bear the responsibility. MS. STUDENT: And up real north, from where I originally came from, in all the zoning matters there it was always the burden Page 14 October 10, 2001 was on the applicant to do the notification instead of the local government. So that wouldn't be out of the ordinary practice for some jurisdictions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would say put it in if there's the nods on the board here that agrees with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great job. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Go to my next page here. What I tried to do here was highlight some of the -- rather than go through the ordinance word by word, highlight some of the things that would occur as part of this meeting and what the code will require the applicant to do and what the code will require the staff to do. So if you look at the meeting highlights here, first, the applicant is responsible for arranging the location of the meeting. The code, as proposed, says that the location shall be reasonably convenient to the expected audience, obviously; that the applicant is responsible for announcing the meeting in the newspaper seven days prior to the meeting; that the applicant also is required -- and I'm sorry I didn't put that in there -- to provide the written notice as well; that staff is assigned-- the staff-assigned planner is required to attend the meeting; that the applicant is required to make a presentation to the attendees; that the applicant is required to video and/or audiotape the meeting; and that staff is required to outline the commitments made by the applicant as part of the account of the proceedings to be brought forward in the staff report as part of the analysis. So when you receive the staff report, you'll have a summary of all the events that occurred at the meeting in terms of any commitments that were made at the meeting. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One question. What determines reasonable location? I kind of wonder if maybe that's -- I Page 15 October 1 O, 2001 don't know how you put more teeth into it, but reasonable location, what would that be? Would that be the applicant's determination or our determination? MS. MURRAY: As it's written it would be the applicant's determination to determine the location, but I suppose if there was an issue that came about in terms of whether it was reasonable or not -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Again, I think I'd trust the planner assigned to work with that and the commissioner's district it's in. If there's any difficulties that -- we're going to catch that real quick. I think 99 percent of the people are going to play the game. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't set in Sarasota. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And if it's a situation in East Naples, we don't want them saying we're holding it up at the Barbara B. Mann Theater. MS. MURRAY: Staff will be aware, and we'll make, you know, assurances that that -- that occurs. So that's the highlight of the meeting part of the public participation process. And that, again, applies to all your rezonings, your PUD amendments, and your conditional uses. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would also like to request on these major issues legal counsel have a member, county attorney's office, present along with the planner as these items are discussed and integrated into that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we -- are we going to get to the whole ombudsman or facilitator or something that's going to be there for facilitating public participation? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, no matter who facilitates, I really believe that I would like to see the planner and the legal be involved in that as we start bringing things forward because ultimately planning services and legal are involved in this whole Page 16 October 1 O, 2001 process. So I don't mean to put another burden on the county attorney's office, but I am suggesting. MS. MURRAY: As it's written the planner is the facilitator of the meeting, but if that's the board's wishes, to have a county attorney's staff there as well, we could certainly write that in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about at the discretion of the planner or something like that? If they think -- you know, if they think it's just informational and friendly, that's one thing. But if they -- I mean, I'd respect their professional judgment on that, personally. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just as long as we don't have anything falling through the cracks, folks. MR. DUNNUCK: Agreed. And from the administrative side of it -- which you won't see coming through your code per se. But a couple of the administrative changes we've made already, and I think I sent a memo up a few weeks ago. We've taken over the actual writing of the document that's coming to the Board of County Commissioners. Previously it was the developer who was writing the document, and we were providing staff comments. We've actually -- the document you're going to see as part of these hearings will be the staffs comments, and it'll be up to the developer to provide, you know, any changes that they would like to make. So that puts us in a role where we're actually more in the driver's seat. Another idea that came about in, actually, a conversation with Ms. Payton this morning, was the idea of ensuring that we have a central location for how we disseminate this information, how we inform the public of where the meeting is, when the meeting is, as opposed to it just going through our planning department and people having to try to track it down. I'm going to have an implementation meeting with our staff early next week based upon the comments of the board. And I think one of the things that will come out -- and I'll Page 17 October 1 O, 2001 provide a memo and a follow-up -- by the second hearing will be a plan that we can provide that information. And we may be able to do it in house through the public information office. We may be able to provide it through a position similar to how transportation has created Connie Deane's position, who you're all aware of, who's out there telling people when we're building roads and having the community meetings; or we may do it through the staff that's in house with the planning department. But we'll come forward with several options and let you-all know what we recommend as our best option as part of that plan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And just finishing up now, the public participation strategy for the variance proceedings or parking exemptions is slightly different. The applicant will be required to contact property owners within 150 feet of the site which is the subject of the variance or parking exemption and condo associations, and that should occur no more than 30 days after receipt of a sufficiency letter from the county. And the extent of that notification should be that they're required to advise them of the extent and nature of the petition, variance request, what have you. The applicant is required to provide written documentation to planning services indicating the contacts and providing a written account of the result of the contacts. And he or she is also required to submit all written communications to the department for the file and for the record. The applicant is required to provide a written account of the contacts, as I mentioned, the list of the property owner contacts, and any other written communication at least two weeks prior to the hearing. And the staff is required to outline the commitments made by the applicant as part of the account of the proceedings. And that would be brought forward in the staff report, Page 18 October 1 O, 2001 as part of the analysis, to your attention. Very quickly I outlined just kind of how the process would flow, and this is, again, for a PUD, for example, rezoning or large-scale rezoning. The applicant -- and this is just kind of from start to finish a basic outline of how the process flows. The applicant will request a preapplication meeting with staff. At the preapplication meeting, staff will advise them of the public participation requirements. The applicant will then hold a public information meeting. Then the applicant will submit the application for rezoning. The staff will determine if the application meets the sufficiency standards. We send out a sufficiency letter to the applicant. Then we mail out the notification letter to affected property owners within 30 days of the sufficiency finding. We conduct our staff review, our analysis, and write our staff report, and we include information from the public meetings. We then schedule the Planning Commission and board hearing dates, and we mail out the notification letter of the hearing dates 15 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date. The applicant posts the signs on the affected property 15 days prior to the hearing date. The applicant provides proof of posting to the planning department at least ten days prior to the hearing. Staff places the newspaper ad 15 days prior to the hearing. You have the Planning Commission hearing and then the board hearing. That's how it would flow. And that really has taken you all the way through page 8. So if you will go back to page -- your original packet that you received and if you'll start at page 9, and the rest is really just housekeeping information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: by? Susan, which 9 are we going MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. We're on page 9 of your original Page 19 October 1 O, 2001 packet; not the handout I gave you today, your original packet, which is probably in your binder. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got pages marked 2 -- MS. MURRAY: It's the page number in the center of your page outside of your agenda item stamp there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Also known as page 167 MS. MURRAY: Yes. Number 2, I'm sorry, page 16. Okay. Is there any other questions about the public participation? Because we're kind of leaving that now and going onto other amendments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general question. And then, Mr. Chairman, I see somebody in the audience. When are we going to be hearing about the ombudsman and -- I mean, not in this cycle, apparently, but is that coming in conjunction with the hearing officer or is -- I thought that was part of the public participation plan. MR. DUNNUCK: Well, Commissioners, I think from a planning staff standpoint, we believe that the planning department should act as your ombudsman, that they are the representatives of your codes, and that's why we've structured, actually, this public participation plan to have the planner be out in the public and act as your ombudsman in representing the general public at large. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got no problem with that except that, you know, we could -- was it this county commission or was it the previous one that had this big discussion? And we decided we wanted an ombudsman and the -- it was our compromise with the Republican Party -- was that this board or the previous -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was this board I think. And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we looked at that, and we're trying to find some way to build the confidence of the public that we were not representing the development community, and we were representing the community, meaning everyone. And what I'm hearing from staff is that if we have the planner there through all this process, the Page 20 October 1 O, 2001 planner is not there to say, "This is the gospel, the way we're doing it." The planner is there to present the information, take public input, and incorporate this into the process along with, when appropriate, legal counsel, who is there also to represent the public, and take that into consideration. And I guess that's what I'm hearing now is the direction versus creating another person in this process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I thought -- and if the majority of the board is satisfied with that as the way we implement this board policy, then that's the way it gets done. I thought we were creating an office of public information or public participation or public assistance that in all likelihood would be under this division but that that was going to be a person whose full-time job was to be sure there was adequate participation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we did is we gave direction to staff to bring something back to Us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I expected it in this package, and that's what I'm asking about. MR. DUNNUCK: And what I commented on previously with my conversation with Ms. Payton is that's what I'm going to bring back as a procedural matter. That's not necessarily a Land Development Code matter, but it's a procedural matter and an administrative matter on how we handle that and provide that information and make sure the public's involved. And that's what I'll bring back to you before the second meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before the second meeting? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. And I guess what I'm saying is this is a case that is so different from what we've done in the past, that this is one of the building blocks to public confidence that we're doing it differently, and we'll see what else comes into the package. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to comment, and I Page 21 October 1 O, 2001 want to compliment the staff for taking our ideas in the rough form and drafting it into this ordinance. They did a remarkably beautiful job. This is going to meet the needs of the public out there. This should have been in place 20 years ago. We would have saved ourselves so much aggravation. People are going to be truly notified now. Anybody that comes in now and says, you know, "We didn't know about it" after you got a 4-by-8 sign, letters going through the mail, notices in the paper -- I mean, I'm not too sure what's going to be left past this point. I'm sure we're going to satisfy 95 percent to 99 percent of the public needs as far as notification goes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I -- and I know you've worked very hard on this this summer, Commissioner Coletta, this process. But we do have -- if it would be appropriate to take public comment on this subject at this time -- it probably would be. MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. We have one -- one speaker on this item. Nancy Payton. MS. PAYTON: Good evening. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. I pulled out my comments that were made at the discussion, the meetings that were about the hearing examiner. And there were three issues that we advocated that I thought the commission did act on, and that was to move ahead with an ombudsman, community liaison, an outreach person, whatever you want to call them. That's a critical component of this public participation plan. And then also, along with that, were criteria for selecting the hearing examiner, and there was going to be public input through this whole process. I want to remind the board that this is a public participation plan. This is an effort to get greater public involvement in the decision- making process and to have them more engaged and educated. It's not a -- an avenue for the developers to say, "We reached the public. We fulfilled that obligation. Now give us our permit or our approval." Page 22 October 1 O, 2001 And I want to stress again that the public is the guide -- guiding factor in developing this plan; and therefore, the county should be responsible for the plan and making sure that it's implemented. Just like the transportation department has their outreach plan to make sure the public is aware of what's going on, it should be community development and not the developer that's responsible for informing the public. And there's plenty of money -- because I asked -- in community development's reserves to pay for a person that can do this, that can be that one person that the public can call, doesn't have to bounce around from planner to planner, that one person they can call at community development. It's on the Web site or whatever, and that person directs them to the appropriate place, provides them with the information, explains what's on that sign or what they read in the newspaper. It's for the newspaper to have a person to contact to find out. It just needs that one person. And I think I'm hearing that that position is being created, and we'll have more details about it by two weeks from tonight. Did I hear right? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. MS. PAYTON: Yea. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nancy, for keeping such neat notes. MS. PAYTON: I've learned. And also I just wanted to say there are a few other responsibilities that I felt this person ought to handle besides keeping that list and maintaining that list, that it's their responsibility to ensure that notification is proper, that it goes out. And I still say it ought to go out through that office rather than relying upon the developer to do it, to make sure that it's done right, and it is appropriate to the public. That's the person that decides whether the location is appropriate and adequate for the public. It's not left up for the developer to Page 23 October 1 O, 2001 decide. It's that community person, that liaison person that says that's a good site, yes. That's a bad site. These are people that we ought to have there because these are issues that are going to be coming up through the facilitator. They're the liaison. They're the public's sensitivity in this process. I wanted to comment on the use of "shall" and to stress that this is an effort to regain trust in the public, and "shall" has got to be there. It can't be "should." That defers and gives a lot of wiggle room to the development community, which they've been given a lot of wiggle room in the past, and look where it's gotten us. It's got to be "shall" for regaining public trust. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no problem with that, Nancy. I agree with you. I always raise the questions and see how many air holes come up here, and I got a few tonight. And I said, Well, no sense talking about that anymore. Everybody agrees that it shall be -- MS. PAYTON: And I wanted clarification about the ad. That was my last issue. Are these display ads, or are they going in classified, which most people don't read? And I wanted to stress that they should be display advertisements that people are going to catch as they look in local or the first section rather than -- because few, few people go and read the public meeting notices. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those legal notices can't be translated into -- you know, even if it's a display ad, it needs to be not in legal notice kind of language. It needs to be -- MS. PAYTON: Yes. Like transportation does. We're going to have a meeting. This is what it's about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the model, as far as I'm concerned. MS. MURRAY: As written it doesn't distinguish between-- you know, it has to go in the legal notices, or it has to be a display ad. So obviously there's legal requirements for posting legal notices, but I Page 24 October 1 O, 2001 think you're referring to, Nancy, the public information meeting notice. MS. PAYTON: Right. MS. MURRAY: And I'm not sure that there's -- would be a problem with putting that as a display ad. I see the attorneys shaking their heads, so we could certainly write that in if that's the desire of the board. MS. PAYTON: I think we have to exceed expectations when it comes to notifying the public and keeping the public informed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we've heard that phrase before. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you're going to make our job a whole heck of a lot easier between your suggestions and all the work Susan and her group have done. MS. PAYTON: I wanted to comment that staff has been very receptive to our concerns, our recommendations. And I had a great meeting with John this morning, so I'm sure these issues are going to be addressed. And I understand that this is an evolving plan, and it's probably going to be changed and revisited a couple of times, but to make it better for the public. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we take a few minutes and discuss some of Nancy's suggestions -- I think they bear some merit -- as far as who the responsibility falls on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd love to because I have some input about that. Myself, I read the classified section, the legal notices and don't read ads. MS. PAYTON: Well, you're going to get it both ways. For those that read the legal notices, there's going to be the legal notice. But there's going to be the display ad for the majority of the people that don't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that's different Page 25 October 10, 2001 than-- what I understood is for the notification of the meeting it's going to be a display -- that's what you were asking -- instead of in the legal sense. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you don't notice those ads for Immokalee Road, you know, the things that -- I just think that is the good model, is how the -- Connie Deane's -- you don't notice those ads? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I notice it as a -- more of an article than an advertisement-type ad. That's the way I see it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask you, if you weren't a county commissioner, would you ever read it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ever read what, the legal notices? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to know what's happening in my community, but that's me. And -- and I could go either way. I just want to do the right thing to reach out to the people. The other comment that you made -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just -- so now from your question, what was the answer? Are you going to do both kinds or one kind or the other kind? I wasn't sure what his answer was. MS. MURRAY: We're required to place legal notices in the legal section of the code (sic). That doesn't change. I think what Nancy's referring to is the additional requirement we put on the applicant of placing an ad in the newspaper advertising their public information meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're going to do both then? Page 26 October 1 O, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Yes. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, some of the other issues that Nancy brought up as far as the responsibility, such as the mailing, you're suggesting that the county should take responsibility for doing the mailing rather than leave it up to the developer? MS. PAYTON: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with her on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it said that the developer's supposed to bring us addressed envelopes, and the county's supposed to mail them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're the ones that are going to come up with the addresses. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. We're giving them the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We're going to make them be responsible for the addresses. CHAIRMAN CARTER: They do that, Commissioner. That's their burden. MS. PAYTON: That's the problem, because it's their discretion ho gets on that list. MS. MURRAY: They're going to be required to provide us with the names of the people that they were required to notice. And they will likely get that from the property appraiser's office, and that's where we get our information as well. MS. PAYTON: But it's likely. What if it's not likely? See, there's too many holes in this notification program to make me comfortable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the critical piece. Susan, is this certified mail? That's the trick right there. If Page 27 October 1 O, 2001 it's required to be certified mail, then there is a receipt so that we all know that -- MS. MURRAY: That's costly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's got to be some -- some common ground here between getting it out. And GIS is going to help us with this, I know. We've got to find a way -- I mean, where do they get the list? Maybe we've got a way to cross-check that in the computer and make sure we've done everything. But be careful we don't get bogged down in a bureaucracy worrying whether we missed one or two people, and it costs us thousands and thousands of dollars to do that and defeat what we're trying do here. Let's -- I mean, I'm looking for workable administrative policies here, and I don't want to sit up here and micromanage it. I know what I want. I hear what Nancy wants. I know what I want. I know what I think I hear board members want. I'll leave it -- I would like before the next meeting to come back with some sketch that says, well, here's our checks and balances, is what we're trying to do. I think that's what we're trying to get at. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think that the idea of certified mail would be cost-effective. I really don't. But I do think that, you know, we're all -- we're going to have the cost -- the cost is going to be passed on to the petitioner, the person that's looking for the change to be made. Possibly we should be handling it at the county level so that everything's uniform. If the letter and the notice that's going out is uniform, people can identify with it. Same with the sign that we have here, the 4-by-8 sign. That should have some uniformity to it so people can spot it for what it is, rather than a for- sale sign for the lot. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These are small concerns, but they're for real. Page 28 October 10, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: You give them the models, is what you're saying. Here's a format. This is what has to go in it. This is how you do it, so that we don't get 15 different kinds of things. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to delay this -- the discussion on it because I don't want to hold up this whole proceeding. Does everyone else feel the same way, or am I alone on the fact I think maybe we should be doing it at the county level? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's what I -- I think that you may be right, and the reason that that's not as scary a concept is because this is -- this is not a property tax-supported function. I mean, this is a function supported by development application fees. So if you have to hire people to do this, then so be it. You put it into the fees instead of letting people farm it out themselves. I mean, I'd love to hear some kind of a cost analysis from the staff about how many people they think it would take. It would be my preference to do it in house, and then we know it's done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: of the sign. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the same with the seating Oh, so much so. I mean, the placing of it in such a way that you can't see it coming around the comer, a bush in the way, it could be an advantage for the developer that doesn't want to get the word out. If the county takes responsibility for it, then we know that we're going to have something that's uniform from time to time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need a cost analysis and you've got to find out -- remember, we've got the fee -- we've got the money now. I'm looking downstream. The process slows, you've got a big burden against your income stream, and when you reach a point where you don't have it, then you're going to have to make some different decisions. That may be well beyond when I'm sitting here, Page 29 October 10, 2001 but be careful what you do with building a bureaucracy. Careful. MS. MURRAY: I can tell you we've already started in house, procedurally, designing the signs. We've talked to a local sign contractor. And, you know, the applicants are free to go to whoever they want, but we are developing a standardized format that we will give them. We have a standardized format for our notification letters that we're working on as well and even a procedural manual. So we've already started that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But does the code say they're required to use that? That's the key. MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I suggest that it should say they're required to, not that it's suggested. MS. MURRAY: Perhaps as an alternative we could develop those types of standards for the signage and the notification and the procedures, and then reference that in the code and say that they'd be required to follow so that at least we would assure that everything would be standardized. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that could be done. It can be you're required to do bing, bing, bing bing, bing. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question to the board is if we give that responsibility to the -- our planning staff of posting the sign and notification by mail and somebody says, "Well, I didn't see the sign" or "I didn't get anything in the mail," whose that -- whose responsibility is that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the current situation. I mean, that's exactly -- right now we post the signs, and we send out the notices. Now we're just going to post bigger signs and send out more notices. Page 30 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what if the sign is not posted in a way that they feel that they could read it? What I'm trying to get is, where's the responsibility lie if we get our staff to do it as opposed to the person asking for the zoning change? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It'll lie exactly where it lies Pardon me? It would be exactly the same as it is today. I mean, you may be wanting to shift that responsibility to developers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what I'm getting at, is the responsibility, because they're asking for the zoning change. And maybe our legal department could address that if it is -- MS. PAYTON: I don't think shifting to developers is an appropriate thing to do at this time. I think that the public's (sic) got to step up and assume that responsibility. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think there's a cost associated with all of this, and if we've got the model and this is what it takes -- it costs you to do this, to go through the process, then it's a built-in cost of doing business. Here it is. It's Y dollars to do this, and there's no surprises here. And I think what makes the development community uneasy is, what are we supposed to do here? I'm talking about the quality people that say I want to do the right thing, but I'm not really sure what you want me to do. If you show them the right thing to do, the people who we really care about that are a part of our economic development here will do the right thing. MS. MURRAY: We can -- I mean, we -- right now code enforcement posts our signs and -- you know, but the planning department is responsible for showing them on a map exactly where we want the post -- the sign posted, and we could certainly do that for the public. That's not a problem. And I'd prefer to do that. Page 31 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nancy, let me explain. How I feel about that posting is right now people say that, well, we don't -- we didn't see the sign. And I -- is it the developer's fault? How I look at it -- excuse me. How I look at it is, well, our staff shares the responsibility there. If the developer does it, I'm going to say, well, wait a minute, Mr. Developer. Let's do the proper thing and post it or letter it or whatever and come back to us after you've talked to all the residents and inform them of what you're doing and address their concerns. That's where I'm coming from. MS. PAYTON: And I'm coming from a public perspective that feels that the county should be responsible for informing the public, because ultimately that's where it rests. And there's been problems in the past relying upon developers, deferring to developers. We're trying to transcend that and reestablish trust in this process. And by deferring to developers again, that's not going to work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, the -- presently the sign they're required to post is, what, the size of a paper like this (indicating)? MS. MURRAY: It's about twice the size of a standard real estate sign. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think the size is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: comparison to what it is now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to make a I don't know if the camera's following you, Jim, but it's a very good point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make a comparison. This (indicating) is what we were looking at, and this (indicating) is what we're going to be looking at. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you miss that, you've got more than a sight problem. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a visual right there. Page 32 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's going to be a number to call and hopefully posted on that sign that says your community liaison is this person. Call them with any questions. And there will be that person who shepherds them through the process. That's the way to do it, I think. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Ms. Payton. Let's go forward. MS. MURRAY: All right. And I did want to call your attention again, your DSAC recommendation. They had a couple of comments. They objected to the photograph of the sign by the petitioner and the submission to planning services, and they objected to the requirement to place the ad in the newspaper for the public participation meeting and to hold the public informational meeting. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly noted, but I don't concur with that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And who was it -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- myself. I don't know how the rest -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't either. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: DSAC? MS. MURRAY: DSAC. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't either. Who voiced those objections? Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I mean, I understand what they're saying, but I just personally don't agree with it. I hear -- I see two other nods up here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't agree. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So it looks like we just eliminate that, and I would look at, what are the planning council's comments? MS. MURRAY: Planning Commission recommendation, Page 33 October 1 O, 2001 actually, as written on there has been incorporated into the ordinance in front of you, so it's safe to say that they recommended approval as submitted to you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. MS. MURRAY: Okay. We're now on page 9 of your-- again, your original document that you received, and we're dealing with sections that -- commercial zoning districts, C-1, C-3, and C-4 districts. MR. DUNNUCK: Susan, if I could interrupt for a minute, we have one other public speaker. And if we could go to excavations, it may be a better way of addressing his -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What a good idea. MR. DUNNUCK: -- questions and allowing him to get out, get home to his family. MS. MURRAY: Would you like -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I apologize. Do we have any other public speakers that would like to speak at this point? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He wants to go to excavation topic. MS. MURRAY: We have a presentation by staff about it. Would you like to go to that first and then hear from the speaker? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we need to hear from staff, and then it may address the speaker's questions. And if it doesn't, then we'll have a basis to work from. Yes. MR. DUNNUCK: And we may be able to help you a little bit. I believe Stan made this presentation to the board through an interim policy change about a month and a half ago. And, Stan, you may just want to update them if there's been any changes since then to the excavation ordin -- you know, the proposed policy, and we can move forward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First I'd like to note for the Page 34 October 1 O, 2001 record the political correctness of Mr. Chrzanowski's tie, that not only is it patriotic, it's optimistic. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's an old tie, but if you hold on to anything long enough, it comes back into fashion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: 1910 or '127 No. Go ahead. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with development services, senior engineer. And I've been advised to give them the short version. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We always like that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This Land Development Code amendment is a result of Commissioner Coletta's constant badgering about excavations going on in Golden Gate Estates. I was advised to make the ordinance match what we were doing for policy as a result of previous board actions, boards prior to this. And in so doing, we also updated a lot of the ordinance itself, added -- we added a lot of rules about excavations in the estates. We added different types of excavations to make fee distributions more equitable. We increased some of the definitions to make everything a little clearer, and we went through the entire document and did a lot of housekeeping changes with the attorney. This document has been reviewed by Development Services Advisory Committee, every department head that deals with-- and every division head that deals with excavations at all. It's been looked at by the Environmental Advisory Council, the Collier County Planning Commission, and the Golden Gate Civic Association in a nighttime public meeting that was advertised well ahead of time in plain language and well attended. And if you have any questions at all, I'd be glad to answer them. And I do know we have one public speaker, and I don't think he wants to talk about something in this amendment. It's something related to it, though. Page 35 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a couple questions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. One of them as I was reading through -- and I thought this is a great document, and you've changed a lot of things. But in there it didn't say what guarantee do we have that the roads that might be damaged by the multitude of trucks hauling this excavation off site will be repaired. I -- I might have missed it, but I didn't see anything in here. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We do have a performance bond that the developer is supposed to post -- that the excavator is supposed to post, and we do collect -- we are -- at present we don't collect a road impact fee for damage to the road. We collect a road impact fee based on capacity. And I apologize we didn't e-mail all the commissioners on this. It's been ongoing. But we did e-mail Commissioner Coletta because he was part of the driving force behind this. One of the items that we've noticed is that the way the road impact fee is presently assessed is not equitable and can't be used to repair road damage. Beside the bond, we are going to change to a road impact fee based on the amount of damage done to the roads by heavy trucks in Collier County. We've come up with a formula. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it doesn't say how you're going to-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. We haven't -- we haven't put it in here yet. It was going to be on the next amendment cycle. It was done a little -- as a matter of fact, we were first going to put this entire amendment, this entire Section 3.5, on the next cycle, but we sped it up to get it onto this one. But the part dealing with damage to the roads will be on the next cycle. In the meantime -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also the inspection of them by whom -- I mean, I would guess that it would be county that would Page 36 October 1 O, 2001 want to inspect the roads rather than -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the excavator. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Road and bridge, probably. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stan, you put a lot of work into that part of the ordinance. I know. I seen the e-mail going back and forth with roads and bridges. You covered the subject remarkably well. I just hope that we can get to that point where we get the right fees in place to be able to adequately compensate us for the damage that's done. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was a joint effort. It was done with the cooperation of a lot of people and in spite of some others, but we got a product. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We won't go there today. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That next cycle is not -- that's soon. I think we start about January with that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. We've got all the numbers in the equations. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I think what's important here to our listening audience is you just don't rush in here and change something. You have to go through a lot of work to get to where we are tonight. So you take a big chunk tonight, and you get it approved. Commissioner Fiala raised an excellent point. What about the next chunk? Well, we're going to have it in the next cycle, so that's -- that's how this gets done. And at the end of the -- of this year from where we started, you're going to have so many improvements that we just need to do a great public information PR program on 54 to bring people up to speed so they understand what we've accomplished. MR. DUNNUCK: Stan, before we go to public comment, since we know Mr. Weeks' issue, why don't you give the board a quick Page 37 October 1 O, 2001 outline of what it would take if we wanted to implement his change that he's recommending, since it's not part of this cycle this evening. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if I'm correct, Mr. Weeks -- on the last amendment cycle, they added commercial excavations as a conditional use in estate zoning. And at the time I was told we were adding commercial excavation as a conditional use, I didn't read it well. I didn't pay attention to the fact that they added something about it being on a minimum 20-acre lot. If anything, it probably should have said a maximum 20-acre lot, because there are 5-acre lots out there. And, you know, maybe somebody heard somebody wrong. We don't know exactly what happened, but it's in the code that way. And at present we're telling people that you have to buy at least four 5- acre lots and put them together to do a fairly massive excavation in Golden Gate Estates, and that was never the object of this. So that's, I think, what he wants to say. MR. DUNNUCK: Well-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we have no objection to his comment. We think he's probably correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think it's time, sir. We're putting words in your mouth. We'll let you speak. MR. WEEKS: My name's Jim Weeks. I represent myself and my wife and our four children. I have done several Golden Gate Estates excavations on 5- and 6-acre tracts. I have one presently under the new policy that I've submitted for conditional use which would fall under all the signage and the posting and the new requirements. They're refusing to process it because of either a typo or an extreme misunderstanding that's in the LDC right now concerning a 20-acre minimum. We could search for a few days through tax records and not find many 20-acre chunks of land in Golden Gate Estates. They're down to the fives and sevens and twos Page 38 October 1 O, 2001 and ones. We just don't -- it just doesn't exist, really, in a practical sense. In my conversation with your staff, they all seem to concur that somehow there was an error here. And Commissioner Coletta seemed to feel that was -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know there's an error. MR. WEEKS: I mean, can you imagine saying in a -- you know, the idea of-- we can do home sites, but a 20-acre -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody meant that. I didn't intend that. So as far as I'm concerned, please correct it. I mean, that's my -- if you get three nods -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How soon can we get it corrected so Mr. Weeks can get on with his life here? If I may, too, I just want to remind you, Jim was the person that kept the well issue from Naples Well Field in front of the board here and gave his great attention to it and spent a lot of time researching it. And it's starting to bring some sort of resolution through his efforts, and I appreciate that very much. And he has been a perfect example of how to do things right out there. You ought to see some of his lakes that he built and the pads for the houses. Absolutely beautiful. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In anticipation, Marjorie, of this correction -- or if we're -- if actually what we're saying is -- on the record we're clarifying our legislative intent, couldn't staff enforce it today and do it the way we intended it? MS. STUDENT: I think-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's a scrivener's error. MS. STUDENT: I think that could be problematic, and what we want to look into is researching with the staff to make sure there is a scrivener's error. The ordinance -- when you do a scrivener's error, we usually have a separate ordinance, and it's advertised as a scrivener's error, and it comes to you on your regular agenda. So Page 39 October 10, 2001 we'd probably want to look at that and getting it to you as quickly as we can, because that's how we usually do a scrivener's error. It wouldn't have gone through the whole set of cycle that way. And we will look at possibly the ability to, you know, bring it back in the two weeks' time in the evening if-- if we can. But one way or the other, it sounds as though, from what I'm hearing, it was a scrivener's error, and it should come to you in that form. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So we could either catch it on the 23rd at the regular board meeting or bring it back in the LDC meeting on the 24th. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. It's going to have to meet advertising requirements. That's the issue. But we'll do it as quickly as we can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what -- how much advertising is required for this? MS. STUDENT: Okay. For this -- your final meeting we have COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no, no. My question is how much advertising is required for an ordinance to correct a scrivener's error? MS. STUDENT: I believe we usually do a ten -- I have to double-check, but I think it's usually -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we ought to be able to make -- MS. STUDENT: It's either 10 or 15 days. But there's also a little lead time the paper has to have to get that, but we'll work as quickly as we can to fix that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there something we can do to move Jim along to the point where once this is rectified, he's got his permit like that (indicating) and can move so that he is not going to have to wait to start the process over from zero when this is done and move forward? Can we possibly get all his papers together, all his -- Page 40 October 1 O, 2001 everything filed and ready to go so that that day two weeks from now, we pass it, and he's in business and ready to go? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I suppose we can take in the application and the money and start the reviews. And if it doesn't pass, he just gets turned down. MR. WEEKS: I've already paid the conditional use fee. I'm out 2200 or $2100, whatever it might be. And basically it is, like, a three-month procedure, when I talked to the planners, by the time I get to a Planning Commission meeting and then proper notification and then get to the county commission. So it is. It's a very long -- it is a financial hardship. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You could get it through the system, couldn't you, John? Get it started so that once the error's corrected, he's ready to -- he's at least -- MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly. We can provide an application pending board approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. WEEKS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's fast-track it, whatever we have to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One more time, I mean, let's do reward these good citizens who -- who try to work for us and not against us. We sure appreciate that good work that you do out there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have some questions if I may. Okay. The 12 to 20 foot in depth, that 20 foot isn't going to be a problem as far as the oxygen levels in the water to maintain the fish population that'll keep the mosquitoes from being a problem; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The--okay. We went Page 41 October 1 O, 2001 over the 20 acres. We're going to take care of that. Within 300 feet of the property line, within 500 feet of the excavation itself, developer's (sic) services director shall give prior written notice of the Environment Advisory Council meeting by first class mail. At what point are we going to ask for their input and not ask for it? Is that up to the call of the director? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Do you mean the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The advisory -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- input of the public or the EAC? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Environmental Advisory Council. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We are going to ask for their input all the time. Every one of these that goes in will go through EAC. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In 3.5.5.4.2, "Dust or noise generated by the excavation will not cause a violation of any applicable provisions of Article 2 of this code," I'm a little bit lost on that. It seems like it's contrary to what we were talking about before. Shouldn't it be something where-- unusual amount of dust or-- you know, in other words, do they have the complete say of how they operate? No matter how much dust they generate, they can stay in operation; it's no violation? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You have to read 3.5.5.4 where it says, "Approval by the site development review director and the board shall be granted only upon competent and substantial evidence submitted by the applicant, that dust or noise generated by the excavation will not cause a violation of any applicable provisions of Article 2 of the code." COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that one doesn't cancel the other out? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not the way I read it, and I think the county attorney-- Page 42 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: so that satisfies my question. all this-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I get a nod from legal on that, And I don't mean to take you through You go right ahead. This is your section of the LDC. You know more about it than any of us. You go right ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. On this, I want to remind the board, you didn't agree with me before. I'm going to bring it up one more time, and we'll move right on. I won't hold you up with it. (As read): "Commercial Type III and development excavation permits will be of an indefinite duration or until the excavation reaches the limits of permitted size, providing the excavation operation remains active in accordance with the requirements of this division." In other words, we're not asking for a review at any point in time to see if they're holding to their part of the bargain for what they're going to do and not do. Is that still the direction of this board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can't we use code enforcement to-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've got code enforcement, but there's that possibility they can ignore code enforcement and numerous violations. And it gets to the point where the residents may feel they've been violated so many times, and that was something I brought up before. At that time we didn't go any farther with it, and the direction we gave staff was that it would be continuous. I was looking for something to review it every two years. And I do want to bring it up. I think I owe it to the residents out there to bring it up one more time. Whatever your will may be, I'll follow that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So what is it now? There's never a review? Page 43 October 10, 2001 until your COMMISSIONER COLETTA: the end. COMMISSIONER HENNING: constituents? No. It goes -- it's continuous What are you hearing from COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the ones I was dealing with before, they have reached some agreements with the people in the pits because of the pressure that's being put on. These are large pits, not the small ones in the estates. They -- they were very upset with the fact that this was ongoing. They called up code enforcement numerous times for violation of operation on Sundays. And once or twice they called me, and then I called code enforcement. And, of course, right after that it always stopped. You know, just one of those facts of life. What I'm saying is it just gives us the ability to be able to waive it. In other words, if it comes before us and there's something that we want to review, we can do that; or else we can just say, you know, they've been living up to it and waive it, and it moves right on through. It's just a way to be able to hold everybody to what they promised to do two years down the road, rather than indefinitely. That's the concern. I don't know how many new pits we're going to end up with out there. Possibly we already reached the limits. I don't know. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would it be a possibility -- I mean, I don't know whether it's two years, three years, four years. Is there some number that big-pit operators would be amenable to for doing the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think they would be amenable to whatever we passed here as long as we're realistic too. One year might be too short of a duration. Two years might be something more in tune with what would work for everyone. But if we get a chronic violator out there, they know that they're going to Page 44 October 10, 2001 have to deal with their license coming up for review every two years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm trying to recall what the objections were from the industry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There wasn't. It was from this panel. We had no objections from the industry to that proposal. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Maybe there was a cost. I mean, I don't know what it means by review. I mean, I really don't know what we're talking about here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Stan, do you have advice for us.'? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We have a lot of large pits in town: Willow Run, Delongand (phonetic) Lake Pit, Florida Rock. Some of them are coming to an end. I don't think you could -- I suppose you could do anything. You could probably tell them to come back in every two years, but I think their permits are already granted on a permanent status. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's probably true. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But the new ones -- I don't know how many truly really large pits we're going to see in this town from now on. You could require them to come back every two years. It would -- if we don't have too many of them, it wouldn't be that hard to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think you'd have that many. I just got a nod from legal that you really couldn't enforce this on the present pits. They're more or less grandfathered in. The agreement they have with the county is in perpetuity until they use up their resources. So be it. But new ones, when they come in, it would give us the ability -- because the new ones coming in -- they will have to put pits out there eventually someplace. It would give us a little bit more of a way to be able to deal with that situation when it comes up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I kind of thought, you know, why not put that in as an amendment so that for the next reading in Page 45 October 1 O, 2001 two weeks, we are making that change. And then it gets advertised, and we try to contact people in the industry, find out if there -- if that is a problem, give staff a chance to absorb it. But frankly, Commissioner, I don't remember why I disagreed with you, and so I'm, you know, inclined to think you know more about it than I do and to go with your recommendation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think let's put it out there and see what happens. If nobody comes in and complains, then we've accomplished the goal. New pits, two-year review. We could look at that in the future or boards can look at that. Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. For those that would be coming in as new conditional use requests, certainly one of the things you could put in as a condition of that conditional use would be some type of a two-year cycle for review. That does not have to come through the permit per se, and that way you'd still have the option to review them if you wanted on a case-by- case basis. There may be circumstances where it may not be required, if they're sufficiently far in the rural area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could live with that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tom, do you have a comment? MR. COOK: Yeah. For the record, Tom Cook, engineering director. My only question or concern was -- and I was involved with one of the rock quarries for about 4 1/2 years, Southern Sand and Stone. But those operations, they're looking at a huge investment. You know, I'm talking 10, $12 million for the land and the same amount in equipment. And the only thing, we're going to have to be very cautious because there's going to be a need for those large quarries in the future. And if they see there could be a risk to making that type of investment and they could lose that at the end of two years, we could have a problem. I just wanted to bring that forward. But I agree there's probably something we need to look at. We Page 46 October 1 O, 2001 do require annual reports from the excavation-- big commercial pits, and there's probably some other things we can look at. But I just think we need to be cautious if we put a two-year time frame where they could lose their permits, looking at the huge investment they have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the purpose of this whole exercise is to try to ensure ourselves of good neighbors. MR. COOK: I agree. And I think-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe what we could do is put -- you know, staff is smart. They could draft some language that would say you come in for a two-year review, and absent -- if you haven't had violations, if you haven't had complaints, you know, you can rely on -- it's a right of renewal subject to cancellation for violations or something like that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd be willing to go so far as to say unresolved complaints. There's always going to be a complaint, and sometimes they're unfounded. MR. COOK: That's something we can look at this week or next week and maybe bring some -- some draft language back to you in two weeks. But just a little bit -- I just wanted to bring forward what the problem may be on a two-year time frame. And the people that really would be jeopardized would actually be the county themselves because of the raw material they need to build new roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to build some roads, aren't we, and need some -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask you to stay there for just a minute? I have another question, too, while you're at it. The hours of operation, 7 a.m. To 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Is it absolutely necessary that these pits operate on Saturday? It's an honest question. I mean, if you feel that that is, I want to hear that now. Page 47 October 1 O, 2001 MR. COOK: The one way I'm going to address that is that we got a request about a year ago -- with all the road construction going on in the county, a request for some of them to work a little bit longer hours because the volume of work going on, they had to work those additional hours in order to get the material to build the county roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got a good point. Is there a possibility there could be some sort of waiver, or that would have to be petitioned for separately? MR. COOK: What we could do is have it from 7 to 5 Monday through Friday and with a provision that if they needed to work Saturdays, that they would have to come forward, and we would get the county manager's approval. And that's what we did this past year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about two different kinds of pits. The one we're talking about now is the ones out in the agricultural land who have very little in the way of neighbors on it. The impact is still there. And then we're talking about the pits that are in the estates area where the residents live close to them, and they're affected very much by the noise. And in the estates we're talking about hours that go from 7:00 to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. I was wondering on that if we could adjust that time to 5 p.m., if that would be unrealistic. MR. COOK: I don't see any problem with that, really. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't see any problem with it either but -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, it'll be coming back to us again in a couple weeks. MR. COOK: And part of the reason I'm saying that is we're really permitting a commercial operation in a residential area, and I think that we can be -- that we should be, probably, more restrictive in those cases for protection of the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Saturday and Sunday on that. Page 48 October 1 O, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, there is. On the restoration or the -- of the banks itself, rye grass is acceptable? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we're trying to get a growth of grass. Out there there's no irrigation, and rye grass tends to grow quickly and put down a good root bed for other grasses to move in, and it stabilizes fairly fast. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Originally we were talking about Bahia. I was just wondering. I know rye grass is -- it comes up, it lives for so long, and then dies off. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. But it leaves a good root mat, and other things will root in there. I could have a 50/50 rye grass/Bahia mix if you'd like. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Something that's going to stabilize these banks so that after the drought takes place, everything dies off, we don't want them to wash out. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That is a problem. The only good part about the estates is you don't have -- the ground is so flat that there's not a whole lot of tremendous gullies washing into these lakes from any one place. A 50/50 rye grass/Bahia mix might work. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would think that would be a little more acceptable, and we'll have something that will survive past that first season. And that's it -- oh, one more. I didn't see in here mentioning about no blasting in the estates. I may have missed it, but I didn't see it. The depth they're going into, they shouldn't -- they shouldn't be required to blast. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm positive it's in there. If it's not-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then you'll take care of it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- it was taken out by mistake. 3.5.7.10.3, "Blasting will not be permitted." That's special requirements for Type I/Type II commercial estates. Page 49 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I think I read through it a little too fast. I appreciate -- you did a wonderful job on this, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Okay. Now we can return back to the regular agenda, unless there's other questions by the commissioners. MR. DUNNUCK: And there are no further public speakers. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: And for the record I'm Susan Murray, and I have about three more sections to go through, and then we will be finished. And I'm working from the handwritten copy of page 9 of your original submittal, and we're dealing with the C-1, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts. And this amendment is per your direction. Specifically, in the C-1 zoning district, if you'll see at the top of the page here under the bold underline where it says "automobile parking (7521)," the underlying provision says "except for tow-in parking." So that will be -- that use will no longer be permitted in the C-1 zoning districts. And because of that, that would also include the C-2, C-3, and C-4 zoning districts. Then the next section, permitted uses, you'll see No. 4, automotive services. And then we're excepting out the activity of wrecker service including the towing of automobiles and road and towing service. And that's for the C-3 district but also includes and affects the C-4 zoning district. And then the next section, 2.2.15.2.1, under permitted uses for the C-4 zoning district, you'll see No. 5. We are excepting out the activity of tow-in parking lots from that section. As a result, you'll have -- tow-in parking and wrecker service will only be permitted in the C-5 zoning district. The next section is page 10, and this is the industrial zoning district. And this was brought about because the Immokalee airport Page 50 October 10, 2001 is currently located in the industrial district and operates as a nonconforming use. The Airport Authority is also the owner of a considerable amount of land, and they intend to encourage development around the airport for industrial land uses, those type of uses, which would further enhance the airport operations, obviously. And consequently it is important that the current industrial zoning district be -- I'm sorry. That it -- we allow the current industrial zoning district to be retained so that we need -- the result of that is that we need to add general aviation airport as a permitted use in the industrial zoning district. And that's nothing unusual. Most of your airports are located in industrial type of zoning districts in other counties. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question on No. 19, where it talks about gunsmith shops and shooting range for testing and training, and I thought, gee, in this day and time, is that a good idea to have on an airport property? MS. MURRAY: Actually, the way that's written -- and I'm sorry. That may be a little bit confusing -- is we've added this use, general aviation airport. And we try to keep them alphabetical in the code. So what happens is when we add a use, all the uses that are already in there -- which is what-- gunsmith shops is already a permitted use in industrial -- they get bumped down, and they get renumbered. And that's why you actually see that in there. So presently gunsmith shops is permitted in industrial, and it's not really related to the airport. They're two separate and distinct uses. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it allowed on an airport property? MS. MURRAY: Well, if it was zoned industrial, I guess it would be. MR. WHITE: Perhaps, Commissioner-- Assistant County Attorney Patrick White -- there's an exception at the end for outdoor Page 51 October 1 O, 2001 shooting ranges. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But you can still have indoor shooting -- MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and guns and everything right on the airport, and I don't know. Right now I just -- MR. WHITE: I've seen those, actually not here but in other jurisdictions, and they typically are below ground, the enclosed ranges. MS. MURRAY: And that would also have to be allowed by the airport, of course, which they probably would frown on. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. The Airport Authority has a lot to say about that. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question not particularly for Susan, just a clarification. Is it the airport that owns the property, or is it the county that owns the property? MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, county attorney. And I recall that the county has entered into a very long-term lease with the Airport Authority. We are the underlying owner still, and by legal requirement needed to be. We're the owner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, is this language in here conflicting of what you just said? MR. WEIGEL: Which language? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's saying that the airport is -- let me get to it. (As read): "The Airport Authority is also owner of a considerable amount of land, and the intent and encourage development of industrial-type activities." It's saying that the Airport Authority is the owner of a considerable amount of land. MR. WEIGEL: Definitively I can't say that that is correct, but for a factual statement, we can make sure that the statement is correct Page 52 October 1 O, 2001 factually next week. If it isn't correct, it'll be corrected. If it is correct, we'll tell you before then, as well as at the meeting, that the language as stated now is correct. I know that there's a very long lease, and my recollection-- I wasn't involved directly on it-- was it's either a straight lease or it's -- the only other concept would be a transfer with a leaseback. And that just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think that that's the case, but we'll let you know. MS. MURRAY: Again, as the -- the Airport Authority, as a long-term lessee, of course, has the ability to develop the land. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still going back to the gunsmith shops on the airport property. I just don't like that idea at all, especially with the remoteness of the Immokalee Airport and-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I tell you why I'm not worried about that? Two things. One is it's merely -- it's already -- it's already gunsmith shops and outdoor shooting -- I mean indoor shooting ranges are already permitted in the industrial area. And what we're doing now is adding airports as, you know, a use. So theoretically it could happen that there would be a piece of land in an industrial area that's an airport that then could seek to have a shooting range, indoor shooting. But when you think it through to the next step, the applicant, the owner, slash, control of that airport, we don't have private airports. We have public airports. They're owned and controlled by the Airport Authority, so they would be -- you'd have to be worried that the Naples Airport Authority or the Collier County Airport Authority is going to come in and build a gun range on their airport. And they're not going to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I'm not -- I'm saying gunsmith shop. -I'm just saying a place to dispense guns. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. Stick with Commissioner Mac'Kie for a minute, Commissioner Fiala. Page 53 October 1 O, 2001 Ultimately, the county Airport Authority reports to us and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're not going to want a gun shop on the airport property. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Nobody wants a gun shop there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would hope -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I mean, it's just not going to happen. So I think we're kind of getting ourselves wrapped around a flagpole here on something that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe too much. I'm just taking security measures. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand. But I think it's -- we've got the control mechanisms unless the Board of County Commissioners in the future has completely been anesthetized or whatever and had a lobectomy somewhere. They're not going to allow that to happen. So I'm going to have the confidence that future commissioners will think just like we do: You don't have gun shops at airports. Unless it gets to that point where you get armed before you get on the plane. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I correct that a general aviation airport is a public airport? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER private airport? I mean, have a private airport in Laden Airlines wants to MAC'KIE: So I don't have to worry about a what I was saying before is true. Could you an industrial area, and you know, Osama bin have a gunsmith? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's a lot of concerns, why don't we just make it a conditional use in industrial, and then we won't have to deal with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that will hurt our Immokalee Airport. I'm not worried about this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I can't support changing it myself. Page 54 October 10, 2001 Unless there's three nods up here, I'm not going to go there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I was just -- and, Susan, I look to you for your expertise. I just thought that maybe we should suggest that a gun shop or anything that handles firearms shouldn't be located on an airport property, even if it's an industrial area or it's a warehousing area. I just don't think that that's the place for us to have any firearms. But if-- if-- I'm not -- if nobody's in agreement, well, I stand corrected. MS. MURRAY: Perhaps I could suggest that in the next round of amendments if you wanted to make that a conditional use in the industrial zoning district, then it would be required to come before a public hearing before you. And obviously if it was on the airport property or in a proximity where you felt, you know, that it was unsafe -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, there's a good idea. Any time anybody wants to have any kind of shooting range, it ought to be a conditional use in any zoning district in Collier County, would be fine with me. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be a great idea, and I'll tell you why. Most of these shooting ranges that come up, they train people in the responsible use of firearms. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would venture to guess that our listening audience out there, probably two out of every three people have a firearm in their home. Maybe only one out of every five has received adequate training to know how to use that weapon safely. So these things are a necessary component of our civilization today. I do think you've got a good reason to be concerned, and I would suggest that maybe we look at it as a conditional use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what Tom kind of suggested, that-- you were the one that suggested conditional use. Page 55 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER HENNING: At the airport, yes. But I'm not sure if we can go -- we don't want to deter business from -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm just merely concerned about the airport. I just didn't feel that anything that close to aircraft would -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you know, I can have a fertilizer deal there, and I could sell gasoline. And it doesn't take too much that I can concoct something that could blow up the whole place, and it's not a gun. So, I mean, I just -- I just have to have some confidence in the system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You-all don't want to get me started at my last LDC meeting talking about the changes we could make in all of the gun laws that we have in this county because we have -- there's an exception in Collier County. We have gun shows in Collier County that don't have the waiting period for licensing, etc. I -- I would commend that to your future consideration. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: Just to elaborate on what Susan was saying as well, we already have on our schedule to bring back to you the full review of the industrial zoning district as part of the commercial zoning district as well. So that is already provided in your next cycle, and I've actually tentatively scheduled a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners for November 9th to discuss where we are today so that the board has a clear picture when we get into those second-- those hearings. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's very important for the Airport Authority to give us some direction on this because we definitely don't want to take away some of their abilities to generate Page 56 October 1 O, 2001 money. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's face it. We are interested in the economic development of the authority, and we want responsible operations in there, and we're going to look for direction. I agree. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. So let's continue if we might, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: I have just one more amendment to go over, and then Marjorie's going to summarize the sign amendment very quickly, I know. And the last one I'm dealing with here is on page 36, and this is the PUD sunsetting. As you recall, you directed us to come back to you to change the sunsetting requirement from the current requirement of five years to three years, and we have done that. We've added -- for residential PUDs the requirement is that a minimum amount of 15 percent -- let me back up a second. For residential PUDs the owner is required to initiate physical development of infrastructure improvements, including roads, internal roads, sewer and water utilities, and any other related infrastructure that would allow a minimum of 15 percent of the designated residential area to be developed with authorized dwelling units immediately following the third year from its approval date and 15 percent thereafter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So let me be sure to translate this. If-- worst-case scenario, I've rezoned a property, and at some period -- I know that my three-year window is about to close, so I start construction. Depending on the size of my project, how long would it take me to build 15 percent? But 15 percent of the horizontal infrastructure -- or 15 percent -- the horizontal infrastructure necessary to support 15 percent of the total development of the PUD has to be in place at the end of the third year? Page 57 October 1 O, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Fifteen percent of the designated residential areas to be developed with authorized dwelling units. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. I read it, but I'm asking you to tell me what-- MS. MURRAY: It would be an acreage calculation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this is probably a lawyer question, you guys, that -- because if it means this, then I think it's on the right track. What I hope it means is that at the end of the third year, your PUD stays alive if you have constructed enough horizontal infrastructure to support 15 percent of your total -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Vertical. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- vertical construction. Is that what this means? MS. MURRAY: I think this reads as 15 percent of designated areas, which is an acreage calculation, to be developed with authorized dwelling units. So there's no -- in other words, you're not taking -- if you're authorized to build a thousand dwelling units, you're not taking enough infrastructure for 15 percent of those. I think it's 15 percent of the acreage. And if you'll stand by for just a second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the difference -- MS. MURRAY: My staff concurs with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Help me see what the practical implication of that is. And this is the one, Commissioner Coletta, I want to really get right, like we did on that other -- on the excavation, because years ago when we did -- we thought we had done a good thing with the sunsetting ordinance, and we hadn't done squat, you know. I'd like to make this one more meaningful. The old one just said in five years you have to substantially commence construction on -- on the horizontal infrastructure. And I thought I knew what that meant and thought, okay, we've done something real. We hadn't Page 58 October 1 O, 2001 done anything. They'd go out there and push some dirt around on the last day, and it was enough to, you know, keep the sunsetting from kicking in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you right now, I'm going to miss you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not going to be far. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's interesting is you brought this up and how you interpreted it, the attorney, real estate attorney, and then how Susan interpreted it, but then she wasn't even really sure. So that shows that maybe the English that we're trying to put into all of these things isn't as clear as we're hoping it will be. MS. MURRAY: I guess probably I need to explain why it's written that way, and this is in terms of residential units only. Now, the commercial and industrial are a little bit different. I think the overriding concern here is that we have infrastructure in place. We're not overly concerned with the number of dwelling units, per se, in that we are concerned with the fact that there needs to be the horizontal infrastructure in place to support development. The concern being that should the developer go belly-up or whatever, that we aren't left with a piece of property that is halfway completed or halfway -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's -- and forgive me, but I'm going to interrupt you because that is a very important rationale for this, but for me it's not even the most important rationale. The most important one for me is that as -- as we learn more about, you know, what smart growth is or what is the development pattern we want to encourage in this community, we want a chance to get our hands on those old PUDs and adjust them to current standards, not necessarily, you know, only worrying about if this developer is going to continue to build what he has permission to build. I want a shot at making him stop and bring it up to current standards. Page 59 October 1 O, 2001 MS. MURRAY: That's certainly your prerogative. I guess our thoughts here is that normally people don't invest that much money into infrastructure improvements and then walk away, kind of thing. I mean, in other words, they don't wait a long period of time from when they install the improvements to when they actually start the construction because they've invested so much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we have 15 percent of horizontal infrastructure in place, and I think I know, perhaps, where Commissioner Mac'Kie is going here. In terms of changed standards, whether it's landscaping, whether it's community character design, whatever it is, those have to be brought up to standard. You can't do what you've always done. You've got to do what we're doing now. So if we've got 15 percent of the horizontal structure in, roads, sewer, etc., you figure that they've made a significant investment so that they will not abandon the PUD. And even if they did, it's -- there's enough there that we can get the other changes no matter who ends up purchasing it. MS. MURRAY: I think you're right along the same track. I think we are -- you're going to see the development of housing come very shortly thereafter the implementation of the infrastructure. I don't think anybody's going to drag out for a couple more years the development of some houses so they can avoid the sunsetting process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's too expensive. MS. MURRAY: It's too expensive, right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if you're coming at it from the perspective -- and I am coming at it from the perspective of not worried about -- I mean, I know we have had instances on Marco Island and other places where, you know, developers have gone belly-up, and so the project was not completed, and it was a big mess. But this sunset is so that we -- we avoid the situation that we Page 60 October 1 O, 2001 currently have where we have old PUDs on the books that we pray will never get built because they're horrible, and there's nothing we can do about them because they were approved in '78 or something. And every five years they go out there and push a little dirt around on the site so that they keep their PUD alive. This is our shot at keeping -- at getting to change those old PUDs. And then the next phase is going to be, you know, we don't want to just talk about landscaping. We want to talk about tear the whole thing up and start over, which is not the way we looked at them before. MS. MURRAY: One of the -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: this? Pam, what is missing from COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just not sure what it means. MS. MURRAY: I was going to try to explain a little bit further of how it's different from the current regulations. The current regulations actually allow you to have improvement plans or development orders in place. But if-- as you know, SDPs and subdivision plats have a time frame, and an SDP is valid for two years after its approval. And so I think where it's different here is that we're actually saying you have to have physical development in place. You just don't have to have an approved plan sitting in our office for two years while you figure out if you're actually going to build the PUD or not. This is requiring you to have physical improvements in place, meaning you have an improved plan, you have pulled building permits, you have paid impact fees, you have -- you know, you're -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You went to the bank, and you borrowed a ton of money, and you're paying interest on that construction loan. MS. MURRAY: That's the difference, and I don't know if Page 61 October 1 O, 2001 that -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: So many people buy this thing, and they paid cash for them perhaps, or they're just -- they bought land, and they may be making payments on it, but they haven't done anything with it. They're just sitting there waiting for an opportunity for appreciation to flip the PUD. That's the reality of what we struggled with in the past. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For this -- at the next meeting, Susan, where we -- where we consider this or between now and the next meeting, could you provide to the commissioners existing -- a map of the county that shows all of the existing PUDs and that has even, you know, dates of approval or-- you must have some flowchart somewhere that tells you which ones are coming up and what you're getting close to, because this is your meatiest opportunity to change the way this county looks or the way this county will look. The density -- the community character-- forgive me -- meaningless unless you can get a shot at some of these old PUDs. And so you really want this 15 percent, if that's the rule -- and maybe that's a reasonable rule. It's certainly an improvement over where we are today. But my goal would be to have the lawyers tell us how aggressive can we be in getting a shot at -- at revoking the old PUDs. I want to be as aggressive as we can be, and that's going to -- that's my next question down there in that last paragraph, about the grandfathered in. Do we have to give them that? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. PUDs by themselves -- and there's case law about zoning without more. You're not vested for anything. So I think we've come up with some -- I hate to be vague but-- reasonable time period and give them kind of what we call a use-it-or-lose-it provision. However, there is case law that tells us that after you start to do infrastructure and you put infrastructure in to serve a certain Page 62 October 1 O, 2001 type of development, that they may -- it doesn't necessarily mean they absolutely are, but they may be vested, at least to the extent of the development the infrastructure is designed to serve. But I think if you're talking just about an old paper PUD that hasn't done anything at all, that we may have ability, and we can certainly look at that with staff. Of course, the other thing that's out there is, you know, Burt Harris, and I don't know how those might play out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know what you just -- MS. STUDENT: But that's just a consideration. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- this is how aggressive I would be -- and, Marjorie, you just gave me the idea -- is that if they've got their 15 percent of the horizontal infrastructure in place-- and we're just going to keep saying that. We know it doesn't exactly really mean that. It means 15 -- it means the infrastructure necessary to support 15 percent of the acres of residential property in the PUD. That's what they really have to do. And I don't know what that means as far as is that just the gate and the entry road? I mean, I wish somebody could translate that between now and the next meeting too. In a typical PUD, what's that likely to be? But if we have to vest them because of the 15 percent, how about if they're only vested as to what Marjorie said, the amount of construction that that infrastructure that's in place is designed to serve, that they're only -- you can still have a chance to look at this PUD the next year if they don't continue -- I mean, maybe it's 15 percent the first year and an additional 25 or 30 the next year and an additional -- you know, something more aggressive than what you have here, as aggressive as the lawyers will tell you you can be. Because otherwise when you see this map of all the old PUDs, you're going to understand how little property you've even got a chance to look at as a county commissioner. There's not much. Page 63 October 10, 2001 MS. STUDENT: I think what -- where I was going was if you have a paper PUD and that's it, I think you can, you know, pick a reasonable time period, and it's use it or lose it. It gets a little trickier once you start putting infrastructure in and determining what it serves and then how one phase may be interrelated with -- it gets tricky. I mean, I've seen that in the case law. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course it does. MS. STUDENT: So I mean, I just want to put that on the record, that it can be tricky. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Pam, how did this grand -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chair, she's got to do something. (A discussion was held off the record.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's ready. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Pam, you mentioned grandfathering before. I think you mentioned all these old PUDs. How does this affect that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if-- if there's an old PUD and they don't -- right now -- right now if there's an old PUD and they do nothing, then it's what Marjorie's referring to as a paper PUD. They've got -- they've got a zoning approval on paper. And if they came in today and asked for you to approve that PUD the way it is currently, you would laugh them out of the room because they're vague. They're not good. They don't have anything about community character. They don't have anything -- they're not even close to what we require today. So the goal is to get those off the books and to bring them up to current regulations. And the only way to do that is to eliminate the grandfathered ones, to give them a use-it-or-lose-it time, and that's what this is about. And we're defining what is "use it." And "use it" Page 64 October 1 O, 2001 is 15 percent of the infrastructure in the first three years and 15 percent every year thereafter. And if you do that, then you get to keep your PUD the way it is. If you don't do that, then it's going to get torn up, and you start over. That's not quite what this says, but that's what I'm wanting it to say. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. You get into -- and I've seen cases like this. It gets very complicated because say, for example, you have a PUD with a spine road in it, and the spine road's already been built. And that's to serve, you know -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fifteen percent. MS. STUDENT: -- like, a lot of-- more than 15. And it's very hard. I think it's going to be very difficult to try to write something like that. And I think you also still, notwithstanding this provision -- you know, somebody might want to come in and say they're vested anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MS. STUDENT: And it's easier when you have the one that's done nothing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MS. STUDENT: And you have the use-it-or-lose-it for them. Then this gets some momentum going where they have to continue, and I'm assuming it's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if you're telling me it's too hard, if we can't go as far as I'd like to go, then that's what I'm looking for, is some legal advice that says that's too far. But are you -- you don't question whether or not we can go as far as they have proposed in this draft language, do you? MS. STUDENT: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. This language you're willing to say is okay. As I understand it, with regard to residential, it says within three years, 15 per -- infrastructure necessary to support Page 65 October 1 O, 2001 the residential that will be on 15 -- on 15 percent of your residential acreage. MS. MURRAY: Let me give you an example that might help you. You have a hundred-lot subdivision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: All right. Say it let's -- and that -- let's just say that's your maximum lots you're allowed in your PUD. Fifteen of those have to be served-- after three years have to be served with infrastructure, not just a spine road going through the project. We're talking about utilities, you know, water, sewer, electric access. And, you know, it's obviously platted. So 15, plus every three years -- or beginning of the third year and every 15 percent thereafter have to be -- have that infrastructure in place. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And did that -- and it sounds like that's as far as we can go. My question is, did the 15 percent come from advice from legal, or is that just sort of a feeling, or could it be 25 percent? What-- you know ... CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're asking where we got the percentage. What's the most aggressive percentage we can put in there? MS. STUDENT: I think that 15 percent probably came from staff, and I think probably a reasonable number is to look at what a reasonable build-out time is, and then, you know, you divide that by -- you know, if it's -- the number of-- you know, the percentage into the number of years to get how long they have to build out. But I think you have to look at what a reasonable build out is, and then, you know, you divide that and come up with the percentage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So could we ask staff-- is there support on the board to ask staff to look at that and give us aggressive numbers for the next -- in two weeks? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Page 66 October 1 O, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think anybody's going to disagree with that. MS. STUDENT: I just have a point of clarification here, that what I believe this language means is to serve 15 percent of the permitted residential -- is that what that really means instead of-- it talks about acreage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was my original question. MS. MURRAY: Designated residential areas. It doesn't have a dwelling unit count attached to it. We -- in our PUDs we designate residential acreage. I mean, it's -- there's an actual number in the PUD, and then we have a maximum number of dwelling units. And then, of course, the density and the acreage equate to the number of-- the total number of dwelling units you're going to have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So -- so you guys need to clean that language up, just make it as clear as you can and give us as aggressive a number as you can. And that was the easy issue of the one that I had to raise from a legal perspective, because the other one that I have -- and I know you're going to get us back to the industrial but -- and the commercial -- but why do we have to say there at the bottom, that big paragraph there on the bottom of page 43 or 26, depending on which numbers you're looking at, PUDs approved prior to the date of these amended provisions remain subject to the tolling requirements of the five-year sunset provision, but amendments get subject to the three-year sunset? I think we could be more aggressive than that. I mean, we could -- surely we could say if you bring in a PUD for an amendment, the whole thing then rolls into the three year instead of the five year, because what it says right here is just that the amendments shall be subject to the three year. I want it to say -- at least say that any PUD that you bring in for an amendment, the whole sucker is subject to the three year instead of the five year. Surely we could do that. Page 67 October 1 O, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: I see nods by legal counsel out there that says you can. MR. WEIGEL: It's purely policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And then my next question is -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, that was David Weigel. He said it was purely policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And then why do we have to say if you were approved prior to this? Why can't we say if you were approved prior to the -- our changing the rule from five to three, you have a year to -- to do something; and if you don't, you're rolled into the three? We could do that, can't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any review time constraints on that, Susan? Like when we do a -- I just don't want to cause a hardship. After it's approved and it has to go through his -- the different desks over at community development, and then he has to go to the bank and do all that, is there enough time to do that? MS. MURRAY: We probably should take a look at how many PUDs language like that might affect and then to see if we're reasonably able to accomplish that with staff, if that's acceptable to you. We'll certainly get you that number. MS. STUDENT: I just echo that, just a reasonable time period for them to get started, because if it isn't, it's like we're giving them one thing with this hand and taking it with the other, and it may not be reasonable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So tell us what is reasonable, what is reasonable but aggressive, in the next two weeks. MS. STUDENT: I think that's what we're going to be going through with staff, because that information has to come from staff-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course. MS. STUDENT: -- since they are the reviewing folks for-- and Page 68 October 10, 2001 have a handle on the time frames. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the object is -- if the majority of the board agrees with me, the object is to get as many old PUDs up for a complete review as quickly as legally possible. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Always been the objective from my point, is to get it here, and don't let them sit out there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I know we can be more aggressive than what we have on the page. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The other thing that I would factor in is always take a look -- we've got the legal input, and we've got planning services, transportation, and public works. I'd also like their input as we go through this because I don't want anybody out of this picture here. It's all integrated, all integrated. Mr. Mulhere, did you want to speak to us? MR. MULHEKE: I might have slipped in a speaker request form. For the record, Bob Mulhere, M-u-l-h-e-r-e. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we have a cast of thousands out here tonight, but we'll take you anyhow. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. I really didn't have very much, just a brief comment. In my brief tenure in the private sector -- and I speak on behalf of no one here, but as myself-- I haven't really learned all there is to know from the perspective of, perhaps, a developer or someone who would submit a master plan community or an industrial PUD. But I think it might be very good in terms of achieving the board's objective, which is to develop the very best policy from everyone's perspective, to perhaps in this case maybe even more aggressively seek out some information either from the banking community or from some respected master plan community developers to find out really whether or not they feel some of these provisions might be overly onerous from an economic perspective, because I don't think it's the intent to cause economic harm here. Page 69 October 1 O, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. MULHERE: It is to bring out-of-date standards up to date to - -- to enhance the community overall, and I don't think anybody would object to that. It's just I'm not sure -- I mean, I think we just need to be a little bit careful in terms of making sure that we don't go beyond where we need to go to do that. And I would recommend that perhaps maybe the staff-- and I will do my part -- to get some folks to take a look at the language and provide some comments, you know, maybe from the banking industry and the development industry. That's all I had to say. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good thought. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good thought. And I think we can find the right people out there that are quality people in this community to make that input, because I have always said and totally believe that the good quality people out there have the same objective as we do. They hate the people that come in here and who work on the fringe and do stuff because it makes everybody look bad. So let's go with the quality people and help -- we'll all help each other get where we need to be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had just another general question, and that is, where does it say in here what happens at the end of the three years if you have to come back in? MS. MURRAY: Well, it's the regulations that exist today, meaning that when I -- I assume you're talking about when a PUD sunsets, what do you do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. MURRAY: Okay. It's the same as we do today. Basically we bring it to your attention in a public hearing, and we make a recommendation to you. And that recommendation is either the PUD should come back for a PUD amendment to update it, or you have the ability to give -- I believe it's up to a two-year extension to the PUD. Page 70 October 1 O, 2001 Then if the applicant fails to submit an amended PUD within-- it's usually a six-month time frame that you give them, then staff has the ability to come back in front of you and suggest that you may want to consider rezoning the property, which is usually back to an agricultural zoning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the question -- the question that I have is about the cumbersome nature of that process too. Why isn't it better to have a staff recommendation -- at the end of the three years or the five years, whichever applies, have staff point out to the county commission, here's what's different about this PUD than a typical PUD today, immediately? MS. MURRAY: We typically do that, I would say on a very general sense, in that our main concern is whether or not the PUD is, of course, consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, see, but that's -- and hear this, Commissioners, too, because this is the place where you get it. What you hear from staff-- appropriately, because that's what we've asked for from staff-- is to come in at the end of the three years or the five years and say this PUD is or is not consistent with the comp plan. Well, it's going to likely be consistent with the comp plan. The comp plan just says the giant issues, the density issues, the -- whether or not this is residential or commercial. It doesn't have any of the community character issues in it. It doesn't have any of the same transportation issues, because those things, except for the very largest transportation issues -- interconnectivity, for example, is never going to be a comp plan issue. So they're going to come back and say, "This meets all of the comp plan," and you're going to smile and nod. That's what I would do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, can we put in there the Land Development Code also? And that should cover all those concerns. Page 71 October 1 O, 2001 MS. MURRAY: We could call -- we could certainly route the PUD back through staff. We do through the PUD monitoring process, but that's really done on an annual basis. If we see that a PUD is about to sunset, I suppose we could just do a cursory -- unless Marjorie's going to tell me otherwise -- a cursory review from other departments in terms of its consistency with the plan and current regulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And current regulations. MS. MURRAY: And then we could summarize that to you in the executive summary and just call out those areas that may need -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And policy. MS. MURRAY: -- updating. And policy. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And policy, because that's where you'd get things like interconnectivity and stuff. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, but let Marjorie Student respond to that, please. MS. STUDENT: I was just going to say that a PUD -- I mean, a provision in the code that says it's its own little zoning district, and it writes its own -- but certainly I think for the devel -- the part that says general development commitments that deal with utilities, transportation, those type of things, that does deserve another evaluation. And typically, but not always, it will say for landscaping and parking, off-site parking, and signage, that it is -- we'll rely on the particular division of the land code in effect at the time of the site plan or whatever permitting. So there's a provision that's built into the newer ones at least where they have to meet those current code requirements. And there are occasions where they write their own. And when they write their own, that would certainly deserve another review to see if it, you know, is in line with what we do. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as we're talking about Page 72 October 1 O, 2001 interconnectivity and things -- I was going to bring this up under commissioners' comments later on, but I've spoken to Tom and to Jim and to John and to Susan. One of the things I think our PUDs do not contain and I would like to see contained, maybe not this time around but for the next LDC cycle, is affordable housing. I think that every PUD ought to make provisions for some type of work-force housing. And we could hammer that out, but as long as we're talking about these things, I'd like to add that for the record. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's noted for the record, and that is fraught with all kinds of challenges under the Burr J. Harris Act, and I don't -- I'll just let it stand on the record and take that as an additional -- MS. STUDENT: I can just tell you that's a very complicated issue and not something you can just paint with a broad brush. And when we dealt with the issue of affordable housing before, we even had a special consultant come in and do our ordinances and look at that. But it is -- it is something that -- it can't be handled simplistically with a broad brush, and it's something you almost need to study. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I noticed they've referred to it in the community character program and smart growth and Andre Stuonay's (phonetic) different presentations and also in community character. So I -- I did say that, didn't I? MS. STUDENT: To require it you almost need to establish a system -- have a study that shows how it's linked to the type of-- to your economy and the types ofjobs and to show some kind of nexus or linkage, and it does get rather complicated. I didn't mean to interrupt, I just wanted to put that on the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. That's all right. It's just that that's -- that's the direction I'm headed in. MS. MURRAY: I have nothing else. Marjorie was going to Page 73 October 1 O, 2001 summarize -- there's a sign provision in your code. I'm sure you'll notice it's a little bit out of place. I believe it begins on page 11, and Marjorie wanted to summarize -- MS. STUDENT: I'd like to summarize why it's there. You will note that the title says readoption of those provisions of the sign code, and those provisions of the sign code were adopted in the fall 1999 cycle that carried over into January of 2000. And at that time we not only had our two night meetings, but we had a continuation of the sign portion of the meetings to two meetings in the winter. One -- and there was a motion to -- for two continuances: One to January the 11 th and the other to the first meeting in February. At the January 1 lth meeting, the board referred to coming back to -- on January 25th as opposed to the first meeting in February. And, in fact, the meeting was had on January 25th at board direction really, but there wasn't a formal motion. So we think that this can be defensible, but in an abundance of caution, we're bringing it back through to take care of that. And we discovered this after going through pages and pages and pages and pages of the record. So that's all. It's just a readoption. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So translated -- you want to translate that for me? MS. STUDENT: Because the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CYA. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That's it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you. The other question I have on signage is at what point do we -- I mean, how long do we allow certain signs out there of grand opening when it's been opened for ten years? How long do we allow that kind of stuff out there? There's got to be an end point to that. Or apartments for rent. They've been for rent ever since I've been in Naples. Where do we end some of that awful stuff that's out there? Page 74 October 1 O, 2001 MS. MURRAY: specific date, I will have to look it up for you. business, I can do that now. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right. sure -- We do have a time frame. If you want the If you have other I just want to make MS. MURRAY: There is a specific time limitation on that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Second thing is, and we'll get in this cycle, in shopping plazas where you go in and it's a beautiful plaza -- and there's a new plaza up at Immokalee and U.S. 41. It's a beautiful plaza on the right. You go in. And the store that has some of the greatest displays for home furnishings you'd ever want to look at has carts in front like it's a yard sale for tile, got a plastic sign up there that says carpet sale. I mean, the place looks like, geez, down here somewhere in the -- in another area. This is not a high-class shopping plaza. This -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Blue light special. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no. Golden Gate looks -- looks like, you know, the king's arena compared to this. And I -- I am really disturbed as -- do we have any recourse to deal with that? And if we don't, in the next cycle -- I have asked. They have been asked politely, and so far I've gotten a whole week's supply back in terms of how they want to deal with this. And so I told them that if they didn't work with us, that we would start looking at it in an LDC amendment to stop it. Now, I hate to penalize people who are good people, but I don't like stuff that begins to give me visual pollution in a beautiful shopping plaza. So I'm off my soapbox on that, but help me with that. Not this cycle, but it is enforceable today? If not, next cycle I want them -- and I'd love to make them an example. I hope they're Page 75 October 1 O, 2001 listening tonight because maybe I'll get their attention. MR. DUNNUCK: We'll do an investigation and follow up with a memo to tell you what recourse we could take. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Appreciate that. Last thing, it's probably in the next cycle, let's start talking about building heights. MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Because we got another ugly coming on 41. Commissioner Mac'Kie, this is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do our best to keep that from happening. CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is probably your last shot at it, but it's called the Phoenix. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Sphinx. CHAIRMAN CARTER: The Sphinx or whatever the devil it is, and one that's going up over on Vanderbilt and U.S. 41, third contractor. These guys have not been good citizens, and they're the same people that told me it was none of the government's or county commission's business to be interfering in what they wanted to do on their property. Really appreciated their comments. Lovely people, and now they're trying to pull the same act on 41. And I -- I've talked privately with counsel on this. I will not say anything publicly, but their motives are less than honorable in terms of what they're trying to do there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me say something about that Sphinx in case I happen not to be around when that comes to fruition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just say everything you feel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. Isn't it great? The only way that that building can -- and everybody knows what I'm talking about, the Sphinx. There was an editorial on it in the Naples Daily News, and it's just this horrible building that I hope -- Page 76 October 1 O, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Gulf Coast National is next door, and Northern Trust is across the street. Beautiful, compatible with the neighborhood, and this thing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A lovely residential development with good working people living behind it who deserve to have some protection and respect, and they're not getting it if that building gets built. But as I understand it, that building can only be built if we interpret the height ordinance in a way that I would suggest this board has already directed we do not want it to be interpreted. Harken back up to the Beachcomber or whatever it was up there. We said no more wedding cake interpretations of height. This is in a commercial district instead of a residential district. But the inquiry has been made to the county attorney, I believe, about whether or not that same methodology can be used for determining the appropriate height of this building. Frankly, if the attorney should opine that it can be interpreted, it would be my suggestion to the community that they immediately appeal that interpretation and seek to have this board overturn it, because I hope that is not going to be what's permissible. And that's the only way that nasty looking building could go in there. So all that's in the process along with a million other things that I'm sure Mr. Dunnuck is working on, but that's one I'll drive back over here for. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'll carry the torch for you on that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know how much I detest what they're trying to do there, so anything that we can do within our framework to -- to deal with that appropriately and legally -- I'm on public record. I have to be careful what I say. I will aggressively pursue that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought that was in the city. It's Page 77 October 1 O, 2001 not? It's in the county? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Other side of the street's the city. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other side of the street. I won't say anything more. Counsel is having a nervous breakdown out there. I'm just-- I won't say anything further. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Protect that neighborhood. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Protect the neighborhood is the message here. So any other comments, Commissioners? We don't have to vote on anything tonight. It's just as an information review. On the 24th we get that privilege. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just glad to have Jim Mudd here with us tonight. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. As always. Mr. Dunnuck, Susan, you-all have done a great job. We appreciate it, so let's move forward. Any other commissioner comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just great job, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all you're doing, and I'm looking forward to working with you a little bit on adding the affordable housing into the PUD. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. No further business in front of this commission, this public hearing is over. Thank you, and God bless America. Page 78 October 1 O, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:24 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAMES Ph.D., CHAIRMAN ::~ D.,W:,~IO'HT~E~ BROCK, CLERK s~~e ~se m~utes approved ~ the Board o~ as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 79