Loading...
DSAC Minutes 03/27/2002 R March 27, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, March 27, 2002 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 9:37 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Development Services Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Conference Room E, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dino J. Longo Thomas Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott Bryan Milk Justin Martin Robert L. Duane, AICP Marco Espinar Brian E. Jones Thomas R. Peek, P.E. C. Perry Peeples, Esq. Herbert R. Savage, AIA Peter H. Van Arsdale ABSENT: Blair Foley, P.E. R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Page 1 March 27, 2002 Anthony P. Pires, Jr. Dalas D. Disney, AIA ALSO PRESENT' Joe Schmitt Patrick White Susan Murray Barbara Burgeson Stephen Lenberger Tom Kuck Carolina Valera Marlene Foord Laura Roys Alexandra Sulecki Page 2 March 27, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: This meeting is called to order. I have an approval of the agenda. I think the agenda's a little bit skewed. I think today we were only supposed to talk about the new business, so do I have an approval of the agenda as it stands or modified? MR. PEEK: I'd move we modify the agenda to discuss only the LDC amendment. MR. PEEPLES: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Have a first and second. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Ayes take it. Thank you. Moving right along, we're going to go to new business. The first question I'd like to ask is, everybody on the committee received the memorandum issued by Bruce Anderson? MR. SAVAGE: You started without me? MR. MASTERS: That's what happened when you're late. MR. SCHMITT: The question is, did they miss you? MR. SAVAGE: I'll sit over here at the foot. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco, you're the only one who has not seen it? MR. ESPINAR: Yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Joe, have you seen the memorandum from Bruce Anderson? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. And you've had time to read it? MR. SCHMITT: I have not had time to digest it, no. I got it late yesterday and tied up at the board all -- most -- all day yesterday. CHAIRMAN LONGO' The reason why I ask is, as always, Bruce has been very astute in reviewing some of the LDC amendments and has some comments. He tried to get it out to committee members early enough yesterday. I did not receive that, Page 3 and I think that's because he has my old e-mail address. a copy of it this morning. March 27, 2002 So I just got MR. SCHMITT: You know, we're going to print copies and hand out-- CHAIRMAN LONGO. Does everybody have a copy now? Herb, do you have a copy? ' MR. SAVAGE. Of the agenda? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Of the memorandum sent by Bruce Anderson. MR. SAVAGE: No, I don't have a copy of that. You can just tell me what it says. Lawyers, are they right, you know, so detailed and periods and exclamation points. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, I guess my other question would be, Bob Duane, obviously the Land Development Code subcommittee has not had time to review Bruce's comments. Do you have any comments on this as well? MR. DUANE: I'm flipping through as we're talking. CHAIRMAN LONGO' Does anybody else on the committee have comments on Bruce's memorandum? MR. MASTERS. Yeah. Quite a few of these things we discussed at the subcommittee meeting. It might be reasonable just to go ahead and dig into the amendments and go over Bruce's comments along with other comments on those. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. That's reasonable. Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Dino, what's the schedule for these amendments? I mean -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: I don't have that answer. Who from staff has that answer? MR. MASTERS: It's supposed to be in front of the board on May 29th. CHAIRMAN LONGO. Okay. Is that correct? Page 4 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: I think it is. I don't have the schedule in front of me. I can get it real quick. April 10th for the planning commission, May 8th for the planning commission, May 29th for the board, and final hearing for the board June 19th. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Does that answer your question, Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE. Yeah, thank you. MR. DUANE: I'd like to -- good morning, Susan. How are you today? The revisions we discussed in some detail on the adequate public facilities ordinance, Dawn was going to come back with some changes. And that was -- we had quite a substantive discussion on that. Are those before us this morning? MS. MURRAY: They should be in your packets as they were given to me by Dawn. MR. DUANE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I guess who from staff is going to take us through this? MS. MURRAY: Me, Susan Murray, and I'm planning director. CHAIRMAN LONGO: You're up Susan. MS. MURRAY: How would you like to proceed? Would you like to stop me when you have questions about things? CHAIRMAN LONGO: I think that's the wish of the committee because, for the most part, it's gone before the subcommittee. And if anybody has any sticking points on as -- as you go through, real brief, as you go through them, then we'll have discussions. MR. MASTERS: It might make sense if you just tell us which amendment we're looking at and then the DSAC recommendation maybe we'll just want to skip where, you know. MS. MURRAY: Will it bother anybody ifI sit down cause I'm going to be talking --. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. Will you promise me to call out the page number when you are talking about some agreement? Page 5 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: No one ever does, you know. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Before we get started -- and I'll work from your summary sheet to begin with, I do want to call your attention to a couple amendments that I'm going to go ahead and delete so we don't even have to discuss those. On page 4 of your summary sheet, you'll see reference to 3.3.10. I'm going to remove that one, and then the last one on that page, Division 6.3, definitions; we'd like to remove that as well. As well, I have an addition. I don't know that it will be of great concern, but it was mailed in at the last minute. And, actually, I think I'll have Barb make some copies for you. Thank you. Do you want to just hand that over in case anybody else is interested? I already have a copy. To amend Section 2.2.28.5.3.4 to allow gasoline, diesel fuel buying in bulk and selling to farmers. And this is for the farm market overlay sub district in Immokalee. I think I'll have Barbara make some copies and just hand out for you also. Thanks, Barb. So that's an addition. As well, the Board of County Commissioners directed us to amend last cycle -- I'm sorry I didn't bring the section, but if you recall from last cycle the parking regulations? MR. WHITE: It's 2.3.5. MS. MURRAY: Thanks, Patrick, 2.3.5 -- where we instituted some new regulations pertaining to parking in front yards. The board asked us to clarify the language. We don't anticipate any regulatory changes, just some clarification. And, again, that being late last night did not get a chance to even type or even contemplate what changes or clarifications we're going to make. But we'll bring that before the planning commission. Again, there really won't be any change in regulation, at least from our aspect, of course. That opens it up to public hearing process again, and if the board chooses to decide to do something else with that amendment, then -- then so be it. Page 6 March 27, 2002 Okay. I think that's all the housekeeping things I had -- I had to deal with. Working from the summary sheet, again, which is the first four pages, I guess if you-all have questions or comments, do you just want to stop me and I'll just read the page number off and the section number off, is that acceptable, or do you want me to go into a detailed presentation? CHAIRMAN LONGO- Have you had a chance to review any of this stuff that Bruce sent out yesterday? MS. MURRAY: Just really briefly. I'm sorry, Bob. You wanted to -- you said to suggest the subcommittee. MR. DUANE: On the first one are we going to talk about prohibited uses and structures? Because that was one we had some discussion with you at the subcommittee level, and you were going to try to determine how, if at all, this would affect PUDs. And we'd also discussed some possible criteria to allow the staff to have at least some discretion to determine what I hope would be an obvious use in a district like a video store, in the example I gave you, where that is a permitted use in a PUD. I wouldn't want to find someone having to rezone the property for something that's so logically is similar or very compatible to what's around it. MS. MURRAY: I did contemplate your request, and I did not come up with anything in writing. I guess my position at this point would be to carry your request forward to the board, and if so directed by the board, I'd -- I'd come up with something in writing. I -- I just feel that the board's direction was clear. In fact, it was adamantly clear. And I really -- I guess that's just our position at this point. MR. DUANE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: I really couldn't -- unless you have some suggested language, I could -- could consider, I think it's going to be Page 7 March 27, 2002 a really difficult task to come up with situations where -- where we're going to be able to use our discretion and where we're not. MR. DUANE' For the benefit of the subcommittee, the -- we're removing some language that says comparable to the above uses, and I don't want to find a situation where there's a use, like a video store, and it just doesn't happen to be in that group of SIC codes and it's in a, you know, neighborhood shopping center. It would require that person to go through essentially a conditional use, which is the same as going through the zoning process. And ! guess philosophically the staff feels that they don't have the discretion, at least from the direction from the board, to make any kind of interpretation. And ! -- I think maybe we need to get the pen -- pendulum somewhere in the middle here where if it's very similar in uses and character to what's around it, doesn't have any different operational characteristics, and I -- I would hope the staff, if it walks like a duck and talks like one, that they could make that kind of a decision. That's where I think the subcommittee was headed in our discussions on that, and I'll just open it up to see if any other members have any suggestions of their own. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. PEEK: Two things: Number one, on the format we're going to use for reviewing this document today, I, for one, would prefer if we went through it page by page rather than referring to the summary sheet because I think when we go through it page by page we're going to each look at the full text of what's proposed and have a better understanding of what the discussion's about. Now, germane to Bob's question, ! think, Bob, you're talking about the proposal that's on handwritten page ! of our document. MR. DUANE: That is correct. MR. PEEK: And in that, do you have a suggestion of language that should be left in to accomplish what you wish to -- to Page 8 March 27, 2002 accomplish? MR. DUANE' Well, I happen to like the language that we're taking out, any comparable use or professional services, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses. I understand that the board wants to, you know, make that more restrictive. But I hope we could just expand the definition of this and maybe try to define it in a way that the staff can at least make a decision on things that are -- that are very obvious in nature. Susan, I -- you were going to consider some criteria, and maybe I should get together with you and see if there's your -- you're married to your position again. MS. MURRAY: I'm open minded, but-- but I'm-- I'm, like I said -- MR. DUANE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: __ I think the board's direction is clear. I'd certainly be happy to talk to you about it if you had some suggested language. MR. PEEK: To support your position, Bob, I think that this committee, at least I will support you and make a motion, that we go on record supporting what you say that there needs to be some language remaining in the LDC that would give staff the opportunity to make a call, if it's obvious -- obviously correct. So I think that we should at least go on record as notifying the board that we have a concern about the blanket exclusion or removal of this particular section. And I would make such a motion. MR. DUANE: And I would second such a motion. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick? MR. WHITE. Under discussion, Mr. Chairman, the concern, I believe, from the owner's prop -- the owners of the property perspective might be that there is no way you can rely solely on just what staff's, quote, opinion is under that provision. Without going Page 9 March 27, 2002 the distance to have gotten an official interpretation under 1.6 and gotten it if you needed to have it in front of the board of zoning appeals, the concern is, do you have sufficient reliance, are you able to justifiably rely on the staff's opinion. And I-- and I can tell you, after the experience in the Westview PUD, that the practicing professional, in my opinion, an attorney in this town, who tries to tell their client that they have that kind of reliance, absent going through that process, may be on some thin ice, because I think what that case tells us is that the only place that you know that you've got the reliance is when you've got the board telling you that the staff is correct. And I think that's why the board has seen that in -- in a different light than it has in the past. Yes, we'd like to have staff have the discretion. But if you give them the discretion, can you fashion criteria that are so specific and so tight that it's almost unquestioned that they've exercised their discretion appropriately in such a way that there's no way that you can challenge the fact that you can rely on their opinion so -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Herb? MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I can't get over all this exact language that's going to be exactly what the man or woman can make a decision on. I've said this a hundred times: The construction industry is not an exact science. And if we have languages in these codes that a man or a woman cannot use their judgment, I was told last month here at this board that the reason we can't get employees, because they will not be able to rent a home. I was told since that time by two or three people the reason they are not willing to work in this county is because they're going to get fired if they make a judgment that happens to be disagreeable with the -- the chief, you see. Why are we so anxious to have point 1, point 2, point 3, point 5, every little sentence, comma, exclamation point, a legal Page 10 March 27, 2002 interpretation? Don't we have honorable people working for us, we do. And this idea of thinking everybody is dishonest; it irritates me to no end. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you, Herb. Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE. Just one comment, I think is the drift I get from the board, is they're going to, you know, go along with this proposal. I think that's pretty clear. And the only suggestion might be to develop a process that isn't so costly and onerous in terms of getting reviews by the board. Maybe there's a faster way to take some of these issues to the board and not have all the hearings and have all the expense and-- and deal with-- you know, define some process that is more user friendly as an accommodation to the deletion of this language. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Robert. MR. DUANE: Could we, perhaps, make a reference to 1.6, Pat? That's the section where you get an interpretation to the board? That at least would avoid rezoning the property for what may be the obvious. And then the staff can review it, prepare a report. I find that a little -- still a little onerous, but it's certainly preferable to someone rezoning their property for the obvious. So, Pat, could you respond to that? MR. WHITE: I -- I don't -- I don't know that it's too far from what we're talking about in 2.1. ! 5 because, as I see it, it that says you're supposed to go through the 1.6 process. The alternative to that is to come back and ask that all of those kinds of additional quote, uses be done as conditional uses, which is certainly far more onerous. Maybe there's something that's less procedurally burdensome. But, again, I think you still have the aspect that property owner doesn't have the reliance. This isn't the reliance. Page 11 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: This isn't the something weighing in. MR. WHITE: This isn't the county weighing in on property rights. These are the property owners looking to have protection and reliance on what the government's telling them. And the only person who's authorized ultimately to make that determination is the board because they're the ones that you view your, quote, unquote, uses and no one else. So it -- there's -- there's a tension between the two provisions, yes, I understand it. It's an area of every zoning code where there's contention and -- and you -- on one end the property owner looking to have reliance that what they're being told is something they can, you know, take to the bank literally. And on the other end, you know, you've got staff who -- Herb's right, there are folks who need to have criteria to make decisions. And we're attempting to add those kinds of criteria into this code. And if someone has a suggestion on what those words might be, I'd be happy to take a look at it and render an opinion as to whether it's something that is so clear and obvious, but I don't know that we're there with what we have. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do I -- can I get a motion to take this someplace? MR. PEEK: Well, I think you have a motion on the floor and a second to support the recommendation that some -- some basis for staff decisions to amend in the code. I call the question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: in favor? (Unanimous response.) Okay. The question's been called. All CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Joe, can we make sure that those -- that the comments and -- and recommendations, actually, that come out of this committee actually get presented to the board as we're discussing them? In the past we've been just yeaing and naying without comment, and I'd like the board to be able to understand why Page 12 March 27, 2002 we're -- we're asking for those provisions, other than we're just disagreeing with staff or we're not agreeing with the language or -- or the particular interpretation? MR. SCHMITT: Susan -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, administrative o£ community development environmental services. Susan, when we present this and I -- Dino, I assume what you're asking is the spreadsheet that we have we be more definitive as to your comments. And I -- I would guess that that's the best way to do it is on each one of these we'll put from the record we'll have drafted the specific comments -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Actually, yeah, we've had a simple spreadsheet in the past just said DSAC approved or disapproved, but I'd like to see some comments out there as to why, so they understand the thinking behind the committee's recommendations. MR. SCHMITT: Then I would ask as you go through each one of these, if there is a specific note or amend -- that you want to say approved with comment that we specify the comment or try to clarify the comment that you want to go forward, because we'll go to the planning commission first. And certainly we want the planning commission to know what your concerns are because they -- they've got this, and then it goes before the board. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Thank you. So is that the committee's wishes that we Recall that first one an approved with comment? MR. DUANE: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Next? MS. MURRAY: The next page, handwritten page 2, and this really ties in all the way through handwritten page 15 J. These are amendments to the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts to add or remove certain permitted or conditional uses to make those uses consistent with the purpose and intent statements for each respective district. Page 13 March 27, 2002 And if you remember from last cycle, we had amended the purpose and intent of those sections, and so now this is just basically a follow- up to ensure that the uses that are permitted are conditionally approved, are consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. MR. DUANE: Susan, Bruce Anderson had some concerns about noticing requirements. I wonder if-- if Patrick could respond to that. Maybe you haven't had a chance to look at his letter, but at the top of the second page of his letter. MR. WHITE: I -- I looked at it once. I can tell you that the point in time at which those notice requirements typically take place under the referenced statute would be for the board's zoning -- excuse me, for the board's hearings in May and June. I understand what the inherent difficulties may be. Bruce as act -- is asking to have us tell him how detailed we're going to make those notices. I don't know that either the statute or the case law would tell us that we have to be as detailed as listing all of them. Obviously that would be probably the kind of thing that most people would ignore. The idea is to inform and provide reasonable notice, and I believe we will do that, and we will do so at the time it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian? MR. JONES: Yes. Susan, I had a comment under the Item 7, the item -- the items being deleted from this one allowable use, you have listed churches and other places of worship and, I guess, on the following page, museums and galleries. And then Item 22, any other commercial use, which is similar in nature, you're striking that clause out. This, again, is the same driving force as you mentioned earlier? MS. MURRAY: Which are -- specifically are you questioning? The strike out 22? MR. MILK: Page 24. MR. JONES' Let's start with the church and places of worship. What is the rationale behind removing that from this use? Page 14 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Well, I'm sure, as you-all know, it you go to church, churches these days are becoming more than.just a Sunday service or a Saturday night service. They're a seven-day-a-week operation. They've got activities at night. They've got meetings. They've got groups at night. I mean, it you look at their campuses, it's not.just a sanctuary and a couple o£ office buildings. You've got fcc £acilitics; you're got sanctuaries; you've got office buildings; you're got places where youth meet and congregate. And I think that we're finding that the use, based on complaints we've been getting from neighbors, is .just becoming too intense £or a C- 1 type o£ district. On the other hand, now, these are the -- this is the £acility that serves usually the people in the neighborhood, if they're of that denomination. But, on the other hand, they're becoming so much more than just a Sunday service that they're having a negative impact on people that are surrounding C-1 properties, which are generally are your-- your residential areas. MR. SAVAGE: Pardon me it I interrupt. Thank goodness they're having an influence, Herb Savage. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Susan, the -- Bruce mentions in his -- in his memorandum legislation adopted by congress in 2000 known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act. Have we looked at that before we actually made our changes to this particular item? MS. MURRAY: I haven't personally, and I'm not really familiar with that legislation. I don't know if Patrick has a comment or not or is familiar with that. I've never heard of it before. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian? MR. JONES' My other concern would be churches that have set aside or purchased property with the intention of building who may have purchased C-1 property through the lack o£ commercially zoned available property, what -- what will happen to -- to them? Page 15 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Well, they'll have to do -- go through a conditional use process. So it was taken out from permitted uses and put for conditional uses. MR. JONES: So if they owned it prior, there's no quote, unquote, grand fathering clause that would allow them to develop that property because they owned it prior to a certain date? MS. MURRAY: Right. Not if it was undeveloped. MR. JONES: That seems unfair. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian? MR. MILK: I think, if memory serves me correctly, Mr. Anderson asked this be adopted approximately six months ago in that previous LDC cycle, so it's a newer-type use. And -- and, also, my thought was it was implemented during the end of the cycle, so I don't know if there was a lot of study on it or a lot of input from staff or even DSAC. And I just -- I would also have concerns from the multi purpose utility of a church adjacent to a residential area with -- without study to the effects of the tot lots, play grounds without adequate buffers and such. That would be my concern, because I -- I've also received plaints -- complaints from a city official on some of these churches or parking facilities, uses during the nighttime. And I think Susan's correct. It's becoming more of a campus for an ongoing-type use during the week rather than a service related on Saturdays or Sundays. So I do have some concern with allowing that as a permitted principal use. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom? MR. PEEK: I, for one, support churches in any zoning that they'd like to be put. I think that we are building a conflict if we're talking about churches that have daycare centers when the one right above it is daycare centers that's a permitted use. When we look at No. 10, individual family social services, elderly, handicapped, adult daycare centers, no hours of operation Page 16 controlling those. business or professional offices permitted in this district. one, support churches remaining in this district. MR. JONES: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Are there any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom? MR. PEEK: I did. CHAIRMAN LONGO: in favor of that motion? MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Aye. MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR. VAN ARSDALE: If you continue, I'm going to vote it against it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter, you vote against it? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And Perry Peoples voted against it, and Brian Milk voted against it. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I mean, I'd just comment. I don't think - - I think a conditional use in these areas is inappropriate. I feel that a conditional use causes there to be a inappropriate analysis of the use when it's reasonable. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. March 27, 2002 We don't control the hours of operations of any So I, for You made that in the form of a motion, It's been seconded by Brian Jones. All Page 17 March 27, 2002 Brian, next comments? MR. JONES: I don't know -- it says, Item 16 was museums and art galleries. I presume that you're getting complaints on museums and art galleries too? I don't know. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, that's a good question. MS. MURRAY: I think, just based on -- on our analysis, we found that the uses were really too intense for a C-1, which is your lowest intensity commercial district. Again, nighttime hours, that sort of thing. We -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: But I got to tell you, we just had three - - three art galleries open up in -- in the J and C Industrial Park, and there's no one there at night because it's mostly all commercial. That's when they have their functions. And it's relatively economical for-- economical for them to open in those type of places, and they just seem to be doing well. But the traffic during the day is not much more than any other business in the area than at night when they hold these galleries and open houses and stuff like that, that's not that intrusive. MR. JONES: I don't see that -- I don't see that there's -- their just the luck of the draw when we pick museums and galleries and say you can't do this. There's no rationale for taking away people's rights to use their property. This is -- this is silly. And I -- I make a motion that we -- I have nothing against museums and art galleries, and I don't see that they're a hazard or a detriment to -- to the community. MR. PEEK: You move to leave them in? MR. JONES. I'll move to leave them in. MR. PEEK: I'll second it. MR. MASTERS: For discussion, if we're going to continue to pick this apart, can we make this in one motion rather than several motions regarding this one item? Page 18 March 27, 2002 MR. JONES' Well, okay. The language-- language 22 on the bottom, "Any use that's comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including those that are exclusively served the administrative as opposed to the operational functions of the business and are purely associated with activities conducted in an office," what's wrong with that? That describes the nature of all those allowable uses. Why are we taking that out? MS. MURRAY: This ties back to the discussion we had on page 1 about direction from the Board of County Commissioners. This actually was struck out, and it's relocated in -- under No. 15 on page 6 as a conditional use. And I don't-- unless -- MR. JONES: So if it's not specifically there, you have to get a provisional use, which is what you spoke about earlier? I -- I would vote, then, we don't-- I would make a motion that we don't strike any of these changes that's in conflict with Susan. CHAIRMAN LONGO: We already have a motion on the table for -- to add churches and museums and art galleries back in that's been seconded. I say we -- if you want to amend your motion to include other things. MR. PEEK: Let's vote on that one and move forward. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Hold on, Herb. MR. SAVAGE: Let me ask a question: Who has knowledge? Where are schools built, in what C classification? C-1 ? MR. MILK: It's usually residential. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. That's usually C-1 -- or not C-1 but residential. They have nightly functions. You know, you're talking about museums, schools, and all. They have nightly functions, sport functions and everything else. Are people complaining about those as they might complain about the church, and they might complain about museums? Page 19 March 27, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO. I'm sure people complain about everything. MR. SAVAGE: That's right. CHAIRMAN LONGO. Okay. We have a motion on the table, a second. I need a vote. I'm going to call the vote. MR. PEEPLES. Excuse -- I don't understand the motion. Was this the motion on -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: To put the museums and art galleries back in. MR. PEEPLES: Okay. I have a question then. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. PEEPLES. Susan, on the religious uses, it sounded like you were responding to complaints and a problem that exists and Brian also indicated that he has heard those same kinds of complaints. A problem exists with neighbors to religious facilities. I haven't heard that a problem exists with any neighbors to the museums or galleries. Is -- is -- is there an existing problem, or is it a perceived problem? Is it a question of traffic generated? Again, I haven't heard any specifics as to why staff wanted that out? MS. MURRAY: Let me just back up and restate the fact that what we've done here with all these districts is in response to the changes of the purpose and intent of the districts. So we've taken a look at all the uses in here, look at -- looked at their degrees of intensity and -- which is usually measured by traffic generation, but it can also be measured by facets of the business, characteristics of the operation of the business. And we also monitor our complaints as well. So, really, the focus of the changes here comes from an .analysis done by staff in response to the change of the purpose and intent. So we're finding that there are certain characteristics of certain types of land uses that just doesn't-_ no longer fits in with the purpose and intent of the district as it was amended last cycle. It's Page 20 really the geneses for most of these changes. MR. PEEPLES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: One more comment. Marco. MR. ESPINAR: Could I ask a quick question? Is it the use, or is it the design? I mean, if you have proper adequate buffers, setbacks, and you're meeting all these requirements, you should be buffering these activities from the neighbors. So is it a question of the use, or is it a question of design of that use? MS. MURRAY: It could be both. MR. SAVAGE: Both. MS. MURRAY: And this focus is really on the characteristics of the use. MR. ESPINAR: In my opinion, I think it's more of a design thing. I mean, at the permitting process when you're looking at these things, if you've got a gymnasium and you've got residential areas then you put a, you know, buffer. You've got your hedges. You've got your landscape buffers. You've got all those criterias to try to address all those issues at that time. MS. MURRAY: I think you have to keep in mind that the code has very set provisions when you're talking about straight zoning districts. You don't get a choice. It's not a PUD where you can go through and start to analyze the relationship of land uses to adjacent properties and then formulate certain buffers or certain design characteristics that might help mitigate that. Here you're talking about C-1 through C-5. You have a set buffer requirement, you have a set parking requirement. And that's it. There isn't really a lot of discretion about, you know, where they can be placed on the property or etc. So that's -- you know, keep that in mind when you're looking at these zoning districts. It's pretty hard to be flexible. It's not a not a PUD. -- March 27, 2002 Page 21 March 27, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: Call the question. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just one quick question. Why wasn't it considered -- why didn't you consider moving it to a conditional use9 MS. MURRAY: Consider moving what? ' MR. VAN ARSDALE. Museums. MS. MURRAY: I don't think I can answer that right now. I really don't know. MR. VAN ARSDALE: All right. MR. SAVAGE: Call the question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All in favor. MR. ABBOTT: Aye. CHAIRMAN ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MILK: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All against? MR. PEEPLES: Nay. MR. MASTERS: Nay. MR. VAN ARSDALE. Nay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Perry Peoples, Peter VanArsdale, and Tom Masters. Moving right along. MS. MURRAY: I guess I'll just skip to the next zoning district, C-2, page 7, any comments, questions? This really encompasses page 7, 8, 9, and part of 10. Once we get to page 10 we're in a C-3 district. Page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. C-4 starts on-- MR. PEEK: Question. On page 13, Susan, under conditional Page 22 March 27, 2002 uses, No. 3, invitational services that are permitted in that district, I don't -- what's included in 82 -21 82-22? Is that the whole general broad -- ' ' MS. MURRAY: I knew you were going to ask me that. And I didn't bring my SIC code booklet. Barbara, would you mind running or-- could you run and get my SIC code book out of my office? MS. BURGESON: I don't know where it is. MS. MURRAY: Go in my office, take a left. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco has another question. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, our last vote was, correct me if I'm wrong here, but that was ,just on the museums and art galleries? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Correct. ' MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Jones also was commenting on 22. We skipped over that. CHAIRMAN LONGO. Correct. MR. ESPINAR: I was,just pointing out -- I don't know. MR. JONES: Actually, Item 20 -- it's the closing section for all of the uses, and it has been stricken through through all of the pages that I'm aware of. That would be a consistent comment that anything that is of a similar use that -- that would allow you to apply common sense as being removed, and I -- I don't see a -- I don't see what's wrong with it. I don't see why it should be stricken. MR. ESPINAR: And, Mr. Chairman, for consistency, and Bob - - Bob Duane might help me on this, No. 22, doesn't it tie into what we were discussing before? So, for consistency, we're going to -- you know, we voted on the first one. We should carry that through onto this one too. MR. DUANE: I think the same recommendation's going to carry over. MR. ESPINAR: Okay. I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Page 23 March 27, 2002 MR. JONES' If we don't strike something and it gets left in and sneaks through the cracks. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do you want to make something in the form of a motion? MR. JONES. So, so. That the -- what do you call that comment, Susan? Is there a name for that, similar uses classification? MS. MURRAY: I guess you would just support leading in Item 22 as -- well, for C-1. But basically you would support leaving in -- MR. JONES: For all the C zoning. MS. MURRAY: __ for all the commercial zoning districts, the ability for staff to make an administrative determination as to whether or not any other use not specifically listed but was comparable in nature could be allowed at their discretion. MR. DUANE: Obviously comparable in nature. MR. WHITE: Obvious to whom, Mr. Chairman? MS. MURRAY: Right. ' MR. ESPINAR: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN LONGO. Let's restate the motion. MR. ESPINAR: Well, as stated by-- well, go ahead. Do you want to restate it? MR. JONES. No. Go ahead. You--. MR. ESPINAR: I -- I -- I'll make a motion that through C-1 through C-4 everywhere they're stricken, like 22, any other commercial use or professional services, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, including those that exclusively serve the administrative as opposed to the operational functions of a business and are purely associated with activities conducted in the office, we should include them in all the commercial zoning districts. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is there a second to that motion? MR. SAVAGE: I'll second it. ' Page 24 CHAIRMAN LONGO: discussion on that motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MILK: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. MR. PEEPLES: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. March 27, 2002 Now we have discussion. Any Call the question. Aye. All in favor? Any opposed? Aye. Peter Van Arsdale. Thank you. I'd just like to comment. I can appreciate what the staff's trying to do here and -- and they've gotten in trouble, and owners have gotten in trouble by the vagueness in the current code or the ability to make discretionary judgments. Now, we may in this group feel we have that ability to make sound judgments. But we -- they would all be different if we were to -- to write them down. And so I think what they're doing is -- is -- it's going to make things easier for all of us. And even though you like flexibility, it's sometimes flexibility that gets us into trouble and causes parts of the problem. So I just want to explain why I'm voting no. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Number 4. MR. MILK: Can I ask for clarification? When it says any other Page 25 March 27, 2002 commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, Susan, are you taking as an example, nursing and professional-care facilities on page 6, 80-82, are you looking through that SIC industry to see if the use is comparable with the following uses? Is that what the board of zoning adjustments and appeals will look at, or what's the true intent for comparable in nature with the foregoing uses? MS. MURRAY: I think that really should say permitted. In other words, any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing permitted uses, a list of permitted uses and consistent with the permitted uses and purpose and intent statement of the district, is that what you're asking? MR. MILK: I guess that's what I'm after, a little bit more clarification, because historically you would take a grouping of SIC codes in that subcategory and professionally make a judgment on whether that use was an office use or a professional care use or a doctor's-related facility use or educational use. And there was a collaboration of possibly two or three SIC codes under a subcategory that tended to be the interpretation. And I'm just wanting to make sure that whatever this says is the true intent of what the board is going or not going to be looking at. I think that's very important from interpretation what-- what is it we're looking for, striving for? Is it that SIC code and what falls out under that code, or is it a combination of the subcategory code? And that's, I think, Bob, with some wordsmithing, kind of tweaks that a little bit to make more seI1se. MS. MURRAY: Okay. If I added the word "permitted," does that help, or is that where you're going or -- with that, or do you have any other suggestions? MR. MILK: I guess, it was discussion on -- on my part. We're always faced with interpretations, too, and I -- I found that going to Page 26 March 27, 2002 the NAICS code is -- is a problem, versus the SIC code. I personally would rather draw an interpretation from the SIC code because I think there's a lot more information in that code manual than the NAICS manual, from a professional standpoint. I think it's very clear NAICS code versus the other, and I -- whatever happens here, it needs to be clear to staff and the professionals in the office on what the true purpose of the board of zoning adjustments or staff will be. MS. MURRAY: Okay. MR. MILK: That's my only discussion for that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Are we done with that section? Can we move forward? Okay. ' MS. MURRAY: I think we left off on page 16, the industrial zoning district to add crematories as a permitted use. MR. SAVAGE: Which page that was? CHAIRMAN LONGO. Sixteen. MS. MURRAY: Sixteen. Also-- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Can I ask one question? Excuse me. When you say there are no fiscal or operational impacts, is that -- is that for the staff or county government or for owners? That's used throughout this. ' MS. MURRAY: The focus here is on government. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Government. MS. MURRAY: Which-- which ultimately is taxpayers. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I mean, you have -- you do an analysis of the financial impacts on -- on -- on the property owners. MS. MURRAY: Are you asking me, do we? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah. Is that part of your analysis when you do these kind of changes? MS. MURRAY: Our analysis on fiscal impact focus is mostly on internal fiscal impacts, which, again, ultimately affect the public. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. But if we're talking about a Page 27 March 27, 2002 church, if they have to -- MS. MURRAY: Right. MR. VAN ARSDALE: -- you know, plan to expand their church but now they have to go buy more expensive land to expand their church, there's a fiscal -- MS. MURRAY: It's just the operation of our -- our operation of our business as county government, not somebody else's business. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Page 16, 17, any comments? Questions? I'm just -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: We'll start with Tom. MR. PEEK: On page 16 and 17, well, specifically on 17 at the top of the page under 221622.3, you exclude automobile sales and/or display areas, and I think we are here talking about a C something, heavy-duty zoning. And my question was, why do you want to exclude automobile sales in those areas? MS. MURRAY: Well, this is the industrial zoning district. MR. PEEK: That's right. MS. MURRAY: You've mostly got wholesaling, storage, those kind of uses. There is a provision in the code that says 20 percent of your gross floor area within an industrial zoning district, if you have a building there -- for example, if you're a tile distributor, and you may use 20 percent of your gross floor area for retail display area. That doesn't really apply to automobiles, car sales. We're finding that the automobile car sales, retail sales, are eating up a lot of the industrial land in these districts, and they really -- I mean, that's -- that's a use that is a commercial use. The intent behind having-- allowing a very small amount of floor area in an industrial zoning district is mostly just for display if you've got people coming in Page 28 March 27, 2002 wishing To, you know -- wholesalers wishing to buy your products, whatever. People, you know, kind of passerby traffic, you might pick up one or two sales that way. But, really, the intent of-- the purpose of the industrial zoning district is wholesaling, manufacturing, those kind of uses. And we're finding a real problem with automobile retail sales of automobiles eating up a lot of the land area. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian? MR. JONES: I -- I see the industrial as kind of the catch-all for all the other uses, and there is certain circumstances in Collier County, due to the lack of commercially zoned C-1 through C-4 where -- or C-5 for automotive sales, it economically forces those -- those people in that profession into the industrial parks. We've created an anomaly of sorts on Trade Center Way. But due to the lack of commercial -- lack of commercial affordable land in Collier County, the market will find its -- its own way, and in this case it has. And on the previous page, if we can take crematories out of the C zoning and we can put that into the industrial because of-- now I do agree with that. I don't have a problem with that. I think that's probably more appropriate. But if we can manufacture dynamite and -- and cremate bodies, I think we should be able to sell cars in industrial zoning. I think it's a catchall. That's the last stop for-- for doing a lot of these things that we all need and want to have to have. And if we prohibit -- prohibit the uses; we're making things more affordable and more costly for-- for ourselves and making them less available. CHAIRMAN LONGO: What it basically does is put the used- car business out of business, for instance, at -- in J and C Industrial Park. There's probably half a dozen to a dozen in there. MR. JONES: I do agree that, perhaps, with the -- with the buffering and -- and some of those things, a lot of those places are out of date and have not been brought up to the current code. And over Page 29 March 27, 2002 time that will happen as they -- they -- they change locations and as they -- they remodel and so forth. There's opportunities to -- to make them more attractive. And I can understand that being a driving intent. They're -- they're not the prettiest places to look at. CHAIRMAN LONGO: So let's ask the question: What do we have left for those -- in C-5 zoning that allows those uses to take place? MS. MURRAY: Are you asking me? I didn't understand the question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'm sorry. Well, I mean, if you can only do automotive sales, resales, and these type of services that you're taking out of the industrial parks right now, where are they to go? MS. MURRAY: C-4, C-5, and any commercial PUD that allows them -- remember, industrial is industrial. It's not retail. It's manufacturing, wholesaling. If you use that argument that you're pushing people out of business, out of industrial, you could say the same thing for the industrial users that want to come in and can't find property in industrial because it's being eaten up by retail sales. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian? MR. MILK: I guess I'm going to add some historical significance to that item. Ten or twelve years ago the division of motor vehicles, the Collier County tax collector didn't care where these uses were, were not permitted. I would suggest if you took a -- took all the used car dealers in C-4 and C-5 properties who paid the price for that, would be adamantly against having anybody in the industrial parks. When the board of zoning appeals or the board of-- Collier County Board of Commissioners asked the zoning department approximately 1998, to look at all the zoning certificates to make sure Page 30 March 27, 2002 these uses were in the right district, what happened is a lot of these car dealers, A, were there or came in as a wholesale-type business. And through development and business, they've flourished into what I would call used car businesses inconsistent with thc current code. There's been inconsistencies from thc issuance of licenses, division of motor vehicles, and the tax collector. I personally think if you polled thc used car dealers and thc new car dealers, they'd be adamantly against leaving any used car facilities in thc industrial parks. I think to flourish, and I'll pick on thc used-car businesses, vhat's wrong with them, well, quite frankly, I don't think we've ookcd at them from a site-development-plan standpoint or buffering or anything ¢1s¢ because, quite frankly, they went there in as wholesale businesses, and they've caused problems from the standpoint that they arc not compliant with any of thc criteria with what I would call a used car business should be. So I would be in support of what staff recommends here. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Do we have any type of motion on thc table, or we going to move forward? MR. MASTERS: I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. DUANE: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. All in favor? Aye. Page 31 March 27, 2002 MR. PEEPLES: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Aye. MR. MILK: I'm against. MS. MURRAY: Page 18. Page 19 deals with the Goodlette- Frank overlay. MR. PEEK: When we went through this -- excuse me. When we went through this in subcommittee, I think you said that staff would take a look at why it was originally 10 feet. I know Bruce Anderson in his comments has referred to some historical -- MS. MURRAY: I don't see my staff person here that needs to answer that question. Could we maybe skip this, and I'll try to get her -- if somebody, Carolina or Barb could find Nancy in the meantime, thanks. Okay. I guess we're up to page 20. All right. If there's no comments on that, page 22, Immokalee overlay district. Okay. Page 24, just to correct -- minor corrections. Page 25, has to do with municipal wells and permitted and conditional uses. Page twenty--. MR. MASTERS: I'd like to just rewrite -- I think Bruce had some valid comments in there about tones of influence in the fact that those wells could influence quite a few. We didn't really discuss that at the DSAC meeting. I was just wondering if anybody else had any comments about that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Perry. MR. PEEPLES: Did you receive Stan Kryznowski's response to that? Stan sent out an e-mail, I think, to the same user group. Well, I guess he can speak for himself. MR. KRYZNOWSKI (phonetic): The -- I'm Stan Kryznowski; I'm with development services. The amendment is -- is the idea of Page 32 March 27, 2002 the utility department. At the present time to drill a well and a municipal potable well anywhere in the county, you have to apply for a conditional use. And the new wells that they're drilling are so deep, seven, eight hundred feet, that they -- they penetrate a bunch of aquifers and have no cone of depression or cone of influence, because the aquifer that they're pumping out of, is very far down. If you look at the wording, we say that anything that affects -- is that doesn't affect the surface water, shallow wells, or the surface water, lakes, canals, whatever, would be exempt. But anything that does affect the surface water would not be exempted. I think that's Bruce's concern. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Does that answer your question? MR. MASTERS: Yes, it does. ' CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any other comments? Questions? Moving right along. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Flip back quickly to page 19. Nancy's here. There's a question about the Goodlette-Frank overlay. MS. SIEMION: Yes. Nancy Siemion, landscape architect, current planning services. And there's a question about the history of the landscape buffer along the Goodlette Frank overlay district. And historically back in the '80s it was 5 feet wide. And when the 1991 landscape code revision came by, that was the last major landscape code revision. That forgot to get picked up in that revision. And so that's why it wasn't there. And now the request -- the amendment is to bring it up to minimum code. MS. MURRAY: All right? Moving right along here, page 28. MR. PEEK: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. PEEK: I have a question on page 26, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 33 March 27, 2002 MR. PEEK: Under conditional use paragraph, it looks like we're adding this parenthetical expression there. But as I read that entire paragraph, the sentence seems confusing to me as to particularly when you get to the -- to the fourth line down when it's talking about governmental facilities, you read the entire thing and it says that the following uses shall be deemed conditional uses in any zoning district. And then they're all listed, separated by commas. And you get down to governmental facilities, we're adding, including regional parks, community parks, and branch libraries in residential, agricultural and estates-zoned district, except as otherwise specified in Section -- now, are governmental facilities only permitted in residential ag and estate-zoned district? Is that what it's saying as a conditional use? MS. MURRAY: Right. Is that not worded -- MR. PEEK: Well, that's the way I read it, but that surprises me that it doesn't -- some of these essential services are not permitted in other zoning districts, like, we've got electrical substations in commercial districts and industrial parks. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. MR. PEEK: I said we have a lot of essential services, as conditional uses in industrial parks and commercial districts and other zoning districts other than the residential, agricultural, and estates-zoned district. MS. MURRAY: I guess I'm not following your issue, and maybe if there's somebody else around the table that understands what the concern is that can -- MR. PEEK: Well, you follow the language where it says that they are conditional uses in any zoning district, colon -- MS. MURRAY: Right. MR. PEEK: -- and then it lists all these uses. When you get to governmental facilities -- Page 34 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: I understand what you're saying now. MR. PEEK: -- and it limits that to residential, agricultural, and estates. MS. MURRAY: I understand exactly what you're saying now. Thanks. Let me take a look at that and see if I can clarify that. Is there any comments from the -- the board or-- MR. PEEK: Yeah, it's just something-- MS. MURRAY: It's just -- MR. PEEK: -- that if we're going to modify this section now and we have an opportunity to clean the language up so it's clearer, we should take the opportunity to do so. MS. MURRAY: Thanks. Okay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Page 27. MS. MURRAY: Page 27, page 28 up to page 30. I think-- I'm not sure if this subcommittee saw this one or not. I don't think they did. But this is basically a clarification of the language in terms of providing pedestrian access from parking lots around buildings to building entrances. There's been some issues with that in terms of interpretation of this section, and we just wanted to clarify that the intent is where you've got parking lots and buildings. And you've got some means of pedestrians being able to walk around buildings on a designated pedestrian area rather than through parking lots or in drive aisles. And that's the way we've been applying the code. Page 31, page 33, dealing with fire hydrants -- MR. PEEK: Wait. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Stop. MR. PEEK: On page 32 1 have a question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Tom. MR. PEEK: At the -- on the third line down, top of the page, the underlined portion, grades shall be shown and designated in the final Page 35 March 27, 2002 plat as a tract "of," and it should be "or." MS. MURRAY: "Or." CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Pages 33. Page 35. MR. MARTIN: During the LDC subcommittee meeting, brought up a question about what happens with lots such as 80-foot- wide lots. And since we're changing the requirements of the spacing to 300 feet apart, no more than, if you have 80-foot lots, that means you would have to put fire hydrants every 240 feet, and that's just my opinion that's getting to be a lot -- close together, and we were going to have the fire code official give us a presentation. MS. MURRAY: Tom, what's -- MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, engineering director. Yes. After the last meeting I sent a message to Ed Riley talking about there was going to be some questions asked -- asked at the next DSAC meeting, and he said he would attend. I sent him an e-mail this morning to remind him, and he's not here so -- and I really can't answer -- that was a request to go to the 300-foot spacing from Ed Riley to be consistent with the -- what is it --. MR. MARTIN: NFPA-- MR. KUCK: -- the NFPA regulations. CHAIRMAN LONGO: What was his -- what was his thinking behind that, Tom? MR. KUCK: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN LONGO: To go from 250 feet to --. MR. MASTERS: That way it's consistent with the fire code. MR. KUCK: The fire code NFPA calls for 300-foot spacing. And am I justified in saying, depending on lots, you could end up with 240-foot spacing, if they wouldn't give a variance for, say, a 320-foot spacing. I really can't answer that. It was a -- a request from the fire district, and we are just making that -- this proposed Page 36 March 27, 2002 amendment as a request. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Did the subcommittee look at this? MR. MASTERS: Yeah. The subcommittee on that was that if it's practical, we would be allowed to go in those intermediate with some discretion at staff level as long as it didn't conflict with code, right, Tom? MR. KUCK: That's correct. MR. JONES: Dino? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Yes, sir. MR. JONES: Comment: The -- I have a particular instance that I'm familiar with, the -- the existing fire hydrants currently are -- are spaced at that -- the 500-foot distance. And if you're under this new interpretation, if you happen to be in the center of that, a new hydrant would be required. So logically you're going to need 50 percent more hydrants in all -- all areas, there's going to be one additional hydrant in order to meet this special requirement in -- in every -- every potential zoning, so whenever the guy that goes to build or -- it may affect more than one location in the center point of that. And, in fact, I've had that occur. You know, take the industrial parks. You have a-- a-- a platted approved park, a person thinks that they're buying something, they're ready to build, and they end up having to spend infrastructure costs that they think should have been provided by the developer or -- or by the county. And it is a -- there's a cost standpoint. I don't know if there's -- if there's a true safety standpoint for that extra hundred feet, if there's a lack of hose on the truck, if there's a pressure concern how -- what the pressure falloff is, is it really worth the economic impact to -- to add that hydrant in that mid spacing, because that's what it is entailing. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, quite frankly, I think they'd have to be looking at water flows and how much they're getting water to Page 3 7 March 27, 2002 that particular development in order to even calculate whether they should be 300 feet apart or 500 feet apart. I mean, if you just -- no, Tom? MR. PEEK: Well, that's not the issue. Excuse me, Tom Peek. That's -- that's really not the issue. The National Fire Protection Association adopts these regulations that they apply all over the country, and all the fire marshalls agree to them. And it's not based on any logic or actual conditions in our governmental jurisdiction. It's just a national set of standards that they have said is appropriate for fire hydrant spacing. And so the local fire marshalls say that's what we're going to apply. And -- you know, I wrote on mine when I read this that this is nuts. It's still nuts, but we can't -- you know, it's kind of like swimming upstream. You won't ever win this battle. MR. JONES: One -- one other comment. It says on the -- this -- on Item 2, the first complete sentence, "Hydrants shall be connected to water mains no less than 8 inches in diameter." And some of these developments you have lines, I believe, less than 8 inches, by use of RPZs from -- and there was -- there was some concern at the subcommittee level that did-- did they mean the amount of water coming out of the pipe, or did they want a specific size, because the two are not necessarily the same. And that -- mandating the size of the pipe was -- and I don't know if-- if, you know, what their interpretation of this is. It would appear that they mean 8 inches in diameter, and that may conflict with a lot of developments who use other-- other sizes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Would this -- would this apply to existing, adding on to -- you have Trade Center Way or something like that where someone wants to -- has a couple pieces of property that they need to put a fire hydrant on because of the spacing changes or no? MS. MURRAY: Patrick? Page 38 March 27, 2002 MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Does this -- does this pertain to existing? MR. JONES: Yes, it does. MR. MARTIN: It doesn't specify. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All right. Let me just make it simple and quick. Do we want to take an action on this? Marco? MR. ESPINAR: I make a motion for denial. CHAIRMAN LONGO: On this particular 3.2.8.4.8? Would you concur with that, Mr. Masters, as part of your subcommittee or -- no, that was utilities. I'm sorry. Well, you're on utilities. MR. JONES: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Any discussion? Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, I guess -- I think Tom's point was important that if this is the code, we need to -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: It's not a code. It's a set of standards. MR. ESPINAR: We have the option to adopt-- MR. JONES: Let me qualify. In new developments -- perhaps I would be amenable to this: In new developments, let's make this a new standard for new developments that they comply with this if the fire officials feel that this would -- in keeping with the national standard, that would be good. But I think the -- the draw back's to existing -- existing infrastructure and the costs to add 50 percent more in areas that are already improved -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Right. MR. JONES: -- is senseless. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And Patrick, you had a comment? MR. WHITE: Well, NFPA 1141 is the standard we're talking about, and I don't know whether the Florida building code in its recent adoption has included this standard, but I know that there are a lot of NFPA standards that are in there, and I think that before we Page 39 March 27, 2002 have a discussion about whether we're going to include this provision or not as an amendment to the LDC, we ought to make the determination of whether it is actually one of the ones that the Florida building code has adopted. Because if it is, then we have to go through a very precise process of adopting what this alternative would be. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And -- and whether it pertains to existing. MR. WHITE: That being their old code. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Right. We have a recommendation for denial. And based on Patrick's comments, I think that's still good. So it would be a recommendation of denial -- MR. JONES: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: -- and go back and take a look at it and see if it conforms to the existing unified building code. We have a second. Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MILK: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR. VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. PEEPLES: Nay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Page 40 March 27, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: Perry Peoples. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I mean, can't we get clarification on that point? We're just saying we don't know the change. We don't know if we have to do it or not. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, at this point we're denying the change because of that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Okay. Well, then I think we should make a comment that we want clarification as to what -- in other words, is it remedial, or is it only for new projects, and what's -- we need to clarify -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: I think I just said that, but Patrick? MR. WHITE: My reading of it is that it's prospective. Applied to proposed developments. And as of the effective date of this regulation, those applications that were in and deemed sufficient, it would not apply to. And those that were to arrive later, then that they be deemed sufficient-- CHAIRMAN LONGO: And as we look into it, we can get a final, final clarification on it. Just a quick comment. We have -- I have about ten till 11. We were supposed to be done here about 11, something like that. Do you want to continue on? We're only on page 33 of a hundred something. At the favor of the board, you tell me -- or the committee, you tell me what you want to do. Keep going? Tom? MR. PEEK: I move we keep going. Let's finish this thing. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Let's go. MS. MURRAY: On page 35 -- MR. DUANE: Wait a minute. On 35, we had quite a bit of discussion at our subcommittee on this. I noticed that Bruce Anderson provided some comments in his letter on this section. And Page 41 March 27, 2002 I think the concern was that if we were going to adopt something like this that gave staff a lot of discretion in terms of how they can manipulate development standards that are currently in the Land Development Code, that at the very least that we have some more definitive standards, not only for staff's benefit, but for people that are developing properties and relying on these standards. And, frankly, when someone submits a set of construction plans or even a site plan, he's -- he's made a -- he or she has made a fundamental investment in a piece of property, and we had some concern that private property rights may be a, you know, blessing. So I don't know if anyone else wants to chime in. Susan, I noticed you had incorporated some language subject to the following standards, but the standards aren't there. Had you given that any more thought since our subcommittee meeting? On page 30? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I did. And unfortunately, I think what I did here was I used the existing standards, which aren't obvious to you because they're already in the code, and they're not being changed. But following this paragraph is a list of standards that already exist in the code, and I can read them to you if you want now. MR. DUANE: So we'd just be relying on standards that are currently in place? Is that what you're saying? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. DUANE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And they're just very general standards that deal with landscaping and -- MR. DUANE: Okay. Well, I clarified it then. MS. MURRAY: Okay. MR. DUANE: It's only within the context of our adopted code would you be making these kind of changes at site plan approval? MS. MURRAY: Correct. Page 42 March 27, 2002 MR. DUANE: Thank you very much. I withdraw my objection. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Justin? MR. MARTIN: I still -- in reading this, and when we talked about this in the subcommittee meeting, we were going to add some more specific criteria to this, and I see that we added what -- what has been added is a lot of things that the staff can use their discretion on but doesn't -- it doesn't give anything specifically as to what that discretion's going to be. So I still think, as you read through this thing, that it's -- it's a blank check to -- to -- to redesign land plans. And I think that has a lot of economic impacts as far as consultants and developers and -- and I -- I'm still not happy with the way it's written. MR. DUANE: But, Susan, you're telling me we're not giving you any -- we're not expanding your discretion under this provision because you said we were relying on other provisions of the code. Maybe I misunderstood you. I come in here, have a parking lot around a building, and you decide you'd like to have that parking lot maybe reconfigured differently so there's no parking adjacent to the - - next to the adjacent property. This language doesn't allow you to do that. MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. DUANE: Well, you said we weren't adopting any new -- you told me we were relying on standards that are currently in the Land Development Code. MS. MURRAY: Right. But this adoption of the language as drafted will allow staff where you have properties but that are of different zoning districts, one is less than the other. So obviously if they're not the same, they're -- you're going to have a situation that staff would have the authority to decide on placement of buildings and land-use activities on site. MR. SAVAGE: Question. Page 43 March 27, 2002 MR. DUANE: I do have problems, then, with it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. MR. WHITE' But the scope of that discretion, though, the key words when you read it are on the flip from page 35 to 36, says "shall be designed, placed, and developed to the extent necessary to be" -- and this is the punctual part of it, "the least obtrusive to or create adequate buffering from in the adjacent zoning district." And it's specifically limited then to districts that are zoned or used to a degree of lesser or greater intensity. So I think there are some broad criteria that are available, but it's no different than what you're going to get as staff comments already for noncompliance with existing standards that follow this herd provision. MR. MARTIN: I -- I disagree. I think the statement "least obtrusive" is open to interpretation. And if staff feels that maybe the parking area should be located in a different part of the site and that's least obtrusive, then that's a change, and that's a discretionary change that -- that has a lot of implications to it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco? MR. ESPINAR: One comment is -- and -- and I direct this to people like Bob and Justin who deal with this more commonly than I do, but this is site development plan stage, right? So if you had jurisdictional wetlands and we went to the E -- through the ERP process through the public notice process of the Corps and the Water Management District and you got your water quality certificate and your dredge and fill permit from the Corps, prior to getting your SDP, then you're coming in here. And if these guys modify that, that means you're going to have to then go back to those agencies to modify your existing permits. MR. DUANE: That's possible. MR. ESPINAR: Okay. And in this case -- and I found a lot -- through my experience, sometimes site plans are dictated by Page 44 March 27, 2002 overlapping ordinances. I mean, you got a DOT that says you've got to have your road cut here, you know, that's where you got your cut. Now, I see the danger of this is if somebody, not realizing how many other agencies and ordinances are out there and how we arrived at this, start tweaking these things and -- and start screwing up everything else. I mean, there's -- there's a rhyme and reason sometimes for the way things come out. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. MR. WHITE: I'm just going to make one more comment, Mr. Chairman, that there's no way that we're going to go back and change, if you will, what other agencies compel, number one. I don't think this addresses that at all. So whatever just in rules of fair play exist, they're not being altered by this provision. What this provision does, though, is -- is make more impact the role that staff plays in reviewing any site development plan or site alteration plan, site improvement plan. And that is, we don't believe you've complied with the rules, it isn't going to be approved. And it's as simple as that. And it's always been that simple. This doesn't change the balance of that equation. All it does is put a clearer light on the notion that the planning services director has the authority to make that request and, in essence, quote, require it to the extent that it will balance those two concerns about being the least obtrusive or creating an adequate buffering. It's intended about -- it's intended to, yes, adjust a site plan that has not adequately addressed those considerations that are already part of the standards. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. WHITE: It's a balancing act. MR. SCHMITT: And there's no interpretations being made that violate the Land Development Code. I think Bruce's letter im -- implies that this is going to be a perpetuation of what former employees are fighting for, and that is not the case. The -- I won't Page 45 March 27, 2002 drag all of that into the record. But the fact is, those decisions violated the Land Development Code. This does not allow -- this does not give the planning services director cart blanche authority to - - to amend the Land Development Code. All it's doing is -- is trying to give some discretion to the planning services director in order to, I guess, better word is to blend the two zones together. And that's all it's doing. CHAIRMAN LONGO: First Tom, then Peter. MR. SCHMITT: There's no interpret -- there's no deviation from what's already spelled out through the entire LDC. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Tom? MR. PEEK: I -- I thought I was comfortable -- I thought I was comfortable with this until I heard Patrick's explanation. Then I hear a conflict in there inasmuch as I think you said that the staff is going to review a plan to make sure that the plan complies with the code. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. PEEK: Then your next statement was that they have the right to change the plan, although it complies with the code, so that under their opinion, it better fits with the neighborhood. I find a conflict in that. If you submit a plan, it complies with the code, why can't it be approved as submitted? MR. SAVAGE: Designed by the professional. MR. PEEK: Well, define -- designed by the professional, although it may, in fact, conflict with the opinion of the regular -- regularity. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: This-- MR. PEEK: Whoa, whoa. What's the answer? MR. WHITE: I think the only way that you arrive at an answer, Tom, is that you look at each one of these on a case-by-case basis and come up with the conclusion that there may be differences of Page 46 March 27, 2002 professional judgment and opinion. And when that happens, the idea is, there's never been a circumstance where we've gone ahead and said that if you're code compliant, we're not going to approve. We can always be held to do that through the courts. We don't, of course, want people to have to go through that step. This is about being reasonable and putting people on notice of how we're going to exercise reasonable judgment. If-- if you have an express standard, we're not going to, quote, violate it based upon the discretion forwarded by this provision. But what we're telling you is that where reasonable professionals can differ, just as they always have in the past. And you had to, in essence, acquiesce to the opinion of the staff person in order to get that signature on the line, or failing that, find some alternative process to resolve the conflict. All this does is illuminate that process and make it specific to the notion where there is the idea that there are adjacent zoning districts of greater or lesser intensity, and we're looking to, as Joe's indicated, blend them. The whole thing that this business is about is recognizing impacts from uses and how they're sited and when we believe that those have not been done according to the direction of the code and the comprehensive plan, we're going to tell you about it, the same way we've always told you about it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. PEEK: Just to carry the discussion to the next step forward, under the current regulations, if I bring a plan in and present it and it's within the letter of the code and the reviewer, the director, finds that they don't agree with the way that that's laid out, although it's within the -- the parameters of the code and they would like parking lot A moved on the other side of the building because they think it will look better or fit the neighborhood better and I disagree, under the current code they can deny it, but I've got the code Page 47 March 27, 2002 provision that says, no, it's permitted. So we have a strong argument. If this is adopted, I bring that same scenario and the staff says that, no, we want the parking lot moved on the other side of the building because it is more compatible with the neighborhood and they deny it, then I've got to go and prove that they're wrong. The weight of the -- the weight of the law swaps position from the petitioner to the government, and that's my objection to it. MR. WHITE: I -- I think that what this does is illuminate a circumstance where that standard, that -- that burden of proof, if you will, the presumption of correctness, it's always been with the government in terms of how it applies its own rules. In -- in every case I've had. I mean, that's what the judges will tell you. There are limited exceptions, but that's the general rule. And all -- that this provision is attempting to do is to identify where you have code compliance that may be demonstrated on two different site plans where specifics with respect to buffering and parking and whatever, both of them are equally code compliant, but one of them reflects a circumstance that there -- doesn't meet that functional test, that is the least obtrusive to or does it create adequate buffering from. Where you haven't adequately adjusted, if you will, those impacts by your site plan, this is giving the planning services director the authority to say we don't believe you've balanced them properly, we want you to do this. And I submit to you that that is no different than any other thing that we've ever done in the past. You're saying that it's different because -- you're saying it's different in the past you'd have demonstrated code compliance. And I'll tell you that if you haven't done that to staffs satisfaction, I don't see any approval getting on your SDP. MR. PEEK: Why change it? MR. WHITE' I think we're changing it because we perceive -- Page 48 March 27, 2002 Bruce says, what is the evil? Well, the evil is that there's been a failure at the site planning self, site development plan level, to consider all of those factors in a way that balances them consistent with the reg -- rest of the regulatory factor. You may have met the code, but when you're all done putting it down on the ground, it isn't going to be the best fit, if you will, for the surrounding uses as developer or as proposed to be developed. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Justin. MR. MARTIN: If that's the intent, then why not put specific language in the buffering requirements instead of giving cart blanche to the director and change the plan, the site plan? MR. WHITE' If-- if we can envision every number of infinite variable possibilities, I guess we could. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter? MR. VAN ARSDALE' Well, it just -- it seems that what -- what you're doing here, though, is inconsistent with what you're trying to -- what you're doing in the beginning of the plan. I mean, first, you're trying to leave discretion from the staff, which I think is the correct thing to do, and now we're trying to add new layers. And -- and -- and what we need are good rules. I think what Justin just suggested is, you can write rules that deal with these either higher or lesser intense uses, and that's what should be done, and then -- and then those are the rules for -- for both sides and not go down this path because it's -- it's -- it winds up being too arbitrary and in many cases unreasonable. MR. WHITE: The fact of the matter is that every one of those rules that are the following standards or are standards referenced elsewhere in the LDC can and should be amended as each of those circumstances are identified. And we've attempted to do that throughout the history of these regulations, and we'll continue to do that. But that doesn't prove the point that says that at some point who Page 49 March 27, 2002 has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the overall purpose and intent of the regulatory fabric is being met or not. And I submit to you that that's not ultimately something that resides with the property owner but, rather, with the regulatory agency. And I think if you think about it from that end of the telescope, you'll see that it's no different than the philosophy we've always complied. And to go back to the idea of how it's inconsistent with what the board's overall direction to staff has been, I don't think it is. What staff is being told is at the use level, okay, when you choose your uses, the board wants to be more actively involved. I.e., they want to implement their policy in those choices. But at the site development level, they don't want to be in the site development planning business. And I can tell you that if you've seen any of the recent zoning cases over the last two months, that's what's happening to folks. And I submit that if you do not afford this amount of discretion and have the opportunity over time to tweak those places where you need more specific standards to work these things out and put them in the code and still afford that balancing right, if you will, to the government, you're going to end up with more and more site development planning at the board level as part of your zoning. That's the thing that neighbors are concerned about and don't want to see happen. Those are the cases that we're in litigation over. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Yeah, but what you have -- what you're saying, though, is that any -- any -- anyplace that these different uses abut each other and any property owner is not clear on what he can develop on that site. MR. WHITE: No, the uses are -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Not the uses. I'm talking about what -- what you put on paper with a pen and how you design the thing, and you go through all this work to develop a project. And when do you - - how do you know what you're supposed to do? I mean, we're a Page 50 March 27, 2002 nation of laws, and this -- there's so much discretion here, I don't -- I don't understand why we don't try to write better laws. I understand you can't write a law for everything, but you -- that's true in every case. You take what you -- you take the best that you could develop. MR. WHITE: What I'm suggesting, gentlemen and ladies, is that this provision illuminates what the balancing is going to be by the planning services director so that when you do come in with your project, and in the past we may have said we don't like it for these reasons, we're telling you what the prioritization is that you should make relative to the different types of elements that go into a site development plan relative to parking, buffering, building location, detention. We're -- we're giving you, if you will, a -- a flexible standard, but we're illuminating it. We're telling you that as you implement those priorities, this is the goal that you should be seeking to create, to -- to implement, rather. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, Bob said it early on: Property rights. I don't know why we have to sit here and decide whether the owner is going to make a profit or a loss, whether he's going to make anything out of it at all. If it meets the codes that are written, it's up to the owner and his designer, a professional I hope, to make those decisions. And if it meets the written code, then I can't see somebody in the governmental area telling me I have to put the parking lot over here instead of over here if it meets the DEPEP and all those other things. This is a ridiculous thing. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Do we want to take an action on this? A comment, Brian? MR. MILK: Just a comment. I think there's preferable site plans and nonpreferable site plans, the good versus bad, the bad being the nonpreapp, the nondiscovery, the nonlooked at from all of the design professionals at the county level, versus the ones that are quick and dirty and submitted because of time elements, building Page 51 March 27, 2002 permit elements, raise in impact fees, whatever you want to call it. And I think that is an undue burden on the staff from the design professionals. I reviewed all of them, and I would prefer the ones that are coordinated and have the preapps, and I think they would come out much more tolerant to the collective district than the ones that are trying to beat the system. I -- I would have some hesitation on how the language is written. I like the intent of it. I think it merits the intent to have staff and -- and the planning director have that ability to -- to make that call. Somebody has to make that call at the staff level. That degree, I think there's enough architectural guidelines, landscaping, parking, site development plan to provide that mechanism for the design professional to do the right thing. And I think at the preapp it ought to fall out, and that's typically where it doesn't fall out. So for those reasons, I'm going to support the language, because somebody has to make the call on the end run, if it's the planning director, then that's who it should be. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Yeah, but I guess the question is, though, Brian, if it conforms to all the laws that are written or the LDC -- LDC codes that are written, then it conforms. And how can we leave it up to staff discretion to change it if it conforms? MR. MILK: Well, I think conforms is the interpretation. You may think and I may think differently, and it may say the same thing. But we have a right to not agree on that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: But what makes the staff planner's vision of that piece of property and how it should be planned any different or better than a design professional submitting it conforming to all the codes? MR. MILK: I think the design professional is driven by a budget and somebody in the private sector that maybe is another agenda versus what the public has to use for consistency purposes. Page 52 March 27, 2002 And that's Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. PEEK: To -- to move this forward, I'd make a motion that we reject this proposal. MR. DUANE: Second. MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any -- any comments or discussion? MS. MURRAY: I got a quick comment. The purpose and intent of the district already, really, kind of allows us to do this, if-- if you've read it. I think this just really clarifies a little bit more of the role and brings it to people's attention, for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Call the question. MR. DUANE: Comment, Susan. Are there some standards that the staffjust doesn't have a comfort level with, like, you have two different zoning districts, if it's single family, multifamily, it's a B- type buffer. If the B buffer isn't wide enough or need more trees, isn't -- isn't that a standard we should change? We have a standard in our zoning districts 25 feet from residential. If that standard is problematic and it ought to be 35 feet, we -- we have variations in height based on, you know, the size on some lots. I feel more comfortable going and -- and putting the standard back in that addresses your concerns. Again, rather than have something I think is just too open-ended. MS. MURRAY: It's really -- well, let me point to an example. We had a rezoning case where there was affordable housing, multifamily adjacent to a PUD multifamily and a 300-feet separation with a native vegetation buffer of not enough to separate two like uses for the public. Most of this -- most of our issues come about with site design and -- and another example, and it -- and it's not just commercial. Another residential PUD abutted multifamily residential next to Page 53 March 27, 2002 a county water treatment plant, and now they're complaining that the county water treatment plant is keeping them awake at night, and the county water treatment plant was there for years. I have another situation where I've got a C-5 that abuts a multifamily residential, and there's a very large commercial -- high intense commercial use going to be going there, and the residential folks are going to be looking -- over on what's the equivalent of a storage yard, a yard where there's going to be forklifts and lumber and everything stored there. There's -- there's no way any type of landscape buffer or any type of, you know -- other than the rearrangement or -- better arrangement of a site is going to mitigate the impacts of issues like that. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So what -- what would you do in that case? I mean, if I own that -- if I own that site, what are you going to tell me that I can do other than what the law says -- MS. MURRAY: We take a look at the -- well, we would taking a look at the arrangement of the your buildings and the site circulation in relation to abutting properties, be they developed or undeveloped, if they're a lesser intensity and see how we could better arrange their required landscape buffers or the location of structures so that-- to mitigate the impacts. CHAIRMAN LONGO' I'd just like to make a comment. Who has the better prop -- private property rights? The general public and the residential person sitting over there or the guy who owns the piece of property for the lumberyard? Who -- who makes the decision of who's got the better rights? I mean, the lumberyard should be able to use the lumberyard for its intended purposes in zoning in its district and all that. It's a lumberyard. The people that bought the houses next to the sewer plant that's existing knew they were buying a house next to a sewer plant that was existing. Page 54 March 27, 2002 MR. PEEPLES: That's not the law. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman-- MR. WHITE' That's not the issue. The issue is, once you've got those uses that are adjacent or abutting to each other or in proximity to each other, the question is, when you develop the site plan, how can you best accommodate that mix of uses, based upon where you locate the various elements that are part of-- part of the site development plan? It's the same thing an architect, if you will, does in choosing different spaces inside of a building, by analogy. There are -- there are some places that are more appropriate than others, based upon the function and purpose of that space, and that's the same thing that's occurring at the site development plan, which I argue is the same thing that occurs at the zoning level with respect to uses. All we're doing at this point is -- is following the same pattern of regulation, except making it clearer to you that this is what we're doing at the site development planning level so that we, as all practicing professionals, have a means and a mechanism to balance those opinions without having to have the board of county commissioners do it in a public hearing forum. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. One more comment. Then I'm going to call the vote. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, listening to Tom Peek, Bob, Brian, Justin, is there a language that will be placed in this paragraph that would be acceptable and not quite so harsh as we read that we could amend this or at least come back a little bit more modification instead of just deleting it? We all have earnest opinions about all of this, and it should be something we would all work together on. MR. MARTIN: That's what we thought would happen between the LDC subcommittee meeting and now. There have been some more descriptive things inserted in here, but the -- the crux of the Page 55 March 27, 2002 language remains the same. MR. ESPINAR: Just one comment, that is things are not that black and white. I mean, the county is looking at -- and they've got their blinders on saying we're looking at these ordinances without realizing that there are other government agencies that have rules and regulations that we have to conform with also. Sometimes there's a rhyme and reason why we have to situate a building where it's at. For the county to sit there and say no you have to move it -- in the permitting process, I reiterate, we have to go through the government agencies prior to coming to the SDP. That means, then, we're going to have to modify all these permits unnecessarily. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. I want to call the question. Right now you have a motion on --. MR. SCHMITT: The county has no authority to usurp if the Water Management District or the Corps stipulates. If you go through the planning process and get approval from the Corps, I think that's an -- an explanation to the planning chief, if it comes down to a discussion. I think what you're referring to is the fact that the planning chief says move this. You would have to go back and go through the entire process again. Has this ever happened before? I mean, are these things that you've encountered? Because we're not going to usurp the authority of-- of the federal or state agencies. If you-- if you design to conform with Section 4.4 of the Clean Water Act or some of the others specified DEPA (phonetic) requirements -- to meet architectural standards, we're not going to -- we're not going to go back and violate any of those laws. MR. ESPINAR: Let's reiterate something that Tom Peek said, is that in this case the burden is on us. I mean, if we meet all the criteria as set forth by the Land Development Code when we come in and that project meets all your requirements, we've got all our Page 56 March 27, 2002 permits in hand, you have a planner who sits there and says I'm not comfortable with this site plan, then the burden of proof is placed on us to have to prove him wrong instead -- I mean, if the thing is within the law, I mean, it meets the criteria of the law, period. MR. SCHMITT: Well, but this -- this activity, all we're doing here is trying -- okay. I'm going to go one step further. Regardless, if you don't do that in front -- with -- with the staff, you're going to confront the same issue when you go to the planning commission or when it goes forward to the board. So why not try and address it -- address it with the staff?. The staff is not going to tell you to redesign your site development plan. I mean, that -- those are going to be extenuating mitigating circumstances, and you're going to present to the staff as to why you-- you were confined to the box you're in. Susan, am I wrong here? I think all we're trying to do is just allow the -- the chief of planning services some -- some discretion as to how it affects -- best blend the uses. That's all we're trying to do here. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I-- I agree with you, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: I -- I don't -- this is not a -- a cart blanche credit card where -- where you're going to -- you've got to go through another board process here within -- within the planning services. That's not the intent. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Director, I might say this might be so today. It might be so this year, but, you know, laws are written like this four, five years down the road, you may get somebody who has exactly the intent to make it difficult for everyone so that we should have it written in the book that it works both ways. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I call-- MR. SAVAGE: Not just governmental agencies. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'm going to call the question. Motion remains the same. It's been seconded. All in favor? Page 57 March 27, 2002 MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR DUANE: Aye. MR. ESPINAR: Aye. MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR. VAN ARSDALE: MR. PEEPLES: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Aye. All opposed? MR. MILK: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian Milk opposed. MR. SCHMITT: What have -- the final verdict on this you were saying, to go back and rewrite or-- CHAIRMAN LONGO: To reject it as it's written. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Does anybody want to take a break? (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Bring the meeting back to order, please. Before we get started, I'm going to make the suggestion that -- that we stop at noon and that we pick this back up at our DSAC meeting next Wednesday. The agenda for next Wednesday is basically public transportation report, utilities report to us as an update. That's the only two, really, staff announcement items we have. We have old business and the subcommittee report. So what we don't finish today, I'd like to go ahead and finish next Wednesday, if that's to the wishes of the committee here. Is that okay? MR. PEEPLES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. We are on page 38. Page 58 March 27, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 38 has to do with coastal construction lane setback. I have Barbara Burgess in here to give you an overview, if you like. And I think there are some members of the audience that wish to speak. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Do you want to hear the overview first, Marco? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with planning services. Just as a brief overview on this, the subcommittee met and had recommended some modification to the language under 3.13.8.3. We've done those changes. Just to -- to simplify the language, make it more clearer that a building permit is necessary for that and combined two separate sections or subsections so that it read more clearly. The EAC recommended approval of the first half of this amendment which addresses the minimum separation between walkovers, but they unanimously supported removal or not -- not approving 3.13.8.3 in its entirety. Their purpose or reason for that was that it could only pose negative impacts to the dune system and saw no benefit to the community. The only other comments that I have, I guess, are the ones that were submitted by Bruce Anderson, which you've already received those comments. I just have a concern about adding a new permit that currently isn't in existence, and then the other concerns that we have, I guess, are our -- from the public here, and they -- I don't know if you want to hear their position first. I might want to respond to that or if you want to talk about -- or ask me questions first, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Start with the committee first, or did you have questions? MR. ESPINAR: I'll wait till comments, public comments. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Do we have public comments? Page 59 March 27, 2002 MR. RYAN: Yeah. I'm James Ryan from Barefoot Beach POA, serve on the board. I'll make this short. We had storm damage up there; dunes washed out. We've rebuilt the dunes. We've put in a new irrigation system. We planted 35,000 sea oats. We're trying to do it and do it right. Okay? There are 22 single-family homes in the development. We do not get four to five years out of a paint job up there, and you have to go back in and paint the houses. You need a tall cherry picker to get up and do this job. We've asked for 25 feet of sod to go abut the house and then going westward so they can get the cherry picker in and work on the house without destroying the sand or whatever it might be. This is written at 15 feet that does nothing for us. We would like to see a modification to the 25 feet. The other area that bothers us, the development has -- was started in '78. There's been plantings going on there for years and years and years and years. There is sod been planted, been there for 10, 15 years that is westward of the CCSL line. We've been informed that we have to remove that sod. That bothers us. It's been there forever. It holds the sand down. Everything else we have done and want to do are in compliance with the rules and regulations. We want to go forward with more plantings that all of which will be done with indigenous species right on down. We've been told that in order to redo that, we have to go in and get 33 permits as opposed to getting one plan and get it approved. We would like to have some input from the board here to at least give us the 25 feet in front of the houses so we can get a cherry picker in and work on the houses. We would like to have the existing sod that's in place grand fathered, and we would like to have the ability to submit one plan showing what we want to do, all of which will be in compliance as to vegetation and species for Zone 1, but not have to get 33 separate Page 60 March 27, 2002 plans to say that this plant goes here on this lot and this plant goes here on that lot. That's sort of a major overkill, as far as we're concerned. So if we can get some relief from the board, we would greatly appreciate it. MS. BURGESON: Susan, can I comment to that, please? MS. MURRAY: Sure. MS. BURGESON: We spoke with Matt about two weeks ago, and I want to disagree with one of the comments you made. We did say that you could submit the same plan for all of the buildings, all the single-family homes -- MR. RYAN: As long as they're equal in di -- a mirror image of each other, you can't do that. MS. BURGESON: Other -- otherwise, for instance, it's the same thing as if somebody came in and wanted to pull a building permit for a pool or a small chickee or something else that requires a building permit. It -- it takes staff time review. Each single property owner needs a separate permit. It's a different permit. It's a different property owner. We were -- we were saying that we could do a quicker review if they were similar plans, but you still have to get a permit, each property needs -- MR. RYAN: But they're all vegetation, which is in compliance with front-line vegetation. The plants all conform. And we have to hire somebody to draw 35 or 33 different plans to plant the same bushes in 33 different lots, that's crazy. MS. BURGESON: No. I told you if you want to create one plan -- MR. RYAN: Does it have to be a mirror image? Each lot has to be planted identical to every one, or can they change? MS. BURGESON: If it changes, then it takes staff review. MR. RYAN: It takes another permit. Page 61 March 27, 2002 MS. BURGESON: But you need a separate permit whether it's mirror image or not. It's a separate property ownership. It's a separate permit if you're building a chickee, if you are building -- putting anything else on -- on that property. It's a separate ownership. It require -- each property owner requires their own permit. MR. RYAN: Eleven of them are owned by the association. CHAIRMAN LONGO: We're getting off on--. MS. BURGESON: I told you those would be handled under one permit. CHAIRMAN LONGO: We're getting off on a tangent that has nothing to do -- I'm sorry. It has nothing to do with this proposed change. MR. RYAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is there a particular issue, other than the plantings you're discussing with Barbara of this LDC amendment that you have issue with? MR. RYAN: The 25 feet instead of the 15 feet. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. There we go. Do we have any comments on that? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Yes, sir. MR. ESPINAR: Upon investigating numerous ordinance of these that were presented to me, I investigated what prompted this particular ordinance. And my understanding is that there is a compliance issue with, I guess, an individual or homeowners going out and planting beyond the CCSL line, putting sod and putting plantings back in there. This is one of these things -- ordinance of, well, we've got a nonconforming use or we've got a problem, so let's write an ordinance so we can get-- have the problem go away. With that being said, we're also mixing numerous issues with Page 62 March 27, 2002 this ordinance here. The first one is, like I stated, this is an enforcement issue that is -- that is stemmed up in the Barefoot Beach area, my understanding, by a permit that was erroneously issued by senior staff. And they decided to then come back and amend the -- make it a conforming use and, of course, this is similar to another situation the county is facing. The second issue is dune restoration. There's nothing wrong with dune restoration. In fact, we should encourage dune restoration, as long as the dune restoration is that of native vegetation. But the third issue here is what -- what we're talking about is having homeowners build, okay, sort of like a zero lot line, they're coming all the way up to the CCCL line. And now what they're requesting is, oh, we want a yard, so let's go beyond that. That's rewarding. Okay. Here we're talking back to the -- you know, how staff is -- wants to design this. This is one where we're rewarding, sort of, bad behavior. If you're going to build all the way to the CCCL line or to the edge of your property line, that's your choice. That's the choice you have made, okay. If you wanted a yard, you should have made that a consider -- taken that into consideration. I -- I think it's wrong to build to a zero -- to the edge of the CCCL line and then come in and request that, oh, I need -- I need a yard. I -- I'm opposed to this whole ordinance except for the very beginning ordinance, and I support EAC's position. MR. MILK: Can I -- can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Brian. MR. MILK: Marco, that lawn that they propose, is that -- is the lawn that they propose, is that salt tolerant? Does that hold up to high tides and storms and coverage and submergence and --. MR. ESPINAR: Well, I think -- I don't know the answer to -- to your question-- MR. MILK: In other words, if they get a high tide will the grass Page 63 March 27, 2002 die? MR. ESPINAR: Well, this is the dune vegetation. You're way away from the beach. Okay? So I don't know the answer to your question. I would assume that whatever they plant there has to be somewhat salt tolerant, but it doesn't necessarily have to mean -- salt tolerant doesn't necessarily mean native. There is a lot of nonnative vegetation that are salt tolerant. I mean, tropical almond, for instance, is all over the place, but that's not native. And, in fact, an exotic. Australia pines. You know, that's -- you know -- MR. MILK: I guess I'm looking at the dune restoration and the preservation of that. MR. ESPINAR: Dune restoration will be -- should be utilized just like we do in the city, Marco Island, in the whole county. Dune restoration is dune restoration. Utilize sea oats, native vegetation, railroad line, that type of indigenous native beach vegetation. Sod is not. MR. MILK: Where is this window of opportunity? Where are we talking about between the CCSL line or the dune? MR. ESPINAR: I think Barbara will be more -- MR. MILK: I guess I'm confused. MR. RYAN: Can I enlighten you here? We have done the dune restoration up at Barefoot Beach, and we planted 35,000 sea oats, 40 feet past the dunes. We've rebuilt the dunes with salt-tolerant grasses already. We've done that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Can I -- MR. SAVAGE: Can you show us what you're showing them over there? What is that? MR. GEORGE: I'm Dan George with Barefoot Beach POA also. This shows the dunes where we've rebuilt the dunes and all of the sea oats that have been replanted, the area -- and these are the beach gardens. I don't know if you can see them from the back, but Page 64 March 27, 2002 these were laid out by Lely in the '70s, and this -- these front lots is the lots where we're talking about where we're -- we'd like to see 25 feet of sod put in front of them. Actually, those lots are owned to the high -- mean high water tidemark. And the CCSL line actually cuts back into the beach garden, which this is owned (indicating) by the -- the POA, the common areas. But it cuts back in about halfway back on the first home of the CCSL line. And we've rebuilt the dunes, put in the sea oats. And behind this -- the sea oats, then, we had-- we've been working with Alex and trying to formulate a plan to put in tiered plants behind that to protect the homes and etc. back in there. But, as you'll see, in some of these pictures, the sod is out in front of the homes and has been for 30 -- well, since the late '70s. But when Lely laid this thing out, he made an agreement with whoever you make the agreement with, and it's in the PUD that there would be no nonnative vegetation inside this -- or outside, however you want to look at it, the CCSL line. Well, they made that agreement, but then they put in all these beach gardens, put the sod in. It wasn't the homeowners that did it. We bought in there unknowingly that this was the case. And in most cases, when he built the homes, the homes had the sod placed in front of them. But they're not -- they're not -- we've kind of been painted with the same brush that they did down in The Strand. Some of them down there, they actually put the sod clear up on the back of the dunes, and that's not what we're proposing, and that's not what we want. We'd like to be able to have a little bit of sod in front of our homes. Myself, I have a dog that walks out in front; if kids walk around it's nice they don't track all the sand in. But it will give us a little bit of relief, but yet we're still putting sea oats and other -- the other tiered plantings to protect the dunes. We're not -- you know, what we want to do isn't going to hurt the dunes. And I guess my question has always been is it's been there all Page 65 March 27, 2002 this time. Now why all of a sudden is it a problem to ask us to remove all the sod? CHAIRMAN LONGO: I have a question. The distance seaward of the CCSL today as it stands, what is that or is there? MS. BURGESON: There's two issues. One is down at The Strand where the single-family homes have a consistent CCSL, and then the second is up at Lely Barefoot Beach, which is a result of a lawsuit and mitigation -- excuse me -- with the old DER, they allow the exception where the old CCSL line have been consistent, they allowed those single-family homes to go even further than the CCSL and jut out. So what you've got there is that entire lot that goes down is in front of what was the old CCSL that the county adopted until Lely development came in and created that and termed that differently and called that the coastal construction development limit line. So they went and made an exception for the single-family home lots to go out further than the rest of that line. That -- everything in front of that line originally when the PUD was created and that line was created was dune vegetation. Since then a lot of the homes came in and -- and did put sod in front. And when Mike Kirby worked in the code enforcement for the 10 or 11 years that he was here, he had many cases where he started a case -- case violations. But because of his supervisors at the time, Dick Clark and Bill Smith had told him to drop it because the Lely homeowners had more money and -- the honest reason is they did not want to get into a lawsuit about it. So they just didn't pursue them. So that's why a lot of that sod is still there. The recent storm that came through shows the need for the dunes in that area. As a result of that storm you had a great deal of sand washed over from the -- the whole dune system washed right up against the homes there. Now, it is true that a lot of those homes that they -- they have Page 66 March 27, 2002 sod, but that wasn't the original conditions of that area. So to try to answer your question, everything in front of that coastal construction setback line or the development limit line was originally a dune, either at the primary dune or a back dune or a strand area. So everything in front of that-- MS. MURRAY: Barb, I mean, what is the ration -- the nexus for the 15 or the reasoning for the 15 feet? I was told by another staff member it was because 15 feet was really where the dunes began, the true dune began, and the concern over not having greater than ! 5 was --. MS. BURGESON: No. The 15 had nothing to do with the existing conditions. It was just a number that we picked to minimize impacts to -- to existing dune vegetation to remove them. I mean, we're concerned about -- so -- so that whole area is actually dune or back to dune or strand. MS. MURRAY: Okay. So the 15 feet is just to provide a usable area around--. MS. BURGESON' Right. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That's fine. And I need to set the record straight. And I don't mean to belabor this. But I'm a little upset that people are bringing up erroneous information about how this amendment all came about. And this all came about because, yeah, there are existing code cases. That's neither here nor there. I wasn't even aware of that fact when I suggested we might look at making this amendment. But I was approached by several property owners who wanted to plant, not native vegetation and/or pavers in an area westward of the CCSL line. And I said, "No. I'm sorry. The code doesn't permit that." I later went back to my environmental staff and asked the reason why, and we had a very long discussion about the reason that the code exists today and dune systems and the history of the buildings Page 67 March 27, 2002 and the impact the buildings have had on -- MR. SAVAGE: Turtles. MS. MURRAY: -- the wind and how the wind affects the vegetation. I mean, it was very detailed. And the bottom line was, was there a way -- because the request seems reasonable to me. If you have a structure, it would be nice to at least be able to access the structure for maintenance purposes. My opinion was, if there was a way we could allow the residents to have some roundabout access to their structure and not disturb the dunes or the environment, could we accomplish that? I was told yes. MR. SCHMITT: Provided DEP -- they have a DEP permit, though, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Right. Right. And I don't want to dismiss that. And my staff came up with 15 feet. Now, these folks disagree, and that's fine but -- but the information that was presented to you today about how this came about is incorrect. The Lund property, which is the property in Pelican Bay, has nothing to do with this. It was a decision that was made by a past employee, and it's -- it is not related to the decision I made to pursue this amendment. I just want to make sure that's clear for the record. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. RYAN: I'd like the record to be clear-- also, this goes along with the situation that the board may believe that there are manicured, finished lots westward of these houses. There are not. Most of that is sand or native vegetation, but this is not The Strand. We have not taken from the house and gone to the dune and finished the lots off. They are not finished off. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco. MR. ESPINAR: Just one other comment, and that is, to keep in Page 68 March 27, 2002 mind is the cumulative effect here of what we're doing. We're not just -- this is not an ordinance -- it's just affecting one or two homes. Basically what you're setting is a precedent that then any homeowner, you know, within the county along the beachfront has the same right to put pavers and start landscaping. I mean, where do you draw the line? Where -- where does it come? And with that said, I don't know if it will be supportive, but I want to make a motion that we approve this amendment as outlined by the EAC, which is -- which includes 3.13.83 through 3.8.3.4. I move that we approve that and deny the rest. MR. MASTERS: MR. ESPINAR: MR. MASTERS: MR. ESPINAR: MR. MASTERS: MR. ESPINAR: It's the other way around. I'm sorry. What? I think it's the other way around. What'd I say? They approved the walkovers but--. Yeah. The walkover-- approve the walkovers MR. MASTERS: And took out the other part. MR. ESPINAR: -- and took out -- took out the rest, yeah. I make a motion we support that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do you want to restate that again? MR. ESPINAR: Sorry, guys. I make a motion --. MR. MASTERS: He's saying the same as the EAC. MR. ESP1NAR: The same as the EAC. I'm make a motion that we approve the recommendation from the EAC. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And that recommendation is ... MR. ESPINAR: Removal of Section 3.13.8.3 through 3.13.8.3.4. Yeah. I'm sorry. I did read it backwards. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. So what you're asking is not to be able to put the pavers, decks, and other things in beyond the coastal construction setback line. Page 69 March 27, 2002 MR. ESPINAR: Correct. MR. SAVAGE: Inasmuch as there was no second, I'd like to ask the question, the 25 feet, I think, is important for access to the building. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well -- Does that have anything to do with this MR. SAVAGE: motion? MR. MARTIN: MR. AB BOTT: His motion strikes that. But it still has to leave native plants; correct? MR. SAVAGE: And you can still leave the grass in? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. SAVAGE: It's ridiculous that we can't have the grass. MR. PEEK: Inasmuch as the 15 feet specified in this proposal by staff has no basis other than sounding like a good number, I would move that we recommend support for the entire proposal changing the 15 feet to 25 feet. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I second that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, hang on a second. We have a-- first, we had a motion on the floor from Marco. There was no second? Is there still no second? MR. DUANE: It died. CHAIRMAN LONGO: It died on the table. Tom, your motion again? MR. PEEK: I move that we support the proposal or the modifications to Section 3.13.8 and change 3.13.8.3.2 from 15 feet to 25 feet. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is there a second? Second. Okay. And now discussion? MR. SAVAGE: I ask the question again: Are we allowed, then, what -- approval of this to plant and leave the grass in that area? If Page 70 March 27, 2002 we are -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: That's a good question. It says use of pavers, decks, or wooden or synthetic, -- song -- shell lawn and nonnative coastal plant species on a single-family lot. MR. SAVAGE: That's our interpretation? CHAIRMAN LONGO: That's what this is saying is allowable. MR. MARTIN: I have just a question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Justin. MR. MARTIN: Is -- is this whole section here being proposed, or is it just what's underlined? MS. MURRAY: Just what's underlined is being proposed. Anything struck out is proposed to be deleted. Anything underlined proposed to be added. MR. MARTIN: Okay. So the existing LDC contains 3.13.8.1. We're just adding the last. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any more discussion? Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: I'd like to have a little comment here. In 8.3 where it says use of pavers and all that, it has two things that I -- this -- this is what I think ought to be admitted. I think we ought to be able to use shell in the lawn, you know, the -- the lawn's not going to be any good unless it is a salt tolerant, some form of St. Augustine. But I use shell all the time as -- instead of mulch, and it's very compatible and doesn't blow away, it doesn't wash away. It's very handy for me. So I'd hate to see it being restricted anywhere. MR. VAN ARSDALE: This allows the use of it. MR. ABBOTT: I understand. I'm just saying let's be careful here when we're throwing out everything we don't throw out the baby and the bath water together. But I would like to leave the lawn and the shell, period, and I don't want -- I don't worry about pavers And decks and such, if that's the issue. Page 71 March 27, 2002 MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, as the motion proposes --. MR. ABBOTT: I want it reiterated to me. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All that changes is this changes that 15 feet to 25. Okay. I call-- MR. MILK: Can I ask a question? On that 15 feet, again, is that just after the CCSL line it goes to 25 feet, all those houses in those horse shoes don't have grass, or they do have grass? MS. MURRAY: I think they do have grass illegally right now. MR. MILK: Illegally. MR. VAN ARSDALE: It's just the area seaward of the coastal construction. MS. BURGESON: There's a huge common area in there that has sod legally and an area beyond that line that they've illegally extended it. That would be removed. But they would still retain a huge lawn area. CHAIRMAN LONGO: But we're saying in this they can have it 25 feet more? MS. BURGESON: No. Not in the common area. The reason for this being just for single-family homes is to minimize the impact to the dunes and usable lawn or yard area. But those common areas already have hundreds of feet of sod. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. But the 25 feet, where does it apply to? MS. BURGESON: Just to the single-family homes, which have no usable lawn already. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Seaward of the coastal construction setback line. Okay. Does everybody understand that? Okay. MR. ESPINAR: Comment on the motion that's here. So then basically what we're saying is, it's okay to build a house up to your CCCL line, maximize your site, and we're going to reward you by giving you 25 feet of lawn beyond that. I think that sends the wrong Page 72 March 27, 2002 message; I really do. I mean, here we are. We were just discussing, you know, different ordinances of how to make a better product, and I think this goes against that. MR. ABBOTT: I disagree in that it's their land. They already own it. What we're trying to do is -- any house built within setbacks, it's still your yard out there to the street right -of-way. MR. ESPINAR: I beg to differ. You're right; it is their land. However, when you're dealing with the beach, you're talking about something that we all own. And when a storm surge comes up, the dune -- a dune has got specific function, and that is to protect structures and to protect the integrity of the beach. Once you start changing that dune system and start putting sod in there, you're going to start changing the integrity of the beach. You're going to increase erosion and that does affect us because that is my tax dollars also that goes into beach renourishment throughout this whole county. CHAIRMAN LONGO: The question is, how far away is the dune system from the coastal construction setback line? MR. RYAN: That's important. None of these houses are built to the dune system, period. They're all east of the dune system. We've restored the dune system. We've planted 35,000 sea oats. These houses are not at the dune area. MR. PEEK: Call the question. MR. DUANE: Call the question. CHAIRMAN LONGO: The question's been called. All in favor? MR. MASTERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Aye. MR. ABBOTT: Aye. MR. MILK: Aye. MR. MARTIN: Aye. MR. DUANE: Aye. Page 73 March 27, 2002 MR. JONES: Aye. MR. PEEK: Aye. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. MR VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONG: MR. PEEPLES: Nay. All against. MR. ESP1NAR: Against. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Perry Peeples and Marco Espinar. Okay. I'm going to call the meeting, stop it here, unless somebody has any objections. And we're going to take it up at page 40 at our regularly scheduled DSAC meeting next Wednesday. I'll enter -- I'll entertain a motion to dismiss. MR. PEEK: I so move. MR. MARTIN: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:07 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DINO LONGO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 74