Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/14/2001 SNovember 14, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 14, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:01 p.m. In SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Joyceanna J. Rautio Kenneth L. Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Lora Jean Young David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Mark P. Strain NOT PRESENT: Paul Midney Russell A. Budd ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie M. Student, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner, Planning Services Page 1 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Good evening. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for November 14th, 2001, to discuss the Land Code -- Land -- excuse me -- the Land Code Development-- Land Development Code amendments. I'll get it right yet. Have a roll call. Mr. Midney, absent but excused. Mr. Budd, absent but excused. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Ms. Rautio, here. Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Present. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We have a quorum. I do believe that one member has to depart in about less than an hour. Okay. Susan, you're up. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray, current planning manager. This is the first hearing of two scheduled public hearings for LDC Cycle 2. The next hearing will be scheduled exactly two weeks from tonight at 5:05 p.m. In this room. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, could I just -- I'm concerned about double booking of this room. If that's going to happen, maybe we could make some other arrangements to hold our second meeting in a place that we can start the meeting on time. I Page 2 November 14, 2001 mean, it's an imposition on -- on all of our times to have to wait an hour to get this thing started. MS. MURRAY: The booking of the room is done by the county manager's office, so I'll talk and ensure that there isn't anybody in advance of us that we think might run over. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I would appreciate that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I think we all would appreciate that. MS. MURRAY: The second item is you've been handed out a packet of revisions. It should look something like this with today's date on there. We'll be working not only from your regular-sized packet, but where there have been revisions I will call them to your attention when we get to them. We'll be working from the page numbers, the handwritten page numbers at the bottom of the page. And also following along, we will mostly be working from your summary spreadsheet. It gives you the summary of the amendment, of DSAC recommendation, and the EAC recommendation. So between those three packets, I'll try to keep you on track. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair, I just have a couple housekeeping items too. At the final hearing -- and this had been discussed previously by our board, but at the final hearing on the previous Land Development Code cycle which was in October, the board directed that we prepare a moratorium or interim development control for the residential tourist zoning districts in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And so that has been done and was e-mailed by the county attorney's office to you unproofread yesterday because I was in meetings all day. So you have, I believe, all been given the corrected version. And also as a matter of housekeeping, I passed out to you an amended Section 2.2.20.3.7 and 2.7.2.8.1, and that has to do with dedication of public facilities and reference to the impact fee, the new Page 3 November 14, 2001 impact fee ordinance. And if you recall it during the last cycle in the spring, this was not handed out at the night meetings where it was advertised, but you did consider it in a day meeting where we had an ordinance advertised to handle three specific things. So to clear up any issue with that, it's just a housekeeping matter. That was passed out tonight. And also as part of that there was Section 2.7.2.4, and that had to do with the time limits for the number of amendment cycles in a year. In the last LDC cycle in the spring, we amended Section 1.19 that would allow us to have more than two cycles, and this just mirrors that to make the code consistent. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Do we need action on that item? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You will. MS. STUDENT: You will at the next meeting, not at this one. MS. MURRAY: Also in your handouts you should have received a spreadsheet that looks like this and it's titled "Comparison of Proposed and Existing Development Standards." You'll recognize that this is not in its typical underlined, strikethrough format. This was recently decided -- well, I shouldn't say recently decided. We had originally planned to present this to you in your packet, and it was removed as part of our decision to remove the section of the code referring to the NAICS conversion. And it was inadvertently stuck in with the NAICS conversion, and Mr. John Dunnuck informed me this morning that he would like to see this section of the amendments go forward. And this is basically a summary of the existing amendments for C-1 through C-5 zoning district and the industrial and business park district in terms of the proposed changes to the development standards. And I know you're just getting this information tonight, and Page 4 November 14, 2001 whenever you decide you want to talk about this, I'd be happy to walk you through the proposed changes on this sheet, and then we'll get you the final format as soon as we can. But I know you're just getting this firsthand tonight, so you need to be thinking about whether or not you possibly may want to have another meeting or a workshop on this or if you think that between now and two weeks from now will be sufficient time enough for you-all to review it and comment because, of course, at your next meeting you'll be required to make your recommendations and take a vote. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. The item -- what-- where did it show up on our summary sheet? MS. MURRAY: It does not show up on your summary sheet, and so I have it handwritten in mine. I also have one speaker on this item. So we can -- I have four different speakers on four different items, so we can choose to hear that. Typically you hear it -- when you have the public, you hear those first, those items first. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. In deference to the late hour that we've actually started, I think that would be a good idea, anyone that's already registered to speak. If you're not, please turn in a slip to Susan so that we can bring that particular item earlier here in the discussion. And I do believe that we have a comment or two about the proposed development standards for the comparison sheet that we were just given. Mr. Strain, I noticed you were smiling. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, when we get there, I have plenty of questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We can discuss it now and then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just -- no. This is -- I want to digest this a little bit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So you want to wait till next time, or do you think-- Page 5 November 14, 200 ! COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That would be my preference. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we need another meeting to discuss it in detail once we see the strikethroughs and underlines? What's your observation, please? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we could handle this next time. I mean, I'd be prepared for it next time. Is that adequate? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would it be appropriate to perhaps have this discussion at one of our regular Planning Commission meetings? MS. MURRAY: I'd have to defer to the county attorney. I think you have to have your discussion on these LDC items at a regularly advertised public hearing. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I believe we do too. Ms. Student, we have a question for you. MS. STUDENT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Richardson. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I was just asking, Marjorie, whether or not this -- particularly the heights and changes of the development standards on this -- on the commercial districts which has just been given to us in a draft form -- well, it's in a, I guess, finished form, but it doesn't have the supporting language. And Ms. Murray was suggesting that there's going to be some other language come along but that they have registered public speakers that want to talk about this, and there are obviously going to be questions. I was wondering if we could facilitate this by not having to wait till the end, because everything piles up at the end, if we could -- if we could perhaps put that type of discussion on a regular Planning Commission meeting. MS. STUDENT: That has to be a night meeting because under our code as it currently exists when we have meetings dealing with a Page 6 November 14, 2001 list of prohibited, permitted, or conditional uses -- now, I don't know. Are there any use changes as a part of that, or are there just development standards? MS. MURRAY: Just development standards. MS. STUDENT: Okay. I think that we -- I think that we could possibly do that at a day meeting because it's a development standard and not the actual list of the uses. I just want to make sure that there's not any permitted, prohibited, or conditional uses in there because if there are -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What I'd be looking for is just an explanation of what it is that's trying to be accomplished and what the impacts are going to be. MS. STUDENT: And I believe we -- I believe we can do that. We can work with staff on that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, from a logistical standpoint, our next meeting is tomorrow, and we don't have another meeting before the 28th, which is our final recommendation hearing, so I'm not sure how we could accomplish that. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'd be ready to hear it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would staff be ready to have the papers and get it to us? MS. STUDENT: Well, I guess there's the point it hasn't been advertised for tomorrow in any form. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're talking about hearing on this sheet tomorrow. We just got it tonight. I mean, I definitely can't do the research tonight I would need to do to understand what this sheet is trying to tell us. And I don't think from the perspective of the public, the groups and organizations that review this kind of thing, I think they ought to be given prior notice of it. They won't have any Page 7 November 14, 2001 time between now and tomorrow to review it. MS. MURRAY: I'm going to leave it up to you. It's honestly not that complicated, and I can explain it tonight. And I do have a registered public speaker on it, but I will leave that decision up to you, though. MS. STUDENT: I suppose what you could do because it wasn't advertised for tomorrow is to continue that part of the meeting that you deal with this issue until tomorrow, and that would get us over that hurdle. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, is it not possible for her to give a brief summary tonight? We can do additional review on our own, and then you will also get us the underlined and strikethrough material before the 28th when we have our meeting. Does that sound good? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That sounds good to me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. That would work. I think that would be fine. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Let's proceed with that idea. So please give us an overview of this item first, and then we'll ask for the one public speaker that's registered. MS. MURRAY: Okay. This is the C-1 through C-5 industrial and business park zoning districts, and these amendments relate to the development standards, no change in use or anything else. If you look at the chart starting at the top and -- well, I'll just use the -- let me use the C-4 zoning district as an example because there's a -- a significant change there. If you look at the C-4 zoning district at the top of your chart right in the middle, then look to the left where it says front yard and then you follow that line over, you'll see where there's existing and proposed right under the C-4 designation. The existing talks about the sections of the development standards that are proposing to change, and this says one-half of the -- I'm Page 8 November 14, 2001 sorry. The current regulation for a front-yard setback is one-half the building height as measured from each exterior wall or 25 feet, whatever is greater. The proposed -- I'm sorry. My form says something different than I think it should, but I believe the proposed should read 25 feet; is that correct? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It says that. MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One-half building height. MS. MURRAY: One-half of the building height, eliminating the measurement from each exterior wall. So it would be a strict measurement of one-half of the total building height from ground to the top of the roof, you know, depending on what type of roof it is and where you measure the building height. So we're striking out the measurement from each exterior wall, which if you're familiar with the wedding-cake setback scenario, this eliminates the wedding-cake setbacks for the front, side, and rear yard. "Or 25 feet, whichever is greater" still is retained. So that's the scenario for each of the front, side, and rear yard for each of the zoning districts. We're eliminating the wedding-cake setback measurement. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And from looking at this chart, I can't see that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I can just-- I can just see by the look on Commissioner Strain's face he was doing the same thing I was. If you just glance at this, it looks like it's staying the same. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the one thing that's changing, and that's the one thing that's not there. MS. MURRAY: I think probably what's throwing you is the language in there that's being struck out, which is the measurement from each exterior wall, which would give you a clear indication Page 9 November 14, 2001 about what's removed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: it's set up on this chart. But there is no language. Therefore, that is confusing the way MS. MURRAY: I'm going to leave that for just a second and then go down to the maximum height. And you'll see for all the zoning districts, the maximum height is proposed to stay the same except for the C-4 zoning district, which is proposed to be reduced from the current standard of a hundred feet to a maximum of 75. Lot area, the next down from maximum height, is proposed to change in C-1 from 20,000 -- this is minimum lot area requirement -- 20,000 to 10,000 square feet; C-2, 15,000 to 10,000 square feet; C-3 remains the same; and the remainder of the zoning districts remain the same. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Susan, is that minimum, or would it be maximum? MS. MURRAY: That would be minimum. Lot frontage for C-1 is proposed to change from -- and this is, again, a minimum lot frontage -- from a hundred feet to 75 feet for C-1; a hundred feet to 75 feet for C-2; stays the same for C-3; a hundred feet to 75 feet for C-4; a hundred feet to 75 feet for C-5; and remains the same for industrial and business park. So in summary, what we're really proposing is changes to three different development standards, the most significant of which is the elimination of the ability to measure your setbacks in the wedding- cake style. So it would be just a strict one-half the building height or 25 feet. The second significant change is in the C-4 zoning district with respect to building height, and that would go from 100 to 75 feet. And then your various lot area minimums and lot frontage minimum changes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Having -- Page 10 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead, Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Having said that, do you hang some language on this skeleton as to the rationale for these things? I mean, why did we do that? MS. MURRAY: That's the part that you're missing, and that's normally what you get in our summary package. You get the staff report and -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Can that be summarized? MS. MURRAY: That will be summarized, yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: About three of them. MS. MURRAY: Yes. And we can do -- I mean, I can send that to you just as soon as we get it prepared. Rather than waiting for a regular mail out, if I could fax it to you-all or whatever, or even e- mail it to you, if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think everyone has an e-mail, so we could get that out to us so we could completely discuss or ask questions at the next meeting. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That's --just keep in mind what's changing, and then when we send you the backup materials for your consideration, you'll have a better idea of why. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Do we have any questions of Susan? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there's some speaker that's going to object, I guess, to some part of this. MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure if she's -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: How are we going to know the other side of the coin if we don't know the rationale for the change? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We're going to let her talk in just a moment. MS. MURRAY: If you're ready, I can call her, and then she Page 11 November 14, 2001 also will have the opportunity to come back to your second hearing. Or if you decide you want to discuss it at length in a different -- at another regularly scheduled CCPC meeting, she could come then too. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a process question, Susan. These are proposed changes, and they would not go in affect until they went through the whole process, that is the BCC. Would they, however, impact anything that's in the pipeline now? In other words, to what -- when would it actually kick in? MS. MURRAY: It-- legally I think it kicks in-- and maybe Marjorie can help me out on this, because I know we send our amendments to the state, and I'm not sure of the exact effective date of the amendments, but she could explain. MS. STUDENT: Yes. The effective date of the amendment is not the date that the board passes it, but there's typically language in the ordinance that it's effective -- I believe it's upon receipt by the secretary of state. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So an applicant could -- MS. STUDENT: So when -- so what happens is they send a stamped -- date stamped copy back, and then we know the receipt date. We don't know it when we send it, but we know it when we receive it back, and then that's the effective date. And it typically is within -- they usually go out FedEx, so it's typically within a day or so of when it's mailed out, and we have ten days from the date of the last board meeting when they adopt it to get it to -- the secretary of state's got to get it by the tenth day. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if an applicant is concerned and wants to get in underneath the wire, he can come in a day before you get that back, and he's in under the old standards? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. That--yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of staff before we have the registered public speaker? Commissioner Strain. Page 12 November 14, 2001 first. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm waiting to hear the speaker CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Susan. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The registered speaker is Sally Barker. MS. BARKER: For the record, my name is Sally Barker. And, no, Mr. Abemathy, I'm not going to object to anything. But what I wanted to do was give you a little background perhaps. The issue of building heights in the C-4 district has been a hot topic, at least in my area, North Naples, for the last three years, since construction was started on the 125-foot monstrosity at Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41. And at that time we started pushing to have the issue of building heights in the C-4 addressed, because under the old standards if you had just a straight C-4 zoned property, you could plunk essentially a hundred-foot building on it, which is what happened. And I'm very pleased to see that the building height has dropped or will -- may be dropped, depending on whether this goes through the approval process or not -- from a hundred feet to 75 feet. That's very much a step in the right direction. But -- and there's always a but here -- I think the issue that still needs to be addressed-- and it's hard to say because I haven't seen the language -- is whether 75 feet is still appropriate in C-4 districts that butt up against residential, because we also have that issue ongoing in North Naples with talk of a nine-story hotel at the comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road, which would exactly butt up against a low-rise residential. And it's questionable whether it's appropriate to put a building of that height right next to residential. Now, that's not to say that 75-foot buildings, even a-hundred-foot buildings, are not appropriate in some parts of-- in some areas of C-4 zoning. But I think we have to perhaps address the issue of height limitations in those C-4 districts that will affect, directly affect, Page 13 November 14, 2001 residential areas next to it. And I don't know if that's very clear or not. But if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, and I look forward to seeing the language. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One question. You started out by saying that the building that you're -- on Vanderbilt is 125 feet high? MS. BARKER: Well, it's a hundred-- it's a hundred feet, but by the time they get done with the roof, it's going to be 125, give or take. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: These new regulations, Susan, are they going to be addressing the measurement as to where the -- or is it going to stay the same, the measurement technique? MS. MURRAY: It's -- it's not proposed, obviously, in the information you have in front of you, and therein kind of lies the problem. Our plan for amending these development standards, we had planned to go through workshops with the Board of County Commissioners before we even brought this to you. Those workshops have been canceled twice, and that was one of the reasons why, other than it being involved with the NAICS conversion, that it was pulled because we hadn't had the opportunity to discuss questions, just like you're bringing forward, with the board. John Dunnuck has attempted to schedule one more workshop with them. He told me it was either the 4th or the 9th of December, and that's not set yet. He had just proposed that today. Another option, if we can't get in front of the board, is to schedule a workshop with you-all, and we could adjust the LDC amendment schedule as we currently have it proposed to accommodate that workshop, and then we could set the public hearing at a later date. So those type of issues the board has touched on in past discussions, but we don't have any clear direction from them as to what -- whether or not they want us to address that. So at this time it's not being addressed, but perhaps if we do end up with Page 14 November 14, 2001 our workshop, we could do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sally, you were talking about heights exclusively? MS. BARKER: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Not lot frontages? MS. BARKER: Not setbacks. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I just wonder what a 75- foot-high building looks like on a 75-foot-wide lot. If you had two or three of those in a row, it would be awful looking, wouldn't it? MS. BARKER: Well, that's entirely possible. But you also have to bear in mind that a lot depends on how close or how big the lot is and how close even the side or rear setback would be to a residential area. In the case of the proposed nine-story hotel, it would be the rear side setback for the hotel that would butt up against Emerald Lakes. And under this I guess it would be half of the building height or 15 feet, whichever is greater. So if you take half of the building height for, say, a 90-story (sic) building, that's 45 feet for a rear setback, and that's darn close to a low-rise residential neighborhood. I mean you'd look out your back window, and all you'd see would be building. There would be no sky, no air, no light, you know, all those issues that we like to talk about as far as quality of living. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was just thinking that even if it's a straight C-4 district, C-4 by C-4 by C-4, that if you reduce the lot size from a hundred to 75 feet, you're reducing the amount of air that's going to flow between those commercial buildings. MS. BARKER: I'm sure you're right, and I have no idea how -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't know why we would be reducing those lots. That's the rationale, I guess, I'm Page 15 November 14, 2001 waiting for. MS. BARKER: lots. You're talking about reducing the size of the COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm talking about frontage, lot frontage going from a hundred to 75. It seems to me that's the wrong direction. We're reducing the height, and it seems to me you'd keep the lot size, lot frontage, the same. MS. BARKER: Excellent point. I hadn't caught that one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain has an observation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you reduce the lot size and you put a 75-foot building on there with half the building height as the setbacks, you'd eliminate any area to build in. So I think the problem would solve itself. When you reduce the lot size, you couldn't build as high because you couldn't get the half the building height for-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Flatiron building or something. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, I mean, I think that might solve itself; is that a correct interpretation? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I mean, I think that's a legitimate observation. MS. BARKER: Yeah. But on some of the larger lots, what you might wind up with is a buildable area that in size, you know, is relatively small. But instead of a large, fat building, then you get a tall, skinny building. And I'm not sure that that's any better for our area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the ratio of open space between buildings would end up being half the building height no matter what size width of lot you have. So I think you'd have about the same in impact. My other question was pertaining to something else you said, and that was that you have a C-4 existing alongside a Page 16 November 14, 2001 residential. And maybe staff can answer this for me. Wasn't C-4 supposed to be transitioned before residential, or does this condition exist -- I know it exists in Golden Gate in a couple places, but is this common? MS. MURRAY: It's common in some of the older subdivisions like Golden Gate. And I think a lot of this is as a result of when the ZRO process went through. When the comp plan was initially adopted, staff had made recommendations of eliminating a lot of that, quote, unquote, strip type of commercial development in those areas and concentrating your commercial development at major intersections. And while a lot of the activity centers obviously came to life as a result of that process, a lot of the old zoning districts that were in existence before the comp plan was adopted in the ZRO process still remain. So that's -- there's a particular issue with that. MS. BARKER: To answer your question, Mr. Strain, we have quite a few pockets of-- isolated pockets of C-4 all over North Naples, and they would be prime for building or redevelopment in a style that may not be commensurate with what we want to live with. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: And there's many ways to address situations like that, not just building height or setbacks. I mean, that's one way of mitigating the impacts of commercial development against residential, but you've also got landscape buffering and maybe some architectural design features or something that could be incorporated. So it's -- there's more than one way to resolve that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Abernathy has departed the room. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Susan, just to that point, this height compatibility, there may be a number of ways that it can be addressed, and I guess that would be in site development plan kind of work. But is there some Land Development Code work that can Page 17 November 14, 2001 that. be done to -- to ferret out the specific situations where C-4 abuts residentially zoned area and treat that somewhat differently than other C-4s? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I think that's really what I was alluding to is, you know, perhaps it warrants -- and this was part of what we wanted to discuss in the workshops, was did the board think that C-4 or higher intensity commercial zoning districts abutting residential should have some special development regulation to mitigate the impact. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We'll look forward to reading those. MS. MURRAY: I hope we have a workshop soon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would it be that someone on staff has already attempted to identify the locations in the county, specifically those in North Naples? MS. MURRAY: Yes. We have in anticipation of the workshop. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we will have an opportunity to see MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And understand it. MS. MURRAY: Yes. We have maps. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We can move along. MS. MURRAY: The next registered speakers, I have two of them. And those are for the beach events permits, and that would be on page 49 of your thick packet. And if you'd like, I could have staff summarize what the amendments are, and then you could take the public speakers. And, Barbara Burgeson, I'd call you up to the microphone to talk about that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are on -- Page 18 November 14, 2001 MS. MURRAY: Page 49. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you realize that was eliminated from our summary? Is there a reason for that? MS. MURRAY: No. It should have been on your-- the summary you got tonight. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I haven't reviewed the one I got tonight. I haven't -- but, I mean, the one that we reviewed over the weekend, it wasn't here. MS. MURRAY: I think while you're looking for that, it's been suggested -- Matt, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium and making your presentation first, I -- we haven't had a lot of opportunity for legal review and the legal implications of this proposed amendment, and we're in the process of getting that information. I don't know how long it's going to take, but -- and I hope to have that to you by the next meeting. But we do have a summary of the recommendations of the DSAC, and the EAC voted to continue this. So why don't we go ahead and let Matt present his side, and you-all can ask him questions. And he is one of the registered speakers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Before we do that, I do not have a page 49 in my packet that was handed out -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's in the old packet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's only in the old packet. We didn't get any changes. MS. MURRAY: Yes. The old packet. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we -- we have no changes, so we're in the old packet. MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Adelstein, we're in the old packet. Mr. Grabinski. MR. GRABINSKI: Thank you. Good evening. Matt Grabinski Page 19 November 14, 2001 for the record here on behalf of the Ritz-Carlton. I will try to keep this short since I know we can't vote on this anyways tonight. As most of you will probably recall, last year there were extensive amendments made to the Land Development Code regarding beach events and the use of vehicles on the beach, particularly during sea turtle season. There was a lot of public comment and debate. In the end the Board of County Commissioners passed various amendments to the Land Development Code. At their final meeting on June 20th this past summer, one of the amendments that we requested that they add to the code, that they did add to the code and it's currently in the code, was an express provision that provided that the annual beach events permit, which was an annual permit, could not be revoked as a penalty. It was a very heated issue, but it dealt with some very valuable, very sensitive property rights. And the commissioners agreed, and they passed that amendment. However, several of the commissioners had a -- had a problem with having a permit in our code that could not be subject to revocation. They didn't have a problem with giving us conceptually what we wanted, but they felt that rather than calling this a permit, it should have been structured as more of a notice process. And so in the end when they -- as they voted to give us our amendments, it was suggested that the code be cleaned up and redrafted to not change anything substantively, but to merely turn an annual beach events permit into a mandatory annual beach events notice. At that meeting John Dunnuck respectfully requested the Board of County Commissioners to place that burden on myself and the other attorneys that were working with the hotels, rather than burdening staff. And the county commissioners agreed, and so they asked me to get back up on the record, which I did, and promise to redraft the code and turn it into a notice process. And that's what I did, and that's why I'm here. If they hadn't asked me to do it, I would have Page 20 November 14, 2001 never drafted this amendment. I don't think that it really changes anything. They felt that an apple looked more like an orange, and so they asked me to turn it into an orange. And that's what I did, and that's what's before you now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Would you explain what he just said? I don't understand. MS. MURRAY: Barbara, you want to come forward? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. The amendments that Matt has proposed-- the amendments that Matt has proposed were asked of him by the Board of County Commissioners. They -- in their meeting at the Land Development Code the last cycle, last hearing, they were amenable to the idea that if there wasn't going to be any revocation -- and they talked about being no -- no revocation for a year while they were -- I guess at least for the first year while we were seeing how the process was working, that if there was no ability to revoke the permit, that maybe it should be called a notice. So they directed or asked Matt if he wanted to change that in the code, that he was to bring that back. Staff at the time had not had any ability to respond to the board regarding that issue and since has had a bit of time to absorb the possible consequences of removing the language of calling it a permit and calling it a notice. And we do not, on a staff level, support this change, even though we understand the board asked for it to be brought back, simply because -- I -- I want to give the -- the -- some of the reasons that we've come up with that. We don't have the full list of reasons because we haven't had a formal legal interpretation. However, I've been working with the county for about 12 years, and we used to have notices, for instance, for agricultural clearing. We were not allowed to add stipulations or conditions to them. We could not make changes to them. They were simply a notification process Page 21 November 14, 2001 to us. We were given a very minimal time to review them and to comment, but again, they were just notifications. So we had very little control over them. For the same reason we're concerned that if it goes from a permit to a notice, that there may not be the ability from code enforcement -- and I've spoken with Michelle Arnold, who's the code enforcement director. There's a concern from her staff position -- two issues: One, whether that can be enforced as a notice; and second, if when -- for instance, when a permit is applied for, we have the ability to just not issue it. We can deny the permit application. On a notice we don't have that ability. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You do not have that ability? MS. BURGESON: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You have to give the notice. MS. BURGESON: The -- it's a notification to us that something will be happening as opposed to a permit where we review and issue it. So we -- now, I've asked -- we've put in a request for a more formal interpretation from our county attorney's office on the differences, the legal differences. I'm just letting you know how it happened when we used to have a notice, and that's why you went from the notice for agricultural to an agricultural clearing permit years ago since we had problems with that process. So that's one concern that we have, and that's why we're not supporting it. And then the second concern about the proposed language change is that Matt has added that the commercial beach events -- he's added the language -- in the very, very beginning of the amendment on page 49, he's added the word "commercial beachfront property" as opposed to "commercial hotel resort property." So that means all commercial beachfront property could do this, and that was not what the board asked to come back, and that was something that staff had not originally proposed in any of the language in last year's Page 22 November 14, 2001 amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was one of my questions. How did we get from the hotels to all commercial properties? And I wasn't able to take time to figure out how many there were, so I don't want a situation again like we had with floor area ratio where we didn't fully understand what was happening or the implication on the ground. MS. BURGESON: Right. And that wasn't direction, to make that amendment. I do not -- I could not answer that question for you, how many pieces of property on the beachfront are commercially zoned, but that could be something we could find out for you for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would probably be a very good idea because I think that's probably a question from others up here. And I'm sure that Matt has some elaboration he'd like to give. MR. GRABINSKI: I -- I took out the hotel distinction because through my attendance at the meetings, I thought that that was also one of the changes. I will definitely go back and review the minutes, and if it's absent, certainly -- I represent the Ritz -- I have no problem changing it back to hotels only if that's one of your concerns. And the only other point I wanted to make -- I'm not going to keep getting up here -- about the concern with the notices and not being able to attach conditions to them, if you look at the current annual beach events permit, all the conditions and stipulations are taken straight out of what's already in the Land Development Code. So if there are ever any violations that you'd be concerned about, they'd be enforced as a code violation through the penalties that are in the code. All the beach events permit ever did was reiterate what was already in the code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm not sure that's quite clear because I remember looking at one of those, and we had something to do with time specific on the previous beach permits, which I believe is now in Page 23 November 14, 2001 the code. So your statement that it was just reiterating what was in the code -- from what I remember just briefly and not having looked at those permits again, that created this rather lengthy discussion we had on the turtles and the beach and the time that you could break down and leave things; is that not correct, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: There were a number of new items placed in the LDC at the last cycle, but for the most part it did accumulate either what we had in freestanding ordinances or other sections of the code and other items that came from, for instance, the state and their- - either their permit issuance or some of their information. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Commissioner Strain, and then I want to ask our legal counsel a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one comment to the speaker. You had mentioned you really don't care if this goes through or not. This is something you kind of were forced into doing. And if staff is content with it staying as permits, then do we really have an issue here? MR. GRABINSKI: Well, I would like to hope that I haven't wasted my time and my client's money. I mean, we -- this -- the annual beach events permit and everything that -- all the -- literally more than a year's worth of time. I would say now we're probably up to 18 months that I've worked on this matter. I've been through -- this is my third LDC cycle. And it all culminated and, we thought, ended this past June. But as a final condition, the commissioners asked that the code be cleaned up to accurately reflect the intent that they wanted. And county staff said we don't want to deal with it anymore. We've been doing this for a year. Let the hotel's attorney do it. So I said I would do it, and here it is. It's what I've done. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the previous record didn't you say, though, this doesn't make a lot of difference to you one way or the other? You'd be just as satisfied to -- Page 24 November 14, 2001 MR. GRABINSKI: No. In my opinion it doesn't -- it doesn't affect the rights of anyone. Right now it's a beach events permit, but the code says that the permit is not subject to revocation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So whether this goes through or not, it's not going to have an impact on you. MR. GRABINSKI: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Whether this goes through or not then, you're not too concerned about its impact. MR. GRABINSKI: I'm not too concerned about its impact on my client's substantive rights, no. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: However, the Board of County Commissioners has asked this to come through, so we need to be very careful to understand what it is they were asking for. And if there's something here such as the item of commercial which you agreed that you would check very carefully to keep the word or remove the word depending on what the minutes say -- we have to give this to the Board of County Commissioners, because they asked for it, in some form. And I'm not sure they understand the difference between the annual notice implications versus the permit implications as we've been presented by staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do we know how long ago the board asked for this? MR. GRABINSKI: June 20th. I have a copy of the minutes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Of this year? MR. GRABINSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So it would have gotten -- you got it to us in a timely fashion. We've been dealing with this forever. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair, I'm back, you know, ahead of, I guess, where the commission has ended up. But if-- if the hotel is able to get a permit to do something and then violates that permit, it would certainly seem to me we should have a Page 25 November 14, 2001 right to revoke it. I -- I'm -- that just doesn't wash with me. I mean -- MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- we're not able to -- if you're not able to enforce the regulations and if there's some -- and certainly the Ritz wouldn't do this, but if there's some affront to the -- to the code, we ought to have -- there ought to be some -- some way to -- to remedy that. And I don't hear that that's here. MS. BURGESON: As it was discussed in the minutes of the meeting in June, Commissioner Mac'Kie had talked about the possibility or at least holding the idea that the board would be the body, the Board of County Commissioners, that could hear a request to have that permit revoked. However, even though she placed that on record, she asked Matt how he felt about it, and he did not agree with that. It didn't really get summarized back to her saying that she wouldn't do it. It kind of was left at -- MR. GRABINSKI: Actually, I would love an opportunity to read Commissioner Mac'Kie's response directly from the minutes, because she asked me, "Matt, how do you feel about if the Board of County Commissioners was the only authority that could remove the, quote, unquote, permit after a hearing?" I replied, "With all due respect, we would still be uncomfortable for this reason: As you have all acknowledged, this is a vested right, and it was subject to new regulation last fall. And while you may be reasonable now, this year, we don't know who's going to be sitting in those chairs next year, the year after that, or five years or ten years from now. "And if you do not put express unconditional language saying that the permit shall not be subject to suspension or revocation, you leave yourselves -- maybe the staff can't do it, but Collier County leaves itself a back door to come in in the future and try to shut down Page 26 November 14, 2001 the most valuable vested right that these beachfront hotels have, and it is something that they can just -- they cannot accept." Commissioner Mac'Kie responded, "But if they have a series -- I mean, what if we -- I don't know. Because I agree with your concept completely. It's just you're asking us to say in our code that we issue a permit that we can't revoke, and that's illogical. So I don't know how to get around it. I'm -- I'm open." I responded to her, "Like you -- like you said, if you would feel more comfortable revising the code to change the name from permit to something else, whether it's annual beach event notification form, then do that." Commissioner Mac'Kie responded, "That's what it ought to be." I responded, "Then let's rename that section of the code and then you don't feel like you're issuing a permit that can't be revoked. Instead you're requiring commercial beachfront property owners to notify Collier County, submit an annual fee, and then submit them monthly notices, and you don't feel like you're sitting up there issuing a permit that you can't revoke." Commissioner Mac'Kie then went on to add, "Is it possible to do that in this cycle?" And the whole discussion ensued where they basically said, no, you have to come back and do it in the fall. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So you're proposing to come back with a notice that can never be reviewed. I mean, it -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Annually it is. It's an annual notice. MR. GRABINSKI: It's a mandatory annual notice. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But a notice says you tell us, and we can't tell you anything. MR. GRABINSKI: No. No. current Land Development Code. You just -- You have told us in the -- in the We have spent over a year drafting entirely new sections that already lay out the rules for these activities. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But if the rules are broken, Page 27 November 14, 2001 what can happen? MR. GRABINSKI: Penalized, fines. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But the events cannot be changed. You've noticed us, and those events go on, then, regardless of what the -- what fines are applied. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that was the feeling of this board. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And it's a cost of business then, you know. And that-- we had that discussion before, and I'm disappointed the commission didn't uphold the views of the BCC -- the CCP -- we, CPCC -- CPCC set forth, Collier Planning -- CCPC. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Pick out the letters you like. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And this is only our second item? MR. GRABINSKI: Actually, in the last cycle the Planning Commission did vote to approve these amendments. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I guess I missed that meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we had quite a discussion about the cost of business and whether or not we could in good faith take away a permit from a major hotel such as the Ritz or The Registry for some items that may not -- they could get a fine for or violation and it may not have been them. Someone else could drag the chairs down on the beach and things like this. So there was a sensitivity here about once you accumulated enough violations to have a revocation of the beach events permit, it was really very serious. And I think this board really sort of gave them a chance to prove that they were going to be great neighbors, great stewards of the beach, as anyone else that's on the hotel front. And if they weren't, we'd probably change it later. MR. GRABINSKI: And one issue that was acknowledged and Page 28 November 14, 2001 pointed out by the county commission -- because the whole -- everyone's big concern -- the people that oppose this, the people that have raised their eyebrows -- was sea turtle season and harming wildlife, harming an endangered species. And one thing that was pointed out was that if there was a serious violation -- not a chair being left on the beach here or there, but if a turtle nest was intentionally dug up or the stakes were removed to make room for a party, the hotel has suddenly violated state and federal laws. Okay. Violating the county Land Development Code is the last thing on its mind right now. It's going to have the feds to worry about. It's going to have possible prison terms if employees acted. It's going to have fines that could go up to a hundred thousand dollars. There are already stiff state and federal penalties in place if a serious environmental infraction occurs. But that's not -- I think we're getting off track here. That's not what we're here about. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last question -- MR. GRABINSKI: We're here to review an amendment -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: -- Madam Chair. MR. GRABINSKI: -- that I was asked to draft. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. One last question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: One last question. Where is it written in the code that the hotels have a vested right? That term is -- I've not read in the code, or maybe it's handed down from some higher authority. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I can address that, I think. There's a bundle of rights that go with the ownership of land, and that's reasonable use of it and so forth. So if the hotels prior to an amendment to the code had the ability to use something that was not regulated or was minimally regulated, I think the point is -- well, we had -- a common law -- to bring up a common law right, one that's not -- that comes to Page 29 November 14, 2001 us from British common law that was adopted into our constitution and so forth, that is one of the property rights. So I think that's what Mr. Grabinski is alluding to. It's that bundle of sticks that you have that go with property ownership that, as I stated, wasn't previously regulated or was minimally regulated and now is being regulated or more greatly regulated. So when that happens people talk about, well, I had the right to do this before the change, and that's typically referred to as a vested right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if I follow that argument then, he can ignore all those codes because he has a vested right. MS. STUDENT: No. I don't -- I don't see it that way because we have not taken the right away from him. We have put some regulations on that right. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that's what we try to do here. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: She answered the question. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Answered the question. Okay. Any other questions? Any other clarifications? Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: I have one additional speaker. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, another speaker. MS. MURRAY: Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan. I'm here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And The Conservancy supports county staff's opposition to the amendment language changes. The bottom line is the county needs to retain the ability to deny or revoke a permit if repeated violations occur. A permit will allow such a revocation and notice would not. The LDC amendments will have absolutely no teeth if you are not allowed to revoke a permit. Nobody should be afraid of this permit revocation Page 30 November 14, 2001 unless they realize that after repeated violations they are going to get to the point where the permit needs to be revoked. And I just did want to point out in your summary packet on page 6 where it talks about the beach events and the vehicle on the beach LDC's, it says DSAC recommendations, recommends approval. That's not the case. They did not recommend approval. I don't believe that they officially voted on this. And the EAC did not take any action because Mr. Grabinski was not there to present the petition. And just to point out on page 6 of the summary -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In the item called beach events and vehicles on the beach, you're saying that the DSAC did not recommend approval and you were there? MS. RYAN: I -- from staff, yeah. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You've heard that from staff, and we might -- MS. RYAN: Yes. And if staff could please clarify, they didn't take action. MS. MURRAY: They did not take action. They asked that their -- their summary of their feelings be presented to you, and that was four votes to support staff, two in abstention, and two to not support staff's position. And the EAC, as I mentioned earlier, continued this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And that got translated to recommends approval? Interesting. Thank you for that clarification. MS. RYAN: And just one final comment. When you talk about why should there just be fines, why should we be able to revoke a permit, the county natural resources department has a list of beach furniture violations for the Ritz-Carlton. And you can say, you know, it's a completely different set of beach violations, yes, and what's the matter with 1 chair, 8 chairs, 20 chairs left out? Well, it just takes one chair being left out to entrap a sea turtle when she's crawling up on the beach to nest. So do we want to give these hotels the ability to Page 31 November 14, 2001 never have their permits denied or revoked when you have this list of violations right after the LDC amendment went through and they promised to be really good stewards? Thank you. And I'm sure staff has a list of this that they can provide for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mrs. Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. As I recall our previous discussion, that was one of our really very heartfelt concerns, was that a large commercial enterprise might just -- I'm not saying the Ritz-Carlton ever would do this, but they could factor $5,000 per violation and hardly feel it. But they would feel revocation of a permit if they consistently broke the rules. That was one of our very serious problems. Number two, I feel we should change this first paragraph language immediately; not make it commercial beachfront owner, but return it to commercial hotel resort, which was what the whole discussion was about. And I don't think we want to open it up to anyone who happens to own beachfront because who knows what they might run. That's the terrible "they." COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Am I misunderstanding this? I understood that the county commissioners already approved that they could get a permit that cannot be revoked. Now, is that where we are now? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we are, what are we doing talking about what we should do or not do because we're already in a position we can't revoke it? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, this -- this is a -- this is a Land Development Code cycle for us to consider changes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The county commissioners Page 32 November 14, 2001 have already approved that -- the code that you cannot take away this right. We can make all the things we want, but I don't see where we're going. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: But we do have the right to make the changes to the Land Development Code, and this is here because the county commission, in a rather unusual approach, instead of directing staff to make the presentation and present here, asked Mr. Grabinski to. Staff said no, they didn't really want to. He's an outside party who can make a change to the code and make those suggestions, and that's happened, and that's why this is here right now. I do believe that Mr. White wants to -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just to editorialize to my fellow commissioner, I don't view our hands are tied by anything the commission has done. We -- we are free to make recommendations of any kind we think is appropriate for the public. All right. And they can ignore us if they want to, and they have in the past, but I think that we should speak what we think is right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree with you, and I'm not disagreeing with you with our feelings. The point I'm making is that if the commissioners have already passed it, they can't undo what they've already done. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Sure they can. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes, they can in this process because it's our Land Development -- MR. WHITE: If I may, Madam Chairman, at this point I think that's precisely the comment -- Assistant County Attorney Patrick White -- that I'd like to get on the record. I think the countervailing argument to Mr. Grabinski's notion that things may change one, five, or ten years from now is just that and the point of view of both this commission and perhaps the board as well. There was discussion, I believe, amongst the many meetings that Page 33 November 14, 2001 were held that if, for example, there were a continuing series of violations over the next year or subsequent period, next two years, whatever, that the idea of the revocation or cancellation may be revisited. But to be fair and evenhanded about this, you need to understand that there are penalty provisions in there for failing to provide the notice or -- as it's proposed to be the notice -- or the permit as the code currently is written. There is a penalty for that. And I think that the idea that the board would choose to preclude a revocation or cancellation of a permit or a notice are, as Mr. Grabinski's indicated to you, substantively equivalent. And I believe that what staff's position is that if-- there really is no, quote, net effect. And there's the potential for some things in the code as proposed to be an alteration from what the board did direct, one example being the commercial versus -- another being there's some other text in here as we go through we see there's changes to it that aren't precisely within what the board had directed. I think that those are things that need to be considered by this commission. And, as has been indicated, you're free to make whatever recommendation you'd like. I'm just trying to help you to see it from all sides and put it in the most broad perspective possible. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have one request. Is it possible that staff could present what they wanted or don't want, some of the reasons and give it to us in a bullet fashion? I think that would be very helpful. MR. WHITE: Some of them were presented this evening. There may be ones at the next meeting that are more detailed depending upon the nature of the request that's coming to our office. I haven't seen it yet, and I, of course, can't comment on what the answer would be. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because I -- I did make several notes here which I think were very significant when we talk about an Page 34 November 14, 2001 annual notice versus an annual permit, and I would like to see that in writing for our next time and whatever it is that the county attorney's office is going to present to us. MR. WHITE: I'd like to think that we'll be able to have that in time for your packets. If not, the worst case scenario is we'd be able to distribute it at the meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I think you can probably e-mail it to us. Worst case scenario would be the meeting, but I hope you could e-mail it to us. MR. WHITE: Certainly we can do that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just have a quick question. Mr. White, the -- Mr. Grabinski made a comment -- made a comment that the vesting is part of the property, or Marjorie expounded on it a bit. Do their property lines go down to the extent of their beach -- the beach activities, or their beach activities go beyond the high mean line or whatever line marks their property line along the beach? MR. WHITE: There's a number of factual circumstances depending upon which of the hotels, I believe, you talk about in terms of where the ownership line lies. And in some instances, I think it may be to the mean high water and others it's not. But I'd prefer to defer to -- I think Maura Kraus may be the one who has the best answer to that question, and I don't believe she's here this evening. But it was an issue that was discussed in the prior meetings. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- I'm new to this board, so I wasn't aware of that. The other question then would be the turtle nesting location's on what side of the line? I'm just -- MR. WHITE: Both. Factually -- factually I know they're on both sides. Anything above mean high water line. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Anything above mean high water is -- Page 35 November 14, 2001 MR. WHITE: Where they nest. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- where they nest. Right. And that's usually the property ownership of, say, the Ritz-Carlton in this case. MR. WHITE: I don't factually recall. Matt may know. I don't recall. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Grabinski, just clarify that point real fast, and we're going to move along here. MR. GRABINSKI: The Ritz-Carlton owns to what is called the erosion control line. Just to try to make it as simple as I can, if you picture -- I'm sure most of you have been to the Ritz-Carlton. If you picture the dune line if you go towards the water about 75 feet, they own down that far, their property line. And since most sea turtles will crawl up onto the beach up to or near the dune line well beyond the mean high water line, yes, sea turtles are laying their eggs on the upland property owner's property, whether it's a hotel or a condominium or a house. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I think we're ready to mark that one off the list. We have one other where we have at least one public speaker. MS. MURRAY: Let's deal with the amendment on page 12 of your thick packet, and it's -- this has to do with the Immokalee mobile home parks. The reason this is coming before you is it's really common knowledge that in the Immokalee area there are numerous mobile home parks that were established without official authorization which, if immediately were corrected, would impose an inordinate burden on households in the Immokalee area. And a plan of action has been designed to require these developments to come into some measure of official approval providing for the gradual elimination of substandard housing and to cause some measure of improvements near consistent with current standards. Page 36 November 14, 2001 Knowing this the Board of County Commissioners by policy have adopted the procedures and rules that are now being proposed for official inclusion in the Land Development Code, and those are the ones that are in front of you right now. These policies and procedures have been adopted by the board. By policy they are implemented and in place, and this is just the official act of making them part of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I did have one question on the number of mobile home parks and facsimiles thereof. What, about, is the number total? Somebody have that detail? If you don't have it this time, can we have it next time? Thank you. On page 13, Section 2.2.29.1, the purpose and intent, the purpose of these provisions are. We might want to change the correct verb there or make it purposes of. On page 16, 2, landscaping, (a), I think they mean Florida plant material, not Florida plan. And then under Item 3 on the page 16, I guess my question is somewhat odd, but we're talking about "Where a public water line is available, a hydrant will be required to serve the park irrespective of water line pressure." Anybody from the fire districts talked about this? I'm not sure I understand the logic of putting that there if you have an inadequate water line pressure to handle anything. And it's talking about you're going to seek approval from them, but has the fire district really discussed this? MS. MURRAY: I believe they have. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Anyone from staff know? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. We -- they've been involved in the standards that are developed here, and they are the ones that are doing the inspections and ensuring that the parks comply with the standards as adopted. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And from a liability standpoint that Page 37 November 14, 2001 makes me just a little bit uncomfortable to have this in our Land Development Code the way it's written right here. So if someone from staff could perhaps talk to the fire code official and the person in charge of the Immokalee Fire Department to really maybe elaborate on this a little bit because it sounds like we're setting ourselves up in a liability situation to have the presumption of fire hydrants there and people think they're protected and there's not adequate pressure. And then I guess you'd have to have the supplemental apparatus for that particular area. Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yes. I had a question on Section 22 -- 2229.1. The purpose of these -- the purposes of these provisions are -- that is a very peculiar paragraph. I read it over several times, and I wonder if you could straighten out the language. What you're trying to do is to provide incentive to upgrade the mobile parks, but then you continue and say "while requiring the elimination of substandard units by offering the ability to retain correct diversities while utilizing alternative development standards." I read that three times, and I tried -- I edited a lot of this for my own pleasure, but I couldn't even straighten it out. Could you put that into clear English? MS. MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What you're trying to do is upgrade the substandard facilities; is that true? MS. MURRAY: Right. While-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Could you say that? MS. MURRAY: Yes. We could clarify that for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And -- and truly I have to concur with Commissioner Young that that seems like a very politically worded statement versus something that's practical to be in the Land Development Code. I have another one after she finishes. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Well, a lot of these are editorial Page 38 November 14, 2001 changes, so I won't do those. Oh, one on page 17, the very bottom of the page, could you explain this to me? B, mobile home parks that do not meet the minimum standards may qualify for migrant worker camps? Is that something we really want to do? MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure if it's a regulation per se. In other words, it's more of just a statement that says mobile home parks that don't meet the minimum standards may qualify under the standards that we have established in the Land Development Code for migrant worker camps. I'm not honestly sure how that relates to state environmental health requirements. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And, Ms. Student, could you -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I object to that. MS. STUDENT: I will have to look into that further. I have -- because, again, of time constraints, I have reviewed this but not in the great detail that I would like. And I'm not sure that it even belongs in here. And just along those lines, we -- I don't believe the fee section should be in here either. We have the resolution that sets fees, and I think that's probably the better place to put it because there's some greater ability in a less cumbersome process to bring that to the board to fix or set or amend fees than to put it in the ordinance. So that may be something that staff would want to look at. And I would just say the state requirements are the state requirements, and I don't think they need to be restated necess -- in this section because of what appears to me is the county is setting up the process to encourage the mobile home park owners to bring or work toward bringing their parks up to standard, and that would be through that SIP process. And I don't really know what relevance this has. I'll have to discuss it a bit further with staff, and we'll report back at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: May I ask who actually drafted the policy for the Board of County Commissioners? Page 39 November 14, 2001 MS. MURRAY: I don't know. Ron, do you know? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If we could find that out for next time. I'm-- I'm curious because as Commissioner Young has observed, she sort of changed things and editorialized to determine what she was reading. I did that too, and I thought this is somewhat odd for just the two years I've been around here and the years I spent on the Development Services Advisory Committee reading these to have to vote on them at that level. This isn't normal language that I would ever let get past the Development Services Advisory Committee without complaining vehemently. MS. MURRAY: I'll find out for you. CHAIRMAN RAUTI0: MS. MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you find that out, please? Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just one question. Has anybody done a study to find out the impact that the cost of implementing this change will have on the people in Immokalee that are living in these units, and/or if these units fail to exist at the price range they currently exist, where are they going to go? Is there any thought gone to that part of this equation? MS. MURRAY: Not that I'm aware of, but I imagine that was kind of the -- one of the overriding concerns in developing these policies which are clearly outside of the normal scope of standards that we have in our Land Development Code, specifically to address issues in Immokalee as it relates to the cost of housing and the ability to provide housing for low income individuals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the engineering work and the application work and the process for the consultants that are going to be needed for this work is going to be expensive. And that's the part of what -- I was wondering how much of the cost has been looked at in comparison to seeing this happen in the price range that Page 40 November 14, 2001 these units are being leased in still remain effective for the people that are using them. MS. MURRAY: One of our registered speakers is Vince Cautero, and he may be able to shed some light on it. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, Vince. But I know he's been working on some of these projects in Immokalee so there may be some questions that you have that he could answer. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any other questions of staff before -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I thought Immokalee had gotten a substantial grant for -- for worker's housing. MS. MURRAY: That was a site-specific project. That was -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Oh, I see. MS. MURRAY: This is to address -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: So it wouldn't apply to what the other commissioner was talking about. MS. MURRAY: Right. This is just to address the existing mobile home parks in Immokalee and try to attempt to bring them up to some certain level of development standards, legitimize their existence. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I congratulate you on that. I think it's badly needed, and this is the way we ought to go. MS. MURRAY: Well, thank you. There's a whole crew working in Immokalee on this. I'm just kind of the carrier of the amendment. If that's it, I have Vince Cautero as your only registered speaker. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. My name is Vince Cautero. I'm with the firm of Wilkison & Associates. For the record, our professional address is 3506 Exchange Avenue in Naples. A couple of the questions that were raised I might be able to shed some light on. I appreciate the Page 41 November 14, 2001 opportunity to talk, and I know it's late, and I'll be brief. I'd like to thank Susan and Ron and other members of the planning staff that I've had the opportunity to talk to about the housing initiative program in Immokalee which this document intends to codify based on the board's policy back in, I believe, late June of this year that they adopted which is in your preamble statement, and also Dora Vidori (phonetic), who is the Immokalee housing initiative supervisor located out in Immokalee. And Susan just alluded to the fact that there are staff members in Immokalee, and my understanding is that more staff members are being hired or will be hired to help initiate the program even further. I believe all my comments are logistical, and I commend the entire staff for working on this very hard over the past several years. And it's been an exciting project, and I was personally very glad to be a part of it from the ground floor, and it's really good to see the program at the stage that it's at now. But I believe in working on the project for some clients -- and, as Mr. Strain has indicated, there are some issues that have come to light since we've been working with some clients on the project that I think necessitate some changes to the document, even though the board did give direction to the staff back in June. For the record, I represent Pamela Brown, an owner of the park, and Williams Farms, Incorporated. My first comment deals with the time frames, and this is found on page 13, and it -- it stems into page 14, Section 2.2.29.2 and then also .3, the last part of-- the last -- next-to-the-last sentence of Section -- or Subsection 3. After this is approved, it is recommended here in the document that site improvement plans be submitted within 60 days of adoption of the amendment. And then later on page 14 it talks about within 30 days of the preapp meeting that the SIP application and support documents be submitted. Page 42 November 14, 2001 I don't think that's practical, and I don't think it's practical based upon the experiences that we have had. There's an enormous amount of coordination that is taking place for good reason. And as the staff has told you earlier, the fire department and the Immokalee Water and Sewer District are two of the main agencies outside of county government that are being consulted. And these -- these things are taking time to work through the process. And I will tell you up front, and I'll come back to it at the end, in dealing with some of the logistical issues, my understanding is that the Immokalee housing initiative staff based in Immokalee is intending to work with property owners of these parks on a case-by- case basis as they go through the enforcement maze, and that is dealing with the specifics of the property, not the setbacks that are in here. The setbacks are what they are, and they're written well, and I don't think there's a problem with them. It's time frames on meeting standards to bring the park up to current codes. Those kinds of things are being worked at, it's my understanding, on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't mean that the staff is intending to not follow the code or treat people differently, but I think each park is unique. And you asked the question earlier to staff, and my understanding is that there are 90 parks in Immokalee that fall into this category. That was the number I worked with back in August of 1998. Again, that's over three years old. I'm only telling you what I was told three years ago when I worked on the program. I'm not speaking for anybody on staff, and I know that they'll come up with a more accurate number than I just gave you, but that was the number I worked with. There are less than ten that have submitted, as I've been told by your Immokalee housing staff, site improvement plans. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Mr. Cautero, that was the reason I asked that question because I wanted to question within 60 days and the 30 days that you're talking about in these two areas. It seemed Page 43 November 14, 2001 like such a short amount of time to provide the information from the owners as well as completely burden the staff. MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. I just don't think it's going to happen for that reason as well, as you eloquently stated. If everybody came in afterwards and you had 80-something park owners -- it wouldn't be that many because some of them own more than one, but the number would still be significant -- I just don't think it would happen. And I don't even know if a number should be put into the code, quite frankly, after dealing with this -- with this issue for several months. A second issue deals with -- or that complements, I believe, what I just said, and it relates to the bottom of page 15 where the staff talks about improvement standards on Section 2229.5 dealing with roads and drainage. I don't have specific comments for you about the language that's in there, but I will tell you based on experience on one of the parks that we're dealing with now for one of our clients, there are a maze of easements within this park that are not under the control of our client, and it leads to logistical difficulties when trying to meet the standards for upgrades of the roads. That reason alone would not allow us to meet any of these time frames that are in the document that's before you. That doesn't mean the standard shouldn't be met and that some upgrade needs to take place, and we have to do an enormous amount of coordination with other property owners. I'm not saying that that's something you should change in the code. That's our responsibility. That's our problem, if you will. But logistically I don't think these things could happen that quickly. That relates very significantly, in my opinion, to the last section of the code, which I'll address in a minute. But before I get to that, the fire protection standards that were mentioned by Ms. Rautio a few moments ago, as you heard your staff tell you correctly, the Immokalee Fire Department staff has been Page 44 November 14, 2001 involved in this. And, quite frankly, I like the language that's in there. Maybe it can be wordsmithed a little bit better. And, quite frankly, the sentence that reads -- the second sentence, "Should water line pressure be inadequate, arrangements should be made to seek approval," I think that should be "shall." I don't think it should be "should." "Should" infers that someone will do something; "shall" is mandatory. And I think that that is good for the property as well as the county because it is -- it is forcing the Immokalee Fire Department to become involved in this and be part of the approval process, which is what I believe the housing staff in Immokalee and the planning department staff want to see accomplished, at least that is my hope, that they want to see that accomplished, because they're the people reviewing the plans for that area. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do you know, Mr. Cautero, if the Immokalee Fire Department actually has a pumper truck or a water truck that they could be this alternative apparatus? MR. CAUTERO: That I don't know, but I know that we have to work with them in order for tests to be conducted. And, again, that leads to the -- a time frame issue, but I don't know that technical question. I don't know the answer to that, ma'am. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because it might be good if somebody would find that out, because I agree with you the word should be "shall" not "should." MR. CAUTERO: I'll just move on real quickly and then perhaps you could ask questions. The landscaping section, 2(a), I want to compliment the staff for this language in dealing with the issue. It's straightforward. Someone with expertise but not necessarily a registered landscape architect, again, that provides an incentive for the people to try to come forward with the plans and be done as professional as possible. Page 45 November 14, 2001 Another comment that I was going to make Ms. Student has already addressed. On the fees, I don't believe the fees have any place in the ordinance. There's a resolution for that. It handcuffs the county, quite frankly, if the staff comes to you or to the board at some time -- probably not you, but to the board and the Development Services Advisory Committee and says, "We believe the fees are too low. We need to raise them for these reasons," you'd have to amend the zoning code, and that's -- that's just very burdensome on you. The last comment I want to make talks about the implementation time frame, and I think this is probably the most problematic for the clients that we've represented. It talks about implementing the plan and obtaining building permits within three months. I am not trying to put words in the mouths of the people that I've met with on the Immokalee housing staff, but again, I compliment them for wanting to take each park on a case-by-case basis and looking at what some of the issues are, what the nonconformities are, what buildings are not up to building code, and trying to work with the property owners in a fashion where they can meet the standards that are placed here, remove the substandard housing, replace it with housing that is decent, safe, affordable, and meets the public health requirements. Those are all the objectives of the program that I think we're all trying to strive for, but that time frame, I don't think, can be easily attained for a couple of reasons. First of all, there are going to be some serious infrastructure costs to some property owners. I can't say for all. I can only talk about the ones that I represent. And I believe, Mr. Strain, you asked that question a few moments ago. I can tell you that one of my clients is looking at spending in excess, well in excess, of $150,000 in infrastructure improvements to the park alone. That includes landscaping, road improvements, and fire line upgrades. That's without replacing the mobile homes. And that client has instructed me to work with the housing staff Page 46 November 14, 2001 in Immokalee to try to come up with some time flame to replace the substandard units. Thirty-nine of their forty are substandard. They know that. They've been red-tagged by the building inspection staff as part of the Immokalee housing team. Those are the kinds of things that I think that the housing staff in Immokalee wants to work with with the property owners. Knowing that alone is sufficient, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm not even sure if the time frame -- implementation time frame should even be put in here. When this was first written and adopted in principle by the board -- actually, I don't know how they adopted it other than a motion and vote, which is how they normally adopt a document -- it seemed like a good idea. I'm telling you that I don't think it's a good idea now based upon the things that need to be done and the evolution of the program, the process that the staff is going through. And that new staff is coming on, and it is my understanding -- and I think Susan or Ron will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry to put them on the spot. But it's my understanding that a planner will be hired to review the site improvement plans that will be part of the team in Immokalee and that the submittal of the plans will go through that office completely. That is not the case today. It's kind of a -- I don't want to say a split process, but we're submitting them to Horseshoe. The housing staff in Immokalee is involved, and we're trying to get some issue resolved up front, which we didn't. There's a whole other set of reasons for that which I won't go into, but we just weren't able to for a variety of reasons, mostly our fault. You know, the staff's done a great job on this, but we weren't able to meet with key people in Immokalee prior to submitting site improvement plans earlier this year. That's happening now, though, and that's good, and I think that's where the county is going. And if they're not going in that direction, hopefully I can be corrected. Page 47 November 14, 2001 But until those things are worked out and the process is not evolving to that level anymore in that there's a set procedure: This is what you do every time. Here's the brochures. Here's the packet. Pieces of that exist now. Large pieces of that exist now. But I think until all of those pieces of the puzzle come together, the time frame issue is very problematic for the property owners. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Now, do you have a suggestion? What's your one, two, three? MR. CAUTERO: I put some language together that is very crude, but I don't even know if you should put it in there. Perhaps I can work with the legal staff and the planning staff between now and the next hearing. But I put something along the lines of the time frame for implementation of the site improvement plan, including required building permits, will be determined by the applicable staff reviewing the SIP and reflected in the SIP letter of approval or permit, whatever the appropriate document is, because that's what I -- that's where I think the staff wants to go in Immokalee. We're -- we're recommending certain things to them, asking them for certain things in the actual SIP document. And if they're in agreement with those conditions, basically on time frame when mobile homes are going to be moved off and when other ones are going to be put on there -- I'm not talking about, well, that setback needs to be 5 feet instead of 10. No. You have to live with it. That's the code. You deal with it. I'm talking about the enforcement issues with the nature of the substandard units and moving them off the property and the time frame for bringing them on and the time frame for the improvements of the infrastructure. Those are the two things I'm really talking about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. I believe Ms. Student -- MS. STUDENT: I just have a couple comments or comment. Mr. Cautero, would you be willing to maybe establish some outside Page 48 November 14, 2001 parameters, you know, not to exceed and, you know, have it be a reasonable time line, maybe two years or-- I don't know, but in light of the circumstances, just so we have some outside parameters? MR. CAUTERO: I think that would be a good idea. And to just supplement that comment or question, when we first talked with several members of the staff about those kinds of time frames, with these time frames we thought three, six, nine months was going to be reasonable. It still may be in some cases. In other cases it may not be. For example, we have -- we have -- I'll just leave you with this. We have one client that has two parks that we're representing them on. One had ! 4 units and they've cleared it. The time frame for implementing the changes or the conditions that are ultimately placed on that property when the SIP is approved will not be as burdensome as the second park, which is the one that has the 40 units of which 39 have been found substandard by the building inspector. So those are the kinds of issues -- and maybe six or eight months ago if we had mentioned those kinds of time frames, people might have said, "You're crazy," but I don't know if they think that now. They still might think I'm nuts if I come in and say two years, but I don't know. If really is a collaboration, and I don't know if that has any legal basis in your Land Development Code. It's just something that's reality. MS. STUDENT: What we may be able to do is to tie some time frames to a range of units that need to be brought up to standard. And then if actual infrastructure requirements need to be made, you know, have an additional time frame that could be added on to the time frame that you would have for, like -- you know, if you have to fix zero to five units, it's this long; five to, you know, an additional ten or whatever and set a -- longer time frames for the greater number of units. And add an, even, additional time frame on there if infrastructure -- would that -- do you think some sort of arrangement Page 49 November 14, 2001 like that would -- MR. CAUTERO: I think that's a -- I think that idea has merit. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Why don't you take a little time to talk to staff and try to work some of this out not only on the time frame, as Mr. Cautero has outlined, but the 60-day and 30-day numbers that are in here because that does not seem realistic to me at all. MS. MURRAY: I just want to, you know, make sure that we have an implementation time frame in there, though. Be sure that you recognize that these are structures that have been illegal for years. The objective here is that we have a serious commitment on the record by these property owners to bring these up to standard. If we don't have a standard time frame by which they have to abide by that's reasonable -- and this may not be reasonable given the conditions that we've come across since we've implemented the policy that the board passed -- we may, you know, be able to amend that. And we'd certainly work with Vince and any other interested party in trying to come up with some reasonable standards. But I don't think we can throw away a time frame. You know, we need serious commitments from property owners out there that are going to make this happen. This has gone on much too long. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I agree, too, that that's very important, but we've also got to recognize that staff has to be able to handle 80 or 90 applications, boom, within a short amount of time and then go to the building permit aspect of it. So that's part of what we have to look at also, the reality of it. MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. MS. STUDENT: I would just offer to make -- give it some type of enforceability, we need to have some type of reasonable -- reasonable time frame. Page 50 November 14, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I think we always have to keep in mind that there may be one of those parks -- or maybe more since they've been out of code for so long -- that even though they've expressed an interest in cooperating with the county, they may, for whatever set of their own reasons, choose not to go along with the program. And so there's got to be some kind of a way to make sure that the overall objective is achieved, and that's some sort of time frame. MR. CAUTERO: I don't think you're going to get any argument from -- from me on that, and I -- I applaud the county for that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions of Mr. Cautero? Comments? Thank you very much. MR. CAUTERO: Thank you for your time. MS. MURRAY: Are you ready to move on to the next item.'? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I think we have one more. MS. MURRAY: The next item would be on page 35 of your thick handout, and then there's also an illustration on page 33A of your -- the handout you received just this evening. And this speaker wants to talk on dock facilities, and so I'd just like my staff member to give -- Ross Gochenaur to give you an overview of the proposed changes before we call the speaker. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. Some of you may recognize this amendment. It was brought before you during the last cycle. It was defeated by the Board of County Commissioners due to its failure to get the supermajority vote it needed for passage. The language in the amendment remains basically the same with one major addition. We've made a lot of minor housekeeping changes, and we've made a few major changes. The major changes that we made, the first would allow more Page 51 November 14, 2001 liberal measurement of waterway width for small canals where the mean high water line has receded beyond the platted property line. We've also revised dock extension criteria in an effort to make these more objective. And, finally, what you didn't hear the last time, we're proposing an amendment that would exempt docks on unbridged barrier islands in state aquatic preserves from the protrusion limits provided that the applicant got the necessary Department of Environmental Protection permits. The state permits for these docks are in all ways more restrictive than the county requirements for dock extensions. And given that you have to have a dock to get to your property on, for instance, Keewaydin Island, none of these extension petitions has ever been denied. This seems like a reasonable way to accommodate the property owners and also maintain a certain integrity as far as the dock protrusion limits. Any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You were looking that way. I didn't know if somebody else had a -- right now under the code if someone wants to change any of-- I'm on page 33; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: 35 is the text, and 33A is the illustration. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. 33A is the illustration that doesn't go with page 33; it goes with page 35? M S. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That was -- makes sense, I guess. I'm trying to figure it out myself right now. On page 41 of that request, Ross, we had called out a distance of 20 feet. In the first paragraph it says that the -- "but in no case a distance of less than 20 feet is maintained for navigability." And down below on 262122 they're talking about for lots on a canal or waterway less than a hundred feet in width, docks may occupy no more than 25 percent of Page 52 November 14, 2001 the width of the waterway or protrude no more than-- greater than 20 feet into the waterway. I'm saying that too fast, aren't I? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. I just remembered you're trying to type. If you got 50 percent of the waterway, how does it fit in with that -- with that comment on 262122 in conjunction with page 45? I know I'm probably confusing you as much as I was confused trying to understand this last night. But on page 45 the Article 2621314 reads (as read): "Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes more than -- no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between docks on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability." And what I was trying to understand is if you've got a 20-foot protrusion, no less than 20 feet is maintained between the docks, and you've got a canal that's less than a hundred feet, I'm trying to figure out how this fits together. MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm baffled by your question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. GOCHENAUR: I'm baffled by your question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm baffled by it too. Right now with the -- I'm sorry. I'm going to have to pass on the question until the 28th. MR. GOCHENAUR: It -- it might help if I try to explain that this reduction -- this relaxation in the way we measure waterway width for these smaller canals only allows property owners to now take the measurement from the mean high water line and not the most restrictive point, as applies in the rest of the code. There are cases when you can have a platted 100-foot canal, but the water line has receded, say, 10 feet from the property line, which means under the current code, the property owner has to build 10 feet across dry land Page 53 November 14, 2001 before he gets to the water. Then he can only have, say, a 1 O-foot dock. What we're trying to do is relax the way we take these measurements, but at no time do we relax the basic requirements to maintain at least 50 percent of the waterway width for navigability and also restrict the percentage of the water -- waterway width that docks can protrude to 25 percent. So you've got 25 percent on one side, 25 percent on the other, 50 percent maintained in the middle for navigability. The 20 feet is an absolute minimum. If you had the world's smallest canal and you were trying to reduce this by percentage increments, at no point would we ever want to see a waterway width that was less than 20 feet. Even if that 20 feet -- even if 15 feet were really 50 percent of a 30-foot-wide canal, we would still not allow docks to go out any more than that 25 percent, the minimum 20 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That was -- that was what I was trying to get at. I was trying to understand what the minimum is someone could get down to, and it is 20 feet. MR. GOCHENAUR: The absolute minimum -- I don't know of circumstances where we would have that in the county based on the actual waterway width. The smallest canals really are 50 to 60 feet. And even with the 60-foot canal, you could still have a situation where you had 15-foot docks on either side and still had 30 feet in the middle for navigability. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As confusing as my question was, that's a good enough answer. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What is the -- I guess these canals, Ross, have -- have -- water has sought its own level, and they're not -- never going to come back up again or -- MR. GOCHENAUR: I really don't know. Usually you've got the process of accretion and erosion, not so much in canals as Page 54 November 14, 2001 shorelines, but you can have a situation where the waterway would accrete on one side of the canal, move away from the property line, but erode on the opposite side if you have certain currents. So the canal can meander within the platted width, or it can just gradually contract toward the middle of the platted width. What we're really trying to do is give property owners that are affected by this the ability to take a less restrictive measurement but still maintain that 50 percent that we feel is absolutely necessary for safe navigation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: A masterful job. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I agree. I want to thank you. I think this is going to be very helpful to the people and definitely to our board because so many of these issues that you are clarifying, we were spending hours debating over every 12 feet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I do believe you're going to find this next speaker very interesting. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Uh-oh. MS. MURRAY: Your only -- one and only registered speaker is Mark Morton. MR. MORTON: Hello. Mark Morton. I live in Coconut River Estates, and we have a less than 60 to 60-foot-wide canal. And the staff's done a great job with this language. It's really, really close, I think, to satisfying exactly what they said, the main concern. But our particular canal, the way it was excavated is that the lot lines on the north side of the canal are out in the water, and the lot lines on the south side of the canal are up in the yards so that when you measure from the -- either the mean high water or the lot line -- and this corrects that, which is great. It used to say -- the current code would say you can't -- you'd measure from the lot line, which means people just wouldn't even have a dock on one side, and the other people would have a dock. So I think this is a good correction to go to the mean high water and Page 55 November 14, 2001 really get to the practical conditions on the waterway and keeping the navigable channel. So we haven't had a lot of time to look at it, and we're going to spend some time -- some time looking with -- looking at it between now and the 28th. And we may be saying, you know, this is perfect, or we may want to go for maybe a minor change if possible. So we just need more time to look at that. I just wanted to come tonight to let you know that we were going to -- we have talked to Susan, and she said she's willing to, you know, meet with us and talk about what we have. Unfortunately, it's a very old canal. And what's happened is over time as people go and, you know, add davits or whatever they're -- you know, they kind of modify their docks, they really need to kind of update their building permit. Some people thought the contractor got them the building permit. They didn't. And in our particular neighborhood, a guy built way out into the canal with his house, and he was from New York and was -- was off site. And the code enforcement said, you know, you can't build -- you know, you have to remove 17 feet of your house. And that didn't go over big with the guy. And he, of course, accused Collier County of, you know, all kinds of horrible things. How could you make me do that? And so there was a lot of pressure put on them. And his response to that was to basically to, you know, drive around the neighborhood and try to find everything possible he could on all of his neighbors including docks, etc., and turn everybody in to code enforcement. So it kind of started this thing where code enforcement needed to come out and look at some docks. And as they started to look at it, they had to start citing quite a few people. So the neighbors, you know, have maybe been there 20 years with a dock, others not, you know, are pretty excited about it. And because I have some Page 56 November 14, 2001 experience with the Land Development Code -- I was the chairman of the Land Development Code when it was developed -- how many years ago? I don't even know. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: '91, wasn't it? MR. MORTON: And Commissioner Richardson was on that committee to help develop the Land Development Code, and all the good stuff in here he was responsible for. All the bad stuff was my fault. But anyways, I really appreciate -- I think staff should be complimented. Michelle Arnold in code enforcement went to a meeting on Sunday night at-- and was, you know, greeted by about 60 people who were real excited about, you know, how this thing -- whole thing was happening. And we -- you know, we assured them that with this Land Development Code cycle -- which fortunately it's going on, and the language looks close -- we thought there might be a way to do it this way. It may not be that way, and it may have to be something different, but we think it's worth trying. So we just wanted to give you heads up on that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: About how many properties? Are you talking about 60 people or 60 properties that are affected? MR. MORTON: Well, that was husbands and wives and children -- no. There is 27 lots on the south side and 27 on the north. Of course, that's 54 lots, and they line up exactly, the lot lines. And of that, 40 of them probably have docks, or more. You know, and just about everybody, if you really closely looked at everything, they had, you know, is probably -- is probably not quite in compliance. So we wanted to clean it all up at one time. Everybody's committed to that to -- even some of the people that weren't cited, just to -- you know, to really work on this to get it all straightened out. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Any questions? MR. MORTON: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That ends the registered public Page 57 November 14, 2001 speakers? MS. MURRAY: Yes. What I'd like to do now if it's okay with you -- I'm sure Barbara may need a break shortly here -- I've got two more amendments that Ross has sponsored that are very quick. I don't think you'll even have any questions. Then perhaps we could take a break. And then I'd like to roll through by staff member. We've got some outside staff here. We'll just let them stand up and roll through all of their amendments so they don't have to get up and down. And you can ask them questions while they're here, and then they could-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I like that concept, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 27. Ross, if you'll come forward. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. What this basically does is close a loophole which allows excess parking on adjacent lots without a parking exemption, which requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. We're basically -- if you have a restaurant and you want to expand your parking next door but it's not because you need more seats, you just want extra parking, you can lease the lot. If you want to do it because you have a requirement for more parking, you have seats or you want to add more seats and your required parking would require spaces and you'd have to go next door for it, then you'd have to go to the board. We like the idea that people would have to go to the board in either case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: me. In either case. Sounds reasonable to MS. MURRAY: Next page would be 47. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You must have been good, Ross. You're going to get done first and be able to go home here shortly. MR. GOCHENAUR: I don't know what I did to deserve this, but I appreciate it. This would allow temporary classrooms for Page 58 November 14, 2001 existing nonprofit entities in conjunction with an approved development order. There have been cases when we've asked to approve temporary classrooms, for instance, for the David Lawrence facility. They have an approved site development plan. They still need to continue their classes while they're continuing the work. We don't have any legal mechanism for doing this in the Land Development Code right now. So what this does is basically make allowances under certain very specific circumstances for classroom trailers. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The not to exceed 24 months is just to put a positive time line on it? MR. GOCHENAUR: We would typically issue a similar permit for 24 months which would be -- which they would be able to extend on demonstration of need. If for some reason they ran against a -- up against a snag in the construction process and they had a good excuse for it, we'd certainly extend it if they had a reasonable request. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: Yeah. I looked at that "should be renewed annually," and you assure us that that doesn't mean that they could just go on indefinitely. MR. GOCHENAUR: That's correct. It would allow us to monitor the situation but still be reasonable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Okay. break or-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? Ross is done. Would you like to take a Yes, I think we would. (A discussion was held off the record.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are in recess for a maximum of ten minutes, maybe seven. (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in-- out of recess. Page 59 November 14, 2001 Our summary sheet is where we are now; correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Page 1 of the summary sheet. MS. MURRAY: Well, if you don't mind, like I mentioned before, I'll roll through with individual staff members because a number of them have different amendments. And some of them we can go through real quickly, and some is going to bear some discussion. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just noticed it says Ross Gochenaur on the first item on page 3. MS. MURRAY: That's actually going to be handled by me. Let's go to page 95 through 105 in your small handout that you received tonight. And I'm going to make this short and sweet because Ray Smith is here to answer questions if you have them. But essentially all of these amendments pages 95 through 105 are as a result of the final order and are mandated by the state. Therefore, we are bringing them forward to you in this cycle. MS. STUDENT: And I just would like to state for the record on that that our outside counsel for final order matters, Nancy Linnan of Carlton Fields, reviewed those and advised me that she found them to be consistent with the comp plan and the final order. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Ray Smith is here to answer any questions you might have on those amendments. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So we probably shouldn't have any problems with this then. MS. STUDENT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we need to at least say what they are and move right through them so they're on the record? MS. MURRAY: I can if you want me to. I'm not sure that -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Is that necessary? Page 60 November 14, 2001 MS. STUDENT: Maybe just a synopsis of what it is without -- I mean, the record is here in its written form, so if it's just a synopsis of-- MS. MURRAY: The amendments have to do with -- I think these are the wellfield protection zones, Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4, and their relationship to future solid waste disposal facilities. And that is on page 95. On page 96 there is discussion of furore solid waste transfer stations. On page 97, future solid waste storage collection and recycling facilities that will handle hazardous products and hazardous waste. Page 98, future land disposal systems for the application of domestic wastewater treatment plant effluent are required to meet high-level disinfection standards found in 40 CFR part 135. Page 99 has to do with metal concentrations and the thresholds set forth in Rule 62-640 of the Florida Administrative Code and the deletion of certain metals. Also, the land application of domestic residuals is prohibited in the absence of a wellfield conditional use permit. That's new. On page 103 in Zones 1 and 2 it talks about future petroleum exploration or production facilities as being prohibited and also delete Section 3.16 -- excuse me -- 3.16.4.11.1.1.2 through page 104 and page 105 which includes 3.16.4.11.1.1.3. All of that is deleted. And then on the final page, 105, there's a deletion of Wellfield 1 and 2 and the siting of future petroleum exploration and production facilities. And that's -- that's it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any questions? These are the result of the final order. They look excellent to me. MS. MURRAY: Next, if you have no questions, we'll go to page 23, and that is actually going to be in your revised packet that you received tonight, your handout. And I'd call Carolina Valera, Page 61 November 14, 2001 who is a senior planner with my staff, to explain these amendments to you. MS. VALERA: For the record, my name is Carolina Valera. I'm a senior planner with current planning. To give you a little bit of a background of the reason for this amendment, back in 1997 the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment from growth management to create -- create an interchange master plan for Activity Center No. 9 that will transform in that area into a gateway for Naples. The study -- the interchange master plan study was prepared by WilsonMiller along with members of our community and staff members from growth management, current planning, and transportation department. Design concepts were established as far as architecture, landscaping, and roadway element. The final step in this process is the incorporation of an overlay for this activity center, and that's what this amendment is all about. The architectural component of this amendment will incorporate building architectural standards to achieve a unified Florida theme in that overlay through elements -- incorporating elements into the facades and into the rooflines of the buildings for that overlay. The landscaping component will require an increase of the perimeter landscape buffers for those properties above our minimum code, especially for those properties along 1-75 -- adjacent to 1-75, Collier Boulevard, and Davis Boulevard and Beck Boulevard, 25 feet to be more specific. And for the rest, 25 feet will be the increasement (sic) from our minimum code. Also, additional planting material will be required to be added in those perimeter landscape buffers, and also, the trees will be required to be a bit higher from our minimum code, will be 12 feet. The last part is the lighting and directional signage will be required to compliment the architecture and landscaping of this overlay. Page 62 November 14, 2001 So with those three components, architecture, landscaping, and lighting and directional signage, it is the intention that a unified character be established in that overlay. That pretty much summarizes what this amendment is about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. I want to make sure I understood that the landscape buffers exceed our current standards? MS. VALERA: That is correct. They are above our minimum requirements. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Moving right along. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Next item. MS. MURRAY: Let's go to page 19 and page 20, the Bayshore/Gateway district, and I will summarize this for you, and then Aaron Blair from the comprehensive planning staff is here to answer any of our questions. This is an amendment -- basically I'm working from page 19 -- to add the permission for a pole sign for properties that are located in the waterfront subdistrict of the Bayshore/Gateway overlay district and are located adjacent to the Haldeman Creek bridge, that being subject to certain criteria and standards. And the reason for this amendment is that the Bayshore/Gateway Local Redevelopment Advisory Board believes that properties that are adjacent to the south side of the Haldeman Creek bridge are negatively affected by the existing prohibition of a freestanding sign because those properties sit much lower than the bridge. Obviously the bridge is elevated, and properties on the other side are at a disadvantage because of the height of the bridge. And this is an amendment to allow those properties to have a pole sign where they are currently not allowed. Page 63 November 14, 2001 If you have any questions about that right now, I'd defer to Aaron. If not, I'll move on to page 20. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. Those properties are commercial properties, are they? MS. MURRAY: I believe they are, yes. Okay. Next, on page 20, again, the Bayshore/Gateway district, this would amend certain subsections and add a subsection, renumbering subsections, the purpose of which, to add as a conditional use a bed and breakfast lodging facility -- again, certain -- subject to certain criteria and standards -- and to replace the -- there's a map in here that says it's replacing, but I don't see a map. Maybe Aaron can clarify that. Essentially the purpose of this amendment is to allow for a bed and breakfast as a conditional use in this overlay district. MR. BLAIR: The map's just a Bayshore overlay map. We're just changing it up because there's one lot that's being added that is part of a larger parcel. There's a -- there's a -- what it is is there's three parcels that are owned by the same gentleman, and two of them are in the overlay, and one of them are not. And it's -- right now it's developed as one thing, so it makes no sense to have part of his development split and the other part of it not. And the reason why it wasn't included in the first place is beyond me, but what it does is it does not allow him to properly redevelop his parcel because he would have some guidelines on this part of his property and other guidelines over here. So it negatively affects his redevelopment efforts. And the bed and breakfast is just allowed for a conditional use of bed and breakfast. There's been a high demand for that to be allowed, and the board has told us whatever would be needed to help spur redevelopment in the area, that we should look -- first go to the advisory board, and they felt that it was definitely a positive thing to have. What they're going to be is some sort of, like, fishing guide bed and breakfasts, from what we Page 64 November 14, 2001 understand. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: What is it now? The three parcels are all one thing? MR. BLAIR: It's a nonconforming use. It's got, like, 15 units on three little parcels. So it's definitely something that needs to be redevelopment. And for the record, Aaron Blair. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Blair? MS. MURRAY: I have one more while he's standing up here. If you'll go to page 7 of your thick handout, in the handout I have I will tell you that page 7 through 9, you need to disregard those amendments. Those are for the conversion to the NAICS. But if you get to page 10, this is the actual amendments that you need to consider tonight, and that's relative to Section 2.2.28.8.9.1. And this is the -- an amendment for the purposes of reducing the front- and rear-yard setback requirements. And this is in the Immokalee overlay district, and I believe there's some architectural reasons for wanting to do this. Maybe Aaron can explain it. MR. BLAIR: The purpose of this is that the front setback on Main Street -- this is for Main Street -- is 7 or 10. You don't have an option. And if someone wants to -- if you go down Main Street currently, most of the buildings are either located right on the street-- I mean, the majority of them are right up on the sidewalk. And if we start requiring people to put a 7 to 10 -- I mean, the reasoning for having 7 or ! 0, we don't know why that was even set forth to begin with. But we are allowing them to have a -- put it at 10 and what we are allowing them to do is encroach 7 feet if they build an arcade on the front of their building. So it's just another architectural thing to allow them to reach up and grab the sidewalk, as a Main Street building should do. Does that-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, I was looking at the next part on the side yard, 0 in the event a wall is contiguous to another wall on an Page 65 November 14, 2001 adjacent property; otherwise, it's 10 feet. You smash the two walls together? MR. BLAIR: So the buildings could be connected instead of-- if it was, like, 10 -- if it was -- it's 0 or 10; correct? Is that what you said? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Uh-huh. MR. BLAIR: Well, if it's a comer parcel, we wouldn't want it to be 0, right up on the sidewalk, because there's only a couple pieces that are like that so -- but if the person chooses 10 -- most likely what's going to happen is if there's a building that's 0 on this side, that person's going to choose 0. If they choose 10, you're just going to have this little narrow -- which is a safety hazard as far as design is concerned. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Places to hide. MR. BLAIR: Yeah. Exactly. We don't need that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or dump junk. Okay. That makes sense. And then the rest of this, Susan, we just ignore because it's the NAICS? MS. MURRAY: Yes. We'll have that removed from your packets for the next time. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Now, this particular -- I'm picturing Immokalee when you're talking about this. Does this only apply to Immokalee? MR. BLAIR: Only on Main Street, the arcade does. The bed and breakfast and the map change, that's on Bayshore. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I didn't see it in context. Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: Okay. Okay. I think now we'll go to some of our engineering amendments and-- Page 66 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Susan, before you go further on that, when you redo this, it will be one page, and it will refer to the Immokalee overlay district-- MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- so that it's very clear when we see it the next time? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Bear with me because we'll skip around a little bit here on pages. I believe the first one is going to be page 28 of your thick handout, and that is the parallel parking standards. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Hi. Good evening. Stan Chrzanowski from engineering review services. Because of all the construction we've had going on and development we've had going on in the county and the lack of space, there have been some site plans come through. We didn't used to allow parallel parking on -- on project sites, but we've had some requests, and we don't really have an objection to it. The thing is the only thing in our code says you have to have a 9-foot-by-8-foot parking space. And that's all well and good if you're pulling in at a 90 degree angle from the travel lane, but if you try parallel parking and all your spaces are 9 by 18 -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: say, not eight. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Eighteen I think is what you meant to Nine by eighteen, yeah. Thank you. You can't parallel park into a 9-by-18 space. And we've had a few standards that we've referred them to over the years, architectural graphic standards and the Seelis (phonetic) manual. And there are different lengths that they suggest, but they're all around 23 feet. So we've decided to make a parallel parking standard of 9 foot by 23 foot. Page 67 November 14, 2001 Now, I have gotten some comments about this today, a suggestion. There is a parallel parking pattern where you can have a 9 by 18, a 9 by 18, and then a 5-foot clear zone striped out specifically so that you can pick up actually a little space that way. I don't think I have an objection to that, and I might write that in if nobody has a problem with it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Do you know what I mean? I think I do, yeah. Yeah. It leaves enough of a gap between every second car to where you have room to maneuver to get in and out in a parallel parking type -- most people that live down here a long time forget how to parallel park anyway. But I'll probably include that in. And another thing was pointed out to me that since I added the sentence about except in case of parallel parking where the dimension shall be 9 by 23. Then I say see Exhibit A. Well, that was in there to begin with, but people thought that referred to Exhibit A, that the parallel parking was also on Exhibit A, so I may have to revise Exhibit A to show those two type of parking spaces. But I'll have that done by the next time I come before you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be handy. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: What -- can you describe the kind of project this would -- would this be a big commercial project? I'm trying to picture -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. All sizes. They've -- they've tried doing them in shopping centers and in -- we have a certain parking requirement. You know, if you have a certain size building, you need a certain number of spaces. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And a standard parking lot is 60 feet wide. It's an 18-foot space, a 24-foot aisle, and an 18-foot space. But Page 68 November 14, 2001 then if you only have another, maybe, 20 feet to work with, sometimes they try putting in a drive aisle. You know, you can't get parking in 20 feet unless you go parallel. So they will go out of their way to come up with these configurations to squeeze as much as possible onto a site. And that's one of the things they've come up with. And we really don't have anything in the code that says you can't do it, and there's no engineering principle against it, so we allow it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good. Next one. MS. MURRAY: Page 67. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Which one is that? MS. MURRAY: That is observation of construction. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I didn't write that one. MS. MURRAY: Oh, sorry. Tom Cook. MR. COOK: Good evening. For the record, Tom Cook, engineering director. And what I might do on page 67, but also there's -- I've got, like, five of these that are pretty much interconnected. Page 67, 68, 70, and then skipping over to page 83, and page 84. And basically what we're doing is we're putting some additional language in the Land Development Code which is going to require the engineers to give a better certification on the completion of subdivisions, site improvement plans, and site development plans. Currently the plans we get, they kind of use some weasel words on the certifications, and the plans that are turned in as as-built drawings a lot of times are the ones that are given to them by the utility contractor. And what this is going to entail is that the -- the engineer, the record engineer, is going to have to have somebody on site at different times to make sure they get key measurements on the location of utilities. As I say, we've had a lot of problems with utilities where they've made changes in the field. The engineer's not been aware of it. We Page 69 November 14, 2001 do have inspectors in the field, but with all the work going on, we can't cover everything. So we're putting language in here, again, that at the time we give acceptance, they're going to have to provide certified drawings certified by an engineer to the exact location of the utilities, etc. And basically all five of those deal with that same issue. And one of the other issues is -- tying into the utility ordinance is we're there to provide us notification when certain key work is done, and we put that in the LDC to try and cross-reference the LDC and pick up some of the requirements in the utility ordinance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm surprised that that doesn't happen already. Maybe it's just in practice they try to let you know some of the key aspects. MR. COOK: Most -- most cases, you know, for live tap-ins and -- they do notify us. But there are times when they don't, so what we want to do is, like, at the time they do the paving, be notified so we can go out and check the limerock base and be given that opportunity to get better quality control. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Tom, I wanted to ask on page 67 -- excuse me -- 68 and 69 throughout those two pages we talk about the development services director. Don't we mean the development services administrator? MR. COOK: I picked that up too. We need to make a correction on where they refer to the development services director, and they'll probably change that to the engineering director, since now we have an engineering department separate from the planning department. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because somewhere, I think, earlier in this pile we run across a change to administrator, and I wanted to make sure that it was either the administrator or it was your engineering person who's the director. MR. COOK: I agree with you, because when I was sitting there Page 70 November 14, 2001 reading through, I picked that up myself. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So anywhere that that shows up if you would make that clear. And if that works within your department on procedures and logistics, I would highly recommend that we go with engineering. MR. COOK: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had one thing just on 67. Before we see this again, you're going to go through and make sure we have all the words in -- in the additions that you're making, the completion certificate shall not be based on information, etc.? MR. COOK: Yeah. What you see underlined is the additional language we're going to add to it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think the word b-e, be -- just a little thing. I mean, are we going to -- before it goes before us again, are we going to just proofread these things and -- you know, I'm not trying to be too critical here. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. Mr. Wolfley, you should bring those things out because sometimes they miss them because you read them so many times. MR. COOK: Yeah. I have a tendency to read right through. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And-- MR. COOK: And I know what it's supposed to say, and I don't pick up some -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I do it all the time. MR. COOK: -- grammatical errors. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Mr. Cook, this -- this only deals with stuff that's underground? That's what we're talking about here? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. MR. COOK: Well, it would be the underground utilities but Page 71 November 14, 2001 along with the roadway which -- you know, when you look at the roadway which would be above ground, the catch basins, etc. -- actually, it's all infrastructure that's related to site development plans, site improvement plans, and subdivisions. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just sensitive to the issue we had with one of the applications where the site development plan was not submitted as built because we had the overhangs on a building that turned out to be -- to cut down the distance between two buildings to an unacceptable level. And I just didn't know if this was part of what-- what is dealt with there. MR. COOK: No. This wouldn't be, because -- I think I remember the building you're talking about or the buildings. But that would be more of a regulation within the building department where they get into the hor -- or the vertical type of construction. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And, Susan, as a result of that discussion we had with that other situation, are we okay on those words, or should there be some new words that we're putting into the site development plan portion of our ordinance? MS. MURRAY: I'm not following your question. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, you remember the two -- remember the variance requests that we had for -- on Vanderbilt. MS. STUDENT: That was a PUD where those requirements were -- the distance between structure requirements were in an old 1987 PUD. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. But the problem that came to us was that the documents that had been submitted to the county to review were not as built. They were as somebody thought they should be, and that created the problem because we had nothing to check. And I just -- I was just fishing here to make sure we're -- MR. COOK: I think the error might have been made on those Page 72 November 14, 2001 when the site plan was -- was submitted for the buildings that were going to be re -- be located, they didn't pick up some of the additional information on the adjacent property, and it caused an encroachment if it's the same one I'm thinking about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No. I think this is -- this is Vanderbilt Beach, and it was actually a PUD which was somewhat unusual because one developer did one portion of the PUD and another developer did the other. And the actual site plans as-builts that they had did not show the stairwells properly, so it was truly a confusion over the as-builts that were submitted. And obviously they got a certificate of occupancy. MS. MURRAY: I'm -- you -- none of you may know this, including Marjorie, but we're being sued over that issue. So I don't think we're going to discuss it too much further at this point. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We won't talk about that anymore. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, but in a general sense, though, a procedural sense, I want to make -- I was asking the question whether our site development plan adequately covers this now so that we-- MS. MURRAY: I -- I'm very sorry. I thought we were talking about underground -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We were. MS. MURRAY: -- information, and we kind of switched gears here, and you've kind of-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: He said the term "as built." That just triggered that portion of the discussion. If it's not appropriate to bring it up now, I'll bring it up later. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. MS. MURRAY: One more page -- I'm sorry. If you have no more questions, Tom, page 73, are you handling the -- Page 73 November 14, 2001 MR. COOK: Page 73. MS. MURRAY: -- dual water amendment, page 73? MR. COOK: Okay. This amendment is -- is putting a provision in that when they submit subdivision plans or site development plans, if they're appropriate, that they make provisions for both a potable water system and a reused water line system. And this was directed to us by the utility division, and what they want to do -- or the direction that they've -- that they're going and they've been directed by the Board of County Commissioners is that in all new subdivisions, that potable water will not be available for irrigation, that they'll have to have arrangements either using reused water, if it's available, or use a system pumping out of their lakes or with wells. And, again, this has been directed to us by the utility division by way of the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And I did write on my original paper that I have on page 73 here, it says, "There are no fiscal impacts to the county; however, developer costs will increase in direct proportion to the costs of the reuse water system." Are these not going to be dedicated to the county? So, A, don't we have a maintenance issue and an operations issue? MR. COOK: The county does not want them dedicated to the county. They do not want to maintain them. They do not want to maintain, you know, the distribution system. They do not want to maintain the wells or the pumping system that would be associated with it. If they use reused water, they will install the meters. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So then if the developer only has to dedicate the potable water system and not the reuse system, where do we know that by looking at this? Do we find it someplace else? Because I thought that was very odd, that I, as a person who's very familiar with this, thought hmm, maintenance and operations. And wouldn't we have to say that we're not going to dedicate to the Page 74 November 14, 2001 county the reuse water lines? MR. COOK: Excuse me one -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I don't know if it comes here but ... MR. COOK: And you may not have -- there's been a revision, so I'm going to -- because I -- the one I was reading I couldn't pick it up on either. But this is also a statement included in new 73, but we're saying reuse water lines, pumps, etc., will not be maintained by Collier County. County potable water will not be permitted for irrigation; therefore, the developer will need to provide irrigation water from a source until such time that reuse water may be available. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Boy, that certainly is -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: From an alternate source? Is that what you're saying? MR. COOK: Yes. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You know-- MR. COOK: The alternate source, again, would be either by wells or pumping out of the lakes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's not possible in all parts of Collier County. I mean, that I can tell you for sure. MR. COOK: And what I'll do, I will have Joe Cheatham available at our next -- next meeting because they say this would -- the direction's from the utility division, and they're probably better prepared to answer some of your questions regarding the legality of it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You know, I really would like to see him here because I used to own a piece of the property in an industrial park that the only reason right next door could be built was because I had a lake on my property. And we had the fire pump in case something happened, and they had access to the water and could do the whole thing. And once water and sewer lines went down, it Page 75 November 14, 2001 wasn't relevant. But literally the people next door could not build if there hadn't-- if somebody hadn't dug a fishing lake on the property I owned. And I can see where this issue of are you going to have an alternative source of water could need a little bit of research, and I'd like to see that come here because I certainly don't want to require something that cannot be done at all. And I think utilities owes us that information and owes the Board of County Commissioners the same type of information to tell us, okay, what are our options if there's any places that you're not going to have a source of water available? MR. COOK: I agree with you, and I will make sure that some -- a representative of utilities is here at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And you might even want to mention to them that, oh, gee, are they going to require people to buy a pumper truck and keep the water in it to do irrigation? MR. COOK: I have some of the same questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. So do get them here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You know, the structure situation now is there are 73 condominium associations that are building projects wanting effluent water that can't get it. And right now the rate, of course, is going up substantially because it's a limited supply. But if you start something like this, these people may have to wait for years in order to get effluent water. They're going to have to have their own pumping system or there won't be any way to do it. MR. COOK: And that's what I was saying, and that's really pretty much what's stated in here, but I -- we do need to have somebody from utilities here to answer your specific questions on that and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Because the county's potable water will not be permitted for irrigation seems -- it's just almost Page 76 November 14, 2001 draconian in what I know of this county and how many times I've put water lines in and dug lakes and things like that as a utility contractor. MR. COOK: Well, some of this came up at the last minute, because when I talked to utilities today, that was some of the language they gave me to be inserted in it, and it was a little bit simpler than that until the directions I was given. So I will have them here to defend it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Please do. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Commissioner Richardson. Just on a slightly-- this is only going to apply to new subdivisions it says here. MR. COOK: Yes. It wouldn't be a retrofit to, you know, existing subdivisions. It's just when you're coming in with a new subdivision that -- according to this that potable water would not be available. They would not be permitted to use it for any type of irrigation. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm just thinking of some major redevelopment, though, that might take place in existing subdivisions. I know we've got a lot of things that are on the horizon where that might happen. And that's certainly some advantage in having -- in preserving our potable water supply, and I'm wondering why it might not apply to -- you know, Cape Coral went back and redid the whole thing to get reusable water. It's not -- but the intent is just for new, so I understand that. But I'm just wondering why it's limited to that. MR. COOK: I think one of the problems right now is there's not enough reuse water available. There's more of a demand for it than what's currently available. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. And then to require in our Land Development Code that you come up with an alternative source for water until the time it's available is, to me, completely unacceptable. It is not a logical financial, economic approach to what Page 77 November 14, 2001 we should be requiring for new development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It's called rainfall. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yeah. But then you've got to collect the rainfall and have it available to irrigate when it doesn't rain. I guess I've editorialized enough on that one. Any other comments? Okay. Do we have any more for Mr. Cook? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Please let the record note that Mr. Adelstein has departed. We still have a quorum, but we're not voting on anything, but we will listen carefully. MS. MURRAY: Page 74. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Stan Chrzanowski again. This amendment is -- we've noticed a trend in Collier County to build houses as absolutely large as a given lot will take. They come very close to the side property lines and the roofs -- the roof area is just absolutely huge. The amount of impervious area is not what a lot of these projects were meant to take. And we have a lot of problem with water running off one roof onto neighbor's properties, and we're just trying to gutter the water to the back or to the front, whichever way the drainage goes. But in the same vein if you look farther down, you'll see that we also have a problem with -- there's a common design practice in Collier County where they store water on the lots within a subdivision. The people move in. They buy during the dry season. They have a back yard that's at two levels. The wet season comes, and all of a sudden they have standing water in their back yard for long periods of time. They have young children. They come to us. They say it's a public health, safety, and welfare hazard. And we've let them put in these infiltrator-type systems which are a percolation- type system. We found that we can control this pretty good in commercial Page 78 November 14, 2001 and industrial areas where -- where there is some type of maintenance entity and some type of inspection. But in a residential subdivision, once we're gone, the homeowners come in. You know, they buy a load of fill. They throw a little in the back. The neighbor sees it. He does the same thing. They put in an infiltrator, and then they plug both ends of it, you know. And we don't -- we can't physically catch them all. Most of what we catch is when their neighbors turn them in. And if everybody does it, we don't catch anybody. It's wreaking havoc with the water management. So we've decided we want to do away with infiltrators. We want to do away with on surface -- or on-site retention in single-family home lots in these subdivisions and with the guttering. Does anybody have a problem with that? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: of subdivisions -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious. Could you name a couple I'd prefer not to. -- that this is happening on? I-- You'd prefer not to? Yeah. I can tell you up in the Willoughby Acres area there's a few subdivisions that are set up like that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Because it -- I didn't think we allowed on-site retention in a residential area that wasn't obvious. You can't just have the lot hold the water. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, we do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We do? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the way they're designed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. I can verify Stan's comments. There are quite a few developments like that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I've asked engineers not to do it, Page 79 November 14, 2001 and they say, "We can do it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: real -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So we're trying to do away with it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. large properties then. Code lets us do it," and it does. Wow. That's fascinating. That's a That's what we think, it's fascinating. And this -- that's not just the MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's anything from now on. Like, in Golden Gate City, it's an existing subdivision. And when those people come in to build a duplex, they're going to have to hold water in their back yards. And if you've got kids, they're going to be playing in the water in the -- in the wet season. There's no way to stop them from doing that at this point. We're talking about new subdivisions where the design can be done right now, it's going to be done properly. The old ones we still have to let them do it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. You can hold water underground, too, even if you had -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But we don't like those underground systems in residential areas because they -- they're not maintained. They plug. They sediment in, and people mess with them. They plug them up. They dig up the ends. They don't like the way the end looks, they plug it. They want a back yard. They don't want a retention system. They don't want a culvert sticking out. They -- you know, when we're not there, it's your lot. It's my property. I can do anything I want on my own property. That's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's -- I fully agree. I think this is well warranted, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one question about the 10- foot measurement. Is it -- is it 10 feet from the end of the gabled roof to the end of the gabled roof or from wall to wall? Page 80 November 14, 2001 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually it was meant to be from wall to wall. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You'd be better off at 10 feet from end to roof-- from roofline to roofline, wouldn't you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You'd get more that way? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The overhangs on these buildings vary anywhere from 2 feet to 4 feet. I'd probably be better off wording it from the face of the building to the property line. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. That might work better. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That might be a good idea to look closely at that because I think that happened in some other thing we were looking at previously in a variance. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ten feet from the face to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You could set the walls back in and end up having your overhang quite a -- quite far out and then -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: 7 1/2 feet. Anything more than 7 1/2 feet -- or anything less than -- it's automatically 7 1/2 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A lot of them go 5 now. Just a suggestion. But I think it's good. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I'll look at it by the next time and change that to whatever looks good. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: every day, Stan. Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You know, you learn something new You're welcome. MS. MURRAY: If you're done with that, page 86. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The present -- oh, I don't have to say Stan Chrzanowski again, do I? The present formula we have for computing impact fees for excavation in Collier County is based on a formula that was done by a consulting engineer for the transportation department, and that is based on the duration of the excavation, how Page 81 November 14, 2001 many years it's going to take, the distance that the fill travels, and how much fill, which when you total that with the duration, it tells you how many trucks are going to be on the road every day. The problem with the formula is it yields values anywhere from 20 cents a cubic yard for a small excavation done in a short duration of time down to less than an penny a cubic yard for a large excavation that takes 20 years. We see that as not equitable. The road only sees the weight of the trucks that it's looking up at, and that's -- that's what does the damage to the road, not -- the old formula was a capacity-based formula. They figured that the trucks took up so much road capacity. If a road is capable of taking 30,000 vehicles a day and 1,000 of those are trucks, you're using up 1/30 of the capacity of the road. Well, if you look farther into the portion that was deleted in here, you'll see that you get a credit for that anyway against the future use of the project, so this wasn't really an impact fee. And transportation noted that the trucks are actually damaging the road. They're not using capacity, especially on the short-term excavations. So we estimated -- well, we didn't estimate. We went through all the excavation permits in the county, commercial, and we figured that over the last few years we've been averaging 4 million cubic yards of fill moving across county roads every year. And then we went and did a truck count. If you look on the Internet and you go to all these AASHTOW, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official Web site, different state Web Sites, you'll see they all say that heavy trucks cause all the damage to roads; cars don't. It's the heavy trucks that -- that wear the roads down and wear down the subgrade and all that. So we counted all the heavy trucks moving on maybe half-- maybe a dozen roads in Collier County, and then we took a percentage of those that were fill trucks and concrete trucks, because Page 82 November 14, 2001 generally the concrete excavating that are done in this county are done with local aggregate, dug out of the ground from fill pits. And we took a proportion of the fill trucks -- that proportion of all the trucks that were fill trucks. And the transportation department gave us a number that they spend every year to repair damaged roads. So we took that number and computed how many trucks haul 4 million cubic yards and the percentage of those that are -- the percentage of all trucks that are fill trucks, and it comes out to 1 cubic yard of fill causes about 4.7 cents worth of damage to the road. Now, you might ask why it's not 5 cents, like Ed Kant wanted it to be, rounding up; and you can ask Patrick White, who said we have to prove it's 4.7, not 5. I guess the formula has to be accurate, statistically significant. I'm surprised I could say that. But anyway, that's where the 4.7 comes from, and that's the logic behind what we're doing. If you have any questions -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That was my question that I did have. And I did want to ask, though, it doesn't say in the actual Land Development Code that the money's going to go for road repair. Is that something you purposefully don't want to put in there, or wouldn't that be something that's allocated and you want to know that it's going into some road repair account? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The account is set up in the computer. They'll assign it an account number. Right now we put it into district -- into road impact fee districts, and it goes to a road impact fee. So we just set up another account. But I suppose I could get transportation to come up with some kind of wording as to where it's going to go, what fund. I'm easy. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You'll wordsmith it? Because I like that concept, and I think it makes it clearer that that money is something that is going for road repair because people do complain about the damage done to our roads by all these trucks running up Page 83 November 14, 2001 and down, back and forth. And I think this is visionary, and it's going to solve a problem. And if we have to deal with the formula at this moment at 4.7 cents per cubic yard, I'm all for it. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Madam Chair. The only problem I have with it is that I presume the cost of road repair is going to go up in the future or change. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ed Kant said we would change this every year. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We'd have a Land Development Code change, then, every time that we want to change -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Just change the one number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could we say as amended? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it's 4.7 cents this year. He -- he may come by next year and say it's staying 4.7. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Who's he? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ed Kant or whoever is doing Ed's job next year if it's not Ed. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Question, Marjorie. Is that an issue that we should consider here, that we put the pennies into the Land Development Code like this and then may have to change it each year since Mr. White is saying that it has to be a formula? MS. STUDENT: Well, it does have to -- I mean, you just can't pick a number out of the air. I think his word was statistically significant. But I -- when I saw that I questioned, too, why it might not be in the fee resolution instead, and I don't understand -- to me, it just seems for the same reasons that we utilize the fee resolution that it -- this would seem a logical place to put it, and it's easier to amend. But, you know ... Page 84 November 14, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It just seems awkward to have to come back with a Land Development Code change if you're changing -- change it because it needs to be changed. I'm not objecting to the number but -- and the process. It just seems like that process should be -- MS. STUDENT: Right. And that was the same reasoning that we had on the other item in the -- for the SIP process for the Immokalee mobile home parks. And I think what was in the code prior to this was a reference to -- wasn't it another ordinance or something, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ron reminded me that amend the Land Development Code every six months -- MS. STUDENT: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- which is more often than we amend the fee ordinance. So I-- MS. STUDENT: That is true, but to amend the fee resolution's a lot less cumbersome than this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Oh, reality is wonderful, isn't it? Commissioner Young. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What about the last sentence saying subsequent yearly fees will be based on the previous year's total excavation and computed costs that appear in the annual -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: What that is meant to do is the first fee for the first year we estimate you're going to dig this much, and it's going to cost you this much. But then every year -- by ordinance every excavation has to post a yearly summary of the previous year's excavation, how much they dug. And we'll take their previous year's excavation and base their next year's fee on the 4.7 cents and how much they dug the previous year. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I was just trying to include a phrase -- Page 85 November 14, 2001 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A change? COMMISSIONER YOUNG: -- that would involve if your figure of 4.7 changed, that you could include it right in here so you wouldn't have to change it. Do you follow me? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am, I follow you. But I don't think -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: You don't think it could be done. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think it's easier just to take the 4.7 and change it to 5.3 next year. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. STUDENT: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to -- go ahead. I'm sorry, Stan. I didn't mean to -- what is stricken through here is more of a process of when a fee is going to be paid and what it's paid in accordance with as opposed to setting an actual amount. And I can talk about this with staff, but it's my position right now that this belongs in the fee resolution and not the ordinance. We can talk about it. But what's stricken through is different than this. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We'll see what you-all come up with next time around, and I do appreciate Mr. Nino's comment that we do this every six months. And if we really wanted to, we could put it in those special changes that the Board of County Commissioners has deemed appropriate to keep us here at night. MS. STUDENT: Well, that's my point. You can fix a fee resolution, I think, in one meeting as opposed to four. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you for that clarification. One meeting instead of four. I like that concept. Next page. MS. MURRAY: Page 88. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This one's about wellhead protection. During the last flooding we had of Golden Gate Estates, our well inspector noticed that some people had taken the wells drilled in their Page 86 November 14, 2001 back yard and kind of cut them down to ground level, you know, because they don't like the thing sticking up. He noticed one where somebody was piling horse manure near the well. I know. Anyway, we've decided that the best way to keep people safe from their own devices is to come up with an ordinance where they have to put a slab at the house slab level or 18 inches above the road, which is truly the minimum because a lot of house slabs in Golden Gate are raised artificially to make up for the difference that -- the drain field has to be above the water table and the pitch of the pipe. So we've gone with the lesser of the two, the house slab elevation or 18 inches above the road. You pour a slab around the wellhead, and then you slope the ground away from it. It keeps the water away from the wellhead. It keeps the wellhead protected. It makes it harder for your average homeowner to go out there and do something dumb. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And DSAC did approve this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Stan, how would this apply to existing wells that possibly need to be redrilled? Maybe a homeowner has been out there in a house for all these years, because this would require -- I mean, most of the slabs that are -- most of the wellheads that I know out there are at level now. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I -- I would guess we'd -- we'd do it for any well being drilled in Golden Gate Estates from now on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That homeowner-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Even if it's an existing home. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then they'd have to -- they'd have to build up the area around the wellhead then with some means. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. We're talking a couple of feet, 3 feet, not that much. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just thinking of existing residences where this would have to be trucked in and get done and Page 87 November 14, 2001 you'd have to build a -- fill in a bed and proper slopes and everything else to make it large enough to maintain your equipment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. Commissioner Strain, are you saying we should have this apply to existing wells or not? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm concerned that it would be a burden on existing homeowners, but I understand the purpose of it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They'd have to truck in a truckload of fill, about a hundred dollars, around every new wellhead that goes in. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does this say that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, you'd have to do it. It doesn't say you have to do it. It says you have to fill it. Now, he could go into the back of his property, get some wheelbarrow loads of fill from somewhere in the back, and put them around his wellhead. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So we're talking about immediately following the construction of a private well, etc. Does that mean reconstruction of a private well, is my question. Do we need to clarify that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we don't consider that reconstruction. You just drilled a new well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: If you're drilling a new well, you would have to do something different. And you wouldn't drill necessarily in the same spot. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You don't. You abandon the old well and you drill one -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: So that's a new well. Okay. And I guess we'll have to make sure that we educate the public, that they know this. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MR. CHRZANOWSKI: CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You would think. That's your job, Stan. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions? Page 88 November 14, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: If I'm just using my -- Stan, if I'm just using my well for irrigation purposes, this doesn't apply? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I hadn't thought about it. In the estates most people use one well for both. They just don't treat the irrigation water but -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I'm not getting this in context. Does this only apply to the estates area? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was meant to apply to ag and estates both. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It doesn't apply to Naples Park, for instance? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Or the wells in Willoughby Acres that are used-- well, they have -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. Those are all -- those are all irrigation wells. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's not-- and truly, maybe it should be meant to protect the aquifer instead of the homeowner. And the majority, 99-plus percent of homeowners do the right thing. It's just you've got a few that -- and the guy could contaminate his neighbor's -- the aquifer for his neighbor too, so we have to protect everybody. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You know, I think that's a good approach, is protecting the aquifer rather than protecting the homeowner from something that they're not doing very smartly. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. I know my irrigation well's, you know, ground level. It's right there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But is it near your house? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. It's 2 feet away from my house. Page 89 November 14, 2001 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Almost at the same elevation as your house? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. You're probably okay then. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, if I-- if I thought this applied to that, though, then if I drilled another well, I'd have to do something quite extensive. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's what I was getting at with my comment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. So-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But if it only applies in the estates -- I'm just trying to get this amendment in context. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Should we limit the application of this amendment? MS. STUDENT: Maybe you could say it only applies to -- or does not apply to wells used solely for irrigation purposes, and that would cover it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you work on that? Solely for irrigation purposes. Good point, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Strain. Not applicable. It looks like we're narrowing them all down until we only get Dawn Wolfe standing in front of us here shortly. MS. MURRAY: We're slowly getting there, but right now we need to go to page 55. Patrick White. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. These proposed amendments resulted from an ad hoc committee of individuals largely comprised of professional surveyors and mappers who I met with at one of their organization's meetings, and we decided to come up with the ad hoc committee approach to developing these proposed amendments. Page 90 November 14, 2001 They reflect essentially the consensus opinion of that ad hoc committee with regards to means by which we could simplify the plat process in terms of what's required to be stated on the face of the plat; also, to conform to current standards for title opinions by attorneys, meet what the Bar Association itself believes is the minimum. The Florida statute allows you to have either a title certification by an abstractor or an opinion of title from an attorney. We've had somewhat of a hybrid that's been submitted and, based upon past practice, accepted those. This would, if you will, to make a bad pun, raise the bar a little bit for attorneys and require them to actually submit an opinion that would meet the standard of the Bar. We're simplifying some other aspects of the code by making the dedication text somewhat more standardized in terms of a format. One of the things that's very helpful to a reviewer is knowing where you're going to expect to find certain things when you look for them and to follow other kinds of conventions. And all of the surveyors and mappers seem to agree that that's a good thing. They would prefer predictability and consistency, and that's what these regulatory changes ultimately are intended to provide for. We've simplified other matters by making it possible for a mortgagee's consent, for example, to be submitted, as the statute otherwise allows and in Chapter 177, to be on a separate recordable instrument such that when you go to have the actual Mylars, which are the plastic plats that are the ultimate, final form of these documents that are recorded in the public record-- you know, rather than having it sent around to everybody including the mortgagee, the bank will -- holding the mortgage. You could, in particular when you have a circumstance where you have out-of-state property owners, greatly reduce the amount of time to also have to send it through the mortgagee. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I want to comment here. Page 91 November 14, 2001 MR. WHITE: If there are any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: On page 58 at the top of the page, we have our infamous phrase "development services director." MR. WHITE: Did I miss that one too? I caught yours on the other one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I was wondering who that position is and if the title is administrator or an engineering person. MR. WHITE: I think it probably ought be the planning services director. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Planning services director. MR. WHITE: I think that's the more correct current title for the director position. If Tom Cook wants to take it on, we could let him be the -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was going to say, but doesn't development services director mean the administrator, the administrator or his designee? Now we're getting down to very specific, planning services director. I just want to clarify that because I'm still trying to figure out who belongs in some of these positions and what the -- you know, the titles mean. We like consistency. MR. WHITE: Consistency is certainly fine, but I think you would also like to have the appropriate person who has the knowledge and expertise in the review of these instruments to make the determination of whether or not you're going to allow for the placement of the certification somewhere other than on the first page. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Correct. And if, for instance, that -- just using the term "development services director" -- position was not filled, you might have an interim, but there's no designee whatsoever. Is there only one person in the county that can do this? MR. WHITE: No. I believe that there are code provisions, standard code provisions that contemplate designee for any of the Page 92 November 14, 2001 positions that are specifically mentioned in the code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You believe that? MR. WHITE: Yes, I believe that to be true. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'd like to know that. So maybe you could just clarify that the next time we come through, because I notice this every so often. MR. WHITE: My recollection is that -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Your recollection is that. MR. WHITE: If you'd give me a chance to go find the code section, I will put it on the record. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We can talk about it next time, but I really would like to know that we're all talking about the same types of directors and -- and people that are working so that it's real clear to the public, it's clear to the people that work with that on a regular basis, because I know we change titles once in a while, and sometimes you promote someone, sometimes you demote them with their title. But I've always been under the impression that development services director really was referring to the administrator. MS. MURRAY: Historically it was referring to the planning services director. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Planning services director. MS. MURRAY: It might be better to put development services administrator at this point in time because that could apply to his or her designee as well, which may be Tom Cook or may be the planning services director, depending on what you're -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And the only reason I do bring this up is that we went through that when we were trying to make the utility standards ordinance. We had to make sure we understood who it was that could make some of these decisions. And there was -- within the community of the experts and the professionals that work with it Page 93 November 14, 2001 every day, there was some real disagreement as to what level of a person could approve something -- MR. WHITE: My belief is -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- and we spent much time on it. MR. WHITE: -- what's on page 62, which states engineering review services are required to sign off on the plat, that we should conform it to that position. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good to me. Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I've got three quick questions. On the first page, page 55, Item No. 1, general, "no building permits for habitable structures shall be issued prior to approval," and habitable structures, does that include models? MR. WHITE: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. On page 65, Item D, "a non-exclusive public utility easement to all licensed or franchised public or private utilities as shown on this plat," and I think that's referencing language that you want on the plat -- MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- for the utility easements. Some subdivisions don't allow all licensed, franchised public or private utilities into their subdivision. Sometimes they are ordered by contract. I think Time Warner does it and Sprint does it and some of the others, and I am wondering has it got to be all, or can it be subject to the uniqueness of that particular subdivision or what contracts it may have? MR. WHITE: I believe if you'll go back to page No. -- wherever the beginning of Appendix A -- I think it's Appendix A -- Appendix C, I'm sorry, page 60. Page 94 November 14, 2001 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: These apply to 95 percent of the plats we review. And in those instances where there are exceptions, as you've indicated, those are known at the time that they're submitted. And we would allow them to alter this provision because, as it indicates at the beginning of Appendix C, that the text is -- and format are intended as a guide for preparers, and it's not written in concrete, if you will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if someone came in and wanted to list the specific entities, you -- your department wouldn't have any objection to that? MR. WHITE: Our office has no objection to that, and I've yet to see staff object to it. It's generally a circumstance where it's known based upon the phase of the development or subsequent unit that may be brought in for a further platting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And there's one last line on that same page, page 65, Item D, "In the event a cable company damages the franchises (sic) of another public utility, it will be solely responsible for said damages." MR. WHITE: That is statutory. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's fine. But cable companies, I've been finding, aren't the biggest problem in damaging other utilities. It seems to be gas companies. And I'm wondering if you could put some provision in there that makes sure that gas companies will repair their damages. MR. WHITE: I think it's an accepted notion of general law that if you cause harm, you're responsible for the damage. The only reason this provision is in here is because in Chapter 177 there was a specific requirement that that -- it's not a requirement per se, but there's a specific mention that that is applicable to cable companies that cause damage. And we, for the sake of putting folks on notice, in particular the cable companies and someone who may suffer Page 95 November 14, 2001 damages as a result of their activities, that that is the case, and that's what the statute -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But in any case whatever utility really does the damage, you feel there's adequate coverage to make them repair it. MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what my concern was. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: By cable company I assume you mean even the telephone cable company or the electric cable company. MR. WHITE: I believe it's cable company as contemplated by the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Referring to cable television or what? MR. WHITE: I believe it's the cable company as contemplated under the statute in 177. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which is what? MR. WHITE: Television, I believe. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So, in other words, cable television damages utilities more than anyone else. MR. WHITE: I do not know -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: They don't. MR. WHITE: -- what the genesis -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: They don't. MR. WHITE: I do not know what the genesis of the statute -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm just wondering why cable television companies are -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Being singled out. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- being singled out. MR. WHITE: That's something I'm sure the state legislature Page 96 November 14, 2001 would be able to tell you based upon the fact that they chose to put it into a specific provision of Chapter 177. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And we -- we can't be more specific on other types of companies? There's somebody out in my subdivision now that can't read how many feet a water meter is away from a fire hydrant and manages to drill right through while they're putting their cable in the ground or huge water pipes and blows out the street and a few things like that. So -- and I don't think they're a cable company. I think they're another type of telephone something or other. MR. WHITE: I don't believe that this provision expands or contracts the liability that any public utility would have for the damage of any other facilities. One of the things that you considered earlier today was the notion brought forward by Tom Cook that we would be asking for specific measurements at certain points in time when various types of utility infrastructures are being installed. We're -- we're trying to help folks figure out where their respective utilities are so they don't dig them up. In those circumstances when they're already supposed to get a survey ahead of time locating such facilities -- not everybody does it. But the notion under general law, as I mentioned initially, is that if you caused the harm, you're liable for the damage. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We'll believe you and move on. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Just a quick question. I'm -- you're suggesting then that the controlling -- control for this language comes from state statute. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So then in effect this whole thing comes from state statute? Do we have anything that we've put in ourselves? MR. WHITE: Yes. We have a series of provisions in the Land Development Code, in particular in Division 3.2, that are far more Page 97 November 14, 2001 detailed than Chapter 177, which is the platting statutes. The idea is that all the plat really does in legal terms is create a shorthand legal description for property. There are a lot of other things that the county uses subdivisions for and subdivision plans for to achieve the location and maintenance of infrastructure improvements. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then I gather you wouldn't consider changing this language to make it more inclusive then. MR. WHITE: I have no objection, for example, if you wanted to say in the event a cable company or other utility damages the facilities of another public utility, it will be solely responsible. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's what we're looking for. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Well, I think it just -- it just seems peculiar that we're hung up on one possible damage here. MR. WHITE: It's only in there because of the manner in which the Florida legislature chose to include this provision when you talk about dedications. My belief is that it really ought not be included ever because it's -- a dedication is intended to convey, if you will, an interest in real property to some entity, a dedicatee. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Why don't you leave it out then? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because he can't. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I don't know why he can't. MR. WHITE: I'm telling you because the statute -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Tells us to put it in. MR. WHITE: -- doesn't mandate it, but it infers and is written in such a way that I believe it's better to have it in. And it's been the practice that the county's followed for -- for years. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: D-u-m-b. MR. WHITE: I don't disagree. I'm trying to merely keep our plats, which are essentially a quasi-judicial instrument and process, Page 98 November 14, 2001 free from challenge. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. And that's what we pay you -- or you get paid for; right? MR. WHITE: In small part. It takes up a lot of time, but I -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Any other items from Mr. White? MS. MURRAY: 81 and 8lA. MR. WHITE: If we're doing this on a staff basis, then I also need to make mention of something else and it kind of overlaps into Dawn's area. I was asked at the subcommittee meeting of DSAC last week to help work on some text that resulted in what's on your page 8lA in your new packet that's on the back of the summary sheets, and there's a second handout I need to provide you. (A discussion was held off the record.) MR. WHITE: The additional page is for 6A, and it is alternate text for what you'll find on page 6 that's underlined. It's intended to replace the text at the end of the page numbered -- the section number is 2733. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I'm sorry. We've switched from 81 to 6, page 6? MR. WHITE: Yes. I prefer to start with 6. It's a little more conceptually clear. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 6A does follow 6 in this case. MR. WHITE: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: I apologize for the last-minute nature of it and for the late hour. The intent here is to simply conform this provision and the one that we'll discuss momentarily on 81 and 82 to make it clear that regardless of what you find in a PUD ordinance or PUD master plan with respect to an access point, the actual inclusion or not of that information is not sufficient to vest that access point. The actual Page 99 November 14, 2001 point in time at which the access point is intended to be vested is at site development plan approval. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And I think-- there's nobody in this audience, and I think that's really strange. Do they know -- in the development community and some of the attorneys that do this, do they know this is here, and they're not here to complain? MR. WHITE: There was no objection to it today at DSAC, and there were two land development -- land use development attorneys there. I believe it's something that folks have come to accept and understand as an absolute necessity in terms of how you're going to control access points and manage access in the county. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Marvelous. Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm -- and I think David's lost too. Where in this packet are we talking about? I cannot find the reference that 6A would fit into. MR. WHITE: 6A, as I'd mentioned earlier, is to replace the underlined text that exists on your page 6. And it specifically relates to Section 2.7.3.3. COMMISSIONERWOLFLEY: Okay. Thank you. MR. WHITE: 2733. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Gotcha. While we're on this, are you the one or do we talk to Dawn about making it consistent with the wording and whether we do or don't include resolution 92444 in it or how we use that reference and the county -- Collier County Access Management Policy and the Collier County Construction Standards for work within the right-of-way. There's some inconsistencies here. I don't know if you're going to look at that or Dawn's going to look at that, but I marked up -- MR. WHITE: I can assure you that Dawn's going to look at that. But I can, while we're on page 6, point out what DSAC's suggested alternative was today just for the purpose of getting it into Page 100 November 14, 2001 the record. They had looked at the provision numbered 2.6.38.4.3. That would be two paragraphs above the bottom of page 6. Again that's 2638.4.3. And they proposed to modify that text to say that rather than striking the word "encouraged," it would read "shall be encouraged and may be required upon SDP review." SDP, of course, being site development plan. A similar modification was proposed on the previous page near the top, the second full paragraph, the section numbered 2.2.28.4.3.1 to indicate precisely the same change, "shall be encouraged and may be required upon SDP review" in the last sentence of that subsection. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And transportation, I assume, is going to tell us that they accept that. MR. WHITE: I'm going to let Dawn speak for transportation. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. Make a note of that because I think that language makes sense. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: You mean take the requirement out? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well, see, it may be required at a time when you're really looking closely at the specifics that you're going to have in your site development plan. When you're really down to the nitty-gritty of it, that's where you may have to require it. You don't want to lose the requirement, and you don't want to just encourage, although I've seen a number of years ago where we wouldn't have gotten one particular project if you hadn't have made the interconnect. The project was being held hostage because they weren't going to do an interconnect. But it was misunderstood at the county level, and it got into the site plan, and it worked fine. MR. WHITE: The provision is intended to further the notion that you're going to fix access points and do your site -- internal site circulation at the time of SDP. The idea is that you cannot, however, compel an adjacent property owner that may already be in existence Page 101 November 14, 2001 with their development to interconnect. You can encourage it, but the idea is that you're going to have to hold them hostage at the point in time that they may choose to redevelop. You cannot impose it. And what this provision and the modifications that I've brought to your attention are hoping to do is to recognize that the policy is to encourage it. And where it's practical and feasible, we will require it on the site review. And the folks in the county need to have a certain amount of flexibility in terms of how that site development plan looks when it's approved. There may be very specific circumstances where it's not absolutely required. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got a question about 6A. Is it okay to go to that one? MR. WHITE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: At the time of a PUD or a DRI, there's a -- especially if you've got an access on to one of the main roads, you've got to do a TIS. And I'm wondering, is that still going to be required if it doesn't gain you anything in regards to what you're being -- the way the PUD is viewed as far as design, capacity, and routing of traffic for an access point, or is -- TISs still have a value in the review level at that stage? MR. WHITE: They'll have a -- they'll still be required, and the value of them -- we can break them down into, I guess, PUDs and DRIs. DRIs you have a set of standards for substantial and adverse. I'm not sure what their -- whether there's parallel provisions that the county has for non-DRIs that are PUDs, and I'll let Dawn address that if it's still an issue for you. But I believe that the intent is that there are other things besides merely where the access point is fixed in a PUD that are relevant and are learned from the information that a TIS reveals. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 102 November 14, 2001 MS. STUDENT: I would just add to that that the TIS could be utilized for the SDP or SDPs that would be done to implement the PUD. So I think it does have value. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was more concerned about going through the effort of doing a TIS for a PUD level and then having down the road -- and say you would do it for a multilane entrance or exit of a project and then have it reduced by transportation to something much less when the TIS counted on it for internal traffic flow. And as long as that is addressed adequately, I'm -- I'm not concerned about it. MR. WHITE: There's -- there's a distinction between the notion that you do a TIS at zoning a PUD, and you do a traffic assessment at site development plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And there may be relationships between each of the two types of studies that are done. And I think all we're suggesting is that in order to have a consistent Access Management Plan that's going to be enforced by the county, that you need to have some degree of flexibility. The other provision that we started out talking about and is related to that of 6 and 6A is that on 81 and 82, and it's a somewhat parallel provision. It's found in Section 3.3, which is the site development plan requirements, and specifically it's Section 3.3.5.2. And the provision on 8lA that you have as part of your packet that was handed out along with the summary sheets -- again, the small handout from today, the summary sheets, page 8lA. It's intended to replace the underlying text that exists on 81 and carry forward from the text the screening and landscaping period and states a similar concept, a parallel provision, that notwithstanding the requirement to comply with the foregoing provisions, that if you depict on a PUD master plan or describe the access or location of Page 103 November 14, 2001 access points in a PUD ordinance, it does not authorize or vest access to the major road system. The same idea is that the location and routing for any specific access point will be determined by and must comply with the regulations for site development in effect at the time of site development plan approval. Again, we're making it clear to folks that when you come in for your SDP, that that is the standard and the point in time at which the notion of access points will be fixed and vested. There is a similar provision that was caught this morning at DSAC by one of those aforementioned land use attorneys. Just for the purposes of the record-- and I believe you'll see this in the next package -- the section is 2.7.3.5.6. You do not have anything referencing this text today, just merely making note of it. It's intended to address circumstances for PUD amendments where there's a minor, otherwise-not-considered type of change. And it makes it clear that those, when they occur, are not something -- the change of the access points that occurs at SDP wouldn't require you to go back and amend your PUD. It would be a minor change that would be administratively handled. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: This is the proverbial insubstantial that we -- MR. WHITE: It's even less than insubstantial. MS. STUDENT: It's less than. There's one that comes under that that it can be administratively done without going to the Planning Commission or the board. MR. WHITE: And I believe that that's the complete set of things that I need to bring you up to speed on. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The language on page 82 is -- no longer applies then; is that -- MR. WHITE: Correct. 8 lA would substitute for 82 and tag Page 104 November 14, 2001 along from 81. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because 82 addressed access geometry, and I guess, Dawn, you may have looked at that or that must be addressed somewhere else. MR. WHITE: It's subsumed in the phrase that talks about site development regulations on 8 lA. It's the second-to-the-last line, must comply with the regulations for a site development -- site development. That includes the provisions that are otherwise detailed pertaining to access geometry, that nice segue that Dawn is going to talk about, I believe, next. Thank you. I appreciate your indulgence. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Does that mean you get to go home? MR. WHITE: I'm not sure. MS. MURRAY: Page 4 is -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Gee, we got to page 4. We're doing great. I hope the viewing audience is enjoying this as much as we are. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: The camera's been turned off hours ago. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Poor Katie probably fell asleep back there. Okay. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, transportation planning director. I finally brought them to you. Lots of little changes in here. Actually, I'll make one minor editorial. It -- at the bottom of page 4, it should say "to an arterial or collector-level road." I caught that one myself, but please let us know if there's any others. The first set starting on page 4, 5, 6A are cleanup items primarily to ensure that we don't have inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan right-of-way use ordinance and the Land Development Code. What we have tried to do here is to consolidate what we already have in our Comprehensive Plan which is a functional classification future roadway plan, which we are currently Page 105 November 14, 2001 also updating, so that the criteria regarding what -- what, where, and how streets, driveways, and parking aisles are attributed on a site plan are consistent with our long-range plan and consistent with where we have designated arterial and collector-level facilities. Basically it's cleanup language to the greater extent on page 4, as well as the addition of-- as we are encouraging that access not be off of arterials but off of collector-level roadways. We want to ensure that collector-level roadways, which is on the bottom of page 4, has been added in. The next section, 2.2.2635 regarding access, we have included in there the complying with the Access Management Plan. Yes, we will go through and do a search and ensure that we have the most current version of the ordinance for access management. You made reference to the fact that we had some -- I noticed that earlier and hadn't had the chance to correct the number in regards to the resolution or make sure that the resolution is referred to in each case. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: In each case. And when you-- you keep saying the word "road" when we're talking about the bottom of 4, top of 5. It says "street" in here. MS. WOLFE: That's just -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I mean, don't we want a road? Doesn't that imply something bigger than just a street? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought you used the word "highway" as well. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: An arterial or collector-level -- MS. WOLFE: Roadway. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- roadway instead of street. Wouldn't roadway make more sense? Then you'd think of something like Airport Road versus Windsor Way or -- MS. WOLFE: "Roadway" is probably a more correct word. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. And I do have one other Page 106 November 14, 2001 question when you're talking about cleanup while we're on that. Of course, now I lost it because I turned the page. When we're talking about -- at the top of page 6 we're talking about the Collier County construction standards. Isn't the title of the document "Collier County Construction Standards for Work Within the Rights-of- Way"? Isn't that the name of the title? Wouldn't you have -- MS. WOLFE: I will reverify that. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. Because I think you need some -- some capitals there because I think that whole thing is the name. MS. WOLFE: I believe you are correct on that one. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I just found one on a bookshelf, and I think I noticed that. Okay. MS. WOLFE: Okay. So as I said, we're trying to eliminate some of the specificity which is where the majority of the strikeouts are and refer it back to the technical standards, which would be the "Collier County Construction Standards for Work Within Rights-of- Way" so that that is the document which is the controlling criteria. And it is referenced herein, and it may be amended, but you don't mess up with revising one but not the other. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Exactly. And I think that's very visionary also. MS. WOLFE: Some of the changes we have previously indicated in regards to access to properties via Golden Gate Parkway. We have added the condition that they'll have to be consistent with the Access Management Plan because there is a limitation there. We originally -- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: What page? MS. WOLFE: I'm looking -- I'm still at the top of page 5, 26.3.5, "Access to projects shall be provided exclusively via Golden Gate Parkway and shall be limited to one per 450 feet commencing at the centerline ... But shall nonetheless comply with the Access Page 107 November 14, 2001 Management Plan in place at the time of development." And, like I said, we'll make sure that we have the appropriate title and resolution reference. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Dawn, does that mean that it could be a different number then if the Access Management Plan in force at that time says something different? MS. WOLFE: Yes. The controlling criteria would be the Access Management Policy. We did go a little bit around and around in regards to the "encouraged" versus "required." After consultation with our county attorney staff, we feel that the recommended language is sufficient to meet the intent of where we want to go with interconnectivity between development of parcels. So the language that you were provided is okay by us. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Excellent. MS. WOLFE: One thing we have run into in problems in the Golden Gate area, especially off of Santa Barbara Boulevard, is the fact we have alleyways, alleyways which should be conducive to keeping a lot of the majority of ingress and egress to those parcels off of Santa Barbara but accessing off of the alleyways. However, the current code says the access shall be limited to Santa Barbara and that you cannot have primary access to the alleyways. So we've cleaned up the language that would allow in instances, especially under -- if it's duplex development or the like, that the primary access could be off of the alleyway versus being off of Santa Barbara Boulevard. That's the intent of having alleyways out in those areas, is that you don't necessarily have to have all your driveways off your front parcel. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is this going to the east, from Santa Barbara east? MS. WOLFE: So it's actually all over the place. But more specifically issues that we've had problems with recently is that Page 108 November 14, 2001 property comes in to develop and they tell us, "We can't come in off of the alleyway." Well, the alleyway is there to provide accessibility to the parcels so that they don't have to have direct access off of Santa Barbara, Golden Gate Parkway. That's the intent of an alleyway, is to provide for that greater degree of access and limit the number on the main roads. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This just sort of-- it just confused me. I didn't know where -- where you were going with it. MS. WOLFE: It's-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Going down a blank alley. MS. WOLFE: Going down a blank alley. It's getting late. "Access via a rear property right-of-way shall be required if available in lieu of direct access to Santa Barbara Boulevard." That is rather than the access shall be limited to one point per project. Abutting projects shall be -- this is for in the area of-- Santa Barbara Boulevard is where this one -- unfortunately, we did -- these aren't full pages. These are excerpts out of multiple different pages of the Land Development Code. Once again, introduce -- under the access, that it "be arranged for convenient and safe access of pedestrians and vehicles and shall be off of a local street consistent with the Access Management Policy in place at the time." That also gives us not only our primary arterial system access, but also our connection off of arterial roads. So the reference should be back to the Access Management Policy. Minimum setback lines in regards to the access, we will also be coming back later with revisions to the clear site distance zone areas. Many of us, I'm sure, have tried to pull out of an area and can't see whether there's a car coming or not, so we're going to be reevaluating those. But at this time we need -- we feel that it's appropriate to have "as determined by the county for safety and operations" so that we Page 109 November 14, 2001 can make sure that you can safely enter and exit driveways. Let's see. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Dawn, on that one would -- would there be a compliance aspect to this, and would it fold into existing situations? MS. WOLFE: This, I believe, is under new development. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Because you've got a lot of places where, you know, they -- where there's overgrowth of vegetation and that, and I wondered if this would set up a standard that could-- that code compliance could be -- you know, could do some citing. (A discussion was held off the record.) MS. WOLFE: Okay. 2.6.3.8.1 (sic) is one where we've basically taken the details out of the language and placed the responsibility with the Access Management Policy as the controlling criteria. It is under the permitted sign section, development standards. So would this be applicable to current signs? MS. MURRAY: Sorry. Why don't you go on, and I'll look at the codes so I can get the perspective of where you're talking about. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I do have one question, Dawn. The Collier County Access Management Policy, will we see that at any point? No. The technical standards you keep talking about, that's not -- MS. WOLFE: That -- we will be bringing them back to you. At this point in time we -- it was recently updated and taken before the board as a resolution because of the -- the board had designated both Livingston and County Road 951 as limited and controlled access facilities, and we needed to update that resolution. Those resolutions don't necessarily come before this board; however, we are updating the functional classification maps and roadway designations which will significantly change the designation of those roads as far as what their access classes are. And that can be back-- brought back Page 110 November 14, 2001 through for informational and -- to this board. I don't think there's anything that would prevent us from providing that information to you, even though it's under a resolution versus an ordinance. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. And so the 92442 is not going to be the citation for the -- MS. WOLFE: No. It's an 01. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It's an 01. MS. WOLFE: It is an 01. It's one of those ones I did make the notation on. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. It's getting late, and I was a little slow on the uptake there. MS. STUDENT: I just want to point out one thing. I thought that's where it was. At 261 of the code, it talks about visibility of intersections. I think that might be the place where you have your compliance. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: I can answer that sign question now if you're interested. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I -- sorry. I just needed to get my perspective on where that was in the code. If-- whenever you change the code in this case of a sign, for example, it would be -- then become legal nonconforming if it no longer conforms with the code as it presently exists at the time. Whenever we have a change in sign face or a change in sign structure, location, etc., the sign at that time would be made to comply with the current standards of the code. So it would be considered legal nonconforming until it -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Perhaps I misled you. The section that I was looking at was the residential areas, and so that wouldn't be signs. I was talking about driveways. MS. WOLFE: It's in regards to signs, that section right there. MS. STUDENT: 261 is much broader than that. It talks about Page 111 November 14, 2001 structures, landscaping, and all types of things at intersections. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: But not in the middle of a block, for instance. MS. STUDENT: No. In an intersection. It doesn't -- it wouldn't deal with a driveway, I don't believe. MS. WOLFE: But this -- that 25511 is in regards to signage with -- and that's minimum setback. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Okay. MS. WOLFE: As I said, the 2638 is taking the specificity out of the LDC and putting it into the Access Management Policy where it should be more applicably taken care of. The following 26383, we have recommended deletion of the access management plan maps which, at best glance, are difficult to read. However, they're developed prior to knowing what's going to go in out there and are not necessarily consistent with the Access Management Policy. So quite -- we're going to go with what we know and wait until something comes in before we predetermine what those locations are and try and apply the standards to the maximum extent feasible. Okay. 2638 -- 384.1, rather -- we've taken the reference to those maps out and placed it back with the Collier County Access Management Policy. And we will clar -- make sure we've got the wording -- the caps right, the construction standards, putting those in those technical documents rather than in the context of this document. We covered 263843 in regards to the "encouraged" versus "required." We also have the elimination of the mixed-use activity centers in regards to the future traffic circulation in regards to the access points. Those are to be determined as those plans come forward. And then the last one, 2733, was covered by Mr. White. Any questions, confusion on those ones? Page 112 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: They look good to me. MS. MURRAY: The next page I have is 71. MS. WOLFE' Yes. Okay. This one is -- first point, we'll make sure we have the appropriate resolution number. We did add the words "as may be amended," as it has been amended. Rather than indicating the total number of access points -- that indicates that you will have six access points -- we've changed it to a maximum of six access points. Next, in regards to the alleyways, this is where we have indicated the correction for the alleyway shall be utilized for secondary access unless otherwise provided in this code. MS. MURRAY: She's on page 72. Sorry. MS. WOLFE: Yes. 3.2841, we are eliminating the specifics of location for access, leaving that to the construction standards and making the reference back to the county's construction standards, and we'll make sure that that's the same language right there. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Now it's the county right-of-way book -- handbook. MS. WOLFE: Same thing. We'll go through these with a fine- tooth comb and make sure -- but as you can see, it's primarily taking the technical standards and putting them in the construction standards books where we don't have to worry about inconsistencies between those. Page 78, block lengths. We often have times in regards to neighborhood traffic management and have indicated in there that these sections shall be required to indicate -- take into account neighborhood traffic management in regards to their design; rather than waiting for them to be built and having problems later to have to come back in, put the burden for neighborhood traffic management upon the developer is the intent of that section, rather than the county coming back and paying for it later when people come speeding through. Page 113 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: May I go back to page 77 for just a moment? MS. WOLFE: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: We took out a whole lot of things, deleting figures. All of the language that is left over on page 77 belongs to what? Because I was -- I was fascinated by the very last sentence language, but is this -- is it just like a mn-on of 3.2.8.4.1, access, those paragraphs will just be there? Instead of really straining your brain about it tonight -- MS. WOLFE: Can we get back to you on that one? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- let's get back on that one. And I did want to ask, the very last sentence refers to the "such internal access provision. This provision shall be acceptable to the Community Development and Environmental Services Division Administrator and the county attorney and satisfy the zoning requirements for the zoning district in which the subdivision is located." What does that mean? I'm not sure why that's there. MS. WOLFE: It's already there, but I'll get back to you on that one, because it -- I'm reading it, and it's not getting there either. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Because it's there. MS. WOLFE: It's actually been a -- it's there. It's there now. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And it's not-- nothing's highlighted or underlined or anything like that, so I -- MS. WOLFE: No. I may have stopped my pencil too soon. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You might have. But -- MS. WOLFE: keep in such as the MR. WHITE: I think there's portions of it that we do wish to provision for internal access. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I think all of the text that you have on page 77 that you've referenced is existing text and is intended to remain, and that's why it appears. last sentence that you've talked about where it starts out with the The Page 114 November 14, 2001 words "this provision" I believe are intended to refer back to the phrase above that says "through an internal access provision documented on the final subdivision plat." And I believe that that provision is one that must be acceptable to the division administrator, the county attorney, and satisfy the zoning requirements. I think it's something that occurs at the platting. And similar to the prior discussion we had about the idea that the county attorney's office approves and then there's that notion of delegation between the county division administrator for community development, those are the folks who arguably, or their designees, must find that acceptable. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: This sounds like something somebody wrote at ten o'clock at night on a Land Development Code day. It doesn't flow right to me, but -- MR. WHITE: I can assure you that -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- we'll deal with that later. MR. WHITE: -- I have that experience many times when I read this code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. So when you get a chance, Dawn, you can chat with the esteemed Mr. White, and he might clean that up a little bit for us since we did talk about it tonight. MS. WOLFE: Big question mark. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Big question mark. MS. WOLFE: As I said, the -- page 78 was in regards to basically putting the burden of ensuring nice, calm neighborhoods back on the developer rather than developing them as long, straight runways where we have to come back in later as the county and retrofit them. Page 79, modifications to necessary right-of-way widths for various levels of major roadways, minor collectors, minor collectors divided, major collectors, and minor arterials, we've worked through Page 115 November 14, 2001 what the standards are and looked at what our minimums are. Minor collectors, when they're more than just a local street, need to be more than 60 feet. This was approved by the DSAC earlier today, I believe. Nods. Anyways, it's to ensure that as they go through the process when we establish the review group, subdivision, or zoning approvals, that we have sufficient right-of-way set aside. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Right. MS. WOLFE: And 81 was taken care of. We had Patrick redo that wording because Susan and I both were addressing it from two other ends and the language didn't match, so we gave it to him to fix. That's why he did that. 85, we've placed in the criteria for site development plan submittal the requirement that information be provided off site a minimum of 200 feet so that we can make a determination as to site access conflicts with adjacent driveways, adjacent parcels, interconnectivity. If we don't have that information on that site development plan, we can't make the determination. So we're requesting that it formally be part of the site development plan submittal requirement. But it can be limited if there is no need for it, and that would be at the time of preapp. So we've left it open so that in smaller cases, 200 feet, which may be excessive -- but we find the 200 feet provides the -- a reasonable amount of information. 89, 90, 91, and 92 are in regards to updating the language. We have references to dated reference to documents, calculations of our average annual daily traffic. We've updated the language to be consistent with current practices. We've found that in Section 315325 that you may have inconsistencies. A lot of the improvements and why these roads were shown as Level of Service E have now gone away based on improvements. These types of identifications under 325 there in the middle of page 90 should be contained in the Growth Management Plan. You should not Page 116 November 14, 2001 reduplicate them in the Land Development Code, so we've eliminated that text. 91 is basically updating the references to the current document and ensuring their reference to "as may be amended." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Dawn, your LOS C, D, and E, if you read the text in this thing, they're all the same. And I checked the ULDC, and they're not supposed to be. So I'm assuming that'll get caught when you go back in and incorporate it in there, or you might want to take a look at it now. It looks like it was cut and pasted repeatedly three times instead of-- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I was trying to figure out what that meant because I-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're distinctly different. In the ULDC they're written that way, and in this amendment they just came out the same. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Well,~ I'm glad you said that because when I had looked at it I thought maybe I'm not reading this right. MS. WOLFE: That's the way the new standards are. There is no difference. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It would be really unique. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: You guys are really getting -- MS. WOLFE: No. I believe that it was a typographical error because they are very -- they're similar in certain ways, and I believe that's the way it started out, was they were -- we were trying to -- pick up the speed on that. So thank you for pointing that out. I'm going, yes, you're absolutely right, those are the same thing; and, no, they're not. COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I wondered why the roads were getting so bad. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: It was all because of cut and paste. Okay. Do you still have paper, Barbara? Page 117 November 14, 2001 (A discussion was held off the record.) COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: I had -- I talked to Dawn off-line earlier today and -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Off-line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Off-line, but she's staff. MS. WOLFE: Oh, you gave me two -- he gave me two more. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: On this specific area of level of service, I asked her if she would provide us as a matter of information -- certainly to me, maybe others would be interested -- as to how these new criteria, new standards could be compared to what we currently get. So if it's Level Of Service C, I'd like to see how the new calculations are, so we can see which way -- it's been suggested that they're tightening them up. But I don't know how tight they're going to get, and I'd like to see that. And she suggested that she could do that, so I just wanted to get that on the record. MS. WOLFE: Yes. The information as to -- as we move forward to update our level-of-service tables, to get a comparison of what -- the prior tables from the Comprehensive Plan which are being removed from the table and will be a separate document so we may more readily amend it. But, yes, we can make that information available to you as well as the fact that we will be going before the Board of County Commissioners in a workshop on November 30th in regards to our annual update and inventory report. And there will be a lot of information available in regards to how we're looking at our transportation level of service and concurrency and the effects it's going to have on the Growth Management Plan. That's a plug for that day, if anyone's listening. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's November 30th at 2 p.m.? MS. WOLFE: November 30th at 2 p.m. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Because some of that Page 118 November 14, 2001 information would be very helpful to us as planning commissioners as we understand how you're making the changes, and we can sit in the privacy of our own homes and read the Access Management Plan, the policy, and some of these changes that you've got where we can actually start understanding more specifically what we want to ask when we get in our arguments about whether a development can be or can't be on a road and how you're going to use that road. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And we're sitting at home because we can't get out on the roadways. They're too bad. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Well, right now I bet there's not many people on the roads. MS. WOLFE: I think that's called telecommuting. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' You had two more with definitions? MS. WOLFE: Yeah. They handed me two more. Page 109 is a -- at the back of the packet, alleyway, a public or approved right-of- way which affords access to abutting properties. It eliminates the words "only a secondary means," which has caused us a little bit of problem. And the last one, pages 110 and 111, is the elimination of-- from the level of service for capital facilities, these are items that should be contained in the Growth Management Plan, not the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO' Very good. Thank you, Mr. Nino, for spotting that for Ms. Wolfe. MR. WHITE: If there's no other questions, Madam Chair, I'd just like to put on the record that the section that I was referring to earlier when I stated my belief about the LDC was 6.1.5 regarding delegation of authority. It makes it clear that designees are included when a specific officer or a position is mentioned. And to wrap up hopefully, on your page 77 LDC changes that were not proposed to be amended and the internal access provision Page 119 November 14, 2001 quote I mentioned before, in rereviewing this provision, I can tell you that it specifically was of concern over the past two to three board meetings for a particular subdivision plat that came in where we created one of the list of examples of an internal access provision that was in the sentence preceding the one we were discussing a moment ago. There's a list that says by way of example, but not be limited to, and it mentions cross covenants, cross easements, dedicated access tracts, or the like. And in specific we had -- there's a subdivision plat where we had a, quote, dedicated access tract and code provision that we had to implement. And it was very specific to a particular plat, and it required our office, in conjunction with staff and community development, to look at that and included Dawn Wolfe's review of it for the purposes of having an access easement, if you will, overlaid on a plat. So it does work, even though it seems to be difficult to understand what it means. I can tell you that we've applied it very recently, and it seemed to work okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. Could you humor me and repeat your 6.1.whatever for designated -- MR. WHITE: 6.1.5. It's a section entitled "delegation of authority." CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: MS. MURRAY: A few. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Do we have any more, Susan? I have a couple pages left here. MS. MURRAY: We have a lot. Let's go to 26A in your new handout. That would be Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. This matter is a declaration of an interim development control or moratorium for the Vanderbilt Beach area residential tourist zoning districts, and there are three in the Page 120 November 14, 2001 Vanderbilt Beach area. Again, this was per board direction because of some issues that have come up with that particular zoning district in Vanderbilt Beach. Because of the unique characteristics of Vanderbilt Beach, that being a narrow spit of land with the Gulf of Mexico on one side and Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon on the other side, there have been concerns about the canyonizing effect of having so many tall residential buildings or hotels in the area. There's been concern about the lot sizes there and the small setbacks and the need for view corridors to the gulf and to the lagoon. There have been issues about height, again getting to the canyonizing effect, and the actual mass of the structures; and also, because of the densities, the amount of trips being placed on Gulf Shore Boulevard (sic), which is a small, two-lane roadway. And this is an area that is an old zoning district, and there's some older structures in it, and it has shown some redevelopment activity. So, again, per direction of the board, this was prepared. We -- a moratorium cannot last indefinitely. It has to be limited to a reasonable duration, so we put a year in there. I might also add that this is patterned after the final order moratoria that exists. The geographic scope is described generally, and there is a map attached. But I can -- I will add to the ordinance that it is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico to the west, Bluebill Avenue or its westerly extension to the north, Vanderbilt Lagoon to the east, and Vanderbilt Beach Road or County Road 862 to the south. I then list the prohibited uses, and I understand there was some confusion about utilizing the term "permitted uses thereunder," but that's pulled from the code and I differentiate between what the permitted uses are in the code, what the accessory uses are, and what the conditional uses and that -- it -- it lists all of them. And so it's a total moratorium in that district because all the uses are listed. And Page 121 November 14, 2001 many of them deal with height and mass issues. At least four out of the five under permitted uses deal with those. Also, under the accessory uses, height and mass are issues in at least three of those; and in the conditional use area, at least five of the uses that are listed there. And I also included variances because many times you can get a setback variance which would reduce it even further and, in some instances, a height variance and so on. So I also included variances. There's also a grandfathering provision, and that would be for residential and other uses in the Vanderbilt Beach RT Zoning District Assessment Area for which completed applications for rezonings, conditional uses, variances, subdivision approvals, site plan approvals, plats, or building permits were filed with or approved by the county prior to the effective date of this amendment will be exempt. And I just need to put in the record that -- because this came up with the final order of what was meant. So, in other words, if you get a rezone approved or you have an application filed-- a completed application filed with the planning department, that means you can continue on with the development that the rezone would permit. So, in other words, you could come in and get your site plan or your plat and then later on your building permit, as the case may be. It doesn't mean that, oh, yeah, you get the rezone, but you don't get the rest of it and whatever follows. And I can add some language to clarify that. And then I have attached a map which shows the three RT districts in the Vanderbilt Beach area. And I might add that in order to do this, we need to have a study. And it's my understanding -- and I'll talk about this a bit further with staff, but that at the very least, staff can do an evaluation of the development standards in the area, hold public meetings with residents of the area to get a feel for what their needs may be, and to come up with amended and improved, hopefully, development Page 122 November 14, 2001 standards that address some of these concerns. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. I think one of the questions I had that you might have alluded to, we need to put this in the Land Development Code -- MS. STUDENT: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: -- for why? MS. STUDENT: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Clarify that just -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. This is a land development regulation because you're prohibiting development in a certain area, so it does belong in the Land Development Code. In effect, you're prohibiting some uses right now, and that does belong in the Land Development Code. We put the moratoria in the code for -- there were two that were required by the final order. And we had a proposed one during the pendency of the study in Goodland, but it remained proposed and was removed through the cycle because there was satisfaction that the study was progressing adequately, and there was no need for the moratorium. So this is the place for it. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: And then once, say, a year and a few months go by, we would actually amend the code to remove it? MS. STUDENT: Yes, we would. And, in fact, we're going to have to -- in the next amendment cycle, we're going to have to look at amending the code for purposes of the moratorium for the final order because part of that will be hopefully completed, so it will be -- need to be lifted for the rural fringe. And then the other part we've petitioned the administration commission to have extended. So we'll need to extend part of it and lift part of it, and we will be doing that by a land code amendment. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Marjorie, some of the criteria that you've mentioned that need to be -- that have driven this, Page 123 November 14, 2001 it's narrow roadway, traffic -- MS. STUDENT: Height and mass of-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All that. I'm wondering if -- why doesn't that apply to this entire strip then? I'm wondering why it just -- the RT is just the three areas. Why wouldn't it be the entire roadway? MS. STUDENT: The board directed that this -- the study at this juncture include the RT. It's one of the oldest -- I think it's because it's one of the oldest districts. And there was some -- there's been a couple redevelopments and form some of the uses permitted in those districts that have been an issue. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: It just seems to me that you weakened the case by limiting it to just specific zones when it -- when the conditions you've described apply to that entire roadway. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If she doesn't mind, maybe I can tell you. The RS -- RS -- MF-16 on the north end, I worked up there a couple of years ago. It's all built out with brand-new condos, so I don't think they're going to add any more to that area. I think maybe that was why they were only looking at the RT, because it's the only area that could be redeveloped. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: And the RSF-3 -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can only have one unit for 3 acres or-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Not subject to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- three units for 1 acre. It might have --just single-family homes is all it's going to have. MS. STUDENT: The board particularly wanted to look at that district and that district's standards. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Any other questions? MS. MURRAY: Okay. Great. We can go to page 3 and page 11. I'll try to hit these both at one time. There really is no change. Page 124 November 14, 2001 This is just an amendment to make consistent that which is already permitted by right and/or conditional use in every zoning district. And that is that in the essential services section of our code, you have a list of uses that are permitted by right in every zoning district, and you have a list of uses that are permitted by conditional use. And it says in every zoning district. Every zoning district references essential services in either the permitted or conditional use where appropriate, except for the ag and estate zoning district. So this is not changing anything. It's merely to make consistent that which is already allowed by right in the code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Susan, could I make one comment? And it's for both 3 and 11. You define -- you say it's defined in Section 2691. I think it's just 269. See if you want to check that by the next time we have a meeting. You may want to -- MS. MURRAY: I'll check that. I think the Sections 2691 and 2692 refer to the permitted use section and then the conditional use section. MS. STUDENT: MS. MURRAY: MS. STUDENT: It does. So they're separate. 269 is more general. I've worked with these sections a lot, and my recollection is that 2691 is the permitted and 2692 is the conditional. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This referred to the definition. That's why -- MS. STUDENT: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The definition doesn't appear in 1 or 2. It appears in just plain 269. And I didn't know if that's what your intent was here or not, so that's why I made that point. MS. STUDENT: I think maybe as set forth might be better because an essential service may be defined in 269. Then the types, the kinds of them that there are are in 2691 and 2692, rather than a Page 125 November 14, 2001 definition. But it'll say, like, transmission lines and things like that, which is more of a type than a definition, or an example. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was trying to point out. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wanted to get it granunatically correct. MS. MURRAY: Use the words "set forth" instead of"defined." Okay. So that takes care of pages 3 and 11 if you have no other comments or questions. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: I like those kind. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Let's go to page 29. This is an amendment that was brought to the attention of staff by the Board of County Commissioners, that being an issue particularly in single- family areas, but not exclusively, that there seems to be a pattern of too large of an area of the front yard is being utilized for automobiles. And I think you're going to find this in some of your older subdivisions, Naples Park and Golden Gate City. The members of the board have expressed some concern, and as well, other communities in Southwest Florida are attempting to regulate this problem as well. And so this is in response to their concern. I'm going to try to summarize it very quickly. Basically what it does is it places a restriction on -- depending on the type of land use, albeit single-family, two-family, and multifamily. Specifically in the single-family land use, you would -- the parking of vehicles would be restricted to imperviously treated surface areas of the lot which shall not comprise an area greater than 40 percent of the required front yard and may not limit a driveway width to less than 20 feet. That's for single family. For two family that requirement goes up to 50 percent. For multifamily that goes up -- I'm sorry. There's no percentage Page 126 November 14, 2001 there, but there's a limit and a restriction, again, to be parked on imperviously treated areas. And there's a limit to the parking of automobiles which shall not exceed a ratio of 2.5 automobiles per dwelling unit in the event that all parking spaces are not located within an enclosed structure or in combination of open air and enclosed structure. I'll let you-all ask questions about this. I know it's a little confusing. Further down there's a limitation on the parking or storage of automobiles in connection with residential dwelling units shall be owned by the occupants of the dwelling unit unless the vehicle is owned by a firm, corporation, or entity for which the dwelling unit occupant is employed. And, lastly, that no other portion of the front yard may be used to park or store automobiles, including that portion of the right-of-way not directly a part of the designated driveway. So that would eliminate parking in the swales or right-of-way as well. MS. STUDENT: I just have a comment. You may want to look at No. 4 because I think -- I just want to make sure we don't have any constitutional overbreadth issue because the ownership -- I mean, I know we don't want to have people have a parking lot. But as long as they're parked in the driveway, I don't know that ownership is relevant to the means we're trying to achieve, because restrictions are supposed to be narrowly tailored to achieve the means, and the ownership may not really go to the issue of people parking on the grass. That's my only -- that's my only concern about that. And then -- I don't know. I guess this doesn't mean that you can't have company parking in your-- COMMISSIONER YOUNG: I hope not. MS. MURRAY: The Development Services Advisory Committee picked up on that as well and recommended that -- MS. STUDENT: Yeah. I just have a concern about constitutional overbreadth. Page 127 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That would be good to look at that. And I will say that I live in a subdivision that was visionary and decided if your cars were not parked in the garage, you could only have a maximum of three vehicles parked in your driveway, period. That was a deed restriction. So we kind of argued about that, but I can see why this is getting where we can put it in the Land Development Code. MS. MURRAY: Any questions? COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Yes, I have a question on the multiple family. I'm thinking about Naples Park, and we have a number of units where they have, in effect, work-force housing being provided for. And the entire front lawn or the entire width of the property is paved. And so they park, obviously, all in that area. This would -- is this only intended to apply to new construction or -- MS. MURRAY: Everything, existing and new. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Then that would argue that -- that some part of that driveway would have to be removed on a compliance basis? MS. MURRAY: Possibly, yeah. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: All right. How does -- how do boats fit into this situation? MS. MURRAY: Boats aren't permitted to be stored in a front yard. So that-- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So this -- this is limited to front yard, and that's defined as in front of the -- of the -- MS. MURRAY: From the building line to the right-of-way line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: From the building line? MS. MURRAY: Front building line to the right-of-way line. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: So if they had to drive over a grassy area to get back to the back part of the property, I guess Page 128 November 14, 2001 they'd be in violation for the period of time that they drove across. I'm just -- I'm thinking about real-life situations where people have cars and RVs and that back behind the building line, but there's no driveway to get back there. They've just driven back to have a place because they can't park them up front. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: That's driving. It's moving. It's not stationary as in parked. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. That would have been my response as well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you add commercial to the list of application -- applicated areas -- I mean, uses? MS. MURRAY: Your suggesting to add commercial? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. Only in driving down 951 and Golden Gate to get here, you could drive past several businesses whose front landscaped areas are -- have cars sitting on top of them. MS. MURRAY: Okay. So you would add commercial to the area whereby you would not park in the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's -- if you have -- CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No comment from the audience unless you're at the microphone. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: We had -- if you have a site development plan for a car lot and it's landscaped in front, they very often park out in front just because they feel like that's going to get them -- MS. MURRAY: That's not permitted presently, so if that is occurring -- COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's a compliance problem. MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's covered then. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Code enforcement. Page 129 November 14, 2001 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure. And what was her name again? CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: How many more do we have, Susan? MS. MURRAY: One, two, three-- five -- six. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Would you like us to take a couple- minute break to change? (A discussion was held off the record.) (A break was held.) CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Okay. We are back in session. MS. MURRAY: Based on your suggestion, I think what I'll do is just read the page number and the section number, and if you have questions, just stop me if that's okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: Sounds good. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 31, Section 2.6.11.4. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Susan, I had one comment. Second paragraph that said, however, at the applicant's request, the planning services director may determine that a, you know, wall/fence is not warranted, could some language be added to that sentence that says at the applicant's request, subject to having received no objections in writing from the public or -- I'm concerned that an applicant could simply say that they don't want to have this wall, and there might be some public out there objecting. Is there any comment like that that we could put in there to protect the public? MS. MURRAY: Well, my only comment on that would be that this really is reviewed through an administrative process, so there would be no public -- MS. STUDENT: There's no -- MS. MURRAY: -- notice. Page 130 November 14, 2001 MS. STUDENT: -- point of entry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So then if the applicant wants to eliminate this requirement, basically it's between him and the planning services director at this point; is that right? MS. MURRAY: Right. Based on some of the conditions that are laid out there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's my only question on that one. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: administrator. Director was changed to administrator. that somewhere. MS. MURRAY: Page 54, Section 2.7.3.4. Division 6.3, definitions, page 106. Page 54 -- I think I already said this -- Section 2.7.3.4. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: Right. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Division 6.3, definitions, page 112. That's it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: those sections. Page 33, Section 2.6.11.5. Now we have development services I knew I saw I have no questions on any of CHAIRMAN RAUTIO: No questions? I think that wraps it up. We could have made it with the court reporter, but we were nice to you, Barbara. With no further business, we are adjourned. See you-all tomorrow morning at 8:30. Page 131 November 14, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:16 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JOYCEANNA J. RAUTIO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA DRESCHER, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 132