Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/11/2004 S (LDC Amendments)February 11, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 11, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney; Susan Murray, Director, Dept. of Zoning and Land Development Review; Jim Schmitt, Director, Community Development and Environmental Services; Russell Webb Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Board of County Commissioners/Land Development Code AGENDA February 11, 2004 5:05 p.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 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 WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL 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 1 February 11, 2004 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. 1. 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 February 11, 2004 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will everybody take their seats. Not you. We'd like to say the pledge of allegiance first. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Not you. ORDINANCE 2004-08: 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- ADOPTFD W/CHANGFJS CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Before we begin, I just wanted to say that Tom Henning had written to us, oh, at least a couple weeks ago to advise that he was going to be running just a little bit late. He had a commitment that -- a speech that he had to give. He's on his way back now, but I just wanted you to know, it wasn't through an error or anything, this was something he had to do. And the next thing I wanted to ask, before we got into this, and I find I'm not the only one, I guess, who thinks this way. I was wondering if from here on in when we schedule an LDC meeting, if we could schedule it the week after a Commission meeting. We got our packets on Monday, but I couldn't read on Monday because I was still preparing for the Commission meeting. And then, of course, our Commission meeting is all day Tuesday. And no matter when it is, at 6:00, 7:00 or 9:00, you go home and absolutely and emotionally exhausted. Now, I did stay up till 12:30 last night and worked on it, but, then you're pretty tired. I was just wondering if we could possibly schedule it for a week opposite -- unless the other Commissioners think that that's not a good idea. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the only concern I may have is I know the schedule is made out for almost -- how many months ahead, Mr. Schmitt? Page 2 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, this is our fourth meeting, and to be frank with you, we've tried to stuff 10 pounds of you know what in a five-pound sack. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know. I know what you're talking about. MR. SCHMITT: But we won't say that. In actuality, your calendars are full. We had to schedule -- if you recall, this is our fourth LDC hearing, the second hearing in regards to this topic. And the criticality here is the -- to go through this so that we can meet the submissions associated with the stewardship sending and stewardship receiving areas in regards to the Ave Maria application. So some of this was through back planning from critical dates. And we understand. Frankly, when you think globally or the overall -- in regards to LDC, we've had a tremendous amount of LDC amendments in the last year-and-a-half. And this next cycle is -- we're only going to be dealing with one issue and that is the reorganization of the LDC. So you will not see many LDC amendments probably for a year, just because we're trying to slow the process down just a bit. But Madam Chair, noted, and we will certainly do that in regards -- I think that's probably -- in fact, in most instances, even with a workshop, we try and prevent doing it after a Board meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, yeah. Give us a day or two to prepare for the next onslaught. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I feel the same way also, because it just didn't give us enough time -- didn't give me enough time anyway to prepare for tonight's meeting. And we're making decisions here that are going to carry far into the future. And I feel it's very, very important that we give as much time as possible before we make these kind of decisions. So I know this is the second reading on a lot of this, but it's just Page 3 February 11, 2004 the idea that is was a whole new packet, and so you have to go through it page-by-page to see if there is any changes. So it just -- it really kind of like pushed the -- you really had to push the effort on this one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In other words, we all want to be prepared. MR. SCHMITT: I understand that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I've beaten this horse to death. We shall move on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, then ifI could, just to announce, this is our second hearing and final hearing for the LDC amendments, Land Development Code amendments, associated with the Eastern lands and rural fringe amendments and the associated Growth Management Plan. Of course, these are the land development regulations that implement that portion of the Growth Management Plan. We are going to proceed into that at the request of many of the public that are here tonight. We will go to the listed species issue first, but prior to that, at a previous meeting, at a Board meeting, I brought back to you the issue on the coastal construction line setback issue. That's 3.13 of the Land Development Code. And if you would so allow, we would like to proceed to that first. This was an issue in regards to bringing back Section 3.13 dealing with the coastal construction setback line. That was part of the earlier packet of LDC amendments that had to do with the various aspects of other pieces of our Land Development Code. One of the issues that we did, and for all intent and purposes, we -- when we withdrew that packet, based on your direction, that LDC amendment, what we did is we forced the county into a situation where we would have to seek a variance in regards to placing sand on the beach. And I explained that. And I also explained that what I'd Page 4 February 11, 2004 like to do is bring back and introduce to you some of the good parts of that amendment that were, frankly, thrown out when we decided to throw out the issue in regards to variances. So with your permission, I would start with that item first. MR. WHITE: Madam Chair, if I could just interject-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I need to make sure Patrick reads into the record the legal issues. Thank you, Patrick. MR. WHITE: Thank you very much. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. And I'd just like to put on the record, Madam Chair, that I've reviewed the affidavit of publication from the Naples Daily News and find that it's legally sufficient for us to go forward today with both the first public hearing for the CCSL provisions in Division 3.13, as well as the remainder of all of the other issues that you considered at your last meeting on the 29th. And as well as the second hearing of the matters that Mr. Schmitt briefed you on with respect to the Eastern and rural lands. Thank you. And at this time, I'm turning the affidavit over to our record keeper. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, in regards to Section 3.13 of the coastal construction setback line, as you recall, and I'll refresh your memory, at the meeting January 7th, 2004, this Board directed that that amendment be withdrawn. I came back at a subsequent Board meeting and explained the situation in regards to I felt some of the good aspects of that amendment that were thrown out when we in fact withdrew that proposed amendment from the LDC packet. In regards to that, we sent last week -- late last week I forwarded to you a revised addition of the amendment, 3.13. I'll tell you what, I must have hit a nerve in the community, because there was a tremendous amount of feedback in regards to that. Specifically, in the significant steps that we were taking to, as I refer to it, clean up and do some housekeeping in regards to that amendment. Now, to refresh your memory, and just so you understand where we've been with this, a year ago at a workshop, you directed staff to Page 5 February 11, 2004 eliminate all variances forward of the CCSL, coastal construction setback line. That was our amendment that we brought to you. Based on the impact that that had and the feedback from the hotel industry and the residents of the community, you directed that that be withdrawn. Now in conjunction with that also, there was guidance that you gave to staff in regards to seawalls and the elimination of seawalls. I have since forwarded to you two packets, one highlighted in yellow was the original or shall I say the amended LDC, and it's listed as a draft on the top of your page, and there's some strike-throughs in yellow. All that language has since been removed and what's forward -- what's to you, forwarded to you today is specifically associated with, for all intent and purposes, eliminating some of the need for permitted -- or for coming to you for a request for a variance. Some of the activities that are done forward of the CCSL can be very easily handled by staff as a permitted activity. And if I could walk you through, this is the copy that's in front of you that is not labeled draft. And the changes are highlighted under the change. And it very succinctly points out what we're dealing with here is permitted structures and beach renourishment type of activities. Understand that under a beach renourishment project, those kind of projects are permitted by the state, permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and they go through a long and rather arduous public hearing process. You also approved the funding for those projects through a Board action. It seemed kind of repetitive to have to come back to this Board to ask for a variance on a project that you already approved funding for, that the Corps has already approved, and that the state has already approved. So what we're proposing is that be a permitted process. Basically the applicant, meaning the county, would come in and verify that they received the appropriate or correct permits from both the state and the Page 6 February 11, 2004 federal agencies, that they have the respective environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. We would review those documents and issue the permit accordingly. We took the liberty also in this change to include other permitted activities. And specifically allowing by permit, on Page 5, previous structures or other, other type of structures that exist. And we also were looking at beach access structures, structures that would facilitate beach access and structures that would meet requirements in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, ADA, criteria. We felt that those all could be permitted activities, that they would not have to come before this Board in a request for variance. Dune restoration as well, and associated activities. Now, of course there still are variances that could come before this Board, and for many activities, they still -- the applicants, if involved, could still come before this Board and request variance for various structures forward of the CCSL. Also, on Page 7, we are even allowing chickee huts and storage boxes and other type of activities that are certainly common in the hotel industry that we feel could be permitted activities that in fact would not have to come before this Board to seek a variance. That basically is what is before you today. I know we may have some public comment on this. I would like to make one correction, but I'm going to stop and make sure that we as staff can answer your questions, because there is one portion I may ask we make some further changes before we bring this back to you. So Madam Chair, your questions, please. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Schmitt, I spent quite a bit of time going through the original -- I guess it's a draft. And this is the final that we just received. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 7 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I got to ask questions based upon what I had a chance to read. And if you've made changes in there, maybe you could update me on it, if you would be so kind. MR. SCHMITT: Your draft -- we handed out two copies and I e-mailed these to you yesterday. And I realize you probably didn't read them. I handed out two copies tonight: One is a version, there is no draft on top, the other is draft. If you open up the draft version, and -- Russell, are they in yellow or not? CHAIRMAN FIALA: We didn't get a second copy tonight. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, would you hand out the draft with the line throughs? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I must tell you, Mr. Schmitt is, I'm sure I can work with it, but it's difficult to spend so much time, you know, away from my day going through on a document that we're not referring to now. But the only thing I can refer to this. I can't possibly refer to the one you just handed me, because I don't have time to read it. So if I may, then you can update me as we go along and tell me how these things are still applicable or not applicable. And I got no other way to do this but to refer -- another piece of paper, okay-- MR. SCHMITT: To your-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to my particular document that I had, that I originally received, dated February 9th, from Russell Webber (phonetic), Land Development Code amendments for 2003, Cycle Three, Page -- Page 6. My first question, and I'm sorry that I can't do this better, but I have to work from the form I have in front of me and have outlined from. Page 6, which is 3.13.4.3.1, Item No. 6, where we refer to restrooms, is shall not be placed leeward -- landward of the -- or leeward of-- landward of the CCSL line. And it goes on to refer to they can be done, but walking distance it references there. What is Page 8 February 11, 2004 walking distance? In other words, it will be determined how far apart they are according to some non-described walking distance. Is a walking distance a mile, a quarter of a mile, 500 feet? Is there anything in there to identify that? Does it still exist in the present draft? MR. SCHMITT: Okay, I'm-- you're at 3.13.67 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is -- the numbers may have changed again. CHAIRMAN FIALA: .4. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: .3.1. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is on the old draft. This is where it's going to get confusing, I think. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page 3 of 12, or Page 6, written in on the side. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this would be -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: 3.13.4.3.1. MR. SCHMITT: I don't even have -- I don't have a clue what they're looking at. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's see, it's down at the bottom under B, structures provided for public access, including restroom facilities. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, got it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The restroom will be placed landward of the CCSL, unless it is not possible to construct them with an acceptable walking distance. What is walking distance? Is this still part of the new draft? Or the new -- MR. SCHMITT: There are -- to answer your question, there's no criteria. What we were basically allowing is for places -- this was to accommodate Parks and Rec, for all intent and purposes -- if in fact we had to, if we had access, let's say Pelican Marsh Beach and -- or Pelican Bay, I'm sorry. If we are at Pelican Bay and we had a dune Page 9 February 11, 2004 walk a quarter of a mile to the, beach and under the current rules, you could not provide any type of facilities up forward of the CCSL. What we were trying to do here was to accommodate, if in fact, to facilitate both beach access and to ensure that there were appropriate facilities that could be built to support beach access. So that -- that basically, what is an acceptable walking distance, it would basically mean that we would make a determination that it would not be feasible for the public to have to go walk back a quarter of a mile or whatever in regards to -- to use restroom facilities. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. White, can you add anything to this? Are we covered? Does this allow us later to be able to determine what walking distance is? MR. WHITE: First, to answer your question, yes, these are part of the continuing, now being proposed amendments. I think that's obvious. But looking at the text, a reasonable interpretation of it is, I guess you'd say, acceptable to the property owner or who was going to propose this type of a request. And I think that staff would know how to apply that in a particular circumstance. So I think we'd be able to defend any challenge to it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's basically what I needed. MR. WHITE: So it's not precise, but I think it's not so ambiguous as that it doesn't have a reasonable interpretation and application that staff would be able to consistently make. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I do have two more, if I may continue? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, help yourself. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Page 7 on the older draft, at the very top it refers to shoreline hardening structures, only if structures are required for public safety or in the case of land related hardships. Page 10 February 11, 2004 Shouldn't public safety, we include the word for public safety or health? MR. WHITE: What I'd suggest, Commissioner, is if you could give us a citation-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm concerned about the restroom -- MR. WHITE: Rather than talk about the text -- first we need to know what section you're working with, so if you could just give us the three -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me, I'm in section -- MR. WHITE: That's okay. Three thirteen-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 3.13.4.3.1. Unless that's changed. I don't think-- the numbers wouldn't change, would they? MR. WHITE: No, the numbers shouldn't changed-- shouldn't have changed. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Same section, but D. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, D would be the -- MR. WHITE: D has been deleted. MR. SCHMITT: We're proposing that that line be deleted. And the version, that will be coming before you and actually will go to the Planning Commission and then come back to you for a second look. So the one you'll see it as second look. We're proposing that anything that have to do with seawalls be stricken from this version. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this -- well, shoreline hardened structures, that would just be seawalls, it wouldn't be like a bathroom facility? MR. SCHMITT: No, it would not be. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, forget it. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It would be basically seawall or rip rap of other type of, engineering type of shore hardening structures or activities, yes. Page 11 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then one more question, if I may. In 3.13.5, exemptions. MR. SCHMITT: Exemptions, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It says: Unless the structures are removed daily from the beach prior to 9:30. And it goes on to mention it. Structures, aren't structures something that are permanent. In other words, this could be a bathroom facility, correct? MR. SCHMITT: No, what we're talking about there are -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're talking about furniture. MR. SCHMITT: Furniture, the-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But why the word structure? That's confusing to me. MR. SCHMITT: That's a good point. I don't know. Let me -- Barbara, is there a reason why we use structure in that one? I think there are some structures that we're referring to, but -- go ahead. Do you know? MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. That language is not different, even though you see that underlined. It's because it was structures somewhere else in the code. And the language -- the use of the word structure was meant to mean, and actually was defined, in -- let's see if I -- MR. WHITE: Typically a structure is anything that is constructed. And it does not necessarily mean a building. MS. BURGESON: And any major structure such as the example you've given, a restroom or building of that nature, would not be permitted on the beach, so that would not be an issue here. So structures are those things -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, now this is what I'm getting at: You're saying that restrooms won't be permitted -- MS. BURGESON: On the beach. Page 12 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- on the beach. MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the idea behind this is they're not going to be permitted on the beach, but we're going to have restrooms within -- my concern is that we're going to have beach access in certain places and have problems with the quality of the water due to the lack of bathrooms and the very nature of people when they get out in these wild locations. MR. SCHMITT: This ordinance will allow restrooms to be built within an approximate distance -- or within a distance at least to allow for the public to use those facilities without having to do -- use other areas for those type of activities. So basically we're talking probably beyond the dune area, but it certainly cannot be on the beach. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, on the beach, I can understand that. But the definition of the beach would be that past the control line, I would assume. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, we're talking about this -- I'm sorry, I'm just interrupting you -- about this same item that you have, and this is what it reads. Then they handed out another one. By the way, it's a different number. Says the same thing, except parts of it aren't there any longer. Doesn't say that they're deleted, they're just not there -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to send it to the Planning Commission, let them take care of it first. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- then we had a third one on here where it's all deleted. I mean, all three things that we have are all different. How are we supposed to make a decision? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't -- why do I spend so much time going over this, you know, hours and hours, to find out that the material we're working from is no longer the material I have in front of me? Page 13 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I make a suggestion? We just send this back to the -- send this to the Planning Commission, let them go through it first and then we come back and look at this? MR. WHITE: Well, certainly, I'd encourage, if there are any other comments that you have that you want to share with the staff, that they have the benefit of those. And indeed, Planning Commission will be hearing this on the 19th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're get -- we're getting it first. MR. WHITE: Understood. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as this scenario is unwinding here, we've got three or four different documents to work from -- MR. WHITE: Understood. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and that's unfair. MR. WHITE: I don't disagree, Commissioner. MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioners, as I pointed out-- and again, I apologize, but I don't -- this was -- what we discussed, I would bring it to you first before the Planning Conunission -- MR. WHITE: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- and the addition -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We didn't expect to have three or four documents. MR. SCHMITT: -- the addition you got tonight was based on guidance -- based on guidance the staff received on the initial version we sent out last week, and there were major edits that were made based on guidance that was received by the Manager and passed down through the staff. So we certainly can do that. I think that may be the best thing we do is just send this -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think so, too. MR. SCHMITT: -- to the Planning Commission. We'll vet it through the Planning Commission and I'll have to bring it back either at a special hearing or I'll have to bring it back as part of-- we can Page 14 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: voting on this tonight. staff -- bring it back as part of the agenda item at a Board meeting. MR. WHITE: Well, in fact that's exactly what's anticipated. This is the first of two hearings and you will -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. MR. WHITE: -- be hearing it the second time -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the whole thing is is the amount of-- we're extremely uncomfortable. Planning Commission, fine, but I mean, I've got to have the materials well in advance to be able to act on them. And understand, Commissioner, you're not If you -- it may be in our best interest -- I mean COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, this is the first reading. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we could -- if you want to hear any guidance, if there's any other Commissioners that have any guidance on this, any aspect of it, because it has been through so many rewrites. And also if there are any public opinions, that we can at least from staff perspective understand the guidance of this Board so we can bring it back to the Planning Commission based -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a suggestion -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and you can take it for what it's worth. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got no problem moving this forward, but sending it to the Planning Commission. In other words, recognizing this is the first hearing with directions given, sending it to Planning Commission, for them to see it before we go back to our second hearing. And then we keep the whole process going forward again. Because I know -- we've got a problem on time here, I know that. Page 15 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, we don't. This is -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- how could we pass this when we don't even know what it is? MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, and again, you're not passing this tonight. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but you still -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I mean, how can we pass it to the Planning Commission with our -- as the first reading when we don't even know what it is? We don't know what our first reading really is. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, normally the Planning Commission sees this first. But it was a matter of timing, we brought it to you first because of this scheduled meeting. We can still use this time, at least from a standpoint in generalities, whether or not you concur with the -- at least in concept, with the proposes -- the proposed changes. The specifics we can go back and make sure that you get a cleaned up version, if you have any specific guidance. But what we're dealing with here is conceptually we are bringing this back, as I had said during the Board meeting in January, that I wanted to bring this back, primarily to eliminate a need for variances under certain activities, and allow those activities to be a permitted process. So-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I of course-- I of course have the same concern, and I agree with the action recommended by the other Commissioners so far. But I have been able to very quickly cross-reference the updated documents you handed out to us today with the document I reviewed last night and today. And I found that in most cases you've dealt with my concerns, with the exception of one item. And I'd just like a clarification. And that has to do with Page 16 February 11, 2004 paragraph 3.13.5.3 COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: MR. SCHMITT: 5 of 11. COMMISSIONER COYLE: MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: have near the middle of the page. bulkheads and seawalls. , sub-paragraph 7. We're talking about permitting -- What page is that on? It's -- it'll be on page -- -- 5 of 11 of your hand-out today. And it would be sub-paragraph 7, I It permits minor maintenance of I have a concern with what happens if there is damage to a seawall that requires something other than minor maintenance. We permit entire structures to be rebuilt, as long as they are in the same footprint. But we're apparently saying that bulkheads and seawalls cannot be shored up or strengthened or repaired if damage is done to them. So perhaps if you could point out to me how we accommodate that, I would -- it would ease my concern. MR. SCHMITT: Well, based on previous guidance, you wanted us to try and eliminate all seawalls, and that -- we have now since taken that out of the code. But what you're asking now is how we can allow for at least minor repair. And I would agree, that if there's seawalls exists, we have to at least allow for at least repair of the existing seawall, otherwise we're going to undermine the entire structure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. Now, let me correct you, Joe. I have never voted or provided guidance to staff to try to eliminate all seawalls. I believe that some seawalls provide a very, very useful function. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And in fact, if the seawalls were not there, the beach wouldn't be there either. So I've never provided that guidance. But perhaps the majority of this Commission did. But Page 17 February 11, 2004 I know that I haven't. MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- let me have Barbara talk about -- specifically about the maintenance of the seawalls. Go ahead. MS. BURGESON: Well, on that language that you're concerned about, 3.13.5.3.7 for the minor maintenance, that falls under the exemptions section of this ordinance. And what that says is if you have minor maintenance, then you're exempt from this process. If you have major maintenance, anything more than what's defined here, then you can come in and request a variance for that. So we're not saying you can't issue a variance, we're saying under these circumstances you don't need anything from us, that's an exemption. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this is not replacing another ordinance that provides for the permitting of those things? You're telling me there's other language somewhere that talks about permitting for regular maintenance and repair? MS. BURGESON: This is saying that you can ask the Board of County Commissioners for a variance for anything that you would normally have asked for, prior to this amendment, using the criteria that we've used from -- directly from the GMP's and from the state statute's language. But what we've clearly done here is also pulled from the state statutes and our GMP's those things that we feel need to be clarified as exempt from the process or things that used to be variances that we feel should either be exempt or be allowed to go through a simple permit process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, now, is it not true that in this same change there is an exemption for structures that are damaged, as long as they are rebuilt within the same footprint? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why shouldn't a seawall be considered under those same -- as part of that same circumstance? MS. BURGESON: Well, that's out of state statute? MR. SCHMITT: I understand what you're saying. You're Page 18 February 11, 2004 basically saying if it's the same portion of the seawall, and would it be allowed also to be repaired? And that certainly is a logical assessment. We'll look at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you could take a look at that, I would appreciated it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, we will, we'll look at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And with that, I think you've dealt with most of the other questions that I labored so hard to devise before you modified this thing at the last moment. MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate your indulgence on this, but it's been -- it's been an interesting journey. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really think what we need to do is just send this back. I'm sure that you've probably got some other areas of concern that need to be addressed, because you've been under a lot of pressure, too. So why don't we just send this down to the -- get it dressed up, send it to the Planning Commission and then we can hear it at one of our meetings, our scheduled BCC meetings. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any delay of this is going to affect the renourishment of the beach? MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to defer to Ron in regards to the timing. Ron, you're looking at a contract in November, so I think we -- at least from my understanding, we have enough time to work this. Ron? Timing? Well, we would have to have the second hearing -- it would have to be within the next 60 days or so we would have to have the second hearing. MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Public Utilities Engineering Department. We've applied to the state, as you know, for the permit to do the Page 19 February 11, 2004 beach renourishment project. But the permit application is considered incomplete until such time as we can show that the project meets our own local Comprehensive Plan and we have our own permits in hand. So the longer we delay, the longer our application remains incomplete at the state and federal levels. MR. SCHMITT: We're scheduled to bring this back to the Board on March 24th as a second hearing at a regular Board meeting. So we can certainly meet that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way that we can prevent this from happening in the future? MR. SCHMITT: Well, we could have prevented it, quite honestly, if we had spoken up the night that -- during the LDC hearing when we withdrew it. We withdrew it, not -- we knew there were good things in this amendment, and when we talked specifically about -- again, we'll go back: Board directed us to eliminate all variances, and that's what we proposed. Then when we found out the impacts of that, we withdrew the ordinance. And I apologize because I'm repeating this, but I know you just -- you missed that portion of it. The night that you directed that this ordinance be withdrawn from this cycle, I was not aware of the impact that this would have, because I believe Ron, you haven't had to have a variance since '95. And it wasn't until the next day that Ron and I met with his consultant that we realized that they have to come in -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, you came to the Board over a month ago at a regular meeting, asking to clean this language up. MR. SCHMITT: It was two weeks ago yesterday that I came to the Board, Commissioner, that I asked -- that I was going to clean up this language. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: From what it says on the schedule Page 20 February 11, 2004 here, the Planning Cormnission is supposed to hear this on the 19th? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when is our first -- our first Board meeting after them is the 27th? MR. SCHMITT: Russell, this was scheduled-- I said March, but it's -- MR. WEBB: It's February 24th. MR. SCHMITT: February 24th we bring this back. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. Then why don't we don't we do it at that time. We'll have the Planning Commission look at this on the 19th, we'll -- bring it back to us on the regular Board meeting. And then we can still probably meet the deadline of-- when's the second hearing, 24th? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about can we push it back till the first Board meeting of March? MR. SCHMITT: March 9th? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or the second Board meeting of March? Is that going to give you -- is that too much leeway of time before you need your permits? MR. SCHMITT: It basically delays the Comp. Plan consistency, but I don't think it will have any impact on the contract. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then let's do it that way, then. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are the other Commissioners in agreement? MR. SCHMITT: So do I-- I-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this is going to be a second hearing that you bring it back? MR. SCHMITT: This will be a second hearing, but it will be a CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even though we really haven't heard it the Page 21 February 11, 2004 first time, right? I mean -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. What this is -- what we're going to do is before we even go any farther on this, we're going to give this to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then after the Planning Commission, our first hearing will be after the meeting, after -- during our BCC meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, that isn't what I heard them say. I heard them say the second. MR. SCHMITT: I did say the second. But if that's this Board's direction, we will-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the second hearing will be heard sometime in March. And from what -- the direction that we just got from staff saying it's not going to impede the permits if we wait until the second hearing is (sic) in March. Is that my understanding? MR. WHITE: That's fine. And that's direction that we can follow. The only hitch is that we have advertising standards and time lines that we have to meet. And if this Board would be comfortable continuing this to the 24th at a time certain at 1:00 p.m. for its first hearing, we can then make the adjustments to the advertising to have the second hearing on March 9th. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do it that way. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board members? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm in agreement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see nods of agreement. I think that's a good idea. We all are a little uncomfortable with it this evening. MR. WHITE: And I respect and appreciate that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, Russell Webb with Community Development and Environmental Services, for the record. Page 22 February 11, 2004 We do have public speakers on this issue. I don't know if you want to wait to hear them until we have the continued first meeting. Patrick? I don't know. MR. WHITE: I think if they have comments based upon what is the most recent draft that can assist the staff, you may want to consider hearing those today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd be happy to hear them. I wonder if they know which one they're going to be speaking on. Sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand the dilemma. MR. WEBB: I think they have the updated version. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- did you say March 4th? MR. WHITE: I thought it was the 9th. MR. SCHMITT: March 9th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: March 9th. MR. WHITE: I'm not sure of the specific date. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So February 24th would be the first -- MR. SCHMITT: We would continue this first hearing to the March 24th regular scheduled -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: February 24th. MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry, February 24th, I stand corrected. And we would advertise a second hearing for this LDC amendment at the March 9th meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. It's good with our calendars, that's what I was just checking. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fine, very good. So we have five nods. Thank you. MR. WHITE: And I would just encourage anyone who has -- I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we'd like to hear the speakers. Thank you. MR. WHITE: Yes. And I'd encourage anyone who may wish to speak, both now and then, to do so, because we'll be again in that Page 23 February 11, 2004 circumstance where one of the two hearings has to be after 5:05, and we've already had your vote that the second of them can be before 5:05. And we had planned it to be on the 24th at 1:00. We will now have it, I assume, on March 9th at some time certain. We will need to get that from you, and I'll leave that to the county staff to work with you to determine. But I just want to encourage anyone who has any comments to make them now and at that point in time. Because the odds are, I don't know what the agenda for the 24th will be, but if we're still in session at 5:05, we ought then to inquire as to whether anyone has any comments. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: And any of the comments that the people have out in the audience there, if they would tell us what version they're working off of so we can follow. Because we have to have some kind of guidance here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no way they'll ever figure that out. MR. SCHMITT: I can fairly well assure that they have the right version, but we'll find out. MR. WEBB: Okay. Without further ado then, Madam Chair, the first speaker is Bruce Anderson, followed by Ed Staros. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, Madam Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson. I will be addressing the hot off the presses version, the last one. I believe it's time stamped about 2:00 this afternoon. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that the 11-page, 12-page or the 13 pages? MR. ANDERSON: My -- this, I'm reading from the 11-pager. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eleven-page, okay. MR. ANDERSON: I was somewhat pleased to know that you all had some of the same concern I did about which version, and this was Page 24 February 11, 2004 really a moving target. I want to give a little -- go back through where we've been and give our side of it. After the County Commission -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who's our side, may I ask? MR. ANDERSON: Well, as opposed to staff's rendition of what occurred. The County Commission voted to kill this proposed CCSL amendment on January 7th. And all of the parties that had objected rightfully thought that the issue was dead. On January 7th, the Commission voted to disapprove and kill the amendments proposed for the CCSL. However, the nature of that motion was changed after the Assistant County Attorney spoke up and said that he believed the form of the motion should be to direct staff to withdraw the amendment so that the matter could be concluded that evening. If only it had been concluded. At that night -- at the hearing that night, the Ritz-Carlton, the Registry, the Pelican Bay Foundation, the LaPlaya Resort and others had all gone together to hire a coastal engineer to look into this matter and to testify that evening. You may recall that all of the speakers waived their right to speak that evening because the Commission was not going to give any consideration to the proposed amendment. All of us were stunned when we found out that some of the most objectionable language was once again proposed to be added as a, quote, housekeeping measure, in conjunction with exempting beach renourishment from the need to apply for a variance. Let me be clear that I know of no one who objects to the county exempting themselves from the need for a CCSL variance to renourish the beaches. That is not the issue. And if the beach renourishment is the most important part, all you need to do is adopt Section 3.13.6.5 to exempt beach renourishment, and not do any of the other things that are proposed. That will allow beach renourishment to go forward in a Page 25 February 11, 2004 timely fashion, unhindered by the county's own regulations. And although it may be a laudable goal to want to simplify the process for the CCSL exemptions and permits, this proposed amendment still retains some of the most -- some of the same gotcha language that -- what it gives in one part, it takes away in another. Commissioner Coyle, you noted one such example with regard to seawall repair. That's just typical. Section 3.13.4.2 is another prime example. It sets forth a blanket prohibition on activities seaward of the CCSL, unless otherwise provided for in this ordinance. In other words, only those specified items listed in the ordinance are permitted. And anything else is not, that either individually or cumulatively may result in a, quote, adverse impact, unquote, which is itself a vague and nebulous standard. Section 13 -- 3.13.5.2 is another example. A property owner can no longer make modifications to an existing structure and is limited to only maintaining or repairing the structure. So if you have a bathroom that is seaward of the CCSL, you're SOL. Or if it's in another part of the house, you can't remodel it, only maintain and repair it. Section 3.13.6.5, it purports to allow the reconstruction of previously approved buildings. However, it would not allow someone to rebuild a structure which was constructed prior to the establishment of the CCSL. Has anyone on staff taken an inventory of the totality and types of structures that would be affected by these proposed amendments? I doubt it. Section 3.13.7, another new item, another gotcha, places a two-year time limit on the granting of a CCSL variance to commence construction, or the staff can impose new and additional conditions, and conceivably even void the previously granted variance. All other variances run with the land and are not subject to modification or revocation, unless it was based on inaccurate information. This amendment would take away that certainty that currently exists when a variance is granted and would make it very difficult, if Page 26 February 11, 2004 not impossible, to get a loan from a bank to build where the variance says you can in fact build. I will repeat to you the recommendation of the Planning Commission not to approve this amendment. It is not broke. Don't fix it. All you need to do is pass that one section that enables the county to go forward with beach renourishment. These proposed amendments were originally prepared in a vacuum without consultation or input from those most affected by the proPosed changes. You don't conduct county business that way, and neither should the staff. And I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No questions, Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker? MR. WEBB: The next speaker is Ed Staros, followed by Mick Moore. MR. STAROS: Good evening. I'm Ed Staros. I represent the 1,500 employees of the Ritz-Carlton Resorts of Naples. I have not read the new language, because it just came out, so I'll be brief. I agree with Bruce 100 percent. If the issue here on the table is the beach renourishment, let's focus on that one section, let's get that done right, let's get our beaches rebuilt, et cetera. But without having read this new section, I don't want to comment on it. Rest assured, I will read it 100 percent. I will be back on your upcoming two meetings to discuss it further. But I think his idea of focusing on that one section of beach renourishment would kind of be the win/win for all parties. Thank you. MR. WEBB: The last public speaker is Mick Moore. MR. MOORE: Good evening, members of the Commission. I'm here today on behalf of the Vanderbilt Beach Resort. I know we've been in front of the Commission before recently with some of the other Land Development Code amendments that have been proposed, Page 27 February 11, 2004 and we've spoken before on the issue of the CCSL line. Our property will be affected if there are any changes to the CCSL line, because a large majority of our property which was -- has been in existence, developed in existence since the 1960's, sticks out beyond the CCSL line. Our property has a seawall. We've come before you before and told you our concerns about any removal of the seawall and how we think that would detrimentally affect our property, and we don't think it would provide any benefit to the community, and we oppose any attempt to make any CCL (sic) changes in the beach renourishment provision without a full exploration of why and if those changes are really necessary. The Planning Commission heard this issue before and decided that no changes to the CCSL process were necessary. This Commission still has the power, under the existing CCSL language in the LDC, to grant or deny variances. We came before the Commission recently for a variance and went through that process, and it's our position that the changes are not warranted. But if there is going to be a discussion of changes, that discussion should be a full discussion -- full and open discussion, with the participation of the Planning Commission, who's already said it's not needed. So we would oppose any change to the CCSL process and certainly any inclusion of that language in the beach renourishment provision. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, I'd just -- can I comment? First of all, with all due respect to Mr. Anderson and his comment about having done this in a vacuum, I just want to make sure the record stands to note that every version was sent to an exhaustive list of people through the community. Mr. Anderson received copies of all proposals, as well as did Dr. Carter, who was representing Pelican Bay. And Mr. Yovanovich also, they received every version of this and were asked to comment, so it was not done in a vacuum. In Page 28 February 11, 2004 fact, we encouraged comments. Also, in regards to this Board, we would certainly be delighted to receive your guidance. Certainly from Mr. Moore's perspective we are not doing anything to prevent or to direct removal of seawalls. That is not in the ordinance, nor is anything to do in regards to changing of the CCSL. In fact, frankly, with this Board, if they so direct, we would be delighted to continue with the current policy and allow for all these to come back in and go before this Board as a variance request. And if that's -- and we're fine with that. We'll process it, and we can take what would be a 60- or 90-day process, we could allow it to be a six or ten month process, and I'm fine with that. If you recall, one of the reasons for the -- what motivated us to do this, we had two rather, I would say, benign or very simple variances that came before this Board last year from the hotel industry which were nothing more than a chickee hut and a towel dispensing facility that was a nine-month process. And we're trying to eliminate some of the government. But if the folks in the industry prefer to have government work with them, we'll be delighted to have the staff provide that service. So we'll be -- if you so direct, we'll just bring back the one portion regarding beach renourishment, and we'll leave everything else as is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion that the Board of County Commissioners accept -- or adopt 3.13.6.5, beach nourishment maintenance and dredging, and strike out -- not accept any underlined or double underlined at this time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it, but I'd like to -- if the motion maker would permit me to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to clarify something. I would second it to read the adoption of 3.13.6.5 with no further changes to Page 29 February 11, 2004 the existing policy. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Because I don't know what's underlined and what's not, quite frankly -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: The whole thing is underlined. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with respect to the original existing policy. But I would second it on that basis. And if the motion maker would agree with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page 7 of 11. 3.13.6.5, beach renourishment and maintenance dredging. The original motion said not to accept anything that was underlined or double underlined, and then the motion was seconded but then said leave it as it was? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Adopt that particular paragraph, 3.13.6.5., because that's the purpose of this entire exercise. MR. SCHMITT: We would bring back only with that change, and that is all. When I spoke to this Board on the 27th, I said we would bring -- allow other permitted structures as well. And those -- please understand, what -- some of this was worked through the Parks and Rec to allow construction of dune crossovers and beach access and other, other-- to support Parks and Recs and their expansion, and we will have to continue now through the variance process, and that's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's deal with this motion first and make sure everybody understands what's happening. Commissioner Henning has suggested, and I second, the adoption of paragraph 3.13.6.5, which will permit us -- permit the county to proceed with beach renourishment without seeking a variance, but all other provisions of the existing policy will remain unchanged. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that means that they want a var -- if they want a variance for some reason, they have to come back to Page 30 February 11, 2004 the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, are we going to take this out of-- we have asked to send this all back to the Planning Commission, but we're going to send this particular item back, saying that it's had its first hearing, is that it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: My hope is, and I don't know if this is Commissioner Henning's intent, but my hope would be that this would replace our earlier action and bring this to a final conclusion. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no reason to send this back to the Planning Commission, because they looked at these changes before and said they didn't want to change them. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was before we got the third or fourth packet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, but they're essentially a lot of the same changes. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could just the record. The Planning Commission reviewed and agreed with everything, except the elimination of allowing for a variance for construction beyond the CCSL. But most of those other changes they agreed with. And this is one that the Planning Commission had already agreed with in regards to allowing for beach acc -- or beach renourishment as a permitted process. So there would be no requirement to bring it back to the local planning authority. And based on Commissioner Coyle's recommendation, we would then just proceed to bring this back with that one change to the -- as a second hearing on the February 24th Board of County Commissioners meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that gets you to where you want to be faster. Page 31 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. WHITE: If I may? MR. SCHMITT: And we would bring nothing else back, except that one paragraph. Patrick? And I would have to also identify a fee for that, for that review service. And that could be done in conjunction with that. But that's fine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in essence, we're taking this one paragraph out, right? The rest of it's going back? MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, we're going to keep-- we keep everything the same as the current LDC now reads, but we're going to add this -- the language of one paragraph and one paragraph only, and that is the beach nourishment and maintenance dredging activities. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just that one paragraph. Okay. That's what I keep asking. I'm not getting that answer. I was wondering which -- but if we're talking about the one paragraph, fine. MR. SCHMITT: That's all we would-- we eliminate everything in front of you and just bring back the amendment with the one paragraph, and that is all. MR. WHITE: Just two items, Madam Chair and Commissioners. It likely will be that that section needs to be renumbered, just so you understand that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. WHITE: And secondly, in an abundance of caution, having gone ahead and essentially removed these provisions from the LDC cycle, and already having scheduled and advertised for the 19th for the CCPC, my recommendation would be to allow them to make their finding of consistency with regards to the specific provision that you're intending to keep in, bring it back for the 24th so that there's no way that any challenge could be made to this specific provision. It's going to be adopted as a separate ordinance. Page 32 February 11, 2004 If it were going to be part of the fabric of what we're otherwise going to hopefully approve today, I may not have those same concerns, but this is going to go forward as a separate standalone ordinance with just that line of text in it. And I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that the CCPC had given it a consistency review. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would I. MR. WHITE: So it doesn't change the time line. We'll still meet the 24th at 1:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, okay with you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So -- let me just make sure -- would you read the motion again? MR. SCHMITT: Basically -- well, it's no motion, it's just direction. There's no motion required. We received your guidance and -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we have a motion on the floor and a second. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle, just on this particular item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just adding this one paragraph. MR. SCHMITT: Do we need it to be a motion? MR. WHITE: Well, it is a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need a motion, because in the past the reason we're here where we're at today is obviously staff did not really take our comments under consideration. So a motion is a direct direction. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. Patrick, do you have the motion? MR. WHITE: I believe the motion, Madam Chair, is to make no other changes in Division 3.13, except for the text proposed as 3.13.6.5, that will be renumbered as necessary, that that would be Page 33 February 11, 2004 directed to the CCPC for their consideration on the 19th and come back to this Board on the 24th at 1:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, it passes 5-0. MR. WHITE: And just -- not to be -- I guess, reiterate, but for those folks who may be listening, there will be a second hearing on this item at 1:00 p.m., on February 24th in these chambers for the final consideration and possible adoption of this provision as an ordinance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: ***Okay, next item we'll move right into is the Eastern Lands amendments, the second hearing. And we'll do the listed species portion, which is probably the most contentious, because that's where most of the public is here for. And what-- Tab M, thank yOU. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish we had a tab. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't have a tab. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We want to ask them to put tabs in, please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where will we find this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right next to N. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right next to N. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 204, the-- Page 34 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: 202? COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- typed 204, not the handwritten. The handwritten would be 232. MR. WEBB: Yeah, Tab M begins on Page 203 of the LDC packet. MR. SCHMITT: That's the page number on the bottom center of your page. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bottom center? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Page 204, we'll start. CHAIRMAN FIALA: When they put tabs in for Tab M and Tab B and so forth, do you think maybe they could actually put a tab in so we could find them easily in the future? MR. WEBB: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: It's Page -- it's actually on your agenda packet, because they are stamped -- it would be Page 232, which are your stamped pages. But it's actually 204 of the -- on the page numbers. I know that's confusing, but for the record, they have to stamp every page for the official record. But that's where we are, and we're talking listed species. And I don't see Marti. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But yours - this page isn't at all like mine. You have a bunch of scratchouts, I don't. MS. CHUMBLER: We have different document numbers up there? CHAIRMAN FIALA: We certainly do. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. For the record, I'm Marti Chumbler, outside attorney -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going home. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to go with you. MS. CHUMBLER: -- for the county. And the latest version, if you look at the bottom left hand of your page, should say towel (phonetic) number sign, 532626.5. That's the Page 35 February 11, 2004 most have extra copies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: time for everybody? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, I'll try. No. 532626.5. recently circulated version. If you're not on that version, we Would you repeat that one more The .5 is the most critical. It's COMMISSIONER HALAS: What page is that on? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that should be at the bottom of every -- the bottom left-hand margin of every page. COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, we need another lady up here to keep us straight. MS. CHUMBLER: Very bottom of the page, just to the left of the page number. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. There we go. Okay. Yeah, women are good for something. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Organization, yeah. MS. CHUMBLER: And I think the listed species issue to -- the only one that was discussed last time would appear at Page 206 of that version of the document. And it's the -- I don't know if you have two page numbers this time like you did last time. But it would be the page number in the middle of the page. And it's Section 3.11.3.3. If you remember last time, our recommendation was that this language in the LDR be left as is. It tracks the language in the Growth Management Plan and to the extent that there's a need for clarification, our recommendation is that that change be made later in a process of Comp. Plan amendments, rather in the short-term or later, if it's the will of this body. But that we should not make a change in the LDRs until the clarification is made in the Comp. Plan. The other -- another -- there are two other options that would be available. One would be to try to clarify the Comp. Plan language in the LDR; that's not our recommendation. Page 36 February 11, 2004 A third option would be to delete this entire section, or this -- the entry. You wouldn't delete the whole section, you'd delete the opening paragraph, and simply let the Comp. Plan control. In that case, when the Comp. Plan is changed, you don't then immediately have to come back and correct the LDR in the same manner. So that's another option available for you. The Comp. Plan is always going to control. Even if at a later point some months from now you amend the Comp. Plan, there might be confusion, because the LDR read differently, but the Comp. Plan will control over the LDR in every instance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then why are we doing this to put ourselves in a position -- I know we've got a whole committee we're going to be putting together to be looking into this issue. And it seems kind of-- I'm not too sure why we're going through this effort now when we've got a whole committee we got together, we're putting out there to be able to study the issue. And we're predetermining what that committee is going to be doing. MS. CHUMBLER: No, not-- the language that's here now simply tracks the Comp -- current Comp. Plan language. It doesn't make any predetermination of what ultimately is going to happen with the Comp. Plan. It simply states the Comp. Plan is the Comp. Plan. now. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the Comp. Plan takes precedence over this? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, it does. So another option, if you want to simply not deal with it in the LDR, would be to take that language out and then the Comp. Plan controls, and when the Comp. Plan is corrected, you-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Marti, you bring up a good point. Why are we even dealing with it if we can -- we got the whole thing from the Comp. Plan then? MS. CHUMBLER: Our recommendation last time was that we Page 37 February 11, 2004 not deal with it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's where I'm going right now. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I remember the confusion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I thought what we discussed was we wanted to address the language so that it did follow what's in our Comp. Plan at the present time. MS. CHUMBLER: It did and it has. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: There was some discussion-- the last Board meeting, the discussion we got into was some possibilities about how the Comp. Plan might later be corrected. But that's really not the issue that's before you tonight. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. All we want to do is change the language that's here presently -- MS. CHUMBLER: No, the language that's here presently is the language in the Comp. Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're doing this because there's no other reason to do it other than the fact we're doing it. But the Comp. Plan still is in place, and we're doing this as a repetitive measure for no other reason than to do it. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, except that there -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me, Marti, I'm lost on this. Where are we going? MS. CHUMBLER: No, they're only-- no. No, the only -- the only reason to have this language here, and it's a good reason, is that there are a lot of people who want to have a single -- you know, the Comp. Plan is yay thick, and this is yay thick, and for someone who's coming in to get an application, having a single body of regulation that tells them everything is a good thing. And that's why you oftentimes repeat language in the Comp. Plan in your LDRs. That's the only Page 38 February 11, 2004 reason it's here. If it creates a problem, take it out. The Comp. Plan controls. Either of those two options is fine. You can't be accused of adopting LDRs that are inconsistent with the Comp. Plan if the LDR doesn't include the language or if the LDR completely tracks the Comp. Plan. So either of those are perfectly fine approaches. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, this is not directly associated with that, but since the issue of a wildlife management plan has been brought up and a mention of a committee, I need to address that issue before the public speakers begin, because I think there might be some confusion. When I suggested to the Commissioners the last meeting that we have a wildlife protection plan developed for Collier County, I in fact did say in my memo to you that we should establish a committee. But afterwards, I tried to clarify that I probably had used the wrong term. I have a concern that if we try to appoint a committee, number one, we will inevitably be accused of stacking it one way or the other, if we try to appoint people to this committee. And secondly, if we appoint a formal committee, it becomes subject to the Sunshine rules. There's no way that any of the people who really have the desired expertise can serve on that committee and function under the Sunshine Law. Because they will not be able to talk about scrub jays and eagles and all the other protected series (sic) outside of that committee, but yet they do it as part of their job. And the same thing would be true with respect to any people on the development or landowner side. So what I suggested was that we achieve the same thing, that is, public hearings, by having the staff responsible for developing this plan, with input from all of the stakeholders in public meetings. And that way there's no problem with us predetermining who gets to sit in and be heard. Anybody who is a stakeholder gets to be heard, and Page 39 February 11, 2004 they get to be heard in the public. We thereby meet the provisions of the Sunshine Law without putting people in jeopardy of violating it by participating in an assigned committee position. So I just thought I'd try to clarify where I am with that, because I think trying to put together an appointed group is probably bad policy and certainly will lead to a violation of the Sunshine Law. CHAIRMAN FIALA: speakers; is that correct? MR. WEBB: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Speakers, please? We have 10 So when we have 10 or more, my policy is, this year, 10 or more speakers, three minutes each. So would you time our speakers, please? Thank you. Call the first speaker. MR. WEBB: All right. The first public speaker is Nancy Payton, followed by Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I want to very much support Commissioner Coyle's recommendation for proceeding with a stakeholders committee so that all interested parties, not just environmentalists talking to environmentalists, or community folks talking to community folks or developers talking to developers, consultants, that we can talk among a ourselves. And I appreciate that sensitivity, because it's worked very well in bringing forward all the other tabs of the LDC that are under consideration today. And we have been working fairly well on listed species issue issues. I also wanted to remind Commissioners that you already have an environmental policy committee. And that's the EAC, the Environmental Advisory Council or Committee, I forget which it is, whose job under the Growth Management Plan is to advise you on policy issues. So you do already have that established committee that will be reviewing and commenting on the stakeholders recommendations as they come through the EAC, the Planning Commission, I think DSAC looks at them as well, and then eventually Page 40 February 11, 2004 to you. So there are many formal hearings and many opportunities for input. And lastly, I want to clarify what we're going to do about the glitch amendment, or is that something I shouldn't be bringing up tonight? Because my understanding, based on our stakeholders meeting roughly two weeks ago, that there were -- there was going to be a change recommended for the Growth Management Plan, and it was going to drop the last sentence or the last two sentences, and then we would move forward with management plans and programs to protect listed species. So if you could please clarify what our next step is beyond this LDC? And I -- Florida Wildlife approves of not putting anything in, quite frankly, in the LDC, because it seems to maybe compound the problem to -- or the effort to resolve the problem. But we are concerned about what's going to happen in the glitch amendment, if anything, and if we're going to have to wait for an extended period of time to address it through the Growth Management Plan, where are the safeguards for our wildlife. Thank you. MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Brad Comell here with -- representing Collier County Audubon Society. And I would also like to second Commissioner Coyle's suggestions about the makeup and the structure of getting input on how you want to change your Comp. Plan and address Land Development Code policies to go along with that. I think that the process that the staff has marshalled so far has been very effective. I think you get your biggest group, you cast your widest net, you get the most input from the most varied perspectives in the community by doing it with the stakeholders committee. And I think that what we've done so far demonstrates that. Relative to the current LDC language before you, I think that either leaving it out or putting in the Comp. Plan language tracking as it is currently written is acceptable. Page 41 February 11, 2004 I think that we still do, as we've all acknowledged, have that problem of lack of clarity in the language. And the recent episode yesterday, of listening to a project, the Coconilla project, and knowing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion had given an incidental take for the eagle's nest relative to that project underscores the need for clear county interpretation of wildlife protection policies right now. We need to have this clarified very quickly. So thank you very much. MR. WEBB: The next public speaker is Bob Diffenderfer, followed by Nicole Ryan. MR. DIFFENDERFER: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Bob Diffenderfer. I'm with Lewis, Longman and Walker, 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard in West Palm Beach, and we're here representing Signature Communities. We're supportive of the approach that Marti has outlined to you, either carrying forward the LDR's with a verbatim mirror image of the Comp. Plan language, or simply omitting that provision and relying on the Comp. Plan language as you go forward. We agree that your Comp. Plan has some ambiguity which needs to be clarified, and we're supportive, therefore, of the proposal which would carry forward your existing Comp. Plan language and interpretation, until such time as the county has developed a policy, with the assistance of technical expertise, to deal with the ambiguity and clarify the county's intent. We are supportive of a process which involves true expertise and not just true advocacy. We're supportive of a process which is responsive to the County Manager and which is conducted in the Sunshine. These issues are too important to be left to off-the-record advocacy and deal making. While this effort proceeds, it's important that the county continue to respect the rights of approved projects and those which may come before the county while the Comprehensive Plan is under review, and Page 42 February 11, 2004 to apply the county's current Comp. Plan, as it has been consistently construed to date. I would therefore recommend that in proceeding today, as staff has proposed, that the following thought be included in any motion that you may consider. That thought is: Until such time as the Board of County Commissioners has approved the revision to the Comprehensive Plan, the current Comprehensive Plan construction and historical interpretation will continue to apply to matters reviewed by staff and the Commission. You've heard some concern today that, well, we need to do more, we need to do more now. You have asked for and you have received an opinion from your outside counsel which suggests to you that the county is not in a position to adopt a policy or to do an act affirmatively which conflicts with the regulations of the Game and Fish Commission. I would urge you not to step off there, carry forward your Comp. Plan language, adopt a process, do it in the Sunshine, get technical expertise, and let the people who really can speak technically to these issues have a chance to do so. Thank you. MR. WEBB: Nicole Ryan, followed by Cece English. MS.RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy is okay with either leaving out the language in the LDC or copying the Comp. Plan language word for word. But it really does speak to the higher need of working through the GMP and fixing the GMP. And that's something that needs to be done in the upcoming glitch cycle. It's very important because the county is left in this limbo of should the county feel comfortable feel comfortable stepping and protecting listed species. The Conservancy beliefs, and we've stated and given our opinion, that the county indeed has the authority to protect listed species. You do it already and you should continue to do it. But getting in there and clarifying the Comp. Plan would be an important next step that should be done in the upcoming Page 43 February 11, 2004 glitch cycle. And following that, Commissioner Coyle's idea of a stakeholders group to potentially add further clarification to the GMP or the LDC and to work on the individual management plans for a variety of listed species. In that way you can get all of the experts to come to the table as stakeholders, you can get the agency folks, the technical people, the property owners, the environmentalists, everyone can come together in an open public forum. So we really would encourage that no delays take place, we work with this in the glitch cycle. Thank you. MR. WEBB: Cece English, followed by -- I think that's Jan Jacobson. MS. ENGLISH: Good evening. My name is Cece English, and I've been a full-time resident here in the area for 13 years. As you know, Collier County's home to several bald eagles' nests. In the past several years, I have become an advocate of sorts for the eagles here in our area. I think if I mention eagle nest CO 19, you all know what I'm talking about. What you may not know is while many of us were here yesterday for the meeting in these chambers, one man who planned to be here started his day by making observations of the nest at Wiggins Pass. What he observed was the eagle was missing. He confirmed this with a resident in Tower Pointe who watches the nest. And within hours he, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials, located the fledgling near the nest tree. They managed to capture, for lack of a better word, the eagle, and they transported him to the Conservancy. He apparently was dehydrated and we're hoping he will reco -- will recover and be released in due time. If it weren't for Tom Nelson, we would have one less eagle to enjoy. Knowing that federal and state agencies could do a better job of protecting the eagles here in Collier County, I am here to ask that the language in the Land Development Code be clarified in an effort for Collier County to raise the requirements when and where necessary to Page 44 February 11, 2004 predi -- to protect endangered and threatened species that we are very fortunate to have here. Thank you. MR. WEBB: Jan Jacobson, followed by Doug Fee. MR. JACOBSON: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, thank you for giving me a moment to speak here. I'm director of the Everglades Institute. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, sir? MR. JACOBSON: I'm sorry. Jan Michael Jacobson. And I live in Ochopee, Florida. I'm director of a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit research and education center. And I was quite interested in the possibility of your setting up a committee or a structure which would bring in as many outside scientists. I -- you're hearing the term stakeholder -- but as many people and opinions as you can bring in I think will be very advantageous. And in this case, to the extent that I can, I and my colleagues will provide whatever data we can give you that might be of help. I was talking with the attorney here beforehand and found out that not only are you ladies and gentlemen fortunate enough to have an attorney, he's also a biologist. What we might be able to offer in a case like this, and I think might be relevant and why I mention this is very simple. Regarding things like the panther, there are some very significant DNA evidence that's just come up, and the gentleman's somewhat aware of this, but you can't ask one individual to be aware of everything that both science and law are bringing around continuously. So the more input you can get, I think probably the happier you'll be with the results. So I would think the committee might be a good idea. I'm not certain that there is a problem about professional colleagues discussing issues until they make a presentation that goes to government. So I don't know whether Sunshine Act is involved here or not. And I'm not really a lawyer. But I was quite interested that Commissioner Coyle brought that up, because scientists don't want to Page 45 February 11, 2004 be in a position of being limited in talking to their colleagues. I thank you very much. MR. WEBB: Doug Fee, followed by Cindy Kemp. MR. FEE: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'm with the North Bay Civic Association, and I'm here again asking that we protect our wildlife, do everything that we can locally within the -- within your legal counsel advice. I'm also on a couple of committees. I'm on your revenue commission meeting -- or committee. And of course we're bound by the Sunshine and we're an appointed body. I've also been involved with the manatee protection stakeholder committee, as well as the listed species stakeholder committee. I think both avenues do work. I've always found the meetings that are held at the county to be open, and there are many that choose to attend. I think as long as we do a good job of placing them on the website and making sure that anyone who has expressed an interest has the ability to attend these, I think that you're getting true public input. As far as the LDR's and GMP, I had mentioned before, at least you have several meetings that the language is before you and the stakeholders who involve themselves have the ability to iron out, compromise, you know, talk about it, and then it comes before you, the Board, and the public has the ability to read that language and make comments as it's been drafted. One other thing that I need to mention here, and that is, if you do decide to go to a Sunshine committee, I hope that this county will use outside consultants who are not paid by the county, as well as being stakeholders on the other side, and make it a fair (sic) for everyone. It's got to be bound by Sunshine. And having said that, I would like to see this done sooner than later. If we go another nine months, there are some things that might happen that we don't want to happen, so thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hold on just a minute, Doug. Page 46 February 11, 2004 Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Fee, if you don't want county to pay for the experts, who's going to pay for it? MR. FEE: Well, I believe that you have staff that is paid by the county taxpayers, and they're there to write the rules and have outside counsel, your legal counsel, looking at all the levels, you know, the state statutes, the, you know, administrative code. I'm not a lawyer. So within those boundaries, they're writing code, and it's being blessed by DCA. As far as the science end goes, of listed species, I believe there are people locally that we can use their knowledge, their expertise. I know that they're already here. They're giving you advice. In your annual report for 2002, and I wish I had it with me, I pointed it out to Mr. Mudd, one of the things that you highlighted in about the first four sentences was your increasing efforts in protecting your natural resource and the environment. It's not the 2003, but that's your 2002. And I'd like to make sure that we continue to do that. The taxpayers agreed to tax themselves for setting aside lands. So I know it's an important issue to all of us, and I think we're willing to pay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Fee, as we experienced yesterday, when we come up to speak, we know that we're speaking for ourselves and not anybody else. But I appreciate your clarification on the, you know, taxpayers paying or hiring an expert. Thank you. MR. FEE: Thank you. MR. WEBB: The next public speaker is Cindy Kemp, followed by Dr. Chris Magelliang (sic), I believe? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mogelvang. MS. KFJMP: Cindy Kemp with the property rights action committee. And I would just like to ask the Commissioners to consider a diverse board of people who are going to be examining what is going to be discussed with the listed species, since it does affect so many different people. We brought this up among our group Page 47 February 11, 2004 and many other people. I know there's others who would be here, Brian McMann with the sportsmen and Jim Calvin, and just a lot of different people, average, you know, Ma and Pa type people. We'd like to be included in this, too. DR. MOGELVANG: Dr. Christian Mogelvang, Naples first plastic surgeon, retired since November 30th. I'm also a graduate BS in biology from the University of Florida and have studied Florida plant communities from Brunswick, Georgia to Fort Multry, Alabama, to Key West. I have now 12 and a quarter acres over on Rock Creek which I had downzoned from RM-6 to Ag., and that I live on and have a house right in the middle of it. I am, I think, in the environmental category. However, I think that there's one species, if you don't mind tongue in cheek, that I think you haven't included, and I'm kind of in the same park as Cindy Kemp on this, and that is why aren't Crackers involved in your endangered species list? Tongue in cheek. I think that environmentalist is a term that is very subjectively positive, and I'm not sure that it always deserves a subjective positivity. I think that I would say that some of them are not environmentalists, but environmentalist -- environmental exclusionists. I am an environmentalist. I am an environmental inclusionist. And ! think that we all need to work together and show a respect for each other, each -- every single individual deserves that. I have a -- something I wrote to the editor of the Naples Daily News, concerns about a particular individual that I knew named Jessie Hardy. Had a lot of trouble with the South Golden Gate. That is his homestead. He's a disabled veteran. They want to throw him out and just forget about his place and pay him what they think it's worth instead of he -- he has his own electric generator out there, he has an adopted child. He deserves a lot of respect. The letter that I wrote to the editor, are you ready for this, 1991. I've been involved in this for a long time. And ! would like to -- I Page 48 February 11, 2004 don't know just where that would fit in, but I would very much like to find a way to participate. The scrub jays, you'll never save the scrub jays -- you'll never save the scrub jays unless you save the scrub. And I've got some great input on that area, too. Thank you. MR. WEBB: Vernon Miller, followed by the final speaker, Rich Yovanovich. MR. MILLER: Councilmen, my name is Vernon Miller. I've been a resident of Naples for 34 years. I recently took a trip down 41, and it scared the pants off of me. 4 ! east. I don't know how many of you have been down there, but that is an evacuation route. 41 east is the world's longest dike to the north of 41 east, from probably the Dade county line about 10 miles, there's a huge dike that's probably 10 feet or more tall. It has many dump gates on it and quite a few pumps. And I quite don't understand what the pumps are for. But this is a major evacuation route for Chokoloskee, for Everglades City, for Marco Island. They have two single lane roads to get out there in an emergency. My problem is this: The water table has been kept artificially high for the past couple of years. If we have a real big heavy rain, I'm concerned about this huge wall. I couldn't see over it, so it's got to be 10 or 12 feet tall. Has huge dump gates, huge pumps alongside of it. Maybe you can tell me what it's all about, I don't know. But if that wall fails or if one of those dump gates fail, 41 East will be incapacitated. You will not be able to get past it. It's a dike, it will try and hold the water back. It's much lower than the high water on the north side of it. And I just wonder, how are you going to get people out of here if the land is already saturated, if we have a heavy rain, which we have quite often, six or eight inches, where is that rain going to go and what's the purpose of that huge dike? And above all, what's the purpose of the very big pumps? Because if the dikes are dumped, they're going to be dumped south. Page 49 February 11, 2004 You won't need pumps to pump the water down, and if you pump the water up, you're going to get saline into our -- into the water that you're trying to preserve. Are you people aware of this? I mean, it's frightening, if you look at that wall as you ride down 41 East. And it's just a dike, a dirt dike that's holding it. And as an evacuation route, I think you ought to take a good hard look at it. Thank you very much. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Feels like only yesterday that I was here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have the same feeling. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. Again, I don't care which way you go, whether you repeat the Comp. Plan in the LDR's or you totally leave the Land Development Code silent on the issue. I do have some concerns about how we're going to set up this committee, and I just need to make sure that the committee is going to be in the Sunshine, that there's not going to be -- and whoever -- whoever is on the committee, if it's your staff on a committee that's supposed to meet in the Sunshine, I don't know how you're going to do that, because then your own staff can't really talk to each other. I just need to make sure that the various constituencies and interest groups don't have an opportunity to lobby behind the scenes to direct a result that your staff may come forward with on a recommendation. I just want to make sure that it's -- we have this open and honest discussion in a group where your staff is not biased one way or the other, if they're going to be the committee. Also, I think you need to ask your staff, do they feel like they have the technical expertise to actually serve as the committee and make the recommendation. I don't agree with Mr. Fee that your staff is qualified on all of these different issues. And I think if you ask your staff, they'll be a -- they'll be the first ones to tell you that they're generalists, and that's what they're hired to do in government. They're not specialists. And what we're talking about is you need specialists. And you need to go hire the qualified individuals to serve and make Page 50 February 11, 2004 the recommendations. And if that's the committee, that's fine, but you need to go out and hire good, competent, qualified people to serve you and to serve the public in providing us the information and adopting appropriate regulations. I think that there needs to be a public process, no back room deals from anybody, the environmental community, the development community. Everything needs to be discussed fresh at these committee meetings, and recommendations made to you based upon those open and fresh discussions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got to disagree, Commissioner Coyle. I think the Sunshine Law -- well, it is cumbersome. We have to deal with it every day. But it's that way for a reason, so that things are done out in the public and they're not done by a phone call or a back room deal. You know, our Eastern Lands committee worked under that, our -- and that had environmentalists on it. Our rural lands, same way, they worked under the Sunshine. Both committees appointed by the Board. I would strongly recommend to my colleagues that we do this on -- in the open process and not allow somebody to try to make a back room deal. We do need to hire specialists to get the proper input, direction to a committee and not staff sit on there. Staff needs to be the liaison for the committee. And cumbersome as it may be, I mean, it works. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And one other thing, if I can finish. I think we need to also -- the committee needs to bring forward the fiscal impacts of whatever this policy is going to be to the county and give us -- and let us know, if they're making a recommendation, what it's going to cost to implement the recommendation. So I would hope that the committee would be also be charged with looking at that issue, or staff would be charged with looking at that issue. Page 51 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Henning has basically got it right, and I've got the exact same sentiments. We've got Planning Commission does a wonderful job, but one of the members of that is also the president of the Chamber of Commerce and a developer, and he manages to function in all communities and be able to meet the needs of the Sunshine Law. I don't think the Sunshine Law is an encumbrance, I think it's an absolute necessity. If we're ever going to function as a government entity, everything's got to be up front and the public can see it. I don't think it's going to be so cumbersome that you wouldn't be able to have your own meetings with your membership. Where the Sunshine Law kicks in is two people can't sit there that sit on the committee and have open discussion about the committee's different issues that are going to be coming up before them that are listed. Other than that, life as usual. This is the process that our people in this state have put together some time ago, and I think we should respect those wishes and keep them forward. Not to say that a task force can't operate outside of the Sunshine, but the credibility you give to it can't be the same as something that's under the Sunshine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you're both dead wrong. You're presuming that it is impossible to do something in the Sunshine without appointing a committee, and that is clearly not the case. We do things in the Sunshine all the time without appointing a committee. It's when you appoint a committee that you place them under the Sunshine Law. Now, are you going to appoint, as an example, Nancy Payton and Nicole Ryan and Dr. Mogelvang, Cindy Kemp to this committee? They've said they want input. Are you going to put them on the committee? I don't think you can promise everybody to be on that committee. Page 52 February 11, 2004 The other thing is that if you put them on the committee, how will Nancy Payton, Nicole Ryan, Kathy Prosser and the other people be able to have conversations about wildlife preservation outside of that committee without violating the law? They cannot. And if you believe that they can, you're mistaken. It is a very clear interpretation of the Sunshine Law. And it is impossible for the people who really have the knowledge to sit on that committee and draft a policy and avoid talking about this during their normal work functions and carry out their responsibilities away from that committee. The other issue is even more important. Who are you going to appoint to this committee to make sure that you've got a balanced cross-section represented? There's nothing this Commission can do to make sure that you have appointed all of the right people to that committee. Now the committee will certainly bring in people to make presentations, but you can do that without the committee. The staff can do this at any point in time. The staff hires consultants all the time to provide expert information. So you'll have multiple layers of Sunshine deliberations. The staff will advertise meetings, they will have public input, and all of the people will have a chance to come in and talk about this, not just those appointed to the committee. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you get a much broader cross-section, it's in the Sunshine. And then finally, finally, when the staff puts together a report based upon the findings of that committee, guess what? It's held in the Sunshine again before us. There are multiple layers of opportunities for people to understand what's going on. I am sensitive to Mr. Yovanovich's concern about lobbying individually. And it's something we might give some concern to -- some consideration to with respect to how we're going to deal with that. We might deal with it the same way we Page 53 February 11, 2004 deal with contracting issues, which means we don't talk to contractors who have a bid into the county for doing something. That's up to the purchasing department to make those kinds of decisions. So we can deal with those kinds of problems. But, you know, I would encourage you not to wrap yourselves in the Sunshine Law and believe that what you're doing is doing a great service for the community, because it's much more than that. You're also exposing people to a potential violation that can undermine the credibility of the committee itself. I trust the public's input more than I trust the ability of a committee that I appoint to provide complete and balanced advice about a wildlife management plan. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we go any further, I have three speakers -- I have one speaker left and I have three Commissioners that want to talk. Are we going to be voting on this this evening? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is there anything to do with stakeholders tonight? I mean-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioners, you are in fact are voting on this final LDC -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But does it have to do with the stakeholders? MR. SCHMITT: This is your second hearing. And what you're actually voting on is the Land Development Code, but not the formation of this committee. That's something staff will be -- certainly be looking for guidance. And we would also, if I could open the door a little bit further, if you want to give us guidance in regards to this glitch that exists on whether or not you want to see something come back in March here in the other Comp. Plan amendment cycle, or would you prefer that the committee deal with the entire piece of this, to everything from the current language in the GMP, all the way Page 54 February 11, 2004 to some kind of a recommendation on where the county should go in regards to listed species. So two -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta and one more speaker, so-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we do the one speaker first. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd love to do that. MR. WEBB: Actually, Madam Chair, we don't, we don't have any other public speakers. Rich Yovanovich was our last. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Coyle, and I think that's the best way to approach this, is that you have to have an open forum so that everybody is involved in the process. And I think that we can address the Sunshine issue, just as Commissioner Coyle stated, that once we get the input from staff, then we can therefore bring it forth. And I really think that's the way that we need to address this, so that everybody has input into it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, as far as the input about whether a committee or whatever look at -- I think we need to take a look at it all, you know, the GMP and LDC. But what is your recommendations for-- MR. SCHMITT: My recommendation in regards to the Committee? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, the Sunshine Law, back room deals. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's see you get out of this one. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give this to Caesar, I think that's how it starts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's ask Joe the question first, are you an expert in the Sunshine Law? Page 55 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean, we already have the committee formed in regards to the stakeholders group. And it's -- we have a similar type of activity ongoing right now with the Manatee Protection Plan. Bill Lorenz can talk about those issues. It's the pros and cons. The argument-- certainly what Commissioner Henning says is valid. But it's more structured. And there is certainly more visibility and advertisement and other type of criteria. Commissioner Coyle is right, it limits -- it could limit participation. It's -- it depends on what you're looking for in regards to the final outcome and to ensure that you -- as what was said during the last meeting, cast a net to get as much input as possible from all interested parties. I don't know, Patrick, from a legal perspective, is there a difference? Put Patrick on the spot. MR. WHITE: That's quite all right. I tend to look these things, Commissioners, in a very systematic way. You're talking about a process where I would suggest you identify what your goals are to come out of it and step back and look at how you can achieve it, secondly. As far as what process you may choose to utilize, we can give you specific advice about the Sunshine Law and in fact have given those presentations to this Board. I think that there are pros and cons to each process, but I agree with the point of view that says from strictly a Sunshine Law perspective you're going to have to be very diligent and careful about all of the communications to the point where it is possible that the process itself may limit or lengthen the time of period that this process would otherwise take. I think that there are ways that you can otherwise structure the process without specifically focusing on whether it's, quote, appointed committee and in the Sunshine or not, to deal with some of the other concerns. But I would encourage you to first kind of take that step back and see what your goals are in this process that you want to achieve and then start talking about the objectives as to how you're going to do it, Page 56 February 11, 2004 and what the appropriate process needs to be. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could also put a time line. Even -- either way, I think we're talking it's going to be well into the year before we come back, either a formal or a stakeholders group. We were going to make a proposal that we would not come back with something -- I'm -- right now until probably December, by the time the committee sorts through all the issues and we come back and vet this, it will be December before we can come back with a recommendation in regards to the specificity and dealing with the Growth Management Plan language, and in dealing with, as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, an assessment of if in fact there were various options to cost that would be for the county and how we would recommend to pay for that, either through a permitting fee or some other type of process. So it would be -- either way we're looking well into November, December before we would come back with a final report. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I heard Mrs. English state that the Wiggins Pass eagle was missing, you know, went to look for it, Wildlife -- Fish and Wildlife, Federal Fish and Wildlife took it to the Conservancy. What she's saying is she thinks that the county should do those things. So you're not talking about permitting fees or anything that (sic), now you're talking about general fund fees. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, Commissioner, and we have no staff to do anything like that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you don't. And if it's that's the standard that we're going in -- and I can guarantee you, that's the sense that I got -- that whatever net that we throw is not going to get the sentiment of the community. And Cindy Kemp seeing this on the news that night when we were discussing it e-mailed and she was there the next day. So isn't that a shame that the news has to report that we're having meetings that are going to affect the community? So -- Page 57 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, there are two more Commissioners. We keep having Commissioners want to speak, but this gal has to have 10 minutes, so we're going to just break right now. I'm sorry. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? Oh, shall I call the meeting back to order? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN FIALA: The meeting is back in order. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. And as we left it before we went on break, we were discussing the makeup of the committee or the task force that's going to be in place to help us make the decision on how we're going to handle the listed species in Collier County. And the arguments have gone back and forth. But I want to take one moment and congratulate the Commission and also the environmental community and other members of our community for what we have done right in the past. And we recently have had some tremendous successes. One was the rural fringe and the other was the rural lands. And both of them were done under the Sunshine, and no one felt like they were crippled by the process. Minutes were kept, records were kept, everything was done in an orderly fashion, and no one was denied the right to be able to speak at those meetings and they were allowed to speak on every little issue that came up. It was a very balanced group that was up there handling it. It was appointed. It was a cross-section. That's one of the things you always do whenever you put together a committee under the Sunshine, there's certain requirements of who's going to be on it to make sure you got a balance and it's not going to be lopsided one way or the other. And I offer that to you as consideration. When the time does come, and I know this is going on way past what is should go -- Page 58 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for an item that isn't on the agenda, so why don't we just mm Commissioner Coyle's light off and keep right on going. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we could just suggest that Commission Coyle speak shortly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not the one who has been speaking so much, if you will recall. You know, I have no vested interest in doing this one way or the other. But if you want to take the chance of choosing the 9, 18, 20 or 99 people you want to put on a formal committee that reports to you, not to the staff, reports to this Board, and you want to take the responsibility for that and making sure those people represent a cross-section, I want you to think about the process you've got to go through for selecting those people, how do you select people for that and to exclude others. People who have an appointment to that committee are inherently going to have more input than the people from the public who want to come in and be heard. So you've divided them into different groups of importance. You want to do that? Fine. Let's see three votes on this Commission to do it. And then you be able to stand up and defend why this is a balanced group against accusations that it's not. And I'd be quite happy to see you do that. So to try to bring this thing to a conclusion, I would like to suggest we at least give guidance to staff and see if we've got a majority of members here who will say that the staff is responsible for developing this wildlife management plan, just like they've been responsible for developing our Growth Management Plan changes and our Land Development Code changes with input from everybody, the stakeholders who are responsible for doing this job. And that leaves them in the coordinating process. They can advertise these meetings, they can make sure they're all held publicly. You sacrifice absolutely nothing from the Sunshine Law. Page 59 February 11, 2004 And as a final request, I'd like to ask Nancy Payton to come up here. Now this is going to be a tough question. MS. PAYTON: I've had a lot of tough questions here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we appointed you to this committee, would you be willing to sign a statement that you will not discuss wildlife protection issues with anybody else on that committee? MS. PAYTON: I wouldn't apply for the committee ifI had to do that, because I couldn't do my job. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. And the same thing would true -- be true ofNicole Ryan, Kathy Prosser. It'll be true of many of the development and the landowner people here. They can't possibly do their job and function on a committee under the Sunshine Law. But they can function under the Sunshine. MS. PAYTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just as you have in the past. And you can do it well. And the difference is whether or not you want a committee that will be coordinated by the staff to develop changes that they are well qualified to at least staff, or whether you want them done by us with a committee that we appoint and we've got to coordinate them, they report to us and we're responsible for what they do. I submit this Commission doesn't have that kind of expertise. And so Madam Chair, I'd like to bring this to a conclusion and see if there's a majority on this Commission who would -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let me just comment once more. I'm taking a turn here, and then Commissioner Coletta. And my turn is, I said it at the last LDC meeting. This group has been functioning already for months. They've been working with staff, they've been enjoying the luxury, if you will, of being able to call and ask questions, do their research, check with each other and bring this thing as far as it's come already and they've never needed the Sunshine. · And they've always invited reporters in, they've always noted their Page 60 February 11, 2004 meetings, and everybody has been welcomed and encouraged to attend. Why do you fix it if it ain't broken? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: My comment. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like the same privilege, to be able to call Nancy Payton back up again, if she's so willing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Poor Nancy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I've got the greatest respect for Nancy Payton. Nancy, you weren't on either the rural fringe or the rural lands, were you, as a member of that committee? MS. PAYTON: I was denied a seat on -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that. MS. PAYTON: -- that committee, because it was a very politically appointed committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And so was Bruce -- or not Bruce. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Brad? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brad. MS. PAYTON: Anyone who was associated, directly or indirectly, even as a spouse of someone with -- associated with Collier Audubon or Florida Wildlife -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MS. PAYTON: -- was initially denied a seat. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Those days have changed, though, I think you'd agree. MS. PAYTON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But tell me this, though, Nancy, since this Commission came aboard and these committees have gone forward, both the rural fringe and the rural lands, didn't you find that -- well, you were one of the driving forces that brought about the final Page 61 February 11, 2004 recommendations that were made. You were the one that brought out the very best from Bruce Anderson and Mr. Varnadoe. And you worked some beautiful deals behind the scenes. That was a Sunshine committee that operated for years in an open atmosphere where they had records that were being made at all times, tremendous input. I remember going to the meetings and hearing from a number of our friends in the audience now over and over again on the different issues. We've heard them many times. And you were still able to make this whole process work. MS. PAYTON: But it was not through the committee, quite frankly. We were not well received by many on the rural fringe committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you made it work. MS. PAYTON: I would not say it was from -- through the committee that it actually worked. It worked because folks talked to each other. And it wasn't through a forceful committee, it was because we wanted to work together and we wanted to bring something forward that worked for everybody. And I think that that's the important thing at the stakeholders' meeting, that everybody gets to the table and gets their amount of time -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you did it. MS. PAYTON: -- not just three minutes from the side, and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm paying you a compliment. I'm telling you that the reason the rural fringe and rural lands worked was because of your intervention and your involvement, whether it was just outside the spectrum of the Sunshine where, I mean, you wouldn't have -- you weren't involved and you came back in and you brokered the deals. In fact, I remember we sent them to you and told them to talk to you before we would do anything. But what I'm saying, Nancy, what I'm getting to -- MS. PAYTON: But that wasn't the committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- is that -- but you -- the whole Page 62 February 11, 2004 thing came about is because of the fact that everything worked together where everybody felt comfortable. The whole thing is -- MS. PAYTON: Separate from the committee. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I for one am going to be very skeptic of results coming out of a task force that's going to be coming back and bringing it to me. And I'm going to be asking questions, well who attended your meetings, show me your minutes. And I-- there's -- and I don't have any problem with the task force meeting on their own. But to be the sole source of information that's going to be coming back here to this committee -- MS. PAYTON: But it's not. It's the task force giving to the -- as I understand it, to the staff. It goes to the EAC, it goes to DSAC, it goes to the Planning Commission, and then it makes it to you. It's not something that's coming directly from the stakeholders. It's a stakeholders group that's providing input to the staff, who brings it forward to the -- to your official bodies. Do I have it right? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, can I just make this clear so you understand? If it's a body appointed by you, similar to the revenue commission, it's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or the Collier 2000. MR. SCHMITT: Or any of the other appointed committees, what they're going to do, staff will be -- a staff person will be appointed to basically serve as their liaison, but that committee reports to you. Just as the revenue commission will come back to you in a future meeting and report the findings of what you asked them to do. There is no other public vetting process until it comes to you at the next -- at the scheduled Board meetings, because that committee works -- was appointed by you and works for you and they'll come and report to you. If it's a stakeholders group, it's a staff, they work with staff, they advise staff, just as, frankly, as Commissioner Coyle just mentioned, as we do with a lot of language that we develop. And then it goes Page 63 February 11, 2004 through the public vetting process, but it goes through what it's legally required to do, through Development Services Advisory Committee, on to the Planning Commission. Normally two hearings, if it has to do with an LDC or Growth Management Plan amendment, and then on to the Board of County Commissioners. Now, if it's an appointed committee and they report to you, you still have to direct those results back to the staff and we have to go through that public process to amend the Growth Management Plan or the Land Development Code. So the question comes down to what's -- how do each of you prefer to have this issue dealt with, reporting to you directly or working in conjunction with staff in a way that is still a public process? So that is the fundamental question, is is it a committee you want to appoint to report to you directly or would it be something through the staff?. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my last statement is going to be this: I can't condone anything that we're going to do in this government body that's under Sunshine. And that's the end of my statements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a break. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's get on with-- why don't we just make a -- take a -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Last, last one and then let's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, wait, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if he's going to, I gotta respond to him, because he's trying -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nobody has said that we're doing anything outside the Sunshine. It will be done no differently than it would be if you appointed the committee. Absolutely nothing is done differently. It's done in the Sunshine. The only difference is that it's a staff working for -- it's an ad hoc committee working for the staff to Page 64 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: floor. advise them on what they do. Now to try to portray this as an attempt to subvert the Sunshine Law is irresponsible, because it's not true. We are trying to do something in the Sunshine and give every person here who has a right -- has an opportunity to be heard without being appointed to a committee and being relegated to secondary status, as Nancy Payton was in the last time. And if you don't believe it, ask her again. So the COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's make a motion and see where it goes and then -- and move on. Because I -- I'd like to get home tonight before 1:00 in the morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me, too. I'll make the motion-- I'll second it. Okay. You've got a motion on the CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you repeat the motion, please? COMMISSIONER COYLE: He seconded it. I make a motion that we provide the staff guidance to continue with the stakeholders' meetings, to advertise the meetings, to make sure everybody -- they're held all in the public, that everybody gets a chance to speak, and that whenever -- and then we follow the normal process for running it through our advisories. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that COMMISSIONER HALAS: CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's All the different advisory boards. Yes. a second? I'll second it, yes. a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was discussion here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you're right. You know, people can talk and make deals in the back room. Page 65 February 11, 2004 So I'm ready to vote. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And your button is on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I said just about all I should, or else Commissioner Coyle will feel he has a need to respond all more time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It passes 3-2. The three, Coyle, Fiala, Halas. And the two dissenting votes will be Henning and Coletta. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, you can bring it back if you want sometime. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I'm happy with what I'm doing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion we adopt the LDR's -- or give direction that we adopt the LDR's as written, the language that we originally were supposed to discuss. MS. CHUMBLER: In the -- for the listed species language. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: With the changes noted, Commissioner, the word "may"? MS. CHUMBLER: Right. The word "may" rather than "my," which is a typographical error. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, are we through with this subject then? MS. CHUMBLER: I think so. The motion that Commissioner Henning -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: We certainly raked it-- Page 66 February 11, 2004 MS. CHUMBLER: -- if I understood him correctly -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- through the coals enough. MS. CHUMBLER: -- the issue there that's left with listed species relating specifically to the LDR's was whether to leave the language as written, which is simply a restatement of the Growth Management Plan, or to delete it and let the Growth Management Plan control. I believe Commissioner Henning's just moved that we leave it with the Growth Management Plan language in place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we vote on this? We don't vote on this, right? We just nod on this, right? MR. WHITE: No, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We vote? Okay. We have a motion to -- MR. SCHMITT: You want to -- you want to vote for Tab M, we can vote. I would recommend that we vote for each tab inclusive. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, you're talking about the whole tab. Commissioner Henning, is that what you are voting on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's only one part in here that we discussed. MS. CHUMBLER: It is -- if you want to do the whole thing, that was the only issue I had identified as a carry-over issue from the last meeting. There wasn't anything else that I intended to address. You may -- I don't know if you have speakers on other issues within that tab or not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let's just take this one. Commissioner Henning has a motion on the floor. I'll second that motion. Any discussion on this particular item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 67 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes, 5-0. MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, we do have a couple of public speakers for this particular item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-oh. We can't vote then? I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: You just voted on that one paragraph is what made -- you've heard all -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that what he's talking about, or is he talking about Tab M? MR. WEBB: I thought we did. MR. SCHMITT: No, we have all -- no other speakers. MR. WEBB: No, no, I'm sorry, we don't. MR. SCHMITT: You've heard all the speakers for Tab M. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Now do you -- was that a motion for all of Tab M? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, sir. MR. SCHMITT: It was not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. It was only this one listed species item. We should have gone over that motion again. MR. WHITE: 3.11.3.3. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the one we voted on? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we voted just on -- and I'll repeat that motion, and I should have done that. I should have had the County Attorney repeat it before. And that is -- MR. WHITE: To adopt the language -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for this particular listed species item-- MS. CHUMBLER: Section 3.11.3.3. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we are going to add it to the LDC as Page 68 February 11, 2004 written; is that correct, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's motion, seconded and approved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the matter, Patrick? MR. WHITE: No problem. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We're all legal? MR. WHITE: So far. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Let's continue on with Tab MS. CHUMBLER: I have no other issues identified that were carried over from last meeting, the last hearing. Unless there's questions from the Commission, I believe there are no speakers. MR. SCHMITT: There are no registered-- we've exhausted the speakers. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve all of Tab M then. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion on the floor to approve all of Tab M. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Coyle. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. start COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tab M is approved, 5-0. MS. CHUMBLER: Madam Chairman, shall we go back and at Tab A? Page 69 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: We might as well do that. What page is that? MS. CHUMBLER: Tab A, the rural fringe mixed use district, begins on Page 21. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. CHUMBLER: And it would be my intent to go over those items where either there was an issue that you asked us to look at and bring back language to you, or you gave us some direction but we did not yet have specific language. So I will -- with that sort of strategy in mind, that's how I'll proceed, unless you would like for me to do it differently. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. The first item is on Page 30, and this is actually an item that occurs or recurs several times in both the Tab A and tab -- once in Tab C. It's at Item 13. And it's simply a clarification that for oil and gas exploration, that those will continue to be subject to state drilling permits in Collier County, non-environmental site development plan review procedures. The non-environmental is placed in there to clarify it. As you read later in the paragraph, there is specific language dealing with environmental criteria. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What-- may I ask a question, please? Regardless of whether the activity occurs within the Big Cypress watershed, what could that do to our watershed? MS. CHUMBLER: No, that means there are specific standards that apply technically in the state regulations that are applicable only within the Big Cypress watershed. And what we're saying is that those standards which are more stringent shall apply in Collier County, even if you're not in the Big Cypress watershed. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What I was concerned with, was when you hear our water and then you hear oil and gas, you become worried about contamination. Page 70 February 11, 2004 MS. CHUMBLER: And that's why those standards are more stringent within that area. They're written -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: This protects them. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. That's what they're written to do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sometimes they're written in a way that kind of disguises what they're really saying. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I'm not an expert in that area, but that's certainly what those standards were designed to do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You are an expert. You're far more an expert than I'll ever be. Commissioners, any other questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not from me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: The next change would be on Page 42, Paragraph 8. And this again was an item we -- that was raised last time. It was brought to our attention that when a -- since for a rural village approval you have to specify all of the activities that will be allowed within the rural village, there was concern that the surface owner and the subsurface -- the owner of the subsurface rights are not the same. That the surface owner who would, of course, be the applicant seeking approval for the rural village must notify any subsurface owner, so the subsurface owner isn't at a later date then precluded from reaching their resources. And that's what that language is, the applicant shall notify the owners of subsurface mineral rights to the property within the boundaries of the proposed rural village prior to the approval of the PUD. Those are the only two issues that I had identified as issues that were where you did not already have language before you last time as to TabA. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any comments from the Commissioners? (No response.) Page 71 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any speakers? MR. WEBB: We have one registered public speaker, Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And he waives. MS. CHUMBLER: Mr. Litsinger did bring to my attention, there's -- on Page 25 of the regulation, there's a -- Paragraph A, it says map graphic, rural fringe mixed use district. This map that Mr. Litsinger is handing out to you now will be inserted in the ordinance at that spot. And it's the same map that's in the GMP. MR. WEBB: Actually, Madam Chair, we do have one public speaker, I was just informed. George Fogg. CHAIRMAN FIALA: George Varnadoe? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fogg. CHAIRMAN FIALA: George Fogg? MR. WEBB: George Fogg. COMMISSIONER HENNING: F-O-G-G. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry. MR. FOGG: Good evening. My name is George Fogg. I'm a landscape architect and Fellow in American Society of Landscape Architects. I'm here tonight to comment on the landscape portion of the rural fringe GMP amendments establishing the rural fringe. I'm sorry, I don't understand all of your various initials and various things, so perhaps I didn't tell the staff exactly what I wanted to talk about. I am extremely familiar with the existing county landscape codes. I have been involved with the review and the revisions and implementation of Collier County's exemplary landscape architectural codes or landscape codes for the last 14 years. I have been aware that we're -- that the revisions to the LDC and the -- I hadn't until tonight been fully aware of the details of this code. And after reviewing in considerable -- to quite a considerable amount of detail, I have a Page 72 February 11, 2004 number of concerns that need to be corrected, I believe, before the code is approved tonight. And rather than going through every single page, I would rather characterize them as follows, and give you some examples. As one example, you have in -- on either Page 29 and/or 30, Item E(3). It is a comment regarding golf courses and native plants, and it says half of them should be frost free. Obviously for all of us, we know that that's not a reasonable approach. If you have only half of your plants frost free, that means only half of your plants are going to live. And I would think that we probably want to make some adjustment in that. I think 100 percent should be frost free so that we can have 100 percent chance of living plants. Out there and once you leave east of 75, if you don't have freeze tolerant plants, they die. Another example that I would bring to your attention is on the copy that I have reviewed, it was on Page 40, I think it's still the same. It's Item 15(B), it says tree diamonds would be shown or used in parking lots of approximately 15 square feet. That's a four-by-four space. And as many of you know, our plants just -- shade plants just don't grow in a three- or four-foot space. They just don't grow. And that modification to the existing landscape code would be, I think, extremely detrimental. To quote a February, 2004 Landscape Architectural magazine, says trees in small holes are significantly more difficult to maintain than trees in large spaces. Avoid, it recommends, planting holes, tree grates and restrictive tree guards. Please note -- I would comment now on myself, that please note that Collier County is currently experiencing problems with trees planted in small planters. And these kinds of situations should be avoided now so that we don't have the problem of maintaining them and correcting those problems in the future. I would suggest as a minimum that we have no planters less than 10 feet by 10 feet, and greater would be better. This also goes for the Page 73 February 11, 2004 communities that are being proposed where we have street areas in these new communities and new towns where we have five-foot wide and sometimes even smaller five- and six-foot wide planters. And for those of you who are familiar with the current problems that we have of our trees pushing up sidewalks and stuff at this point, that is problematic. And if you are going to propose it, then there should be some technical additional stuff such as root barriers and other things that might help contain those roots within the system. Basically the smaller the planters, the greater the future maintenance. There -- I'm sorry, I have to basically stop. But I simply would say that in general, the code is well put together. As long as we refer back to Section 2.4 in our existing code, I think that we probably would come out quite well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Fogg. No other speakers? MR. WEBB: Correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we've heard all of this -- all of this Tab A now, Marti? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, we have. And just for the Commission's information, that 50 percent freeze tolerant is a standard that's established in the GMP. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why would you want 50 percent tolerance? He made a -- he brought up a good point. MR. MULHERE: Maybe I could speak to that issue. I mean, that was a number that was arrived at through, gee, I don't know how many rural fringe meetings I attended, 57, 58. Some of the folks that were on the rural fringe committee had expertise in this area, and it was supported by staff; the number 50 percent freeze tolerant was what was derived at. But there is a little misconception here. Regardless of that number, if you install landscape plants and there's a freeze and they die, you have to replant them. Page 74 February 11, 2004 So it's really an option. The owner could put 100 percent. And this may be something -- this is a living document. I mean, we can look at it again, but'I think -- we can't change it now, because that's what's in the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Yeah, you'd think that just to save themselves money they would plant 100 percent. Why would you ever plant 50 percent knowing that 50 percent's going to die and it's going to cost you more money anyway? Okay. But this is -- this we can't change right now anyway. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, any other questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the planting area in the parking lot? MS. CHUMBLER: That -- the one that he mentioned, I think he may be looking at an older version, because for those tree diamonds, for example, there is no size set forth in the document that's before you. That was on Page 40, Paragraph 15(B), I believe, was the citation he gave us, that now says landscape islands and trees diamonds shall have a minimum of one canopy tree. There is no size specified there. Some of the other provisions that I think he referred to may actually be in the rural stewardship lands, rather than in Tab A. Tab C, rather than Tab A. MR. MULHERE: And I just might add that there is a specific reference in here, I think George alluded to, referring back to 2.4. And within the fringe, that is the requirement for landscaping, you have to adhere to our existing landscape code. You can always ask for a deviation. Whether it would be approved would be on a case-by-case basis. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would guess that he's trying to avoid some of the things we see where developers, builders, whomever, shopping center builders have put together what is required by law and then you see them die and they sit there and they are never put back, Page 75 February 11, 2004 and you drive by the debris, really, rather than landscaping from there on in. MR. MULHERE: I guess I would just add, and while I think probably some of those comments I'm sure are excellent and I certainly don't have the expertise that George Fogg has in terms of landscaping, it seemed that perhaps some of those things could be reviewed and then-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we can address them at another time. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, if I may, because I do have some comments from our landscape architect, and I think this may help in part. And she had recommended, and some of these were in the RLSA design standard, that a minimum of an eight-foot wide space rather than five foot. But also the installation of root barrier protection in any case would help alleviate some of those problems. And her suggestion was to add that language in. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, so she'll be doing that at an -- MS. MURRAY: No, ma'am, that was just what I'm bringing forward to you tonight as a recommendation. I apologize for the late input, but she had been reviewing this up until recently and had just made that suggestion for those smaller areas. MS. CHUMBLER: Where, in the rural fringe? MS. MURRAY: Rural-- MS. CHUMBLER: Rural fringe? MS. MURRAY: Tab C. I'm working in-- MS. CHUMBLER: Okay, we're on Tab A. MS. MURRAY: Well, they were discussing part of Tab C as well, so-- MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think we're going to get -- it's going to get really confusing if we -- because there are some very specific design standards that apply within the rural stewardship lands. My recommendation would be we wait and address those when Page 76 February 11, 2004 we get to Tab C. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, but this is in Tab A with the island diamonds, right? Could we then add this, this eight-foot, rather-- because there's no amount of feet in there right now. And whatever you said about protecting the roots? MS. MURRAY: Well, I think the tree diamonds is a different issue. And the eight-foot I think was a recommendation, as Marti pointed out, in Tab C. MR. MULHERE: As a minimum. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, as a minimum. She didn't -- and I apologize that she's not here to speak. So I'm trying to interpret what she had said in an e-mail to me, but I believe the eight-foot was reference to Pages 85, 88, 89, 91 and 95, some -- as there was some five-foot minimum specified there, and she had recommended eight-foot with root barrier. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there -- because -- Commissioner Fiala, there are no dimensions in the rural fringe, which is what we're discussing right now. And you are required to adhere to 2.4, so I don't think that that is an issue in the rural fringe. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Okay, any further discussion for Tab A? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a motion to accept Tab A? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we accept Tab A. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion by Commissioner Halas to accept Tab A and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Page 77 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER HENNING: CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes 5-0. Aye. Aye. And opposed, like sign. MS. CHUMBLER: The only changes in Tab B -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page what? MS. CHUMBLER: Tab B, beginning on Page 55 -- I'm sorry, beginning on Page 54. The only changes that are not language that were presented to you earlier is on Page 55 and 56, and it's the same change I mentioned earlier where we've added the word non-environmental oil and gas exploration subject to state drilling permits in Collier County, non-environmental site development plan review procedures. That's -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? MS. CHUMBLER: -- in two places, on 55 and 56. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may, there's -- I was going down this. On Page 83 or 55, depending on how you're reading it, Number 6, single-family dwellings, there's a line through that. Can you tell me exactly what we're -- why that is the way it is? Why was that struck out? Six. Item 6. MS. CHUMBLER: This is a conservation district. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. This isn't-- MS. CHUMBLER: And unless it's already grandfathered, you wouldn't have single -- you wouldn't allow single-family dwellings. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then on 84, working from the agenda item page -- let me just find out where I was with that. Yeah, over here it says on the very top, the last sentence of the first paragraph at the top, all access roads will -- shall be constructed and protected from unauthorized use according to the standards established in rural 62-30.005, so on. Can you explain exactly what unauthorized use is? Page 78 February 11, 2004 MS. CHUMBLER: I think I will defer to Mr. MacKenzie on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is current language just added to it, right? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, it is. And Mr. Mulhere points out to me that actually if you turn back a page to your question about single-family, and read A, uses permitted as of right, No. 1 is on privately held land only, because there are still some privately owned outparcels -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so that right hasn't been taken away. MR. MULHERE: That's right. MS. CHUMBLER: That single-family is still there for those few privately owned parcels. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's what I needed to know to that. But what about the access? MR. MACKENZIE: Brian MacKenzie. I represent the Collier Resources Company, which manages the oil and gas minerals for the Collier family. And the access question in mind here, the state oil and gas rules that are referenced in the document prohibit the use of oil and gas access roads for anything other than oil and gas operations. The idea is to keep ORV's, hunting trails, anything that's unauthorized use would provide unauthorized access to an otherwise wilderness area. It prevents that. They're already addressed in the oil and gas rules. The Planning Commission wanted me to add that sen -- wanted us to add this sentence in there to ensure that it's for all phases of oil and gas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't say that, though, does it? MR. MACKENZIE: It does in Chapter 62C30-005, sub 2Al. Page 79 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, could this be interpreted to mean all roads in that area? MR. MACKENZIE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where do I find the language that will tell me that the other roads are exempt and it's not just applying to the gas -- gas and oil explorations. MR. MACKENZIE: Oh, okay, I see what you're saying. What they mean is all oil and gas access roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we include that language in that? Because the way I'm reading this, it doesn't come out that way. MR. MACKENZIE: Yeah, that's not a problem. And can we go ahead and put that across the board in all the places where this occurs? MS. CHUMBLER: Which, Commissioners, would mean that we would need to go back to Tab A because that -- this language does appear a few places in Tab A -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, man, I missed that Tab A. MS. CHUMBLER: -- so we would need to make that change in Tab A as well, to be consistent. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MACKENZIE: Just to clarify that one last point. An oil and gas access road is strictly for oil and gas access. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have no problem in the world with that. I think that's just fine. MR. MACKENZIE: If it existed -- if it was another acce -- another type of access that existed, we have nothing to say about it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there's roads all through that area that are used for different recreational uses -- MR. MACKENZIE: Right, absolutely. Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and those people feel threatened on a continuous basis on new regulations being placed on them, and I just wanted to make sure we weren't going in that Page 80 February 11, 2004 direction with this particular document. MR. MACKENZIE: Yes. In instances like the one you just talked about, where you have -- if other people have historically used an access road for access to their private property, then we would make agreements with them they can use that access road to access their property. They just can't conduct unauthorized activities from the roads. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But we're talking about the roads going to your wells, to the places that you're going to be drilling future wells and the roads you're putting in. We're not talking about existing roads that go to different -- MR. MACKFJNZIE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- recreational areas back in there. MR. MACKENZIE: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for making that clear. And I'm sure we'll get the language on that so that it reads that. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. I would suggest that the change should be simply all oil and gas access roads shall be constructed. Just add the words oil and gas before access roads in that sentence. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners? MS. CHUMBLER: That's the -- that's the only change in conservation district, Tab B. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioners, anything further? May I hear a motion to -- Motion -- Page 81 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- accept Tab B as corrected? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to accept Tab B as corrected. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: A motion to accept Tab B as corrected from Commissioner Coletta and a second from Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes 5-0. MS. CHUMBLER: ***And while we're at it, Commissioner, we may want to go back and address those, making that same change in Tab A. You had voted to approve Tab A as presented to you. And I think we need to go back and make that change while it's still fresh in our minds. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we do that without rescinding the previous motion, or just -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, we can just have another vote. MR. WHITE: I think can you have another motion to further amend. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I make a motion that we further amend Tab A to agree with changes we just made in Tab C. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tab B. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tab B, excuse me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Page 82 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to further amend Tab A to meet the amendments that we made in Tab B. And any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That is passed, 5-0. ***We're on to Tab C, which is Page 59 in the middle of the page, or 87 in the agenda item. MS. CHUMBLER: And I'm going to defer to Mr. Mulhere on this item with respect to everything except for one proposed change. This relates to -- there was some discussion last time about architectural design standards and the role or non-role of an architectural review board developed over -- or by the -- established by the developer. And what -- we think we've come up with some language that's acceptable. This language would appear in the first instance -- excuse me while I find it -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, can we stop for just a moment? We won't move. Go ahead. (A brief recess was taken.) MS. CHUMBLER: The first occasion on which this language would appear would be on Page 79 of my copy, which is not your agenda page number, but it's the page that -- number that appears in the bottom center of your page. We would add new paragraphs A(13) and 14 that would read as Page 83 February 11, 2004 follows: To the extent that Division 2.8 is applicable within the urban designated area, SRA architectural design standards shall comply with the provisions of Division 2.A -- 2.8, unless additional or different design standards that deviate from Division 2.8 in whole or part are submitted to the county no later than when the first SRI -- SRA site development plan is submitted for approval. The purpose of that, there's a recognition that for these SRA's, there may be some deviation or some different architectural design standards from what appears in the county's current 2.8. The concern with the language that was earlier proposed was that it allowed an architectural review board established by the developer to determine what those design standards were going to be, and staff was concerned that that basically took them out of the picture altogether in terms of looking at those design standards. So the language that we've come up with still allows a developer coming forward and seeking approval for an SRA to deviate from the standards that would apply elsewhere, but those substitute standards have to be submitted to your staff as part of the -- either they can do it earlier, but it has to be no later than the first site development plan approval process for that SRA. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So instead of creating a loophole, we're tightening it up, is that what you're saying? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, it allows for more flexibility, which you'll find when we go through these standards. And as we've said before, for the rural stewardship lands there is a lot of flexibility built in here, so it allows for some flexibility, but it also allows the county staff to review those standards and have a chance to ensure that they're acceptable. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So was this proposed by our staff or by a developer? MS. CHUMBLER: This was worked out in conjunction -- there were comments from the staff. We had looked at a number of options. Page 84 February 11, 2004 This was one of about four or five options. And we, just within moments before the Board hearing started, staff and the developers and myself worked on this language. And that's why I apologize having to read it to you this evening. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just-- when we get to the cross-sections, I'd like to comment on it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. WHITE: I don't know if it's helpful, Madam Chair, but I believe that the process that's been articulated by Marti is one that's consistent with the way that deviations from 2.2.27 are otherwise anticipated to be handled by the staff and by the review process. So I think it's a similar type of process. MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. A similar process already exists in our code. For example, if a PUD rezoning was to come in, they have the ability to propose alternative design standards through the PUD process, which would be evaluated on and commented by staff to you, and then you would have the ability to approve or not approve. The problem with the current language is 2.8 applies only in the urban designated area, and this is outside of the urban designated area. This would provide that the standards would apply in the rural fringe area -- or the Eastern lands, excuse me, and that they would also still retain the same ability as we recognize that this is going to be kind of a unique area for development. So obviously there will be a need for different or alternative architectural standards, and this would provide the ability for them to basically do the same thing as already permitted, or allowed at least as a process in the urban area. MS. CHUMBLER: Also, Madam Chairman, that would be -- the language I read to you would be Paragraph 13 on Page 79, and then, so that we cover landscape design standards, we would also propose a Page 85 February 11, 2004 Paragraph 14. And so we might have to read this in the record again, so I beg your indulgence. This Paragraph 14 would read: To the extent that division 2.8 is applicable within the urban designated area, SRA landscape design and installation standards shall comply with the provisions of Division 2.8 unless additional or different design standards that deviate from Division 2.8 in whole or part -- MR. MULHERE: That's 2.4. MS. CHUMBLER: 2.4, excuse me. 2.4. Every place I said 2.8 it should be 2.4 there. -- are submitted to the county no later than when the first SRA site development plan is submitted for approval. It's the same process, but in this instance relating to the landscape design installation standards. And that language that I have just read to you as Paragraphs 13 and 14 on Page 79 should also -- in this instance it applies to the town design standards. It also needs to be placed at Page 90 to be applicable to village design standards. And on that page it would appear as Paragraphs 7 and 8. And we would remove from the proposed regulations the language that had earlier referred to architectural design standards within towns and villages, and the establishment of architectural review boards. MR. WHITE: Do you have a citation to that section? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, I do. The first one is on Page 81, and it's 2.2.27.10.J.2.A. I'm sorry, .D(1)(M), on Page 81; (2)(M) on Page 85. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a question. MS. CHUMBLER: And one other place we would delete. If I can do that before I forget. On Page 91 would be 3.D(2)(N) as in Nicholas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you clarify why we're making these changes now and why it wasn't written into the material before Page 86 February 11, 2004 we -- MS. CHUMBLER: Well, we received comments fairly late in the process, some from county staff, architectural staff, with concerns about the language that was proposed. And so we've been in a continuous effort since we were here last time. I think we mentioned to you last time that we were in those discussions and we were going to come back to you with some proposed language, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would have thought that the language would had been that everything would have been taken care of and then submitted to us as part of the review process as we got our packets. MS. CHUMBLER: In a perfect world, sir, it would, but it's not. And I apologize that we didn't get it to you earlier. MS. MURRAY: And I need to apologize on behalf of staff also, Commissioner Halas. We had been in discussions with Bob Mulhere and trading language back and forth, and unfortunately it ended up to be this night when we finally agreed on something that we could both support. MR. WHITE: Just for clarity sake, Madam Chair, I'd like to inquire of Marti, that the precise change to the text in those two sections she just cited to would be to delete the text starting with the words "the SRA document"? to? MR. WHITE: parentheses. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what page are you referring That would be on Page 81, under little letter M, in MR. WHITE: Everything from the words "the SRA document" to the end of that section would be deleted? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. MR. WHITE: And the same on Page 91, under small letter N -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait, wait, wait, let's get 81. Page 87 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: Sorry. MS. CHUMBLER: 81, Paragraph M -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: M. MS. CHUMBLER: -- the sentence buildings with town cores shall be made compatible through similar massing volume, frontage, scale and architectural features will remain. The rest of that sub-paragraph would be stricken. On Page 85, the same change. The first sentence would remain. The rest of that sub-paragraph M, as in Michael, would be stricken. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why are we taking out the architectural review and approval? MS. MURRAY: The reference to the board? Is that what you're questioning, Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, why are we taking out the architectural review and approval process? MS. MURRAY: Well, we -- I think that's mostly a substitution. What we're doing is, again, ensuring that the existing regulations we have within the urban area would apply in this case, but also with the alternative for them to develop their own standards. So I'm not really sure that there's a removal of anything here, it's more of a clarification to ensure that the current standards -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even though we're removing these sentences? MS. MURRAY: Correct, yeah. MS. CHUMBLER: The sentences that we're removing, the deletion does two things. One, it deletes the reference to architectural review board, which we've come to the conclusion that was not the right way to go. And it then deletes language that we are now substituting the language I read to you for. The language that we're proposing now is in a different location, but it accomplishes the same thing in terms of the county reviewing those architectural design standards. Page 88 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: have that option-- MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: architectural standards? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: time for public input also? MR. MULHERE: Yes. So you're saying the county will -- later on to address the And if there's any -- there's also COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. MS. MURRAY: We'll also be looking to amend Section 2.8, which is the architectural standards, to clarify that later this year in terms of their applicability in areas outside of the urban. So you'll also get that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's going to be a later date, that's not going to be addressed tonight? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. That would be in the second cycle of this year. MR. WHITE: And I believe there's a third place where that text appears, on Page 91. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. On Page 91, it's sub-paragraph N. And actually, just as a matter of stylistic changes, that those first two words "architectural standards" I would suggest striking, just because they're in the form of a title and there's not a title for any of the other sub-paragraphs. But it's not a substantive provision. My recommendation would be to begin sub-paragraph N with: Buildings within the village center shall be made compatible through similar massing volume, frontage, scale and architectural features, period. And the rest of that sub-paragraph stricken. And with that comment, I'm going to turn the rest of the presentation on Tab C over to Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And for the record, I'm Bob Mulhere, Page 89 February 11, 2004 with RWA. The first change is on Page 67. That's not your agenda page, so I'll try to refer to your agenda page, if that helps. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 67 is the printed page on the bottom? MR. MULHERE: Correct. Is that fine? Can we use that one? That makes it easier. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that would be the easiest. MR. MULHERE: The definition numbered four refers to building height to street width ratio, and Commissioner Halas, you'll recall that we discussed this particularly -- in particular with you? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MR. MULHERE: That the maximum height of the tallest building divided by the width of the street. The street width is the distance between the two building facades, and the purpose of this definition is to provide definition to what we're -- what we're trying to achieve here is not having overly wide streets. We want pedestrian friendly streets. And we certainly don't want overly tall buildings overshadowing those streets. So there has to be a relationship between the two. And that's what this definition is intended to accomplished. I'm sorry, I missed a minor change, under Number 1, accessory dwelling unit. You recall that we discussed at your previous meeting that accessory dwelling units were limited to 650 feet, and that was the original square footage number. When we decided to look at this more comprehensively, the SRA standards, we thought that 900 square feet is a better number for an accessory guest unit, a mother-in-law apartment or a student's apartment or something along those lines. On the next page, 68 -- and all of these -- for the record, all of those will be renumbered accordingly, and that's depicted in your changes. On Page 68 there is a minor change at the bottom of the Page 90 February 11, 2004 definition No. 7, which continues on the top of Page 68 through 6HSA to 8 through 11. Just clarifying language. It really has no impact. The next definition, No. 11, I think that's just clarifying the renumbering, that language. No. 11 is a landmark building. We talked about this at the last meeting and wanted to provide a definition, and you have a definition here. Remember that for a landmark building the Board can approve deviations from development standards. And a landmark building is a prominent civic or institutional building that creates a significant community feature, focal point or terminating vista. When it was originally written, it was written such that staff would be able to approve that through the process, but because it could be a significant deviation, it was agreed to change that to Board approval as part of the SRA review, so we've defined that structure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You might want to spell -- have them spell building right when they rewrite that. MR. MULHERE: Yep, it's missing an L, isn't it? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you give a def-- a definition of what you're talking about here as far as a focal point building? What would -- example. MR. MULHERE: Yes, a focal point building would be -- an example might be a church that's located at the end of a boulevard or street, such that when you look down that street, and maybe the name of it is Church Street, one I'm familiar with, you see a wonderful steeple or some other architectural design that may deviate from those standards, but it becomes a focal point. That's the intent there. It's a challenge because we're thinking out of the box in all of these standards, and those Comprehensive Plan amendments have caused us to look at these design standards to accomplish those goals, pol -- objectives and policies, so -- Page 91 February 11, 2004 The next issue that get to is the cross-sections, and they start on Page 70. And the issue, if I can try to frame it for you, at the last meeting -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I tell you my issue with them? MR. MULHERE: Sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking at a collector road with 11-foot travel lanes. Then I'm looking at a multi-use lane with 12-foot. I guess, here's my concern-- MR. MULHERE: Can I, can I direct everyone to a page so that -- I just want to get everybody on the same page. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventy-five. MR. MULHERE: Page -- that's right, Page 75. And you have -- the top cross-section is the one that Commissioner Henning is referring to, on Page 75. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If this is going to be applied in a college town, I can tell you, you're going to have people driving on the multi-path lane, just to be what we were back then, is young. And the other concern is, you know, these grandiose ideas is great, they're beautiful, except for what we do continually is to raise cost. If we apply common sense, I think that we're doing a better job by giving guidance to the county. As we -- I'm six feet tall. And if you can't get a bicyclist and a pedestrian going in opposite directions, then you shouldn't be on the sidewalk. Or if you get two bicycles. And I've demonstrated this on our roadways when we brought this up before. Going side by side, then -- or not side by side -- even side by side or opposing each other, my opinion, you shouldn't be on the sidewalk. You know, it's just -- I like the separation between -- MR. MULHERE: I was going -- I was going to point that out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, between the travel lanes and the pedestrians or the bicyclist. But this is really overkill, in my Page 92 February 11, 2004 opinion. MR. MULHERE: I think what you have here is -- and I appreciate your comments. I just would -- to frame the issue, I think, that was raised at the last meeting, I think-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you could get it down to, I think, eight foot is more than reasonable. MR. MULHERE: And that may be. I was just going to try to, again, frame the issue that came up at the last meeting which was that the -- I think the transportation staff and members of the Pathway Advisory Committee were concerned that in certain of these cross-sections, you did not have a dedicated on-street bike lane. And the Board's direction at that meeting was to come back, providing an option, a cross-section option, that included a dedicated bike lane for all collector-- and I suppose in the case of an arterial that would also be obvious -- but for all collector roadways. So what you have on Figures 11 through, I think, 18 is an option that either provides an on-street, dedicated bike lane or provides a multi-use path. And you're correct in these cases, I think in all the cases, that multi-use path is 12 feet. Now, let me just -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wasn't that also going to be divided off or sectioned off?. MR. MULHERE: It could be with a 12-foot width, yes, with a 12-foot width. But now, I do want to say that I don't know that we've necessarily achieved consensus on these issues. I am not, nor would ! proffer myself to be, a transportation expert or an expert on alternative, non-motor vehicle pathways, sidewalks, bike lanes. I can only offer you my professional expertise from a regulatory or from a policy perspective. From my perspective flexibility is very, very important. We do not know exactly what the specific design is going to be in any SRA. We do not know what the nature of an SRA is going to be as it relates Page 93 February 11, 2004 to a particular street. And so from my perspective, no decision is being made here, you're simply offering a couple of options. The decision will be made when the SRA application is reviewed by staff and by the Board. Having said that, I do think-- and you can ask for-- these are -- you know, you can ask for deviations from these. You can always for deviations. So if it makes sense and someone can provide a rationale that the staff and ultimately the Board agrees with, they could ask for a deviation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have Diane Flagg over here, maybe she could come up with-- MR. MULHERE: I know that Diane probably wants to speak, and I think you have some other speakers on this issue. And although it's not the whole tab, there are other items in this tab, you may want to -- I was going to suggest you may want to hear -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to hear from Diane, as long as this is the subject we're talking about. This is the only one Commissioner Henning really mentioned right in the beginning he really wanted to hit on this one too, so -- MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Henning, you're absolutely right. What the PAC requested was just to have cross-sections that meet the minimum standards. And if the developer wishes to exceed the minimum standards, then they can do so. The cross-sections that do not meet the minimum standards -- the minimum standards are the Florida Department of Transportation standards, and cross-sections Figure 8, 11, 13, 15 and 17 do not meet the minimum standards. All the rest of the cross-sections that you have in your packet do meet the minimum standards. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COuld you repeat -- COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, this one exceeds it. The Page 94 February 11, 2004 one I just -- the one that we were referring to, it has a minimum, not a maximum. MS. FLAGG: In cross-section or Figure 11, it exceeds it from the sidewalk standpoint, because the minimum standard is six feet. But it does not meet the minimum standard because it does not have a bike lane. And in the Florida Department of Transportation, wide pathways are not to be substituted -- their standards are pathways are not to be substituted for bike lanes. That's why Figure 11, the sidewalk does exceed -- the width does exceed the minimum standard, but because it lacks a bike lane, it does not meet the minimum standard. So it's just Figures 8, 11, 13, 15 and 17 are the only ones that do not meet minimum standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so you're saying the 12-foot multi-use pathway is not wide enough? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. It's actually -- the width of that sidewalk exceeds minimum standards. The standard is only -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say sidewalk. MS. FLAGG: The -- in the FDOT standards, what they specifically state is that a multi-use path is not to be substituted for on-street bicycle lanes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you saying that because there is not a sidewalk on either side, that when you have the option of putting a sidewalk in, you're not going to put it on either side or both sides on the road, you can meet the requirements of this particular code by having a 12-foot wide pathway on one side of the road? Is that what you're saying? MS. FLAGG: No, the issue with Figure 11 is that it lacks a bike lane, whereas Figure 12 has a bike lane. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I remember talking to you when you were EMS director, you couldn't understand why people would ride a bicycle with vehicles. Now you're saying that you want Page 95 February 11, 2004 that to happen? MS. FLAGG: What I'm saying is that the minimum standards for Florida Department of Transportation require a four-foot bike lane and a minimum of a six-foot sidewalk. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And where does the bike lane belong? MS. FLAGG: Next to the travel lane. Exactly how -- in Figure 12, that cross-section is exactly the minimum that FDOT recommends. And we had -- at the PAC meeting we had a FDOT rep there. They reviewed all these cross-sections. And the only ones, again, that do not meet minimums are 8, 11, 13, 15 and 17. All the rest of them do meet minimum standards. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8, 11, what? MS. FLAGG: Figure 8, Figure 11, Figure 13, Figure 15 and Figure 17. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you want a bike lane with cars in these-- MS. FLAGG: FDOT, that's their minimum standard, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard you say that. And you want, you, want a bike lane to meet those minimum standards? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, I want cross-sections that meet minimum standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To put bicycles with cars. Makes sense. MS. FLAGG: The only other comment that I would have is that anywhere in the material where there's text that corresponds with the figures that do not meet minimum standards, that the text should also be eliminated so that it's consistently throughout the material that it meets the minimum standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: If we meet the minimum standards, are we also eligible for grant dollars in any of these cases? Page 96 February 11, 2004 MS. FLAGG: I don't know. I know that we work a lot with FDOT and enhancement grants, and there are some FDOT requirements in regard to what we have in that setting. I can't speak specific to this, though. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then we really wouldn't want to include anything that doesn't meet minimum standards, would we? MS. FLAGG: FDOT, at that meeting, was pretty strong -- besides the Pathways Advisory Committee, who also felt very strongly about that these cross-sections and the text, corresponding text, needs to meet minimum standards. And again, they encourage the development community that if they want to exceed the standards, that they welcome that. But they do ask that they meet minimum standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I would suggest then that we follow what the FDOT recommends. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I've got to point out a few cases where we haven't met the minimum standards -- MS. FLAGG: You're correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on our roads. The ones that we just opened. So, you know, do we do what we say or say as we do? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, as long as -- well, maybe if we write the rules properly -- and I don't know that they aren't, by the way, you know it much better than I do. But if we write the rules properly, we'll have a leg to stand on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, every time we approve constructions for roads, we're deviating from them. And I can tell you, we just did that, Logan Boulevard north of Immokalee. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just because we made -- we've made mistakes doesn't mean we should make another one by allowing these that don't meet minimum standards to be in the Land Development Page 97 February 11, 2004 Code. MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, could I recommend that we hear from public speakers? Because there are other experts as well, and we have some public speakers registered for this item. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. MR. WEBB: The first speaker is Anita Jenkins. MS.JENKINS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Anita Jenkins; I am a planning manager with Wilson-Miller. And just to give you a little bit of background on my credentials on this topic before I begin discussing the cross-sections with you, I have a Masters in planning from the University of Florida and extensive training and in bicycle and pedestrian facilities design. I was the Collier County MPO bicycle and pedestrian coordinator from 1992 to '96 and authored your Comprehensive Pathway Plan and your neighborhood traffic management program. I've also worked for the Bicycle Federation of America as a trainer for engineers and planners on bicycle facilities design. I've also worked for FDOT state safety office, bike ped program on special assignments. One of the most important things to consider when adopting guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is that one size does not fit all. There are many times that there will be variables to consider in a specific street. For instance, roadway design speed, the number of intersections and driveways that are crossing over these facilities, and also the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, natural resources and the fact that we have to minimize those impacts. There are going to be times when bike lanes and sidewalks are the most appropriate facility, there are going to be times when an off-road pathway is the most appropriate facility. There's going to be times when some other alternative is going to be the most appropriate facility. But it depends on the context of the street and the network that's being designed. The particular street, the particular neighborhood, the particular community. Page 98 February 11, 2004 The Pathway Advisory Committee is opposing these cross-sections that include the off-road pathways, and they are saying that they oppose them, in their letter to you that was written on February 6th, because pathways do not accommodate bicycles. And that's what their letter said to you. Not that it didn't meet FDOT minimums, but that it doesn't accommodate bicyclists. And I will not agree with that statement that the very manual that the LDC and the pathway uses for bicycle facilities design guidelines -- and that's the Florida Facilities Handbook-- has a whole chapter on pathways, off-road pathways. And it has a chapter on on-street facilities. And that guideline book says that trails and pathways create many positive benefits to communities and accommodate bicycles. What you have before you today offers the flexibility of those alternatives for you to consider during each application: What this street is, what it's accomplishing, how many intersections are crossing that facility, what the design speed is, what the most appropriate facility at the time that the application comes before you, what's going to be best to accommodate the bicycle and the pedestrian. And I encourage you to adopt these standards today to allow that flexibility to occur. FDOT design guideline minimums are reflected in this in that the bicycle lanes for an urban cross-section are four feet and the bicycle lanes for a rural cross-section are five feet, with sidewalks on each side. The manual also says that a multi-use trail must be a minimum of 12 feet. And that's why that 12-foot minimum is there, because it does comply with FDOT minimums. And so with that, I'd like to encourage you to adopt these standards and provide the flexibility needed for each community to design an appropriate network for bicycles and pedestrians as it comes before you. Thank you. MR. WEBB: The next public speaker is Rich Housh. MR. HOUSH: For the record, I'm Rich Housh, H-O-U-S-H. I'm Page 99 February 11, 2004 a member of the Pathway Advisory Committee and a resident of Old Naples. Madam Chairperson and Board of County Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to address this group again. I don't have a degree in transportation. I have a degree in English. But the Florida Green Book, the minimum standards for that -- published by Florida Department of Transportation, the minimum standards says, and I have the book if anybody would like to see it, says the inclusion of a shared use path should not be considered as an alternative to providing in-street facilities, but rather as a supplement. I love multi-use trails. I serve on the board of the rails-to-trails conservancy. My wife and I took a rails-to-trails trailblazer ride last year with the president of rails-to-trails. We love off-street facilities, they're fantastic in terms of safety. I met with an attorney here in town today that has a number of children and he and his wife get out, and there's nothing better than riding your bike or walking or running away from traffic. But it needs to be a supplement. That's what the FDOT standard is. The challenge that we have had in Collier County is that we don't have any standards. And that's why we had to start someplace. And I think going to the FDOT standards is a very good one. I have studied this issue. I've got an article here from the Florida Bicycling Association where a cyclist was just killed in Palm Beach County where the ad -- it's not an ad, it's an article -- that said that had on-street bike lanes been there rather than this individual riding their bike on the sidewalk, it could have prevented this death. I agree with Anita and Bob that one size doesn't fit all. But there's lots of things to consider as far as where those cyclists are going to go if you don't put standards in place. The FDOT standard goes on to talk about some of the problems when a pathway -- if you have a multi-use trail on one side of the road, this is what the standard -- the FDOT says. Where paths end, bicycles -- bicyclists going against traffic will tend to continue to travel on the wrong side of the Page 100 February 11, 2004 street. Because if there's a pathway only on one side and it stops and they continue going on the wrong side of the street, that presents other problems. So it is a challenge, without a doubt. But where do people go when the pathway on one side of the street ends? And if you -- and I think the Pathway Advisory Committee's problem with the cross-sections were you put all the bikers, all the walkers of all the different skill levels on one pathway and what happens when it ends, and who knows which direction everybody's going to be riding? And so that's the challenge. So I think we just need to go back to the FDOT standards and the current LDC standards. It says that the -- as a minimum, shared use paths shall be a supplement, not as an alternative. And I've got more data, if you want it. But thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rich, Rich, before you leave, we envision on-street parking in some cases here. What solution do you recommend for that? MR. HOUSH: I don't have a solution to that. My son was doored as a bicycle courier in San Francisco, and he was hospitalized. So that's a rough one. I mean -- the only real solution to that is slow speed limits, very slow speed limits. And some signage that -- share the road signage, so folks and cars will respect the fact that cyclists are going to be there. That's a tough one. I don't have a solution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even a five mile per hour speed limit is a pretty sudden stop when a door hits you in the face, isn't it? MR. HOUSH: Yep, yep. I ride my beach bike down 5th all the time and I just watch -- keep on the lookout. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. Third Street's really bad. MR. HOUSH: Yeah. And I live off-- right off of Second Street, so -- it's rough. I don't know the solu -- I don't have the answer to that, Fred. I just know that putting people on the sidewalks is tough too Page 101 February 11, 2004 with bicycles. And then you also have all kinds of skill levels of cyclists. And one of the things that we do know, and I shared this last week when you weren't here, the cyclists, the expert cyclists, they're going to be there whether you put a facility there for them or not. If there's no bike lanes or no sidewalks, on a Sunday morning at 8:00 there's going to be 20, or 30 or 40 cyclists there, whether you like it or not. They go through Pelican Bay all the time and, you know, they're all through this community. So you-- and really, the FDOT standards say you need to plan all transportation systems with the assumption that cyclists are going to be there. So they're going to be there and we need to accommodate them, or else it increases the chances of collisions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, because basically what we're designing these for is a college town, the majority of these amendments. And I think what we have to -- pardon? MR. MULHERE: Actually, these really are not being designed for the college town, they're being designed for receiving areas that we have no idea what they're going to be. We haven't seen them yet. You're right, there's Ave Maria, that's one. But these are universally applicable, so not just for a college town. MR. HOUSH: But the problem that I have with the stan -- with these cross-sections is we haven't brought any, any experts from the bicycling or walking community. Not one. We could bring in people from the rails-to-trails conservancy, we can bring in sprinkle consultants, we can bring the National Center for Bicycling and Walking, and they all say the same thing. MR. MULHERE: Well, Anita might be a little offended, but I won't speak for her. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Diane, did you have something to add to that? Page 102 February 11, 2004 MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Coyle, just in response to your question, there is no on-street parking where the minimum standards require a bike lane. So that's been addressed. The only time that there's on-street parking is in the local streets under these cross-sections, and there is no bike lane required for those. So the only cross-sections where there is a bike lane is where there is no on-street parking. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not raising the question about whether bike lanes are required, but as Rich points out, bicyclists will be there, whether there's parking on the street or not. And I was just inquiring as to whether or not he knew of any solutions to the problem. MS. FLAGG: Well, from the presenter expert that was here at the last meeting, what he indicated on the local streets, which is what they've drawn as cross-sections with 1 O-foot travel lanes, typically when you have a 1 O-foot travel lane and parallel parking, and then you have landscaping, it tends to close in the streets so that the drivers, what the expert said was, that the goal on these local streets is that the speed limit would be about 10 to 15 miles an hour. In those types of situations, you're absolutely correct, that the cyclist will be on the road. But at 10 or 15 miles an hour, you, know, things are going to be moving slowly. And they'll be cognizant, they won't be -- the cyclists will not be riding right next to where the car doors open, they'll be riding as a vehicle on the road. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish I were as confident as you. MR. HOUSH: I'd say they're going to be all over the place, so we need to try to give them at least as many standards as possible. So, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? Okay. Page 103 February 11, 2004 MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, we have no other registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I suspect that that's an item that you'll have to deal with maybe at the end of the rest of the changes. On Page 79, under town design criteria, under general design criteria, sub-paragraph Number 3, or parens Number 3. What we talked about, the accessory dwelling units and increasing the size to 900 square feet. At the last meeting we also discussed providing language that would indicate that those accessory dwelling units are permissible, but that the combination of the accessory dwelling units and the permitted principal dwelling units can't exceed the maximum density, so that language is in here. Sub-paragraph -- Paragraph 12, it was pointed out that there wasn't any language in this document relative to typical residential signage. And that's what this addresses, is the typical signs that you'll see in a residential district or in a residential use, such as a For Sale or For Rent or those types of signs. So that paragraph deals with that. Page 80, minor change under D(1)(G) towards the bottom of the page. The maximum building height shall be six stories, excluding roofs and architectural features. That's just a clarification in definition. Page 81, Marti already went over the changes to sub-paragraph Under sub-paragraph N, as in Nancy, that's where there is a strikethrough dealing with the landscape islands and tree diamonds shall have a minimum of one tree. The language of greater than 15 square feet in size has been struck through. And perhaps Susan, this may be something that you were commenting on. As I understood it, Nancy's comments -- and I want to make sure I got them right -- were that if you were going to have a five-foot tree diamond, you would have to use the root barrier; otherwise, it would Page 104 February 11, 2004 have to be eight foot. Do I have that, that correct? MS. MURRAY: I don't think so. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I didn't think so either. MS. MURRAY: And I didn't -- I didn't have a comment relating to the tree diamond. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: But we did have a comment related to the root barrier. And I apologize to Nancy-- MR. MULHERE: Okay. Marti just informed that you actually looked at this language and that was taken out -- MS. MURRAY: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- so that it would be subject to the review process. Okay. On the bottom of that Page 81, there's the language about the shared parking analysis methodology which has to be agreed to at the SRA pre-application meeting. So that however the parking study -- a study to determine the required parking is conducted, it will be using a joint methodology agreed to by the applicant and transportation services. Moving along. On Page 82, sub-paragraph O at the top of the page, that's where I think George mentioned the requirement for a root barrier. As you can see, that language has been added here. It says in these areas sidewalk protection such as root barriers, a continuous tree pit and/or structural soils shall be provided. Let's see, sub-paragraph P, it just has -- looks to me like there was some -- there was a typographical correction, and then talks again about sidewalk protection, such as root barriers, continuous tree pits. So I think that issue was addressed. Susan? MS. MURRAY: You're correct. I think part of the comments where there was root barrier protection required in certain areas of the proposed amendments, and then it was left out of othersl So we just wanted to make sure that it was consistent through the document that Page 105 February 11, 2004 they would be required. MR. MULHERE: The next change is on Page 84. And you did look at this language the last time. I mean, it's not new, but you can see where it's been struck through and then there's some additional language at the bottom of the page that I referred to earlier, that talks about the BCC being able to approve on deviations for institutional buildings. On sub-paragraph G is the same change I referenced earlier under the building height in another section. Are we -- Page 84, sub-paragraph G. Are we on the same page? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's five stories there and six stories in the other. MR. MULHERE: Correct, they're different -- there are different sections. On Page 85, the sub-paragraph N that talks about the building height to street width ratio that we previously discussed in the definition. Under paragraph D, it was pointed out, and we discussed this at your last meeting, that the document lacked develop -- specific development standards for single-family. It had it for mixed use, it had it for the commercial. It didn't have it for single-family. Since there's going to be so many different types of single-family development, it does defer to the SRA application process, and that's what that language says. There's a minor change on Page 88, Paragraph M. Deals with numbering and figure identification. Page 89, sub-paragraph G, same change. Renumbers, figures. Let me see if this is new here. Okay, great. So we just go to the green tabs? COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, back on 85, Page 85, where Page 106 February 11, 2004 the minimum lot area shall be 1,000 square feet? MR. MULHERE: I don't see what -- D(1). Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a pretty small lot area. Is that what you intended? MR. MULHERE: Yes, for a minimum. This is intended to be a very compact design. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it really is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what does that measure? COMMISSIONER COYLE: About 33 by 33. It's about as wide as this room, and about as big as that part behind the partition. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, it says minimum. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it is a minimum. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Basically what you're going to have is zero lot line. MR. MULHERE: That's correct, it's going to be zero lot line. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to have -- MR. MULHERE: Not in all cases. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- traditional neighborhood where you're going to have, you know, like garage parking in the rear. MR. MULHERE: Correct. But not in all cases. It's going to be very compact in the center and as you move towards the out -- these lots will get bigger and so will the lot widths. But that was the minimum standard, and I don't hear anybody behind me yelling. So I should just go to the green tabs, right? Okay, on Page 91, you do O -- sub-paragraph O, the change deals with that ratio of building height to street width. It's the same change repeated in another section. And we're just about done with this, I think. That is it for all the new changes. So I assume that the issue of greatest significance is the flexibility and the determination on the right-of-way cross-section. Page 107 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm fine with flexibility. If you want to leave it to have 12-foot runways for sidewalks, that's fine. As long as we get a choice later on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's what was brought up earlier, that we'll have that choice as we move on through this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean if we have the FDOT standards? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The minimum standards of FDOT. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Minimum. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that would drop out, then, that 7, 11, 13, 15 and 17; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what I said. MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, just -- it would mean that if someone came in and instead of on-street bike lanes, they wanted to have a 12-foot off-street multi-purpose path, they would have to seek a deviation from your standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now-- MS. CHUMBLER: In any case, they've got to have their street cross-sections approved through the approval process, but in that instance they would have to seek a deviation from your LDR's in order to propose to you that option. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, if they wanted to build, as Commissioner Henning said, a 12-foot runway, they would have to come in for like a variance or a variation, right? MS. CHUMBLER: Correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. In order to do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- I guess I need to restate. What I mean is you've got two examples. I think what I'm saying is flexibility is good, by using those two examples, either on a collector Page 108 February 11, 2004 road, use the 12-foot multi-use or a bicycle lane down next to the vehicle and a five-foot or six-foot sidewalk. If we have flexibility to apply either one of those during the rezoning issue, rezoning application, and address it during the public hearing is a good thing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really think that we ought to stand -- adopt the minimum standard FDOT. And the reason is, I've ran into a couple of cases already since I've been involved in being a Commissioner here where past -- not including bicycle lanes in developments has caused a real problem. And I think what we need to do is establish the minimum standards that the FDOT requires. And I think they'll keep us out of that area of concern with regards to residents. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We're going to be addressing this whole tab; is that it? MS. CHUMBLER: I think we are at that juncture. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And after this, we'll give our stenographer a break, and we'll take one as well, for 10 minutes. But would anybody like to address this with a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we approve this tab. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: As is? COMMISSIONER HENNING: As is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not without -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, I'd like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay, a motion to approve this tab, whatever number it is, as is by Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? MS. MURRAY: Madam Chair, was that with all the changes Page 109 February 11, 2004 read into the record that we talked about? You know, with the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nodding.) MS. MURRAY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's add that to the motion then with all the changes that were read into the record. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you can add it to the second, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And add it to the second. Any further discussion? (No response.) All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It passes 3-2. Two opposing votes are Halas and Fiala. With that, we'll take a 1 O-minute break. Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's bring this meeting back to order. Thank you. Pat, did you have something to say to us? MR. WHITE: Yes, Madam Chair. The vote that you just took, because it was only a 3-2 majority, can't be effective with respect to the provisions at the very end of this tab that pertain to uses that are set forth in 2.2.27.11. Those are the baseline standards and uses. Those have to be approved by at least a four vote majority. Now, all the rest of the tab, other than the uses and baseline standards, can be approved with just a simple majority. So the motion that was just passed fails to adopt all of the provisions in that -- in Tab Page 110 February 11, 2004 C. So you have a number of choices. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept the uses in Tab C. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MR. WHITE: You want to vote separately as to 2.2.27.11 ? MS. CHUMBLER: It would begin on Page 96. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait a minute. MS. CHUMBLER: These are the baseline standards that apply in those areas that have not yet been designated as an SRA or SSA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You wanted to vote separate on the baseline standards. MS. CHUMBLER: The baseline standards, the problem is that the baselines, the Section 2.2.27.11 includes authorization for particular uses, and my understanding is that that approval needs to be by super majority. The pages preceding that that deal with SRA design standards are not approval of uses, and so a simple majority is -- will work to approve those provisions. MR. WHITE: And you have a motion that has essentially already approved all of those. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's including those bike paths, right? MR. WHITE: With the exception of 2.2 -- it approved that, as well as all of the rest of the provisions. My preference would be to consider this first motion with respect to 2.27.11 and then see where we are with any additional motions before we deal with whether we should withdraw the prior motion. We may not have to. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what you want to do is, Commissioner Henning already has a motion on the floor to accept 2.2.27.11 as it standards; is that correct, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's dealing with the uses, the baseline. Page 111 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a second on that motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was. Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Coyle. 103. There was a second by Commissioner Any discussion on that particular item? Page 96 at the bottom. MS. CHUMBLER: Page 96. Page 96 is-- Pages 96 through CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before you came in, Commissioner Halas, Patrick White, our County Attorney, stated that in order for this part of the section or that tab to pass, it had to be a 4-0. The rest of it passed with a 3-2. But this particular section needed a four vote, a super majority. Is that correct? MR. WHITE: That is correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That clears us up. By the way, we're at tab D, and I might just add -- I might request one more time, the next time we do this, could we have a real tab like Page 112 February 11, 2004 out here so that we can flip to it? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. MS. CHUMBLER: I have one, I'm sorry, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, gee. You must be very special. MS. CHUMBLER: My secretary did mine, it's very nice. Commissioners, with respect to Tab D, you should have gotten -- Russell, have they gotten those maps, those maps that go with Tab D? MR. WEBB: I don't know if Stan has them. MR. SCHMITT: Stan, do you have the maps? MS. CHUMBLER: Mr. Litsinger is going to give to you a map. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We got those. MS. CHUMBLER: You have those? MR. LITSINGER: This new one? MS. CHUMBLER: These are Tab D maps. If you'll mm to Page 105, you'll see there's an insert in our PA map that reflects where that map will be placed. And that's simply is a map delineating the boundaries of the natural resource protection areas. There were no changes. This tab was approved without changes at your last meeting. And so we've simply carried it forward without changes. It is exactly as it was the last time you saw it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussions from the commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just -- I'm looking at this, I'm trying to see, we have the area that's Golden Gate Estates on here, too; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what is the restrictions that this will place on those people? That would be the upper part of the -- above 75 going to the north. MS. CHUMBLER: This is the existing -- this is the map of the -- yeah, okay -- existing NRPA that was already adopted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in the Belle Meade, Page 113 February 11, 2004 northern Belle Meade. It's not in Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought Golden Gate Estates went all the way down to 75. Or am I missing something here? It's the other side of Everglades -- no, no, it's this side of Everglades Boulevard. I'm talking about -- yeah, right there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that's always been there. I think it's always been there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Part of the area that they were going to have the -- oh, that plan. It's on the water. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Roma? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Roma. It's not part of the rural fringe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have any changes to this? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any changes? Any questions from the Commissioners? MS. CHUMBLER: The only question that I'm asking, I apologize, I don't know the area geographically as where -- as well as all of you do. It appears to me, from my Tallahassee eyes, that -- and hopefully you don't hold anything against me, I'm not on the same side of the street as the capital building -- that five, South Golden Gates Estates, it doesn't appear to me that that area of the NRPA's is shown on this map, so this map needs to be amended to include -- to include that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: To include what? MR. MULHERE: There is one -- I guess it's called-- this could be amended. Technically, as Bill just pointed out, the South Golden Gate Estates NRPA is not technically within the rural fringe boundaries. So there's two ways to fix it. MS. CHUMBLER: But this regulation applies to all NRPA's. MR. MULHERE: But I think that what would happen is that this -- this map where it's entitled rural fringe natural resource protection areas, that certainly would have to be amended, and then we would Page 114 February 11, 2004 include the south blocks. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the south block I understand. I'm concerned about the north side of 75. We're putting it into an area that's -- MS. CHUMBLER: North Belle Meade. MR. MULHERE: That's north Belle Meade. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it is? MR. MULHERE: Yes. That's already been done. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's been there for some time; is that correct? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. That was designated in the Comp. Plan change. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that's what I thought. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, doesn't that overlay the Golden Gate Estates, though, or no? MS. CHUMBLER: No. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The map's not drawn in proportion right. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta --. COLETTA: Oh, it's out of proportion? HALAS: Yes. HENNING: Yes. COLETTA: Okay. HALAS: Yeah, the map is out of proportion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good. Then part of the record, and I feel very comfortable with it, let's go forward. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. But with those map amendments. MR. MULHERE: I was just going to clarify, I'm sorry, there are no North Golden Gate Estates lots included in a NRPA -- MS. CHUMBLER: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- north ofi-75. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what my understanding Page 115 February 11, 2004 was before. Then when I look at this, then it throws a little bit of fear into my heart. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WHITE: Just so you know, Commissioners, that the advertisement for the meetings, the map that was included as part of the ad, is correct with respect to all of the areas in the NRPA, including southern Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, it's not southern Golden Gate Estates that we were questioning, it was that section that's not in Golden Gate Estates that had to do with it. And I just -- MS. CHUMBLER: Well, Commissioner, it does say -- I'm glad you pointed it out, though, because it does draw to our attention the fact that the map that is here needs to in fact reflect all of the NRPA's, and the map that you were given does not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we can tell the people that are sitting on the edges of their chairs in that particular neighborhood that this does not apply to you. MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm making a motion for approval CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Okay, there's a motion on the floor from Commissioner Halas to approve, second by Commissioner Coyle. Commissioner Henning, do you have any comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. In the designation of NRPA, can a landowner petition the Board through science, if it's not affecting natural habitat, to have his property included into the receiving or neutral lands? MS. CHUMBLER: A landowner can at any time petition this Page 116 February 11, 2004 Board to amend the Comp. Plan. The difference is that we have that proviso in the rural fringe for a petition process, and that for persons in sending properties. In that instance, the county will pay for that process. Under normal circumstances -- and that's for a short period -- a specific period of time. At any time a member of the public can come and petition for any Comp. Plan amendment. But it's at -- there's a -- there is a price for that, a fee for that. So it would not be at county's tab if a property owner in an NRPA sought to have their property redesignated, but they could do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct me if I'm wrong. IfI remember, back during the stakeholders group, that you were able to do excavating within a sending land, and then when it got to the Board, just as we adopted the Growth Management Plan, it was taken out? MS. CHUMBLER: The earth mining -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. CHUMBLER: -- is that what you mean? I don't recall that earth mining was ever in the allowable uses in sending. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: At least not in any state where we actually had draft comp. plan provisions or regulations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My mistake. I don't have any question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas to accept as presented and by -- a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 117 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: For Tab D. Thank you. Tab D that was. ***Tab E is next, and that's Page 108, in the middle of the page. MS. CHUMBLER: And one more map to be inserted, and I'm told this map is correct. At Page 110, the map that you're being given would identify the boundaries of the north Belle Meade overlay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about the total of Tab E, right? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. No, I do have questions. Page 111, top there, Item 1, extension of Wilson Boulevard. Well, that whole section through there. The alternate haul road is not to be held at the same standards as the public extension; is that correct? In other words, if we do not get the road in place for the public, the haul road that goes in will not be held to the same standards as far as -- MS. CHUMBLER: Street design. That's not the intent, I don't believe. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not the intent? Or it doesn't -- it mentions the standards for the public road, but it doesn't for a haul road. MS. CHUMBLER: Right, that's not the intent. It would not be a public road, it would be a private haul road and therefore the Page 118 February 11, 2004 standards, street standards, would not apply. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand now. But it wouldn't apply -- animal crossings and all that wouldn't apply. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All the more reasons to try to get it in place with a public road. And the next question is also about that. Haul road. A public road for the -- are we on schedule for the Wilson Boulevard connection? We got down a date in here of June 19th, 2004 for an alignment selection. Or do we need to extend that date to be able to fit it into what we're going to do? I hate to see us box this in with a date that's not workable. I know that we're in the process of going forward with it, but I'd hate to see that date come and everybody looking over their shoulder and saying we didn't provide for an extension. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. And Commissioner, that is a good question. It's one that-- actually, this deadline is in the Comp. plan. So certainly it's something we need to look at and be prepared, if necessary, to propose an amendment in the glitch cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, APAC is responsible for donating the right-of-way. That's still a given. I didn't see it mentioned in here, but they had certain responsibilities they were going to do to meet that. Doesn't have to be stated in this document? MS. CHUMBLER: Not if it's in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one second. I'm sorry I'm not reading the lines faster. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. This is your district. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That pretty well covers it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding just Page 119 February 11, 2004 recently that transportation is looking for this haul road, future public road, to connect to north of Landfill Road. So is transportation taking a look at this language? MS. CHUMBLER: I assume transportation will be -- is the one who's looking at this. MR. SCHMITT: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this was agreed upon in the Growth Management Plan, and it was an agreement. MS. CHUMBLER: Again, if it's -- if it is incumbent upon us, then before we come back to you with glitch amendments to touch base with them to make sure that what is written in the Growth Management is still workable. MR. SCHMITT: If it is corrected, and we'll follow up, Commissioner, but it was specified in the GMP when this went -- was passed, so we'll have to come back and with that amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Mr. Anderson can shed some light on this, if any of the Commissioners want it. Because I know he's working on it. Commissioner Coletta, do you have any concerns about that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I always have concerns about everything. If you see some fault in the document, then I'd be willing to -- I would love to have it addressed now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you mind, Mr. Anderson, enlighten the Board where the process is? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I bet you you're sorry you stayed now, huh? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Check's in the mail. MR. ANDERSON: No, this is exactly why I stayed around. The -- when the earth mining excavation permit was approved for APAC at that time, one of the stipulations that was agreed upon on the record was to adjust those dates in the Comprehensive Plan, move them all back by a year, because the litigation had held them up. And Page 120 February 11, 2004 that is one of the glitch amendments that you'll be considering, I guess, in April. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then we'll have to do changes to the Land Development Code. MR. ANDERSON: Well, no, because it says -- it gives a specific date, June 19, 2004, or such other date as the GMP is amended to provide. So we've looked ahead at that eventuality, so you won't have to come back here and do any cleanup. And we have begun the public participation process on selecting a route. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for those people that are still watching this. I don't think there's many left. But for those people that are still up because they haven't got anything better to do, would you tell them what the next date is that they're going to unveil this to the public? MR. ANDERSON: There is a meeting with the Alligator Alley Civic Association -- that may not be exactly the correct name. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's close enough. MR. ANDERSON: On the 17th of this month. And then there is another meeting on the following night with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. And that's on February 18th. And I believe both of those meetings start around 7:00. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. One of them will be at the -- both of them will be at the -- well, no, excuse me. The first one, the Alligator Alley, will be meeting at the Max Haas park. And the Golden Gate Civic Association will be at the 13th Street fire department, off of Golden Gate Boulevard. And then I think they'll find it a very interesting presentation. Anyone that would wish to come and see it once or twice, they're more than welcome. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. There are no speakers for this tab? MR. WEBB: That is correct, Madam Chair. Page 121 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any other questions from Board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: There is -- is there -- there's a motion on the floor from Commissioner Henning, I believe it was, right? No. Oh, Commissioner Halas, excuse me. And a second by Commissioner COMMISSIONER COYLE: Must have been me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) MS. CHUMBLER: ***Madam Chairman, Tab F, the language here is exactly as it was when we came to you on the first hearing. There have been no changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve, Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER COYLE: CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Page 122 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) MS. CHUMBLER: ***Same for Tab T, communication towers, exactly as it was on the first hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes 5-0. MS. CHUMBLER: ***And the same for Tab H, littoral shelf planning area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Move to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 123 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: ***Now we're to Tab I, TDR's. MS. CHUMBLER: Tab I, the first item that is some new language for you appears at Page 134. And Mr. Litsinger is handing you out some language. We continue to work on dealing with the issue of how to -- two things. The issue of at what rate TDR credit should be expended as you build out your development. As you recall, last time we talked about the various options that were before you; one being allowing the developer to hold onto all their TDR credits, use all other types of density first. A second would be a proportional use of TDR's. And a third would be to require that TDR's all be used up first as the very first item of density. And what we had recommended is a proportional use of density. You'll see that what we have -- we've gone at that in two different ways. The first place is at sub-paragraph 2(A). And what we're requiring there is that when the developer comes to you for a site development plan or subdivision plat approval, at that point in time they would have to own the TDR's needed for that approval. And then if you turn to the next page, new sub-paragraph -- or new Section 2.6.39.7, we have the companion provision that would say that at that point they would have to utilize a proportional -- they would have to obtain their density for that site development plan or subdivision plat approval proportionately. In other words, they'd use base density, TDR density, and if they have any type of bonus density at a proportionate rate. And that's only for PUD's and DRI's. So that's how we've -- we're recommending that we approach that issue. There is one other item that came to our attention since the last hearing, and it's reflected back on Page 134, at new sub-paragraph I(E). We realized that while we're requiring the purchaser of TDR's Page 124 February 11, 2004 to provide a lot of different types of documentation, the one thing we left off is that we need some sort of confirmation from that person that the property from which the TDR's are being generated is not property that has been cleared for agriculture. Because remember, there's that 25-year prohibition on creating TDR's if you're now clearing it for agriculture. So that's simply to get documentation of that fact. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. MS. CHUMBLER: There is one other is -- one other item just to point out on Page 135, new Paragraph 4. And again, this is to further explain the role of the TDR registry. We want to make sure that the -- it's clear. The registry is going to assign a distinct individual number to each TDR credit, and that will be the mechanism through which the registry keeps track of which ones are still available, which ones have been expended, and to better do its task. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor-- MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, excuse me. I mean, ifI could interject before you entertain a motion. We have two public speakers. The first is Richard Woodruff, followed by Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was just going to repeat who had motioned and who had seconded and let everybody know we had two speakers. But thank you. Sorry. MR. WOODRUFF: Good evening. For the records, Richard Woodruff. I'd like to congratulate the Commission on your night jobs. I would suggest that after tonight you try to find another line of work on your evening activities. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, we have speeches and things. That's all. MR. WOODRUFF: That's good. I would ask you to look on Page 134 at Paragraph 1 (D). That is basically in the middle of the page. And I'd like to ask you to consider adding some wording, or at least have Marti clarify on the record. Page 125 February 11, 2004 What that last part of that paragraph says is that the TDR credits where generated are owned by the same person or entity or affiliated person or entities, and establishing that the value of any such remuneration is at least $25,000 per TDR credit. What I'm asking that you consider adding is a recognition that certain parties have already purchased the lands that are now designated as sending. And where they have already purchased that property or they have an existing option on that property at the date that you adopt this, that that $25,000 number doesn't apply to them. Because if a party -- and I represent several developers who have done this, where they have purchased land in the sending area and they did not pay $25,000. I mean, they bought five acres or more and they did not pay $25,000 -- that they are not in some way obligated to go back at the time they want to take land that they now own and transfer that TDR to receiving lands, that this $25,000 number isn't going to become an issue. And the recognition here is where they have already taken actions to secure those properties, that is not subject to the $25,000 number. It certainly is subject to any properties that they put under contract after this action tonight. MS. CHUMBLER: And actually, it doesn't do that either. If you look at the language, and it may be that we need to -- we need to reshuffle some of the words here. But the language currently recognizes that if you are, in legal terms, the fee owner of property and, as Mr. Woodruff has described, he's got clients who've gone and actually bought the property itself, they're not just buying the TDR credits, they're buying the entire property. And so we have language in D that says if you look at the -- starting at the third line, unless the RFMU or non RP receiving lands on which the TDR credits will be utilized, the RP sending lands from which TDR credits were generated are owned by the same person or -- same persons or entities or affiliated persons or entity's intent there, we didn't want someone to Page 126 February 11, 2004 have to pay themselves $25,000, essentially. If you own the sending land from which the TDR credits are being generated, the $25,000 amount does not apply to you. And maybe the way to make that clearer, if that's still the intent of this body, would be to rewrite the deed to say the statement identifying the price or value of other remu -- excuse me -- the statement identifying the price or value of other remuneration paid to the owner of RFMU sending lands from which the TDR credits were generated and establishing that the value of any such remuneration is at least $25,000 per TDR credit, unless -- and then pick up that unless, put it at the end of the paragraph, so it's clear that it applies to the whole thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you, I think that's better than trying to put a date on it. A date becomes problematic. MR. WOODRUFF: Whichever way. The key is that if someone owns property in the receiving area and they also own property in the sending area, they don't have to pay $25,000. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's similar to the rule of the lands where they own the land within the whole thing and they just trade it back and forth without any money being exchanged. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you for your courtesy. CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I ask one question? MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe I misunderstood a little bit. It seems everybody else understands. So say for instance the people that were helping to write the rural lands laws, Land Development Codes, knew that these things were going to be happening, so they went out to buy these lands and they were able to obtain them at $3,500 an acre or $10,000 an acre, what you're saying now is that they -- that's their land, free and clear, even though they knew it was coming up and they helped to write the laws, then buyer beware, right, or seller beware? Page 127 February 11, 2004 MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, ma'am. I would only change that a little bit. I know of no one who helped write the codes, certainly no staff or consultants that we worked with, who had bought land. What I'm referring to is that where anyone was a speculator and he just followed the process and said, you know, that's going to become sending and I'm willing to put in an investment today to buy 300 acres of it. That's what we're talking about, is if a person has bought that land and he/she/they want to transfer that to other receiving lands, they do not have to pay the $25,000, because they are taking commodities that they own and combining them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's fine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's okay with you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you for your courtesy. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I include that in the motion. MR. WEBB: Actually, Madam Chair, we have one more speaker. Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good evening again. My name is Bruce Anderson. I just have a question, kind of a follow-up to what you're all talking about. When will the TDR program be at least partly up and running, so that if someone owns both sending and receiving lands, that he can -- he or she can transfer TDR's from his own sending lands to his own receiving lands? MR. SCHMITT: Stan? MR. LITSINGER: We hope to have a process up and running within 30 days. MR. ANDERSON: Excellent. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Page 128 February 11, 2004 MR. WEBB: No more public speakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Coletta and a second from Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. Passes 5-0. MR. WHITE: I'm assuming the motion was as amended, by the speakers. MS. CHUMBLER: That was the motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: ***Tab J. MS. CHUMBLER: Tab J, there -- the language is just as it was from the first hearing, there have been no changes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve as presented by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 129 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: statements. Opposed, like sign. ***Tab K, environmental impact MS. CHUMBLER: The only change -- and this is one that I have to point out to you, because it was just pointed out to me -- is a change that needs to be made at Page 151, 3.8.5.6, Paragraph C. You may or may not recall that at one point there were several phrases throughout this that had things like the last -- what now is at the last sentence of C, describe the measures. And we tried to take them all out. We simply missed that one. So that last sentence in Paragraph C, 3.8.5.6(C), we would recommend be deleted. Other than that, all of the language that's in this EIS is language that was before you, either in the full text or as an errata at the first hearing. I believe -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Question by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page -- I'm sorry, Page 142. MS. CHUMBLER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it your intent to invalidate any environmental impact statements that were done prior to January, 2004? MS. CHUMBLER: There has been a comment about that, and I thought we were going to have a speaker on it. But we do have some language that's a -- a suggested change to that would be from staff, which we hope might accommodate that concern. And that proposed change, I'm not sure it does accommodate the concern, but I'll tell you what that proposal is. And that's to strike the language where prepared prior to January, 2004 in D. And then add a new paragraph E that says those -- any previous EIS prepared prior to January, 2004 that does not satisfy the requirements of this LDR. The intent is, and what I'm told by staff is that more than half of Page 130 February 11, 2004 the EIS's prepared under the existing standards actually comply with these. But what they would like to see is an EIS that doesn't come up to snuff in the current standards be redone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How did we pick January, 200 -- and what day of January, 2004? MS. CHUMBLER: I would say if it says prior to January of 2004, that would be prior to January 1st. I don't know that that's a magic date. One other option, if you want to have such a thing, could be prior to, we could plug in one of the effective dates of these LDR's. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my concern is, let's suppose an environmental impact study has been accomplished, and let's say that it was accomplished in December of 2003 and it doesn't meet all the requirements of this particular document. Rather than invalidating it, can -- would it -- does this permit the person to update it so it does come into compliance without having to conduct an entirely new environmental impact study? MS. BURGESON: We would never require them to do a new study. They can provide to us any data from an old EIS in that new report and just provide us with any updated provision that was not included in that. So it doesn't invalidate anything, it just may require that they provide us with additional information. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I'm a little concerned about the fact that there's no time limit on it at all on it. Let's suppose it's 10 years old, maybe that's -- MS. CHUMBLER: The five-year thing would still stand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would stop. Okay, this five-year thing is going to stay. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. And so we can deal with the other thing merely by letting -- letting people have the opportunity to update their plan if it doesn't meet these particular Page 131 February 11, 2004 requirements. MS. CHUMBLER: That's right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we have a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor-- MR. ANDERSON: Ah, ah-- public. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Is there any public here? MR. WEBB: I'm sorry, Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is there a public speaker? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. As a matter of fact, I heard the train whistle, so I got up. I wanted to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't we have a limit on the number of times a speaker can speak? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure there'll be a new regulation. I wanted to address your point that you brought up about the EIS that was prepared prior to January 1. The way this is written, anybody -- any EIS that was done prior to that date has to be redone. And what you could have is, an EIS is normally submitted with a rezone application, and it gets reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council, and you all review it and Planning Commission reviews it. And if there are questions about it or concerns, they're addressed at that time. And then after that, that's the end of it. But under this language, someone who is building a home in a PUD that's already been approved, that their EIS is more than five years old or done prior Page 132 February 11, 2004 to January, they might have to provide an EIS before they get a building permit. That's what this language says. Now, that's not right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right. I withdraw my motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have a rebuttal? MS. CHUMBLER: I don't feel strongly about this as a -- as someone recommending to you. Certainly if you feel that a building permit's not -- I think what this is designed to do is to -- if there -- if there have been changes, to allow that it be looked at, or at least the examination done to determine whether there have been changes. Whether a building permit is the appropriate point in time that could play or whether it's more appropriate for it only to apply when someone comes in for a subdivision plat or some larger approval, I'll leave that to this body to make that policy decision. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we should -- I'm sorry, I didn't push the button. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you give me some examples where this has taken place? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it hasn't before. I mean, it's proposed to. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But, I mean, where somebody has an EIS statement and hasn't built for five years and then decides to build. Because we've got a five-year. Can you give me any case that -- can you give me any cases where this has happened? MR. ANDERSON: No, no, because it's not -- it's not triggered by failure to commence construction within five years, it's just if it's more than five years old, it sounds like it's presumptively no longer valid and you have to do a new one. Now -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But by that time it's -- most of the development's already done, aren't they? Page 133 February 11, 2004 MR. ANDERSON: Depends on the market and how large a development it is. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's why I asked you if you have any cases that you can state on that. MR. ANDERSON: No, because this has never-- this has never happened before and I'm trying to prevent it from happening. MS. CHUMBLER: I'm told that the five-year limitation has been there since 1991. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But that was my question. Is your primary objection to the inclusion of January, 2004 as an expiration date or to the five years? MR. ANDERSON: Primarily to the January 1, 2004. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we removed the 2004 and stayed with the five years, how does that adversely impact us? MS. CHUMBLER: It simply means that those EISs that are less than five years old would continue to have validity and they would not need to -- to the extent these new regulations require them to do additional steps, they wouldn't be required to do them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's suppose they are partway through development. Is there any grandfathering at all here? MS. CHUMBLER: They'd be grand -- anything that they had already gotten approval for would be grandfathered, obviously, if they had the permits already. But if they needed a new permit for anything, at that point they would have to supplement -- they may have to supplement an EIS. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if they got the site plan approval but have not yet pulled permits for construction, where would that put them? MS. CHUMBLER: That would mean, according to the way it's written now, that before they could get those building permits -- and remember, that doesn't apply to single-family residential -- that before they could get that building permit, they may have to supplement their Page 134 February 11, 2004 EIS. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, huge developments, like for instance thousands of homes where it's going to take longer than five years to build out, this would affect them; is that what you're saying? MS. CHUMBLER: It certainly would affect them. It may affect others, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have we ran into -- this is for staff. Have we ran into any cases where this has caused a problem? MR. SCHMITT: Barbara? MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has -- since this has been on the books since 1991, have we had any cases where this has caused a problem for developers or caused a problem for people? MS. CHUMBLER: Let me make clear, it's the five years that's been on the books. This other has not. What -- Mr. Anderson's primary concern has not. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think in practice, the five years has only been applied at the rezone stage where if somebody comes in for an amendment to an existing PUD. MS. BURGESON: Actually, that's not correct. We have applied the requirement for a new EIS for plats and plans, portions of PUD's that have sat dormant for greater than five years. They have submitted -- I don't have the numbers, but I would guess since 1991, probably eight or nine EIS's have been resubmitted, have gone through the process. Also, we have the requirements for EISs to be resubmitted if an SDP had been proposed but nothing had built on it for more five years, then a new EIS is submitted to staff for review. But it's not been staff's intent to cause problems. For instance, if an SDP was approved and they started to do construction on that SDP, Page 135 February 11, 2004 and let's just say a portion of that has not been built, and you've got single-family lots that are still under review, that's not the intent of this to cause those single-family lots, and that's why the exemption is here for single-family lots, that they're not obligated to do an EIS, they're not obligated through the EIS process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the subdivision is. The subdivision would be. MS. CHUMBLER: If they were getting further approval for the entire subdivision. But when they come in and pull the individual building permits for individual single-family lots, that wouldn't happen -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: A plat to would be a perfect example. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, for a plat they would. MR. SCHMITT: And understand also, if there's an SDP that's been approved and it sits dormant for 24 months, there's a 12-month extension. But after that, it has to be restaffed. Because to create an environment that would incorporate any new changes to Land Development Code. That's the same thing here, a five-year limit, so if there are any laws, you have to now comply with changes in the law. And I don't think Mr. Anderson is disputing the five-year. MR. ANDERSON: No, I'm less concerned about that than the new automatic. I mean, something that was submitted a month and a half ago is not worth the paper it's written on. MR. SCHMITT: I would just recommend that anything within -- between the passing -- the date of passage of this, if it is less than five years old, then it would require an amendment or at least an updating of sorts to comply with any new requirements in this LDC, but would not require a complete resubmittal of an EIS. And I think that's what Barbara was talking about. MS. CHUMBLER: And I think actually it doesn't-- as I read 3.83, it doesn't require it. It just says without first obtaining approval Page 136 February 11, 2004 of an EIS. It does not say for any of these categories that you have to submit an entirely new EIS. MR. SCHMITT: And that was not staff's intent, nor would we send the applicants -- saying that you have an outdated EIS. You have an EIS that is in fact up-to-date. It just may need some additional information to comply with these new standards. And that would be something we would discuss here in the free application process. So we're fine with that. If you want to add language to say that, we can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if you just said you want the five-year restriction area struck prior to January, 2004? What kind of problem would that cause you? MR. SCHMITT: I don't think it causes any problem, because they're going to have to comply with the rules as written, and they would have to provide the information anyway. I mean, that's fine. They'll have to -- does that create a problem, Bill? I mean, that's fine. I think that we just take the date out. The LDC's going to dictate that you're going to have to provide additional information. And Bruce, I guess you would agree with that, right? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we struck everything after the word "O"-- MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. MR. ANDERSON: I had two other sections that I wanted to comment on. One is on the very next page, at the top of the page. And the way this is written, anybody who was not required to file an EIS would nonetheless still have to file a plant and animal species survey. And, you know, that's without regard to whether the land's Page 137 February 11, 2004 cleared or not. I mean, it's too broadly worded and needs to be, you know, tightened up or taken out. But it's kind of a net that grabs everything that isn't subject to an EIS still has to provide these surveys. MS. CHUMBLER: Right, this is only if you're required to do this by 311. If you're required by 311 to do a wildlife survey. MR. ANDERSON: Well, let's get it to say that. Because it says where submission or resubmission of an EIS is not required, then those surveys are in turn required. MS. CHUMBLER: Pursuant to the above. Pursuant to this section. In other words, just because you're not required to do an EIS pursuant to this section doesn't mean you don't do a wildlife survey if you're required to do so by 311. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What does 311 say? MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah, we can clarify it. If it's unclear, we can certainly clarify that that's the intent of that language. MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, just so it's not so open-ended catchall. MS. CHUMBLER: You could say something like if required by Division 311 of this code, a wildlife survey must be conducted, regardless of whether you're otherwise exempted from doing an EIS. MR. ANDERSON: And then the last comment that I had was on Page 152 and Section 3.8.5.8, paragraph D where it requires soil sampling or groundwater monitoring reports for sites that are suspected of previously having contamination on-site. That's very vague and open-ended and subjective. What is the criteria for having this suspicion, other than pulling it out of thin air? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I kind of like that one, because -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- with farm fields and golf courses -- MR. ANDERSON: I'm not objecting to farm fields and golf courses. It's just this "or are suspected of previously having Page 13 8 February 11, 2004 contamination on-site." How do you make that determination? There's no criteria for it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But wouldn't we want to be able to have that ability to be able to send people out to test so they -- if you don't test, then you're putting the public in danger. I don't know what the criteria would be, but I think it should be something -- I imagine everything will be different from one end to the other. It might have been a farm field they replanted with pine trees. The pine trees might be 10 feet high, but still it might be suspected, because all the pine trees are of uniform height, what might have been there before. How do you write all these things into it? You can't. So you've got to leave a little bit of leeway in this. From what I see, Bruce, no offense, but I'm really a little bit leery about taking that out. I know for me, when I got my business established, the bank required a drilling to be taken of the land there and water to be monitored to see if there's any hydrocarbons in it. It's good business. I wouldn't have wanted to assume responsibility of a mortgage if I had that problem with the land. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I always thought that the Land Development Code was not supposed to be subjective. It should be clear and concise language. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, the fact of the matter, it should be a reasonable man's standard that would be applied. If you want to state that and say or for which there's a reasonable basis to believe that there's contamination. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with that. MR. ANDERSON: Reasonable factual basis. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What does that mean as far as factual? What factual -- does that mean that you might be able to use that as an argument not to be able to take soil samples? I'm getting a Page 13 9 February 11, 2004 little bit nervous about how this is coming down. MR. ANDERSON: All we're asking for are some facts to prove up the suspicion. Nothing wrong with facts. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, but maybe there aren't any facts available. I mean, what's wrong with testing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then you've got big government stepping on people's land saying you've got to spend $5,000 for a Phase I environmental test. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've got people suing the government because it didn't protect them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's your own responsibility. MS. CHUMBLER: Again, let me just insert that I don't think reasonable factual adds very much. As Mr. Anderson clearly knows, in courts of law if a decision it not based on fact, it's determined not to be reasonable. So adding factual in there doesn't add a whole lot. It may give some people comfort. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: What was the wording you used before, Marti? MS. CHUMBLER: I had, or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing there is previously -- there is previous contamination on the site. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I like that, too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. And that's better. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's three. Okay, that's good? MR. ANDERSON: It's better. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: MR. WEBB: Okay, any further comments from the Any other speakers? No registered speakers. Page 140 February 11, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. Now, someone was making a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've made a motion to approve with the modifications that have been read into the record. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I made my second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle made a motion to approve with the modifications mentioned. And Commissioner-- what is your name again? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Check my driver's license. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's getting late. And a second to that motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. Passed 5-0. MS. CHUMBLER: ***Tab L, there are no changes from the version that was presented to you at the first hearing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I seconded it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this just apply to fringe? Page 141 February 11, 2004 MS. CHUMBLER: No, this applies county-wide. There are specific provisions in this that are applicable to the fringe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How does this apply to the urban area? If I cut my grass, I just want to know if I need a permit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you've got wood storks there, you do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have one next door. MS. CHUMBLER: If you look at Page 163, it starts off with the general standards and criteria. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How does this apply to Golden Gate Estates? Does this MS. CHUMBLER: COMMISSIONER MS. CHUMBLER: COMMISSIONER MS. CHUMBLER: apply to lawns? Single-family again are exempt. HENNING: How about estate lots? All single-family are exempt throughout. HENNING: Okay. That's at -- if you look at 1773.9.7.4. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For lands within SA district, native vegetation shall be observe. Is that the one? MS. CHUMBLER: Actually it says single-family residents' retention standards found at 394. If you look at 3.4, there aren't the standards, unlike for the rural fringe where you've got specific percentages, they're not those percentages for Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're considering single-family Golden Gate Estates also. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, but there's not those percentages of vegetation there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's good that you brought that up. MR. SCHMITT: Page 169, it says single-family resident shall follow contained in Section 3.9.5.4.B, and that is on Page 170. That's where you get into the criteria for single-family. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here it is. Located in the estates. Page 142 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: That's no different than what's required today. You need a permit. Wetlands delineation state permit. That's for wetlands, yes. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions from the Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor from you? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not too sure. I didn't make the motion yet. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, didn't you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought there was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There wasn't? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Make a motion to move as presented-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As presented. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign. (No response.) MS. CHUMBLER: ***You've already approved tab M, so the last one we have is tab N. And there are no changes to tab N that have Page 143 February 11, 2004 been made since the last hearing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve tab N from Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. I might suggest also, when you're putting the tabs in, maybe you could give us an index page too so we know what tabs each form refers to -- or what subject each tab refers to. Sorry to make it complicated for you, but it would certainly help us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put a red ribbon around it, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put a red ribbon around it, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't need a red ribbon, but thank you anyway. MR. SCHMITT: The index is actually, ma'am, on Page 1 of-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I didn't see it and I looked for it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean this form here? MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am, the-- following that page, the last MS. CHUMBLER: Page 3 actually is a page that gives you the page number for each tab. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. You know, I looked for it and -- oh, I see. Page 144 February 11, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: It was actually your cover sheet that listed all the tabs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: When we put one of these together again, we'll make sure it's all tabbed and highlighted and easily identifiable. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put a tab on the table of contents so we can find it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any other presentations this evening? MR. WHITE: Yes, I believe you do, Commissioners. We need to go back to the items that you voted on separately at the last meeting so that we can consider them as a group. There are two minor changes that need to be put onto the record. Mr. Litsinger has one, and I believe that you have a speaker with respect to the second. And at the end of that, we can consider a vote, a motion and vote. MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning director. This evening I just want to point out a -- one change of no substantive nature that we did make in the concurrency regulation, Division 3.15. And if you bear with me one moment, I'd like to point out that language where we have made that change. What we have done is moved the proportionate share regulation part from definitions into the regulatory section for consistency for application of the regulatory portions of that ordinance. And I would point out one other change to you momentarily. MR. WHITE: And I'll take responsibility for that one and the fact that we had to have the handout today. When I looked over the text that you'd agreed should be included, based on your last meeting, I noticed that this provision was similar to the other one we moved, to kind of correct the structure. But as Mr. Litsinger has indicated to you, it's not a substantive change, it's essentially just a relocation. Page 145 February 11, 2004 MR. LITSINGER: I do want to point out on the last sentence on 3.15.7.3.4.7, proportionate share of payments, and we did highlight all of this yellow because we essentially took this provision and moved it from definitions into this particular regulatory section. But on the last sentence where we exempt single-family development from the proportionate share provisions, we did revise this sentence a little bit to clarify the fact that we do not want to either subject or calculate and collect a very nominal fee for single-family permits within the TCMA. Other than that, it's identical language to the previous presentation. MR. WHITE: And I believe there's one public speaker on the other item. MR. SCHMITT: Public speaker reference 2.5.5.2.5.1, which had to do with signage. And that public speaker is Jason Dickerson. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that poor guy's been here all night long? MR. DICKERSON: Yes, I have. For the record, Jason Dickerson, class of'75, Naples High. You all work too hard. I'm here to talk about the sign change in the LDC. And I've had a chance to read it over completely now, and the only area that I needed to have addressed or at least looked at was 3 -- I've got too many of these, just like you all. Was letter K of 2.5.5.2.5.1.1, letter K. And it says no other freestanding sign shall be allowed on the site. I don't know, I kind of talked to a couple of people around here, the county attorney and I think Russell who wrote it, and I guess my concern was is this just for directional signs and things like that. If it can't have any other freestanding signs and there's a sign that you put in front of the parking space that says, you know, handicap or it says, you know, owner or anything like that. I just didn't want to get into an issue with code enforcement later. MR. WHITE: The text that I have, I'm not sure that this is Page 146 February 11, 2004 actually the ordinance text, and if I could compare it to your section, please. Slightly different. 2.5.1.2. MR. DICKERSON: That's part of the problem is they change stuff and we don't get copies. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry, it is 2.5.1. And it's under-- yeah, that is older text. And I can tell you what it reads now and show it to you, is that the text would read no other freestanding or directional signs would be allowed in the same lot or parcel. MR. DICKF~RSON: Okay, that's what we wanted to take out. MR. WHITE: That's what you wanted it to say, though, isn't it? MR. DICKF. RSON: No, I want to be allowed signs. I want to be allowed to direct traffic on my property. But as far as other business signs, I don't really want that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But directional signs, even like when they're saying right turn only, I mean, that's a directional sign, right? MR. WHITE: A directional sign is a more precisely defined type of sign that is regulated and able to have a permit under the sign code provisions. It's not the typical type of signage that's part of the highway system. It would be more like a res -- in a commercial situation, you may have different types of signs that direct you to a particular business. Or in a residential context, you may have the same kind of a sign with respect to where a particular development may be as part of a PUD real estate directional signs and -- or residential directional signs, excuse me. And I don't know that necessarily the type of sign that he's referring to would be one that would be prohibited by this. I don't know that it's the type of sign he's talking about or the kind that we're -- that the code regulates. MR. MR. MR. sign shall DICKERSON: Well, it says -- WHITE: It may be. DICKFJRSON: Excuse me. It says in here that no other be allowed. If it can be permitted, then I'm okay with that. I Page 147 February 11, 2004 don't mind getting the permits. I just don't want to not be able to put up a directional sign for traffic. I've got three businesses on my property, and we have to kind of share parking that we also kind of have to designate it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we do control the -- I'm over here. We do control the number of directional signs on a piece of property. I mean, you just can't put up -- we have to now -- we'll have to look up part of the code, but you just can't put up signs -- MR. DICKERSON: I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: -- on a piece of property. And that's what this is saying, that-- MR. DICKERSON: I want to put up the sign for my business. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. DICKERSON: And then I wanted to be able to potentially put up a sign that says Naples Auto Electric Parking or Modem Auto Airs Parking in front of the parking spaces, or-- MR. SCHMITT: This ordinance was not designed to do that. This was specifically an ordinance to allow a monument for a freestanding sign for your business -- MR. DICKERSON: I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: -- on frontage less than 150 feet. And that's the language in your -- that is the current language that we have up there right now. It says no other freestanding or directional sign will be allowed on the same lot or parcel. MR. DICKERSON: So this is the way it sounds to me, but I may be misunderstanding, I could put up a -- I could put up a monument sign. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. MR. DICKERSON: But now -- but as it currently stands right now, I cannot put up a monument sign but I could put up directional signs, if I got the permits. But by changing this, now I can put up a monument sign, but I can't have any directional signs. Page 148 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: Well, I'm not convinced that the type of signs you're describing are something that we consider to be a directional sign. MR. DICKERSON: Okay. Then I could live with it. MR. SCHMITT: A directional sign would be -- MR. DICKERSON: I just don't want Code Enforcement coming by and saying you can't have that sign there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if that's the way it's written, that's the way it's going to be interpreted by staff. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to be a bit more specific. If this gentleman wanted to designate a couple of parking spaces for handicapped parking -- MR. SCHMITT: No problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He doesn't have a problem. MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If he's going to designate them as parking for-- MR. SCHMITT: His business, no problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for the air conditioning shop, he could put those signs there. If he wanted to designate some for the electric repair shop, he could do that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right? Is that what you want to do? MR. DICKERSON: That's all I want to do. MR. SCHMITT: Those are not directional signs. That's a parking -- designated parking sign, which is fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I can help you with this. When you go outside here, go out to the side parking lot. You'll see the commissioners' parking lot. And we have these signs that say commissioners' parking. Down farther they have parking signs put up Page 149 February 11, 2004 for the state legislative people. If we can do it, I'm sure you can do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're exempt from all laws. We can do whatever we want to do. MR. DICKF~RSON: I just didn't want to get into a problem with Code Enforcement later. I wanted it as clean as it could be. MR. SCHMITT: This is the problem with English. A directional sign would be something that you wanted to direct, have a series of signs to direct someone -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Left, right, up, down. MR. SCHMITT: -- within a business. And it would be whatever MR. WHITE: Okay, I'm going to read you the definition. I've finally been able to locate it on the code and here's what it says. Sign, directional. An on-premises sign giving direction, instructions or facility information, such as parking or entrance or exit signs and which may contain the name, logo, service or activity of an establishment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it does affect you. MR. DICKERSON: I thought it probably would, because Code Enforcement's pretty strict on this stuff, and just from past dealings, you know, they're pretty touchy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How does he deal with this? MR. SCHMITT: Patrick, does that specifically -- you can't -- what he's looking for is designated parking, and I don't think -- is that MR. WHITE: If staff came to me and said I'm going to cite somebody for having a directional sign under this provision and they described the type of sign this gentleman's talking about and they asked me is that some type of sign that gives information such as parking, facility information such as parking, I'd tell them that they should be able to go ahead and prosecute that violation, because I believe that we'd likely be able to prevail. Page 150 February 11, 2004 MR. DICKERSON: Again, I have no problem getting the permit. I just want to be able to have the monument sign and a directional sign, if that's the definition of it, through a permitting process. MR. WHITE: Are these-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: As long as we're all guessing this, shouldn't we fix it? MR. WHITE: Are these all the same parcel? MR. DICKERSON: Yes. MR. WHITE: This says for smaller lots. MR. DICKERSON: I know I've got three partial buildings, but I have 130 foot of frontage. So that's been my sign issue problem. MR. WHITE: It solves part of it, but apparently not all of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is he prohibited from coming in and asking for those signs? MR. DICKERSON: The way it reads right now, it says I shall have no other sign other than my monument sign. And I realize I'm arguing this for my piece of property, but I have talked to several other small property owners and, you know, rather than drag them all in here, I said well, I think we can handle this. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think up bring up a good point. I think it's something that there's a dark area here and we should correct that. MR. WHITE: I would say that if someone was otherwise entitled to have a directional sign on their property and the intention of this regulation is to provide for at least one ground sign, freestanding or otherwise, then deleting the restriction as the directional signs would be the way to solve the problem. If you're otherwise entitled to it, you should be able to apply for a permit for it. I don't know that the regulations would otherwise authorize it. But certainly there should be no reason to prohibit it here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So just remove directional signs? Page 151 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: So it would read no other freestanding signs. I think what that means is you don't get a second pole sign or a ground mounted sign. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if you said designated parking signs are permissible? CHAIRMAN FIALA: That would clarify it more. MR. SCHMITT: Before we do that, Commissioner, I would recommend, I think we need to go back and look at it to ensure that we don't have any unintended consequences here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, it is important that we resolve this, because, you know, as Commissioner Coletta points out, we've got parking signs down here for our parking spaces. And lots of people have signs that says, you know, reserved for such and such a business. And I see a lot of those and I think they're good things. And I think we ought to find a way to permit those things. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for bringing it to our attention. MR. DICKERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Anything else, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to go back to -- MR. SCHMITT: We need to solve this. MR. WHITE: My suggestion would be that we look to the provisions for directional signs and make some accommodation in there for the smaller size lots, the same way we've done it for the freestanding or ground mounted or pole signs that we did here. It wasn't known at the time that that was part of what would be required by these smaller lot owners. And then what you'd have is actually is an enforcement issue where the County Manager, through direction to the staff, could indicate that there's a proposed change anticipated that the Board would consider and would be free to enforce or not the provisions with respect to directional signs on these smaller lots. Page 152 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just remove G? MR. WHITE: I think that you're -- the rest of your code tends to limit there being only one of these types of signs on any lot or parcel. That meaning that there isn't more than one ground mounted sign, more than one pole sign. That's standard for all of the lots, no matter what their size. So doing something like that for a smaller lot would seem to be inconsistent with the rest of the code. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning just suggested taking out G, number G. MR. WHITE: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager maybe could give us guidance. MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, just to -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: And your name for the record, please? MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, County Manager. By now I see her more than I see my wife, I think. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does your wife know that? MR. MUDD: She does now. The intent of this was when you had smaller lots that were under frontages that were less than 150, they could put a directional sign out by the driveway that said Eat at Joe's, okay, parking for Fred's Electric, okay, out by the comer why where the roadway is. Now they have a monument sign, a smaller one that's out in front that basically said that he has three businesses in his lot and they could be identified there so they know where they are and they can pull in. The intent when this thing was set up was not to say if he's got parking spaces that affront those businesses, that he couldn't have a sign there that says this is for Fred's parking and this is Joe's Electric over here. It was away from the road, it was by the business against the building. It wasn't something that directed them from the highway to go there. And I think that's what the intent of when we put the monument sign in. Page 153 February 11, 2004 If this gentleman is saying otherwise, then I would say the intent was to get rid of those signs by the roadway that said parking for Fred's and Joe's and replace it with a monument sign. But I don't think that those spaces were designated in the parking lot away from the traffic, that that was the intent of this particular addition. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But as Commissioner Henning pointed out, it says here in G, no other freestanding or directional signs will be allowed on the same lot or parcel. So even if the intent was that, it doesn't say that here. MR. WHITE: Certainly we can delete the "or directional" provision and rely on what the code says otherwise. And what it says otherwise with respect to directional or identification signs is in Section 2.5.5.2.5.10. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I think Commissioner Henning said eliminate G altogether, not just directional. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did say that, but Mr. White is right. "Or directional signs", if we remove that, it's saying no other freestanding signs will be allowed on the same lot. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then a directional sign might be a freestanding sign. MR. WHITE: No, no, that's intended to mean, as this provision pertains to, a ground mounted sign or a pole sign. MR. DICKERSON: How about no other pole sign? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm just concerned, like this gentleman said, you know, code enforcement could say this is a freestanding sign because you have a pole that says to your business and another pole that says to that business. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I remember correctly, you were -- the signs you were wanting to put on your property are away from the street, they're not out on the street. MR. DICKERSON: My monument sign will be away from the Page 154 February 11, 2004 street. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the only one that will be on the street. The rest of them will be in that complex of buildings once you drive into your parking area, right? MR. DICKERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to say that no other directional signs, as G says, will be allowed on the street, on the fronting street, that would mean you could put other signs on your -- MR. DICKF. RSON: I would have no problem with that. I was -- I'm trying to think about other people's property. I have a veterinarian that's next to me that has a small lot. And he has a sign out there that designates where he's at and his parking, because his customers are always pulling into my parking lot. Then what happens is these older people have to mm around and go back onto Davis to go down one driveway. So I'm trying to protect him somewhat that he can -- that if he wants to have a directional sign -- I don't want one, I don't believe my building needs one. But some of these buildings are tucked back further away and they need a directional sign so these people can find where they are at. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jason, that's a 75-foot lot. So this language or this part of the code doesn't cover the veterinarian. MR. DICKERSON: Okay. But I think he's still permitted to have a directional sign. MR. WHITE: Directional sign. And I think that's what 2.5.5.2.5.10 tells us is that you can have a directional sign. There's a limit to six square feet. But I believe the proposed use this gentleman is suggesting would be something that a permit could be issued for on that particular parcel, and it would be subject to the community development environmental services administrator's determination, so MR. DICKERSON: I don't want to tie it up any longer. We're all tired. Page 155 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: I think we're covered if we just -- and my recommendation would be to delete just the two words, "or directional". And I think that the rest of the code allows for what he wants to do. And if it doesn't, as Bob Mulhere said, it's a living document, we'll come back and adjust it. We have in the next cycle, not the one in the spring this year, a major revision to 2.5. MR. SCHMITT: It would be better -- because I'm looking at the code here too and it says no other directional sign. We allow a freestanding sign but not a directional sign. Does that make sense? Or what you're saying is take out the -- MR. WHITE: Or directional. MR. SCHMITT: -- or directional and allow the freestanding. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: But it says no other freestanding. You want it to read no other freestanding signs will be allowed. MR. WHITE: Correct. Such that you are allowed to have a directional sign if it's otherwise permitted. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. MR. WHITE: If you look at the provision, I think it gives you the authority to issue the permit for what his needs are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you got it. MR. SCHMITT: I think you got it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vice chair? MR. WHITE: At this point, Commissioners, Mr. Vice chair, what I'd ask you to do is take a vote with respect to all the rest of the provisions that have been approved at the last hearing that are non-eastern lands or rural lands that you consider today in the provisions 3.15 and the text as amended in 2.55. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, we just decided to make a change. Page 156 February 11, 2004 MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think we just got a motion to make that change and a second. We have to vote on that one first before we start considering those other ones, don't we? MR. WHITE: If you wanted to wrap them all together, you could -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd rather do it separately. MR. WHITE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning for approval of the change we just discussed with respect to removing or directional on the sign ordinance. Is there a -- and then seconded by me. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: No discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER 4-0. HALAS: Aye. COLETTA: Aye. COYLE: Aye. HENNING: Aye. COYLE: Opposed, like sign. It's unanimous, Now, did we really get through this proportionate to your payment issue that was handed out to us? MR. WHITE: No. We would ask for a vote on that amended text as well, if you want to do it separately. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 157 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No discussion, call the question. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, approved unanimously. MR. SCHMITT: Do we want to vote on the entire package again, just to affirm that -- MR. WHITE: Just to adopt it as an ordinance, as was proposed with the modifications made today with the two sections just voted on, as well as all of the changes on tab A through N. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you repeat that motion for the record? MR. WHITE: Yes, the motion was to approve the two amendments just made with respect to Section 3.15 and 2.5, as well as all of the prior approvals at the last meeting for the non-eastern lands, non-rural lands, as well as all the amendments approved individually today for tabs A through N, as amended. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Coyle, we have a second by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Page 158 February 11, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. Passes 5-0. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, we have one speaker who's just handed in a slip. I have no idea what he registered to speak on. Bob Krasnowski, if you want to recognize that public speaker, or is the public speaker closed? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MR. KRASNOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you very much. I realize the hour is late so I won't keep you any longer than is needed. And I'm surprised you're still here. I watched you on TV, went to a meeting came home and saw you were still here. Unfortunately I was not aware of the finality of this LDC meeting, so I wanted to come in front of you and raise the issue of the accommodations for recycling at the commercial locations. Now, at your last county commission meeting, there was an indication that you wanted to expand your commercial recycling operation or accommodation for recycling, and what I'd like to know, as part of the Land Development Code, if you have, as part of that, the identification of providing for recycling. An example of doing this would be that you would require businesses to provide for the location of recycling bins or dumpsters equal in size to that that are provided for for garbage. A precedent for this is set in situations in cities in Colorado where just this accommodation is made. Now, I understand it's a late time for me to be coming forward with this. You've been working on these documents and these provisions, so maybe I'll raise the point now and possibly you could work it out with staff to place in there that when determined -- when an appropriate amount of provision for recycling is determined by the County Manager that that requirement will be placed on developments Page 159 February 11, 2004 in Colorado, these ordinances that require equal containers for recyclables as garbage are specific to new developments and there's a special accommodation for redesigned commercial sites. So the bottom line is if you want--- which Commissioner Henning pointed out at the county -- last county commission meeting, in order to accommodate an increase in recycling, there would be some attention needed in the Land Development Code. So I'm here tonight to raise that issue and ask you how you might do this. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, all I can tell you is that that issue for commercial recycling will be addressed in an upcoming ordinance and that will cover county-wide. So as you directed in the last board meeting, that the public utilities director will be back to report to you on the commercial recycling program. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. MR. KRASNOWSKI: How would we integrate this, if necessary at all, in the Land Development Code? And I'll leave with that question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I couldn't answer that to you now. MR. KRASNOWSKI: Well, goodnight. Page 160 February 11, 2004 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:20 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS DONNA FIALA, Chairman ATTEST~'~:.~.. .(::'.'?c ~,. DWIGHT.E~iBRDCK, CLERK These minutes ap. proved by the Board on as presented w/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 161