The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 10/04/2004 S October 4, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 4, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Lindy Adelstein Kenneth Abernathy Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron ABSENT: Russell A. Budd Paul Mindy ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development and Environmental Services Russell Webb Susan Murray Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney 1 ---- ...~---_.~---". ".- ____,.~___._._"..._. _"~_._'_'__""~""""__""m""____'____···'·"'- . October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 2:30. And, Joe, is this court reporter here for the Planning Commission? I hope you're going to say, yes, this is a new budget year and you're starting out in the right -- MR. SCHMITT: This is a new budget year, Mr. Chairman, and as of -- effective 1 st of October, we now have verbatim record again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why, thank you very much. That's great news. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And for the court reporter too. MR. SCHMITT: And I notice the look of delight over there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, in deference to the court reporter, some of you may not have been here when the last court reporter was here, and I know one thing that's very frustrating to them is when you talk really fast like this and they can't write everything down. So we need to talk slower -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or two of us at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, see. He did it again. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's why I did it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to try to talk one at a time and let her get the information down. So with that, I'd like to start the meeting by rising for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. This is the continuation of the land development code amendments for 2004 cycle two. First meeting was on September 16th, 2004. It was continued to today at 2: 30 in this room. I'll take roll call. And Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? 2 ..___.~._"_.~.-.." __"_""_'_~'m_'_"_"'"'_O~______'_"" October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Strain is here. Commissioner Budd is absent. Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Mindy is absent. Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with this meeting, I'd like to welcome our new board member, our commission member, however you say that, Ms. Donna Caron. Welcome aboard. I hope that you'll get all your paperwork eventually. You've got books and enough weight to carry a -- anchor a boat. MS. CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, any other announcements we need to make? If not, let's just go right into the -- I think we're going to try to finish up the architectural criteria first, if I'm not mistaken. MR. WEBB: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and environmental services division. If I could -- just to beg your indulgence, we would prefer to go through the architectural standards first. We have staff here to review the changes we discussed. And then we would proceed. I would recommend that we proceed next -- what seems to be the next most important behind the architectural would be the landscape 3 _..__..___."_,~._'____""_~_'_'''_____'_'_'_'^'__ ,._,_n_ ...__ October 4, 2004 standards, architectural standards, and we'd cover that and we'd do this, and then we would then proceed in order after that, if that's okay with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds fine. And-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, because I have a number of questions having to do with affordable housing, will somebody be here for affordable housing? MR. WEBB: I believe there's only a definition change on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all? Then I won't have any questions. MR. WEBB: I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was going to mention is that we've gotten a lot of presentation on the architectural criteria. Hopefully we won't have to go through the whole presentation again to save some time. And equally so on the rest of the amendments, in the past we've gone through and just -- staff would reiterate the sections, and if we had comments, we would go forward with them. It did expedite the meeting, and -- so if that pleases the panel, I'd just as soon we continue with that scenario. MR. SCHMITT: We have no presentation, except I do have Carolina here to answer questions, to discuss your concerns. We did the strike-through and underline changes and we did want to clarify the issue in regards to, that was still an open issue with -- where the deviations are and how to deal with various deviations and requests for deviations. So with that, I'll turn it over to Russell, and Carolina. MR. WEBB: Go ahead, Carolina. MS. VALERA: Okay. MR. WEBB: I don't really have anything. MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, urban design planner with zoning and land development review. In the previous meeting you asked us to go ahead and clean up 4 ____..".~..__,..,~.,_N.... ,__·_·.m~~_'_ October 4, 2004 the document. And what we did is we chose to -- added your comments and added all the changes that we discussed the last time. Do you want me to walk you through the changes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the changes, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, most of the changes were recommendations that the AIA made -- MS. VALERA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that the staff accepted, and she just changed the color of them from red to black, I think is -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Black to red. MS. VALERA: And we added some others that Commissioner Strain had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you missed one, and I was going to get to that when we get into -- MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that. So -- but I mean, Commissioner Adelstein, did you want her to go through each one of the changes then? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, just the written ones that became red. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh. MR. SCHMITT: All the changes that were accepted have now been incorporated in black. The ones we discussed at the -- the last time we met are identified in red. The strike-throughs are struck -- stricken through. The changes are noted. And so that's where we are right now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Explain the red ones. MR. SCHMITT: Right. So we're focussing primarily on the red ones to ensure that that matches with what you-all as a board thought you said, and we're prepared to discuss that. 5 ._._---~,_._-~,"~.._--_..._-~ October 4, 2004 So Carolina. MS. VALERA: Okay. On page 4, that's the first change. This was a suggestion from Commissioner Strain. Change the word "proposed" to "submitted." Easy as that. Page 5, we deleted the industrial portion because it's redundant. We're not getting rid of it. It's still in there, but this was just a redundancy, so we eliminated that. Page 7, we added two more design criterias for the primary facade requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, there was suggestion of adding even more -- remember there was the wall courtyard and the trellis thing? Did you decide not to add that to this list, or -- MS. VALERA: It is the staff opinion that the intent of the code is not to add more ornament to the facades, so the trellis will be more of an ornament, and then for big boxes it will be a great deal to have one of the requirements to be trellises. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it's only going to be in the out-parcel? MS. VALERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. VALERA: Page 11. We deleted -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 10. MS. VALERA: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 10. MS. VALERA: Page 11. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 10. MS. VALERA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's a deletion up there. There's one in red on top. Facade of -- of a building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't have that. MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. Can you hand me one of your -- MR. WEBB: I have 11, too. 6 ~_.._,~.._---..,.....__._~._._~..,-_._'^'._--- October 4, 2004 MS. VALERA: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yes. We deleted facade of a building, so it's -- the requirements are now for the building, not for each facade. Page 12. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 11. You started to -- on page 11, and Commissioner Adelstein backed you up to 10, so now you're back to 11 again. MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have no changes on my version of 11 either. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Or 10. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Twenty-two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-one and 22 were added, xxi. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right, xii. MS. VALERA: That's correct. Yes, we added two more building design treatments on page lIon your document. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 12 for some of us. MR. WEBB: Commissioners, if you refer to the -- Russell Webb, principal planner, zoning and land development review, for the record. If you refer to the document I handed out to you today, that should have the proper page numbers. The reason they may be different is the email that I sent you, I had to delete the illustration, so that may have thrown the page numbers off. MR. SCHMITT: The illustrations were deleted just because of the size of the file that -- to send that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that works. Carolina, the one issue that I found in these that didn't get corrected is on page 12. MS. VALERA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's iii, under d. Water elements, a 7 . ---~~~---"--.,,..-,,"_._--..--"._._.~-.'~"-'-"-"'-~"" October 4, 2004 minimum of 100 square feet in area. And I had suggested, and I thought it was supported, that we shouldn't be encouraging water elements. They do two things, they use a valuable resource that we have less of, and plus, they take a lot of power to keep circulating and operating. And every other one of your elements that I've found on all the pages are fixed elements. They don't require continuous power and energy in the water resources. So my suggestion is still to eliminate iii. And I'm not sure if the board is still with me on that, but -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Uh-huh. MS. VALERA: I think I will leave it up to the board. We left it kind of open for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we didn't leave it open. You just didn't change it. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that comment then, to the rest of the panel members, what are your thoughts on that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, are you concerned with water or the fountains that are politically incorrect? I mean -- MS. VALERA: In our present code, what we require are fountains. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the water? MS. VALERA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, your concern IS energy throwing water in the air to evaporate's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That, the long-term chemical maintenance, and the power consumption of the water pumps. And those are all elements -- for example, South Florida Water Management District does not allow aesthetic use of water. And I'm not sure if this is an advantage for us to do this kind of stuff and encourage it as an alternative in the site design. It just uses a 8 ..--~_.-.----_._"._- October 4, 2004 valuable resource. Even if everybody used a little bit of it, it would be a huge amount. So why don't we just not encourage it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it doesn't eliminate it. It just doesn't reward you for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I could see killing it. We can still put fountains in, so -- MS. VALERA: Fountains? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, what Mark's point is is that we're encouraging something maybe we shouldn't. That doesn't disallow it. It just doesn't encourage it. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, we just authorized a regional park that has all kinds of water -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- features, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we didn't. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The county commission did. It sounds like we're rowing in two directions at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't mind eliminating it at all but-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll need to get a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mark's point's taken. I mean, we're encouraging something maybe we shouldn't. It doesn't disallow it. People can use fountains. It's just, they don't get a reward COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Reward for doing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- as part of this element for it. It just means that they'll have to use other items. MS. VALERA: And these are for -- 9 -"'-'---"--'--~-~-"-'-'-'-'-'"-'--- October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Site design. MS. VALERA: Right, just site design elements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they'll just use a sculpture instead, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unless you have a strong feeling one way or the other, I'd just as soon it was struck, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll support Mark. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll support it being struck. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine by me. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Let's strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got the correction. Okay. Carolina, you want to move -- we're onto page 13 now? MS. VALERA: Okay, yes. Page 13, we made the changes for -- that EDA recommended to allow a bit more flexibility in the design of the wall. Page 14, we changed the word "must" for "may," so as to also allow for a bit more flexibility in the design of primary facades on out-parcels. Page 15, we deleted the requirements for roofs, overhanging eaves, and fascias with a minimum height. Page 16 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- can I just back up, one quick thing on that, "must" or "may" for the gate. I mean, the reason that was a must originally was that we didn't want to create courtyards or areas that weren't safe for the public. I mean, in terms of designing buildings, we've had the sheriffs office meet with architects and discourage that. That's why we really wanted to require that if you did build a courtyard, it was a secured courtyard. It wasn't something that could become dangerous for the criminal element. That's why "must" was there. In other words, right now if we make it "may," you can make a 10 October 4, 2004 courtyard where people could go and hide in. You know, there wouldn't be the ability to protect the courtyard. And, again, this is the sheriffs office not wanting to have people hide in it or jump out from it or, when they're chasing them, run behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who suggested the change from "must" to "may"? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Matt, was that the AIA or -- the architects. MR. KRAEH: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The architects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're advocating that that's not a good change? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if you build a courtyard, you should secure the courtyard, meaning it's not a place to hide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't have a problem with that. I think anything that the sheriffs department needs ought to be encouraged, so I'd certainly go along with that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So will 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You okay, Matt? MR. KRAEH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So "may" gets changed back to "must." MS. VALERA: "Must," all right, 14. Page 16, we deleted the requirement for roof -- let's see. This was -- this -- actually what we deleted, it's already in the standards. It's not needed to be here. It's just a repeat. Page 17, this is a clarification of the size for the automobile space. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you be specific on page 17? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. My pages are off too. 11 October 4, 2004 MS. VALERA: 17. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Or 3,240 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Little c, little double i. MS. VALERA: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That last six or seven words are added, or 3,240 square feet, whichever is greater. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Whichever is greater. MS. VALERA: So with this in mind, you can have less than 20 spaces, very small spaces, but no more than whatever 9 by an 18 space of 20 will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Page 18. This is the wording that we -- staff has suggested to the AlA. Page 19 . We just made of -- it more clear in regards to the group requirement. And also, in page 20, is the same -- the same fixing of the wording. Page 21, we deleted the walkway grade. It's not necessary. Page 22, we deleted paint with non-glossy finish for automo -- for gas stations. That's a prohibition. Page 23, we added Commissioner Strain's suggestion for the joint on the walls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those that don't have color, that's f, little i, towards the bottom of the page. Some of the pages have come through in color. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Blank wall. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It may be different than the wall. MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And some have not. MS. VALERA: All right. So page -- I'm sorry. And actually, I skipped one, on page 23, number four on the top -- let's see. We 12 October 4, 2004 added concrete. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Masonry concrete. MS. VALERA: We added concrete. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Masonry concrete. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is it? MS. VALERA: Page 23. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Got it. MS. VALERA: I -- number four. Page 25, same change, letter d. And also in that same page we change -- we added the option that Commissioner Strain suggested for the joints -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: C number? MS. VALERA: -- one more time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, maybe we could get-- MS. VALERA: Triple i, triple -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: C, triple i? MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MS. VALERA: Going all the way to page 31, letter g -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait a minute. Okay. MS. VALERA: Letter g, we deleted the word -- the words from both above and below. It's not necessary. Same page, 31. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait, what about the five, the drive-through facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what she was getting to, I believe. MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My pages are different. MS. VALERA: Yes. Also on page 31, we deleted -- and this was unanimous with the board, the commissioners, that each drive-through should have a walk-up. We deleted that, walk-up and drive- in service. And last, page 34, this was a petition from the AIA. We added 13 "'~'_'''_'"''''''''''''_~'''M''____<'''__ October 4, 2004 that the two representatives of the AIA should be actually appointed by the local chapter of the AlA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And Carolina, that number again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A, little i. MS. VALERA: That is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A, little i. Thank you. MS. VALERA: Little i, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Carolina, could you word the -- for the landscape architects, the exact same wording? In other words, the concern is these people aren't exactly representing them. They're only appointed by them, okay? MS. VALERA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that way they don't even have to be members of them to be appointed. Could we back up -- MS. VALERA: Okay. We'll make the change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- do you want to finish -- I guess you are finished. MS. VALERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is a concern that the AIA __ we had a meeting with the architects -- still has, and that's really the deviation process being limited to certain buildings. That's essentially page 33, applicability. So we're at a stand-off with the staff. Staff likes it the way it is, the AlA sees no reason why it's not open to everything. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where are you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is page 33. I mean, out of fair -- this is -- all codes, building codes, have the ability to appeal decisions. This would be a rare place where, in America, you can't appeal a decision. So what we'd like to do is lead -- make it so that it is open to all projects. The concern of, will there be abuse of this thing, we won't 14 "_"~~__"""'_"_""m'_._.,,,~..._..._.<·_~.__ __~_..__"M"'~·_._'__.~ October 4, 2004 know till we write it and try it. I mean -- MS . VALERA: Staff believed that one of the main exercises of going through the whole architectural standards and analyzing every -- every section of it, one of the outcomes was to create specific requirements for specific buildings. So as to have a set of minimum -- minimum guidelines that we can use as staff to apply the code. Having a deviation process for every project, I think, will undermine the whole purpose -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure-- MS. VALERA: -- of the architectural standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure it will undermine. I mean, there's no standard that could contain every good building. I mean, if you believe the standards are a corral where all the good buildings will be within it, then that's true. But there are going to be circumstances for every type of building that may be outside that, and that person should have the right to make their case. I mean, the concern is whether it's going to be abused or not. I mean, if people go through the code, you make decisions, and this committee constantly overrules your decisions, it's not right. But, I mean, the decision is to take that exception where a designer can focus on one part of the code and ask for relief from it to create, in this case, a design-concern building. So, I mean, what is the reason you have that would eliminate -- I mean, what's really missing is commercial buildings. I mean, everything else, I think, is pretty well covered. Don't you agree? So what we're missing is the office buildings and the shopping centers and stuff like that. MS. VALERA: Yes. And actually that is the main purpose of the architectural standards is to target those type of use as commercial COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. 15 ,-.'^...--"--...-.",.,...-..-.....-.........-- October 4, 2004 MS. VALERA: -- retail, big boxes. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. There still remains the option of requesting through, for example, a PUD rezoning, some alternative standards that would be brought, again, before yourselves and the Board of County Commissioners -- MS. VALERA: Yes. MS. MURRAY: -- for approval, should somebody desire a deviation or some alternative standard, as well as, if it's a dimensional requirement, there's the variance process. So it's not like there isn't other ways of achieving the objective. But what we get down to is these are baseline commercial standards for the community that support the community and are approved by the Board of County Commissioners who represent the community and not, you know, a group of architects who aren't elected to represent the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if these standards changed -- can be changed through a variance request or a PUD -- a variance request is expensive and time-consuming in public hearings, a PUD, very expensive and many public hearings and very time-consuming, but they can be changed that way. MS. VALERA: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I first thought you were against allowing any changes, but apparently you're against allowing any changes through a simpler method than variance and PUD; is that accurate? MS. VALERA: That's correct, and not having a public arena for these changes. MS. MURRAY: It becomes subjective -- they become subjective between staff and the applicant, and there's no public hearing process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, the goal of this is to be an objective ordinance. So, I mean, it wouldn't be a subjective situation. This would be where somebody wants to do something that 16 -~.,...,.--,-_.y,---~'--'-- October 4, 2004 is against one of the principles of this and, theoretically, has a good reason for it, and -- MS. MURRAY: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they can appeal to that board MS. MURRAY: I'm not going to debate the issue because I think -- I mean, we've been talking about this for quite some time, and I think we've pretty much established our boundaries. And, you know, we'll certainly bring forward your recommendations and your reasons if you want to state them for the record to the board and for their consideration. But ultimately, I mean, this is what we're going to propose as staff. And I think we've -- I think we've got a really good ordinance here, and we're real proud of the work we've done with the group of architects and we're real pleased with the outcome, and we're looking forward to working with it, so -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm a little uncomfortable with Mr. Schiffer becoming a passionate advocate for the architect community of which he is a member when he's supposed to be sitting up here representing the public at large. I think it's a little unseemly, beside the fact that I tend to agree with the staff that we ought to start on a path of strict construction of this set of rules. And if in time we want to loosen them, that seems to be the history of every regulation in every community. You see a need to change things and you do, and then the affected industry starts whittling away at it and whining and carrying on in one way or another to water it down. And here we haven't even given this a chance to see how many of these deviations might have been applied for, if such a process existed for commercial buildings. 17 October 4, 2004 So I'm inclined to support the staff on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- Ken, one thing is we won't have the ability to know if there'd be any deviations for commercial buildings, because the way it's written, they won't be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, Brad, that's the reason I asked Carolina the specifics. There are two methods that they can be allowed. That's the variance and the PUD. And I'm not -- I'm not taking sides. I'm still trying to understand this. But I did notice that this architectural arbitration meeting that would be held is kind of stacked. It's two AIAs and one landscape architect and only two county staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, these are design issues. These are architectural standards. These are things being done by architects. I mean, that's -- MS. MURRAY: They're also budgetary issues often, and so you get developers speaking through architects, so -- and not the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, you're an architect? MS. VALERA: Yes. Not registered here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I'm just -- I'm thinking -- and Ken is probably right in his latter part -- I don't agree with his prior. But the latter part of the statement concerning, if we -- if there's a problem with this, we could bring it back at another cycle and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see -- but here's the thing I'd like to have is I'd like to open the deviation to more things, and then if that becomes a problem, we'll see it. I mean, this is a -- I'm asking the gate to be a little bit wider opened. We won't know who wanted to have a deviation and couldn't do it. MS. MURRAY: The PUD process would be a good monitoring tool. 18 .----------- October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm worried that it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But a single lot wouldn't have that option. I mean, if a guy has a single lot, he's building a building, he wouldn't have the ability to go through a PUD option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He could-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He'd have to go through a full-blown variance for a design issue, which is -- I mean, I think that's an efficient -- inefficient use of resources of staff and the developer's money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective might be to discourage the use of changes, and I -- and that may not be too architecturally appealing, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- and again, I mean, architects are concerned about it. I mean, Ken's right, I'm an architect, so let that be known -- is that we don't want to be restrained in our design. I mean, we don't want to have a code prevent something that is not going to be undesirable (sic) for the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- any other commissioners want to weigh in on this? Commissioner Caron? MS. CARON: Aren't these barely minimum standards to begin with -- MS. VALERA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to the opposite way around the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somewhat, yeah. MS. CARON: -- facts, I mean, to prevent you from doing things? They're more minimum to begin with, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are minimum. I mean, all codes are minimum. That's what they are. MS. CARON: So that's not stifling creativity and architectural -- MS. VALERA: Anything involved in the code, sure, it's 19 October 4, 2004 allowed. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's just saYIng, don't go under these standards, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. VALERA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think the case, you know, I'm worried about is the exceptional case. Let's say the Guggenheim Foundation wants Frank Gary to design a building in Naples. It wouldn't go through the standards. So shouldn't he have the ability to come before something to try to get that building built, or maybe nobody wants the Frank Gary building. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think we want the Sidney Opera House here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've kind of gotten-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't need to talk about it all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to an impasse between staff and us on this, and I'd just like to poll the commissioners on this one issue before we go on to other matters. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- I have a question. To me it's a question of equity, I guess. I'm not really clear on it all yet. But do we have any -- have we had egregious errors? Have we had -- not errors, but have we had people who have come in with outlandish things and that's where this stems from? Or is it, you're just trying to get a handle on what we should have in the community and what the community should be representative of? MS. VALERA: Yes, correct. We need to have just a set of minimum guidelines, and that is the reason, pretty much. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Murray, what normally happens, an architect certainly will design -- present the design to the property owner, the developer, whomever. And of course, then Ms. Murray alluded to, you get into this, well, what can we now do from a 20 . -"-"'._--"--""'^'---".-'''~'~- October 4, 2004 cost engineering perspective, and how can I reduce the cost of constructing this or building this, and that's when you get into the, okay, let's take this away, let's take this away, and let's take this away. I think the potential here is that every applicant's going to come in and look for and apply for one of these deviations, and that's our concern. So I guess it's the staff -- what staffs position is, how much leeway and what process do we want to allow? Now, we do allow for deviations for certain building types. I think what you're looking for, Brad, is a -- or to allow for commercial type buildings as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And Joe, you know, the funny thing, I'm looking at it because I'm thinking of good designs MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that would be in excess, and you're looking at it thinking that people are going to come through and try to diminish to the standards. I don't think that board's going to be __ they're going to be successful in front of a bunch of architects diminishing the standards. I mean, my concern is the top. My concern isn't a bunch of stuff running through the bottom. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interestingly-- MR. SCHMITT: As you well know, we don't have a design review board like -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: -- the city. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, and this is better than that. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's up to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for clearing up the matter for me, because I was concerned -- I was going the other way. I thought it was constrained on embellishment. But the concern, 21 October 4, 2004 and I think it's a valid concern, is that we don't have money driving design in the way that we look and are seeking cost reduction when we really should have appropriate embellishment, if I read that correct. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yeah. In most instances in the industry, the architect certainly has the architectural license, so to speak, and figuratively, to design something, and they present it to the applicant. He's -- and they'll say, well, how do we -- let's take it this way. This is going to cost -- let's -- you know, and then you keep on chipping away sort of at the stone, and then you come up with the big box, which is what none of us want, certainly. And I -- I'm not suggesting that Commissioner Schiffer is going all the way to that approach. But from a legal perspective and from a staff perspective, we provided what I would call the opportunity for some of the types of buildings. We just limited it to -- we didn't want to open it for commercial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe that I understand Commissioner Schiffer's position, and I would just -- in reference to his statement that we wouldn't know, wouldn't the A -- wouldn't the architect's association have that issue raised in general meetings and whatever format they have to voice their complaints about constraint or whatever they perceive? So I do think that that is a voice that's possible, so in that connection, I think I would support the staffs document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move on to any public speakers on this issue. I think we've talked through, pretty much amongst the panel. MR. WEBB: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, we have one public speaker, Matthew Kraeh with the AlA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kraeh, would you mind coming to the speaker (sic), identifying yourself for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's a gentleman out 22 .....,....-.-- October 4, 2004 here raising his hand. Is he a speaker or not? MR. FOGG: He wants to be. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, sign up. MR. FOGG: He wasn't registered for this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. KRAEH: Hi. My name is Matthew Kraeh. I spoke with you guys last -- your last meeting. I'm the current vice-president of the American Institute of Architects, Southwest Florida Chapter. On the same note as the deviation process, I wanted to make a couple -- couple points today. Obviously we're for the deviation process being open to all building types. We're generally excited about this new revision to these codes. We're excited to start designing buildings under this. We think it gives us more freedom to become better architects in the community and create better designs. However, this -- this deviation process is a deal-breaker for us. It's -- we don't feel it's fair to discriminate upon one -- one building type or another, no matter how large or small the proj ect. I can think of a couple examples in town of what I -- what we would feel to be nice buildings that would not pass this section 2.8 and would not be available for the deviation process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which are those? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, which buildings? MR. KRAEH: The Northern Trust Bank building on 4001 Tamiami Trail, which is in the City of Naples, would not pass this current code. The recently constructed new Porsche dealership on 41, which is also -- which is a metal building, actually, would not pass this code. And, you know, I don't know if you are all familiar with those buildings, but that's what we're trying to -- that's what we're trying to eliminate. We don't want to eliminate the possibility for good design. I feel, you know, buildings can be a gem, and we don't -- we don't 23 ..,.~~,..._..~_."-,.__._,_..,-"'-- October 4, 2004 want to put people, architects and the public, in handcuffs from the beginning. And although, you know, we really appreciate what staff has done working with us on this -- on these aspects, but we know that they're opposed to the idea basically because they feel it might overwhelm staff. But we feel this process will not become overwhelming. We feel architects will think twice before bringing a sub-par design before their peers in a public domain. And, you know, we just feel it would be open if -- you know, if we could just try it and see how it works. Otherwise, like Mr. Schiffer was saying earlier, if we close the door now, we don't give ourselves the opportunity to try the deviation process if we have a gem that comes through, we won't really know which buildings -- we won't -- we won't hear about the ones that were rejected. We only -- you only find out if it works if we try this. That's -- that's basically it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why would the Porsche building not be built under these constraints? MR. KRAEH: It's made under -- it's made with an Aluco metal finish, and I believe -- specifically I'm not sure exactly about the -- this new code, but I believe we don't -- in this current revision, you're not allowed over 30 percent of that building material, and that building's made up of at least 90, maybe 100 percent of that material, especially on the primary facade. I have not seen the rear of the building, but it is a nice looking building, and it's made from metal. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Rear is not the same as the front. MR. KRAEH: Right. So that would not, in fact, work. And as far as the Northern Trust building, I'm pretty sure that it would not -- it would not meet the delineated curve requirement. You can have a curved facade, but there still has to be breaks in the facade, 24 ^.._._...~"'-- -.~._~..__. October 4, 2004 and that is basically a straight curve for 180 degrees. So that one, as well, would not work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know a few years back that Naples Daily News did a poll on the good looking and bad looking buildings in the county, and that one was SO/50? MR. KRAEH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I mean, you may like it, but there's probably an equal number that don't. MR. KRAEH: I do understand that, and I -- you know, obviously, I was one of the supporters for, you know, saying that it was a nice building. And I think part of that had to do with, you know, a lot of this town has a preconceived notion that this town should be made up of this Mediterranean style that we have out here, so I think that was sort of a biased opinion to begin with. And I think they -- if you really wanted to poll, you know, what are good and what are bad buildings in town, you'd have to go to an outside critic for that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. KRAEH: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, if you don't mind coming up, stating your name and address. And for anybody else that wants to speak, there are some cards out in the hallway that need to be filled out, if you don't mind. MR. FOGG: I'm sorry I didn't fill out my card for this one. I'm here to talk for the landscape architect codes. But as a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you identify yourself? MR. FOGG: My name is George Fogg, F-O-G-G, 628 Woodshire Lane, 34105, in Naples. I am a registered landscape architect. I am a fellow in the American Society of Landscape Architects, which simply means I've lived a long time. I am very, very concerned that the position that some people on the board seem to be leaning towards of making it possible to deviate 25 __.n"'"__'_'__"'"··_·_·_"~^·__···__·"___·"__ October 4, 2004 from the code requirements is going to result in the probable reduction of the quality of buildings that we're going to get. And I'm sure you're aware, since you apparently are a practicing architect -- as a landscape architect, I can assure you that I have never had a client say, don't design something good. They always come back and say, George, make it cheaper, always, without exception ever, in the length of time that I've been practicing, and that's been in excess of 40 years, 45 years, have yet to have a client come to me and say, George, make it a little bit bigger, a little bit better, a little bit nicer. So I can clearly -- that's just my concern, and strictly that, not deviation from design mode, although I may not agree as to what buildings are good and what buildings are not good from a design standpoint, but I'm concerned with the continued erosion of quality by the owners, by the developer, by the builder, and this happens. And I'm sure that our architects will agree that that is the norm rather than the exception. I applaud creativity. I will be, in fact, speaking about that on the landscape code. I sincerely agree with that comment, but I have yet to have, in the 15 years that I've been practicing here in Naples, to have one design where I've used creativity be rejected by the county. Not one, ever, and I've submitted lots and lots of designs for all kinds of projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to sum it up, I think the staffs concern that it's a process that will be used to diminish the building -- the architects look at it in the, maybe, half full, half empty problem. But we look at, we don't want something that would exceed __ to be a quality design to be prohibited by the -- and, therefore, the process would be for us to use it, to -- not diminish the design standards, but to do something different that enhances it. 26 k.~,.'__··__·,"··__'"h""-~-~~." .._-_.-"-,,.-, .,--,_. -"'--"-'~~~- October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other public speakers? MR. WEBB: No other registered public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do, as far as a process goes is to get a vote on this particular issue and be done with it and then go through the rest after that. So do I have a -- do I hear a motion from any board member? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that we decide to maintain what the county has presented to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Could we have a clarification? We're voting on this entire LDC section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just the deviation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The deviation section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And maintaining the county's position on the deviation, is that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does that include the corrections we had al-- we had asked that Carolina-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- basically agreed to during our discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, if we could add that to it, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's kind of not fair, because we worked hard on this whole issue. We're down to one small point. I don't want to vote against the architectural standards just because of the deviation issue. Can we have a line item vote? 27 ~""""-"" ,-~.~---_.~.,"' ~--"""-"--'-----' ...,--.._~,..,,,._."-~- October 4, 2004 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, now. Mr. White -- MR. WHITE: I think in order to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- could you advise us on this, please? MR. WHITE: Yes. In order to get there in the fewest number of steps, you probably want to vote on the deviation issue as a severable one. If you -- depending upon how that goes, then you can either incorporate it as part of the next motion or not as may be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then is it appropriate to ask for a withdrawal of the motion and the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My motion was just for-- MR. WHITE: No, I -- only to the extent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you guys -- you made the motion just for it. I thought we were doing the whole -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For that -- that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the architectural deviation? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the understanding of the rest of the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That wasn't what I understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, me either. Well, this motion that was made was strictly -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for application of the deviation process, and the motion was made to leave it as requested by staff. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a first and a second to the motion. 28 October 4, 2004 Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By hands, all those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Hand raised.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Hand raised.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Hand raised.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Hand raised.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: (Hand raised.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Hand raised.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's opposed. Motion carries. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I move that the entire presentation of staff be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the county attorney's got a comment. MR. WHITE: I'm going to let him finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That the entire staff recommendation be approved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. MR. WHITE: And I'd only add, Mr. Chairman, that if the motion maker and second would agree it may be found consistent with the comprehensive plan as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Isn't that what I just said? MR. WHITE: Yeah, I thought I heard that too, but just to clarify for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's made to recommend approval of 2.8 as recommended by staff and found -- and be found consistent with the growth management plan, it's been seconded. It's 29 _.-._"..,,-,..._.,-~_._- October 4, 2004 open for discussion. My same discussion applies. Do we request that the discussions that we've had with the minor corrections to the document be also incorporated into this motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will all those in favor -- any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No opposed. Good, 2.8 is -- okay. Staff, I think we're finished with this. And for the court reporter's benefit, since we went through this a few years ago and we had a court reporter, every hour and a half we'll be taking a break. So at four o'clock we'll take our first break, if that's okay with you. ***MR. WEBB: Okay. As I believe Joe stated, Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to go into the landscape provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. What pages are those on? MR. WEBB: I believe the first one starts on page 6, I believe, of your summary sheet. MR. SCHMITT: Six of the summary sheet, but let's also move to the packet as well. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The real sheets. 30 ^.."_~"._,,,..m._~""¥_'~"'~_ October 4, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: The summary sheet is this -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, yes. MR. SCHMITT: -- nicely printed blocks and squares, and that's your score card. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Should the log be highlighted like that? MR. SCHMITT: We've got them out here if you want a highlighted one. MR. WEBB: Yeah, and I should have -- you should have receive a highlighted one today as well. The first one is on page 6 of the summary sheet. The amendment appears on page 62 of the packet, section 4.06.02 C, buffer requirements, and Nancy Siemion is here to answer any questions that you have in particular. MS. SIEMION: Good afternoon. Nancy Siemion, landscape architect with zoning and land development review, for the record. And I'm here to walk you through the amendments, the landscape amendments this afternoon, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Okay. The first amendment is a change to LDC section 2.4.7.4, which will be our new UDC section 4.06.02, page 62 of the packet, as Russell had told you earlier. And we're simply going to be adding some descriptive words to our landscape buffer table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted that under -- on page 63, in number 3 there's an N, and I just wondered what the N represented. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- 62 of what packet? MR. WEBB: The general packet, Commissioner Schiffer, the big thick one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one that was sent out August 9th, for the August 9th meeting? 31 . . ---'~.._'"'-- October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: Yes, I believe that was it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That doesn't match. MS. SIEMION: Actually, can you help me? You said an N, as in Nancy? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. There's a -- in the table, I'm looking at the table on page 63, and it's under number 3, there's an N in there, and I just didn't know what that meant. MS. SIEMION: That looks like a typo. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. MS. SIEMION: Yeah, because that is not a buffer requirement type. Okay. We'll take a look at that and see what happened there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. SIEMION: Yeah. That's really good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, the process too, I'd like to follow, is for -- Nancy, for you to finish with all your landscaping elements, and then we'll ask for public comment at that point. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Is everybody ready for the next amendment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not ready for the last one yet. My 62 doesn't have any table on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, it will look like this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And Mark, are you reading -- from what dates? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The package we used on September 16th where it had the cover letter saying we're going to discuss -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I've got it now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Strain, I just have a couple of questions. I mean, I guess I'm having difficulty. I've read -- I read everything, and it generated questions, and I don't want to take the commission's time unnecessarily, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well-- 32 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the only chance you get, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. On page 61, if you would, please, and this may not be appropriate. I hope it is, as a point of information at least. On the very bottom, C; page 61, have you got that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're starting on page 62, I thought Nancy said. MS. SIEMION: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm a little confused because my amendment document, it begins -- the LDC amendment request begins on page 60 in my papers. Maybe I'm -- maybe I'm in the wrong place. I thought I was right. Okay, all right. Are we going to go back to that? Thank you very much. I apologize. Let's see if I have anything else. No. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now that we've got that settled, is there any other questions on this section on this table? If none, then let's let Nancy move on to the next one. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Next amendment, let's turn to page 67, and that is to LDC section 2.4.7.4, and the new UDC section 4.06.02 C, and the change is to relocate the type D landscape buffer hedge requirements from an old section in the code to a more appropriate section of the code, which is what you see here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then hearing no questions, let's move to the next one. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Next amendment's on page 70 of your packet, and it's old UDC sec -- old LDC section 2.4.5.2, and new UDC section 4.06.03 B.l, and the change is to require a curb with footer around the landscape islands, and the purpose of that change is to help minimize the damage. These are tree islands, and we're trying to minimize the damage from the trees to the adj acent paved area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on page 71 -- MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. 33 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- first paragraph where the word shall has been added. MS. SIEMION: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sentence, a parking stall shall be no farther than 50 feet from a tree, measured to the tree trunk, where is it measured in the parking stall, from any point, the center, median? MS. SIEMION: From any point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So long as any point of that stall touches? MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick -- Nancy, in terms of water flow now, this is going to corral a lot of water? I mean, is that going to be an issue or it's -- MS. SIEMION: Typically if the engineer's trying to run his water management through that area, they'll just put breaks in it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. SIEMION: -- and that will allow it to flow through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there aren't any other questions, we'll just move on to the next one on this. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Now, in my package on page 72, there is an amendment, but we pulled this particular amendment. MR. WEBB: No. MS. SIEMION: Oh, no, no, no, it's Barbara Burgeson's. MR. WEBB: I don't believe we pulled it, but it's an environmental issue. MS. SIEMION: Okay. MR. WEBB: If we want to skip that one and come back to it, that would probably be -- MS. SIEMION: Yes. Barbara will be discussing that with you later on. So our next amendment will be on page 78, and that's old LDC 34 October 4, 2004 section 2.4.6.1 and new UDC section 4.06.05 A.l. And the change is to create a new standard for establishing the number of trees required on a single-family homesite, and that's simply being driven by the small lot sizes that we're seeing for our single-family homes, and they can no longer accommodate the old requirement of two trees per lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on the last paragraph in your addition, you talk about where a single-family development has a street tree program. And the sentence after that says, a street tree plan shall be submitted to the community development district. Are those to be one and the same, and are they a defined term? Because they're not bolded. And I'm just wondering, is that something everybody's going to know what that is? MS. SIEMION: If it's not bolded it's not defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MS. SIEMION: And I think most of the people working with this will know what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but see, the problem is the general public gets to work with it too, and they may not want to hire an LA to do their work. That sake alone, shouldn't -- we should leave it in terms that the general public can understand? MS. SIEMION: Yeah. Keep in mind though, in order to submit -- this is for subdivision developments where we would be having this situation. It -- a landscape architect is required to submit these plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is a street tree program the same as a street tree plan? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Plan ought to be what implements the program, shouldn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one's capitalized and one isn't. I just was wondering what they're getting at, what you're trying to -- MS. SIEMION: We're just simply saying, if you choose to plant street trees, then you may want to use those to count towards your required trees on the lot. 35 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you feel it's going to work. I don't know if anybody else has a concern. If not, we'll just move on. Okay. MS. SIEMION: Page 80, and that is LDC section -- old LDC section 2.4.6.6 and new UDC section 4.06.05 B.4. And the change is to restate our building permit or landscape requirements much more clearly, and we also added some language to accommodate situations where a building might be located on a waterfront. And in that situation, we just simply combine the landscape buffer, the perimeter buffer adjacent to the waterfront with the building perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 81, small letter b, you incorporate the buffer width into the building perimeter. That can't be the lot perimeter? It's got to be the building perimeter? MS. SIEMION: I'm not sure what you mean by a lot perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're allowing -- the example you just said where you're on the water and you take it away from the water, you have a buffer around the exterior of the lot. MS. SIEMION: That we measure from -- that would be the property line or the edge of the canal in that case, or water body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're saying that if you take it off the waterfront, it's got to be incorporated into the building permit, which is up closer to the building? MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the lot perimeter, either one or-- MS. SIEMION: Actually, what would happen is -- well, typically what would be required is 10 feet along that waterfront edge, and we're just going to combine -- if it's a building less than 35 feet, rather than making it 10 feet plus 10 feet for an overall of 20, it will just be -- that 10 feet will be absorbed into the 10 feet of the building perimeter requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. Nancy, where does it 36 .-'...._.....__...".'..,""_..~".." October 4, 2004 say in the code that in other -- they can't be done otherwise; in other words, on the side lot perimeter, you can't incorporate this into it? In other words -- MS. SIEMION: We would have to state that if we wanted to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is it stated anywhere that the two buffers can't overlap; in other words, the perimeter planting and the buffer, can they overlap? I know this case -- MS. SIEMION: Only in this situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Where is it stated elsewhere though that they can't? Is it, or -- MS. SIEMION: No, it's not stated elsewhere that they cannot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can they? MS. SIEMION: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So how would somebody know that then? MS. SIEMION: They have to read the whole code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some -- that's my point though. Somewhere in the code -- somewhere in the code -- MS. SIEMION : Well, it's in the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's stated that you can't overlap these two then? MS. SIEMION: Right. There's an assumption about the code that all of the requirements are cumulative unless otherwise stated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it is stated there? MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions on this one? If not, let's move on. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Next change, page 82, and this is a change to old LDC section 2.4.4.2 and new UDC section 4.06.05 C.2. And in this particular change, we're simply just going to require one size tree. Instead of an 8-footer and a 10-footer, we're just going to 37 .---.......-.-.- October 4, 2004 make it one uniform size, which is 10 feet. Just trying to simplify some of our -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Ifwe weren't around-- MS. SIEMION: -- requirements. Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the size of those trees makes sense. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No questions on this one? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the next one. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Next change is on page 84. It's the old LDC section 2.4.4.4 and new UDC section 4.06.05 C.4. And the change is a revision that acknowledges the different heights of the required shrubs and hedges that are required by minimum code, and we've simply just taken all of these heights and just put them in one section of the code here instead of having them dispersed throughout the landscape code. Another thing, to try to make it a little bit easier to use the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No questions? Let's -- next one? MS. SIEMION: Next amendment, this -- this particular one was a redundancy in our UDC rewrite, so it just simply eliminates that redundancy. It's still in the code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 86. MS. SIEMION: It was just a redundancy, and that was on page 86. Okay. Page 88, old LDC section 2.4.3.5 and new UDC section 4.06.05 G. It's a change that adds language to the landscape code specifying the distance a large canopy tree must be planted from a building or sidewalk. And this particular change was generated from some complaints from homeowners' associations who were having to deal with trees that were located in poor locations and were causing damage to their 38 October 4,2004 buildings and their sidewalks and their parking lots. So we're adding language that's a little more stringent. It says, in small spaces, plant little trees, and if you choose to use big trees, make sure they're at least 15 feet from a building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you reference on page 89, small canopy trees, do you mean trees that maintain a small canopy? MS. SIEMION: Yeah. We also have a recommended tree species list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. SIEMION: And we have a category called small canopy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are not only small going in, they are designed to stay small? MS. SIEMION: Yeah, yeah. It's meant to stay -- the canopy's meant to stay -- well, it stays small. Not that it's meant to be; it does. That's the way it grows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? If not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's see. Is the title "planning services director" still valid? MR. WEBB: No. And that probably should be changed to the county manager as designee. That's just a thing that I need to take care of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You picked that up. Okay. Thank you. That's on page 90. Thank you. MS. SIEMION: All right, thank you. Okay. And our very last amendment is further back in the package. It's on page 187. And that's our new -- newly created cultivated tree removal permit language. And this is something back in January the community had approached us and asked us to put together a permit process for removal of trees that are planted by man, and that's what this language addresses. Does anybody have any questions about this? 39 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MS. SIEMION: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, if you are living in a community and a developer planted a tree in front of your house and it gets too big and you want to move that tree, is this where this kicks in? MS. SIEMION: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you're going to charge, now, $250 to come in and ask to move the tree? MS. SIEMION: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you going to correlate that movement of the tree with the original landscape plan? How are you going to correlate it afterwards when the tree is moved? Is that something that's going to be inspected, it's going to be a plan that's going to be checked and submitted and all of that? MS. SIEMION: When they come in with their tree removal permit, they typically will pull the landscape plan from the records room. They'll mark on the plan the tree that they want to relocate or remove, and then they usually attach digital photos. They give us really good information to work on, and we'll go out and look at it, and you know -- and check for the accuracy of the permit information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- didn't know we kept those. I mean, I know those records are submitted. I just didn't imagine we were big enough to keep them all. MS. SIEMION: Yeah, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A maximum of 10 trees per five-year period may be removed with a cultivated tree removal permit. Is that 10 trees per lot if one were to have that many? MS. SIEMION: Well, it would be 10 trees per SDP, which is typically -- would be like a subdivision development or a multi-family housing development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if five people came in over -- or if 10 40 ",-- -..--.....--'""'-..- October 4, 2004 people came in over a five-year period to have a tree moved east, the rest of the people in the development couldn't move any more? MS. SIEMION: Typically what's happening is those homeowners' associations are under a home -- actually those types of developments are covered under a homeowners' association -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. SIEMION: -- and the homeowners' association is coming in on their behalf and requesting the removals. And what we'll find is if we find that there's multiple requests, we'll recommend that they submit for an insubstantial change, because it usually represents a significant change to their landscape. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question. So that means that if I have a diseased tree in front of my house and I have a queen palm that's dying of disease, I have to come in and get a permit and pay $250 to remove it? MS. SIEMION: I just want to clarify something. Is it a single- family home or is it -- MS. CARON: Part of a development. MS. SIEMION: Okay. If it's -- if it's a single-family home that's part of a development, no. Single-family homes are exempt from this. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. SIEMION: But if it were to occur in, say, like in a multi-family development where it's under common ownership-- MS. CARON: Ownership, yeah. MS. SIEMION: -- then they would have to come in per tree. Actually for a diseased tree? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, they don't. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what happens in hurricanes when trees fall over and need to be removed? Do you have to-- 41 October 4, 2004 MS. SIEMION: People just remove them. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. SIEMION: But that falls under public health, safety, and welfare, and you just have to apply common sense there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy, if I may, just to be absolutely clear, so if a condominium building -- and there are courtyards and so forth and they had palm trees that were inappropriate, what have you, and they wanted to remove them, they have to actually come in and secure a permit? MS. SIEMION: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, if that -- if the trees were causing a problem within the courtyard that could be destructive to the property, they still have to come in and get a permit? MS. SIEMION: Yes. It's a -- it's a method of protecting the landscaping. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions, Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, on page 188,4 C, you're looking for a letter of approval from the homeowner and master's association which tends to -- which seems to insinuate that in order for them to approve it, they must have some kind of deed restriction that allows them to acknowledge it in the first place. I thought the county didn't get involved with enforcement of deed restrictions. And if they don't, then why are you concerned with a letter from a homeowners' association? MS. SIEMION: Our concern is is we've had applicants come in, a community might come in without permission from the master's association and request a removal that the master's association doesn't agree to. 42 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why aren't we concerned when homeowners come in and want a variance to a side setback that the county agrees to but the homeowners' association doesn't? We don't care because if the deed restriction works out beyond our limits, how could this apply? MS. SIEMION: I think that's a legal question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They've got to do something over there, so -- MR. WHITE: Goodness. Well, thank you for the affirmative vote on both counts. I don't know how much of a legal issue it really is. I think it does come down to some question of policy in the sense that with respect to the landscaping, those are things that if they're -- as one of your commissioners had asked, on an individual lot, then apparently you don't need this permit. So I'm not exactly sure how you're going to apply it. And if it is something that is under common ownership, then certainly it's the association that would be the applicant and the permittee. Now, how the provision's intended to apply in a circumstance where a single-family lot owner may desire to remove it, I'm going to have to ask Nancy to help me. MS. SIEMION: Would it help if I gave you a real-life example? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please. MS. SIEMION: We actually did have -- it was a multi-family development overlooking a golf course. The tree's on common land. And what happened was -- is we issued the permit for the multi-family development to remove the tree and then later got an email back from the president of the master's association, and he was very upset that the tree was removed without their -- without their approval, because they also have authority over that tree as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean -- MS. SIEMION: It actually works pretty good in real life. 43 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If our attorney is comfortable with this, then I'm not going to debate that with him. MR. SCHMITT: And just to point out, in a similar situation where you have a tree on common ground that may obstruct a view or had grown and to obstruct a view of a property or homeowner and he says he wanted that tree removed, likewise, they need to come in. And we -- Nancy needs to verify that, in fact, the owners, who are the property owners or the homeowners' associations, whomever, agree with that. So it's just a matter of making sure that it's not just this one individual saying, well, I'll pay for the tree and I'll move it, and it happens to be in common ground, and it's not his private property, so -- we've had that experience. MR. WHITE: I think that's the way this thing's going to have to be applied, because if it's on a single-family lot per se, then it's exempt from the permitting, as far as I understand it. So it's only in the context of a multi-family where there would either be a condominium or some other form of association ownership of that common tree. So I'm not sure how you end up with an individual applicant in that context, but regardless, it seems that the regulation is drafted in a way to require the approval of the association in any event, which is truly, perhaps, most often, the owner of the underlying ground and the tree. MR. SCHMITT: We had a similar-- MR. WHITE: That's the most I can help. MR. SCHMITT: -- situation with big trees dropping the figs on the private property, and -- the olive tree, I think that was, black olive tree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your permit conditions, I have one last question. In five, the permit conditions you suggest -- you say a permittee has to agree to one of the following conditions listed, and you list two,r 44 October 4, 2004 and they're good conditions and all that, but what happens if the tree dies? They go to all the trouble of doing A or B, but if the tree dies under -- and they did A, are you -- is there some enforcement mechanism to make them replace it? MS. SIEMION: They'd have to replace it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that just a given? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If under some circumstances that -- you said early that if a tree was planted closer than 15 feet to a building, and all of a sudden now it's touching the top of the building and doing something, now, again, do we have to go through that same plan, or if it's inside 15 feet, you'd automatically take it down? MS. SIEMION: They would still have to request permission to remove it. Keep in mind, we have to verify the information that's . . gIven us In -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm assuming you do, yes. MS. SIEMION: -- order to protect our landscape out there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate this very much, because in my condominium, the lovely builder put in -- in our courtyards, put in palms that have grown extraordinarily high and they're whipping -- they were whipping the windows in the hurricane, and so they have to be removed. I had no clue that there was to be a permit involved. And I'm just wondering how we came across $250 as a cost to that. That seems like a lot of money to request for something to be taken away that needs to be taken away, perhaps. How did we come -- that seems like a lot of money to me. MS. SIEMION: Susan, do you remember, was that the fee that we were charging for vegetation removal and we just simply adopted the same fee? MS. MURRAY: I believe so, yeah. MS. SIEMION: Okay, yeah. That's what happened. 45 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, being ignorant of the vegetation removal thing, I -- maybe you could amplify it for me. Is that across a whole tract, vegetation removal? MS. SIEMION: Well, vegetation's different from this in that it's the stuff that's preserved and -- MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson, environmental services. The vegetation removal permit fee was increased about a year and a half or two years ago to 250 as a result of staff analyzing the exact amount of time that it takes to do the site visits, to do the staff reports, or the review of the permit and to actually issue it. So it is based on the amount of time and based on the hourly rate. We understand that it does -- it is a fairly high fee, but we were -- we were required to analyze that and make our permits fee-based. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But how do you find that same validity with one tree that may be a problem? MS. SIEMION: I can answer that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How do you get that same number? MS. SIEMION: It's the same amount of work for one tree. I mean, I totally agree with you, $250 is a lot of money. But in terms of the amount of time it takes to process the paperwork, go out and do a site visit, follow up with the subsequent visit once the work is done, we actually lose money on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: God forbid. MS. SIEMION: I know. MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, we do -- the fee schedule is a separate ordinance. It comes in periodically. I'm restricted in charging fees. Fees can only pay for services provided. If, in fact, the fee is generating more money than service provided, I reduce the fees. So it is -- when you look at hourly rate -- and I'm not talking hourly rates of an employee, but I'm also talking all the other 46 October 4, 2004 payments I have to make -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Overhead. MR. SCHMITT: -- and the overhead to pay into it-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You put the overhead and everything, fee structure. MR. SCHMITT: -- it -- or fee structure, to pay for -- to meet revenue, or to meet -- revenue to meet the expenses, this is a lost leader, I can tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that all the questions from the commission? If so, I'd like to hear any speakers from the public. MR. WEBB: The only registered public speaker we have on this -- on these issues is George F ogg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know the routine, sir. So-- MR. FOGG: Hello. My name is George Fogg, 628 Woodshire Lane, Naples, Florida, 34105. And I have a very brief set of comments. The landscape code has been consolidated and updated during this cycle. I have been involved in the past -- not in this particular cycle. But in the past 15 years I've been involved with every code revision that has been made in the landscape code, so I'm somewhat familiar with the landscape code. I strongly recommend these revisions and I believe that they will improve the landscape designs and required county plans without increasing their required amount of work. I do believe, however, that there is a need for additional refinements in at least four areas of the code for future sites. They're not critically required at this time but should be looked at in an overview as the landscape code -- I mean, as the architectural code was just reviewed. And they are: One, certification by design professionals that the work has been installed as per the county approved landscape plan. 47 October 4, 2004 Two, that street tree planting requirements be codified and that this is a very complex and difficult process that needs to be carefully studied and refined -- carefully studied and refined regulations promulgated. Three, planting in relationship to utility lines, especially overhead electric and communication lines, must be carefully included within the code. It's sort of there but not really. And frequently, as you have seen during these latest storms of the hurricanes, we have seen damage caused by trees growing up through, under power lines. Our particular development alone had five outages during the last series of hurricanes, distinct and severable, strictly due to trees that were growing where they shouldn't be. And finally, four, as I spoke earlier, creativity in design needs to be encouraged in the code and that the creative application and utilization -- through the creative application and utilization of the county code. I will say, and I will repeat again, that I personally have not had any creative desires of mine thwarted by the county codes, but unfortunately, a lot of people do. They either don't effectively design or they don't effectively present their designs, and they are not able to get them approved. But it has been my experience over the 15 years that I've been practicing here in Collier County with different reviewers, I have been able to get anything of quality creativity approved. I think it needs to be encouraged as a factor in getting better design. The same as the architects. I really truly concur that this is something, we want the best quality design we can get. We need to have the minimum codes strong enough so that we can coerce, convince, force, the clients to do as good a design as is possible within at least some sort of economy. Thank you for this opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. 48 October 4, 2004 If you could submit those four suggestions you have to Nancy so that by the next time she comes in for cycle one or cycle two amendments in 205 (sic), maybe she'll have time to review those. That would be helpful. We have a tendency to ask those questions when these things come up. Appreciate your input, sir. Is there any other speakers from the public? MR. WEBB: No. No, there aren't, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Nancy, that's the end of your Issues. MS. SIEMION: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I would like to ask the commission for a recommendation on section 4.06.02 C, 4.06.02 C again, 4.06.03 B.l, 4.06.04 A.O, 4.06.05 A.l, 4.06.05 B.4, 4.06.05 C.2, 4.06.05 C.4, 4.06.05 C.ll, 4.06.05 G, and 10.02.06 J. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that movement consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. 49 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion passes. Thank you, Nancy. MS. SIEMION: You're welcome. MR. WEBB: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the wish is of this body, but we have a couple of representatives from staff, if we can take those next so that they can get back to their jobs, that might be appreciated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. WEBB: Specifically, we have Denise Kirk and George Yilmaz here for the dumpster, or recycling provisions, I should say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, steer us to the right provision. We'll keep moving. MR. WEBB: Okay. Those are on page -- of your summary sheet, page 93 of the packet, section 5.03.04. And I think George may have stepped out, but Denise is here to answer any questions. MS. KIRK: For the record, Denise Kirk, solid waste management department. This is just to enhance the community character by adding recycling receptacles in the garbage container dumpster area enclosures. Did you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a couple. The size of the recycling bin, is it supposed to be the same size as the dumpster enclosure? Is that what I'm reading here? MS. KIRK: The size of the recycling receptacle depends on the servIce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. KIRK: It could be a 96-gallon container, it could be a dumpster size container for cardboard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you can -- for recycling receptacles, you can enclosed those with a vegetative screening -- 50 October 4, 2004 MS. KIRK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in lieu of the hard screening that's used around dumpsters? MS. KIRK: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have -- in thinking that out, recycling bins actually have more paper and stuff thrown around than trash dumpsters seem to, because it's looser material generally. Is there any concern in -- regarding only a vegetative screening for that? MS. KIRK: No, not in a litter sense. What we were thinking about as far as recycling was that the material is not putrescible; in other words, it's not garbage. It doesn't smell. It's a different type of material. That's why we would allow vegetative screening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your noncompliance it says, in the event that an existing property owner experiences substantial hardship. So that is retroactive; it goes against every development, existing and future? MR. WEBB: I don't believe -- Commissioner Strain, I don't believe that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm asking the question. MR. WEBB: Yeah. I don't believe that would be applicable. I don't believe you can have retroactive application. I mean, I would turn to Patrick on that. MR. WHITE: And I'm not going to try to preempt what the staffs intent here is, so I'm going to ask Denise if she would mind answering the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then on page 96, item H, noncompliance. It says, in the event that an existing property owner experiences a substantial hardship. If -- are you saying this is going to apply to existing property owners then? MS. KIRK: I don't believe so. 51 .~.._"- October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we can modify that section to fit appropriately or -- obviously if it doesn't apply, then we don't need it, or we need something changed. I'll leave it up to you-all to come up with a suggestion on that. MS. KIRK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'm not sure what you were intending, so -- MR. WHITE: Nor am I at this point. I mean, the regulation does say, or imply anyway, under H, that an existing property owner, meaning at the point in time that the regulation is enacted, it becomes effective. It certainly seems to be eligible for a substantial hardship, which to me means it would have to be applicable to them in order to apply for the hardship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm going. MR. WHITE: So I think it's intended to apply, and I think it's intended to apply in a way that provides for some type of relief. And in that sense, I don't think it's retroactive. It would be presently applicable to someone who has service. And if by applying that provision to an existing property owner it created a condition of substantial hardship, they'd be entitled to this relief. MR. SCHMITT: I think we need to clarify -- or Denise or George, because the ordinance which was passed -- what did it require for the compliance for existing -- MS. KIRK: For existing. It exempts existing structures. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Preexisting? MS. KIRK: Preexisting. MR. SCHMITT: We have a mandated recycling ordinance that went into effect. It's a commercial recycling ordinance. MS. KIRK: Non-residential recycling ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: Non-residential recycling. And so I just need to 52 October 4, 2004 make sure that what I -- I don't recall what was in there that would -- for requiring -- there was no requirement of retrofitting existing commercial properties. MS. KIRK: Correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So maybe it's preexisting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So maybe in the event that a property owner experienced this, just take the word "existing" out. MR. WEBB: Yeah, I think that would-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That leaves nothing that anybody could MR. WEBB: As far as I can see, yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the last question is, you -- apparently they can apply for a variance on -- according to number five. And will that variance cost be the typical variance cost, or is there going to be a special cost associated with a variance for this application? MR. WHITE: I'll note for the record it says administrative variance, which is not what the Planning Commission nor the Board of County Commissioners hear. Those are variances that are quasijudicial in nature, and not administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm on number five, and it doesn't say administrative variance there. It just says variance. MR. WHITE: My apology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, does that -- are we back to, if they have a hardship that -- to cure that hardship and they need a variance, we're going to charge them $4,000, whatever the variance cost is? MS. MURRAY: No. The -- back on page 96 it says, the process for requesting an administrative variance shall be as follows, so all the, one through five, apply to the administrative variance. That's how I read this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the word administrative 53 _._--<- -'~_..,~"'. October 4, 2004 can go in front of the word variance in that last paragraph to be consistent? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it doesn't need to. It's right at the heading. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if that's the way you read it. Everywhere else, in number three and the rest of them, it refers to administrative variance, and that one didn't. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we're going to put it in there to make sure that it's clear. MR. WHITE: And I don't want to beg the question, but we're attempting, from the community development side of things, to, perhaps, change the intent of what this regulation is. And when I read it what it's contemplating is the circumstance where apparently the administrative variance process hasn't led to resolution of some issue. And in that sense, it's suggesting that you would then apply for the formal type of variance. If I'm reading it wrong, please help me. And if I'm wrong for even interjecting, then please consent to the use of the word administrative in number five as an adjective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it is truly supposed to be there, then why don't we just put it there and make it simple? MR. WHITE: I'm not convinced it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Does anybody know if it is or not? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it shouldn't be a subparagraph of H. MR. WHITE: Right. I think that's just a formatting error issue, and we can address that, but -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Just pull it out of there -- MR. WHITE: -- if it's something else that says-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- and make it "I" or something. 54 October 4, 2004 MR. WHITE: Because section 9.04 are the traditional provisions for variances. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. WHITE: So I don't think it's, indeed, intended to be an administrative variance under number five, but it should be reformatted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not going to be a variance -- so possibly reformat it to capital "I" instead? MR. WHITE: Well, I think that I'd leave it to Russell in municipal code to give the right structure to it, but it should be the equivalent of the header under the process for requesting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's why the variance was capitalized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I couldn't figure it out. Is there any other -- Brad? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The geometry of these spaces you've come up with, essentially you're doubling the size of the container area. How did you come up with that -- that need? Because, theoretically, you're recycling, so you're really proportioning the stuff -- and here's my concern, is 24 feet is -- would put -- most of these things are within parking lanes and stuff, so a 20- foot parking lane or an 18- foot parking lane would make more sense to me, unless you think that there's -- you're going to double the need for waste. I mean, theoretically you're splitting the existing waste with the concept, right? And here's my concern, is that 24 feet, you know, would make it difficult to put it in a parking lane set up. It would come out into the parking lane. It couldn't go into the buffer system. So is there a reason to make it that big? Could we not take it down to a smaller dimension? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's too dark. 55 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't see it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's awfully dark. MR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, solid waste management department. Commissioners, I put something on visualizer as an example showing a cardboard container and the municipal solid waste container. This is a good example of how you can do enclosure. As you can see, the doors -- the one behind the doors open is a municipal solid waste container, and the ones behind the doors closed is an example of a cardboard container. So for us to be able to accommodate two containers, we have to go as high as 12 feet in diameter. Now, one other thing I want to mention here, increase in size for containment area is a potential for decrease in frequency for municipal solid waste collection. So they're out of savings on operational side by decreasing frequency of garbage and putting what you would put in garbage can into a recycling bin. So there's -- appears to be initial cost, however, under mandatory municipal solid waste collection and disposal ordinance, as well as recycling ordinance for commercial recycling -- so what we are -- what we are doing is we are doing our best to address coming up with something that is compatible with what you have worked very hard -- till the end of last session, architectural standards, so that we are compatible, so that our recycling centers, recycling dumpsters, as well as municipal solid waste dumpsters, becomes compatible with what you have debated all this time. I hope I answered the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you know -- and I'm not really concerned about -- that's a pretty large-scale operation of cardboard. Most businesses won't get into that that will have this requirement. I mean, isn't there a way to do something smaller than this to stay within the -- a dimension of 20 feet or less so it can be 56 October 4, 2004 built in a parking lane? MR. YILMAZ: That's a possibility, and that language has been built into the proposed language so that case by case we will review these applications coming in, and we will determine, best we can, and meet the demand of the customer as far as frequency, container size, as well as municipal solid waste and recyclable containment areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see where that's built in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I don't either. I see mandatory requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the -- MR. YILMAZ: If you go to -- I'm sorry. If I might be specific to the last inquiry there. If you go to section -- section D, enclosure dimensions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ninety-five. MR. YILMAZ: Page 95. As you can see there with the -- the language is there, but further if you go to section H, and if there is a potential non-compliance issue, the architect that will approve can work with our customer service and utility billing staff to come up with alternative solutions. So this is one of those things that frankly we're flexible enough for architect as well as the site planning engineer to come up with meeting the demand of that specific business. So this is not one of these things easily you can write into the code, establish something solidified. But what we're doing here is we're establishing minimum requirements compatible with architectural standards, as well as meet the demand for recycling and municipal solid waste collection and proper disposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The dumpster you're showing behind the closed door is the recycling dumpster; is that correct? 57 October 4, 2004 MR. YILMAZ: Yes. That's a cardboard dumpster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the one that could have a vegetative screening around it? MR. YILMAZ: That could have vegetative screen around it as an alternative, yes. If there are some site constraints, given the site conditions so that -- we are -- we are building as much as we can, flexibility into design, but also be compatible with everything else around it. This is a good example, and there are more of these examples, frankly, already in compliance with the ordinance even though these are existing operations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let me just go further. On the dimension of the -- I mean, first of all, that's a large dumpster, probably one of the largest dumpsters somebody would have, correct, other than getting into some fancy stuff? So most businesses don't have that large a dumpster, so wouldn't they be -- wouldn't it make sense that they be able to build a smaller thing without going through the administrative process to do it? In other words, the 24- foot dimension, you came up with that so that you could -- you know, 12 by 12 is the old dumpster dimension. You just doubled it. But I mean, couldn't somebody just not -- well, why does it have to be that big? That's a big area. I mean, and a lot of dumpsters aren't that big. The cardboard thing there, the guy's making money on, so of course he's going along with it. But couldn't we design smaller ones than that? I mean, that's a huge dumpster, isn't it, or am I -- MR. WEBB: Commissioner Schiffer, maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I don't necessarily think that the size of the business would determine the size of the dumpster. You may have a business that produces, you know, a ton of recycling and it's only a small business. So I think it would be hard to sort of develop those standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But what I'm afraid of is 58 October 4,2004 you're developing it for the biggest business. It's the poor small guy -- and again, the fear I have is the 24- foot's a bad dimension for laying out, you know, parking lots and the dumpster area. So 20- foot dimension we could live with, 18 feet would be better. But I mean, if there's really a need to double that area -- but, you know, the concept really is, you know, you have the same amount of waste, you're just splitting it up. So theoretically if I had a big dumpster like that, I could break it into two smaller dumpsters and get by. MR. YILMAZ: Points aside -- points are well made and I think well taken here. And I'm going back to the language. The intent here is at rest, that specific issue. If we have a business where they don't need as much as -- space for solid waste management requirements -- and the language says, the way I read it, enclosures for dumpsters shall have minimum internal dimensions of 12 feet for municipal solid waste with a separate area for recycling receptacles enclosed by vegetative screening. That's an alternative. It doesn't have to be 24 feet. That's an option to designers. But if you have a scenario like you're looking at now, you're going to need 24 feet, and you're going to have two containers like we're looking at, and that's the suggested design criteria here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the other question is, the fiscal impact of this is none? I mean, there's -- I mean, you're eating up a developer's land, you're making them build a bigger wall. I mean, isn't there a cost to this? MR. YILMAZ: This is part of our mandatory municipal solid waste collection as part of that mandatory commercial recycling collection and proper disposal. So option number one is, put everything into the garbage dumpster. Option number two is, get into recycling, and the policy decisions have been made that we need to be in recycling business as much as municipal solid waste management business. 59 ...-.-- October 4, 2004 So for us to build infrastructure for our future solid waste stream, which is designed to minimize impact on our landfill and landfill capacity, this is intended to build, again, short- and long-term infrastructure for our neighborhoods and businesses to be compatible with our integrity of the solid waste threat issue. That is, we will not be able to contain and maintain our landfill capacity 20 years plus. And for us to do that, we need to have this infrastructure in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I really support that. I mean, there's no issue there. My issue is really that I think the size -- let me just go back to the size, because here's the problem. Some parts of the county you have to have a masonry wall surrounding your trash enclosure. Would this mean that this would waive that for the recycling element, or would that make the person have to build a 24- foot enclosure? MR. YILMAZ: That's an example to, I think, the issue we're talking about. And the ordinance intended to provide exemptions to current businesses. So it's not retroactive. In this case, if we have a business, has chosen to recycle and having a recycling container next to garbage -- garbage municipal solid waste containment area, they can continue to do it as you see in this picture. It may not be a good picture, but that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but that picture shows that it's taking up a parking space, which I'm sure they wouldn't be allowed to do if somebody studied the plan for that. This picture does show my concern though is that -- and remember, a business can go out of business, you know -- if it's not in certificate of occupancy for six months, it's out of business. So people are going to be coming in retrofitting parking lots. And again, can't you take that 24 dimension down to 20 feet? Then people could build exactly what we want, which is an enclosure for both the containers within a parking dimension of 20 feet. Is the 24 60 October 4, 2004 important? MR. YILMAZ: Twenty-four important for us to build infrastructure for the future so that we can get to 50/50 recycling ratios for commercial, and that means you have to have enough space for your municipal solid waste generation, enough to put municipal solid waste and enough to put your recyclables into recyclable containers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you may be at one of those . . Impasses agaIn. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm at all of them. Today's the day of impasses. MR. YILMAZ: However, we have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, this is the problem. If somebody's going to come in -- that's not allowed. You can't take up a parking place for a dumpster. That's a bad example. So what's going to happen is that that business has to retrofit it. He's going to have to build it in that 20- foot dimension, and it's just not fair. I mean, because if he goes 24, he's into the landscape, and then you've got the landscape ordinance down here. He can't put it in the travel lane, so 20's a good dimension. And, you know, the concept is, you're really splitting the waste, so you should be able to reduce the container size. I know you want to pick up less. Some of that's important. But 20 feet, I think's, important. MR. YILMAZ: Twenty feet important from a standpoint of? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's what you'll get. You'll get more people being able to do it. This guy can't do it, because ifhe tried to do it here, he'd be out into his parking lane. Now, maybe you'll give him an administrative variance, but it would be nice if the code allowed that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's saying most of the conditions that may occur are going to be those that take up an extra parking space. 61 October 4, 2004 And if the spaces are 9 by 20, or 10 by 20, he wants to fit it within that parking space; is that what I'm hearing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. I mean, is -- the standard parking space is 18 feet, isn't it? It's not 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, 18. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you know -- and plus, some of the dumpsters that we use for business recycling, they're not all that big. Especially the recycling dumpsters tend to start out being smaller. Maybe the goal is some day that will be the big one. But you could easily fit in 18 feet the dumpster we have like that plus a recycling bin. MR. YILMAZ: Recycling bin being? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Being a metal dumpster device. It's smaller than that. Definitely smaller than that. It is your intent also to make less pickups. I mean, maybe the point -- I mean, to me, it seems the same amount of waste, it's just being subdivided. If you're saying that's not really the issue, the issue is I don't want to -- I want to visit that site less -- MR. YILMAZ: I think points are well taken. I think -- I think that we don't want to require no more than we need to require in terms of allocated space. But the concept here, for us to be able to provide infrastructure for next 20 years. Last thing we want to do is allow construction of our commercial sites with structural constraints where, if the business owner wants to recycle and bring larger containers in, they shouldn't have to knock the walls down. So the idea here is, build necessary space for us to achieve 50 percent plus recycling goals and have infrastructure in place just to do that. On the other hand, we will be more than happy to look at minimum of 20 feet, and then case by case we can determine up to 24 or 26. We can get into that, but then you're given a little discretion to 62 October 4, 2004 review, and the review process becomes much more cumbersome and costly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, wouldn't maybe the other answer would be that the person has to prove to you that the size of his containers, both of them can fit within the wall, then -- then that's -- there's no problem then, right? MR. YILMAZ: Understood. It goes back to original comments, or some of the comments you had made. Businesses (sic) changes. Let's say some establishment comes with another business where they want to recycle 60 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent, but they may not be able to do it due to the fact that they are not going to be in compliance because they don't have enough enclosure requirements. Two containers in this case, like cardboard and municipal solid waste containers, eight yards or four yards, may not fit in there. And so the idea here is, do not constrain future businesses by structures that we build now 10 years from now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this will be my last comment, I promise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Brad, why don't -- I think we know everybody's position. Why don't you make the motion on this. And if you've got a solution, recommend it in your motion, and see if the rest of us go with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- are there any other issues involving dumpsters, recycling? MR. WEBB: No, this is the only other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- there's no public speakers. I would imagine there's nobody's here. Then let's -- can I hear the motion from the panel for section 5.03.04? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just this one. 63 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I'll make a motion to accept but add to -- add to D, enclosure dimensions, the ability for the designer to design a space other than those dimensions showing that it contains the two required waste receptacles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's again what I'm -- I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you do a discussion, let's get -- is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't understand the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the motion is, I want to add the option that a designer can present a plan showing that it contains the two required dumpsters that he has for his business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you -- would you -- no minimum? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have a minimum of a 12 by 12. I mean, I don't want to go lower than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your motion-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you think there's a better way to word it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so everybody understands it, is that if a designer can prove that within a 12 by 12 enclosure he can fit all the dumpsters -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, let me make it a 12 by -- what I'm really interested in is trying to keep it in a parking stall. So let me say that if he can show within a 12 by 18 dimension. I mean, I would rather have more thought on it. I can write better than performing here, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would agree with you there, but I don't think we have that time today. So is there a second to Brad's motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Before that, are you saying 64 October 4, 2004 now the dimensions are 12 by 18? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twelve by 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of 12 by 24. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then we can say, if it can be proven that it can contain the two receptacles. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So the burden's on the applicant then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The burden's on the applicant. But here's the thing, I think you might want that because that means people can retrofit these things. They already have a 12- foot wide space. If you make it 24, they can't build it there. If you make it 18, they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a second on the motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been seconded by Mr. Murray, it's for 12 by 18 minimum dimension, if the applicant can prove that the containers can fit within that area. Is there any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only point I want to make is he's right about the big spaces, but there's a lot of small businesses and stuff that don't have that kind of receptacle, and it's not fair to put a burden like that on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you have something? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm just confused at how we can determine -- you're building it for one company, and then all of sudden, a new company comes in, a new tenant comes in, and now that person's got double the waste as the one before, and now you've got a thing you can't actually fit in what he actually needs anymore. N ow we've got to go retrofit again in order to make it work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm-- 65 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an option, someone could go bigger. They just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They can make it bigger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a minimum size would be 12 by 18, but they could go bigger if they were to move in there and realize they wanted to expand for future needs. I mean, nothing prohibiting them from going bigger. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just couldn't go just smaller. Does that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that comfortable with everybody? The only other two things I'd like the motion maker to consider, and the second, is that we change the format of H5 to a letter, instead of H number 5, it would be 1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we remove the word existing under item H, the first sentence. Go ahead. MR. WHITE: As far as -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved -- MR. WHITE: Solely as to the formatting solution, I believe that under H, Arabic one should be put out in front of the process for requesting an administrative, then all of the numbers one through four should be changed to small letters, a, b, c, and d, and then the number two under what was previously numbered 5. I think that's consistent with the traditional formatting structure we've utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: I appreciate-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just said, as long as it gets reformatted. That's the way -- is that acceptable to the motion maker? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's acceptable, to me. 66 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion and a second. Okay. Any further discussion? MR. YILMAZ: If I might. For the record, I'd like to put something in record, that for us to be able to manage our future infrastructure and waste stream, we need to have our structures where business transparent (sic), so that every time businesses (sic) changes, our 20-year infrastructure that we're talking about today does not change. It is designed to accommodate those business changes, but the infrastructure does not change like individual business changes under the same site plan, same ownership. So having said that, I will strongly recommend that we establish minimum requirement for 24 feet. And if there are special cases, as commissioner indicated, then the administrative variance system we have established herein would apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, as strong as you are though with regard to that, I wonder whether anyone would have a chance at a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion on the table; it's been seconded. I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One opposed. Motion carries. 67 ......... ,,~-- October 4, 2004 With that, we're going to take a 10-minute break. (A brief recess was taken.) ***CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Russ, if you'll take us -- I guess we're going into -- we're going to go into Barbara's area, right? MR. WEBB: Right. I have one amendment concerning the -- on page 6 of the summary sheet, if I'm not mistaken. I am mistaken. Page 7, the VRSFP, vegetation removal and site filling. That's section 4.06.04 A.l on page 72 on your packet, but I believe Barbara has some changes she just handed out to you. MS. BURGESON: And actually the changes are for a different section, so I'll get to that next. Vegetation removal and site filling section. Again, for the record, Barbara Burgeson with environmental services. What we did with this language was we reformatted it so that you'll notice that the entire section was struck through, and then we rewrote it. We tried to simplify the language and we tried to add some conditions so that there's more flexibility to allow for clearing and filling before building permits under certain circumstances that we weren't currently issuing. The EAC approved this item on September 30th. I know that your summary shows that they have not heard this item yet, but they did have an EAC meeting recently, so that was approved during that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara? MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you finished with your presentation? MS. BURGESON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On your page 75 under, I guess, little i, where it says must be submitted and deemed sufficient by Collier County, is that just, we're going to interpolate on their county 68 October 4, 2004 manager or designee or something of that nature? MR. SCHMITT: That would be submitted to the building department. Deemed sufficient means it's been gone through the building review and permitting department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a standard phrase is what you're saying to me? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you on that one. MR. SCHMITT: It would be -- it would go through the checklist and be accepted and be processed -- begin processing for review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I understand it to be standard phrasing? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. And then further down under A, second par -- I noted that the slopes are 4-to-l ratio. We spoke about that earlier in there. That is steep, isn't it, 4-to-l ? MS. BURGESON: That's standard by the engineering-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. BURGESON: -- requirements, and that is a fairly steep slope. I think that that can be stabilized. I think that that's also a slope that's used in landscaping, but I don't know. They may have changed that since I've been familiar with the facts on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Side slopes, the right-of-ways. It's used for light banks, it's used for a lot of things. 4- To-l 's the standard, and you generally just sod it, and then you're done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted though, there was certainly some -- at an earlier document, there was some discussion about the concern for the loss of plants, so that was why I questioned. MR. SCHMITT: This doesn't overtake any of the requirements for littoral plantings or any of those type -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was referring to, 69 October 4, 2004 yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, do you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my only other. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, I've got two ex -- under -- on page 76, the Roman numeral V -- and I know this is repetitive language from the prior one, but it says, VRSFP, authorizing up to 25-acres of clearing and filling -- I'm sorry -- is nearing capacity. What is nearing in relationship to -- I mean, is 50 percent nearing capacity, or 75 percent or -- MS. BURGESON: We've been very flexible in that. We rarely have submittals for an additional VRSFP. But if someone anticipates that in -- and again, it would be subjective, by we want to be flexible. If someone anticipates within the next year that they need to expand beyond that 25, we want to make sure that they can get through the process and get the permit so they have it in hand and they're ready to start that next process. If you want to add some conditions to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just concerned that if someone came in and was unreasonable, by that language, could you turn them down? MS. BURGESON: No one has yet, so I'm hoping that it won't be a problem for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just keep our fingers crossed. MS. BURGESON: Yeah. If you'd like, we can look at putting some language in there, but since it hasn't been a problem-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't think it's a problem, then I'm just bringing the question up. MR. SCHMITT: Again, this was created because the other was so restrictive that it almost became a business -- well, it was a -- it was a tough process to go through lot by lot by lot, and this relaxed it a little bit. It provides a better -- little bit more of an opportunity for the 70 October 4, 2004 developer to go into their already preplatted area and do larger tracts then, but there are certain precautions to preclude all the other aspects of that, like erosion or run-off, and those kind of things that need to be -- need to be taken -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a good provision, Joe. I just wanted to make sure that there was no loopholes in it that it would cause us any concerns. Under Roman Numeral VII on page 77, the very last paragraph refers to, in the event that any portion of the stockpile is in place for greater than 18 months, the county will order the fill to be removed. If you take fill off a site, you've got to have a commercial excavation permit, I believe. Or if you tell them to remove it, where are they going to put it? What was your intent in that regard? I know this is old language, but now that it's being brought back up, maybe it's something we ought to understand. MS. BURGESON: Yeah. I can understand that concern. Not having written this -- and this was written by the engineers -- I'd have to take a look at that and ask them to consider if we're requiring them to remove that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are they going to put it? MS. BURGESON: Where are they going to put it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mind if-- MS. BURGESON: Just because it's been in there for the past six years doesn't mean that it makes sense the way it's written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure we can resolve that here today, so if you would just look at that, and if you find a solution to the problem that seems reasonable to present when it goes to the BCC, that would suffice for my concern. MR. SCHMITT: That -- again, we need to -- we'll talk to Stan indeed. The point here was that what I didn't want is for the clearing to be approved and then it sat there for greater than 18 months with no improvements, then you create a nuisance for neighboring homes or 71 October 4, 2004 other type of things. So that what I was looking for -- some -- either soil stabilization or you have them spread the fill or those type of things -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because this is saying stockpile. So if you've got a 10- foot high stockpile sitting there and the county comes up and says, you know -- and you're 19 months, you've got to remove it. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. That was not the intent of this to create the stockpile, so we need to -- I don't -- I can't remember why -- or what -- why Stan put this in there. MS. BURGESON: Well, this was in the original VRSFP section from '96. The only thing that we've made a change to was we changed it from 24 months to 18 because there was some concerns from citizens that these stockpiles are sitting there too long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're going to change it to be made better, let's just do it now and be done with it. That's all I'm suggesting. Okay. If there's any -- no further questions, let's move on to your next issue, Barbara. MS. BURGESON: Okay. The next one is for the littoral shelf planting area. And again, this item was heard at the EAC on September 30th and they recommended moving it forward with approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page? MS. BURGESON: This is the one that I just handed out. MR. WEBB: So it's on page 55 of your LDC packet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MS. BURGESON: And it's a single sheet-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. BURGESON: -- with some red -- red print, which adds new language. This is a result of some recent meetings that staff has had. And it doesn't change -- it doesn't change the intent. It just 72 October 4, 2004 simplifies and clarifies. So I need to just read this into the record. Projects under 3.5.11.3.1, projects approved and constructed according to previous standards and do not meet the operational requirements of 3.5.11.2 shall meet the current standards subject to the following criteria. So that's just simplifying the language there, and added, at the end of C, that regrading of existing slopes will not be required. I also need to read into the record, as a result of some meetings that we've had recently with code enforcement staff where these issues come up if they're in violation if their littoral planting areas are failing and they need to create or come up with and assess the situation on the site. We found that if they do assess the site and they are going to propose to replant it in a different area or regrade it if they -- if they choose to or put in different plants, we want to make sure that they submit to us the new plan so that they have that plan of record so they're not held to the old plan that's failing. The language I'd like to add in is -- and that would be letter F -- a written assessment and site plan shall be required if it is determined by the assessment of the lakes that the new plantings will differ from the approved plan of record. And that's just to protect the landowner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will provide the consistency in what plans are on record. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions with Barbara's recommendations and petition? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any other sections you're involved with, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public here to speak, Russell? 73 October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: No, not on this particular issue, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to entertain a motion from the commission on section 3.05.10 C and section 4.06.04 A.I. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion and second made consistent with Barbara's recommended changes -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and consistent -- found In consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Goes without saying. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motioned passed. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara. I've got to get closer to my mike, right? I'm sorry. What I'd like to do, Russ -- I know Amy's here for a purpose, I'm sure. So if we could probably direct our next attention to what she's here for, that would at least get her home before dinnertime. 74 October 4,2004 MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of us will be here. ***MR. WEBB: Yeah, I agree, I agree. And I think Amy's is a relatively simple one, if I'm not mistaken. It's adding educational plans -- let me see if I can locate that on the -- sorry. You sort of caught me off guard. MS. TAYLOR: Page 36. MR. WHITE: Page 36. MR. WEBB: Page 36, Patrick? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Four on your summary statement. MR. WEBB: Page 4 on your summary sheet, page 36 in the packet. We're adding an educational plan as a permitted use in a few of the districts. And this is a re -- clean-up from the recodification. Some of them did not make the transfer. This was -- this was all taken care of in cycle 3, 2003, but as I said, it didn't -- didn't make the transfer. And this is due to our continuing obligation to clean things up from the recodification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, is that the only one that involved your realm? MS. TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Well, I think Russ just read it in. I don't know if there's a presentation needed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a move to approve by Commissioner Murray. Is there a second? If there's a problem, let me know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, are we finding this consistent with 75 October 4, 2004 the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We are. That's why we're doing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, that was just a pure waste of your effort, but thank you. MS. TAYLOR: Well, I did sign up as a speaker, if I could just say a word or two about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that -- MS. TAYLOR: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. TAYLOR: Amy Taylor, Collier County Public Schools, for the record. Thank you for approving that. We do really work hard on the interlocal agreement to ensure that schools can continue to be in places where student population is and where families are, and hopefully get back to the more walkable school and integrating them into neighborhoods. Our schools primarily are in residential zoning districts, and they're integrated into their communities. There are very few that are in agricultural areas that are zoned agriculture. Some of our larger schools, our high schools, are in those types of areas, and that may be where they're more appropriate. 76 October 4, 2004 What we're -- our next horizon is actually reflected in our interlocal agreement with the county, is the concern about PUDs. We are not, as has been interpreted in the recent past, not allowed as -- allowed the use in a PUD that's already existing and in the books. There's examples of where we are allowed in PUDs or where it had been interpreted in the past, and that's Caloosa Park Elementary, Corkscrew Elementary and Corkscrew Middle School, Lely High School, a new elementary school in the Lely PUD, so there's precedent for that, but unless we're specifically listed in the PUD, we're not allowed in that PUD, and that's -- we respect that position. Where we're going to become more active, and the reason for this is -- it's best illustrated by our exercise through our developing our capital plan, our five-year plan. What we discovered is that with the class size reduction amendment, which I'm sure you've all heard about and read about in the paper, which is a very positive thing for students, we're finding that instead of one elementary school in our five-year plan, we're looking at five new elementary schools in our five-year plan. This means -- because of the additional classrooms alone. So to keep at it -- you know, to make sure that we're getting those schools in those locations, we're going to be coming to you when PUDs are sunsetted, when they're amending new PUDs, and we're going to be asking that schools be allowed as a permitted use in those PUDs so that we can ensure in our future that we're going to have schools fully integrated into our communities. So we just -- I just wanted to take the opportunity to make you aware of that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming that when you ask it's going to be practical, meaning if a PUD's alongside an existing school, there may not be a lot of a need for another one right beside the PUD, so it's going to be a little give and take. MS. TAYLOR: A little give and take exactly. It just -- it all 77 October 4, 2004 depends on the area where we can demonstrate that there's a significant amount of growth in that area, that -- that might be the case for -- there's schools out in the Estates, for example, that we have to build an elementary school every four years to relieve that school. So, you know, there are situations like that where communities are changing over time, becoming more younger -- yeah. I mean, there's certainly -- we wouldn't ask for anyplace where we wouldn't anticipate a need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep staying at these meetings and reminding us -- MS. TAYLOR: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm sure we'll keep up with it. Thank you. And Russell, I think that resolves all the issues that the people who have been in the audience for, unless Marjorie's here for something different at this time. MR. WEBB: Yeah, I think Marjorie has one toward the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. ***MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And I authorized the provisions on notice hearings for DRIs and PUD extensions. And in looking at this iteration, it appears -- when I first drafted it, I tried to integrate it, and then I separated it into two pieces, and it looks like the part, first iteration, got into a bit of it, so I just wanted to correct that for the record. On page 194 there shouldn't be any reference to DRIs or DRI amendments or abandonments at all under B. That's just for extensions of PUDs. And also, you will see in "c" there is a signage requirement for DRIs, which also appears -- that's little letter c. That's on page 195, but that also appears on page 198. And the reason for the redundancy, again, was there were two iterations where, at first, I tried to combine 78 "'_.- -"~_,_;.e__' October 4, 2004 them, and I realized they should be separated. So I just wanted to correct that for the record. And the only other thing I'd like to add, on page 195, paragraph 2 B.2, as it relates to PUD extensions, to say that -- on the third line, herein before the BCC and shall conform to the applicable sign regulations listed in 3D and E, then, comma, four and five below. So it makes it clear what paragraphs apply. And then sign format under D should be changed to C because the C comes out since it's under the DRI. And that is all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. Is there any comments or questions of the commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10.03.05 B. The motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any further discussion? Subject, of course, to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- growth management plan. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? 79 ~-_. October 4, 2004 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. ***CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, what I'd like to do is 14 pages of issues here. We've gone through quite a few of them. In order to expedite the remainder, why don't we just ask per page if there's any questions from page 1 on through, and then vote per page and be done with it. Does that -- MR. WEBB: Sounds good to me. Patrick may want us to provide the section numbers, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would read the section numbers like I have, ask for a motion. MR. WEBB: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that simplifies it, it does for -- what do you think, Patrick? MR. WHITE: I'm very comfortable with that, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure that we include the definition for primary facade, if it's not on your list already. And although we didn't discuss those architectural standards, it was a separate motion, a separately identified matter on the summary sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we add that to the definition -- page 1 under definitions. What section would that be for? MR. WEBB: 1.08.01 is the new section number. I'm sorry, 1.08.02 is the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the definition for -- MR. WEBB: Primary facade. That's in the architectural standards definition. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just blow through it. Is there any questions? Russ, now we're on pages 1 through 4. MR. SCHMITT: Page 1, Commissioner, all of those have already previously been approved. 80 '"~-~"- October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've done all the way up to-- MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. MR. WEBB: Yeah, and all the way up to section 2.0.3.05 at the top of page 3. All of those have been addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're starting on the mobile home overlay district on page 17. MR. WEBB: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, when we did the definitions, the only one that we really wanted to come back and revisit was the primary facade. Do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can do that right now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Then we can move on to definitions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page, please? MR. WEBB: This should be on your handout that I gave you today. And if you don't have it, I think I have extras, but it's on page 2 of the architectural standards definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's four definitions on there. The only one that wasn't previously approved was the one for primary facade? MR. WEBB: Right. That's the only one that's changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to read that into the record, then we can vote on it? MR. WEBB: Sure. Primary facade, applicable to section 5.05, 5.08 only, a facade that is in public view and faces a public or private street. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll so move. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion to approve section 5.05, .08, finding it consistent with the growth management plan by -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. 81 ~._---~ '--'- October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein and seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And found -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're starting on page 17 then, Russ? MR. WEBB: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On page 18. The one question that poked for me is in little c, probably a little scroll from the bottom of the paragraph up to the fourth line, the third line, my question to myself is, do we have replacement housing? I guess that's moot though in this -- in this context. But we're at -- we're going to give them violations, which is appropriate. And it was a question that poked to me that, are we in a position to do this? And I apologize. I will withdraw that question because I realize it's certainly not appropriate to passing this, but it was a question that I felt I needed to poke out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's a non-question then? 82 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a non-question, question, non-question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any non- or questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for your patience. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have no questions, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have no non-questions either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, we're on page 19 then? MR. WEBB: Yes. Page -- the next amendment is page -- on page 19, section 2.03.08 A. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21. MR. WEBB: Page 21, section 2.03.08 A.I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No questions. MR. WEBB: Next, page 23, section 2.03.08 A.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No questions. Can I have a motion to recommend approval consistent with the growth management plan for sections 2.03.07 G, 2.03.08 A, 2.03.08 A.l, and 2.03.08 A.3? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 83 -~ October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries without anybody against. Okay. Move on. MR. WEBB: Okay. Next amendment is on page 25, section 2.03.08 D. Next amendment, section 2.04.03 on page 27. Next, section 2.04.03 on page 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, I have a question about that one. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says 3221 was mistakenly listed as both permitted and conditional use, and 3231 was mistakenly listed as a conditional use. I may have looked at an unimproved version of the LDC, but I couldn't find 3231. And I think I typed it into Municode and didn't get a hit. Are we sure that it was in the existing LDC? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a non-issue issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's one of those non-issues that could be an issue. MR. WHITE: I just closed my digital file on it. I'll do a word search for it. MR. WEBB: Yeah. But I'm quite sure that it was. I can't say with 100 percent certainty, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just -- again, I may not-- I know Municode's not up to date on the version they have there, so maybe it got in there and I missed it, so -- Are you back online, Pat? MR. WHITE: Momentarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we move on to page 40. That's the next one, Russ. MR. WEBB: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was one -- no. Okay. 84 October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: Did I hear we had a question or -- MR. SCHMITT: That one was approved, page -- MR. WEBB: Okay. The next one is on page 47, I believe, 2.06.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had some questions on that. On page 47 A, affordable housing and density bonus development talks about the agreement with the BCC and pursuant to the public hearing process established in this section prior to execution. I thought we did that already. Don't we currently have that agreement signed before? MR. WEBB : Yeah. This -- I forgot to point that out, and I apologize. This is just text that was omitted when we did the recodification, just bringing it over, so it's really not anything new. It's just a portion that was omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on page 49, do you see your numerall0? MR. WEBB: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was part, in the existing LDC, of number 9 . You made it a new paragraph. And if you read 9, you'll see it flows into 10. Ten isn't supposed to be a separate paragraph according to the current code. And that means all your other numbers have got to be renumbered. MR. WEBB: Okay. I'll look into that as far as a formatting concern, but what I did was I cut, copied, and pasted it directly from the old LDC, but I'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did, too. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I found -- if you read the paragraphs, it doesn't make sense that 10 would be a stand-alone because it's an example of 9. It talks about it and it follows -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It says, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So, anyway, if you look at that. 85 October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner Strain, and others, I just want to get something clarified for myself here. This was left out of it, and I've heard you say that this is already approved language, all of this; is that correct? Am I reading that correct? MR. WEBB: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then the questions I have, where should I best direct them then, to Cormac for the next cycle, or whatever? MR. WEBB: Yeah. Cormac would be the individual that would be -- MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, while you're looking at it, on page 52 under number 1, eligibility, see number 2, the developer? That's part of number 1, eligibility, and number 3 should be number 2, because number 3 starts with an italicized application. It's the same thing I was just saying in the prior one. Those two got renumbered mistakenly. MR. WEBB: Well, I think I know what happened there. Since they're separate paragraphs, they were separate paragraphs under the old LDC. One of Gail's rules that she's given to us is that each paragraph, each separate paragraph should be numbered, so maybe that's -- I'm thinking maybe that's why I put the number in there. I know on some of the amendments that you've seen today, they have separate paragraphs and they're not numbered sequentially, and they will be when I finally put that language into the ordinance. But I believe that's probably why I inserted the numbers there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, are you going to put it back like it is since you're dragging it over with no changes, or are we going to change it? Because when you renumber those paragraphs and there's references in other parts of the code that reference those paragraphs, are those going to be off then? 86 -....-- October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: Yeah. I would probably have to ask Patrick about whether we're going to run into a legal concern about that. But I mean, I don't think that's -- would be construed, by any means, as a substantive change. And I think that the relettering and renumbering, that was included in the ordinance, 04-41, that we could do that without it being determined as a substantive change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't saying it for that reason. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned someone's going to come back and have a reference in another part of the code that doesn't reference the right paragraph because we're making that change. MR. WEBB: I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was -- that's-- MR. WEBB: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Those types of changes were within the scope of 04-41. Certainly in this amendment we can fix it any way we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you'll look at those two MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you'll do the right thing on that. Pat, did you find any reference to it online? MR. WHITE: I'm looking at our current published supplement 17, and it does not appear to be in the list. I also have a printout of what we would call the UDC in the final published form, and it's not in that list either, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what does-- MR. WHITE: -- we were thinking that it might have been either a typo, but we're going to run it to ground and make sure that that is the desired SIC code, 3231. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how should we handle that today? Because the statement made says it's in the former -- was in the former 87 --_..~....- ~.,,,~--~_., October 4, 2004 LDC, and obviously it's not now. MR. WHITE: I don't know that that's a preclusion against adding it today. I don't see why it would be. Remember, we're not acting today with any of the constraints we had about substantive changes with respect to the recodification. This is supplement one to the recodified LDC that we're working on. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They put it in as if it was a new one. MR. WHITE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the benefit of everyone here, could you tell us what 3221 is? MR. WHITE: 3221 is one of the groups under stone, clay, glass and concrete products. I don't have the SIC code immediately available. I can try to pull it up on the Internet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I meant to bring mine and I didn't, sorry. As long as there's no concern on the part of the commission that it's being added to LDC or UDC, I'm not -- I remember reading it and it didn't seem unreasonable to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you isolate again what is being added from this, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 31, I think page -- where are -- I think it's page 31. I've got so many pages. On page 31, it was actually 32-31 that says, in our reason, 32-31 was mistakenly listed as a conditional use. Both of these involve the same amount of intensity and should be permitted in the "I" district, and that's fine. I don't think there's a problem with it, but I didn't find that listed in the LDC, and that's the only reason I questioned it. MR. WEBB: Commissioner Strain, now that I -- now that I recollect this issue, I don't think this was a recodification error. I think when I used the term mistakenly listed -- which I guess that's the 88 October 4, 2004 wrong terminology -- I think that Cheryl Soter and I sort of dealt with this one. It was an issue -- I guess from what we were trying to convey, that 32-31 is a less intensive use so it should have been permitted in the "I" district in addition to the -- whatever district it is now, and -- but I'll confirm that with Cheryl for sure and let you know. But I don't -- I don't think it's a recodification issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So do you want to add new use to the "I"? MR. WEBB: I believe so, now that I look at it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the safe way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You can't go wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not objecting to it. I just wanted to make sure the record was straight. Now with that, we've just covered two pages. Let me read the numbers so we can get a motion and be done with pages 4 and 5. We need a motion on section 2.03.08 D, section 2.04.03, section 2.04.03 again, section 2.06.04, all to be found plausible and consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. 89 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed. Okay. We're on page 6 -- we're starting on page 57. Is that consistent with your finding, Russ? MR. WEBB: Yes, that's correct. Section 4.02.0.1 A. Questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEBB: Next on page 60, section 4.05.02 K.3. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you could clear something up for me. MR. WEBB: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a little note to myself in congruity with a question mark. And I'm looking down at the bottom of the page, boy, that would be 3 A.l, see next page B.3. If you look at page 61, B.3, I have a little difficulty in understanding those two relationships. MR. WEBB: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The permitted use of the proposed off-site parking lot are separated by a collector or arterial road. Now this is a parking exemption. And then, pedestrian safety if the lots are separated by -- I'm just having a hard time reading that, I guess. MR. WEBB: Yeah. And this really isn't an answer to your question, Commissioner Murray, but, I mean, something that I need to point out. This is language that was brought over, again, as a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WEBB: It was omitted from the recodification. To answer 90 October 4, 2004 your question specifically, I really can't do so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I'll pass on it and get to it in another way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, on page 60, under your preamble where is says, LDCIUDC section -- MR. WEBB: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then it says the old LDC section 2.3.4.11.2, and under the bottom of the page, amend the UDC/LDC as follows. Your reference to the LDC section there is 2.3.11.4.2, so you just need the change to be consistent. MR. WEBB: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russ, could you do me a favor? Do you know what -- happen to know what page that was on the August meeting's package? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one we're looking at now is on page 60. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 60 of the September meeting package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking on the -- when the August one comes outs, we do our reviews. You've got to sit here and page through three of these to figure out where you are. MR. WEBB: Yeah. I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you sure it was in there or MR. WEBB: I believe it was in there, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, there's some extra packages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, that's all I need is another one. I'm sitting here going through three of them to figure out where I am now. Let's get a fourth one, but -- okay. Let me -- Russ, is there a way you could present this stuff so that 91 ---,"._, October 4, 2004 the numbers don't change with each package, because here's really what I -- I mean, I'm sitting here now, seriously, flipping through two of them to figure out -- and you punish those people that do their homework early. The secret, I guess, is to wait till the night before, then you don't have this problem, but -- MR. WEBB: Concern is understood. But the only way that I could probably ensure that would be to ensure that I get everything in a timely fashion and be able to get everything to you in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, this is not -- in a utopian society that would be how it would be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think seriously you could do something, because here's another problem, is you're really duplicating the things that haven't changed. So maybe if you just come up with a different way to number it or something so that you only give us things that change, because even though I'm going through three packages here, sometimes I'm going through three things that are the same, and somewhere there's a fourth suffering in the back, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, there's another way to look at it. You think it's worse for us to review it. Actually it's worse for staff, because we review it three times instead of just once. You've got to reread it every time you get it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I review it once, and then I play this silly game of seeing if anything's changed when the new one comes out, but -- anyway. MR. WHITE: Perhaps there will be a day very soon in the future where you can do some of this stuff off your screens, and if you've made those kinds of notes internal to your documents, your files, you can pull them up on your screen, and you'll have it there, no matter which version you've entered them in from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless he changes the page numbers, then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is the case. I've tried that 92 October 4, 2004 unsuccessfully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on with the matter at hand, gentlemen, so we can get done here tonight, because everybody could voice their concern for hours. We just finished page 6. And the next page would be all the way forward to page 9, so let's just finish up a vote on page 6 and be past it. We looked at section 4.02.01 A, and 4.05.02 K.3. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming those are to be found consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's opposed. Russ, I believe we're on page 9. If I'm not mistaken, the rest have been completed. It's number -- page 91. MR. WEBB: I believe -- yeah, I believe that's correct. 93 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good. MR. WHITE: If it would be appropriate to interject now, Mr. Chairman, I'd just put on the record that 32-31 is the SIC code, is glass products made of purchased glass. There's quite an extensive list, but we give you an example, aquariums, reflectors made from purchased glass, Tru-guard made from purchased glass, glass sheets bent from purchased glass, things along those lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huge demand for that in Collier County. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Russ. MR. WEBB: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 91 then, right? MR. WEBB: As you pointed out correctly, section 4.07.01 B, on page 91. And this also was a recodification cleanup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is page 132? MR. WEBB: Yes. Excuse me. Section 5.06.00 on page 132, sign code. If there are no questions, section 6.01.01 on page 163. Section-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go past. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fiscal and operational impacts just -- and this is probably in response to something that was brought up earlier. It says, there will be a cost to the developer, although this cost will most likely vary with the development. So when you talk about fiscal operational impacts, you're not only talking about the impacts to the county, you're talking about the development impacts as well? MR. WEBB: That's my understanding of our analysis of fiscal impact. If I'm mistaken, anyone here feel free to correct me -- Joe, Susan -- but I mean, that's my understanding, that we do an analysis 94 -·-____h._.. _.~~_.~~--;----,--"..- -, October 4,2004 on both ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I haven't seen that very much. Then now that you reference it isn't here, it hasn't been there, so -- MR. SCHMITT: All that was meant to do is to identify that those costs are most likely going to be costs, as most of these changes are, that are going to be passed off to the consumer regardless, so -- but this was a requirement -- and this is not an answer to any of the recent events. This was planned long before this, and this was to require some of the feeder lines in the PUDs to also be buried. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good move. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. No questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on, Russ. Page 165 is next. MR. WEBB: Yes. Next section, 8.06.03, page 165. Section 9.02.00, and that's a handout that I provided you today, so it's not in the LDC packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, Let me take a minute to get that one. I notice it was written by us, so we've got to make sure we review it. MR. WEBB: And this was also provided at the last meeting. Just wanted to provide it in addition -- MR. SCHMITT: Patrick can certainly explain this, but this is language that brings up some issues that involved investment rights. MR. WHITE: Just briefly, the piece that is pertaining to vested rights largely reinvigorates what we had previously in the LDC as division 1.7. The only problem with those provisions was that they were only effective for one year after November 13th, 1991. They did not contemplate and weren't applicable to subsequent amendments of the LDC. So if you wanted to argue that you had something that was vested against a later enacted provision of the LDC, the only way to do so 95 October 4, 2004 would be arguably under a Bert Harris claim, which has the same one-year time limit on it. What this provision does is update that regulation to allow anyone who claims vested rights with respect to any subsequently enacted amendments to the LDC to bring those forward within one year, and also adds in the taking's provisions. Now, those are intended to afford the board and the property owner an opportunity to look at what property rights the property owner may claim and what -- the concerns that property owner may have with respect to the government's taking of their property. It specifically excludes those matters pertaining to eminent domain, however. It is modeled largely after the provisions that are in use in other jurisdictions. And, in fact, specifically Pinellas County. It gives a public hearing forum to those property owners who are intending to file some claim of taking. And as I've mentioned, it is an attempt to afford the local government the opportunity to work out those differences prior to any litigation being filed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have we received this document before tonight? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was on -- MR. WHITE: That is exactly what Russell told you we handed out the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice it's not numerically numbered, so -- MR. WEBB: Yeah. It wasn't in the original packet, but you did receive it last time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, does this have any effect on the LDC/UDC/LDC transition? Remember we have -- MR. WHITE: No. It doesn't change the provisions that were 96 _~·~_,o,_,··" October 4, 2004 enacted by ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: They're part of ordinance 04-41, with respect to unintended consequences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: That still remains vital. So -- the only other piece in rights that we kind of brought up to snuff is a further detailing of the ways in which those vested rights could be demonstrated by making a cross-reference to provisions that exist in chapter 106 of the code of laws where there are and have been those, I guess, evidentiary standards for vested rights long in existence, although not used any time recently because they -- those pertain to the days in which the zoning reevaluation ordinance was being applied, and all of the zoning reevaluations were performed throughout the county. But the rules of establishing vested rights haven't changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of -- anybody want to challenge Mr. White on this issue? MR. WHITE: I don't consider it a challenge. We're here to answer any concerns you believe are appropriate on the part of either the commissioners or the citizens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I, for one, would need a lot more training to talk about that issue. So with that, I guess, Russ, we're onto page 167. MR. WEBB: Correct, section 9.03.01 E. Next, section 10.02.02 A.9 and also 10.02.13 E. And these are just changing the Environmental Advisory Board to the EAC, which is now the proper body. Next section, 10.02.02 F.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, on that one, there are a lot of references to planning services director and things like that. I'm assuming you're going to change those to the county manager designee? 97 ---". October 4, 2004 MR. WEBB: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And on the top of page 171, you've referenced property located within 300 feet of the property lines of the land in which interruption -- interpretation is effective. Is it still 300 feet? Didn't we look at -- is it still 300? It is still 300. Okay. MS. MURRAY: It's still 300. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me go back to the EAC for a moment. Has anybody given any consideration to changing the modus operandi of the EAC so if a majority of the members are there, it's a quorum, and if a majority of the quorum takes a position, then that's the position of the EAC? It seems to me it's sort of hamstrung the way it is. They never have a quorum because of the -- whatever that requirement is, and when they don't, it can be 5-1, but it's not a position because -- MR. WHITE: If it's 5-1 it is official action. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right. 4-1 or 3-1 -- MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- it's not. MR. WHITE: It's only when the number voting in favor of the motion is less than five that it's not considered to be official action. But to answer your initial question, not this round but certainly at least one or two back, we raised that question. With this commission's support, certainly we'd be willing to bring that forward to the EAC and to the Board of County Commissioners, if that's your desire. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: The parallel to our situation, if five of us are here, then 3-2 is a position, legitimate position. MR. WHITE: I believe that the board has always been informed by staff of what those votes were, regardless of whether they were, quote, official or not. I've never truly understood the distinction. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They've always made that distinction. I think it goes back to the days when the then county commission was very anti-environmental and this was a way of sort of 98 October 4, 2004 having a board but at the same time hamstringing it. That's my own recollection of those events, but -- MR. WHITE: Because both the CCPC's and the EAC's votes, whether EAC's is official or not, are recommendations, not final action COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's right. MR. WHITE: -- I think the board has given them weight. The difference here, if I understand the genesis for the distinction, was that they would have to arguably give lesser weight if it were not official action. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And that's-- MR. WHITE: But I still don't see legally that that's a decision, but it's a policy choice ultimately, and certainly one that, if this body chooses to make a recommendation, like I said, we'll get it in front of the EAC and ultimately the BCC. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think it's demeaning to the members, among other things, that they show up and listen to something half a day, and yet because some people didn't show up, they have a non-recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see what it would hurt to look into it as a recommendation. I'm not sure -- does anybody object to that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's just -- so staff can move forward and -- MR. WHITE: Yes. I guess we'll drop that one in Joe's lap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, before you go on to the next section, if there's no more questions about the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Russ, on page 171, or anybody, it states that there's a time limit on an appeal. If an appeal has not been acted upon with six months, it doesn't -- I mean, does it state whether -- could the staff just sit on it for six months, or what 99 October 4, 2004 does that really mean? It says, any appeal that's not been acted upon in six months of the applicant filing the appeal is determined to be withdrawn. So in other words, is the intent there that the applicant -- okay. MR. WHITE: There are circumstances where we may ask for clarification where we may not even, in fact, receive any grounds substantiating the request. I'm trying to recall whether the provision that you're talking about is specifically after the notice of appeal's been filed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's on page 171 at the bottom. It's the only new -- really new text of this area. Then maybe should you say, if it hasn't been acted upon by the applicant? MR. WEBB: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the staff could throw it away, and then if nobody remembers it in six months, it's -- MR. WEBB: I think that would be an appropriate addition, and I'd look to Susan to see if she has -- MS. MURRAY: I don't have any objection to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the intent IS if the applicant was stale on it, in six months it's gone. MS. MURRAY: It doesn't normally happen that way, but no problem to add that for clarification. MR. WHITE: I think ultimately what has happened is that the staff -- nothing against them -- have just felt uncomfortable in a circumstance where they may not have adequate information in the initial filing and have given an opportunity to an appellant to provide additional information, just has not done so. But I think there's always been the ability for the county to, you might say, bring it forward and end up in the circumstance in front of the Board of Zoning Appeals that we had in the Pelican Bay case where, because there was an absence of information timely filed within that 30 days, we could put the BZA through the motions of 100 October 4,2004 dismissing the appeal. And what this, I think, is intended to do is to administratively make clear to any appellant that you not only have to get it all in within the 30-day time frame, if the staff ultimately determine that what you've presented is truly insufficient and asked for some supplement, that if there is no response within the six months, it will be administratively dismissed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like it, it's just, I want to make it clear that it's the applicant -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you provide -- would you read the recommended language that you think should be in there so I understand what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm saying that any appeal that has not been acted upon by the applicant within six months of the applicant filing for the appeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what -- so if the applicant submits something and he doesn't do anything with it for six months, why would he be the first to do something with it? MS. MURRAY: Well, let me explain really where this came from. We'll get appeals filed within the 30-day time frame, and then we'll go to schedule -- because there really isn't a whole lot of staff work in addition to the work that's already been done through the interpretation. I mean, we write the executive summary, we review the application, we make sure it's sufficient, make sure they met the time frame, we do the advertising, all that. But what we've found is that the applicants will submit the request for appeal within the 30 days, and then they'll ask us to sit on it. And I've had stuff three years old now. And really, through the official interpretation process, there's supposed to be an amendment to the code. So I guess my point is, things can kind of change after a while, and things are no longer 101 October 4, 2004 relevant, and I have no legal way of getting rid of the -- an appeal that may not be timely anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get a request, do you respond to it within the first 30 days to tell them you've received the request or acknowledge its receipt in any manner? MS. MURRAY: For the appeals, yeah. We review it. But normally the review is kind of done through -- after the 30-day period, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to find out some way to make a sentence a little clearer. Any appeal that has not been acted upon by the applicant within six months of the applicant filing the appeal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems like the applicant's got to make all the -- do everything. It doesn't say where you're going to -- he's going to file something and you're going to ask him for something more, and if he doesn't respond within six months, then it's over with. MS. MURRAY: Well, it's kind of a thin line to walk because they have to technically have all of the relevant information in within the 30 days, and that's all we consider. MR. WHITE: And I think Susan's point about any request to delay it beyond six months will, under this provision, lead to a dismissal and a denial, I guess, administratively, of the relief sought and require them to reapply. It's intended to be an expeditious route for appeal. I mean, the notion is that you have either some facts or a pending application with facts that's going to apply to either an existing rule or a proposed rule. And if you're not going to go ahead and have that determined, the point -- the point is that it would be affecting an ongoing or proposed project. So it seems somehow unfair to put the county in the position of having to somehow come to a resolution but then be told, well, not 102 October 4, 2004 just yet, and then to let it linger and languish for any unknown period of time. Here if there's no action taken to put it to hearing within six months based upon the applicant's desires -- and perhaps we could restate it more clearly to reflect that -- then the intention is that the appeal would be considered waived and withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you -- if I turned in an application for review and I didn't hear anything from your department, I would assume you're working on it. If six months goes by and nobody's said anything to me, you can dismiss it. How do I ever know when to start it? MR. WHITE: None of the factual circumstances we're describing are ones where we have not been advised by the appellants COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just heard that. We asked -- that was -- the question you were asked was, did you notify them that you received it and were not -- and that you needed something else? The answer I got was no. MR. WHITE: No. And that's because the factual circumstance where this would be applicable is one where the appellant themselves would send in a communication requesting a delay in the processing, not one where we would have notified them that they somehow were necessarily deficient. MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification. Understand the appeal is the appeal of the zoning director. The zoning director made the decision. They disagree with that, then they appeal. The next appellant body then goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that's so it's a public hearing for the BZA. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They sent their file in. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Now, they've done nothing 103 October 4, 2004 else, but nobody else has said anything to them. MR. SCHMITT: No. What we're saying is that we -- they appeal. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: We ask then, okay, fine, provide you -- provide the additional information or whatever -- MS. MURRAY: Well, they have to file a notice of appeal. What they choose to submit is up to them. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. MURRAY: I mean, we don't have an outline of everything you have to submit other than the notice to appeal and the appropriate fee. What we've run into is, in the case of Cap, was that they provided additional information after the 30 days and wanted it to be -- I mean, that was like the meat of the issue, and wanted it to be considered under the appeal. And maybe Patrick can explain it a little bit better, but I think that was the one reason it was -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, why are you waiting six months? Why not after 31 days, let it dismiss? I mean, you're just going on with a situation. I've filed an appeal, I've given you the information I thought you needed. Nothing else has come up, and in six months you dismiss it. MR. WHITE: I can assure you, I have no objection to anybody who has not timely filed a full and complete appellant package, having it dismissed. Now, who's going to determine whether it's sufficient or not? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's the whole point. And if you're not telling me that what I sent you is not sufficient, I assume it is sufficient. MR. WHITE: You're -- I'm not going to ever advise the staff that some appellant's package is legally insufficient or sufficient. All I'm 104 October 4, 2004 going to do is, if someone asks for an extension of time, tell the staff that after some period of time we should be able to administratively, by rule, consider it dismissed. That's what the intent of this provision IS. And I will also tell you that we know that any number of hearing procedures with respect to appeals need to be revisited. And the intention has been to allow the administrative code provisions to come online to create more of a unified type of a hearing process so that you could, wherever there's an appeal process, pinpoint it to the administrative code for the rules to follow. I know we have some of those things set forth by resolution that Commissioner Strain made reference to in our last meeting. But, again, there's not a close tie between those provisions and many of these appeals. It's an area of regulation that the county is not as detailed and sophisticated as we could be, but we will. It's just a question of which things do we recommend -- need to do first. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've filed enough appeals to say to you that once I've issued the appeal, the court can turn around, or the committee could turn around and say it isn't sufficient, we need more information. But if they don't come back and say anything to me, all I'm waiting for is a trial date. And in your situation, you're saying, silence is good enough. And I'm saying silence is never good enough. MR. WHITE: I think all we're going to do in the future is acknowledge by letter that we've received it. And I don't know that we'll even make a determination of whether we consider to be timely or not. We will just state the date that it was received. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And now you say nothing more? MR. WHITE: I would advise the staff not to say anything more. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Then why wouldn't I assume that I'm going to get a hearing date? 105 October 4, 2004 MR. WHITE: I again repeat that the provision that you're looking at today was intended to address the circumstance where there'd been a request to delay what otherwise would have been the normal processing and scheduling for hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals of that appeal. That's what it's intended to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why don't -- why don't we leave it this way, because this is a legal issue that I'm sure you two attorneys could argue about that at quite length. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Forever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Patrick, you know, there seems to be a confusion about this paragraph, and maybe a suggestion that it get -- you do the best to clarify it between now and the time it goes to the next level. MR. WHITE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work for me. Does it work for the rest of you? I don't know how I can do better here today or tonight. And with that, Russ, let's take the few that we've done and get past. We're down to the last few pages. Ms. Court Reporter, I think we could probably finish up by six o'clock, if you can hang in there, okay? MR. WEBB: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go through the ones we've -- the last three pages and be done with those. I'm looking for a motion on section 4.7.01 B, section 5.06.00, section 6.01.01, section 8.06.03, section 9.02.00, section 9.03.01, section 10.02.02 A.9, section 10.02.13 E, section 10.02.02 F.5. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. He had his hand up first. I'm assuming then that's going to be moved with -- consistent with the growth management plan. 106 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any discussions on any of those points? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's opposed. Then Russ, we can move on to page 1 72, I would assume. MR. WEBB: Correct, section 10.02.04 A.l. Next section, 10.02.04 B.3.E on page 174. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just thought it's neat. I haven't seen this too many times, but the name of the document that is currently used is archaic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I love it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are normally a little more subtle in your comments, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The code of Amorado. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't dare disagree with that statement. MR. WHITE: You'll note who the author is. MR. WEBB: Thanks, Patrick. The next one is 10.02.05 B on page 176. Next is 10.02.05 C on page 180. Next is 10.02.05 F on page 182. 107 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ? MR. WEBB: And I want to clarify in this. I think earlier I -- maybe this isn't the one, but I think earlier I may have mentioned something about there only being a definitional change, but -- to one of your questions, Commissioner Murray, was that -- was that for the mobile home or was that another one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was another one. MR. WEBB: But in any event -- did you have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this something that was taken out of -- was missed in the rewrite of the UDC, is that all this is? MR. WEBB: Yes. Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's all this language; there's no new language in there? MR. WEBB: That is correct. The next one that we haven't dealt with, I believe, is section 10.02.13 J through L on page 190, also provisions that were omitted, now being re-added. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. WEBB: Next is appendix A on page 201. Next is appendix C on page 223. Final amendment is appendix H on page 233. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 233. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 233? MR. WEBB: Correct. I believe that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure I didn't have anything. I found my vesting document. There are some tabs there, but I can -- but I'll talk to those probably with the attorney another time, if he'll read me through it. So based on the last pages, we're looking for a motion on section 10.02.04 A.l, 10.02.04 B.3.E., 10.02.05 B, 10.02.05 C, 10.02.05 F, 10.02.13 J, appendix A, appendix C, and appendix H. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. 108 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I then moved a motion to approve consistent with the growth management plan? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Sufficient, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motions are all complete, and I believe that wraps up everything we had to do today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, where is this form LDC 1.13, legal hearing officer? Is that in this packet? MR. WEBB: I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Could you repeat that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The hearing examiner. MR. WEBB: Vested rights? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The LDC 1.7, UDC, 9.02.00. MR. WEBB: Yeah. That's the vested rights provisions that we talked about earlier. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's where that one came in? MR. WEBB: Yeah. 109 October 4, 2004 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the hearing examiner for vested rights issues. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. I know what that is. MR. WEBB: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we wouldn't think of replacing those. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, no, this is not -- I know that. That's not the point. It was given to me as a separate entity. MR. WEBB: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just want to make sure that that's what we were discussing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did find my copy of that with my tabs. Okay. If there's no other-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- business, Russ, we're done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Russ, real quick. MR. WEBB: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Russ, you emailed us something that shows administrative code and then a construction code. MR. WEBB: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So just to understand, what we're going to have when this whole process of UDC is done, we'll have the LDC, we'll have an administrative code, and then we'll have a construction code? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Negative. MR. WEBB: I'll get it -- go ahead, Patrick. MR. WHITE: I was going to kind of bring this up under updates, I guess. But you're going to have the code of laws and ordinances, okay, sometimes lovingly called the big fat code book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. 110 October 4, 2004 MR. WHITE: You'll have the land development code, the LDC, both of which will be supported by the administrative code, okay. In other words, you could have provisions in the code of laws or provisions in the LDC that are specifically implemented in the administrative code. That administrative code is envisioned to include and provide a structure for all of those types of things that are administrative procedures in nature, and it is intended to create, effectively, an umbrella for all of them and a structure for all of them to be identified under so that you can find them. There may be cross-references out of the administrative code to, for example, a construction code that may be implemented as part of either the code of laws, say, for example, dealing with utilities. The notion is to allow the administrative code to grow over time to take more and more of those things that are set out separately in each of the divisions or, perhaps, set out separately in various chapters of the code of laws and get them under that same structure. All we're looking to have the board do next Tuesday is to create a process for the administrative code as a code itself, not any of the rules of its operation. In fact, what we're looking at is creating a provision in the code of laws that says how the administrative code will specifically operate is, indeed, something that the administrative code itself should state. Now, I can tell you that I've taken the time to sit down and write what I'm calling kind of the operating guidelines for that administrative code, but it is something that still has to be vetted through the other divisions. I think that community development is very comfortable with what we're talking about. I believe some of the folks in utilities are very comfortable. I've gotten the sense from transportation. But it's something that's new in terms of its structure, and it's not intending to replace anything, but rather to provide a home for all of 111 October 4, 2004 the things that are out there so that when, ultimately, hopefully in the next two weeks, we have the code of laws on everybody's desktop that's an employee, along with the land development code on their desktop in a digital format, once we've created the structure and have some greater substance to the administrative code, it, likewise, will be on the desk tops. And all of those things will be able to be word searched so that if you have SIC code 32-31 and you want to find it, you can find it very quickly. If you want to know what the procedure is for something, you can look effectively in the table of contents of the administrative code and know where to find some other source document so that you don't have to be, effectively, an expert agent in the area of utilities in order to know what the standards are. You'd be able to go to the administrative code, find them, and even if you'd have to cross-reference to some other document, you'd know where to find them. That's what the whole point of it is. Arguably you could bring in purchasing policies, human resources policies, all of those things that could be cross-referenced out of or, ultimately, if the desire of the staff is to do so, incorporate it in as part of the form of the administrative code. So it's just a way to make all of those things that have been spread out -- and everybody knows if you're an expert in that area of operation, where those rules are and what the current regulations are. This makes it possible for everyone to know that and to know it regardless of your degree of familiarity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question. The construction code, where would that fall then? I mean, that's items that were taken out of land development code that, it needed a place to land or -- MR. WHITE: No. It specifically is going to be included as part of the administrative code. 112 October 4, 2004 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: So it will not be some separate cross-reference. It would be in the format of the administrative code, and all of that structure first has to be created. But what we're going to have the board do next Tuesday, hopefully, with their approval, is to adopt that administrative code, the idea of it and the means to create it, and to specifically bring forward those two remaining pieces of regulation, one pertaining to the fee resolutions, and the other one pertaining to what used to be part of, I think, 3. -- division 3.2, sometimes called construction code. I think where that term came from, construction standards manual, was appendix H. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WHITE: When we created the conversion from LDC to UDC, we weren't sure at that point whether we were going to have the assent from the other divisions as to the idea of an administrative code, so we needed to give it some name that was slightly different. In fact, probably no one would know it by those words. It is effectively just some piece of division 3.2 that's going to be incorporated into the administrative code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is all site construction, correct? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would be a -- MR. WHITE: You remember Article III was all site planning matters in the land development code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just so it doesn't get confused with other codes, could you name it site construction code instead of construction code? MR. WHITE: I have no objection to that suggestion. And, in fact, I think the idea of the whole administrative code is to kind of create those distinctions in useful names, because I'm sure that there 113 October 4, 2004 are construction codes probably in every division. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WHITE: So the idea -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Names instead of letters. MR. WHITE: You don't like letters? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Just the names. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the letters. MR. WHITE: You've got to remember in the digital environment, retyping everybody's name takes more keystrokes, so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless there's further business, we'll consider this meeting adjourned. Good job. MR. WHITE: There was one other thing I wanted to share with you-all, if I could just take another minute of your time. Just today we received the LDC's version of what will be published as the use tables, and I don't know if the -- we can get the camera on this, if it will work very well, but they're called fold-out pages, and what they're intended to do is, because they're very large tables and we don't want to use very small letters and numbers and make it very difficult to read, they're going to have fold-outs. And so we don't know any other way to do it. This is municipal code's solution not only for our jurisdiction, but for those others that have used these types of tables successfully, and so I just wanted to share with you that you'll have the opportunity to be able to fold out pages in your new LDC. Of course, the digital version will be able to read right off the screen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was my question, concern. Digitally, if you went to print it out, what would happen? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be a problem. MR. WHITE: It may not format the way you'd like to, but you'd be able to search pieces of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. 114 October 4, 2004 County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Russell A. Budd, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. 115