Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/14/2003 SMay 14, 2003 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LDC AMENDMENTS - Cycle One 2003 Board Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration Building 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 5:05 PM May 14, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 PM in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Abernathy Brad Schiffer Paul Midney (arrived at 5:20 PM) Lindy Adelstein (left shortly after the recess) Lora Jean Young Mark Strain David J. Wolfley Dwight Richardson Speakers & Staff: Patrick White, Marjorie Student, Bill Lorenz, Joe Schmitt, Susan Murray, Stan Litsinger, Bob Mulhere, Barbara Burgeson, Doug Suitor, Tom Tomerlin, Diane Flagg Page 1 - The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. -The meeting was called to order at 5:07 PM. -Roll call was done: Mr. Budd had an excused absence. -A quorum was established. May 14, 2003 I. Opening Statements -Susan Murray stated that the 2® LDC hearing for the BCC was moved from June 18, 2003 to June, 17 2003 at 5:05 PM in the BCC Chambers. -Mr. Abernathy noted that this meeting of the CCPC was more legislative in nature than quasi-judicial, therefore they would not be administering oaths to witnesses and ex-parte disclosures were not necessary. -Mr. White stated that he reviewed the affa davit for publication of this meeting, published in the Naples Daily News. He noted that it was found it to be sufficient and it was appropriate to continue with the meeting. He placed the affa davit into the record. II. Section 6.3 -definition of Automobile Service Stations -Susan Murray reviewed Exhibit A with the commission. This definition attempted to include retail establishments that sell gasoline in the code. She explained that this language was intended to clarify what the Collier County Staff already applies. -Mr. Strain asked who determined what a "secondary function" was. Susan Murray stated that it is not defined and staffwould consider this to be accessory. Mr. Strain then asked who defined a "large" retail establishment. Susan Murray informed him that large is not relative, but she would remove this word from the definition. -Mr. Strain asked who determines the extent of the site of a fuel facility. Susan Murray stated that it is defined in the STP. -Mr. Strain asked if "secondary function" was appropriate language. Mr. White informed him that if an interpretation is needed, staff or the applicant can request a formal interpretation at that time. -There were no public speakers on this item. Page 2 May 14, 2003 -Mr. Strain made a motion to forward this to the BCC with a recommendation of approval with the removal of the term "large" and found this amendment consistent with the GMP. It was seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. III. Section 1.18 - Laws incorporated herein by reference - First & Only Hearing -Mr. Schiffer stated that he would like to see staff create a process to keep this amendment up to date. Mr. White stated that they will attempt to remove all of the prior references, except for the one that is the most current, and they will be more diligent. -There were no public speakers on this item. -Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve as is and found this amendment consistent with the GMP. It was seconded by Mr. Strain. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. IV. Section 5.4 - References to various boards - Second Hearing -There were no public speakers on this item. -Mr. Schiffer made a motion to approve and found this amendment consistent with the GMP. It was seconded by Lora Jean Young. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. V. Section 3.2.8.3.17 - Sidewalks -Mr. Schmitt noted that the CCPC had been emailed an updated version. -Tom Tomerlin, Principal Planner/Transportation, stated that this amendment was heard three times and they are now down to analyzing one paragraph. The fourth paragraph of the amendment was placed onto the visualizer for review. Mr. Tomerlin explained that this paragraph clarifies point #3 and states how a multi-family development is to safely get pedestrians to the public fight-of-way. Photos were shown to explain the flexibility in this amendment and show various design possibilities. (The photos were not provided to the court reporter.) Page 3 May 14, 2003 -Mr. Strain asked if this amendment applied to the county as well. Mr. Schmitt stated that the county is required to do this under another provision; this mnendment deals with multi-family developments. -Mr. Strain asked if the streets in Golden Gate are considered local streets, and if they were, he wanted to know if anyone calculated the fiscal impact to the taxpayers. Mr. Tomerlin stated that the point was well taken. Mr. Abernathy asked about Naples Park. Diane Flagg stated that this amendment does not apply to existing streets. She noted for Mr. Strain, that where streets were being widened and a new road corridor was being created, they are planning to incorporate these amendments. -Mr. Strain asked about the fiscal impact. Diane Flagg stated that they ask the engineers to take the current LDC requirements and calculate the cost for the additional width. Mr. Strain asked if anyone considered the fiscal impacts for placing sidewalks in places that they were not previously required. Dianne Flagg stated that the sidewalks are currently required in the LDC for arterials and collectors. -Mr. Schiffer asked about a 2-dimensional path that is required to be 1 Oft. Diane Flagg informed him that the developer can choose two-6ft paths or one-1 Oft path. Public Speakers A) Dwight Nadeau, RWA - representing several clients, stated that he presented in front of the Pathways Advisory Committee at their last meeting and they requested that he assist in drafting these LDC amendments. They generally agreed with his principles, but not all of the drafted language. He was concerned that these amendments would apply to sub-divisions, did not address revision in section 2.8, that it did not contain revisions to section 3.3 of the LDC, and that it removed the ability for sidewalks on one side of cul-de-sac streets. He felt that it was inappropriate to move forward with this amendment at this time. B) Bob Mulhere, RWA, reiterated Dwight's comments. He felt the intent was good, but the question was to what degree they go to regulate the problems. He felt that this amendment removed the flexibility for design. He also suggested that a threshold be created and the RT district be addressed. Page 4 May 14, 2003 -Mr. Tomerlin stated that staff is trying to eliminate the thresholds, but allow maximum flexibility to meet the requirements. Mr. Tomerlin added that it was a good idea to add the RT district and they would do so. -Susan Murray noted that they should remove the word "site" and the words "site improvements, since it confuses the issue. Mr. Tomerlin agreed and added that section 3.3 could be revised in accordance with the new standards. -Mr. Mulhere stated that the possibility to request deviations during the PUD process addressed most of his concerns, but he still felt that there was a lot of inflexibility. C) Jim Whalen, Palm Drive Resident, stated that the Glades is considering sidewalks, since residents feel insecure walking on the grass. He encouraged the commission to commit to a walkway for residents to walk safely. D) Peter K. Lilienthal, representing MPO Pathways Committee, encouraged the commission to move forward with this amendment. He felt it was easier to require sidewalks first rather than fixing the problem later. E) David Ellis, Collier Building Association Industry, was concerned that the flexibility had been removed from the process. He researched the Florida Pedestrian Planning and Designing Handbook, which recommends 5ft sidewalks not 6ft. He felt that this amendment did not address the specific needs of various roads; larger or smaller sidewalks. He recommended that this be brought back in the next LDC cycle after a study group could further review the issues. -Mr. Tomerlin stated that the county has a comprehensive pathways plan and it is being revised. -Susan Murray noted that she labeled the most recent version of this amendment as Item B. Due to confusion about the language of the current draft, Susan Murray read paragraph 4 into the record: "For multi-family site development and site improvement projects, districts RMF-6, RMF-12, and RMF-16 and all multi-family residential components of PUD districts; sidewalks, six feet in width, must be provided on both sides of local streets with a dedicated public right-of-way roadway easement. Where there is no public right-of-way or roadway easement, sidewalks must connect on-site residential building(s) to a sidewalk within a public roadway or, if no sidewalk exists, to the right-of-way line in accordance with Code standards contained herein. Should Page 5 May 14, 2003 a two-directional shared use path be utilized, the minimum paved width must be 10 feet." -Mr. Schiffer was concerned 10 feet was a large requirement in some areas, especially cul-de-sacs, and that it would not look very nice. Mr. Tomerlin stated that the intent was for 2 - 6ft sidewalks around a cul-de-sac. A member of the public noted that he lived on a cul-de-sac with a sidewalk that was only on the one side. Mr. Richardson felt that this situation would be caught and corrected during the site development plan. Mr. Midney asked if a compromise could be made. Mr. Strain felt that if minimum criteria were established, then it would be sufficient. -Mr. Lindy made a motion to approve with paragraph 4, as read into the record, including the specification of the RT district and the deletion of "site improvement projects". The amendment was found consistent with the GMP. Lora Jean Young seconded the motion. -Mr. Strain felt that this was still confusing and believed that it should be addressed in the next cycle. -Mr. Lindy asked if they could pass this amendment and still make changes to it in the next cycle. He believed that something was better than nothing. Mr. Strain felt that people would become "trapped" in this amendment. Mr. Richardson felt that considerable ability had been created to allow for flexibility. -Mr. Schiffer recommended that they delete the last sentence. -Mr. Lindy amended his motion to strike the last sentence of paragraph 4. Lora Jean Young amended her second. The motion was recalled. The motion passed, 6-2 (Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Strain were against.) VI. Section 2.6.22 Supplemental District - Manatee -Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Director, stated that this amendment covers the adequate water depth between a channel and a boat facility with adequate water depth. It states that without adequate water depth, a facility cannot achieve a preferred rating. This assumes that there is two feet average water depth for a boating vessels and two feet water depth for Manatee protection. Todd Turrell provided the commission with language that allows "access water less than four feet at mien low water, will also be Page 6 May 14, 2003 considered adequate, if they are marked or historically used channels or if the average draft of proposed vessels are no greater than the vessels currently using the channel." This language was provided to the state. The state did not agree with this language, but they would consider language that allowed the draft of the vessels to change based upon channel conditions to ensure two feet of manatee clearance. Staff tried to create language that addressed this, but felt that it become an "enforcement nightmare". Various public agencies were also uncomfortable with this language. Staff's position was to go with the language in the current mail-out. At the last meeting, staff proposed a series of maps that specified channels and added that the preferred rating would be given if a boating facility could attain adequate water depth out to the specified channels. -Mr. Schiffer asked if additional dry storage capability could be added to the moderate rating. He suggested two classifications for the moderate rating. Mr. Lorenz stated that expansion of existing ramps was allowed under the moderate rating. Under the moderate rating, one could also expand existing dry storage facilities, but could not construct new facilities. This language was taken directly out of the MPP. Public Speakers A) Clay C. Brooker, stated that he disagreed with linking the adequate water depth to specific channels - (maps), because it is not what the MPP states. He reviewed the language of the MPP with the commission. Mr. Brooker felt that the proposed language contained significant changes to the MPP. He disagreed with the word change from "may" to "shall". Mr. Brooker also noted that the maps used in the proposal do not specify all areas that have four feet adequate water depth and some of the maps used in the MPP were not used in the LDC proposal. His position was that if maps were used, then they should be the same maps as those used in the MPP. He added that the only person, who spoke to the commission in the last three hearings of this amendment and was on the committee that drafted the MPP, did not agree with staff. -Mr. White noted that Mr. Brooker believed that the word "may" in the MPP was discretionary. Staff's opinion is that "may" could have been intended to mean that it "may factually be possible". He believed that staff's opinion was consistent with the maps, since the maps are merely graphic depictions of the facts that they Page 7 May 14, 2003 acknowledge - "may apply in a certain, specific situation that would have adequate water depth at four foot or more." B) Philip Osborne represented Butch Morgan, president of Marine Industries of Collier County. Mr. Osborne read a letter into the record from Butch Morgan. The letter stated that they believed "...a 4fi depth at a multi-slip facility and to a marked channel or historically used channel is sufficient for a preferred rating in the MPP as long as boat draft or size is not more than is presently using the channel." Mr. Osborne noted that a marked channel does not necessarily mean the Gulf of Mexico or the ocean; it is just a recognized navigable channel. The letter also pointed out that on January 14, 2003 Mr. Morgan appeared before the BCC to request a resolution regarding the manatee issue in Florida be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. U.S. fish and Wildlife issued a decision of"no decision" and the governor stated, 'it keeps manatee protection in the hands of state and local regulators who must balance the preservation of Florida's environment with economic prosperity". Mr. Morgan felt that staff had not presented the balance of manatee protection and economic impacts to the commission. In his letter, Mr. Morgan asked that the commission consider how the MPP morality criteria and water depth issue balance the environment and prosperity in Collier County. Also in his letter, Mr. Morgan asked that the MPP be strictly adhered to. -Mr. Richardson made a motion to accept the staff's wording in the amendment and found it to be consistent with the GMP. It was seconded by Lindy Adelstein. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. VII. Section 3.9.5.5.6 - Native Vegetation Preservation -Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services, stated that the commission generally agreed with this at the last meeting, but requested that they have the chance to view the new language once the amendment was "relaxed". Barbara Burgeson reviewed the new language and changes with the commission: 1) The proposal now reads: "If a completed application submittal package for an SDP or Plat/Plans has been submitted prior to June 18, 2003, the applicant may Page 8 May 14, 2003 Public request a waiver of the above average minimum width requirement. Waivers to the average minimum width requirement will be approved if the proposed minimum widths are not less than twenty feet." 2) The proposal now allows for more flexibility on the amount of created preserve areas. Up to one acre of preserves can be created on sites less than 20 acres. 3) The proposal now states that on sites between 20 acres and 80 acres, up to 2 acres of preserve can be created. 4) For any parcels that are 80 acres or greater in size, the language refers back to the 10%. Also, when staff calculates the native vegetation preservation requirement, they are now calculating it on the amount of native vegetation on- site, not on the size of the property. Speakers A) Bob Mulhere, RWA Inc, agreed that this version is more flexible. He reviewed section 6.11 paragraph 7 with the commission. Mr. Mulhere believed that the intent of this section was to be an exception to the policy and to recognize flexibility in the urban area on urban development sites. He was concerned that the new standards were "overkill", because they now establish the setbacks from these preserves that would apply to a native vegetation area being recreated. He noted that the provided exception to the policy, listed on Page 26 under item D, only applies to the minimum dimensions. He felt that the waiver should not have to be requested and that the amendment should read: that a waiver "shall" be granted. Mr. Mulhere was also concerned because the exception only applied to the buffer widths. He recommended that a new paragraph be created in the amendment that states: "exemptions shall be granted for projects where which a completed PUD, STP, or Final Plat has been submitted prior to June 17, 2003. Such projects shall be exempt from section 3.9.5.5.6 paragraph 2, 3A, and 3B, and in the case of created preserves section 3.9.5.5.6.4." -Barbara Burgeson reviewed the proposed language and stated that she believed this is the only exemption language that would be applicable without being in conflict with the current GMP. She added that the setback language has been in the code Page 9 May 14, 2003 since 1991 and the only change made to this, now allows for flexibility and some impacts in the first 10 feet. -Mr. Strain asked if this applied to items in the "pipeline" or if the intent of the amendment was to say from a certain day forward this would apply. Barbara Burgeson informed him that she wanted to make sure the requirements of the current GMP were not affected by "pipeline" language. -Barbara Burgeson stated that she would be willing to change the proposal to read: "may be granted a waiver", as long as the proposed minimum widths are not less than 20 feet. -Mr. Strain suggested the language: "any changes to this section will not be effective to projects currently in the defined pipeline." Barbara Burgeson stated that she believed this language would work, but she would need to discuss this with the County Attorney and that it must be consistent with the GMP. Mr. Mulhere agreed with this language. -Mr. Mulhere believed that the requirements in items A, B, & C were new requirements. Barbara Burgeson stated that this language was new, in order to facilitate the GMP language created and effective in January 2003. -Mr. Schiffer asked how much time the GMP allowed for grandfathering applications. Mr. White stated that the typical process is that any application, already deemed sufficient on the date the regulations changed or prior to, would follow the prior existing regulations. -Mr. Strain made a motion to recommend approval of LDC section 3.9.5.5.6 and find it consistent with the GMP with the following change: any changes to section 3.9.5.5.6 will not be applicable to any applications that are not deemed sufficient as of the adoption date. It was seconded by Lindy Adelstein. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. A recess was taken from 7:20PM - 7:32PM. Page 10 May 14, 2003 VIII. Section 2.2.27 - Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay - Second Hearing -Stan Litsinger passed an Errata Sheet out to the commission. -Nancy Lannan, County's outside growth management consultant, stated that they have agreement with the environmental community on the consensus document. She reviewed the documents the commission should have had in-hand: the consensus document, the errata sheet, a letter from Christine Small - Defenders of Wildlife, technical changes made by Mr. White. (A copy of the technical changes had not been provided to the court reporter or the commission. The final document the commission receives will have the technical changes included in it.) Nancy Lannan stated that Brad Cornell, of Collier Audubon, was concerned that the restoration credit language was not clear and asked that this be clarified. Nancy Lannan reviewed the changes listed on the errata sheet and addressed the issues that arose at the last hearing that were not changed: 1) Mr. Strain's "worst case scenario: presented at the last meeting: Wilson Miller Inc and Bob Mulhere reviewed the document. Clarifying language was placed on the Errata sheet. Bob Mulhere, RWA, stated that in his review of the matrix, he found a few mathematical and code-interpretive errors. They providing clarifying language on the Errata sheet to avoid similar confusion. Mr. Strain's calculation stated that -50,000 acres could be populated. Mr. Mulhere's calculation was -30,000 acres that could be populated. Mr. Mulhere's calculation used all of the same assumptions as Mr. Strain, with the exception of those that were not intended by the policy. -Mr. Richardson was concerned that the early bonus credit program was creating too much incentive. Nancy Lannan stated that the incentive language was in the document as mandated by the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Richardson asked what the bonus was based on. Mr. Mulhere stated that in order to receive the bonus credits, one has to participate in the Early Bonus program. Nancy Lannan added that the credits are only given to someone who creates an SSA within the first five years. Marty Chummler suggest adding the language: "designated as an SSA within an HSA". Nancy Lannan added that the Errata Sheet included vesting language that stated unless you have created Page 11 May 14, 2003 an SSA at the front end, whenever you recalibrate, you have no rights to the higher number at that point. -Nancy Lannan returned to the changes, revisions, and the Errata Sheet: 2) Changes to page 3 & 4 were made for clarification purposes and to ensure that there is no double-counting of credits. 3) Changes to page 8 stated that you can't claim alliance on the higher number of credits, unless you have created an SSA at the front end. This language has been agreed to by all parties. 4) Changes to page 10 were made to keep consistency with the current comprehensive plan. 5) Changes to page 11 were the same revisions made to page 10. 6) Language was added to page 13. 7) Changes to page 16 were for clarification purposes. 8) Changes to page 19 were to correct a typo and to reword the language for clarification purposes. 9) Pages 23, 36, and 37 where to clarify what you count when calculating gross density. 10) The change to page 25 was a technical amendment. This language has been agreed to by all the parties. -Nancy Lannan then addressed the issues that were raised at the last meeting that had not been changed. 1) Mr. Abemathy's desire for a prohibition on local funding: This was not changed because the comprehensive plan refers to a blend of state, local, and federal money. 2) Concerns about best management practices: Nancy Lannan explained that this was not easy to clarify, since best management practices is a term of art within an industry. The group agreed that if they were specific, then they would lose out on some of the practices and future practices as they change. 3) Mr. Strain's suggestion to delete WRAs from connection with SRAs: this was not changed, because the early part of the language read "incompatible uses". Page 12 May 14, 2003 4) Concern about the need for an AICP: This was not changed, but one must have an environmental consultant or an architect involved. 5) Questions about historic water flows: This was not changed, because the areas were not being set aside for restoration to begin with. -Marty Chummier, outside counsel to the County, stated that they received the letter from Christine Small earlier that morning. After reviewing the letter, she found that the majority of the comments were directly relating to the GMP rather than the LDC regulations. The letter suggests changing a definition for restoration zone. Marty Chummler stated that this will be done. The letter suggests adding "...no increase in density and intensity or additional uses..." to section 2.2.27.9 B. Marty Chummler stated that there are a couple of places where this change needs to be made and they will make the changes. The letter also suggested a few items that were pertaining to previous drafts and those items have already been changed or considered. -Nancy Lannan stated that they recommend approval of version four of the consensus sheet and the errata sheet. Public Speakers A) Brad Cornell, representing the Collier Audubon Society, stated that they have spent a lot of time working on this and they support the LDC regulations. They feel that this is a good representation of the intent of the GMP. He noted that this program, RLSA, can be reviewed in five years, which provides comfort in an untested program. B) Gary Davis, representing the Conservancy, stated that they have made significant progress in this process. He felt that this process should be a model for how the county and the public work together in the future. He agreed with Mr. Strain, that they ought to be concerned with the "ultimate outcome" of this program. They take comfort in the five year review program and support the changes made in the Errata Sheet. -Mr. Richardson asked who the participants were in the five-year review. Stan Litsinger stated that it would probably the joint efforts of staff, CCPC, and a committee of stakeholders. Nancy Lannan explained that there is no language in the Page 13 May 14, 2003 plan to include stake holders, but it is required to be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs. She added that they will come up with some language to include the community stakeholders in this review. Mr. Midney asked that farm worker participation be included in this language as well. Nancy Lannan agreed. -Mr. Richardson asked if there was a way to intercept this if it "runs amuck" prior to the five-year review. Nancy Lannan informed him that they did. -Mr. Strain noted some concerns and suggestions: 1) Page 4-#28: Mr. Strain suggested that they include 500 foot buffers. Nancy Lannan stated that they do intend to do this. 2) Page 16-#5: Mr. Strain advised that they be careful with the terminology since it is not the maximum number of credits without the bonus credits. Nancy Lannan agreed. Marty Chummler noted that this was on the Errata Sheet and agreed to change it to read: "...generated through the designation of an SSA." Mr. Strain agreed to this 3) Page 19-#2: Mr. Strain asked if they should differentiate R1 and R2 on the map. Marty Chummler explained that there are two tiers to the bonus restoration credits: credits for setting aside land for restoration and additional credits are given for taking on the restoration. 4) Page 30-#11: Mr. Strain asked if 5 days was enough time for staff to complete this task. Mr. Schmitt stated that it was. 5) Page 40-#8B: Mr. Strain stated that he felt this section was "double-talk". Nancy Lannan agreed that this was a "round about" way of saying things. She clarified that this section states, if later in the design criteria the county says that there are design factors that cannot be deviated from, then this language controls over anything here on deviations. 6) Mr. Strain noted that the 30,000 possible acres that could be developed, where not in his mind the "worst case scenario". -Mr. Richardson asked about an area of the plan that had been stricken out. Marty Chummler informed him that it was underlined and stated that she would make the changes to clarify what is underlined and what is stricken out. Page 14 May 14, 2003 -Mr. Richardson asked about the reference to size of CRDs on Page 26. Marty Chummler there are no limitations, but it could not be a town because of the characteristic requirements. Nancy Lannan then pointed out that 1,000 acres would be max for CRDs. Mr. Richardson then asked if they could say "or less than 1,000 acres". Nancy Lannan stated that they would clarify this. -Mr. Richardson asked if the stewardship credit trust, page 7, allowed for the county to require all of the credits. Nancy Lannan stated that this was possible, but "far-fetched". -Mr. Midney asked if on page 16, they could limit it to one golf course. Nancy Lannan stated that a university would have to show that a second golf course is an ancillary use and is accepted in the university community. -Mr. Midney asked about the angles used for drilling - page 11. Brian Mackenzie, Collier Resources Company, stated that directional drilling distances vary based upon the topography, angle, and the geology of the structure you are drilling towards. On the average you would drill from 1,500ft to 2,500ft away. Mr. White asked if the 2,500ft was the total bore distance or the horizontal distance from the property boundary. Mr. Mackenzie stated that it would be the lateral distance. -Mr. Midney asked if there was a limitation on the total number of towns, hamlets, or villages depending on the number of credits generated. Nancy Lannan stated that there was only in the ACSC. -Mr. Midney was concerned about the water table draw-downs in the stewardship areas if there is a lot of development. Marty Chummler stated that they felt the basis of review from the SFL Water Management District would be sufficient. Mr. Midney asked when the water tables would be mapped. Marty Chummler informed him that it would be provided in the application. -Mr. Schiffer stated that he was an architect, which is a licensed profession. He felt the ACIP limitation restricted architects from providing this service. He noted that ACIP was only an organization. Nancy Lannan stated that it is generally accepted in the courts and public bodies as being similar to licensure. Mr. Schiffer was concerned that this would force someone to become a member of the organization. Nancy Lannan stated they had concerns about this as well, but it was difficult to define the specific kind of expertise. She added that they will consider this issue and bring it up to the BCC. Mr. Page 15 May 14, 2003 Richardson felt that this restricted qualified individuals from providing this service or forcing them to join a club. -Alan Reynolds noted that AICP is not a club, but it is a national certification. -Mr. Abernathy made a motion to forward LDC section 2.2.27 to the BCC with their recommendation of approval and found it to be consistent with the GMP. It was seconded by Lora Jean Young. -Mr. Richardson asked that the motion be clarified to include the changes agreed upon and previously discussed, as well as the errata sheet. Mr. Abemathy and Lora Jean Young agreed to amend the motion. All were in favor of the motion; the motion passed unanimously, 8-0. -Mr. White clarified that the BCC 2nd public hearing on the LDC amendments will be on June 16, 2003. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the previously stated June 17, 2003 will not work, but there is no definite date scheduled, although they are considering June 16, 2003. IX. Adjournment -There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:28PM. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Kenneth Abernathy, Chairman Page 16