Loading...
DSAC Minutes 11/14/2001 S November 14, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 14, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:12 a.m. In SPECIAL SESSION at Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ABSENT: Thomas Masters, P.E. Blair Foley, P.E. Bryan Milk Charles M. Abbott R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Marco Espinar Brian E. Jones C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Dino J. Longo Thomas R. Peek, P.E. Dalas D. Disney, AIA Robert L. Duane, AICP David Correa Herbert R. Savage, AIA Peter H. Van Arsdale Page 1 November 14, 2001 ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White Susan Murray Ron Nino Roy Smith Tom Kuck Barbara Burgeson Page 2 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Let's call the meeting to order. All right. With that, we had a meeting of the subcommittee, and Ron's provided us with notes on that, and I'll turn it over to Ron, if you'd like to lead us through. MR. NINO: Okay. I believe you-- the subcommittee unfortunately consisted of three of you only. We met. However, those three are very -- very diligent in their review and essentially found that but for a few amendments there was some concern, and they're listed on that sheet. And when we get to it in the -- in the -- let me ask, do you want to go through each page of the agenda? It shouldn't take that long. MR. ABBOTT: Then let's do it that way. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: My -- my -- I think probably what we ought to do, Ron, is go ahead and unless you want to pull something out of it, we'll go over these four that you have in the packet of the five issues. MR. NINO: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And then unless any of the members would like to pull another one that's not included in that group off of the list, let's consider those approved. There's a large number of them. MR. ABBOTT: My -- my concern is strictly that I really dislike getting stuff the day of the meeting because then not -- and not have had a chance to really study it like you want. So that's my concern because we've been here before, and we've had to revisit things because they were either short-sighted or something, so I'm just -- I'm real leery of stuff that I see for the first time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. FOLEY: I got a comment. Well, we are going to go through this -- this item-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let me just clear up what we're Page 3 November 14, 2001 going to do then. Basically what we're looking at is the summary from the subcommittee, go through the entire package that we received a couple weeks ago. Then they made their recommendation. I'd like to go with their recommendations for approval on all of the items except for the four that's listed here that we'll discuss further and every single issue in the new packet that we received today. MR. ABBOTT: I am happy with that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Now I'll turn it back over to Ron. MR. NINO: Turn to page -- Item 2615, which, I believe, is page 34 in your agen -- 34 in your packet. It is the position of staff that -- that that amendment as worded is sufficient to give direction to staff that in reviewing plans, they need to ensure that a recyclable -- a provision has been made for accommodating recycling material. Whether that be in the available enclosure space or an addition to the enclosure space, nevertheless, a provision needs to be made for that facility. I don't think you could read this amendment and conclude that it automatically means that you have to knock out the existing enclosure space and -- and -- or if you have -- if your enclosure space is surrounded with a masonry wall, for example, that we're going to expect you to tear a portion of the wall and move it out to accommodate the receptacle. I don't think there's any possibility of that type of interpretation being made. But it does mean that since we require a dumpster -- a dumpster or-- or a trash pickup every 500 feet, for example, in a multiple-family project, it follows that everything that is associated with the business of picking up trash has got to be in that same location, be it either accommodated within the existing closure or some minor addition to it because I understand -- I understand that the containers for recyclables are nowhere near the size of the dumpster. So we're not talking about a substantial expansion. And-- but our primary overriding goal is to ensure that Page 4 November 14, 2001 projects as specific facilities for the collection of recyclable materials. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. And I -- I think the subcommittee all agreed that that certainly should be the case. But we were just concerned that suddenly they'd be looking at -- for instantaneous changes for these enclosures and requiring people to modify or -- or include new landscaping to accommodate all the recycling issues. And as long as they're going to be a little lenient in the enforcement of that, I think that kind of resolves our issues. MR. NINO: With all of these types of amendments, we appreciate that. If we find there's a problem with it, the next cycle we'll be tweaking it. But we need to have something in there. We need -- requested by our waste -- solid waste management division that we have that provision in there. Actually, they've asked us to go a lot further, to allow me to editorialize for a minute. They wanted us to include in the Land Development Code a provision for a separate chute to deal with recyclables, and we have to advise them that that's not the business of the Land Development Code. If they want to achieve that, they'd have to convince the people who amend the -- are responsible for amending the building code to accommodate that -- that objective. Item No. 2, the beach events -- MR. ANDERSON: Before we leave No. 1 -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. ANDERSON: -- is there anything in this set of amendments that addresses if a person loses part of their required parking because they have to comply with the new recycling ordinance and their container takes up some parking spaces that were required? MR. NINO: No. MR. ANDERSON: Why not? MR. NINO: Why not? Page 5 November 14, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Don't you think-- MR. NINO: I don't think that there's justification for ever allowing the required parking to fall below what is otherwise required by the ordinance, regardless of what conditions precipitate it. MR. ANDERSON: Well, that's not very common sensical. If someone has only the required parking the county requires and they have no other place to put their recycling container but in an otherwise designated parking spot, what does that person do? Do they violate the recycling ordinance, or do they violate the parking requirements? That's their choice. MR. NINO: They have to figure out how they can do both. MR. ABBOTT: Sometimes it's not possible. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Some spaces are too tight to do that. MR. ANDERSON: I think there ought to be something in here in the parking section, or maybe we stick it in here with the solid waste recycling language that provides that if a person loses required parking spaces in order to comply with the recycling ordinance by putting a container there, that they will not be in violation or not in compliance with the parking requirements. MR. MILK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to either amend that or offer another suggestion, Brace. What about the incorporation that dumpster into the buffer, whether it be the landscape buffer on the side or rear in lieu of the encroachment to the parking space just to keep the site conforming from a parking standpoint and in compliance rather than possibly not in compliance from that standpoint? MR. ANDERSON: Okay. From a practical standpoint, will it be -- will the solid waste folks be able to get to the recycling container if it's, you know, in part of the landscape buffer with their vehicle? MR. MILK: And usually there's vehicular drives that parallels a Page 6 November 14, 2001 buffer. So if there's a 1 O-foot buffer, maybe we could allow an encroachment of 5 or 8 feet with a well screen, you know, on three sides and some vegetation around there in -- in lieu of the encroachment and the parking space would be my suggestion. MR. NINO: Yeah. As I understand it, the recycling provision is nowhere near the size of the -- of a normal dumpster. I -- you know, it comes nowhere near in terms of physical space consuming a parking space. That's my understanding from the -- Denise Kirk who is supposed to be here, is not here. But I remember at that meeting we weren't talking about a very large structure or object. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. What -- what they are talking about are typically -- you see it in single-family homes and a little on dumpsters. But contrary to what Ron says, you still have to have a pad under it. You have to have it landscaped so it's not visually -- so you can't see it from -- from anywhere else. So it is going to take up a parking spot. By the time you are able to roll it in and out and have your landscape buffer next to it, if you add it on the side of a -- of a -- of a existing structure, it could be an entire space. MR. FOLEY: Question, Blair Foley. Do they have to be in the same location, the standard dumpster pad and the recyclable? MR. NINO: Yeah. It has -- it has -- it has to be in that 500-foot -- MR. FOLEY: I think that -- I have a recommendation that may incorporate both of your ideas into this and -- and leave it really because each -- each site is going to be site specific. There's going to be differences, some opportunities for your resolution, some for yours. And I think that we can't hold the existing facility hostage to this new code, maybe incorporate both languages into -- MR. NINO: I think more often than not you're going to find that the dumpster is likely to be located next to parking is likely to be located next to landscaping that is not really the buffer; it's just -- it's Page 7 November 14, 2001 just landscaping. I mean, I've been out there driving around, and I know that a number of them are simply next to open space that's part of the project. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would you like to make that in the form of a motion? MR. FOLEY: Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we -- we amend the language to include what Mr. Anderson had mentioned about possibly taking -- and maybe we should number it as one parking space. I don't think there's any need for the size to be any larger than that, or is there, unless somebody can tell me otherwise. MR. ANDERSON: I don't know. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone here to answer that. MR. ABBOTT: I've built those enclosures and such, and you need more than one parking space. The trucks are big. He needs a good -- either a curb to get to it -- you know, these are substantial issues -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: This isn't for the entire dumpster, though. MR. ABBOTT: I understand. For recyclable stuff. But, listen, my philosophy is that all these types of rules that we do, they're for the guidance of the wise and observance of fools. And I think if we put it -- codify it and put it in solid waste, it's going to come back in a real pain to people. I think we need to give them-- give the developer on these sites as much liberty as he can possibly have to accomplish the goal. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: This would be for retrofitting. MR. PEEPLES: I understand. MR. ABBOTT: Retrofits or anything. Retrofits or anything. I -- listen, I'm a remodeler. I'm the one that has to come and live with these types of roles that come up. And-- and I consider solid waste and I consider some of the Department of Revenue people -- I Page 8 November 14, 2001 consider them remarkably hard of thinking. MR. FOLEY: I would like to amend Bruce's motion and-- and make the statement that we would allow the existing facility to have less park -- less than the minimum required parking and to allow encroachments into either landscape buffer or open space as necessary to facilitate the retrofit of the new container. How's that? MR. ANDERSON: I second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The motion carries unanimously. MR. NINO: Thank you. The next item was a continuance. It's the item dealing with -- on page 49 dealing with the amendments -- you'll recall the last time around where we had some extensive amendments to create annual beach events, permits for the functions that -- MR. PEEPLES: Ron, I need to interrupt. MR. NINO: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: Tom, I have a potential conflict here, and I have my Form 8-B that I'll leave with the court reporter and also make a copy available to the members here, but my firm is representing the Ritz-Carlton, and a member of my firm is here to discuss this matter, so I won't participate in this. MR. NINO: The committee -- the committee decided to continue it and leave that discussion for this meeting. Staff's -- staff's position is that the ordinance is fine the way it is. It doesn't need to be changed. We feel more comfortable with the requirement for a beach permit versus a notice, and I understand that, you know, Pat Page 9 November 14, 2001 and Kim are both here. There's some ramifications to -- there's some ramifications -- and Barbara-- some ramifications, I understand it, from a legal point of view when we go from a permit to a notice. And I'm going to leave it to Pat to explain what that distinction and our concern is. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Before we go to that point, let me just clarify. I believe the subcommittee's recommendation was -- was denial barring something unforeseen in the presentation. MR. NINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Basically supporting staffs -- MR. NINO: Okay. I'm glad you were just continuing it. All right. Barbara or Pat, whoever-- who wants to run with it? MR. WHITE: I'll start out. County attorney, Patrick White. The legal aspect that I'm concerned about is making sure that this committee has the opportunity to hear whatever concerns staff has and also to afford to the applicant the opportunity to -- presentation they believe that's appropriate. You've heard -- this was presented to the subcommittee last week. You have a recommendation of denial. I believe that's based on their analysis of staffs position. Ron's alluded to essentially that although there was some direction and request, if you will, from the board that they might consider the notion of a notice instead of a permit. The idea, I think, from a regulatory enforcement perspective is there is none if it's merely a notice. All you have is some information that may be provided; it may not. I'm not certain if any penalty provisions would apply in the event that they were not provided or timely so. And, as a result, I believe staffs position may be based upon the fact that although the board afforded some window of opportunity to the private property owners to bring in a request to change this as proposed, I don't believe that staffs position -- staffs position is that Page 10 November 14, 2001 sufficient time has not passed to demonstrate that there's, quote, unquote, a problem in the manner in which this is being administered such that at this point in time it's appropriate to consider this type of an amendment, especially in light of the fact that there's potential for loss of, if you will, enforcement authority. The true legal position and the only one that I think our office has any concern about is making sure that in a circumstance where there's a privately requested rather than staff-generated amendment to the LDC, that there be a window of opportunity for those applicants to present their position. And I believe that's what we're going to do very soon, if not next. Otherwise there's no questions, I'll leave it alone. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody have any questions? MR. NINO: I might just re -- it dawned on me, since this is a privately sponsored petition, I think that the applicant, Matt Grabinski, ought to explain why he made the application. MR. WHITE: Well, like -- like I said, unless there's any question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you, Matt. MR. GRABINSKI: Matt Grabinski for the record, representing the Ritz-Carlton. The amendment that's before you was drafted at the express direction of the Board of County Commissioners. I have several copies of the minutes from the meeting last June where they approved a whole slew of amendments to the annual beach events permit. And in those minutes is discussion pertaining to this amendment that's before you now. And the gist of what happened at that meeting was that one of the amendments that we requested to be put into the code that was added stated that the annual beach events permit could not be revoked, and that was due to the very sensitive and very valuable property rights that were at issue there. It was -- it was a very huge debate, and I'm sure you-all remember the Page 11 November 14, 2001 discussions and the public commentary that arose from that. But in the end the BCC gave us the amendment we wanted. However, certain members of the board had a problem having a permit on their books that couldn't be revoked, and so they basic -- so they said to me, "We'll give you what you want on the condition that this code gets redrafted and this permit process is turned into a notice process." And so that's what they did. And they even asked me to get back up on record and promise to undertake the responsibility of redrafting the code and cleaning it up and turning it into a notice procedure rather than a permit procedure, and that's all I did. The only reason why I drafted this amendment was because the county commission requested that I do so. Had they not requested it, I would have taken the amendments that they gave us in June, and we would have been on our merry -- merry way. This amendment does not substantially affect any of the rights that we already have. Right now the LDC says that there's a permit and you pay a fee and you get the permit but that it -- and that there are fines for violations of it, but it can't be revoked. The county commissioners didn't like the idea of having a permit that couldn't be revoked, so they said, rewhite -- rewrite the code and bring it back as a notice. So now it's a notice, an annual notice form. You pay the same fees, same penalties, but nothing can be revoked. It's the same. All I did -- I have extra copies of the minutes if anybody wants to review them or take them home. All I did was exactly what the Board of County Commissioners requested me to do, and that's the only reason why this amendment is coming before you, and it's the only reason why I'm here. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Anybody have any questions? Go ahead. MR. ABBOTT: Not -- not really a question, just a comment. I think he who governs least governs best, and I like that thought. And Page 12 November 14, 2001 I remember the commission saying something like that, but I appreciate the refreshing -- refreshment of my memory. MR. NINO: Barbara, you have anything to offer to the debate? MS. BURGESON: Just that going through the minutes, it is true that the Board of County Commissioners did ask that Matt could come back and make that -- that proposed change to the LDC. However, because it was -- all those discussions were held at the board and there was no opportunity for staff to take a position at that time and it wasn't directed to staff to make those changes, we -- we still feel the position that Patrick has given you, the formats presentation, is the one that we want to stand with, that it's not appropriate to not have this as a permit. There's a dozen other places in the Land Development Code where private property owners have to get permits such as temporary use permits, but they are permits. There was a comment in the minutes made by Pam Mac'Kie talking about the only way that that permit could be revoked was through the Board of County Commissioners. I'm concerned that in the future if we change the language to -- to take out permits, that we have little authority to make sure that the endangered species is protected on the beaches and that the -- the county and Collier County becomes liable if there's any concerns, therefore, violations or problems. MR. GRABINSKI: IfI could respond to that, the reason why staff did not prepare this amendment and the reason why I did was because John Dunnuck at the meeting specifically requested the commissioners to ask the hotel attorneys to undertake the task. He didn't want his staff to be burdened with it. And while Commissioner Mac'Kie did bring up the point that perhaps the BCC should have the authority to have a hearing -- on the beach events permit, she then asked me how I felt about that. There were some comment and discussion where I -- I still told her that the hotel industry would Page 13 November 14, 2001 object to any authority account -- of the county and have a -- having any slight possibility of revoking the permit. And in the end she backed off and said, "Okay. It should be a notice. So rewrite it." and that's what we've done. And I don't mean to sound disrespectful, and I don't want to belabor this and waste any more time. If everybody wants to vote this down, all I'm here to do is to fulfill my obligations on public record. My job is to go in front of the county commission next month and say you asked me to do this; I did it. If they want to vote it down, not change it, it's not affecting our rights at all, and so I'm not going to belabor this at all. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I understand that. I think we all understand the issues. Does anybody have any other questions of-- of staff or Matt? MR. WHITE: Just to put it entirely in perspective, there were issues relating to the comprehensive plan as well, and there were, I think, at least equally as expressed direction to address that concern. And I just wonder if Mr. Grabinski can put on the record what the status of that is. MR. GRABINSKI: It is my understanding that Rich Yovanovich was going to take care of any necessary amendments to the comprehensive plan. I'm not aware of the status. I haven't discussed it in detail with him, but I know that after the meetings we had -- we had a conversation, and he said, are you -- he said, I'll take care of the comprehensive plan issues, if necessary, and you take care of the LC -- LDC amendments. MR. WHITE: And just for everybody's obvious knowledge, the one commissioner in particular who is most vocal when you review the minutes is Commissioner Mac'Kie. And I'm not suggesting that there will be a change of posture in terms of what the entire board may view of this matter, but it is possible. And certainly in light of Page 14 November 14, 2001 that, I just want to make evident to everyone that circumstances changed so ... CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody like to make a motion? MR. ANDERSON: I, too, am going to abstain. I represent LaPlaya LLC and the Vanderbilt Inn who would potentially be affected by this. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: And if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get -- MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, one quick statement, and then I'd like to make a motion. The subcommittee looked at this, and we recommended denial and support of staffs recommendation of denial. Thus, I would like to stay with that and make a recommendation for denial and support staff. MR. JONES: Brian Jones. What he's doing is what the board of commissioners -- MR. ESPINAR: Let the board -- the board took the responsibility to -- which they will ultimately of-- of giving Matt direction. Then let it -- let's -- let's go ahead and put it in the board's hands and let them make the recommendation -- MR. JONES: So staff and the board are at odds, and we're deciding who we're going to support on this issue. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's correct. Do we have a second of the motion? MR. MILK: I'll second the motion. MR. PEEPLES: I have one question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: Is there still a quorum with two abstentions? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I believe we have a quorum, don't we? Does it matter if members abstain? MR. NINO: Patrick. Page 15 November 14, 2001 MR. WHITE: If they're not available to vote, they're not part of the quorum for the matter. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Oh, so we don't have a quorum for this issue anyway. MR. WHITE: Apparently not. I didn't do the math. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No, we don't. Not minus two. MR. ABBOTT: Listen, if we're going to support staff on this thing, I'll walk out of the room too. MR. WHITE: Well, unfortunately, that's not an option. MR. ABBOTT: It might be. I've got a coughing fit. I've got my money out to go buy a soda. I can choose my time. MR. WHITE: Well, I don't know that you want to put that kind of information on the record, Mr. Abbott. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We -- we don't have a quorum for this issue, so we can't take a vote on it. I think the minutes will reflect the discussion on the issue, and the subcommittee has a motion that will carry forward. MR. NINO: No. No, just the subcommittee -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We don't have a quorum to actually forward a motion on this. MR. NINO: Then it's no action at this point in time. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No action, right. MR. WHITE: Okay. If you want to take a vote and not be effective, quote, unquote, just to reflect what the majority opinion was, I'm certain that's information that will be provided to the board recognizing that it's, quote, as Ron has indicated, not official action. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think that would be preferable to take a vote with the members available. MR. FOLEY: I have a comment. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley. I think with all due respect, Marco, I Page 16 November 14, 2001 think that -- in my opinion, that we did get direction from the board for Mr. Grabinski to move forward and draft the language that he's done. So I'm-- I'm in support of-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a motion on the floor. Can we-- MR. FOLEY: I'm just talking about it. I'm not voting on it. That's just my position. I just wanted to put that on the record as opposed to just a yes or a no on the motion. So there is a -- there is a motion and a second; right? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As -- as a point of discussion just because in conversation at a board meeting it -- it sounded like a good idea, I think substantially new information has also come to light, and -- and I don't know that it does sound like such a good idea. So that doesn't necessarily make me want to move forward with it. With that let's take a vote and see where it falls. All in favor of the motion? (Those in favor responded.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's have a show of hands. Four. And opposed? Two. MR. NINO: All right. Four, two, and two; four, two, two abstentions. We go on to Item No. 3. Actually, your concern has to do with -- with a portion of the section we were amending that didn't contain all the language. So I think if you read-- take a minute and read the remainder of the language of the section that is being amended, the concerns you raised I think will go away. As you know, this came -- this request was made to us by public works department, Joe Cheatham. It's the position of the county that we want systems of dual -- dual water systems, one for reusable water and one for potable water. And I think your -- your committee expressed some concern, well, what about where there aren't any Page 17 November 14, 2001 facilities. And I understand that the rest of the paragraph which was left unsaid in the amendment addresses those -- those concerns. MR. KUCK: I might add one thing -- Tom Kuck, engineering director. For the record, I did talk to Joe Cheatham yesterday, and he also wanted some language included to more or less state that the county would not be responsible to maintain whatever pumps may be needed for the system for the distribution lines, but they would do the installation of the meters and the maintaining of meters. So that -- and I just got that from him late last night, and he wanted to talk to me again today on it, but we may be adding some of that type of language to this proposed amendment too. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody have any comments? MR. ANDERSON: I have one comment. It's not directed to the merits of the proposal, but it's this kind of thing that contributes to the lack of affordable housing in our community. And right now there's a waiting list of people who want treated effluent and the county can't provide it. And I think it ought to be tied into some kind of a master plan where they're planning to serve people because this shouldn't apply in an area where there's -- it's going to be extremely difficult to provide effluent, and it's a shotgun approach. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Ron, I have a question. This -- this only applies to PUDs and SDPs? MR. FOLEY: It doesn't say that. MR. NINO: It would apply to all platting. MR. FOLEY: It says development. MR. NINO: It would apply to all platting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any platted -- MR. NINO: Any platted -- yeah. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So somebody out in Golden Gate in a single-family home is not going to have to -- MR. NINO: No. Page 18 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- supply a connection out to the street or something. MR. FOLEY: It says for all subdivisions and developments. MR. N1NO: But we're -- Tom, are you going to -- MR. KUCK: Yeah. It would be for all new subdivisions, developments that would be coming down the pike. MR. NINO: It would be a lot by -- MR. KUCK: You need to realize in some of those cases it may be a dry system for -- you know, for two or three years or five years or longer till the secondary water is available. MR. NINO: But if there's a -- if there's a vacant lot in Golden Gate -- MR. FOLEY: Right. MR. NINO: -- that's going to in-fill development, we're not going to be putting in a dual system. It's not there. It wouldn't make any sense to do that. And I think it's clearly not the intent of that. And if you need that -- that clarification, why, I think we could add it. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, a comment. Has this gone before the utilities committee for their purview? MR. KUCK: I -- I don't know. Ask Tom because I think Tom's attended more of the utility subcommittees than I have in the last year. MR. JONES: There is much expertise, contractors, installers, and I think that that would be an appropriate forum for an in-depth review of this before it comes to this board so we can have feedback information. I don't -- I don't feel qualified to -- to make a decision on -- either way with regarding this without that oversight. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley. I agree with -- with the two comments from Mr. Jones and Bruce as well, Mr. Anderson. I think that we have an opportunity over -- since we do address the LDC a couple of times a year that this may be premature, perhaps a good Page 19 November 14, 2001 idea in the future, but I'm not sure the county's in a position to provide this service right now. At a minimum, I think we should let our subcommittee review it, take it from there. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion, Brian? MR. JONES: Just another comment. I believe the concern you have, you're trying to get this before the end of the year. Is there a time constraint that you're working towards or that this cycle cut off? MR. NINO: Yes. It's -- it's that agency's wish that this occur as quickly as possible. MR. JONES: I -- I'm just concerned that there was other time that -- that it could have been reviewed by that, and I'm -- it may be a -- a good thing or bad thing. I don't know. But on the 11 th hour, I -- I don't feel able to support it on the previous -- MR. NINO: Well, we've never -- you know, in the past you've dealt with many amendments to the subdivision section that have -- that have addressed utilities, and they've never gone to the utility subcommittee. I mean, you're the land -- you're the LDC code revision committee. There was never an expectation upon the part of staff that even if they were utilities related we would go to any other committee of DSAC other than the Land Development Code committee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. I think in support of Ron's comment, basically in the utility code subcommittee meeting the fact that staff is already bringing it forward and supports this motion would probably carry a majority of the weight in that meeting. I'm the only member on this board that sits on that. My guess is that it probably would go forward. I think it still needs some tweaking, as Tom said, get a few technical issues straightened out before it goes before the board, but that can be taken care of. MR. KUCK: And-- and I can-- if you give me direction, I can Page 20 November 14, 2001 talk to Joe Cheatham to say several questions came up and to see if it would be a problem if it were continued or if he wants to go ahead and have it on -- you know, continued as an LDC amendment, realizing that maybe it may not have the support of the DSAC committee. But I will -- I will talk to him today. MR. FOLEY: I make a motion that we deny this as drafted for reasons stated by the members, committee members. MR. JONES: I have an option before we vote on that. If-- if that could be deferred to that committee, I would be willing to go with that committee's recommendation, and that way you would still be able to make your cutoff. I would defer my -- defer judgment to that committee on basically our behalf. There's a lot of expertise. There's utility contractors. There's a depth of knowledge there that-- that I don't have, and it's not present on this board. I think it would -- if there are pitfalls and problems with this. If there's not a problem that the people that are actually doing that and installing subdivisions, they're going to know about it. It affects their livelihood. So my -- my motion would be that we defer it to that subcommittee and endorse their recommendation or denial, whichever. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any comment? MR. ANDERSON: I want to second Blair's motion if he'll accept a friendly amendment, and that is that we recommend denial unless and until the county commission has approved a master plan for expansion of the secondary water treated effluent system. MR. FOLEY: I'd accept that. MR. ANDERSON: Only apply in the urban area. MR. NINO: Aren't you out of order in view of Blair making -- Brian making a motion? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: No. Blair made a motion. MR. FOLEY: I made one. I made one too. MR. NINO: You made one before -- Page 21 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Blair was just discussing the motion. We didn't have a second yet. MR. FOLEY: I would agree to amend my motion, and that's my biggest concern. I do understand the expertise in our subcommittee. The issue isn't the ability to install it or how it would be coordinated with -- with the development, at least in my posture. My bigger concern is can the county provide it? Do they plan to provide it? Are we going to have a bunch of backbone systems just sitting around not being used? So I -- I like the amendment, and I'll support that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: We have a amendment on the floor, then; that's with a second. As a point of discussion, I would like to add that was our -- our biggest point of discussion, too, in the subcommittee meeting was we're going to have these -- these systems sitting there potentially for ten-plus years in the ground with FPL and UTS and everybody cutting through them all over the place. When you go to power it up ten years from now, what -- I mean, what kind of shape is it even going to be in potentially? So I think it is important to know within reason when that could be expected to come on-line. MR. NINO: What is the motion? MR. FOLEY: The motion is for denial with Mr. Anderson's -- MR. ANDERSON: Unless and until the county commission approves a master plan for the effluent reuse system expanded. MR. NINO: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question. And that is, you know, I see your concern of putting this in the ground and not using it for a period of years. But if a development is permitted and built, can a development be effectively retrofit to put this dual water system in? The engineers can -- MR. FOLEY: It can be. It might be difficult, but you run Page 22 November 14, 2001 against the same -- the same problems, that if you put it in, then do all your crossings -- I mean, I think it can be done with difficult -- difficulty. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: As -- as a point of discussion, I mean, in the projects that we do, we always go dual watering. We -- we supply irrigation to -- to our customers within a project. So if it's there -- any way of being utilized, I don't -- I just don't know if there wouldn't be cases where that wouldn't be the case. MR. FOLEY: Blair Foley. I just was wondering what the standards might be for that. Would they be able to accept all the irrigation systems that were designed, you know, independent of county approval, really? We have a cursory review, as far as irrigation goes, but there isn't pipe-fitting requirements and things like that in an irrigation system. Tom's issue is it's in the ground. In some cases it may be able to be utilized. In other cases they could put a line in the ground to serve it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I mean, my -- my -- again, my position would be, I -- I would support this motion. I would just like to know a little bit more about what it is coming on-line -- MR. PEEPLES: If it actually has? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. As opposed to not support the issue waiting for more information to go on -line. I'd rather see us support it and push for a more proactive approach to get these systems connected and when it's going to occur because I think, you know, if' it goes for another five years, it will be another five years' worth of projects that don't have a dual water system. MR. FOLEY: The reason for my motion is I don't like to put regulations in place when the county may not have any idea what they're doing as far as providing a service. I think that by saying no, get your ducks in a row, tell us what you've got in mind, and then we'll be happy to support it. I'm a little concerned about already Page 23 November 14, 2001 imposing additional government regulation in advance of a plan to supply the system. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other -- MR. ABBOTT: A comment I have is -- and I base this strictly on the paper and a couple of comments. Don't we use all the effluent we've got anyway in the wintertime? MR. FOLEY: Yes. MR. ABBOTT: There's almost -- there's nothing left over? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: They're not accepting any new customers right now. MR. ABBOTT: Well, in my opinion, that's the best argument yet. No. You know, if we don't have any left over to distribute -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Any further discussion? MR. NINO: Isn't it the in -- isn't it the inverse of that? I mean, if we're out of water, that means we should be picking up more water from residential subdivisions that don't have the golf courses and shipping it to those -- those golf courses that need water and now can't get it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: But it's not there. MR. NINO: But it's not there, right. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion before us. (Those in favor responded.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All opposed? Aye. MR. NINO: And the last item was a minor change to page nine -- 90 which remains. So that -- having gone through that system now, let's start at the beginning of your packet and skip those which we've already dealt with. The first page is a -- is a -- is a deletion altogether because in this cycle we are not new -- making the conversion. Do you have a -- MR. FOLEY: I have one of those. Are we going through this, Page 24 November 14, 2001 or are we just going to go through the amendments, the changes we got handed to us today? MR. ESPINAR: The little one. MR. NINO: All right. Thanks. Good. I'm glad you mentioned that. MR. FOLEY: We -- excuse me a second. Bruce, I don't know if you were here when we talked about this. We -- in an effort to support the subcommittee, we were going to go over the comments that were specific which we just completed and then take the recommendations that the -- the subcommittee had on the balance of the amendments. Unless one of the committee members -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MR. FOLEY: -- wanted to pull it. And then -- and we were just handed this document (indicating) when we entered the room. We were going to go over this in its entirety. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MR. FOLEY: If there are any other issues you want to pull -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Just bring it up at the time as we move along. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, actually, now would be the time, if you want to go back to any of the issues in the entire package. Did you want -- did you want to have further discussion on this? MR. NINO: Can we -- can we do these first because that will -- that will -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. NINO: Page 23, 24, 25, and 26 was some minor modifications to the landscape provisions. Carolina, would you explain what the changes were over those that were reviewed by the committee? MS. VALERA: For the record, my name is Carolina Valera. I'm a senior planner with current planning. The changes that we Page 25 November 14, 2001 made for the landscape, for the landscape part of this overlay, it was just refining the language and making it more clear basically. There's no, you know, major changes to it. MR. NINO: So there's some minor structuring. If you compare page 25 with page 25 that was in your documents, you'll find that there's some minor restructuring. However, I think in terms of landscape quantity and specifications, nothing is changed. MR. ANDERSON: I need to announce that I have a conflict. I represent Benderson Development Company, which owns several parcels in this activity center. And, therefore, I will abstain from voting on this. MR. NINO: Let me add for the record that the requirement to do this is a mandate from the comprehensive plan. So we don't have a choice. We need to prepare development standards for Activity Center No. 9, and there will be others coming to you in the future. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I would add the subcommittee supported this as it was originally brought before us so -- I mean, like, some minor changes. MR. NINO: Okay? Move on? Can you hand these out? They were just given to me. This speaks to page 26-A which was never in any package. The county attorney's office, Marjorie Student, has advised that the intent of the county Board of Commissioners to -- to impose a form of temporary moratorium on development on Gulfshore Drive between Vanderbilt Beach Road and 11 lth. I think this kind of mirror images the Goodland -- no, the -- well, I don't know what it mirror images. I haven't seen it. Marjorie drafted it yesterday or this morning. And that's where we're at. Apparently we're dealing with one year. And only those lands that are zoned RT -- there are some lands zoned commercial. There are also some lands zoned RMF-12 or 16 on Vanderbilt -- Gulfshore Drive. So it's the only -- the RT-zoned portion. Page 26 November 14, 2001 MR. FOLEY: Most of that's developed, it looks like; right? MR. NINO: Uh-huh. MR. FOLEY: It looks like maybe one -- one lot's undeveloped. MR. NINO: And looking at it very quickly, Bruce, you're about as familiar as anybody with that district, but -- but I see the prohibited uses under prohibited -- under permitted uses, there's no mention of a hotel. So it's apparent -- it's apparent that a hotel is being eliminated for the -- for the duration of the year. MR. ANDERSON: Well, first, let me announce that, again, I will abstain from voting because I have a conflict. I represent La Playa LLC and the Vanderbilt Inn, who would be affected or potentially so by this ordinance. It's not clear to me where it says prohibited uses, and then it says permitted uses like there's something missing. It's confusing me because the accessory -- uses accessory go on to speak about hotel/motel. Yet it's not a permitted use about this. Something is missing here. MR. PEEPLES: Is it that these would be permitted uses but for this current-- MR. ABBOTT: Currently permitted. MR. PEEPLES: These are currently permitted, currently uses accessory, current conditional uses. MR. NINO: Patrick. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Or prohibited now. MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I believe that the intent under 2.2.3 5.3, if I'm reading the sequence correctly, is that all of the permitted uses, uses accessory to it, etc., that follow would themselves be prohibited and that merely this is a restatement, if you will, of what those uses are set forth in the existing LDC provision that identifies permissible uses, including the term of art permitted uses, as well as uses accessory permitted to permitted uses. Page 27 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So -- MR. WHITE: You'll -- you'll note that there are some exemptions that follow. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: To simplify, basically stating that they simply want to prohibit any changes to this for a period of one year? MR. WHITE: I believe that's the intent but for the exemptions in 2.2.3 5.4. And that appears to apply to completed development applications for approval. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Again, we don't have a quorum to vote on this issue anyway with that abstention. MR. ANDERSON: I'm present for the purposes of establishing a quorum. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: That's okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question. And Patrick may be the best one or maybe Ron. What is the -- what's the driving force behind this? MR. ABBOTT: Good question. MR. PEEPLES: What is the reason for establishing this moratorium? MR. WHITE: I don't feel comfortable identifying what the county's position is because I'm not privy to that information. MR. PEEPLES: And I was thinking since somebody in your office has done it, there has been no internal discussion, so you can't enlighten -- MR. WHITE: There has been internal discussions, but I have only participated in them tangentially and was not part of moving force behind this. I can tell you that it probably has something to do with the fact that we've had a number of difficulties at the site Page 28 November 14, 2001 development plan and, quote, Land Development Code amendment stage in developing a regulatory fabric that we can consistently apply. MR. PEEPLES: Within this particular area. MR. WHITE: Area. And I can tell you that that will be exacerbated to some degree by the fact that there are issues involving, quote, sovereign lands, unquote, that may have potential impacts. And that's part, I believe, of what the consideration will be during the assessment period for new development. MR. NINO: I -- I think it's safe to venture that there is also an effort here that this will give us time to -- to justify an amendment that would eliminate hotels as a permitted use in the RT zoning district. MR. WHITE: To that extent, I generally identify two types of moratoria, a concurrency moratoria for public health, safety, welfare where you have inadequate out-- infrastructure. This, I don't believe, is one of them precisely. It's more of a consistency-type moratorium where in order to determine that we have a set of land development regulations that are consistent internally, consistent with other districts and consistent with the comprehensive plan itself, I believe it's the board's direction and our office's understanding that we will ask to have that period of time of one year to assess for the purposes of making those kinds of consistency determinations and coming back with proposed changes to the regulatory fabric. MR. PEEPLES: I have another question. And, again, I hate to drill you on this because this isn't your specific project, but I was under the impression that a moratorium is a fairly drastic step to take, really requires some sort of overriding public purpose because it's such an impingement upon private property rights. And I take it since the coUnty attorney staff has prepared this that there has been an analysis to determine whether this would survive, you know, judicial review if property owners in that area challenge it. Page 29 November 14, 2001 MR. WHITE: The manner in which they would challenge it, I'm not sure. It's an LDC amendment, if you will. And I'm not going to propose to lecture this group about what the standard of review would be. I don't think it would be my client's best interest to do that either. But suffice it to say, for the purposes of this record that I believe we've made all those appropriate determinations, and certainly we believe that if challenged we would prevail. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Would you like to make a motion? MR. PEEPLES: Does anybody else have anything to say? MR. FOLEY: I agree with what you say, Mr. Peeples. I feel without having some real direction from the county attorney as to what -- what was the driving force behind this and -- moratorium is an extreme measure, and it concerns me. But I -- really, I know Patrick wasn't the individual who was working on it, but I'm a little concerned about this being pushed forward with approval. MR. PEEPLES: Well, I -- I will make a motion that we deny this. And my reasoning for that is, I just -- I -- I think, perhaps, that the -- that the board is reacting to a situation where they are trying to gain extra time. And I'm not sure that this is an appropriate way to do it. The zoning is there. The zoning can be amended. The LDC can be amended in ways other than a moratorium, and I think this is just a very extreme measure. Just -- it's just -- it's very much out of the ordinary, and I don't think I can support it. So I would move that we deny this amendment to the LDC. MR. JONES: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: MR. ANDERSON: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? That one carries unanimously. With one abstention. Page 30 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. MR. NINO: The next items are -- deal with amendments to the well field protection ordinance, and the reason why the -- the subcommittee approved of all of the amendments, there were a couple of deletions, and that's why -- that aren't -- a couple that aren't going forward in this cycle. But what's here was approved by you. Ray Smith is here if you have any further questions. As I said, the reason why it was in your packet as a reconsideration item is because there were -- two of the amendments were -- were withdrawn. Again, for the record, these are mandated amendments. They're required by the governor's final order, and that's why we're dealing with them. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody have any discussion on these? MR. ESPINAR: I make a motion that we approve it. MR. MILK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The motion carries. MR. NINO: There were -- and the subcommittee did not get an opportunity -- I apologize, but there were a couple of definitions from transportation that I forgot to put in your package and/or -- or -- or did we deal with it? MR. ESPINAR: We did, yes. MR. NINO: Okay. 109, 110 we dealt with. The subcommittee dealt with those two -- those two definitions which were not in the package that you received in your mail. The committee supported them. MR. FOLEY: I have a comment on page 109. It's -- I don't Page 31 November 14, 2001 know. Maybe it's just something that I got. It may not be a big deal. I don't like the use of the words "affords" there, a public or private way which affords access to abutting property. I thought maybe "that which provides or allows." I don't know if that's even an issue but -- any thoughts or comments from the board members? MR. MILK: ! would agree with you, Mr. Foley. I think some wordsmithing there may be appropriate. MR. NINO: Well. Appreciate that that was -- that's in the original -- MR. FOLEY: I understand. MR. NINO: You know, it's in the original. It was something we were changing. MR. FOLEY: If we could change it to "which allows access to abutting properties," would that be acceptable? MR. NINO: All right. MR. FOLEY: Then I make a motion that we approve this based on that revision. MR. PEEPLES: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second? All in favor of the change? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Yes, Brian. MR. JONES: I have a question. Back on -- I don't know if we've already gone through this, on 23 and 24 on the building and landscaping amendments -- MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. JONES: MR. NINO: MR. JONES: MR. NINO: Are we -- have we visited that yet? Yes. We have? Yes. Page 32 November 14, 2001 MR. JONES: I had some comments on that. On page 24, 2.2.35.4, it begins, "All buildings shall meet requirement for the architectural code." And the architectural code that we have is -- is very prescriptive and -- and what is to be done. And there are currently buildings that are immune from that architectural code. By stating all buildings, I -- I assume that we mean all buildings, for example, golf course maintenance buildings and sewer plant buildings and school bus barns and so forth and so on, buildings that are not on the right-of-way. This is a tremendous financial impact to, for example, industrial parks. They are-- MR. ABBOTT: Three-foot overhang business? MR. JONES: This -- this would be a devastating impact to a lot of agricultural buildings, buildings used for-- for-- there are exemptions. This would close all of those exemptions, and not that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have everything look beautiful. But who's going to pay for it, and what is the downside? And do we really want this? MR. NINO: Well, first -- first of all, let -- let me -- let me -- let me explain. Everything that's zoned commercial in that activity center is now subject to the architectural regulations. No one's -- no one's going to build a horse barn in Activity Center No. 9, I mean -- MR. JONES: So this is specific to 9? MR. NINO: Yes. This is specific to Activity Center No. 9. What it does do, however, you should appreciate, is that some parts of Activity Center No. 9 are industrially zoned. And the current regulations only require the application of architectural standards to buildings that front on arterial or collector roads. For example, City Gate come -- came on board, it would have an internal road system. You know where City Gate is up behind the water-- the water tower there, the water tank, so that the only difference would be that, yes, this extends the architectural regulations to industrially zoned Page 33 November 14, 2001 properties that are going to be in Activity Center No. 9 that are zoned -- that are -- that are not -- that are on local roads or even private roads that are unique to that industrial park. MR. MILK: Mr. Nino, wasn't there another -- an overlay plan that was done for the intersection to approve by county board members last year? MR. NINO: Yeah. Wilson-- this came out of the Wilson, Miller study, designed a master plan for the activity center. MR. MILK: Kind of memorializes this. MR. NINO: Yeah. This is -- this -- this puts it into the Land Development Code. It takes it from a master plan to the implementing stage. MR. ANDERSON: May I suggest one clarification here on that section that Bryan brought up? There is a limitation on the amount of commercial that can be built in this activity center. And the way this is written, we would be applying commercial building architectural and site design requirements to residential structures that might be constructed in that activity center. That's not your intent, I don't believe. So why don't we say all commercial and industrial buildings -- MR. NINO: I think you're right. MR. ANDERSON: -- shall meet the requirements? MR. NINO: I think you're right. MR. PEEPLES: Just one thing to add to that. Do we want to say all commercial and industrial, or do we want to say all nonresidential? MR. ANDERSON: I thought about that. And then I thought, well, what about accessory structures to residential that aren't strictly residential like a clubhouse, restrooms around the community pool, that kind of thing. MR. NINO: You know, a similarity in Activity Center No. 9, Page 34 November 14, 2001 there are some residential components. There's a residential component in the -- the Bonita Bay -- no, Bonita Bay project. And there's also a residential section in that one that you and Bob did on the south side, so -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you have any other comments, Brian? MR. NINO: We typically don't deal with architectural standards as they apply to residential because, quite frankly, we feel that they're always going to be consistent. MR. JONES: On roof treatments, if that were to change to a 4 and 12, there are some fall protection requirements that are necessitated, I believe, at -- at possibly 5 and 12. 4 and 12 might be a little -- it's not that big a difference, but it can make a difference to the roofers. MR. ABBOTT: Also, when you start doing the -- the 3 -- or the 3-foot overhang, we have some provisions in the modem hurricane code that's coming that has serious problems with 3-foot overhangs. They're very good for solar aspects, for shading. There's very nice things about them. We used to build them a lot. But the engineering requirements for 3-foot overhangs pretty much drove them from the market. That's a ten-year comment. Would you agree with that, Brian? MR. JONES: Yes, I would. MR. ABBOTT: They -- they disappeared. They used to do it in houses all the time and commercial buildings. Other things you've got, when you do 5/12 with a 3-foot overhang, you're going to have to start increasing building heights because the actual overhang is going to stick down into head-type areas that building code already addresses in a number of ways. So I just -- I urge you to always think about the other ramifications that come. Instead of 8-foot walls, you're certainly going to go to 9s and Page 35 November 14, 2001 10S. MR. JONES: I would have a comment on industrial. I would agree that the areas facing 1-75 and the front elevations that -- that those areas be architecturally treated. However, there are -- there are alleyways and common -- common yards between buildings that it -- it doesn't serve any purpose for -- no one can see it type of thing. And it is a costly -- this is your industrial area. This is where -- this is where the stuffs manufactured. This is not generally an area that is known for its ambiance and its nightlife. It's -- it's where the meat and potatoes of-- of our economic development is -- is done. And you're -- you're hindering, and you're requiring those buildings to look just like all the other buildings. Is that really what you want? I don't -- again, my -- if you can see it from 75 or from the front elevation or the sides, I -- I can see that. But this does not make any allowance for that. MR. ABBOTT: Another question for Ron. Used to be -- and the way I've used it for a long time is overhang -- excuse me, overhangs greater than 2 feet affect the setback. Is that a valid comment? MR. MILK: I think it was 3 feet. MR. NINO: Yeah. I think it's 3 -- I think it's 3 feet -- MR. AB BOTT: Okay. MR. NINO: -- projection into the side yard. But if you're ready to get back into this, I'm going to have to call Carolina Valera back. MS. MURRAY: Oh, you want Carolina? MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. JONES: Basically, the-- MR. NINO: Are you -- are you -- are you saying that there's something in the new building stuff that's coming on line that -- that discourage a 3-foot overhang? MR. ABBOTT: Yes, sir. There certainly is. And I can't Page 36 November 14, 2001 comment about it intelligently enough, but there is a provision in there. We need to ask Ed Perico or Jerry Ballard or something. MR. JONES: Well, the wind load in and of itself is going from 110 to 140, and then we're requiring cupolas and things that are on the top of these roofs, and the slope factors of the roof themselves -- MR. ABBOTT: One of the issues is the top cord of trusses, which is frequently the part that extends beyond, and that's the overhang on how you frame things and typically do it. When you go from 2 feet to that 3 feet, you start increasing to such a degree that the walls have to be substantially stronger to hold it down at that instant because it's a noted peel-away issue in hurricanes, and they saw it a lot in Hurricane Andrew, and that's why they changed the code. MR. NINO: What are you suggesting? MR. ABBOTT: I personally like 3-foot overhangs ifI can engineer them at reasonable cost. But what Brian is saying is very true. When we start worrying about setbacks and 3-foot overhangs and all this engineering, you -- you substantially increase the price of the building. And to a visual improvement only, then maybe it's questionable. MR. NINO: Well, are you saying the overhang should not exceed 2 feet or 1 foot or-- you have to give us some direction. MR. JONES: I'm saying you don't necessary -- in many instances -- for example, take the industrial park. Most of the buildings don't have an overhang. They have a parapet condition. And an overhang's not necessitated, it serves no purpose. It's not even a shading purpose. Wood is prohibited in constructional -- in commercial zoning anyway from a -- roof framing. So it has to be a noncombustible bar joist, steel, something of that nature, in the first place. So the wood overhang is -- is out. MR. NINO: Let me go to Carolina. Carolina, what we're talking about is the -- we're -- we're back to this and -- concerning Page 37 November 14, 2001 that the 5/12 slope should not -- that that's excessive, unnecessary. It should be 4/12 slope, concerning that 3-foot overhangs is -- is -- causes a problem, not necessary, something, perhaps, in the new building codes might -- might also further exacerbate that with greater stress from the wind loads, and if you're going to go out -- Charlie says if you're going to go out 3 feet, you have to build higher -- it has to be a higher structure. What generated that type of concern? MS. VALERA: The study itself, you know, the interchange master -- master plan study was recommended that steep roofs were used to, you know, create that theme, that Florida character in that area. And they thought that by using steep roofs and deep overhangs, that will, you know, contribute to the look of that, you know, to create that interrated theme in that area. That's the reason why. MR. ABBOTT: Architecturally I have no problem with it. From a practical standpoint cost-wise is where my -- I think it does look -- MR. NINO: If we're speaking to the issue of cost, I think you have to -- you have to appreciate that a statement has been made that calls this activity center out for extra-special treatment because it's a gateway to the Naples metropolitan area. And what those policy makers are saying is that additional investment is warranted because of the prominence of-- of that interchange. So, you know, to an extent we're saying, be damned with costs. We've got a goal here to achieve. So coming -- coming from that perspective, you know, what do you-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. Adding to that statement, I -- I agree. I mean, if somebody has lost interest and doesn't want to be in an area that has that new look, then they can certainly find a cheaper place to build a building that isn't required to have all this gingerbread added to it so ... Page 38 November 14, 2001 MS. VALERA: If I may add, I understand the study was done, you know, with collaboration from members of the community, you know, people that have ownership in the -- in that area, and as well as, you know, staff members. MR. NINO: Yeah. It was -- right. It was a collaborative study. In other words, the landowners in that area were -- were involved in the visioning process, so they certainly know that this is an area where we're going a step beyond. And maybe that step beyond also has a remunerative value in the price of the land so -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The other comment, Carolina, that came up was in the first sentence it starts out, "all buildings," at the top of that page. It is recommended that it be changed to all commercial and industrial buildings shall meet the requirements listed below. Is that the intent that you had? MS. VALERA: Yes. And, again, the study did -- did, you know, allow for that. I mean, they -- they did include that all properties there in the interchange should have that unified theme in that -- in that area. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: So that change would be acceptable to you, to change that to all commercial and industrial? MR. NINO: Was -- was it the intent -- was it the intent? Because, see, it reads -- it reads "site design standards for commercial buildings." Was it the intent that all buildings in Activity Center No. 9 would be subject to the regulations? MS. VALERA: Right. MR. MS. MR. MR. MR. MR. NINO: MILK: NINO: ANDERSON: NINO: Including industrial buildings on interior roads. VALERA: That is correct. Okay. With the exception of residential? Yeah. With the exception of residential. That's the question. You didn't intend to Page 39 November 14, 2001 apply it to residential? MS. VALERA: That's correct. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. Let me just say that what Ron said about property owners being involved in the visioning process is -- is exactly true. They had a number of meetings. There was a buy- off by affected property owners on the vision statement that was adopted. And this is mandated by the comprehensive plan. And, again, I will abstain from voting on this, and I thought of an additional client I represent there in that area that I need to disclose: Exit 15 Land Trust, Thomas Eckerdy (phonetic), trustee. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Somebody like to make a motion? MR. JONES: Another question. I'm sorry. Ron, there's an individual developer, I think, that's -- that-- that would have -- is basically developing one of the industrial parks along that corridor that would be so affected by this. Have you talked to the -- to the developers of those parks, and they're -- they're in agreement with this? MR. NINO: I re -- I don't know. I'm saying -- I'm saying that back when the master plan was developed, the -- all of the property owners had an opportunity to -- to participate in -- in the concept plan that came out of that process. If this is a -- a new buyer of a lot, probably no. MR. JONES: Talking about the developer of the lot, the one who's -- MR. NINO: Well, then if they were -- if they were -- if they were the owner three years ago, they were involved in the development of the vision statement, yeah. MR. MILK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to echo with Mr. Anderson that stated for the record. I was part of some of those hearings, and-- and all of these surrounding and pertinent owners at the time were involved in this visioning process for the activity center in that area Page 40 November 14, 2001 and were full aware of all the architectural embellishments and style and the landscaping that were going to be proven for that development. Clarification for the record. MR. FOLEY: I make a motion we approve it with Bryan's comment on Section 2.2.3.5.4 that would include all commercial and industrial buildings as opposed to all buildings. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. PEEPLES: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second from Mr. Peeples. All in favor? (Those in favor responded.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Opposed? MR. JONES: Nay. MR. ABBOTT: Nay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Two no's. MR. ANDERSON: And one abstention. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay? Back to you, Ron. I think you had a couple transportation ones. MR. NINO: One abstention. Can we go back to the -- the -- you know, we're at the -- yeah. We're at the definition for lost or capital road facilities which subcommittee rec -- supported. MR. JONES: What page is that on? MR. NINO: 110. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The only difference to this one than what we saw in subcommittee is the additional shading in or-- MR. NINO: It's not the same -- same? I thought it was the same paper. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All right. MR. NINO: I don't know about the shading. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I wasn't sure if there was a change. MR. NINO: No, there wasn't any change, no. Page 41 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. NINO: No. There aren't any changes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anybody have any comments on this one or support -- MR. FOLEY: Motion for approval. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's it. MR. NINO: And we added a page, 112, which the subcommittee did not have the benefit of reviewing. We added a definition of lot coverage and principal building. There are -- in -- in the code there is a reserve classification for lot coverage. And we're going to be talking about that a little later. It's our intention to add a standard or a provision under each of those reserve sections that deal with lot coverage. Additionally, we never did define the word principal building, and -- and that has, quite frankly, caused some administrative difficulties. And we -- we feel that definition will help us out of that difficulty. MR. WHITE: How -- ifI may ask a question before we have you-all consider it, Ron, principal building, how does that relate to the earlier discussions about overhangs and possibly even staircases that may be external to exterior walls? MR. NINO: That has -- MR. MR. MR. MR. WHITE: For purposes, let me -- NINO: Yeah. Yeah. WHITE: For purposes of setbacks and -- NINO: If it has a roof over it, then it's a principal building. Page 42 November 14, 2001 If you're talking about a stairwell that has a roof over it, then it's a principal building. MR. MILK: I think you'd have to further define the footprint of the building, what that would entail, what it would not entail, where it would entail overhangs and stairwells and such. It's usually by the gross floor area of a building. That would be the principal structure by definition of the code. MR. NINO: Yeah, what drove -- I think what drive -- I think where we get these administrative difficulties is usually with swimming pools. You remember at Pelican Bay we always had this problem. Here's the rear lot line coming -- building a swimming pool or-- or a patio with a roof enclosure. We've always considered that. And the problem is, there is -- in the code and in most PUDs, there's a setback requirement for principal building, and there's a setback requirement for accessory building. And it's always been -- there's been some difficulty -- this may -- this may have a roof structure on it, but there's a screen there and a screen there and a screen there. It really functions much like an accessory room. However, we're taking the position that if you put a roof over it, it's part of the principal structure. And the setback should be that for a principal structure. However, if it's a open -- if it's a screen enclosure area, then, in other words, if that's the pool (indicating) and that's a screen (indicating), then that can go -- an accessory to building space. Another problem we have is where -- where -- where the building consists of independent buildings, all of which are habitable spaces, somebody decides I want a bedroom on the back of my house, you know, for my son so that he can have his privacy and it's detached from the main house, that's still a principal building. It's principal use, principal building, should adhere to the setback for a principal building as opposed to an accessory building. So it's that Page 43 November 14, 2001 kind of focus that drives the definition of principal building, slash, use. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Under this current definition, Ron, would a chickee bar, which is a roof structure, out in the backyard now, would that become a principal structure? MR. NINO: No. I think-- that would still be an accessory building. MR. PEEPLES: I've got a question. MR. NINO: You have to read this in concert with the definition for accessory uses in the ordinance, yeah. MR. PEEPLES: Yeah. You know, are you doing yourself any favors by trying to pin this down? The reason I ask that is, look at your example. And it says, "Any building or a part of a building in which the principal function or activity for which the land is zoned is conducted," the principal function. And you've got the -- MR. NINO: Living. MR. PEEPLES: Well, you don't live in the pool area. NINO: No. That's right. You don't live in the pool. PEEPLES: But you want to include that in the principal MR. MR. structure. MR. MR. MR. NINO: No, I don't. PEEPLES: Oh. I thought you said-- ABBOTT: If it had a roof on it -- MR. NINO: If it had a roof on it-- no. If it has a roof on it -- if it has a roof on it, it's principal structure. If it doesn't have a roof on it, it's not principal structure. MR. PEEPLES: But the principal function of that is not living; it's not habitation. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: If-- if either one of his examples there, the pool has a screened enclosure without a roof or it is a screened porch Page 44 November 14, 2001 with a roof, the screened porch has a different setback. Now, at 25 feet, let's say, as opposed to what he's got, what, 10, I mean, that's kind of usual. That's the way it's been -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: point -- MR. ABBOTT: Yes. roof But I -- but I understand Perry's CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- but the screened enclosure with a is still -- MR. ABBOTT: It's still -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: -- serving a different purpose than a house. MR. FOLEY: use. With or without the roof, it doesn't change the MR. PEEPLES: Right. And are you going to -- are you going to open yourself up to challenge by people who want to put in that screened enclosure with the roof and claim that it's not a principal structure? MR. NINO: Well, that's the problem we've been-- MR. PEEPLES: I understand. MR. NINO: That's the problem. MR. PEEPLES: It currently is a problem, and you're administratively making the decisions. I'm just wondering by -- is there a perfect definition, because if there's not, it will remain a problem? MR. NINO: Yeah, I struggled with it for some time. We never had a definition for principal building. So I -- you know, I -- I crafted this completely based on my experience. We -- and we do have -- we do have a definition for accessory use. Let me read it to you. "A use or structure of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure and unless provided on the same -- structure and unless otherwise provided on the same Page 45 November 14, 2001 premises. On the same premises with respect to accessory use and structure shall be construed to mean on the same lot or on the contiguous lot and the same ownership and zoning strict. Where a building is attached to the principal building, it shall be considered a part thereof and not an accessory building, except as provided in Division 2-6, supplemental district regulations." And it says the facilities serving malt, vinous, or alcoholic beverages shall be deemed an accessory use for a hotel/motel. That really doesn't apply. And the rest of it doesn't apply. So it -- basically the key line here is, where a building is attached to the principal building, it shall be considered a part thereof and not an accessory building, except as provided, which is probably extensions into side yards under supplemental district regulations. Then we have -- also, we have a definition for the word "building." And -- and it has aspects of this in it as well. "Building: any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof impervious to weather and used or built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels" so ... MR. MILK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. MILK: So, Ron, the purpose is to gain clarification to roof versus nonroof structure? MR. NINO: It's -- I'd say it's the gain -- to get clarification as to under what circumstances are we dealing with a setback from a principal structure versus an accessory structure. MR. MILK: And -- and is that due to the accessory list versus the principal permitted use list? In other words, your porch versus your room addition versus your lanai? MR. NINO: Well, a porch with a roof on it we maintain is part of your house. MR. MILK: I understand, but I think you can interpret that two Page 46 November 14, 2001 different ways, though, by setback. MR. NINO: Well, the -- the use aspect -- MR. MILK: As it is now. MR. NINO: -- the use aspect of it is habitable space. We're talking about a residence or -- either single-family or multifamily context. We're talking about habitable space. And a swimming pool, you know, we wouldn't consider a swimming pool habitable space. Would you agree, Susan? MS. MURRAY: Uh-huh. MR. NINO: And-- MR. MILK: What if the porch was screened versus enclosed and had a roof structural component on it? And I think that's my point, is maybe there ought to be more -- MR. NINO: Then there would be part of-- MR. MILK: I guess my point is, Ron, you're talking about roof structures versus maybe screened lanai structures. MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. MILK: And that roof structure may be part of an integral part of a porch which is screened and nonhabitable. And my thought is, for clarification, maybe you ought to look at the encompassing accessory structures, maybe striking some and adding further clarification to that versus maybe doing what you're doing here. If it's roofed, then it's got to have one setback; if it's nonroofed versus lanai, that it meets the accessory setback. MR. NINO: Well, I think that's what we're trying to say. If it's a roof structure, it's always principal building. MR. MILK: Okay. MR. NINO: You know, one of the concerns, underlying concerns that -- that I've experienced is, people put roof-- lanais on there. And before long, it gets enclosed and -- and becomes a permanent part of the house. Page 47 November 14, 2001 MR. MILK: MR. NINO: lot line instead of MR. MILK: MR. NINO: Sure. And -- and they end up being 10 feet from the rear 20 feet from the rear lot line. Right. Because in some cases you don't even get a building permit to do that because it's out of sight, out of mind. It's easy to do. So I'm -- the driving -- driving force, in my mind, is if it's got a roof on it, you better-- you better consider it a principal building, in most instances, even though under that roof may be an accessory use. MR. PEEPLES: But that's not what this says. MR. NINO: Well, then help me with it. Help me with it. MR. PEEPLES: You struggled with this a lot longer than we have. When it says "any building or part of a building in which the principal function or activity for which the land is owned is conducted." MR. NINO: Uh-huh. MR. PEEPLES: You know, I think that's more restrictive than you want it to be. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. PEEPLES: And -- and I think that if it is any building or a part of a building in which the principal function or activity which the land is zoned, or just using the example, and we can't use every example that comes up, or, you know, which is attached to, which is, you know, covered by a roof and attached to a portion of the building for which the principal function -- MR. NINO: But that was -- that was something I had a problem with because what do you do with the guy that builds a bedroom for his son or daughter-- MR. PEEPLES: Detached. MR. NINO: -- or his in-laws and is detached, then -- and I Page 48 November 14, 2001 remember when it was very vogue to build sectional houses a number of years ago. Maybe Charlie would remember that. MR. ABBOTT: I do. MR. NINO' You do. MR. ABBOTT: Comment on the gray hair. MR. NINO' Sectional houses, you know, that was vogue. That was in the HUD book-- MR. PEEPLES: Yeah. But-- MR. NINO' -- in the HUD book of models, you know. MR. PEEPLES: -- if you put in an "or," so that any building or any part of a building -- excuse me -- any building or any part of a building in which the principal function or activity for which the land is zoned is conducted, you've covered your-- MR. NINO: Uh-huh. MR. PEEPLES: -- your smaller-- MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. PEEPLES: -- principal structure or -- and then you try to cover what's -- I guess we'll call it our -- our roofed lanai - - MR. NINO: Uh-huh, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN MASTERS' Susan, do you have something to add? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Susan Murray for the record. Ron, is that not covered -- I think we maybe have three or four definitions that kind of cover the whole thing. Just as you read before, I think it was the accessory structure definition where it said "if it's in at the -- attached to the principal structure, then it is considered part of the principal structure," and that might cov -- be covering the issue that you're bringing up maybe in an indirect way. Maybe we can more clarify this definition a little bit better to reconnect with the other definition. MR. PEEPLES: Right. And again, I understand what you're Page 49 November 14, 2001 trying to do, and I'm in complete agreement. I worry when you create a definition, is it possible to really create a perfect definition. MR. NINO: Well, let us try -- go ahead. MR. MILK: Ron, my other comment is when you bring in the word "lot coverage," to provide a definition for principal structure is - - for clarity, I think the lot coverage throws it to a different -- I look at that as open space when you talk about lot coverage rather than -- in other words, the change to provide a definition for the phrase, "principal structure," I -- I could follow that versus lot coverage and principal structure. I think principal structure and to fine tune accessory structures, and what Mr. Peeples was concerned about, I think that would be more in tune to figuring out what that roof structure meant versus the accessory structure and possibly even striking a couple of uses, an accessory structure uses, such as porch. If it's roofed and it's part of the principal and you're charged the appropriate setback, which may be 20 or 25 feet and low intent -- MR. NINO' Okay. Let me between Susan and I get our heads together, and we can tweak this. I take it that your -- you're all -- you-all agree that if it's an accessory use, it generally should not be -- meet the rear-yard requirement. CHAIRMAN MASTERS' Uh-huh. MR. MILK: That's correct. MR. PEEPLES: Unless it's attached. MR. NINO: Unless it's -- MR. ABBOTT: That's been -- MR. NINO' That's the -- MR. ABBOTT: -- established policy for years and so that you can put your pool and your screen enclosures back closer to canals or rear yards or whatever you want to do. And I think everybody is pretty much used to that. MR. NINO: Yeah. And I wasn't attempting to change that. Page 50 November 14, 2001 MR. PEEPLES: Right. MR. NINO: I was not attempting to change that. MR. MILK: You're just trying to add clarity to the structural component of the roof and clarity for that setback versus the screen enclosure. MR. ABBOTT: How big a problem is this to you, Ron? You say it's a problem, but, I mean, does this happen every day? MR. NINO: Susan, you're dealing with it more than I am. MS. MURRAY: It's fairly significant. Yeah, we've got some issues on the table in the county attorney's office where we've got a problem with clarifying what a principal structure is. me. MR. ABBOTT: MS. MURRAY: MR. ABBOTT: MS. MURRAY: Well, how many a year, let's say? I haven't been in the position a year yet. Okay. Well, I -- how many a month? Probably 10 or 15 times a year an issue comes MR. ABBOTT: That's not enough to drive a wholesale issue to MR. MILK: But I think it's enough to drive clarity. MR. WHITE: I'd submit that one a year is sufficient. I'd submit that any one is sufficient to clarify the definition. MR. PEEPLES: If you're continually asked to interpret this, then it should be clarified, yeah. MR. NINO: Well, as I say, perhaps with Pat's help, Susan and I, we can -- we can tweak it so that it's more clearly distinguished as between -- MR. PEEPLES: And meets your needs -- MR. NINO: -- principal and accessory. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Please take that up in the form of a motion. MR. ABBOTT: It takes a lot of time to tend to these because Page 51 November 14, 2001 you lack this definition, right? If you had the definition, it would simplify it and be done with it. MR. NINO: It's not there, we don't have it at all. MR. PEEPLES: I'll make a motion that we approve the definitions. And, again, my purpose was not to dispute the need or challenge what Ron is attempting to do. I think I support him in that. It was to make sure he had looked at it, thought about it, and was not going to get himself in a worse position. So I will move that we approve this. And as part of that, is in it, Ron, you still have the ability to modify the language to make sure. MR. NINO: Yeah. MR. PEEPLES: So I move we -- we approve the definitions. MR. ABBOTT: I'll second it. MR. MILK: Just for clarification, I'll agree with that. I would like to see the words "lot coverage" stricken from that, when it talks about change, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Lot change is a -- MR. PEEPLES: They're separate definitions. MR. MILK: Okay. So there's two of them in here. MR. NINO: Yeah, there are two definitions in here. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. All in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. NINO: Now, I guess we're back to -- does any individual member that wasn't part of the -- any individual wants to pick something out of the packet and there are other things we're going to do when you get back. MR. WHITE: I have placed in front of Ron, notwithstanding Mr. Abbott's earlier comment about last-minute changes, this is something that arose from the subcommittee's review last week and Page 52 November 14, 2001 the day off, blah, blah, blah, I only just as of today had the opportunity to complete the revisions that had been discussed at the subcommittee, and I'm going to ask Ron to hand -- let you take one of each of those. There's a single sheet and a -- and a double stapled page. And I will tell you that -- which pages they belong to in your packet. The stapled pages are for 6 and 6-A, we'll call it. And that applies, just to put it on the record, to 2.7.3.3. MR. NINO: What does the single page apply to? MR. WHITE: The single page applies to Section 3.3.5, specifically 3.3.5.2, and replaces what's in your packets as to the underlying text. You have to look at the existing page 81 to take what is the existing current LDC text. And after you've each received a copy of those -- MR. NINO: So this -- this replaces page 82 in the -- MR. PEEPLES: 81. MR. NINO: 81, 82, yeah. MR. WHITE: And the stapled pages would be new 6 and 6-A, only because we didn't get a chance to paginate them. It probably will be a single page once we get to the final CCPC and/or BCC packages. The purpose of each of these revisions is to make clear that as to PUDs, whether in the form of a master plan or an ordinance, either a graphic depiction or text, that the description of an access point therein does not authorize or vest that access point that, rather, the 3.3.5.2 provision attempts to make clear that the point in time at which that actually takes place in terms of decision making by the county an ultimate determination is at site development plan approval. And it's done consistent with other regulatory changes that are part of this package and those that exist in the code that's not proposed for change. There's one other thing I need to make mention of. On page 81 Page 53 November 14, 2001 of your existing packages there -- the existing text that's not proposed to be altered is in and of itself something that when I read through it, I didn't have a chance to make it a complete sentence. But when you read it, it is not what I consider to be a fully operative provision. And we're going to ask your indulgence to further tweak that and amend it to make it operative so that it is consistent with the intent of that section which is development compliance with all appropriate zoning regulations in the growth management plan, which is the tag line or header for that specific section. So with that as a caveat, we ask that you consider the proposed revisions that I've just handed you and a favorable motion would be appreciated. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Anybody have any questions of Mr. White? MR. WHITE: And, again, I apologize for the last-minute nature of this. MR. ANDERSON: I have a question. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Pat, do you know, off the top of your head, is the relocation of access points that are shown on a PUD master plan, is that a substantial or minor or what kind of an amendment to the PUD master plan? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Well, I think at the discussion were proposed -- were just conceptual locations for accesses. Wasn't I right, Pat? MR. WHITE: Under amendments 3.3.9, I believe, in the LDC as it exists, there is a-- provisions numbered 339.1 through .2 and .3 that determine whether a substantial change exists for an SDP amendment. And under 3.3.9.1 there's a phrase, "any change which substantially affects existing transportation circulation" or, in the alternative, 3.3.9.2, "any other change, the planning services director Page 54 November 14, 2001 may determine as significantly altering the general layout, configuration, or arrangement of the project." So I think perhaps under either of those, it's possible that to the extent we considered something in an existing ordinance or master plan to be a fixed point in the sense that it has an SDP that has locked in, that this provision would indicate that it's a sub -- possibly a substantial change. Does that answer your question, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: No. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: But thank you. MR. PEEPLES: Just so I understand, prior to that SDP approval, when you have a PUD master plan which you do not have any vested access rights, if that were to change in your SDP submittal, that would not require a change to PUD master plan? MR. WHITE: I believe that's correct. MR. NINO: Correct. Correct. Yeah. MR. WHITE: It's not locked. Changing it doesn't require it to be amended. MR. NINO: Base -- basically, essentially what we're doing is changing the access point decisions to the site development or platting phase of decision making. MR. PEEPLES: Right. MR. that we're MR. MR. deviation MR. MR. MR. MR. WHITE: I -- I only clarify Mr. Nino's comments to say not actually changing it. We're clarifying it. PEEPLES: Clarifying. MILK: And with that, it would not create a substantial from the PUD master plan -- NINO: No. MILK: -- as Mr. Anderson brought up. NINO: Correct, correct. JONES: Question, Brian Jones. Ron, 2.6.38.4.3, "During Page 55 November 14, 2001 development or redevelopment of commercial lots, shared access or interconnection shall be encouraged" is stricken through and "substituted as required." MR. WHITE: What page? MR. NINO: Page 6, the handout. It's not really a change, Pat. It's -- it's what was already there. That's the thrust of where we're coming from on the transportation agenda that, you know, if we're going to -- well, I'm going to leave it up to Dawn Wolfe. She's the expert. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, for the record. The board has made it clear that items that may have been more of an encouragement in the past have not had the strength behind it for them to really mandate under the rezoning changes or site development what they truly want to see. And, therefore, in this case in particular, we are also looking at other ones, the words are being strengthened based on the board's direction to allow them to have the ability to move development in the direction they want to see it go in regards to our transportation, circulation, and impacts to the primary system. MR. JONES: I'm looking at it from a property-rights standpoint. If I own a commercial center and I have access already to my property and somebody decides to build on adjoining -- adjacent property, the county would say that access that's in front of the existing center needs to be shared with those two. Would that existing owner have a burden of-- of expense to allow the other guy -- other party building his -- this is the -- the logical place for access, what are the obligations of the person who's already established? MS. WOLFE: Then the burden would fall upon the new development coming in to make any modifications necessary. We would hope that in areas of retrofit we could help coordinate what would need to be done where it's physically possible to do Page 56 November 14, 2001 interconnects. The other goal is where development has not yet occurred to establish the footprint so that there would not be excessive expenses but just a continuation of-- of the access points. It will be a little more problematic in terms of existing development. And in cases there may be existing development which would not immediately allow for it. But if you have preexisting use and an adjacent one would come in, we would have the new development at least make allowances for future redevelopment of the adjacent site that would not preclude the ability for cross access. So, if, for instance, there was a structure constructed such that cross access would -- could not happen with a new adjacent development, we would ensure that the adjacent development still allowed for the future, should there be redevelopment of the existing site, to allow for cross access. We wouldn't just say everyone can put up a wall and forget about the opportunity for cross access. MR. JONES: My -- I would like to encourage better than required because one is a must and another allows for-- I didn't see a problem with encouraged. MR. NINO: Well, the only problem is -- well, Pat, legal. MR. WHITE: Just -- just to make clear that this provision applies to mixed-use activity centers, it's a 2.6 provision. I don't know if there's a parallel as to all other zoning districts or overlays. And perhaps Dawn can address that, but just for the purpose of this discussion, I want to make sure we're talking only about activity centers. MR. PEEPLES: I have a comment, and I thought I'd address what -- what Brian said. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with it but for the fact that there's such a strong public policy of interconnecting these -- these parcels to keep individual driveways off of arterial roads, it will be something of a burden, particularly in Page 57 November 14, 2001 the situation as Dawn has given where you're moving into an existing development and -- and you're required to establish your development with the potential for future interconnect, even though your interconnect drives right into the side of a building. But if you don't do it and you don't require it, I don't think it will happen. And I think it's something the county needs to have. MR. NINO: Let me give you an example. Carillon Shopping Center: After the fact we tried to get them to provide an interconnect to Banyan Woods. They said "No. We're not going to do it." We have this kind of language, there would be no ifs, ands, or buts. It would be -- it would be a requirement upon Banyan Woods, if necessary, to -- to pay the dollars to make that decision happen. Right across the street, the same problem. I don't know that there's a connection between Fountain Lakes Shopping Center and Walgreens. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Hmm. MR. NINO: You know, there -- you know, it's ridiculous. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Bruce, did you have something else? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I'm supportive, very supportive, of interconnection. But my concern is, it takes two to tango. And if you have one property owner who's coming in for a new project or redevelopment and he is required to interconnect but he can't get the guy he's supposed to interconnect with to agree to it, what happens then7 His SDP gets held up. MS. WOLFE: As Ron pointed out, this is where the mixed use is at, and we have to start with the first parcel. There may be others that either are not yet under development or may have existing development on it. But we don't want to preclude opportunities under redevelopment or even possibly under county-initiated efforts that would preclude us from those opportunities for interconnection. We're not saying that you have to go plow through someone's private Page 58 November 14, 2001 property to do it. We're just saying, you begin the first in the framework if you're the first one in. If you're not the first one in, still have that allowance there that under redevelopment we would have the opportunity for interconnect. MR. ANDERSON: That's a wonderful explanation. However, it does not -- it's not in the ordinance. I'd like to suggest this: After the word "required" we put, "unless the adjoining property owner refuses to consent to the interconnection." Now, what would be wrong with that? MR. WHITE: Other than the fact it would encourage folks to refuse on a regular basis? MR. N1NO: Right, yeah. MR. WHITE: Probably not much. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: How about if we said "required where possible"? MR. NINO: That's -- MR. WHITE: Who determines? MR. ANDERSON: That's no better than encouraged. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. WHITE: Admittedly, this is a difficult issue because it does deal with, quote, private property rights that -- to the extent there's no intent to redevelopment have been vested. They're static. But the intent is to always be holding, if you will, over the head of any future redevelopment the notion that someone who has gone before after this regulation is in effect that they're going to have to comply with the interconnect. Now, perhaps what happens on your SDP as it's approved is that no asphalt's laid down. But the point of interconnection is identified, and some space is reserved. It's not necessarily just a -- a road to nowhere. With the understanding that in the event the adjacent parcel redevelops, then they will be aligned, and the asphalt will be Page 59 November 14, 2001 connected. That is the best way I've seen it handled in other jurisdictions. But the threshold has to be that there's a regulatory requirement to do that in the first place, either under initial development or redevelopment. MR. PEEPLES: But are you requiring, in that case -- and I think what you -- you're hitting it right on the head. It's the person that's coming in for development or redevelopment, the burden is on them. Bruce is also correct; the burden is solely on them and they cannot obtain consent, what happens? So are we talking about a situation where, you know, the interconnect -- get back to whether it's possible or not, but we want to require the interconnect or somehow reserve the ability to interconnect. MR. WHITE: And-- and what I'm-- MR. PEEPLES: I don't know how you phrase that but I think that's really what we're looking for. MR. WHITE: What I'm suggesting to you that has to be decided, if you will, as the SDP is reviewed. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: It has to be offered or included as a stipulation or condition. MR. PEEPLES: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: And I think it's a condition when you are developing adjacent to existing commercial and a mixed-use activity center and specific as to the applicability of this provision. And the idea would be that your stipulation would read something to the effect of, in the event that the adjacent parcel comes in for redevelopment, you will still be, quote, hostage, end quote, to the idea of this requirement. You may not have to build it today, but you -- we reserve the right to compel you to do so in the future by way of that condition. The adjacent person never redevelops, it never changes. But as Page 60 November 14, 2001 soon as it happens -- MR. PEEPLES: I'm in agreement with that. Like Bruce is saying, if it's required, is it going to be required in the situation where it's an impossibility because of existing development adjacent? MR. WHITE' Well, I think that this is one of those instances where that lovely weasel word "shall" or "shall be" actually has some use in this provision because one of the things I dislike about shall is that it has two potential meanings. One of them is must, and the other is will. MR. PEEPLES: Will. MR. WHITE' And in this instance, we're attempting to cover both of those, and perhaps using one word to do so allows us that flexibility. I'm generally not in favor of that but -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Foley. MR. FOLEY: I have a concern that this description or change in the code gets actually down to the staff level at the review of the SDP. Because if you have a staff member, a county staff member that reads this and says, "Hey, it says it shall be required. Show me. Don't show me potential. Don't show me future. Show me asphalt. Show me curb. Show me elevations." And they -- they could very well hang their hat on that and be correct if this goes through. Now what you're saying -- and what you're saying, you know, about future connections and if it happens, we'll go ahead, we'll reserve the right, all that. But that's not what this says, and that -- that's something that concerns me. MR. WHITE: If they're correct and they're in conflict with what the policy of the county is as determined by their superiors, all the way up to the division administrator, then I don't know how long they're going to work for us. MR. FOLEY: You've got a few people that have been here quite a long time. That's a concern I have because sometimes black Page 61 November 14, 2001 and white and you can't -- MR. WHITE: I understand. MR. FOLEY: It creates delays and it creates a lot of undue burden back on decisions by Mr. Kuck or Ms. Murray. I think if it -- if it can't be specifically addressed effectively, that maybe it's -- it shouldn't be changed. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: I'd just like to state for the record that I'm in support of staffs recommendation, but I -- I'd like to throw out an incentive for the shalls. In other words, interconnectivity is very important to pedestrian traffic and vehicular movement and so forth. If you're going to make somebody share vehicular interconnects, why don't you give them a reduction in their overall parking requirement, Ron, to look at the incentive and the inducement or enticement for that shall versus encouraged. And just to give you an example, the City of Marco Island now entertains interconnectivity with an incentive of a reduction of 15 percent of the overall parking requirement to provide for what we call shared parking agreements administratively done for adjoining property with an arterial type roadway system in front of them. I think with an enticement or an incentive, those encouraged can go to shalls. The enticements kind of work both ways. Everybody knows the parking space is worth a whole lot of money out there and good ground, and that may help encourage the shalls versus the other existing. So my recommendation is to go with staff but provide some incentive for the property owners to get together for the interconnects. MR. WHITE: MR. JONES: allow staff the final say with that. Mr. Chairman? I have a comment on suggested rewording to still It would be shared access or Page 62 November 14, 2001 interconnection shall be encouraged and may be required upon SDP review. That covers the intent, and it gives staff the final hammer. MR. ANDERSON: I have another suggestion. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. Would you like to put it in the form of a motion? MR. ANDERSON: Not yet. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: That we add -- instead of"required," add the following: "Be constructed, comma, and connected when and where legally permitted." That way the construction of the interconnection is required at the time of SDP approval even if at that time you still can't legally interconnect. But at such time as redevelopment occurs on the adjacent property or somebody actually develops it, then the connection can be made. MR. WHITE: I'm not sure I understand the last two words of that, "legally permitted." By whom? I understand that part of the intent is to address the notion of those private property rights you cannot compel an adjacent property owner to give an easement. To provide shared access or interconnect until such time as they themselves come into redevelopment. MR. ANDERSON: Or agree to it. MR. WHITE: And the notion that Mr. Milk brought forward that there may be some incentive to achieve that, I'm trying to write it in a way that is simple. And we may have something with the idea that shall be encouraged and may be required upon SDP review. I think that gives us some comfort level that it may be required as a condition. And I can assure you that if we're implementing it in a way that's inconsistent with the idea that it's a condition when it's adjacent to existing developed commercial, that's something we could address with a further amendment to this provision. I believe we need to at least cross the threshold in having an operative provision Page 63 November 14, 2001 that staff can utilize to go along with the rest of these ideas about regulating access. And so if I can make any comment about it, it would be that, although I think Bruce's is helpful, I don't know that it gets us further than the idea that something shall be encouraged and something may be required upon SDP review. MR. FOLEY: I'm more comfortable with that. I think it addresses the concern I had about actually having a reviewer say, well, I see it in the code so, therefore, do it. MR. NINO: You know, I-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: It doesn't change it a lot. MR. NINO: I think you're-- I think you're being overly concerned, I guess, but that's -- but that's my nature. I don't believe that staff will ever take the position if you can't work out a deal with your neighbor to deny you the opportunity to develop your property. I don't think -- we've never gone that far. We -- we're not -- we're not -- we're not going to say, well, if your neighbor says, "No, you know, that's it," then we're going to want some pretty good, hard evidence that even if there's some remuneration involved, that the remuneration may far offset the advantages to the transportation system. And we got to know that you would at least try to make some financial settlement. If the guy asks for ten bucks and you're going to say no, then that's unreasonable. If he asks for $50,000 and it's only worth $3,000, I'm sure we'll say, well, that-- you know, that's -- you know, that's not -- under those circumstances, we should not make you interconnect or share access. But I don't think we've ever taken a hard line -- MR. ANDERSON: You've never had the hammer before. MR. NINO: I don't believe that. I don't believe that. MR. WHITE: I guess we're looking for something between a ball, pea, and a sledge. Page 64 November 14, 2001 MR. NINO: I think you have to have some confidence that -- that a just decision will be made. A fair and equitable decision will be made somewhere along the line. MR. FOLEY: I'd like to make a motion, as Mr. Jones made, with -- Patrick, did you tweak that at all? MR. WHITE: No. MR. NINO: It's not the same language. MR. FOLEY: I'm comfortable with that. I think it gets us forward. MR. JONES: State it for the record? Make a motion? MR. FOLEY: Yes. I'll -- I'll make -- or you make your motion; I'll second it. MR. JONES: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just a point of order, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- as to the two items that had led to this discussion, that being page 6 and 81 and 82, if you want to consider that first and then address this one, I don't care either way, or address this one first and -- I just don't want to lose -- fine. MR. PEEPLES: I -- I'd like to move that we approve the changes that we have received today with respect to pages 6 and 81 -- MR. NINO: 82. MR. PEEPLES:-- 81 and 82. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Were we adding -- MR. PEEPLES: Subject to the changes that we will make in the next motion. MR. JONES: All in favor? MR. ABBOTT: Well, wait. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Wait a minute. The motion is not clear yet on the floor. Page 65 November 14, 2001 MR. ABBOTT: Bruce was getting ready to say something. What was -- MR. ANDERSON: I want to vote on these separately because I got a comment on -- on the other one. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. MR. ESPINAR: Do you want to modify -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Okay. We have a motion. We -- MR. PEEPLES: I would like to modify my motion. I move that we adopt the language we received today modifying our numbered pages 81 and 82. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All right. Do we have a second? MR. FOLEY: Is that the changes? MR. PEEPLES: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: The motion was seconded by Mr. Foley. Do we have any discussion? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you. The -- I think there's another provision in the Land Development Code that needs to be amended in conjunction with this to eliminate any inconsistency. And that is in the section dealing with PUD substantial and insubstantial change determinations, specifically Section 2.7.3.5.6.1, which addresses minor changes that can be approved at a staff level to a PUD master plan. The language in the current Land Development Code specifically excludes as a minor change a relocation of access points to the PUD itself. I think that that section needs to be amended to say, including a relocation of access points to the PUD itself. MR. PEEPLES: Not to overcomplicate this, but do we want to make the distinction there, when you're talking about an access point whether it's an access point that's shown merely on the PUD master plan and is not yet vested or locked in, as Patrick was saying, or an access point that has been located on approved SDP? Page 66 November 14, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: No. I'm just dealing with the PUD master plan alone. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. So-- MR. ANDERSON: Because otherwise if the access point were changed, even as a result of county staff action, under this language as it exists today, they would have to go to the planning commission. MR. PEEPLES: That's true. MR. NINO: But what -- I -- what does that got to do with page 81 and 82, which says -- basically says, any -- noth -- your-- your-- your access points are not vested on your -- on your master plan. MS. WOLFE: It's inconsistent. MR. NINO: It's inconsistent, but so what. MS. WOLFE: We want to clean it up. MR. ANDERSON: If we're going to clean up the code and -- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Let's do it. MR. ANDERSON: Let's do it right. MS. WOLFE: As staff I would recommend that that change be made because you cannot conceptually say these have flexibility to be consistent with any of our access management policies and yet, on the other hand, say "But anytime we make you change it, you're going to have to amend your plan." That's why it's conceptual and left to the specific criteria of an SDP or plat. So as staff, I would agree with-- MR. NINO: I'm not saying we shouldn't change it, but, you know, it's not something that has to be done right now this very instant. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Do you care to amend your-- MR. NINO: In order to -- MR. PEEPLES: I would like to amend my motion, and I will move that we approve this language to be inserted in page 81 and 82 and also modify Section 2.7.3.5.6.1 of the LDC per Mr. Anderson's Page 67 November 14, 2001 comments to be internally consistent. MR. FOLEY: I'll -- I'll second that. MR. ANDERSON: And just for the record let me read what the revised point 1 would state. Internal realignment of right-of-ways and relocation of access points to the PUD itself where no water management facility, conservation, slash, preservation areas, or required easements or -- are affected or otherwise provided for. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor? Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Okay. On to page 6. Okay. Let's call the meeting back to order. All right. Well, if your questions are specific to Dawn, shall we jump to Ron's-- MR. NINO: Well, that's going to take you a little more -- MR. ANDERSON: I do have some that aren't related to Dawn. MR. NINO: Well, then-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Some? You're only allowed one. Okay. Let's go. MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yes. MR. JONES: Do we want to clean up page 6, the motion to maybe require upon SDP review? Is that already done or-- MR. PEEPLES: That's not been done. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. I don't know that we need Dawn really to accomplish that. MR. NINO: What -- what do -- what do you want to add to -- Page 68 November 14, 2001 CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Want to deal with some text there. We had a motion on the floor -- MR. PEEPLES: My motion, since the motion was split, was to approve the language in -- on page 6 and 6-A, as modified, and as further modified by Brian Jones' language, if you would read that language. MR. JONES: Yes, 2.6.38.4.3, "During development or redevelopment of commercial lots, shared access, or interconnection shall be encouraged and may be required upon SDP review." That is my motion. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second by Blair Foley. Do we have any further discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of the motion. (Those in favor responded.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? MR. ANDERSON: Nay. MR. MILK: Nay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And two opposed? The motion carries. Let's -- let's -- do you want to do this first or -- MR. NINO: I think we want to get rid of what we've got in our package. Bruce has got some other comments. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. Let me get Dawn out of here. Dawn, I had a question about the addition to Section 3.3.7.1.2. MR. FOLEY: Do you have a page, Bruce? No. MS. WOLFE: He got an unpaged -- MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. NINO: 3.3.7? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. --. 1.2. Page 69 November 14, 2001 MS. WOLFE: Ahh. MR. NINO: Page 85. MS. WOLFE: Yes. Your question? MR. ANDERSON: My question is, your new language requires off-site roadways, buildings, and other physical features to be shown on an SDP only that are within 200 feet of the subject property. It does not require off-site access roadways to be 200 feet from the property. MS. WOLFE: Actually, it probably should read, access, comma, roadways, elevations. I think that would clarify what -- I think I've got a missing comma in there which gets to the -- and, like you said, the maximum is 200, is what we're looking for, because then we can make a determination as to the ability to interconnect or where driveways, deceleration lanes may create conflicts, we're currently grasping at straws trying to get that level of information upon current submittals, and this would just allow us during the preapp to say, we know -- this is what we need to stay up to. That's why we wanted to allow a level of discretion to reduce it. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. MS. WOLFE: But if we add the comma after access, I think that clears up the access roadways. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I -- I just wanted to confirm my reading of it because I had some other people question me. They were concerned that they were going to have to place their buildings and -- and roadways 200 feet from their property line. MS. WOLFE: No. It's to show beyond their boundaries that off-site information so we could clearly address those issues. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. any of Dawn's amendment. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I don't have any other questions for Okay. Do you have any other questions for other amendments? Page 70 November 14, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: Will we make the same language change that we made with Brian's "may be required" language to Section 2.2.28.4.3.1 which deals with the Golden Gate -- MR. NINO: 2.2 what? MR. ANDERSON: 28. MR. NINO: 2.2.28? MR. ANDERSON: --.4. It's language that-- that was right before your activity center language that we just dealt with. I just want to make sure, again, we're consistent with our recommendations because there were two different sections that required interconnection. MR. NINO: Bruce, I'm still not up to you. 2.2.28? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, .4. MR. NINO: I don't have a 2. -- MR. WHITE: Nope. MR. NINO: I don't have a 2.2.28.24. MR. FOLEY: You got the special package, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Let me show Dawn. MS. WOLFE: 2.2.20, oh, I know what it is, I think it's reference to 2.2.20 section. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: 2.2.20. There it is. It should be, like, the second item in the package. MR. WHITE: It's on page 5, the second item. MR. PEEPLES: Uh-huh. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MS. WOLFE: Yeah. I guess -- could they read back to me the language modification they made to the other one? Shall be encouraged -- MR. JONES: -- and may be required upon SDP review. MR. PEEPLES: For the record, that head nod, was that a yes? MS. WOLFE: Yes. Page 71 November 14, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: I'll put that in the form of a motion. MR. FOLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Second by Mr. Foley. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) MR. N1NO: Now, what are we changing? MS. WOLFE: It's under -- it was the et al, under the second -- starting on page 4. It was one of-- where you had the 2.2.20. That's the reason why you couldn't -- didn't see it on the -- on your summary sheet. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman -- MR. NINO: On the summary sheet. MS. WOLFE: On the summary sheet-- MR. NINO: Oh. MS. WOLFE: -- it's referred to as et al. MR. NINO: Why are we amending the summary sheet? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Page 5. MR. NINO: Page 5. MR. WHITE: The second section listed, Section No. 2.2.28.4.3.1. MR. NINO: Yes, okay. MR. WHITE: After the word "encouraged"-- well, actually, the word "encouraged," -- well, actually, "you were encouraged," strike -- MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. NINO: Okay. I got you. WHITE: Add the words -- after "encouraged" -- NINO: Yeah. WHITE: -- follows the underlined-- NINO: Yeah. WHITE: -- "and may be required upon SDP review." NINO: Okay. Page 72 November 14, 2001 MR. MR. MR. MR. WHITE: Deleting the word -- NINO: Yeah, got it. WHITE: --"required" and "underlined. NINO: Yeah. Yeah, I got it. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I have two other items. One is Section 2.3.5 addressing the threat to the public health, safety, and welfare imposed by automobile parking at homes. MR. WHITE: Page? MR. NINO: Page 29. MR. ANDERSON: Paragraph 1, No. 1, talking about single- family dwelling units, limits parking to imperviously treated surface areas of the lot. And I know that there are pervious surfaces that can be used for parking. And I would think that we would want to allow for that. In fact, we want to encourage people to use pervious surfaces whenever possible. This would limit them to only impervious surfaces, and I don't believe we want to do that. MR. NINO: Do you have a problem with 40 percent requirement of the front yard? So you want to say pervious or impervious. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. PEEPLES: You just take out the word "impervious." you'd have specifically designed surfaces. MR. NINO: What pervious surfaces are you talking about? Concrete with grass holes in it? MR. ESPINAR: Crushed rock or shell. MR. ANDERSON: Shell. MR. FOLEY: Or just grass, sometimes they do that at churches for overflow. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: That's just residential. MR. ANDERSON: That's just residential. There's two references to impervious surface in this paragraph No. 1. And that -- Page 73 November 14, 2001 well, let's see now. So all references to impervious should either be deleted or put impervious or pervious. Second-- MR. NINO: As long as we understand that it's a defined tract or course on the lot, then you don't have a problem with that? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. MR. NINO: Yeah, and that -- and that may be pervious or impervious. MR. ANDERSON: Uh-huh. Then my next is -- on this one is the last sentence of paragraph 2, No. 2. I believe the last phrase, or any combination of open air and enclosed structure. It needs to have the word "in" in front of any in order for it to make sense. MR. ABBOTT: Say that again, please. MR. ANDERSON: The last phrase should read, "or in any combination of open air and enclosed structure." Next, paragraph No. 4, as written, would make it a violation of the Land Development Code for guests to park at your home. I don't think we want to do that. MR. NINO: Well, I think that's stretching it again. Obviously, we're talking about people who are residents there. Short-term visitors -- MR. ANDERSON: Let's say it then. MR. ABBOTT: I agree with what he's saying because, remember, the enforcement crowd that goes to tend to this are, by my opinion, remarkably hard of thinking. I deal with them every day. MR. NINO: You're telling me that the enforcement people -- I've got a party at my house, the enforcement people are going to come and use this section and say you can't park in front of my house? Come on. MR. ABBOTT: I just think that empowering government is always a chancy thing. MR. NINO: All right. What are you -- Page 74 November 14, 2001 MR. ANDERSON: I think shall -- MR. ESPINAR: Forty-eight hours or something? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think on paragraph No. 4, shall be owned by occupants of the dwelling unit or their guests. MR. WHITE: All I can tell you -- MR. NINO: You've just blown a big hole in it, you know. MR. ANDERSON: How have I blown a big hole in it? MR. NINO: I've always got a guest in my house. My boarder is a permanent guest who is not a member of my family. MR. ANDERSON: Well, as long as it's within the narrow area that you're allowing parking, why do you care? MR. WHITE: Uh-huh. MR. ANDERSON: Lastly, on this one, No. 5, which we can all read for ourselves, I think that that needs to have a time limit on it, like, adding at the end of that sentence, for a continuance -- "for more than a continuous 24-hour period." That way it covers the event that Ron just spoke about where if you're having a party at your house and people want to park along the swale or in the front yard to attend the party, that that will not be a violation of Land Development Code so long as they're not there longer than 24 hours. So I would put in the form of a motion all those changes I just went through. MR. FOLEY: I'll second. MR. PEEPLES: I have a question for Ron. Is -- is the intent of 5 to prevent people from parking along the swale or the right-of-way for temporary visits or parties. MR. NINO: No, on a permanent basis. I think it goes without saying. I think it goes without saying, but if you feel more comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of the motion? All opposed? Page 75 November 14, 2001 (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Motion carries. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. My last one is Section 2.6.11.4, fences and walls contiguous or opposite residentially zoned districts. MR. WHITE: Page 31 and 32. MR. FOLEY: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: I think there needs to be an exception added that this would not be required if the residential area already has a wall up to protect it. MS. MURRAY: I just noticed in paragraph 2 we kind of allowed a planning services director to determine that it's not warranted, and it gives a couple of examples and then says, "or for other good cause." I think you might be covered there. MR. NINO: But if there's already a wall up there, it goes without saying you wouldn't require a wall. The wall's already there. MR. ANDERSON: But if it's on the residentially zoned property. MS. MURRAY: I think the purpose is to screen the properties from each other or really to screen the residential from the commercial, so you really would already accomplish that if an existing wall was there. MR. FOLEY: Are you okay with that, Bruce? It gives the planning service director-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Latitude. MR. FOLEY: -- latitude. MR. ANDERSON' No. I would like to add "or if there is an-- already an existing wall." MR. FOLEY: In what location in the language? MR. ANDERSON: Right before "or other-- or for other good cause. MR. NINO: Which is where? Page 76 November 14, 2001 MR. FOLEY: Page 32, top, first sentence, first line. MR. ANDERSON: I've just had too many instances where you get one interpretation from one staff member and something completely different from another. And we need to tie things like this down and reduce the opportunities for misinterpretation or conflicting interpretation. MR. FOLEY: Is that -- can you put that in the form of a motion? MR. ANDERSON: Please consider it done. MR. FOLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Got a second? All in favor of that motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. NINO: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: That's all, folks. MR. NINO: That's all folks. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yeah. At one time part of the agenda for this cycle was a complete conversion of the SIC codes and NIC codes and the -- and the clarification of the purpose and intent statements is to make sure that the purpose and intents statements mirror image what the intended uses from that zoning district were. And, in addition, we were directed to -- to change the development standards, one is you get rid of the wedding cake -- wedding cake buildings in terms of setback-- two, there was a strong suggestion that 100-foot buildings are too high in Collier County. And those were the two major issues. And then -- then I took it upon myself, since the ordinance provides -- provides a reserve section in all of the commercial districts for lot coverage and floor-area ratio, Page 77 November 14, 2001 that we ought to step up to the plate and provide a provision for it. And so this matrix here purports to make those changes where we deemed necessary and compares the existing with the proposed so you can see exactly what we're -- what we're doing here in this -- in this matrix. When we pulled the NIC's code, because this was all buried into the NIC's code, we pulled this as well. About two hours ago Mr. Dunnuck said that was not his intention. He wanted to go forward with the development standards. I apologize. The subcommittee didn't review them, and they're coming to you at this late stage. However, the fact remains that they aren't -- they are not substantive in nature with one exception. If this amendment were accepted, the maximum height of buildings in the C-4 would drop from 100 feet to 75 feet. Let me -- let me tell you the lottery coverages, how did I come to determine those lottery coverages? They're the result of what would happen under normal circumstances, the application of setback requirements. How did I determine the FARs? On the -- on the supporting sheet you will find the FAR that you can hypothetically achieve given the current standards for setback and parking and -- and I -- and in all cases recommended a -- an FAR which would be less than that which you could achieve without any mention of an FAR. Slightly less. So what do you want to do? CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to make a motion that we recommend denial of these. The county commission has already indicated their displeasure with the floor-area ratio concept. This is very last minute, and there's no explanation of the fiscal impact of lowering the building heights. There will be a fiscal impact both to the property owner and ultimately to the county. MR. NINO: Are you only seeing the floor-area ratio? What Page 78 November 14, 2001 about the rest of the table? MR. ANDERSON: Floor-area ratio, building heights, in fact, the whole thing. If-- if we're going to get rid of the -- what's the rationale for getting rid of the wedding cake allowance for buildings? MR. NINO: The board has indicated that that's their desire. MR. ANDERSON: I know they had some questions about it, but I wasn't aware that they've expressed that at a public hearing that they want to get rid of it. MR. NINO: Oh, I think they did, didn't they? MS. MURRAY: That was my understanding, yeah. MR. NINO: I think they did. MR. ANDERSON: From a planning perspective? MR. NINO: Matter of fact-- MR. ANDERSON: In your professional opinion, is that a good idea? MR. NINO: I'm -- not for me to -- it's not for me to tell the board they can't have what they want to have. MR. ANDERSON: No. I wasn't asking that. I just asked what your professional opinion was. You'd rather not share it? MR. NINO: I'd rather not share it. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I respect that. His -- his silence speaks volumes. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Does anyone care to second the motion on the table? MR. MILK: For discussion purposes, maybe on this height requirement from a hundred to seventy-five, maybe you could put in a couple-year duration or give it some time frame to kick in, Ron, rather than do a wholesale change to 75 feet. Maybe there's some justification to give it a year or two for expectations of proposed growth or proposed site plans in the works. I think you've got to have -- Page 79 November 14, 2001 MR. NINO: What would that accomplish, Bryan? I'm sure the board's concern is -- is right now, present. They don't want to see any more 100-foot office buildings going up. MR. MILK: Well, I'm just thinking of property rights, you know, if you give some of these folks some time -- MR. NINO: Well, that issue of-- property rights issue won't go away if it's two years, one year, or today. MR. ABBOTT: I'll second his amendment, if nothing else. It was given to us today. I'd sure like the ability to read this and study it and think about it. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: All in favor of the motion? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Recommend denial. MR. NINO: Can I have some reasons for -- for recommending that no development standards be revised? MR. PEEPLES: My reason for voting was that this is a pretty big step, and I think it takes more thought than I'm prepared to give it right now. That's the bottom line for me. I might agree with all of these, Ron, but I can't tell you that I do now. MR. NINO: Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: And-- and further comment, too, I just want to make sure that -- that we are looking at the FARs completely and give it all the thought that it needs to have. We keep going back and revisiting these and finding that it left one more opening here that we didn't think about or something. I want to make -- I'd like to get it right or at least think we know that we have a good shot at it. Page 80 November 14, 2001 MR. NINO: Well, you could take the FARs out and, you still -- there's still something to discuss, you know. MR. ESP1NAR: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say ditto to Perry's comments. That's how I feel. I would have liked to have had a little more opportunity to check-- you know, look at the significance of-- MR. NINO: Might I -- might I -- might I -- when I -- might I make a suggestion? Because I think these are going to go forward to the board. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Yeah. MR. NINO: And I think the DSAC should have some input into it: that you continue to review these and that they be scheduled for your next meeting, your next regular meeting, otherwise you're not going to get a chance other than you said you didn't have enough time to get to the board and give your feelings about reducing the height of buildings, for example, in C-4 to 75 feet. MR. PEEPLES: Do we-- MR. NINO: Or eliminating the wedding-cake design, because, you know, you're taking the position you're -- you don't have enough time and you're not going to comment on them basically. MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to take your suggestion a step further and that we recommend that such sweeping changes to all of our commercial and industrial zoning districts be considered in the next amendment cycle where it can receive more thoughtful and detailed consideration. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Susan. MS. MURRAY: On that note, Bruce, actually, we were supposed to have workshopped this with the board, and it's been canceled several times. And I think John wanted to try to bring it forward anyway. We could certainly convey your opinion to him as to why you-all are recommending denial. But it would have been our Page 81 November 14, 2001 preference as well to have a little bit more detail, thought, and input in terms of a public workshop or something like that with the board. We're here-- CHAIRMAN MASTERS: I think the motion -- the motion stands. You certainly can bring forward our comments, though. MR. NINO: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Any other issues? MR. NINO: We're done. MR. FOLEY: I have one. I won't be here next meeting. I'll be out of town for the next regularly scheduled DSAC meeting. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: Thank you. Any other member comments? MR. ABBOTT: We have a construction code subcommittee this afternoon. And -- and now, hey, we've got another thing. At one o'clock we have a FEMA meeting. Those that have any interest are welcomed to join the torture. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (No response.) CHAIRMAN MASTERS: adjourn the meeting? MR. ESPINAR: Motion. MR. PEEPLES: Second. CHAIRMAN MASTERS: (Unanimous response.) Any other comments? With that, entertain a motion to All in favor? Page 82 November 14, 2001 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE THOMAS MASTERS, P.E., CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ~ as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 83 -------FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR .CI-..¢ _0_OUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLI OFFICE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B Th;s form Js for use by any person serving at the. county, city, cr other local level of governmenl on an appointed or electecl boara, counci!, commission, a~horily, or commJtlee, It applies equaJly to members of adv~cry and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conllict of Intere.~r unde~ Section 112.3t43, Florida Statutes. Your lespo,qsibilities un.slat Ihe law when faced with voting on a meas,~re in whi',h you have a conflict of ;nterest will va~'i ~reatly de;',endir~g on whether you hold an el~ve or appo!ntive po~ition. F¢,r this reason, please I~_y close attention to the i~structlons on this Iorm before completing thc reverse side and I~llng lh~e form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person ho!dlng elective o; aC-pointive county, municip~s!, cr other local p;~bllc o//ioe MUST ABSTAIN from voli,19 on a measure wtlich inures to his or her sDec;a! private gain ~r loss. Each elected o~ ~ppointed local officer aloe is prohibited from knowincjly v(Xir~g on a Sure which inure~ to the special gain or toss of a p,'i,'lcipal (oll~er than a government agency) b~ whom he or she is retained (Ir~luding ,'he parent o'ganiza;ion or subsidiary' of a corporate ~3rinci.~al by whi~ he or she is retained); ',o lhe special private gain or loss et a celatlve; or to the special private ;~,~n ~r loss of a business e~ocia;e. Commlasioner~ c.t communt'~v, redevelopment a§er, cies under Sec. 163.$56 or 163.357, F.S., and cffice~ of irtdependant special te~( d~$ldcts elected o.~ · one-acre, one-vo;e basis are not prohibited from votm9 in that capacity. Far purpc4es el this law, a '~elative" includes on~y the officer's father, mo[hei', son, daughter, husband, wife. brolher, sister, father-in-law, molher-in-!aw, son-in-law, and eeughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or car~,ing on ~, e~erp;ise with the officer as a pa~ner, jo~t venturer, coowner of properly, or corporate."s~srehorder ?',hera the shares of the co~oration a~e not li~ed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In ad,.'Jition 1o abstaining from voting in f, he situations d~...scdoed above, you must disclose the PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature et your interest ~n the m~asure on which you are abstainin(; from voting; and WITEIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing lh[s form w~th the pers~'~ respons;b:e for r~ordlng the utes oi tr~e meettn['l, who shoulcl ;l~corporate the term in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Allh,t~.,gh you must abstain from vo*,ing in ~he situa§o~s descdt:ed above, you otherwise may p~rticipate ia these rnatte~s. ?lowever, you mu~ ~sclc~e the nature of 1he coflfl~ct before making a~ly a~en-p~ to ir¢lL:~nce the decistere, whether orally o~ in w~i[ing ~nd whethe~ mede by you or at your di,'ection. IF YOU Ir, TE. NO TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETIN,~ AT WHICH THE VOTE WiLL TAKEN: - Y,.~ mu~t .:..on;plate and file lhhC fo~m (b..,,tore making any attefnl:.t to intluence the decision) with the person ra~2or~ibie {o~ recordinj the minutes ol t,he meetlng, who will incorporate the Ior~ in the minu[es. (Continue~] on other side} CF. FORNI .,1,,3 . RSV. 1/9~ PAGE Sent b~;5¢anner A~r-06-00 01,46r~ t'rom 9~l?74086.~+ge140.~59~ ~aqe 2/ 2 ~-~ .~:'~: APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) --. - A copy of the lorm must be pmvidad Immediately t~) the other membees of the agency. · The form taus! be read publicly at trla nex~ mee~ng after lhe form ~s f~ed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECtSION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: You must disclose orally, ',he nature of your contlicf in the measure before p~,rti¢~pating. You must complete the form and fife it wi~in 1S days after the vote cccur~ with the pe,~on responsible tot recording the minutes of ~e meet~ngo who must incorporate the l'orm i~, the minutes. A copy of the form must De provided immedi~eiy to the other mernl:.ers of the agency, and t~e Iorm taus: be read publicly al/he next meeting after the/orm is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST -- -----' (a) A measu~ ~me ~ will cema befGre ~y a~encF which ~check one) ~ inured lo my special p~va~e gain or ~; ~ inured to the s~cial gain_or t~s of my cusin~= assoc;Ate, __  d to the special gain or loss of my relat~e, ~ . ~ inuredtot~sp~alg~nor~osso~ ~~~ ~V~~~ ~ lhe p~ent or~ni~fi~ or su~i~a~ of a principal wMch has re~i~d me, The measure before my agenc~ and the nat~e~of my confticling i~terest n Ihe measure is a ~ ' ~ -- ~ il , - ~ ~ / ~- ' Iy moo ( Da~e Filed 7~'~ '-- Signature NOTICE: UNDER 'PROV!SIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1~2.3170 A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLCWING: IMPEACHMENT: REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OEMOTION, REOUCTION IN SALARY REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,OO(]. ' CE FORM 8B - REV, 1/98 ,':'AGE FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF vOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMIS~SION, AUTHORITY, OR COmMiTTEE ~ THE BOARD. (~OUNCIL COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COM~',~I'C~'EE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ~ I (~ I r~ CITY ¢OU~ a OTHER LOCAL AGENCY ILAST,J~ME~FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME MAILING ADDRESS DATE ON WHIC~VOTE OCCURRED COUNTY i MY POSITION IS. El ELECTIVE ~FFOIN'T[VE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local love[ of government on an appointed or e!ected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Fiorida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this resson, please pa'/ close a,'tention to the instructions on this Iorm before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS F°R COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public offioe MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is re!ained (including the }arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redeve!opment agencies under Sec. 163.35~ or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special t&x districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity, r ' For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife. brother, sister, f.--,he,-m- ~. , ther-indaw, son-indaw, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of prope~/, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corpora*.~on are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disctose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporat.e the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) PAGE 1 CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/98 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of Ihe agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO A'D"EMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict [n the measure before participating. · You must complete the t:orm and tile it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of Ihe form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and Ihe form must be read publicIy at the next meeting aP, er the form is flied. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~ inured to the special gain or loss ot. whom I am retained; er inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent organization or subsidia~ of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: which After consultation with the County Attorney, I abstained from voting on the above matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, which provides that "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board, commission or agency who is present at any meeting of such body at which an official decision, ruling or other official act is to be taken or adopted may abstain from voting.., except when, with respect to any such member, there is or appears to be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions of 112.31 I, S. 112.313, or S. 112.3143. In such cases, said member shall co0t(ply with th're,disclosure requirements of Date Filed Signature I NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT;' REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM $8 - REV. 1198 PAGE 2