Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/07/1990 SCOLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COM~IISSIONERS THE MATTER OF: CONSIDERATIOU AND HEARING OF PROPOSED 1) Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance 2) Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING, per agenda of March 7, 1990 Heard by the Board of County Co~;~issioners, commencing at 5:05 p.m., Wednesday, 5!arch 7, ~990, in the County Commissioners Board Room, Third Floor, Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, ~4aples, Florida 33962 PRESE~T: Chairman ~ax A. [Iasse Vice-Chairman Nic]',acl J. Volpe Commissioner Anne Goodnight Cor~missioner Burt L. Saunders Commissicner Richard S. S]]anahan Nell Dorrill, County Manager Kenneth Cuyler, County Attorney Stanley Litsigner, Director of Growth Management Thomas W. Olliff, Assistant to County Manager WillJ. am Nerrill, Esquire, Legal Consultant Deputy Byron Thomas Reported by: Connie S. Ports, Notary Public, State of Florida at Large Deputy Official Ccurt Reporter ()0()( ~.I P~LPH G. CARROTHERS, OFFICIAL Collier County Courthouse, Naples Florida 33962 CHAIRMAN HASSE: The meeting will come to order. (Meeting called to order at 5:05 p.m.) CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Dorrill, would you give the invocation. If the people would be quiet and stand. (Invocation presented.! CHAIRMAN HASSE: We will have the Pled~'e~ (Pledge of Allegiance recited). CHAIRMAN HASSE: I think it would -- might be appropriate right, now before we start on the meeting, if we were to set a few ground rules and perhaps we can get out this week. You know we have slips here to be signed, and if you wish to speak during this meeting at any time, you must sign the slip so you're guaranteed to b~ at the right time. I would appreciate it, to start off with, because I havc no way of knowing how long this meeting will last, is that we limit the statements that are made, or whatever somebody wants to say, to five minutes minutes, to start. If there is ample time, we will review it over again and you will have additional tim&, but to start off with, sc that we don't get dragging out too long. say. Commissioner Volpe, you have something you wish to VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Yes. Mr. Chai.--man, I have a preliminary matter that I would like to discuss, if I might, just for a moment, with the county attorney. MR. HASSE: The county attorney? COMMISSIONER VOLPE: And this ~'elates to a matter of ---- CHAIRMAN HASSE: And that's you, Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: Yes, I'm listeninG. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: As I think the Commission is aware, our law firm represents a client that has an interest in the matters that we are to -- about to discuss this eveninG, and the question is, as we begin to Get into these discussions, as to a potential for a conflict. And I was wondering if Mr. Cuyler could provide me with some advice as to that issue. MR. CUYLER: I contacted the attorney for the Ethics Co~J~ission, and he indicated to me that -- I reviewed the facts and talked with him for about a half an hour. He said he did not see a prohibitive conflict under 112.3143, and I discussed it thoroughly with him and that was his opinion, and I plan on talking to him a{;ain. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE= Is there, Mr. Cuyler, though -- is there -- in addition to the p=ohibitive conflict, is there another section that deals with the possibility of a conflict? MR. CUYLER~ Yes, there is. Under 286.102. Says that you may not abstain unless there i3 or appears to be a possible conflict. Under 112.3143, re~erri~g back to the previous statute, he indicates that if a public officer thinks that he might not be able to be impartial because of the conflict or the possibility of the conflict, that under those circumstance he can elect to abstain. I have gone over those with the Board on previous occasions, and he basically confirmed a lot of the things that ! told the Board before. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Okay. So that in this ~nstance, are we -- I don't kn~ what the format is this ~¢ening. CHAIRMAN HASSE: We're not going to decide anything this evening. wrong. we're going to listen, and I ~ae nothing MR. CUYLER: That's why I Jndicated -- and I'll be talking to him again. He gave ~bat {~eems to be his final recommendation or opinion with regard to it, but i may be talking to him again because tonight we have no final vote. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE= In either case, is there any problem with me Just sitting here and participating in the discussions? MR. CUYLER: No. The statutes provide that you are allowed to participate whether you elect to conflict out or not. And also, Just to indicate for the record, since we are discussing it, the attorney indicated that the basis of his reasoning was that the ordinance addresses a class of persons or a class of regulated persons that is in fact county wide. And together with that, that any claims of gain or claims of detriment of, in this case, a bank, a bank ln~tltution, would be shared by the community and the county as a whole and by the developing community as a whole. And he also indicated that at this point, the degree to which at,y per,on, whether it'~ a ~tnancial in~titution or an individual or a developer, is affected is not specifically known. And that was the basis of my discussion with him. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Then, if I might. Then if we're not going to be taking any vote this evening -- I think the integrity of the process is i~aportant, so with that in mind, then, we can follow up with the -- you're going to research this further? MR. CUYLER~ Yes. I have done some research, and everything he seems to indicate is laid out in the opinions. I'm going to do some further research, probably discuss it with him again. But again, regardless whether there ultimately is a cause for a voting conflict, a public officer is allowed to participate in the proceedings. The only requirement is that you conflict out of the vote if in fact there is a vote. VICE-CHAIRMANVOL?Ez Thank you. CHAIRMAt~ H;,SSE~ You're satisfied with that? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: I think I am. I think probably for those here, what I have been told is that there is the possibility, and as I think we will proceed here -- and I have to discuss this with the county attorney a little more specifically -- since we're not going to call for the vote this evening and no vote will be taken -- before the final meeting, though, that's a declsfon that has to be made. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ ¢ommis~ioner Goodnight. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ Well, Mike, I think that if that is the case, then there are several of us who are going to have a conflict. Even though I don't personally own any property, my husband owns a hundred acres of property that has the possibility of down the road being rezoned, which would certainly be listed under this. So therefore, you know, I think that I would have a conflict too because of something that we did today that may affect the property down the road. You know, I agree with what the attorney is saying, that I Just can't see that any of us could have a conflict unless it was directly related to something that we were going to do, and this is county wide. This is not Just one special -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEz Well, I think that's what the county attorney' t~,ld us. ! think it's a matter of degree here, and I guess it becomes somewhat subjective. And correct me, Mr. Cuyler, if I'm mistaken. It becomes somewhat subjective in terms of what we talked about, the possibility and the process and the objectivity. MR. CUYLER: It is his opinion that he didn't feel under 112.143 that you have to conflict out. His opinion was that you did not have to -- under these circumstance have to. The subjective wording that you're talking about is on the second statutory section, 286.012, that talks about the possibility of conflict. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Just so that we have that in front of us, what does that section provide? MR. CUYLER~ That's 286.012, Voting Requirement at MeetinGs of Governmental Bodies~ 'No member of any state, county or municipal Governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of any such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting in regard to any s~,ch decision r~linG or act. Any vote shall be recorded or counted for each such member present except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.311, 112.313, 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall comply with the disclosure requirements of 112.3143." So that talks more in term, that you have to vote but you may abstain if those things are present. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HASSE: When it reaches that stage. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Is Commissioner Saunders here? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: He was. CHAIRMAN HASSE: All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. And it's interesting to see so many -- I almost said high priced, but I mean fine members of our legal profession in Collier County here this evening. I have no idea why. But in any case, Mr. 011iff, would you lead off this, please. MR. OLLIFF~ Yes, sir. For the record, I'm Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager. And, Mr. Chairman, here we are. This had been a process that began when the county adopted its Growth Management Plan. As part of that plan, it required that the county adopt some land development regulations that were necessary to implement that plan. Tw¢ 10 of those which are before you tonight are probably the two pillar documents of that Growth Management Plan, those being Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and the concurrency management or what's entitled the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. We have had several public workshops, planning commission workshops, a great deal of public input, and present to you this evening draft ordinances that are recent and up to date as of the latest Planning Commission recon~endations to you, from their first public workshop last week. The ordinances that you have have been modified slightly from the January ordinance that you have received before. Those changes had been highlighted and, again, those are not very many or very major in nature. The agenda before you tonight has us discussing concurrency management first, and what we would like to do is allow staff an opportunity to provide you a brief overview of the ordinance and what it does, maybe briefly co~ur what are, from the public hearing, the outstanding issues, so that I think if we can try to capsulize for the commission what the outstanding issues are, we may also help I1 capsulize the public comment. And following that, the rezoning reevaluation, and we will do the same following the agenda that we have. Just to mention, for the public's sake, that the speaker slips are out on the table in the hallway, and if you would like to register to speak, fill one of those out and turn it An promptly so that we can go ahead and call your name. Some of you have both items listed, and I'll call on you so that you can make whatever comments you feel you need to. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Mr. Dorrill, would you sort of act as a timekeeper here. And we're not going to be that rigid about it, but merely to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to talk. Thank you. MR. LITSlNGER~ Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director. And again I would like to ask for your indulgence as some of this may be repetitious, but I would like to give you an additional outline of the two ordinances. Mr. Olliff pointed out that these two ordinances 12 before you tonight in the first public hearing to be held prior to adoption of these ordinances are the pillars of the Growth Management Plan in the county. I would further submit to you that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is the keystone to the entire Growth Management Plan. The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance insures the coordination of land use decisions with the availability of adequate public facilities. The implementation of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance will determine consistent and/or compatible land use for individual properties, rezone certain properties as appropriate, and thereby set development expectations for all property in the county consistent with the Growth Management Plan~ whereas the Adquate Public Facilities Ordinance provides the county with the regulatory framework to synchronize the rate of development with the county's ability to pro%ide supporting facilities in effect necessary to maintain adopted levels of service. 9J-5.016 of the Florida Administrative Code requires the capital improvement and its concurrency management system of the comprehensive plan to address, among other things, the local government's ability to provide or require 000 ! 4 13 provision of needed im~rovements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously approved and future development orders do not exceed the ability of the local government to provide or require provision of necessary facilities. Also, Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes clearly states that~ A local government shall not issue a development order or permit which results in a reduction in the level of service for affected public facilities adopted in the Growth Mangement Plan and the capital improvement element. In the furtherance of these clear legislative mandates, Policy 144 of the Capital Improvement Element establishes the fundamental law of Collier County for concurrency determinations applicable to prior approved and future development in the county. CIE Policy 144 states tha t~ The county shall dutermine prior to the issuance of building permits whether or rot there i& sufficient capacity of Category A public facilities to meet the standards, the levels of service, for existing population and prcposed development. No permit shall be issued by the time mandated for the adoption of land development regulations unless the levels of service for the resulting development will achieve the standards in Policy 115 levels of service, Category A, and the requirements of the concurrency manageme:~= system as outlined in the policy of the capital improvement element. The Public Facilities Ordinance will implement Policy 144 and other policies of the plan by providing a concurrency management system. This concurrency management system, as outlined in this ordinance before you tonight, is a two-part system. The first part is a management and monitoring program that calls for the preparation of an annual update and inventory report of public facility by April 1st of each year. In this report, the available capacities of existing Category A facilities are summarized, Water, sewer, drainage, park, solid waste, transportation. To ensure forecasts based on capital improvement elements, approved projects. As a result of this analysis, staff reports the deficiency or potential deficiency to the Board of County Commissioners at which time the Board may take a number of actions which include the following~ They may establish areas of significant influence 15 around ~otential deficient or deficient roads~ approve additional public facilities to projects to eliminate deficiencies! approve the sale of development order issuance in the affected areas pending one of the following: Lower the level of service by a Growth Management Plan amendment; include the necessary public facility projects in the adopted annual budget and the annual CIE u~date; await approval of new or increased revenue sources to meet public facility projects provided by the Board pending funding of the state legislature or approval by the county voters once the AUIR is adopted, an annual determination of concurrency has been made and the remaining capacity of all facilities is known. It is at this time that the part two of the concurrency management system, the regulatory program, takes place. The property owner or someone wishing to develop a parcel of property applies to the county for determination of concurrency under the ordinance and the issuance of a certificate of adequate public facility. In your previous workshop, we went over the process and the flowchart of the determination and the denial of approval of that certificate. There have been no major 16 changes in this process since you previously reviewed it. If you would like, I can walk you :hrough it, or if not -- CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Could you Just touch on them. Don't go through the whole thing. MR. LITSINGER~ First of all in the process, the ordinance provides for a number of exemptions for any determinations under the ordinance. In other words, they are essentially vested as to any determinations of concurrency. CHAIRMAN MASSEs Can everybody hear him? (Audience shook heads in the negative). CHAIRMAN }{ASSEs Speak directly into the microphone. MR. LITSINGER, Exemptions fall into seven possible categories as the ordinance is currently drafted. They ares Development for regional impact with any conditions appearing in the development agreement or the development ord~r reflecting the DRI provisions. They have statuatory exemptions with few exclusions. The other exception thing is all valid, unexpired Collier County building permits in existence at the time the ordinance is adopted. 17 The other type is public facilities under eon~truetion by th. county Growth Management Plan. The other type, temporary use permits. All the temporary construction permits, not to exceed a cumulative period o~ one year with renewals. Replacement and reconstruction and repair of existing develogment. And any growth management direct determinations, such as other minor permits which do not affect concurrency. Once a decision is made whether or not a applicant is exempt from the process a~d the decision is made that the applicant must be submitted to the process, there are three -- four stages at which a determination is made. Application for certificate of adequate public facility must be made prior to the earliest occurrence of eit!~er a final subdivision plat approval, a final site plan approval, a building permit issuance, or an applicant may apply for a cer{ificate at any time. If you will notice, I omitted number two, prior to the entering the site development plan review process, as we have recently eliminated that requirement. Once an application is submitted, a determination is made if it's a sufficient and complete application. If that is the case, we move on to the next process, which leads us to the condition of a county facility. The ideal situation being where all required facilities are identified in the Annual Update Inventory Report have been funded by the Board of County Commissioners and are included in the Capital Improvement Element of the CIE. This occurs each spring around May 1st. If that is the case, the development -- facilities capacities utilization is determined, that development facilities utilization is recorded in the concurrency management system and the certificate is issued. The other scenario is a situation where we are unable to provide the necessary facility identified by staff in the annval update and inventory report and there is a deficiency in the Capital Improvement Element of required facility, in which case we have a situation where remaining facility capacity allocation and areas of significant influence have been established and are operative. In this case, the development facility capacity demand is determined based on the information on the 19 applic.~tion, county departments or indep%ndent providers would certify remaining capacity. Which leads us to a two-possibility scenario. The scenario would either be that providers indicate that there are inadequate remaining capacity for one or more faci1%ties, in which case a certificate would be denied. At which point the applicant would either accept that determination or have the option of ~£pealing to the public facilities determination appeal committee, which consists of three higher level staff mechanic. At that point, the committee would either deny or issue the certificate based on determination of whether the original analysis is correct and true and based on factual data. The other scenario is that all departments and providers indicate adequate remaining capacity for all facilities, at which the development capacity allocations are subtracted from available inventory remaining in the capacity management system and the certificate of adequate public facility is issued. MR. HASSE: Are there any questions on the process? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ On the question of exemptions, 20 is there, in the ordinance for adequate public facilities, an exemption for like in-fill types of property where you've got a subdivision that's, you know, e~ghty percent complete and you are completing that type of a subdivision? MR. LITSINGER~ If you're talking about a situation ~uch as a PUD that's eighty percent completed and at which point twenty percent of the building permits remain to be applied for or drawn, as the ordinance is currently written, those remaining, twenty, would be subject to concurrency determination if they were not a DUI. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS. One issue that may have been raised by Commissioner Volpe might be more of one of vesting, as opposed to an exemption, and so I'll pose the question. Is there any provision for vesting of projects that have already started? They have already got their infrastructure and they have already gotten build~ng permits and buildings are already up and then there is a question of adequate public fa~ilities. Is there any mechanism for vesting a project that is already pretty far down the road to being complete? MR. LITSINGER~ Not by the exemption criteria. 21 MR. DORRILL~ I think, Bill, you may want to respond. MR. MERRILL~ No, there isn't. There is no provision for vesting under the Adequate Public Facility Ordinance. The only exemptions are those that are specified in -- I believe it's Section Eight Point -- MR. CUYLER: Four? MR. MERRILL~ 8.2. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Are you saying, then -- Commissioner Saunders followed up on that -- there is no exemption provision for vested rights under -- MR. MERRILL, No. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ There is not? MR. MERRILLJ There is not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Let me raise a legal question, and I'm assuming since there is no provision for vesting of proJect~, that under Florida law there is no legal vesting of a project in terms of the adequate public facilities determination. MR. MERRILL. No, not necessarily. There has not been any cases decided in that regard. There have been declaratory -- two in particular, and several other -- 22 declaratory statements issued by DCA. Courts do give weight to the DCA's interpretation of the rules and its statutes of which it is required to administer. However, that is not necessarily the law of the state, but it is an good indication. I think it does have some weight with courts. There is no doubt about that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you have an opinion independent of the declaratory statements as to whether the courts would require or find that there are vested rights in reference to adequate public facilities? MR. MERRILL~ I think one of the best ways to -- one of the best analogies that I can think of that is in the case law that relates somewhat to concurrency law is the impact fee case law, particularly a case that is City of Ke~ West versus RLJS. In that case, the courts -- there were issued building permit~ in that case for ~ development; and in that case, the courts indicated that a -- an impact fee ordinance adopted by the city after those building permits had been issued would still apply to those developments despite the so-called vested rights claims that were made by the developer in this instance. 23 Now that's one instance that deals with impact fees, and there are other cases as well. Oftentimes, on the other side of it, of course, courts have found that when an ordinance has been adopted after a building permit has been iss~.~J, that oftentimes they will find that there is equitable estoppel or vested rights against the government so that that an ordinance cannot apply to that building permit. So as you can see, there are case that'~ go both ways. The impact fee situation is the one that I see as most closely resembling concurrency. I think that one of the things that I look at is what is actually vested. You know, it's the density or intensity or that specified plan of development. Maybe a site plan that has been approved. And as long as concurrency does not affect that, but requires them to possibly defer or delay that, that may or may not affect 'tested right. AGain, the question hasn't been ultimately resolved. I hate to hedge my answer on that, but that's really how the case law has come on line. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Thank you. 00O25 24 I Just have a question on exemptions. Is there any provisions for a type of minimum imFact or a diminuatiYe impact provided. One house. You know, having essentially, even if you may be up to capacity and you may impact or attempt to maybe impact when you're talking about -- MR. MERRILL= The ASI's are based on traffic impact.. However, the way that the concurrency management regulations from the State are drafted, they require that if it -- if the impact of development lowers the level of service. They do not specify that lower level of service means one trip or if it means five hundred trips, but we have tried to make that as flexible as possible for the county in order to try to implement your Growth Managemen~ Plan in this instance. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Thank you. Stan, a quick question on the appeal process. The appeal process ends in front of a determination appeals committee? MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And who is that? That never gets back to the Board here? MR. LITSINGER: At your first workshop, there is an 25 indication by the Board is that the Board did not want to have appeals come directly to the Board, so the ordinance was redrafted to indicate a three individual appeals committee, consisting of an assistant to the County Manager, the chief MPO planner or his designee, and the chief projects review service or his designee. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ commission, then? MR. LITSINGER~ It can't be appealed to the That is correct. Not as it is originally draft. The Commission in its workshop had indicated a reluctance to hear the appeals. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ What was that? MR. LITSINGER~ At your original workshop. The Commission had directed to us rewrite that section. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ You made mention of eighty percent of a project being completed, the other twenty percent has building permits. What does that do for them? MR. LITSlNGER~ Any valid buildings permits would be exempt from a concurrency determination. CHAIRMAN HASSE: I didn't think I got that out of what you said. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER~ If you would like, I'll go ahead. 000' ? CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Please. MR. LITSINGER~ On your handout sheet, you have -- two sheets -- the changes which resulted from the Plannitlg Con~nission's first three public hearings, their -- February 23rd meeting and their ~4arch 1st meeting. I'll briefly go over those with you. They are essentially housekeeping or clarification changes. A couple of change~ of note are on page twenty-four. We are no ]onger requiring a certificate prior to entering the site development review process. Also, on page twenty-five, we have clarifying language which related to the payment of impac! system development fees at the time a certificate is issued. On the blue sheet, your package. COM/4ISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ I don't have a blue sheet. MR. LITSINGER~ Excuse me. On the last page of your packet, which is page twenty-five. CHAIR/~ HASSE= The last sheet? MR. LITSINGER~ nat's correct. Indicates twenty-five to the left. COM)4ISSIONER SHENAHAN~ Twenty-five. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Well, I got -- all right. I've got 27 it no~. staff to review the possibility of some language for the plan of -- excuse me -- for the ordinance that provided for a renewal of a certificate, provided that the applicant participated in the provision of public facilities as needed. And we attach that as information purposes. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE, What was that again? MR. LITSINGER.. Page twenty-five. In the current draft of the ordinance, we provide fo! renewal of a three-year certificate provided that adequate public facilities are determined to be availab'.,: or, in lieu Of that, that the applicant provides the necessary facilities to maintain concurrency. The Planning Commission had directed us to develop some alternative language which provided for the developer or the applicant to provide facilities that serve the particular development, in which case the applicant would be able to continue developing even though a concurrency situation did not exist. VICE-CHAIR/~AN VOLPE: I think one of the issues -- I realize we're kind of Jumping around, but you're on the 28 paragraph. I think one of the issues that's going to be raised is whether that three-year period is tbs right number. KR. LITSINGER: You will hear on that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I'm not questioning that it's the right number~ I am assuming since you have come up with it that it is. But can you go through where that three-year period came from. What's the rationale? MR. OLLIFF~ I think at the conclusion, if I may say something, you will have a few other recommend.tions that we may make to you that may help clarify at least some of those outstanding issues and may provide a little help to the Commission of some of those kinds of issues. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I would .till like to get this, even if it's Just two sentences, what the rationale is for that. MR. LITSINGER~ The rational for the three-year certificate, very briefly, has to do with the fact that we plan our improvements in five-year increments. In addition to that, when you issue a certificate, you are committing and allocating remaining capacity which can be held until it is utilized. The longer into the 29 future that you allow that certificat~ to run, the longer in the future that you have to hold or set aside inventory for that particular applicant. Also, it can raise problems with the fact that as you go further into the future, you can continue to issue certificates for which the building permits have not been drawn and you can get into a situation where you have a deficit of facilities and yet building permits and older certificates continue to be issued. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Thank you. MR. LITSINGER~ That's a compromise. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Commissioner. VICE-CHAIRMAR VOLPE~ Mr. Lispky, again, could you Just identify what the affect of the addition of that language might be? I think you said that the CCPC had asked that staff draft up some language, and the language under -- as ordered here is that it has to do with facilities that serve that development. MR. LITSINGER= That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Could you Just ~xplain to me~ What significant difference would that make? 3O MR. LITSINGER~ A scenario might possibly be where the proposed development was on a road segment which was currently deficient and required a $4,000,000 improvement. We could make a determination of that development's impact or share of impact on that road and place a cost figure on that, that the developer would be able to pay that amount of money and continue to develop in the face of a deficiency where the county would provide the rest of the funds for the impro~emen t. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ So a fair share ,~ontribution, then, toward to improvement. MR. LITSINGER~ Necessary improvement to obtain concurrency. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Thank you. MR. LITSINGER~ Before we continue, I would like to point out seweral outstanding issues which you will hear discussed toni{?ht. Number one among these, as we have previously discussed, is the length of time for certificate of adequate public facilities to be valid. The ordinance as it is currently drafted -- excuse me -- provides for three years with potential for renewal upon the circumstances that we 31 have Just discussed. Another area of dispute or contention is the area of significant influence and their boundaries and how they will be established. In our first workshop, we eliminated all determinations for concurrency outside of an ASI and we decided that we would only have concurrency determination w]thln an ASI. There are a number of various alternatives for designating the boundaries for an ASI, which you will hear more about later. The third area -- excuse me. The thir~ ~rea of contention has to do with, in case an area of significant influence must be established, should there be provisions for set-aside of a certain percentage of remaining capacity for the single-family home builder, and that is an issue which has not been resolved also. Those are the three issues that we know of that are yet to be determined. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEz What does -- single-family home builder, what -- I don't understand what that means. HI{. LITSINGERz That would be the single-family home permit versus the multi-family or PUD or larger scale development. In other words, it would be a provision to 32 protect the smaller individual from not being provided for in a first-come, first-served situation. In other words, if you had a thousand permits left to allocate within an ASI, the larger developer or developers came forward early in the process and drew certificates, taking all of that capacity, that would eliminate the possibility of a single lot owner getting a permit. Other than that, we can open it up for questions. CHAIP~iAN HASSE~ Any other questions for ~r. Lipsky? COM}ilSSIONER SHENAHAH~ Are we going to discuss, of course, the single family remaining capacity ~19ortunity as we Go along through the evening, or how are we to proceed? MR. OLLIFFI ! think what happened is that the Planning Commission heard some comment and asked for direction to go back and try and work out somethinG. ! think we've got to go back and work out some equitable percentage based on maybe what actual development in that type of small single family development occurs, and we will try to come up with some rational percentage. We will probably have that when we Get to the Planning Commission the next time. COM}~ISSIONER SHENAHANz So we will be addressing 33 that. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ That's in our next meeting. Anybody else have a presentation? MR. DORRILL~ Mr. Chairman, I wanted to run over, quickly, some areas of opportunity, as they relate to the primary points of contention that Stan alluded to, and some suggestions for you to consider as you begin to hear the arguments. These may be some suggestions that could compromise some of the outstanding issues. I think -- the first one as it relates to the certificates of concurrency. I feel that iran'[y, and I think that talking to the Commission, this is a community -- Col]Jot County Jr. a cc.mnunity that hau benefited immeasurably as a result of having large state-of-the-art multi-use projects. I think that staff feels that is, and the conventional wisdom suggests that, some type of graduated certificate could very well be a good idea. Some of tho things we ),ad been thinking about would indicate a one-year certificate for single family homes! for medium sized multi-size projects and comparable commercial projects, that a three-year certificate should be the appropriate length of time~ and that for projects in the sugge0ted oixos in excess of five hundred residentia! unite or a comparable co~nercial intensity should be entitled to a five-year certificate. Frankly, we don't have a problem with developing some language along those lines. And with the associated extensions, I think they will protect the lending institutions desires as performers, or submitted, that would continue to encourage long phase-in projects that this community has enjoyed. During those times that roads fall below their desired level of service, we have contemplateO perhaps some surcharges, as opposed to double impacting projects. frankly have a philosophical concern, and I th~nk we would be subject to immediate legal challenge if we suggested that projects would need to be double impacted. Making growth pay twice for road segments is something that, from what I have concluded in talking to you, that you ]~av~ concerns about, but there may be some opportunities to place surcharges on certificates that are proceeding to building permit application if roads fall blow the level of service to accelerate construction, either to provide performance bonuses to the contractor for early 35 completion of a road segment so that tho length of time we're below level of service could be shortened or mitigated as we gulp up certificates still being valid. Now the second area Stan alluded to was the need to specifically define the methodology and show graphically how we are going to determine the district boundaries of areas of significant influence. We can talk later this evening in conceptual terms. We have an item on this coming Tuesday's agenda that will show three methodologies. One very severe, one very limited, and then something midstream. And '.~e will show you in graphic terms and on maps the areas that wculd be affected and are going to be affected as a result of any moritorium that is imposed. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE~ on our agenda on Tuesday. Mr. Dorrill, you said something Is that an issue u~z~lated to this ordinance in terms of how do we set or if we set plans, et cetera? MR. DORI:ILL~ My understanding is that it is currently unresolved because we have left that to future determination, after the road segments appear to be potentially deficient, and we have left that to sort of best 36 available wisdom, if you will. But to wait until such time that roadways are potentially deficient or very near to being determined to be deficient, I think the development co~aunity and I think existing residences would like to see and understand how were going to apply moritoriums. And we are prepared to give you Tuesday three suggestions and show you graphically areas that would be affected as a result of a moritorium. If you choose to include methodology as a part of this ordinance. CHAIRMAN HASSEz ! think it's importan~ chat we do. MR. DORRILL~ I happen to feel that way. UNIDENTIFIED~ I think that that's true. MR. DORRILL~ I think both the community as well as the landowners are interested in trying to see that in advance of a moritorium, and there is certainly no reason that we can't Dro;ide that, and if the Board is comfortable with a particular methodology, we can incorporate that into the ordinance. In descending order of importance, I think that concludes the substantial issues. There may be innumerable minor issues and individual circumstances that are 37 addressed. With regard to major zoning reevaluation, there has been some concern as to when the absolute deadline is in order to protect or vest or ~xempt certain property rights. This is, frankly, a subJectiwe decision but one that affects not own the quality of the applications we're going to see and whether we have a rush on the store, so to speak, but I think also as an equity issue, as people have known for some two years that this was coming. And with each additional day, you have another project that may not be exempt but desires to be exempt and everybody ~ qoing to be rushing for a deadline. Current deadline has been proposed to be January of this year. There has been some suggestions that it should be on tho date of adoption. ! think the Comml~sion needs to hear some of the concerns as it affects real-life circumstances before we make a decision. And then finally, there has been a great deal of discussion as to what constitutes an improved property. Mr. Saunders alluded to that as part of the concurrency ordinance provision. But also as part of zoning reevaluation, staff is of the opinion that the concept of a 0 0[ 3S unified plan of development is one that has merit. For no other reason than as people are developing a project or a property, it is done in context of an entire scheme and you may have a certain loss leader item that is sold quickly to recoup a portion of your initial investment, but your ultimate profit may not come literally until the final phase of residential is begining to be sold. So I wanted you to know from the County Manager's perspective that the concept of a unified development is one that from a land use perspective is sound, ard I believe we have developed some language that will resolve '.h6 far majority of concern for those existing projects that are out there, are partially built, are partially developed and whose property rights are going to be protected. That concludes the staff presentation. I wanted you to know what some of our latest feelings were, even as a result as today, ~o that you will recognize that there are some solutions for many of the concerns that you wtll hear expressed here this evening. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: Hr. Chairman, just a comment. Obviously we're dealing in uncharted waters and I think we are all learning as we go along that it's a very fluid 39 situation, at least it seemv to be. Mr. Merrill alluded to the fact that there are declaratory statements from the state DCA, having to do with development orders and development order being one that affects density or intensity of use. Is there any -- you know, does that have any bearing on vesting? If we use a development order, or if the development order relates to, one that affects density and intensity of use? I mean, is that somehow going to impact upon our zoning reevaluation ordinaly? MR. MERRILL~ Declaratory statements~ VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Yes. MR. MERRILL~ ! believe they do affect how that may be interpreted in a court. I do think the declaratory statements do have weight in a court of law. As I said earlier, the interpretation of the agency' own rules and the statute which it administers. It clearly does not have the weight of another court's decision in the state or, you know, a number of other types of precedential matters, but it does -- I believe a court would give weight to a declaratory statement if it made sense. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Right. I was Just thinking 4O about in the context of what Mr. Dorrill said in terms of our zoning reevaluation ordinance. We have established certain time frames when vesting was to be determined, and it's the the development order stage. MR. MERRILLI Well, the place that we determined for vesting to occur under the vested rights determination in the ordinance, we require a final local development order. Specifically, if we refer to the -- wrong ordinance. Specifically if we refer to part one, which is on page thirty-six and thirty-seven. We refer to a final, an unexpired governmental act in the form of what we call a final development order. In that case, the de.~initions provide that a final development order is both a final local development order and a final DIR development order. In addition, we included under, not the definition of final local development order, but we included as 'an act upon reliance' could occur in the vested rights determination, an act in the form of a final subdivision plat that has been approved by the county or a final site development plan or a final subdivision master plan or a planned unit development master plan. The last three of those would have had to have 41 occurred, however, prior to January 1, 1988 -- excuse me. After January 1, 1988, but prior to the affectiYe date of this ordinances. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPEs I guess -- is there anything anything in the declaratory statements that you have alluded to that is inconsistent with this provision of our ordinance as it's presently drafted? HR. MERRILLs Not at this time. Not -- no, not in the declaratory statements that have been issued by the DCA at this time, in my opinion. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Thank you. HR. OLLIFFs The first speaker I have registered, Mr. Chairman, is Colonel John Beebe. be Ron Pennington. VICE-CHAIRMAN ¥OLPEs Following the Colonel will Could I ask Just a question. time? both. Are we going to take both ordinances at the same Staff started out with adequate public facilities. C}IAIRMAR HASSEs I thought -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI Are you going to -- CHAIRMAN HASSEs I thought we were going to direct HR. OLblFFs ! tried to separate the speakers, when 42 they noted which, by item line. Some of them had noted both, and so I'm going to go ahead and call those now. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ them as they get up. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE~ Call them, and we'll have to address But are we only going to be addressing in this segment of the meeting adequate public facilities? MR. OLLIFF~ That's what the agenda reads. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I got a little confused when Mr. Dorrill startod talking about zone reevaluation as well. So I guess we need to ask the speakers to confine their remarks to adequate public facilitiem o~dinance. MR. BEEBE~ Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Good evening. MR. BEEBEz My co~ents will actually apply to both. CHAIRRAtl HASSEz Go right ahead. MR. BEEBEz Thank you. My name is John Beebe. Civic Association. I'm also a member of the President's Council of Naples Property Owners Associations, which consists of more than ten thousand property owners in Agualane Shores, Foxfire, Kings Lake, Koceena Sands, I'm president of the Lak~#ood Lakewood, Moorings, Lely, Lely Country Club Manor, Olde Naples, Park Shore, Port Royal, Royal Harbor and Pelican Bay. We wrote a brief letter to you recently in which we saids "The President*s Council supports the county staff position regarding the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance tn total. And furthermore, the Presidentes Council recommends no dilution of the staff position and would support even more stringent regulations regarding exemptions. Any exemption granted must have a reasonable time limitation so that a policy of use it or lose it can be effective and not a Cool for land speculation. 'Under the concurrency requirement, the final local development order definition should be tied to the issuance of the building permit° The public is alarmed over past zoning sins which have prl~arily benefited the development industry to the mglect of the greater public interest. It is no~ time for you to recognize the public interest first by enacting two strong ordinances as we and your staff r eco~l~end o" And this was signed by Joe Studs, the president. 44 I would like to further point out that the financial impact upon the property owners of this county resulting from the public facilities that will have to be provided over the next five and ten years and even periods longer thsn that will be very substantial, and we are very much concerned that we -- that the burden of paying for growth should not be on the backs of the home owners, at our expense, but that wherever possible, growth should pay for growth and that the developer who wants to be given special treatment should be prepared to pay for the special treatment that he wants. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HASSEI Thank you, Mr. Beebe. ~R. OI~I~IFF~ Ron Pennington, followed by Jim Loskill. MR. PENNINGTONI ~AIRMAN HASSEI MR. PENNINGTONI Good evening, Commissioners. Would you give your name, please. I'm Ron Pennington, a resident of Springllne Drive J.n the Moorings. I'm president of the Moorings Property Owners Association and a member of the President's Council of the Greater Naples Area Property Owner Association. I also -- my remakrs are general, and they would CO(;.l(; 45 apply to both proposed ordinances. On route to the courthouse, down Airport Road, I reflected that this mass of traffic exemplifies the degradation of our quality of life in this area that must not be permitted to continue. Long backups at traffic lights, which are ever increasing in number, and the many vehicles entering and leaving business establishments along the way create a state of anxiety and frustration which one should not have to endure. The two ordinances now under discussion, if they are not weakend, will go a long way toward prevent~g the expansion of this situation. You and the county staff have been lobbied loud and long by those representing development and related interests to weaken various provisions of the ordinances. They have sited potential financial loses which could occur to themselves and their investors, and references are frequently made: to what is fair. Life is not always fair. This is usually well recognized by investors, knowing there is always an element of risk, usually proportional to the return on their investment. In general, investment in Collier County in real estate has been lucrative, but always with that underlying risk that the rules may change. There are few of us -- a few of us here rel~resenting those co~x~only termed the silent majority, which makes up the major part of your constituency. We also recognize that life is not fair. It's not fair that our quality of life continues to be driven down by those who say growth is inevitable, and then market our area world wide to make it so. These two ordinances will hell) to l~reven~ continued degrading of those factors which make ul) our (luAlity of life if they are not watered down to satisfy the many concerns that are being expressed by the development interest. We will soon have before us again the proposal for tho additional one cent sales tax as a means of funding many of our infrastructure requirements. The public will be much more supportive of the tax if they are assured that this C ~o~m_ ission is berious about retaining change in the county ts Growth Management Plan. We strongly urge that you not allow any weakening of those two ordinances. Thank you. 47 CHAIRMAN HASSEz VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs to be cutting in and out. can -- 14y name is Jim Loski11. here in town. Thank you. Mr. Olliff, that speaker seems I don't known whether someone CHAIRMAN ~ASSEs I brought that up before. Did you give your name? MR. OLLIFFs Jim Loakill, followed by Herb Savage. WR. IX)SKILLs Good evening, Co~aissioners. I'm with the Barnett Bank Recently a number of financial institut,~ns in town gathered to revie~ the proposed drafts of the ordinances in light of our business activities, and we were somewhat alarmed with some of the implications and thought it appropriate to share that concern with you. As a basic premise, I believe that growth management is necessary to assure the quality of lite in Collier County. Growth is desirable when it's properly managed. The question is, I believe, really of the quality of growth. ! was encouraged to hear the County Manager speak in terms of some adjustments. We were very fearful in looking at the ordinance, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, that there is a great chance that it might accomplish Just the reverse of what it was intended to, that a three-year life of a certificate of adequancy would almost prevent the high quality, large-scale growth that can pay for public improvement and force growth in lower size that would not be financing so~e of those public improvements. So to have some dialog on that. I'm not sure that everex, body understands how the financing of development works, at least to this point in time, and I think that is an important part of what we talk about. I don°t think that we're talking about a compromise as much as mak:ng a process that works financially, not only for the county but for the industries that finance, as well the industries that develop. The first issue that we think is of paramount importance is the implementation of a concurrency. Concurrency concept must be done in a way to avoid a negative impact economically in Collier County. The Board of Co~missioners must find a source for the funding of state roads construction in Collier County. State roads in the county are the one~ primarily responsible for the concerns of the building moratorium. 49 we have talked in terms of whether there may be a moratorium because of levels of service on roads. If the uncertainty with regard to how these ordinances operate and the absorption that can be done during periods of time gets too high, financial institutions cannot lend money and there is a tremendous econo~lc impact across the board. Not to Just the d~velop~unt community. It's widespr~ad. We have some concerns as to how we can finance the single-family lot that someone wants to buy in a nice quality subdivision that they want to build c.-, ~n two or three years. A $60,000 lot, it's impossible for the average person to pay that off in three years under the concurrency certificate. $o we think and encourage the dialog that we have heard tonight, that we need to try to maybe look at some graduated methodology in that regard. We think a solution, and we would like to have the opportunity to of/er some solutions to staff and to the commission, that if the county improves the state roads at its own expense. The state has no mechanism for the county to receive a reimbursement at such times as the funds become available to improve roads already paid by the county. 50 The county should enter into an agreement with the State of Florida that if the county improves those roads, the state will agree to reimburse them at a cost plus interest factor at some forseeable point in the future. This would appear to be a reasonable agreement for both parties. The state would have their roads improved early, and the county would avoid a potential recession. The financial community cannot remain silent when Collier County Jobs may be lost or when quality businesses may seek to relocate to other areas where there is a better env i ronmen t. The financial co~nunity believes the future loss in personal income for the State of Florida for the period, 1990 to 1998 could be as high as $65,000,000,000. Nov, that's a state-wide figure, and obviously there would be a large impact in Collier County. The second item that we have some concern is that the Commission must address the funding issue simultaneously with the enactment of the concurrency ordinances. Failure to do so, in the words of Florida Tax #arch, would result in a recession that never ends. Solution. The county should have staff prepare 51 several alternative recommendations for adequate funding. Fund sources include possibly a one percent sales tax that has been mentioned or a $1,000,000 capital improvement levy on assessed value of Collier County real estate. The Co=~tssion should ensure that the funds raised by any method are used exclusively for the resolution of the transportation Issue. To pass an ordinance without proper funding will result in de facto moratorium on building. It does not take a banker to understand that adequate funding is essential for any prudent government plan. The financial community has concerns that the county staff may not have had the time to devote as much effort into this area as they have into the concurrency -- other two concurrency issues. The third position that we would like to suggest is that, again, the certificates of public adequancy and their length of time, and I feel that th,~re has been some discussion and, at the sake of brevity, I~m not going to be through that, but ! hope ! have been able to make my points That in a three-year period, as it is presently set in the ordinance, you won't see another Wyndemere. Those things won't happen. And I think that's the kind of 52 improvement and the kind of development that can pay the county the things that it needs. And that's of paramount importance. I hope -- Z'm not going all over it again -- making my point. And Z would be happy to answer additional questions on that. CHAIRMAN HASSE ~ a point there, and ! don't question that at all. You kno~, this didn't start yesterday! ~h'~s started many years ago. The Growth 14anagement Plan. Of course, concurrency was discussed at that time. And perhaps you're speaking to the wrong group when you're talking about state laws. Perhaps you should to ?allahassee instead. MR. LOSXILL~ ! would be happy to make the trip with think, Hr. Loskill, you have made CHAIRMAN HASSE ~ I don't have to. I've been there Mr. Shenahan has been there as many times. VICE-CHAIRHAN VOLPE~ well. Just a couple of comments related to the comaenta we have Just heard. One of the things that ! had asked the staff to do early on when we began discussing the funding 53 for our capital improvement element was some type of a reimbursement mechanism with the state so that we don't find ourselves in that situation, and that is in fact something that we have been exploring and have been discussing. The other comment that I have is under our CIE element, we have a balanced element. I mean we have the funds available to maintain the levels of service that are tn our Growth Management Plan, at least for the next five years, as I under the concept. ~. LI?SlI~: Cu~.issioner. Our current CIE is balanced. Clarification. By definition, it has to be balanced from available revenues, and ao currently defined, that includes revenues which are subject to voter approval. Our CIE is balanced currently on the assumption that the Board will direct and the voters will approve a one cent sales tax addition. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE: To what extent is the sales tax -- potential for the sales tax factored Into our CIE7 How much ~oney is allocated? MR. LITSINGER: Currently, $64,000,000. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Sixty-four million. And what OOO55 54 portion of the capital i~prove=ent levy that was alluded to is in the CIE element? ]iR. LITSINGERz The one mil? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEz Yes, sir. ]iR. LIT$I}~ER~ Apparently twenty percent. VICE-CHAIRP,%N VOLPE~ A hundred percent of what number? HR. LITSINGER~ Twenty percent in the cur.-ent year. About $11,000,000. About $14,000,000 over fl','4 yoars. VICE-CHAI~HAN VOLPE~ $14,000,000. That's twsnty percent. What would be the total of revenues that would be generated? HR. LXTSXNORRs Current estimates for the five-year period, $68,000,000. ¥ICE-CHAIRF, kN VOLPEs Sixty-eight million. MR. LIT$INGERs For five years. ¥ICE-CHAIRIdAN VOLPEI J%lld then I Just have one other question that hasn't been alluded to yet, and that iss We have been talking about the length of time of these certificates of adequate public facilities. I sat through some part of a CCPC meeting, and there 55 were discussions about agreements, and there was no mention made about those agreements. to understand. MR. LITSINGERx And it might be helpful for us It might be well here to add to the gentleman's comments that as currently drafted, the free standing certificate is a three-year certificate with provisions for renewal. However, there are provisins for a develol~ent agreement with the county, which of course cay serious developer would enter into, where you can have a five-year certificate and a statuatory porvision for renewal of that, which potentially could go on for ten years. VICE-CHAIRMAN VObPEs Is that what Mr. Dorrill was alluding to when he said some consideration given to one, three and five, and then with associated extensions? MR. LITSINGERs agreement . CHAIRMAN HASSE~ That's correct. Within a development Who gives the extension? sorry. VICE-CHAIRMAR VOLPE~ That's fine. I thought -- because that's something it that had not discussed in a presentation. I though it might be important because we know that that's an issue. UO¢) CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Who controls the extensions? MR. LITSINGERs The county and -- the inside development agreement or outside? Outside of development agreement, after the current three years expire, if all the rights under the certificate have not been utilized, then the applicant can come back in and request a renewal. If we determine at that time that there are still adequate public facilities, we will renew. If w~ determine that there are not, we will deny the renewal., ,!ess the applicant agrees to enter into an agreement to provide its share of the necessary development. Within a development agreement, that additional period can -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs So that goes back. MR. LI?SINGER~ With five years. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I want to tie that back into the recommendatioz: that the ¢CPC made about tying the cost back, not to the $4,000,000 to improve U.S. 41 from Airport Road to 951, but Just the impact that your proportionate share of what the impact of new development is going to have on that road segment. MR. LITSINGER ~ correct. 57 ¥ICE-CIiAIRIiAN VOLPEs SO you can get your arms around it, you can manage it, and there is some certainty there? MR. LITSINGER, There is some certainty there as to participation. Tha~ doesn't necessarily get the improvement built when it's needed. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs I u~xtorstand that. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Commissioner Shenaham.. COM~4ISSIONER SHENAHANI Before you go avay, you talked about funding Issues with concurrency, and you talked about the one cent sales tax and the one mi1 capital improvement tax. Would you elaborate on t~mt s little bit? MR. LITSINGERs ! think we're talking about one mil. COM~tI SS IONER SHENAHAN $ said -- MR. IX)SKILLs No. One mill. I thought you One mil. COMMISSIONER SHENAHANI Sorry. MR. IX)SKILL, Just following up. Again, you enter into a financing request from a developer, and he has gone tn and he gets his certificate. We have got to look at absorption figures. Okay? We have had a pretty good seven or eight years in Florida, and over the last seven or eight years and maybe 58 the best in Collier County. a cyclical economy. If sales slo~ down, we that. This is baeically what we call have to put a factor into That's going to press down the size of that development until we can manage that risk or wefre not going to lend money on those type of projects. So even though there is a renewal, if for three years you can go out there and there's an impact, he has to be able to cure it, which ! think there is a process to do that. But ! still think for the quality of developments that you want in this county, it has got to bo longer than five years, if they're going to financeable. That's Just our point. There's one last thing that I saw in the ordinance that I found serious is that the procedure for adequate public facilities determinations requires the property owner to deal with the c~Junty staff rather than the elected officials would can be more flexible in their dealings with tho public. And there is probably a lot of wisdom to that, but the language, as I read it, basically says that unless there is some procedural difference, you canmt overrule or thoro is no other appeal process. Itms kind of like as a 59 body you're saying you can never change this law. You can't really foresee all of the implications of legislation so perverse and so all encompassing as concurrency as presontly before the Board. Consequently, I Just think that you need to have probably refinements down the road, and it sounds like you're giving up that power, and I would suggest that maybe you would want to review that. CHAIR/dAN HASSEI Mr. Cuylor, would you like to respond to that? Is there any way around what Mr. hoskill is talking about? MR. CUYLERs The staff hasn't viewed the Board as giving any power away at this point. MR. OLLIFF~ The Intent of that language is that the Board determines the levels of service annually in this ordinance, so we factor traffic counts, the water plant rates and all of the information and say these are the levels of service the techn{.cal data support, and the Board will approve those annually. And, frankly, whether the services are there or not is generally going to be a pretty cut and dry kind of an issue because the Board is going to say, 'Yes, there is 6O ade<]uate servicer once a year, or ~No, there arenft,~ once a year. When they say, "Yes, there are," the way this ordinance Ks set up, certificates are issued for the next twelve months un~l we do that r~ an~ dete~nat~on again. So ~t~s -- ~here~s no~ much of a s~Ject~ve nature to de~e~nat~ons of ad~ua~e facilities. CHAI~ HASSE= In o~her words, ~t's cu~ a~ dr~ed~ 1~el of seduces de~e~nes. VICE-C~I~ VOLPE= ~cep~ that I ~h~nk the appeal pr~e.s ~s d~fferen~ here than ~he appeal Droce~s under zoning reevaluation. ~. OLLIFF~ Yes. Because-- ~t was the ~nten~. Because ~t ~. a much 1esl s~Ject~ve ~lsue and it is a much ~re teen,ca1 ~lSut ~OU~ whether ~he semites are there or ~o~. If ~t i~ one for a traffic ~ssue, y~r MPO itaff primly much ~re versed a~ being ~1o to de~e~ne ~here is any ~dity in te~s of h~ ~t 1~el of se~ice was es~1ish~ a~ ~he annual t~me or whether there n~ info~tlon ~ would c~nge =~ 1~el of se~ice or s~ething, as ~sed to ~king t~t a ~l~cy dec~sion. 61 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs And I can't think of -- are there any other instances where the Board actually does, is not the final arbiter of these issues, of any issue? MR. OLLIFFz Several. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERSs Yeah. MR. LOSKILLs It sounds like to me it's kind of not that you are but that you can't be. If that is your intent, then so be it. But ! think as the elected officials that you have to be the final arbiter. Maybe after a very lengthy process. MR. OLDIFFs Herb Savage, followed by George Keller. CHAIRMAR HASSEs Nr. Savage. MR. SAVAGEs gentlemen. CHAIRMAN HASSEs name again, please. MR. SAVAGEs Good evening. Mr. Chairman, ladies and Yes, sir. Would you repeat your Hr. Chairman, I'm Herb Savage, Architect, member of John O. Public Association. That's an ordinary citizen. I am not representing anyone. I am a member of many things, but I'm an architect and I have been an architect for many, many years. I was involved with Deltona Corporation, and I remember the days when Deltona Corporation did a central master plan of the various conununities, had a pay off program. One year, three year, five year, eight years. And -- in order to sell property. And they may have been speculators, but they had one-year, three-year, five-year programs, eight years. And I enjoyed so much hearing Mr. Dorrtll talk about varying times of certificates because there lsntt a developer I know of or a banker I know of or a businessman I know of who can borrow all the money and build all the roads and all the developments and all the sewer and water for a ten thousand acre or five thousand or two thousand acres. And I tm asking you -- and ! Just want to tell you. In the last year and a half, my client spent $15,000 in fifteen months to get a permit from Collier County, which is the simplest part of It, but then we had to go to DNR, DER, Corps of Engineer. A~$ I said, 'Well, remember tn the early days as an architect, I used to sit and look at the books that came out where the federal government said minimum standards. · I always thought the government, the federal government set minimum standards. Then the state would have O0()G.1 a more elaborate standard, then the county would elaborate more, and the city would elaborate more, and they would handle their own problems. But it seems to be the State of Florida, whoever represented by here tonight, is so interested in making us all robots that I am getting very irritated by it -- and I love that expression, so I say, 'Keep it simple, Savage.' I would like to think what weere doing here tonight and what you gentelmen are doing a very good Job at, a very difficult Job -- I can remember in the Army, we could have a paragraph written in all abbreviation. ASI, DRI, AS -- whatever this other thing. ~arco Island never had a DRI. There was an impact statement, regional type, on Marco Island when we were before Colonel Wisdom and General Dribble for developing the final phase of Marco Island. That high. Impact statement. Marco Island is only one community that we talked aboutw and I have heard many of them. This county has done a great Job in getting orderly growth. As my dad said many years ago, 'If you plant a bush you want to plant, make darn sure you water lt~ you take care of it~ because if you don't take care of it, it will 64 die.' And, ladies and gentlemen, we can't afford a moratorium. I'm thinking about the builder, I'm thinking about the carpenter, the laborer, all those people that have to work for a living. I tmve two automobiles. I don't need two automobiles. That's the reason our streets are so crowded today, because we are so elaborately enjoying life. And I don't think we need to put up with all of these things. I think what we do need to do is keep it simple. And I implore you, do not have a moratorium. Think of our poor young poople, i~r. ~emp, Secretary of HUD, is it, in a nationally televised program said that it takes forty-two agencies for a young couple or an old couple to get a building permit to build his home or her home in Los Angeles County. Forty-two agencies. That's the route we're going. And I ask yous Let's slow down. And it's all right to slow down growth, but don't hurt that poor working person or that banker or that lawyer. Oh, pardon me. lark to be here tonight. I think the lawyer is ~ust happy as a CHAIRMAN HASSEs I'm sure. ~4R. SAVAGEs But ! Just ask you don't make them so Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN i~SSEs Your name? MR. KELLERs George Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation, representing eighteen organizations from Marco Island to Bonita Shores. And that's a hard act to follow. I would like to ask a few questions here. In the first place, on the Section 400.10. What is the review period? MR. CUYLER! You're talking about public facilities etd t nance ? MR. KELLERs Yes, that's what we're on. And ! have another slip for the other one. I don't think people should talk about the two things at the same time. MR. CUYLER ~ MR. KELLER s What page are you on? I'm on page five. Under 4.10. Deficient road segments. And it says 'review periodm. And I was Just wondering what the review period is. Is it the period that we are reviewing our Comprehensive Plan, which is roughly every year, or what is it? It refers -- constantly refers to the review period. It says~ 'Any capital road improvements under construction or what w111 be under construction during the review period.' CHAIRMAN MR. LITSINGERs Could you respond to that? The review period here mentioned is the five-year period of the CIE. ]fR. KELLER~ That's the whole five years? MR. LITSINGER~ Correct. MR. KELLER~ Okay. So that straightens that out. Then there's another problem here. The state mandated that property improvement element be kept up to standard. Our roads are falling behind due to the low, low impact fees that we have been charging and that we are now charging. We must get going on increasing all road impact fees so that growth ,~tll pay for growth. And I think this Board a month or so ago directed the manager to review that to see whether that eighteen hundred and $1,300 road impact fee, compared to fourteen or $1,500 in Lee County, was adequate. And I don't think it is, and I don't think you think it is. 67 But let's not drag that along for two or three years, because every day we are getting ourselves deeper in the hole. And it's very important that we get that fee up to where it belongs. Secondly, we're talking about this five-year period for the certificate of facility adequancy, and it's -- I notice that it's a three years reported here. And the manager has suggested they have single-family homes have a one-year certificate/ multi-family, up to five hundred units, have three years/ and over five hundred have five yc~r~. If this is the case, we have a problem with allocation, because we've got five zones of family homes, as ! understand. Now then, we're going to have to go back and look at these five zones and see how many private streets there are in those five zones and allocate a certain amount of these facilities that are going to be required for single family homes before we get into any five or extended ten years on the five hundred units because we're going to be using up all our facilities requirements for big, big, big developments, and a lot of people are going to be sitting there with small lots that don't have fifteen or $25,000 to 68 go through an appeal processes. So ! think if we're going to do this and if we're going to extend it beyond two years, we better darn well start allocating. So much for private -- for single family homes. Otherwise, we're going to be snowed under. I disagree with the banker on this matter of long extending. That's what we have been doing all along. And your statements that you didn't like to loan $60,000 -- CHAIRMAN HASSEf A~dress us, Mr. Xeller. MR. KELLERz It was his statement that he didn't like to loan $60,000 for three years for a person to buy a And the big develol~nent scared the hell out of me -- and I use the word hell -- because fifty percent of my money comes from banker=, and ! can readily soo that if that's the philosophy of the bankers in this area, we're in the same trouble as the savings and loan industry. If a person can't afford to buy the lot to build on, we're in trouble right off the bat, so I can't go along with this so the bankers can have a longer period of letting people finance a mortgage on a lot. It seemed ridiculous I hope that you would consider going along with the II 69 draft that's here. I think the draft that the staff has made up so far is a good draft, and I think that we have had plenty of consultation with lawyers and developers on this, and we shouldn't water it down any more. I agree with the other people that spoke for the taxpayers, and please do not water it down any more. It°s watered down enough. We've got a problem from past experience~ let fs not compound t t by continuing the same folly. CHAIRMAN ]~SBEj T~ank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI, PEs Mr. Chairman. CHAIR)tAN HASSEs Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRRAN VOLPE! Mr. hitsinger, a question. A sLngle-famlly residence. I've got my three-year certificate of public facility~ I come to pull my building permit and there are no certificates! I~m not ready to build yet. I need an extension. Do I have the same opportunity that anyone else does to pay my fair share, my impact on the road that serves my development? MR. bITSINGERs Assuming you came in for renewal and you were not able to exercise that certificate in the three 00 )?1 70 years. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs I guess I'm trying to understand. I didn't explain it very well. We have talked about the bigger person and what he can do to -- with a $4,000,000 road and he pays his proportionate share, whatever it may be. But I've got my single family residential lot that I bought and I come to you now and I can't build because there aren't adequate public facilities. Can I pay you some -- how do you figure that out? I mean, ia it -- there were some discussions about do I pay ten two hundred and seventieths? What do I pay? MR. LITSINGERs In answer to your first question. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI Okay. HR. I, ITSINGERI There is a renewability provision for any certificate. They would apply to whether it was a five hundred unit PUD or a single-family home. How we will determine what a fair share would be or whether or not we're going to have provisions in the language, which currently states that the applicant will make the necessary improvement. But if there is a proportional allocation of cost, at 71 this time we do not have that methodolo~ because we do not have a situation which calls for that type of analysis at this point. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ But the language that you had -- that is propos.~d here, page twenty-five. That doesn't require the applicant to build the facility! it Just requires him to make his fair share contribution. MR. OLLIFFI That's the intent of that language, and I think, you k~w, it's the same for a large -- Just like Stan says -- it's the same for a large development as it is for a small development, and through our transportation staff we have got to come up with a way to develop what is fair share for each of those levels of certificates. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI Now I have confused things. My questlo~ tss Hr. Keller poses a dilemma here. Can the person who has the single-family residents1 lot, say, whether an impact fee, it may be $200.00, it may be $600.00, it ~ay be $1,000.00, but that would have to be determined. But there is the ability to pay -- under this draft, there is the ability to pay your fair share and move forward? HR. LITSII~GER: Let me make a clarification. 72 If you'll notice, on page twenty-six, that these provis~ons for rene~ability and paying of a pro rata share is contingent upon a Growth Management Plan amendment at this point. I would say that this language at this point is not necessarily consistent with their plan. MR. OLLIFFs To confuse things a little more, if you want to go ahead and get confused. I think the language that is in gray, highlighted for you, as provided by the Planning Commismion, talks about a renewal of a permit, and it's basically what's called a pay ar~ go kind of a system. In other words, it's a pipe line k~nd of a deal where you pay your portion. Because the intent here is given the option of having a moratorium or having addit~onal fur~s to help ~,ut towards the road improvement, the county staff always looks forward to having additio~al funds because we want the road im~rovement~ we n~ver want the option of a moratoriuml we always want to try and improve the road system. So the bottom line is to see that we always have decent road network. $o anything that gets us to that point is what we aim for. 73 The Comp Plan, however, doesn't allow that currently. It doesn't allow for you to issue a certificate which may allow a development to continue when that service is not physically there at that time. VICE-CHAIR/~AN VOLPEz So if this were adopted, then does that mean that we would require a -- HR. OLLIFFz It would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. So that's why I think Neil was going through this explanation of another option for the Board in terms of their staggered types of development certificates. For those large developments who require longer times to develop, weere talking about a five-year certificate straight out. So thates not something where you're talking about requiring -- that does not need a comp amendment in itself. HR. KELLER~ Could I ask a question. Right now, under our present system, a single-family home isntt involved in any moratoriums, are they? Or are they? MR. LITSINGERs Oh, absolutely. MR. KELLERs Well, if single-family homes are involved in moratoriums and we~ve got five districts in your I I I I~1 ill I I I I J I I I II I I I I IIII IIII Jl I II I I _ ' L III II I III III I urban deal, then you should definitely pro rate ho~ much of the service elements are going to be set aside for single-family ho~es. You kno~, this county isn't ~ade up only of developers. There's a lot of people in this county and a lot of single-family o~ners in this county. CHAIRMAN HASS£s ltell, voters are people too. MR. ~EI, LER~ I kno~ it, but we can't tailor our ordinances to go and favor developers. So consequently, I would suggest that if you're going to go into any of this pro ration or extension of time that you sit do~n and get your ~aps and decide ho~ ~any units, single-family units can be built in that area. And wherever you've got private roads going through -- or told that the~y'll be single family units probably -- undeveloped land is probably going to be developed -- develop it. So I thfnk that the single-family people have to be protected so that the~y will not be subject to a moratorium because some big developer took up all of the services. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ The discussion, i~ro Feller, was ~ust simply to address that concern that you had expressed, and the alternative being the potent~on the this single ?~ family restdencial property o~ner to make his fair share contribution. MR. ]~ELLER! Contribution, you know, is a rather difficult thing to determine because in the family, single districts -- most of these developments border on some kind of major road, and that's the reason why they're approvedl where a single family may be down on a private road, and al! you could say is that Oeorgo would figure how many miles single-family residence goes and put on the road, on all roads, and that would be an Impact fee sort of thing. Actually, if we raised our Impact fees, we would solve a lot of our problems. solution. CHAIRMAN HAI~SE s These impact fees are the big Th~nk you, Mr. Xeller. Mr. Olliff, if we could move along. MR. OLLIFFI The next speaker is Ms. Oulacsik. CltlI~ NASSEt Ns. ~ulacsik. MR. OLI,~FF~ NS. GULAC$IKs Following her is Dabble Orahefsky. Good evening, Cc~issioners. ~ name is Berrie Gulacsik, and I represent the l,e&~ve o! ~omem¥oteza in Collier Covnty. We support staff on both of these ordinances. 76 if this county does not pass a good and strict concurrency ordinance, the work of the Citizenms Committee, which was hundreds of hours, and all of the work of your staff will be for naught. The Growth Management Act will mean absolutely nothing. The Growth Management Plan is to enable the county to have good planning and protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. We have heard people complain that the rules have been changed. That is Just exactly what the Growth Management Plan is all about. You kno~, years ago, when I came down here, we had outhouses in certain sections of thi~ county. We didntt have septic tanks. We do not allow those now. Things do change. 9J-5 has a very good provision which allows any citizen or citizen's group to sue any county, that is the county that they live in, if the Growth Management Plan is not adhered to. I think there are some things that we should think about. Are we concerned about the cost and great financial burden to the public or the undue fiscal hardship for 77 Collier County of already planned and improved, unbuilt properties outstripping infrastructure? Are we concerned about the appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public's interest and their cluality of life? Are we concerned about the establishment of a process of criteria to determine consistency and land use compatibility for in-fill parcels invested rights? We consider these ordinances to be the key to our welfare through orderly growth and development over the next ten or twenty years. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Thank you, Ms. Oulacsik. Mr. Olliff, perhaps you would go into a little detail about impact fees on our roads. Can you explain that a little bit more, please. There were some questions about that. MR. OLLIFFs 1'11 answer what I think the question was. The county has recently, as recent as two weeks ago, adopted a road impact fee ordinance which almost doubled, i not more than doubled. 78 VICE-CHAIRI/AIt VO~FEs and fifteen percent. MR. OLLIFFs impact fees. I think it was about a hundred More than doubled the existing load There has always been a lot of question about what Collier's impact fees are lower than Lee County's impact fees or some other county's impact fees. The response that we always give is that we have, as development comes through this count~, dono a pretty good Job of requiring a certain amount of right of way dedication that occurs in this county. Our county is also not as urbanized as our neighbors in Lee County. So when they purchase a right of way, their right of way costs are substantially greater than ours are. So our construction costs of per lane mile of a road here in Collier County is, frankly, substantially less than it cost them te b~dld a lano mile in Lee County for that same piece of road. So our impact fees are based on what costs us to actually construct roadways in this county, and that's why our impact fees are generally less than in other areas. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Vice-chairman Volpe. 00.08O 79 But we have also agreed to VICE-CHAIN.MAN VOLPE s MR. LITSINOERs Your impact fees and have them reviewed on an on-going basis, and we are also going to be discussing some optional or conditional type fees, which on our agenda last Tuesday and we will be discussing it next Tuesday as well. MR. OLLIFFs I think we have Board direction to revte~ our rates on lmgact fees, and also direction to go back and look -- I think law enforcement and E.M.8. impact fees for an upcoming discusssion. CHAIRMAN HASBEs Okay. MR. OLLIFF~ I have Dabble Orshefsky, followed my Alan Reynolds. MS. ORBHEF~;KY~ Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Co~aission. My name is Debbie Orshefsky. I~m an attorney with the law firm of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen and Ouentel with offices at 500 -- East Broward Boulevard. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI, PEs You best give her your card. MS. ORSHEFSKYs I will. Offices at 500 East Broward Boulevard, Ft. fJOf) 1 80 Lauderdale. I'm here this evening representing Deltona Corporation. And their principal concern, given the long history of this company and this county, center upon the issue of exemptions and vested rights. that has ~ade -- VIC~-CHAIRNAN VOLPEs Excuse me. And given a company Are you going to be talking about zoning reevaluation or adequate public facilities? HS. ORSHEFS~YI Adequate public facilities. VICE-CHAIPJiAN VOLPEs I'm sorry. ~tS. ORSH£FSXYs Really, it's the issue of control that's the question and ho~ that relates to the development, such as those still owned by Deltona where they have oignificant government approvals -- not enough, by the way, to meet an exemption under the adequancy ordinance for some of their property -- and they have made a significant financial investment in those communities, millions of dollars in infrastructure and other improvements to support development of building -- which could confront them with an inability to obtain those building permits in a timely basis based upon a lack of adequate facilities. 81 With that stage set, let me talk about what has been alluded to a little bit earlier. The question of exemptions and vested rights, and I really think we need to view these as two different subjects. Exemptions, for the most part under concurrency framework, arise from Section 162.3167, SubparagraDh 8, Florida Statutes, which basically says that nothing in a comprehensive plan or the resolution.~ adopted thereunder can limit or modify the rfghts of a developer or landowner to complete that development whereas there has -- a DRI development order has been issued for a final local development order. With respect to DRI development orders, that has been resolved by DCA for the most part through the declaratory statements that were alluded to earlier. And, quite frankly, those declaratory statements went to the fssue of the affect of concurrency or whether concurrency could be applied to previously improved approved developmental impac t. Did not -- at least in my reading, refers to the Gulf Stream, General Development Corporation and ICP declaratory statements. They did not go to, specifically, sections of whether it's a density or intensity question and how that limits the applicability of concurrency but, rather, recognized that DRI's because of their special status shouldn't be affected by -- and other types of development. That is how you define local development. DCA in its infinite wisdow to date has left the decision of what is a final local development order up to you, the local governing body, and you have the privilege of declaring whether or not that should be a building permit. You may very well make that decision, but you can't forget that there are many developments that haven't gone to get their building permit. And that could be the single-family lot that we have been referring to this evening or the large scale development. And in this respect, they are In the same boat. They have tha same basic c _c~.___on law vested rights. They have rights that are the basis of a constitutional property rights argument or of a governmental estoppel. Good faith reliance on an act or omission. The issue of a development permit upon which there has been reliance. That could be a plat approval, a PUD approval. That is something different from the per se exemption that you may afford to a 83 development that has a final local development order. The question of vested rights goes to an equitable estoppel argument, and it sometimes gets muddled in Florida case law with a constitutional question and private property rights. Wast your adequacy ordinance has done is ignored constitutional vested rights. It doesn't address it. Doesn't have a provision that allo~s a landowner to come to you and say, '! have spent X number of dollars! ! have built a sewage treatment plant~ ! have built a water plant and put in roads to serve a two thousand unit development and I have only built five hundred units, but I've gob the services to support the rest of it.' Ho~ can you tell me no~, in the face of my property rights inherent in those improvements, that ! can't have a building permit no~ when I want it? In order for you to have that ability -- and it must not to be dictt.ted by a circuit court, quite frankly -- you b~vo t,, hav~ a voet~d ~l~ht~ l~rovisiOno ~fh~t you ar~ doin9 by fa~ling to have one is forcing people to go into court, whether that be the individual landowner or the large scale developer o You may also be violating your own Comprehensive Plan. And let me refer you to a few provisions. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs In the Comprehensive Plan? MS. ORttHEFSKYs In the Comprehensive Plan. The future land use element. Policy 3.1.L. The last sentence reads as follows, in discussing -- it's discussing the adequate public facilities, the exercise that you're going through right no~. They says 'The program of aligning development capacity with capital improvements capacity shall provide for the recognition and protection of vested property rights.' Can't be tax, re clear. 'And shall provide Individual property owners with a reasonable opportunity to take advantage of existing investment-backed development expectation · :~!~..: That's all that we're asking for. We're asking for an administrative opportunity to come to you and says Look, we have done X, Y and Z to complete this development and should not be subject to concurrency because there is subject to your adequancy ordinance. The same as you are providing an exemption for a final local development order, but you're defining it as a bulldint; permit, and I'm not going to force that. I think 85 there are others that may go into that further, but -- I may not agree with you, but I may be stuck with it, too. In that context, we need an opportunity to have a vesting provision. You have the basis for that in your Comprehensive Plan. You also have the basis for that in the settlement agreement that you have, your eti~ulated settlement agreement with DCA, and I refer to you Paragraph 28, which refers to concurrency. And it saysl The county agrees that all develol~nent orders will be subject to concurrency requirements with the exception for projects which are vested in that regard uursuant to Chapter 163 -- in n~ view, the excv~ption -- or other applicable law. If you weren't referring to co~on law, what what was it? That core,non law opportunity t'o pursue and establish our vested right to complete the development will either be determined by a circuit court Judge or by you. We would rather keep it administrative process. We think that°s where it belongs, quite frankly, because this is the body that gave the original approval! this is the body that is going to have to live with it. There are a variety of different ways to approach this criteria. We hope that you will direct staff to work with those interested parties on establishing vested rights procedures and criteria in your adequancy ordinance. CHAI~hWR HASSE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSEI to that? MR. CUYLER~ Mr. Cuyler, would you please respond We received some correspondence from Ms. Orshefsky today, and we're going to be looking at it in the course of the next week of so. I don't know if Bill has some comments. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Mr. Merrill. MR. MERRILL: I haven't seen the correspondence. What is the question? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ C __o~__issioner Saunders and I generated at the outset of this meeting, and that is: Is there any provl3ion in the adequate public facilities ordinance to create a -- HR. MERRILLz No. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE: MR. MERRILL~ For vesting, and you said no. There is not, no. S7 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEz And the co~,ent here is that -- the coherent is that either there should be an administrative process within the adequate public facilities ordinance for that determination, based upon some standards, whatever they may be. And if I have understood the presentation, that -- the suggestion was made that not to have it there is somehow violative of our o~n Growth ~anagement Plan and provisions of state statutes and possibly e~tablished case law. HR. MERRILI~s ! think that is one side of the issue, and as lawyers, you know there ara differsnt sidss to an issue. I do not believe that it is violative of your Orowth 14anagement Plan. And specifically if you refer to traffic circulation, which ! do not have before me right no~, in future and your capital l~prov~ments element. Those policies specifically relate to building permits, and they also talk about fine! local development orders. I do not disagree. The policy, 3.1.I~, may say that -- ! do not -- also, ! do not have that with me as well, either. But ! do know that the adequate public facilities ordinance was drafted and restricted significantly by your 00 ) 9 88 Growth Management Plan and specific requirements conta.~ned in your Growth Management Plan. With regard to the declaratory statements that were referenced by 14s. Orshefsky, the Gulf Stream did not receive declaratory statements from the DCA, there is no doubt that DRI*s, pursuant to that declaratory statement, are generally vested. I would -- I disagree with some of the points the DCA made. I do not think they explored the issues fully. But, again, it has been staff es position to allow DRI's to be fully exempt from the ordinance with the few exceptions that have been ~nserted by the Planning Commission that are pursuant to Chapter 380. And those are primarily the exceptions -- that I see, are the exceptions from Chapter 380.06(15), which deals with cond~tions or invalidation, et cetera, of DRI development orders by a Board of County Cc-.~nissioners. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Ccsmnissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERSs First, I would like to say that those are extremely well articulated. I think that that's not the first time youeve made those remarks. I~. ORSHEFSKY$ Thank you, Cc~maissioner. 0O¢)90 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ And probably articulated better than I have heard before, and sums up the issue of constitutions! rights and vested rights. I think our general philosophy is going to be that we don't really want to water down what staff has presented to you. ! think all five us are probably at this point are pretty happy with most of what is contained in the staff drafts. But I think, and the reason I raised the issue early on, was that it seems to me that the one potential falling in the ordinance, a correctable one, was what Ms. Orshefsky has identified as perhaps a -- not a sufficient recognition of constitutional rights. We can be as strong as we want to be. we can make sure we don't water down this ordinance, but we still have to recognize existing the constitutional rights. We*re not going to change that, and nobody wants to change that. I would like to see -- I~m not so sure that I agree a hundred percent with your analysis that we don~t have a vesting issue here. I think there is. ]~R. MERRILLs I didnJt say that. COMMISSIONER $AUNDERSs Maybe I misunderstood that. 0OO91 90 I think that -- I'm not convinced that we don't have to address vesting in this ordinance in some way. MR. MERRILL~ I didn't say that either. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERSs Very well. Maybe we agree more than I thought we did. MR. MERRILLs Go ahead. COM]4ISSIONER SAUNDERS~ I think you Just said, then, that vesting needs to be addressed in the ordinance. MR. MERRILL~ No, I'm didn't say that either. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLFE~ Obviously confused. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Maybe we're two lawyers trying to communicate here. So I agree with Commissioner Volpe. I'm thoroughly confused. Let me say that I think we need some analywis from our county attorney from our special counsel on the question of vesting and what type provisions do we need in this, if any at a11, because ! think you have said that we don't need it or we do need it. I think we need some analysis on tha~. That's the only point I want to make on that. MR. MERRILL~ Well, if I may. 91 The vested rights issue has been thoroughly analyzed, not only ir~ your supplement to your Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by this Board January 10th, '89, but it was also thoroughly reviewed and hopefully will be implemented in the zoning reevaluation ordinance. And there is criteria -- provisions for hearing officers in a procedure in the zoning reevaluation ordinance. Tho concern with regards to common law vested rights or constitutional vested rights as opposed to the statutory. To this point, I have only been talking about the statuator~ vested rights provisions, and we have tried to provide for those in the zoning reevaluation ordinance, and regard to DRI's in this ordinance. VICE-CHAIR~4AN VOI~PEI You mean adequate public facllitios. MR. MERRILLI Yes. Adequate public fac.llities with regard to this ordinance. In this ordinance, we have provided for that in the form of DRI~s. And by defining final local development order as the building permit, we have provided for the final lo~al development order. And have in fact gone beyond that in that under the statute. The provision requires that a final local development order not Just be in existence and be approved, but also it has been co~,enced, it is continuing, and that it is continuing in good faith. ~o it is a very co=plicated issue. Nith regard to the constitutional or cc~maon law vested rights issue, which oftentimes is referred to as property rights -- but ! do not want to confuse that with the taking issue, which people oftentimes do confuse those two issues -- there is nothing in this ordinance other than the exemptions that exist. Some may say those are some, to a certain extent, the common law rights. But there is no doubt that Ms. Orshefsky is correct in that there will likely be cases that are not covered by this ordinance that may in f&ct have vested rights. As far as whether they have vested rights, as to concurrency and whether or not you can break up a development and say that they are vested for this reason but not for another reason, really hasn't been fully decided. There are a number of cases, including from the United States Supreme Court, that indicate that property rights are really what are called a bundle of rights, and 00054 93 that in fact you may be vested with regard to certain inherent rights, such as densities and intensities of development! however, you may not be vested with regard to, for Instance, a drainage order that cornea down the line at a later time that ~oes not affect the density or intensity of development. There is no doubt also that coupon laws or constitutional vested rights in some instances will probably not fall -- will not be exempted from this ordinance. And that could present a problem down the line. On the other side of the coin -- and I do recognize those problems that Ms. Orshefsky has brought up. On the other side of the coin, however, Is the fact that if you provide an exemption for -- similar to what we have prey for tn the zoning reevaluation ordinance, you will be exempting a significant amount -- in fact, the majority -- the substantial majority of al! unimproved or of all approved but unbuilt development in this county from the concurrency measures in your Comprehensive Plan and that are proposed in this ordinance. And that is the dilen=aa really that this county faces. By having approved hundreds of thousands of 94 single-family homes and thousands of commercial properties without taking into account this concurrency measure, which came about only in the last couple of years, tho county is put in a very precarious situation in trying to meet the concurrency requirements that the state has imposed. Of course, funding can solve all problems, but right no~ we don't have that funding in thi~ county. CHAIRRAI~ HASSEs Thank you, Mr. Merrill. You knc~, it's very interesting. Two attorneys can create confusion, but do you see what five can do? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Just one other question. You have alluded to the fact that DCA through a declaratory statement has essentially said that DRI's are vested and exempt from the adequate public facitltties or from concurrenc~/', HR. HERRI~ Generally that's what they say, yes. What you said is But thetis the VICE-CHAIRkAN VOLPE~ Generally. you don't necessarily agree with that. declaratory statement? HR. MERRILLs ! gonerally agree with it, but ! think there are exceptions to the rUleo CHAIRMAN HASSEs All right. 00O96 95 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Is there a possibility that DCA could be asked for a declaratory statement on the question of whether this issue also could be vested? MR. MERRILL s orders? V I CE- CHAI E~9~ VOLPEs HR. MERRILL s Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs You're saying final local development That's exactly what I'm asking. It's not impossible to have them. So I think we can anticipate -- and this conversation gets a little -- but I think we can anticipate this whole issue, and I concur with what is being said here, that we have to look at the issue and anticipate, MR. HERRILLs I don't disagree with that. As a matter o! fact, the DCA scheduled to the issuing declarator~ statement in this regard out of Orange County on March 12th, which of courso f&lls right in the middle of all of these hearings. VICE-C~,IRMANVOLPEs Which is Monday? MR. MERRILL~ Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI Okay. That should be interesting. KR. MERRILL~ And they have assured me that they are not, and I had some major concerns that the attorneys who were -- up in the i rovy to~ers In DCA are drafting this and not consulting with any local .governments or people do~n in the front. Ever~ local g~er~ent In this county or in this state -- excuse me -- and in this cowry have dtiferen~ l~els of ~here they ~ve vhat they ~y consider a final l~al d~el~ent orders. ~d as Hrs. Orshefsky indicated, it ts going to be this Board~s dete~inatton, and h~efully DCA ~on't infringe t~ far Into khat dete~inatton, as ~hat a final local devel~nt order ~rrently, th~ have iMtcat~ that they are not going to necessarily say what a final local d~elo~ent order is, but they are going ~o give you factors which you sh~ld consider in de~e~intng what a final local d~el~en~ order might be. VICE-~AI~ VO4PEs ~e y~ f~tliar ~lth this pr~aed declara~o~ -- ~S. OR~ZFS~Ys I think tho wlsd~ ts c~tng d~n fr~ on high, like ~e~one else, a~ I tht~ -- fr~ this discussion, I need to clarify ~ust a ~ points, ii I First, I'm not. that worried ~out DRI's a~ co~urrency. I thi~ -- a~ I think this ts one thing 97 Mr. Merrill and I would agree on -- we have gotten a lot of guidance as tO that subject, and DRI's are basically insulated. CHAIRMAN MS. ORSHEFSKY~ concurrency -- CHAIRMAN MS. ORSHEFSKY~ They are what? They are essentially not subject to Until they-- Approved before your concurrency ordinance goes into effect. CHAIRMAN HABSEs Okay. MR. MERRILLs Or prior to the Growth Management Plan. ~S. ORSHEFSKYs Growth Management Plan, yes. But it's the non-DR! problems, and you have a number of thoso too. But the distinction, though, is that what I~m asking for is not an exemption. If you get a finding by this Board or by a circuit court that you have vested rights, then you'll be exempt. VICE-CHAIRFJ~tl VOLPEs You want a process. KS. ORSHEFSKYs Thates all ism looking for. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs I understand. KS. ORSHEFSKY] But the choice is] Are you going to make the decision and if I~m not pleased, I may end up in 98 circuit court, or is our only recourse to go to the court. And I think that you have a responsibility to this community, quite frankly, to establish a procedure. There are many ways of doing it. your DRI ' s. VICE-CHAI~ VOLPE s You're doing it in think our earlier -- MS. ORSHEFSKYs And that could give you somewhat of a framework. Bring that into this framework is all we're asking for. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Thank you, Ms. Orshefsky. We'll have a ten minute break now. (Whereupon, a brief recess was had after which the meeting and proceedings continued as follow.) CHAIRMAN HASSEs All right. Mr. Olliff. MR. OLLIFFs Mr. Chairman, the next speaker I have registered ts Alan Reynolds. CHAIRMAN HA$$Es Mr. Reynolds. MR. OLLIFFs Followed by John Farquhar. CHAIRMAR BASSEs You ell notice, ladies and gentlemen, we have gone two hours Into this already. Please limit as much as you cans 99 M~. REYNOLDSs (~ive me Just a second to put a chart up on the board. For the record, Alan Reynolds~ Wlllor, Allen, Barts and Peak (phonetic). I have been getting ribbed. Have had this chart up in the evening throughout my hearings, and I decided to bring a new one to this one so that I can donate this to the staff. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs It's already a part of our record. MR. REYNOLDSI Yes, I know it is. Let me Just start by saying that I was very encouraged at the co~nents of the staff at the introduction of this meeting. I think they did focus very well on a couple of issues that have been the subject of much discussion, and I would like to explore Just a little bit further so~e of the thoughts that we have about solutions of tha t. I would like to start out by Just posing a rhetorical question to you, and that isz What do the following have in ccxm~on? Brief listz Port Royal, Coral Creek, Wyndemere, Pelican Bay, bely Resort, Park Shore, Wind Star, Philharmonic Center, Edison Community College Campus. 100 Collier County Fairgrounds, the Vineyards Elementary School, Lely High School, and the North Collier Health Center. All of those projects, in my opinion, could not exist were it not for Collier County's encouragement of long-term, large-scale quality development. And I'm afraid to say that the current Concurrency Ordinance without further modification, were it to be in place at the time those projects were planned, those projects would not exist today either. ! think it has been spoken repeatedly tonight about a concern in terms of a11o~ing a proper time frame and planning for a large-scale, long-term project. X would offer to you that we really need to examine our ordinance -- this ordinance to make sure that we have accommodated the necessar~ provisions to a11o~ the continuation of that kind of high-quality project and the public benefits that often im=ninates from that type of project. Concurrercy is a theoretical goal in which all facilities are in place at the time that all of the impacts occur. There has been, over the course of these discussions, a great deal of emphasis placed on what the developers and the development co=~aunity have been trying to 101 do to the ordinance and what have you. Well, it's not the developers and it's not the government that creates the impacts. It's the people that want to live in Collier County. They're creating the impacts. Tbs goverument and the development community are those that are going to be looking for the solutions to the problem. My chart is what I consider to be the four main ingredients to a concurrency solution, to providing that goal of facilities and Impact at the same time. The first is the planning and forecasting for the demand. And the combination of our Growth Management Plan and our current ordinances do a very good Job of putting that in place. We have AUIR's. We have a five-year CIE, and I think were going to have good means of forecasting and predicting. The second element is the funding and the design and implementation of infrastructure. Well, that one we are told is in pretty {'sod shape, and there are a few caveats on that. Of course, one being the adoption of a seventh penny sales tax. I would offer a suggestion that let's not be overly optimistic. Let's make sure that we have looked at the 00105 102 alternative of concurrency without that seventh penny and make sure that we have a handle on what that means, too, because I would hope that thatts not a probability! but nonetheless, it's here, at least a probability that we're going to be faced with that prospect not too long from now. The regulatory process. That ts really what this ordinance, as I see ~t, ~s addressing. It's the dropping the hammer. Tbatts fine. The regulatory process kicks in when we have failed to do the first two. And I think that to the extent that this ordinance is a regulatory device, it needs some fine tuning, and ! think the area that it needs the fine tuning, ~n particular, is with respect to the time frames to be adjusted based on the -- lust on the magnitude of the prelect, and put us some standards in here that give us some predlc~ability on the magnitude of the ASIts or the moratorium areas or whatever you want to call them, because I think what's -o. ery important for us in putting those sl.and~xd~ J~Lo L)m o~dir~a~c~, J~ ~t gives a forecasting tool that we don~t have right now. If wo can look forward two to three years, not only know where the problems may be but the magnitude of the 103 problems in terms of real property, ! think it will give us ~ore options to evaluate in terms of finding the solutions. And I think our solutions right now, that the government has to offer, are limited to a certain extent and based on certain funding mechanisms that are subject to -- subject to poli tical input. Which brings me to the fourth point, and that is encouraging private participation when oue and two fail. I think that -- and Neil has already spoken to this in terms of providing a mechanism in the ordinance that allows and encourages that private participation. ! think the principal is one we have to have. I think the ordinance still fails to put some -- some real language to it. And I would suggest to you that there are other alternatives that we need to consider when we look at that fourth item, and I think that some of the things that we need to look at on that basis -- and let me get to that page. Got a lc.t of pages here, and -- I notice. And a lot to talk about. CH~ I RPAN HA$SEI HR. REYNOLDS s interest of brevity. In the We've got fair share funding of improvement, and that 104 was one that was spoken to. You have a certificate. It lasts for a certain period of time. A problem exists. The han~ner is going to fall. You provide a mechanism for a fair share contribution to solving the problem and you're allo~ to proceed. That's one solution. Another solution is incremental improvement. And as we're talking about concurrency, ! think most of the discussion co,es back to transportation. Iris not necessar~y to four lane a four mile segment of road in order to bring our level of service back up. No~, that is the long-ter~ solution, but there are interim steps that we can take, depending on the road segment. Perhaps so~e intersection improvements may cause some additional capacity and relieve some of the congestion. think we need also to acknowledge that those kinds of incremental improvements can be provided, and they can be provided by the private sector as well as the public sector. In order to help us solve our deficienc~ problems. ! think another one that has been suggested in various ways is the creation of alternative or use of alternative routes to a deficient road segment. 105 that conversation has be~n directed at ii you have a problem road segment and there is an alternative route, you should look at the capacity of both of those segments together in determining whether you have a real-life problem or whether it ~ust exists on that segment. I would also suggest to you that if in fact an alternative route can be provided, once again perhaps by the private sector, that that helps to relief your concurrency problem, your deficiency, and that may be another kind of incentive that you would want to encourage to the private sector to provide those those kinds of alternatives. And, finally, the phased approval process or the time frame on the certificates. ! think there's -- there's two ends of the spectrum that there are problems. On one hand, you're hearing a lot about the fact that three years does not provide sufficient time for the longer term projects to put the infrastructure in the ground and the amenities and all those kinds of things, and then be able to have some time left at the end to continue to receive building permits. Well, that's very true. A large-scale project may take three years in planning, design and putting the infrastructure in for the first phase. 106 There is also the problem at the other end of the spectrum, and that is single-family lot owner that wants to go pull a building permit and finds that all of the capacity that he -- that was allowed on that segment has been used up. I think we have got to look at solutions for both of those problems. O~e suggestion that we might consider is the use of a longer term certificate but build in some performance standards. Let's say that you've got a five-year, a larger scale problem prelect, you want to give it a five-year or ten-year certificate but you don~t want them to tie up that capacity if the project isn't completely in line. So put some milestones in there. You don~t proceed to the next phase of the approval process. Then perhaps your certificate is in default. Or you're phasing and allowing only a certain number of units to be allocated on a yearly basis, depending on the project. so th, st kinds of techniques, I think, can be put back in~ a method to allow the longer term projects to proceed withoug causing the smaller projects and the individuals to have to suffer. The last thing I011 suggest is that -- I had passed 0 0 i i 107 out at the Planning Con~ission a suggestion for a method for determining ASI's. And where that came from was Jeff Perry of your staff had prepared a report and had identified the three main techniques that we can use for establishing A$I's, which are the direct access technique, the balloon technique and the modeling technique. And what I have posed is the solution that was in the middle, between those, which essentially is the balloon technique. And that says that depending on the road size of the road segment and the type of classification it has, you have a certain dimension around that segment that is the ASI. And that can be modified by the Board, but it gives better direction to the Board when you're establishing these says ASI's. And you can start from the position that here's the ASI, here are its boundaries, and then if you have a property which clearly should be provided or has alternatives a,tte~natives to it, then you can adjust the boundaries accordingly. Conversely, if you have a property that may be outside of that ASI, that crests all of its impact on that roadway, then they can be included. 00111 ],08 So I would like to see you move at least to the direction of having staff co~e back with suggested alternatives, using that balloon approach or the direct access approach, in considering having the ordinance, because I really think that's going to help us not only forecast the problems but will also serve as a mechanism to direct growth toward the areas where you have more capacity, and that's one of the intents of our growth management. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Thank you, Nfo Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDSI Thank you. Mr. Olliff. John Farquhar, followed by Wayne MR. HASSE~ MR. OLLIFF~ Sprouse. MR. FARQUHAR~ John Farquhar! (inaudible), Barnett, on behalf of Rockford Development (phonetic). C~LAIRMA~ HASSE~ The what, sir? MR. FARQUHARz On behalf of Ronko Develoment (phonetic). Let me try and shorten some of my comments because some of them have been dealt with somewhat by the earlier speakers. The first issue that X'd like to deal with is the issue of vested rights. OOI 12 109 Basically, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance does not have a provision for vested rights. ~he Zoning £eevaluation Ordinance, which you also are looking at tonight, has a provision for vested rights. It would be my suggestion that that same provision be moved into the Adquate Public Facilities Ordinance or it be set up in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance so it covers both ci rcums tances. I think that not only is it contemplated by 163 and by coemm)n law vesting, I think it's all contemplated by your future land use element. hand out to you all -- V1 CE-CHAXRMA~ VOLPEs I of in front of me, which I will Didn't we ~ust have this discussion? This seems to be repetitive. OIAIRMAN ~ASBEs Yeah. Would you please -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs discussing it. CHAXRMAt, HASSEI Yes. I mean we ~ust spent some time Would you please give that to Mr. Olli/f. He'll take care of them. And a duplication isn't really necessary. MR. FARQUHARs Let me, ii I could, lust point out one thing about it. 110 That language which was mentioned before, of vesting for adequate public facilities, is specifically in language which changed in your final adopted plan which was not in your draft plan, but was -- in reconsideration was placed in the plan. I Just wanted to bring up that point. ! wanted to give a hypo -- not a hypothetical, but a fact situation relating to vesting issue. One of my client's projects is a project called Hideaway Beach. It's a project where we have a PUD which has been approved; we have the right under the PUD to build three hundred and ninety-four multi-family units! and under the PUD, it also allows two hundred and sixty-seven single-family residences. At this point in time, on the project all of the infrastructure for those overall projects, rather than tying in to either an individual residence or the buildings, has been completed; the recreational facilities, which include a ten thousand f,~ot clubhouse, a nine-hole golf course, racket ball courts, a number of other rec facilities have all been completed. Two hundred plus of the multi-family units are either complete and CO'd or under construction presently. There's approximately a hundred and thirty some ( 01 .I .l 111 multi-family -- VICE-CRAIRI4AN VOLPE~ Hr. Farquhar, this is the same discussion. You're bringing us to the same place. If you have something ne~ to add. HR. FARQUHARs I'm Just trying to emphasize boy far along you can be in the process and not be vested under your present standards because there really is no standard for vesting or for the other aspect, which I look at as basically in 163, is a statutory concept of vesting which is the final local development order. ~hich 163 contemplated taking care of substantial anx~mts of the common law vesting by the definition of final local development order which construction had co~aenced, because it would be included with that definition if that definition is a broader definition. The present definition that is in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ia a definition which is final local government order ..'.s a building permit. The concept which was intended, and appears to be what DCA is going to get in a declaratory statement which is going to be coming out in the next fe~ days, is that they're not going to say what permit it is specifically which should 00.I .I 5 be a final local development order, but theytre going to define the standards for that permit. Because, for example, there are counties up in northern Florida where the only permit that you have to get is a building permit. In those cases, a building permit certainly would be the appropriate period. But it*s also going to talk about, from what we can understand from discussions with DCA, the point at which the densities and intensities are set and you can start doing -- VICE-CHAIRliAN VOLPEs Nr. Farquhar, what is your point7 HR. FARQUHAR~ I~ell, my point is that your definition of final local development order should be substantially expanded to Include plat, to include site plans, to include the approval which would a11o~ you to start the physical construction of putting your infrastructure in the ground, which is the general concept of when development starts. And, in fact, in the adoption of tht land use plan~ the initial draft of the land use plan which had been submitted to DCA had specifically defined a final local development order as only a building permit. In the modifications before the plan was adopted, the Board final 00.I .I G was struck, and there is no longer a definition of legal local development order. But a development order was defined as being basically any pe~it that alloys you to start construction, which would include the plat or site plan or any of the other pe~lts ~hich all~s ~ou to r~e. ~I~ HASSEs Nr. Dorrtll, have y~ go~ the time on this? ~. ~ILL~ ~ere's ~:~ther two minutes. CHAI~N HASSEs ~t do y~ mean, two minutes? Y~ mean two minutes short of fifteen. ~. FAROUHARs Let ~ ~ust m~e ~ ~ickly to a couple of other points. ~e Is the rental of certificate, which ts c~ered tn the ha~ which you ~ve, which is l~eled as page twenty-five, I believe. I would ~ust suggest s~ ve~ minor lang~ge c~nges, which I thl~ would acc~liah the intent of w~ ~s been discussed tonight, for the certificatel and t~2 would be the fourth -- fifth line tr~ the bott~ of the Insert would be to adds serve exclusively To provide all such ~acllities that that development and the development's pro 00,11 ? 114 rata share of all facilities impacted by the development or fur~s for such facility. To implement the concept of it being the fair share, not the entire burden of the whole facility, and that is something that I think would accomplish the intent of what has been discussed earlier tonight. The only other thing that I would like to say, in closing, is that in considering the areas of significant influence and in considering the l~vel of vesting which you provide that if there is a tremendous -- there are wide moratoriums in the county, that those will in effect require that during the period of moratorium that the infrastructure which is missing must be provided, and the moratorium would appear to have to be of relatively short duration. So what will happen is during that period, it will be the existing taxpayers who will have to pay for the short fall in lnfrastruction, not the development because development wi.1 not be developing and paying its infrastructure charges as part of its fair share contribution which you require if they're not developing. Also they w111 not be Increasing the tax base for you to obtain the taxes from. 00.I 18 115 CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Thank you. MR. FAROUHAR ~ Thank you. HR. OLLIFF~ Mr. Chairman, I've got Wayne Sprouse, followed by Reed Jarvi. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Gentlemen, I don~t like to cut you short, but you realize the problem we've got. We~ve got twenty more people here, and we have been working all day. I don't know what the attorneys have been doing. HR. SPROUSE~ Fortunately, I'm not an attorney. My speech is short. CHAIRMAN HASSEs Good. MR. SPROUSE~ ! represent the Collier County Builders and Contractors and their nine hundred members, employing of some ten thousand people. ! believe they are the silent mai oft ry. These ten thousand people have sent me here to express their concern. The next fourteen days will be the most important of their lives. Their future is in your hands. You have a tremendous responsibility. The last Planning C~tsston I attended, and now this meeting, there was discussion about moratorium and how to Implement them. We are not Interested in plans on how to 00.I 19 have moratoriums, but plans how to prevent them and plans how to fund growth management plan. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I think that's what Mr. 011iff had alluded to in terms of where the staff is trying to plan to address take point. MR. OLLIFFs Thank you. MR. SPROUSE~ Ninety-five percent of our nine hundred members are smll businesses. affected by what you decide. businesses. They will be directly Moratoriums will destroy their We talk about land~ we talk about units per acre~ we talk about PUD's, DRI"s, ASI's, APT's, AFI's, and when are we going to talk about people? Hearings. There have been no hearings on any economic impact and what moratoriums will do to those small businesses and their employees. We must make the right decisions. The wrong decisions will certainly devastate sma1! businesses and the working people. I have heard the phrase, 'We must bite the bullet and if moratoriums happen, they happen.= How about let's bite the bullet, present a fair plan and properly fund it and assure the citizens of this 001 0 11'7 co~unity, there will be no moratoriums, and let this Camnisston be known as the ¢o,,.tsston that took the responsibility to fund the plan and make this a nicer place to live. And I'll leave you with this one remark. ! ask you to remember the quality of life includes having a Job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HA/;SE ~ HR. OLLIFF~ HR. JARVI I Thank you. Reed :az-vi, folloved by Don Pickworth. ~y name is Reed Jarvt. I'm a civil engineer with the firm of Kagnoli, Barber and Brundage (phonetic). I have what I think will be very short co~ten t. On page forty of the current ordinance, section -- well, it's the only gray area on the page. Section is 8.3.5.6.2, Development t/ithin Designated Area of Significant Influence. The gray statement says for development within a dooignated area, ASI, covering a deficient road segment, the road component shall be denied. I have problems with this -- X brought it up before -- in that if the ASl's are defined on a very broad basis, which they very likely will be, being they are large versus 00.1 1 small, ! suspect -- or I propose that there will be development within those designated ASI's that will not affect the deficient road segment if they are broad enough. So~e of those might be a single-family home that does not use the deficient road segment. Xt has been brought to your attention before that the time to discuss this is on the development the ASI Board meeting, which will be prior to to Kay 1st according to the ordinance. ~y feeling ia that if you wait until that tame and do not provide language that gives it out to that person that X mentioned before that you have a deluge of people coming in and trying to get there properties outside the ASI, and your ASI rather than being a relatively geometric shape will be a series of ins and outs around these islands of people that say they do not affect the deficient road segment. So my suggestion is that on the end of that statement we add language to the effect of unless it can be shown that development does not adversely affect the deficient road segment o Ti'~t's all I have, sir. CHAIRMAN HASS~: Thank you, sir. V~CE-CHAIRMAN VObPE: Just so that I -- I mean I 00122 119 heard what you said. I'm not sure I understand that. What -- by adding that language, what does that accomplish7 MR. JARVII That accomplishes, if a deficient road segment is determined in the county and an ASI around that deficient road segment is done, if it's broad enough, there could be -- very likely would be development on the fringes of that. I'm not talking large-scale PUD's! I'm talking single-family homes, maybe apartment buildings, or something like that. On the fringes that could be proven not to use that deficient road segment. And by this gray area being in there, these people would be denied the road component. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI How would you determine that? HR. JARVIs ! would think you'd have to do a traffic study of some sort that would prove it. I'm not saying it can go up and say, 'No, ! don't go on there,' and that proves. would be up to that person. No, I think you have to -- it It would be the individual property owner would come in and say -- MR. JARVIs I'm saying it could be to that level. O0 ! VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ And what would -- is there an appeal? Is there a process within this ordinance to make that determination? HR. JARVIs No. I don't think so. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs So if we add the language -- HR. JARVis No. If we add the language, it seems to me, that says that if you go to the Growth Management Director and say, mYes, I'm in an AS! for deficient road segment, but, no, ! do not affect the deficient road Se~nt. · VICE-CHAIPJ4AN VOLPE~ ! think that crests all kinds of difficulty. I mean, if you don't -- that process is not given in your suggestion. You're suggesting that you ought to exempt them out, but you've got no basis to do that, so don't-- I think it's incomplete. get from this discussion. CHAIRMAN HASSE s Fine. HR. OLI,. I F! ~ Pl mmaer. ~R. PI CI~ORTH i At least the impression I Thank you, Hr. Jarvi. Don Pickworth, followed by David Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I had two iteas to speak about, One was vesting, but ! won't mention that again. 001 121 CHAIRMAN HAS/~E s Good. MR. PICKWORTH~ The second concerns the boundaries that has been alluded to already. I think -- and I understand that you're going to have a session on this next week -- that the boundaries should be defined fairly narrowly. One of the previous speakers mentioned an alternative corridor approach with incentive payments, and I think that type of approach should be given some very serious consideration. I think one of the weaknesses in this entire syotum as m~ndated by the state law is that there is not the incentive aspect of this put in, and I think the whole key to this, as we all know, is funding, and X think we need to create incentives for funding. So I would simply commend attention to that type of approach. CHAIRR~N MR. PICKWORTH ~ CHAIRMAN HASSE~ short before. MR. OLLIFF~ Dudley Goo~lette. That's all? That's all. Mr. Pickworth, Mr. Chairman, Dave Plummet followed by 00.I 25 ~. PLUMMER s Thank you, si~. For the record, my name is David Plummet. transportation consultant with offices in Ft. Myers. Oeorge Varnadoe asked me t.o appear tonight to talk Just briefly about some of the experience we've had in concurrency. Our firm has been part of the authorship of two concurrency rules in the State of Florida and have been involved in negotiating a third one. In both cases or all three cases, we were either vol=nteers or working in the public sector. If there is anything that we have learned from that approach, lt*s that the interpretation of what the growth management law means is that we*ye got to find a way to let growth march along with improvements. The problem we have in transportation and concurrency is the fact the improvements are very costly and big. We have to shut down an area waiting for a fifty or an eighty or a hundred million dollar improvement to be made. So on one of the counties, we went to DCA and said, mWould you allow us, when we get into a problem, to find a way in which we can match growth with improvements, not wait for the overall big hitter.' And I have a brief exhibit here to show you what we 001 123 used in those DCA hearings, but in essense what we're saying ts let's say we've got a roadway that we have decided doesn't work well, it's deficient, it's degragated to where CHAIRMAN HASSE: Can everybody hear this? Okay. MR. IH,UMMER s }{ere? CHAIRMAN }{ASSEs You're on the mike there, you know. The mike's right in front of you. Yeah. MR. PI~UJ4J4ERf And let*s say this ultimately we're going to have a four-lane divided roadway section in that Improvement, but Ires a very costly undertaking. {~aybe financed with state money, not even local funds. Might be eighty, a hundred, a hundred twenty million dollars. Do we bring the whole county waiting for that to be made? And we said to DCA, Let*s say the roadway today was two lanes. The key is to decide what we ultimately want to be and then take and construct pieces of it. For instance, at one of the intersections we might flare that out to a four-lane divided section and then merge it back in following the intersection. ~aybe a year later, we do the second such intersection. But in each case, we'd be marching along 00127 toward the ultimate improvement. A~I in some of those areas, we use the term called districts up there, rather than the ASI. And I can explain them briefly, if you want me to. But in each case what we said is that when we get a deficient district, and also be a deficient ASI or a single roadway. As long as each year we show that we increase the service volume on that roadway in a way that equals the growth on that roadway and that we're ~arching towards the ultimate improvement, then infrastructure has met growth requirement. Rather than shutting down ar~t waiting for the big hitter to be constructed. And ! would suggest, whether we use Iii's, the approach you're using, whether we use a corridor approach, which simply means you take three or four roadways and you're not in bad shape until all four of them go bad, or you go to a district basis, which they're using to the north, in whic], you take a whole district and you add up all of the volumes on the roadways in the district and you add up all of the service volume and you're not In a problem in that district until the volumes in total exceed the service volumes tn total. 00.! aS 1:25 Regardless of the three that you use, ! strongly suggest you include in your concurrency laws or your rules the fact that you're going to tell the state we'll march along with you, but let us match growth and Improvements but not wait for the big one. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRJdA~ VOLPEs In the example that you have given, who funds those improvements working tovard the four lane? HR. PLUI,~4ER~ I've got to believe that it*s going to be a combination of Impact fees, county funding, and possibly pipeltnlng. ! heard encouraging words about pay as you go here. But certainly that's the approach. One of the keys we found you have to watch is let's say with a development I'm representing needs a double left turn lane at a given Intersection, but that right of way is not available. I,. this approach, I have a roadway which would have a whole menu of improvements that may not be the precise one that he needs, but maybe he can't build it because of the right of way constraints that exist today, so we let him build another one. Al long as he's doing something In that corridor or that district that's marching toward the ulCtmate improvement. One of the things in the county to the north, we set the districts up. VICE-CHAIRMAN ¥OLPEs Is that Lee County? MR. PLUMMER g Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Is there a reason why you don't want to mention Lee County here? MR. PLUMMER g consultants vying. No. Because usually we have When you men~lon another county, they say get in the car and go up there, we'll see you later. VI CE-CI~I p.P.~ VOLPEs Ft. ~yers. MR. PLU],OiER: You did tell us you were frcxn What we're saying on that in that regard is that we set the districts up in that county to be the same boundaries as the impact fee ordinances. So when a district goes bad, we have the flexibility in that one district increasing their impact fees so that we're more assured of getting the marching process. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs We can't do that here because we don't have the impact fees set up by districts. MR. PLUMI/ERs I think you do have impact boundaries where the money has to be spent, and that's what we're 00.130 1:27 doing. CHAI~ KASSEs HR. PLU]i~Rs HR. OLLIFFs Varnadoe. T~ank you, Mro Plummet° Thank you. Follo~ing Mr, Ooodlette will be George HR. GOODLETTE~ Good evening, member of the Counctlo Hy name is Dudley Goodlette of the law firm of Cununings and Lockwood. ! will be brief. ! do want to at the outset say that as one of the people that have been working fairly closely with your staff, we do appreciate the efforts that have been put forward on not only this ordinance but the other one as well. On their part. ! also would like to suggest to you that your Planning Co=~lssion has done an admirable Job of reviewing these ordinances, considering some of the input from all sectors, and providing you with a draft that ! think is an improvement over the one that you considered on January -- the January 11 draft. I wanted to the comment on three items, and two have been discussed. I think it bears repeating, however, with respect to the vesting issue, that what Debbie Malinski (phonetic) -- I'm sorry -- Debbie Orshefsky now told yo~ is 0 0.! 3.1 IUJ I I ]111 IIIIIII ti III1[[I I III I I III I I I I I I II Il 1:28 extremely Important to include some administrative process for vesting in the ordinance. We have talked about that in prior meetings, at least at the CCPC. And I~m glad to hear that you*re at least going to give that serious consideration. I think it's a~pro~riate to be included for the reasons that she so articulately stated. I do want to move to one provision in the ordinance and Just dwell on iL for a moment, If I may. And that,s Section 8.2, which is -- relates to the DRI exemption. That's at page twenty-three. And it,s the only time try to refer you to directly to and follow the language. we addressed this point at the first public hearing of the CCPC. It was addressed again at the last meeting of the CCPC. And It specifically addresses the language 8.2.1.4, which as Mr. Merrill has indicated in prior hearings, ts language that he basically has extracted from 380.06(15). And the question that I have -- and the language important because it talks about DRI~s being exempt, but then it further says, however, thereta an exception to this exemption under this circumstances. And this circumstance is that the county can demonstrate that substantial changes tn the co~dttions underlying the approval of the development order have o<:curred. Well, ! think it's important to clarify change tn c~dtt~on ~s tnte~al, tn the d~el~ent of regional i~act only, or are the c~d~t~ons ~ternal. ~ I don't think t~t -- I kn~ that the statute doesn't address that. I kn~ t~t n~e of the declarato~ Jud~ents have been rendered by the Department of C~unlty ~ do address, at least the Huckl~er~ declarato~ ~ud~ent addresses the later clause t~t talks health, safety a~ welfare. But I do not bel~e t~2 those ~eclarato~ Jud~ents a~dress that ~ssue. ~ I thLnk t~t's going to be a slgnAf~cant -- ~tent~ally ~sgue whe~ we dwell on an exception to the ~t~on pr~ls~on. ~ I would lust ask -- ~eek clar~Etcat~on. ~ ~v~ously, I th~ Ln accordance, and ~rr~ll w~ll h~efully agree, t~t the declarato~ stat~ents talk ~out d~elo~ent of region1 ~act vested u~der sectLons pr~A~sly c~ted, a~ whether Mr. ~rr~ll ~er~ps agrees or d~sagree w~th the DCA~s 130 interpretation, I think it's clear that any change in condition would have to be internal change in condition, not external to the DRI. And I think that's lust an important provision. Finally, and in conclusion, ! Just want to reiterate as the speaker before me and as )ir. Reynolds has indicated, in 7.4.2, which is the standard for establishing the areas of significant influence, I would encourage you, urge you to adopt standards. ! think that Jeff Perry's concept paper in an excellent dissertation on the approaches available, and ! think, as has been indicated previous/y, some combination of the bubble or ballooning approach and the direct access or immediate approach should be the standards that you adopt. And ! think that the language that Mr, Reynolds presented to the CCPC and that he alluded to earlier this evening is the acceptable language and should be incorporated. I would be happy to answer any question. CHAIRMAI4 HA$SEs Thank you. Councilman Volpe. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs I ~ust have a question. I'm not sure -- we haven't heard from Mr. Merrill as to whether he agreed with Mr. Ooodlette -- that the 131 substantial changes would have to be internal. I assume if there were internal changes within a DRI, we'd be talking about substantial deviation. I mean, it would be a change wi thin the DRI. ! assume we're talking about substantially changes that are external to the DRI. But you'll have to enlighten me. MR. GOODLETTEz I think that would fly in the face of the vesting provision of the statute, Mr. Volpe. MR. MERRILLI ! think 8.2.1.4 -- first of all, you have to understand the history of that. That was request. The CCPC looked at Chapter 380, and they wanted to have that language in there. We originally had a different provision which merely said, and I have it In front of me, I don't kno~ if this is tn your ordinance, but it's eight two one three. Do you have that in there? MR. CUYLER~ welfare. An overriding concern for public CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Yeah. MR. MERRILLI Exists. And what the Planning Con=nission recommended was that be deleted and that eight two one four be added. Eight two one for, again, is word OO135 132 for word taken out of Chapter 380. There has been some suggestion from -- several of the people have co~=nented to -- rather than to delete eight two one four, to revise it so that it would be a determination made pursuant to Chapter 380 and reference that section that it came out. And that is 380.06(15), if anyone wanted review that. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Are there rules promulgated Under that section of the Florida Statutes? MR. MERRILLs Presumably, those changes would have to be made under the same circumstances that other changes made to a DRI development order would be made, and that is through the public hearing process. VICE-CltAIRMAj~ VOLPEj The whole process? MR. O.~LERj The short answer is yes. CHAIRIiAN HASSE~ HR. GOODhETT~ address the same issue, time, I'd Just ask him. Mr. Ooodlette, were you finished. Yes. Mr. Varnadoe was going to and ! thought to same the Commission CHAIRMAI~ HiSSEs That's good. MR. VARRADOEs If I could, Mr. start with that Issue. Chairman, I'll Just While we're on that DR/ vesting issue and the 00.I30 133 conditions or restrictions on the vesting, Chapter 163 presents a blanket imunity to the growth management act. It doesn't have any qualifications in It. So there are no restrictions tn Chapter 163. Just says DRI's, if they have a valid DRI development order, are exempt. Chapter 380 does have s(xae methods where the county can change a development order under certain extraordinary ctrcumstancess Inaccurate information in the application. VICE-CHAXPJ4AN VOLPEs We've got the language right here. This came from the statute. MR. VARNADOE i you can change 380.06 ~ perception of that ts the only way development order is to go through the Chapter 380.06 hearing process. You cannot take an ordinance under Chapter 163, where you have a blanket i,~unity, and say we're going to apply Chapter 380.06 restrictions to that. those things occur, all of a sudden order, the DRI la out of business. And simply say if the that development You're going to have to go back and amend those exceptions. that development orders and prove one of $o nry suggestion to get rid of the confusion is to simply in your ordinance refer to the ability of the county 134 to restrict or change development orders pursuant to Chapter 380.06(15). I think what the -- ¥ICE-CHAIP. MAN VOLPEs Isn't that what Mr. Merrill Just said? suggestion. Varnadoe is the one who made that MR. VARNADOE s We're trying to head that way because we try to stick all of this language tn there and it Just doesn't work, the way we're trying to do It. I mean, I don't bare any problem with the recognition In this ordinance that says, yeah, DRI'e aren't totally exmapto can get to them, but we have to go but to that process to get them. I think that's what I'm trying to say. I suggest that make that change. COKMISSIONER SAUNDERSs Mr. Varnadoe, can you refer mo to the section again that you're talking about in the ordinance. We MR. VAR~',DOEs be on page -- CHAIRMAN HASSEs Twenty-three. MR. MERRILLs Section eight two one four. COMI4ISSIONER SAUNDERSs Page twenty-three. In the ordinance? Yes, sir. It would 135 WR. VARNADOEI Well, there's more than one. CHAIRMAN HASSEI That's the one you're directing. HR. VARRADOE~ Eight two one three and eight two one four. Both of those are in mine. COHMISSIONER SAUNDERSs What is the -- I~m trying to keep notes on some of the suggested language changes. I didn't get the language change that you were suggesting. HR. YAP. NADOEs I didn,t. But in essence -- I think that Mr. Herrtll can certainly draft this. What we,re suggesting is that simply a recognition. The county can change the vested status of DRI~s pursuant to Chapter 380.06(15) if those criteria are met. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs Do you have any problem with that, Hr. Merrill? I mean, Just con~ent from the staff, and is that a significant change in anything that was intended here? HR. HERRILL~ I think it prabably does make some difference, but I don*t have an objection to that. Again, we did not include this languange originally, but the Planning Commission requested that we add it to this draft that went to the Board. ! do not have a problem with changing it to the way 00.!" 136 that Mr. Varnadoe suggests. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEf I mean, if we you didn't do that, and we c~me up with some different procedure -- we don't have any standards here as to what we would use, so it seems to me that it's -- HR. I4ERRILLI In the statute itself, the points that Dudley Goodlette made and that others have made with regard to what is a substantia] change, is it internal, external. I don~t know if it*s not in the statute. And there is no case law under this Particular provision, that I*m aware of. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI But all this does is tie this provision back into 380, which is CCPC intended to do in the first place. At least, that,s what I~m hearing. CHAIRRAN HASSEI What is etgh= two one three? MR. MERRII~L~ Eight two one three is something that we did include in there, and that is a police power provision where:~y if there is an overriding concern for the public health, safety or welfare, the county generally has the right to delay, defer, do other things. That is something where, I mean oftentimes, the courts and the U.S. Supreme CourL even has talked to the effect that you may defer or delay or do other things to 00.1.I0 137 property rights if there is an overriding concern for the health, safety and welfare, and that's really what that covered. four? Isn't that covered by eight two one KR. MERRILl,: Well, that's one of the reasons why the Planning Co~nisston recommended taking out eight two one three when we added 8.2.1.4. But they did not instruct us until the last -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE, We don't have to get hung up on that, but -- I mean you're saying that that*s a pc~er that we have whether it's here or not. HR. MBRRILI,s I suppofe it would be. ¥ICE-CHAIRMAN ¥Ol,Pis And so leaving it there add anything to it or take anything away? HR. MERRILI,s ! don't kno~. It depends on ho~ we change 8.2.1.4. ~d ti we change that to -- referring to the 380 provision, which I don't have a problem with. I would Just like to tako a look at that a little bit closer, ! don't think It would have that much bearing. HR. VIRNADOEs I think we have a conceptual agreement. I'll work with him. doesn't 00.1,11 138 CHAIRMAN HASSE ~ Fine. HR. VARNADOEt And I~m going to cut my coma~ents short, out of deference to the Chairman. Seeing this many attorneys at one time, I~m afraid we have an attorney overload. CHAIRMAN HASSEs MR. VARNADOEs They're frightening. ! do want to follo~ up a little bit on what Hr. Plu~aer said -- that we have and I think we a11 need to realize this -- we have taken the narrowest focus on concurrency we possibly could on traffic. And that is we have looked at road segment by road segment~ we said we're going to look at each road segment and see if it's deficient or not deficient. In other counties under the same Orowth Management Act have taken a broader look. Some of them have gone district wldel some of them have said, 'Let look at or corridors." And that really reflects our driving h~blts. Hy office is in Pelican Bay, and no~ they*ye got 41 torn up. ~rhen ! coming to the courthouse, Z don*t try to got on 41. ! come do~n Goodlette or Airport Roadl and those are alternative corridors that provide me adequate level of service at this time. O0.t 42 139 And so what I'm saying, the corridor approach to the situation recognizes driving patterns of the public, because theyero all going to seek the best way and the fastest way to go from point A to point B, and we have no recognition of that in our ordinance which I think maybe we should explore a little bit. The second point I'd like to make is that, which we talked about a little bit, is private participation in solving our ne~d, particularly our transportation need. I think this ordinance needs to provide incentive for the private sector to participate with the public sector in providing the facilities in a timely manner. And ii you look at the d~'elopment agre.ment language which is in the ordinance -- maybe somebody can help me, because I don't have it marked here on my draft. Page twenty-six, Section 8.3.3. It's very llmltintt. It only allows for development agreement when Ihs eflect is to buy in Collier County pursuant to the terms thereof to provide facilities presumably through agreeing to some road segment Improvement. It does not provide a written incentive for the 00.1,13 140 develc~ment community to get involved and help sole the problem, much as we did in the Pelican Bay substantial deviation situation or things of that nature. I have seine drafted seine language which was passed out at a CCPC hearing -- Mr. 011iff, if you would help me -- and I think your staff has had enough chance to look at it, which tries to do three things. Number one, recognize there can be a ~oint effort to solve sores of these problems. Ntmber two, with larger pro~ects, realize that we're going to have to forecast better than five years in order to alloy pro~ects to go forward and a11c~ to us do that through conditional approval process recognizing that under todaySs world with our Grc~th Kangement Plan, the CIE, we can only commit ourselves to a five-year certificate. And third, a11c~ for the private provision -- the public facilities are for a ~oint effort between the private and public sector -- to provide facilities, all through a development adopted pursuant to Chapter 163 which sets forth all the standards. 6o ! would urge your consideration of that language or language that accomplishes the same purpose. O0.l,l.l 141 VIC£-CHAIRMAR VOLPEt What does -- what*s the difference betweon your language and the language that's here? Just in an understandable way? generally what you said. If you could I mean I've heard Just distill that [or HR. VARNADOEt I thought I did. Number one, the language, the words in your 8.3.3 simply say~ The effect of the development agreement shall be to buy in Collier County pursuant to terms and duration of development agreement to insure that adequate public facilities are available to serve proposed development current with when the impact of development occur on the public facility. Makes no mention of any private participation or any Joint participation, like we did with Berkshire Lakes, to VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPEI the development agreement, understand, Mr. Varnadoe. Who would be the other party to though? I'm Just trying to Not to give you a hard time. I'm Just trying to understand. This gives me the opportunity to do that. HR. VARNADOE~ And I don't understand your question. You're not making yourself clear. I'm trying to say the, 00.I,13 one, the development agreement as now drafted is simply a way for the county to issue certificate for five years by making c~itment. That's all it provides for. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEt Who is the other party to that agreement? HR o VARNADOE ~ The other party trying to get a certificate. That's what this is about. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ So is it kind of a contract or an agreement between two parties? MR. VARNADOE~ That's what an agreement is, a contract~ yes. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPE~ Between at least two parties. MR. VARNADOE~ At least two. VICE-CHAIRMAR VOhPE~ And wouldn't both of thos parties bo bound by the development agreement? HR. VARRADOE~ Yes, but this -- if you'll see, this one is only one funding source allowed under the one that's drafted. By th~ plain words of it. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ So it's really not defined in terms of -- youere saying that by specifically stating that it allows for private participation in terms of funding sources where the development. Is this some type after pipelining approach to this? HR. VARNADOEI No, sir. there. It's what it states in It's a development agreement to allow to us meet the mandates of this ordinance and the concurrency management system. No magic to it. No tricks, no bells, no whistles. Very simple. It Just expands on what you've got and says look, sometimes we're not going to be able to solve these problems by ourselves In a timely manner, and ti we can get the private sector involved to help solve the problems and provide part of the funds to provide the facilities of the provided and some of tho adequate level of service in a timely manner, we have the opportunity to take advantage of that. You still don't understand? VICE-CHAIRMAR VOLPEs Someone will explain it to me later, !'m sur~. HR. VARNADOE~ ! hope so. The final one, I guess. A couple of small points, but one of the points I wanted to deal with very quickly is the three-year certificate. And I have very pleased to hear Mr. Dorrill expound on perhaps the opportunity to go to a 001,17 graduated system of certificates that would recognize that you don't need three years to build a single-family house, but you can't do a large prelect in three years, by the same token, and give us so~e opportunity to have longer certificates. I think that the recognition has been from your staff and from the ¢CPC members that we won't to encourage these large prelects. By tbs same token, how do we do that and how do we make this work in a managable way, and I think that -- I hope that your staff has it covered by fact that by this graduated system we're not giving a five-year certificate to everybody and there are certain parameters that have to be made, that in order for a five-year certificate to be enacted. And what I'll do is give you some draft language on that, and we won't discuss it tonight If you don~t want to, but we can talk ~-bout it in the next hearing. And it basically follc~s up on what Mr. Dorrill was discussing. CHAIRNA~ HA88Es I think staff directed itself to that too, Mr. Varnadoe, to a degree. For various reasons, that it would bo extended. ~tr. ~rrill~ do you h~ve a copy O0.t,t8 of this7 MR. ~ERRILL I HR. VARNADOE ~ Yes, ! do. Thank you. With certain parameters. ~d, you know, what I*m concerned about is if we have three-year certificate, what we're going to end up with is a variety of small pro~Jects that development community can complete in three years. I mean, development community is very resilient. As ! think all of you who have been up here a while know, whatever direction you point them in, they're going to go in that direction and do the best they can. But three years is ~Just not an adequate time when you can spend eighteen months of that three years getting your various permits, et cetera, particularly provided we have to get our certificates at such an early stage. so I would encourage you to follow along Mr. Dorrtll's recommendation in that regard. And this is simply language that .':eeks to do that. ASI and the size of ASI's and how you determine them. Let me Just suffice it to say that without -- there are basically no standards or criteria in the ordinance now. I would concur with the rest of the speakers; we need some 00.! ,l f) 146 standards and criteria. I will tell you out of the ten or so adequate public facilities ordinances that I have reviewed from around the state, all of those have criteria or standards in the ordinance. Some of them -- if they don't set them out in the ordinance! you kno~, cruarter of a mile on each side of the road or half a mile whatever, at least i/ire you criteria or standards that you apply going in. $o I would urge you to get the staff to come up with something like that. }~y last point. The big N word, moratorium. Or maybe moratoria I guess we may be talking about. Our Comprehensive Plan addresses in a couple of places the fact that moratorium, moratoria, can only be adopted if it's /or a defined period of time and there is some light at the end of the tunnel, if you would, there is some solution that we have. And I wtll cite you our laniruage use element, where it sayss A ~o:.'atorltun may be impoaed -- it's talking about solution -- but may not be sustainable ii there is no conmitment to i~prove the road by detinite and reasonable time. Our deferral language in thia ordinance, I would also 00.150 suggest for your reading pleasure, a -- some limitation on deferral which, again, we don~t need to discuss tonight in any length, but basically, it follows the language in 7.2.1, and then says that you will only adopt a moratorium for two years, and only after you have adopted a reasonably realistic, feasible program for correcting the deficiency. I think at the same time that we're going to we adopt this moratorium, we also ought to have some plan for when we're going to get out of it and how we're going to get out of it because a moratorium doesnet build any roads or provide any sewer or any water. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASI~Es Thank you. And I'm so happy that you're providing our recreation reading material here. VlCP--CHAIRMAN VOIaPl~s Mr. Merrill -- may I ask Mr. Merrill a question? On one of the handouts, Mr. Merrill, Mr. Varnadoe has some language having to do with 8.3.2.1. The number system on this ordinance can drive you crazy. WR. MERRXLLI Believe we, it-- I agree. referring to a specific one, but from user friendly, when you want to refer to Just one section when someone refers When you' re 00131 148 you, it's a lot easier to find rather than going back and finding it on the memos. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI~PE~ Do you think we could have an index or something? That might be helpful. An index would be really good. CHAIRJ4AN HASSE~ I~dex would be Just a long as the whole thing. HR. ~4ERRILI, z ! don't have that change. pass that. Is that this one? CO~04ISSIONER SAUNDERS~ No, that's seven two one. VICE-CHAIPJ4A~I VOI~PE, That's the one. HR. CUYLER~ 8.3 and 7.2.1. VICE-CHAIPJ4A~ VOI~PE, 8.3.2.4° The one that has to do with the exercise and expiration. HR. HERRII, I,, I do not have that one. CHAI~ HASSE~ Do you have another one there7 vi CE-C~AI~4AH VOLPE, Here. HR. MERRILL~ Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPB~ I Just wanted to-- the question was that this draft talks about exercise. And the section that this refers to talks about expiration. Do we have a provision in the draft of when a If you could 00152 149 certificate of adequate public facilities is exercised? HR. MERRILI, s t~ell, it must be exercised w/thin the expiration period. VICE-CHAIiUiA~ VOLPE~ Ho~ do you exercise it? )dR, )4ERRII, L~ You go ahead and build. VICE-CHAIRHAN VOI, PE~ Okay. That Just -- the language there talks about exercise, ! Just ~ondered ~hether -- HR. I,tERRILLs This is the first that ! have seen of this language. I vi11 definitely give this consideration ~ith the staff. VICE-CHAIRPJ~ VOLPEz Are you addressing some deficiency that you ea~ in the ordinance about the exercise of the certificate? HR. VARNADOEs Absolutely not. All I'm trying to do here is sayz Oo for~ard vith this idea that we can have some graduated tine for the use of these certificates, depending on the size of the project and ho~ long it would normally take to build out such a project. VICE-CHAIRNAN VOLPEI Okay, Thank you. HR. OLLIFFI )ir. Chairman, ! have Kevin Hale, followed by Ron Rice. 001 33 150 CHAIRMAN HA~SEs Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevtn Hale. !'m the president of Sun Bank and I~m also a director of the EDC. Zf I could, I would like to ask a couple of questions concerning what we have discussed this evening. First of all, I would like to know if we could define those roads in the county that are currently deficient? CHAIRMAN HASSEs You want to address that? VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs ls Mr. Perry here? COMMISSIOIqER BHENAHANI Everybody is looking at everybody else. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI~PEz You Jvc been waiting. Easy now. CHAIRMAN HASSEs YouJre lucky I didn,t ask you. MR. OLhlPPs He's probably the last speaker, too. MR. PERRYs For the record, my name is Jeff Perry with the Growth Planning Department. Currently as funded in the Growth Management Plan, all of the roads that were projected to be either potentially deticient or deficient are currently listed in the currently adopted capital improvement element. Which, to answer the gentleman's question~ There ara no deficient or potentially deficient roads in existence today. The way we were presently funded and the capital 151 improvement element. MR. HALEs Is the southern portion of 951 in the capital improvement element. HR. PERRYs It is not, no. MR. PERRYs Today, it is not, no. MR. HALEs Ho~ close is it to being deficient? MR. PERRYs We're currently undergoing a study of that particular roadway. If the study confirms the generalized volumes, capacity of the roadway, the roadway will be deficient as of May 1st of this year or by May when the Board takes action on that information. When the Board receives the information in the Annual Update and Inventory Report, it will include the information as to whether or not the road is deficient or not. HR. HALEs What happens if it is determined that the road is defic~enl, on May 1st. MR. PERRYs At the time when the Board receives that information, at the same time they will be given rec _c~___endattons, one of which will be to add the roadway to tho capital improvement element, funding it so that it is considered concurrent; or as an alternative, they would be asked to create an area of significant influence tn which, once adopted, no development permits would be issued, no building permits, VICE-CHAIR31AN VOLPE~ Could I Just follo~ up on that. ~R. PERRY~ It all relates to this. VICE-CHAIP.~J~ VOI, PE] Were any of the other state roads that we included in our capital improvement element of our Growth Hanagement Plan deficient or potential deficient at the time we put the~ in? Do you understand my question? Yes, sir. ! would -- ! would suppose KR. PERRY wi thout -- spot. don't mean to put you on the CHAI~ HASSEs Kr. Perry, don't guesstimate at it. It would be the wrong time to guesstimate at something. HR. PERRYs Davis Boulevard possibly vould ~ve been d~lar~ defic~ent in the ~sence of funding for the particular r~ay. ~ith~t seeing the ~act n~ers on the charts, I can't confi~ ~e other se~ent of the North Trail in front of Pelican Bay ts likely to bec~e deficient. I d~'t tht~ -- O01 last year when we were looking at the numbers probably wasn't deficient at the time. But I think Davis Boulevard might have been considered deficient. VICE-t'TLAIRMAN VOLPEt So are you saying there are a number of state roads that are in our Growth Managment Plan now as a result of the amer~lment process that we went through. MR. PERRY t Yes. VICE-CHAI~ VOLPEI Are you saying that of those that are in there the only one that was potentially deficient at the time was Davis Boulevard and possibly US 417 MR. PERRY~ I fm sorry. ! thought you said deficient. Potentially deficient, there have a half a dozen states roads that are positive deficient. V~CE-CHA~RMAN VOI~PEI All of them, than, are in our CIE element. MR. PERkY~ That*s correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Except for this segment of 951 that Mr. Hale is alluding to? MR. PERRYt Thatfs correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Okay. I Just want Mr. Hale to 154 und ers rand. liR. HALEs If the southern portion of 951 is determined to be deficient and it is not included in the capital improvement element, what will occur? HR. PERRYs Presumably, the Board will establish an ASI, according to provisions of this ordinance, in which no d~velop~ent permits will be issued. HR. HALEs Ho~ much time ~ould you have to include it in the capital improvement element after it's determined that it is deficient? HR. PE1/RYs The Board~ ! presume, if they decide to make that choice~ would direct staff to include tt in the capital improvement }iR. HALEs I~R. PERRY funded right no~? Nil. PERI. Y s they could put Yes. Hc~a Is the capital it in imedtately? Improvement element Through various sources. The road component is funded through some of the gas taxes, although tho existing capital improvement element, thsre are about -- as ! recall, about $65°000°000 worth of road pro~ects~ state roads primarily, that are funded from the aaven cent sales O0158 MR. HAI, Es Mr. Chairman, ho~ are we going to fund that element if the sale tax is not presented to the voter or la not passed? CHAIRMAN HASSEs I'll give you a real interesting answer on that. If we can't get the funds from the state, we'll have a real problem in that respect. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI~PE: If I could Just-- I think there are alternatives available within the existing CIE element. I believe that there are. You kno~, I think that -- I hope that what we're about is planning and anticipating, and that I hope that we did not hang our hat on a funding source that didn't exist and still doesn't exist; that all of these people who we are surrounded by, who are planner and who are doing planning and forecasting, have allowed us scxne flexibility here so that we might have to do some movements of funds, but I assume that they exist, Mr. Hale. I Just have to assume that that's the case. Am I correct that we've got some alternatives available to us if In fact the sales tax should not be successful ? I don't know where ! address that question to? Can O0159 156 someone address the question? CHAIRNAN }lASSEs Hr. Dorri11, would you respond to t. ha t? HR. DORRILL; You could move come limited funds around. You wtll not solve all the state road deficiency because your one mil -- your existing one mil fund, for example, does not generate the type of revenue to cover the extent of the deficiency. There would be some limited ability to bond, some of the excess gas taxes or the primary source would bo ad valorem taxes. At that point you would need to raise taxes in order to build state roads. VICE-CHAIPJiAR VOl, PBs But what we're talking about is -- you know, that number is a very elusive number, and it always has been for me. You know, we went from forty-seven million to sixty-four million on state roads in on your five-year plan. That's over a five-year period of time that we're committed to. So, you know, I guess we don't have to come up with sixty-four million or forty-seven million in one year, do we? ~at's over a period of five years. HR. PERRYs That"s over a period of five years. funds have to be included within the five-year time f r~me, 00.I 6(I 157 There are perhaps three roads that must be funded, that if they're not funded within that five-year time frame will require the establishment of these areas of significant influence. And later on in the program, other roads will fall into that category. CHAIRMAN liASSgs What were those three roads? 951 and Davis Boulevard? HR. PERRYs 951, Davis I)oulevard, the North Trail. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ 951. Davis Boulevard. MR. PERRYs A segment the North Trail, and then there are two segments of the East Trail that are approaching that point where they would require the creation of these areas. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOI~PEs Just one other comment, and I won't belabor this. But one of the questions that I have had all along here, and we have discussed this at some of our meetings, has to do with inter-local agreements and particularly with the City of Naples. $o if you talk about US 41 from Davis Boulevard to 951, and we have it in our plan and the City of Naples doesn't have anything in their plan0 either in their CIE or in their Growth Management Plan, and theirs is Ix3tentially deficient or is deficient -- I~ve heard a lot about the O0.l Gl 258 Oordon River Bridge -- it seems to me that they could impact UZ~I US, So we can address a part of the problem, but we really needed that cooperation with the City of Naples, don' t we? HR. PL~RRYs That's correct. ¥ICE-CHAIRX~ VOI, PE~ As to that segment, And that's something that staff is working o~, ! guess. HR. PERRYz We'll doing oomething. CHAI~4AN HABSE~ The NPI~ is doing the same thing, if I reca11~ we're working on it. The City of Naples is I'm anxious to see the state working with working with us. ~tr. Chairman, if we continue to issue building per. its within the areas that are affected by these proposed capital i~provements, are we committing ourselves to fund those improvements? CHAIRI~J, H~SSE: ! don't know that wa are. HR. OLLIFF= I'll answer that, as opposed to asking the Co~isalon. Yes. The way that the Comprehensive Plan amendment language is written today, it says that if we issued 00.! 159 building permits or development orders that are contingent upon those improvements in order to meet concurrency, then we shall not defer, delay, or -- what*s the other language -- re~o~e from our CIE those road improvements. So, yes, we would be obligated to fund those. CHAIRI~N HASSEs I guess ! misunderstood that question. If we donet supply the infrastructure, there wonet be that much building. HR. HALEs Tom, what is the effective date for that process to occur? HR. OLLIFFs By my understanding, ! think the last day that the County ¢~tsston has in order to adopt that those amendments is April 24th. HR. HALEs April 24. Bo subsequent to April 24th, t! we issue a building in one of these areas that is delineated tn the capital i=provement element, then we have committed ourselves to lungs those improvements? HR. OLLIFFs HR. HALEs tho funding source? HR. OLLIFFs Yes. Can we approve building permits without not sure ! understand your question, 00163 because all of the capital improvements that plan have a funding source today. It may be funding source that still needs voter approval, but them are all shown with a funding BOUrce. VICE-CHAIRNAN VOl, PEg .Hhat -- maybe Just to summarize all this for us. I Just wonder what -- trying to understand But what -- if you got a solution or a the question. r ecom~enda t t on? HR. HALEs Let =e tell you. Ny concern ts that it may prove to be convenient in the future to stop issuing building permits because we do not have a defined source of revenue to pay for the Improvements that are going to be mandated by tho Issuance of those permits. And X want to make sure that that doesn't occur. I'm also concerned about the Commission's reaction is going to be ii so May I staff comes to you and say the southern portion of 951 is deficient. Are you going to Improve it in the -- are you going to add it to the capital Improvement element without a known source of funding? ! think we're going to get to the point where people are going to say~ ho~ can you get make these commitments without a funding source. 0()I O.l 161 VICE-CHAIRMA~I VOLPB: outside of these ordinances. really is a different source. But that's another issue ! mean it relates, but it About the funding m~chanlsm. MR. ~ALEs But I'm trying to operate a business In this county and trying to make some plans for the future, and I have made a significant c~ttment in various areas of this county, one of which is Marco Island, and I'm concerned that we're going to have moratorium on Marco Island. And I think that we should get some indication of that probability of that occurring. That's what I'm getting to. CHAIRMAN XASSE: Well, I don't think we're tn the position right now to answer that. MR. DORRILLs You'll understand the severity -- it's an important question -- on Tuesday. Because you only really hays two options. You can impose an Immediate moratorium and wait until the outcome o£ a potential election in November, for example, and have that interim period of moratorium, or you can proceed. But If you proceed and you adopt those amendments, you would have incurred the obligation at that point to build those roads. 001 G5 162 And if that means using ad valorum taxes, that is the impact of making that decision to proceed. CHAIRNAN HASSE~ I don't think we're in a position to do that. !'m not anxious to put that kind of money out ad valort~ taxes. HR. DORP. ILLs wht ! said Tuesday, We're running out of time. And that's X want you to understand the severity of the moratoriums, ho~ big an area that they might have might be and what you will obligate yo,~rselves to do, and what other limited opportunities that you have to either lover levels of service, and frankly X don't believe this Commission wants to lover levels of service beyond the point that they're -- CHAIP. NAN HASSEs You're only tricking yourself when do you that. Co~aissioner Goodntght. COMI/IS$IONER OOODNIGH?s Can we lover levels of service on state roads? HR. DORRILLs Our experience in ability to do that is indicated no, that you can't. You can attempt to, but the experience has been that you're not going to get anywhere. CHAIRNAI~ HA/;SEs That solves the problem there. Or creates the problem. 001Gfi VICE-CHAIRNAN VOI~PRs ! think this discussion has been very helpful, sir. ! think the issue about State Road 951 and the s~ment that is not in our Growth llanag~ent Plan, CIE, raises an issue. You asked how soon can we get it in, and Nr. Perry says we*ll Just put it in. ! Just don't think it happens quite that way. ! think there's a process that we need to go through. That is the funding source, that -- you know, hopefully on Tuesday we're going to be able to b~tn to hear what the m~chanisms are for the funds /or commitment that will be made or has to be made, based upon our CIE el~aent. HR. HAl, Es #tll the public get some indication o£ the Board's feeling at that time, relative to whether or not a sales tax is going to be plac~d on the ballot or whethsr there will be specific funding sources? HR. OI, I, IFF s agenda for Tuesday. Kevin, both of those items are on the So the one items regarding the AS! and battery issue, and following that tram-- HR. DORPII, I,s I/ith one caveat. ~r. original motion for us to coma back with the final sales tax report left the Board with the option of having an public hearing, and so whether the Board would want to 00.! 67 discuss that on ~uesday, make a decision, or withhold that decision until an evening public hearing, they still have the option. VICE-CH~IRI~2 VOLPEs workshop too, didn't we? HR. DOP. RILLs Public hearing We had also talked about a is a workshop. ]iR. HALEs If ! could, Hr. Chairman, I would like to raise one other coo~ent and that is in his opening remarks, ¢c~mtssloner Volpe omde some cooanents relative to how this ordinance i~pacts individual lots. ! have a very deep concern for nu>derate income housing in this community, and ! think that it would be important for the staff to examine some opportunities for individuals to purchase lots and get adequate public facility certitlcates without paying impact fees up front. I don't believe we need to make It ~ore ditficult for moderate income t~dtvtduals to o~rn their home in this county, and the payment of Impact fees up front so that they can get a certificate of adequate public facilities and get their lot purchase financed by local lenders is an unnecessary burden that they would have to bear. CHAIRIiAN BASSEs Thank you. 00.! GM 165 MR. OLLIFFs Ron Rice, folloved by Stuart Kaye. MR. RICI~I C~,~issioners. I~y ~e is Ron Rice. I*m ~oino to take four minutes. I~ d~el~lng ~een's Park which ~uts King's ~ke and Wtldw~ Lakes, ~hlch is on Davis B~l~ard. I w~ld like to ask this question. ~tth regard to ~lld~ ~kes, ~e brought a sixteen-inch rater line one and a half ~lle~ d~n Davis Boul~ard to our pr~erty. ~e built a s~stantial entrance on Davis ~oul~ard. A cl~house. ~ then obtain~ a s~er plant, and ~e n~ have s~er directly In front of ~r pr~erty. ~e are a~r~l~tely sixty ~rcent c~leted. ~ question ts thiss I~tately ~uting me is a DRX. ~t a stick o[ stone has been tu~ on that DRI. l ~vo s~eral million dollars tn ~ pro~eck a~ ~ild~o~. ~ are ex,pt, a~ I can't ~en /ind il I'm vest~. ~t's ~ auestion. VICE-~I~ VO~PEs I thi~ t~t question was the question that we discussed early on, and I ~ve forgotten the lady's ~e who bright it up a~ s~eral other speakers ~ve talked ~out this whole qu~stt~. SauCers ~s allud~ to it. ~e whole question of vesting 001,69 166 under our -- MR. RICE~ didn't hear any answers. VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPEs Well, I heard a lot of conversation. I don't think there are any to have definitive answers at right now. I think what we had asked is for staff -- MR. RICEI Are we going some point in time? CHAIRMA~ HASBEs MR. RICEs The reason that Sun Bank is here and Barnett Bank is here and my partners want to know is am I vested or I'm not vested? And why is the DR! exempt, because it sits next door to me and not a stone has been turned. ! would like that answered. VICE-C~AIRKA~! VOLPEs Because there's a statuatory provision that says that. MR. RICEs ! would like to make a couple of statements. When home owners groups come here and complain about their high taxes, what they don't tell you about is that the value of their properties have tripled and quadrupled in the last several years. That's number one. Number two. I want to tell you that when they come At some point in time you will have. 167 deny -- when they co~e here and appear before you and deny us new construction, that means that less product comes on stream, it increases the value of the existing product, to wit, their product. Okay? I would like to say this. The legitimate use of the Growth Management Act and the concurrency laws under the guidance which I have heard from Mr. Dorri11, I can live you. Don't use it as a veil or a screen for no-growth mentality groups. If you want to Detroit today and said, defacto, we're closing down General Motors and Ford for a couple years, what do you think would happen in those coemuni ti es ? Finally, we have no heavy industry here~ the industry of Naples is the construction industry. Crush that development construction industry is unjust. More importantly, it would be financial suicide for Collier Coun ty. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Thank you, Mr. Rice. KR. OLLIFFI Stuart Kaye, followed by Ken Reiley. CHAIRMAN HASSEI How many more have you got there? MR. OLLIFFI Four more. 00.! T 1 HR. KAYEs Ny name is Stuart Kaye. I'm going to share with you a slightly different perspectivev and I will be brief. A/ret many months of interaction and effort we have arrived at a virtually mutually acceptable zoning reevaluation ordinance. No~, the effects of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance can be measured, although to date this is not for the most part been done. ! understand that the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance attempts to create a plan which will allo~ us to become consistent with our comprehensive land use plan. ! support growth management. ! don't have a problem with the concept. Even though there wtll be a lot of property owners who will lose a majority of their land value. As a result of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, a number of identifiable results will occur. First, there wtll be so~e number o£ reduction of housing units. Second, property values for many properties will go dc~n significantly. So ad valorum taxes will increase by some a~ount for the rest of us. Development viii will be more spread out~ because in 00.I 72 169 many instances it will now take more land to build the same number of units as allowed previous to the Zoning £eevaluation Ordinance. Housing will become more costly by some dollar amount. So~e potential home owners will be squeezed out of the market, and I don't know specifically what those answers. Do you? I don't. Interestly, though, housing demand will not be significantly affected by the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. Where there are thirty thousand or three hundred thousand units available for construction, our housing demand will be fairly stable. It's a function of the market, not a function of what we dictate. So all in a11, while these changes should be quantified, at least we know that there will be some specific effects due to the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance. The Con~;ur--'ency Ordinance is another matter. At this time, there is an overwhelming lack of definable standards set forth by the county for the community to go by. Everyone has discussed these various issues, so I don't need to get into these no~. Particularly, the area Issue of significant 1'70 influence. It would be easy for a wide spread moratorium to arise. ! think we have talked about that based on where the ordinance stands right now, without new construction, without impact fees, and high -- new high ad valorum taxes, this county could find itself in real trouble. My point isl We need to be specific in the ordinance so we can identify what results will happen and then provide guidance for us how to cat within the cc~mnunity. You need to know what the consequences of your vote will be. As I said before, I'm a strong believer in growth ~anagement. Do knew what the ordinance will do to employment? To services? And ~ost importantly to the existing quality of life for all of us here now? I'm not sure what these effects will be, although I have seen studies that show that the overall quality of life for all of us here will be diminished significantly. You havo a very qualified staff, and I submit to you that as the leaders of our county that you need to analyze what those impacts are. We now have some of the most influential ordinances before us date. And I'm a firm believer that growth needs to pay for growth, and if someone could assure me a zoning moratorium 171 would be in the best interest for this county, ! would be all ears, but, again, various studies shc~ differently. So the bottom line is Just to make darn sure that you all understand what the implications are of what you will be voting on. Thank you. HR. OLI, XFF~ Ken Reiley, followed by Robert Duane. HR. REXLEYz Ny nam~ is Ken Reiley, with Realty Executives. X represent a numbs of clients who own individual lots in Oolden Gate Estates and a couple of other We have been talking about developers and all the other things, but it seems like what slips through the crack -- and X have heard it is alluded to a couple times this evening-- is that individual lot owner. X'm going to give you two exampless A retired .~ouple who bought a lot out in Golden Gate Estates that are going to be coming do~n here and retiring in about four to five years. They paid for their lot, they own It, and they're paying taxes on It and they want to come do~n here and then build on that lot. And it happens to be over by the Vineyards. If that individual sets there and 172 co~es down five years from no~ and get their architect and walk in to get their building permit, and they sit there and say, "Well, we caner issue t~ because i~'s shut d~." Ye~ the guy sitting ~er there ~n the V~n~ards buys a lot ~n the s~e t~me fr~e, he c~es d~n ~o build h~s house on ~he golf c~rse can go r~ght ahead a~ pr~e~ to build, ~he way ~*s written r~ght n~. Taking a y~ng c~ple who is sitting ~here ~hat are ren~ing right n~, ~ve purchas~ a lot ~t in ~lden Oa~e Es~e are 3~king ~o build, and ~heyOro building ~u~ty in t~t lot a~ paying for t~t lot a~ with tho intent of ~vin9 their children, which n~ ~ens to be one year old a~ bein~ ready to 9o into echo1 ~er at Vin~ards El~enta~ c~ld be fallin~ in t~t s~e trap, where they've put their ~ Into there a~ th~re ~ettln~ ready to ~e into it so that when their child ~oes into Vin~ards El~enta~ t~t th~ can ~o ahead a~ built their house a~ ~ve their ~tty in their lo~ paid for. U~er the scenario right n~, the z~in~ re~aluation and the ad~uate p~lic facilities, is t~t a person can ~o a~ build in the Vln~ards but yet th~ can't build across the street ~er in the Estate. OOl?G 173 ! Just think that tho Commission needs to take and address this strongly. ! need to ask a question, t~by if a development has been platted and the lots have been improvt~l with streets and Infrastructure in, ~hy can*t t~t be ~ted? ~ it t~t ~e're sitting here going back to people vho have ~rchased lots t~t are all a~r~ed~ saying at s~e point that th~ ~y or ~y no~ be ~le to build ~ a lot7 To sit there ang say t~t th~ ~ve to c~e up and pay -- I can u~erstand tfa builder ts c~lng in or d~el~r a~ they ~ve ~o pay this t~act fees a~ et cetera, but t~t t~ivldual ~t there who ~s ~ this and pla~ing on building, w~ are th~ being where bhey ~ve -- s~e of th~ ~y no~ ~on kn~ it. ~ live up in ~tcago a~ ~h~ c~ d~ ~ybe once a year a~ see their la~ is the~e~ th~ don'~ k~ t~t th~ were sup~s~ ~o go in a~ ism $3,500 to i~act fees to build t~ lo~. ~y -- a~ I don't u~ersta~ fr~ the drafting of ~hese ordinances, why ca~ot these -- you kn~, ~rco Isla~ Is another issue. Pe~le ~ve purc~a~ lots. ~y can'b th~ go ahead a~ build? ~ ca~o~ sl~gle-i~tly lo~s be (10.t'7'7 ~ ~ I I I I I III ' ' II I IIIIII I IIII I IIIIII I I IIIII I I that, Mr. Olliff. MR. OLDIFFI I tht~k you might wa~t to address I'll give you the quick anmeer, at least that I know of, is that the concurrency law the way we understand it says that you can't issue development orders if the services aren't available, regardless of whether they're developers or whether they*re little developers, if there's not adequate water or roads, then I'm not sure that we have much of a choice in terms of whether or not we can issue that development order. CHAIRMAN HAShEr a different question. Mr. -- I thl~k ]ir. Reiley is posing You've got a single lot on an adequate road with sever and water in place. What stops him fro~ building? lqot a thing. If the services are MR, Obi, IFPs ad equat e, CIiAI~ ~SSEs That's what I'm saying. And supposing the services not there and that area does not have water or sewers. What happens to him? MR. OLLIFFf He is not allowed to continue to development. While in Mr. Reiley's example, that DRI project is allowed to continue to develop. O0.l ?S CHAIRMAN HASSEI I understand that part of it. What I'm trying to find out is ti a person -- nobody in the area has water or sewers, they have an septic system, they have a well system, and that's an accepted type of building and dwelling in that area. What happens to him? HR. OLLIFFt That's fine. If they can provide their water and sewer by their own lots, that as they do, that is allo~ed for tn our ordinance. CHAIRMAN VOI~PEI Think that answers it. HR. REII, EYs That really doesn't because if -- let's take Inaokalee Road, and three more DRI's go down on Im~okalee Road. From Quail Creek and Woodlands and so on that are DRI's, and they march right down and get approved into the process down I~okalee Road, that this guy that bought off of Wilson Road up there can be adversely affected because of the DRI's, because they can continue to build but he can't sit there and build on his because the road decrepancy. facility Is no'~ a-'equate. I'm Just saying there's a There*s a problem inherent in this thing that the guy who's got the single-f~lly lot next to a DRI, the DRI's is impacting that co~nuntty, and that lot cannot be built on with the level of 001 ?9 176 route service and he can't go in and get a building permit to build his house. CHAIRMAN HASSEs By the same token, you might have arternate corridor. HR. REILE¥: I'm Just saying I don't understand why you can't -- I mean I don't think there's any law, DCA or any other mandate, that sits there and states that you cannot legally exempt single-family lots that have been platted and developed. CHAIRMAN HA$$E: Well, ! don't think that they're being exempted. There is no violation. MR. REliEVe Exempt your DRZ'o. There's no reason why you can't exempt the single-family lot. CHAIRMAN HASSR: That's an entirely different situation. HR. MERRILL: You can can certainly them 1! you have the funding for i':, but if there's -- if the fundl~'s not there and the facilities aren't there, 9J-5 specifically And a building permit is a That's what I'm saying. NOW yOU ' Ye Your definition of the says no development orders. development order -- HR. REILEY: Just highlighted the real key point. ( 01 SO 177 development order is a building permit, and I'm Just saying that there's nothing in DCA. MR. MERRILI, s That*s not correct, no. Development orders include everytng, any type of permit. Final local development order is a building permit. MR. REILEYs Is a building permit. Thank you. And your language is being very restrictive. The DCA has not -- MR. MERRII, LI No, that portion of it doesn*t have to do with the single-family issue on that one. The difference would be, this Commission could decide to not require concurrency as far back as the impacts of develop=ent or they could do it much earlier! they can choose where they're going to place that decision in the develope~ent process. But the definition of final local development order is not what is referred to in 9J-5. 93-5 talks about all development orders. It does not distinguish between a building permit or a subdivision plan or something of that nature in the context that you*re talking about. MR. REILEYs Maybe I can get some help from the attorneys, but I mean I keep understanding that the language 00.I 81 178 of a final development order is a building permit, and we have the latitude to change that language that would give us the opportunity to build on a single-family lot that has already been developed. HR. ~ERRILI~I That's correct. They can do that. But the DRI issue is so~ething that has occurred outside of 93-5 to declaratory statements. HR. REILEYs I'm Just saying is that the final local development order is a building permit and the Cowissionere have the latitude -- HR. MERRILL ~ HR. REXI~EY s Yea, they do. To make language in there that would exempt single-family lots. MR. ~ERRILLs If I may, to cover the situation you*re talking about, for instance, if the Commission decided to ~ake the concurrency decision at the subdivision plat stage, say the final subdivision plat stage, a~d everyone who has a final subdivision plat ia exempt from concurrency, then all those, single-family lots would be vested or exempt. The problem that we have is you have Golden Gate Estates, you have hundreds -- not thousands, hundreds of thousands of subdivided lots in the county. 179 MR. REII~EYI Are you going to penalize that guy in Golden Gate Estates and when the state mandates a DRI, he can go ahead -- like he mentioned, we have DRI'a that aren't oven developed in this county, and yet you're going to penalize tho guy with the single-family lot because the DRI's are state mandated? I think that unequitable. MR. DORRILL~ I'm not sure that requiring adequate sowers and roads ia the penalizing anyone. I think that the whole issue here ia that there are adquate services to supply that development. And the case that we're trying to develop here is that we want to make aa much development as possible and have tbo~e services available. HR. REII~EY~ And then maybe you need to look at this Golden Gate Estate~ and these other platted developments certificate and go ahead and put them into that scenario before you issue other DRI'a if those public roads facilities aren't there. ! mean, you've got the DRI's that are there, but you can't do anythin{~ about, then maybe you need to put Golden Gate Estates or develop lots that have already been done and include that tn there before you go adding other DRI's to that process. 00.! 83 180 MR. MERRILL~ If I may. I think that if we look at concurrency, and I hate to refer to a childhood game, but it's like musical chairs. The chairs are the available capacity that you have~ the people walking around are the people that want to either build a single-family ho~e or they're developers or whoever it happens to be that wants to sit in one of those chairs. You only have a limited number of chairs available right no~. The only way you can increase the number of chairs is by buying a new chair, and that's really again whore the whole issue comus do~n to~ is how many chairs do you tlave. What it doss -- and ! think it's a misconception. It's not Just no growth versus growth. What's going to happen is it's co~petitlon among developers and single-family home owners and other developers. It's everyone vying for a limited number of a limited amount of capacity in ea:h facility. So that no matter if you have the sams amount of funding and the same number of facllltii, u, there s~o only os many permits you can 91ye. Period. And under tho Collier County, we two glff~rent 00,! 181 scenarios. One was an allocation system which we at the ntaff level decided not to go with, and I think for a number of reasons and goods reasons, not only administrative but also so~e substantive issues that would make it very comp1 ica ted. ~e other alternative ts first-c~e first-se~ed. That's ~hat is there n~. The stngle-f~ily h~e ~ner gets in there first, then ho gets tho pe~it. If the DRI gets in there first, then he gets the pc~it. You kn~, one can kn~k one out the other one to a certain extent. It's a problem. chat we understand. The Commission -- }ust one question so Tho Cotunission -- correct me if I'm wroDg. put language into these ordinances that give the single-family developed lot the opportunity to build. Is that correct. it, other than the fact that we had to include mtatuatory vested rights provisions tn the ordinance. }IR. REILEYs One last question. CHAIRMAN HA$SE= I Just would like to pose this. The Co~mission has tho opportunity to sit there and There is not a prejudice against 182 Perhaps it will answer some questions. Suppose the Infrastructure is not in place, speaking roads? HR. ~£RRILLs Well, it's mor~ c~licated than cha~, because It does no~ have to be tn place. It can be under conoCrucCiont It can be in your current budGe~ i~ can be in your flve-yca~ ClP. OIAIR~i [IASSE~ It's no~ tn ~ budge~. Let~s l~k at i~ like this. In certain areas of Golden Ga~e EsCaPee, you have an area tha~ a road, say a mile, a mile a~d a half long, and before wha~ r~d considered for paving -- this is a lime r~k road -- you fo~ula like t~t. N~, if you can~ build a h~ae on you can't go~ ~on houses on l~, because you can't build one, and the road isn'~ pav~d. W~t ~ppons to MR. }IERRILL~ Wha= happens to the fire= house ~ha~ wan~s to go once ~t road? HR. M~RRILL= The facility will have to be impr~ed or planned co be i~pr~ed within the scope of the -- O{AI~I HASSEs Bu= our road department will 183 pave that but it's factual. VICE-CHAI R~b~N VOLPE~ about the one lime rock road. ~.IR. MERRILL: sc hedu I ing. COHMII~SIOIJER SAU~WER8 ~ road. This is basically somewhat hypothetical, I don't think we're talking It's the ones in capital improvement Let's talk about the roads that are oubJect to what we're dealing with. C'l{tI~tA}! HA$/~E~ That's what this gentleman is ~alking about, Hr. Saundero. CO~ISSIOllER SAUI~ERS~ No, that's -- ~hat may ve~ well be what Itt. Reil~ is talking ~ou~, but I don't think our ordinance deals with lime r~ck r~d in Golden Gate Estates. I thi~ we're talking about the ~or. ~IR. ~ERRILLs Tho ~or road network. CO~It$IO~l SAU}~ER~s Perhaps you can direct us back co what tho real Issues are, as ~posed ~o tho lime That person isn't going to be I don't kno~ if that road is in the It's only the roads that are in the ¢IP or rock road thing. VICE-~iAIItlO~ VO~PE: affected. MR. MERRILL~ road network. 184 tho state plan. VICE-CHAI RHAN VOLPE s funding? CHAI RHAN HASSEs MR. REILEYs one tn the Creasing. VICE-~IAI~I VOLPE: Those roads are for state Not at the present time. DuC the point is whether the guy bought It's easy to talk about Golden Gate Eates, but if you do it under what your analysts is. I think Golden Gate £~tat. es -- I think we*11 find, hopefully, that it's -- maybe Mr. Litsinger. )IR. LIT$IHGERs In the ~xa~le that's boinO brought fo~ard bore, the lim~ r~k roads a~ Golden Oate Estates. ~ do not -- that 1~1s Gl s~ico, lime rock road and Golden Cato Estates. Thoreforo~ the issue of whether or not that road would be concurrent would not be ~he issue. Tho only issue would be whether or no~ a particular pr~er~y In Golden Gate Estates affect~ one of the arterial or co11~tor roads which ~ere in issue. l~. REIL~s Tha~*o not the problem. Again, you hav~ ~ho opportunity to si~ there and put language inca the ordinance that all~a t~t person to go ahead and build a single-family h~e, bu~ you ~vo no choice O0155 185 as it relates to DRI. But you do have a choice of the singlo-fanily, as a C~,~,ission. Last point. We are at the point -- Collier County Planning Coramlsolon the last meeting -- I Just need a clarification from otafl that in that hearing, I think I heard that eighty percent of the capital t~r~ent el~ent is on the anticipation of a one percent sales ~ax. Wha~ percentage of the capital impr~ement for ~he next five yoaro Is i~ anticipation of the s~l~s tax? ~. ~IT~I~R~ I can*t give y~ a exact percentage. ~u current capital i~pr~un= el~en~ calls for $276,000,000 o~ i~r~en~s of which $64,000,000 is propoo~d to bo fr~ sales ~ax. CO~ISSIONER SAU~ERSs We ~vo two differon= sales taxes ~ha~ we're ~alking ~. We ~ve =he -- waica minute, ~r. Rell~. I.IR. LITSI~GER ~ CO~ISSIONER SAU~ERS~ Okay. We ~ve the local option sales taxes, which is unlunded. We ~vo the sales tax t~t wu are collecting right n~. MR. LITSINGERs That's correct. VICE-CIIAI ~1 VOLPE ~ We'll call it the unfunded sales tax. Repeat the numbers so that '00189 186 MR. LITSIHGER: Two hundred and seventy-six million total, of which we need sixty-four million from somewhere, which we are porpooing to be the additional, seventh cent. VICE-CHAIRb~AR VOLPEI Is that eighty percent? HR. LIT/~II~O£R~ Twenty-five percent. HR. REILEY: I guess I got the eighty percent that wet wore $75,000,000 short and that the sixty-eight was going to be from thc one percent sales tax. VICE-CILAIRMAH VOLPE: Eighty percent may come, Hr. Retley, fro~ the one mil capital that has boon split. HR. LITSINOER~ improvement l~y0 because Twenty/eighty. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEI percent may came from. HR. REILEYI Very good. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Okay. So that's where the eighty Thank you very much. Hold on. ~IR. OLLIF}: I'll go ahead and announce the next two speakers, the last two that ! have registereds Dick Greenwell and Ross Mclntoch. I~R. GRE£1~ELI,~ 1~ name is Dick ~ree~ell. 380 Sha~o~ Drive. I live at I have been a resident hero of this O0 ! 187 area for thirty years. I represent my wife and my three sons that we've raised, put through the school system. One is in the Navy, two of them are working in Collier County. My concern was getting them housing! now my concern is that they keep their Jobs. But concerning housing and single family, primarily for =oderate income. Then weel! go back to what Ken Reiley was laying, and also Mr. Savage, with the kiss (sic) system. That's the only way ! can understand it. Iem a not an a t torney. If you have an area that can only have Io many permits issued, if all of those permits, applications are taken up, can my son still apply for certificate if he pays an additional impact fee? HR. MERRILLz Under the current lyltem, he can apply but be will not be given a certificate of adequate facility. That's the pe.~mi: that you're talking about, the certificate of adequate facilities and service? HR. GRE~MELLs ~R. MERRILL: FiR. OREEIMELLs up with extra money, you could get one. Adequate facilities permit, yes. tie, he would not receive it. I understood earlier that if you come Es that not -- O0.t !) 1 188 HR. ~4ERRILL= No. That was in a discussion concerning extension of time of an already issued certificate. MR. GR£E~ELLs All right. No~0 if somebody applies for a certificate and they don't use it, what happens to the impact fee that they've paid? Do they get that back and somebody else that's next on the list gets in? HR. NERRILLs Presumably, the impact fee would be covered under their current ordinance, the County's impact fee ordinance, and it does reference that. Bo it would -- as I recall, under the impact fee ordinance, it would be refunded. I believe. ~R. OR~,£1~ELL~ So if all of tho certlftc&tes are used up for that year, none can be applied for until the following year? HR. HERRILLz I'm sorry. I was still ~orking on your Iasc -- is it after six years? HR. LITBING£R~ The impact fees can be refunded after six years if the improvement has not been made. COF~IISSIONER SAUIIDERSz That's not the question that's asked. 189 The question that was asked iss If he gets a certificate of public facilities and he pays his impact fee but then does not build, does he get his impact fees reimbursed. MR. CUYI, ERs There's a provision in the impact fee ordinance where if they pull a building permit and do not -- canceled or revoked -- and they co~e in and apply within a certain period of time, they're entitled to a refund. And then they pay again in the event they come back. ~R. GREEI~WELL ~ not a building permit. a building permit. If you do not pull that building year, do you get the impact fees back? right? But the adequate facilities permit is That Just give you the right to pull permit within a You pay when you get the adequate facilities permit, HR. HERRILI~s You pay a credit towards it. HR. LX";SINGER= Right. You"re talking about a single-family home? HR. OREEtP~ELI~ MR. LITSI}~IER s Single-family home! right. By definition, you would have to have the certificate of public facility at the time you drew the 00193 190 building permit so the two would coincide, and you would pay the impact fee at that time. HR. OLLIFF~ He's asking if he doesn't pull the permit. He Just pulls the certificate, decides not to do it, co~es back in and turns it back in his certificate, does he get a reimbursement of his impact fee. MR. C~REE2~ELL~ ! mtsunderst~. I thought pr~eao ~as tba~ y~r adequate faciliti~s pe~tt, ~ha~ give y~ a rlgh~ within a y~ar to pu~l the building pe~it and build. yearo, HR. M£RRI~L{ Tho certificate is only issued in conjunction with the development order, and that's done in order to prevent someone from coming in and Just buying up all tho certificates. So you have to have a development order. ~arket. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ HR. GREENWZLL~ HR. DORRILL~ he's still confused. Create a whole new futures Well, I'm still confused. Can we un-confuse him? Maybe, SCan, 191 }~. LITSINGER~ I still -- I want to try to clarify on this. First of all, if you're talking to the single home situation, I can't imagine a situation when someone would initiate a certificate building per, it. HR. OFFITT~ Why? if they had no intention of drawing a Sure, you would. I think the idea is, yes, if you're not going to use the certificate, you're going to get reimbursed. Our ordinance needs to be looked at in order to address that, then we need to look at our road impact fee ordinance. HR. H£RRILLs I can address it. It treats it the same way as any of your other impact fees that are being paid. It refers to the Impact fee ordinance, so what~ver your impact fee ordinance says, thates ho~ it will be tteatod. MR. CU~LER~ Right no~ the impact fee ordinance talks in ter~s of this building pe~it. I think both this ordinance and the impact fer ordinance, particularly this ordinance, presume that th~ building permit is going to get pulled. You go in and set that capacity aside that you are 00195 192 volng to pull that butldtntt permit. MR. (IREE~ELI, s But when you've only 9et a limited nu~er available, ii you have a single-family loC, you want ~o prot~t y~r right to build ~ t~ lo~, bu~ circumstances ~y not dictate t~t you can build l~lately. CO~ISSIONER SAUCER, s I ~htnk the answer ts that our ordinances are not clear on the Issue that you've ralo~. Based on what Mr. Cuyler has said, I think, Cuyler, you need to take a l~k at tho i~act fee ordinance Co take care of the sl~uation where a certificate Is pulled, the ice is paid, but no building pe~lt Is paid. The fee should be ret~urs~. I think that's a 9~ ~tnt, and we need to clarl/y It VICE-CHAIR~ VOLPEs Can I ask Just one question? I've heard a discussion that in order to apply and ~tain a certificate o[ adequate p~ltc facilities, you need to ~vo a final l~al d~ol~ont order. ~C do I need In or lot to go in and present to wh~er ts 9otn~ to is;us these certtiicates in order 00196 193 get one? C~A I RMAN HASSE= VIC£-CHAIRMAH ¥OLPE~ ne~d to co~e in with? IoD.? Single-family house? Single-family house. For adequate public facilities single-family home. Wha~ do I HR. HERRILL~ Your l~pact fees and you're ready to pull your permit. certificate for a VICE-CHAIPJiAN VOLPEs So ! come to sho~ you -- ! o~n the property first. ! have to o~n the property first, thought right? HR. HERRILL~ You would go through all of the requirements of your building permit and you would also have to pull a certificate of adequate public facilities, and they would do the cross-check to ~ake sure the facilities are available, and that's part of the cross-check on the building permit. HR. LIT$INGERI Clarification, Commissioner. We have provisions where a property o~nor can apply for a certificate at any time, at their own discretion, for a certificate of public faclltties adequacy at which time tho clock starts ticking. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs So the gentleman's example. He 00.1 194 owns a single-family lot. He owns it now. He's not sure when he's going to be able to build. He has a vision that at so~e point later on do~n the line, he's going to build his dream ho~e. He co, es in, he plunks down the necessary funds to get his certificates. So now he's got a lot that he knows that can build on. And then something happens. He's transferred. I read here that the certificate is a transferrable document, so he can transfer it when he sells the lot. But if he chooses now to Just defer it -- I guess that's the issue, then. ~R. HERRII, I,~ If he defers it, he gives it up. VIC£-CHAIRKA~ VOI, PEs If ho defers it, he gives it MR. LITSI~GER~ It says in Section 8.3.1.4 that such fee~ as -- rcferrin~ to impact fees and fees for the system development charges: Such fees shall be otherwise paid in accordance with the applicable impact fee or system development fee ordinance and shall be refundable pursuant to ~uch ordinance only upon expiration of the certificate of public facility adequancy for like development. }~. OFFITT~ So as I said before, if our impact fee O0198 ordinance isn't clear enough, it needs to be amended to make i t clear. MR. GREE}~ELL= Let me Just understand. I can apply for an adequate facilities permit which guarantees me the right to build or apply for a building permit within three years. HR. I, ITSINOER: That's correct. tlR. GR£EUWELI~: The date that ! applied for that adequacy permit. MR. I, ITSINGER ~ Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLP£~ That's correct. MR. OLLIF£: Ross Mclntosh. The last speaker ! have rog i s tered. MR. I~INTOSH~ Mr. Chairman, members of the County Commission. Thank you for your patience. I'm delighted that we're devoting the time that we are devoting tonight tc enoaging in this question of the availability of certificates cf adequate public facility for normal people, working people. People -- people like myself. I'm not some fictitious Golder Gate resident. I am, in fact, closing on 14onday on a single-family home site in Collier County close in, Just off Goodlette Road. 00.I 196 I'm going to put over $20,000 down on the property. I'm going to finance the balance over a relatively short period of time, during which I hope to accumulate -- I intend to accumulate additional resources and assets that I can build a home that will accumulate my growing family. we want to be in a school district of our choicej we want to be close to playing fields where the children can amuse themselvesj we want to be close to modeling school and ballet class and all of those kinds of things that are i~portant to a growing family. We need to be close to my work place~ we need to be close to my wife's work place. Basically what's happening is after ten years of cocu~ltment to this community -- I've had very low impact on police services~ I've had very low impact on public health services~ I've tried to be a good citizen -- and basically wha= I see happenin~ is I see musical chairs being played with my famtly's dreams. I'm se£in~ a document which has been written in a vaccum. It's a document which has been written so that certificates of public facility have become a commodity. They have become a commodity which will increase the value of property. They will represent an inve~tment. 002( 0 197 What will happen is that finite supply of chairs which we have, tho first group of chairs will be gobbled up by DRI's. We've already talked about that. The second group of chairs will be gobbled up, inventoried of the developers who are under the gun from their lenders who will say your real estate ts worthless without certificates of adequate public facility) go out there and get them, as many as you ~eed 'to support the loan that ! have made on your property. what that means is there simply won't be certificates available for me, unless ! run up now and spend which happens to represent effectively twenty percent of the money -- that's twenty percent more money than ! need to tie up in a lot. This is an asset which I'm not using, I'm not able to spend. It's a substantial family asset, and it creates a situation where I'm likely to find myself years from now too big for the house that I'm in and unable to move forward. And I submit that that's simply not equitable, and that we need to address -- for example, Just an idea. We let individuals build their homes in this county without a contractor's license on an infrequent basis. That is, you OOi)Ol 198 can be an house a year or something of that character. Why not certificates of adequate public have the life expectancy of a building permit? o~ner/building and I guess you could build one facility that They're not good for three years or five years or renewable or anything else. If you're going to build a home and occupy it, you get a certificate that goes with that house! and if you don't build tho house, it's dead. And if you don't, you can't take it -- you can't sell it, you can't transfer it. It's for you. And I'm going to suggest to you that in a year's span of time there are probably not a hundred guys like me in this to~n doin9 what I'm talking about doing. It's not aa if there's a sudden onrush of homes being built. huf~red guys, it's two hundred guys. Out of six thousand units, we're talking about two hundred, and we're talking about ten trips a day is the average that's generated by a house, and as near as ! can tell one of those tho is mailman who'se in the neighbor already. One of those is tho newspaper boy who's in the area already. The fact of tho matter is that we didn't give 199 single-family home owners the opportunity to come in and appeal and say ! don't create an impact. The only reason wt don't let people come in and do that in this document is because everybody would do it. But the fact is the -- the underlying fact is there aren't very ~any of us. We're hard working, and we deserve -- we*ve made a commitment to this co~nunity and deserve to be allowed to fulfill our families' dreams. You have the power to make or break men's dreams, implore you -- I implore you to give this element of the plan the consideration that it deserves. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF~ Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming that at the conclusion of those registered public speakers, that I will take an opportunity and -- because there are only two Board hearings to go through, at least the items ti, at I've got listed, and I kn~.,' some of you have items listed as well. And maybe you can provide some direction to us. COM~IISSIOBER SAUNDERSs Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HASSEs }ir. Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS~ I ]~ve made a list of what I perceive to be some fairly major issues that have been 200 addressed by a lot of people. But at the same time, I think they -- if we make some changes, ! don't think they will in effect water down the ordinance. I would like to go through these. I think in order for this hearing to have been a successful one, I think we need to leave our staff with some direction based on what we've heard. With the pleasure of the Board, I'll go through what I think are some issues, and perhaps get some consensus on them, if there is a consensus then our staff the draft appropriate language and present it to us at our next public hearing. CilAIRMAR HASSEs I would think that if any of us hay, additional things to list, submit it to the staff in writing afterwards also. ! sou no reason why that couldn't be done. COKlqISSIONER SAUUDERS~ If you're sugf~esting during the week we submit written requests to our staff individually to change the ordinance. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ The way I'm looking at it, ! don't see anything wrong with that. Okay. Go ahead. Because a lot of things have been presented here that are on tape now, that the staff might pick up on that in addition to what 0020.1 201 you'rn doing. COH~4ISSION£R SAU}~£RS~ here at a public hea~in~. VIC£-CHAIRMAH VOLPE~ I would rather give you mine Before you do chat, Commissioner Saunders. Are you -- first are you Just going to identify the areas, is that what you're going to try to do, the areas that have been addressed by the various speakers? COM]qISSIOIIER SAU}~ERS: It probably won't take two minutes to Uo thzouuh tide entire list. VICE-CHAIRIqAN VOLPE~ Just trying to understand what it was that you're going to try to do. COI~.IS$IOB£R 5AU~ERSs What I'd like to do is go through the six or seven that I've got listed here. there'~ a con~ensu~ on them, then perhaps we could direct staff to do something. If tho Commissioners have some additional ones, we'II get on to those. One on the question of the vesting prcx:edure. I would like some analysis from our county attorney on whethez we should have a vesting procedure in this. Again, not to open this ordinance or to water it dc~n, but Just to recognize constitutionally vested rights. 0O205 202 Second, on the standards for the ASI~s, Section 7.4.2. I think there were very good points made as to the Some of the ordinances that I have reviewed, do have some type of standard. Our ordinance simply says that the committee will make a determination or staff will make a determination of what the ASI is~ they will present it to county co.~,ission~ at a public hearing, wil! determine an ASI. ! think it would be appropriate for us to at least have some options on what other counties have done in terms of ha¥in~7 some specific language. One, for example, was the roadway oeilmunt one quarter mile on each end and one quarter mile on either side of it. Just that type ~hink wu n~ e~o s~andardo. Tho m~tb~ology of dote~lning the duration of the certificate of p~lic facilities. I think the --we were preaented with s~e language that is conalaten~ ~lth what tho county ~nager has suggested in te~s of a a sliding acale. I think t~t language is ve~ g~. ~ould like to see the staff expand on t~t and perhaps place s~e kind of a ~cale on there. 203 MR. DORRILL; One, CO;4MISSlOI~ER SAUNDERS; any particular nu~er. ~. ~RRILL; You're saying revi~ CO~ISSIO}IER SAU~ERS~ That'~ what wa~ s~mftt~ to u~. I like the concept -- if the entire C~ission likes the concept, then staff would have the direction to proceed with that. ~e language suggested by one attorney in reference to 8.3.3 dcaling with tho agre~ents with the county. language se~ to pr~ide -- I kn~ there was discussion with C~issionor Volpe on that. But that language se~ to m~ to simply pr~ide s~e additional flexibility ~ithout ~king any additional r~uir~ents on tbs c~nty, but pr~id~ s~e flexibility. I thought that that would bo appr~rlato to consider that. That was a ~ndout by Mr. Varnad~. Pa~ent of impact fees up front. solve the probl~s that Mr. ~lntosh so el~ently discussed, the probl~ with having to pay a largo fee up front. Perhaps there is something we can do with the s~ f]exibility in deto~ining when the impact fees are three, five? I'm not prepared to recommend This ~ay very well 00207 204 actually going to be paid. VICE-CHAIPJ4AJI VOr~PE~ You're not suggesting that approach. It see~s to me there was s~e sugge~ion abou~ paying it like an assessment. And is that the idea? Tha~ if it's $3,000.00 a~ y~ advertise it ~er a perl~ of ti~e? ~t's the impression that I was left with. CO~4ISSIO)~ER SAU)~ERS~ I think in our regular road impact fee ordinance -- Hr. ~yler, correct me if I'm wrong this -- there is s~e flexibility pr~ided right n~ for pr~erty ~ners to pay at certain stages of the d~elo~ent pr~ess up to and including actually paying at the point of issuance of the building pe~it. Is that correct, ~r. Cuyler? ~ if t~t is correct, what I'm suggesting is that we sh~ld ~ve the same flexibility in our ad~uate p~ltc facilities ordinance. MR. ~YDER~ Yes, that's a correct stat~ent. ~R. ~ERRIL:,~ You're saying a lot -- ~ust ~ve the i~act fees paid at building pe~it, then. Because that's what ~ould happen. CO~ISSIO~IER SAU~ERS~ Just to pr~ide that flexibility. I think that -- that would be consist~t with what we ~ve been doing. 002O8 VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs ~R. OLLIFFI regard. As I can, I'm not sure I understand that. I've got a little concern in that I'll Jump in here. But I think on that one Issue, I think the reason that we put the payment of the impact fee where we have is simply so we don't have p~ople without any consequence Getting certificates and reserving that capacity with no other intent to develop. We tried to make sure there ts some aho~ that there ioa serious intention to actually develop and use that capacity that they're getting a certificate for. VICE-CHAIR~tAN VOLPEs If ! could Just interrupt. I didn't see it moving it from when you get your certificate to getting your building permit. ! saw if you have to 'up front' that ~oney all at one time~ when you get your certificate. You've got the single-family o~ner who wants to build, and he'L got to pay a number of fees. And it's a $3,600. Is there a way that he can pay, you kno~, that graduated payment? That's what ! thought. ! was looking at it like an assessment. If you pay a third, a third, a third, still sho~ the good faith~ but rather than not 00209 206 putting it up all at one time, Just to give some economic relief. I don't know how you do that, but ! have the same reservations that were e~ressed. COF2WISSIONER SAUNDERS~ Perhaps -- in terms of what I'm trying to do here, perhaps we can have our staff c~e back to us with s~e ~tiona that we might discuss aL the next public hearing. But I would like s~e ~lexibility in =he pa~unc of ~he impact fees, esp~cially as che singlo-family h~o ~er who lo buildin~ a h~e tor his ~n ~cupancy. ~ore was 8.2.1.4 concernin~ -- =he reference was made ~o Section 380.06.15. I can~ read ~ writing. MR. MERRILLs W~at page was tha=~ VICE-~AI$~AN VOLPEs Just ~yin~ ~ha~ pr~ision in=o 380. ~4R. MERRILL~ That's the DRI. VICE-CHAI RMAR VOI~PE s Right. COMMISSIOI~ER SAUNDERSs And th~n there was also, in reference to that, a question concerning whether It was an 0O210 207 internal change or external change with reference to the DR! ' s. We probably ought to say what we're dealing with in this section, even if it's not clear of w~= -- ~en ~hough ~he statu=e ~y no~ bu clear, ~hy don~ we go ahead. ~. MERRIDL~ ~e definition of s~s~antial change. CO~ISSIONER SAUntERS ~ Yeah. Okay. ~=~s ~ list of conditions. I think if we deal with tbo~, we~ve addreus~ us ~onight. ~AI~N HASSE~ S~eral of th~ are what I ~ve ~d d~ here already. Do y~ want to go on? VICE-CHAI~H VO~PE~ No, tha~*s fine. I ~hink wa'Il ask our staff to c~o back with infor~[ion alternatives in those area. CHAIRMAN H;.SSE ~ important. MR. DORR!LL ~ The vesting rights is very There was considerable discussion about private oector incentives. And ! don't kno~ that you addressed that specifically in those six points, Burr, but certainly private sector incentive came up several times OOall 2O8 tonight. COKHISSIO$~ER SAUt~DERSs ! think in the language Hr. Varnadoe presented to us in Section $.3.3. COHMISSIONER SHENAHANs But that was, I thought, strictly with a development agreement. CO~IHISSIOI;ER SAUNDERS s CO~ISSIOtI£R SHE}IAHAN ~ ~t was. Z think there is another very important consideration, and that is private sector maybe helping on the southern section of 951, as an example. So it excludes and needs to be looked at more in detail. As an ad on. CHAIRHAI! HASSEs I can see that, too. But I'd like to address the one thing in the regard to the single-family ho~e right now here. I can oeo the impact on them people o~ning the land already and suddenly finding out -- his road is adequate! ir. front of his ho~e, leading away in his home, a mile in either directica, what do we do with that person? I think it was -- Hr. Reiley was the person talking about that. Basically, do we deprive him the right to uso that land to build for any reason? HR. HERRILI~s ~ell, if there is no -- if there are nc 00212 209 facilities to serve that development and they are facilities that are required under your capital improvements element. I wouldn't say deprive, but his rights are definitely put on hold. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Well. MR. MERRILL~ And that's what concurrency requires. CHAIRMAtl HASSE= There are many people who live on a road that's paved and the land is theirs, and there no facilities for water or sewer and you can't get them there. HR. M£RRII, I~ We provide for that because in the ordinance during the Planning Co~umission stages, we a ~odified the ordinance to allow for facilities for private sower and water. And that would meet tho concurrency requirm~ent, as long as they meet the standazds in the ordinance for private facilities. CHAIRI4AH }lASSEs I }est didnet want thom shuttled off. I mean there was a lot o! talk about the DRI's and so much addini/ to the road systems and ao on. I didn't want these individuals shuttled aside because of that, and I think it's important that theyere not. VICE-CHAIRMAN ¥OLPEs Well, your answer was with respect to water and se~er, but it's not as it relates to 00 I,, :210 the transportation network. HR. MERRILLs With the roads, everyone el~e. VICE-CIIAIRHANVOLPE~ here. 14R, H£RR[LL~ So are DR['s. there in it with That's what I'm hearing over A bunch o~ single family -- a whole lot of single families could come in separately and they could knock out a DRI's before it gets approved, get -- knock that out of there as well. It can go both WayS. Obviously, the one that sounds so terx'ible is the DRI thac comes in for five hundred units and takes all the capacity on that road so that the one single-family home o~ner that remains on that road can no longer develop on that road un:il the facility is brought up to standards. That's the one -- you kno~, that sounds and is -- is a difficult situation. But that is what is required under concurrency. ~er you no longer have the facility, and it may be a road facility, it's the difficult issue. And that's what 9H-5 -- HR. OLLIFF~ Let mo address it as much as ! can. At least as -- you'll remember the process works as 002.14 211 that when the facilities are adequate, then they are adequate for everybody for the rest of the year. So everyone can come in and continue to pull them whether they're large developments or single family. Then the next scenario is then when you reach a potentially deficient area where you've got a limited number, and in that ca~e the Planning Commigsion has given us reco~endation to put a percentage for that small family developer out of what's left, So regardless of how many big developers come, we are going to have a percentage get aside. CHAIR/dA~ tlASSEs ~fhat wa~ that again? I never heard that. MR. OLI, IFFs When we get into the situation where you're on a -- 0o if we're on a potentially deficient roadway and we have to develop that ASI boundary where we limit the number ¢.,f building permits that are left to be issued, the Planning Cc,,-.~ission has recommended that we take -- and tn fact, it was based on Mr. ~:clntosh's presentation at the Planning Commission public mooting! it wa9 a good idea -- that we take a percentage of what's available and we set that aside. 15 :212 And now we've got the difficult Job of trying to draw up some language that decides what is a small single-family home developer. But, you kno~, thatts ~he in~en~ and ~ha~s our ~. I~11 bring =ha~ language back ~o Planning C~lsolon next hearing. ~. KEG~ERs Right n~, ~ithouC this thing, ~hen you pull a building pe~it, you pay impact fees. N~ are you -- CO~IIg~IOIIER ~AUNDERg~ Hr. Keller, can you t~ar~ ~he microphone? ~. KEL~ERs Are y~ suggesting n~ C~ if you want a certi~tcate of ad~uacy that all of these DRZ's, tf they want a certificate o~ ad~uacy and they ~ant to renege that, that tbs're going to ~ave to ~rch in here and pay you on five hu~red unite that they expect to build ahead ti~e? Ia t~t tho ~ay it's going to be7 OIAI~I VOLPEI ~t~e right. fiR. DORRILI,~ Yes. MR. KELLER~ ~*lell, that's wonderfull because that's going stop people from getting DRI's or anything else unless they pay up front, and if they pay up front you'll have the money to put the roads in. NR. NERRILL~ That's right. 00 .1G 213 CHAI R{4~{ HASSE { l~rs. -- question? COMIilS$ION£R GOODNIGHT = completely understanding something. That was the purpose of that. Coc~issioner Ooodnight, you want to Mr. Olliff, !'m not I~R. OLLIFFs t~ell, let me finish it. ! didn't get the last scenario. The last scenario is moratorium, and moratorium affects everyone. COF~4ISSIONER GOOONIGHTs Including ~'xI? MR. OLLIFFs Except DRIo CO[~4ISSIOHER GOODNIGHTs Then let me ask a question. If there are only so many certificates that can be issued and the DRI comes in after the nu~er of certificatel are issued to get w~t~er th~'re wanting, are we going to deny tb~ that? ~. OLLIFFs No. Tho ordinance, in fact, cont~plates t:ae DRI's and their ex~ptiona and tries to anticipate what are typical DRI d~elo~ent rates within that area. CO~ISSIOIIER ~DNIG}ITs ~on why are we going to consider the DRI's in there anyh~? Are we going to say that we've got a certai~, nu~er OOf l 7 :214 of certificates and if a DRI's comes in and gets that number of certificates, then that single-family ho~e owner or potential single-family home owner won't be able to get any, then still that DR! can como in there and get more? So I mean, wh~, are we -- why don't we ~ust exempt the DRI's c~letely fr~ those n~er of certificates? HR. OLLIFF~ Yeah. I don't kn~ that the DRI will be -- to require pull certificates in certain areas. CO~ISZXONER ~DNIGHT~ Well, ii thc're not, then what we've been discussing here is no~hing. HR. OLLIFF~ ~ell, y~'rc discussing sinolo-family h~o versus tho largo pro, oct. CO~ISSIONER ~DNIGIIT~ No, we were discussing single-family h~oo versus ~ho DRI's, and s~eone said that the DRI'o would got all of tho certificates and single-family h~o ~ners wouldn't. But ti the DRI's aren't classified in there, then we're not worried about the DRI. HR. OLLIFF: The s~e probl~ with the large develo~ent of s~en hundred units t~t's not a DRI, and the same ability to c~e in and pull all el the permits tha~ re~in. And It's tho same issue, that y~ need to have 00218 sort of set aside to protect. COM~4ISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ That's fine, as long as you're not talking about the PRl's that were permitted before the date. MR. OLLIFF~ This Board and staff and everyone else I think agrees that DRI's are exempt, are exempt, are exempt. HR. PERRY: I was going to add that the DRI's issued prior to this Growth Management Plan, ! guess, not the ordinance but the Growth Management Plan, are exempt from the certificate pro, ess as well. They don't have to come in and get certificates. They can obtain their building permits or subdivision plats or whatever through the process. Those n~w PRI's, ! believe it's Board direction that all nc~ DRI's will bo under the concurrency mandate. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGIITs Right. They're going to the the same as the single-family home owner then. I mean they're only going to be able to draw the number of certificates that anybody else could draw, and if there is ~oratorium, then nobcxty gets them. MR. PERRY.' The n~w DRI'a. COM~IISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ Right. 0O219 :216 fiR. PERRY: That' s correct. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Because all of the new DRI's, the Board has seen that they will comply under concurrency and that's part of the development order. MR. PERRY~ ~a~'0 correct. CO~ISSIONER ~DNIGIITs Okay. Bu~ I don~ ~htnk -- because I didn't understand it, and I don'~ ~htnk ~he p~lic was und~rsCanding it, ~hat tho DRI's that are not going -- that t~ ex~t~, wer~ going to c~e in a~ pick up all the certificates. And that's the way that I th:~k the public understood it. MR. PERRY: T"he¥ don't pick up the cezttficates, but they do have an impact on the available capacity that's le~! in a particular area. We program our roadway improvements to account for all devolopmont~ Commercial and residential! DRI, non-DRl. We anticipate how much traffic growth is going to be occurring over thc next couple of years. If there is a DRI in the area, if we establish an area of significant Influence and say that there are some two trips left off the road, and we know that there's a DRX in that area that is going to contribute over the next year 0(1220 E r 217 a certain number o! trips, we do have to take that into consideration, which leaves a little bit -- we would take off a little bit for tho DRI, and what's left is what can be distributed or a11ccaced to whoever c~es in, who is required to c~e tn for a cer~ificate. VlCE-C~I~ VOLPE~ I think what Hr. Olliff said was ~hat in t~t scenario~ then the Planning Co~,ission has rec~ended that there bo s~e set aside for the ~ingle-family resident. MR. PERRY: ~at*s correct. VICE-CHAI~N VO~PE: But confining it to the individual pr~erty ~er, ~ingle ~nership or s~ething liko that, h~over you define it. HR. OLLIFF: ~ose one hundred, two hundred guys, who~or ~h~ ars. VICE-C~I~ VO~PE: ~e ~ve to fi~ ~t who they ar~. CO~ISSIONZ~ ~D~IlGHT: But ~ait a minute, ~ike. You can't do it that way because ~en ii -- if that's the way you*re going to do it, ~en if t~t DRI wanted to have ~re, they can still get ~re. MR. OLLIFF: Yes, they can. 00 3 1 218 CO}~ISSIONER GOODNIGHTI So no matter ho~ many we set aside for single-family he. es, if that DRI came in and asked for =ore building permits, then we've got to give them to them. by HR. HR. think that they would be restricted COMHISSIONER GOODNIGHTs So that scenario is not going to work, one way or the other. ~R. HERRILbs I think we've got to understand that the ~ore that we vest and the more that we exempt, tho more your capacity is automatically up front taken up, and so you're going to have less to give away. So the more your exemption -- the moro exemptions you give, the more -- the leso capacity you have available to allocate to -- CtlAIRHAH HASSEs Single family. fiR. HERRILL~ Or -- no. COH~ilSSIONER GOODNIGHTs And ne~ DRI's and PUD. I'm not talking about exempting anybody. I'm talking about those that are exempted that we don't have anything to do with. HR. HERRILL~ Right. That's what I'm saying. already[ Those people have to all be put into the system that Jeff has, hag 219 developed. MR. OLLIFFI You have to remember, tool we're doing this at a once-a-year ~valuation time, so we figure out what's left at that point. Then if there are a thousand left -- a DR! co~es in through that year and they want to pull fifteen hundred. COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ I'm not worried ~out that part -- time. I worri~ ~out the part when %~e say t~t wu'ye only got as ~ny units and the road is a critical concern and we're watching it and we're saying that there's only as ~ny ~re certificates that can bo issued, but if there is a PRI tn that area that was co~..itt~ before 1988, or what.er tho date was, then they're still going to be entitled to h~ ~ny ~er certificates th~ want and no ~ttor h~ ~ny single-family h~e ~ers certificates t~t w~ set to the oido, we have still got to give that DRI all the certificates or building pe~ita they they want. MR. OLLiFF= ~at's underst~. I think that tho ordinance cont~lates t~t DRI's can c~e in and they can d~el~ as much aa th~ can d~elop In a year or as little as they want to develop in a year. They're basically ex.pt. 002: 3 COMMISSIONER GOODNIGHT: Then can we still hold out a certain number of certificates for single-family homes7 MR. OLLIFF~ Yes. COH~4ISSIONER GOODNIGHT~ Regardless of what the service levc! of the road is? MR. OLLIFF= Yes. We're doing that once a year. MR. DORRILLz Tom, no~ I*m confused. I thought that DR! was totally exempt, that hels in the ci~'zle. If he's ir the circle and he takes up all of the road space, all the water space, he takes up all of the whatever space is there and there isn't any left, then the single-family home doesn't have an opportunity to cc~e in. HR. O6LIFF= He still has the opportunity. Because the way this is set up, annually if I come in and there are a hundred permits left to issue. Okay? ! have already assumed that -- ! have given a certain portion before I got do~n to a hundred, trying to figure out how much the DRI's in that area generally development. So I've already set aside for the~ up front before I said there"s a hundred left. MR. DORRILL~ So hems exe~pt and he~s going to have whatever he needs, and we're still going to have some left ~ , ,m,, m [ II m lllll I II II I IIII III I I I I II I I i Ill III 221 for single-family because you've set them aside. HR. OLLIFFs Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAtl VOLPEI I think what you're saying, it's a planning process. We're continuing moving forward in the process. I mean there may be X number of certificates today, but what we're planning -- ! mean the numbers are. We're going to keep buying more chairs. In other words, we're buying ~ore chaira. what wu're saying? gay. Isn't that OIAIRKAH HASSEI Let's hear what the gentleman has to MR. REILEYs Again, my name is Ken Reiley. Tho problem, as I see it, is that you're not going have -- if you sit there and exempt the Golden Gate Estates. There are lots that have been developed on Marco Island. You're not going to have twenty thousand people coming in in a year trying to get a building permit. You're going to have the normal flow of people that are building in that area. And so that the definition of a final local development order tor tho fear of all of these lots out there ia the criteria for basing a final local development order ia not really a valid fear with all tho 222 stuff in Golden Gate Estates with developed lots are going to be coming onto the market and with traffic counts and number of people and et cetera. So the definition of a final local development order being so rigid to be a building permit so you can sit there and exempt the developed platted single-family lot is not going to sit here and adversely affect it. Now, it may sit there and keep because you do have it lot new development, the guy coming in -- VICE-CHAIRKAN VOLPEs I see that as a different issue, Nr. Reilw/. I see tho issue that we're talking about is an issue about what Hr. 14.clntosh -- ~E COURTI Could we please not ~ve the talking and whisperino. ~e'ro tryln~ to conduct a meetinG. hero, Hr. Reynolds. }/R. REI LE~': ~e're trying to conduct a meeting Because the county and st&if is sitting there saying that if a level of road service on lmmokalee Road or Airport Road is adversely afected aG it relates to a DRI, that lot in Golden Gate Estate can be set down and you cannot get a building permit, VICE-CHAIRliAN VOLPEs No. We're going to aside a 223 certain number of certificates for those people so that they won't find themselves in that position. MR. R£ILEY~ What I'm saying is that you can't do that if a DRI is sitting in there and has got this permit. Correct me if I'm wrong on that ordinance, but you can't set me and a DRI comus in and certain allocation, and sit there and Just arbitrarily say here's two hundred units of single-family. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Mr. Olltff, can you respond to that? That's an interesting question. MR. OLLIFF~ I think it's the same issue that we Just covered, and I think the anower is yes, we can. We can set aside for single-family, regardless of DRI development. MR. MERRILLI One other thing one thing we have to re~c~er is that DRI's are oingle family too. What we're really talking about is not single-family versus DRIp we're talking about DRI single-family versus non-DRI single-family. So we aren't -- it's a preference again, as I was trying to relate in my -- the musical chairs thing, it is competition among the development that is either out there or that will be out there. And it's going to be -- it can 224 be shifted back and forth. And it so happens that the state statute particularly favors final local development orders that are vested and DRI's that are vested. And that's really where it shift has occurred. HR. REILEYs But tho question is that the final local development order, if your fear is the effect of all these number of 1eta in Golden Gate Estates or Marco Island or et cetera, that their reason for defining a fi~,al local development order as being a building permit, I'm saying that's restricted because you're not going to have that number of people coming onto the marketplace in Golden Gate Estates, that you final local develop -- VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs You say that, but the whole idea of what we're talking about here is that we're trying to plan, and we may not and we may have all come in. You're saying not all twenty thousand are coming in at one time. MR. REILEYt Right. And all I'm saying is that you're not going to have -- if you broaden~ and again, the attorneys can come up with the language. The language can be changed as far as what a final local development order, and you're not going to affect the platted, the lots that are already developed out there because they're going to go 225 in a normal course. That's all. CIIAIRMAN HASSE~ l, ot*s hope they work that way. HR. OI, I~IFF~ The only other issue that we had that waBn't -- unless Co~issioner Saunders has more on his list. COMIdlSSIONER SAUNDERSs ones that I raised? CO~IItSIOt~R SHE~[AHAN s Was there a consensus on the thought I added private sector incentive, and we added r. ingle-family homes. HR. OLI, IFFs ! need a little better help on private sector incentives. I'm not sure. ti[AIRMAN HASSEt Well, you talked of percentages. Whac percentages are we basically talking about? Ut~ID£HTIFI~-Ds A hundred percent. CHAIRHAN }lASSEs I understand what you're saying, Oeroge0 but I'm not talking specifically Golden Gate Estate. MR. OLI~IFFs I donet know the percentage. What I'm trying to say ~s we have to go back and try -- we're going to try to develop some rational reason for whatever percentage we go como up with. And we'll have that in front of the Planning Commission at their next hearing. CHAIRMA}I [lASSEs I Just donet want to make sure it's 002'29 not the big developer only who can build. tO be sure Of. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPEs I guess the only other issue that I can recall right no~ is this Issue about the appeal process. And I kno~ that we did something on the workshop and something else. HR. DORRILLI adequancy. VICE-Ci~IRMANVO~PEs That's all I want I don't know. You're talking again about public That's all. MR. DORRILLs We probably need to take another look at that. Even though you say it doesn't make any difference. It's all technical. KR. ObLIFFs My recollection Is that the appeal question that was raised dealt with the issue of vested riqhts. We have to take a look at that. CIiAIRMAD! HASSEs That's what you said, isn't it, Mr. Saunders? HR. DO~'RIbL~ Ia that it? We best have staff take a look at that. MR. OLLIFF~ The only other issue ! had was in terms of those certificates. We talked about renewing those certificates automatically in terms of paying and going and 00 30 doing something in terms of that. Just so the Commission understands, I think that kind of concept is not within our Comprehensive Plan and would require some sort of plan amendment. There in front of you there -- there's the three year or the five year with a rent, al. It's up to the Co~mission, but that would require some kind of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. If you want to see that kind of language, we can draft that for you maybe on the side, and then you can look at it next time we come back come back. ¥ICE-CliAIRMAN VOI, PEs You're Just saying -- we're atill going to need a Co~prehensive Plan amendment. ~tR. OLLIFFs If youtre going to talk about automatic renc~als that pay their fair share concept. That's not currently allo~ed within our Comprehensive. ~ COH~.IS$IOI~ER SAUtlDERSs t~hy don't you sho~ us what that would look like. CHAIRHAN HASSE-- No~, what are we going to move forward on? liR. DORRXL~s Take a five minute break? CHAIRMAt{ HASSE~ Do you want? VICE-CitAIRHAN VOLPE~ Please, can we take a five 228 minute break, CHAI~4AN HASSE~ All right. Letts go to quarter of. it/hereupon, a brief recess was had.) THE COURT~ t/e have a quoru~ no~. Hr. 011iff. Let's: go. HR, OLLIFF~ overvie~ of the ordinance, CHAIRI4Atl HASSE~ Back there. guess. ¥ou tro always talking, O~IIDENTIFIED~ I*m listening. Mr. Chairman, we have give a brief Hr. Reynolds again, I VICE-CIlAIP~'J~ VOLPEs Hero quietly, then. HR. ObblFFs Bob, do you want to go ahead and do that overview? liR. BbAtlCt~RDs O~ ~ening, C~issioners. I'm B~ Blanchard fr~ tho Gr~th Planning D~a~tmen[. I don*[ kn~ about you a11, but I~m having de~a vu back ~out i~rteen ~nths. But I c~ ~ at midnight at t~[ hearing, so doing a little bit better. ~at I'd like to do tonight, and I'll t~ to keep brief, although it's lm~rtant, I think, that ~e be r~ind~ ~hy ~e're doing zonin~ reevaluation~ and if you'll bear ~e, ~hat I'd like to do is first of all revi~hy ~e are 002, 2 22~ doinq Chin, discuss aoma of the rm~aining issues, and unless there's questions on it, I don't intend to review the VICE-~AIR~ VOLPE~ I was ~oin~ ~o say we kn~ why y~'re doin~ th~. I m~an. MR. BL~A~ I th~nk ~t's important to ~e rem~nded of a~ of the ls0ueo. CHAI~H HASSE: No. I think you ought to. ~. BLAH~RD~ And I don't ~n~end to d~scuss the process unless there is a ~r~ura1 question. I passed a fl~ chart in case you don't have the praises ones. also pertains to this graphic behind mo. VICE-CHAZ~N VOhPEz Mr. B1anchard, is there any change in tho process? workshop? MR. BI~ANCHARD s From what we had look at during our That's correct. There's no change. When wo ~ere preparing the growth management plan, one of the things that came to light was the amount of zoning that we had in this county. At the time, if we deal with commercial zoning, in 1987 we talked of figures of about four thousand four hundred acres of total commercial zoning of which about eleven hundred were developed for a 00233 23O total of a little over five million square feet. Since that time, our 1989 figures, we no~ have forty-six hundred acres of zoning with about twelve hundred developed or about six million two hundred thousand square feet. If you wall, the consultants who prepared our marketing and commercial land use study estimated that we would need only need about two thousand acres by the year 2005. In addition to the commercial, we had approximately fifty-two thousand dwelling units on the ground in 1986, and about a hundred and twenty thousand dwelling units that had been zoned for but unbuilt at that time. ~hen we updated the figures in 1989, we no~ have so~c~horo a little over seventy-seven thousand dwelling units on tho grounds in the urban area with about a hundred and thirty-six thousand zoned and unbuilt. The amount of zoning that we have on the ground creates a major burden on the county when it comes time to determine ho~ best to spend public monies in order to provide for public facilities. The major issues are it's very difficult to determine where tho next development ia going to occur and when it*s going occur. So based on that 00234 231 type of a concern, we developed the ideas of a zoning reevaluation program which was subsequently adopted in the plan. In August of last year in response to the Board's request to accelerate the preparation of the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, we developed the first developed the first draft, and we kno~ about public workshop that we had and the fact that what we got was probably about the stringent ordinance that we could have and still be defensible order case law. Six drafts later, we're where w~ are tonight. The first draft, as I said, was the most strict~ the current draft, thoro bays boon ma~or changeB from that initial draft resulting from input from a coalition of the dr:volol~.nt cc~,munity, financial community and busineoo community ao well as the tentative changes that you have before you from the Planning Commission, so what we're starting from tonight with hearings before the Board is a negotiated ordinance. An ! mentioned, tb~ro ban boon no change procedurally from tho first. Tho ma~or change -- at least from the workshop, ! should say, there has been no change OO235 232 procedurally, t4a~or change to the ordinances as we have done through the difference drafts have como in the form of 'up front' exemptions~ exemptions that would not be subject to actual zoning reevaluation. Exe~ptions began as a recognition that there are properties and projects out there where -- whose location or process In the development review process, location in the development rovie~ process ~ade it obvious that the existing zoning should be retained, that it would be ridiculous to suggest that they comply with on your future lands use map, Exe~ptions today have ~volved in the draft before you to a review of what level of the development review process should exempt thom from application a bonafide zoning reevaluation. Other sm~or changes that have occurred as we have gone through this process are in the deftnttions~ specifically for final local development order, lL~s now the same as w~.aL is proceeded in the concurrency ordinance. Also in the defini:ion of improved property, which ! will discuss under one of the major isues. ~4anager discussed a couple -- two of what ! would like to mention as the remaining major issues. The first 00 , 6 233 one, in Section 2.4.2 on page ten of the draft ordinance, is an exe~ption for application for certain development orders that have been approved prior to January 10th of this year. CHAIRMAN flASSE~ What did you say, page four. 14R. SPEAICER~ Page ten. Section 2.4.4. ~O~at this says says is that if you have applied for a final plat, final subdivision master plan or site development plan prior to January loth that ycru~re exempt provided you go forward and actually get that approval and proceed with development. Coc~nents on this particular exemption have centered around whether we should retain that date or move it back to the effective date of the ordinance which currently is April 1. This is probably tho most liberal of the six exemptions that we have in this document. The date was selected, if we proceed with this exemption, because it ia one year from adoption of the Ore, th l~anager~ent Plan, so any reevaluation and the effects of -- it ts not a ne~ concept. It was developed early in the process for tho Clro~th ltanagement Plan, It was mentioned earlier tonight that people knew that this was coming. January 10th to a year from the adoption date. It alas 0023T represents a date which under the current procedures that we could reasonably expect that, if you applied for a final development plan, that it be could be processed and co~pletcd by April 1st date. A coc~si son between those two dates, and what I have to do is quali~ this very much because we don't know whether these applications are consistent with the Orowth ~tanagement Plan or not. Currently in the development services there's twenty-one petitions that will filed prior to January 10. These represent somewhere along the order of five hundred and thirty dwelling units or sixty-two thousand square feet of cou~uercia! space. Since -- CHAIRI4AN HASSEs How many was that7 MR. BI'F~KRR! ¥1ve hundred and thirty dwelling unite and over sixty-two thousand in square feet in conmercia! apace. Again it's qua]ifiedi -- I'm using this for comparison purposes. After J.'~nuary 10th, we now have forty-eight petitions that have filed effective ! believe it was Monday when we got this information, and those represent approximately two thousand dwelling units, seven hundred and seventy-five square feet of commercial space. So that's the difference 235 of -- it could be up to that amount that we're talking about by expending the date if the Board chooses to do that. In this particular case, the staff is recon~ending that the date be retained in this particular exemption. The second definition is of improved protert¥, Section 4.11 on page seventeen. This is a major change that resulted from the last Planning Commission hearing and is noted on the change sheets that were provided along with the ordinance. You*re going to have to have to use the ordinance in combination with the change sheets, the eight and a half by eleven sheets that were provided with you also. The previous definition for improved property was basically a lot on which there had been con~nencement of construction. Commencement of construction means that there ia a substantial infrastructure that has been built or any construction requiring a building permit. So a lot with ccr~mence~ent of constructin and substantial construction of building have been completed. Plannin~ Cocniosion suggestion, although not necessarily a final recommendation yet until their final hearing, is that you included language at the end of phrase ()0 39 :236 that says that it includes a unified plan of development on which there has been commenc~ent of construction. Aa the langua~le 1o proposed, that should be included in there. the staff dloagrees that What it means is that if you -- we recognize the concept of unified plan of development and we have allo~ed for that in our definition section and vested rights determination compatibility ox. ception sections but that the ne~w language would basically state that if you had a unified plan, a PUD, on which there had been any construction started that required a building permit, the entire PUD would be exampt. ~anager noted that there is probably some language that could como would up since we do recognize unified planninil of development that if it referred to substantial building, substantial construction within that PUD that tha would be acceptable to the staff. We have not developed that language, but ! think that tho concept ia there and that we -- CHtI RI~! HASSE: substantial means. HR. BLANC[lARDs You haven't stipulated what No, we haven't. There has been a lot of discussion about that. 002.10 There has been discussion in the past about whether we put specific criteria in an ordinance or whether we rely on substantial. It will be a staff determination and it would a relative test depending on tho size of the pro~ect, CHAIRRA~ HASSEs Yeah, but you leave it wide open. NR. BLAI~CHARDs definition. VICE-CHAIRHANVOLPEs It is in the ordinance. There's no No definition of substantial. unified plan of developmcnt? MR. BLA}ICHARDs The third ~a~or the idea of a develoi~ent agreements. ooze mention of this concept tonight. Correct. Is there a definition for Yes, there is. Section Four. issue that you ! want to present is ! think you will heal The way that it has been presented in ordinance the section 10.6.1.8 on page thirty-one. The use of the development agreements in the ordinance ia tied directly into a determination of compatibility exception. The way that it's been presented in some of the testimony that we have heard is the desire to uso develop agreements as away to develop at a lover density or intensity that is still is in' 00 o.11 inconsistent with the plan. We have not responded directly to the previous coc~ents or testimony that we have had. There have been a couple of issues that our attorneys office has been lookinil that I feel have been anm~ered. The first one lss Does the require a special ordinance in order for the county to complete a development aOreoment with another party, l~e have been told that it should bo a local ordinance and there i0 one that i0 being drafted right no~. /lo a local ordinance to a11o~ us to do develolment agreements will be following on. The second issue, which was ~ore major, was i Do development agreements have to be consistent with the plan. And it's been determined -- I believe the statutes state that they do have to be consistent with the plan, and so we can only enter into development agreements if indeed they are consistent with the future land use element as it may be amended at so~a time, but it has to be consistent with the future land use element. So ! feel that tho questions have been answered as far as development agreements, and we will try to respond to those if we hear them tonight, but I believe the way it's structured with some ~ossible minor changes in the language in the existing ordinance is probably adequate. While concurrency is -- I'm going do a very quick summary. ! have some graphics to ho~ you. While concurrency is a state mandated program zoning reeveluation was developc~l specifically for Collier County. In fact, as you recall, it was probably the major issue in the final settlement agreement that we had with DCA. I passed out for ~voryone, and thc-y were some available prior to the start of the hearing tonight, a package of three s~ll graphics in order for you to refer to as I used big ones, What ! want to do is basically graphically represent for you w~at tho existing ordinance that is before you tonight basically moans to tho county in terms of it's a relative test as to what it means in one case for the entir~ area of the costal urban area, as well as some other graphics that = have that try to relate it to residential units that have been approved as well as commercial acreage. What this graphic hero is represents -- and again we have to qualify it. We have concentrated on tho costal urban area because we are developing an Immokalee master 002.13 ~t40 plan, and tbs zoning out in Immokalee will be addressed dressed at the time the master plan is adopted. So this represents tho costal urban area which includes about eighty-five thousand acres. ~O~at this sho~s in the white area is the area that is undeveloped right no~, and unzoned, currently zoned A-2, about thirty-two thousand f ire hundred. The yellow pieces show an estimate of existing residential development of about twenty-eight thousand acres. Residential developments where the density can be determined to be consistent with the growth Kanagement Plan, and these include the exemptions for DRI's that exist in the zoning reevaluation ordinance, of approximately sixteen thousand eight hundred d~elling units. ~hat we have in the cross patched area o! the blue -- VICE-CHAIRNAN VOI, PEI Is that or cheelling units acres. HR. BL]IICIIARDg Acres. We're dealino in acres, VICE-CHAIRNANVOLPE~ ! think you said cheellingso NR, BLANCHARDs Z*m sorry. Acres. In the cross patched blue area i8 the remaining residential acres in the costal area that is subject to 241 zoning reevaluation. acres. About three thousand seven hundred On the red piece over here, we have the developed commercial acreage of a little over a thousand acres. Again not including Ie~okaleel that*s the reason for the difference between the numbers fro~ the start of the presentation, A little over a thousand acres developed. The cot~mercial that is coneiston~ wi~h the Gr~th ~nag~en~ Plan a~ includes DRI'I, c~rcial and DRI's, as well the ones thaC we have d~o 'up front' ~ttons for c~atibility on, includes about a th~sand eight hundred acres, which leaves ab~t eight hundr~ a~ lofty acres of C~ercial t~t is s~JecC to the additional ex.priori or o~e fo~ of c~a~lblltty exception or vested right or ulti~tely c~ngo t~t zoning. ~o w~t this piece of the here represents tho acreage tn tho costal area t~C is going ~o be s~ect to revaluation. VZCE-CHAI~VOLPE~ ~ich piece ts that again7 ~. BL~C~s ~e one stands out. A~ain, t~t includes -- this ~=tion ~y ~et s~ller~ 242 in fact, as we go through the exemption process, compatibility exception and vested rights determination. VIC£-CHAIPJaAR VOLP£~ Hr. Blanchard, Just a question. You've got the acres no~. Do you happen to know how many acres are with DRI's of the sixteen thousand eight hundred and thirty acres? It's not important -- ! Just thought -- ~aR. BLANCI{ARD: ~¢e can get it for you. The next graphic which was also handed out represents the residential zoning. Aoaln in ~ust the costal urban area, doo, include I~rco l~la~. And ~hat this .h~. -- this one Is in dwelling units, so we can that. As it shes tho oevonty-o~en thousa~ five hundred In tho blue area at the bott~ aa being d~ol~ed right n~, this is wh~t in th~ coots1 area 1~ d~el~ed t~ay. ~e rest of the graph represents the r~ining a hundred and thirty-slx thousand that I alluded to that are zon~ and u~uilt. Of that, approxi~tely a hu~red nineteen thousand four hundred d,~elling units are zoned but u~uilt, consistent ~tth tho Ore, th F~nag~ont Plan, lncl~os DRI'a, and represents t~t -- the change in the r~ining t~t la inconsistent ~ith t~ plan, that ~ould bo lnclud~ In tho total nu~or of d~ellln. 002.16 243 units once we reduced process. the density through the reevaluation ~hat that does is at the top, we have calculated there is a potential reduction through zoning reevaluation of about seventeen thousand dwelling units. A Potential reduction. So this graphic sho~s the commercial and dwelling units. VIC£-CIIAIRHA~ ¥O~PE: Sho~s the -- HR. BLA~ICHARDz l*m sorry. Residential and dwellin units. ¥ICE-~IAIRII~! VOLI~: Okay. ! kno~ it's getting late, but ! want you to kno~ that I'm paying attention. Just as that It makes you feel good. ~IR. BLAIICiIARD: The last graphic is the commercial zoning tn the urban area. What I have sho~n hers la we have a little or a thousand acres developed. We have about seventeen hundred acres that are zoned but unbuilt that are consistent with the Growth 14anagement Plan, it includes the commercial that's within DRI's. Thc next ama11 section is the commercial that have been determined to be exempt under compatibility exceptions 002,17 244 or determinations, which is one of the 'up front' exemptions, of an additional hundred and fifty acres, and then the acreage that may be subject to further reevaluation is eight hundred and forty acres. So this brings us up to a total of about thirty-seven hundred acres in the costal urban area right no~. q~o additional points that I want to make on this graphic. One I did not sho~, but if you were to draw a line right here, that represents the consultant's estimate of what we need in terms of acreage by the year 2005. Approximately two thousand acres. Cumulative acres is on the right-hand side of your graph. VIC£-~IAIR]iAN VODPEs I don't -- could you explain that again to mo again? ~R. D~,f,~I~IARDs Hell, tho consultant that prepared the commercial land use study that we used for tho activity center concept estimated that by the year 2005~ we would need somewhere along the order of two thousand acres of commercial, given our existing growth rate. If you were to draw a line on that, it would bo approximately here. Within tho area of the square that I have sho~n as zoned but unbuilt. 245 Sat I have also tried to do is emphasize what staff feels is a good rational for a strong reevaluation program Is to sho~ you the top rectangle here, which represents the A-2 zoned property that is with comnercial activity centers -- the ~.ixed use activity centers. In this area, weave got approximately seven hundred and eighty acres. It does not include the existing residential zone acres within activities centers. The pont being that we no longer have a limitation on activity centers that limits ho~ much of an activity center can bo commercial. So itfs incumbent upon ata£f and the Board of County Commissioners to determine ho~ much of an activity center could be dotormtn~dl but if it wore to go a hundred percent commercial and thc request for connercial zoning in activity centers, wt'~h one exception, have all been approved to date since the plan wa~ adopted. ~e have the potential for an additional seven hundred and eighty acres. And you add that onto seventy-seven hundred, and we've got about forty-five hundred acres. If you add it on to the commercial for the county as a whole, instead of forty-six hundred acres, wa'v. got sixty-three hundred acres of commercial. 246 $o that's the reason why I included that top graph. VICE-CHAIR}tA~I VOl, PI:= Mr. Blanchard, on the activity centers, the A-2 zone, property within activity centers. We have within our Growth Management plan, the ability to develop mixed uses within those activities centers. And that's part of what we're talking about. MR. BLA~ICHARD ~ Correct. that there is no limitation. We percent cap on coa~ercial. That is no longer in the Growth Development Plan the way that it was adeopted. And what I wanted to point out is that there is still that potential for additional commercial above and beyond what we have on the ground right now. VICE-CIIAIR/~ VOI, PEs All of which is consistent, though, with the Orowth Management Plan. MR. BI, AI~C~IARD~ It is if there's finding made that it is consistent based on the criteria that are included in therel tbat'o ;'orrect. I didn't pass this map out, but you have all seen the PUD maps that we distribute through the office where the red shading and the orange shading is existing commercial. And this ts Just a graphic of how -- the blue areas are activity It is. But the point being used to have a fifty 00250 centers of what the actual com=ercial pattern could look like in tho county, depending on ho~ this process evolves. We have separated for revie~ purposes the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinr. nce and concurrency discussions, mainly for ease of review. But in fact the two ordinances are very closely tied to each other and should be thought of together when we're considering the impacts that they have on each other, as well as the impact tP~t both of these will have future capital Improvement element. ;4ithout a doubt, ! believe that concurrency is tho cornerstone of the Growth l~tanagoment Plan as it was stated. Out without an adequate zonino reevaluation program, future develoln~ent and public expenditures, aa c,'atlined in the capital improvement element may end up actually being controlled, strictly by tho Concurrency Ordinance. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer for you o VICE-CHAIRHAN VOI, PE~ ! ~ust have a comment. ! think what I ~ust hear you say, though, is this ordinance as being presented to us with but two exceptions, that this is something that was something that has met with the approval of our staffers° 00 51 248 MR. BLA~{CHARD~ It is, and I think at your workshop that it is it was indicated earlier that it's very difficult for staff to agree to go any further. VICE-~/AIRHANVOLPE~ Thank you. MR. OFFITT~ Mr. Chairman, if you're ready, we'll go ahead with the registered speakers. Varnadoe registered. COHMISSIO}IER SAUntERS s do you have? MR. OLLIFF~ COMMISSIONER SAUI~ERSs to suggest a time limit? CHAIRRAH IIASSE~ Yes. I've got George Hr. Offitt, ho~ many speakers I've got about seven or eight. Hr. Chairman, are you going We've already suggested five minutes, but I don't think we need five minutes. I think we can do it in less than five that, so let's start it off at three minutes, to start. Tom, are you want to keep the time schedule? Attorneys only got two minutes. I'm only kidding, George. ~R. VA~/ADOE= You never kno~ with you. VICE-CHAIR~h~VOLPEs You're using your two minutes, Mr. Varnadoe. HR. VARNADOEs Let's look at and try to deal with the 00252 entire issue that Hr. Dorri11 brought up and then that Blanchard talked about, the only issue that ISm going address, and that is unified plan of developments and ho~ we c'xrn~pt thom if they are under substantial construction, which is what I think we have all agreed to in principle. ltcr~ to get there from hero has been a little bit harder. If we go to our definition section, you see starting on page fifteen on the version that I've got, the definition of commencement of construction. And that ties in with unified plan of development on page eighteen, which is Section 4.2.1. I think. CHAIR~'IAN HASSEs MR. VARNADOEz Four point what? 4.21. On page eighteen. An improved property on page seventy, which is 4.1. COliHZSBIO~ER BttENAHAN~ 4.11~ right? HR. VA~IADOEs Yea. Excuse me. 4.11 It must be getting late for ~.e. CHAIRI4A~ HASSEs ! was ~uat going to say that. HR. VARNADOEz The -- I think what ! would suggest to you, without trying to draft language tonight, is in commencement of conotruction, that we say that it's the -- when you read through all of it, it's a substantial 00253 250 construction or installing of substantial infrastructure or the start of construction on any facility which requires a building permit. I think that latter is what bothers your staff, because it would allow the start of something very · inor structure to have vesting way beyond that structure. I think tl~t, the other perspective, that on a unified plan development, you're obviously going to have to do all your water management before you can start on it. Sc you're going to have substantial infrastructure. So we want to put something in the last line, beginning construction or installation of substantial structures on the property. Structure or structures on the property, that would not bother mo. The problem with criteria is what might be substantial on a five-acre parcel would certainly not bo substantial on a two hundred acre area, or might not be substantial. Problem with trying to get criteria at this point in time is that I'm not sure we can get there from here. Hr. 14erri11 and ! have not been able to get there from here for tried three ~onths, although we have both Cried, as I'm not sure that I've got anything to suggest 0O254 other than Just simply call it substantial -- substantial structure or structures, and I'm certainly willing to abide by staff decisions° and if we don't like those, we go to tho hearing officer route to determine whether or not we're vested. And I can live with that. I think we're going to have -- ninety-five percent of the tiao, we're going to be totally in agreement with staff on this. The staff is trying to protect you, the county, from somebody trying to vest themselves by doing very little. I'm not trying to protect that guy/ I'm trying to protect the people you heard me talk about before who are substantially underway with an ongoing project. So I really don't know have a lot of trouble in calling it substantial commencement and letting it ~o and that. VZC£-CHAIRHAN VOI, PB~ Is there a distinction between structure and ~tructures, as opposed to Infrastructure7 MR. BLANCHARD~ Yea. Infrastructure is what we call horizontal development. Water management, roads, water, sewer, that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN HASS£ z Services. ~4R. BLANCItARD: And structures building permits are 00255 252 normally vertical construction. Residences, office buildings, those type of things. VICE-CHAIR/~N VOLPE~ So this takes you beyond. Thio assumes the infrastructure was already in place, and than substantial structure or structures. ~R. VARHADOE ~ HR. BLANC}LARD: ~LR. MERR I Lr~: It's that there's an 'or' in there. It's not 'and=. It's 'or.' I believe I could speak for staff. think we would suggest Just eliminating the last phrase, and then you don't have to worry about that portion. COMMISSIONER SAUI~ERSs Are you on 4.11 or 4.217 MR. ~ERRILLs Four one, commoncement of conotruction. It's really a two-prong test. It's either infrastructure or thio o~orphosis thing of substantial construction of a structure or structures. And what we would suggest is Just eliminating tho last -- the portion [ro~ the word 'or', all tho way to the end of tho sentence. And that way it's infrastructure, which most of the speakers have requested it to bo placed. ~lR. VARIlADOEs ! have no objection to that whatsoever. That makes it ea0ier, I think, for everybody to follo~. That's where you get first. U0 56 VICE-CIIAIBI4AH VObPEi So you're not -- you're not -- your reco~aendation is that maybe we look at that language as opposed to? 14R. HERRILI, s Right. ~/hat we would consider is -- we'll Os back and look at it and see hcr~ it affects the res of Lhe ordinance and consider deleLing from the order 'or' to the end of the sentence, second phrase. MR. VARNADOEs Thank you, Hr. Chairman. HR. OFFITTs Hr. Chairman, the next speaker is George Keller0 follo~ed by D~lght Madeau. MR. KELLERs I have a couple of questions, and they're shor~. Does tho four units to tho acres also affect DRX and the density. 14R. BLANC'JARD l matter. DRX's are exempt, so it doesn't They're exempt from everything? HR. BLANCIIARDs Yes. VICE-CH/;IR}IAN VOLPE~ Aren't most DRX's, aren't they within our density requirements? MR. BbA~ICHARDs The majority are. VXCE-CHAIRIRAN VOLPEs I think most of them are four or under. 0025'7 case. 254 ~. BLANCHARDI Yeah, but it's a moot issue in this ~R. KELLERs ~/hat about the point system on density~ is that included in here too so we can go up to sixteen? HR. BLAtlCHARDs Ne calculated density based on the density rating system that's in the plan~ correct. ]~Ro XELL£R~ Because saying four is -- is really not lo, ica1 because we won't average four. ~R. BLA~I~iARDI Actually, saying four is logical because if you take tho base density that is allo~ed~ in density rating system, that's what its. ~R. XELLER~ ! would like to kno~ what's going to happen to the thirty-four hundred acres of comercial property that's no~ on the books and some that's included PUD's and DRI*So You can*t touch the DR! at a117 ~R. BLA~CHARD~ to the ordinance. HR. KEL:,ER~ DRI'a are exempt. PUD~a are subject You kno~, when I look at this thing, kno~ that we have to make a start, so when ! look at this thi~ thing this total, concerning the hundred and thirty-~even thousand units that have been approved and unbuilt, and we come do~n to the point on that that we*ye 0O258 got about eighteen thousand units that are going to be subject and quite a few of them are going to be exempt. You know, this is a lot of talk about nothing, as far as I can And also off commercial, when we talk about the commercial, and we've got forty-six hundred acres of commercial on the books, and we're coming down to the point where we're going to have eight hundred and forty acres subject and then beside t~at, remember, we are setting up a nm,~ commercial e~e~ week here. We're setting up new con~ercial on these cen~ers and givtng th~ c~rclal, so ~hak ~e~re doing -- is ~ho n~ stuff on ~ho activity cen~er figured in forty-eix hu~r~ acres of c~erctal? CllAX RKA}i HASSEs MR. B[,AHCHARD s Are you listening. Yes, ! am, 14R. KELLER~ Of the new stuff, that's included? Th~ new commercial -- it can be a, not an activity center -- if they go a hundred percent commercial, will that total out to forty-six hundred acres? MR. BLAt/CHARD l }10, MR. KELLER~ that's in addition to that, So, we're -- you know, basically 0O259 2.~6 speaking, honestly and truly I think we're beating our head against the walls and we*re coming up with nothing, as far as I can see, on this thing. So we're wasting a lot of time and a lot of money. You know, if we're not going to get anything out of this, if we're not going to do any good in control some type of growth and sake some decent planning, what is this -- it's an exercise in utility, ~ust like giving my wife $100.00 and telling her not to spend it. VICE-CHAIR~U~N VOI, PE~ ! think a part of that, Mr. Keller, is that the two ordinances have to be read together, and the checks and balances. What I'm hearing the staff saying is with an ordinance that has gone through several revisions, we've got, you know, all the acreage is not going to be subject to zoning reevaluation. There's really a s~all amount that's going to be subject to. ~.R. KELLEPs Eighteen hundred units, compared to a hundred and thirty-six units on the books now, and we're going to putting more on in the next year. And let's face it, we're going to have a half a million people here if we go on this basis, and somebody is going to have to come wi a lot of money. No sense kidding ourselves. It's like a O02G() 25'7 family deciding that they're going to have ten children, and the husband is working and making $10,000 a year. It won't work. We're adding a lot of people and we don't have the ~onoy, so, ! m~an, it's a mad affair, tlonestly and truly. I'm glad as I'm as old as I am because I'm only going to be probably living another five or ten more years in Collier County. ltaybe not that long. COI~IgI~IONER SItENAF~N s George. Only the good go young, ~iR. KELL£R~ t/ell, I'll tell you. I'm working on it. CHAIRP~ HASSEI llext speaker. VlCE-CHAIP~ VOI, P~.s Could ! ask a question that is related but unrelated. I kno~. Believe me, ! won't ask. One mt tho things wo hadn't talked about, our putting amine ti~e limitations within our PUD's, even those that are coming in right n~. And we have talked about that at different times, and ! don't know whether stair has given any consideration to that either in the context of this zonino reevaluation ordinance or otherwise, and ! don't want to dwell on it. But Just a question. I4R. BLANCHARDs It's required in our Growth OOi Gl 258 ~,anagemont Plan under one of our policies in Section Three of future land use element. Anyway, we we are considering it, and I think you will probably see some fairly soon. VIC£-CHAII~P~M~ VOI~PEs If that happens, will that impact uport what happening here. NR. BLA~ICHARDs Going forward, it will. A question of whether it could be applied retroactively. HR. HADEAU s Good ~vening. CHAIP. HAH HASS£s Good ~v~ning. HR. HADEAUs For the record, my n~e ts ~tgh~ ~deau, r~presen~i~ ~tlllam C. ~Anly and Ass~ia~es. ~ C~en~s ~il be addressing S~ction 2.44 of the ordinance on page ~en. ~o Board ad~t~d a C~ Plan on ~anua~ 10, 1989, and ~ho BCC adop~ th~ site d~ol~en~ plan pr~eas on ~rcb ~8~h, for tho i~pl~entatlon ~ tho n~ d~olo~nt 8C~iCCS. Since t~ time, pla~tn~ oc~tcea ~ve r~ised the: sub=i~tal r~tr~cnta two times. Pro~cc~ r~i~ ae~ices ~avc rcvlscd tbotr submittal r~uir~onts threo ~imoa. Al=o, thc cxperionccd cnvlro~ental revi~ s~af~ have been rcduc~ by tho four spcctalists and the htrin~ oi f~r n~ O02G :259 specialists. Furthermore, tho environmental revew of SDP was at one time one step~ i.e., one environmentalist reviewing tho plan throughout. And then It was fracttonaltzed into two stepo~ being one specialist for the preliminary stage and one specialist for the final stage. And no~ it's being reco~bined. ?he following county ordinances were amended which directly affect tho SDP process and ! understand that these are ~ust what wo wore able to locate in the several hours prior to this meeting. The zonin9 ordinance was amended four times. Tho environment impact was amended once. ~ater manag~en~ ordinance amonded was once, and the sub~ivision ordinanco was amended once. These ars all ordinances which would diroctly affec~ tho si~e development plan procedure. Additiona~l¥, there have been changed to regional, ota~e and f~deral regulations which directly affect the county*s review and not to mention inconsistent lnterpr~tationo of the National Fire Protection Association regulations b~tween the firs district and county reviewers. No~, in anticipation of possible exemptions for 00263 projects in the revie~ process, we were advised, verbally, that all of our SDP applications which may be affected by the conoistency or reevaluation ~hould bo submitted prior tc January 10 of this year. This is, like I say, based purely On On January 9 -- excuse-- January 11, the county made available for public revi~ a side sheet that provided for an exception for an application for final site development plans submitted prior to Janua~l 10 of this year. Currently the SDP process is two-step. The [,roliminary plan approves the land uso and the final plan approves the infrastructure to serve that land use. for this reason that we find it inappropriate for exemptionl to bo provided only for final applications when the right of uoe o{ the property was affirmed by the approval of the preliminary plan. And this ~ould bo further confused if the Board chooses to adopt tho ne~ site development plan procedure on 14arch 13ch, and this will provide for a one-step process. VICE-C[IAIRP~8 VOLPE~ l~at would be the can you tell off date, chon? MR. ldADEAU~ suggestion, rather than make it the 00 G4 261 effective date of the ordinance, would be to make an application for final site dc~¢elopment plan be submitted prior to January 10, 1989. If you made your application for the final site development plan procedure prior that date, then you should have a period of time to have the infrastructural problems resolved. HR. OLLIFFs He said January 10, '89, I believe. Staff simply doesn't agree with that. I think it's important that the Board remember that we're talking about 'up front' exemptions. Exemptions mean you're exempt from tho ordinance. It doesn't mean you lose I?our dovolcl~nent rights. There's still two moro steps that you go through through the process, as shown on the flowchart. Y~u go through a compatibility exception and you go through vested riohts. I vo~ted rights determination, if you read of criteria, includ~.o exactli? those ti?pea of rhinos and ars taken into ¢onoideration. CHAIRMAH [tASSE~ Your suggestion was what? Dill. 066I?£I Tho exemption in tho ordinance says January 100 1990. That has given people well over eighteen months since this idea was first brought up during the 262 Growth Fmnagement Plan development to deal with this. HR. MERRILL~ If I ~y, ~us~ fr~ a legal perspective, and khe aktorn~g probably kn~ =his. Legally, Section 2.4.4 need no~ ~en be in ~here. is ve~ l~suly ba~, I guess, on s~e ves~ed rights ~deas, but really the law Ss tha~ when -- wha~er law is in effec when the applica=ion is a~r~ed is the law that g~erns. But in ~bis ca~e, ~he ~aff did decide to ~e Janua~ 10, 1990. It wao orSgtna]ly Janua~ 10, 1989. ~. ~U~ ~nk y~, Co,~tssioners. CHAI RI~ HASSE ~ Thank HR. OLLIFF~ ~e nex~ speaker is Dolores P~llegreen6. The opoakor after tha~ Is ~rio ~Mendola. CO~II~IOUER ~DNIGHTz Dolores went h~o. CHAI~ HASSEz She missed ~ho heaL. }iR. OLLIFFs Your ~ho nex~ speaker Is here. Gentle.n, ~st of ~he projects I~s assxia~ed wt~h are single buildings on single lo~s, pla~t~ lo~s and reoular su~lvisions. People c~o ~o me and they wanC co b~ build a building, and I do the plans. ~ one, 9arCtcular, iL~ I wan~ to address 2.4.4 which O02GG Y~adoau a/ready spoke about. Again, the sight development ordinance was Hatch of this year. It is not eighteen months that we were aware of this. t~o were working in the process with severa! -- ! found out on February 9th, a =onth after some of my people ! quos; had already fallen through the cracks or that, you kn(~,~, they had passed to be vested on their properties. I want to give my speech which Hr. Blanchard and Hr. I'll give you this example Olliff are pretty tried of. one Job we have. I have a young veterinarian here in to~n went to schools hero locally, hag a small piece of property in Golden Oate~ gr~ up in tho system, lived in to~rn all of his life, went to school, got a degree, has his proper;y, wants to build a r. mall veterinarian clinic. It was very tough callino him on February loth and telling him that April Fools Day was he::e, because we all thought that April was when people were going to get shocked. Tho reason not too many people are here tonight is because a whole bunch of others are going to go out April ls~ telling people that their property is probably going to be roevalua tod. 264 ~;e felt we were working in the system, we thought wo were pursuing this gentleman's project as it should be pursued, and again, may not be vested. We feel that and some others are deserving of being vested, and ! also feel that anyone who has paid a fee to the county should at that ti~e be in the system and should be allowed to continue it to achic, ve what they're trying do. There was no ~ush in my office to get a bunch of plans in, and ! certainly don't want any moro, to beat tho system. These were Just folks that were following the natural process. So to be told that eighteen months ago we should have known about that, you know, ! would have had to have a medium or a OuiJa board. VI¢£-¢tlAIRMA}I VO~,PF.s Just in terms of this plan, l~r. Lai4endola, when did this gentle,an decide that he wanted to build this facility? I4R. LaI~Ei~OLA~ He came to mo sometime probably earl -- maybe lat~ December, early January. But ~here is still -- ! want to go through the SDP here. The iDP process that ! have a problem with is not totally county problems. Some of i~ has to do with state. It's a s~ll veLerinarian c~inic. We had ~o go and ge~ D~ approval. We had to get a letter written back to us Just tc tell us the county could handle it themselves, but that -- they lost tho original letter, and we finally got that thing a couple days ago. I'm looking for an individual. I Just feel the January 10th, you know, was a total surprtze and that it should definitely be moved up, moved later. VICE-CIiAIRHAN VOI~PEs Mr. haMendola, Mr. Blanchard's cca.-~ents, though, that the situation this -- your client finds himself in, he's Just -- it may not bo enough time fez ux~mption because of this provision, but he still is proceeding ti,rough process and ho is reviewed. So it's not like -- MR. La}iENDObAs Pardon mo0 Co~lssioner. }lo will be rovic*~ed0 but he was already told basically that if he is not Yuoted in tho areas, that is not one of the areas that lo going to be recommended for commercial use, although it' in an area whore there are several other c~orcial projects. In fact -- VICE-OlAXRHANVOhPEs you're talking about? HR. LaMENDOI~s This is Oolden Oate Estates Goldcn Gate. 0026:) ~66 master plan. MR. LaM~)OLA~ So we don*t have him in a Other folks have projects on the East Trail that are going to be in the oame predicament. They*rs going to have residential property -- nobody wants to build a house on the East Trail -- but the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance is going establish these areas for commercial. But a lo~ of folks are going to lose properties -- co~,orcial zoning on properties that they felt for years arl R rated co~mercial and will always be commercial. Okay. Thank you. ~. OLLIFF~ Chairman, I have Bruce Anderson, followed by John Farquhar. VICE-~IRMA~I VOLPEs Hr. Olliff, how many more speakers do we have? CIlAIR}~JJt HA$SEs They're growing. MR. OLLIFF~ Four after Mr. Farquhar. CHAI~J~I HASSE: Twenty minutes ago, it was four opeakers ago. And Bruce, would you go. ~. ~IDERSO~I~ Good evening. My name -- for the record, my name is Bruce Anderson~ 267 and ! have three issues that ! want to speak to you about. Wu have Just had some discussion about what -- what the cutoff date should be. 3.44. ¥ ICE-¢H~I R~AIq VODPE s ! would like to talk about Section Anderson, I've heard this twice. Is there something different? ¢OI'~t,I$$IONER SAU~IDEIi$; We have heard this before. don't mean to be rude. kno~ have boon here all evening long, and it's not fair to you. DuC if you have something now and different or sc~ething, that wu haven't considered that would be helpful, ~R. A~WERSON~ Yes, ! do. CHAIRMAN IIASSE~ What did you say this way? ~R. A~WERSO~{~ 3.44. That page is probably well worn by no~. ~IAIRMAN HASSE: Yes, it's Just that. MR. A~ER~ON: The reason that that section is in there -- there are two reasons. ~mber one is that anybody who lo in tho application process has a legitimate development exp~ctation and they have already spent money to file the application and follo~ through on it, and they may have their bank financing in place or trying to get it. If 00 ? ! you force them to go through a lengthy hearing process, that may kill their development plans entirely, and their financing. That's one reason. Tbs other reason Is because of what your Comp Plan says right no~. And it says that until notice of inconsistency is given and that you're going to be subject to down zoning that you are entitled to receive development permits based on the zoning classification in effect. That's why that nection is in t.~ere. And that's why we're asking -- everybody has knc~rn since the settlement agreement was ctgned that April 1st wa~ the drop dead date. But according to this ordinance, the real drop dead date was January 10th. And ! think that you chould either move the date back for application to be filed until April 1st and then put people under a strict timetable, that they use it or lose it by January, '91 for com;ercial and J,~nuary, '92 for everybody else, that they bav~. to convenes com~truction or they lose whatever exemption or vesting they have. That's reasonable. CHA I RMAR UASSE~ then, aren't you? MR. ABDERSON You're extending the entire thing, Not the entire thing, no. They have to co~ence construction by next January if they're zoned coc~ercial. Those ,lanuary, '91 and '92 dates are still in the C~p Plan even with the now a~endments that you have to have the rcevaluation ~ono b~. VICE-CHA~R~ VO~PE~ You don't ~ave any problem that approach b~lng tnc~siDtent ~ith our settl~ent agre~ent ~th DCA, do VICE-C~I~}I VODPE: ~at'~ ail. HR. ~ER~O~I: You rec~nizo ~ha~ it's ves~ed. Bu~ ~h~ lose ~ha~ pro~ection if th~ don'~ c~enc~ construction b~ those dates. That's within ~our di0cretion, ~o o~cond thin~ I ~an~ to c~nt on is 4.21, ~btch l~ tho definition o[ th~ unified plan of d~olo~ent. ~e current ordinanc~ draft rec~nizes only two kinds, ~D's and residential plats. There Is glaring ~ission, and that t~ phased cond~iniums, whore it's been declaration of cond~inium recorded In the p~lic record Collier County t~t sets out a p~sing schedule. ~t ~ght to be roc~nizod as a unified plan of d~el~ent, because ~bat's exactly w~t it is, and I don*t kn~ w~ th~ have 00273 I II III III I IIII I IIIII I Ii i~l llllllr i llll 2?O been left out. VICE-Ci~IRHA~VOLPEs coemuent on that. MR. MERRILLs Merrill, could someone We can consider that. We considered a number of different planning developments that were submitted on the list. I don't have an answer right at thi time either, but we can consider that. VIC£-CllAIRMAN VOLPE; Hr. Olliff, do you have any -- is there that ~omething else? MR. OLLIFFs That's something that I don't have off the top of my head. Other than I think the declarations are not filed through Collier County, they're filed through the state lc vel, ac I understand the process, and then they are recorded here, So tho process is sort of outside of our confines hero and it's ~uat one of those that -- we have looked at unified plan of development as being those that were unified when they came to you for approval, and we sort of looked at that being the scenario that we're looking at to use plan of development under. And you also nocd to realize that because of the way the ordinance is structured, unified plans of development are then included into the improved property definition for 2'71 those who have commenced construction, so you*re expanding on exemptions that. ~fR. HERRILL~ And, Commissioners, the other point I do kno~ that the county attorney's office, 14ark Lawson in particular, had sc~e specific reasons why not to include. VIC£-CHAIRKAtl VOLPE~ It's not something you've overlooked. HR. HERRILLs No, no, no. ¥IC£-CHAIRMANVOLPEI Considered, it was consciously taken up. And Tom Just said. 14R. HERRILLs Yes. But we will look at it again and get an explanation from P. ark as to why it was excluded. lIR. AND£RBONs And then the last item Is in regard tc development agreements. Am I to understand that you have gotten an opinion separate ordinance authorizing We were told that there is one have shortly. When ~r. Blanchard was that you do have to have a VICE-CHAIRI4A}! VOLPE~ being drafted and wo should 14R. ANDER$ONs Okay. discussing the proposal that has been bandied about at the 00 275 2"/2 Planning Commission about develol~ent agreements, he said the issue was about whether to approve develo~nent agreements that were inconsistent with the plan. And certainly that proh~bit~d by ~he d~elo~ent agreemen~ s ta tu res. But I want to ~nt ~t, again there ignore certain pr~isi~s in the ~r~th ~ag~ent Plan whe~ ~h~ don~t suit a narr~ interpre~a~ion. Policy 5.1 r~ferred to ~o an existing d~elo~en~ order which constituteo a reduction in or equivalent density or intensity shall bo de~ conststen~ with ~he future la~ ~t I pr~ose to use d~el~ent ~gre~ent~ ~or to enc~ra~o po~le to voluntarily and oay~ All right, I will reduce ~ intensity~ I will reduce ~ density. Y~ have the option of accepting it or rejecting it. It's an optional gr~th ~nag~ent t~l that would bo con~,otont with Policy CHAIRHA}I HASSE: MR. A~ERSON~ encourage some of my clients. VICE-CHAIRHA2! VOLPE~ But Ho~ many would do that, I wonder? I kno~ that I would certainly you're coming at it 00276 273 backwards° though. You're coeing at it from the person who has sixteen -- coming down from sixteen rather than going to up from four. So if ! was looking at four instead of oixteen, I would come in too and negotiate down. MR. ARDER$ON~ At least, give you the oppor -- try it. You're going to find people that.fall between the cracks. And a development agreement would be a useful tool. It has to be through the same kind of public hearings aa a rezoning does. And one thing that about development agreements that ! think you would like, Commissioner Volpe, based on your carlier cerement, is that they have a five-year limit. You know, if we have had five-year limits on PUD's before, we probably wouldn't find ourselves in the position we're in now dealing with this ordinance. VIC£-CHAIRMA~! VOl, PEt I'm happy to hear that we've got an ordinance that's going to be forthcoming where we're going to have so~e time limitatina. also. CiCA I RPJd! 11A$$£~ HR. ANDER$O~I ~ }tR. OLLIFF~ It should have been in the ORI's have the~. I have a handout. John rarquhar. 274 CHAIRMAN HASSEs MR. ANDER~N ~ MR. FARQUHAR i Were you through, Mr. Anderson? Yes. John Farquhar. Commissioners, I would lust like to address Section 2.4.8 in the zoning reevaluation ordinance which deals with the requirement, all of the exemptions go through a Growth Management Plan amendment. I believe that in accordance with settlement agreement with DCA, Policy 3.1.K, which was required by DCA aa part of your settlement an agreement with thom, they require a growth planning amendment for the compatibility exemption exceptions, but they do not rsquire a growth management amendment for the other exemptions. And one of the main problems with the exemption, if it has to go through the growth management amendment process, is the permits t~t are issued under it during that time period arc contingent permits, and financing and other things on a contingent pc=mit is not very feasible, and that's an issue that I would like to address. I have discussed ic with the county attorney's office, and I have sent some material to Mr. ~err111 to review that lssus, and it seems fairly clear that this is not necessary. V I CE-CHAI RP~N VOLP£z housekeepi ng? HR. I/ERR! LI~ s exemptions? HR. FAROU~R s HR. HERRILI~ ~ This is something more than You're talking about the amendments for Right. read your letter, and when I read throuoh your letter, basically you -- I don't know. It appeared to me that you were saying that exe=ptions aren't allowed under the settlement agreement and/or the current Comp Plan. That's basically what you said. And therefore, we could we should not re, quire a Comp Plan amendment for exceptions. That basically argued against having exemptions in tho ordinance at a11. ~1~.. FAR(JI$11ARs ~hat I uald in any letter and what the required change by DCA says lo thats No development orders shall bo issued which are inconsistent with the Crowth ~4anagoment Plan except for preliminary development where conq~atibilit¥ exception has been granted or where a position determination for vested riohts has boon made. So my interpretation of this and DCA opinion is either it needs to be a compatibility exception, which would require an amendment, or these things need to be considered 00 ?.9 2'76 as vested, which ! think in many other ordinances that other countieo have adopted, these up front type of collections, are presumed vested and therefore not subject to an amendment and therefore fully complied with the s~andards tha~ DCA has ae~. ~R. ~RI~i I beli~e the county ~ould be making a bi~ ~istake if th~ c~sider~ the ex~ttons vested rights I think t~t c~ld set a bad prec~ent for a cour~ case if a court -- if one of these appltcaLiono does go through ~his ~hole pr~oos and is unhap~ ~ith ~he resul~ and decides ~o sue, I ~bink the c~rt could oay, well, these county considers ~hese ex~p~iona veo~ rights when in fac~ ~hey are nec. These go far beyond vested rights, ~ho exemp~ons do. For lns~anc~ ~he a~lica~ion pr~ision has been ~alk~ ebou~ qui~o a bit~ and ~hat is s~ething that is far far b~ond ves~ed rights. VICE-C~IP~I VO~PEs ~'s no~ the c~on law vested rights ~M~ we heard fr~? ~IR. MERRIL~ No, I don~ kn~ disagree with wha~ Ma Or~b~fsky, D~bbte, had indicated, and we are going ~o ~ork ~haL o~e language on ~ha~ on ~ho ~equa~e ~lic FacillLiea Ordinance. Bu~ C~ la a ~o~ally dlfforon~ situa~ion ~hon 277 we're talking about these exemptions. VICE-CHAIPJiAH VOLPE~ This is certainly a lot less than the co~non law vested rights. ~IRo FAR(~UHARI But ~ny of those, if ~ could point out, who are intend~ to bo situations where it was clear en~gh that y~ did no~ n~ed ~en go thr~gh the vested right~ pr~edure. And~ ye~, there o~e of th~ who are notj bu~ there are ~ny of th~ where if you wen~ thr~gh ~he vented rights pr~edure, you w~ld be f~nd to be ves~ed. Bu~ the~e yore to be up front vesting basically, so ~ha~ did not have to go thr~gh all tho pr~ur~s to arrive at the conclusion of rooting. ~e way this is presently ~orded, tho things tha~ v~ero ~a~ ~st clearly vested~ as well as the ones tha~ he ~u~t mentioned, are tho ones that ~ve to go ~hrough a confusion un~il thereto a Or. th Eanag~ent Plan amen~ent. And quite clearly, under the inten~ of part of tho s~ipulaLion wich DCA ~aa t~t th~re vested, you don~ ne~ a plan amend=ant. And many of these things are clearly things tha~ wore said to bo veat~. Like, for exa~lo, the boating pe~tt. CO~ISSIOIIER SAU}WERS~ I don~t ~hink y~ have a 002 i 2'/8 whole lot of support on the Board to change that. If you've got oome other lsoueo -- ! don't know how the rest of the Board feelo. ~. FARQUHAR~ That's the only issue that I wished to bring up. ~ank y~. ~. OLLIFF= Anthony Ptres, roll,ed by Lar~ Basik. 1~. PIRES~ Chairman, He~er~ of ~he Board. CHAI~ HASSE~ H~ can you be o~e ba~ and cheerful? }~. PIRES~ ~Iondorful caffeina~ed coffee you have in the back ~4R. OLLIFF~ Did you hear CUAIR~U IIAgS~ And rom~bor. MR. P~RES~ ~e ~orty-n~ne, ~e forty-eight. I'll keep ~: at two m~uteo or not. CHRISti HASSE~ I'll watch the clock, then, so you don' t have 14R. PIRES= ~o only area that I need to addre=s, or requcs~ you build on, is ~horo you ~ve d~el~ent and d~elo~ent agre~ents. I ~ve ~poken ~ith ~r. Blanc~rd 279 before on this. My only concern is that tho mechanism that's currently provided for in the ordinance, in Section 10.6 and 10.7, deals solely with development agreement when you're applying for a compatibiity exception. I think you need to provide a m~chanism for a separate free-standing development agreement to be entered into with the county by an individual who wisheo to develop the property in a manner of intenoity and density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And the way this reads now it's only in conjunction with the compatibility exception. That's one problem. Number two. VIC£-CI{AIR~LAN VObPE~ Why would you need such a dove lopmont agreement7 ~R. PIRZ$~ If you have a zoning district or say a FdD's, for example, that would not qualify for one of the exemptions or )therwise qualify vesting. You don't want to wait to go throuqh tho rezontng cycle, the consistency and rozoning as part of this zoning reevaluation, but wish to come into tho county with a petition for development agreement to b able to get going with a project in a manner consistent with the plan. 280 VICE-CHAIRIdAH VOI, PE~ ! think Hr. Blanchard told me we talking about early determinations. And ! think, the little I kno~ about the process -- I mean I chink we're getting ready to move on this fairly quickly once we adopt the ordinance. Aren't we, Hr. Blanchard? ~. B6A~ICitARD: This, you hear-- the concern that Z would expresB to Tony before is that using development agreements to make it consistent with the future land use element is that I have a concern of whethez that preempts that from the nme land development regulations and evorythino else as aa development standards, and that it would have to be -- to be acceptable, it would have to be It is, you kno~, my opinion that that does not Do you understand, Mr. Pires? Yes. t~e have discussed it a number The other part of the process, through a public hearing process before the Planning Commission and tho Board, aa to whether one of the elc*ments of that development agreement would be that that development did have Co comply with the ne~ land development regulations. 00284 281 Part of the problem -- as ! said, it's tied right no~, it's tied in with tho compatibility exception, number one. llu~bor two, you can't get any building permits until there lo an amendment process to tho Growth 14anagement Plan at tho next available Growth 14anagoment Plan amendment cycle to r~fl~ct all applications for compatibility exception. I think it would be appropriate to have one free-standing exception saying if you want, you can come in and petition for d~velopment agreement to develop the property in a manner and a level of intensity and density lose than or equal to that allo~ad by tho Comprehensive Plan. And once you achieve that, you can then get your d~volo~ent order and your permits in order to proceed, and it's not providt~d for. CI{AIRI~ H~$$£~ Do you see something wrong with that? ~ay we vic~c~] it as the whole development agreement issue, and ~a hood to take a look at ho~ it works as a ~hole. ~R. OL, L, IFF; Hy only concern is that's basically a rozoning and, you know, for a rezoning to go through tho ~e'11 take a look at that. ! think process, like your water meter -- through your environment advisory board or your planning or through whatever procussus, I suppose, to take a look at this new development. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ Didn't yo~ say that this is going through the same process. CHAIRMAN HASSE ~ It will have to go through the same No chan~e in that. MR. MERRILL: When you're changing zoning islands on land pursuant to a development agreement, you're going through rczoning a~ well. MR. OLLIFF~ ! guess we can go ahead and look at it. ! want to try to see tho advantage either way. MR. PIRES~ Wull, once again, if you -- the process, you ~ay not have to go through all of the necessary, reasonable steps. You have to go through the criteria to address, and you can establish an ordinance that says the criteria that -- the procedure that you will follow. In ordinance. But ! think this gives an opportunity -- if you're Just changing the level of intensity and density and the staff looks at the rest of the existing document and applies the criteria and ~aybe go through the review, then we don't have to wait for this whole cycle to occur. that. CIIAIR}LA}i HASSE~ Do you want to Look at this7 MR. 14ERRILLs Yes, we'll definitely take a look at VICE-CHAIRMANVOLPEs Olliff?. CHAIRK~! HA$gEI What? Is this the last speaker, have four. How -- you Just had four and wi listened to five people. They're like rabbits. (Discussion had off tho record.) Good vorning. Larry Basik. HR. DASIKs M~rco Island. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Resident of Good morning. ~IR. BASIK~ ! would like to address the situation of off-site concessions that should into the exemption process And it oays basically if you deed over an e~aement or laoment or so~ethino on your site, what might happen to come for an exemption. I'm talking about a situation like -- what happened 0028? 284 in my case wao that roads were put in, the project was stopped by DER. We had to go into }~ational Parks for about $30,000 to remedy the situation. The road that was put in by the county on Jurisdictional lands. $o all Iem saying is that I think something should count. In the case of a developer having to go and buying acreage and deed it to DNR or the state or something. I think that should count for so~ething towards the point system in exemption. VIC£-CtIAIRMAtl VOI~PEs As opposed to tho cou~tyl is that what you're saying? Is that the point? MR. BASIK~ Well, it's Just that whether it's a piece of land that wa~ deeded to tho county or you had to go off cite and you had to buy acreage to deed to DNR or, in my cace, I had to go into international parks to construct wetlands in there. I think that that should bo into consideration .tn the exemption process. I understand there's a lot of developers that have go out and buy acreage and deed it over as an environmental iepact to the project. CHAIRMAN HASSE~ Could you respond to that, Mr. Olli[f? 285 ~;R. OLLIFFs Only that ! think that -- I'm not sure the development dedication and contribution and -- of this ordinance doesn*t deal with that. It does talk about any governmental agency, and it talks about land deeded to those governmental agencies as rc~luirod for that zoning that was issued. So ! think that'a covered under that section. ~R. BASIKs ! asked }ir. Blanchard, and ! understood that it wasn't. CI~AIP~IAN [IASS£1 Mr. Bla~,chard. MR. OLLIFF~ One other thing that I'd add. You know, this is not going to address every particular peculiar incident that has happen~l. And in those cases where a developer has done so~ething or bu~n required ~o do o~tbing that was ~d and ~t of the realm of the ordinance, thc're going to bo ~lo to and, I assume, to a vested rights pr~eoa, have the hearing officer hear =hat and detemine tba= yes wha~ he did go through -- C~AI~I HASSE= ~pecting t~t y~ Just c~ldn't ~kc =hat arrang~un~, could you through bhe c~rts or MR. OFFITT s is that if it's a requirement o! Well, tho way that the exemption reads the development order, that 00589 286 counts. It's a conveyance or dedication. Tt has to meet those requirements. But that -- os if It's a requirt~ent of the developu~nt approval, then ! think :hat t t may be -- in thi~ particular instance. If it ~ao to correct something that was an error, thouoh, on t~.e p~rt of tho development, or s~e~htng like that, I'm not sure that it ~ould apply. CilAI ~ HAS~E s Okay. ~R. BA~IKI Tho second lo a situation t~t you startS, tho ~P -- a~r~ed prior to final SDP~s being pr~eased. ~o got caught tn t~ situation ~horo ~e ~nt and /il~ the proll~tna~ ~P~ paid ~r -- the funds, and chon ~o ~ero ~old that ~e ~d to file an SNP~ ~hich ~o flied. But n~ tbs restrictions ~ pr~oosing the SDP until tho accountability has been pried -- county has to appr~a tho 5HP. And ~haL tako~ six ~ntho, so t~t kn~ko you ~ the process of being ex~mpt. CHAIRlt~! HA$$Es Ho~ would you address tMt? I don't u~era~a~. ~o ~ust -- Is this a pro}ect specific MR. ~iERRILLs ~lR. BASIgi VIC£-~IAII~N VOLPEs 287 you had with your project? BR. BASIKs Well, ! think that -- that's the way it has been with our projects. But you go in for your ZDP and it's detemin~ tha= y~'ro on fil~ with ~P, the ~in~ is ~ ~h~ Jus~ shelf the pr~essing of the ~P until y~ get the appr~al of the SHP, which y~'ve got to go get -- VICE-~IR VObPEs -- on the p~lic petition. HR. OFFI~s {~dreseing tho audience) -- s~divtsi~ ~s[or plan possible, and not much flexibility either through state law or our ~n county ordinances for thai. HR. BASI~{ I ~y ~ke a suggestion. Ii y~ all~ tho ~P to bo pr~ess~ a~ as long as ihs ~P is in pr~ess, then [h~ c~ld condition [haft y~ ask ihs ~P [o a~e s~Jec[ to ihs County Board or Con~nission approving the SHP. CIIAIRHAN lderrill? HR. HERRIL~s Can you figure that one out, I~r. think that what the bottom line is ii that they want to get around tho existing process so that they can get a final approval so that they fall within one of tho exe~ptions, is the best I can figure it. 00291 288 COH1HISSIOH SAUNDERS~ Early basis, HR. BA$IK~ We're not trying to ~et out of the filing of tho master plan. MR. MERRILL,; MR. B~IK~ I understand. But the department that handles this thing is saying, 'We're not going to process it until you accomplish It,' then that Just puts you out of the time clement and there's no way you can make it by April 1st. Why can't it be conditional? ¥ou'11 look at that? HR. HERRILI~ s Calk Co John maybe. COI~H!SSION£R GOODNIOIITs Yeah, wo'11 look into that and I'll think that the important situation here is that over the last couple o! yearo, Chore's been an on-going workinos between the county and thio properCy0 and it Just keeps getting bogged down into dlffercnt things because of some state grants and some different thindo like that. And, you kno~, the way I'm looking at it is~ ?his a process that has kind o! gotten bogged dora in the office, and os I chink chat we've got to make -- whether he's vested or not, because he's not going to have the number o[ BMP~s~ 289 or whatever they are, whatever the date is. by that drop dead day o! April 1st or I don't kno~ the particular project, but from what I've heard it doesn't sound like he's exempt Or vested, I don't know about vestedz but it does not sound like ),e'~ ex-.rapt under what -- I believe he's referring to is 2.4.4, the application section. gR. OFFITTs This is an extremely complicated proJect~ and -- kno~s anything about it -- CEultiple speakers - unreportablo.} }4R. DORRII, I,s We spent about an hour and a hal! on thio with John ~da~ewski explaining the situation, and it was exactly the same as tho other tall gentleman who camo down, who ~ao dolnq work ~ ~ the trailer park, wan~ us to ~d=ini~trativoly -- the sta[[ to have the ~er to administratively appr~e, et cetera, et cetera, betore the actual subdivielon ~ater plan was appr~ed. ~ have already met ~tth the 9entle~n, and Jo~ through a very detailed explanation o[ the ztate la~ and MR. MERRILhs So y~ are no~ retreading, rheas any 290 change in that area? HR. OFFITTs Again, ! think this is one of tho complicated processes where I don*t think the ordinance can be broad enough tO address these kind of cases. But I think, kno~ing what I kn~ abou~ ~his pro~ec[~ there are enough federal funding issues and c~nLy assistance issues in this LhaL he~s going ~o go ~hrough a ye, Ling pr~e~s and i[~s going ~o do s~e~hing [~[ a hearing officer ta going Lo ne~ s~e help~ in ~e~s of a~ [ha~ slags, ~o devel~ il. Fr~ w~[ I kn~ of Peter Oiselb~ck~ foll~ by [he last speaker LhaL ~vo, Herb Savage. VICB-CHAIR~II VObPB~ ~te~re hal acc~ing any more. HR. OISS~BE~t l~m Peter Oisselbeck. [~m [na c~ercial d~olo~on[ business heze~ both on ~he sales and lbo d~el~e~ side. I think ~e ~ve been ~ving a little fun al expense of [he co Jn~y Lehigh[. [ [hi~ L~L ~e oughL [o rename all of this [he ~er's ReLir~en[ CHAIRHAN HASS£~ they could retire on. HR. GISSELBECK~ There are plenty of other things I hope there isn't -- this hysteria 291 about the amount of comercial property that's out there zonod. The reason why I say that is ! think there's an undercurrent that we've got too much cc~r=ercial zoning out there, and ! think there should be a distinction there between having cos~nercial zoning and actually having co~ercial buildings based on that. I mean co~er¢ial building -- c~erctal property is ~ro ousceptiblo to the lawo of supply and dc~nd than most of your real estate that's out there. Certainly co..,,erciol zoning -- or co~nercial building, I should say, roll.s the building of reaidential pr~erties. You I~ve to have com~ercial properties in order to ~ake -- you have to have residential properties in order to make commercial p~opcrtioo r~kc sense. ~ov, if the co~ercial properties that are out there that arc being built are being built in areas whcre they're not going to l. avc any buaincoa, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it doesn't make sense to put any more out there. In fact, you won't see tho intense special commercial developments until you see the residen~ial dovelo~nenta out there. So I think that if we have four thousand acres in co~nerctal dc*velopm~nt when we only need two thousand, then ! think all you're going to see out tLore i~ the two thousand. You don't get money from lenders to build projects that don't make sense. Thank S, HR o SAVAGE Island. Herb Savage, Architect, from l~arco I've ~ust been speaking ~o Hr. Nerrill. On a daily situation, I don't knov why you have to say final site development plan. l~hen that ordinance was passed, it was called site dovolol~ont plan. It didn't specify wh~ther preliminary or final. development a petition, And I think I'll ~ust -- make site not ftnal. And ! don't kno~ why it's set for trial. Don't ask you to consider that. That doesn't make sensei no~, does it? Anyvay, I'd like to ask a question about the forty-two hundred acres, ! believe it is, in the commercial and in reference to activity area. And I go to ]4arco Island again, and you kno~ we have discussed this and resolved it. Buc I can't i~agine a master plan of ~arco Island that has 293 been through the cabinet of the State of Florida, the Corps of Engineers of the United States of America -- and for yearn, 1964, it has been a plan that hc~ been in existence, developed completely, and here we're saying that residential property around the Publix market can now be changed to be co~.erctal if it's in the activity area~ yet the commercial property all around Marco Island where the emergency center is, the First Bank of Florida, all those areas can no longer be co~ercial because they haven't been built on. And I see all sorts of improved property. remember Deltona selling lots for years and years. property was a developed lot. ~low we're talking about construction of building. Definition. But my concern there is that here we have two activity areas. And ! think they gave up activity areas four years ago in planning. It seems you have to have oix-lane high~.ayn going between activity areas. We've got enough problems now. We're -- no longer do we know about neighorhood ntores~ The mom and pop store, living in the back of their otore~ mo~ and pop takes care o! the neighborhood, they nee what's going on in the neighborhood. We don't do those can Improved things any more. Ne're all putting everybody in this group over here and this group over here, and ! think activity area~ is the worst thing we could possibly have done. ! only ask that Harts Island, which has been a master plan since '64, that it be left as it is. TPmt may not have anything to do with tonight's meeting, except we are talking about activity areas and cc~nercial property in this county. UI~IDE}iTIFIED s HR. SAVAGE So of them on ~arco Island. Pardon me7 ~o of year. Yeah. One ~here gckerd's drugstore is, one where Publix drugstore is -- or, grocery store. UIilDE~IFIEDs And that's it. }IR. gAVAGEs And that's it. And we have James, Oenoel's {phonetic), Deltona Corporation. Planned it in 1962 and '63, and they were all through all of the agencies~ including the county in those days, and the state agencies. And it has worked magnificently. And all those people who~ whether they're Europeans or Americans or whomever you might be, bought thio property, and then I suppose they'll all be co~ing before special you and paying some attorneys" fees to have you reconsider it. 295 And I think it ought to be left the way it was. can't imagine a state legisature who awarded the Deltona people the awards on the magnificency -- developed and tho State of Florida not paying attention co that one fully planned community. I hope you consider that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAn! HASSE~ Mr. Of f Itt. ER. OFFITT~ l'fr. Chairman, I have very few chosen comments. I think I've only got two items, that I have listed, that I think I heard so~e Board direction r.o go back and possibly make sOme revisions. In terra of the definition on c~a~encoment of construction in terms of that substantial language. ! thought I/r. Herrill had both of CHAI RI~! HA$SE ~ Do that. MR. OFFITT~ th/~n. And development agreement, in terms o! consistency densities and intensities that Mr. Pires brought up. And other than that, I didn't have much listed in termsi of any specific direction. I've got some things ! think we're going to look at. VICE-CHAIRMAN VOLPE~ I think that's right, Mr. offitt. CHAIRMAN HASSE: Substantial construction. You say that might be something to address. VIC£-CHAIP.~I~ VOI~PE~ ~ think that what I heard was that substantial was s~ething that would be accuptablo to ~taff and to -- those ~vo been c~ented on. !:£. CUYLER~ Yeah, we'll check that. l:r. ~mirman, procedurally -- this is a public hearino, but in this cas., unlike some of our other ones, wc actually close this public hearing. we have another one advertised for the 21st. CHAIPJ.~H HA$$£~ All right. MR. CUYb£Rs that -- CHAI~iAZ! MR. public hearing. CHAIRMA~I HA$$E~ And you ne~! to announce publicly liarch tho 21st. 5~05 p.m., tho 21st, is the second All right. Well then, I'm stating that the next meeting is -- a continuance of this one, is D!arch the 21st. MR. CUYLER: Hot a continuance. We'll close this public hearing. The next public 297 hearing has been advertised for Wednesday, CHAIRMAN HASSEs Itaking a motion? VICE-¢HAI RHAN VOI~PE s ¢lo~e this public bear/no. CO~4I SSIOI~£R SAUND£RS s Second. COIIMI SSIOI~ER SHE}lABAN: Seconded. the 21st. make that motion that CHAI RKMI BASSEI ¥ ICE-CIIAI R}t~H VOI~PEs held on Harch 21st. ~tAIR~ BASSEs Right. ~J ourn~. (Meeting ad~~ at 11s15 p.m.) All those in favor. The next public hearing will be 1 2 3 4 S 7 8 9 lO 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 298 STATE OF FIX)RIDA ) COU~rlT OF COLLIER ) I, Connie $. Ports, }~otary Public and Deputy Official Court Reporter of the State of Florida, and the 20th Judicial Circuit of Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me, at the time and place as stated in the caption hereto, at Page I hereof~ that I was authorized to and did attend said proceedings and report the same by computer-assisted Stenotype~ that the foregoing computer-assisted typewritten transcription consisting of pages numbered ~ through 298, inclusive, is a true and accurate transcript of my Stenotype notes of the transcript of proceedings taken at said time. IH HITIIESS WIIERF~)F I have hereunto subscribed my name thio 21st day of ~4arch, 1990. Connie S. Ports, Notary. Public State of Florida at I~arge Deputy Official Court Reporter 299 Harch 7, I990 There being no further buslnesa for the Good of the County, the leering was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 11:15 P.M. BOARD OF CO~ COIOll$$ZORER$ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO OOVERNINO BOARD(S} SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL :S :C, OILEg, .C~ERK [~ ~~ ~in2te~proved ~ the ~ard on ~H~]:? :' al presented ~ or a~ corrected