Loading...
DSAC Minutes 04/03/2002 RApril 3, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 3, 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 3:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "E", 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Dino J. Longo Tom Masters, P.E. Charles M. Abbott Dalas D. Disney, A.I.A. Robert L. Duane, A.I.C.P. Marco A. Espinar, P.E. Herbert R. Savage, A.I.A. Bryan Milk Anthony Pires, Jr., Esquire Justin Martin, P.E. Peter Van Arsdale ABSENT: Blair A. Foley, P.E. Thomas R. Peek, P.E. Page 1 April 3, 2002 C. Perry Peeples Brian E. Jones ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Denny Baker, Community Development Business Manager Edward Perico, Building Review Permitting Director Tom Wides, Interim Administrator Public Utilities Joe Schmitt, Administrator Community Development Environmental Services Page 2 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. I need an approval of the agenda. MR. ESPINAR: So moved. MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is there discussion? Ed, do you want to amend the agenda at all? MR. PERICO: No. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do you still want to do your presentation? MR. DUANE: I do. I'd like to add something to the agenda. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And what might that be? MR. DUANE: That would be LDC updates, getting policy available to the public in a more timely manner. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. DUANE: Won't take a minute. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. We are at-- Justin. MR. MARTIN: I also have -- would like to mention that the agenda Item 2 -- I don't see that it includes where we left off at the last March 27th meeting. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Someone else had a question. Okay. I'm going to make a proposal. Peter, was it you? MR. VAN ARSDALE: I was wondering if we can get an update on the building permit operation's issue. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Let me put this before the committee real quick. We have 60-something pages of LDC amendments to get through. I've already asked Ed if he needs to do his presentation today. You may have gotten an e-mail saying that he -- we added an agenda item. He is willing to do that next month. It's on the construction of the new building. He's actually not 100 percent Page 3 April 3, 2002 prepared today, so he still may be lacking some information, so we'll move that to next month if that's okay with the committee. Dalas. MR. DISNEY: Comment on that. You're going to go another 30 days, do you know the production of those documents, I got 12 items here that I sent in. MR. PERICO: If you want a response, I'm ready to address those items if you want to. MR. DISNEY: It just seems to me that -- that we've asked questions month after month. All of that gets put off, and it's going to be a month further down the road, and if we've got any problems at all with it, it's just going to be too hard to deal with at that time. MR. PERICO: And I'm ready to proceed. I got all the answers to -- I didn't remember questions. MR. DISNEY: Just a comment. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All right. I need you guys to tell me which way to go. These LDC amendments are going to take awhile. We got through 40 pages of 103. How long is the presentation? MR. PERICO: It's going to take a while if we're going to address every question that Mr. Disney had. What I can do is pass this out to the board members and let them look at it with the answers to the questions that Dalas had raised and talk about it next month if you like or if you want to go at it today. MR. DISNEY: Makes no difference to me. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Would you rather show up to the subcommittee next Wednesday? MR. DISNEY: Just so it gets dealt with in a timely manner. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Let's go ahead and move that to an agenda item on the subcommittee, Codes and Construction, for next Wednesday. That will be a three o'clock meeting. Page 4 April 3, 2002 The other thing I've asked Tom Wides if-- if at the committee's discretion if you want him to give a report on water and sewer real quickly today. Otherwise, he'll leave. But if you want him to give a quick report we can have him bring us up to snuff quick. MR. WIDES: The other one is the landfill piece if you want that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any comments from the committee? MR. YILMAZ: We can take any questions you'd like for the landfill; one less agenda item for you next time. CHAIRMAN LONGO: If that's not pressing, I'd rather move that and get to the LDC amendments today if that's okay with everybody else. Okay. So I have a -- I have a motion to accept the agenda. We have added one item by Bob Duane. We are going to kick Ed off the agenda today and move it to the subcommittee. We're going to go ahead and let Tom -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: of building permits? CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. VAN ARSDALE: Can we just get an update on the status Real quickly. I mean, from Ed. I mean, I've done something on the 28th, and they can't even find it six, five weeks later, and we don't know where this stuff is. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONGO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Hold on. MR. WHITE: You have a couple gentlemen here. that they're formally on the agenda under new business. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And they are? Let me get through this motion. Okay. Any more discussion? All in favor of the agenda -- I'm sorry. I'm not sure Page 5 April 3, 2002 MR. WHITE: With regards to the pool code. MR. WALKER: Collier County Department of Health. Couple amendments to 99-65. We want to make a pool ordinance, and I think Connie had e-mailed out. MR. WHITE: Do you have an objection to it being added as a new item? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is it a long presentation? MR. MASTERS: This is going on this LDC amendment? MR. WHITE: It's not part of the LDC. It's part of the code of laws, the bigger fat book. MR. MASTERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Before we approve the agenda, any other comments on it, and do we want to add that to the agenda? MR. DISNEY: My opinion is it could wait. I mean, it's not on the agenda, but I defer to the committee. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any other opinions? Can it wait? MR. MARTIN: I agree. I think we need to tackle the -- where we left off in the last meeting. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is there a time constraint or issue that you're under? MR. VAN DERBEEK: More or less, you know, we're trying to tie this in with some other billing -- ongoing topics from two years ago where I made a presentation. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Could you make a presentation before the subcommittee next week? Then we can make a recommendation to the full committee the following month. MR. VAN DERBEEK: Sure. That would be great. Page 6 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. I'll put them on the agenda as well for next week, the subcommittee. That meets at three o'clock in Conference Room C next Wednesday, three o'clock. MR. WHITE: Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, would be the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee? CHAIRMAN LONGO: No. That would be the Construction Codes Subcommittee. Okay. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Ayes have it. We're going real quick to staff announcements and transportation. And transportation here? No. We'll go to Tom for the utilities update. MR. WIDES: Okay. For the record, Tom Wides, Interim Public Utilities Administrator. The only thing I wanted to mention to you folks today, which is obviously the most topical for everyone right now, is what's going on with the water situation. All right. Last Saturday we went to the board and asked them to convene an emergency board meeting and declare a water restriction throughout Collier County, at least for the water/sewer district and, in fact, which meant no usage of water for other than essential uses, primarily washing, cooking, and bathing. Irrigation, it's -- basically 40 percent of our potable water in the county is used for irrigation purposes. So what's the affect? Bottom line the board did -- did approve the resolution on Saturday. The restriction is in effect through this coming Friday, day after tomorrow, until 6 p.m. No irrigation use for water, potable water. It does not include reclaimed water for irrigation. It does not include wells for irrigation. It just merely affects where, in fact, our plants would be putting water out to -- for potable water purposes. Page 7 April 3, 2002 In particular, operational things that went on. We had a series of small things that started to roll up on us. Do we have enough capacity? Yes, we have enough capacity. The plant can put the water out if we can get the wells to get the water into the plants. Okay. Where did we run into problems? We ran into problems with our wells initially. We had some of the brackish water wells, they started to act up on us. Then it turned into motors burning out. And then finally our RO section of our plant, our D-cell section of our plant started to have filters going bad. So we went in through a series of items, tried to recover it all the way to Saturday, and realized we weren't going to get there. Our storage capacity got to a critical low, 20 percent, which is about six hours of storage capacity. That's why it was all hands on deck on Saturday. Okay. It was real. Okay. But I can tell you right now, as of this afternoon, we're at about 76 percent storage capacity. We want and expect to be back at 100 percent by Friday. Now, hold onto your hats, folks, because Friday night I know what's going to happen, and I know what's going to happen all day Saturday. We feel we can get past that hump, but in the situations where you're using it for your own family use -- okay. We had a little conversation earlier today -- or friends, neighbors, businesses, don't flush it all back through. Okay. Please is the only thing I can ask. We're coming back out of it. We're getting the pumps back in place. We're getting those wells back in place. Longer-term plans we'll be discussing at the board meeting on Tuesday which includes an irrigation ordinance that we will be putting in front of the board on Tuesday. Okay. So bottom line we're coming back out of this. We'll be okay, okay, unless folks just want to sit there and want to water 24 hours a Page 8 April 3, 2002 day for the next three days. Then we'll be in trouble again. Okay. That's the short form, Dino. I'll just leave it open to questions. MR. MASTERS: I just have one more quick question. I also noticed the affluent has been reduced as well. MR. WIDES: Yes. Yes. We had a little problem at the -- I believe at the North Plant with our turbidity, and it should be coming back on today. MR. MASTERS: Great. MR. WIDES: So that's -- yeah, our turbidity got a little high, so we couldn't go to effluent with it to reclaim wateR. That's been about three or four days here. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Ed. MR. RILEY: I have one question. How does this affect our ability to do flow tests, flow tests and acceptance tests? MR. WIDES: I would suggest until Friday to the extent you can. MR. RILEY: We basically said we're not going to do any until next week until we get word. I want developers to understand that that may hold up an application process or something where they're requesting flow tests because of this situation we can't do them. MR. WIDES: I've got to go back to the resolution to give you the accurate answer. The answer is essential use; bathing, cooking, okay. Everything else and I have had businesses call me. I wash cars for a living. I -- you know, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sorry, folks. We asked the board, and the board accepted essential use only. And, by the way, it's for about a week period. Okay. So that hurts small guys with revenues coming in. There's no doubt about it for that business, but we need the help from the community here to get past it. But to answer your question, that's not an essential use. Page 9 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any ramifications from DEP or anything like that because of all this? MR. WIDES: We were -- I believe we were up there earlier, I think -- today's Wednesday -- Tuesday. We don't expect any ramifications, no consent orders. They see that it's an operational issue. We've got to do -- and here it comes, we've got to spend some more money on backup pumps. Okay. We've got to spend some money because we've been keeping it as trim as we could. But we don't expect any consent orders or any fines at this point. CHAIRMAN LONGO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Any other questions? I think I'm going to take -- Robert, I'm going to take your question real quick or subject real quick. MR. DUANE: Yeah. Just a short one. I had this problem for a year. And some of you are new members, but it's taking an inordinately long time to get these amendments to the Municipal Code Corporation or getting them on the Land Development Code. We need to not have the amendments that were approved in June cycle last year. If you're out there working, you will recall amending it, but I had to call someone at the county to get the language because I couldn't find my year-old documents, and I would like to put on our subcommittee report a report from the attorney just so we have a regular pulse on what the status is of trying to get these documents to the public. I spoke with Patrick White before the meeting, and he suggested that possibly we could enter into a little different arrangement with the Municipal Code Corporation where we at least get on the internet the documents like right-of-way and then within some better defined period of time making sure the supplements are available to the user. So I know we've got a busy agenda today, but if Patrick White would Page 10 April 3, 2002 be prepared to share some of his thoughts at our meeting next month, and with your indulgence I'd like to put that on as a subcommittee report with the pleasure of this board, of course. MR. DISNEY: I think that's a great idea. MR. DUANE: Thankyou. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do you want to state that in the form of a motion? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. I'd like to make that motion that we have an update status report on the LDC amendment being mailed to the public, and after a second I think Pat would like to chime in here. MR. DISNEY: I'd like to second that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Discussion, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Yes. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. The Supplement No. 12 from last year that went into the books September 2001 included the June ordinance from last year. The ones that are, quote, out of cycle coming in as far as going to be called Supplement 13 to the Land Development Code does unfortunately include a series of ordinances, the most recent of which were the two passed in January. But there was also Ordinance 01-60 from last fall. That was the, quote, special cycle. It is the one that I think is problematic, if you will, in terms of the timing. We were working under the premise that we'd be able to get 60- day turnaround time from Municipal Code from the date that we provided them our ordinances until the date they were, quote, available for publication. There were a number of things that we did to improve that to get that 60-day turnaround time. One of them included sending electronic or digital version of the documents, ordinances up to the Municipal Code. Unfortunately, although that occurred they neglected to tell us that there was one other little piece of information they needed, Page 11 April 3, 2002 which was essentially the date it was filed with the Secretary of State. Now, they didn't tell us that, unfortunately, until roughly February of this year. So we had essentially downtime even though we had given them the very next day, after the board passed those ordinances, the digital version. So there's some responsibility on their end; there's some responsibility on our end for not having caught the fact that there was nothing coming back, but we solved that little problem with them both from our end and their end, so it ought not occur again. And I believe that we're at a place where we're going to have better implementation closer to the 60-day turnaround time here forward. That is a slightly different issue because it only pertains to the paper copies of the supplements and the new issue, if you will, that we're looking to implement -- we'll be attempting to have a, quote, digital -- excuse me, version available either on the web or through some mechanism that perhaps the staff may publish on our web site. So that's the explanation. MR. DUANE: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor. CHAIRMAN LONGO: All in favor. Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: All in favor. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Ayes take it. Thank you. We're going to move into the LDC amendments now. Susan. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. Dawn Wolfe and Norm Feder are supposed to be here. I called their office, and Page 12 April 3, 2002 apparently they are at the county manager's office and on the way here. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Quick question for you. And we don't have it before us, but it would behoove us and probably help us today if we had had a summary of the actions taken, at least on the LDC amendments we went through last week. MS. MURRAY: I could get you a copy of that right now. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. That -- that would be nice, and then we could get started, and we need to backtrack to one. The -- one of the amendments we did take a look at concerned fire hydrants and talk about that a little bit if the committee will allow us to do that for a moment. And the one I want to backtrack to is LDC Amendment 3.2.8.4.8 which was listed on page 33 of the amendments if you brought them with you again today. And I have Ed Riley here, the fire code official. There was -- we rejected this proposed amendment as the language sits because we weren't sure what it really meant, and Ed's - - Ed's here kind of to explain it. But the best explanation I can give you guys right off the bat is it does -- even this language does not conform to the statute that the fire code officials govern by. So we want to take a look at this again and maybe amend our rejection on it as to whether we can change the language on this to make it right. The easiest way to do this would probably be to say in one or two families land developments with not more than ten dwelling units per acre to let the fire code official determine the spacing of the fire hydrants per his NPA 24? MR. PERICO: NFPA 24. CHAIRMAN LONGO: NFPA 24, which as authorized through the Florida Statute to give him the authority to do those things. I'm Page 13 April 3, 2002 going to let Ed stand up and talk about it real quick, even though Susan's not here, just for the discussion of the board. MR. RILEY: For the record, I'm Ed Riley, fire code official for Collier County. A little information on the way the fire code has evolved here. It is a part of the building code. Our portion went into effect January 1st of 2002. The building code went March 1st of 2002. We are a part of a companion document, if you will, of the building code. The building commission in the fire marshall's office, they put a commission together and worked together to put both documents or all the building code documents together. The main documents that we deal with are NFPA-1 and NFPA- 101. They are considered, quote, the basic fire code of the State of Florida. Florida Statute 633 is what sets forth the procedure for adopting those documents and any amendments or anything to those documents. That refers to Florida Administrative Code 4-A-60 which is also known as the State Fire Marshalls Rules and Regulations. That is where you get the detailed information on what is included in the fire code. And it includes NFPA-1, 101 and all the other companion NFPA documents that they deemed necessary to adopt. Included in that is NFPA-24. NFPA-24 on hydrants basically says that the number of hydrants, the location of hydrants, and their spacing is to be determined by the authority having jurisdiction, meaning the fire official as it is a fire code. We used to use NFPA-1141 for a number of things on development standards. Through the beginning of the process of this new code, 1141 was included in that process. Somewhere along the line it got dropped out, and not everybody was aware of it. We missed that it got dropped out. It's significant in that the fire districts of Collier County have relied on that document for the way that they have developed their Page 14 April 3, 2002 growth in their department; how they staff, what their equipment ratings are, the types of equipment they buy, and different levels of training that they go through depending on each department. With the loss of that particular document, probably 85 to 90 percent of the things that were in that document are included in other areas such as turning radiuses, cul-de-sac sizes, fire-lane dimensions. All those are covered in NFPA-1, but as I said, water requirements are in NFPA- 24. But there are a couple of things that were in NFPA-24 that are no longer applicable, such as sprinklering residential occupancies with more than four living units. That's no longer there. So there are a number of things that the fire districts are looking at right now to produce for a local amendment to the Florida Building Code, and that exact portion, as I said, that sprinkler thing Orlando has already done, and I have a copy of the language they used to make that happen. But the important thing to understand is that any of the regulations that you have on a local level that you had in place before the building code -- the Florida Building Code went into place, if they conflicted with that new Florida Building Code, they sunset at the adoption date for the implementation of the new code. So where we had the local fire protection ordinance and the Land Development Code, as they relate to issues that are covered in the building code and the fire code, they have sunset. They are no longer valid because they can't -- unless they are more stringent and even though -- even at that they sunset. If you wanted to make a local amendment that is more stringent than the code itself that's been adopted, you must go through the involved process of public hearings and justifications, and once adopted at the local level it has to be sent to the state for their perusal, if you will, to make sure it meets all those things. And then they have several options, which could be an emergency amendment to Page 15 April 3, 2002 the code; it could be giving you your local amendment and then wait till the cycle ends. If they want to adopt it in the next cycle, they can. If they don't want to adopt it, then your local amendment sunsets, and you have to readopt it at that time. But there are a lot of legal steps in that process to get that done. So the point here is what's written or what was proposed for the hydrant spacing isn't in compliance with what has been adopted by the state as far as hydrant spacing goes. Although there is not specific hydrant numbers and locations and spacing specified, it gives that authority to my office or to the fire districts in Collier County. I have already met with the fire marshalls of Collier County, and what we are attempting -- or what I'm attempting to do now is to keep the 300-foot spacing which has been in effect in Collier County for some 15 to 18 years in 11-41 even though it conflicted with the Land Development Code. It's always been there. It's been more stringent and was supposed to be the spacing that was to be enforced. But what I'm trying to do is to get a little flexibility from the fire districts on this to say that we will keep -- in all commercial areas and multi-family areas require the 300-foot spacing on hydrants, but all single-family areas and duplexes, if they have duplexes, that we reduce that spacing to 500-foot spacing depending on the size of the houses. If we have over five or 6,000 square foot wood frame house, we may want the hydrants closer such as in Grey Oaks where we actually had a fire that we had difficulty getting enough water to in a residential area. We had over 2,000 gallons a minute running. We could barely put the fire out because of the size. They're great big wooden structures with a lot of fire load. So it's important that we analyze the subdivisions that we're putting these in, the size of the lots, and what kind of house we could have if it's going to be single family and then Page 16 April 3, 2002 put some restrictions to the size of homes that would be submitted there and decrease to -- or decrease the spacing closer to 300 in some cases. But the flexibility, if we have it and can use it, I'm all for trying to do that. And preliminarily I've gotten from the fire districts that they're pretty much buying into that, but we don't have final approval on that yet. But, again, in order to put something in the Land Development Code, if you're going to reference actual hydrant spacing or it should reference State Florida Statute 633, Florida Administrative Code 4- A-60 and NFPA-24 which are the actual documents that have been adopted by the state that actually speak to hydrants in particular and those requirements. If anybody has any questions, I'll try to answer it, but that's pretty much it in a nutshell. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Joe. MR. SAVAGE: Hydrants only? MR. PERICO: That's fire hydrants only on this particular item. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Joe. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator. So, Ed, what you said in all that was the numbers that we have now in the LDC amendment are incorrect, and the wording's got to be changed to say, "up to the discretion of the local fire authority"? MR. PERICO: Correct. And we are going to set forth the policy that's based on -- which will be a strict policy on the spacing requirements which will pretty much mirror or be less restrictive than we previously had in effect in Collier County. MR. SCHMITT: Where do we go with this LDC amendment for the DSAC? We're in a position now that -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Where we are with it is we rejected it as it was written last Wednesday, and Ed was asked to come here to speak to it because we didn't really know what the language should Page 17 April 3, 2002 be. And so he's given us the explanation, and now we need to change it. It's not in conformance with his statutory guidelines that he's required to follow, and what he's telling us is that in years previous he has been more stringent than our LDC amendment, but in order to give him the flexibility in the future he would like it just to say per 630, 4-A-60 and the NPA-24 or to the fire code which gives the fire code official discretion of-- MR. SCHMITT: Is that going to give you enough information to do -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: I believe so. I mean -- MR. PERICO: What we're going to try to do is a companion ordinance where we're going to put all this information together and include it as a new fire prevention ordinance, and at that time we can add language to this or amendment to say, "See fire protection ordinance," but we don't have that in place yet. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Herb. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. Mr. Chairman, I heard you say a few minutes ago in some areas you may have to reduce the amount of square footage for a residence. MR. RILEY: No. CHAIRMAN LONGO: That's not what he's saying. MR. RILEY: I'm saying we need to change the spacing on hydrants depending on the square footage of a residence. We would not limit the size of the house anymore than we do now. For instance, if we don't have adequate fire flow for a building that wants to be constructed, it has to be sprinklered, or it couldn't be built under the current law, and that wouldn't change. MR. SAVAGE: Zoning sets the rules on how big a building is going to be. Page 18 April 3, 2002 MR. RILEY: Yes. But you have to have fire protection to be able to put that fire out. There are other rules that are also in place that require a certain fire flow to be able to control fire in that structure. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Justin. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion since this was rejected as written at the last DSAC meeting that it be rewritten and represented to the committee for review at that time. CHAIRMAN LONGO: There's a motion on the table. MR. PIRES: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: There's a second. I need discussion. Patrick. MR. WHITE: Yes. If we leave the code as it's written, does that still comply with the requirements that you were going to operate under? MR. RILEY: No. Because you're specifically -- the way it's written now it's 300-foot spacing. MR. WHITE: It's 500 as presently written, and it's proposed to be 300. MR. RILEY: Right. And it's still not-- the way we wrote it now it's 300-foot spacing which is what the requirement is going to be, is now, and has been in the past based under our ability under NPA-24. What we are going to try to do is go to 500-foot spacing in single-family and duplex areas -- developments. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Dalas. MR. DISNEY: I'm not getting in the middle of what Patrick's talking about too much, but it seems to read "space not greater than 500 feet." 300 feet is less than 500 so -- MR. RILEY: But the interpretation by the development community has always been that we can space them at 500-foot Page 19 April 3, 2002 spacing, and there is no restriction to go below that. There's no requirement there to go to the 300-foot spacing. MR. DISNEY: Well, they come to you -- you get to see an SDP or a PUD no matter what, so your comments are going to override that anyway. MR. RILEY: Well, what we're trying to do is clear up the language so that they can't misinterpret something there, which has happened in the past. MR. DISNEY: That-- that language is not a part of this, and I guess the attempt is to -- to keep this going and not cause you any harm in the process, and by the time you get to rewriting this, it's into the next cycle. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. MASTERS: Would an easier way to take care of this maybe be, rather than scrap the whole thing, go with reduction to 300-feet commercial because it sounds like that's going to go through anyway and perhaps leave it at the 500-foot spacing in residential and not change that? Would that be closer to what you need, or be better to just come back later? MR. RILEY: I think it would be better to come back later. I'd hate to put language in now that we're going to have to change a whole lot later unless you leave the language pretty much unchanged, as Patrick was saying, and then just change the whole thing later and don't really make a big change now. I understand what you're saying because it does still provide for a conflict, but we can always go back later and make that -- that change and a reference to the fire prevention ordinance. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do we have a motion? MR. MARTIN: It's been seconded. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Oh, I'm sorry. We had a discussion. Page 20 April 3, 2002 MR. ESPINAR: Could you please reiterate that motion, please. MR. MARTIN: The motion was to -- since the -- how it is written was rejected at the last meeting, that it be rewritten and represented to the DSAC for review and approval at that time. MR. MASTERS: Prior motion stands. CHAIRMAN LONGO: It was seconded, and we had discussion. Now I guess -- Patrick. MR. WHITE: If I could just add and just note that if no other language is brought back to you then the code will remain as it exists today. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Everybody understand that? Okay. Question's been called. All in favor of the motion. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Get clarification for Susan here. We're at a point now where you're saying rewritten and represented, so it'll be now moved to the next LDC cycle, and you're -- you're -- and that's acceptable to you right now? MR. RILEY: But as Patrick had said if there was a lacking of that, it would stay as it currently is. MR. SCHMITT: So stays as it currently is, but, Ed, you're still going to make the call. MR. RILEY: We're still going to make the call because we can still do it the way the state law is written. MR. SCHMITT: The only thing we're trying to do is provide guidance to the development community so that they don't waste a lot of time and money designing something that doesn't conform with current code. Page 21 April 3, 2002 MR. RILEY: Unfortunately, I couldn't be here last week. If I would have had new language for today. I wasn't sure what the question was. MR. SCHMITT: We could still -- don't we still have time to get language because we -- we don't go to the board until June, end of June on this. MR. RILEY: I would be willing to sit down maybe with Patrick and try to work out some language to bring back. MR. SCHMITT: Dino, we may not get it before DSAC because CHAIRMAN LONGO: We can get it next month. We can get it next month. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yeah. We could still do that, but we'll continue with the same track until we go to the Planning Commission, but -- well, thanks. Got the schedule. Next week is Planning Commission, and then we have two weeks, May 8th again Planning Commission and the board the 29th and, again, June 19th. I would like to try and keep this. MR. RILEY: I would love to get the language thing down now. MR. SCHMITT: I would like to get the language straightened out so that we could get it clarified in the LDC so that you-all have the rules to operate by. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. MR. WHITE: I think we can get it done. We may have to have a handout for CCPC next week, but we certainly can bring it back if you want to have us bring it back to the land development regulation subcommittee. I may be able to do that and then bring it back to you- all. It'll be a little bit out of step with traditional process in order of review, but certainly we will have it to you before it's considered by the board. Page 22 April 3, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: This is not -- it may be an issue of timing, but it's not a major rewrite. MR. MASTERS: I don't know that it wouldn't be out of order, perhaps, to present a motion that basically as long as things carry on in the direction you just described, essentially, that we're going to go to 300 foot for commercial and then we're going to go to 500 -- 500- foot spacing for most residential, except in the cases where you think it needs to be reduced because of the structure size or whatever the case may be. I think in theory I'd like to put a motion forward that we'd be willing to accept that as long as that takes that form. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I think you need to reference the NFPA-24. MR. MASTERS: I think the new form will include that, but it's basically going to have the constraints that he just described, though. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Dalas. MR. DISNEY: If I'm not mistaken, Justin's motion allows that to happen. You just rewrite it and bring it back to us. I mean, we're already there. MR. MASTERS: it come back before us. in concept we've already approved those separations, those spacings or not. Perhaps people won't agree to that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. MR. WHITE: Staff were willing to commit to have it back to you before the board hears it at its first meeting in May. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Let's move forward. MR. MARTIN: Vote? CHAIRMAN LONGO: We did vote. Okay. We'll pick up where we left off then. Well, we may not have an opportunity to have This way Page 23 April 3, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, again, for the record. I called the office again, and when I called the phones were dead. I tried on my cell phone to call our transportation. I think their phones are dead too. Dawn was aware of the meeting. I don't know if you-all want to carry on with your discussion about it, and hopefully she'll show up. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, I'll start with Justin. MR. MARTIN: I may save us some time. I wanted to make a motion to defer our vote on it until the policy and procedures manual is published because that's one integral part of this proposed amendment that -- who knows, that could be a 100-page document that none of the committee members have seen, and how can we vote on it until we review that. That hasn't been published yet from what I understand. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Are you making that in the form of a motion? MR. MARTIN: I'd like to make a motion that we defer our vote on LDC Amendment -- amending 3.15, adequate public facilities, until the policies and procedures manual is published, presented to the DSAC, reviewed, and up for a vote. MR. DUANE: I'd like to second for discussion purposes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: It's been seconded. We have discussion. MR. DUANE: I believe that was Jeff Perry's point at our last meeting. I think you were the one that raised that issue. I placed some weight on that. Dawn said she would try to get back to us within a reasonable period of time. Do you recall what that was, Jeff?. She talked about doing it soon, I thought. MR. PERRY: I don't recall whether -- for the record, Jeff Perry. I don't recall whether or not she said she would have it for this meeting or whether for the Planning Commission. I think their intent Page 24 April 3, 2002 is to try to get something before this gets to the Planning Commission. MR. DUANE: I for one -- the devil's in the details, and I think it's important that we understand those procedures. I for one am going to have some questions about how capacities on these roadways are determined. Is it projects that haven't started up yet? How are we going to consider the whole, you know, mix of things? And I'd sure like to have some more information. That's why I seconded the motion. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Other discussion? Call the question. MR. SAVAGE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LONGO: one more time. MR. MARTIN: I move that the vote on LDC amendments to LDC Section 3.15, adequate public facilities, that vote be deferred until the policies and procedures manual has been published, distributed to the committee members, and reviewed at a future date. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. And that's been seconded. All in favor of that motion. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Any against? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Motion passes. Tom. MR. MASTERS: I hate to open up something that I think we already closed the lid on, but maybe Susan can clarify for me. I know in our last discussion about the beach ordinance when we discussed that -- when we had the vote, it was my understanding that that 25-foot allowable with the pavers and whatnot wasn't going to Okay. You want to restate your motion Page 25 April 3, 2002 affect how things currently are. After I was having another discussion with your staff person, and Alex basically said what it will allow is Lely and Barefoot Beach to do exactly that, to go out in front of their units now and add 25 foot of space into the dune area. My understanding was that this wasn't going to affect the dune area whatsoever, and that's exactly the opposite of what I thought. And I was hoping you could clarify that. Maybe I'm the only one that was confused on that. MS. MURRAY: I think as you described it you're correct. Let me see if I can grab Barb, though. I don't want to give you any misinformation. MR. MASTERS: Because -- yeah. Because I thought at the meeting staff specifically said that this ordinance would not allow us to interfere with the dune and, in essence, that's the exact opposite is what's going to occur. MS. MURRAY: That's what I heard. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Marco. MR. ESPINAR: MR. Chairman, in fact, that was one of the reasons why I was so adamantly opposed to this. Not only does it allow for, like, non-native vegetation, but if you read it, decks, you could put pavers, so you could have a sidewalk. MR. MASTERS: No. And, I mean, my position on that was I was adamantly opposed to anything occurring in the dune area, and I would have voted against -- in the opposite way I voted if that was the case. MR. ESPINAR: And if I could add one more thing here, if we're going to allow this to be done by single-family homeowners, okay, who's to say we cannot -- I mean, in all fairness, motels and hotels should be able to do the same thing, in all fairness. Page 26 April 3, 2002 MR. MASTERS: My question was -- and I think you and Alex and I were talking after the meeting. My impression at the vote was that the changes would not allow any changes to occur in the dune area, but when we discussed this afterward you said the opposite was the case, so we were hoping -- MS. BURGESON: It would depend on where the property is. On Lely Barefoot Beach probably most of those single-family homes or maybe half of them have had violations over the years, so they have already damaged the existing dune vegetation out there, and maybe the impact in those areas would not be to existing dune or dune strand vegetation. However, in the Strand at Pelican Bay, those homes are built up to the line. And from that line to the beach on all of those parcels is very high quality existing heavy dune and strand vegetation. So they are -- your permit would allow -- actually permit someone to remove 25 feet of existing dune or back dune vegetation to put in the lawn or-- which is why our numbers have been 15 to minimize the impact. MR. MASTERS: IfI was the only one that that might have affected their vote, it's a nonissue. If anybody else has an issue with it, I guess I'm just throwing it back out there. MR. ESPINAR: I wish this board would reconsider considering the cumulative effect of what might occur here. This is then every single family -- not just in Lely. And like I said, in all fairness, if we're going to allow single families to do this, why not hotels and motels? If that's the case, the Ritz can put up -- might as well take the dune down and put a sidewalk on it and expand their decking in the restaurant, because there's nothing that will prohibit that use -- them from doing that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Robert. Page 27 April 3, 2002 MR. DUANE: I thought that amendment that we approved last week only addressed the area behind the dune. There was no intent to comingle that with the dune area. MS. BURGESON: The area is -- has nothing to do with, and it does not state that it's behind the dune in any of the language. The language says -- it's addressed immediately forward of the CCSL variance. Whatever happens to be immediately forward seaward of that variance is what's impacted. In some cases that's existing dune. In other cases it's lawns that have been placed there, inappropriately I should say. MR. ESPINAR: In fact, Bob, in a way that's what I was saying last week. It's kind of rewarding that behavior because, in essence, I could build my house up to the CCCL line, okay, but then I want a yard. Oops, let me come back to the county and let me get an extra 25 feet. MR. MASTERS: My other question would be, Barbara, in those instances where they had an existing yard for years and years and years, there is a process they go through and get a variance or a permit to actually continue to have grass on there, isn't there? MS. BURGESON: Not the way the Land Development Code is right now and their PUD. The LDC has language to protect the dune and anything beyond the CCSL, and in conjunction with their PUD their PUD very specifically states that beyond that CCSL it has to be only native vegetation. There may be a requirement even in the CCSL and LDC amendments to also amend the PUD to do this. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Joe. MR. SCHMITT: Barbara, I thought, though, that we were basing our approval only when DEP issued a permit. DEP would never issue a permit to go across and go into the dune line. So wasn't that the proviso, that if DEP -- that's what I recall we discussed that, Page 28 April 3, 2002 but our fail-safe mechanism was DEP permit; that if DEP approved it, afforded the Department of Environmental Protection, if they approved it, then that means we're not into the dune line. Would they never -- I don't see how they would ever approve us to go into the dune line. BURGESON: They have in the past on a couple of MS. occasions. MR. MS. MR. SCHMITT: I find that amazing. BURGESON: I do too. SCHMITT: I find that absolutely amazing. MR. SAVAGE: Let me ask, Mr. Chairman -- Herb Savage -- let me ask a question. You say to the lot line, and it's further than 25 feet to the dune line. What's wrong with them being able to do that if it is not interfering with the dune? MR. MASTERS: But the way it was approved, regardless of whether a dune there or not, which I'm worried about. If there is a dune is within that 25 foot, now they're allowed to go up to 25 foot no matter what's out there. MR. SAVAGE: I was under the impression none of these -- the dunes would be affected in that 25 feet. CHAIRMAN LONGO: That was my impression as well. MR. MASTERS: That's what I understood at the meeting, but after the meeting I got a further clarification, and I don't believe that is the way it is. They can take 25 foot no matter what the existing situation is. MR. SCHMITT: Well, also we got talking about the impact on native vegetation which is why we reduced it to protect. Regardless of how far you were from the dune, our intent was to protect the native vegetation. Page 29 April 3, 2002 MS. BURGESON: Fifteen feet was so that we wouldn't have to get site specific. Stay back within Lely Barefoot Beach you would be allowed this much or within the Strand you would be allowed this much. We tried to make it one consistent Land Development Code change, and the 15 foot was so that if you were allowing them to impact existing dune or strand vegetation you were minimizing that impact. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess the only comment I'll make is that this coastal construction control line is a moving target that's adjusted every now and then. Shooting some committees, like the city, houses are fully seaworthy, the coastal construction control line. And I -- and I don't think it's unreasonable for a property owner that's affected by this moving element to have the right where he could create sort of a landscape buffer adjacent to the front of his house. Let's say the dune comes all the way up to the house. He's stuck with living with this dune right there forever. To me I think what we passed last week is reasonable, and it affects the dune on a limited basis. The property owner's the one that benefits really from that dune either being there or not being there, and I kind of see it as a right, too extreme. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. MASTERS: I'd like to say one thing again. And during the county beach renourishment project, the county paid to have that dune built. So it's our tax dollars that they're going to go in and rip out that vegetation. So I disagree that it doesn't affect -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, it's private property that it's built on, and it's there to essentially protect the home. MR. MASTERS: Right. The county paid to put the sand there. Page 30 April 3, 2002 MR. VAN ARSDALE: I just think it's a reasonable buffer to have between the structure and create maybe a yard that's out there in front of their house. MR. MASTERS: Not to belabor it, I'd like to make a motion, and basically my motion would be to mirror the EAC recommendation. Basically we kept part of it but that we reject the 15 foot that was in the amendment overall which is Section 3.1383.3 through 3.1383.4 and not give them the option ofjust carte blanche taking that 25 foot. So I would go with exactly what the EAC recommended as a motion. MR. ESPINAR: I will second that motion. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. We have a first and a second. Do we have more discussion? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Well, the comment I will make is people were here from Barefoot Beach last week to address this issue, and they left with a certain understanding. I don't think it would be right to change it without at least inviting them to come back. MR. SAVAGE: Absolutely. MR. PIRES: I think also what I'm hearing, at the last meeting -- unfortunately I had a conflict, but I think from Tom's perspective it appears that the full play of information was available to the committee when they made their determination-- recommendation. MR. ESPINAR: It was also to the Planning Commission and two more Board of County Commission hearings which are public hearings which they can present themselves. And actually if they are very interested in this ordinance, they should be before the Board of County Commissioners to present it, period, irregardless of what we vote on. Page 31 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: I think it would be right if we have a record of this, people that were here last week, to notify them that it did get changed, and then we'll go ahead and call the question. MR. MASTERS: I agree. Would you make that as an amendment to this MR. ESPINAR: motion? MR. MASTERS: I'll add that to the motion that we notify the two gentlemen that were here and made their presentation that we -- if it is approved, that we changed it. MR. ESPINAR: I second that. MR. MARTIN: Question. Does the motion as presented affect the -- their concern of being able to maintain their buildings or whatnot in that 25 feet? Does that -- the motion, does that now eliminate their concern or their request? MR. MASTERS: I have to go back and look at which section. CHAIRMAN LONGO: If I recall, I think it does. MR. DUANE: I think it does. They went to great pains to talk about the thousands of sea oats and the dune they reconstructed; that's why I thought it was only going to apply to behind the dune area. Is anyone persuaded if we revise this language to require -- to allow the 25-foot maintenance easement but only behind dune area? Is there any support for that? MR. MASTERS: Barbara pointed out there's a lot of these that are not in compliance at the current time, so just because they went out last month and ripped out the sea oats and put down sod doesn't make it right. There is a motion. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I can't understand how we can sit here and talk about a policy like this. I don't know whether it was 1 or 500 or 1,000 situations like this. You-all have a record of how many are on the beach and how many places are affected. Do we Page 32 April 3, 2002 know that in this group here that we're making this motion? You know, are we taking the word there's only going to be 2 or 3 of these things or 500 of them? You know, we make a motion, it should be affected so everybody can work to it and not just -- do I make myself clear? You're making a situation very difficult for me to understand that everybody's going to have to follow this policy because it only affects 2 or 3 properties, or it's going to 500 of them? Do you have a picture or a layout of the city or the county where the beaches where this occurred? MS. BURGESON: Yes. It will affect approximately 22 homes in Lely Barefoot Beach and 10 or 12 homes in the Strand. MR. SAVAGE: Okay. Compared to how many other homes in that same general area? It's like the turtles. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. We have a motion, and we have a second. I want to call the question. All in favor of Tom's motion. (Included Chairman Longo, Tom Masters, Dalas Disney, Marco Espinar, Bryan Milk, and Anthony Pires.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: All opposed. All opposed raise hands, please. (Included Robert Duane, Charlie Abbott, Herb Savage, Peter Van Arsdale, Justin Martin.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: I think it was 6-5. MR. SAVAGE: MR. Chairman, Herb Savage. That is exactly why we ought to do some more thinking about how it affects everyone. Six to five, you know, that's incredible. We're not satisfied with that whether we're for or against it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, actually, I think it's not a bad idea, Herb. I think Tom's brought it back to the original language proposed by staff, and now the property owners have a chance to go back before the county commission and state their case, and let staff Page 33 April 3, 2002 and them work out the nuances of how they want to address what's already happened and what might happen in the future. Susan. MS. MURRAY: For clarification, I understood the motion for approval to be consistent with the EAC's recommendation; is that correct? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Correct. With the caveat to notify those representatives from Lely Barefoot that we reversed our position from last week. Okay. Moving right along. The floor is yours finally, Susan. Start with page 41, I guess. COURT REPORTER: Susan, could I get you to move down here. MS. MURRAY: I don't anticipate talking. We really covered everything except 3.15. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Right. MS. MURRAY: Dawn and Norman are here, but they didn't realize that you-all have taken a vote on that, so we really completed everything. MR. MARTIN: There's one at the very end of this that we haven't discussed, and it's 6.3. MR. SCHMITT: Can we go back just so Norman and Dawn understand where we were? Before they came in Norman and Dawn never discussed it. Can you let them know what your point was? MR. MARTIN: We voted to defer a vote on this until we see the policy and procedures manual, till that's been published, distributed to the committee and the committee's had a chance to review it. MR. FEDER: What I will say for the record is -- Norman Feder -- that we're in the process of trying to keep you involved as we Page 34 April 3, 2002 develop this, but I can tell you a lot of the issues that you're looking to see -- and that's fine -- that aren't going to be developed until we get to the policies and procedures portion. What we're trying to do is make sure you're aware of where we're going and how we're trying to approach it. And first we've got to get the Land Development Code policy and issues together before you can start developing the specifics in that procedure. If this group just feels it's best to defer it until you've seen all the pieces of the puzzle, that's fine. We just want to lay out to you as we go along in the process the pieces of the puzzle, any thoughts you have as you see it taking shape, and try to account for that as we try to get the rest of the puzzle filled in. MR. SCHMITT: And I just want to make sure you-all understand this will still continue to go through the process. It'll go before the Planning Commission and subsequently to the board. This is an item that the board wants to see, and unless Norman chooses to pull this from this LDC cycle, it will continue to go forward. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. MASTERS: And I think-- as we saw in the subcommittee as far as the LDC amendment goes, I think we're fairly comfortable with most aspects with some changes that you-all were going to go make. We're just a little nervous about putting in place just that it allows the policy manual to become the governing body, and we haven't seen that yet. MR. FEDER: And, again, as we go to develop that, we'll continue to seek any input and recommendation you have. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I guess my only question is, aren't there components in here that will govern the structure and language and policy? Page 35 April 3, 2002 MR. FEDER: Of course, and that's why we're presenting that to you. This is the framework for the flushing out. It's the skeleton, if you will. We still need to put meat on the bones, so I can't tell you exactly what it looks like with all the meat on it yet. I can show you the skeleton and what will be the basis for what it's going to look like in the end, and that's why we want to share with you, as I said, the pieces of the puzzle to go along. And if you want to defer until all the meat's on the bones, obviously, that's -- that's your choice, but we will keep you informed as we start putting the layers on, and as we're getting it we will share it with you. MR. DUANE: When might that be? MR. VAN ARSDALE: To follow up -- I mean, if there's -- if there's five ribs here and we really think there should be four, this is the time to deal with it and not because it's going to come out in the policy and procedures manual as five and not fouR. So I don't know if there is -- what the substance of the issues are in this ordinance, but that's -- this is going to be the foundation for creating the policies and procedures manual. MR. SCHMITT: That's kind of my point because we're looking for you-all -- specifically on page 44, what is your definition of concurrency, because there will be a presentation before the board on Tuesday from a group that wants to redefine, wants to force the county to redefine its definition of concurrency. Their definition means concurrency starts at the -- at the PUD process; whereas, this definition clearly is a little bit different, and I think what I'm trying to stress is I don't want you-all to be out of step with -- with the process, because this is going to continue to go forward. I don't know if we have time to come back unless you call a special meeting again. This is going to continue to go through -- bedded through the review process up through till the June cycle. Page 36 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: Isn't there a state definition of concurrency? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Does our definition of concurrency apply? MR. FEDER: For which you cannot exceed the -- it can be more stringent than. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe for the record. The Collier County definition for concurrency and what ours is is available capacity under concurrency is more stringent than part -- than the maximum allowed under statute, but it's not as restrictive as it could be. MR. FEDER: Being proposed. MR. MASTERS: I guess just to drop back -- and, again, we didn't know whether you were going to show up or not, so we had to deal with the information on hand. Subcommittee, just for the record, spent an hour and a half or so going through this document. We recommended several changes. I don't know whether it would be worth maybe Dawn just going through and outlining some of the changes that were made so that we could feel more comfortable with the LDC amendment or not. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Do you have -- do you have a summary of those changes that came out of subcommittee? MR. FEDER: Do you have the changes that came out of the subcommittee that made changes to the document? That was already put into your current draft. From the first meeting, we modified based on your comments, and your current draft should reflect those changes that were made. Is that not the understanding you have? MR. DUANE: And I reviewed the document, and I believe that most of the changes we discussed at the subcommittee were put in the Page 37 April 3, 2002 document. I made one more clarification last week to Dawn to make sure that whatever existing adequate public facility certificates are out there today that they're basically vested, if you will, as long as -- you know, they're in effect. I know you've got some five-year certificates out there, but I think the window was of a shorter period of time, and Dawn indicated last week that she would rectify that. I'll trust her at her word. MR. FEDER: What I will say for the record, we feel the issues that were brought up at the first meeting with you that we've addressed. Now, obviously, this is a living document. It's evolving. As we understand changes, we'll try to share them with you. As it grows and gets meat on the bones, we'll continue, as I said. Also, it's going to have some other groups that are coming before the board relative to issues as well as yourself and others, the Planning Commission, as well as we evolve into this to find out other issues we have to address, modifications of the Growth Management Plan, how that change would factor into this. So I don't want to infer to this group -- although we came up with a draft. We sat with you and tried to make changes, and we will continue to do that with you -- that won't change. So it's an evolving process, and we'll continue to try to share those changes with you. To date, at least for the draft that we have, to the comments we received, we're pretty comfortable you responded to those. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Has the subcommittee seen the revised MR. MASTERS: Bob said he did have time to get through it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: The subcommittee has? I know you said you did, but the subcommittee has? MR. DUANE: In their last -- our last document in our package here. Page 38 April 3, 2002 CHAIRMAN LONGO: What was the recommendation from subcommittee? MR. DUANE: We recommended approval, you know, with the caveat that certain changes be made. I was particularly pleased that had staff got back and put some time frames for approval of capacity certificates because it was rather open ended, and I'm happy to say that I think Dawn actually reduced the length of time to review those from 15 days to 10. So I'm very happy we got clocks in there. We made a number of other suggestions also that I believe all of them are incorporated or codified in the last draft. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. MASTERS: So really getting back to Peter's question, then, you know, that we're not even giving them a push in the right direction. I think we did that. I don't know that anyone else that was in the room that would have any additional comments. If there are additional comments, I'd like to get those on the record now so that Dawn can adjust, because I think she did a good job of going back and seeing what we needed to happen in there. I don't know that maybe a better position would be that we perhaps approve the LDC amendment with the caveat that we're just extremely cautious of what ends up -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: You already have a motion to put this back on the back burneR. Now Justin-- go ahead. MR. MARTIN: I just wanted to make a clarification that you had asked what had the subcommittee recommended. I just want to read from the summary sheet. It says for the DSAC subcommittee recommendation on 31402 (as read): "That requested concurrency -- concurrency management procedures manual to be presented to the DSAC." So I think that was one of the outstanding items the Page 39 April 3, 2002 subcommittee had recommended they wanted to see prior to approval. MR. PIRES: Which is consistent with the motion you passed and what Peter's saying and the concern of the committee. CHAIRMAN LONGO: on this? MR. VAN ARSDALE: Do we have any action we want to take I guess the only thing -- I mean, I think we should act on this as opposed to -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Well, we've already deferred it, so if we're going to bring it back in -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: Maybe we should reconsider that action. I guess I don't see the logic -- CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Make a motion. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So I'll make a motion that we endorse this section adopting the recommendations of the subcommittee, and I don't even want to add language on the policy procedure manual. I don't know what -- what it would be. I mean, it's understood that that will happen. MR. DUANE: When-- Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN LONGO: We have a motion on the floor right now. Do we have a second? MR. MASTERS: I would second that, but my understanding is that you still endorse the action that we're going to get a chance to look at the procedure manual before it goes before the board. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. We have a first and second. Let's go ahead and discuss it now. MR. DUANE: He satisfied my concern. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Anthony or Tony. MR. PIRES: I think Patrick has a comment. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. Page 40 April 3, 2002 MR. WHITE: I had hoped that I would not have to make this statement on the record, but apparently based on this most recent motion I don't have much of a choice. There is a provision that has been law but not included in the codified versions of the code and came to light since the first of the year, and as a result I have to tell you that what we're going to have to consider is the applicability of that provision. It was amended to change its section number back in 1999, and it has been out of code since that time. The section of code is 3. ! 5 7.3 1.4, and it follows close on the heels of the provision that was deleted in January with the special -- the ordinance that the board passed in the later part of January. The affect of that provision is essentially to keep the current practice with regards to handling certificates of adequate public facilities in place with respect to payment of impact fees and use of escrow fund accounts. Those folks who want to pay their impact fees prior to building permit. All other folks are required to have an approved waiver and release. I understand from the brief discussion with Dawn today that that may be a provision that we'll have to have a further discussion about potentially deleting, but I have to tell you based upon this motion that it was our intention from our office to make sure that that was included as part of what would be the codified version approved under Section 3.15. MR. FEDER: To include it or delete it.9 MR. WHITE: It is law and, therefore, should be included. If there's going to be a staff proposal to delete it, then that is something I think -- the whole reason why I'm bringing this to this committee's attention so that they would need to consider the appropriateness of deleting that provision or not. Page 41 April 3, 2002 MR. FEDER: Before you go to your vote, what I'm going to tell you is that's in direct conflict with action recently taken by the board which is to eliminate that option from the Land Development Code. MR. WHITE: You can say whatever it is that you believe it accurately reflects, but I'm telling you what the law is. MR. FEDER: And I'm telling you that our recommendation would be to -- to remove that in considering your vote because you know what our intention is. MR. WHITE: That's fine with me. I just need to let the committee know what the status of the law is, even though it's not apparent when you read the code. MR. DUANE: Delete the provision for waiver and release, is that what you're saying? MR. WHITE: No, sir. MR. DUANE: Okay. MR. WHITE: I'm saying that there's a provision that's been law but not been in the code that details the manner in which impact fees are paid prior to building permit for folks that want to get it at subdivision or SDP and obtain a certificate. Otherwise you merely pay a building permit and there is no, quote, certificate. This provision, unfortunately, has, as I indicated, not been on anyone's radar, even though it's been the manner and means by which we've operated. The belief on staffs part has been that the deletion of text in January of the section known as 3.15 7.3 1.2 that only in my opinion deleted an open-ended opportunity to come in and obtain a certificate. It left in place this uncodified but still law provision that said you can come in and get a certificate at final plat or SDP. And the alternative, as most folks do, they get an approved waiver and release and do not, quote, pay their impact fees until building permit. Page 42 April 3, 2002 I believe it's -- I'm hearing staffs intention to create a process where the only time you would be able to lock your capacity would be at building permit. MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe for the record. The modifications that are contained in the revised 315 Section 3 for transportation consistent with other areas and recommended procedures for applying roadway, adequate public facilities is not going to require the prepayment of impact fees in order to obtain a certificate at a level of service or adequate public facilities. That will -- those payments of those fees will still lie in at the issuance of the building permit and be required to be paid at that time. There will not be the ability to prepay in any manner to preserve or retain a reservation of capacity. That's consistent with other applications throughout the state. So by virtue of deleting it, it's not inconsistent because the mechanism will not be necessary. MR. WHITE: The exception I take to that is that it still may be necessary for all other forms of public facilities except transportation, and to that extent there may be some reason someone might want to do that for all of those other forms of public facilities. I don't know why because they are -- theoretically will always be more than enough capacity for those. It's only generally the transportation facilities that there's a question about. So we may need to give you some amendment to this law but not codified provision for your further consideration, and that's the whole thing in a nutshell. MS. WOLFE: It may need to be retained for Sections 1 or 2 which are exclusive of roadways. MR. WHITE: If anybody's not confused by that. MR. DUANE: I finally understood it and, frankly, it's consistent with the whole thread of what we're trying to do is allocate capacity in a reasonable sort of way, and we don't want people hording it Page 43 April 3, 2002 unnecessarily and the legitimate end useR. So it accomplishes that purpose. I can support that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. MR. WHITE: As long as you're going to be bringing it back for further consideration, you didn't have to know about the, quote, hole in the fabric. MR. DUANE: Thank you for sharing it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter, I'd like you to restate your motion, please. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think it was generally a motion to approve section -- let me find it here -- 3.15 as presented and amended by the subcommittee with the understanding that review of the policy and procedures manual would be made by the DSAC. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Who originally seconded that? MR. MASTERS: I did. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom actually seconded that. I'm going to open for discussion one last time. MR. MARTIN: I -- I still can't support approving it without having seen the entire -- I haven't even had a chance to read through this entire thing so -- approving it while still not seeing the policy and procedures manual which we don't know what's going to be in there. I can't support that. It's just my opinion. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Dalas. MR. DISNEY: We've -- we've been down that road a number of times, and in my experience it has haunted me a couple of times. I can't think of a good example to present to you now, but I do know that if we hadn't done this before and trusted this wasn't going to come through, I wouldn't be stuck with this particular situation that I'm now dealing with. I'm of the same mind as Justin as well. I don't want to slow down this process. I also don't want to blanketly say, Page 44 April 3, 2002 "Yeah, okay. Go ahead" without knowing what it's going to be or having some idea at least. MR. SAVAGE: MR. Chairman, what's the time element? Do we have time to look at it again? CHAIRMAN LONGO: As Joe stated, they are going to continue moving this forward to the Planning Commission. It's going to keep on the track it's on. We're going to take an action today via motion, whether it's the one that Justin -- that we've already passed with Justin, or it's going to be get superseded by Peter's motion, but it's still going to roll through. I mean, it's still going to go before the Planning Commission according to this schedule. Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: I think my point is that if we're attaching an amendment to request the approval of the policy and procedures manual -- which I think is good. I think if we just stick with our previous motion that we're -- we're opposing this essentially and that we want to see the policy and procedures manual first, the whole development of policy and procedures manual, we may be left out of that have process because of it -- because, in other words, in terms of who reviews it or -- I think the language that we just -- that we're talking about requires that we get a chance to review it. I think as it stands from a personal issue we don't get a chance to review it. MR. PIRES: I think what Justin was saying, the concept that we're not seeing the entire picture. We're just seeing little bits and pieces here and there, and so you try and fill in the blanks with what's available, but we're assuming a lot. I think we don't need to do that. I tend to agree with -- stay with the initial action to defer until a more full -- MR. VAN ARSDALE: What assurances do we have that we will review the policy and procedures manual7 MR. PIRES: Staff advised that they will provide that to us. Page 45 April 3, 2002 MR. FEDER: What I would note to you -- how ever you decide to vote here today, then, that's your choice -- we're going to continue as we evolve in this process. It's a fairly short time frame. As we see any changes in the issues, we will try to bring it to you and give you an opportunity to view it and, obviously, that includes the procedures manual how ever you vote on this. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Dalas. MR. DISNEY: I was just going to equate this to my particular trade which is architecture. I can't bring a set of plans in here and say to the plan reviewer, "Well, I've got half the information here. Go ahead and give me my building permit. I'll bring you the rest of it." I can't do that. That's -- that's kind of where I am with this. I want to read it, understand it, and know that I can stand behind it. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'll call the question. We have a motion on the table. We have a second. All those in favor. (Includes Mr. Masters, Mr. Savage, Mr. Milk, and Mr. Van Arsdale.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: All those against. (Includes Chairman Longo, Mr. Pires, Mr. Duane, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Disney, Mr. Espinar, and Mr. Martin.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. The motion fails. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Yes, sir. Before you leave -- and I want to make this public. It's been on my mouth many, many times, and every time I go on U.S. 41 I think of this man right here (indicating), and I want to tell him again publicly. Thank you for your landscaping approach on the sides of the road as well as the median. It doesn't look like McGregor Boulevard. Thank goodness. It's very creative. MR. FEDER: Don't want palm trees. Page 46 April 3, 2002 MR. SAVAGE: Whether you like it or not, I hope you-all take time to look at it. MR. FEDER: With the group's indulgence, one last thing, if I could. To the point that was made, just to your understanding we want to work with you. As an architect, no, you can't come in and get full approval without your full plans in there, but if you don't have a sketch, a concept, and have that concurrence with your client, then you're going to spend a lot of time doing a full set of plans and not knowing where you're going and not getting approval. So we will continue working with you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you, Norm. Norm was supposed to also give us a transportation update today. If it's committee's wish, he still can; if not, he can defer again until next month. Anybody have any comments? As far as that we're at five o'clock, little bit after. MR. DISNEY: Next month is okay with me. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Is that all right with everybody else? Okay. Basically, I think we're pretty much done. Go to committee comments. Any comments? Justin. MR. MARTIN: There was one other amendment we hadn't voted on. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. MR. MARTIN: It's in the very back of the last page. I don't think there's been any discussion on this. MS. MURRAY: I withdrew that at the last minute. MR. MARTIN: Oh, you did? MS. MURRAY: Yes, page 104. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. So 104 is withdrawn? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Page 47 April 3, 2002 MR. MARTIN: My mistake. MR. ESPINAR: That was an easy one. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Start with you, Robert. MR. DUANE: Norm, we want to approve this ordinance, so I went along with my colleagues here. As soon as you get something to us. MR. FEDER: MR. DUANE: incorporated subcommittee. CHAIRMAN LONGO: MR. MILK: Nope. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I'll also note any changes that are made. Thank you for the work you did on the Thank you, Dawn. We'll go around the table. Bryan? Tom. MR. MASTERS: I just want to reiterate, Bob, nice quick work on that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tony. MR. PIRES: No. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Herb. MR. SAVAGE: Strangely enough, no. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Moving right along. Dalas. MR. DISNEY: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Peter. MR. VAN ARSDALE: Just a quick follow-up question with Norm. Once this ordinance is adopted, this will be the policy of the county? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. VAN ARSDALE: So you will be implementing this without a policy and procedures manual? MR. FEDER: No. No. We will-- we will go through this process, growth management change. Policies and procedures you cannot implement until -- policies and procedures as well until I've Page 48 April 3, 2002 done what I'm doing right now which is a lot of work through a consultant data collection system to be able to do this. We're looking at about mid June or July before you could implement in any event. MS. WOLFE: Unless we need some concurrent comprehensive plan changes whereby it may fall into the probably 1st of January or after the full adoption of any comprehensive plan amendment changes that may be necessary, again in this cycle, they would not be enforced for adoption until December or January. This will be a time-effective date concurrent with all other pieces being put in place. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. Marco. MR. ESPINAR: No comment. MR. SCHMITT: Everybody got what Dawn just said because a piece of this is the Growth Management Plan. I think that will be done probably within a special cycle which Stan Litsinger will be working. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Justin. MR. MARTIN: I -- I question about this last LDC amendment that we supposedly looked at last -- I don't see it in the summary sheet, and I don't remember discussing it. What was voted on? CHAIRMAN LONGO: Which one? MR. MARTIN: This is 6.3. MR. ESPINAR: It was withdrawn. MR. MARTIN: It was withdrawn? Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Okay. One more item we had on the agenda real quickly, Peter, you had a question on building permits, and Ed is gone. MR. VAN ARSDALE: CHAIRMAN LONG0: Wednesday. I would just kind of like an update. We'll have him update us next Page 49 April 3, 2002 MR. VAN ARSDALE: I don't know where we're at. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Tom. MR. MASTERS: One more thing while Susan's still here. Are we making any progress on the staffing in your department? MS. MURRAY: Sure. We just -- Don Schneider from Hawaii just started this past week, last Monday. And we just made an offer to another planner. He'll start at the end of April. And then this Friday we have one last interview, and then we hope to be making a decision Friday after we finish our last interview, and that should staff us up for our current vacancy. MR. SCHMITT: I made an offer already to -- for administrator for planning services -- director, I'm sorry, for planning services, and she will be starting -- MS. MURRAY: July 1st. MR. SCHMITT: -- July 1st coming out of Rochester. I'll be sharing her resume with you also. CHAIRMAN LONGO: And a quick question for you, Joe. Does this summary sheet get forwarded on and part of commissioners packet when they go to discuss the LDC amendments? MR. SCHMITT: It gives them a snapshot. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Very good. I appreciate you doing this because it really -- it defines our actions taken. MR. SCHMITT: I would encourage that members of this committee keep a finger on the pulse when it goes before the Planning Commission, because even though they may have your written input, you may want to choose to appear before that committee so that they understand from your perspective -- you can even participate as public participants -- so they understand your perspective. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Patrick. Page 50 April 3, 2002 MR. WHITE: Just to follow up on that, if you're going to discuss anything relative to what this committee has done, you have to do it as a citizen, unless you vote to have a representative from this committee appear and make comment with respect to the actions you've taken. Just so you understand how you would be appearing. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I think if that's the case I would like our chairman to do that at the proper time, and he is very capable of doing that. CHAIRMAN LONGO: I have no problem attending these meetings if it's the wish of this committee for me to be at those meetings. I don't have a problem with -- if you guys want to vote on that now and leave that up to me whether I actually attend or not. MR. SAVAGE: I'll make that motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Chairman to represent this board at those hearings. MR. DUANE: Second. CHAIRMAN LONGO: (No response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN LONGO: adjourn? MR. ESPINAR: So moved. CHAIRMAN LONGO: Thank you. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor. All right. Do I have a motion to There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:10 p.m. Page 51 April 3, 2002 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DINO LONGO, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 52