Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/24/2001 S (LDC Amendments)October 24, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 24, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:10 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Hennin ALSO PRESENT: Tom Olliff, County Manager Jim Mudd, Assistant County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney John Dunnuck, Community Dev. Administrator Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA October 24, 2001 5:05 P.M. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITFED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FO.R, THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE. October 24, 2001 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure b~ provided by Commission members. An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which Includes the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals: Section Two, Findings of Fact: Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Article 2, Zoning, Division 2.2 Zoning Districts, Permitted uses, Conditional Uses, Dimensional Standards, Division 2.7. Zoning Administration and Procedures; Article 3, Division 3.5 Excavation; and readopting certain amendments to Division 2.5 Signs, Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADF TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-838'4. 2 October 24, 2001 October 24, 2001 ORDINANCE 2001-60 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Land Development Code meeting. It's approximately 5:10 in the afternoon. If you'd all stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pretty soon it won't be "ladies and gentlemen" anymore. It'll be "lady and gentlemen." CHAIRMAN CARTER: "Lady and gentlemen." Well, for awhile. At any rate, here we go. Ms. Murray, do you want to take us through the process, please? MS. MURRAY: Thanks. I'm Susan Murray, current planning manager, and good evening. This is the second and final hearing for the special cycle 2-A of your Land Development Code amendments, and tonight is the night when you'll be taking final action on the proposed amendments. If you would like, I would just like to go and talk about the issues that we discussed last time and assume that if it wasn't discussed or wasn't an issue, that you are okay with the amendments as written and-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: If it's all right with the board, what we'll do here is move through the non -- the ones that raised -- that did not raise concern, that people were comfortable with, and that would be appropriate so that we might have an agreement that we're all right on those before we deal with that which require more discussion. MS. MURRAY: Unless you have registered speakers to some items that were not an issue last time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dunnuck, do we have registered speakers other than the PUDs? Page 2 October 24, 2001 MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. You have two registered speakers, actually, for the public participation plan and at this time none for the PUDs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excellent. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: All right. Then I'll go ahead and start with the public participation plan, though. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you want to guide us on which page in all of this? MS. MURRAY: Yes, thank you. You got a new handout. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MS. MURRAY: All right. And the only reason it's new is the county attorney's office had their opportunity to review. They made, I would say, non-substantive changes. They were just basically grammatical corrections and maybe some reorganization or rewording of paragraphs, nothing that affected the regulations as -- as you had seen them previously. Okay. And we will work from the handwritten page numbers in the middle of the page. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The first item of discussion is the public participation meeting -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- and that begins on page 1. So if you skip the first four pages, that's the summary sheet, and you go to -- the fifth page is page 1. And, specifically, we were talking about the -- who will erect the 32-square-foot sign for public hearing notice. And that's really found on page 3, right in the middle of the page, paragraph 3. And if you will recall, the discussion centered around whether or not the staff should be responsible for erecting that sign or the applicant. And as the regulations are currently drafted, it is the applicant that will have the responsibility of doing that, and that is the Page 3 October 24, 2001 preferred option by staff. Other -- You asked us to look at other options. The first option, of course, would be that staff would be required to erect the sign. The problem we have with that is that we're really not equipped to do that. We may have to engage the services of another department that has the equipment available to erect such a sign, and this would, of course, also entail a coordinative function with our department as well, and both of these issues would result in a cost to the government. The second option would be that the staff contracts out to a sign contractor. Again, you're running into a coordinative function with staff and additional cost. The third option as presented would be that the applicant handles -- and that means that they handle the coordinated function, and they assume the cost. We did a cost estimate with a local sign contractor, and that came out to approximately $482.50. That's to create the sign, erect it, and remove the sign after the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can imagine why the staff's first choice of having it be the petitioner's responsibility -- why that wouldn't be the right idea. I don't remember what the concern was. MS. MURRAY: I think the concern was -- probably somebody from the public had a concern over that, and it was brought up for discussion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because it says that they will provide evidence that it was done. We have the standard. You are really monitoring that. MS. MURRAY: Exactly. We'll monitor the evidence. They'll have to provide a picture and the date the picture was taken and they'll -- Let me back up a step and just tell you -- and this goes along with the public information officer. I don't know if you received Page 4 October 24, 2001 John Dunnuck's e-mail this afternoon about that, but this is a process that could also be coordinated through this public information officer in that we will be showing the applicant on a map where exactly to place the required signs. The public -- We'll have a standard. We're adopting a procedural manual. We'll have the sign standard in the manual. The public information officer can review the applicant's proposed sign, and, of course, it'll have to be consistent with the standard, and it can also assist them in properly locating the sign. And any of-- any of the other regulations pertaining to the posting of the sign, they could coordinate with them as well. I think what you're going to find is, there'll probably be a couple of sign contractors that just do this on a regular basis, and the applicants will just go to them, and they'll get it done. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And each -- each sign will be uniform so people will recognize the ones -- they'll know it again once they see it? MS. MURRAY: Right. We will develop the standard, and they'll be required to comply with that standard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about notification by mail? MS. MURRAY: The notification by mail is -- that was the second -- second issue. The current draft is it's the applicant's responsibility. Again, this is staffs preference, and, again, this would be with the assistance from the public information officer as well. As I mentioned, we'll be drafting the procedural memo -- the memo or the manual, and we're kind of envisioning this public information officer to be a point of contact, again, at which the public has the ability to call one person, find out who the planner is in charge of the application, get directed directly to that individual, and get their questions answered about the project, that sort of thing. And, then again, this public information officer would also assist Page 5 October 24, 2001 the applicants in going through the public participation process -- you know, looking at their notification letters, looking at the -- the address where they got the information to notify the individuals from the property appraiser's office would, obviously, be the preferable route, and insuring that the date, time, and location of the public information meetings are held so that they're conducive to -- their location and time and place is conducive to as many people attending as possible that would be affected. So we're envisioning this, kind of as a coordinative role with the public information officer providing both assistance to the developer and to the public. We also amended the code to require the advertisement that the developer is required to place as a display ad, not to be placed in the classified or legal-notice section, so it'll be obvious. And we put a type, size and locational requirement in there as well. There's also discussion about whether or not the county attorney's office should attend the meetings. As a matter of policy, I think what we would like to be able to do is, at the planner's discretion, that they would have the ability to invite the county attorney's office and any other county department because it may not just be the attorney's office. It could be a heavy transportation issue or environmental issue. So we would retain the discretion to invite those individuals that we saw fit in anticipation of any questions or issues that might arise. Okay. And that was really it for the discussion we had on the public participation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just wanted to say, I received this thing you sent out to us, and you really put that all in words that we could understand, and -- MS. MURRAY: Right. Page 6 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and the information behind it, why you came to that conclusion, and I thought it was well written. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Great. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have public speakers? MR. DUNNUCK: You have two public speakers. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to public speakers, please. MR. DUNNUCK: Jeff Perry followed by Nancy Payton. MR. PERRY: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm a planner with WilsonMiller. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening. I just have a couple of little points, corrections, or additions that you may find helpful, as well as clarification. I think Susan has done a good job of explaining, and perhaps answering, some of the concerns that I wanted to raise. In page 2 of the document, my understanding of this is that this section now will apply to all of the hearing processes, the rezonings, the conditional uses and the variances, and I think it would be appropriate if the title under 2.7.2.3.2 said that. It doesn't say that and -- although, it sort of infers that. When you get to the back end of the sections dealing with zoning variances and conditional-use applications and things like that, it refers you to this section. I think it would be a lot clearer if it simply said up here in the title of this particular subsection that this does now apply to variances and conditional uses. I also wanted to point out, although this is existing language, this -- the county commission-- the Board of County Cormnissioners is essentially exempt from this particular section. There are two other sections that follow that is not really the subject of any amendments. Generally, those sections appear to be for those cases where the county is changing somebody else's zoning, for one reason or another the county is initiating action. But instances where the county is initiating a rezoning for their own property or you want to do something -- build a county barn or build Page 7 October 24, 2001 a library or something and you need to change the zoning, I think it's incumbent on the board to expect that they need -- you need to follow the same procedures. The way it's written today, it sort of infers that -- that any other kind of rezoning that's not done by the board, you know, that the board is exempt from this particular section. I don't think that's what's intended, but I think that's -- certainly would be inferred by someone reading that particular section. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any suggestions as to what should be changed? MR. PERRY: The way the sentence reads -- and, again, this is not part of anything that's being changed. This is part of your current code. In the case of applications for rezoning of land to include rezonings initiated by other than the Board of County Commissioners, I think something needs to be put in there, such as: Lands not owned by the Board of County Conunissioners, or whether -- where the commissioners -- if you want to change somebody else's zoning, for instance, in zoning reevaluation, some other kinds of wholesale zoning application is being changed. That's what the other sections deal with and guide you through the advertising process, but when it says here that except for those petitions being initiated by the board, sort of infers that the county commission doesn't have to, and I know that's not your intent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. PERRY: It sort of reads that way. Maybe a couple of words can be stuck in there somewhere that, in all other instances the county commission has to apply the same standards here. I think in all cases the county has always done that. I think by practice your staff has always brought your applications through the same process as other applications. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, but it's good to reflect that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Page 8 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you have a problem with that, Susan? MS. MURRAY: No. That certainly wasn't our intention, and if it's not clear, we will make that clear. No problem. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I just put a paper clip on the page which Mr. Perry would say that we can do some minor wordsmithing there to clarify that. And other than that, you feel that it's an acceptable standard. MR. PERRY: Yeah. As long as the title is changed and points for variances and conditional uses, I think you're in good standing there. On page 3, in the case of the sign, I'm a little concerned about the language dealing with this new sign provision. Philosophically, we're shifting the burden of the responsibility and sort of the liability of posting a sign properly from the county to the applicant. I think Susan has pointed out that they're going to have somebody who is going to assist in this process and help tell you where to put it. If you have a piece of property that fronts on one or two roads, it's fairly obvious. You go out there and you put it there so that everybody can see it. If you don't have access to the roadway, if your property is back off the roadway, there's a lot of room for miscommunication or discretion that is now the applicant's fault that the sign didn't get put in the right spot. And if you end up in front of a Planning Commission hearing and somebody's complaining that they didn't see the sign, it wasn't clearly posted, that this was -- you know, all of a sudden the whole process is disrupted. I think if someone is in the county looking at these things, goes out and checks the sign after it's been posted, the county then is bearing the responsibility of saying, "Yes, it's properly -- it's properly posted." I think the applicants would feel a lot better that he is, in fact, complying with the provisions if the applicant is asked to do that. Page 9 October 24, 2001 One concern I have is, if it's not adjacent to a roadway, you end up with having to put the sign on somebody else's property or it has to be on the public right-of-way, and, again, the local codes and state laws may or may not become a problem if you're posting signs in right-of-ways. There are instances, I think, where it may be physically impossible to get a sign posted in the manner that -- that's presented here and I think needs to be some discretion built into that. One typographical question on -- on -- sort of three-quarters of the way down on paragraph 3, on page 3 where the sentence reads (as read): "The applicant shall provide evidence to the planning services department the sign was erected, furnishing photographs at least ten days prior to the scheduled public hearing by the Planning Commission, whichever has jurisdiction." I'm not sure. I think there're some words missing there. It may be "Planning Commission" or "Board of County Commissioners" or "Board of Zoning Appeals" or something. But "Planning Commission, whichever has jurisdiction," it sounds like there's a couple of words -- MS. MURRAY: I think that was a holdover for -- we were considering whether or not to address at this time the hearing examiner. We were attempting to put both in there, and I think what happened was, we decided not to address the hearing examiner issue at this point and just left those words in accidentally, so we -- I agree with that. We'll strike that. MR. PERRY: I'm not sure if zonings -- if variances go to the Planning Commission or not, or did they go directly to the Board of County Commissioners? MS. MURRAY: They go to the Planning Commission as well, yeah. MR. PERRY: So in all cases the Planning Commission would be the -- MS. MURRAY: Right. Right. Page 10 October 24, 2001 MR. PERRY: Lastly, a couple clarifications on the -- on the hearing process -- the new workshop hearing process. I think it was already explained that it was going to be up to the applicant to send out the notices. There was an article in the paper that -- it was sort of confusing. It said that the -- that the board wanted the staff to send out the notices. So I just wanted some clarification as to whether or not -- in this preapplication public workshop, whether or not the applicant was going to be responsible for sending out these notices or whether the staff was sending out the notices. And if the applicant is going to be sending out the notices, again, if staff has somebody that can help get these lists put together, point everybody in the right direction, because we have -- obviously, our firm has petitions in process that are going to be walking in here -- you know, trying to apply for-- for this process, and we need to have somebody to help sort of get through that. So I don't know if that's been decided, whether it's the staff or the applicant that's going to be doing it. That needs to be clarified. And one final thing. About halfway down that paragraph 1 -- I'm on page 5 now where it says "a copy of all parties noticed, the date, time, location of the meeting." I'm not sure if you're asking for a copy of every notice. At one point it said "notarized copy," and I see the word "notarized" has been removed, but it still says "a copy of all parties noticed," and I'm not sure what that means. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably a list of. MS. MURRAY: It's a -- it's a list. MR. PERRY: Change the word "copy" to "list," that probably -- MS. MURRAY: We can clarify that. MR. PERRY: And that was all I had. Appreciate it. Thank yOU. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Perry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the comments about Page 11 October 24, 2001 property being landlocked, not facing a road, there is language in there that the sign needs to be to the nearest street right-of-way. Now, is that in the right-of-way.9 MS. MURRAY: Generally not, but it doesn't mean without a permit. It couldn't be. And if there was an issue of private property, then we would have to just look at it at that time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Mr. Olliff knows something about signs and right-of-ways. I'm not sure about this, unless it's a safety issue with-- MS. MURRAY: Right, and that would be addressed during the permitting process. In other words, they would be required -- you know, provide the location and the safety. We would look at it from a safety determination point of view as whether or not it was acceptable. I'm missing something here so -- MR. OLLIFF' Your answer is exactly correct, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In almost every case, though, there would be an access road leading to this property, I'm sure. MS. MURRAY: Yes. There should be but -- for the most part but not always. And even in some cases -- for example, I had a conditional use that was located at the end of a private road whereby if I had posted the sign on the property, nobody would have been passing it except for the property owner, so it didn't make a lot of sense to put the sign there. So we put it at the entrance of, quote, unquote, "development," so that everybody going down that road would be able to see the sign. So there are circumstances in which even if there is access, that it's not acceptable to put a sign directly on the property on the road if nobody's going to pass it. So those are the kinds of things -- I mean, we just don't look at the code and say, "Sorry. It says it's going to go right here, so that's where it's going to go." The code allows us some leeway to say it needs to be visible, and we can use our judgment, and this is where Page 12 October 24, 2001 the -- the public information person would come in as well. We draft a map. Even right now for our code enforcement folks, we draft a map, and we X exactly where the sign's to go on the property, and it's reviewed by the planner. I don't think that's going to change, and that seems to work very well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that seems to answer what Mr. Perry brought up, was you would, more or less, identify the area that you want the sign placed, and then you would approve that so that their people know -- I think it's very -- you brought some good -- good ideas up, because it clarifies everything so that nobody's in the dark, and that's what we're trying to do now, is make this language very clear. And then somebody will go after and approve that. Is that it? MS. MURRAY: Right. Yeah. And that's what's done now. So that won't change. It's just that the applicant isn't responsible for posting the sign because it's currently done in-house. This is just for the large signs. We still have the requirement for properties under an acre. We'll still use our current sign -- our current signage, and that'll be posted by our staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Next speaker, please. MS. PAYTON: Good evening, Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good evening. MS. PAYTON: Good evening. Two weeks ago I had a number of concerns because I felt the public participation plan was too developer-driven and too developer-dependent, but those concerns have been addressed with the public information officer, or whatever the proper title is, the community liaison, which I understand is going to have oversight over the signs, the design of the sign. He or she will approve that to make sure that they are consistent with what's in Page 13 October 24, 2001 the manual, the location of the signs. They'll also approve the meeting time and meeting place for the public information meeting. I see a lot of nodding heads. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. PAYTON: They'll also approve the mailing as terms of when it's sent, how it's designed. Maybe that's going to be a uniform format as well and who it's going to. They also will maintain the list of individuals or organizations, groups, et cetera, so that there'll be consistency so that everybody's getting the same type of list and there'll be a way to maintain it. It's also the one-stop call for the public to find out all information, and they can be directed elsewhere. And that's it. That was my list. So I must tell you, I'm pleased that every one of our concerns has been addressed since we spoke two weeks ago, and we're very comfortable with what's being proposed, and we look forward to the specifics of the public information officer, which I understand we're going to see next month. So thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks, Nancy. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you address again the property that's under 1 acre in size which you will require in the way of a sign? MS. MURRAY: Properties less than 1 acre in size, the sign will measure at least 1 1/2 square feet in area which is our current requirement. I don't know if-- Have you ever seen any of our signs? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Obviously not, if it's only 1 1/2. But you really think that that's adequate size? A 1-acre lot would probably be in a urban area, it might have a great impact on the neighborhood. MS. MURRAY: It would be less -- less than an acre. Page 14 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Less than an acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Still, .9, you know. It's a good point. How -- if that's the right size or not. MS. MURRAY: We've had good-- we've had good success, and I can say that, simply because when I first started here five years ago, we had very small, little yellow signs -- I mean, literally, about that size (indicating) made up of cardboard. They were tacked to a survey stake and stuck in the ground, and the rain came that afternoon, and they folded up, and nobody could read anything. We designed a metal frame, and I would call it twice the size of a standard real estate sign that gets stuck in the ground. And then we have a very large red and white standard board that gives all the information and the contact information, the project. We noticed quite a bit of public participation after we changed our signs with those signs but we -- you know, we can make them bigger if that's the board's desire. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think -- let's try it on for size, what's written here, and then if we do have a problem, let's address it at that time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can't write the perfect -- perfect ordinance. If we've got -- if everyone understands the intent, what we're trying to do, how we're doing it, then if it has to be fine tuned -- tuned later, I'd be the first one to say yes. At this point, I think you've done really a great job, and I'm ready to say, let's make it happen. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any other speakers, Mr. Dunnuck, on this subject? MR. DUNNUCK: Not on this issue. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: The second issue that generated a lot of discussion -- and this would be starting on page 8 -- would be the Page 15 October 24, 2001 PUD sunsetting provision. And the concern that was raised by the board was that the currently approved PUDs were exempt from three-year consideration. So that is, PUDs approved prior to tonight would still fall under the five-year sunsetting provision unless they were amended. And then once they were amended, they would be required to fall -- or they would fall under the three-year provision. And I think some of the board's discussion centered around the fact that they would like to see all the PUDs subject to the three-year provision effective tonight. Our current draft still excludes those approved prior to October 24th -- again, except for those that are later amended. And you asked me to provide you some information about how many projects would be affected, and I did get that for you. I'm going to go over to the map. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whoever is doing the camera, if you could zoom in on that map, it would be easier for us to see. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The map shows -- We have two types of PUDs here, the ones in red -- and there's about nine of them -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you zoom in a little more, Camera Lady? Because we can't see it. You don't have -- MS. MURRAY: If you want, I could just take this off the wall and bring it to you, if you like. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's getting there but -- okay. MS. MURRAY: There's nine that would be subject to sunsetting right now as a result of this amendment as it's drafted with the three-year-- I'm sorry. There's nine that are subject to sunsetting right now that we're working on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Those are the red ones? MS. MURRAY: Those are the red ones. If you adopted the provision that the three-year -- okay -- as a result of the amendment Page 16 October 24, 2001 without the five-year provision. So if you changed the code to require all PUDs to fall under the three-year provision, 12 additional PUDs would immediately become subject to sunsetting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you show us where those are? MS. MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, just general area. MS. MURRAY: They're really scattered all about. Here's a couple in the northern section. Here's one. They really kind of range. Here's about three right in this area. I hope you can see this. This is 1-75 and Pine Ridge. There's three right in here. This is west of that intersection. There's one here, and this is further up on 1-75 and Immokalee Road. There's two here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Susan? (Indicating) And how old are those PUDs, MS. MURRAY: Those would be 1997, '98 --'98, 1998 they were adopted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they should be coming in shortly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we leave it alone, they will be -- they'll be good for another two years. If we change it, we'll have -- MS. MURRAY: Right now they would become -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then you were going on the list. MS. MURRAY: And then there's a couple more down-- this is right around Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara. There's two here and one off of 951 and 1-75 just west, there's one there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the totality of the change, 12 PUDs? MS. MURRAY: Twelve PUDs. Page 17 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many existing PUDs? Is everything up there in yellow a PUD? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many of those are not vested currently? By that, I mean, how many of those are subject to the five years? How many of those do we get a shot at under the five-year or the three-year or whatever rule? Some of those have already significantly commenced construction, so we know they're not subject to sunsetting at all. MS. MURRAY: Right. I've -- I've actually -- I've kind of did a summary of that. I'm going to go back to the podium. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Inaudible) had done this for me one time and told me which PUDs you could get a shot at, you know, how many of them worked, much more than paper. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Let me also point out to you -- and this is a point I wanted to make, is you have the ability anytime to open up a PUD. Don't think that you have to wait for the sunsetting process to come along. The PUD is -- is a zoning district just like your RSF and RMF zoning districts. Let's say, for example, the transportation department comes up with a local road plan that you-all adopt and we find that it affects a number of PUDs whereby we identify that there needs to be some right-of-way dedication or something to that effect. You-all have the ability to direct staff to bring those PUDs forward for review and/or revision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The issue that I'm looking for is, if we wanted to -- if the board wanted to direct the staff to look at all the PUDs on the books and tell us how many of those -- no, tell you to bring back every one that doesn't comply with community character, for example, you could do that? And I'm leaving, guys, so if I'm talking about something you don't have any interest in doing, Page 18 October 24, 2001 shut me right up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say, we have -- we haven't adopted the community character yet, and we're probably looking at a year -- a year and a half to either bring it all in or we're going to bring it in piecemeal throughout the year. And that's going -- we're going to start having meetings in November. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But here's my point: It's after you do that -- Say a year from now you adopted what you like of community character, and then all of that yellow that's on that map right there will never be subject to community character unless you bring those PUDs in for reconsideration or the developer voluntarily does it or something. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what I -- what Susan just said, is that we can revisit any PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's -- that's my question to Margie. MS. STUDENT: There's some -- there are some caveats to that. The case law and the case corpus point talks about a local government not being able to write a PUD document and impose that on a property because the nature of PUD zoning is it's consensual; however, I went out -- not exactly on the limb -- but, it's been my opinion that if there's a public health, safety, welfare -- traffic would be an example. Aesthetics may be a little further removed from that, but traffic would be a good example, that county could -- that's not tested in any court -- the county could open up that PUD under a public health, safety, welfare issue and make the change, but it would have to demonstrate and make a finding, I believe, that there was a true public health, safety issue. And my basis for that is that can be done in a development or regional impact, which in a way is kind of like a super PUD by statute, and that was my justification for that, but it's not tested in a court of law. Page 19 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And board members, this is just me trying to -- to paint a picture of something that it took me a long time to learn, and that is that you can make all the comp plan amendments you want, you can do all -- get all the new laws you want, but those yellow ones over there are either under construction and it's too late to change anything, or not, and if they're not under construction yet and they don't meet your goals -- your new -- I sat here for seven years and changed laws and wondered why things didn't look much different. Well, there's why. So if you want a shot at making the community a little different, you've got to get at those PUDs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if Tom's committee, for instance, comes up with this outstanding shining light for community character, they might be able to apply it to each of those PUDs? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in the past -- what Margie is saying is, yes, if you either have them automatically coming up as a sunset so that they cycle up and then you get a shot at them, because they're three years old or five years old without substantial start, or you decide as a policy matter that it's a health, safety, welfare problem if those PUDs are not brought up to whatever your community character committee eventually establishes, then maybe Margie will let you-- MS. STUDENT: I said aesthetics may be a little further removed and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's the point, since it's going to be hard to get a shot at them, 'cause this is -- it's likely to be aesthetics issues that you want to make changes in these PUDs because of. It's going to be hard to get a shot at them unless you shorten that -- that regular review from three years to five years. In a practical matter, you're going to not look at all those PUDs unless they cycle up through like these nine or twelve or whatever it is are Page 20 October 24, 2001 about to come to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let me just say, if it is PUD and controlled by the association -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's too late then. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it is too late, but if they wish to aesthetically -- and I think that's what -- the character of Naples and where we're going -- and I can see that happening, is they're going to enhance their neighborhood anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Three years, trips-- if I'm hearing this, trips are triggered. That says we take a look at where you are and what you're doing with a PUD. If you're progressing and some, on a volunteer basis, are doing everything that you want done, then in -- that review process will be different with that PUD than someone who is of a concern to us. And that might then trigger health, safety, welfare issues which would be the focal point of addressing or other infrastructure issues that we need to review at aesthetics are a pretty nebulous thing here. If you use that to trip the trigger originally, you probably got a problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But if you find others, then you have an opportunity to enhance what you want done, is what I think I'm gleaning from this. But it is an individual case review, but it does give you an opportunity to deal with all of the yellow that's on the board. Am I saying that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because, otherwise -- yes, because, otherwise, here's what will happen: You'll adopt new community character standards. You'll wish that you could apply them to all of those PUDs, and some good developers will do that because they want -- they raise the standards. You know, the good developers in this community are building way above any of our Page 21 October 24, 2001 standards. But just imagine the future, that you have two choices: Either everybody knows that every three years or in three years they're going to have to get a look at their PUDs and bring them up to current standards, or every time you change something, you tell staff, now bring back every PUD, and let's amend every PUD against the property owners' wishes to make them add this landscaping or to make them change this feature. And you're going to have war because people are going to -- because, for example, interconnectivity. That's one that I pray is going to become adopted as a community character standard. You're just going to call people up and say, "Bring in your PUD, because we're going to make you interconnect." It's not going to happen. But if you cycle it and everybody knows, "God dang it, I better get moving and invest this PUD if I don't want to have to interconnect because I'm going to have to be back in front of the board in three years, and they can make me do interconnection," that's the only way you'll ever make changes in what's yellow on that map. MS. STUDENT: I'd like to add something, if I might. In many instances, the PUD document has standards for-- parking, signage, and landscaping are ones that come to mind that reference the land code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was saying. MS. STUDENT: And it will say, in effect at the time of building permit approval. And we also have another general portion of the PUD that talks about how it has to meet the standards in effect that apply to the development order that they are obtaining. So, in other words, if the PUD was approved two years prior to when they get their site plan and there were some changes in the code that are going to show up on the site plan, they have to follow those -- those changes as it -- you know, relates to the site plan, absent the specific provisions in the PUD document itself, so ... Page 22 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. That's why landscaping is a bad example, because you can usually get to landscaping even on those yellow ones, but you almost never can get to something -- a policy thing like interconnectivity. Look over there. They're nodding yes. Just so you know, it's not just me saying it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand. I think getting a-- I think I've got a feel for it personally. How many speakers do we have, Mr. Dunnuck? MR. DUNNUCK: You have two speakers on this issue. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Maybe this would be a good time to get those inputs and then gel this discussion. MR. DUNNUCK: You have David Ellis followed by Bruce Anderson. COMMISSIONER HENNING: While he's coming up, is there a reason why my page 10 is blank? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Probably. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine is too. MS. MURRAY: We had to renumber the pages. It's -- it's intentional. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mine's got all kinds of things. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, you got the secret stuff on yours. CHAIRMAN CARTER: How to get the -- out of Dodge by -- MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon. I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association. I appreciate the discussion you're having on this, and I think it raises some important points for our community. At the same time, I'd like to really come back from the perspective of the developer and those that are into those deals. When you approved those PUDs, you really made a deal with a business interest in the community. Those developers made their plans. They've gone out and done engineering. They're moving Page 23 October 24, 2001 ahead with a process based on a five-year time line as far as the sunset went. When we made that deal with them, they really planned their business based on that. I understand what you're saying about the three-year and the sunset, but when they started out, they started out with a five-year business plan for that PUD. It's really disingenuous in many ways on the part of the county to come back and say, "What we really meant was three years." It's going to create some difficulties for some of those good developers even that Commissioner Mac'Kie referenced. I'd urge you that if we're going to go with the three years, fine, but let's let those PUDs that are in the process do their course. When they set out and developed that plan, that's what they were thinking. Secondly, I just -- to mention about the three years, I know many of you see this, and I know many of you have come to appreciate the process that goes to develop a piece of land. I think one thing we can probably do sometime is talk to everyone in our community about what it takes to do a development. I'll tell you, nowadays when these guys start out, from the time they purchase a piece of land or look to purchase a piece of land to the -- the time they start moving dirt, it's not unlikely at all to say it's two to three years. The environmental permitting processes, the planning and all of those things that go into that process are significant. And if their PUD's approved and then they enter into those processes, there's many times you're going to get to three years and nothing will have happened, although they can show you reams of things, and they can show you bills from engineers and accountants and attorneys and things that have been working on those processes. I will tell you as a person that works in that process, I wished I could tell you it is getting -- there is a simpler and simpler process that's being developed by our state and federal entities and even our local entities to doing that. It's just not the case. As a matter of fact, Page 24 October 24, 2001 it's becoming more and more stringent, which I think, in many ways, will eventually produce better products for our community. But one of my real concerns about even the three-year window is, a developer going full boar nowadays, three years is a -- is a tough time frame to comply with, and I worry about 15 percent -- and I'd even ask the question to staff: What if I was a PUD on Livingston Road and I started out with the idea that, Boy, Livingston Road is going to be there a couple years. It's right there in the city's plan. I get my PUD. I'm approved. I'm ready to go. I've got everything in place, but all of a sudden there's no road, and I can't come ahead. And then I come back, and I sunset, and I'm back before you, and I say, Gosh, I've done everything right, but all of a sudden the rules are going to change on me. In many ways you're looking at those business interests. And I absolutely, again, agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie. We want to make sure what we're doing in Collier County is the best it can be and comply to high standards that we've set for ourselves in Collier County. But at the same time, I think there is a question of fairness that we have to melt into that discussion, and I'd encourage you to keep those things in mind if you make these decisions. The worry that I truly have is, we're entering into an economy, frankly, where things aren't going to be quite as fluid perhaps as they have been for the industry -- the building industry, and it used to be three years, gosh, we could sell lots of houses. We may be entering into a couple of years where that's -- may not be the case. Some of that forward movement that we just marched along with may be stalled, not by regulatory issues, but by economic issues, and it's just a real concern to me, any further constraints we may place. Again, I hear you, and the three years may be what we end up with on the sunset, but once again, I would encourage you to consider those people that are in that five-year window and what that really means to Page 25 October 24, 2001 them. If you were to ask me for the sunset, what I would think would be even more appropriate based on some of those things, I would encourage you to think about four years, but I realize you have -- you-all have had that discussion, and perhaps you-all have committed to that process. If you haven't, I'd sure like to talk to you more about it. And that being the case, unless you-all have some questions -- and I really am interested, if the staff has a thought, like, on that Livingston Road scenario because I was just thinking through those things, and that came up to me, how would that work? MS. MURRAY: Well, it's important to remember that your PUD sunsetting processes basically are staff bringing the PUD back in front of you for direction: Would you like to extend the PUD for two years? Would you like to require the developer to amend the PUD? Would you like staff to initiate a rezoning back to agricultural? So in cases like you're pointing out, David, I think, you know, the petitioner would need to come to the public hearing and point out, for example, on PUDs where there's large-scale environmental issues: Hey, we're -- you know, we've been working three years through the permitting agencies, and here's our evidence that shows you that we've been diligently pursuing the development of the property. The same thing with the road issue: Hey, you know, on your work plan, you had Livingston Road. This segment is being implemented on such and such a date, and certain factors have come along over this period of time that have not allowed this to take place. With the two-year extension, we might -- might be there. So there's options. It's not a do-or-die kind of situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It shouldn't be automatic. MR. ELLIS: I realize that, and, again, I'd go back to my original thought about the five years as the commitment we made to that Page 26 October 24, 2001 developer, that person, and then to look at that sunset provision as well. If anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. But, otherwise, I've been beeped. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You make a good point, David, about the -- you know, we've made a deal with people about five years. They've got a five-year business plan. It is kind of hard to pull that out from under them. If we change the deal today, that's one thing, but if we kind of go back on the five-year plan, I guess that's a little aggressive. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, David, essentially, I like tripping the trigger at three. MR. ELLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: However, what -- I hear what you're saying, and I believe in the five-year plan. I've always believed that. You know where I come from, and I know the commitments that are made. I'm looking for a professional review process, whatever that entails, so that body politic that sits here maybe is -- you know, when do we really have to look at that if it's as a thorough professional review? Is that something that a board has to make a decision on each one of those PUDs? Is that -- if there's a consensus by professionals that it's meeting the goals, and that includes your -- I say your environmentalists and everything -- getting the right mix there, then, I guess my question, thinking out loud, where do we enter? Because body politic can shift and change, and you could have five people here that say, "I don't care." You can blacktop the world, and you'll have another five that say you can never cut a tree down. So I hope to distance this process, unless it becomes a quasi- judicial format, where we have to look at, you know, what are our policies? How are we implementing what Commissioner Henning is Page 27 October 24, 2001 doing out of community character? Where are we on this? So we don't end up being put into a position with the people with maybe the most limited amount of knowledge making a far-reaching decision to hurt somebody who is really going through the Corps, through the DEP. All of these, as we know, is a long process. Is there some reasonable approach in here to get both, tripping the trigger and getting the review, and at what point do we get involved? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hopefully, you're going to go forward with your hearing examiner process. That's where the professional review will take place, to see if-- you know, the proposal meets all of the county's standards and codes. MR. ELLIS: And I think the commissioner is very right on with that, because I think he -- once again, this commission is really -- in many ways, tried to move away from dealing with those specifics and setting those -- those parameters for the staff and for those other groups to handle. But if you ask me a specific question -- If you ask me a rhetorical question, I agree with you. If you ask me a specific question, I'll let Mr. Anderson answer it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, you're getting very, very wise, David. Okay. MR. DUNNUCK: MR. ANDERSON: Your next speaker is Bruce Anderson. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, and I'm here on behalf of Benderson Development Company, Incorporated. And let me first say, I agree with everything that Mr. Ellis just told you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: of?. What company are you here on behalf MR. ANDERSON: Benderson-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Benderson. MR. ANDERSON: -- Development Company, Incorporated. Page 28 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: I have a couple of handouts that I would ask staff to distribute to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, wasn't that just approved recently, the Benderson on 951 or Collier Boulevard? Is that the one you're talking about? MR. ANDERSON: That is one -- that is one that they own. They own more than one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The price is too high, they can't sell it? MR. ANDERSON: I'm not here -- I'm not part of their marketing team. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. By the way, did you get my notice of invitation? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. MR. ANDERSON: Ms. Murray, my client sent a letter down outlining some of their concerns and asked that it be distributed to the board members. Was that done? MS. MURRAY: I did not physically present it to them. MR. ANDERSON: We'll summarize their points. MS. MURRAY: Sorry about that. I overlooked that. MR. ANDERSON: Well, first of all, I would direct your attention to the notice that's in the paper. Nowhere -- nowhere does it say that you are going to amend the PUD sunset review requirements to lower them to three years, either retroactively or for the future. I think it's a little bit hypocritical when we have just had this discussion about how it's so important for the public to participate and know what's going on here in government and you -- it doesn't seem that we practice what we preach here. Secondly, we need to distinguish between existing PUDs and Page 29 October 24, 2001 new PUDs for the three- and five-year review periods. I don't believe you can lawfully apply that retroactively, and if you do, it may cost something. I'd also like to make the point that I would think that you would want to encourage people to come in and amend their PUDs to comply with whatever new standards that you come up with. Is that not true? Wouldn't you like to encourage people to come in and amend their PUDs and bring them up to date? You defeat that very purpose if you require them -- if you're going to subject them to the new three-year time limit. If somebody with an existing PUD comes in and says, "I want to amend it, and I'm going to incorporate some of these new community character standards," but you're saying, "Well, yeah, you come on in and do that -- that, but you lose your five years. We're going to cut it down to three," then you have given him a disincentive to come in and cooperate. So I would urge you not to apply whatever your new time limit may be to existing PUDs that come in for an amendment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know what? I love logic, and that was circular, because if-- if they are anxious to come in to bring their PUDs up to code, then they're not going to mind if we invite them to come in to bring their PUDs up to code. Just made a circle. MR. ANDERSON: But what they won't like is the new three- year deadline. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the -- what's not to like about it if they're just happy to bring their PUDs up to code or want to keep them current? We'll be in here more often than every three years. MR. ANDERSON: But they may not be able to commence development within the three-year period. Page 30 October 24, 2001 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's why nothing automatically happens at the end of the three years. It comes in, and they say, "Okay. Here's the status: We haven't pushed any dirt around, and here's why." And then a rational Board of County Commissioners will make a decision about whether or not they need another year or they need to start a review of the PUD. It doesn't just get undone the day that the three-year window hits. MR. ANDERSON: No. No. But it does -- for instance, on a residential development, it will drive up the cost of housing to go through the process again. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's only 1,500; right? MR. ANDERSON: I don't work for that. I can tell you that, and neither do any of the engineers or planners that would have to be involved in the PUD amendment. My other points. In most cases -- and I've distributed to you some sample language as it's evolved over the years from 1990 to 1995 to 1999, standard language in your PUDs that require them to comply with whatever the current Land Development Code requirements are at the time they get development orders. A recent example of how that occurred are the commercial architectural requirements. Those weren't in the PUDs. Those were adopted. That was certainly aesthetic, and it got applied to everybody. So I think-- you know, if the rationale for cutting from five to three years is so you can impose whatever new Land Development Code requirements get adopted from the community character study, that it may not be necessary by virtue of these provisions in everybody's PUD anyway. It certainly -- You certainly applied the commercial architectural requirements to all existing PUDs. That's worked well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, Bruce, it says, unless Page 31 October 24, 2001 modified, waived, or accepted by this PUD, then every -- then the general code applies. But if you have transportation issues addressed in your PUD and you've laid out your roads, I can't come back and say, "We've got a new ordinance. It requires interconnectivity." You're going to say, "Well, that doesn't apply to my PUD because I've addressed that. I showed my main roads. I showed gated." You know, it just doesn't work. MR. ANDERSON: Not necessarily. I mean, I think that that would require some further -- further review on that specific point, but I think when you do change an access point on a PUD, that probably is considered a substantial change that has to go to the board. Maybe you want to make it an insubstantial change, be easier for you to enforce. Another point, you need to have Sunset Review suspended in the event of a moratorium. If you're -- if you're going to declare a moratorium and people can develop -- it just doesn't make sense to require them to come in within a three-year period if you've forbidden them from their development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on page 10. MR. ANDERSON: That's been added? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Page 9 at the bottom. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten is -- MR. ANDERSON: I asked for copies of this in advance, and I didn't get one until I got here tonight. So thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Stop it, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bottom of page 9, actually. CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is really breaking me up. There's nothing on that page. want in here. MR. ANDERSON: I know, but he said it was on page 10. Very good, Commissioner Henning. I mean, you can write anything we Next point, Section 2.7.3.4, the second Page 32 October 24, 2001 paragraph, I would urge -- that is the provision that applies to commercial PUDs. I would urge you to have the same 15 percent infrastructure standard apply to commercial PUDs that you apply to residential PUDs so you're treating them consistently. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you use that reference again. The section reference again was what now? MR. ANDERSON: 2.7.3.4, paragraph No. 2. MS. MURRAY: Page 9. MR. ANDERSON: Page 9. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. It's got 15 percent of-- yeah, I see. You know-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of problem are we going to have with -- you know, we don't have enough C-5. Is that going to affect that if-- MS. MURRAY: Sorry. I'm not understanding your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Anderson has said, apply the same standards that you're applying to residential to commercial, have this 15 percent infrastructure. MS. MURRAY: Well, previously it was 30 percent of the total approved leasable floor area, and we've reduced that to 25 percent of the land area. Hold on a second. "Minimum of 15 for nonresidential portions of PUDs in commercial and industrial PUDs, the owner shall initiate physical development of a minimum of 15 percent of the authorized floor area when approved on a basis of defined amount of floor space of the third-year anniversary, and in the event that floor area's not the defining intensity measure, then 25 percent of the land area." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that -- that makes sense, because, otherwise, it's not real logical to use infrastructure for commercial sections of a PUD. What is the -- What's the horizontal infrastructure of a commercial strip center? I don't even know what Page 33 October 24, 2001 that would be, what 15 percent of that would be. MS. MURRAY: I think, typically, what you're looking at is 5- to 1 O-acre tracts of land. So 15 percent of 10 acres is very little land area. I don't think it would make a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. I like it the way it's drafted. MR. ANDERSON: And last point, I have an idea for you how to get some additional money soon to help build roads, and that is allow a PUD to vest themselves from PUD Sunset Review if they will pay all of their impact fees in order to do so. That wouldn't prohibit you from collecting -- If impact fees increase three or four years later, when they come to apply and pull a building permit, it doesn't stop you from collecting the difference in between how the fee is increased over the years. But this would simply allow people to come in and pay their money, be guaranteed that they would be left alone, and then you have that money to use for infrastructure long before the impacts of development are felt. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's part of the changes that are going to come up next year in transportation. Their recommendations -- About the only thing is, got to remind everybody, we can't use that for the backlog of deficit. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We can't use it for backlog, and we can't build that road until you've got structures there, if I'm understanding it correctly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: whenever you want to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: line. No. You can build on it Right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Because it's going to be within a time You have physical structures they are going to impact. Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Build it before the structures are there; right? Page 34 October 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's something to look at for future -- you know, how-to cash-flow purposes but -- MR. OLLIFF: It is. It may help in that regard, but keep in mind, that's just taking money that you would have used in future years. You're taking tomorrow's money to spend it today, and this does help cash flow-wise, but it doesn't help overall total cost flow- wise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's a shell game. MR. ANDERSON: Well, the county would be the one earning the interest on the money. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's true. And I do believe that is coming from transportation next year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd watch that 'cause that's spending the future. It really is. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. I guess you're through. You left. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Board Members, I hope you're going to stay with your three years. I guess we knew that it was kind of aggressive to talk about retroactively changing the five years to three years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: David made a very good point. We have made a contract with these people and they -- they're judging their time scale and their negotiations upon that contract. CHAIRMAN CARTER: What happens to the big yellow area when you do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then you get a shot at them in five years instead of three. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's play the what-if game. What if we didn't ask for them to come back for review? We have Page 35 October 24, 2001 the right to be able to just pass them right on through, is that correct, or would it have to be full-blown presentation again? MS. MURRAY: No. You would have an analysis by staff that would be presented in a report and a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're where I am Commissioner Coletta. You trip the trigger. They're doing everything they said they were going to do. They're meeting and going beyond standard. They keep moving. It doesn't interfere with where they are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it cost them any more money? MS. MURRAY: Not if you -- you know, it's just -- basically somebody has to appear and provide evidence that they're progressing in a manner -- and there may be some rationale as to why they haven't been able to get their permits or their -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's a matter of accountability. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. It is, and I know five-year plans -- the one we start today, five years from now will certainly have some modifications. We're looking at a product that goes into PUD. What's the market demands? What are the things we need to do? and changes in that plan. What's selling? What isn't? So there will be some shifting I don't want to do anything that's going to be a major block for them getting where they need to be, but I think again, it trips the trigger. If you're doing it right, you go forward. If you're not doing anything, if you are waiting and holding to flip it and figure that you're going to flip something that doesn't have the standards we want and you can sell it to anybody who happens to be in the premarket that wants to buy it -- and there are people out there who would come in and say -- and hold you exactly to the legal point of what you had approved in the past. And we have some evidences Page 36 October 24, 2001 around here that are not a pretty picture, and that's what I'm trying to stop. I'm not trying to hurt the people who are doing the right thing. So I'm going to stay with the three-year trip the trigger and the professional review. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is exactly what staff has drafted; right? MS. MURRAY: We have drafted that PUDs approved prior to October 24th, 2001, will remain subject to the PUD five-year Sunset Provision. Amendments thereafter will be subject to three-year, and then any PUDs approved after this evening would be subject to three- year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's fair, because then we're not violating the contract, but we are shortening the period from here forward. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's the big yellow area. That's where our opportunities are. How many future PUDs are going to be in this county? I mean, I think it's very, very limited, folks. It's like saying, I'm going to lock the barn door and the horse is gone 20 years ago. MS. MURRAY: I don't think I answered your previous question, Commissioner Mac'Kie, and that was, about 75 percent of that yellow area is vested. And then, like I said, we identified 12 that would immediately -- or 9 that we're working on and 12 that would immediately come due without the five-year provision. So that gives you kind of a rough idea. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with just a few changes from the past one that -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Some wordology-- wordsmithing, I'm okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Page 37 October 24, 2001 CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're all okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the only thing we need to address is something that Mr. Anderson brought up about the notification. MS. MURRAY: Thank you for reminding me. If you look and -- Marjorie's getting up -- actually, in the title that was handed out, about three-quarters of the way down, you'll see that Provision 2.7, Zoning Administration and Procedures is the notification standard that covers the procedural aspects of this. That's the first thing. The second thing, don't forget you had a workshop about this whole issue earlier this year, and the public was notified then, and people were permitted to attend, and it was public record. MS. STUDENT: And I just want to say that the idea of not writing the whole amendment in the title is that if you see something that says "2.7, Zoning Administration and Procedures," that puts you on notice, gee, I've got petitions that come through here, and they're doing something with zoning administration and procedures, and I'm going to go to staff or go to the clerk's office and look at that proposed ordinance and see what specific sub -- subsections are impacted by this. And that's the whole idea of it, so you don't have to write the whole ordinance in the title. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. MS. MURRAY: There's, I believe, only one other item I need to get on the record, and that is page 12. It's not written correctly, and I would just like to state for the record-- this is under the Industrial Zoning Classification, General Aviation Airport. There should be a period after that, or the sentence should end there, I should say. And then the reference to the accessory uses is a -- more appropriate to be put in the accessory-use section of the Industrial Zoning Classification. So we are going to go ahead and change that. That's the correct way to do that. It doesn't change anything you're Page 38 October 24, 2001 approving tonight. I just need to put that on for the record. And that's all I have, I believe. Anything with excavation? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bringing his tie forward. MS. MURRAY: Those were the issues we discussed. If you want to discuss anything else, Stan's here to talk about excavations if you want to discuss excavation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by members of the board? MS. MURRAY: I think he has a few things for the record. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A couple of corrections to the corrections we made as of the last meeting. Stan Chrzanowski, senior engineer with development services. Under 3.5.5.1.2, instead of writing "located in estates," we -- we wrote "locates in estates." So "locates" has to be "located." The strike-through in 3.5.5.2.2 shouldn't be there. I don't have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's on about page 42 or something. Yeah, page 42. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: 3.5.5.2.2, the strike-through shouldn't be there. We corrected the hours of operation in every place except 3.5.7.5. The very last line we say "7 a.m. To 6 p.m." In two other places, it's "7 a.m. To 5 p.m." p.m." And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will be changed to "7 a.m. To 5 All right. Commissioners, questions? No questions. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: Before you vote, I need to remind the commission that as part of the motion, you need to make finding that these LDC amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And also I would like to note for the record that on the agenda for tonight, it's stated that ex parte disclosures needed to be made and people needed to be sworn. That's incorrect. This is a legislative matter, not quasi-judicial, so that's not necessary. And also after the motion, I have two housekeeping things I need to mention to the Page 39 October 24, 2001 board. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You ready for us? MS. MURRAY: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Chair entertains a motion for approval of the LDC amendments that would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, I believe. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It includes all the items mentioned by legal counsel, Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: All changes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All changes, all notations that were outlined to this Board of County Commissioners this evening for final wordsmithing review and approval prior to becoming effective. Is that okay, Legal Counsel? Last act as counselor here. Okay. All right. I've made the motion. Is it proper for the Chair to make that motion? Okay. Motion by the Chair. Seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Any questions? Any comments? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Margie has something. MS. STUDENT: I have two housekeeping items. The first involves an amendment to the last LDC where the RT District was put -- let back, like it was prior to the previous amendment. The code corporation -- I won't go into the admission, but the Code Corporation made some admissions. There was a stray number that got in there that was never underlined, but they put it in anyway, and Page 40 October 24, 2001 they left some things in that shouldn't have been in and would just like board direction to write them a letter to make those corrections consistent with the ordinance that we passed and -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need a motion on our part? MS. STUDENT: Dave? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do I need -- Does she need a motion on that? MR. WEIGEL: No, just an endorsement. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I don't see anybody disagreeing on the board; we, therefore, endorse it. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thank you very much. And, secondly, in the next cycle, we will -- are poised to bring you an interim development control or regulation that deals with the Vanderbilt Beach area and the RT District looking towards establishing an overlay with the same regulations later, and these would be interim development controls, and we would like board direction. We're poised to write it and bring it to you. It's a cycle that starts -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I certainly would like to give that direction, if I don't find any objections here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also I'd like to visit the height restrictions in the commercial areas. MS. STUDENT: I believe Ms. Murray can address those. I believe they are being addressed in the next cycle, but Ms. Murray could address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard -- I seen her head go this way, so I'm convinced that it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we also going to be looking at work-force housing in PUDs? MS. STUDENT: I don't know that that's going to be in this cycle, because as I had explained, that is very complex. I think we'll Page 41 October 24, 2001 need probably -- I'll have to talk to staff. We may need a consultant. And it's very complex. It's something that you have to do studies, almost like what we're doing for TDRs and the rural fringe and so forth because there should be -- we just can't impose it. We risk, you know, property rights issues again. There have to be linkages to the types -- to the economy and the types ofjobs that are here and the need for it, and all that requires a study, and the next cycle starts in November. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Fiala, I tell you what. It's always going to be complicated, and it's the lawyers' jobs to tell you -- you know, how hard it is and how risky it is. But you, hopefully, will be getting some great information out of your joint meeting with Commissioner Judah, I think it was. And, you know, there are -- there are ordinances all over the country where a percentage of a PUD has to be affordable housing and where a payment has to be made. So this has been done. So, you know, don't get discouraged by how hard it is. MS. STUDENT: I'm just trying to explain what -- the predicate so we have a workable system. And we do have a provision that we may be able to look at, at some point. It's kind of old, but it talks about, I think, entry level rental -- or entry level housing PUD. It's real old. It was in the 8022 Zoning Ordinance. And I don't think it's been much used, but it's something we can certainly have staff start to look at. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we started getting calls from around the country, people who have heard that we are talking about this, who have said -- one of them was from San Francisco, who said they have done that in San Francisco, and they had a lot of opposition, and they imposed it anyway. And they found that it worked beautifully because they were all brand-new developments, and it -- and it worked well for the work force as well as the people Page 42 October 24, 2001 buying in there, because there were no surprises. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think it's a direction, Commissioner Fiala, all of us want to go. And what I'm hearing from legal counsel is, "Let's do it well. Let's do it right," so that we don't stub our toe anywhere so we defeat where we want to be. I have developed a little patience in three years to say, "Let's take it to the right cycle." COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're finding out it's a government process, that it is not an instant thing, for one thing, but I'm going to bring it up again. Did you say at the next cycle we're going to be talking about the roads and the 5 percent? COMMISSIONER HENNING: the first of next year. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to come next year, Why that long away? Well, that's our next cycle. MS. MURRAY: I apologize. My staff member -- we did get a number of amendments from the transportation department, and I'm not sure what they contained. He was drafting them up for me. So we can get back to you on that, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's coming in the next cycle. Remember, this was an interim cycle, ladies and gentlemen. We usually do this twice a year. We added an interim cycle this year to address some major issues, and we'll just keep moving forward. So that's been a major change in this commission. We don't do it twice. We do it as often as we can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, something that just occurred to me that -- that would be -- Susan was so responsive in getting that map that showed the PUDs. If I were you, I would be asking for a map that showed vested versus nonvested PUDs so you know where you may have a chance to have some influence in the future. Page 43 October 24, 2001 MS. MURRAY: No problem. We can do that for you. May I ask for a point of clarification? And it's back to the interim development control that Marjorie mentioned. Could I make sure -- is it the consensus of the board that that is acceptable in the next LDC cycle? I'm sorry. I missed that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be acceptable to me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You bet. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. You don't -- love you, dear. It certainly is 100 percent endorsed by me, yes. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. No further business. This LDC meeting stands adjourned. God bless America. And have a safe bon voyage, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Page 44 October 24, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:28 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL :~I'TG.,tlT'~ BROCK, CLERK ,~,tur,-~ese minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~ or as co~ected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 45