Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/02/2002 W (LDC Amendments re: Wireless Inspections; PUD Sunsetting Provisions; Abandoned Buildings; & GG Area Master Plan Committee)December 2, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORKSHOP Naples, FL, December 2, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 am in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Board Members: Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Fred Coyle Frank Halas County Staff: Joe Schmitt Jim Mudd Marjorie Student Susan Murray Michele Arnold Denny Baker Kay Deselem Donald A. Schneider II Nancy L. Siemion Gary Mullee Patrick White (arrived at 10:40) Glerm Heath Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LDC WORKSHOP AGENDA December 2, 2003 9:00 a.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITI'ED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES The third of three fall workshops to include a demonstration of the wireless inspections program; discussion of the land development code specifically the PUD sunsetting provisions and status of PUDS which have sunsetted an overview of the sections of the land development code discussed in the previous workshops; discussion on abandoned buildings; update regarding the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Committee. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 December 2, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Land Development Code Workshop County Commission Boardroom Building "F", 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 9:00 AM MINUTES December 2, 2002 -The meeting was called to order at 9:08am. I. Attendance: Board Members: Jim Coletta, Donna Fiala, Tom Henning, Fred Coyle, Frank Halas County Staff: Joe Schmitt, Jim Mudd, Marjorie Student, Susan Murray, Michele Arnold, Denny Baker, Kay Deselem, Donald A. Schneider II, Nancy L. Siemion, Gary Mullee, Glenn Heath, Patrick White II. Wireless Inspection Programs -Mr. Mudd explained that this was the last of the fall LDC workshops. He asked the board to consider that the LDC is a work in progress. The key is to make sure the code is consistent and clear. He asked for the board's direction in this process. -Mr. Schmitt, stated that they will review the wireless inspection program, review the sunsetting provisions, discuss abandoned buildings, review the last five workshops for the LDC, and provide an update on the G.G. Masterplan. -Denny Baker gave the presentation on the Wireless Inspection Program. He explained the three components are: The program automatically assigns inspectors every morning. It also allows inspectors to automatically download information each morning from their homes. Thirdly this software allows the inspectors to upload their information every twelve minutes of the business day. The BCC originally approved this software on January 22, 2001 for $220,000. DCR of Fort Lauderdale was awarded the contract. Mr. Baker then introduced the IT team: Bob Sander, Ms. Royer, Mr. Koomar, and Rich of Ft. Page 2 December 2, 2002 Lauderdale. They began testing in June 2002. They have been using the system for approximately two months with minimal problems. Mr. Baker explained the benefits of the product: A) Reduction of an average of 1½ hours commuting time for each inspector per day. This is due to the downloading and uploading of information rather than driving to North Horseshoe to hand in the information. The inspectors now keep their vehicles at home rather than commuting to return them at the end of the day. -Jim Rhodes explained briefly to the committee how his day has changed due to the new software. He explained that he is a resident of Marco Island and after his commute to N. Horseshoe and exchanging information for the day he had used 1 ½ hours of time. Due to downloading and uploading of the day's information, he saves this time every day. B) Results of inspections are uploaded every 12 minutes. C) Every morning the system optimizes the inspections by TRS, (tract, range, and sections.) D) Inspection notes are uploaded every 12 minutes. This means that they don't have to return at the end of the day and have somebody key the information into the computer, which saves times. E) Saves 1,024 square feet of office space, since the inspectors don't need cubicles due to the downloading and uploading of information from the site rather than from the office. F)Daily time of inspectors is recorded daily and approved by the chief daily. G) The inspectors are glad that they can take their vehicles home, which eliminates the need for a personal automobile. H) The inspectors have access to email and it enhances the performance standards due to the more efficient use of time per day. I) Investment was $220,000. The 1½ hours saved per day per inspector over ! year equals $300,000 saved each year. It has also reduced clerical transcribing time, space, truck expenses, improved moral, performance and the quality of inspections. -Mr. Halas asked what the average number of inspections was per day before the installation of this software. Mr. Baker informed him that they are currently running 29-30 inspections per day. -Bob Sanders, Applications Analyst, stated that there are two separate parts of this program. One is where the Chief Building inspectors do the assigning of inspections. The other part is where the inspectors record their information and review prior inspections. -Jim Trenor, Chief Mechanical Inspector, stated that it is there job to distribute the inspections to the inspectors. He used a power-point presentation to show exactly how the software is used to assign the inspections. He explained that the software allows them to keep count of how many inspections are assigned to each inspector, allow for the inspections to be assigned with time Page 3 December 2, 2002 management in mind, re-assign and re-schedule inspections if the need arises, manage the inspectors and their inspections, add or delete inspectors in the system, and view the time sheets on a daily basis. -Ms. Fiala asked if the investigators had to get out of the car and make physical inspections and if they had to make a checklist of their inspections. Mr. Trenor explained that there were no checklist, but they used the building codes to make sure everything was complete. He added that his inspectors average 31-32 inspections per day, but they would prefer it to be 25 per day. They are currently in the process of hiring new inspectors to help lower the number of inspections per inspector. -Mr. Schmitt add that we are one of the first counties to use this system. He stated he wanted to reassure the commission that the money was well spent. Mr. Henning added that they might be able to apply this to Code Enforcement as well. Mr. Schmitt replied that, that would be the next phase. He explained that they are looking at doing something similar with Code Enforcement. -David Englehart, Inspector for Building Review, gave a power-point presentation on how they download and upload the information of inspections. He informed the commission that there were two modes of downloading and uploading information. There is a wireless antenna and a dial up connection if there is a problem with the wireless. He explained that they sometimes have a problem with their dial-up due to the location of the inspectors, but the problem is being resolved. The air-less reviews how many bytes of information they have received, which allows them to know if they have received the inspections. They are using their own phone systems within their residences and the wireless application is an AT&T system through Fort Myers. He added that they can go into the system to review specific inspections, the history of a specific inspection, and any information about that site. -Mr. Halas asked if they can review variance requests from this site of the program. Mr. Englehart stated that it was not pertinent information to a spot survey. Mr. Halas asked if it would be in the comments for the person who did the final inspection for a CO. Mr. Halas stated that this may be a good thing to put in so the final inspector would know if there were any requests for a variance and whether or not the requirements for it had been fulfilled. -Mr. Coyle asked how they would verify information such as setbacks if this information was not listed here. Mr. Englehart stated that the setbacks are stopped 10 days prior to the footprint of the building going into the ground. The client has 10 days to provide them with the spot survey at Horseshoe Drive. If the spot survey is not provided or bad, then all inspections are stopped. -Mr. Coyle asked if the setback was 25 feet and a 5 foot variance was approved, how would they know when they got the survey. Mr. Englehart stated that they cannot request anymore Page 4 December 2, 2002 inspections if the spot survey is bad. Mr. Schmitt stated that the inspector does not validate this, but it is down in the building inspection process, which is signed off on the drawings. Mr. Coyle asked how you verify that the builder adhered to the variance if no one goes out to check. Mr. Trenor explained that there was a final survey required, which showed whether or not they adhered to the requirements. He added that 10 days after they put in the footprint there is a spot survey done, which shows the setbacks and whether or not they are encroaching. At the final building inspection they require a final survey, which shows what the setbacks are at that point. Mr. Mudd added that they do not have in-house surveyors, they rely on the licenses of the surveyor. Mr. Schmitt stated that this was a code point, the inspectors verify that everything is in line with the ordinances and building codes, but some of the responsibility is directly on the shoulders of the builder. Jim Rhodes stated that the inspectors have no way of knowing where the property lines are, which is why they rely on the surveyors. -Mr. Halas asked if they were talking about setbacks for commercial buildings only or single family unit dwellings as well. Mr. Rhodes stated that they were talking about commercial and residential. Mr. Halas asked how the county held the builders responsible for the errors that they make, prior to the building being built. Mr. Rhodes stated that the site could be "red-tagged". Mr. Halas added that the problem was, if the inspector does not measure this, then they have no way of knowing that it truly complies and they end up with a building that is out of compliance and the builder is not held responsible. Mr. Rhodes replied that they have no way of knowing where the property lines are, which is why they rely on the surveyor. Mr. Mudd added that they are not the quality control for the developer. The developer has his own quality control system and is required to survey the building before it goes in, do a spot survey when the foundation is laid, and a final survey after the building is built. -Mr. Halas asked if they have to have a site development plan with the measurements listed. Mr. Mudd replied yes. Mr. Halas then asked if the inspectors could go out and measure these lines to see that they were correct. Mr. Mudd explained that the surveyors use magnetic lines to locate the stakes underground and the inspector has no way of knowing where these lines are. Mr. Halas stated he believes the county needs to make sure the developer is held responsible before the fact rather than after a mistake is made. Mr. Mudd replied that if it was the board's direction to add the staff to do this, then they would do so. He explained that they are not currently manned to do this. -Mr. Coletta stated that while he has been on the commission, there was one time where there was a surveyor line that was wrong and the mistake normally comes in during the interpretation of the code. He explained that the reason they are here today, is to continue strengthening the codes so Page 5 December 2, 2002 variances are better understood. He added tomorrow they would discuss miscommunications and misunderstanding of the variances. The surveyor is held liable for his mistakes. -Mr. Henning stated that he has seen just the opposite. He added that there have been cases in Collier County where they have changed the setbacks for single family homes. This actually made some of the houses "out of compliance". He sited an example of a house that was requesting to put in a swimming pool, but no longer met the new requirements. He asked if this should be handled administratively rather than through the variance process. Mr. Coletta replied that they have a similar topic with the hearing officer. -Mr. Henning asked how much it cost to go through the variance process. Mr. Schmitt informed him it was $2,020. Mr. Henning asked if it was fair for the homeowner, when they were in compliance until government changed the setbacks. He asked the board if they wanted to handle this administratively rather than through the variance process. Mr. Schmitt explained that they have procedures to go through administrative review. He added that there are avenues where the planning services director can look at these "legally non-conforming" cases in an administrative way. Susan Murray stated that when a property is complying with "older" setback requirements, legal non-conforming, and the developer wants to add a structure, that there are provisions in the code that provide allowance for this administratively as long as they are not increasing the degree of non-conformity. The question is the degree of non-conformity, and this is reviewed on a case- by-case basis. If they do not meet the provisions, then they must apply for a variance. -Mr. Schmitt stated for the record, that Mr. Halas had mentioned a site development plan for a home, and there is no site development plan, that it is a plat. He explained that you have the plat and the layout of the home is not on the plat. He verified this for "terminology" purposes only. Mr. Halas asked when you have the site plan, does it show the setbacks. Mr. Schmitt informed him that it did. Mr. Halas asked why they run into problems where the setbacks are incorrect. Mr. Schmitt stated that when they do the plat review, all the setbacks are validated. Mr. Coletta stated that they were off the subject of wireless demonstration. He requested that they get back on to the schedule and if the board wishes to return to this item, then they could do so at the end of the meeting. Ms. Fiala agreed with this. -Mr. Engleheart returned to the PowerPoint presentation. He showed the board where the 10-day spot survey comes in with the monolithic slab. The computer shows the monolithic slab being passed, the 10 day spot survey, and whether or not there was a stop put on the construction. They can print out a history if needed. He added that any remarks and results are also entered into the computer. -Mr. Mudd noted that inspections have gone from 25/day/inspector to -31/day/inspector. Page 6 December 2, 2002 III. PUD Sunsetting -Kay Deselem, presented an update on the PUD Sunsetting. She informed the board that they had an outline in there packet that showed where they are and how they got to this point. They also had an update list. She explained that the deadline for a submission for an amendment passed the week before on November 26. In the outline, Roman Numeral III it showed where each amendment was in the process. Some have come forward to meet with staff on what they might do. She explained that the LDC previously called for a PUD to sunset if nothing occurred in five years. If there were no paperwork approvals, then the board, through the LDC implications, decided that it was proper to review them again to see if what was proposed in the PUD's was still appropriate. After October 2001, the LDC was changed to require construction or an effort on the ground, rather than just paper approval. A major difference between the two processes, is that the time frame changed in October 2001, from five years to three years. Most of the ones that they are currently reviewing, were approved prior to October 2001 and fall under the five year timeframe. The summary sheet shows 11 projects, the dates they were approved, and whether or not time extensions were sought. It also provides updated comments on where these projects are now. They are considering if it is the appropriate action to take the time and money for staff to go back and rezone all of these. She explained that it would be onerous for staff to try and determine what the owner may want to do with these properties and then re-zone them accordingly. Staff is thinking that they should bring them back around January 2003, present the project, and adopt a resolution that nothing can go forward until an amended Masterplan has been submitted by the owner, paid for by the owner, and that sets forth a project that is appropriate now. Or, if the board wants to see them re-zoned to something other than PUD, then they could put them in an agricultural zone. This would be considered an "ag-holding category". -Mr. Coletta stated, he had concerns about placing these in agricultural zoning due to the tax differential. He added that eventually they would be developed lands and if they were allowed to go into agricultural zoning for the meantime, then it would not be in the taxpayers best interest and he would not be in support of this. Mr. Henning replied that he believed most of these lands are into agricultural and that they can apply for exemptions as long as they utilize it for that. He added that once it goes into re-zoning, it is not taxed on the re-zoning. The only time the re-zoning is taxed is when improvements are made. -Ms. Murray stated, that when they originally did this research in March-May, very few of these properties had active agriculture exemptions. -Mr. Coletta stated that eventually he would like to come to the point where there is nothing in the county considered agricultural within the urban boundaries. The reason is the owners are getting "a Page 7 December 2, 2002 free ride" on their taxes, when they are not truly agricultural, only keeping up with the requirements to be called that, so they can keep the lower taxes. Ms. Murray stated that they are actively working on this in the PUD process. -Ms. Fiala stated that she liked the idea of a new holding category, but she agreed with Mr. Coletta that they should not be paying agricultural taxes when they were not truly agricultural lands. She asked if a new category could be created. She also agreed that they should be sunsetted, and asked how they went about doing so. Ms. Murray stated that there could be a new category created, but you can't rezone land without going through the public process, which requires at least two hearings. It would also require a LDC amendment to create a new zoning district. She also explained, in regards to how to go about sunsetting these properties, that some of them are still under consideration. Some have contract purchasers waiting, some have had the pre-application conferences, and some have indicated the intent to go forward. She reviewed again the two options to move forward. Ms. Deselem clarified that the agricultural district would have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan before they could re-zone. She noted that in Collier County, in the past, they have used the agricultural zoning as a "holding category". -Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, explained that the agricultural zone was used as a holding zone in 1989 due to the revisions of the comprehensive plan. She added that sunsetting provisions began in 1988 or 1989 and that they envisioned that it would be re-zoned to something, which doesn't necessarily have to be agricultural. She recommended that it be something consistent with the comprehensive plan and compatible with the surrounding properties. -Ms. Deselem stated that she believed the best way to go would be to change the zoning, through an amendment process, in the LDC. This means that the Masterplan is null and void until an amendment comes forth. -Mr. Coletta said that he was only asking to eliminate the agricultural exemptions in the urban area. Two other board members agreed. -Mr. Henning stated that if they wanted to purchase "greenspace" in the urban areas, then he wanted to allow the opportunity to do so. -Mr. Mudd stated that they tried to close the door on those who were attempting to get the agricultural zoning for other than agricultural purposes. They did an analysis that showed they were foregoing about $2 million on their tax rolls due to this. They have now gone out and made sure that people were paying taxes on what their actually zonings were. The Property Appraiser is aware of the problem, and he is helping to clear this situation up. He added that they are pushing sunsetting, because these plats were grandfathered because they were approved before the comprehensive plan or the LDC. He explained that sunsetting meant they would no longer be grandfathered. He added that Page 8 December 2, 2002 they may want the owners to be a part of any decision that considers re-zoning, otherwise they may be setting themselves up for court cases. -Ms. Student stated that the local government does have the power to re-zone and they have done this to a limited extent on their comprehensive plan under the zoning re-evaluation ordinance. She explained that it was looked upon as a county wide rezone and that the board has this inherent authority. She also pointed out that agricultural exemptions are a matter of state law and they have the "Right to Farm Act". If the board wanted to end this zoning, they would have to carefully consider the "Right to Farm Act" and the state statutes and verify that they were in compliance. She added that she did not believe there were many agricultural zones left in the urban area. -Mr. Coyle felt there were benefits to rezone agricultural land within the urban boundaries; higher tax receipts. He added that the down side is that they are encouraging the development of the land. He explained that if they re-zoned it all commercial, due to the higher taxes, the owners would be motivated to develop the property. -Mr. Henning stated that they still must consider property rights and the "Right to Farm Act". He explained that if they discuss removing the agriculturally zoning, then they are moving towards a slippery slope scenario. Ms. Student added that if it was rezoned and in an bona-fide agricultural use, then it becomes a legal non-conforming use, which is also a property right. If this was cut-off, then there may be some cause for concern. -Mr. Coletta stated that they had three nods that gave staff direction to bring this back. He asked the board for final comments. -Mr. Coyle agreed that staff bring this back with some recommendations and cautioned staff that anytime you increase taxes through rezoning, that you are providing a motivation for them to develop the property. He added that he supports the idea of taxing these properties properly and legally, but they need to make sure that they fully understand the implications of their actions. -Mr. Halas asked if these PUD's were zoned agricultural. Ms. Deselem stated that they were not, that they were currently zoned PUD. -Mr. Henning stated that he believed once they sunset, in order for them to develop, they would have to return to the process with a new Masterplan for the property. Ms. Deselem clarified that this was staff's recommendation. Mr. Henning said that he agreed with this. -Ms. Fiala stated that she agreed with sunsetting them and the next time they apply they will have to bring them up to the current codes. She then directed staff to move forward with this option. -Mr. Coyle asked if these things were to have been sunsetted by November 22, 2002 if no modifications or requests for amendments had been made. Ms. Deselem stated that this was correct, their time was up, and this is why they were asking for the board's direction on what to do next. Mr. Page 9 December 2, 2002 Coyle stated that they had given the owners six months, they did nothing, and as far as he was concerned, their opportunity had expired. He was in favor of sunsetting them. -Mr. Schmitt stated that they have met with some that they have had pre-application meetings, where the owners indicated their intent to do something, but they have not. Ms. Deselem stated that one of them had an STP pending. She explained if the STP had something done in the timeframe, then it would be appropriate for them to take this one off the list for sunsetting. She added that another is pending some issues before the board and the staff. The issue is with the Golden Gate right-of-way. They are actively attempting to work this out. Staff indicated that it may be appropriate to give this case an additional six months. -Mr. Halas stated that they should set aside the ones that are presently active. He believed that the ones that were inactive should receive the direction of the board at this meeting. Ms. Deselem asked that the board clarify the time that they wanted to extend considerations for the active PUD's. -Mr. Coyle clarified that he believed the consensus of the board was, that if no substantive action had been taken by November 22, 2002 then they are already sunsetted. If staff has the opinion, that any of them have had substantive and legal action to get an amendment, then they are not, at the moment, sunsetted. -Ms. Deselem stated that there was one, where staff believed it may be entitled to some consideration due to the fight-of-way issues. She added that the other one to consider is one moving towards their STP. The board nodded their approval and agreement with staff. -Ms. Deselem then stated that she would hold those two and asked what kind of timeframe the board wanted to consider for their extension. The board felt that six months was adequate, unless it was found that the owners were dragging their feet in order to influence their PUD standing for some reason. -Ms. Deselem added that staff will proceed with an LDC amendment and the resolutions will come before them in January. -Mr. Mudd said that these were the sunsets of last year and asked when this years would go before the board. Ms. Deselem stated that the list was much smaller and they expected to have them before the board in January or February. A fifteen minute recess was taken at 10:30AM. LDC Workshop Overview -Susan Murray stated that their was information in their packets that went from Page 7 to Page 28. They also had a summarized handout for review. She briefly reviewed the information with the Page 10 December 2, 2002 board. In 2002, they had 7 workshops relating to the LDC. One was dealing with checkbook concurrency. The other 6 workshops dealt primarily with the specifics of the LDC. She reviewed the focuses of the 7 workshops with the board, as listed in the handout. The handout lists the topics discussed, direction of the board, and the current status: 1) April 24, 2002 -The focus was on prioritizing sections of the code in need of updating. 2) May 3, 2002 -The focus was on sunsetting and provided an overview of the PUD's to be sunsetted. The board directed staff to develop a three year sunsetting criteria. The current status is that the details of the LDC amendments are being finalized. They are scheduled and have brought forth in the current cycle. This is to be brought before the board on Wednesday night. They also discussed affordable housing. There is a BCC workshop scheduled for January 22, 2003 on this item. -Ms. Fiala added that they had directed staff to get a more accurate account of what affordable housing and workforce housing existed. Mr. Schmitt explained that there were two separate studies sponsored. Staff concluded that both studies were accurate. He explained that they had done the actual "needs analysis" and asked if there was something else that the board wanted to see done. Ms. Fiala stated that she noticed the homes of Tree Top, Naples Manor, and Trail Acres were not included in this count. She added that at the meeting, staff informed her that this would be re-addressed and she only wanted to make sure that they were all accounted for. 3) June 17, 2002 -A presentation was made on variance processes and conditional use processes. A discussion also took place on the hearing examiner process. The current status is that the board will be reviewing the position of the hearing examiner and the selection of the final candidates on December 3, 2002. The inclusionary zoning is to be discussed on January 22, 2003. 4) September 27, 2002 -This was the checkbook concurrency workshop. The status is that the board has adopted the changes to the transportation element of the GMP and the board is scheduled to review the interim amendments to section 3.15 on December 11, 2002. -Mr. Schmitt stated that the initial draft of this amendment will go before the CCPC on December 5, 2002. 5) October 4, 2002 -They discussed architectural standards, presented activity center #9 overlay district standards, and presented the landscape code provisions. A schedule of the LDC amendments related to the community character process was also presented at this meeting. The board agreed to include the Page 11 6) December 2, 2002 LDC amendments and the GMP amendments in one cycle in 2003. There was an overview of the Public Participation ordinance. The board agreed to change the public meeting time requirements. The amendment to the LDC for this change is scheduled to come before the BCC next week. Amendments to the landscape regulations and the architectural landscape sections will be revisited in the spring of 2003. November 11, 2002 -They discussed the interpretation process, the non-conformity process, and supplemental district regulations. The board gave a number of different directions that will be coming forward in the fall of 2003. -Ms. Murray continued that on Page 13 of their handout, she had broke out the division numbers of the code and put a staff recommendation opposite the title. She wanted to bring this to the board's attention, since these are things that they are working on with their LDC consultants. They would like to bring this before the board in 2003, when the LDC consultants have completed their work and staff is in agreement with them. She believed they would come back to the board in a workshop, before the LDC amendment cycle with this information. She explained that they had not discussed off-street parking and loading requirements, sub-division regulations, provisions to 3.8 as a result of Rural Fringe and Rural Lands amendments, and signs. She informed the board that they had not indicated the need for a workshop, but these are some of the items that they will be working on with the consultant as well. -Mr. Henning asked if the county approved a residential PUD, and they had model homes, do they still have a temporary permit for those model homes. Ms. Murray stated that it is defined as model homes and model sales centers. If it is a permitted use within a PUD, then there are certain provisions in the code, which would apply. Mr. Henning asked if the commissioners approved a PUD with the model home provisions, then why should it come back before them for a provision of a temporary permit. He also stated that there were some model homes in Golden Gate Estates along 951, where they want to continue their temporary permit for the use of a model home. He asked if they could direct staff to do some administration for the extenuation of that temporary permit, under certain conditions. He was concerned that all of this is very costly to the business man and he in return is handing the costs over to the customers. Mr. Coletta stated that he was concerned, because the people who buy on either side of this model, realize that it is a temporary use which will eventually sunset, and then they will have the tranquility of the neighborhood. He did not want to put these people in jeopardy. Mr. Henning said that they can give staff direction to work with the industry in an attempt to improve the process. Mr. Coletta stated he would like to see this go back through the Golden Gate Masterplan, so they know what the citizens want. He Page 12 December 2, 2002 was concerned that a blanket approval would jeopardize the rights of property owners. Mr. Henning stated he didn't say "blanket approval". Mr. Henning agreed that it should go through the Golden Gate Masterplan committee, but that they should also hear from the input of the industry, residents, and citizens on the Golden Gate Masterplan. Mr. Coyle asked if it should go through DSAC as well. Mr. Henning stated that any proposed amendment would go through DSAC. -Mr. Mudd clarified that the board was giving direction to go through the Golden Gate Masterplan Committee, CBIA, DSAC, and the developers and then bring it back before the board. -Mr. Halas asked what prompted this discussion. Mr. Henning replied that there were some comments from the industry, CBIA, about the cost of doing business and the repetitiveness of this permitting. -The board agreed to giving staff the direction to move on with this project. -Mr. Coletta stated that he had an issue with signage. He wanted the board to give serious consideration to the total signage ordinances and how it relates to the county. He added that it was difficult for Immokalee and Golden Gate City to live by "coastal standards". He asked if they could re-visit this. Mr. Coyle stated that he was concerned about dividing the county up into divisions. He suggested that they incorporate as Naples and Marco Island have done. Mr. Coletta stated that Immokalee was economically incapable of incorporating. Mr. Henning informed Mr. Coletta that there was re-development in Golden Gate City, that is in the Masterplan, and they would like to extend this. He felt that they would like to go in the opposite direction and enhance the signage. He added that there is an initiative for the rural county to create a separate county, but he was not sure if it would be done. Mr. Coletta felt that they could address it in this venue, and that they didn't have the tax base to support it separately. Ms. Fiala stated that Goodlette has addressed there sign issues through there overlay. She suggested this for Immokalee. -Mr. Schmitt added that they have an overlay being worked on as part of the CRA, and this can be looked at. Mr. Coletta asked that this be brought up to the people of Immokalee, and felt this was a good suggestion. -Mr. Mudd added that if the board found things in signage that they wanted to change, they could add a workshop to discuss this. Abandoned Buildings Discussion -Michele Arnold, Code Enforcement Director, showed some photographs of area abandoned buildings. The photographs depicted some of the conditions existing in Collier County. Some of the conditions were: boarded up windows and doors, worn exterior walls, excessive weeds, overgrown Page 13 December 2, 2002 grass, mold, expired signage and faded signage, unkempt and worn parking spaces, deteriorating buildings and roofs, neglect to landscaping, chipping paint, uneven surfaces, and overall the appearance of "blight". Some of the consequences and problems of these conditions are that it attracts drug use, vagrants, wrongful use, abandoned vehicles, and a one worse case scenario became the cause of a fire. -Ms. Fiala asked if they can do something with the taxes, to make sure that the owners are taking care of there abandoned properties. Ms. Arnold stated that the control varies per situation. She cited an example of a church struggling to pay for the maintenance of the property. Ms. Fiala asked if they could still claim it on their income taxes. Ms. Arnold said that they did. -Mr. Halas asked if they had a "blight officer" or a "blight department" that took care of this type of problem. Mr. Mudd explained that Ms. Arnold is going to show some of the existing problems, present the current code, and then the board would discuss how they can make their code more stringent in attempts to control this problem. He added that Collier County is primarily a new and growing county, which means that this is just now beginning to pose a problem and is a good time to begin addressing the possibilities of control. -Mr. Halas felt if a structure was abandoned and in poor condition for over six months, then the county should tear the structure down and bill the owner. He believed that there should also be a timeframe placed on how long a building could sit abandoned. He suggested that if a building was abandoned for over a year, then the owner should be forced to sell the property or tear down the building. -Ms. Fiala commented that many of these places are in East Naples and owned by people living in nicer areas of the community, who don't want to pay for the upkeep since they don't have to see it or the problems. -Ms. Arnold clarified what Jim Mudd had stated, that they have little laws in effect to handle these situations appropriately. They can require that the owner maintain their weeds below 18 inches and ask that the structures are accessible in order to secure the building. She added that other than this, they have little that they can do at this point. They can at times require an structural integrity evaluation to be done, and if the report comes back favorable of demolition, then the county does have the authority to do so. -Ms. Arnold reviewed some of the staff recommendations to control this problem. They could require the owner to continue to maintain the exterior surface of the buildings, so there is no mold, no paint chipping, and no worn exterior surfaces. They could also require them to maintain there landscaping, that all surfaces or public areas be maintained to meet minimum codes, and require painting of any surface that shows fading of old signs. She explained that overall they could require the owner to Page 14 December 2, 2002 give the building the appearance that they are still open and a viable part of the community. In order to make these things happen, they can modify the LDC or create a separate stand-alone ordinance. -Ms. Fiala asked if they had to board up the doors and windows, since it was unsightly. She also asked if they could require the owner to maintain landscaping. She believed the owner should either sell the property or bring it up to improved standards. She stated that she wanted to "toughen it up" and anything that did so, she would support. -Mr. Halas stated that they should come up with a separate ordinance. He added that they should be required to cover the windows and doors, but with something that blended in with the neighborhood. He wanted to see that parking lots were kept clean and that landscaping was maintained. He felt if the owner did not follow these requirements then they should be forced to tear the building down. -Mr. Coletta agreed. He added that this not only protected the investment of the owner, but increased the re-sale value of the property. -Mr. Schmitt stated that they will need to make sure that the county had the capability to take care of the situation and bill the owner, if the owner continually neglected the property and refused to take care of it himself. He stated that it would have to be done through some kind of lien on the property. They would issue a NOV and a timeframe to complete the work. He explained that this would be time consuming, but something could be done. Mr. Halas asked why they couldn't have an ordinance that stated it was up to the code enforcement board. -Mr. Mudd asked if they could start charging the owners fees as soon as the NOV was issued. Then when code enforcement meets they can validate or negate the legality of the NOV and the fines would be subject to that decision, but if it was validated then the fines are retroactive from the point of the issuance of NOV. -Ms. Fiala stated that they needed more stringent codes. She added that she was in full support of the suggestions of staff and asked that they put all of these items into this. She asked that boarding doors and windows not be done, since it is unsightly. She also suggested a limit of three months to come in compliance. -Mr. Coyle stated that he agrees with most that Ms. Fiala said. He added that he would like to see the severity of the fines addressed. He felt that applying a lien to the property was not enough of a deterrent due to the increase in property values, which does not minimize the profits of the owner. He suggested that the county gain the authority to tear down the building and bill the owner if the problem is not addressed within six months or a year. At that point, he wants to see that the owner is still held accountable for the maintenance of the property. -Ms. Arnold stated that code enforcement can fine the property up to $250 per day. Mr. Coyle replied that this was not enough. Ms. Arnold stated that this is limited by the state statute. She added that Page 15 December 2, 2002 there may be an ordinance, which states that if the county is large enough, they could decide to adopt an ordinance and raise the fine up to $5,000 per day. She stated that they would look into this further. She added that when they have a lien on the property, they are working with the County Attorney's Office to pursue collections or foreclosure on the property. They are currently bringing this to the County Attomey's Office after 3 months of notice. -Mr. Halas stated that he believed they should give direction to staff to work with the legal department to find out what the maximum fines are, set time limits on abandoned buildings, and come up with a proposal to bring back before the board. -The committee agreed with this. VI. Golden Gate Area Masterplan Update -Glenn Heath, presented the overview. The major issues they are dealing with during the current cycle of amendments or will be dealing with in the next cycle, are rural character, commercial needs for a growing population, conditional uses, Golden Gate City, transportation, natural resources, and the public facilities and services. He explained that there is a Golden Gate Area Masterplan Restudy Committee that was appointed by the board last year. The members are Mark Strain (Chairman), Linda Hartman (Vice Chairman), Russell Tuff, Don Peterson, Douglas Rankin, Robert Ducharme, Karen Acquard, Ann Ward, and Ed Carlson. He stated that they currently have one vacancy. He used the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map to point out the main areas being discussed. There is a debate whether or not to include the southern area of the Estates, since it will eventually be going to the state or the federal government. There is an ongoing demand in the eastern most portion for a Highway Interchange at Everglades Blvd, which the DOT is against. He explained that Golden Gate Estates is an "antiquated sub-division", which began in the late 1950's. It is a land sub-division created for the purpose of selling property. It covers 173 square miles. It is considered a "broken grid", of long roads and canals, that is called "broken" because a lot of the roads are incomplete and lead to dead ends. It covers 150 square miles of pre-subdivided residential lots. It was done through a filing process in Tallahassee. There was little local input at the time, because the public was unaware of what could occur. There are -30,966 lots and it has a projected build-out population of -90,763 people by the year 2020. Mr. Heath then explained, specifically, each of the major issue they are currently facing. A) Rural Character -Mr. Heath explained that Golden Gate is not a true rural area, but it does have rural character in the sense that it "appears" rural. This is due to the large wooden lots. Many of the long-time residents were drawn to the remoteness and quiet solitude of the Golden Gate Estates. However, Page 16 December 2, 2002 the newer residents are drawn to the area due to affordability, and their wants and desires are completely different. The question then becomes: how to allow the area to grow, while retaining its rural character. B) Commercial Needs for a Growing Population -Providing commercial space in this area conflicts with the preservation of natural resources, maintaining rural character, and it causes some transportation problems. The pressures for commercial uses are mounting, particularly in the eastern Estates, but in the western Estates, they do not want more commercial. The question then becomes how much commercial should the area have and where should it be. C) Conditional Uses -The current GGAMP limits conditional uses. There is a conditional use subdistrict in the estates, which restricts commercial uses and where they can be. There is now a need to clarify certain provisions. -Ms. Student stated that in February of 2002 there were some changes made in federal law about the right of zoning and churches and this is something they will need to look at in the future and see how the case laws develop. D) Golden Gate City -Mr. Heath went on to explain that Golden Gate City has its own issues that are different from those encountered in the Estates. Most of these are code enforcement issues and law enforcement issues. The problem arises when you attempt to apply current zoning and transportation requirements to antiquated lots. There is also a problem in trying to determine what type of commercial uses are appropriate here and how to retain these uses. E) Transportation - "Fixing the broken grid" -The way to fix a broken grid is by putting bridges across the canals. Most of the local streets need bridges, but they either are not wanted by some or you run into problems, because of the substandard conditions of older roads. There are a number of extensions being currently considered. There are concerns about how to tie in road improvements and commercial areas. F) Natural Resources -Golden Gate Estates is on the edge of the Big Cypress Ecosystem. Panthers and black bears, are known to enter the Estates. Many other protected species are attracted to the canals, wetlands, and woods. Red Coquetted Woodpeckers are also known to forage in the Estates. Currently there are virtually no natural resource provisions in the GGAMP for Northern Golden Gate and there is a need for some natural resource protection "language" to be placed in the Masterplan. G) Public Facilities and Services Page 17 December 2, 2002 -The main question here is how do you provide it, how much to provide, and where to provide it. Most of the area does not have public sewers or public water. There is currently an issue about water contamination from septic tanks. -Mr. Coletta asked if Mr. Heath could clarify the problem areas. Mr. Heath replied that most of them are in the eastern Estates. Mr. Coletta stated that most of it was in Golden Gate City. Mr. Mudd added that there was a "boil water" notice for the particular area and they are doing testing and expect results within the week. -Mr. Heath went on to discuss some of the possible solutions. A) Rural Character - He explained that he had done some research on rural character and ways of preserving it. First off, no one truly agrees on what rural character truly is. The committee did not agree with community on the Character Plan Strategy. The strategy was to take the Eastern Estates and limit development to certain areas, but the committee does not want to change to a truly rural area or take away individual property rights. They are going to be looking at landscaping, street lighting changes, signage, and rural design for commercial structures; things that will maintain the appearance of a rural community without changing it to a truly rural area. B) Commercial Needs for a Growing Population ,They are considering an expansion in the existing neighborhood center concept. This is a concept, where certain areas are designated to allow commercial rezones. This does not designate the areas commercial, but allows the option. Mr. Heath showed maps to locate the areas where they are considering this kind of expansion. The maps are included in the handouts. C) Conditional Uses -The proposed amendment language for the GGAMP will clarify the language within the conditional uses sub-district, particularly with regard to transitional conditional uses, and create greater opportunities for conditional uses in neighborhood centers. The problem with the current language, is that it does not clarify what essential services are. D) Golden Gate City -The Re-study Committee and staff are considering the expansion of the sub-district and developing revised language, with incentives for commercial uses. They are also considering revised transportation and zoning requirements, specific to Golden Gate City, the idea of instituting a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) program in Golden Gate City. There were code issues with the CPTED program, so staff has kind of folded for this. They are also trying to reduce some barriers that they believe exist to redevelopment. Page 18 December 2, 2002 E) Transportation -The committee has rejected the "Golden Thread" concept from the Community Character Plan, and has begun to study bridging strategies and extending 951 to Lee County. They are also studying new transportation criteria, access requirements for neighborhood centers, and future plans for the Vanderbilt Extension, Golden Gate Blvd, and Immokalee Road. F) Natural Resources -The committee and staff have and will examine wetland permitting/ROMA issues, listed species, potential conservation/preserve areas, stormwater issues, and development practices. The largest issue is wetland permitting and whether or not the county supports the ROMA concept. -Mr. Henning asked about the issue of not fencing in the wildlife corridors. Mr. Heath replied that he will be bringing this issue before the committee for their consideration within the rural estates. G) Public Facilities and Services -The Restudy committee has requested that county staff to hold a day-long public workshop on facilities and services issues for the Golden Gate area. The workshop would be early in the new year. -Mr. Coletta stated that Mr. Heath has had quite a challenge and that he was making good progress. He hopes when this committee is through, that their presentation before the board will be greatly considered. -Mr. Henning asked about the survey sent out to the Golden Gate residents. He stated that he was concerned that it was only sent to the active, registered voters and was sent in one language. Mr. Heath replied that they are working on this and attempting to revise the proposed coverage. He explained that the survey is being in the process of being prepared, but has not been sent out yet. He added that he understood the concerns, they are reviewing this, and trying to get a fair representation of the public based not only on the voting records. Mr. Henning and Mr. Heath stated they would have a future discussion on this with the person who is preparing the survey. -Mr. Coletta suggested that Mr. Henning appear before the Golden Gate restudy committee and present these concerns. -Mr. Halas had the same concerns about the size and variance of the sample rate. Mr. Heath stated that initially they are only surveying Golden Gate City, but based on the results of this Page 19 December 2, 2002 survey they will do a similar survey for the Estates next year. He noted that they did an informal survey of the neighborhood center concept and the expansion concept. -Ms. Fiala asked if Everglades Blvd would become a "through" roadway or if the FDOT would not allow it. Mr. Heath explained that FDOT has expressed objections, due to the fact that their road criteria would not be met. -Mr. Coletta stated that this should be kept in front of the FDOT for consideration, but it is a long and difficult process for approval. VII. Public Comment - There was no public comment. VIII. Discussion -Mr. Mudd reviewed the direction staff has taken: that they would return with 9 of the 11 sunsetting PUD's. They will discuss model homes, permitting extension costs, review the issue with the CBIA and the Golden Gate Masterplan Committee for input. They will return with more stringent recommendations for maximizing fines, time limits, and requirements for abandoned buildings. -Mr. Coletta added that 4 commissioners gave direction for staff to return with more information on Agricultural Zoning in the urban area. -Mr. Halas stated he would like to continue these LDC workshops, because he had some ideas for future ones. He recommended a type of overlay study for Vanderbilt area in regard to home sites that would carry through on other areas of the county that will be developed, in order to address the "mega-homes". Also he hoped that in the future they could discuss is height restrictions on residential buildings. The committee gave direction for staff to do so. Mr. Mudd clarified that they would bring a workshop to ad&ess these issues in the March-April timeframe. IX. Adjournment - Adjournment was at 12:20PM. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL _ ,, JAML~N. COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Page 20 ~: D~/IGH~. ~ROCK, CLERK ~ as to Chat~'S These m~nutes approved by the Board on As presented ~ or as co~ected December 2, 2002 Page 21