Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/11/2002 S (LDC Amendments)December 11, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2002 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS CYCLE 2 Naples, Florida, December 11, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of Collier County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. for the 2002 Land Development Code Amendment Cycle 2 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA FRANK HALAS TOM HENNING ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager; Joe Schmitt, Community Development Services Administrator; and Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager. Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA December 11, 2002 5:05 p.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 SUBMITTED 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 W HO DECIDES T O APPEAL A DECISION O F T HIS 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 PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED 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 1 December 11, 2002 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY-, FLORIDA. Second and final public hearing to be held January 8, 2003 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 December 11, 2002 December 11, 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SECOND AND FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON JANIIARY g, 2003 (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome to our LDC public hearing. December 1 l th, 5:05. Right on time. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good evening. Or I guess I shall say good afternoon since it's not past six o'clock, I guess it's the correct way so-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is six o'clock the evening hour? MR. SCHMITT: I'll wish everybody good evening then. We're going to -- we're here for our first hearings, our first set of hearings for the LDC amendments for the fall cycle and what we're going to do if we could ask for you indulgence is try and move through the issues from the -- the more contentious issues up front so that we don't have people sitting here all night. And we would -- we would work through those in that direction rather than through them sequentially as shown. So, from that perspective, the first thing we would like to do is review the concurrency amendment 3.15. And with that I'm going to mm it over to Stan Litsinger and Norm Feder. That is in a separate agenda package or item you have. MR. LITSINGER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Page 2 December 11, 2002 commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning. In your agenda which would be in -- begin on Page 128 or in the insert beginning -- and I will refer to the page numbers -- Page Numbers 1 through 35, I believe it is, as opposed to the handwritten page numbers which you may have in your agenda package. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One through 36. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. The item you have here in front of you this evening is a result of many months of work by your staff. You have made comprehensive plan amendment changes to enable the new approach to the way we look at public facilities, specific transportation measurement. This is an interim step. We're making numerous changes within the Land Development Code to both collect impact fees at an earlier point in time, to apply impact fees for road construction, to redefine final local development orders as you did with your comprehensive plan amendments and generally meter growth and collect the costs of growth and provide facilities at an earlier stage. We have 35, 36, 37 pages of changes here to your division 3.15 and I'll go through very briefly to get some of the fundamental changes that we're making at this point in time at your first hearing, having been before the Planning Commission on two recommended -- on two hearing nights and be recommended to you tonight with changes noted in blue. We're going to -- from the future in the adoption of this Land Development Code change, we will be issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities and requiring Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities at the site development and platting stage as opposed to requiring them and the impact fees to be paid at the building permit stage. Page 3 December 11, 2002 As you will hear more from the transportation administrator shortly we have redefined their measurement techniques for transportation facilities; specifically, roads. We've defined -- redefined and clarified when facilities are available for consideration in issuing Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities and Development Orders. We have redefined our service standards, four levels of service measurement. We also noted through here in a number of changes to your levels of service standards for other facilities to bring them up to date with your most recent AUIR report. We have redefined a peak hour of peak season for roadway volume measurement. We have clarified the AUIR process to note that we are continuing with the annual concurrency determination through the AUIR process on an interim basis. We've clarified and put specific standards in here for the AUIR process. We've defined de minimis impacts. We've defined thresholds for traffic impact analysis on development order review under our new traffic management system that's coming into development. We've redefined interim development controls under the ASI process, Area of Significant Influence, to specific impacts on the roadways impacted by each development approval in the event we have ASls. You'll hear more from that, from the transportation administrator. We've instituted or will through this process institute a process of collecting 50 percent of all transportation impact fees at the time that a building permit for final local development order in the case -- this case the site development plan or final plat is approved into the impact fee funds. The 50 percent will not be refundable. The entire 100 percent is Page 4 December 11, 2002 due within three years in order to establish and maintain traffic impact vesting. All impact fees in each case would be due at building permit for all of your facilities. We've provided for a six-month traffic impact vesting process of a -- of a currently approved development in order to determine the background traffic and future impacts from the roadway system which have not come forward in the final local development order process. And we have defined all thresholds for significant impacts on roadways, which may be deemed deficient or to be determined to be constrained through your AUIR process that we bring to you each year. And with that I would open it up for questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking at Page 4 on the top, it looks like we have capital sanitary facilities and solid waste facilities to also meet the level of service. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. This -- we often lose sight of the fact that your adequate public facilities ordinance or Division 3.15 as we know it is all of your adequate, all of your Category A facilities, not just transportation. And that's water and sewer, parks and recreation, solid waste and drainage. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: So, we are modifying levels of certain standards here and through the concurrency process we will actually be doing a measurement and determination on all of your Category A public facilities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Water, sewer -- MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- all of those. Page 5 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So, just to bring it down into plain old laymen's terms now when -- when they say three or four major developments going in in a certain area, instead of having to measure each one by what they were going to offer to the streets, now we get to have a better measurement so that -- that our roads will be able to accommodate the traffic generated. This is what some of this says as far as peak hour and peak time; right? MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. Commissioner, partially, yes. And let me explain that. You have modified both and what you said in the growth management and therefore what's here in your Land Development Code to implement it to a three three five rather than a five percent significant threshold, which means that you will be bringing in more projects as they go to develop rather than having them, so to speak, have a higher hour to come in under. You have lowered the bar to a three percent level for direct impacts and for adjacent facilities. You're still though, with where we are in this interim approach, still doing an annual update and inventory report. You are not into the checkbook of the real time concurrency and, as you know, what we're doing in this provision here for all vested development is out there to be fully evaluated, reviewed and to get a schedule for how they plan on building out and what roadway segments they will impact because that was the biggest issue in our ability to go forward with checkbook, and the response from community development in Tallahassee was that we couldn't show with that vested development exactly when it would come Page 6 December 11, 2002 online and how it would come online. And that's particularly true in transportation where you're going on a link by link basis each segment of roadway, whereas I can review what is out there in total vested units. If I had a north point and south point with an interconnect, I can go to trend, I can look at absorption rates and I can go to a percentage of the community that will be impacted and I can pretty much handle it no matter where in the community it comes online. In the case of roads where it's going to hit, what segment it's going to impact is critical. And that's why we're going in this process along with some good changes that Stan's hit on and we'll go in some more detail to a process that allows us to go back, look at everything that's vested and get a build-out plan that requires an annual update, that's provisions here, to be in that position to then go to a checkbook system and be able to say exactly what the implications would be of that system and go to a real time quarterly monthly rather than annual update. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, this is going to help us get there right now. I mean -- MR. FEDER: It's going to help us get-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we can't get there -- MR. FEDER: -- towards it but it will not get all the way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and I realize that when you came on board your hands were tied by the laws that were in place. Ours were tied by the laws that were in place. We were trying to help you, you were trying to help us and we weren't getting there with what we were dealing with so I just wanted to make sure. I know that we don't have the whole package here. I just wanted to make sure in your eyes we had enough of a package to -- to continue to move forward and protect some of the roads at -- MR. FEDER: We do. We've done some good things lowering that bar to three percent rather than five, requiring that the impact Page 7 December 11, 2002 fees be paid half at final plat or plan, which is a good three years before the impacts will hit to allow to us get out funds and start to provide that replacement capacity and making those fees once paid refundable -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. FEDER: -- and then requiring that the balance of that be paid within three years, if you're going to maintain that certificate of vesting, allows us to then provide that capacity and then if that development doesn't come on which impacts on fully built out for many years out, we still have provided that capacity so we start not only keeping pace but catching up on some of the past along with what you've done in the aggressive road program that we're permitting now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Feder, can we take a look at fiscal and operational impact starting on page one at the bottom of the page and going into the top of page of page two? It's -- it's -- it's uncertain to me when the certificate of adequate public facilities would be considered vested. MR. FEDER: Okay. Again, that's just the summary section in what you're referring to one and two. In answer to your question, at the time of final subdivision plat or plan there would be a review as to whether or not there's adequate public facility. If the determination is made that there is adequate public facility, then that capacity be -- be reserved. The development would have 90 days to come in and pick up that final development order and to pay half of the transportation impact fees directly into the transportation trust fund not into escrow, therefore, they could be used immediately to start providing that Page 8 December 11, 2002 replacement capacity. So, it's at the time of final plat or plans, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But half of it is collected at that point in time -- MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and half of it is collected at time of permit. MR. FEDER: No. Half is collected -- let me rephrase that. Half on an estimated. If you took -- 500 units were in a -- in a plat, that 500 units would have to pay today's impact fee rate structure, pay half of that to get the certificate and pick it up within 90 days. It would then be nonrefundable and it could be used immediately. In that first three years, we use about 35 percent, if you will, of the cost of an overall project which is what are the impact fees that are paid for on design and right-of-ways. So, we're asking for 50. The other 50 has to come on in three years if you're going to maintain that vesting of that 500 units for anything that's not built. And, again, that allows us to provide that capacity whether it comes online immediately or sometime in the future. The actual fee that you pay though, that's an estimated fee each time a building permit is pulled. So, if they pay the half, 90 days later build their first -- pull their first building permit. It's kind of quick. Let's say they do. At that time they would use the credit from the 50 against that impact fee, whatever that rate structure is at that time. So, if they pay the half and they take two years and, remember, we've got an indexing process, that rate will go up. It will be used against it until it runs out of that and then the next building permit will have to pay its full fee, the same -- Page 9 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand all that. Now, did -- do you under-- do you know what the average period of time is from the -- the point when a -- an SDP is approved to the point when a building permit is issued until the -- let's suppose the initial habitable structures are available for Certificate of Occupancy. MR. FEDER: It varies obviously by project. You got some folks here in the audience that maybe could answer that better. But from everything I've been able to look at and see, realistically from final plat or plan you're probably on average about four years before you're having any impact and more out six, seven years before the full impact of that development is seen if it stayed-- if it moves steadily. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think if I interpret this right that that is the key to the puzzle. When we went in with our checkbook concurrency system, Tallahassee told us that we could not eliminate the three-year period from consideration for road construction. MR. FEDER: Not could build and provide that. unless we could show that financially we the capacity -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. FEDER: -- that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're in the process of doing But, quite frankly, it looks to me like we've essentially done for all intents and purposes by -- by collecting these impact fees earlier. MR. FEDER: That's what I hope you'll find. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, because we -- we collect the impact fees, you said, four to five or six years before the development will be having an impact on the infrastructure. MR. FEDER: Realistically the answer to that is yes, you're Page 10 December 11, 2002 collecting half but then you're getting the other half when you need it, so in effect, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At a -- at a higher level. MR. FEDER: Correct. At the rate -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so, essentially, we are able to start development on the infrastructure many years before the ultimate impact is likely to be felt. MR. FEDER: That's exactly what we're trying to do, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: And then, Commissioner, the one other piece that you need to put in that puzzle and we're -- and we're having the people that want the development to pay for it and pay for it at that time, not pay for it three years later when they have the impact and the -- and the county has had to go out and bond that principal and interest and pay that extra money. They're paying up front so we don't have to bond it, so we're getting those dollars -- their dollars to start working on it ahead of time in order to bring that to fruition before the impact is felt. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And are -- are we guaranteeing a certificate of adequate public facilities at that point in time.'? MR. FEDER: If there is capacity, that's when we start the process. If there's not capacity, of course, we won't go forward. If there is capacity we guarantee it and reserve it at that time, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and -- and we're going to reserve it so that someone else doesn't come by and do the same thing and another one does the same thing and all of a sudden we don't have any capacity at all. MR. FEDER: Yes, and one caveat on that, with the annual update in inventory, which we're using now annually we will reserve that. We'll look at it annually and then come back to an annual basis. After we get the data, we'll come back to you and ! believe we'll Page 11 December 11, 2002 probably go into a more real time basis of looking at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay. Good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas and then myself and then we'll go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding on this we're going to be, when we're doing the engineering work on these roads, we're not basing this on ten months; is that correct? MR. FEDER: That is -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basing this on this 12 months; is that right? MR. FEDER: That is correct. When we design and -- and make an improvement, we do it on the basis of thirtieth highest hour for the full 12 months of the year. What we have in the provisions here is for review of development, especially as we stand right now, recognition that we have a peaking, particularly in February/March in our system, and that to try and both go the public costs, given that we're behind on some things, and the impacts of the amount of asphalt that we're putting into our community, that in fact we recognize that we evaluate our system for good performance ten months out of the year and acknowledge that we're going to have some congestion during the peak two months of the year. But when we go to make an improvement, we look at that need 20 years out and design it for success, which is going to the thirtieth highest hour considering all 12 months of the year. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We're looking at thirtiest high -- highest hour as far as engineering concept goes. MR. FEDER: Called design, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Well, what we're trying to do is establish some criteria for the hundredth hour; is that correct? Page 12 December 11, 2002 And then if we -- if we take off the two months, then we're actually looking at around the 248th hour. Is that my understanding? MR. FEDER: As it stands right now, you're pretty close to another standard, which is 250th highest hour. Right now that equates up to 248th hours, that's correct COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is only going to be for an interim period of time, is that correct, until we -- MR. FEDER: That is -- that is the policy issue of this board. It was what we proposed we initially sent to Tallahassee was to go to a ten month for the planning process not for the design and engineering. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my -- okay. MR. FEDER: And we had that in our initial submittal based on the workshop, 27th, I believe, of September. We were told to maintain that in this interim process given the policy of locations of trying to develop a system that would hit the peak of the peak both in costs and in the level of asphalt and the community impacts that that would present. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, you don't foresee us moving back when we're doing the count at the 250th hour. Do you foresee when we will some day take that into account of the peak? MR. FEDER: I would see that as we go through this system that obviously the direction from this board will tell me where I go on that, but I think we can evaluate that on an ongoing basis and change if we find it's necessary, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one time that we had allowed COA at permitting, if somebody wants to roll the dice and take the chance that the capacity is there, is that provision still in? MR. FEDER: What you're speaking to, commissioner, is Page 13 December 11, 2002 waiver and, no, it is not. The current system, which we're proposing to modify both with the growth management provisions already sent and with these plan development code changes, would do away with waiver and release, which basically said that at final plat or plan rather than putting all of my impact fees, not only transportation, but all my impact fees into an escrow account, therefore, not available to anyone, that I could roll the dice, as you put it, take the chance that concurrency will be available for me when I go to actually pull my building permit and that was waiver and release. The person was signing a waiver saying I release you from any liability. I'm going to continue to move forward and if there's not capacity for me when I go to pull my individual building permit, my problem. Or they could have paid all of the impact fees for all funds into an escrow account, as I said, not available to anyone. What we're proposing rather in this system is there is no waiver and release. We're trying to get the funds earlier in the process to make the improvements and we're trying to pull some of the soft speculation that we've experienced. So, rather, what you do is you have the person, if they're going to go for a final plat or plan and get that plat or plan because there is available capacity for transportation, pay half of those impact fees at that time, get vested and then have to pay the other within three years to maintain that vesting on time. You don't have to pay your other fees into an escrow account which weren't valuable to anyone because they get paid at building permit. Your actual fee still is calculated based on when you pull permit for all items including transportation. MR. SCHMITT: And if I could make sure, Norman, that we Page 14 December 11, 2002 clarify that this is an estimated payment at the 50 percent. The actual impact fee you pay is the day that you actually have a -- a deemed complete and sufficient application for a permit and then you -- you can wait up to 90 days. It was -- it is now 180 but we're changing it to 90 that you actually have to come in, draw the permit and pay the -- the fees. MR. FEDER: But then they're nonrefundable at that time and -- and as Joe points out, essentially what we're doing here is pulling the process to the final plat or plan and, as I said, pull in the dollars at that time. But the reason it's called estimated is you pay the fees for that 500 unit and subdivision. They pay the fees that are currently in full force and effect and then they pay the actual fuel at the time they pull the building permit if it's been changed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to ask Stan if he could clarify the issue with the escrow so you understand where we are now and what this amendment will do with the $31 million we now have in escrow that we can't touch. MR. LITSINGER: We currently have an escrow fund as you're aware where folks es -- escrow the estimated impact fees that would be due on building permit. With the adoption of this ordinance, we will close that escrow fund for further deposits. All payment of impact fees after this date associated with development approvals or in association with the vesting process for the six-month period will go directory into the impact fee funds. As part of the vesting review process, we would hope that we would be able to transfer significant moneys out of the $31 million balance approximately in the escrow fund directly into the impact fee funds so that you can appropriate those moneys to build the Page 15 December 11, 2002 necessary roadway improvements immediately. So, the escrow fund is something that we're going to see move away, be closed except for existing deposits that may be drawn down or transferred through the vesting process. MR. FEDER: I'll -- I'll just add to that somebody who went through the prior process I had mentioned and didn't go for a waiver actually paid all of their impact fees into escrow and got this certificate of adequate public facilities. They have the option -- they had that for three years or five years, after our prior process with the possibility to extend. They can stay in that process, leave the money in escrow and continue to develop under our prior policies because they were in before, or knowing that their situation is such that at the end of three years or five years they may not have that vesting status, they can decide to opt in to the new process, which means that then they have to pay that 50 percent when they choose to opt in and it becomes immediately available for use. And then within three years from the original certificate, which might be a month later or two years or ! 1 months and 28 days later, I guess, depending on when they -- on the prior process, they then have to pay the other 50 percent level to maintain that vested status. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner-- MR. FEDER: So, they've got the ability to opt in. On the old process, they can also surrender their certificate and get reimbursement of that as-built. If they operate into the new, they cannot surrender for reimbursement. They can surrender and then move those impact fees within the district but they cannot be refunded. And vesting runs with the land. They cannot move it to another project. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. Page 16 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me a -- a little better clarification of the $31 million that's in escrow? How much of that will we be able to take out, let's say, in the next year of that $31 million that's in escrow? Do you have any handle on that? MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Tindle here can tell you the exact amount, which is transportation and what the breakdown is of the various impact fee funds. The process will involve through the transportation impact vesting review process a process in development agreements that will result in the agreement to move those moneys essentially across the hall, if you will, from the escrow account to the impact fee account. Again, it will be a voluntary process and the moneys that are currently escrowed would remain so and are currently refundable on the surrender of a certificate. We -- MR. FEDER: But the feeling is that, folks, if they have the money tied up in escrow and they can get the ability to extend that vesting on out, may well want to opt as we go through that six-month process of looking at everything that's vested out there when it's likely to come online. So, that's going to part of that same process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I can just-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You haven't really answered -- MR. SCHMITT: I think-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the question. MR. SCHMITT: -- you're looking at about one-third of the current -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- moneys that are in there right now I would Page 17 December 11, 2002 tag as impact fee, transportation impact fee funds. The issue is going to be whether or not those who are currently vested and in the current program want to operate into the new program. That's going to be the option because of the transition. So, even if you're conservative and say maybe two-thirds, because I -- I think there will be some enticement to do so, Norman should have anywhere from five to six to $8 million available immediately or at least within the next six months to begin the program into his five-year work program and that's a significant step. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that conclude the presentation? MR. LITSINGER: That's all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers on this subject? MR. SCHMITT: We have one, two, three, four, five -- seven speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you call up -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. SCHMITT: Bob-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- speaker? MR. SCHMITT: -- Stone followed by David Ellis. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE: Good evening. For the record, my name is Bob Stone. I would like to address some of the concerns that I have with the Land Development Code. I think Mr. Feder has alleviated some of these. I didn't realize that you were actually collecting funds up front. The 1985 Growth Management Act, when written, contained a clause, development shall con -- shall occur concurrent with the -- the first one and then the backup -- Page 18 December 11, 2002 infrastructure requirements to support it. When it was later changed by the ELMS committee in '92, and rule 9(J)(5) came about, this effectively allowed the infrastructure to lag development by three years. Those counties which did implement concurrency in accordance with the 1985 Growth Management Act as written did not allow development to occur unless the infrastructure was available and in place to support it. Collier County did not do this and our infrastructure suffers today because of this. The current amendments speak primarily to the issue of adequate roadway concurrency and in an attempt to install a level of service system to determine when development may occur along those roadways. While roadways are an important issue -- an important part of the infrastructure, they are secondary in importance to the issue of adequate potable water and sewer facilities. The finite supply of potable water in our aquifers and the vulnerability of sewer facilities at peak season should take precedence over our roadways. These should be spoken to in as much depth in the Land Development Code as roadways. The level of service of potable water should be addressed in terms of how many acre-feet are available within the aquifer for use in new development per capita while sewer facilities should be based on how much capacity per capita remains within the area of development without the necessity of linking north and south plants or with the City of Naples. Section 3.15.2.2 states that the purpose of an adequate Public Facilities Act is to ensure that public facilities are available to serve development concurrent with when the impacts of development occur on the public facilities. Page 19 December 11, 2002 This appears to sound as though development and infrastructure will occur simultaneously; however, this cannot be assured unless other more precise wording is contained in the language such as a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued unless all infrastructure is available and in place to support the development prior to issuance. The constraints that will be put in place should all infrastructure not be available must also be addressed. Unless there is teeth in the language of the Land Development Code, there will be business as usual within the county and we will continue to be further behind in our goals of making the true concurrency occur between the development and infrastructure in the county. I strongly urge the board of county commissioners to include the necessary language within these amendments which will ensure that as a minimum potable water, surface facilities and roadways in that order are available and will be in place and operable prior to an occupancy permit. In other jurisdictions impact fees are collected at the time a PUD is put on the plan and approved list. There is no refund in the event the developer does not implement the PUD or changes it to a lower density in the future. This results in PUDs not being planned and approved which the developer does not intend to implement for years and makes the impact fee available for use in infrastructure requirements well in advance of development. In the determination of roadway concurrency there should also be another implementing factor added which many jurisdictions include and that is an intersection analysis. This constitutes an analysis of the intersection adequacy when the total traffic consumes 80 percent or more, the peak hour capacity of the approach links to the intersection. Page 20 December 11, 2002 In those cases where the level of service is below the acceptable adopted level of service, improvements must be identified that will restore the intersection to an acceptable level. And Section 3.1.5.3.3 and 3.15.3.24.1 speak to using a ten-month window excluding February and March, and I believe Mr. Feder has cleared that issue up. Section 27.3.4, the term sunsetting should be fully defined. Sunsetting does not remove a PUD from the planned and approved list as the term applies. It simply allows the developer other means to continue the PUD on planned and approved lists. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Miss Student, would you be so kind as to man the timer? Thank you. MR. STONE: Pardon me, sir? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You're fine, sir. You're fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Stone. MR. SCHMITT: David Ellis followed by Bob Mulhere. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, sir. MR. ELLIS: Good evening, commissioners. I'm David Ellis with the Collier Building Industry Association. A few points, and really to start out with, a lot of praise. The last time we were here talking about this, it was a -- it was more of a confused and muddled process. I think your staff has done a wonderful job looking at this and really trying to accomplish two goals. Number one, the county said they wanted the money sooner in process and they wanted to be able to use that money to move ahead. I think you've got a good interim move towards that. We moved the process up and we made the money available and for the folks that were in the development industry, they said, okay, we'd like -- we'd Page 21 December 11, 2002 be happy or we'll be willing to pay it sooner but what we want in turn is some certainty. We want to know that we have bought -- we have paid for, bought into a system that will guarantee us the concurrent road when we're done. From a businessman's perspective that was a fair trade. And as we looked at it, we realized the goals of the county and of those in the development industry. That seems to be working in this process. And your staff's -- we spent a lot of time looking at that together and they've done a nice job of pulling that together. The one thing that I would ask and the one area that we've -- we've somewhat agreed to disagree conceptually relates to when you pay and when that certainty is offered. In this process if you could imagine now, you will come in and you will apply for a site development plan. During that time frame, they will determine whether or not the road that you're on, if you're -- say you're building a community of 300 units, they will tell you during that process that, yes, you're -- you have adequate roads for that, and then at the time your SDP is issued you can thenbecome concurrent. And that's kind of a clean little package to put that in. The problem is the realities of the market and the realities of banking and other things make that very challenging. What we would like to see is for you to be able to come in and get a -- a determination of concurrency, a COA, a conditional COA. The very first thing in the process basically to come in with the idea of checkbook, you would come into the bank, the county, and say I'd like to know if I can build this project and I'm going to have 300 units, here's a traffic study, and they would look at it and go, yeah, that road can handle that. And at that time with that determination then proceed through Page 22 December 11, 2002 the SDP process before the extensive expense on the part of the county for that determination as well as the extensive expense on behalf of the developer to do all the -- the soft costs that go into that process. What could happen in this process, I could come in and apply, go through, frankly, what tends to be a six month, maybe a year process, and while I'm in the system, the road could fail. And now I've made a significant investment, in some cases to include purchasing the property, and then I'm told, no, you can't go on. And I think from the development industry's point of view, they'd been -- they would be very willing to pay for that -- that certainty sooner in the process, even -- even sooner. Now the problem is, is that STP can be denied. You can get that conditional approval, Yeah, the road's ready, but it doesn't meet the standards. We'll find that out during that process. At that point, of course, the county would need to be in a position, I guess, to return that money, and because of that, that money would have to be held in some kind of an escrow. Again, it's a difficult process, but in order to do this well, that would be something I think would be necessary to offer that full certainty to those in the process. And I don't know if you want to hear Norm on that. I -- I've -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your time is still going, sir. Go -- you can continue. MR. ELLIS: The last thing is, is one of the things, and this may sound like a funny thing to say, there's nothing in your LDC or your comp plan that says that once you get this money early, once you can use it, that you actually will. Now, it sounds kind of silly to say that but, frankly, it has been a challenge for us. It has been the challenge in this process for this, Page 23 December 11, 2002 where we are today. Frankly, it has never been an issue of did we even have the money. We had the money. We had the plan. We didn't execute the plan. Now, frankly, according to the way the rules work after six years if you don't use it, you have to give it back. Nobody has really tested that in Collier County. We want the roads built. We'd love to see language in here that doesn't say you should, could, would. We want it to say you will use that money to improve the roads, you will be tied to that. As commissioners, I think that even follows through more fully with your commitment to the community as far as how we're going to deliver this infrastructure. And, again, it may sound like semantics and -- and Norm's making that -- that point a moot point in some cases but he's here today doing it, but that is something to be concerned of. Remember again it wasn't an issue of did we have the money or the plan. We didn't build the roads in the time frame that we committed to and were funded for. And, again, that's the end of my comment. I know Norm probably is going to talk about my wanting to pay a little early. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was wondering if any of the -- if the commissioners have any questions of Mr. Ellis or of Norm Feder? Well, not at this time. MR. ELLIS: Well, I will tell you, A1 Zichella and a few others are going to come up and talk about that concept and they're actually going to expose you to a time line and Al's going to be able to explain that better that shows how that process would work and when those impacts are actually made, so a preview of things to come. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you call up the next speaker, Page 24 December 11, 2002 please? MR. SCHMITT: Bob Mulhere followed by Dwight Nadeau. MR. MULHERE: Good evening. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA Consultants. I'm representing myself here tonight. I'll be very brief. I -- I think we've come a long way just really over the last several weeks in developing a plan that is, I think, palatable both to the development community and is responsive to, I think, what the citizens of Collier County want. The up-front 50 percent payment, as Norman indicated, will allow you to cover the costs of planning and design and will actually exceed the average costs of that. And the time frame, I think, that was cited, probably a little bit shorter for a number of projects. From final plat to actual impacts on the road, I think, will vary depending upon the size of the project, the scope of the project, for example, is there a golf course, how much infrastructure they have to build up front. And also it will vary on other factors, economic factors, such as what the absorption rate for the particular market product is at that time. But I think on average you could assume that it would be three to five years at a minimum before those impacts are felt and I think you're safe in the 50 percent up-front collection followed by payment within that time frame as it's outlined in here. So, again, I -- I think that there's been a lot of behind-the-scenes work to try to develop something that is compatible, acceptable to both the development community and will achieve the -- the commission's desires and, I guess, really that reflects the desires of the citizens. And, so, I'd like to express my gratitude for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Page 25 December 11, 2002 Next speaker. MR. SCHMITT: Dwight Nadeau followed by A1 Zichella. MR. NADEAU: Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA. I'm representing various clients this evening but my presentation is very short. I would like to begin by commending staff. I spent many an hour with Mr. Feder, with Mr. Scott, with Mr. Litsinger outside of hearing rooms working on these 3.5 -- 15 regulations. There's still some administrative issues that would have to be worked out with staff relating to the implementation of this, but overall we feel that it's a positive step forward in the removal of the waiver and release program. We get the moneys sooner to build our roadway infrastructure. And with that, I'd like to thank you, commissioners, as well as staff. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: A1 Zichella followed by Reed Jarvi. MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, A1 Zichella, WCI Communities. I'm here for WCI as well as the CBIA. I do have a handout, if I may. I'd like to pass it out. MR. MUDD: Give it to me and -- MR. ZICHELLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that this handout is being handed out at the time of the meeting, that we haven't had sufficient time to actually read it, but we -- we will accept it. MR. ZICHELLA: Thank you. Just some food for thought here and some considerations, a time line, and-- regarding it. And, Jim, I'll need one back. I think I gave you every one I had. Page 26 December 11, 2002 But, first, I would like to echo some of the comments that were made -- thank you so much -- that were made here today regarding staff and -- and the process. I must tell you I think it's -- even though we have a few issues that -- that we may not -- we've agreed to disagree.on here, and we'll discuss this tonight, I think the process will, by and large, regarding -- I have one -- the -- your transportation staff has been outstanding. They -- they really are -- have done a great job while working with us and helping to work out what's good for the community at large as well as for the industry, and for that we're very grateful. Now, the top sheet I gave you there, it really deals with, if you refer to the third page, 3.15.7.3.11, there's some language you see added there in red. That's language that essentially is at -- is -- is at the root of some of what we're struggling with between staff and the industry, which is at what point we would receive a certificate of public facility adequacy, at what point in the process? And the suggested language in there in red is, frankly, with the kind of-- of language that we would like to see added to this. We've taken the liberty to put that in to give you an idea of how we envision this happening. The time line that's attached, which is actually the second page of that, deals with at what point the impacts do occur and at what point we think would be equitable to make our payment and receive our certificates of the 50 percent transportation impact fee. There is a summary box you'll notice on the lower right-hand side. It indicates that the proposed schedule that's shown there will reduce the time frame of collecting transportation impact fees by an average of 120 days for complex projects with permitting issues and/or other complications. The schedule could reduce the time frame by six to 12 months for collection of the fees. Page 27 December 11, 2002 So, it is a-- a time frame that deals with the preliminary subdivision plat from when it's submitted to approval followed by the final sub -- subdivision plat, site development plan. And you'll notice it projects out about 12 months. And it shows that in and around the seventh month, a TIS is -- is submitted, the traffic impact statement that's called for in the L -- Land Development Code. On or about the eighth month, the county would approve or deny the TIS and issue certificates for -- for traffic concurrency. And in the 11 th month, you'll see we would pay the impact fee. At that point we would be far enough along in the process that we would know that -- that our -- our plan was going to be approved and -- and -- and that the county -- and this will help avoid by the way some of those issues of refunding and at what point do you -- do you need to get the money back. They're thorny issues and they're legitimate issues on both sides. I mean, they want to use the money faster. By all means, we want them to do that. There is just a couple of-- of issues here I really wanted to address strongly. And one of them is we are very close with -- coming up with a concept of how we pay for impacts, how we actually get the work produced and in place in a much faster and much more accelerated pace. This is all good. We're just concerned with the timing of when we pay and what we get for that -- for that, when we actually achieve our certificates. We're a little uncomfortable with you can only get your certificates when the final STP is approved. And that's why we -- we've added the -- this substituted language and -- and suggest the time line for your inspection. Lastly, and I guess I have my papers in reverse order here. I Page 28 December 11, 2002 was rushing out of my office trying to prepare this. I would like to restate some of the intents that we had and why the timing is important to us. And I had seven points here which are seven reasons why, I guess, we would like to -- to reconsider that original language that was in there. And one of those is obviously that we want to improve the availability of the transportation impact fee funds to the county with the use of the trust fund accounts versus the escrow-type accounts. We want to encourage people by the way to opt in, not to sit on the escrow. We don't think that that's productive as a group. We'll do that if we have to, but I mean each developer would have to make his own mind up. And we don't think that that's productive. We want to give them the money. I know Norm will build roads. And if you'll look at those seven things -- I see that my time is up. I -- I would -- didn't realize I had spoke so long but in any event if you would look-- take a look at them, we think that helps make our case as to -- as to why we're concerned with the time frame. We want to help them get to their goal but we want a little protection and certainty. And David has addressed the -- the issues of the refundability which are also valid issues. And one last thing. He also addressed completion in actual performance of the roads. You know, Norm has done a great job here, you know, but if you don't get hit by a bus tomorrow, I don't have a hell of a lot of confidence that we won't have another 42-month period where things didn't happen. So, we would like some kind of language to be added and I'll be happy to supply that sample language to you by E-mail if you -- if Page 29 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. MR. ZICHELLA: -- don't mind. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate that. MR. ZICHELLA: Is that allowed by the way? Am I allowed to E-mail that-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you are. There are no restrictions on sending E-mail to the commissioners. MR. ZICHELLA: It's an open meeting here in the sunshine -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We welcome your-- MR. ZICHELLA: -- and I want to make sure I'm not crossing the line. But I did have some. I forgot to bring it. I apologize. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. Thank you very much. MR. SCHMITT: Last speaker, Reed Jarvi. MR. JARVI: Good evening. My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a transportation area -- excuse me -- transportation engineer for Vanasse and Daylor. And I'm here on behalf of Vanasse and Daylor and CBIA tonight. I have two quick comments. One is specific; Page 19 on 3.15.6.4.2. We've talked about this at -- at several of our meetings with staff and around and I think this came up as direction from the Planning Commission. If you see in the middle of that paragraph it talks about a definition of de minimis, which was part of the Planning Commission's suggestion and then we've added a -- a second half of that statement that talks about significant tests and -- and we think from our discussions in the past what we have agreed on with the staff was that that -- what would be the third de minimis would be really significant would be the right word. So, the second half of that statement would read, or for which the significance test, and it really should be significant -- significance test, not significant test, in 3.15.6.4.3 below indicates that the Page 30 December 11, 2002 development will generate more than a significant impact on the roadway segments. And we would request that. And the last point I have is just to reiterate what A1 said from our -- and -- and David. From our standpoint we need to have some understanding that the roadway concurrency is available or certified at an earlier time frame rather than the end. The graphic that A1 hand -- excuse me -- handed out shows a lot of soft costs go into the preparation of a subdivision or an STP, and to find out at the end that you can't build it, it's too late in the process, so we need to have something earlier on. There are other communities in the state. For instance, Tallahassee has a certificate process that says once a certificate is issued you have 28 days to submit your STP or whatever they call their STP subdivision up in Tallahassee. Hillsborough has like 60 days. So, there are qualifications there and we just think it should be earlier in the process to give us that level of confidence and to get funding and financing and -- and not spend, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out that the answer is no. So, we would request that. And that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Does that conclude the speakers? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, that concludes the speakers, but before we go any -- any further, we jumped right into this and, so, for your understanding I'm going to ask Susan to go through the ground rules so that she can explain to the commissioners what we're asking you to do at least for tonight's hearing. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. For the record, Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager. Tonight is the first of two public hearings for the fall cycle of Page 31 December 11, 2002 2002. You will not be voting tonight. Basically staff is seeking your direction in terms of the amendments before you tonight as well as taking public and then seeking your direction in terms of any amendments or changes you would like to see to these proposed amendments as they are in their present form. They are also still under review by staff so at the next public hearing, which is the final public hearing, January 8th, 2003 at 5:05 p.m. in this room, you will be -- that will be the final hearing and you will be voting that evening and we will have an up-to-date ordinance to you at that time and we will have changes to the proposed amendments that you hear tonight based on your direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, hold on, Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Fiala first and then we'll go to you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On -- on this that you've passed out to us today or yesterday or whatever it was, the one that we've just been discussing, I don't have any questions for anything you said. Did -- did we have input from the CCPC and from DSAC on that? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. There is -- there are three sections to your entire packet. The main section contains the executive summary and in back of the executive summary beginning on about the third page, you will see the 2002 Land Development Code Amendment Cycle 2 summary sheet, and that's the typical summary sheet we give to you every cycle that outlines the amendments; the proposed amendment, the section number and then each of your committees that support you, their recommendations and vote are listed after each of the amendments so you can see what the Planning Commission Page 32 December 11, 2002 recommended, the EAC, et cetera. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. MS. MURRAY: And that's Pages 1 through 13, I believe, after your executive summary and that's probably the thickest packet you have in your hands. MR. SCHMITT: However, please note that this item, which appears on Page 10 of your chart, this was -- the information is not on the chart for this amendment because we just passed this through the Planning Commission this past Wed-- Thursday. So, that's -- but it was a six -- actually a seven to zero vote in favor where they found that it in compliance with the land development -- with the Growth Management Plan. And there was a condition on that because it's the pending Growth Management Plan. It still hasn't been adopted yet. And I -- I would have to ask-- MR. LITSINGER: And also in your copy, I believe the changes that came out of the Planning Commission's hearing Thursday are outlined in blue -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: -- for the specific changes as a result. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I'm sorry. I didn't find that in there. I -- and I apologize for that but, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we had their input and know what they had to say and recommend. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, Miss Murray, what you're saying is any input that we receive tonight will be or has been considered by staff. And the reason for my comments, Mr. Zichella's three page changes, I haven't had time to compare it with what staff or the Page 33 December 11, 2002 Planning Commission has recommended, so we'll -- we'll get that input from staff at a later time? MR. LITSINGER: Based on your direction tonight we will come back to you on the eighth with either incorporating some of these considerations or with the ordinance in the format that we are proposing to you, which is the collection of impact fees at the issuance of the final local development orders as they are identified. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. Depending upon the board's desire, we could try to respond at least initially. We just saw the package as you did, but we've been discussing this issue for some time. We have some reservations about trying to do it earlier. We understand why it's being asked and, so, please, due to all the positive comments and the feeling that we had so little areas of not concurrence through the process, I'm not sure I was there, but I'm pleased to hear it. On this issue what I will tell you though is that we do not have the traffic impact analysis statement typically and we go to the first and then go to the exact proposal for this evening. But the concern was until you have done the traffic impact analysis, you don't know what the impacts are so, therefore, I don't want to reserve capacity but rather require the process to go through, have a finding that there's adequate public facilities and then reserve that capacity at that time. To reserve it earlier, then go through the analysis, find it is or is not preempting possibly somebody else in the process because somebody comes in quickly and applies is -- is a concern that I've expressed repeatedly in this discussion. In effect, what we're planning to do is to make sure that our analysis, our capacity information and as it's written in here as we go Page 34 December 11, 2002 into the requirement, especially as we go to real time concurrency, that information will be available. A business decision can be made on whether or not there is reasonable capacity on this facility because we'll have that data out there and available. But as far as any commitment, that needs to be at the time that we have the full data to be able to evaluate and agree that in fact it is available capacity and to give it. What is an interesting twist I had not seen and what you got presented tonight, and I'd like to defer it to the next meeting and some further work is that they're proposing that once I have received and approved of the transportation impact statement, then at that time they could pay their one-half and -- and get adequate post to a certification. That does resolve my area of concern with a couple of caveats. The first caveat is that what if other review process changed the nature of that development in some manner that's going to change some of the transportation impact? What if that project that I get a certificate for they pay the fees and, remember, it's not nonrefundable in going forward if it doesn't gain final approval because of other issues. So, there's some things I'd like to look at and then come back to you as was said. To a couple of the other technical changes, I think the issue that was brought up to you, Reed Jarvi cited one in the definition of de minimis, we've already made modification to that and we'll continue along with your legal staff and our efforts to continue to redefine the language and bring that back to you. None of them are substantive. The substantive concepts are going to be presented to you this evening. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you Page 3 5 December 11, 2002 finish yours? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One issue that has been raised is -- is intriguing and I think is fundamental to the effectiveness to this entire program, and that is our obligation to do something with the funding once we get it. It's not going to solve any problem no matter what we do with concurrency if we collect the money and then we -- we don't make the decisions to get the construction done. What can we do to -- to provide the assurances to everybody in the county that we're going to do this, bearing in mind that -- that the impact fees paid by a single development on a single road segment is never going to be enough to widen that road segment. How do we deal with that issue? MR. FEDER: Thank you, commissioner, and -- and a very astute observation that that is the issue. You can't necessarily tie it. When somebody gives me one-twentieth of the dollars to widen a section of roadway, I cannot tie that dollar to that roadway and to that widening on the basis of one-twentieth. What I can tell you is that there are many, many safeguards and particularly based on the action of this board over the last year to two years. Specifically, you've got a five-year work program that you're committed to entask staff to. That has been in the last two years that we've even had a five-year work program and I can tell you in the last two years we have produced consistent with that work program and met the first two years of a very, very aggressive schedule. So, you've got a work program. Also in here you've got through your AUIR language that Page 36 December 11, 2002 already commits that anything that you consider as covered when you make your determination on the AUIR is in fact in place and you cannot divert those funds away. That is about as specific as you can get. The other is impact fees can only be used by ordinance within that district or adjacent district to make improvements. So, that's a commitment, else they have to be returned in six years. What I can tell you is if the feeling was in the past they weren't being used, there's no balance available. It has been used and it will be used. So, I think you've got many safeguards already in effect, the most notable of which is in your AUIR as it stands right now in language and weren't sure that that language continues as we go into the real time concurrency and the changes that will follow in six months to a year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me -- let me see if I've got it -- this straight and I'll -- I'll talk in terms of the interim program not the ultimate checkbook concurrency system which is -- MR. FEDER: Which is what we're facing today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- which should give us a real time control. But the -- the interim process we're going to be evaluating the adequacy of the public facilities. And, by the way, this covers water, sewer and everything else. It doesn't just cover roads. MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we're going to be -- be evaluating the adequacy of the public facilities at a point in time well in advance of the need for those public facilities. MR. FEDER: For the impactions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We -- we're -- we're -- we are Page 37 December 11, 2002 required by DCA to use a three-year work schedule. Right? MR. FEDER: We're required to use nothing broader than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing broader than -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the three-year work schedule. So, if you are -- are collecting portions of the impact fees as much as three or four years in advance of the potential impact, then you know whether or not you've got it in the three-year work plan at that point in time or whether you intend to put it in the three-year work plan at that time. It seems to me that the determination of concurrency must be contingent upon us doing that and -- and we must -- we must obligate ourselves to doing it. If-- if we make a -- make a determination of adequate public facility and we take someone's impact fees, then we have an obligation to either already have that scheduled in a three-year work plan or we must have a plan to do it within three years or before the impact of the development-- MR. FEDER: Or not agree to that going forward. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- conflict. That's -- that's right. MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So -- so, at the time that we get the request from the developer for a certificate of adequate public facilities, we should know whether we've got it planned for expansion or we don't have it planned for expansion. If it's not planned for expansion, they can't get their certificate in a public -- a facilities availability. If it is planned for expansion, they do get the certificate of public availability, public facilities availability and we also get the Page 38 December 11, 2002 money well in advance so we can make sure we get there. MR. FEDER: So that you can actually implement at that point COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. FEDER: -- that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, is that a fair assessment of where we're going? MR. FEDER: That's a good assessment and -- and I will also add that part of your assessment is very thorough because if you had available capacities is the other way that it could go forward, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there was no available capacity we wouldn't issue the concurrency certificate at all. MR. FEDER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if it's programmed within the three years, the development isn't going to be operational within three years from the point of time when we're conducting the evaluation. MR. FEDER: And we'll be collecting fees now -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll be collecting fees to be able MR. FEDER: To be able -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to move forward. MR. FEDER: -- to move forward and do whatever, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah. I-- I think there's adequate safeguards there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's your -- we're in the interim period now. What's your best guess that we're going to get to real time concurrency? MR. FEDER: The first thing we have to do, which is provided for in here, is to do a review of all vested development. As we Page 39 December 11, 2002 mentioned, that transition will also be a part of that consideration of opting into the new at the same time. And in that analysis, what we need to do is determine what is truly vested out there already today, determine when the impacts from that development are likely to come online and where those impacts will affect the system segment by segment. Once we have that, then we can do what we were trying to do before and that is to look at our system, what we want to implement in the way of real time concurrency and then be able to say what would the outcome of that be and what would be the cost to resolve the issues? And the concern was without that information you could potentially create a moratorium with no solution in sight to it. So, now we'll be able to evaluate does it even create that, and if it does, how long would that have to go on? Do we need to then incrementally go at it, do we need to modify? We'll have the data to do it. So, in answer to your question, I've been told it's extremely aggressive to try and do that in six months but I've also been told that's the direction this board wants. So, I am going to try and do it within six months and at the end of six months I will have it. And then we will be in a situation of being able to take that data and start the discussions in the public debate to look at what we do in changes to a real time concurrency and then start that process of implementing both the growth management, the tri-station element, capital improvement element and then the follow-up modifications of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, what you're going to do then is you're going to be working with planning and permitting finding out exactly what PUDs we can sunset, which ones we can take off the Page 40 December 11, 2002 record and work -- MR. FEDER: I am not working the sunset, but I will be going through and everything that is vested, we are going to work with the development and try to evaluate exactly when its impacts are going to come forward in here if you establish this. Also there's a provision for a much more effective, folks, annual reporting of that development until it gets to the point of 90 percent complete. So, once we come up with a reporting and they say that, for instance, on this development so many units are going to be built, they are going to therefore have these impacts on these road segments, we are going to then work with community development and evaluate how many units actually got built that year, go back if it's outside of the plan, please update the date. The plan is not in sync. And try to keep that annual monitoring so I can constantly keep a basis of being able to say truly what is already reserved, what checks have we written that haven't been cashed yet? That's the answer we haven't been able to do to this date. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we -- is there any other questions? Do you think we've -- bored us far enough that we can -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we just need to give direction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't sound like that we have the full sense of Mr. Zichella's three-page amendment, so I think it's appropriate for staff to evaluate it and give us some recommendations at the next meeting. MR. FEDER: We will do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Page 41 December 11, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next amendment we'll consider is we're going back to your main package here with the executive summary, and if you leaf back past the first 13 pages, you'll get to handwritten pages in the center of the page and we'll start at Page 2. And that's the amendment to Section 2.2.2.2. And this amendment is related to public schools and it's to make the agricultural and estate zoning district consistent with the essential services provision of the LDC which allows educational facilities as permitted uses in the agriculture and estate zoning district. And this change is also consistent with the practice of acceptance of some -- of submittals of site plans for administrative review for schools and reviewing them as permitted uses within this district through the process which is established by the interlocal agreement between the county and the school board. So, in -- what this essentially is doing is permitting public schools as permitted land uses and private schools will remain as conditional uses. And that is consistent with the practice we have been doing and consistent with another provision of the code which says they are permitted uses in those districts. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one second. Susan, is this the second reading or the first reading? MS. MURRAY: This is the first reading. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And we do have registered speakers on this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. Would you call the speakers forward? MR. SCHMITT: There are three registered speakers. The first speaker, Michelle Lugo followed by John Clapper or if you prefer to have John go first. MS. LUGO: Yes, please. MR. SCHMITT: John. Page 42 December 11, 2002 MR. CLAPPER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, sir. MR. CLAPPER: Commissioners, Mr. Mudd, Mr. Weigel and staff and members of the public, I'm very pleased to address the commissioners this evening on behalf of Collier County Public Schools. I want to talk to you about these proposed amendments and particularly how we have worked with county staff in a manner that we appreciate very much. For a lengthy period of time, there were many more amendments than have been discussed this evening. There was a long series of amendments that identified every single residential use and identified that it was appropriate that the public school be a permitted use in every single residential zone. All of that has been deleted from the proposed amendments as they appear in the final form that are before the commission tonight. I have six comments to make with respect to that and then I'm going to be followed by two of my colleagues from the facilities department of the Collier County Public Schools. It's very important to Collier County Public Schools to have public schools as permitted uses in residential communities because if they are conditional uses it creates problems for us. We have to apply to build a public school. We have to go through a longer and inefficient process to bring a school out of the box and have it ready for use. We have to go through a public hearing process, which may result in a rejection, and it may result in some sort of a judicial proceeding after the -- the hearing. So, what it does is it creates a great deal of uncertainty for us with respect to when we get to open a public school. My second point is there's only one time that we have to open a public school and that's in August of a particular given year. We Page 43 December 11, 2002 can't open it in September and serve the needs of the students in our communities. October-November is even worse. We've got to have it open in August. We have to have a CO in July so we could put furniture and computers and bring in our teachers and locate all of our staff, so it's exceedingly critical for us to have an efficient process. My third point. Sorry for the vernacular, but my third point is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've got an interlocal agreement. As a matter of fact we have two. But we have a very lengthy and detailed interlocal agreement that has been in use since 1996. It's been a very successful, cooperative effort between county staff and school staff. We've opened six very, very nice schools and communities all over the county pursuant to that interlocal agreement and we want to stick by that agreement. And I think these amendments are a distinct departure from the existing, valid interlocal agreement that exists today between the county and the school board. That interlocal agreement specifically says that schools will be permitted uses in every residential zone. Now that, as I understand it, is inconsistent with what county staff is now proposing. The first set of amendments that we worked on with county staff we like because we thought that was consistent with the '96 interlocal agreement. My fourth point is that the '96 interlocal agreement is valid and binding and it controls. I think I've -- I've already said that. My fifth point is that we've got a problem right now. We've got four schools in the planning stage; Martin Luther King, Golden Gate High School, Lewis and Clark High School and Eisenhower Middle Page 44 December 11, 2002 School. We believe that we have complied with the 1996 interlocal agreement with respect to all of the siting characteristics for these four schools and we have submitted construction plans on the four schools and have been waiting for approval. We have -- we've got a problem with our opening dates because the process has somehow gotten off the path and gotten a little inefficient. We need to proceed on three of those schools right now. Eisenhower school is going to be a problem. It interestingly enough is a problem that's consistent with what I talked about with conditional uses because someone has come forward and as a result of a Dolland (phonetic) hearing has really stopped the construction of Eisenhower Middle School. It's going to provide overcrowding in all of the other schools that would serve that school, it's a problem. The problem is going to get worse. We're planning to build two intermediate schools in Golden Gate City to alleviate overcrowding that exists right now. And we're not -- we're not even at the point on those two schools that we are on the other four. I'd like to introduce Michael Kirk. He's the director for Facilities Planning and Construction. He will tell you about the successes and the cooperation the Collier County Public Schools has enjoyed with the county in years past with the hope that we can return to that type of relationship. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just ask you a quick -- MR. CLAPPER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- question? Where are these schools geographically locate -- going to be located at? Page 45 December 11, 2002 MR. CLAPPER: Most of them are in the Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates area. The Eisenhower Middle School is on the northern part of the county on Vanderbilt, on the east side of Vanderbilt on the east side of Imperial Golf Estates. Michael? MR. KIRK: Good evening, chairman, commissioners. For the record my name is Michael Kirk. I am director of Facilities Planning and Construction for Collier County Public Schools. I wanted to talk tonight to tell you about some of the successes that we've had over the past six years since the interlocal agreement between the county and the -- and the commissioners was executed. Since that time, we've opened six excellent facilities. In 1996 we opened Pelican Marsh Elementary, in 1998 we opened Gulf Coast High School, in 1999 we opened Corkscrew Elementary School, in 19 -- in 2000, we opened Corkscrew Middle School, and August of this year we opened Osceola Elementary School as well as Caloosa Park Elementary School. And all of those were opened under the existing interlocal agreement that we presently have in place with the county. We've worked over the past six years very closely with your staff and -- in bringing our-- our site plan to -- to the county staff to receive input and also to follow in lines with the guidelines that were established in interlocal agreement. We worked together to construct community centers, school sites that could be used beyond just educational needs, but also are used to deliver various types of community services throughout the community and throughout residential areas. Historically, we've been two governmental agencies working together closely to provide excellent facilities throughout the county. Page 46 December 11, 2002 If you go to other counties throughout the State of Florida, they will tell you that we have some of the best facilities, educational facilities, in the State of Florida. Whenever possible and practicable, both agencies have cooperated to co-locate facilities such as schools and parks and other types of needed infrastructure throughout the county. One of the things that I personally do is spend a lot of time with your staff to talk about joint or co-locating various facilities, especially with our parks and recreation -- your parks and recreation department that I spend a lot of time with your director, Marlo Ramsey, in talking about co-locating. We've done that in the past schools. We've done that at Corkscrew Middle School. We also did that at Osceola Elementary which opened this year. And two of the facilities that we are presently trying to -- to get approval for and open up, they incorporate park facilities, so there -- there's been a lot of cooperation over the years. We've incorporated parks and recreation projects within school projects in order to be able to put those in place and be able to serve as residential communities. The interlocal has been successful in the past and it's my desire to continue that interlocal to be used to govern how we not only site schools but also how we receive approvals for our schools. And we hope to continue to work with your staff and to work with the commission in providing the educational facilities that are needed to meet the growth in Collier County. At this time I'll turn it back to -- to our attorney. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. MR. CLAPPER: Thank you, Michael. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold it just one second. MR. CLAPPER: Yes, sir. Page 47 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we go any further, I don't see any deletion from the residential component in the urban area, just adding to agriculture and urban estates. MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me -- for the record again, Joe Schmitt, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services. I think what we really have to do, and John will probably have to highlight from the school board's perspective, but we need to understand how we got to where we are today. And I know Marjorie is working on this issue from a legal perspective. We had an interlocal agreement that was established back in 1996. Subsequent to that, the Land Development Code was never amended to basically implement what was in the interlocal agreement. This amendment was initiated to do just that, to take and change within the Land Development Code and identify for all zoned activities that schools would be permitted uses instead of a conditional use. And that's the way the legislation was first written or the amendment. We brought it to the Planning Commission back in October 23rd and, frankly, met stiff resistance. The Planning Commission did not understand why we would allow for a permitted use within a residential zoned neighborhood. The fact is that there should be allowed some kind of public venting process so people would have a say as to whether or not a school should be located and, frankly, it makes good planning sense. Just like any other developer or a private school, you have to apply for a permitted use. Page 48 December 11, 2002 We then changed our recommendation for the following hearing with the Planning Commission and that was November 13th and -- and, frankly, we notified the school board, but I guess maybe we didn't do that adequately. But we withdrew the recommendation and the Land Development Code will stay as is, that it has to be a permitted use. Now, some of this is also complicated because the school board never really had to come to the county for the review process. They were, for all intents and purposes, exempt. Not until March of 2002 were they even required to have their plans reviewed and go through the permitting process. And this year will be the first year we actually see all buildings. And there has been an evolution in this -- this requirement for an interlocal agreement. We're currently under a requirement to have completed by March of 2003 an updated interlocal agreement. And those dynamics throughout the entire State of Florida, there were a lot of dynamics between the local planning authority, the planning departments and the school boards as far as the -- trying to get the school boards to comply with local building codes and local building -- local planning requirements. So, therein lies the dilemma. We -- we currently have and we have been working extremely hard and I think my staff in trying to make sure that there is success with the four schools that have been identified. And Michael knows because in fact we had another meeting this afternoon. We had a meeting last week. And we understand the impacts that on this community in delaying any of the schools. We just learned of two new schools, both of which happen to be in Golden Gate City, that you had before you our petition that was -- Jim McGerra (phonetic) had a couple of properties. Page 49 December 11, 2002 Those have -- now have been purchased by the school board and herein lies the problem. We've got now an absolute necessity to get two more sites that are in residential areas identified as a permitted use because they're looking for delivery in January of'04, almost a little over, what, 13 months from now, to open up to meet the requirements for school children in Golden Gate City. We have two alternatives. Somehow we can look at that tonight and -- and if you want to include and, again, it's your -- your direction. If you want to include residential use as a -- or residential -- residentially zoned, residential single family, residential multifamily from our residential three to -- well, the entire spectrum of residential zoning, and if you want to include permitted use, that means for all intents and purposes they have carte blanche. They can go in any residential community. Now, that's not a PUD. A PUD is a separate zoned entity and they have to amend the PUD to allow that unless the school -- a school has been identified in that PUD. So, the dilemma here is that, yeah, the rules are somewhat changing because the school board's been kind of suffering through some of these rule changes, but if in fact we continue as is, the -- the school board has no option but to try and seek approval through the permitted use process for the two schools in Golden Gate. And I think the quickest we could do that is probably right now on the fast track probably before we get to you would be in February. So, that's how we got to where we are. There's no longer a SURF or State requirements for educational facilities. They're the ones that used to do all the review and that's kind of how we got to where we are. And I'll pass to the County Attorney's office. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. Page 50 December 11, 2002 And the law, the state law on this subject has evolved since the early and mid nineties when the interlocal was done and there was some ambiguity at that time, but presently the law requires that school siting be consistent not only with the Growth Management Plan but our zoning or Land Development Code. And, so, that's the dilemma that we face. MR. SCHMITT: Now-- now, also understand that if you approve or you direct staff to go back and allow as permitted use in all zoned areas, so that's estates, commerce -- well, estates -- what are we look at? MS. MURRAY: Agriculture. MR. SCHMITT: Agriculture and -- and residential that all future PUD schools will be so permitted as well as a -- as a permitted use unless it's specified within the PUD language. So, the dilemma that the Planning Commission had was should we in fact allow it to be a permitted use without going through the public venting and public hearing process. So, that's, frankly, where we're -- we're at -- we're at the impasse. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two sides to that issue that I see. I'm sure the school board is not going to build a school where it's not needed. The other thing is I think it's a great process to have public input on those school sitings and -- and mainly what the school name is and I still haven't figured out what Mr. Lewis or Mr. Clark benefitted here in Collier County. But also another problem is sidewalks, transportation issues, that if we're going to do it right, we need to have and should have the public's input and our staff involved in that process. MR. SCHMITT: And-- and, commissioner, we are. Page 51 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let me just say that the two intermittent schools in Golden Gate or the two existing elementary schools are at a capacity. They cannot put portables on top of portables. And that's a real concern of me and it does need to be located in that community because the make-up of that community a lot of people, families, do not have transportation. So, I'm not sure if this amendment is a proper one, but I tell you that I have a lot of concerns in the process, the planning process, and maybe we're just too far behind the curve on these schools to make this amendment. But I could see both issues -- MR. SCHMITT: Well-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and I'm really tom. MR. SCHMITT: And, commissioner, the other aspect of this is that that's part -- been part of the growing pains between the staff and the school board because of the detailed analysis for SDP approval that we're requiring the school board to go through now, which they didn't in the past. And -- and it -- and it has added time to the planning process and it's really encumbered Michael to try and meet schedules. But it's -- it's looking at the things you're -- you have just brought up about roads and capacity and -- and -- and sidewalks and all the other things that we would do for any other developer. And, as you recall, it was two meetings ago when I came before the board and asked for a special approval for you to allow with the proceeding of-- now, which -- I believe that was Lewis and Clark while pending the approval of the -- of the amendment out at Orange Tree because we have to have a PUD amendment for Orange Tree to allow for that school. And there is a crisis. There is a crisis in Collier County and we Page 52 December 11, 2002 recognize that. In fact, my boss has given me some clear direction in trying to help these guys get through this process. The issue really here is for this amendment we're recognizing the estates and we're recognizing ag as a-- a permitted or-- a -- correction -- a permitted use. What we're looking for as a -- from a residential zoned, should it -- should it be a permitted or a conditional use? I think the only way to help this school board out is if we can somehow craft language just to identify these two schools that are currently within the -- within the crisis and that are the -- that's the two schools within Golden Gate City. And I -- I don't know if there's a legal -- if there's a legal -- okay -- yeah, if there's a legal way we can help the school and then in the future they'll have some -- through some planning be able to come in for permitted uses. MS. STUDENT: My thought on the subject would be in those districts where the crisis exist have them be a permitted use for a term, for example, one year, two years from the effective date of the amendment, and after which the board could look at it again and perhaps determine that the county would be better served to have them return to conditional uses but in those districts where there is a crisis. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, I'm in total agreement with Commissioner Henning. I believe in public input. And I -- there must be some way to be able to accommodate everybody with this particular process. If we have to move things on a special accelerated course to be able to get there, possibly the school system might be able to hire someone to be able to take the part of staff, some of the staffs responsibilities because I know our staff is totally overloaded at the moment to be able to facilitate this thing to happen sooner than later. Page 53 December 11, 2002 But I truly believe the public process is necessary. I know in the past when people came to us, they said, well, don't I have any say about the school or don't I have any say about what's particularly happening, the name or any part? And the answer's been it's totally within the realm of the school system. We have nothing to do with it. Now, I find that we have a little bit of say in the whole thing and, personally, I represent the people and I know what they've been saying out there for some time. So, if there's some way that we can craft this thing that would accommodate the needs and still allow for public participation and that possibly could grow as time goes on so that we can encompass even more. That's my own feelings. We'll go to Commissioner Hales and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I -- I -- I concur with Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coletta. But I also think that the -- the county ought to be working with the school board in regards to where we're going to direct growth in that therefore where we're going to place the -- the schools. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're going -- and we're doing that. In fact, both myself, Norm Feder and county manager and Mr. Jim Simms, the assistant superintendent for facilities, we've just met Friday again just doing that. And if I could just -- the only real hangup in the whole scheduling process is the -- is not -- we can do it staffwise. It's the public announcements and the lead time, the public information meeting and the public announcements that have to be in the paper and the process that has to follow that linear process. So, with that -- but I think what Marjorie just pointed out, I think between that and the -- and the County Attorney, what we need Page 54 December 11, 2002 to do is craft some language to help them out now to get these schools built. And I -- and I -- and I sensed after the -- from the Planning Commission for the two locations in Golden Gate City for the other projects that were proposed, there was a lot more support for schools at those two sites than there were single family homes as I recall at the Planning Commission. You have not seen those yet because they're still pending. And I -- but -- but I -- that transfers the risk onto the school board because eventually that -- that permitted use will expire and -- or that -- yeah, that permitted use will expire and they'll have to come in and apply for the conditional use. But I -- I suspect -- this is a middle school and an elementary school. They're fairly low intensity where the -- the problem is is with the high schools. And that's where you usually get the kind of public input because they want to make sure that the lighting from football fields and those kind of things don't impact their quality of life. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle and then we'll come back to some other questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're planning on applying some additional rules to the school board and the siting and construction of schools. The second reading is going to be in January. It will then go to Tallahassee for review and approval. MR. SCHMITT: No, not -- not the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not -- not this one. MR. SCHMITT: Not the LDC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't go anywhere for-- -- approval. This one -- this one is Page 55 December 11, 2002 done after the second hearing. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then -- then -- then I would -- would concur that we --we expedite the process so that they can get on with it but-- but still accommodate the -- the public review process and if we have to schedule some extra meetings and I think we're going to do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to wrap up, sir? MR. CLAPPER: I wanted to point out that as of the 67 counties in the State of Florida, we're probably in the top five for population growth and that manifests itself in student population growth, which is our business, and we have what we refer to as bubbles. And bubbles come out of the elementary school and go into middle schools and they're heading for high schools right now and that's why we're opening -- or plan to open two major high schools in August of 2004. And it's -- it's a continuing challenge that we were very successful at meeting with a lot of cooperation from the county from '96 until 2002. What I would think is an alternative, even though we have a very good interlocal agreement that we crafted in 1996, perfect is very difficult to achieve. We could make it better. And I think the way to approach it is to take a hard look at how we can change that 1996 interlocal agreement. I would actually prefer not to approach this as a quick fix basis to do something about the intermediate schools because I think this is a lot larger than that. We've got four sets of construction plans, you know, sitting at the county planning desk right now, and the two we're talking about aren't even there yet. You know, so, while they do -- all need to be dealt with, I think that we need to have a cooperative FROG plan to Page 56 December 11, 2002 deal with -- with all of these issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. MR. CLAPPER: We're -- we're anxious to get to work with the county on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I personally like the idea of you working with the county. I've always had a problem with the schools being built outside of the realm of the county and the own -- their own inspectors and the cost overruns and the time spent and the leaky roofs. You know, this is in the past, not -- not the recent history, but in the past. It has always been a great concern to me but I was iold that was a realm that we couldn't go into. And I kind of welcome the fact that the school board is working with county staff to alleviate these problems and use the resources we have to cure a final product that will be better than what we had before. Marjorie, did you have something to add to this before we move on? MS. STUDENT: I was just going to say I'd be happy to work with Mr. Clapper and discuss this further with him. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there anything else you want to add to this, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still would like to get the education of Lewis and Clark. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll give you the book. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have sufficient direction on this? MR. SCHMITT: We have sufficient direction. If I could just kind of summarize, our direction is to look at the current crisis right now that exists specifically in the area of the two schools that are identified in Golden Gate City. Page 57 December 11, 2002 I think there is more than sufficient lead time for the schools that are further out for the school board to apply for the permitted uses. And if not, I will have to get the schedule from -- from the school board but originally we had a crisis for the four schools and we've been pushing those. The Orange Tree one is coming back to you for the amendment to the PUD. We'll get these two schools somehow written in, the two schools for Golden Gate City, and if there are any others that are going to create a time crunch in regards to the school board not coming in to ask for a permitted use, then we'll -- we'll bring that back to you in January. I -- I do want to stress though that the guidance from Tallahassee in this last legislative agenda was, it came to the -- to the local communities to update the interlocal agreements. And we've been involved in that for the last several months. We will be bringing back -- that back to you and subsequently they will be bringing it to the -- the school board for the approval because we have to have a -- a finalized agreement by the middle of March. And we're currently working that issue as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With all due speed. MR. SCHMITT: So, with your guidance, I think that's -- we'll go with that approach so we can, frankly, meet the needs of the community right now and -- and from my assessment, I don't think there is any objections out there in Golden Gate but somehow we're going to have to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we don't know that. MR. SCHMITT: -- access that. Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that we're going to take MR. CLAPPER: We thank you very much. Page 58 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're going to take a ten-minute break. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please continue? MS. MURRAY: Commissioners, the next item on the agenda we can consider starts on Page 61 and we do have a couple of registered speakers for this item. And I'll give you a brief overview. This is essentially to amend Section 2.2.36 to extend for six months the interim development control or moratorium for the Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Zoning District. And it -- essentially, this extension is being asked for so that we can conclude our research and studies but also ensure that we include the seasonal residents that are typically in this area, you know, from now until Easter. And what we were finding as we were going through our researching was that our time frames weren't working out to include those folks in meetings that we needed to have with them. And, so, in order to optimize the input from those folks, we needed to have the meetings and conduct certain aspects of this study at certain timings of the year, and so that's essentially why we're asking for a six-month extension to allow us to do that and wrap up and conclude mid year next year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to that, and I appreciate you -- you making some arrangements to get input when people are here, but if you have six months, an additional six months and you complete this, it's going to be sometime in the summer whenever those people are not here. How can we make sure that they have an opportunity to review that and we can take their concerns into consideration? Page 59 December 11, 2002 Will we have a draft report early enough so that they will -- can provide their input to us personally? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, good evening commissioners. Don Schneider from Planning Services. Yes, sir. I do have a draft available right now. I have transmitted that draft to several of what I call the stakeholders in this instance for this moratorium and I am planning meetings coming up beginning in January. Now, we had to -- to reschedule one that was scheduled for December here. There just wasn't folks available at that particular time to meet that schedule, but in January I will hold the first meeting which I want, essentially, a small group of people to sit down with me and look at this draft and begin to carry it forward at that time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think all of us, and I don't want to speak for the board, but I have the feeling that you would like to get maximum public input on -- on this issue. And, so, the time to do that is probably before most of those residents go back up north. Can we make sure we do that? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir. We certainly can. We'll set that in motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I -- I think it would be helpful if-- if we were able during these discussions to categorize the -- the residents' concerns. I mean, if there's some -- some issues that are just deal breakers, you know, we need to know that. If there are some things that would just be nice to have, we need to know that, too. So, it would be helpful if we -- we could categorize those things and -- and that way when we begin to evaluate them, we would have a better understanding of the sense of the community. MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, we essentially Page 60 December 11, 2002 did that a year ago. This year on April 25th, we had a visioning meeting where we asked the residents to come together and we had a tremendous turnout. It was in the neighborhood of 180 folks were there. We collected their visioning. They actually did a voting among themselves to come up with their prioritized list, and it's from that list that I have begun to draft this overlay zoning ordinance, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So, you-- you feel-- MR. SCHNEIDER: I think-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- confident in what you're doing is going to address the -- their really serious concerns? MR. SCHNEIDER: I believe so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. For the most part, we have that in there for the -- the benchmark to begin with. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In this -- once we get all this information compiled and we have some meetings here, are we going to have enough lead time here to make any changes before the moratorium comes off or do -- are we going -- would you think that we may have to extend this moratorium beyond the six months that was being requested at the present time? And maybe I should wait and listen from the -- if there's any other input on the -- from the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's a good question. MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioner Halas, if I could answer that, I believe that our problem exists in that if we go through this public input idea beginning in January, that they will help us to -- to look at drafting this ordinance, then that means that we're going to have to hit the fall cycle of the LDC changes that will come up beginning next fall. Page 61 December 11, 2002 And that's what put this particular ordinance into that cycle assuming that we had it prepared by probably August-September to get it into that cycle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, does that mean then, what you're saying then, that once we get this in the cycle that that would -- there could be nothing done until that takes place, the -- the -- the ordinance goes through the particular cycle in the Land Development Code aspect of it? MR. SCHNEIDER: Assuming that this particular moratorium now will end, of course. COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In July. At the six-month extension. You're exactly right. MR. SCHNEIDER: And, so, assuming that there's a lag in there between that July and the beginning of the LDC cycle, there could be things happened on the ground with a lifted moratorium between July and the end of this cycle, second cycle, in 2003. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, what can we do? Are we allowed to extend that beyond the six months that you're -- that is being requested? MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I think it would be at your discretion, this body. If they wish to extend it say until January 9th of 2004, it would be at your discretion to -- to be able to do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so that we can get whatever is in place so that we can address the issues that are up there. MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is January the 9th, 2004 when you expect the second hearing on the -- these revisions? MR. SCHNEIDER: No, sir. That's actually the -- the date of Page 62 December 11, 2002 the anniversary date of this current moratorium if it were to be extended another year. Currently we're looking at January 9th, 2003 of being the expiration date of this moratorium that's before you this evening. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I think might be appropriate is -- is to have the moratorium expiration concurrent with the date of adoption of the necessary Land Development Codes. Is there a way to do that? Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I think what we need -- it can't -- a moratoria can't be openended and that partially closes it, but it still doesn't state a specific duration. I think what we might need to do is do some back planning and see how long it's going to take to get those amendments through and look at that time frame and then write that into this ordinance as to a number of years or a certain number of months from the original effective date of this -- or adoption date of this ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be a failure to keep our commitment with the people if we were to -- to let the moratorium expire without having the Land Development Code changes in place. But, yeah, I think we have to be fair to all parties here and I would -- I would hope we would move quickly to get that done. Are -- are you saying that we couldn't -- we couldn't get this approved before next fall? MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't believe so, sir, because it would have to fall into the spring cycle of the LDC movement, which at this point we haven't even begun to involve the public in our draft ordinance. So, I don't believe that could happen. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, if in Page 63 December 11, 2002 fact we did this in the fall cycle, the fall cycle approval, January of '04, it would be almost coinciding within days probably of the -- the approval, just as this January '03 will be for this cycle, it will be January '04. So, if you want that cushion, yes, it would extend it for 12 months. It brings us to January 9 and that's going to be very close to the day that -- a year from now when we're looking, sitting here talking about the -- the spring cycle or a fall cycle of '04 to be approved in -- or '04 to be approved in January '04. So, I think that's what you asked. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: It will be so close that that -- that gives the cushion for both. The study will be done and we're looking at the study to be done by -- and everything ready to go by summer and, so, then we have to get it in unless we have another special cycle and -- and we don't need another special cycle. I think we have like three going, to be talking to you about here in the very near future with some other initiatives. And -- and, frankly, that may be the cushion that at least we're done, but it gives us the time to vent through the LDC amendment cycle and then if that-- if those amendments are adopted, then of course the moratorium is lifted-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: What about the -- MR. SCHMITT: -- functionally about the same time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I think I have two points in summary. I don't want to break our commitment to the people. MR. SCHMITT: right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The other -- the other-- on the other hand, I don't want to have an openended moratorium that just continues to go because we can't get the staff work done. Page 64 December 11, 2002 And if you can give us some assurance that you'll get it done within that time frame, I'm -- I'm sort of happy to live with it. The way things are going, rather than having a spring and fall cycle, maybe we should have a monthly cycle. MR. SCHMITT: We'll have a monthly cycle. We do have a few other initiatives coming up here in the spring on special cycles, but we -- we don't need one just for this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My -- my concern -- and you're heading in the same direction I am, Commissioner Coyle. My concern is that if we lift the moratorium and the -- the community has voiced their-- their goals and-- and you're designing -- you're designing what you feel would be best for that community, but we lift the moratorium before we put it into effect, people can start doing whatever they please. So, all of that work would be for naught. So, I would think that we must make sure that -- that the moratorium lasts until the -- the planning process is completed and it becomes part of the Land Development Code. I mean, that only makes sense. MS. MURRAY: We do have public speakers if you're ready, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The first one is Dr. Richard Bing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many do we have? MS. MURRAY: Two. And Dr. Bing will be followed by Carol Wright. DR. BING: Good evening, commissioners. Richard Bing, 10951 Gulf Shore Drive. I'm chairman of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Moratorium Committee. There are at least three reasons why we should consider a Page 65 December 11, 2002 12-month extension to the existing moratorium. The first one obviously has to do with the seasonality of the preponderance of our residents. We would like anything that's important to our area to come before you when most people are here. The second one is the CCPC unanimously agreed with the 12-month extension at their last meeting where this was discussed. And then thirdly is we just now got our hands on, if you will, the first draft and we feel that the real purpose of the moratorium, the density and intensity question for Gulf Shore Drive and the Vanderbilt Beach area is not being addressed yet. And we have decided to do, I guess you might say, our own homework to bring some ideas to the staff and yourselves so that we could be more creative in how this is addressed. So, for those reasons, we strongly request that you would extend this moratorium for at least 12 months and take into consideration the red tape that has to occur before it can be implemented in the LDC obviously that just come out in your discussion as key. The fourth thing I'd like to mention is maybe the study area should be expanded. The RT moratorium covers a fraction of Gulf Shore Drive and I'm not sure what it is, maybe a third or a half, roughly. And there are RMF 16, RSF 3 and commercial areas in the same -- same neighborhood, if you will, that we're all concerned about about density and intensity. Therefore, with or without a moratorium attached to it, maybe the study area should be expanded to include those areas because it doesn't do a whole lot of good to fix it just for one zoning district if the others are allowed to go rampant, if you will. So, thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bing, question. Expanding Page 66 December 11, 2002 on permitted uses that are already permitted today and if the residents up there want to remove some of the density that is permitted, is the residents willing to create an MSTU to buy those property rights? DR. BING: That's a good question I can't answer because we haven't discussed that amongst ourselves, but I'm not sure I understand your question. You're saying that property is available now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. If you have RMF 16 that is zoned for it -- DR. BING: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the intent is to lower that density, that's taking away property right. Do you agree with that? DR. BING: These RMF 16 properties are all developed currently; in other words, there are buildings on that -- those properties now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: DR. BING: There's no -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: DR. BING: RT. Okay. And-- -- it has -- There's only one vacant land and I think that's an COMMISSIONER HENNING: acre on them? DR. BING: Probably more. COMMISSIONER HENNING: thinking they might increase that? And do they have 16 units per Probably more. You're DR. BING: There's one that I know of that is less, but as an example we're at Vanderbilt gulf side and we have 144 units and eight acres, which would really be only 128 with a 16 standard. That was approved in '79. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The existing zoning on there -- on the RSF or -- or any of the zoning out there, do you feel that Page 67 December 11, 2002 they're going to come in and request a variance for additional height? Is that your concern? DR. BING: There are rumors about that happening on one parcel of RMF 16 existing today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I think we're going to address it all the way around about is as far as the -- the infrastructure, that's part of the study, correct, in what -- what the -- the available capacity is out there? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, it is, Commissioner Henning. Infrastructure and also considerations of being in a high hazard area for hurricane evacuation and some issues involving Chapter 163 in our Growth Management Plan in that increased densities in high hazard areas are discouraged. However, I'm finding it difficult right now to put teeth to that in regards to our LDC to actually ask for those densities to be reduced or capped. It's something for us to consider. But as we go forward, those are the issues that I'm going to be dealing with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And would it be more appropriate as far as the evacuation in a high hazard coastal area to craft language in the GMP? MR. SCHNEIDER: It would. In fact, that's suggested that it should be in there; however, the GMP right now kicks it back to the LDC, which in a sense leaves some things to be desired as far as being able to control those densities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One more thing, Commissioner Coletta. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Please continue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm committed to doing it right and if it takes a year, I think that you're going to find that the board Page 68 December 11, 2002 of commissioners is wanting to do it right up there for the health, welfare and safety of the residents in the Vanderbilt Beach area. DR. BING: Good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if we can do it within an extended six months as was suggested from staff, I'm going to let it do that. And at the end of six months, if it -- if it -- we don't meet our goals and objectives, then we have the time frame to consider to extend that another six months. The concern that I have is that is going to be in summertime so the residents are going to have to find out what their priorities are. Do they want to be here in Southwest Florida to deal with their concerns on the moratorium or do they want to be else -- somewhere else? DR. BING: Well, two things. One, I think there was just enough conversation about the cycle that the implementation of any amendments the LDC wouldn't occur until about the same time as a one year extension would come off anyway. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you all discussed that. Secondly, I think we can represent people who are in absentia if we are not going by, let's say, voice load. We have an organization that -- that can speak collectively in fact. However, we know that agenda items like tonight are prioritized by the number of speakers and people get fresh thinking from the people that they're speaking to and more attention when they do that. So, not being naive to those things, we obviously wanted the civil in our favor. I think you're going to find that the commission is going to be very receptive to suggestions from the general public at all times. With today's modem world and the way that we can use E-mail and the fact that they can pull up reports from the county government Page 69 December 11, 2002 on a regular basis and possibly running things for your organization so you can just simulate the information out there, we keep everybody well apprized when that point in time does come that we reach a final conclusion, we can get feedback from everyone and their E-mails are more than welcome. And we do listen to them just as well as we do to the people that come in here and it helps to shape our opinion. So, I -- I don't think they're going to be cut out of the loop if we are forced into going into what's considered the off season by the people that leave it-- leave us, but, you know, there's no reason why they can't be totally in the loop. Pull up the Naples Daily News every day for one thing. They'll give you an idea of what's taking place. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to mention -- the reference to Naples Daily News. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, ifI -- ifI could, I think I can make this easy. Staff really has no objection to go in 12 months. I think it-- it leaves -- we're still going to finish the study. All it's going to leave is the cushiOn to allow for the adoption of any LDC amendments which really will not be done until about a year from now. So -- so, there's no objection. The concern about expanding the study, I am going to expand the study but not the moratorium. I mean, that takes a separate board action, but there are significant issues in regards to the residential areas out in the Vanderbilt Beach and Vanderbilt Beach bay area, which have to be addressed from a planning perspective. But to -- to expand the moratorium into those areas will take a whole different action. We have to go through a public process to announce the expanding of the moratorium. We -- we really couldn't Page 70 December 11, 2002 do that as part of an LDC amendment because it's -- it's that -- that portion has not been advertised. But -- but as far as the -- if you want to add the extra six months here -- in fact, staff is -- it's -- it -- all it-- all it does is provide the cushion to allow for the adoption of the amendments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. MR. MUDD: And Joe missed one point and he will budget the extension of this study in the '04 budget that you'll see starting in the springtime. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I've heard enough debate to -- to think I understand that if we do extend it for another year, and we should by chance get a study completed earlier than that and it is acceptable to the residents and all other people involved, we can always implement it and terminate the -- the moratorium; right? So, we would -- we -- could we not have a commitment that -- that when we implement this Land Development Code we terminate the moratorium? Is -- is that -- is that not something we can do whenever we implement the Land Development Code? MS. STUDENT: I think then what you'd have to do is just have probably a special cycle to terminate it and just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- delete it. And what would happen it would just be entirely deleted from the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but we could do that. Couldn't we do it simultaneously with implementing -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the Land Development Code for the provisions? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 71 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just do it all the same day and-- and then we take care of it. So, it gives us a flexibility. We give us enough time extending it for a full year to deal with the study. If we by chance had managed to deal with it earlier than that, well, then we can-- we can deal with it. MS. STUDENT: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the only other comment I have is concerning the -- the expansion of the area of the moratorium and the Land Development Code changes that are essential to that. Are the Land Development Code changes that we are currently working on likely to be applicable to the expanded area so that we can accomplish that expansion very quickly without having to go through another year or two-year study process? MR. SCHNEIDER: Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you understand what I was getting at? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do. I believe I can understand that by saying that my study has included those areas even though they're not part of this particular moratorium -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perfect. MR. SCHNEIDER: -- so I do have the information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Good. That's wonderful. MS. STUDENT: And I just wanted to add for the record that the study area could be expanded and apparently has without the need to do a moratorium for those other areas. It could just kind of go right along with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- we do appreciate your comments and I think you guys are going in the right direction. DR. B1NG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker. MR. SCHMITT: Carol Wright. Page 72 December 11, 2002 MS. WRIGHT: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Carol Wright and I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association representing some 800 members. I'm just going to ditto what Dr. Bing has said. I always let him go first because he's so good at this. But I did want to be on record to say that we certainly do hope that this would go for a whole year because we've not even had our first meeting yet with staff and this is not going to be an easy thing to do. It's going to be very difficult for our area, I think. So, I think it's going to take a lot of time and also I want to reiterate that the CCPC did unanimously vote for one year. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, could we take that as direction to extend it 24 months instead of 18? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We covered that. MR. SCHMITT: 12. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 12. MS. MURRAY: 12 -- 12 -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 12 additional ones. MS. MURRAY: -- additional. Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And just for the record, the County Attorney suggested I think that we put the January 31st, 2004 date in there just in case there was a holdup, I think, in the Land Code Amendments in the next -- in that cycle. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. That will be date specific and that's good. MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: The next item is Section 3.13.8, which I believe is on page -- excuse me. I thought I had that. Page 73 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we taking these in sequence now? MS. MURRAY: No. We're still taking them in terms of the speakers. MR. SCHMITT: We have two more public speakers and then -- then we'll do the rest of them in sequence. MS. MURRAY: Page 127. MR. SCHMITT: To make it easy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could always talk a little less up here, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll remind you of that later. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You haven't heard me. COMMISSIONER COYLE' Okay. I won't say anything else. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. You-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no. I won't allow that. You're the golden voice here. One more time. MR. SCHMITT: One of a voice of reason. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER HALAS: 127, wasn't it? MS. MURRAY: 127. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. This is a private submittal petition that was presented or submitted by Don Pickworth for residents of Lely Barefoot Beach. He is here. I don't know if you want staff to do a presentation first or hear from the petitioner first? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right there now. Why don't you go ahead with what your side of the view this is and your recommendation. MS. BURGESON: Okay. Let me just start by saying that as Page 74 December 11, 2002 this was going through the process, it has received denials from the EAC, denials from the DSAC subcommittee, support by the subcommittee recommendation, which was for denial, and denial by the CCPC. This was also presented by staff in the last LDC amendment cycle and withdrawn due to the determination that it was inconsistent with both the Land Development Code and with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. About six weeks ago or eight weeks ago, we sent out to the board members, and I -- I apologize to Commissioner Halas because I'm not sure if that would have been forwarded to you. I should have done something to you in the more recent past. I also handed out the hard copies this evening to support staff's recommendation for denial of this petition, finding that it is inconsistent with the Collier County Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan in several sections of both. I don't know if you want me to go through those. I can hit some CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think-- MS. BURGESON: -- some basic highlights. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that would be necessary. What we can do is we'll -- if we have questions, we'll ask you on that. MS. BURGESON: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think with -- with denials coming from every -- every avenue, I mean, staff, DSAC, EAC and CCPC, it's kind of hard to even move forward. They are our advisory boards and they've -- I'm sure that they've studied this thoroughly or -- or should I not say that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You're-- you're-- you're entirely in your rights, but I thing we do owe it to the petitioner to Page 75 December 11, 2002 hear them though. Why don't we do that at this time. Good evening, Mr. Pickworth. You certainly got this stacked up against you. MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, commissioners. Yes, I do. And I -- I'm operating under a little bit of a handicap here because while Ms. Burgeson said she sent this out several weeks ago, I was handed this analysis on the Comp Plan when I walked in here tonight. But let me -- can I use this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. While he's getting that up, do we have speakers on this particular one? MR. PICKWORTH: Is this on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Loud and clear. MR. PICKWORTH: Let me -- I represent the Lely Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association Unit I. These are, oh, about ninety some properties that are in what are called the Beach Gardens at Lely Barefoot Beach. And what I did is I just took one page off the plat here and kind of highlighted it to maybe -- because I know it's kind of hard to see these plats from where you are if you don't highlight them -- to just give you an idea of what we're talking about here. This is a typical Beach Garden setup there. This is Bonita Beach Road and the -- the homesites are arranged in these horseshoe configurations like this and there's an entrance road here, then another one of these and there's a series of these down there. Some of you have probably been up there before. And the issue really has to do with this. This is -- this has been out here for quite some time as you know. Some of these houses were built in the early eighties and most of them are built now, so Page 76 December 11, 2002 this has been in existence for quite some time. And the issue has to do with the vegetation in this area right here. Now, remember, out in the legs of these horseshoes, these are homes sitting out here on these. And the coastal construction line is back here. And these areas here have landscaped plantings in them that have been there anywhere from ten to 12 to in some cases actually as much as more than 30 years, because some of these areas coincide with some of the areas where there was, I think, a care -- or at least I was told by one of the Lely people -- a caretaker's residence that was -- that was out there back in the sixties. And what -- what the dispute, I believe, is over the -- the staffs insistence that the sod and other landscaping that has been put in here be removed. And the other thing is the homeowners would like the ability to have a 15-foot strip of sod in front of their homes so that they would have access there to use these aerial ladders and other maintenance type of vehicles that may from time to time need to get there. There is no desire on the part of these homeowners to go out here on the dune system and plant normative vegetation. In fact, a couple of years ago they spent $140,000 doing a dune restoration project. And to the extent that there is any sod or nonnative vegetation seaward of this 15-foot strip line we're asking for, they will remove it. That's all that's being asked for here. To give you an idea of how ludicrous this is, you've got landscaping that has been here for years. Remember, this is in between existing homes. This isn't out on the beach, that we're being told has to be removed, but then we're being told we've got to come and get a permit and variance to replant it even with native vegetation. Now, that doesn't make any sense. This vegetation has been Page 77 December 11, 2002 here for years. It's well established. It's been through many storms. And, so, we're here tonight, you know, asking for some help on this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, if they have to remove the sod, they're going to have to go in with native vegetation and get a variance? Is that true? MS. BURGESON: No. No. And actually let me just clarify one other item. This partic -- this LDC amendment request and the last one that was processed and -- and withdrawn never addressed anything except for the single family lots. This -- even this CCSL amendment that Mr. Pickworth is presenting or proposing would not amend anything in the beach common areas. It only addresses those single family lots. So, he is not even requesting that this pertain to those Beach Garden areas. The single family lots, anything in front of those lots, if you were to allow them to plant right now, the -- the process is not a variance. It's a simple permit process. It comes in to staff for administrative review and processing takes a matter of a few weeks to get that reviewed and issued. So, it's -- it's not a -- a process that would have to go through the variance. And, also, I'd like to also make a clarification on the record that the material that Mr. Pickworth was given tonight, we only gave him in case he did not bring back with him that exact handout that I gave to Mr. Pickworth at the EAC meeting several months ago. That has not changed. That is the material that I gave to him several months ago. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I'm still not certain about a couple of things. Page 78 December 11, 2002 Are you saying that the vegetation between these two homesites would not be affected by this ordinance? MS. BURGESON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, they would not have to remove that at all. MS. BURGESON: They do have to. They have been in violation for many years. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ah. MS. BURGESON: Let me just -- I can show you an example of -- that red line is a combination of the old coastal construction setback line, which is this line back here more landward of the beach. It jogs down in front of the two single family lots and that is a-- as a result of a coastal construction variance that was issued to them by the state and that portion that is considered the coastal construction development limit line. This portion in front of this line here, this is an example of one of the beach front gardens that did not over the years come in and destroy the natural habitat and replace it with sod. So, this is an example of what exists today as what is required to be there by the code. This is an example and they're a little bit further stretched out to show you a couple of different residential lots and a couple of different Beach Gardens and a closeup to show you what has happened over the years where the native vegetation has been removed and sod has been placed in there. It's not ever been permitted. In fact, back in the early nineties, back when Mike Kirby tried to bring forward an entire code enforcement case against probably the majority of the homes that were starting to do this at that time, the administrative staff or the administration at-- at Community Development Environmental Services at that time did not support that as a code enforcement case. So, it was known by staff a while back and it's -- it's finally just Page 79 December 11, 2002 coming to the forefront right now to correct it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I have a couple follow-up questions concerning this. Is there any grandfathering provision associated with this particular ordinance or is there an attempt to do that at all? MS. BURGESON: That everything that's -- no. I mean, everything that's out there right now is illegal, I mean, in terms of everything that's in front of that CCSL line that's not native. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then -- then the other question is to what extent would this area be improved by tearing out this landscaping and not doing anything with it? MS. BURGESON: For all of the reasons that the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan identified the need to have the native and natural system in there that would protect the -- the beach, that protects the dune system, protects from erosion, provides natural habitat. There are gopher tortoises and protected species that use that habitat. Taking that away from them reduces the ability for them to -- to survive in that area. It's -- I mean, having the natural vegetation in there is the best way to provide protection to secure that that area not be destroyed in the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But-- but-- MS. BURGESON: -- during storm events. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a requirement that natural vegetation be replanted if this is torn out? MS. BURGESON: Yes, there is. And it would be through a permit process, which is, as I said, an administrative process, not something that goes through the board for a variance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why would they bother to apply for a permit? Page 80 December 11, 2002 MS. BURGESON: And they don't need to. They -- we would require that they take out the sod. What they can do if they want to is leave the sand there. You will end up with some natural recruitment. However, we would recommend that they come in with a request for a CCSL permit. We've -- we've talked with them and provided opportunities through many meetings with -- with the code enforcement staff to, for instance, come up with one site plan that might be suitable for all of the homes, which could expedite the review process. We -- we would be more than happy to work with them to get those permits through the process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers? MS. BURGESON: I do have a handout. Doug Fee and, let's see, with the North Bay Civic Association was here earlier. He had to leave because he had another commitment. And since he -- since he left, he left these with me. This is a petition with 200 signatures against this amendment. MS. MURRAY: Doug Fee was registered to speak and had to leave and asked Barbara to just hand that out for him. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, these people opposed the amendment? MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who are these people? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, if we do not approve this, allow it to go forward, he could still -- they could still go back and get the correct permitting to make it happen? Is that it or no? MS. BURGESON: He would need this LDC amendment to place anything in front of the CCSL or the coastal construction development limit line that is not native. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's the request to put in Page 81 December 11, 2002 nonnative vegetation? MS. BURGESON: Right. To put in a lawn or sod. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then that-- MS. BURGESON: And just--just for the single family lots. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make sure I understand that then, these -- these people want to keep the lawns that are already established and are there. MS. BURGESON: The petition that you have in front of you is in opposition-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: These people want this -- MS. BURGESON: -- of this amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. They want this reestablished back to native vegetation is what this is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any reason why Mr. Pickworth wasn't given this material beforehand? MS. BURGESON: It was only -- MR. MUDD: The petitioner that was signed up -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- signed up -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MUDD: It's good enough for easement. MS. BURGESON: And also just to restate that there are a number of citations in the Growth Management Plan and the LDC that this is inconsistent. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, if I may make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you can. That's what we're here for. Page 82 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want to poll your colleagues to find out if they're in favor of this amendment. It takes a super majority to approve the Land Development Code with this amendment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's start with you, Commissioner Henning. How do you feel? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm open about it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it sort of depends on how Commissioner Henning feels about it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm reserving my opinion until a little bit later. Commissioner Fiala. Come on, it's Christmas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I stick -- I stick with the CCPC recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, finally. Somebody makes up their mind. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just one point the County Attorney just made. You can't really vote on Land Development Code Amendment. It's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. MS. STUDENT: But you need to like have it explained on the record why it's inconsistent and then Mr. Pickworth gets his shot and then it's your determination as to whether or not it's inconsistent and if it is inconsistent it -- it can't go. The law requires that land development regulations be consistent -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't think we were taking a vote. We were just -- MS. STUDENT: No. I just wanted to put that on the record. Page 83 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead now -- let's try something different. Let's express an opinion. We'll start with you, Mr. Halas. I think you're a serious person that can give us an opinion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm in favor of restoring that back to its natural state. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think this -- the petition speaks for itself. I'd have to go along with that. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I think it's hard to -- to argue against all of our advisory committees. I -- I do have a basic concern however about trying to go back into history and correct all the wrongs that had been done. If we do that, we're going to find a lot of homes in an area that are -- are not built in accordance with appropriate setbacks. And if we're going to be consistent about that, then we have to tear those homes down and -- and make them right. So, I -- I think that -- that there are issues here that relate to -- to overall fairness and I understand these things were done long in the past and they're violations, but so were these homes that were built in violation and people who came in and purchased them don't know much about that until they do a title search. So -- so, I -- I am -- I will accept the recommendations of the committee but I simply do not like this kind of government. I think it's extremist and I -- I think it -- it is going to devalue the property values of people who have in good faith maintained their homes in good order and their-- their landscaping in good order. But I -- I can't find evidence which demonstrates that this is not a violation of-- of our Growth Management Plan, so reluctantly I'd Page 84 December 11, 2002 go along with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't have enough votes, but I don't know if we're doing the legal -- the right thing, and to hear Mr. Pickworth argue the Growth Management Plan. MS. STUDENT: Commissioner Henning, I think you can hear from staff and can hear from Mr. Pickworth and then make your determination, which would commence that'second meeting of consistency or inconsistency with the comp plan, but that decision based on the evidence that you hear is a decision that rests with the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think -- who is that then? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to hear the arguments whether it's consistent or inconsistent and find at the second meeting whether it is consistent or inconsistent and vote at that time. That's what I heard. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then does someone want to make a -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we want to hear from Mr. Pickworth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? MR. PICKWORTH: What I would like the opportunity to do since I was handed this when I come in tonight and this was not in the material that Miss Burgeson gave me at the time of the EAC meeting because I've been looking for this for a long time. And I will be happy to submit something in writing as part of the record before the next board meeting. But if you want a flavor of this, take a look at the second page. To tell you how -- to show you how far off this is, they quote objective 10.3 which talks about standards for undeveloped coastal Page 85 December 11, 2002 barriers, and then if you go over a couple more pages, it defines undeveloped coastal barrier systems and it says, shall be defined ba, ba, ba, ba, for which no development approval or permits have been issued by Collier County or plats recorded. Well, there's the plat. I mean, just picking that one right off the top, so you can see the kind of analysis that's been done here. It's being assumed by Miss Burgeson that this landscaping was put in there illegally. Well, I beg to differ with that. It was put in there legally. Everyone out there who did that thought it was legal. There is an existing PUD on the books which specifically permits landscaping in these areas. Interestingly enough, we had a meeting with the staff yesterday. Now, this is after they've sent letters to the people who live out there citing the ordinance they're supposedly in violation of and we mention the ordinance that permits this and I get a bunch of blank stares around the table. They're telling people they need to comply with laws without even having looked at specific ordinances which appear to permit this. Now, the lawyers can argue forever over how we treat each of these ordinances. Well, it's pretty obvious that that wasn't even looked at. And I'm here to tell you that I -- I don't believe that this landscaping was put in there unlawfully at all. But we would like the county commission to legislatively give us some relief so that we can retain this vegetation, which we believe is absolutely and fully legal. I don't think these property owners should have to go to court to establish that fact. That's what they're here for. They're here asking their elected representative to -- to weigh the reasonableness of what's being asked for. There's no dune system here. Page 86 December 11, 2002 Miss Burgeson isn't even qualified to testify on that kind of fact, but I've talked to Brett Moore, who you all know who he is. This is behind the dune. There's no coastal erosion going to take place as a result of that. There's no harm going to be -- going to be done. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: That's our -- that's our plea to you. And, you know, I know we got until January 8th to make a final decision, but I would simply ask that you would not accept as a point of fact an assertion that this was put in there illegally. And I know this goes back to some smoldering resentments around there over who was back there running the enforcement section and those different things over there ten or 12 years ago. And I know there's some people now who think that everything they did was wrong and that whatever they thought was legal was illegal but, you know, that may not be the case. Maybe the reason they didn't bring an enforcement action was because someone out there then, which was certainly closer to the -- to the time of all of this maybe knew it was legal. It's very difficult to establish the facts now because we're talking about things that go back so many years. Some of the people with the most information are no longer alive. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Perhaps when you come back before us again you might want to supply all that evidence. MR. PICKWORTH: I will do everything I can. I have been trying. It has -- it has been difficult and frustrating, believe me, sir, because again, for instance, I talked to Bill McKinley today who's Lely's engineer. He didn't spend a lot of time working on Barefoot Beach. He was out on the -- on the one out on the East Trail. Page 87 December 11, 2002 And he was -- he was telling me the gentleman who did most of this work, who obviously would have a lot of these facts, he passed away here several years ago. So -- so, it has not been an easy task piecing this together and I don't have all the information yet. But I can tell you this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pickworth-- MR. PICKWORTH: It's not a slam dunk. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Okay. I think you're at the point where you're telling us that there's still more to come. MR. PICKWORTH: Exactly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is just the first chapter of a book that we're going to be seeing the -- the last part -- MR. PICKWORTH: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- of the -- MR. PICKWORTH: And -- and all I'm asking for tonight is -- is, please, don't -- don't irrevocably make up your minds. Be willing to listen to all of the facts. You've been told one side of the story and I don't think that's the right story. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll -- I'll wait to see the rest of the evidence. MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's --let's go to Commissioner Halas for a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- closing comment and then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm a little concerned here. I obviously -- there are different departments here that have looked at this. I'm sure that they've looked at all this data and then, of course, you come in here and you state that we'd like to have an extension of-- of 15 feet here to put -- plant more grass. Page 88 December 11, 2002 And I have a problem with that because I think what we're doing is we're -- we're continually trying to encroach into this coastal setback line. And I have a problem with that. MR. PICKWORTH: We're -- you know, we're not-- look, we're not adamant. We'd like that 15 feet. We think there are some very rational reasons for having it, okay? If-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, yes, but if we look at the departments here, you know, all these different departments that have made their study and have made their analysis of this and they're saying that we're -- you're not in compliance with the codes that are out there. That's all I have to say about that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would be interested by next time to -- to see the documents that you make reference to, Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: I will. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I -- I would also like the staff to -- to tell us what other property in Collier County is -- is subject to the same kinds of-- of regulation. I -- I do know that in the City of Naples the CCSL extends quite some distance inland and, in fact, would eliminate probably half the vegetation on the beach or on the homes on the beach along -- in the City of Naples. I -- I wonder if-- if the same thing is true outside the city limits both north and south. And I'd like to understand what precedent we're establishing by doing this. This -- this can get to be a very dangerous thing if we don't look at the practical effect of the situation. Are we really, really doing a good thing for the community or are we doing a bad thing for the community? And I think sometimes very strict and extreme interpretations of Page 89 December 11, 2002 regulations can cause effects that we don't really like in the long term but I'll save my -- my comments and I'll see this other information at the next meeting. MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've got sufficient direction on this. MS. BURGESON: IfI might, I'd like to answer some of the questions that came up. Mr. Coyle -- Commissioner Coyle, you had a concern that these homes were illegal in setbacks. They're not. All of these homes are perfectly fine in Lely Barefoot Beach. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't have any problem. MS. BURGESON: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't have any problem with the homes. I'm merely talking about the principle. MS. BURGESON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if we're going to take a strict interpretation of our law, then every home that has a setback variance anywhere in Collier County should be torn down and moved. It's that simple. So -- so, if you're going to take a strict interpretation of the -- of the law and apply it in this particular case, to be fair, you've got to apply that strict interpretation to the law everywhere. MS. BURGESON: We have. Staff has taken a look at it and I have more presentations for you if you'd like to take a look at the Strand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure you're getting my point. There was a lady who came before this commission at the last meeting and she asked for a variance for her swimming pool. Okay. It has nothing to do with the coastal setback line, but it has to do with Page 90 December 11, 2002 the variance for the swimming pool. It's been there for a long time. It was done illegally. We granted her a variance so she would not have to incur the cost of ripping that thing out and redoing it. We did that because we saw no substantial public good to forcing her to do that. There are thousands of situations like that throughout Collier County. And all I'm suggesting to you is if you're going to take a very hard line position on all of the regulations and the land development codes we have, you need to be prepared to do that on all of them. Government must be fair and consistent. We just cannot pick a couple of items because we like beaches and we want to protect beaches. We also like people. Okay. And we like nice neighborhoods and hopefully we like nice -- nice landscaping. this will be decided next time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's a point well taken. could -- MR. PICKWORTH: said because it's -- But If we If I could add one more thing to what he CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, but make it short. MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah, it will be very short. And -- and -- and it -- and it does maybe globalize this which it-- and this is what's difficult. The staff can say you violated the law. Now, if you're talking about events that took place in the last year, two years, three years, you know, the person on the other side who's being told he violated the law has a relatively easy ability to come in and -- and either refute that or say, yes, I did. What do you do in something like this where you have this much time? It's very, very difficult to defend yourself against this charge. Page 91 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand it, Mr. Pickworth, but you do have a chance to come back again -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- better prepared so that we can address it at that time. MS. MURRAY: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, would you indulge me for just one second? I fear, and I'm very concerned about Commissioner Coyle's concerns. I fear we're getting off the track here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are, very much so. MS. MURRAY: This amendmen -- this amendment deals with single family homes. Whatever happened in the past with the Beach Gardens are past that or whatever is irrelevant. This isn't staff trying to come back and put the hammer down where they thought they should have done it ten years ago. This is an application for single family homes to extend beyond a CCSL line where the home was built to the CCSL line with full awareness, as far as I know, of the property owners that regulations differed beyond the CCSL line, yet they chose to build to zero. And now they're asking for you to extend beyond that line. That's -- that's my take and I just want -- I just want to make that point and leave it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And I want to see it in all our documentation when it comes back before us again. We're not going to belabor this any longer. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a lot of items to cover here tonight. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What an eye opener. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you though. Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. Page 92 December 11, 2002 MS. MURRAY: The next amendment would be on Page 35, and if you'll indulge us a little bit more, I would like to have staff make a presentation to you because these next two amendments have to deal with the PUD zoning districts. And these are as a result of the workshops we've had with you concerning the rewrite of the LDC and specifically the PUD zoning districts and the fact that you all wanted to see -- to see more specificity during the rezoning process, et cetera, et cetera, so there is quite a few amendments here that I'd like staff to give a detailed presentation to you and have you have the opportunity, of course, to give us feedback on what you see and if you like it or don't like it and how we should proceed for here -- from here. This has been a work in progress for quite some time and we would really appreciate your feedback at this point. Page 35, Section 2.2.20. MR. SCHNEIDER: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, at your direction of this body, we have attempted to create a guide for petitioners -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a five-minute break while she -- THE COURT REPORTER: I've got it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you've got it already? THE COURT REPORTER: I've got it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Continue. MR. SCHNEIDER: I'm Don Schneider with Planning Services for the record. We wanted to create a guide here for petitioners in creating PUD zoning documents that are cohesive planning documents with ample attendant detail to afford legislative bodies the ability to judge these particular documents and their compatibility of the proposed development. Page 93 December 11, 2002 So, with that, I'd like to just run through some of the changes that we've made to the PUD zoning documents. On Page 36, I would call this the preamble where we've added the words provide, create, encourage, evaluate and assure that to -- to build up to the reasoning of why we want to do this with these particular documents. And going on at 2.2.22.1, the relation of Planned United Development Regulations to the Growth Management Plan zoning subdivision or other applicable regulations, we've added in that particular section language that ties this to overlays, districts, special development standards for specific land use types or the like and supplemental regulations not limited to the provision to Collier County Land Development Code. We've also asked that an applicant for a PUD rezoning shall indicate on the official PUD rezoning application and within the document both the LDC section numbers and specific regulations and the proposed modification to such regulations. We all know that we allowed them in the PUDs to be creative. That's part of what they're supposed to do, but we need to know where they have made significant changes to the normal regulations. And with that, moving on in the next area here, 2.2.20.2.3, we've set out some specific guidelines here for-- for the application itself so that we can essentially know when an application is open and when it's closed so that if an application comes into our office and no further work is done or supplied to us in regards to this, we have the ability here to close it. So, it keeps things from being ongoing into ad infinitum without any particular work being done to them. So, if-- if an applicant, for instance, is not going to -- to address issues with us and it sits dormant, we have the ability then to close that application, which means if he were to come back and reapply, Page 94 December 11, 2002 we want him to go back to zero, pay his fees and come forward again. So, we're essentially asking people in this instance to -- to have their ducks in a row before they start this process, which is in all of our benefits, I believe. The next paragraph goes into unified control. Here, we're essentially stating that we would like to see the ownership of the PUD area be under control of the applicant so there's no question about the particular things going on in there. And then I'm also asking on Page 38, some additions here, and here again I'm just going to go over the -- the changes that we've made that I think are significant to this whole process. On Page 38 at the top of the page, item one that's underlined, notify the Planning Services Department in writing of any change in ownership, control and/or appellation of the development. That's a rather esoteric word, but what I'm saying is that I would like to see a paper trail in our file of the name of the ownership, who owns this particular PUD and what are they calling it. I'm new in the county and I found it difficult to go to the file and follow the trail of some of these PUDs because the names have changed and the ownerships have changed. Yes, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What type of follow-up are you going to have on that so that you're -- you're -- some way or another that you can -- say that somebody decides to change the name and that and does not notify you, how are you going to be able to address that so that you know that it has been changed or there's some type of follow-up? MR. SCHNEIDER: That's a good question -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ask you to address that, please. MR. SCHNEIDER: -- Commissioner Halas. Page 95 December 11, 2002 I believe that all of these elements that we want to follow up on are going to be keyed to the annual reporting process so that when that annual reporting process comes about that they can -- at that point must essentially indicate to us that, hey, a change has occurred in the past year. And that will help us create that paper trail that makes it easier for us in the office particularly to -- to keep things on track with these PUDs. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, you're saying that at -- every year, somebody -- there's going to have to be paperwork filled out for each of these PUDs that's to be submitted back to the county? Is that what you're saying? MR. SCHNEIDER: That's correct. Until filled out. We're only monitoring this until to build out. At that point it's -- it's history essentially MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they already -- they already provide an annual report. MR. SCHMITT: We do -- we do that. MR. MUDD: You're just -- you're just asking for some additional information in that particular report. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHNEIDER: Going on to Page 39, we're asking here that they -- in their document they provide screening for fences, walls or vegetative screening boundaries for PUD districts shall be provided at a minimum in accordance with the landscape buffering requirements. So, here again, we're bolstering that at a very minimum they -- they do what is required for those particular elements, landscaping and all. Moving forward, we took out some sections. If you notice on Page 40, a multifamily entry level rental housing area has been Page 96 December 11, 2002 deleted. We found it really wasn't necessary in this particular document. And moving on to Page 42, if you'll notice, we've actually reordered some of the particular language in here. And we start with 2.2.20.3.3, which is the minimum-- minimum dimensional standards within a PUD except as provided for within an industrial and neighborhood village center component of this section, dimensional standards with any tract or increment of the proposed PUD shall conform to the minimum dimensional standards. So, we -- we -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a new insertion? MR. SCHNEIDER: No, that-- that is not. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Like I said, it's not underlined and -- MR. SCHNEIDER: Right. That's where we begin with our reordering. And, essentially, we've stayed the same. If you bear with me and go over to Page 47, Page 47, we have requested some additional information here regarding principal vehicular access. We're saying the interconnection of collector and local streets within the PUD to adjacent lands or developments shall be required except to be determined by the Transportation Services Department director that an interconnection is not feasible or warranted due to existing development patterns, transportation network needs or the like. So, in this instance we have requested that this interconnection that we've all desired in the PUDs be seriously considered and unless there's some really compelling reasons not to ask to be at least addressed. And then in Section 2.2.20.4 of this document, again I'm on Page 47, we get into what I feel like is really the meat of this whole change where we talk about the PUD districts. Page 97 December 11, 2002 And in the next pages here as we go forward, we have set out some specific PUD types, and by doing so, I think we've classified things a little better that will make it easier for us to evaluate them as they come to us. We begin with a residential Planned Unit Development district, which normally in that particular area we have a little acronym of RPUD. We go to commercial facilities planned -- or excuse me -- Community Facilities Planned Unit Development District. And, again, I had a little acronym of CFPUD. So, each of these have their own particular uses described here that sets them apart. The next one on Page 48 is Commercial Planned Unit Development District. Following that is an Industrial Planned Unit Development District. Here again these are -- are specific as to what types of uses are going to occur in those various districts. And then we go into some special ones. Here's special requirements for Industrial Planned Unit Developments and we list various elements here that we need to see in those Industrial Planned Unit Developments. Then moving on over to Page 50, we have here developed an Airport Operations Planned Unit Development District, which we don't have all that many airports here, but Immokalee does certainly have a significant one, and I wanted to make sure we had language in there to address those issues. And then a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District and then there are some special requirements listed there that were in the original documents. And moving on over to Page 54, we have inserted an entirely new area here, which is Research and Technology Park Planned Unit Development District. And this essentially is in -- it's -- it's going along with some of Page 98 December 11, 2002 the changes to the Growth Management Plan that has allowed these new research and technology parks to be identified and we have mirrored some of their requirements here. And I've also set out in the next pages that would essentially complete this document specific uses for the research and technology park. We've been very specific here in -- in uses. And one of the reasons is that -- that research and technology parks, according to our Growth Management Plan, are required to have target and known target industries. And they list percentages of those that they like to see involved in them, so I felt that it was necessary that we be quite specific in those uses to allow an individual say that's interested in doing a research technology park to -- to assure us that he has met those conversations. The table then that occurs on through Page 60 outlines those various uses that we've identified that meet those categories. So, I guess, quickly, that's a -- a fast review of major changes that we've made in this document. The intention here is to provide you with more information to make better decisions regarding compatibility of these -- these PUD documents and also to bring them more closely in line with what I would consider to be better planning documents that -- that doesn't just set aside zoning for perhaps real estate purposes but allows us to do better evaluations from planning standpoints. So, not to bore you further with those things, that pretty well concludes the PUD side on the 2.2.20 changes that we've made in the LDC document. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we've got Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we still using floor area ratio? Page 99 December 11, 2002 MR. SCHNEIDER: Not entirely, sir. There are some areas where we do consider that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go to Page 51 in the center of the page. Is that -- is that there by accident or did we intend to apply that to the commercial component? MS. MURRAY: We explore area ratio for -- for ALS -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- and we also use it for hotels and commercial zoning districts presently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All commercial zoning districts. MS. MURRAY: That permit hotel zoning. MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah. And that's not a change, sir. That's an existing element we're just carrying over. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want to make sure I understand. That particular paragraph applies to Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments contained in a commercial component. MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, does the floor area ratio -- I see it only applies to the commercial component of the mixed use; right? MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 48, top of the page, COmmercial Planned Unit Development District. Is this a mixed use district or just commercial? MR. SCHNEIDER: It's primarily commercial. We've listed the -- construed to include the following where we said that the principal uses would be the same as one would find in the C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5 and TTRVC. So, essentially, we've allowed the petitioner to draw from the permitted uses in those districts to design his PUD from those, so -- Page 100 December 11, 2002 which would keep it in this category of Commercial Planned Unit Development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How I'm reading it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is in the commercial districts we're allowing a residential component within it. Or am I wrong? MS. MURRAY: You're correct in that we're allowing a caretaker's residence and things of that nature. What this is saying is within these districts, those are going to kind of frame the uses that would be allowed in this type of PUD. So, for example -- and let me just kind of give you an overall of what we're trying to accomplish here. Well, this just may be a bad example but maybe a good one. When you all considered the planning director's official interpretation for the Westview class PUD and there was quite a bit of discussion and determination as to whether or not that PUD was industrial, commercial or mixed use. And I think what we're trying to do here is we're trying to target the PUD so that commercial PUDs focus on commercial uses, industrial PUDs focus on industrial uses. Where I think we're falling maybe a little bit short as we're reading through and I'm hearing your comments is we do have a section for a mixed use PUD; however, we don't really identify what's in there. And you could have a variety or a mixture of uses and I think it would probably behoove us to say a mixed commercial and industrial or a mixed residential and commercial and then identify the zoning districts as well. But to answer your question, this would just reflect those uses permitted in the C -- C districts only. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Permitted uses in the C districts. MS. MURRAY: Right. Page 101 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my concern is -- and I guess that's the commissioners' preference. Commissioners, my concern is the possibility of blighted commercial areas if we have a strictly commercial and-- and multifamily. So, where you have commercial on the bottom, multifamily on top, it's all rented out, owner absent, he's a shareholder of a big corporation in New York and so on and so forth. That's my concern about it. And if we can regulate the percentage of rental within that, I think that might take care of that. MS. MURRAY: I'm not entirely sure I'm following your concern. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My concern is blight commercial. If we allow all strictly rental in a commercial area like a downtown area -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: -- Bay Shore, East Naples, U.S. 41, that's my concern. And if we can say give a percentage of rental versus owner occupied, then the chances of that going to blight will diminish quite a bit, but rental in -- in commercial is good, too, and it just depends on the owner and his ability to keep up his profit. But we've seen so much blight that I just don't want to create more. MR. SCHMITT: I hear what you're saying but I don't know if we can legally restrict someone to what they can do with that piece of property from a standpoint of individual rental. I'd have to -- I'm looking to the County Attorney, but also from a perspective of-- of the -- trying to manage that, I don't know. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I think it's something that we need to consider and report back to you on at the final meeting. Page 102 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think in the meantime maybe we ought to really consider-- there's -- there's a positive side to it, affordable housing. The negative side of it is the possibility of blight. I mean, we can reach out in the community and see what the community thinks about it. MR. SCHNEIDER: There is -- excuse me but-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have a comment on it? MR. SCHNEIDER: My thinking was going towards the fact that if you look at some of our smart -- smart growth principles that are being outlined today that residential over commercial seems to be good and that it affords a lot of pedestrian-oriented type communities, so we would have to come up with a mix there that would -- would not disallow that sort of thing perhaps if indeed we saw it as a smart growth potential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I agree. And that is part of the community character. MR. SCHNEIDER: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But still it's a concern of mine. MR. SCHNEIDER: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle and then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just a quick question. What does TTRVC stand for? MS. MURRAY: Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. MURRAY: I would pull the book out just to be sure I was a hundred percent correct. We don't use it that often but that's essentially the district. Page 103 December 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a suggestion with respect to the rental units. Generally the things that cause blight are when you rent units by the day or week and you have lots of people running in and out when no one has a sense of ownership there. The way that many communities deal with that issue is to prevent rentals of single family homes or apartments or town houses only for periods of greater than six months, six months or greater. And what that does is it encourages people who require the -- the affordable housing to negotiate a lease and stay there as opposed to having a lot of people in and out every day or every weekend. And that's-generally what -- what causes these things to become poorly maintained and cause some unfavorable effects. That, I think, is a possibility. I -- I believe, that the City of Naples might have a similar ordinance that restricts the ability of people to rent homes and/or even guest homes but establishes some minimum lease period. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have. I think you're -- you're partially right there, Commissioner -- Commissioner Coyle. One of the big problems that we have in East Naples where we have many of the rental properties, not so much that they rent them by day because there aren't that many facilities, is that the rents, especially the new ones that we're are building are so high, although they qualify for shipped funds, but they are so -- so expensive that families have to double and triple up to get into them. And, for instance, the Whistler's Cove Annex that's going to be over there by Henderson Creek, they have a three-bedroom place, you know, nice for a family except it's $1,049. Not many of us in Page 104 December 11, 2002 this room can afford $1,049. And they, by the way, have got millions of dollars credit to build that and -- and that's -- so people have to double and triple up. I've seen them sleeping in their car over in Whistler's Cove because they need a place to shower and so forth. They line them up and -- and this becomes a terrible problem. In the Manor they're sleeping in-- they have sheds with -- with no windows or anything and no bathrooms, but they have sheds, and those things become a problem. We in East Naples -- and Commissioner Henning was -- was coming in there, bless his heart, and carrying the banner for us. And I -- I truly appreciate his continued support. We in Smart Grove have learned that you cannot pack all of the affordable housing into one area without creating a ghetto area. You're familiar with that, I know, and so this is another subject. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And we -- we still have a long agenda to go through-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I will -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so I'm going to move you along just a little bit. I just want to make one comment with -- where the affordable housing is now, and then I want to get off the subject again on it, code has to come in and start addressing some of the situations. People should not be allowed to live in those kind of-- in that kind of squalor. Commissioner Coyle, and then let's see if we can wrap this up. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I was just going to make the observation that we can go a lot -- along a lot faster if we didn't spent so much time talking. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What an original thing to say. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I see we've moved around Page 105 December 11, 2002 and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you all set? Okay. Where are we at now? MS. MURRAY: We do have another section to go over with you and I think you'll probably find this section even more interesting. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure we will, but before we go to the next section, we're going to take a ten-minute break. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. For the listening audience out there, I want you to know that this meeting did not start at nine o'clock this morning and that we started at 5:05 and the time now is 8:30 in the evening. We're doing real good on time, just so you don't think this is some marathon session. And Mr. Coyle and Commissioner Fiala, neither one of them are talking that much, so we're going on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we did not start at nine o'clock this morning, but at the rate we're going, it's going to be nine o'clock in the morning when the time is up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stay tuned. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala keeps talking. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue. MS. MURRAY: Commissioners, I'm working on Page 73, and this is really the last section I need to go over with you in detail. After this -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What page? MS. MURRAY: -- I'll flip -- 73. I'll flip back to the front and just ask you to stop me as I read the sections if you have any concerns because you had the material so -- okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Page 106 December 11, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Okay. On 73, this has to do with the Planned Unit Development procedures and I'm just going to highlight the most important things here. Back on Page 74 we reference the community character plan reference to the guide for development and redevelopment in the PUD district. Number four under that, we ask that the boundaries within the PUD, such as residential, office and retail/commercial and the types of buffers with a cross-section for any buffer which deviates from that which is otherwise required by the Land Development Code now be submitted. You asked us to show more distinct boundaries. We're asking -- that's the submittal. All the nonresidential tracts, dimensions and boundaries shall be illustrated on the master plan. We at -- at one point had survey requirements here and thought maybe with some public input that might have been a little bit too stringent, but feel if-- if we can illustrate where the nonresidential tracts are, you'll be able to see the relationship between residential and nonresidential and then you can evaluate whether the PUD sufficiently buffers or is -- the uses are compatible, et cetera. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go too much farther, Commissioner Henning, did you want to address something we just covered or are you just putting it on for -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- when we finish the presentation? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. No, no. Well, I -- I want to to address this whole section. It's almost like a PD where we're getting close to reviewing all of that. And I know that that was Commissioner Coyle's concern, that Page 107 December 11, 2002 he would like some more information on it. I can tell you my perspective hasn't changed. I really don't want to see this much specificity because I think the planners are capable of handling that, that type of specificity. And we're going to have to go through an educational process, and I guess my concern is the -- that the -- in the front here, it's saying that cost is going to increase for the applicant. It's going to take increased staff time to review. So, my concern is if-- if we implement this without having enough staff to review it, we're just getting a bigger and bigger backlog and -- and if we're increasing cost, that the end product is the home buyer and that -- and then we're getting further and further away at Collier County being affordable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'd like to hear from staff on that. Myself, I don't have quite the same sentiments on that. I -- I do know it's going to take awhile before this is implemented but we're replacing staff at all times and I think the devil is going to be in the details and how it plays out in the end. But who wants to comment on -- MS. MURRAY: Sure. I think some of these items -- the majority of these items will actually assist us and assist you. You'll be able to make better decisions. You'll have more detail. I don't think a lot of them are going to be overly costly. I think our original draft, yes. We had required surveys, we had required very specific things that we, since we've gone through the public hearing process, have whittled out to be that which will provide detailed information at the least cost and will be able to assist you in making better decisions and be able to assist us in making better decisions when we're reviewing site plans or a request for official interpretations. Page 108 December 11, 2002 And I point out, for example, the buffer language here. We often have text in a PUD that describes the landscape buffer, but we don't have the picture that goes along with it. And, you know, when you read something, it's subject to interpretation. And a picture is a very cheap thing to create but is a very useful tool because it shows the public, it shows you and it shows us exactly what the details of that buffer are. So, that's an example, I think, where it would be time well spent reviewing something like that to prevent future conflicts and future misunderstanding and would also obviously benefit the public because they know exactly what they're getting with a picture rather than subjective phrases in a PUD. So, that's an example where I think it would help. I don't see -- nobody here from the public is here to speak about it and they were at the Planning Commission and the other board meetings as well. But I don't see anything glaring in here that's going to cost an enormous amount of money or that the county doesn't already have the information for that's readily accessible to the individuals preparing these applications. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and then Conunissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, as much as I'd like to, I-- I really can't take credit for -- for a lot of these additions to -- to this. Commissioner Henning is right. I -- I have always wanted more specificity for PUDs. Generally that has been in the area of-- of uses, permitted uses, and -- and that sort of thing so that we can resolve conflicts with the neighbors. But -- but I also agree with -- with you that the -- that most of these changes would help us because what generally happens is that unless they're clearly understand-- understood up front, we waste a Page 109 December 11, 2002 lot of time trying to sort it out and -- and resolve conflicts later on. And -- and I -- I would be supportive of this. I don't want to do anything that's excessively cumbersome, but if-- if you think it is helpful to you and the staff, I would be willing to support it. MS. MURRAY: Where you might get-- where we did get some -- some concern and we did not amend significantly was in number five where we're requiring an outline of the proposed building footprint and an indication of the proposed building height, which the building height probably isn't a real big issue, but the outline of the proposed building may be for individuals because if it doesn't fall out that that's where they built the building, then they're going to be back in here for a PUD amendment. And the cost benefit to that ratio may be a little bit higher on the cost side than on the benefit side and we wouldn't certainly be objective to taking that out if-- if you so desire, but I know that was one of your concerns in terms of the location of buildings -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: -- and I don't know if you-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about architectural styling? Is that included anywhere in here? MS. MURRAY: The architectural provisions are under a separate section and they are due to be amended in the next cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: In fact, a very comprehensive amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I think what you're asking, Commissioner Coyle, is that the artist rendition or at least an elevation view -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: -- and -- and that gets -- that's well beyond, I think where we want to go because we haven't even done the SDP Page 110 December 11, 2002 review process, and to get, quote, a board approval of an artist rendition tends to -- to validate to the petitioner that it's already approved when in fact they haven't even gone through any of the architectural review process. So, we -- we purposely left that out. That -- that they -- at a board meeting they may put up a rendition just to display what they want to build but we're very careful to point out that -- that it -- that that is all it is is just a rendition -- a conceptual drawing of what they want to build because they haven't even gone through the review process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. I've been looking forward to more specificity within this document and I think that it's going to help staff. It certainly is going to help me when we're voting on something and I think possibly with that in place we'll also be able to avoid some things that we're now in court about just because it will give a -- give us more clear direction and we're looking for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I-- I concur there with Commissioner Fiala in this and I also like the idea where you aCtually have a -- a plan showing where all the buildings are located. That way we can catch to see if there's any setback problems and we won't have to deal with after-the-fact variances and I think that's very important. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you continue the presentation? MS. MURRAY: Sure. We're requiring the document be submitted in an electronic format which we already do. We're just digitalizing that through the Page 111 December 11, 2002 code provision and we're attempting to standardize the documents a little bit better than we have in the past so that what you will see you will read the same document with the same sections and, hopefully, similar language every time so it won't look entirely different to you every time you see one of those. Let's see. We're asking for locations of proposed vehicular ingress and egress and the location of proposed and existing roads, right-of-away and pedestrian systems within 1500 feet of the proposed PUD so that staff and you all will be able to have the perspective on how an interconnection would work with the surrounding road network. We are asking on Page 77 under Number 22 that any deviations to sections of the Land Development Code shall be identified in the PUD document by citing the specific section number, regulation and proposed modifications for a -- to such regulation. As you know, the PUD process allows for, quote, the creative structuring of some of our regulations and I think sometimes it can get really confusing as to what regulations are being modified, which regulations are in effect because a PUD is not a classification in and of itself. It's still governed by provisions of the Land Development Code, so where there are deviations from the Land Development Code, I think we need to be very clear as to what the deviations are and what section is being deviated so that when it comes to interpretations either by you or staff, it will be very clear as to what deviations were meant to replace what sections of the code. The -- Page 78, on the bottom of the page, the prehearing conference will be required to be held prior to advertisement of the hearing date. I'm losing a little track. Just a minute. Just a second. That's a minor change. Page 112 December 11, 2002 On Page 80, we are talking about time limits for approved PUDs. I just want to bring this to your attention so you don't think anything is changing here in terms of the time frames we established at the last LDC cycle or the cycle before that in terms of sunsetting. But what we are actually doing here is defining the word sunset and saying that if a sunsetted PUD doesn't -- didn't meet the time frames established by the ordinance and that they're to submit a report and the purpose of the report will be to evaluate whether or not it met this criteria. And that's pretty much what we do, but we've never defined the term sunset and we get to talk about it all the time and -- so we're going ahead and doing that now and then we're attaching various regulations obviously to PUDs instead of sunsetting. On Page 82 we are putting the burden on the property owner to take the initiative to address the sunsetting PUDs rather than staff. So, what we're encouraging them to do is prior to or any time after the director determines that a PUD has sunsetted, the property owner will be required to initiate one of the following: A request for a PUD extension or a request for a PUD amendment. And then it goes on to explain what the board of county commissioners' options are once that is initiated. Also with respect on that page to number one, there was always some question about when a PUD has sunsetted, whether or not -- after a board direction had been given, whether or not somebody was able to still submit, for example, a site development plan because if they submitted a site development plan, that then met the criteria, there was always a question of whether or not they were no longer considered sunsetted. So, we put in here that once it's -- once the PUD is sunsetted and -- or if there was an extension to the PUD and that expired, no further Page 113 December 11, 2002 development orders would be processed until the PUD was extended either through a sunset or an extension process. I think I -- I hope I'm not losing you on this. I'm trying to go very quickly. Again, if the board of county commissioners required the owner to submit an amended PUD, the existing PUD would remain in effect until subsequent action by the board; however, no further development order applications would be processed by the county until the PUD was officially amended. So, in a sense what we're saying is once you -- once it's been determined that a PUD is sunsetted, then it has to follow the options of either being extended or amended and no further development orders would be allowed to be processed until either one of those options was complete. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is remarkable. You're finally hitting on what we have to do. This is a great document. MS. MURRAY: Okay. We're now on Page 83. Again that has to do with sunsetting PUDs and it's essentially just supporting what I've just described to you. And, essentially, the rest are minor changes until you get to Page 87. And on the bottom of the page, as you know, the challenge with new regulations is always to attempt to implement them or make them retroactive to previously approved PUD documents in this case. You end up with a, quote, legal nonconforming status. So, in other words, when you implement changes and regulations, there's -- they start at a point in time and the new items that come forward are subject to it, but the old items enjoy a legal nonconforming status. And this is my attempt without the County Attorney's review to ensure that all the PUDs fall under this criteria that's proposed before you, especially with respect to the sunsetting. And that's -- that was the main thrust of putting this in was to Page 114 December 11, 2002 ensure that the sunsetting -- MS. STUDENT: I need to perhaps work with Susan on that. The language is more the type you'd use for a nonconforming use than when you're in an application process, so we can work on that. MS. MURRAY: That's fine. Yeah. That was the intent and -- and I just wanted to bring that to your attention so you know we're attempting to make this, all -- all PUDs comply. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers on this? MS. MURRAY: No. That's essentially it for that section. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? Okay. MS. MURRAY: And now I think I can go through the rest rather quickly and I would just rely on you to stop me. And what I'll do is I'll just work from the summary sheet which is on page one, which is about the fourth page of your executive summary, and I'll read just the section number in and just ask, Mr. Chairman, if that's acceptable, that you stop me if you have comments or concerns. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'll be looking for the commissioners not to push their lights but just to speak up at that point in time to keep this thing moving forward. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With this -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, commissioner. Go ahead. Run wild. MS. MURRAY: Are you ready? The first section would be 1.9.9 which is on page one. The second section on Page 2 we've already discussed. That was the school board. Section 2.2.3.4.3, the estate zoning district, Section 2.2.12, Section 2.2. ! 2.1 through 17. Page 115 December 11, 2002 I'm now on Page 2 of the summary sheet. And we already discussed 2.2.20. We've already discussed 2.2.36. I'm on Page 3. 2.6.9. The next item, 2.6.15 has been withdrawn. I'm now on Section 2.6.30, 2.7.2.3.5. Now going to Page 4. We've already discussed 2.7.3.1. MR. SCHMITT' I just want to stop a minute at the public information meeting. Just so you know and understand, that was based on the guidance that was offered during our workshop to move the information meeting further into the process and we will do that. I just want to ask your guidance. There's been confusion between public hearing and public information meeting and there's been a suggestion that maybe we ought to call that the neighborhood information meeting -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that. MR. SCHMITT: -- rather than public information meetings. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is that? 2.7.3.1, is that where you are? MR. SCHMITT: Page 70, 2.7.2.3.5. MS. MURRAY: At the bottom of Page 3. MR. SCHMITT: Bottom of Page 3. Basically, the language, what we've done there, we moved the meeting a little bit further into the process. It will be after they have had a meeting with staff. It kind of defines their project a little bit better so when they have the meeting with the neighborhood, they -- they could be a little more definitive in what their -- their approach is. I would also change a bit some of the requirements for the advertisement, but I -- I've -- in dealing with the media, there has been some, frankly, misunderstanding. Page 116 December 11, 2002 They're thinking that that is a hearing, a public hearing, and it really is -- all it is is a neighborhood information meetings, so we may bring that back with that change. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We discussed that several months back-- MR. SCHMITT: MS. MURRAY: Yes, we did. That was -- Public works. MR. SCHMITT: That was brought up by the workshop. In fact, I believe Dwight Nadeau recommended it and others and we thought it was a great idea, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think at the time we were also talking about the advertising. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and to make it more clear because -- to people even driving by what you're really talking about. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Well-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I didn't find that in here. MR. SCHMITT: Not -- not the sign. We -- we -- the sign requirement is different. This was strictly the advertisement in the -- in the newspaper. We did talk about some of the other advertisements and somehow we -- how we can consolidate those and we are -- we've gone through a process to try and improve the readability of those advertisements. And you're going to be seeing improvements. These advertisements have already gone through kind of an evolution. What this does is, for whatever reason, we -- we restricted ourselves to the size, type and it's going to give us a little more flexibility so we can -- we can adjust to meet the -- the requirements of the public announcement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and the type is good and everything, but what I'm just concerned about is that people can Page 117 December 11, 2002 understand what you're saying. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's my main concern -- MR. SCHMITT: And that-- that-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and if you're inviting the public, inviting the neighborhood and they don't know what we're inviting them to -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they're not going to come. MR. SCHMITT: And that has nothing to do with what's in the LDC. That's just staff making sure that when we write something, it's written in -- in nonplanning terminology so that folks can understand it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I always bring it down to first grade. I could help you. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got to move on -- MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner Fiala. And Commissioner Coyle is looking at me like why are you doing it? I'm going to gauge your time. MS. MURRAY: Back on Page 4 of the summary sheet, Section 2.7.5, Section 3.2.4.8. I'm on Page 5. Section 3.2.6.4.8, 3.2.6.5.1, 3.2.6.5.8, 3.2.8.2. Down on polling places, 3.2.8.3.14, 3.3.7.5, 3.3.7.1.2, 3.3.7.1.10. The next item has been withdrawn by staff. We need to go back to the drawing board there. That's 3.3.8.4. You may see that again in the future. At the top of Page 7, 3.3.8.6, 3.3.10, 3.4.5.1, 3.4.5.1.7. Top of Page 8, 3.4.5.1.10, three four five two two, three four seven one, three four seven one three, three four seven two. Page 118 December 11, 2002 I'm on Page 9. Three four seven two one, three four thirteen five one, 3.397. We've already talked about three -- three thirteen six. Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't. 3.13.6. We talked about 3.13.8. We've talked about 3.15, 3.16.2.1.2.1.7 through ten. Three sixteen two one two two one, 3.3. Top of Page 11. Three sixteen two four one one two with point nine, 5.2.2. MR. MUDD: Excuse me, Susan. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. MS. STUDENT. I just have handouts. They're very-- it's just to make the other sections consistent with what we're doing already with the school board member. And I checked off on the one where it's an addition to the page. And all it does is make it consistent with the other changes. And I'll just pass those out right now. MS. MURRAY: And that would be Section 5.2.3.4., which is new. Shall I keep going? Five two three one, five thirteen two eight. I'm on the top of Page 12. We have four definitions; alley, outparcel, passenger vehicle or front yard. And, lastly, on Page 13, Appendix A, the Wellfield Protection zone maps. That's all your amendments for this cycle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The only thing I didn't find in there -- well, I already mentioned the one and that was about the wording, and the other thing I didn't find that I was concerned with was we had spoken and I -- I don't remember when though. We had spoken about chain link fences and masking them to Page 119 December 11, 2002 some degree with some kind with some kind of landscaping or something. But I didn't find that anyplace. MS. MURRAY: The amendments to the architectural standard will be coming to you in the spring -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MS. MURRAY: -- as well as, I believe, the landscape provisions are scheduled for the spring. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That will be there then. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. We kind of maxed out our amendments this time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess we're going back to the lights. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I kind of felt like a kid in the cookie jar for second dip in not using my light. It was -- I really didn't know what to do. So, anyways, in the ordinance, Page 10, Number 22, it is a use? MS. MURRAY: Are you referring to the ordinance itself?. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'm a little hesitant to go to the ordinance because I -- so that -- I told you before it was a little out of date because there's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. MS. MURRAY: We have a lag time between the County Attorney's office and us when the documents are prepared, so some of that stuff is -- and the next ordinance you get, which is what you have to consider anyway, will be -- certainly will be the final document. Page 120 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I would ask permission from the county manager-- there's some other things within the commercial district that Miss Murray and I are E-mailing back and forth and I think we need to get together so that we have a full understanding of what the intent is and what my concerns are. And I think that we do need to take a look at some -- some of this language. I do have some other marked areas within the ordinance but I understand if it was removed, then it's not a deed. MS. MURRAY: I-- I can certainly discuss it with the commissioner if that's okay with the county manager and I can make sure that my understanding -- MR. MUDD: The only -- the only question I -- the only hesitation I have is if it's a significant change, then it is probably going to have to pop back to the Planning Commission in that thing, so let's be careful on what we say on that one. MS. MURRAY: Certainly. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My turn? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's significant? That's up to interpretation. MR. MUDD: We wouldn't want to -- we wouldn't want to offend anybody, nor would we want to break any rules either. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to stay on that one for just a second. On Page -- Page 14 -- let's forget about the ordinance for right now, but on Page 14 there's also in Paragraph 22, which says exactly the same kind of thing, so I have to make the assumption that this was not an outdated portion of the -- of the -- MS. MURRAY: No. Page 121 December 11, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I thought we were trying to get rid of that catch-all phrase. Did we not discuss that at one point in time? MS. MURRAY: This, I believe, and if staff can back me up on this, I believe this was reinserted because it was inadvertently left out in a past amendment, and this does not do what the previous language did, which was allow the planning services director essentially carte blanche to determine whether or not a proposed use by somebody was comparable in -- in the district. This is basically saying that provided the use exclusively serves the administrative function of-- and the operational functions of a business and is purely associated with activities in an office, that it would be permitted in this district, because what we often get, for example, is contractors and sometimes a contractor has heavy equipment storage associated with its use and sometimes it's just strictly an office function. So, this does allow the planning services director -- or, I'm sorry, not the director -- staff to essentially evaluate whether or not it's strictly an office or it's beyond an office, because otherwise you'd have to take a strict interpretation of the code and all those, whether office or not, would have to go to C-5, the sample in this case. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'd like to just go briefly to the ordinance itself, on Page 9 of the ordinance, and maybe this is one of the things you've cleaned up in later editions, but if-- you'll see on Section 9 in the middle of the page, we have Section 2.2.12, C- 1 commercial. That is repeated on Page 13. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, 13. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so, if-- if it's still in your copy, we need to clean it up before you start to -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. Yes, I see. Page 122 December 11, 2002 MS. STUDENT: Commissioner, I just want to state for the record that that ordinance had some duplicative things in it and it was reviewed, passed by our office, and it's been cleaned up, so I just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, that particular problem has been cleaned up then, huh?. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. The formatting was duplicative of things and things of that nature has been -- or is being cleaned up as we speak. And as a matter of fact, I have to go through word by word and check against what we're changing or what. And that's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that now, please? MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that now, please, because I like to make sure it's complete before we leave here tonight. MS. STUDENT: Have we got another few hours? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem. Before we go on to Commissioner Henning, there was -- there was no other speakers today; right? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: No other registered speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. Commission Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I found my answer. Thank you. I found my answer, the -- why I turned my light on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, great. MR. SCHMITT: I know -- I know Susan went over it rather quickly, but I just want to again for the public's edification, on Page 137, that had to do with the Planning Commission and make sure that you -- you note that in fact the Planning Commission will increase Page 123 December 11, 2002 because there is a school district member will get with the Planning Commission for certain activities and -- and that was in compliance with the state law. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. The state law change requires that. MR. SCHMITT: So, that again brings that -- that planning function in a closer tie with the -- with the county's local planning authority. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we get to pick that school board member? MS. STUDENT: No. Under state statute the school board will appoint the person, but it's up to the board to determine whether or not they have voting status. And that voting status is limited to items that impact the school district. MR. SCHMITT: One of the problems we have to sort out now, that puts an even number of members on the board if there's -- that member shows up for a school function or for-- to vote on a school proposal, so we'll have to sort that out and figure out where that gets US. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you can always have it with the chairman. They can't vote unless it's to break a tie. your here legal? MS. STUDENT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Halas. Anything to add? COMMISSIONER HALAS: MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: That's all. The next meeting will be January 8th, 2003 and that will be final meeting and you will be voting then and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Let's go down the line and see if there's any final comments from -- anything from Thank you. We'll start with Commissioner No. Ready to go home and eat. Page 124 December 11, 2002 tree. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm ready to go home and trim the CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm finished. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to go home and like Commissioner Halas need some goulash. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:10 p.m. ~ttest ~$ to CIIInllll'l BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JIl~l"~ OL~ ~'T~-~I-~IAiRMAN Page 125 December 11, 2002 These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ,~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE M. WITT, RPR Page 126