Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/07/2004 W (LDC Amendments) December 7, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP MEETING Naples, Florida, December 7, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, with the Collier Development and Environmental Services Division and the Transportation Division, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in WORKSHOP SESSION in the BCC Chambers, Third Floor, Administration Building, of the Government Complex, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida with the following members present: VICE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Fred Coyle Commissioner Jim Coletta Commissioner Frank Halas Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala (absent) COUNTY STAFF: Joe Schmitt, Director, Community Development & Environmental Services Jim Mudd, Collier County Manager Patrick White, Collier County Attorney's Office Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Project Manager Mindy Collier, Pathways Manager Diane Flagg, Alternative Transportation Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ WORKSHOP AGENDA December 7, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF TillS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 December 7, 2004 ,.~.-..,~,",_......,;-"., IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Request for policy guidance regarding proposed amendments to section 6.06.02 "SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANE Requirements" and section 10.02.03 "Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans" to allow for flexibility to accept a "payment in lieu of construction" option, accept equivalent alternative designs internal to the project, add the definition and requirement for Greenways and add a provision to reduce the financial impacts on small improvement projects. 3. Adjourn 2 December 7,2004 December 7, 2004 The Board of County Commissioners workshop was called to order by Commissioner Vice Chairman Fred Coyle on Monday December 7,2004 at 9:00 am. Mr. Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services Division, is joined by Russ Moler, Engineering Services Department, Mindy Collier and Nick Casalanguida from Transportation for purposes of to day's presentation. Mr. Schmitt: We are here to get guidance on the sidewalk issues. Staff recognizes that the current LDC does not work in all cases. Weare here to look for flexibility, a viable payment in lieu of program, a program that will accept alternative designs; we would like to reference greenways and update the greenways definition. We will request an approval for a special cycle to revise the LDC. The current language of the LDC was created in June 2003. The wording states that the developer must construct bike lanes and sidewalks where applicable. Sidewalks and bike lanes must be constructed contiguous to public and private roadways. Bike lanes must be provided on both sides of collector and arterial streets. Sidewalks 6 ft in width must be provided on both sides of collector and arterial and 5 feet on local streets. Weare compelled to enforce the code. We recognize that the LDC works in about 95% of the cases. The reason we are here today is because the LDC does not work in about 5% of the cases. There are some cases where the sidewalk requirements are excessively disproportionate to the cost of the entire project. We also recognize that some sidewalks are being forced to be put in where there are no existing pedestrian or cycling facilities, basically the sidewalk to "nowhere." We are looking for alternate options that we could use funds elsewhere to provide adequate, safe bicycle path and sidewalk system in Collier county. The Engineering Department reviews all internal sidewalk plans; transportation is responsible for all other sidewalks. Weare proposing that, during the pre-application meeting, if it is suggested by staff and the applicant, that they discuss alternatives with the applicant. Then the applicant will modify and revise the plans and submit that as part of the application review. Our proposed LDC language (slide presentation) · We define greenways. Greenways are defined in the comprehensive plan and the five-year work program. We want to be more definitive and specify construction standards for greenways. · We want to increase the time frame for the construction of sidewalks from 2 years to 5 years. · We want to provide for alternatives in design. · We would like to add payment in lieu of. We would ask that the Pay in Lieu of program monies be used for systems improvements throughout the bicycle and sidewalk system. Also the Pay in Lieu of requirements would be defined in the LDC. I would like to offer some examples of how this would work. St. John Neuman's School- the project cost is $150,000. The cost of complying with the LDC would be $170,000. Nick Casalanguida: (continues with slide presentation) The pre-application meeting is the primary time an applicant would come to us and discuss what options are available to them. St. John Neuman is one where Ron Howard from Phoenix Associates wanted to donate a facility to the school. I believe he was talking about a gymnasium. It was determined that the project cost would Page 2 December 7, 2004 be $150,000. At that time we look at the LDC to determine how that would apply to this project. We calculated that St. John Neuman has a lot of frontage for sidewalks. Currently the LDC will not allow us to take payment in lieu of for this project. He would have to construct sidewalks around that whole site for his donation to the school. On that subject, ifMr. Howard wanted to put 500 square feet of pavement down, it would trigger an SDP and he would have to put in the same amount of sidewalk. So, theoretically, a project that would cost $10,000 would require roughly $170,000 of sidewalk. Right now, we could not ask for a payment in lieu. Currently we have to tell the applicants that there are no options, either build it or Payment in Lieu if there is a CIP. We would meet with Mindy and Russ and use this as an example of using a cap for the Payment in Lieu option. That would cap his Payment in Lieu to $37,500. At our discretion that would either be applied to building sidewalks there, or we could apply the money to a project in the area where there are currently other sidewalks and work our way to the school. Another area is the industrial parks. Every time they come in for review of an SDP we require sidewalks. We had gentlemen who wanted to put in a concrete pad to store a pump truck. Sidewalks were required; there is a drainage swale in front of his property and I had to tell him that there were no options; he would have to build that sidewalk. With the revision we could ask for a payment in lieu; that would be at an engineer's estimate or a current FDOT cost not to exceed 25% of his project cost. We have a cap on it, almost like a safety net to ensure that we are not asking someone to fund something that is way beyond what he is trying to do. With the payment in lieu we would like to fund other projects in the county and we have Mindy Collier here to review that. Ms. Collier, Pathways Manager for Alternative Transportation Modes: We are not expecting the Payment in Lieu to be a large revenue source. We expect this to be the exception rather than the norm. We would be able to bridge some of these sidewalks that we do have out there. One example is Thomason drive where it just ends. We might be able to extend it out to perhaps Avalon School. There is also the sidewalk on North Road that just dead ends. Unfortunately, we do have a few dead end sidewalks out there that could benefit from some connectivity. Our focus is to try to have a network of sidewalks and bike lanes throughout the entire county. Our other recommendation is to use the Payment in Lieu for system improvements, which goes back to the connectivity and the network. System improvements needs are illustrated on the slide presentation, i.e. Progress at Airport Road. Ifwe had an SDP come in from one of the businesses in the industrial park, we would be able to take that Payment in Lieu to use at that intersection. We would also improve some of our access ramps, for example: Livingston at Enterprise. Proposed changes are reviewed on a slide presentation highlighting the following points: · Add greenways · Some wording changes · A diagram to replace a written paragraph regarding the sidewalk and bike lane requirements Commissioner Coyle: This seems to vary from what we have in our packet. Page 3 December 7, 2004 Mr. Schmitt: This is a somewhat simple presentation. We are not here to review the language specifically because that will come back in the LDC. In fact, what you have is an updated version. What we are focusing on today is basically the concept and not the specificity ofthe language. Commissioner Coyle: So this is basically an executive summary of the language. There are some very significant differences from what is shown on the slides and what is in the packet. Understand that this is not an accurate representation of the changes being proposed. Mr. Schmitt confirms this. Ms. Collier: Yes, these are just excerpts to show you the main things we are looking at. In the current LDC there are no references to greenways. We also talk about alternative sidewalk designs. Continues with slide . Changing the 2-year capital improvement program to 5 years. We have a 5-year work program and it makes more sense. . The payment in lieu program. If the payment is less than the LDC requirements for construction of sidewalks, bike lanes and greenways that the payment would be applied toward the SDP's current LDC compliance Again these are all the items that we are proposing that we will discuss in further detail. We wanted to bring this to you today to get your direction. Mr. Schmitt: Just to highlight again commissioners, we were working in this language even last night. (Indicating presentation slides) We ask that you approve the schedule as shown. Our proposed dates are: January 17,2005 - Final Submission date on language. February 3 & 17,2005 - CCPC, part of regular meeting so advertised. March 8 & 22, 2005 - Part of your regular meetings on the agenda; the amendments as proposed. The concept presently is a 25% payment in lieu of whichever is less. Either construct the sidewalks or pay whichever is less; 25% of the total cost of the construction project. Those funds will be used for other sidewalk projects within the vicinity. Subject to your questions that concludes our presentation. The two issues are: 1. Approval of the LDC concept 2. Approval of the special cycle Commissioner Coyle: When you are talking about the 25% payment in lieu are you talking about 25% of the total project cost or are you talking about 25% of the cost to construct the sidewalks? Mr. Schmitt: 25% ofthe project cost. We are certainly open to other options. We are trying to create some more flexibility. Page 4 December 7, 2004 Commissioner Coyle: Just a question on philosophy. It is impossible to carve into stone, procedures that will apply to every situation and you need some flexibility. Is it better to try to rewrite the LDC to provide you that flexibility or is it better to leave the LDC as it is and provide an addendum which gives the staff the flexibility. Certainly that wouldn't give you the Payment in Lieu requirement but that is a simple change. We have a set of LDC provisions right now. You said they do not meet all of the circumstances all of the time. Ifwe revise the LDC will the revised procedure meet the requirements all of the time? Mr. Schmitt: I am going to turn to the staff that reviews it. The problem is who is going to pay and how are we going to pay for it. In 2003, this board said we are dedicated to putting sidewalks in; the developers will put them in when triggered to buy a site plan or a plat. The problem is that when you leave the flexibility and the decision is not to put the sidewalk in, years later someone asks why not? Diane Flagg: We took a look at whether there was a need to rewrite the LDC or put some provisions in to address the situations that we are running into. The current LDC meets 95% of the cases. Weare talking about leaving the LDC the same but providing a Payment in Lieu option where the cost is disproportionate to the cost of the project. That doesn't mean the sidewalk isn't needed. St. John Neuman is a school; children are walking; the county is spending tax dollars to install sidewalks in the area. We are not saying the sidewalk isn't needed; we are trying to address the situation where a small improvement causes a cost disproportionate to the total project cost to comply with the LDC. We have to continue to remember that we have millions of dollars of outstanding sidewalk projects. Commissioner Henning: I would like to hear from the public but there are two things I want to address. I was surprised to hear yesterday that there was a rezone coming for Santa Barbara. Staff has required that the applicant put a sidewalk on Santa Barbara as part of the rezone, which the DOT is going to do anyway. They want to deviate from the LDC and a staff member said no you are not going to deviate from the LDC. The petitioner wants to petition the bcc for the rezone. A staff member is holding up this petition until the petitioner agrees to build the sidewalk. I know that the public has a right to petition their elected officials and bureaucrats should not stop them. I am very upset about how some of our staff members are working. The county manager and I took a site visit on a public road where there is 125 feet of sidewalk. The sidewalk is not going to go any further to the east because there are existing buildings. The code states that if your property is adjacent to a public road you must build a sidewalk. (Picture displayed of sidewalk at Landfill Road.) Mr. Schmitt: This is a case where 2 or 3 years ago a staff member made a decision that a sidewalk is not needed along this road and when an individual site plan comes in, according to the LDC right now, it says "must" and staff does not have the latitude to not follow the LDC and that is what we are looking for. Something that will give staff the ability to apply common sense. Commissioner Henning: If the county is going to do any improvements I imagine there will be a sidewalk there just like Santa Barbara. That is part of the impact fees that pays for that, am I correct? Page 5 December 7, 2004 Mr. Feder: Specifically sidewalks are not included in your impact fees; those are for added capacity and lanes. We develop projects, use gas taxes and impact fees and we do of course add sidewalks to every place we can in our projects but they are not paid for nor is it in the calculation for the impact fees. Ms. Flagg: That situation was when a new staff member came in and applied the LDC. With the proposed revision we could take a Payment in Lieu and finish out that sidewalk. There is a problem with another industrial area, Horseshoe Drive, there are no sidewalks. Commissioner Halas: Ifwe do make changes to the existing LDC for sidewalks and since we can accommodate 95% currently, is that going to weaken the 95%? Ms. Flagg: We are proposing four changes: 1. A payment in lieu of to address the disproportionate share 2. Increasing the timeframes for the CIP and the work program 3. Adding the greenways 4. The special cycle We are not proposing any other changes to the LDC. Commissioner Halas: I want to make sure that the 25% in lieu of is not going to shortchange us so we have to dip into ad valorem if the price of concrete and labor is going to have a great affect on us. Ms. Flagg: There is also a component where the 25% is for if they come in with a small SDP. That 25% goes to the total sidewalk requirement. Say they have a lot and they build a small parking lot, they would pay 25% toward the sidewalk requirement. Then later they build 2 multi-story buildings; the second time around they will have to put in the sidewalks. Weare only proposing the four changes. Ifthey come in with a big project they will still need to install the sidewalks consistent with the current LDC. Commissioner Halas: In regards to the St. John Neuman case, you are basically saying that there are no sidewalks in that general area and it is a school. Is the 25% payment in lieu of going to accommodate to make sure that the sidewalks are put in around the school where children walk to and from daily? Ms. Flagg: Right now, the county is putting connectivity sidewalks in to get the kids to St. John Neuman. The county is currently paying for that. Commissioner Halas: What is the percentage of sidewalks there? Ms. Flagg: I don't believe that there are any sidewalks around the perimeter if the school. Mr. Schmitt: Diane is talking about requirements that are basically part of the same sidewalk system but directly around the perimeter of the school. Mr. Casalanguida: Currently there are no sidewalks and it is a private school. The donor is considering pulling the donation because he cannot afford to put in the $170,000 worth of sidewalks. Page 6 December 7, 2004 Commissioner Halas: My concern is that we have young children going back and forth to school and there is no way to provide for that. Mr. Casalanguida: We would, that money that would be collected from the payment in lieu would contribute to the sidewalk system in the vicinity. IfSt. John Neuman came in again for a second gym or another building they would contribute again. The idea is that we would have input in where the sidewalks would be. Commissioner Coyle: If I could try to clarify that with the help of staff. Some time ago we did discuss the possibility of the school district having to provide a sidewalk within a certain radius of the school facility. Because we are unable to use our road impact fees to build sidewalks, it seems logical that we should use our school impact fees for that purpose. Where did we get with that? I know we agreed on that concept Ms. Flagg: We put that agreement between the county and the school district. The school district decided not the change the impact fee. In addition, St. John Neuman is a private school, not covered by that. Commissioner Coyle: This is not going to be the only problem we have. I would suggest to the commissioners that sidewalks are considered in any school project. Ms. Flagg: When the school is building a new school, they are required to put sidewalks around the school perimeter. That is corrected for the future. St. Johns Neuman was built years ago and to require them to install the sidewalks is just disproportionate. Commissioner Coyle: I am concerned about the procedures beyond this particular situation. I understand staffs need to adhere to the land development code. However, staff should not feel so restricted as to make imprudent decisions like that (indicating picture of 125 foot sidewalk on Landfill Road.) I would like to see if we could address this issue overall because I am confident that this is not the only example of a very imprudent decision done in an effort to adhere to our laws. It certainly is justifiable from staffs standpoint but it is not in the public's best interest. Commissioner Henning: I would say that this project cost was $500,000 to build that building. If we use that example, and used the payment in lieu of, would they be paying $125,000 for a sidewalk, how would that work? Mr. Casalanguida: The requirement would be 25% of the project cost up to the total cost of the sidewalk requirement, so he would pay for the cost of constructing that sidewalk. He would pay approximately $5.00 per square foot for the 125-foot sidewalk, 5 feet wide. The language provides for whichever amount is less. It would be approximately $2500. Commissioner Halas: There were Land Development Codes that were established before we tightened up our present LDC that provided that sidewalks should have been put in place, but it wasn't. Why was that, because someone took it upon themselves not to put it in? Page 7 December 7,2004 Mr. Schmitt: The decision was made that there would be no need for an external sidewalk because of the industrial park. As the plan evolved and development took place, we had two issues, the activity center #9 overlay and the 2003 changes to the LDC. Commissioner Halas: If there were a sidewalk would it be used? Mr. Schmitt: I don't know, we run into that question every day. Mr. Mudd: Commissioner Henning and I would not be using that sidewalk on a weekday because garbage trucks are constantly traveling down that road. However on the weekends it may be used. Commissioner Halas: You referred to the activity center. Mr. Schmitt: Activity center #9 is a designation that includes the 951 and Davis interchange and there are certain criteria assigned to that. Ms. Flagg: I didn't think honestly, that people would use the industrial park on Progress and Enterprise as a sidewalk and bike lane but we have more bicycle and pedestrian traffic along those two roads. Weare seeing that people are walking and riding in areas where we did not think that would occur. Similar to Horseshoe, people want to get out during lunch and walk. At Horseshoe they can't because there are no sidewalks. This site is done correctly on the interior. If the people here are the same as they are in Horseshoe, they are going to be using that sidewalk. Commissioner Halas: In regards to Horseshoe, do we have enough land to put a sidewalk in? Ms. Flagg: Because that is fully developed the county would have to make adjustments by piping that and putting sidewalks on top. We know it is needed; we get a lot of requests for it. We tell them to walk on the sidewalk on Enterprise near the airport. Commissioner Halas: Do we have the easement and the property to install sidewalks at a later date? Ms. Flagg: In the LDC we have right of ways and the requirement is that it would either be on a public or private. So ifthere is not enough room in the public right of way there is still enough room for a private right of way. Mr. Schmitt: Commissioners, there is new language, but you are dealing with a lot of parts of the county that have already been built, that is where you have to try to fit it in. Commissioner Coletta: Isn't the staff following the rules and regulations that we set and we never gave them any leeway to deal with it and this will give them a certain amount of leeway so we can avoid decisions like this in the future? Mr. Schmitt: At least to make a decision on whether we need to avoid this. Page 8 December 7,2004 Commissioner Coletta: I would like to remind the commission of a situation not too long ago where staff made an interpretation that resulted in serious trouble. Now we have a staff that is following the code to the letter of the law and we have to make sure the letter ofthe law is written in such a way that gives them enough leeway to avoid situations like this. Mr. Schmitt: The only person who can legally interpret the code is Susan Murray. She interprets the code and staff applies the code. PUBLIC SPEAKERS Ted Litwin: Sidewalks are very important for our way of life. When we can propose a plan of 95% success I think we are doing very well and we should be complimented for that. The one concern is how we can keep the requirements tight. It is reasonable to expect a continuous program that provides connectivity and safety. I speak particularly of the safety of children. The school board representative spoke about working with Pathways to develop connectivity and the possibility that they may be able to eliminate several busses in the future. Dwight Nadeau: I would like to commend CDES and transportation planning on identifying a true need to resolve some ofthese issues. I think the presentation here was a little too brief. I want to go through a couple of points in the language related to the changes in the Land Development Code. For example, regarding greenways, there are no descriptions of width or building materials. Also, is it really appropriate to put sidewalks on White Lake Boulevard to walk with 1200 dump trucks passing each day? Ifwe have bike lanes on collectors and arterials why do we need 6-foot sidewalks? The things that are being proposed are good, but the details must be considered. Commissioner Coyle: Mr. Nadeau, we are not here to design the changes to the LDC. We understand their inadequacies. There will be opportunity to address this when we are here only to provide guidance on whether we want to make these changes. I think it's premature to debate the completeness of what we have seen today. I would ask you to provide your detailed comments to staff for them to consider during the review and you will also have an opportunity to make your comments during the public hearing. Mr. Nadeau: Thank you; I will reserve my comments for the meetings with the planning commISSIOn. Dr. Sam Durso: I am here as president Habitat for Humanity for Collier County. We do face the sidewalk issue time and time again. Cassa Lake has not yet been resolved. A four-foot sidewalk was installed in phase one and the same when phase two was put in. Years later someone discovered that we should have put a five-foot sidewalk in. I came before you in a public meeting, it was determined that we had to revise our SDP. This is taking a long time. We have another project called Charlee Estates, phase one is completed. Weare working on phase two. In the PUD for Phase two we agreed to put an 8- foot sidewalk along 41, we were not happy about it, but we agreed to it. We were also told that we had to put a six-foot sidewalk along phase one. In between phase one and phase two there is a church with about 300 feet of frontage that does not have a sidewalk. After our project there are two trailer parks that do not have sidewalks. Our project itself has 5-foot sidewalks on either side of the street; we have 122 families and probably 400 plus children. We are Page 9 December 7, 2004 really nervous about putting a sidewalk along 4l for safety reasons, especially since it is a sidewalk that goes nowhere. We agreed because we needed to get our PUD approved. I would be glad to see a payment in lieu, although I wouldn't want to pay the money, I would be glad to do that. I am a little worried that this will not pass in time for us. Commissioner Henning: You stated that in order to continue on phase two, you need to put a sidewalk on phase one. Was phase one platted? Dr. Durso: Both parts are platted, we agreed to that. Commissioner Henning: Does it take a PUD revision to resolve this issue of an 8' sidewalk on US 41 or can the board act upon that by petition by Habitat for Humanity? Dr. Durso: With Cassa Lakes we did not have that right and I assume that is the same for Charlee Estates. Commissioner Henning: I agree that you do not want children playing on a major highway. Dr. Durso: The payment in lieu would solve that. Commissioner Henning: The board has not adopted any of that yet, the question is can you petition to resolve that and continue to serve the community? Mr. White: If I may, for any pending or proposed condition to an SDP, we have worked with transportation and staff to come up with an appropriate condition to put in that will allow then the option to pursue what we are discussing today. Assuming that we know what it is going to say. This gives them the flexibility to move forward using the proposed rules as a condition of approval of the rest of the SDP or SDP amendment. I think this gives the option to allow Dr. Durso or similarly situated individuals to achieve their objective. Commissioner Henning: What if the board does not adopt the new language? Mr. White: I don't believe a simple majority is required but that issue aside I think that it is clear that the risk is assumed by the developer. If they made the payment in lieu we would give them the money back and force them to construct. Commissioner Henning: I do not think that is a solution then. Can Habitat petition the Board of County Commissioners to resolve the issue? Mr. White: There is nothing authorized in the LDC to do that. We certainly can move up the time frame for any potential LDC amendment. If you instruct staff to come back sooner, and you think that is appropriate, then certainly we can get there in a time frame of 7 -8 weeks. Commissioner Coyle: If this particular situation creates a safety problem why can't the Board of County Commissioners take unilateral action to provide an exemption? Page 10 December 7, 2004 Mr. White: You are asking if the board has authority to amend the LDC in a fashion any different than the rules that exist to amend that code and the answer to that question, regrettably, is no. One of the reasons we are attempting to bring forward more administrative code provisions is that they would allow you greater flexibility in a shorter time frame. In this instance, if the issue is one of timing, there has to be a balancing of risk. I think in your recommendation today, that may be sufficient cover for a developer to achieve their amendment and balance the risk. There are many health, safety; welfare circumstances that you might want to change the code drastically. Typically, the only way to have that done is when an emergency has been declared such as hurricanes. Even then, matters pertaining to uses cannot be done except by our traditional LDC processes. Commissioner Coletta: Is it possible because of the time frame that we may not be able to met Habitat's schedule but we might be able to hold it off and maybe a deposit can be put down to ensure that the sidewalks would be built if we didn't pass it? Mr. White: I think that is specifically what this condition would do. Mr. Schmitt: We would basically deem it legislation in progress. We would like your input when you are done hearing. Mr. White: We do enter that legislation in progress as an alternative. In addition, Mr. Coyle indicated perhaps some additional direction that might be given to the board relating to the requirement altogether. Conceivably, the board could give direction to payment in lieu of the requirement of absolute construction but perhaps advise the staff to bring back legislation as to the requirement itself for certain conditions under health, safety and welfare factors would indicate it is inappropriate. That may resolve the issue ofMr. Durso having to money up front right now as long as Mr. Durso and others similarly situated recognize that if that language is not passed they will have an absolute requirement to adhere to the code. George Dondanville: In the early 90's I was part ofa group that indicated the need for a staff member to address alternative transportation. During that process we recognized the development community received exemptions to the sidewalk requirements. In 2003, the language was very stern and did not provide any exemptions. Although I am in favor of a payment in lieu, please be careful not to create a loophole for developers to avoid building sidewalks. Commissioner Coyle: For clarification, the 25% is not applied to the cost of the sidewalk; it is applied to the cost of the entire development, not to exceed the cost of the sidewalks required by the LDC. It is not a cheaper way to get off the hook. Rich Housch: I represent the greater Naples bicycle pedestrian coalition. I have a survey that I would like to provide. I don't think I could have asked the questions any better. I don't want to go backwards with regard to bicycle pedestrian facilities. I think recent surveys show that people do want to walk and cycle a lot more. I think there is another population that we cannot ignore and that is people that have to walk or have to ride their bikes. Regarding if people actually use certain sidewalks, I counted 18 bicycles this morning of people going to work from Davis Boulevard to the County building. I think we have to consider how to get those folks to and from work, school and church safely. Page 11 December 7, 2004 Jeff Perry: Bicycling and pedestrian facilities are very important. I think the code that we have today tries to go a long way in ensuring that pedestrian facilities are included in all new developments. The only problem I have is the words 'adjacent to and.' There is a provision that says that bicycle lanes have to be constructed for collectors and arterials, that is not always possible due to other infrastructure within those roads. There is also the issue of existing facilities, if you have an SDP and a five foot sidewalk exists, are you required to tear that out and create a six foot sidewalk to comply with code? It's not clear as to whether that is required. Ifthere is a sidewalk and a greenway required are they duplicative? These are all details that we need to resolve over the next several weeks and I will be happy to provide my comments in writing to staff. I wanted to make a comment regarding St. John Neuman. I have two sons that graduated from St. John Neuman High School; there were probably one or two students that walked to school. (Mr. Perry provided a visual display as an example ofvaryingfrontage requirements in relation to lot sizes.) I think that projects that impact the sidewalk usage more should provide more. Wayne Arnold: I think most of us recognize that sidewalks are important. I think there may be alternatives that may be considered on a case-to-case basis. For example: can we internalize a sidewalk? I think that there are situations where the cost to retrofit existing situations is. Some developers would prefer a walking path inside of the development meandering in and out. That may be a more desirable alternative. Sometimes there are physical constraints that need to be considered when we apply the standards. I think we need to recognize that there are situations out there where one size doesn't fit all. There is also a difference between public and private rights of way. I think the payment in lieu of option is excellent. I have never had a developer say that they did not want a sidewalk because of the cost of that sidewalk; they have only doubted the requirement when there are other complications regarding the placement of the sidewalk. Clay Brooker: I am a cyclist, a member of the DSAC and an attorney who assists with land use issues. I support the staff s special cycle issue. I think we should take a look at the existing regulations, do they make sense? One brief example is a Cul-de-Sac dead end street that serves a limited number of units. A sidewalk on both sides simply does not make sense. I would suggest a threshold count that would trigger a requirement. I think we should take the opportunity to examine the existing regulations. Fred Reischl: As a planner I think sidewalks are an important part of a subdivision. I think options should be given to staff to provide alternatives, not just as payment in lieu, but also for alternative pathways. David Ellis, CBIA: Sidewalks and alternative transportation methods are very important. One of the things that are important is flexibility. I feel that as long as we can demonstrate that a design works, we should take that into consideration. I would like to see a better dispute resolution process. Sometimes we propose a different design because we think it will work better, we would appreciate a better process for consideration of these alternatives. I think it's important that we have workshops that include professionals and members of the community to discuss the changes to the language. If people want sidewalks, don't be surprised that the development community wants those sidewalks too, but we want them in a way that's reasonable, cost effective and that accomplishes the true need, which is moving people. Page 12 December 7,2004 Amy Taylor, CCSD: Collier County School District. The school district is on both sides of the issue as a school district and as a developer of schools. We want to provide sidewalks in a safe way. We have an interest in ensuring that missing links will connect to schools. Weare in a growing community with already established homes and schools. The challenge is how to accomplish safely connecting, in our case, students with the schools. I would ask that you rely on your experts in the community when developing language. Our common practice was to put sidewalks on the perimeter of our property in the urban area. In Golden Gate Estates, this becomes a difficult process. We asked not to put a sidewalk in the front of the property, for safety reasons. It dead ends at swales and has no possibility of connecting with anything in the estates. Private homes are not requires to install sidewalks and the county does not have plans to install sidewalks. In place of that the school district picks up students all the way along the roads until we get to the front door of the school. There are state statutes regarding hazardous walking conditions where the school may get more funding in those situations. Commissioner Coyle: I would like to thank all of the speakers. You certainly have communicated just how complex this process is. It is impossible for you to voice all of your concerns and for us to design the land development code in this forum. That is something that has to take place with staff. I am going to ask that the board instruct staff to have meetings with all of the stakeholders with this issue. I would hope that staff would take this into consideration and explore the recommendations to develop a better policy. Commissioner Halas: I think we have found, in this discussion that 95% of the situations are being accommodated. We need to find a restrictive way to accommodate the other 5%. I do not want to go back to where we were. I have to disagree with the school board. It will not be long before the rural area out there turns into an urban area. Make sure to include sidewalks in your plans as you develop new schools. Commissioner Coletta: I would like you to reconsider the percentage for non-profit and affordable housing as 20% and for everyone else 33%, in lieu of 25% across the board. Commissioner Henning: I would hope the board would give direction for flexibility in all the cases of sidewalks. This issue between all of our staff was not one of teamwork. I hope we can bring sensibility to this issue. We need to fix what does not work. My concern is the greenway; I would like more information on that. In my opinion government is something that you pay for something that you will benefit from. I do not want to see and will not support a welfare system. Ms. Flagg: We will bring back the definition of a greenway. I do want to point out that it was in the 1994 comprehensive pathways plan and is referenced in the GMP, including an actual map of the proposed greenway. We will bring back a definition that you feel comfortable with. Commissioner Coyle: The overriding objective seems to be the obligation to provide safe and efficient access for pedestrians and cyclists from one point to another adequate to accommodate the expected density or volume. Whether that is on one side of a street, both sides of the street, or not on a street at all, is irrelevant. If it accommodates the users and it is safe, does it make a difference if it is on a street or behind a building or somewhere else? When we are talking about flexibility, we don't get a lot of flexibility when we tell people where they have to place them because we have no Page 13 December 7, 2004 idea at that point in time how that particular development is going to interface with another development. A meandering path going from one place to another might be far more pleasing than sidewalks on a busy street. Ms. Flagg: The flexibility issue is in the language that we brought to you today where we provide for an alternative design where they may prefer to have the sidewalk behind the house or around the lake as opposed to along the street. Commissioner Henning: I agree that we should look at the capacity. Commissioner Halas: I think that we have to look at that but also need to consider the future capacity. We also have to make sure that we do not leave any loopholes open. Mr. Schmitt: Just to advise everyone, this language has been evolving, we are probably on a fifth rendition of this. I will commit that we will clean up what we have to in house regarding our staff working with transportation. We will have a session where we discuss this with those in the industry. What we need from you is an approval of the concept and the special cycle. Commissioner Coyle: I think you have a sense of what the commissioners would like to do. Commissioner Henning: That includes DSAC? Mr. Schmitt: Absolutely Mr. White: I am hoping the board would not object to the inclusion in that special cycle any matters that the division administrator may deem necessary to expedite that may not be specifically sidewalks. Commissioner Coyle: I wouldn't have any objection. Mr. White: Because the LDC asks for special cycles to be approved by a super majority I think a formal vote is probably appropriate. Commissioner Henning: We cannot vote in a workshop. Mr. Mudd: If I can get your nods and then we can bring it back as an executive summary. Commissioner Coyle confirms that the commissioners have approved of that action. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County of Collier, The meeting was adjourned at 11 :02 AM. Page 14 December 7,2004 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI '--- These minutes ap corrected 0,( . e Board on J -, 1- (JDtf5 Page 15 , as presented /' or as