BCC Minutes 06/16/2003 S (LDC Amendments) June 16, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Naples, Florida, June 16, 2003
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein in SPECIAL SESSION, met on this date at 5:05 p.m.
for the Land Development Code Amendments in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
TOM HENNING
FRED COYLE
DONNA FIALA
FRANK HALAS
JIM COLETTA
ALSO PRESENT:
JIM MUDD
JOE SCHMITT
SUSAN MURRAY
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
June 16, 2003
5:05 p.m.
Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
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.
1
June 16, 2003
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 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.
3. ADJOURN
2
June 16, 2003
June 16, 2003
ORDINANCE 2003-27 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COI.I.IF.R COIJNTY, FI,ORIDA- ADOPTFD WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners, Land Development Code amendments of
June 16, '03 to order.
Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney Patrick White.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant County
Attorney Patrick White.
I've reviewed an affidavit of publication from the Naples Daily
News published on June 5th pertaining to a notice of intent to
consider ordinance, that being the ordinance that will embody all of
the Land Development Code amendments that you will consider this
evening. At this time, I'm turning the affidavit over to our minutes
keeper for record keeping purposes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Good evening, Commissioners, welcome to
our second public hearing on the amendments for the Land
Development Code. I'd like to make it clear that tonight we are -- or
you are, in fact, voting on each of the amendments that are proposed
to amend our Land Development Code, and with that, I have no other
further guidance, just to let you know that the first thing we'd like to
cover this evening are the rural land stewardship area, or RLSA
zoning overlay district, and assisting me in that is Stan Litsinger,
comprehensive planning manager. Stan.
MR. LITSINGER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the
Page 2
June 16, 2003
record, Stan Litsinger, as Joe mentioned.
You had received in your agenda package a draft dated June the
16th of the RLSA which is the final draft which we would propose
that you adopt tonight. Your draft has been highlighted in yellow
with changes since your first public hearing on May the 21st that we
have made to the draft as a result of that hearing in order to correct
some grammatical punctuation and editing issues, none of which are
substantial. I will touch upon some of those very briefly with you in
a moment.
Also, I've handed out this evening a copy of an errata sheet
which we will also be recommending that you adopt tonight which is
fairly brief. There's two pages of proposed language changes as a
result of consultations with your staff, consultants and stakeholder,
and also any consideration of the EAC's deliberations on June the
4th. As I go through this draft very briefly with you, I will touch on
those errata changes as we get to those changes.
If you will turn to your June 16th draft, I will very quickly go
through some of the highlights, though none are significant, in the
draft that you have, and also I will tip the errata items when we get to
those.
On page one of your draft, and here again, your RLSA is
individually numbered as opposed to your Land Development Code,
hand numbered pages. On page one here, for clarification under
baseline standards, we did change the date to July 25th, 2000, which
was the effective date of the interim amendments and the
development provisions as required by the final order to avoid any
confusion there on those particular regulations. (Commissioner Coyle entered the room.)
MR. LITSINGER: Very briefly, on page eight, skipping over to
make sure that there was no confusion as to what would be reviewed
every five years, we have added RLSA overlay as we will review all
of these regulations and their impact in the actions you take under
Page 3
June 16, 2003
these regulations every five years.
On page ten, under SSA designation, and further under FSA
delineated lands, we have stricken the word, and, as an FSA and a
designated SSA are exclusive. You can have one without the other,
but this is talking specifically of SSA's that are within -- excuse me,
FSA's which are within designated SSA's.
On page 11, the following page, here we have stricken, are
entered into the stewardship program, because HSA's, which are
designated SSA's, are inclusive.
Same comment on page 12.
On Page 14, I would ask you to turn your attention to your
errata sheet. Here, we have renumbered at the bottom of page 14,
number four will become number five, as we are trying to group
these processes relative to the restoration credit program in the order
in which the occurrences would take place. And following it very
quickly, on page 15, we have -- we are recommending that you
reword and amend this draft tonight to amend the language under
2.2.27.9B3f, which will be number five -- excuse me, number four,
excuse me. Lands designated restoration shall be restricted to
agriculture, group two.
This is to address the issue of restoration and the effort to retain
the lands in their natural state and to keep them in a state of un -- of
pasture land in agriculture two, because this will protect the lands
from further degradation to exotics until a restoration plan can be
implemented.
On page 17, under your natural resource index assessment, here
again, we are just changing the emphasis here so that the
understanding is that when the SSA applications come through the
door, which we expect one later this week, that the issue is the
verification of the original natural resource index assessment, and not
the conduct of a new assessment in addition to the one that was
conducted during the phase one study in the eastern lands.
Page 4
June 16, 2003
On page 18, also going to your errata sheet, under 2.2.27.9C4j,
are recommending to change the wording to calculations that
quantify the number of acres per index value to avoid any confusion
that might require a separate worksheet for each acre that might be
designated an SSA, as you adopted the worksheet for natural
resources index with your comp plan amendment as part of the
GOP's and as attachment A.
Here on page 20, a minor, we made a change to indicate that
only one preapplication conference will be required relative to an
SSA application, though others may and have occurred relative to
these applications that will be forthcoming.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Litsinger.
MR. LITSINGER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I see is the rest of these, and I
haven't gotten to the back page, but it looks like they're just
scrivener's errors?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. I have one more that I just wanted
to point out for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. LITSINGER: And that will be it.
On page 27, because we wanted to make sure there was no
confusion. On SRA, as a part of a development of regional impact,
the applicant owns or already has a contract with an owner of enough
land that would be qualified as an SSA to entitle the DRI for enough
stewardship credits to go forward.
We'd also, at this time, like to have Bob Mulhere go over some
recommendations and comments that were forwarded to you by the --
your environmental advisory committee on June the 4th, which we
have addressed partially in our amendment to page 15, but two of
their recommendations, we did not address, and he will touch on that
very briefly.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere,
Page 5
June 16, 2003
with RWI, Inc., consultant for Collier County on the eastern lands
rural stewardship initiative.
The EAC, on June 4th, had a fairly lengthy discussion regarding
the eastern lands amendments, rural stewardship amendments, and
they made three actual motions as a result of that discussion.
The first motion was that -- there was a general feeling that
when a piece of property is designated as a sending area, that the
property owner should be responsible for removing the exotics and
then maintaining the exotics from that piece of property, and so the
motion was that the sending areas be maintained to a maximum level
of exotic infestation of five percent.
Now, we don't quarrel with the notion that removing the exotics
is good. However, based on subsequent discussions with both of our
-- both of our-- both of the county's attorneys, Marti Chumbler and
Nancy Linnan, as well as other property owners and environmental
groups who have been involved in this process, one of the concerns
that really arises is that to do so, we believe, would be actually in
violation of the growth management plan amendments that you've
already adopted, because what you've adopted has said, a land owner
is not required to do restoration when a land owner designates land as
an SSA, stewardship sending area.
So the bottom line is that ultimately those lands being put into
this designation will hopefully result in some sort of a management
plan and exotic removal plan, but that should not be a requirement
strictly of the designation, that that actually constitutes restoration,
and if a property owner chooses to make lands available for
restoration, even in that condition, under the current amendments that
you've adopted, there is no requirement to conduct that restoration.
Only when the property owner agrees to actually do restoration are
they then required, through a management plan, to remove the
exotics.
Now, that -- if that is something that is not palatable
Page 6
June 16, 2003
over time, that seems to be problematic, I suggest that that would be
something that we would look at over time, but under the current
conditions, we have a grave concern that to require such, and
remember, we did not do this in the fringe. We had the same
discussion as part of the rural fringe, and it was determined that
exotic removal was not going to be required in the sending lands,
because of the impact on the property owners and the expense.
That was the same conclusion that we reached here, and so,
again, if we want folks to make lands available for greater measures
of protection by designating them as sending, we do not believe that
the initial step should require exotic removal. That is something that
may result later as other organizations, groups, whether they're non-
governmental organizations, such as the Conservancy, as an example,
or other groups, or whether they are public entities that may come in
and develop a plan for exotic maintenance and removal. In fact, they
may purchase the land or they may simply have, as part of the
conservation easement, some agreement to do that. That was the first
issue that was raised by the EAC, and I'm sure you'll have some
speakers that speak on all of these issues.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wanted to mention,
you know, as we went through the process, and of course, we're
neophytes at this, I mean, compared to you guys who have been
working on it for years, and I never even noticed that a management
plan was not in place, or that it was missing, but I must say, that if
we have -- if we're preserving these sending areas because they're so
environmentally sensitive, and then if we allow them to become
infested with exotics because nobody is managing that land, what
have we accomplished?
MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing is I think there's an
assumption there that no one's managing the land. It may not be
accurate. In fact, I think that the land owners have well managed the
Page 7
June 16, 2003
land and will continue to do so, especially if you allow them those ag
two uses, which allow for cattle grazing and passive use. Those have
the effect of keeping the exotic infestation to a minimum.
They also have other permits in place on the land, which may
require some exotic removal, such as water management district
permits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really think we ought to be
addressing this and putting something in this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, government can buy the land
and clean out the exotics out of the -- Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MULHERE: I just want to put on the record that the
alternative is one of perhaps making a condition that results in no one
being willing to dedicate any land for sending. I think that's a real
concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have every right for that
concern. I'll tell you right now, if you're going to ask these people to
give up their developmental rights, reduce the value of their land
down to something where you're going to have one house per 40
acres, and if you're going to burden them with the full responsibility
of removing the exotics on 40 acres, I think you're going to run into a
situation where that land will have very little value. It's got to have
something, a little bit of breathing space in it. If the people are held
to those kind of standards, I don't see how anybody could ever make
it work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't going there.
MR. MULHERE: We did not do that in the rural fringe where
the 40 acre parcel and requirement exists. We did not do that. This
is in the eastern lands, so that's a little bit different, but -- we also
didn't do it here consciously as part of the growth management plan
amendments that we've adopted.
At the pleasure of the board, do you want me to go through the
other two, and then I know there are some people that want to speak
Page 8
June 16, 2003
on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, yeah. We'd like to hear all of
them.
MR. MULHERE: The second motion was that there was a
feeling that there wasn't adequate enforcement provisions, in other
words, to ensure that a land owner lived up to whatever commitments
that they were making.
My response, and I think Patrick White also provided some
response, is that if there was a general discussion about enforcement
that wasn't only tied to the rural land stewardship program, but also
in general, about perhaps that there wasn't strong enough
enforcement provisions in the LDC. And my response was that it
wouldn't be appropriate if that was the case, and I don't know
whether it is or not, but if that was the case, then the rural land
stewardship provisions are not the place to put in some special types
of enforcement provisions if we don't have strong enforcement
provisions in the, and I'm not sure I want to get into a whole lot of
discussion, but if we don't have them in the LDC, then the place to
put them is in the section in the LDC that deals with enforcement
provisions, and I would defer to the county attorney's office on that,
but that was -- but there was a motion to -- made by EAC to
strengthen the enforcement provisions of this plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bob, if-- whether it's DRI or PUD,
there's going to be reporting requirements, and I think -- is that kind
of like the same thing as --
MR. MULHERE: It very well could be as part of the condition
to have some annual reporting or monitoring provisions, that could
be one means to determine whether or not someone is adhering to
whatever the provisions are through -- I mean, there's a lot of
different points throughout the rural land stewardship that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's ways for -- for us to catch it.
MR. MULHERE: I believe that there are, yes.
Page 9
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
MR. MULHERE: The third provision was a recommendation to
create a specific special taxing district, and I probably have the name
wrong. Mr. Carlson came up with the name. He's here. Maybe he
can come up and give it to you exactly, but it was kind of a sending
land special taxing unit. The concept would be that the -- if a
receiving area was created, that a special taxing unit would be
created that would tax those properties so that that money could be
used to maintain and/or restore -- maintain exotic infestation, and/or
restore a sending area, and again, that may be a very good
recommendation, may be a very good provision. I will tell you that
the plan does make provisions for generally special taxing units. It
doesn't say a special taxing unit for that specific purpose, but it says
special taxing units may be created.
Those were the three motions. Again, after conferring with our
legal -- the county's legal representatives, I would suggest to you that
we have not made any specific changes to the plan to cause these
things to be incorporated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions from the board?
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could there be a possibility that
there would be some additional special taxing if the land owner
decided to remove the exotics off of his land? MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This would be an incentive to get
the -- have the removal of the exotics if we come up with some kind
of tax abatement on that land?
MR. MULHERE: Well, yes, and the plan actually provides a
lot of flexibility for the creation of some special taxing districts or
other mechanisms for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because like Commissioner Fiala
said, I think that, you know, we're trying to clean up a lot of the area,
Page 10
June 16, 2003
whether it's melaleuca, whether it's pepper tree or whatever else, and
if we don't have any incentives, we're not going to have any way of
controlling this.
MR. MULHERE: I would agree. Incentives would be the key.
I would agree. And I think perhaps some of the land --
representatives of the land owners may have some comments relative
to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public -- it's time that we go to
public speakers. If--just for the general public, because I know
there's a lot of other people here.
Mr. Schmitt has the sign up --
MR. SCHMITT: We have two public speakers. Ed Carlson
followed by Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. On the other items, there are
sign-up slips on the outside?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I have several that have already
submitted sign-up sheets for the follow on LDC amendments. Not
this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. So it could be the section
number or the issue.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we could follow that way and
call up those people when those items do come up. Good afternoon, Mr. Carlson.
MR. CARLSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Ed Carlson. I'm with Audubon of Florida. I'm director at Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary.
Commissioner, I have spoken my peace in many different ways,
many meetings, EAC, have written to you.
You know, I am very concerned about the fate of the sending
lands. And this is, quote, a stewardship plan, and it should be
committed to stewardship of the lands that are supposed to be
Page 11
June 16, 2003
protected. And in this part of the world, just stripping off
development rights does not protect natural land. It doesn't -- I'm
speaking from 30 years of experience, and 30 years of observing how
land is managed in this county, and so I think the plan is weak. I
don't think that this qualifies as a stewardship plan. I think it's a
transfer of development rights plan, and as that kind of plan, it's
probably great, but from a land manager who knows what land
stewardship is, if we're really trying to use this method to protect
native landscapes, I don't see how the sending lands will protect it.
And now we're -- we've veered off into this restoration
designation. Well, I read the plan. I'm not sure how a restoration
area results -- relates to a sending area. It's confusing, and so the
restoration areas are not always sending areas or-- all the sending
areas are not restoration areas. So you still are not covering the land
that the objective of the land is to, quote, preserve and protect in the
stewardship plan. And I will answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from -- Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a suggestion as to
how we could go about protecting those lands, the sending lands or
managing them? I agree with Commissioner Coletta. I wasn't even
thinking actually of having the owners clean it up before they gave it
away. They're in enough of a hardship already having to get rid of
the land that they had maybe planned to use for their future, but
anyway, how would you suggest we could go about doing that? Do
you like the -- maybe taxing unit idea? Do you think that would
work?
MR. CARLSON: Whatever works. I know -- I can tell you
from the experience of having managed 11,000 acres for almost 30
years, that if you're not out there actively addressing this, the habitat
value of those areas for the wildlife we're trying to protect is going to
disappear. So I mean, I'm the land manager, and that's my message
Page 12
June 16, 2003
to you. That land is going to go to hell if nobody is actively
managing it, and that's a fact. I don't think anybody in this room can
argue with that. If you can argue with that, come up and make your
case.
And I don't see the commitment to managing in the plan, for a
stewardship plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you be a little more explicit
in what you are referring to as management? Are you saying
removal of exotics and stuff of this nature? Is that what you're --
MR. CARLSON: That's probably the most basic form of
natural resource management here. It involves, you know, managing
water, making sure the water flow stays, water levels stay, the
hydrology is what it was historically.
It also means applying and controlling fire. It's part of the
system here. All serious land management agencies, private and
public, federal government, National Park Service, water
management district, they're all looking at water, fire and exotic
plants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying we could use
this as grazing land and all this other stuff then? Do you see any -- MR. CARLSON: Sure. I mean, there's been native range
grazing going on here for a century or more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I just wanted to make
sure that we were on the same page here, that we could use this for
agriculture, we could use this for grazing, as long as we don't impede
the water flow, whatever, especially in the wetlands area that are
going to be the receiving areas.
MR. CARLSON: Right. My main concern is with the sending
areas. It's not with the areas that are converted into ag fields and
improved pasture. My concern is with the Camp Keais flow way and
places like that. I can tell you for certain, if I'm not in my airboat in
Page 13
June 16, 2003
my flow way, taking out the exotics, it's going to disappear over
time.
That's the kind of level of commitment and management that's
going on out there. That's fine. But I can tell you for the larger land
holdings up around my boundary, all the way around, that kind of--
there was not that kind of management commitment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Carlson, being
at it for 30 years and dealing with 11,000 acres, can you give us some
idea of what the cost commitment would be for something like this?
MR. CARLSON: I can tell you what it is for my place, and you
know, because we continuously do this, I have full-time staff devoted
to doing this virtually every day. We have a handle on this. So my
costs are relatively modest. My costs are about $20 an acre when I
figure those costs, which is very, very cheap, because we're
constantly on this.
Mitigation banks are looking at numbers much higher than that
for long-term management. Seventy, $80 an acre, something like
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you think would be
realistic for us to expect to have to have somebody carry the burden
as far as this cost goes? What do you think might be that number?
MR. CARLSON: Just speculating, and not having been able to
prepare for this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just round numbers to give us
some --
MR. CARLSON: I'd say between 50 and $100 an acre,
depending on the situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
MR. CARLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Yearly?
And we're talking about how
Page 14
June 16, 2003
many acres out there that we'd have to be -- that would have to be
dealt with? Do you have any idea?
MR. CARLSON: Someone else will have to answer that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just wondering what the
math on this would all equate back to, and how this would -- we're
talking about possibly putting a tax on the people that are going to
live out there. I guess that's what is the thought. I'm not too sure. I
mean, we're talking a tremendous amount of money. MR. CARLSON: Well, it depends on--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I know this is something
that we have to deal with, and I'm trying to get my hands around
what the size of this problem is, and it's enormous at 80 to $100 an
acre per year.
MR. CARLSON: I said 50 to 100.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fifty to a hundred.
MR. CARLSON: That's a guess.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and even if it was 50, I
mean, we're talking, you know, we're talking like $50,000 for a
thousand acres. We've got to divide that cost among how many
people? The math in this is getting to be very interesting. I'm sure
that we'll come up with some sort of resolution, but at this point in
time, I'm a little bit lost where we're going with it.
MR. CARLSON: Well, it depends on if you want to say
publicly that it's a stewardship plan, it's protecting and preserving the
sending areas. If you want to say that, you've got to have the
commitment to management. Otherwise, don't say it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think my perspective on this,
before we call up the next public speaker, is Commissioner Halas
really made a good point, is if we -- and I think we can visit this later
on, if you want to incentivize through tax abatement, and like a
preservation tax abatement or, you know, there's all kinds of
Page 15
June 16, 2003
possibilities, setting up a mitigation bank, but I'm not sure we ought
to deal with that tonight.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, but it's one of those
things. You know, if we're going to be talking about dollars and
cents, we want the whole thing to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want the whole picture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're not going to
receive the whole picture now. You're right, Commissioner Henning,
it's something we're going to have to be dealing with, but I wanted
this commission to realize what the depth of the problem is, and it is,
it's a big problem, and that's a tremendous amount of money, and
generally, lands that are in a sending area have a modest value.
Lands in the receiving area, only if they're developed, have a value.
Up to that point in time, how do you tax something that has a very
minimal value. We'll deal with it later, but think about this at all
times.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add, I think that that might
be a good suggestion. It would take some time, I think -- this is
really new for all of us. This is very innovative, and it -- this
program strongly relies on incentives, as Commissioner Halas
indicated, and I think to do it justice, I mean, you do have a five-year
review period. Five years seems like a long time, but it is not a long
time in the eastern portions of Collier County, and I think that what
we ought to do, just as a suggestion, I know Nancy Payton is
registered to speak, and maybe some others that want to speak on the
issue is, I think perhaps what we could do is look at what incentives
could be developed for exotic removal that is proactive versus those
situation where, as a restoration component, someone is already
required to or agrees to remove exotics.
So you're talking about something that's proactive. It's quite
expensive, and I'm afraid that without an incentive, the likelihood of
a property owner agreeing, not only to limited uses on their land, but
Page 16
June 16, 2003
to then have to go through the expense of the removal and the
maintenance is going to result in basically the opposite of what we
want to see happening.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's something that needs to
be addressed. I don't think we can wait five years down the road. I
think it's something that we can take care of what business has to be
done tonight, and then I think we can come back and address this at a
later date, but I don't think we should let it lie there for five years.
One of the things that we're trying to do is to control these
exotics, and if we wait five years, that's a very good possibility it
could get out of hand. So I think it's something that needs to be
addressed, and I think if we give enough incentives, I think that we'll
get -- we'll find a source to this, and we'll find a resolution to this
problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: Nancy Payton. She's the last speaker.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida
Wildlife Federation.
Ed has brought up some good points. I wish he had brought
them up at the first EAC meeting, which was the first hearing on
these land development codes when the EAC gave sort of marching
orders to the environmentalists and county staff to go out and work
on problems with the LDC and work together, along with the land
owners, to come up with the LDC that addressed all our concerns.
Unfortunately, these issues weren't brought up at the first
meeting, at the second meeting, and finally at the third meeting of the
EAC, but by then, the groups that were committed to working
together, of which Florida Audubon was not there, had worked
through and come to agreements on the LDC, and we thought tonight
we'd probably have a pretty easy night.
Page 17
June 16, 2003
I do think that it's something that can be addressed, and there is
another cycle coming up, and possibly it would be appropriate, if
staff would agree, that we could address these concerns in that cycle,
and see if there isn't some way that we can address them.
It is a new program. It is incentive based, and I think that we
should continue to operate under that-- under those parameters. And
although five years may seem a long way away, I think those issues
that we can address, that the pad and the pencil ought to be out, and
if there are problems, they ought to be documented so that when we
come back in five years, anyone who has concerns can say that I've
documented this and this.
I urge you to pass the LDCs or adopt them as they are today,
and I pledge to work with staff and land owners and Florida
Audubon and others to address these concerns that the EAC put on
the table at the last minute. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm sorry. Thank you very
much.
MR. SCHMITT: That's all your speakers.
Mr. Chairman, just so the commissioners understand, this is the
first of actually three sets of LDC amendments concerning this issue
that you'll be faced with. The other two you'll see in the third cycle.
They're design standards and implementation standards.
So we can still come back and address this issue in regards to
any type of land management that you're looking for. Of course, I
think we owe it to you to identify the impacts of-- financially of
what that will be, as well, because as Mr. Carlson pointed out, it is
expensive. Having been involved in that aspect in the federal
government, it is very expensive to manage lands, as Mr. Carlson
pointed out, and there would have to be some way of raising revenue
or we'd have to analyze and assess the impacts that it may have on
stewardship sending areas.
Page 18
June 16, 2003
Also be advised that the first application you're going to be
dealing with, probably about half of the properties that will be
identified as a stewardship receiving area will be non-taxable
because of a higher-- it's a university, a religious university, so much
of that will be a non-profit organization which will be, frankly, off
the tax rolls.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I need to buy a university, one
or two anyways.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we need to look at how far
the stakeholders have come in this process. You know, just a few
years ago, there was a very contentious relationship between the
environmental, the conservation community, and the property
owners. They really have come a very, very long way in developing
an effective collaborative process. They have accomplished a lot.
There's no reason to expect that the plan be perfect. I've never
seen a perfect plan. We have the opportunity to review the results of
this plan as it goes forward, and we would be foolish not to make
adjustments in it as we move along, and certainly everyone who's
involved has anticipated that.
I really like Commissioner Halas' idea, and I think there are a
number of opportunities where it might have application. Although it
might not have an application with Ave Maria University, there are
lots of other cases where it could be applicable. So I would like to
make a motion that we approve it as is with the full knowledge that
we should and can come back earlier than five years to take care of
any obvious problems that are detected. We are not even clearing
our own land of exotics, quite frankly, and we're obligated to do so.
I'm not sure that we're going to be able to impose requirements
on other people that we don't seem to be able to meet ourselves.
So we can develop a procedure to do this. It will take a little bit.
I make a motion we approve it as it is with the changes Mr. Litsinger
Page 19
June 16, 2003
has outlined for us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In Commissioner Coyle's motion, do
you find the RLSA language comparable and compatible with the
growth management plan?
MR. WHITE: I do, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but he said something about
coming back within five years. I would like to have our staff
working on a plan or at least somewhat of a plan that we can manage
this land and present it at the next LDC, if they can do that, rather
than wait five years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no, I didn't say -- I said that
we could come back in less than five years and deal with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In fact, we can come back next
month, if we want to. I mean, it's our call on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we can see them come back at
the next Land Development Code meeting with at least the beginning
of a plan, then I could vote for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Carlson, I appreciate you being
here tonight, but I don't think it's appropriate to respond to another
speaker's comments, and in this case, two environmental
communities. I don't think it's proper to air that out in the public's
eye. So I'm not going to recognize your speaker slip. You had your
chance, and I appreciate you being here. There's a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to mention the
fact that I don't think this plan is flawed. I think we got the right
direction. If there was some serious problems, we'd see the land
Page 20
June 16, 2003
owners here raising all sorts of objections.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. Call the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for the record, the sheet that
we fianded out, the kind of tally sheet, you're on page two. That was
section 2.2.27.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You handed out when?
MR. SCHMITT: It was handed out with your -- this is the -- the
score sheet. It was given on your -- in your book. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And it's the summary sheet so that was section
2.2.27, and we note that as being voted favorably.
So we're going to go to page one on that sheet and we'll ask for
your guidance. Would you prefer to go with these in order or would
you like to address the subject that appears the majority of the folks
are in here to address?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're here for the public, and my
opinion is let's see if we can address the concerns of the public.
Anybody have a problem with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at all.
MR. SCHMITT: It would be -- let's see, that's the item -- that's
on page six of your summary sheet, page 36 of your amendments,
Page 21
June 16, 2003
and I will introduce Susan Murray. She's the current planning
manager, and we'll cover the issue 3.2.8.3.17, and it has to do with
sidewalks. Susan?
MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray, current
planning manager, for the record.
Also consistent with this amendment on page 36 you'll find an
additional amendment on page 45. As you recall from the last
meeting, there was some concern raised over consistency with other
parties in the code with respect to this proposed amendment. So staff
drafted the same amendment, just applying it to the applicable
section of the code related to site development plans. If you need
clarification on that, we'd be happy to provide that for you, but that is
the amendments dealing with sidewalks, and at this point, I'll just
turn it over to Diane Flagg or Tom Tomerlin for presentation
purposes.
MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners. What you have
before you, again, are the amendments to assure that sidewalks are
placed during development so that the county taxpayer doesn't end
up paying for the sidewalks that should have been placed during the
development. The pathways advisory committee looked at the width
and initially recommended a ten-foot wide sidewalk, but after
meeting with developer representatives, they compromised to an
eight-foot sidewalk on collector and arterials and a six-foot sidewalk
on local roads.
Additionally, the pathways advisory committee, which, as you
know, is a subcommittee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization,
looked at the cost of making these amendments and what they found
was, is that the majority of the middle to lower income developments
already had followed and put the sidewalks in, that it was the other
areas that were lacking the sidewalks.
The PAC or the pathways advisory committee has over five
million dollars worth of sidewalk project requests by community
Page 22
June 16, 2003
members, and as you all know, the tax dollars are limited. In
addition, when a PAC member receives a request for a sidewalk
within private roads and a PUD, unfortunately, they tell them that
they cannot spend county tax dollars on those roads to put the
sidewalks in, so their five million dollars worth of sidewalk requests
are strictly limited to the public roads.
These amendments, in effect, stop the bleed by assuring that
sidewalks are put in during the development so that the PAC can
move forward to address the past.
And with that, I'll answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
Question, the request from the communities to put some of these
sidewalks in there, the language that you're asking us to adopt, which
one of these communities would have to put in sidewalks? MS. FLAGG: Within a PUD, on a private road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What you're asking us to adopt is the
multi-family, correct?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The request by the public,
which you stated and I have reviewed and sat down with you, which
one of those communities would be required to put in sidewalks
under this language?
MS. FLAGG: Under this language, one example would be
Pelican Marsh, where you have multi-family areas and these folks do
not have a way to safely get to a sidewalk. They have to share a road
with a car in order to access a sidewalk. So that's one of multiple
examples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Under the sheet that you and
I looked at, I didn't see Pelican Marsh.
MS. FLAGG: That's because those are private roads, and
therefore, they're not eligible for taxpayer based sidewalks. That's a
decision that the pathways advisory committee has made. It's not
Page 23
June 16, 2003
that they're not getting requests from the people within these PUDs
on private roads. It's just that the tax dollars are very limited on
going back and retrofitting for sidewalks. So the pathways advisory
committee sought to stop the bleed, get the sidewalks in for both
public and private roads, and then they could work on the paths.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Flagg, when you and I met --
MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we went over this sheet, and when
we parted ways, it was my understanding that none of these requests
with this language that we're asking to be adopted, none of those
communities would get sidewalks or-- because they're, you know,
Golden Gate City, they're Immokalee, they're areas that are not
multi-family.
MS. FLAGG: Okay. For those areas that are on public roads,
those roads are eligible to have sidewalks placed on them in a retrofit
manner --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. FLAGG: -- using taxpayer's funds. What these LDC
amendments do is that they assure that whether it's a public road or a
private road, that the developer, at the time of development for the
multi-family areas or the PUDs, that they would put the sidewalks in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For multi-family?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's it, multi-family?
MS. FLAGG: Well, if you look at the current LDC, it also
requires them to put it along public and private roads, and we're not
changing that or recommending a change in that in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's collector roads, and -- because
we don't see them on neighborhood roads and PUDs now.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. The current LDC requires sidewalks
along the local streets within a PUD. And the PAC is not
recommending a change to the current Land Development Code.
Page 24
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You didn't mention
commercial. Is there some kind of a requirement for sidewalks in
front of commercial or retail?
MS. FLAGG: The -- it depends on how it's -- the area is
specifically zoned, and the applicability is for all districts. Maybe
Susan can speak to the specific commercial, because I'm not familiar
with what that zoning is, but what these LDC amendments are to
address are the PUDs, the planned urban developments, and also the
local streets, arterials and collectors, which are the three
classifications.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala, for your
information from the Dover Kohl community character plan, you will
see some language requiring wide sidewalks in commercial areas --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- where it integrates that neo
neighborhoods with where you have commercial, to have some wide
sidewalks so you can have that, kind of like Fifth Avenue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to the public speakers.
MR. SCHMITT: We have 12 public speakers. The first speaker
is David Ellis, followed by Walter Crawford.
MR. ELLIS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis, and I'm with the Collier Building --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Ellis, before you start, does
anybody have a problem limiting it to five minutes, and if we can --
somebody has stated your position, and hasn't -- is going to say
everything that you were going to say, you have every right to waive,
but we do want to hear from you.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, are you asking for five
minutes or three minutes?
Page 25
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three minutes.
MR. MUDD: Three minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Ellis.
MR. ELLIS: Good evening. I'm David Ellis. I'm with the
Collier Building Industry Association.
Commissioners, I spoke a few weeks ago about this same topic,
but I'd like to reiterate a few points and perhaps expound on a few
others.
One of the biggest concerns with the changes in the code is what
we've really eliminated is the flexibility and how the code can be
applied in communities and on our public roads. I have a great deal
of concern about that and the effect it will have. It's kind of a one
size fits all approach to what we're trying to do in Collier County,
and I think in Collier County or any community that may not always
be appropriate.
One of the things that I would strongly encourage is the
community looking at context sensitive design, where the roads are
designed to meet the needs of the commercial that's in that area or the
residential that's in that area. It varies greatly, and we shouldn't
design, again, a one size fits all.
One of the issues that we had, and I mentioned it at the other
meeting and because of the limitations of time, I won't try to go too
much into, but is the direct effects it will have on affordability.
Certain parts of our community, some of these standards being as
high as they are, and as stringent as they are, I think, are going to
limit what can be done affordably when we start putting six foot
sidewalks on both sides of the street in a community, and then now in
this recent LDC cycle, we're going to see a requirement -- or a
request for a requirement that says from the edge of the sidewalk to
the garage is another 23 feet of driveway. We're starting to
significantly limit the amount of developable land.
If you're trying to put six units an acre, seven units an acre in an
Page 26
June 16, 2003
affordable housing development, it's going to significantly limit what
you can do from a flexibility point of view. Some of the other
concerns would be in direct relation to the actual cost it will be to the
community on our own road network. Certainly again, and you'll
never hear me say that we shouldn't have a good, safe, workable
pedestrian and bicycle network in Collier County. That should be
our ultimate goal, but we need to make sure that in the areas -- that
it's designed for the areas that we're putting it into.
I made an example last time about Livingston Road, and I know
we could probably argue whether or not all those numbers were
correct, but no matter how we slice it, it's going to require more right
of way. Certainly, you guys saw last week in your vote on that one
purchase of right of way on one section of Immokalee Road how
expensive that was. And again, that's something we have to factor
into the public's whole situation on this.
The other thing that I would mention, Commissioners, one of
the things your staff will argue, and we've heard argued, that
flexibility will eventually mean no sidewalks, and I will tell you, you
have plugged that hole in recent LDC changes. We're required to put
five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the roads in the community.
There are some areas where, if it's a cul-de-sac, where it's less
than a thousand feet, sidewalks can be put on one side of the road,
and certainly, even as a part of your PUD plan, you can go in with an
alternative plan. I'll tell you, you've already done that. We no
longer, in Collier County, will have communities without sidewalks.
Now, I -- but one of the things I would say is there are
communities where that flexibility can really make a difference to
add to the positive aesthetics of the community. You've also done
the other important thing in this process. You have hired staff that's
going to oversee this. Diane Flagg and her team are the ones that are
going to review this, and then the ultimate chance and the
responsibility to have a concern about these sidewalks will come to
Page 27
June 16, 2003
you when you approve PUDs, when you approve the road designs
that are going to be built in Collier County.
Like we talked about before, Commissioner Fiala, on affordable
housing, raising sidewalks is an important issue in those things. I
commend that to you. I hope you'll do that. Yet, at the same time,
we won't pass these rules that will so handcuff you and those that are
delivering housing in our community that they really can't do what's
appropriate.
As I close, and I see that I have just a few seconds left, I would
mention to you that your DSAC said no to these changes, the review
group that you've asked to look at through development services.
Your Planning Commission had some concerns about it. They
passed it on with some trepidation. And I would ask you, instead of
passing these rules today, to set this aside, to actually put this off
until another cycle, to come back and really work on a master plan
for sidewalks. We've got one now. Update it. Make it current.
Make it viable for what we're trying to do on our public roads today,
and in that interim time, use the rules you have in place to make sure
that we have the proper sidewalk and pedestrian walkways in our
communities that are necessary.
Thank you very much, and if I can answer any questions, I'd be
happy to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Ellis, am I correct in
assuming that your primary, not your only objection, but your
primary objection i~ the width of the sidewalks, not the requirement
to have sidewalks?
MR. ELLIS: In some cases, it's the width, Commissioner, and
that's, I guess, really the point. Some places in Collier County, eight-
foot sidewalks are appropriate. Down on Fifth Avenue in the city,
what you're familiar with, even larger sidewalks are appropriate.
My real concern is the context where the sidewalk is. I would
Page 28
June 16, 2003
say inside some of our communities there are places where, like
again on a cul-de-sac street, where both sides of the street and around
the cul-de-sac with a six-foot sidewalk may not be appropriate. It
may not be attractive. It may not be what the community really
would want.
Now, what I would say, that that can be kind of developed
through this process. So it's not just the width, but there are some
places where the width can and can't work, but just to tie it up and to
say, and kind of use the argument that, well, if we create a flexible
plan for a community, that means there won't be a sidewalk. It's not
just the width, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, are you saying that this is
not being cost effective also, in putting sidewalks in communities?
MR. ELLIS: No, sir. I mean, I think right now we're required
to put sidewalks in communities as we go. Not so much cost
effective --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there are some communities
that didn't have sidewalks, and they have a cul-de-sac or whatever
you want to call it. They have an area that leads -- there may be 30
homes on this one particular street on both sides of the road. MR. ELLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And yet there was no sidewalks
put in place.
MR. ELLIS: Not under the present code. I mean, as long as the
street wasn't less than a thousand feet. The present code, that code
changes --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But don't you think those people
have the right to have sidewalks also?
MR. ELLIS: Oh, I think they do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they should have moved in a
Page 29
June 16, 2003
community that had sidewalks.
MR. ELLIS: And of course, I'm not really trying to defend
what has happened in the past.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. We're looking for the future
so this doesn't happen again. MR. ELLIS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I know you were talking
about affordability, and I have looked at some communities whereby
Habitat for Humanity, which really tries to cut the comers and tries
to cut costs, and yet they have sidewalks.
MR. ELLIS: Right. And I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was Habitat for Humanity.
MR. ELLIS: In our new community in Victoria Falls, we have
sidewalks on one side of the street in that community, and I actually
asked them to price out, and again, I know that is a point of
contention, I don't mean to just bring numbers into it, but I asked
them to price out what they thought if they had to add it to the other
side of the street, and they estimated in the last meeting, I think I said
$373, which again may not sound like much, but it goes back to what
we've talked about a lot, Commissioner Fiala, every dollar we add to
that can be a problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm --
MR. ELLIS: And what I'd say, thought, is linked with a
potential change to the 23 feet from the edge of the sidewalk to the
garage, then all the sudden, instead of just saying, well, it's the cost
of adding a sidewalk, it's going to cost us several lots in that
community that we won't be able to build because we won't have the
room.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But yet some of these
communities, you're pricing homes anywheres from five to maybe
$800,000.
MR. ELLIS: And again, Commissioner, I'm not trying to make
Page 30
June 16, 2003
the argument that there aren't places where -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ELLIS: I just -- I think it should be an important part of
any decision we make.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ELLIS: And by the way, in the PUD process, you guys
can still require what you think is appropriate in those areas, and
oftentimes, you have exceeded the actual bounds of the code in order
to do what you think is appropriate in the community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But sometimes what happens, too,
in the PUD, the language isn't that explicit, and it has left a loophole
so that it was a judgment call. So I think that's some of the things
we're also trying to address, is the judgment call, so there isn't that --
MR. ELLIS: And I think that's one of the places where having
Mrs. Flagg in place and an increased emphasis on this will help you
as you move forward.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: Walter Crawford followed by Bob Mulhere.
MR. CRAWFORD: Again, for the record, my name is Walter
Crawford. I'm a 13 year resident of Collier County, and also the
president of the Collier Building Industry Association.
When David asked me to be president, I gave him a few
conditions. One was that I never speak after him. So he broke that
tonight.
On behalf of the Collier County Industry Association and our
over 1,250 company members, we do oppose the pathway advisory
committee's recommendation for sidewalks.
I live in Boca Palms, a modest, single-family neighborhood,
north Airport Road, just south of Immokalee. It was built in the early
1990s. It's a family neighborhood, children everywhere, school
buses, ice cream trucks. We have one three-foot sidewalk that runs
around the perimeter of the community on one side. It works just
Page 31
June 16, 2003
fine.
If you came to Boca Palms and you polled the residents and you
asked my neighbors if they would like for the county to come in, free
of charge, and add a six-foot sidewalk on both sides of the street, I'm
sure you'd get a resounding no. I don't think people want six-foot
sidewalks in their community. In some cases, it fits, and that was
David's point, is that there has to be some discretion on what fits in a
community.
To address Mr. Halas'-- Commissioner Halas' point, in some
high-end neighborhoods, two six-foot sidewalks may fit. You may
have more room and it may work. In a lot of communities, it doesn't.
So we're looking for that discretion on a parcel by parcel, community
by community, PUD by PUD basis to make that decision.
We like the current sidewalk ordinance as it's written today.
Our other major.concern is how it affects right of away cost and
acquiring this property on the transportation plan. We have a very
delicate and very guarded five-year transportation plan, and as we
start to add cost to those, the cost of the sidewalk, quite frankly, is
pretty inexpensive. It's three inches of concrete, welded wire mesh
and it's just not that expensive. The right of way costs are what make
it expensive. The land is what makes it expensive.
And I think we need a lot more information from Norm Feder's
group on how it affects transportation costs.
So from there, our request is that we have some more time to
develop a reasonable and flexible plan that our association can have
some input on, or that we go back to the old plan. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Bob Mulhere, followed by Sally Barker.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere,
with RWA, Incorporated. I'll try to not be repetitive.
I think my primary concern relative to these amendments is the
Page 32
June 16, 2003
lack of flexibility and the requirement for certain widths of sidewalks
under any circumstances. I do not oppose a wide sidewalk, perhaps
eight-foot wide on an arterial roadway, because I think that may
provide greater safety for those folks who both walk and ride bikes,
who don't want to be on the street, but we should also have safe
provisions on the street for cyclists. I ride a bike. I ride on the street.
What concerns me though is at the same moment to say then
you also need eight-foot sidewalks on every single collector
roadway, which is what it says here. That does not make sense. You
do not need eight-foot sidewalks on every single collector roadway in
Collier County. It is an exorbitant cost. It is unnecessary. I don't
know how wide that is, but I know it's not eight-foot wide. Throw a
couple more feet on there, you would probably get to eight foot, and
now you're going to put that on both sides of every collector on top
of the fact that you're going to have on-street bike lanes. It does not
make sense.
I'm not opposed to providing land code amendments that
provide for the safest conditions possible, but they should also make
sense.
The second thing that is just a little bit more minor is that -- and
I'm not sure if you're talking about both sets of amendments that deal
with sidewalks, because there is also a section 328414 which deals
with construction materials, and would you like -- I have a couple of
comments on that as well, if it's appropriate to do that now, as
opposed to coming back up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You get some extra time if you wait,
when it comes back up.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'll wait. I didn't know if we were
going forward.
So in conclusion, I just -- I mean, I don't think that in every
circumstance on a collector roadway you need eight-foot sidewalks
on both sides of the street. I don't think that in every circumstance on
Page 33
June 16, 2003
local roadways you need six-foot sidewalks. There needs to be a
little bit more flexibility. It wouldn't be that hard to develop a plan
that provides for that flexibility, and that does provide for the
specifics that you're looking for, Commissioner Halas, so you don't
have, you know, a judgment call later on down the road that it could
be questionable. It wouldn't be that hard. This doesn't do it. I'd be
happy to provide whatever time, and I'm sure there are others out
here that would be happy to provide whatever time is necessary. We
haven't been able to get to that point in the last two months leading
up to your hearing. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask you a question?
MR. MULHERE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why do you oppose six-foot
sidewalks? A lot of times, people that are on bikes, they don't even
like to ride in the street because of the fact that they're -- they've got
to put up with the traffic out there, okay. MR. MULHERE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's a possibility that you can
designate a portion of that sidewalk as a bike path-- MR. MULHERE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and the other portion for
pedestrian so that they both can co-exist together. Is there any
problem with that?
MR. MULHERE: No. I agree with you a hundred percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe we could eliminate
the bike path in the road so that --
MR. MULHERE: You can't do that, because most true bikers,
they do not want to ride on a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you go to Europe, you'll
see in Europe where they've got the sidewalk divided up and they've
got a portion of the sidewalk for the bikers and they've got a portion
Page 34
June 16, 2003
of the sidewalk for the pedestrians.
MR. MULHERE: That may be a possibility, but that's not what
this plan calls for. It calls for--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm just saying if you look at
the six-foot section of the sidewalk.
MR. MULHERE: And that would be a different -- and that
might be something we could look at, because that is different from
what this plan calls for. This plan calls for, first of all, on all
collectors and arterials, eight-foot sidewalks on both sides of the
street, and bike lanes as well. I would want the bike lanes, because I
don't want to ride on the sidewalk, but perhaps there is an ability to
use those eight-foot--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I noticed in my particular
neighborhood that I see where there's a very competitive need for
wider sidewalks because there's a -- it's very competitive against the
pedestrians versus the bikers, and the bikers are not out on the road,
even though they've got all their garb on, you know, and everything
else, right, and they're riding as fast down that sidewalk as they are
on the road. They've got a bell and they're warning people, but the
pedestrians have to get off the sidewalk to clear the way for these
bikers.
MR. MULHERE: And that may be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're looking at sidewalks
that are three foot or under, maybe, maybe they're four foot, but most
of it's only about three foot.
MR. MULHERE: And I know my time is up, and that may be a
roadway where it is appropriate to have the wider, and I'm not
disagreeing with that. I'm not saying that there aren't circumstances
where it is appropriate, but I don't think it's appropriate every
circumstance, and even on a local road, you could have very few
houses, and you're going to have five foot -- six-foot sidewalks on
both sides of the street. It doesn't always make sense.
Page 35
June 16, 2003
I'm only suggesting that I think we can draft something that is
much more exact in terms of meeting the issues that are raised and
the policy, the public policy concerns that have been raised, but
without also having unintended consequences. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Bob. Appreciate it.
Next speaker, Sally Barker?
MR. SCHMITT: Sally Barker, followed by Peter Lilienthal.
MS. BARKER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Sally Barker.
And I would like to urge you to adopt the amendments as
proposed by the pathways advisory committee and the pathway staff.
What the development community refers to as the need for
flexibility, I regard, as wiggle room or more likely room to wiggle
out of doing stuff, and that's the attitude that has gotten us into so
much trouble in years past.
Four years ago, the then pathway coordinator asked me to
appear before the Planning Commission and beg them on bended
knee to stop granting waivers to developers requesting that they be
able to eliminate the sidewalks, and yes, we had provisions in the
LDC then, we have provisions in the LDC now, but they were
granted waivers, you know. All they had to do was show up and say,
hey, we don't want to build sidewalks, and the waiver was granted
and consequently sidewalks weren't built, and that was four years
ago.
And at the time the pathway coordinator was being inundated by
requests from people in the older PUDs, the older neighborhoods that
were built without these sidewalks saying, where are our sidewalks.
How come we don't have sidewalks.
And in the four years since then, I don't think the situation has
improved very much. I think the people do want sidewalks. I live in
a neighborhood that by and large does not have sidewalks or bicycle
Page 36
June 16, 2003
paths. Yeah, we've got a few, but not really for all the streets, and I
tell you, you go out after dark, go walk in the winter months, you
know, it gets dark at five o'clock, you want to walk after dinner,
you're walking in the dark on the street with the cars. I used to do
that regularly with my dogs. It was downright dangerous.
Without adequate provisions in the LDC and without the ability
to enforce these provisions, what you do is set up future commissions
to deal with the same problem over and over and over again of trying
to retrofit sidewalks that should have been built in the first place and
weren't, which means you're making a choice here. You're either
saying the cost will be up front on the developer, the current and
future developers to put in the sidewalks, and of course, they'll pass it
on to the buyers, or it'll be passed on in future years to the taxpayers,
unless, of course, it's gated and private, in which case the people in
the gated private communities will have to come up with their own
mechanism for putting in the sidewalks that they didn't get because
we can't use public monies for those sidewalks. Right?
One other thing ! wanted to touch on was the right of way issue
on collectors and arterials. I don't think that's really that significant a
factor, because we've changed the way we build roads. In the old
days, we used to build roads with utility lines, the water, sewer,
storm water drainage under the travel lanes, and then somebody got
the bright idea of saying, hey, wow, if we got enough land on each
side and put the utility lines along the side of the road, then when we
had to go in and repair them, we didn't have to dig up the travel lane
anymore. Gee, what a good idea.
So that is why we're buying the wider right of way now, is to
put the utilities to the side. And of course, if you have the utilities to
the side, you've got room on top for sidewalks, right? And street
trees. Let's not forget street trees.
I just want to conclude by saying that there was some question
last time about whether there was an interest among the public in
Page 37
June 16, 2003
sidewalks. I think there is an interest. Judging by all the people that
are here tonight advocating for sidewalks, I think there very
definitely is an interest in sidewalks.
And unless there's any questions, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may, please. I
should have waited until you got just a little farther down, Sally.
Sally, something like a street where you have houses only on
one side of the street, would you still require sidewalks on both
sides? Suppose it's a PUD and they're never going to have houses on
the other side because there may be a waterway there or a green area,
would they be still required on both sides?
MS. BARKER: Well, I don't know. What does the LDC
amendments say about that?
MS. FLAGG: The LDC amendment allows them to put a ten-
foot sidewalk on the side where the streets are in lieu of one on each
side to accommodate the bidirectional traffic. So if they chose to just
build on one side and maybe put a pond on the other, they can just do
one sidewalk on one side of the street. It just needs to be ten-feet
wide.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And mind you, I'm repeating
some questions that were asked of me earlier in the day.
If the street had only like five houses on it and that's all that
could be built, it would still require a ten-foot sidewalk?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. For the reason that just because there's
four houses or 50 houses, everyone needs a safe place to walk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what about if it has got a
cul-de-sac, how would that work?
MS. FLAGG: The same. It just-- it comes down though, if
they choose to do it on both sides, it would come down the one side,
go around the cul-de-sac, and go up the other side.
MS. BARKER: What would be a six-feet sidewalk on a local
Page 38
June 16, 2003
road though, and I assume that's what you're talking about, a local
residential road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, right, a residential road.
MS. BARKER: Yeah. That would be just a six-foot sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not with this change.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, she's correct with a local street, it would
be a six-foot sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But it would be --
MS. FLAGG: If it's on one side, then it would be a ten foot.
You have the flexibility to do it on one side.
MS. BARKER: Okay. But bear in mind, six feet isn't that
much. I mean, I know because I'm exactly five feet tall. I'm exactly
as tall as sidewalks currently are built now, so I know another foot
doesn't give you that much more leeway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you could lie down on the
sidewalk and they'll still get around you, right?
MS. BARKER: On a six-foot sidewalk, but not on a five-foot
sidewalk. I mean, if you want me to lie down, I can show you that
there's not enough room for a bicyclist and a pedestrian to get over
me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I assure you, if you lie down on
the sidewalk, I'm not going there.
MS. BARKER: I don't blame you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: Peter Lilienthal, followed by Dr. Mort
Friedman.
MR. LILIENTHAL: Can everybody hear me?
Thank you. Pete Lilienthal, for the record.
I'm a volunteer for the MPO pathways committee, and as I
headed out tonight, my wife commented on the lobbying for
sidewalks that I was going to go do. I'm an unpaid representative of
the public interest. I've got no payoff but the satisfaction of fighting
Page 39
June 16, 2003
for enduring improvements in the quality of life for Collier County
residents.
Think back on your own past. Weren't there sidewalks there to
ride your tricycle on, to play hopscotch on and to walk to school on
or maybe teach your own kids to ride a bicycle on? In a place with
such a beautiful year-round climate, we need the same thing in
Collier County. We deserve them here, too. It's been done
everywhere else. I don't understand why it seems to be such a
struggle to win over something that's taken for granted almost
everywhere else I've ever been.
In any case, I'm here speaking for all those who aren't here yet,
the people that haven't moved here yet and the communities that
haven't been built yet, the people that can't be in here asking for
sidewalks because they don't live here yet. They're not going to get
here until these places are built, and if like me, they move to a
community, the only place I could afford was a neighborhood that
doesn't have sidewalks and frankly, one of the commissioners I was
speaking with made some strong points about the cost. I was one of
those people that, you know, an extra few hundred dollars could
make a difference to me. So, you know, I'm not going to underplay
that point. However, it is a major issue with me now that I am here
and living without them. I think, knowing what I was in for then, I'd
want those sidewalks.
I'm speaking for everybody that's not here yet. Their
neighborhoods aren't built yet. They can't advocate for them.
It's been established that, you know, even as we find ways to
write permits for development faster, which I believe about a year
ago the process was facilitated, we're finding out that we can't
enforce the sidewalks in the PUDs. There's been legal convolutions
where things are called driveways. It looks like a street. It is a
street, in fact, in every way except for the legal sense that it's been
defined as a driveway strictly to get around a requirement, and this is
Page 40
June 16, 2003
the kind of thing that needs to be addressed in the LDC. That way it
doesn't become an individual blow by blow battle with the PUDs.
Thank you very much, everybody, and please consider what I'm
asking for here tonight, and I know you'll do the right thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: Dr. Friedman, followed by Pat Spencer.
DR. FRIEDMAN: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Dr.
Mort Friedman. I also serve on the PAC as a volunteer, and I've
entitled my presentation, the cost benefit analysis of sidewalks, slash,
pathways.
For a relatively small planning and construction cost, and I
emphasize the word relatively, we can increase the sales and values
of new homes in this county. We can increase the sales and values of
used homes, and as anecdotal evidence, I have a builder friend who
has told me that when he goes out and seeks homes that he hopes to
rehab for resale, he only buys homes on streets where there are
sidewalks, because he knows that's where the interest will be in the
future.
By putting our sidewalks and pathways in place, we are going to
reduce the need for new road construction, especially in areas near
the beaches. I know that's been a topic of concern for the
commission here of late.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not going to allow people to
go to the beaches.
DR. FRIEDMAN: We're going to have a reduced need for
parking garages and parking lots, especially near beach areas,
because people will be allowed who are able to walk and/or ride their
bicycles, park their bicycles near the beaches.
There will be a reduced busing of school children, especially
within that two-mile radius that they need to be bused in very often
now where there are no sidewalks.
Of course, we all know there will be increased connectivity to
Page 41
June 16, 2003
public transportation. That's a final part of the area of growth in this
county. The increased connectivity that we need that can be
achieved through the sidewalk/pathway plan that we're asking you to
adopt will allow for people to get to shopping, to parks and other
recreational areas without adding to vehicular traffic. They can walk
to their neighborhood residential parks or walk to their shopping
areas. That's one less car on the street.
Very important for this cost benefit analysis thing is that we will
be attracting tourists seeking safe walking and bicycling pathways to
and from recreational areas, beaches again, and shopping. With good
planning, slash, construction, we can avoid the expanse -- the
expensive future appropriations for costly right of ways. If we do it
now, the property is cheaper now than it will be five years or ten
years from now. So let's do it up front. Let's get that property in
hand and allow ourselves to get to these new convenient locations for
pathways and sidewalks.
This good planning will require proper localization, and I hate
to bring up the word of future utility locations, because that's been
mentioned, but that goes hand in hand with utility locations. When
you plan your sidewalks or your pathways, you planned for where
the poles are going to be for light fixtures, you plan for where the
underground utilities are going to be.
I am very upset by the fact, for example, on your new pathway,
slash, sidewalk on Livingston Road, part of that sidewalk has already
been chipped away to put in light stanchions, light poles. I don't
know if you're all aware of this, but it's been reported, and we need to
protect these sidewalks once they're invested in, because remember,
the county, all of us as taxpayers, are going to be paying for the
upkeep and support of any sidewalks and pathways that are put in
today. So we want to make sure they're done properly, proper
underground materials are used below that concrete, poles are not
infringing upon those sidewalks, not breaking down, to get them
Page 42
June 16, 2003
back later on and repair all those facilities.
Lastly, I would say the bottom line is this. Whatever the initial
cost to the construction industry and taxpayers, it is a small
investment which will reap enormous financial and quality of life
benefits to all the residents and visitors to Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: Pat Spencer, followed by Rich Hirsh. I
believe it's Hirsh. Housh.
MR. SPENCER: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Pat
Spencer, and I'm a member of the pathway advisory committee, the
Golden Gate beautification committee, and I'm here also as a three-
year resident of Naples, and I want my county's guidelines and
standards to be a role model for other counties who are concerned
about improving the welfare and quality of life for residents and
visitors.
I believe that currently walking and biking is hindered by our
county's lack of continuous pathways. A planned network of
sidewalks and bikeways will stimulate friendly neighborhoods and
increase tourism, ensuring that urban and community roadways in
Collier County meet public needs, will enhance the visual quality and
economic quality of the county while improving the health, safety,
welfare and quality of life for residents and visitors.
I'm hopeful that you will seriously consider and support our
request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
MR. SCHMITT: Rich Housh, followed by Gary Shirk.
MR. HOUSH: Hello. For the record, I'm Rich Housh. I am an
unpaid volunteer with the pathway advisory commission as well, and
thank you for the opportunity to address this group.
The things that I want to share this evening are brief and taken
from the federal highway administration web site, our federal
Page 43
June 16, 2003
government, and also FDOT's web site, Florida Department of
Transportation, and note in neither one of the excerpts does it
exclude Collier County or a PUD in Collier County.
This is from the federal government. We expect every
transportational agency to make accommodation for bicycling and
walking as a routine part of their planning, design, operation and
maintenance activities. The transportation equity act for the 21st
Century continues to call for the mainstreaming of bicycle and
pedestrian project into the planning, design and operation of our
nation's transportation system. Increasing bicycling and walking
offers the potential for cleaner air, healthier people, reduced
congestion and more efficient use of precious road space and
resources.
In a press release as recently as June 5th, 2003, U.S. Department
of Transportation pledges continued support of funding eligibility for
bike and pedestrian projects. The press release goes on to state that
the Bush administration will continue to emphasize an important
balance in our transportation system, giving Americans more choices
as to mode of transportation while promoting activities that can
contribute to good health, much the same as what Dr. Mort was
saying.
The Florida Department of Transportation has the following to
say about bike/ped facilities, also from their web site. The Florida
green book does require planning and design of new streets and
urban highways to include provisions for the safe and orderly
movement of pedestrian traffic. The Florida green book states that
bicycle facilities should be incorporated into the original roadway
design. New highways should be designed and constructed under the
assumption that they will be used by bicycles.
So I guess my whole heartburn with this whole discussion,
moving into a county, and I cited statistics the last meeting a couple
of weeks ago, where fractions of a percentage of our roadway budget
Page 44
June 16, 2003
have been used on bike/ped facilities. It's just frustrating that the
federal government is going in one direction, the state government is
right there with them, and then Collier County, the people that seem
to rule are the developers and the builders and I think it's time to put
a stop to that, and I think we need to put a stop to it tonight.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Mr. Housh, I have a question for
yOll.
MR. HOUSH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where is the traffic on the sidewalks
in Collier County, because ever since the last meeting, when you and
I talked--
MR. HOUSH: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- I've been out there, and I haven't
seen it.
MR. HOUSH: I'm not sure where you're going.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're saying that the
developers rule in Collier County. From my experience of looking at
the sidewalks that we have in Collier County, I haven't seen the
traffic on the sidewalks.
MR. HOUSH: Well, I think your colleague just gave an
example. I mean, I do most of my riding and walking in Old-- from
Old Naples up to Fort Myers beach and back, so I'm pretty familiar
with those sidewalks. In other parts of the county, I am not that
familiar with the type of traffic in those areas. So I would have to
defer to somebody that spends more time on those sidewalks.
What we're trying to do as a pathway advisory committee is
recommend that the infrastructure gets built to allow for the safe
movement of pedestrians and bicyclists. So specific instances, other
than the areas that I sort of frequent, I can't tell you that, I'm sorry. I
just don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Gary Shirk, followed by Stan Chrzanowski.
Page 45
June 16, 2003
MR. SHIRK: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Gary
Shirk, and I am also a member of the pathways advisory committee,
and that's one of the reasons I'm here tonight.
I want to start out, Commissioner Henning, you just said where
are they. I live off of Oakes Boulevard. Since they put a ten-foot
walkway on Oakes Boulevard on one side, there's not a day, there's
not a time I've gone through there in the last few years that there
aren't people, bikes and pedestrians using it. They're there when
they're built.
There are a lot of other places where I don't see them, because
there's no interconnectivity. What's the sense of walking this mile or
this half mile when it stops, and then you've got to walk out on the
road or go through the grass and the puddles and the things of that
nature. They're not there in large part in some of the places you're
looking because there's nowhere to connect to. They can't walk
anywhere unless they're going to walk up that sidewalk for a block
and then come back there. And that's fine. But where it connects a
neighborhood, where it connects to other paths, there's always
activity, and I'm just using the one I know best, because I see it four
or five times a day, and I've never seen it in the last few years
without people utilizing it, and I'll get into that a little bit more.
Rather than go through things and say anything, I want to react
to some of the things that have been said and some of the questions
that have been asked. Why eight foot and six foot instead of five
foot. Well, these things weren't just dreamed up. You'll also notice,
if you look at these amendments, they take out the words, or bike
paths throughout there. They're combining -- now, this is not to be
confused with bike lanes that are in the road. They will still be there,
but they -- the last guideline said sidewalk or bike path. No, this is
sidewalk and bike path, and that's why we need the width increase.
It's simply not safe on five-foot roads (sic) to have the pedestrians
and bicyclists going either in the same direction or opposite
Page 46
June 16, 2003
directions. You need that extra foot on there, and as far as why eight
foot and why six foot, and this is where I don't get there's no
flexibility, there's no standards. We've heard that, and you know
what, there is flexibility and there are standards.
And the reason for that is, on your collectors and your arterials,
just as you're going to have more driving traffic, once you have the
interconnectivity, which we're stating in this community is our goal,
and I'll refer to the character plan that states that as well, but you
know, we are going to need -- there's more traffic on the collectors
and the arterials in the pedestrian and in the bike paths once there is
interconnectivity, and that's why we need a little bit wider.
As to the ten foot, why is it ten foot when it's on one side?
Well, that's not dreamed up either. We get that from the FDOT
guidelines. That's what they call for. If you're going to have a
sidewalk on only one side of the road, you need it to be ten foot for
the safety purposes of bidirectional pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
That's what's called for.
Now, we're not dreaming these things up, but the biggest thing
that I think, and since -- and I'm a relatively new member of this
committee, but the biggest thing that I've seen here is what we're
looking at is trying to close loopholes. We're taking words out of
there, like, unless otherwise modified or waived by the County
Commission, and the commission has said in here tonight, some of
these things are so vague, you don't know what you're waiving or
why you're waiving it, but it seems like it's okay to do. We're trying
to get away from that. Those things are taken out of here, and I
suggest to you sidewalks are important for a couple of reasons. I'm
running out or ran out of time here, so I'll try to be as quick as I can
and get out of here before you throw me out.
But let's talk about the sense of community in a community.
Yeah, there's exercise. Yes, they're needed for people to go in
alternative modes of transportation, but what does it do for our
Page 47
June 16, 2003
communities? It makes them better. It makes them more valuable.
It makes them safer, not just because we're putting people on
sidewalks and putting sidewalks in so they don't have to walk in the
road, like you do in so many of the communities, because it's not safe
to share it with a car when you're walking, and -- but what does it
do? It creates these people getting out. You're meeting your
neighbors.
I said before, I live in the Oakes Boulevard neighborhood.
Since we've had that, we've met our people -- we've found out we
have a lot of concerns. We talk when we're out there biking or
riding. You don't talk when you pass by them in a car. And you
know what, now we've got a 200 plus, you know, association,
neighborhood association, because we found we had like concerns,
and we met, and the community is a much tighter community and it
has a much better sense of community.
These things are better not only --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Shirk, I have to ask you to wrap
up, please.
MR. SHIRK: Okay. They're not only for that reason, but also
for the safety of having more eyes out in the community as we're
walking around and checking on our neighbors and making sure the
kids aren't out in the road or making sure there's nobody around the
house that shouldn't be that way.
I would say -- I heard something earlier tonight and I'll wrap up
on this, that said, you know, this didn't get passed or it barely got
passed, well, guess what, your Planning Commission passed it six to
two. That sounds pretty resounding. Without amendment they
passed it six to two. That's pretty resounding to me, and I think
they're the ones that have looked at this and they had us there for
several meetings with a lot of questions. We made the changes that
fit.
Flexibility you're hearing and the no standards you're hearing
Page 48
June 16, 2003
means no loopholes, and if that's what they mean, then they're damn -
- darn right, sorry about that, because there are no loopholes
anymore. You're going to build it. You're not going to call a cul-de-
sac a driveway and then name it with a street later and not have
sidewalks because it wasn't a street. If you're going to put residents
on it, you need sidewalks on it. That's what the people want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SHIRK: They don't want loopholes.
Any questions? Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Stan Chrzanowski, followed by Dennis
Church.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski. I've been biking Collier County since 1983. I go
about 60 miles a week on a bicycle. I usually walk about ten miles
on your sidewalks. I commute to work twice a week. I come down
Airport Road now from Emerald Lakes. It's an interesting commute.
I have two bikes. I use a mountain bike and I use a road bike. I
used a mountain bike coming to work, because there's handicap
ramps and they usually face me out into traffic. The turn signals
don't let the -- don't let the bicycles and pedestrians cross and stop
the turning traffic, so even though it looks white and like you can go,
you have to watch, because the person behind you is going to turn in
front of you.
People -- on my way home, I'm heading south, and there's only
a sidewalk on one side of Airport. So the people that are coming out
of the side roads, they're looking, because it's a four lane -- a six-lane
divided highway. They're looking the other way. I come upon them
from their blind side, and they're looking to make a right turn, and
you just have to watch out for things like that.
I do a long ride every Saturday morning. I do 30 miles. I've
gone out Golden Gate Boulevard to G's General Store. I hit Airport
Road at the entrance to Emerald Lakes and I look at which way the
Page 49
June 16, 2003
flag is blowing, I go into the wind. If it's coming from the east, I will
head out to G's General Store, or sometimes the northeast, I'll head
up to Quail West. They won't let me into Quail West. Most of the
other gates I can run facing the coming, because it's a long way up.
I've been through Pelican Marsh, I've been through Fiddler's
Creek. I've been through all of them. I stay on the roads because I
travel at 15, 16, 17 miles an hour. Doing the 951 from Cracker
Barrel down to the Jolley Bridge, which is about 15 miles down, 15
miles back, you can do 23 miles an hour because the trucks in the
lane just kind of suck you along. You can do that for a long way.
! don't travel the sidewalks, because if I hit somebody at 15 and
16 miles an hour and they're not paying attention, and I don't use a
bell because you have to take your hand off something, so you yell,
I'm on your left, I'm on your right, and, you know, you yell about 50
feet away, it gives them time to move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or figure out which is their left or
right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, exactly. Most of the time they
move to the left or the right and they turn around and you have to be
careful.
Commissioner Coyle made a comment last week about the
through lanes that go through the turn lanes. Well, I like those,
because the traffic doesn't cut in front of me. I'm in my lane, the
turning traffic gets to the right and they make a right turn and I don't
worry about them. I'm going straight ahead.
You have a very nice -- I go down to Gordon Pass all the time.
I go up to Lely Barefoot Beach. I hate those speed bumps. One of
these days -- I've been knocked off my bike twice by speed bumps.
The road down to Gordon Pass, though, there's a lot of walkers and
bikers, and you have a section that's missing sidewalk there, and all
the walkers are out there with the bikers, and that's dangerous,
because when you're approaching them, they don't know whether to
Page 50
June 16, 2003
go right or left out into the traffic.
The one thing -- my time is almost up. The one thing I'm here
about, every May there's a bike to work week, National Bike to Work
Week. We've missed it the last couple of years. I would like this
county to participate in bike to work week next May so that
everybody can see what works and what doesn't, and you know, if
you all ride a few times, maybe people get a different impression on
what it's like being out on the roads and what it's like being out on
the sidewalks, and you know, what works.
Not enough people in here ride. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I ride a bike, too, Stan, but I
don't do 30 miles. I'm going to try to get up to it, but I -- I almost
wonder if we did make everything perfect from one end to the other,
we might remove half the fun of it for you, but I admire you greatly
for what you -- how you do cover it. It's the greatest exercise in the
world.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It is. It beats going.to the gym. I got
two hours of exercise just in commuting, and I save 40 percent on my
gas bill for commuting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll join you someday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've got some -- Stan, I've got some
salsa coming in July. I'll give you a call.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: Dennis Church, and the last speaker is Todd
Gates.
MR. CHURCH: Good evening. My name is Dennis Church.
I'm director of community development for the Bonita Bay Group.
I'm here to talk about the ordinance and say that we support the
intent of this ordinance. We believe that sidewalks should connect
residential neighborhoods to external pedestrian networks. We
believe that dense multi-family pods with intense traffic should have
Page 51
June 16, 2003
a way to separate the pedestrian and the vehicular traffic, that
adequate width should be provided on heavily traveled sidewalks to
separate bicycles and pedestrians.
What we don't agree with is how this document takes away the
ability of staff to review alternative standards based on site specific
analysis and an agreed upon set of criteria approved by the
commission.
The one size fits all approach, it's inconsistent with the
professional planning and analysis standards that we're capable of.
At last meeting, staff recom -- mentioned that PUDs already
allow the flexibility that we're trying to keep in this ordinance. We
agree, but believe that without some criteria established for staff to
review through a PUD, other than what is in this subdivision
regulation, they're basically going to rely on what's just passed in this
subdivision regulation.
We suggest that the language of this ordinance acknowledge
that PUDs sho~tld be looked at differently and that criteria should be
established other than a strict adherence to this dual six-foot
sidewalks on every street or ten feet on one side.
We did not support this ordinance as written, and we would
hope that we could work with the comprehensive pathway master
plan and staff to develop a more articulate ordinance that responds to
site specific conditions.
We have another cycle coming up that's already started. I think
we could spend some more time working with staff and come up with
something that more of us agree upon. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Your last speaker, Todd Gates.
MR. GATES: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Todd
Gates. I'm the immediate past president of the Collier Building
Industry Association. I'm also a current EDC board member,
Page 52
June 16, 2003
foundation council member. I'm not here representing either one of
those associations. I'm here just representing myself and as a
concerned citizen.
Gates McVey owns commercial property all over Collier
County, as well as Lee and Charlotte, and I'm very, very concerned
about the widening of the sidewalks. First and foremost, we're 100
percent for sidewalks. For the life of me, I can't figure out what's
wrong with a five-foot sidewalk on both sides of the road. I was
raised with three-foot sidewalks and we did fine. My grandparents
were raised with three-foot sidewalks around here and it was fine.
Five foot on either side is fine, and I'm trying to figure out why
we have to widen the sidewalks, and maybe they can educate me
afterwards.
From a commercial standpoint, and I haven't heard this talked
about tonight, and I can guarantee you when it gets printed in the
paper tomorrow, it's going to be huge, huge, what is going on.
You're taking my property. What ends up happening with
commercial property is you can only -- the value of commercial
property is only determined by what you can build on it. The smaller
the building, the less valuable your property is.
I have a case study right now that I can show you if this
ordinance passes the way it's written, that a specific project on U.S.
41 will get reduced from 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
The way that happens from a technical standpoint, and I'm on the
front lines every single day, is the sidewalk, there's green area, there's
parking space and there's a building. If this sidewalk gets widened, I
lose ten parking spaces. One parking space to an average 250 square
feet per parking space. My building has just been reduced by 2,500
square feet. The value of my property has just been reduced by 25
percent.
The only reason I am the only one here is that nobody else in
the county knows what's happening with this commercial property
Page 53
June 16, 2003
ordinance. I can guarantee you people are going to find out
tomorrow.
I am deeply concerned from a concerned citizen that you're
taking my property and you're taking -- proposed taking the property
of every citizen in this county, whether it's residential or commercial.
So from a business perspective, you are taking my property.
You are taking the value of my property. I'm very concerned about
that. I guarantee you there will be a lot more people here next time..
The second issue, for the life of me, I can't figure out why we're
voting to put more concrete in the county. I happen to live in Pelican
Marsh. I am a happy camper. If I didn't have a sidewalk, I wouldn't
be a happy camper. I've got a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Cross the street, get on the sidewalk, walk down the street, walk my
dog. I'm a happy camper.
Everybody deserves sidewalks. Everybody deserves five-foot
sidewalks on both sides, but have six, seven, eight and ten-foot
sidewalks is obscene. That's a whole other lane.
So please don't take my property. Please keep in mind all the
other property owners in Collier County. Make sure we do have
sidewalks, and keep it green. If you give me the option, I heard
another gentleman earlier say something about sidewalks. If you
give me the option of having a six-foot sidewalk in my house or an
eight-foot sidewalk in front of my house, I want sod, I want
landscaping. I don't want concrete.
So please keep that in mind. Don't take my property. Don't
take other people's property, because you're going to devalue the cost
of that property. So without belaboring the point, please keep that in
mind.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
I think these two LDC amendments require a vote, and most
likely some more discussion. The first one that I would like to take
Page 54
June 16, 2003
is dealing with our collectors and arterials, which is 3.2.8.3.17.
That's sidewalk width within our collectors and arterial roadways.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I've got some comments
that I really, really feel compelled to make.
There is absolutely nothing that I'm about to say that opposes
sidewalks. I am very much in favor of the sidewalks. But when we
get passionate about things, it's sometimes very easy to assume that
everybody feels the same way, and I can tell you from personal
experience in the City of Naples, there are at least as many people
who vehemently oppose sidewalks as there are who want them.
With respect to property values, I hope you have heard of Port
Royal. There's not a sidewalk there. It's probably the most
expensive and one of the most desired communities in the State of
Florida. There are no sidewalks there, and I don't think you would
ever, ever, ever convince the people to put them in. They don't want
them.
I spend a lot of time along Gordon Drive. I jog up and down
Gordon Drive several times a week, and I'm almost run over by
bicyclists, cars and I think maybe Stan tried to get me a couple of
times, but the cars come out from side streets, you know, this is a
potentially dangerous situation.
There are places where we've built sidewalks, I can assure you,
there hasn't been a pedestrian or bicyclist on there more than maybe a
handful a day, four or five a day. They're not used. They're wasted
space and wasted money.
The point I'm getting to here is that despite how passionate we
get about this, there are some people who just don't want sidewalks.
Commissioner Henning has told us the story of one community
where the developer was supposed to have built sidewalks but did
not. Now we want him to put in sidewalks. Those people don't want
Page 55
June 16, 2003
sidewalks. What do we do, force them to build sidewalks and they
don't want to use the sidewalks? I don't think that makes a lot of
sense.
So the bottom line is that -- that we do an analysis on road
capacity every time we approve or consider a project for approval.
There's a traffic study conducted to determine what is the likely
capacity requirement for those particular roadways.
I think we need to do the same thing with respect to sidewalks
and bike paths. I do not agree that -- that bikes and pedestrians
should share the same walkway. It is inherently dangerous.
Time and time again, when you're approaching people from the
rear who are walking and you're on a bicycle, you ring your bell or
you tell them you're on their right or the left, you have no way of
knowing which way they're going to jump. They might move right
into your path, and then it's going to be too late. It simply is not a
safe situation.
Now, you, as individuals might ride very safely and you might
be very careful, but for every one of you who do that, there are a half
a dozen or more who are not. We cannot presume that everyone who
shares that sidewalk will be as considerate as you are.
So I am reluctant to create a potentially hazardous situation. If
there are bike lanes on the street, the bikes should use the lanes on
the street. And consequently, I don't see any reason to duplicate the
right of way necessary to accommodate bicyclists in both places, on
the street and on the sidewalks. I think that's an unnecessary waste.
I do support sidewalks. I do support bike lanes, and I support
them by requiring that any developer provide a traffic analysis for
pedestrians and bicyclists in their development, and that the
appropriate bike lanes and sidewalks have to accommodate the
reasonable projection of the usage, and in that way we can -- we can
design things that are designed or intended to accommodate the
expected capacity rather than just stamping out sidewalks and bike
Page 56
June 16, 2003
lanes of particular sizes without giving much consideration to how
much they're gong to be used.
So Mr. Chairman, I would support an ordinance that would
require bike lanes, would require sidewalks, but would subject them
to an appropriate analysis to determine how wide they should be and
where they should be put.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have to dispute my fellow
commissioner. I -- every morning or whenever I can, I go out to
walk, and I'm in continual -- continually in competition with bikes on
sidewalks. The bikes do not want to be out there, especially older
riders that I've ran across, they don't want to be out there competing
with traffic on a narrow two-lane highway, and try to ride along the
shoulder of the road. I continually run into a situation where I'm out
walking, that there's a direct competition between bicyclists and
pedestrians on a three-foot sidewalk. It doesn't work.
There's a situation, Connor's Park, where the county put in
eight-foot sidewalks. There are continued use by both bike riders
and by pedestrians whereby they both can co-exist because the
sidewalk is wide enough for them both to get along all right, and I
don't think there's been any real problems there.
So when we start looking at the overall safety and welfare, I feel
that we need to address the sidewalks, not only for pedestrians, but
also for cyclists, and if we have to, we'll maybe have to stripe it so
that one side would be for cyclists and the other side would be for
pedestrians, but it's funny that the federal government and Florida
DOT, they recommend that if you only have a sidewalk on one side
of the road, that they recommend a ten-foot sidewalk. Now, I don't
think they pulled this out of their hat. They must have done some
studies, and being the federal government and FDOT, I would think
that those are some of the recommendations that we should probably
go with since --
Page 57
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to make a motion,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just think it's for discussion. I
think there might -- and then we can discuss it some more here, and
then I think we'll make the motion, but I think all the commissioners
here should be heard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yes, definitely.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to say I'm in
partial agreement with Commissioner Halas, except I'm looking at it
from a bike rider's point of view, and I do agree with you. I will not
ride on the highway. I consider that extremely dangerous, and to
hold yourself to that lane when you see people cutting in and
crossing all the time, it's just a safety hazard that diminishes the sport
to the point where I would not do it. I make it a point that -- except
for some of the roads in the estates, where, of course, we don't have
any sidewalks, and I don't think we could ever fit them in. When I
get out onto the main thoroughfares, be it 951 or Golden Gate
Boulevard, I appreciate the fact that there's sidewalks there, and I
share them with the pedestrians without any difficulty at all.
True, if it were a little wider, it would make it a little bit easier.
I have no doubts about that, but I think we have to look at the needs
for everyone. I think this ordinance, for the most part, is going in the
right direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I would like to make the motion
that we accept the ordinance as written.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it complies and is compatible
with the growth management plan? That's part of the --
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that's necessary for
Page 58
June 16, 2003
this body to make the determination. I believe that the Planning
Commission has already made that determination with respect to all
of these provisions and they're your local land planning agency, so I
think you only have to consider the motion as originally stated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Is there a second? Was there a second on that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I second it. Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My perspective is looking at,
in Collier County, on our arterials and collectors and even Oakes
Boulevard, one of the communities that really uses the sidewalks is
the Vineyards that I've seen, and they have a sidewalk on both sides,
and there's some traffic on Oakes Boulevard sidewalks, but I didn't
see a traffic jam.
I'm still perplexed by the request from the pathways advisory
committee. I asked association members, homeowner associations,
civic associations from district three all the way from the Lee County
line just about to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and we went over
some of these Land Development Code changes that I had problems
with to give me some direction, and on these two items with
sidewalks nobody had an agreement that it is -- a cost benefit is there,
and so I'm reluctant to -- with the motion at this time. So any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Motion fails 3-2. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Commissioner, again, I make
Page 59
June 16, 2003
a motion that we direct staff to prepare an ordinance which requires
that these pathways be built in all planned developments, but that the
requirement for the sidewalks and the bike paths be established by a
specific analysis of the required usage and built accordingly. That
way, you tailor the sidewalk to what you need. If you have four
homes on an isolated street, then you're going to have a smaller
sidewalk than you would if you had 400 homes on a street.
I think we need to have the sidewalks and the bike paths. All
I'm saying is let's go about determining, in a rational manner, rather
than just having a one size fits all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the next issue that we're
dealing with, is the multi-family section, 3.2.8.3.17. That's where it's
requesting a ten foot, eight-foot pathway on one side or two six-foot
pathways on the other side. Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not really sure. This one
seems to direct the developers to construct sidewalks of certain sizes,
and that sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would like to see them
construct the sidewalks, it's just that I would like to make sure that
the sidewalks and the bike paths are designed to accommodate the
anticipated traffic rather than just stamp out some standard size for
everybody.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We don't want to vote on the
language that is proposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can go either way you want to
go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. 3.2.8.3.17, I
believe, you just voted on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What was the other -- oh,
here it is right here.
Page 60
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 45.
MS. MURRAY: Page 45.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, 3.2.8.4.14.
MS. MURRAY: They are essentially the same amendment,
they're just in different sections of the code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: So there's no difference between the two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The language is different. Yeah, the
language is different. So that's why I wanted to separate it out.
MR. SCHMITT: I think you may have to vote on that one as
well, just to make sure that -- because it has the same wording and it
is in a different section of the code. MS. MURRAY: Correct.
MR. SCHMITT: So we'll probably need to have a vote. I will
turn to the county attorney.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, this section is 3.3, which pertains
to site development plans, and in particular would relate to the
concerns raised by the Pelican Marsh folks in particular that these
regulations would apply in multi-family condominiums or apartments
where a site development plan is required for approval, not a
subdivision plat. So that's the distinction between the two
regulations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
The concern that I have with your presentation, Commissioner
Coyle, is that you say that they should have a reasonable projection
for usage, but now, if you're talking about a neighborhood, certainly
if I were the developer, I would project whatever I want to build in
there, not what I think that's going to be needed and whatever is good
for my pocketbook, and again, we create the loopholes that we're
trying to close up, and on top of that, it doesn't really give our staff
something firm to follow.
Page 61
June 16, 2003
So I have a real problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I have a
community in my district that put a sidewalk on one side of the
street, and because the sales were going so well, there was a demand
for a sidewalk on the other side of the street. So I -- you know, he
didn't get away with whatever he could get away with. He put in a
sidewalk because his customers wanted a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you probably have a good
developer you're talking about. We just saw it. Of 25 PUDs, 20 of
them weren't something we would sit around and admire.
So I think that we have to consider, not the good guys --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, actually, this developer is not
compliant, because he billed something that wasn't in his PUD. He
billed a little extra.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I'm not describing this
clearly enough. I'm not intending to leave it up to a developer. What
I expect to do is to do the same thing we do right now with traffic
analysis. People don't get to decide what they want to include for a
traffic analysis. We have procedures for doing a traffic analysis, and
that helps us project how many cars this community is going to
generate, how many trips they're going to generate per day, and what
the volume of traffic is going to be and what the capacity of our
roadways will be to accommodate that traffic.
I'm suggesting we do the same thing for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. Let me give you some examples. A PUD that has a
requirement to put a sidewalk on both sides of the street, let's
suppose there is a linkage to a recreational area or a park. I would
argue that the sidewalk should be larger than what is specified here.
If the sidewalks are connecting a residential area with a retail area,
they should be larger, probably, than the sidewalks we're specifying
here, but if they don't, if they're not sidewalks that are designed to
Page 62
June 16, 2003
attract a larger volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, then perhaps
they should be smaller than the sizes of the sidewalks and bike paths
specified here.
So all I'm saying is that we develop guidelines which require
that these analyses be made, and then we get a chance to review them
when the PUD comes in for our consideration, and then we can say,
hey, that's a reasonable assumption or it's not a reasonable
assumption. You have an older community, a community that might
consist of older residents, there are probably more of those going to
be out walking than riding a bicycle, maybe. I don't know, but there
are opportunities to make some reasonable judgments as to how
much traffic you ought to be able to handle on your sidewalks.
And that way we make these decisions based upon some
reasonable evaluation rather than just saying, hey, no matter what the
circumstance is, you've got to have one this wide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid I don't believe people as
much as I used to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
anymore. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And have as much faith as I used to
Then we've got to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the traffic -- you know, with
the traffic analysis, when it's generated by the development
community rather than our own people, I question it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think our staff does question
those.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This leads into an interesting
discussion here. You're going to do a traffic analysis for pedestrian
and cycles. Then you're going to have to do a traffic analysis for
dogs, because people have a dog, some people don't have any dogs,
Page 63
June 16, 2003
some people may have three dogs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And kids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And kids. So when we try to get
involved in a traffic analysis, I think we're way out of whack here,
and I think all we need to do is just step up to the plate and realize
that we have to put sidewalks in to accommodate people, I don't care
whether it's in a multi-family area or whatever else, that we need to
address sidewalks.
People might even take a duck out for a walk. So are you going
to have a traffic analysis for a duck? I mean, let's face it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds like a quack to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I clarify the
issue.
There's no one here, I don't think, who is proposing that we not
require sidewalks. The only issue is how big should the sidewalk be
for any particular segment of the community. That's all that's up for
discussion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other thing, I think, is to
make sure that the verbiage is put into place so there is no doubt in
anybody's mind that when the sidewalk has to go in, it's not maybe,
possibly, shall, it will be a sidewalk in that community to
accommodate, I don't care if it's dogs, children or adults.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, sidewalks are required in
accordance with the code as it is written. What's being changed here
are the widths, as Commissioner Coyle pointed out. I just want to
make sure you understand that they are required right now. The
other issue here was the multi-family issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think in what-- where we're
going with this thing, is the widths are very important, because the
fact that you're getting more people that are involved in cycling, and
Page 64
June 16, 2003
a lot of people don't like to ride on the roads. I cycle and I don't ride
on the roads because I don't want to take my life in my hands. I don't
have any sheet metal around me. It's like riding a motorcycle on the
highways.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, just to clarify too, the whole
section of 5(a), which is alternative designs, and it talks about, you
know, a design that matches the expected traffic volume, a design
that does not create a safety hazard caused by vehicles. In talking to
the people that do the plan review, that whole section five was
stricken out because they said all these designs and studies, and it
was just too confusing. They just gave up and waived it.
What they're looking for is clear, definitive guidelines. If it's a
street, if it's a local street, the current LDC requires a five foot. If it's
an arterial and a collector, the current LDC requires a six foot. And
in terms of the other feedback they received is where they added
paragraph four, where for the multi-family development, right now
they're not going in at all in many of the areas because they said that
it's unclear that a sidewalk is required, so they're not being put in.
So what that -- what paragraph four, which is a new paragraph,
clearly states, that, and I'm on page 37, paragraph four clearly states
that the sidewalk will go in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty-seven, you said?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, page 37.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I just wanted to touch
base on this. It seems like we're at a little bit of an impasse. They've
already looked into the possibility of trying to come up with some
sort of mechanism to be able to justify what the size of the sidewalk
should be, and we're directing them to go back and look at it again.
You need four people to make this thing work. I was wondering
if a compromise could be reached if we were to reduce the size of the
sidewalk by 10 percent so we can move on on this, rather than draw
Page 65
June 16, 2003
it out forever. We're talking about new developments coming in that
are going to be impacting our future neighborhoods in this area, and I
think we have to do something that's going to be reactive now rather
than leave it for some future commission to deal with.
Would a 10 percent compromise be something you could live
with?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I tell you what I'm in favor of is
asking the pathways committee to take a look at sidewalks dealing in
connecting schools, some of the school requirements on their busing,
where we know that kids are going to be out on sidewalks.
MS. FLAGG: They are currently doing that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Walking on sidewalks?
MS. FLAGG: No. They're currently working with the school
staff for sidewalks for schools.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, language as far as
PUDs, RMF or RSF or whatever, just making a requirement, because
we know those sidewalks are going to be used.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're reaching an
impasse here, and I'm kind of questioning where we're going to go
with it at this point in time.
We need four people to make this work. We don't have four.
It's three to two. I -- all the alternatives we're offering have already
been tried or they're in motion at this point in time. Let's find some
way that we can move forward on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the motion was made.
I'll make a motion that we accept this report as is with a slight
variation in the fact that where appropriate that there's a 10 percent
reduction in the size of the sidewalks, if staff so agrees that it's -- that
it would work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Size.
Page 66
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What Commissioner Coletta said,
can we fit that into the language? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I will second it.
MR. SCHMITT: I would only caution. I mean, 10 percent,
you're talking about a rather -- not a very uniform width, and that's
probably going to be more expensive from a construction standpoint
than if you said four feet or six foot. I'm looking at blade width on a
dozer, and those kind of things, so I would recommend that if you're
looking at dealing with the multi-family issue, just leave the sidewalk
widths the same and then focus on paragraph four and we can come
back in the next cycle and look at the sidewalk widths.
If we say 10 percent, then I'm in the inches and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I rephrase my
motion.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, if I could offer, if the issue which
seems to revolve around the local streets, the current LDC requires a
five-foot sidewalk, and if you all are comfortable with that, certainly
I'm sure that we can make that work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not comfortable, but if
that's all we can get through today in this commission, then I'll have
to live with that also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you withdrew your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdrew my motion, because
that 10 percent was not a workable number. I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then the second already fails.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate the opportunity to try
to achieve compromise here, and I'd be very favorably inclined to
proceed in that direction. I just want to emphasize two things.
Number one, we're going to be requiring that sidewalks be put
there, right? I mean, this --
Page 67
June 16, 2003
MS. FLAGG: With this amendment, you will be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Our existing--
MS. FLAGG: No. Your current--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With this amendment, we will
require that sidewalks be placed in all of the developments; is that
correct?
MS. FLAGG: With this amendment, as written, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there's no concern
about us avoiding the requirement for a sidewalk. It will be included
and it will be a part of the PUD. I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I hate to interrupt,
but I disagree. What the language is RMF is in the multi-family.
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not in PUDs. It's just
multi-family.
MS. FLAGG: Well, it says and all multi-family components of
PUD districts, and already in another section of the amendment it
talks about the local streets.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we have a mixed residential, all
this does is get it in the multi-family. No? MS. FLAGG: No.
MS. MURRAY: It's already required for single family. This
will make it required for multi-family.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I was going to say that the
one thing we're missing is the opportunity to make special sidewalks
for links with schools or parks or commercial areas, and that's the
thing I've been trying to get to, is some flexibility for us to determine
the volume of traffic and usage on the sidewalks, where people are
going and try to accommodate those.
I am sure that just about any developer would like to make sure
that our school children have the safest possible environment when
they're going to and from a school or people have a safe environment
Page 68
June 16, 2003
when they're going to and from a retail shopping center from the
residential areas.
So I would like to see the opportunity to deal with that issue, but
if we can't get it in this one, I certainly would be willing to go with
the existing widths and make the appropriate change requiring the
sidewalks.
MS. MURRAY: May I ask for clarification on that? Is your
concern linking projects to projects, in other words, the bigger
picture, PUDs to PUDs to commercial or is it inter, within a project?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it really depends. I presume
there could be a recreational area within a project of some kind, and
you could normally expect a fairly large volume of pedestrian and
bicycle traffic going to and from that particular location. I think you
should have an opportunity to make it a bigger, maybe bigger than
five feet, if necessary, if it's necessary to accommodate that kind of
traffic.
I am not so concerned about linkage between adjacent
residential PUDs as I am about linkage to destinations for pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. If you're going to a retail shopping area nearby, it
would be really great to have a good, wide bike path pathway going
to and from that location, and I just think that we need to consider,
and I keep going back to that, we need to consider the volume of use
that is anticipated on these things in order to determine their size, and
I think in some cases we should have smaller ones, in some cases, we
should have bigger ones, but the compromise that's being suggested
now, I think, is acceptable for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. A lot of times, people don't
travel to the store, back and forth. A lot of times, people are just out
walking for exercise. They may walk around the block or around a
neighborhood. People also do the same thing with bicycling. Now
you have some people that are professional bicyclists who have a
Page 69
June 16, 2003
prescribed route that they run each day which may constitute 15, 16
miles or whatever, and they run that same route every day at the
same time.
You have people that get out and exercise the same way every
morning, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they're using these
sidewalks to go from their home to a shopping center. They may just
be using that sidewalk as a way of putting on miles to accommodate
their physical training.
So I mean, so that's why it's pretty hard to get a determination of
just how much traffic you're going to get on that sidewalk. If you
live in an area that you have a gated community and then you have
an activity center that's attached to it, yes, I think there's a way of
maybe judging that, but just in the general neighborhoods of things
and where people want to get out daily just to have some fresh air,
it's pretty hard to come up with a head count of how many people are
really going to be walking or whatever else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, I need to ask, presently,
you're saying it's required within the PUD, but they can -- they can
mitigate, can they not?
MS. MURRAY: Sure. They could provide an alternative plan
or they could ask to be exempted or provide an alternative to these
regulations. These are what I would call your base standards, and
then the PUD could come along and modify those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But this is not -- you cannot mitigate
the language that is being proposed, correct? It's a given, you need
to do it?
MS. MURRAY: Well, it's the -- like I said, it's the baseline
regulation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Baseline.
MS. MURRAY: So yes, if you came in with a PUD and your
PUD made no mention of any alternatives to these regulations, you
would be required to follow these regulations.
Page 70
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the mitigation within the PUD
that is an RFM, they can mitigate off site or mitigate, period?
MS. MURRAY: They could do an alternative.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make an alternative?
MS. MURRAY: Yes, by citing the section of the code and then
citing the alternative.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, the compromise is to go from six
foot on each side to five foot on each side, and what about the ten
foot high speed--
MS. FLAGG: What I understood Commissioner Coyle to say is
that go with the existing widths in the current LDC, which is a five
foot for local and a six foot arterial and collector, but put it --
substitute it, but use the amendments as written to assure that a
sidewalk always does go in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
I appreciate the attempt at a compromise, however, I can't go
along with it. I think that we set standards and the standards have to
be upheld. Status quo is not elevating us to a standard that's going to
be acceptable for future people.
I remind you we have left it up to the development community
to solve this problem in the past, and we have sidewalks that end in
the middle of nowheres, sidewalks that are totally ineffective. They
have light poles in the middle of them.
Without standards for people to follow, we're going to have
chaos, we're going to have a system that's totally ineffective, and I
will not settle for something of lesser quality, unless somebody can
tell me where it's going to work.
MS. FLAGG: Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
What Commissioner Coyle has proposed is to -- this
amendment, as written, so it does eliminate all the loopholes, but just
to change the width back down to the five foot for local roads and the
Page 71
June 16, 2003
six foot for arterial and collector. So all the loopholes are, in fact,
eliminated. We assure that sidewalks always do get put in place.
The only revision is that we go back to the current widths of five feet
and six feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. Yeah, I make a motion
we do what she just said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion. And
one thing, if we can put -- also put in there, there are some
communities that would like to stamp their sidewalks -- MS. FLAGG: And pavers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and pavers in alternatives of the
concrete.
MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if we could provide that
language.
Mr. Tomerlin, do you have that language available? Is that a
part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. FLAGG: The development community has asked that we
include pavers in lieu of concrete, as long as they have to put the
four-inch lime rock base, and we said that's fine.
What the main thrust of the PAC was to assure that there are no
more loopholes for sidewalks, that the sidewalks go in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Is six foot safe on a major
arterial?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. This is -- we're beyond that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, we are?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought this was part of it.
Page 72
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We made -- we voted on that
motion on the arterials and collectors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did we just talk about for six
foot then?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're talking within multi-family.
MR. SCHMITT: On page 45, the -- under 12(a), instead of
eight, as underlined, that will remain six. On 12(b), instead of the
words, six, that will remain five. That's where you were at, and in
12(d), the third line, where it says six three-quarters of the way into
the third line, that will stay five. So the -- in fact, the sidewalk
widths remain the same, but the other language remains in effect, and
I believe that's where you last were at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Does the language read it will be a minimum of or it will be?
MS. MURRAY: Will be for the multi-family, will be five feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we have it, the words
read, be a minimum off?.
MS. FLAGG: They can always exceed what's required.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it doesn't say that. That's
the problem.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, there's a provision in the
code that does state that these requirements, once stated, are
minimums. So I don't believe we would want to say that every place
in the code, but it is there, Commissioner Coletta, I can assure you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another question, if I may.
Would we have any ability, during the PUD process to be able to, if
we see there's a necessity, to increase the size of the sidewalk, be
able to do so at that time?
MR. WHITE: I think that's consistent with what Commissioner
Coyle has indicated and others have spoken about, making the size
and requirement fit the circumstances.
Page 73
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, if we can have the
minimum in there, and also have the ability to be able to increase it
to fit a given situation, then I could go ahead and support this.
Would you include that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's already included.
'CHAIRMAN HENNING: A PUD is a negotiated item,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
so we understand that that's a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD:
MR. WHITE:
MR. MUDD:
MR. WHITE:
The word, minimum, though,
It's already there.
The minimum is the catch all in the entire code.
And the same for maximum --
Yeah, the same for maximum.
-- when it applies in the opposite direction. What
I mean by maximum, is you can always be less than the maximum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One other comment, if I may.
I'm just trying to bring some sort of balance to this whole thing.
We've had a pathways committee that has put a considerable
amount of time on it, and I do appreciate your help. Not everything
always goes the direction you recommend, but you have had a
tremendous influence on what we're doing here today. Hopefully,
when we have future PUDs come to us, that we'll be consulting with
you on the size of those sidewalks that will be going in that particular
PUD and how they connect everything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question for our staff.
When we have an existing community, the residents have taken over,
example, let's say World Tennis Center, they don't want to be the
World Tennis Center anymore, they want to be a golf course
clubhouse community, would that be a minor-- I guess that would be
a major PUD type of element change, and would they have to come
in compliance with these new standards?
Page 74
June 16, 2003
MS. FLAGG: A name change?
MS. MURRAY: More than likely, it would be a major change,
but it's hard to tell without having a specific project to look at.
There's a possibility.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about if I had a clubhouse that
I 'wanted to remodel the kitchen and make the kitchen and dining
room a little bit area -- a little bit bigger, would that be a minor
change?
MS. MURRAY: Likely not if you're just talking interior
renovations. It would just be a change -- a building permit issue.
MR. SCHMITT: Building permit, site approval plan and a
building permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If I wanted to make the kitchen
bigger, then I'd have to go outside the footprint, not within the
confines of the four walls?
MS. MURRAY: Likely not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It would be a minor one?
MS. MURRAY: Minor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And what I'm concerned
about and what I heard from a lot of people is, how would this affect
me if I wanted to expand my clubhouse, how would it affect me if I
wanted to do a kitchen remodel?
MS. MURRAY: Again, it would really depend on the language
in the existing PUD and the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But there's still opportunities to
mitigate sidewalks or mitigate the Land Development Code within an
existing community?
MS. MURRAY: Correct, even if there was a substantial
amendment to the PUD. You could either clarify or mitigate, as you
said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions before
we--
Page 75
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why would we want to mitigate a
sidewalk in a new PUD development? Give me an example why do
you want to do that.
MS. MURRAY: Some PUDs have their own pathway plans
that they develop that are not consistent with the exact regulations of
the code, but provide, and that would be your decision as to whether
or not they met the intent of the code.
MR. SCHMITT: Island Walk, for example, has sidewalks at the
rear of the some of the buildings rather than the front, those kind of
things, where there's connectivity to the major pathways, but they're
just not in front of every building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got no problem with that just
as long as we don't get rid of the sidewalks. I mean, they can create -
- use some creativity as far as where they want to put the sidewalks,
whether it's in front of the building or behind the building, but it's the
idea that I don't want to have the capabilities of mitigating sidewalks,
especially in new PUDs.
MS. MURRAY: That would come before you in the form of a
PUD rezoning or an amendment whereby the particular section
would be called out and the specific thing they wanted to mitigate for
was also spelled out and then it would be your decision as to whether
or not to allow to approve that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: So it is an option, but it is something that
would have to be approved by the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more questions?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 76
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. We spent a lot
on the topic, a long time talking about that. MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next change we need to change
the Land Development Code, make it -- demand that you can't park
on a driveway and you can't drive on a parkway.
MS. FLAGG: Mr. Chair, just to clean it up, to go back to the --
I believe they took action on 3.3.7.1.9.127
MS. MURRAY: Right now --
MS. FLAGG: Page 45.
MS. MURRAY: And then the previous action was to
3.2.8.3.17, where there was a denial.
MS. FLAGG: So we need to go back to page 36 to make sure
that it matches page 45. It's basically the exact same language that
you just passed your motion on. So if you just make the same
motion for this amendment, you're covered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make the same motion as the last
amendment to cover this amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I second it.
All in favor of the motion --
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I just believe, as a matter of
procedural practice, that you have to have a motion to reconsider
your prior motion, and if that's the form of what Commissioner Coyle
has just made and the seconder agrees, then I think procedurally
we're correct.
MR. SCHMITT: And Patrick, just for the record, again, on
page 36, paragraph -- or line two, that is six instead of the word
eight. On line three, on page 37, that would be five instead of six.
On paragraph four, the third line down, about a third of the way in, it
would read sidewalks, five feet in width instead of six feet in width,
Page 77
June 16, 2003
and that puts you at the same language that was just considered on
page 45.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that -- what I see, Mr Schmitt, is
one and two on 36 deals with collector and arterials. Is that what you
just stated?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also on page 37, four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got ten feet down at --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got ten feet there.
MS. FLAGG: It's number three on page 37, number three, if
you look, local streets. It's five, consistent with your previous
motion. Page 36, number two, it's six feet instead of eight feet,
consistent with your previous motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we solve this by merely
saying that the width should be consistent with the existing code?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then that makes it real
simple.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I make that my motion.
MR. WHITE: And again, the form of the motion would be for
reconsideration of the prior motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, let's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Reconsideration of the
prior motion.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll get this right, Pat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we have to vote on that one
alone. Then he has to make another motion.
MR. WHITE: I would prefer that, certainly, for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Coletta made a
motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I will second that.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 78
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Now, the motion is to keep the language --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Consistent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- consistent, and after that, do we
need to make a motion to deal with our arterials and collectors?
MR. WHITE: No. I believe the arterial and collector provision
are in both of the sections.
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
MR. WHITE: The one you've already approved and the one
you're reconsidering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What did we approve on our arterials
and collectors?
MR. WHITE: The preceding code text before the changes back
to six and five feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the
floor.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Page 79
June 16, 2003
We're all straight with that. Do you need a break? Seven
minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please take your seats.
I think Mr. Mulhere wanted to talk about the construction of
sidewalks.
MR. MULHERE: No need. That one was addressed by your
motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item.
MS. MURRAY: Did we consider page 39, 328414, the
construction materials for sidewalks? You were -- started talking
about it, and then we switched.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did we go back to --
MS. FLAGG: I think she just needs a motion to approve with
the addition of paver blocks. You all completed talking about it.
Then we went elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Mulhere, do you want to
speak on that item?
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere with RWA.
Just -- the only comment I was going to make is that we should
provide that flexibility for paver blocks, which I think by your
discussion, you agreed to do so. I have no further comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second. Any discussion on the
motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Page 80
June 16, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Next item.
MS. MURRAY: We have two items with speakers, one speaker
each. So if you'd go to page 51 on the excavation and littoral
amendment.
Specifically, those are sections 2.4.6.5 and 3.5.7.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's on the littoral planning in
the water retention area. That's correct.
Any questions from our county commissioners?
We have a speaker?
MS. MURRAY: Dwight Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA.
Just wanted to touch on a few things related to these littoral
planting areas, and this is going to ultimately wind up being a cost
increase to the residents of your county as well as some potential
impacts for fill moving on our roadways to supplement lakes that
may not be large enough.
Now, what really are littoral zones supposed to do? If you were
talk with the South Florida Water Management District, it would be
for water quality, and the water quality is dependent on the
survivability of these littoral planting areas wherein you need to have
the organisms in place that will scrub the nutrients out of the water to
make it clean prior to discharge.
Well, they're finding at the district that there's very low
survivability of these planting areas, and with the low survivability,
there may not be as high a quality of water treatment if they dry out.
So the district is leaning towards not requiring littoral plantings
at all or not giving credit for it during their review process.
Now, from the county's perspective, we could take a look at
littoral areas as habitat for wading birds, you know, you're going to
Page 81
June 16, 2003
have the fish grow and you'll have some algae grow and if these
littoral areas are going to dry up, then the fish aren't going to grow.
If you were going to want fish to grow offshore, what would
you do? You'd probably go off and throw some concrete in the water
and build an artificial reef. That attracts the fish. Well, the
survivability, if there's a low survivability of littoral shelf planting,
there is a very high survivability of rip rap, wherein there are the
small areas where the fish can hide, and there are the areas where the
birds can go and get to the fish as the water goes up and down on the
water table inside the lakes.
So the proposed amendment is necessary. We've got a
conservation element that mandates those two and a half percent of
littoral area based on the lake area. All -- two and a half percent of
the lake area has to be in littoral plantings.
Well, currently, our code only requires two percent, and so we
do have to adopt something tonight, at least to bring it up to the
standard of the GMP of two and a half percent.
Well, in past meetings, there's been discussion of whether it
should be ten and it was mitigated down to seven. Again, I just
emphasize to you that these reductions in lake area that would be
required by the increased size of the littoral shelf planting could
mandate eight more trucks on the roadways bringing fill to the
properties or making the lakes larger to provide for the littoral
planting area and forgo the additional development opportunity on
the properties.
So either way, I believe it's going to cause the -- cost taxpayers
money in roadway damage potential from excess fill hauling or
increased costs for our residential units, and with that, I'd be happy to
answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're saying because of the
flexibilities of the lakes --
MR. NADEAU: The fluctuation of the lake levels.
Page 82
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was under the impression when
we had the first reading that there was also stipulations in here
exactly where they were going to plant that so that the survivability
of the plants were going to be a lot better off than what the present
Land Development Code states, that they were going to make it --
have the environment, a better environment for the plants to grow in.
That was my understanding, and the other -- when we first had the
discussion, we were at the 10 percent and everybody seemed to be in
agreement with the seven percent, along with increasing the
survivability of the plants.
MR. NADEAU: Increasing the survivability of the plants by
allowing to aggregate the littoral planting areas on interconnected
lakes within a master water management system. If they are not
interconnected, then you're going to have -- each lake having its own
littoral area, and we acknowledge that our comprehensive plan
requires these littoral area plantings, but to go beyond what the plan
requires when it shows that there may not be that higher survivability
may be a little onerous to your taxpayers and the future buyers of
units in your county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This would have to be maintained by
the association once it's handed over by the developer? MR. NADEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going from 10 percent of--
the way it is applied today, explain that to me, please.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental
services director.
Currently, the code, the Land Development Code requires the
littoral zone to be two percent of the lake surface area, so that area
that equates to that calculation is the littoral zone.
The growth management plan for the areas that we're speaking
of requires two and a half percent. As I noted in the commission
Page 83
June 16, 2003
meeting at the first reading, the EAC and some other bodies have
wanted to see some additional amount of acreage there to be set aside
in these littoral zones that would function for -- mostly for some
ecological areas, habitat areas, and to some degree you get some
additional water quality improvement.
So the initial proposals that staff was presenting to the
committees was 10 percent. The Planning Commission
recommended seven percent, and staff is simply recommending that
the commission consider the Planning Commission's
recommendation of seven percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it would be seven percent of, in
this case, you're saying a two acre lake you'd have to plant?
MR. LORENZ: Would be seven percent of two acres, .14 acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me, point what?
MR. LORENZ: Seven percent of the two acre lake would be
· 14 acres.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA A couple of questions, if I may.
The Planning Commission, what was the vote?
MR. LORENZ: I believe it was unanimous. I'll have Susan
check on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also too, is it true that this
enhancement will also help to increase the value of property?
MR. LORENZ: Well, I think the enhancement that we would
be seeing is we'd have a greater degree of green space. I'd certainly,
in my judgment, in terms of my own personal -- I'm just going to
speak in my personal values, I'd rather see a nice littoral shelf and a
green space there than -- more of that than less of that.
Now, the big question that we needed to address and we
addressed in the revisions to the amendments was to ensure the
survivability and provide additional standards that will make these
littoral zones function, because right out of the box we are saying
Page 84
June 16, 2003
that the existing code, the way it's set up is not -- the littoral zones
are not functioning well, and we think that we have a series of
recommendations and we've worked this through with a number of
consultants who we got feedback on, feel that these standards will
provide for a much greater degree of success for the littoral zones,
and we do have -- when you do plant them properly and you set the
elevations correctly, we do have good examples of these areas that
will function properly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bill, when the problem is the
fluctuation of the water levels, how are we dealing with that in these
particular standards?
MR. LORENZ: We are requiring that the designer specify what
the low water level is and what the high water level is. Then they
can go to a plant list that will provide you with what the maximum
water depth a plant can tolerate. So in some of these lakes,
especially as we go further away from the coast, quite frankly, the
selection of plants is going to be a little bit different than on the
coastal areas, because the plants will be able to tolerate those larger
fluctuations.
Additionally, this does allow for as flat a shelf as possible where
you have a terrace condition, so you can put a terrace condition in as
a shelf and again try to better match those fluctuating water levels
with the plants that you plant in the shelf area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what happens when the water
level goes down and the plants on one level are actually out of the
water?
MR. LORENZ: Well, those would be the plants that you would
have to specify that have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That could tolerate that condition?
MR. LORENZ: That could tolerate that condition, and the
technical term would be a -- less of a hydro period. In other words,
Page 85
June 16, 2003
they require less water over the period of the year, and they don't
require as great a inundation depth. So you do have to spend a little
bit more time thinking about what kind of plants you're putting in
place with regard to what your proposed fluctuation of the water
levels would be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The last time we met, one of the
speakers suggested that we have less of a percentage addition to this
and suggested that you would probably agree with that and you did,
in fact, agree with it.
Now, how does that agreement compare with where we are
today with respect to the percentage increase?
MR. LORENZ: Well, when we took it to the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission asked me, well, what would
be an appropriate level that I would think that would be fine, and I
said between five and 10 percent. The Planning Commission settled
on seven percent, and as I said to the board before, is that this is a
policy decision.
It is correct that the growth management plan currently only
requires two and a half percent. So if you decide that you want to
have more than that minimum for the urban area, then of course,
every amount that you go above that minimum, you would have
more wetland plantings, and it is true that you would then have to
reserve and retain more fill on site that you couldn't use in your
excavation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we'll have to get some more fill
from off of Oil Well Road in some of these new communities?
MR. LORENZ: Well, not necessarily. You can redesign and
reconfigure your lake system on site to be able to provide for that
shelf. The increments that we're talking about, I think, is somewhat
doable. That may not be the case for all situations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
Page 86
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that means we wouldn't
have to have the trucks on the road destroying the highways as was
earlier suggested?
MR. LORENZ: If you can get it on site and configure your
development that way. I don't want to say that you're going to be
able to do that in every case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
approve this as the Planning Commission passed on to us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
MR. LORENZ: Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is a change here I
just wanted to bring to the board's attention from the last time,
because as we were looking at it, we just wanted to see -- there's an
exemption, and it's on page -- it's on the last -- page 58, under
exemptions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I include that exemption.
MR. LORENZ: We added the exemption for lake excavation
activities subject to resource extraction, reclamation act, shall be
exempt from the LSPA requirements, but shall otherwise be required
to follow the mine reclamation requirements required in section 35 --
shall be exempt from the LSPA requirements but shall otherwise be
required to follow the mine reclamation requirements required in
section 3.5.7.6.
The growth management plan requires those numbers, two and a
half percent, and the 30 percent for the rural fringe for storm water
retention ponds. When you have a lake simply for lake excavation
for mining purposes, for getting that commercial operation, that's
subject to the state reclamation act requirements. That's not
functioning as a storm water retention pond at that particular point.
The implication or the understanding, of course, of the language
is as that use would be converted in the future, and it does begin to
function as a storm water retention pond, and is incorporated into the
Page 87
June 16, 2003
development, then it would have to meet those requirements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if my second
picked that up or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Can we go on to the next one, Susan, page 60, LDC 3.9.5.5.6,
and this has to do with the preservation standards criteria, basically
would be in the urban area.
Commissioner Coletta was concerned with some folks in the
rural fringe that are in the sending lands. Would the board be open to
providing a mitigation for on site preservation to off site preservation
to pick up some of those lands that Commissioner Coletta is
concerned about the property owners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not too sure if I could
switch gears that quick myself. Is that part of this already? I didn't
see that in here.
MS. BURGESON: This doesn't address -- Barbara Burgeson of
environmental services.
This -- I don't believe that this addresses what you're looking
for. I think that sounds like it would be a completely different
amendment or something that we could do in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate it,
Commissioner Henning, I really do. I just--
Page 88
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is all new language as far as
preservation standards.
MS. BURGESON: What's proposed 3.9.5.6.6, the majority of it
is already existing language from other sections of the code or
sections that have been currently under use by staff.
There are a few sections in here that are new, and we've put in
exemptions to try to alleviate any difficulty with projects that might
be under review as a result of that new language, today's date being
the final date to find the project sufficient.
I'm not really sure how we would add language in for off site
mitigation. That might be something -- if you would like us to look
into that in the future amendments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would say that I would like to
see something in the future. I'm not prepared to act on that today. I
do appreciate it, though, Commissioner Henning, you bringing that
up.
MS. BURGESON: Because there is language in -- I believe it's
in the rural fringe to allow for some off site mitigation already.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this language really deals
within the urban area.
MR. SCHMITT: It's the design standards that's required for
preservation within a PUD. Isn't that correct, Barbara, it's the
required standards of how much you have to preserve within a PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the language we're stating here
is if you have 75 percent of melaleuca on your land, you still need to
provide mitigation.
MS. BURGESON: No, no. If you've got 75 percent of
melaleuca canopy coverage on your property, and that does not count
towards your native vegetation acreage, and so you don't -- there's no
commitment there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the threshold?
MS. BURGESON: If it's less than 75 percent.
Page 89
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So 74.95 --
MS. BURGESON: Right. We've had examples where we've
gone out in the past and we've recorded projects, particularly Lely
Resort is one, where we took photographs of properties that the
consultant identified as 85 percent invaded with exotics. Five years
later, they're very nicely established pine flat woods. We do know
that even as high as 85 percent, given a few years, they will re-
establish themselves.
So we feel that the 75 percent number, and that is the same
number that the state uses as an appropriate number.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- has anybody ever discussed
about urban sprawl, with this particular language, whether that would
encourage urban sprawl?
MS. BURGESON: The native vegetation preservation
requirement has been around since the '80s, and I don't believe that
anybody has ever attributed urban sprawl to native vegetation
preservation on site. Because it's only a small portion of the open
space requirement, so it really is a component of another requirement
that's much larger in the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a possibility that the board is
interested in taking a look at future language for off site mitigation?
What I'm looking at is really the bigger picture, is, you know, we've
got stuff that we should be preserving, and stuff that we just kind of,
I think kind of have to give up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right now, soil and water is
pursuing aroma. If you're talking about mitigation trends, not
removing exotics? Is that what you're talking about? I'm getting
confused between the two issues. Are you trying to marry them
together?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this issue of the creation of
preservation standards within a PUD to provide opportunities to
make -- mitigate off site for that.
Page 90
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think I would be
agreeable to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody else?
Entertain a motion on the item?
MS. MURRAY: I have two speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm sorry.
MS. MURRAY: Dwight Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Again, Commissioners, good evening. For the
record, Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for RWA.
I was involved back in 1989 when the original 25 percent native
vegetation requirement went into our comprehensive plan. This is a
carryover to provide some specific language. Just, for example, there
has been some debate on whether or not the created native preserves,
and I'll let you know that I have a project that is part -- a litmus test
of these regulations that, as they've gone through, they've been
modified to identify that created preserves would be allowed.
Originally, they would be prohibited, but to the credit of staff,
we've worked together and we've found this common ground that
there can be created preserves, because we've got a lot of areas in
Collier County that are infested with melaleuca.
Now, the county's standard for what native vegetation is does
vary slightly from what-- the district definition of native vegetation.
We're using the term canopy coverage. So if you have a pine
canopy over the top of 100 percent melaleuca, then it would not be
considered a non-native area, whereas if you've got 75 percent aerial
coverage of native -- of exotics on a property, that meets the
melaleuca definition for the district.
Now, there has been some debate about whether or not these
created areas for mitigation need to be preserves platted with
preserve-type setbacks, where you're setting back from your
revegetated areas. That's not my position to take with you today.
Apparently, we're going to have preserved or replanted native
Page 91
June 16, 2003
vegetation.
My point for this evening would be that in paragraph six, on
page 62, there is reference to your site development plan, your final
site -- final subdivision plat, and on a case-by-case basis, the
preliminary subdivision plat. Well, just for clarity purposes, and
there aren't that many preliminary subdivision plats that are in
process, you may want to have the PSP's treated the same as your
SDP or final subdivision plat.
Case-by-case basis, I don't really know if there's any certainty
on how it would be treated, whether it would be exempted or whether
it would not be exempted from the provisions of this code, and they
have to be in today. They have to be legally sufficient, but I would
only request that you would treat them equally as you would with an
SDP or final subdivision plat. Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: The next speaker is Bob Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: I'll be real brief. I've worked quite a bit over
the last several weeks in several different iterations of this
amendment, with Barbara and with the rest of the staff, and frankly, I
don't really have any objection to the language. I do have a client
that I represent who asked me to be here tonight to speak because he
has submitted a PSP and that PSP has been reviewed to the point
where it is just a tiny, teeny bit away from being approved. Probably
Monday we hope to get our approval.
So he's expended substantial dollars in designing the project,
and then to comply with these provisions would cause him to have to
redesign the entire site.
We'll see that there are exemptions in here, and on page 62, the
exemption -- I've spoken to Barbara about this already, so we're not
in disagreement on it. I'm just getting it on the record because my
client has asked me to do that.
On the bottom of page 62, under exemptions, it says, application
Page 92
June 16, 2003
for development orders authorizing site improvements i.e., SDP or
final subdivision plat, FSP, and on a case-by-case basis a PSP, and
the question that my client had was, well, who determines what the
case-by-case basis and what does that means.
In my conversation with Barbara, basically, she indicated that if
a PSP was that far along, that the design had been pretty much
determined, and that to change that PSP to comply with these new
provisions would cause that site to have to be redesigned, that would
be exempt from these provisions, and I just think I owe it to my
client to get this on the record. Thank you.
MS. BURGESON: I'd like to say for the record, that as Bob and
I have discussed before this meeting or before this item, the language
in here to identify on a case-by-case basis PSP submittal is
specifically to allow us, when a PSP has been submitted in a very
final type format, unlike the preliminary submittal package that we
get for a lot of PSP's, when a PSP is submitted in a very detailed final
format, that if we were to apply these amendments, the new
regulations to that, that the development would have to modify their
site plan and, for instance, if they had to remove any buildings or
take away anything of substance on that property, then we would not
want to apply these regulations.
We do want the flexibility on a case-by-case basis when some
PSP's are submitted in a very preliminary form that, and particularly
I worked on one with Dwight, I .guess it was Easter Sunday, the
Saturday before, we worked on one where, by making some minor
shifts to the road alignment, we were able to preserve a larger area of
existing native vegetation, and they did not have to recreate as much
native vegetation.
So where we can ask them to make those shifts for the benefit of
the public and benefit of the people within that PUD and
development, and it does not negatively affect the design that's come
through, then we'd like the ability to be able to ask for that.
Page 93
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions?
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion my Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. Can I make a statement? I know
it's a little after the fact.
Commissioner Coletta, you had asked about some off site
mitigation. We can look at that in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't ask about it. I
think that was Commissioner Henning.
MS. BURGESON: Okay. We can look at off site mitigation
maybe in the next or third round.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It doesn't seem like the Board of
Commissioners is interested in that. I-- you know--
MS. BURGESON: It would be against the current --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is what it is.
MS. BURGESON: -- GMP policies, so we would have to
amend those as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, before we start going in order,
there were two other sidewalk amendments, just definitions to
section 6.3 for a pathway bike lane and sidewalk, on pages 81 and
82. You had no comment last time, but the staff is still here, so we
Page 94
June 16, 2003
might as well finish that out, if that's possible. Pages 81 and 82.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bike lane, a portion of the roadway
which has been designed, constructed or -- designed by -- designated
by signing the pavement marks in accordance with the most current
Florida bicycle facilities, designations, standards and guideline
requirements, which we don't know what they are.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, the reason that we had to add that
definition is there's bike lane issues throughout the LDC, but there
was never any definition for what a bike lane was, so it came right
out of the FDOT definition. It should say housekeeping.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say I -- forgive
me, but the one that's stricken out, bike path, that portion of the
street, cross walk, walkway and the like, paved or otherwise,
intended for use of bicycles and are properly sized for pedestrian. By
God, that meets my definition of what I'm looking for a lot better
than the new one.
MS. FLAGG: The only thing, this is just housekeeping. In
other words, the current LDC, and then the amendment that you
approved tonight, the two types of things are sidewalks and bike
lanes. Bike paths have been taken out because you couldn't get a
consistency with the FDOT standard, one that had to go to build
them. This is consistent with FDOT. It's a housekeeping definition
to match what is in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we don't go along with this,
they might not approve our roads.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's approve. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 95
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion was made by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. I'm sorry.
The next item, page 82.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, and all we did was take out if properly
sized to remove any question by the developers so that they know to
go to the proper amendment to what size it would be, and it will be
six feet or five feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question. The way it's currently
defined, it implies that it must be used for bicycles and pedestrians.
Is that what you intend? Is it all sidewalks must be designed to use
by bicyclists?
MS. FLAGG: In the Florida statutes, it says sidewalks, by
definition, and the reason we call it sidewalks and not sidewalk and
bike path, is if you call it just the sidewalk, it gives the right of way
to the pedestrian, but then it can also be used by a bicycle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not illegal to ride a bicycle
on a sidewalk?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 96
June 16, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, the remaining items, I don't
believe there was substantive discussion. There were some minor
changes.
Mr. White, should we go through these one by one and take
individual votes or Mr. Chairman, how would you like to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we do it in mass?
MR. WHITE: I think so long as there's no dissension or
disagreement or change to any of the regulations, that so long as you
specifically enumerate the sections, and then have an encapsulating
motion for all of those, that would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's one concern that I have that I
can't support in here. And I don't know how anybody else feels
about any of the others, but the whole issue about raking the beaches
below the wet line. With all the folks that I had in the
commissioners' room, nobody thought that was to the standards of
what they expected our beaches to look like, and I went through the
whole thing and what the City of Naples does compared to what the
county does, so I cannot support that amendment to the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one is that? Do you know?
MS. MURRAY: 3.14. On page 63 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it might start on 63. I think
it--
MS. MURRAY: Yeah, you had asked for the TDC and CAC
Page 97
June 16, 2003
review, and page 63 is just an overview of that. So you're correct, 65
is for the amendment, is where it starts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion on section 3.14.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is vehicle on the beach
regulation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you intending that that be a
vehicle raking ordinance or is it an ATV?
MR. LORENZ: On page 71 of your packet, 314.3.6.7, we do
have that -- that section there, maybe address Commissioner
Henning's point that he made earlier.
That particular language is basically what the county is
currently doing. It's in the vehicle on the beach section, because we
regulate the traffic of vehicles on the beach, and so what we're saying
is the mechanical beach cleaning equipment that's specified here
would be allowed to that degree, based upon the criteria that we
specify. So that's why that is listed in this particular section, because
there are other sections that deal with us issuing permits to smaller
vehicles on the beach that would be doing what is basically called
grooming. So this particular section here deals with the more heavy
equipment, and quite frankly, this is very specific to the county's
operations, equipment at the moment. That's what this equipment is,
and that noted this is the policy and the practice that we have been
doing.
Currently, my staff, Maura Krause, specifically gets together
with Ron Hovell in public utilities and will make these judgment
calls in terms of the frequency of and the necessity of this kind of
raking that's listed in 314.3.6.7.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you don't do this raking,
what is the result? I guess that's the question.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Bill, if I could come back-- Jim Mudd, for
the record.
Page 98
June 16, 2003
Your coastal advisory committee, the City of Naples, the City of
Marco, and some folks basically asked to rake less, okay, less often,
and what they do right now, Commissioner, if they have a red tide or
wherever we have dead fish, they go out there and get them in and
clean them up and get them out, and after a storm event, they'll do
the same thing, but they won't go on a regular basis.
We have three rakes going at one time, one per -- one for the
city, one for Marco, and one for the North Naples side of the beach,
and they would go on a weekly basis and just go down the beach and
go down again, and go down and they were raking all the time, and
the folks are basically saying that it wasn't creating a natural-type
beach environment.
So after a storm, heavy seaweed, whatever, they try to get up
before it starts to smell. Any dead fish, they try to do the same, but
outside of that, they don't go on a regular basis and try to groom the
beach anymore.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we're doing that now, why do
we need language to -- put in the Land Development Code, and if we
want to change any standards, then we need to change the Land
Development Code.
MR. MUDD: He was just trying to -- vehicles on the beach, it
was in your last -- question you had the last time we met, was what
about emergency vehicles as far as like EMS or whatever, make sure
that they're covered so they can get out there and get somebody in
distress, and he's just trying to let it know that it's a permitted -- it's a
permitted use on the beach to have that there so somebody doesn't
come up to you and say, why is somebody from beach clean up --
somebody that I know would claim that why is the truck out there or
whatever in order to clean the beach, and this makes it illegal.
MR. LORENZ: When our department issues our sister
department, utilities department a permit, a vehicle on the beach
permit for mechanical raking, this is the standard that we apply to
Page 99
June 16, 2003
that permitting condition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me make sure I
understand this. This particular ordinance does not set standards for
beach maintenance, but it sets conditions when you will permit a
vehicle on the beach, right?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we wanted to change the
frequency and intensity of the beach raking or maintenance, we could
just do that as a policy without having to change the growth
management plan. Is that a correct statement?
MR. LORENZ: You said growth management plan --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Land Development Code, yes.
MR. LORENZ: I would think that if your policy direction
would deviate from what is the intent of this particular section, it
would be my recommendation that we would then modify or amend
this particular section of the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we specify in here then,
rather than trying to put in here the standards, minimum standards
and frequencies of beach maintenance, on an as-needed basis, can we
just say that vehicles authorized to be on the beach by the Board of
County Commissioners for beach maintenance as necessary will be
acceptable, will be permitted?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, I think, Commissioner
Coyle, where you're going is do an ordinance instead of Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually, what I'm saying is,
I don't think we even need an ordinance to decide how frequently we
clean the beach, because we don't know how frequently we should
clean the beach. We clean it on an as-needed basis. But if we were
to -- what this apparently tries to do is to say these are the conditions
under which vehicles will be permitted to be on the beach, and if we
Page 100
June 16, 2003
were to say in here that vehicles will be permitted to be on the beach
whenever the Board of County Commissioners and/or the county
manager deem it necessary to perform beach maintenance, then we
don't have to keep coming back to it every time we want to make a
change in our policy to clean up the beach. Right? Does that make
sense?
MR. MUDD: Sure. Or clean the beach based on present board
policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, we might want to do it
five times next month because they're really dirty, but then after that,
we won't do it for months at a time. We don't want to have to come
back to this and change it every time we want to do that, right?
MR. WHITE: But my belief, Commissioners, is that provisions
in 314.3.6.7 are establishing just that type of a regulation. It allows
your staff to make those reasonable determinations about when
necessity exists, that is the quoted as needed language, and it's based
upon some criteria that relate to what's best in terms of the type of
sand, both in terms of the users that are human, and the users that are
the sea turtles.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think all it says is just establish a
guideline so that if the county is challenged we have something in
place. That's all it really amounts to, isn't it? MR. WHITE: It will do that as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's how I read this, is just a
guideline so that if we are challenged, that we have everything in
place, and so it's broad enough that I don't think it ties our hands, but
yet it lets people know that we have taken the necessary measures to
address this problem. That's how ! kind of read this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it is an as-needed basis
determined by the public utilities and environmental services --
development services. What about if they--
Page 101
June 16, 2003
MR. WHITE: I strongly suspect they would take direction from
the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why would you want to start
doing that?
MR. MUDD: What we basically do, and also the coastal
advisory committee, if we have an emergency, they'll come forward
and talk about the stipulations. We'll go out, and I'll let them go
clean the beach and we normally give you a heads up that we're
going to do it, or you'll let me know that we've got dead fish
everywhere, because your constituents are calling or they're calling
me both, and we'll try to get those up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a bad sign, dead fish.
MR. MUDD: Well, during red tie, Commissioner, they're out
there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They determine as need basis based
on red tide, debris from a storm, and so on and so forth?
MR. MUDD: They were basically talking about those as the
type of events that would kick in a cleaning of the beach.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Doesn't it say -- okay. Got you.
All right. I'm satisfied.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
All in favor of the motion -- motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 102
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MS. MURRAY: I would start from then page one of your
summary sheet, and read each section, and you would stop me if you
have questions or concerns.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not likely.
MS. MURRAY: Okay. Section 1.8.2, section 1.18, sections
2.2.3 through 2.2.10.3, 2.2.8.4.5 --
MR. WHITE: While she's turning the page to go back to 1.18,
there were some sections I noted today that took out text that I
believe needs to remain in order for the duly underlined text to exist.
In particular pertaining to the, what are called technical codes for the
building code. So the gas, plumbing, mechanical and without
objection, we'll just leave that existing text in to give meaning and
purpose to the newly underlined revisions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Susan, just a minute.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just a tiny, little scrivener's
error, and that is on page five, the sentence that was added down near
the bottom, it says the calculation and density shall, just throw in a be
there, shall be based on.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
On the top of page two, we already did the rural land
stewardship, so the next item would be the 2.2.33, which was the
Bayshore mixed use overlay, gunsmiths was deleted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's on what page?
MS. MURRAY: That is on page six, begins on page six.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does the overlay reflect old Florida
architectural building styles? Is this something that the -- the
advisory board is strongly recommending, and I just didn't know if
that overlay reflected that.
Page 103
June 16, 2003
MS. MURRAY: Well--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When did they discuss that, the
advisory board, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the last two years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It might include it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you ~ust look that up tor me?
MS. MURRAY: I'm looking it up right now, and there are no
architectural provisions in this overlay. Mostly this deals with
permitted uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't see it here, but I,just meant,
you know, it there is supposed to be -- I know that that's ~ust
something they've been very, very adamant about, and as people
have been coming onto Bayshore and the triangle, they stipulate that,
and so I thought -- I hoped it's written someplace. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not in here.
MS. MURRAY: I may not have all ot the regulations in tront ot
me. Marjorie told me there are pictures in the code that represent
kind ota --
MR. WHITE: Yes. The FEMA -- FEMA figure tour in
supplement 13, tollowing section 2233.25 has typical tront elevations
tor residential development, and I will pass that up to you now so
you can look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
there?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
like.
Oh, I have seen that. That's in
I already know what that looks
MR. WHITE: That's in the current regulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. Do you want me to
pass it down?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue, Susan.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. 2.3.16, top of page three, 2.3.19,
Page 104
June 16, 2003
2.4.3.6, 2.5.6, 2.6.4.1.4, 2.6.4.2, top of page four--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hold on. We need to go back to
2.5.6, page 15, signs. And this has to deal with the neon open signs,
or just the open signs in general.
Ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you one of the things that I hear
in -- is why is the commissioners dealing with issues about neon
open signs. This is ludicrous. I'm not saying that's -- I'm just saying
that's what I hear and I hope that we can get one commissioner to
amend the language so that we can allow neon open signs.
MR. WHITE: I don't know if it's helpful, Mr. Chairman, but
there are substantive changes anticipated in the third cycle of
amendments, and I don't know -- I'm not trying to influence any of
your decisionmaking with any of the commissioners, but just to give
you the idea that some of those things that are being considered have
to do with the relative brightness of signs, and I know that that may
be one of the things that some of the commissioners are concerned
about in terms of that garish or glaring effect of neon when it's
uncovered.
So it--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that your opinion?
MR. WHITE: Yes, I respect that opinion, and so the notion is
that we would draft a regulation that would measure that intensity of
light, and be able to regulate it from that objective. That is what
we're looking at, along with a bunch of other regulations, regulatory
changes for division 2.5 in the sign code in the third cycle that will
be before you probably November and December.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going to have a meter to
measure candle light power?
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, lumens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lumens, that's great. That's what I
like about government.
Commissioner Coyle, are you willing to change your opinion on
Page 105
June 16, 2003
open neon signs for the good of the community? My opinion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there going to be any control
whatsoever on the brightness levels? Do we have blinking neon
signs? Will we have Christmas tree type neon signs that are
twinkling and--
MR. WHITE: The one way that your code presently attempts to
deal with that is by requiring the neon tubes to be covered, and I
don't know if that's helpful to any of the commissioners, but at least
if that's one potential light source, that's one way to try -- not so
much objectively control the amount of light, but at least subjectively
diminish its effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my problem. If you look at
the history of neon signs, people tend to try to find creative ways to
make their sign more visible than someone else's, and you can do that
with neon signs, and that's why I was thinking that if we just went
with an open or closed sign, you know, that's what people are
concerned about, is being able to indicate whether or not their
businesses are open.
We've done that. And I guess I'd like to see us get on with it,
but people keep agitating for neon sign, it's got to be a neon sign, it
just can't be an open sign, and I guess I don't understand that, but I do
believe that to the casual observer, it is a silly thing to get involved
with, but I'll cite a strip mall on Goodlette Road. There are probably
four or five offices there, and every single one of them has added
neon signs, and then they added multiple neon signs, and they have
them in different colors, and you've got everything from an
accountant to a pawn shop to a bar, a beer sign. It just gets out of
hand.
Now, if we can have some assurance that it won't get out of
hand, I'm okay with it, but I've seen some very bad examples of this,
and what I don't understand is, if I'm a business owner, and I want to
have a sign that says I'm open, why doesn't the business owner just
Page 106
June 16, 2003
put a sign that says open in the window? And quit belaboring the
point of whether-- of a neon sign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White, I think we are dealing
with open or closed signs, and the issue is to allow a neon open sign,
and I think what you're saying is the candle power of some of those
open and closed neon signs, there's different variations?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they can be blinking, they
can't be moving. They can, you know, they just--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we don't allow those. We
won't cut that out.
MR. WHITE: But the thing that's important to remember is that
where this provision will be inserted in the code is the part that deals
with signs that are exempt from permitting. So it will really be a
difficult enforcement matter if you have any type of sign out there
that's potentially objectionable. You aren't going to have a permit
that you can pull back. These are signs that will be exempt from
permitting, and if they comply with these specific performance
criteria, the size, et cetera, then you can have one of them and you
can have it illuminated, during the operational status that you pick.
I'm assuming most folks will pick open as opposed to closed, but
that's when it's supposed to be illuminated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And if it is blinking,
what happens?
MR. WHITE: There is a prohibition against flashing, fading,
increasing in brightness or changing color.
MR. MUDD: You're looking, Commissioner, you're looking at
a sign based on a two by -- 2.25 square feet. You're looking at a sign
just about a little bit bigger than this screen that you're looking at
right there that you're talking about being in the window.
MR. SCHMITT: One and a half by two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One per establishment?
MR. WHITE: The area, the 2.25 square feet--
Page 107
June 16,2003
MR. SCHMITT: One by two.
MR. WHITE: -- was specifically, as I understand it, and you
can verify this with the staff, to fit those which are readily available
on the open market.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will tell you I'm not going to
make a big issue of it. I would support it and let it go. I think -- I
think it's a little silly that we continue to debate things when we've
got a solution for an open sign already. Why is it people just have to
insist on, I want a neon open sign. I don't want a regular open sign. I
want one that's neon. That, you know-- that's one of the problems I
have with this whole thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I appreciate that, and I agree
with it, but it has been a community thing and it's egg in the face of
the local government, but I can tell you, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Ms. Bowers (phonetic)?
MS. CORELLI: No. Mrs. Corelli (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Miss Corelli, is they have not been
enforcing the open neon signs, and guess what, and when they do,
who are they going to be calling? Well, they're going to be calling
their county commissioner.
So, you know, is it a really big community standard that, you
know, that we can deviate to allow neon open signs, and that's what I
hear you say you're willing to do that. Am I wrong?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over my better judgment, I'm just
tired of dealing with this issue. I think it's just silly on both sides.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. It is stupid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we had a solution, you can
put up an open sign. Why people want to keep agitating, I want it to
be a neon open sign, it can't be a regular open sign, it's got to be a
neon open sign makes no sense to me, but I'm ready to get rid of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we need a separate motion
for that?
Page 108
June 16, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: If, in fact, you want to change it and indicate
that it would be a gas-filled glass tubing or exposed gas, you would
have to strike out that -- on the page 16, 2.5.6.22, and then section
one would be the part where you're eliminating, and all other would
remain the same, which is -- which would then be typical of what
you see today, that is approximately two and one-quarter square foot
in dimension. It's about a one by two open sign, which you can buy
at any of the hard -- department type stores, Costco's or Home Depot
or whatever, and that is the least expensive version of the open sign.
So what you're saying is you are looking at now striking that
verbiage out or that wording out of a gas-filled tubing.
MS. CROWLEY: Michaelle Crowley, code enforcement. You
would also be looking at adding, under section four of that, to allow
gas-filled glass tubing as a light source, because the way it's read
now, that would prohibit what's commonly known as neon.
MR. WHITE: In my opinion --
MR. SCHMITT: Michaelle, what we have described here is --
MR. WHITE: I think we should just strike anything referencing
the illumination source. Other than that, it should not flash, fade or
increase in brightness or change color, and I think we did that pretty
clearly.
MR. SCHMITT: We just keep it the size that is standard, what
you can buy right now, if that's the way you want to go, which --
MR. WHITE: Keep it simple.
MR. SCHMITT: -- is to use the common terminology, neon,
but it's actually a gas-filled glass tubing, but what you're saying is to
write the code --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need a separate motion in all
of this?
MR. WHITE: I'd prefer holding this one back until we've gone
through the rest of them that you've already enumerated that have no
concerns, and then we'll just vote on this at the end, along with any
Page 109
June 16, 2003
other ones that may have changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fine. Commissioner Fiala has two
real fast questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'm sorry. They're back--
page ten was one of them, and it's 2.2.33.25.1 point, and at the very
end of that paragragh, it ends with operating, and I just didn't know,
operating what? We're talking about home occupations that are
permitted, and then it says, operating, and I figured you didn't need
an operating room in somebody's home. I just didn't know what it
was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the businesses operating.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On Bayshore. And so if you could
just fix--just one of those little things, and then page 12, it's 2.3.16,
and I wanted to know -- you're talking now about stacking lanes for
drive-in restaurants, and I wanted to know is that just for new
development, new restaurants, or are you going to require restaurants
that are already in operation to have new stacking lanes?
MS. MURRAY: We wouldn't require existing functioning
restaurants to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to clarify that. Thank
you.
MR. SCHMITT: However, if a restaurant closed and was
closed for a specified period of time and reopened under-- they may
be subject to the news rules, depending on the length of time --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't
a hardship on a business that's already established in the other format.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: You have a 90 day rule on that. If it goes out of
business and it changes over--
MR. SCHMITT: I think it's six months, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. MUDD: Is it 90 or--
MS. MURRAY: It's six months --
Page 110
June 16, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: Six months.
MS. MURRAY: -- for that type of regulation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
'MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're on page three.
MS. MURRAY: I believe I finished page three and I was at the
top of page four.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: 2.6.15, 2.6.33.3, 2.7.2.16, 2.7.3.4.1, top of
page five, 2.7.3.9, 2.7.4.11, 27515, 3282, top of page six, 3.3.3,
33712, 339, top of page seven, and actually to the bottom of page
seven at this point, 5.4, top of page eight, section 6.3, definitions for
automobile service station, section 6.3, definitions for density,
section 6.3, definitions for neighborhood parks, and that's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
We need to go back to --
MS. MURRAY: 2.5.6 on page 15.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I make a motion that we
approve and allowing gas-filled open signs or closed signs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
Page 111
June 16, 2003
MR. WHITE: Just to summarize, the regulation would be
amended to delete the requirement for illuminated gas-filled tubing
being a prohibition. You would not specify what the illumination
source ought be, and it would just have the three requirements for
size, having a cabinet and a front panel.
MR. SCHMITT: Should it have a front panel. That's the ones
that -- that's what I thought you said you were going to eliminate
that.
MR. WHITE: No. It was going to eliminate number one and
renumber two, three and four as one, two and three.
MR. MUDD: Let me read it one time and let's see if I got it for
you, because while you were doing it, Commissioners, I started to
write real fast to try to get what I think you told them.
Okay. I don't think you're asking for a neon sign to be enclosed
in a cabinet with the front panel over the top. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: So with that said, I'll read.
2.5.6.22, one sign indicating on the business' or establishment's
operational status at the time may be installed illuminated inside that
business or establishment, provided said sign, one, can be illuminated
using exposed gas-filled, gas tubing, two, does not exceed 2.25
square feet in total size, or number three, has a cabinet enclosed on
all sides and four, includes a front panel that is clear or translucent.
The only allowable illumination sources for said sign, and it's an
enclosed sign, for said enclosed sign is incandescent, fluorescent,
halogen lamps, light emitting diode or fiber optic light, but in any
case, the illuminated source must not flash, fade, increase in
brightness or change color. Nothing in this provision is to be
construed to allow a sign that would otherwise be prohibited by this
code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that clarification in your motion
and the second?
Page 112
June 16, 2003
Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1.
Do we have any other business tonight?
I have something that I want to bring up, actually, a few things,
some clean-up language.
In here, we have under each title, a fiscal impact statement,
which I feel is kind of fuzzy the way it's written. There's really not a
true fiscal impact statement by the taxpayers, but I would like to see
the board of commissioners include in these future amendments a
consumer fiscal impact statement so that we know what it's going to
cost the customers out there, the voters and the residents in Collier
County. Is anybody else interested in that kind of statement?
Commissioner Coletta, do you want to know what the consumer
impacts are going to be to their wallet?
MR. COLETTA: I'd like to if it's something that can be defined
in an easy way. In some cases, like littoral zone, I don't know how
they would figure that, or who would.
I'd be interested in discussing it. I think it's got merits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, are you
interested in including that in future changes to the Land
Development Code?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. In fact, I was going to bring
that up at our meeting on Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You read my mind.
Page 113
June 16, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's worthwhile discussing,
bringing it up and discussing it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need three or do you need
four?
MR. WHITE: Just direction from the board is fine.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, are you talking about a taxpayer
cost or a developer cost?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The developer puts up pass-through
costs, and actually goes on to the consumer. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you know, whoever thinks
differently than that is ludicrous, because take a cost of living here in
Collier County versus other counties, touching Collier County, it is a
pass-through cost and they are passing that through.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I was thinking more of building height
and if you say a building can only be so high, then you are going to
get an opposite argument from somebody that say, you just cost me
three billion dollars, or it could be three billion dollars if you decide
you don't want it to be up 20 floors, and you're going to get that cost
that's going to come back, and then you're going to re-establish that
argument for that person at the podium trying to stop you from
controlling that building height. That's all I was trying to get at, and
that was just the example that came to my head.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And removing a floor from a condo,
there is a pass-through cost, because of what that land cost is, but you
know, certain things, and I agree with Commissioner Halas on
certain things, it's a community standard, but there's some other
things that we really, I think, need to know what it's going to cost the
consumer.
Page 114
June 16, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just so you understand, first of
all, I guess from a standpoint, we don't have an economist on the
staff that could make those kind of professional assessments, so what
you're going to be getting is from the engineering staff or the
planning staff, at least some assessment. We are working -- on the
bigger picture, we are working with Dr. Fishkind, Hank Fishkind to
develop an economic evaluation model for Collier County to
evaluate growth and the fiscal impacts of growth, meaning if you
approve a development here, what are they, corresponding in second
and third order effects, fiscally on the budget, on tax rolls. We're
working on a model to do that, and we'll probably be coming later
this year to describe just exactly how we're going to be doing that,
and we'll be doing that in some of our future land use petitions to talk
about the economic impacts, both on the taxpayers as well as on the
county when we're talking about expanding of sewer services and
water and those type of boundaries and other things.
So there's that type of economic assessment and analysis. Let's
take the sign code, for instance. We just put in there what it would
cost for a sign or replacement sign, the $99 sign that is currently
used, or a dollar -- $120 sign versus what it may cost for one if we
would have went with this enclosed version.
Is that what you're looking for, some kind of at least a
descriptive analysis that will lead to some conclusion as far as cost?
If we get into sidewalks, so many dollars per foot of sidewalk, so
much because of the additional depth of a lot that may be required
because of the construction of sidewalks. That's really what you're
looking for, a more in-depth analysis from a standpoint of what are
the impacts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think--
MR. SCHMITT: I don't think we'll be touching on all of them,
but at least we'll try and give you some idea of what the costs are.
MR. MUDD: We'll get you in the ball park.
Page 115
June 16, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: For instance, if you increase the sidewalk, one of
the arguments that came at the podium today was, a speaker says,
well, if you do that, you're limiting the size of our commercial
property or you're limiting the size -- Joe would be hard-pressed and
his staff would be hard-pressed to figure out what that opportunity
cost --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- was to that particular developer because he
couldn't do all the --
MR. SCHMITT: Plus I don't have the staff to dispute some of
their economic claims, so there's going to be some economic claims
that they're going to make that we will not be able to argue, and I
really don't have a staff economist to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think if big government is going to
demand regulations, we ought to know what it's going to cost the
consumers out there, period.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll take a stab at it and see if we can at least
come up with some points to analyze from a standpoint of the
economic impact, and I think that's what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think Joe Schmitt just hit it
on the head, too. You're going to get two factions. You're going to
get what we feel it's going to cost, and then you're going to get the
opposite side of the fence, and they're going to tell you it's going to
cost you twice as much. We run across that right now when we look
at buying right of way. We have one value of the land, and we have
two people that go out and make an appraisal of what it's going to
cost for that land, and yet you get the third person that owns that land
and he's going to get an appraiser, and he's going to tell you it's worth
four times as much. So you're going to -- the same thing when we
deal with something of this nature. So we just have to have an open
mind to realize that both sides -- one side's going to tell one side of
Page 116
June 16, 2003
the stow, and you're going to get the other side's story, and it may be
an inflated value. So just be prepared.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you know we always get two
sides of the stow, and we get to decide which -- whatever the happy
medium is or who's telling the stow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's just going to muddy the waters
even more. It's going to make it more difficult for us to come up
with a decision, I think.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's not half bad, sometimes,
Commissioner. The government doesn't make decisions.
The other thing, the other week in a workshop, it was stated that
the government or county was putting impediments to slow or stop
growth by raising impact fees and making it difficult to get permits.
My understanding is we raised the impact fees because the -- to put
the capital improvements in, it does cost more, and it wasn't to try to
slow down growth or stop growth. It was just trying to make growth
responsible for paying for itself, and also, you know, going through
the permitting, talking to Mr. Schmitt, he just has his staff applying
the Land Development Code through the site development plans, the
PSP's and so on and so forth.
So, you know, my perspective, and I think it's the board's
perspective, that we're not trying to put impediments in there. We're
just trying to be responsible to the citizens of Collier County.
Anybody disagree with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, in fact, the only thing I
could say to reinforce it is that we're trying to make sure that growth
is paying for growth, and that also that we want to make sure that the
infrastructure is in place to further-- so that we don't lose our quality
of life here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. There is another statement
that the board of commissioners were stripping land owners of their
property rights in the rural fringe, and my understanding of what we
Page 117
June 16, 2003
were doing is complying to the governor's order and our own growth
management plan to protect natural resources.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody else disagree with
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What it was, the statement is
not complete. Yes, we are complying with the governor's order, and
when I made that statement, and I'm the one that made it, and I'll
stand by it, I was concerned about how we were going to be
reimbursing the people for their transfer development rights, how
that mechanism is going to be in place, and it was taken out of
context a little bit. If we do not do the right thing, then what we have
done is we have taken their rights unjustly away from them if we
don't see that they're reimbursed.
If that completes the whole statement, we're correct then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. I mean, if that's your
statement, but I'm concerned about, since we are in litigation
continually on the rural fringe, I wanted to get it on record that we
were not stripping any rights from land owners within the rural
fringe.
Commissioner Halas, do you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with that. I think that also
in the workshop we did discuss what we felt was equal compensation
for those people for selling their rights, and I think we came up with
something that was viable and making sure that we addressed that
very issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right. If I may go a
little further. At the time that came up, we were talking about going
with a free market system, we're establishing a bank, and at that point
in time, I said that if we leave it up to the free market system, these
Page 118
June 16, 2003
people are left to their total resources. On one hand, government
strips them of their rights, then the other hand they don't put the
mechanism together for them to be reimbursed, and that led you
down the road to where we are now, Commissioner Henning. I'm
sorry I put you through that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I just want to
clarify that. I'm trying to protect the taxpayers of Collier County.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
We are adjourned.
Page 119
June 16, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:07 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
T
OM HENNING, Chairlhan
ATTEST:
DWIGHT'~'!'~'RO .CK, CLERK
~ stgnatupe
These minutes ~)proved by the Board on
as presented v' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DEBRA DELAP
Page 120