Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/16/2005 S March 16,2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 16, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 PM in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein (Absent) Donna Reed Caron Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Mark Strain (Absent) Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, ASCI, Zoning & Land Development Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Page 1 "---. March 16,2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're on, and we will call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. I'd ask you to rise with me as we do the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. SCHMITT: If I could, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. I could defer, if you have any opening comments. But I want to defer to Mr. White. And for the record, I'm Joe Schmitt, administrator, Community Development, Environmental Services Division. This is our first of two public hearings in regards to amendments of the Land Development Code. Mr. White, if you could, please, provide the appropriate announcement in regard to legal sufficiency. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. And I have reviewed the affidavit of publication for this evening's meeting and find that it is legally sufficient. And at this time we're going to turn it over to our minutes keeper for record-keeping purposes. And we just want to put on the record also that this is -- depending on how this commission decides to conduct itself in this round of amendments, either the first of two hearings on potential amendments or one meeting on those. Because as you'll recall, the LDC creates a requirement that you hear them once, except in those circumstances where you vote to hear particular amendments twice in two separate meetings. And as we move through the agenda, you may desire to cull out certain provisions that you may desire to hear twice, some that you would prefer to hear only once. And I would suggest to you that you may want to wait until you've heard from the staff how we've approached this round of amendments and the way they've been categorized before you make those determinations. Thank you. Page 2 ---,-.----.. March 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'm going to turn this over to Ms. Susan Murray, the -- my zoning director, or department of Zoning and Land Development review director. But your packet is relatively thick. Half of that packet involves primarily LDC amendments that are making again editorial adjustments and amendments to the recodified LDC. The first portion is the most -- obviously where you want to pay most attention, and that is dealing with specific amendments to the LDC. So if I could, I would turn this over to Ms. Susan Murray. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, for the record, Zoning Director. Just give you a brief overview of how the package is divided. Again, it's divided into three sections: The first section, which is comprised of approximately 167 pages, is what I would term the LDC amendments that would result in regulatory change. The remaining two sections are clarifications or the reintroduction of omissions that occurred during our recodification process. Each section has its own summary sheet, and the summary sheet is basically a breakdown of the LDC section, the proposed amendment. It gives each of the recommendations; EAC, DSAC, your recommendations would be in there, as well as BCC when that's heard. It also identifies which page the amendment can be found on. And the page numbers are located in the handwritten version down in the middle of each page. I don't know how you want to proceed, Mr. Chairman. Generally speaking, if we have registered speakers, you have taken those items first, or we can just proceed in order. And just for the benefit of the audience, if anybody wishes to speak on any of these amendments, if they could fill out a speaker slip, which are located in the hall, and then bring them to me. Page 3 ,--~",.._...._., March 16, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Certainly I'd like to hear from the other planning commissioners. My thought is, is that breaking this down into two general areas, we have our substantive regulatory changes and then the scriveners errors, editorial clarifications, those kind of things, as two broad areas. I would like to have this body consider taking those minor editorial changes. If anybody in the public wants to speak on them or address any of them because there's something more than minor changes, that would be fine. But otherwise, we could hear that and take action on that at our next meeting when hopefully we have a larger group. We have a bare quorum here of five. While on one hand we probably could review it and dispense with it tonight, I'd hate to come back next month and find that one of our other planning commissioners had an issue and didn't have a chance to take a shot at it. So if we could do that and then spend most of this evening's time on those regulatory changes and any speaker concerns and just have a hearing tonight with no action, then rehear with final recommendations to transmittal at our next meeting. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And the other thing I wanted to bring to your attention is DSAC heard some of the amendments. So when you look at your summary sheet, you're going to see that their comments are for the ones that they heard. They have -- actually the sub-committee meets again tomorrow afternoon, and the regular DSAC committee deferred to the sub-committee's meeting tomorrow for the rest of the amendments that they were not able to get to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So we'll have the benefit of their comments at our next hearing -- MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- on our second reading. MS. MURRAY: Correct. As well -- and I might ask Barb Page 4 ,-_.-. March 16, 2005 Burgeson to correct me, if she's here. If not, when this went to print we did not have EAC's recommendations as well, so that would be updated. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS . MURRAY: She could certainly probably present that verbally tonight, if you're interested, this evening. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are we in the second readings? Are we still attaining that? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, that's my thought. We have that option. We could go through and dispense with all business with recommendations tonight, but I think we should take the editorial clarifications, not even review them, unless there's a specific speaker on them tonight, hear them next time when we have a full board. Have a first reading on all the regulatory changes tonight, second reading in action is my recommendation, if everybody's comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am. I mean, what -- isn't the reason for the second reading the first reading the public hears some of these things for the first time; that gives them a chance to come back at the second reading? So we don't want to deny that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It is optional. It's not required, but I think it's an option we need to avail ourselves of. MS. MURRAY: Did you just wish to go in order then? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Let me ask one more other clarifying question. Generally speaking, in the past we have gone through each amendment and basically asked if there's any questions from you as you have reviewed these, or we could give a brief staff presentation, whichever you prefer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'd be inclined to announce the issue, see Page 5 March 16, 2005 if there's planning commission questions or speakers from the public; there being none, move to the next one and move on in that order. MS. MURRAY: Okay, very good. Then I'm working off of the very first summary sheet for the new amendments, and the first one on your list is Section 1.08.02, definitions for housing and workforce and affordable housing. And on that note, I might say I believe you have probably a printer error in your packet. I don't know if Cormac wanted to speak to that, just so you had the correct information on the record. MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin, the Housing and Grants Manager for Collier County. The printer error actually was not on this amendment, it comes later on in -- MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. GIBLIN: -- the package around Page 66. You can tell there's definitely a copying error. And I do have copies, corrected copies for that amendment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a question then. At the bottom of the first page, what is it, "i"? Looks like an "i" there. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says housing workforce, one or more owner occupied residential unit dwelling units with a monthly rent. And I was confused by that. It seems if you own it, you shouldn't be paying rent. So did I misunderstand something or __ MR. GIBLIN: Where it says monthly rent or monthly mortgage payment -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I could understand the mortgage paying if you own it, but I had a hard time reconciling monthly rent. MR. GIBLIN: No, you're right, we should probably strike the word rent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That was my only Page 6 -'-------- March 16, 2005 question on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: From the top paragraph as well? MR. GIBLIN: Well, no, in the top paragraph where we're defining affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, right, okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- that can be owner occupied or rental. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next item, if there's no further discussion on that, is Section 1.08.02, definitions of pervious surface, and that would be on Page 1. The next item is Section 2.03.05, open space zoning district, and that would be on Page 2. The next item, and I'm on Page 2 of your summary sheet, would be Section 2.03.07, overlay zoning districts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a question on that, Mr. Chairman. And it's probably more of a statement that comes out as a question. Ultimately there are two bonus credits that accumulate; is that what it is? MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director. The LDC that you have in front of you of course is interpreting the comprehensive plan amendment that adds three potential or possible bonus EDR credits. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Early entry is included in that. MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. Early entry is automatic. The other two require some criteria compliance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you aggregate them, do they then have a value? Because they may have different values with the -- I'm trying to focus, put this -- MR. LITSINGER: You mean a dollar value? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Does that even enter into Page 7 March 16, 2005 it at all? MR. LITSINGER: Market -- we have a minimum required price for base severance in the Land Development Code of $25,000 minimum, which is becoming irrelevant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, right. MR. LITSINGER: But these -- the value in the marketplace of these particular bonus credits would be market driven and we would not propose any type of regulation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they have no value though until they become whole and when they leave -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the fractional position. Okay, that's what I needed to understand. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next item on your summary sheet is Section 2.03.08, eastern lands and rural fringe. That's on Page 53. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You forgot Bayshore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Bayshore's in there. MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry, I jumped one. Let me go back to Bayshore. 2.03.07.1 on Page 10. That's the Bayshore Overlay Zoning District. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a number of questions, if you'll bear with me. At the bottom of the page, number two -- or 11, excuse me, it speaks of facade articulation of traditional neighborhood design. What is the traditional neighborhood design here? Is it to be the old Florida? Is that what it is designated? MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Murray, I must profess that I cannot answer your question. We brought these forward with the Bayshore Advisory Committee, an interpretation of the redevelopment plan and compo plan into their proposed LDC changes. And what I would suggest, that is if you have questions of that nature, that we record those questions and bring those back to you at Page 8 March 16, 2005 your second hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree, because I have a whole series of questions associated with it, and it would be wrong to occupy the time then. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Murray, would those be questions regarding changes, or the existing code? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they may end up being changes. There may be -- there are a number of items. Well, as an illustration, if you take Page 13, which is the map, and you see -- I ask you to see Page 26, and when you look up at the columns, it gets a little confusing. When we speak of a BDMU and in the map it's known as a BMUD. Now, that's a simple transposition, but it can -- but when I went looking for things because of the nature of the map, it was hard to read and I wasn't sure what I was looking at. But there were a whole series of things, and I'd be satisfied to write them out and to present them. MR. LITSINGER: And we'll work with you in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have no problem with that. MR. SCHMITT: Unfortunately in the sequence of events, the executive director who has worked these in the past is now -- has resigned. We're in the process of hiring a new -- or the CRA, not us, but we're hiring a new executive director. But this is part of the amendment, as certainly it is subject to question. I think it's best, if you could, provide a written summary. If you have questions, we can -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd be delighted to do that -- MR. SCHMITT: -- address those at the next meeting or address those separately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll get them to you as quickly as possible. Because quite frankly, I found a lot of things in there that __ Page 9 March 16, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate your diligence. MR. WHITE: If I may, and add some information in regards to that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. WHITE: Commissioner Murray, the executive director was actually to begin today, a Mr. Jackson, for the Bayshore CRA, Bayshore/Gateway CRA area. And additionally, this present moment, from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m., their zoning consultant for that advisory board in that area are conducting workshops on additional zoning proposals that are being discussed with the community. So my expectation is that there will be further amendments. So at this point your comments would be very well timed to dovetail with that process so we can address not only your concerns either as part of further amendments here in this cycle but as some further additional changes to the zoning that are certainly contemplated as part of the redevelopment plan being amended, as that area continues to evolve. So I just wanted to share that information. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. If I could have a way of contacting him, I'd be happy to work-- MR. WHITE: 643-1115. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 843-- MR. WHITE: 643-1115. MS. MURRAY: And actually, for the record, I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: His name is Jackson? MR. WHITE: Last name, yes. MS. MURRAY: I -- when Aaron Blair left, he gave me a contact name with two engineers, and I think they're from Jacksonville, but regardless, they helped him draft some of these amendments. And they could not be here this evening; however, they did say they would be here at your next meeting. Page 10 --'"._-~..,.- March 16, 2005 So if you have questions, I can e-mail to them in anticipation of your next meeting, too, and they could assist us -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can do that. What I found were inconsistencies and issues and things of that. It's mostly homework. And I'm sure that, you know, the foundation is good, but I do want it to be clear. So I'd be glad to do it any way you like. Am I better to contact Mr. Johnson (sic) or -- MR. WHITE: I think that Mr. Jackson will be working with-- the folks from HDR I think were also the ones that are responsible for these amendments and are the ones that are working on the redevelopment plan rezoning. So I think that yes, he would be the new point of contact to coordinate information as it moves forward. MR. LITSINGER: And with Sue's and my department, we'll work with you also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions on this. Should I do the same thing and wait, or -- I mean, I do share that you should get the initials to be the same. And also, in the abbreviation, I think we should put the -- MR. SCHMITT: Pull your microphone over. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Getting the initials I think is important, to have them match the overlay. And they should be up in the abbreviation section. Because somebody coming across this would just see the initials. It's never in the index outline. Some of my stuff I guess I'll wait. There's some use questions. For example, why docks wouldn't be allowed in the neighborhood commercial when there is property on water in the neighborhood commercial. Should we wait? Is that the kind of stuff you'd rather we wait? MS. MURRAY: I would say so. And like I said, if we could get them in advance, I could go ahead and advance them up to Joe Ehart Page 11 March 16,2005 (phonetic) and as well just kind of coordinate through Mr. Jackson and Stan's office. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be glad to send you an e-mail and then Mr. Jackson an e-mail, or whatever. MS. MURRAY: Or you could copy me on whatever e-mail you send to him -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- relative to that. That would work well. CHAIRMAN BUDD: E-mail's cheap. MR. WHITE: And in fact, Commissioners Murray and Schiffer, if you'd care to send them to each other, that is appropriate in this circumstance, because these are legislative actions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be happy to share with everybody. No problem. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. Next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item is Section 2.03.08, eastern lands and rural fringe. That's on Page 53. The next item, I'm now on Page 3 of your summary sheet, Section 2.05 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait, wait. Sorry, I have a question. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An educational plant. That's a school? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. Or ancillary facility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 58, reducing the greenbelt, what's the reason for that? MR. LITSINGER: It was determined in the -- this of course is an interpretation of the compo plan amendment that's currently at DCA for review. It was the interpretation that in order to make the rural Page 12 -,-- -._,_.,,- March 16, 2005 village development scenario more viable, that the previous requirement was more restricted than needed to be in order to achieve the goals relative to buffering. And it was the consensus of the stakeholders group that met during the summer and brought this forward through the petitioners and with staff's support. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Susan, I have one. On Page 57 where it's under item 4A, looks like ii. In any event, it speaks to the rural village, and it goes on to say in the last line of that sentence, county standards shall be dedicated to the public. I wondered, is it because it's a village that you use the term public, rather than say the county? MR. LITSINGER: Perhaps the clarification there -- here again, this is word-for-word interpretation of the language in the compo plan. But obviously in this case the public would be the county. This would be dedicated to the county as a county road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What came to my mind was the Ava Maria, and I wondered if there was any relevance there to that. MR. LITSINGER: This one is -- you'll notice we struck the reference to SRA designation because that's not relevant to this section which would apply to the Ava Maria development __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, just be careful with that __ MR. LITSINGER: -- it's as just rural villages. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then on Page 58 where I'm looking at the top here where it speaks to the greenbelt. And it speaks to the greenbelt surrounds the village, but then when it speaks to it later on and with a 40 percent part of it says open space shall be provided, inclusive of the greenbelt. And I just wasn't sure whether I was reading that right, that it was in exclusive inclusive. The first set of phrases seem to suggest it's surrounding the village, and then the next phrase relates to it being inclusive of the greenbelt. MR. LITSINGER: The greenbelt can be used in the calculation Page 13 March 16,2005 of the open space requirement. I'm not sure if that -- did that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the greenbelt is required to ensure a permanently undeveloped edge surrounding the rural village, and then followed by -- I guess you're using the word inclusive to mean the greenbelt entirely. I was thinking of it in terms of -- I was seeing it in my mind. Okay, I'm satisfied, thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next item on the top of Page 3 is Section 2.05.02, density blending. And that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Susan? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me, I do have a question on Page 59. There are blanks left. Are those blanks on purpose? MR. LITSINGER: I can answer -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Stan, sorry. MR. LITSINGER: -- the question. Yes. Yes, those are blanks in that we have determined that multi-family within the -- which one are we dealing with here __ within the neutral lands should be a conditional use. And the compo plan speaks to maintaining the rural character. Of course, since the density can only be one unit per five acres, there is an immediate limitation on multi-family opportunities. So we in this process are looking for suggestions through the hearing process on what the criteria should be for building height buffer and setbacks in a multi-family scenario in neutral lands. And so far all we have is two stories. But we feel that we need to include some criteria. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions, Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item? MS. MURRAY: 2.05.02, density blending, on Page 64. Next section, 2.06.03, affordable housing density bonus rating Page 14 -~..---.*.-.".-.-> March 16, 2005 system, on Page 66. And Cormac has some handouts for you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: This starts on Page 66. And I don't know ifin your packet, was the copying messed up? Do you have a complete copy of this amendment in your packet? If not, I have copies here. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it seems to end -- it cuts off at the last chart. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know what's missing because I don't have it, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: At all. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- I don't know what's not here. All right, that is different. MR. GIBLIN: Now, in the package that went to the DSAC sub-committee, it was included correctly. And then since then it seems like there's been a problem with the copy machine. So I realize that you probably haven't had time to review this fully since I just handed it to you, but if I could, I could provide you a brief summary of what is intended here. This is an amendment that updates the formula and tables used to calculate our affordable housing density bonus. It is required that we do this in Policy 2.9 of the housing element of the comprehensive plan. This formula was initially created over 10 years ago. And since then it has never been updated. It was initially created with the intention of providing low-income rental apartment units to dovetail with the State of Florida's low-income housing tax credit program. It provided density bonuses to those levels of income that would typically live in those units. In the past few years we have seen a shift in the development pattern of affordable housing in this county away from rental into more of an owner occupied product. And since then, we've kind of been shoehorning all the owner occupied affordable housing projects Page 15 ._-~--,.---.- ---~"-~"..- <W___,...,,_."'~....,___"__. March 16,2005 that would like to take advantage of extra density into this same formula. So as a result of the shift in the market conditions and the requirement in the housing element, that we look at this and update it every few years. What we've done is really we've tried to simplify the two charts down to one chart and make it a lot easier for someone to follow that really should follow that if you do "X" percent of affordable housing unit development, you qualify for "X" number of affordable bonus units per acre. And that's really the gist of this amendment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, next item, please. MS. MURRAY: Next item is on Page 4 of your summary sheet, Section 2.07.00, and 4.02.01, which begins on Page 70. The next item, Section 3.03.06, native vegetation coastal barriers has been withdrawn. Now on the top of Page 5, Section 3.04.02 sea turtle dune walkover repair, which begins on Page 79. COMMISSIONER CARON: Barbara just handed that to us. Is she -- are you going to make a presentation, Barbara, on what we got, or -- MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. I wasn't planning on doing a presentation, unless you'd like me to do that. The reason for that is that the amendments that you see there -- and if you'd like, I also have copies showing color changes from the original that you got in your package to the changes that are in the clean copy that you have right now. So if you're interested in those, I can give those to you as well. But these changes are a result of the DSAC meeting that was held the beginning of this month; I think the first Wednesday of the month. Page 16 _._--~~...,,,.-.. March 16, 2005 And they're also rehearing it. They ask that we make those changes and bring it back to them tomorrow. So I'm not sure whether there will be more changes requested tomorrow. If you'd like for me to present it now, otherwise I can present it to you full at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, do it at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, we'll do it the next time with all the current changes. MS. BURGESON: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Just so you understand, this was simply a change to deal with the issues we had after the hurricane. And that's __ we're not dealing -- some folks have read into this and thought we were making a lot of changes in regards to the whole CCSL. It's not that. It was basically to facilitate and to allow for construction during turtle nesting season. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item is Section 3.05.05, criteria for removal of protected vegetation. And that begins on Page 83. The next item is Section 3.05.07, preservation standards. And that begins on Page 87. The next item is Section 3.05.08.C, exotic removal, single and two-family. That begins on Page 88. At the top of Page 6 of your summary sheet, Section 3.06.06, regulated wellfields. That begins on Page 91. Next item is Section 4.06.04.A and B., vegetation clearing. Begins on Page 94. Next item is Section 4.06.05, cultivated tree protection and tree replacement fund, which begins on Page 97. The next item is at the top of Page 7 of your summary sheet, Section 4.06.05, landscaped certificate of compliance, Page 100. The next item is Section 4.08.00, rural land stewardship area Page 1 7 --,,-~~--...-...,---.~ March 16, 2005 zoning overlay district standards, which begin on Page 101. The next item is Section 4.08.05 and Section 4.08.08, baseline standards, which begin on Page 107. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, quick question, is this a glitch or is this a new -- MR. LITSINGER: We're on page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 107. MS. MURRAY: 107. MR. LITSINGER: Page 107. This is -- actually it's neither one. It's a conversion of location of these particular references within the LDC from one location to the other. And I believe Russell Webb worked with Patrick before he left in actually moving identical language from one location to another within the LDC. It's not a new regulatory provision here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's in the amendment section, so -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it -- okay. MS. MURRAY: If it's not, I can move it, Stan. I just -- I read it quickly and got that impression, but if you're saying that, I can certainly move it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item on top of Page 8 of your summary sheet is Section 5.05.02, well facilities. And that begins on Page 125, A through G. MR. ANDERSON: Can I speak to that? Good evening, I'm Roy Anderson, director of engineering for the Public Utilities Department. We've been working closely with Patrick on the legal aspects of this and, you know, the staff of CDES. Basically the intent of this is that we've had some difficulty with Page 18 ,-.-........"... March 16, 2005 getting -- with the existing legal framework in terms of getting approvals for water supply wells in order to supply our water system. The installation of public water supply wells has been a necessity to provide sources of raw water for irrigation or for raw water, which is conveyed to a processing facility, treatment plant. For processing is either irrigation water or potable drinking water. With each well that's proposed, the rules have made staff review extremely lengthy and costly, since the existing provisions in the LDC are not well suited for the very small impacts of a public water supply well. These wells use postage stamp size parcels of land, and the staff has strived to blend the facilities into the community environment. The LDC amendment will be a standard guideline for staff review of this essential service. The goal of this LDC amendment is to establish for the benefit of the community consistency and standardization of the appearance of public water supply wells. The goal is that the public water supply wells are consistent with community standards for landscaping, screening and buffering, architecture, setbacks from neighboring properties, native vegetation preservation and other environmental preservation and site access. So that gives you a thumbnail of where we're coming from. And we'll be working closely with the staff and we'll have more specifics at the final hearing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building heights, how tall are they? MR. ANDERSON: The -- I believe we're talking about a maximum of 15 feet, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you have like -- you want the ability to put 10-foot walls two feet from the property line? MR. WHITE: If I may, my understanding is they're fences. Page 19 , ·...M~_._"_~ March 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a -- fence or wall height may be up to 10 feet for wells and generators. A fence or wall -- and it's two feet from right-of-way easements. I mean, that's a -- not pretty, 10-foot wall two feet off the right-of-way. And then would this waive any landscape requirements or buffer requirements or __ MR. ANDERSON: No. We are talking about a landscape -- a new category of buffer, which we will describe at a later time. Suffice it to say, that it involves no trees, but strictly shrubs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the two-foot area. I mean, am I wrong? Page 25(D), and 125(E). MR. ANDERSON: I'll ask our landscape architect to step forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be another question about noise too that would be an issue that I would question. Depending on how close it is to -- MR. WHITE: I'm having difficulty understanding which provision we're talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm jumping around, but it (B), dimensional requirements. MR. WHITE: Yes. And then it starts out with setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you go down to (C) -- MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it discusses fence or wall heights may be up to 10 feet. The middle of that paragraph. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if you turn the page -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Turn the page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- two feet on the property line. It's a big wall. MR. TYSON: For the record, I'm Bruce Tyson; I'm a landscape architect and a planner with WilsonMiller, and I've been assisting the county in putting this LDC amendment together. Page 20 -~-" March 16, 2005 What you see here is a work in progress. And we had a meeting with the staff just a couple days ago, and that two feet that you see is really going to move to five or six feet from the standpoint of then as the county has requested it, instead of vines being planted on along the fence, that it winds up being shrubs. So that distance will wind up changing. And we'll get it to the point of where it satisfies requirements for the landscaping, as well as for the other aspects at the county staff, as they review this. As I said, it's a work in progress. There will be a few other modifications along the way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But will it leave us with two feet, or will this progress prior to the next meeting? In other words, I don't want to sign off that he can put a 10- foot wall two feet from a roadway right-of-way. MR. WHITE: Do you have a specific recommendation? Staff has indicated, I think, that as to the adjacent to right-of-way or access easement, the contemplated redraft of the provision is six feet minimum. And if you don't think that's appropriate, it probably would be best at this time to just share that with the staff so they'd know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe they could just meet the buffers that the county -- I mean, what private industry would have to do, private people would have to have a landscape buffer. MR. WHITE: We're not talking about landscape buffers at this point, we're talking about dimensional requirements for setbacks, structural setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I think if you got a 10- foot wall from a property line, the only thing you've got buffered is between that wall and the property line, so -- MR. TYSON: Well, within that -- the distance between the wall and the property line will wind up being a minimum six feet, which would wind up certainly being sufficient space for a hedge to be planted. The idea for the hedge is to let it -- or plants and, as a matter Page 21 -_._.~ -'----.-,.- ,. -,.~.,,""'--_..,._,~ March 16, 2005 of fact, is to let it grow to a point of where it helps to mask the wall entirely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the rear yard, for example, this could be a residential property behind this, correct? MR. TYSON: It could be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're going to have a 10-foot wall two feet off the back of that guy's yard too? MR. TYSON: Typically that's not a yard. That winds up being an easement. Wherever you have a fence, you only have an easement condition. And consequently that would fit within an easement, and there would be another -- as you would envision this, it would fit within -- or could fit within yards. The setback or the distance from existing property lines, we want to try to do everything we can to keep them within those setbacks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But describe it what you want, this thing is written such that there could be a 10- foot wall two feet from a guy's backyard. MR. TYSON: The way this is currently written, correct. MR. WHITE: Well, what it says is that -- if I'm understanding it correctly, is that you have to be set back from the rear yard two feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this would be the zoning district's rear yard setback plus two feet? MR. WHITE: Yes, I think that's what's intended to be read here. Now, if there's an easement line for the standard, and I think there's six varieties of these, quote, postage stamp well sites that are contemplated, then the notion is from an easement line you have to be a minimum of two feet. Now, that again would be in a circumstance where that easement line would be on I guess the rear of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that a -- the easement line could be anybody's easement. Could be Florida Power & Light. MR. WHITE: I think it's anticipated that the easement line that's Page 22 March 16, 2005 being referred to may be very well that of the site, but perhaps that doesn't make sense. I'm certain I haven't thought of all of the variables that, you know, could be created. And I don't know certainly, Bruce, if there's something that you've thought about about this, you could share with us. MR. TYSON: Well, one of the comments that came from the planning staff was that these easements where they are placed wind up being beyond the setback, all right, so that you include the setback as part of your -- the location for the easement. For instance, so that they are not immediately adjacent to side yards, so that the -- if they were immediately -- or assuming that you had a rectilinear lot, that this easement itself would not be pushed into a corner; that the easement would be outside of the setbacks for the property. And so then you have that setback from that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So visually you're away from the corner, as best you can, you have the setback and you have the well house, 15 feet well house, right, generally? MR. TYSON: Could be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The wall is surrounding it from that setback? Do I visualize that correctly? Is that -- MR. TYSON: Generally speaking, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 10-foot wall is not part of the well house. This is an independent wall surrounding the house, right? MR. TYSON: Correct. There's either -- you either have two conditions: One is you have an easement or a property with a well house, or you wind up having a fence that surrounds the well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it's an easement, you say, based on it being an easement. MR. TYSON: It's typically an easement, correct. When you have a fence, typically that's around an easement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any way that you could Page 23 March 16, 2005 put a 10-foot wall two feet from somebody's property line? Your answer from what we just said should be no, because it's going to be either the building setback, the typical rear setback for that zoning district, plus two feet, or maybe this is a loophole, an easement line, there could be a five-foot easement running along the back property line, you're going to come two feet off of that instead. MR. TYSON : Well, as I indicated, it's a little bit of a work in progress. The two at a minimum is going to wind up being six so that we wind up having a sufficient distance for a row of shrubs between any line and a wall or a fence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how big do you think these will be? You'll have a small one, the 400 square foot. And this is a building that has a roof on it, a tile roof, or is it a bunker, or what is it? MR. TYSON : Well, it typically has to be a flat roof. Whether there's a mansard placed around it or some other -- an extension of the parapet. Somehow or other to get it to the point of where it looks more building like. The challenge is the fact that the roof has to be flat so that you wind up having a hatch on the top so that you can access the well. It's the equipment that has to be drug down and you have to be able to get to the point of where you go and be able to lift anything out from that well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the height of this you said would be about 15 feet? MR. TYSON: At a maximum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't like it that close, but what do we do? You're saying never mind because you've changed it, but I don't want to sign off on it based on never mind. MR. WHITE: And I don't know that you're going to sign off on it anyways today, but I think the point is that if you have a different dimensional requirement that you think would be more appropriate, certainly the staff should be afforded that number. Page 24 ~"'-""-_""""--~- March 16, 2005 And I think the thing to keep in mind here is that although there are drawings that will help you to understand these various groupings and classifications of these type of structures and buildings, fundamentally there's two types: There's those that are the well housed class, and I think there's those that are not. And they are just a series of differing types of equipment, et cetera, etcetera, that would be surrounded typically by a fence. Now, I think the idea that the wall has crept into the regulation is one where it may be anticipated that it actually is more aesthetically pleasing perhaps along the right-of-way well side of the well site to have that. And if the distance of it, either because of its aesthetic or safety consideration, should be further away from the right-of-way or access easement line, then that's I think the issue that we ought to get some direction to staff on so that they're able to figure this thing out correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's what they look like? MR. WHITE: That would be the well house class. MR. TYSON: That is the well house, but that is done prior to implementation of these regulations. With that condition, what will be required is a double row of shrubs around the sides of the building where it's not accessible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If that's what they look like, let's make the wall 20 feet. I think the setbacks should be -- I think that the landscape buffer on the right-of-way should be maintained. That's my opinion. MR. WHITE: I don't know what the dimensional requirement for those are, but I think they're typically 10 feet. I think __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It isn't fair to make the project -- MS. MURRAY: It depends on the width of the roadway. MR. WHITE: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on the right-of-way. Page 25 -'-"_.'---~'.._~..- March 16, 2005 Besides that fact, I'm not even sure what that describes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's just make a recommendation of 10 feet. We'll see it, they'll have time to chew on it, get other input. We'll get it back here next month. And if there's a reason that 10 feet won't fly, we'll consider it at that time. How does that sound? If two's not enough, consider 10. If that doesn't work, come back next month and tell us why when we make our final recommendation. MR. TYSON: All right, that's fine. And in addition, what we will wind up doing is creating these visuals so that we will show you what the intended finished condition will look like. It will be a whole lot easier I think for everybody to understand. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It will make a big help. MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One last question for my satisfaction, if you wouldn't mind. I noticed that on that former picture it showed with emergency generator. Is there ever a case where it's generator operated and no electrical feed to it, no independent electrical feed? MR. ANDERSON: No, no. They're always -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's always with -- MR. ANDERSON: They're always with FP&L power and generator in an emergency. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's important for me to understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Joe, I don't know whether you or Stan perhaps can refresh my memory. This is a new regulation that previously didn't exist, or what is it replacing? MR. SCHMITT: The entire process is basically to make -- as far as the well heads? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: It's just to allow it as a permitted use to Page 26 March 16, 2005 undergo a truncated review process, rather than having to go through a complete site development plan review and approval process. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I call it truncated only because it has -- it would not -- we had this discussion about structures, I'll turn to the county attorney, but it basically is providing LDC guidance in regards to permitted use and how it would be permitted without having to go through the entire individual review process for each and every site every time they put a well head or a pump house into a area in Collier County. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does this flow from a discussion we had a year or two ago about the county wanting to excuse itself from going through the permitting process? MR. WHITE: No, I don't think it does. MR. SCHMITT: That was when we talked about, about a year ago when we made a commitment to this board and to the Board of County Commissioners that we would not create -- that had to do with landscaping and we were not going to -- we wanted to commit to make sure that all well heads were adequately landscape buffered and that they would not be intrusive and deemed not compatible with the surrounding area. And so that's really what that was about. Pat, you want to expand on that? Yeah, I know you worked this more closely. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It wasn't landscaping at all, it was the fact that they have to get permits from the state or from Southwest Florida Water. MR. WHITE: All of those requirements __ COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So why would they come to the -- MR. SCHMITT: All of those are still valid. This was the siting of the actual site review process. MR. WHITE: And I just -- I think essentially what Mr. Schmitt Page 27 _n__ . ',-.-«-----." March 16, 2005 has said is accurate, but there's a few things I think that may need clarification. First is these are essential services, okay? They are a use that is permitted by right in all of the zoning districts. And what is attempted in the changes to the sections that you see as part of this amendment is to effectively right-size the regulations that are the subject of the review for each of these that they will go through. There will be county review of each of them to effectively make the requirements for landscaping, buffering, setbacks and et cetera more proportional to the impacts that are likely to be anticipated and that flow from these structures and facilities. The idea was that for the type of small-scale structures and the typical, you know, low level of activity that they had in terms of access, people being present, whatever, that the county's regulations for that type of structure did not differentiate between these and a W al- Mart, in a sense. And so the idea was to try to right-size the rules in proportion to the size and the type of activity that occurs typically from and around one of these well head sites. Additionally, the notion was as to the process to therefore -- to the degree that the regulations were somehow more right-sized, there would be a better turnaround time. And it is not an attempt in any way to, you know, remove the water/sewer district's facilities from the reVIew -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I didn't say that. MR. WHITE: -- just to make it proportional. It is also required to go through all the South Florida for, you know, water quality, et cetera, consumptive use and those matters. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: They don't have to come through the county planning process. MR. WHITE: No, it would be more I believe to the extent of any typical SDP. Page 28 March 16, 2005 And there is a planner typically assigned to those SDP's, and those planners would be looking at these requirements that are the property development regulations for -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It doesn't have to come before the county planning commission. MR. WHITE: No. No, sir. It's been administrative, it will remain administrative, the same way all of the SDP's are. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. All right. MR. WHITE: So I hope the -- are there any other questions about it? I think what happened here is we kind of got sidetracked on some minor issues in the drafting process that took us off the main task. I think we had a very polished presentation to make to the DSAC that never went forward because it kind of sounded okay to them. We'll find out some more about that tomorrow. But regardless, I think that when we come back to you in April, you'll have a comprehensive and hopefully favorable presentation. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, thank you. MS. MURRAY: To just get some clarification on the 10 feet, is that for all of the dimensions there on 125(E)? MR. WHITE: My understanding was the adjacent or right-of-way or access easement. MS. MURRAY: That was the only one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, it's two-foot -- I mean, the way it's worded side yard would appear that it's two foot inside the setback side yard. In other words, it's not on the property line, it's in the side. But that would be fine. Adjacent to the right-of-way, two-foot would not be fine. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. MR. WHITE: And I think we can clarify those, because obviously there's, you know, a team approach and sometimes we all think we know what we mean, but it's good to have, and that's why we Page 29 . '--,---". .- <_"__""'<»W."<.~~_ March 16, 2005 of course come through these processes, so that you all can help us with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I read this, it doesn't say that. What it's saying, side yard or easement line, two feet. MR. WHITE: I think you have to read that as the site -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's telling us that the side yard is two feet. It's not saying two feet off the side yard. MR. WHITE: No. I think you have to read it so that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, maybe make that clear. I mean, we -- MR. WHITE: Right. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- said we don't want it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Let's have different and better language next month. MR. WHITE: Code-eze. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item is Section 5.05.08(C) on Page 126. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a couple things. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is someone coming up? MS. MURRAY: No. And I apologize, I did ask my architect to be here, so I'll attempt to answer your questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, you know I sat on the committee. Actually, Bruce sat on the committee, too. We met for two and a half years biweekly. And this isn't really right. I mean, we did not inadvertently omit to include that requirement. We discussed that requirement, ad nauseam I might add, too. But -- and, you know, maybe what I'm not comfortable with too is, you know, can't we keep that architectural committee together and can't the new planner call that committee before he puts these things in and review it with them? Maybe just out of respect for them. I don't Page 30 ... ...-"....-......--.. March 16, 2005 think it's fair for this one or the other one to come through, giving the illusion that they're scriveners errors. I mean, this was not inadvertently omitted; it was discussed. The next one we actually invented a better way to achieve that, and actually other counties are using it, and yet he implies like it was omitted accidentally. MS. MURRAY: That's -- I apologize if it implies that. I don't think that was the intent. I think possibly it should have read that the staff intended to bring it forward and they didn't. And it could also be -- and again, I apologize that the architect isn't here. I'm basically speaking for him as .I understand the reason why it came back through this cycle was -- and it possibly could be that there was a change in staff, as you know, through the committee process, and it could be that the change in staff intended to bring this back through as an amendment, as a recommended amendment, and they didn't. And that's what I understood the, quote, inadvertently omitted to mean. And we could certainly clarify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think what I'd like -- can we set up a process for architectural amendments to actually stay with that committee? I mean, I don't think it's fair that a committee works two and a half years, does all that work and then some staff -- and to be honest with you, if there was a perfect attendance award, I'd be in the running, so it wasn't like I missed anything. And I never met this Keith guy. So for him to come forward and say hey, you guys forgot to do this, forgot to do this, what he's really doing is saying what he wants, and is that fair? MR. WHITE: Without looking to read too much into what was intended here, I think the answer to the question in terms of what authority and power this commission has certainly as to any LDC amendment that you believe a particular section of the code needs to have a particular process for review and recommendation to you is appropriate to recommend to the staff. And if that is what this body Page 31 '__·......··..,,··v March 16,2005 desires, then arguably that's what the board will sanction and require. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because what I'd like to do, you know, we discussed it, and I know most of the work was done with Irene and she's gone. Carolina came in after we actually thought we were done. Sue, can't you keep that committee and can't Keith call on that committee to help him do these things? I mean, we had a great, you know, interplay between the professionals and your planners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think the answer to that is as Patrick suggested, we need to make that a request or recommendation for staff to consider that as a future policy. MR. WHITE: Now you have two ways you can go from that point of departure: One is that the staff can acquiesce and tell you now that they will honor your individual request, or you can go the more I guess tortured route and make it a motion and go forward in that way with a recommendation. And I don't know where we are in the process, but I think we've always agreed, the county in general, that having the benefit of that input is helpful. Now, I haven't been particularly involved in this particular suggested amendment. I don't know whether in fact it was inadvertently omitted or not. I'm not going to read any intent into it other than arguably to try to make whole regulatory fabric here. But if we want to put it through the filter that you're suggesting and through the committee, that would be lawful to do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So if I understand, Brad, you have two recommendations: one is that this not be adopted, because it wasn't omitted accidentally; and second, that a modified procedure or recommendations with an architectural committee be adopted by staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say, what I'd like to see, the architectural standard amendments be withdrawn and that they be used, the architectural committee, and that all of the things really Page 32 "_..~ ---"~._-".".. __-......_.__w._ March 16, 2005 go through there. I mean, that was a good group. I mean, that was a good system to hash these things out. MS. MURRAY: It was. And I think for -- in the majority of cases where there's substantive changes. But it was my understanding, and I know we aren't there yet, but the next amendment was a clarification of the language, and I would hate to have to pull a whole committee together just to clarify some language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, that you're really going to be wrong. The next one which is the wall plain changes, we invented a system instead of a 20 percent, a really clever system; other counties up the coast are even using it. So we discussed it, we really worked it out, we came up with a better way than the 20 percent, because there's a lot of problems with 20 percent -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. Well, I guess my point is __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then this guy presents it like, you know, we intended the 20 percent, it's a scriveners mistake, and it isn't. MS. MURRAY: Okay, well, I don't want to -- again, I kind of don't want to go down that road, because unfortunately, like I said, I expected Keith to be here and he's not, so I certainly didn't prepare to have a lengthy discussion with you. I'm just kind of -- I'm just relaying what I think I understand what __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Keith was never at any of these meetings, none of them. MS. MURRAY: Well, and Carolina's been working on this, too, so it's not like she's been absent. But what I'd suggest is, you know, kind of a hybrid of that. Because again, it's difficult and time-consuming to pull a committee together and then unfortunately you get into debating other merits of the code that we're not proposing to change and it becomes this very Page 33 "-"--,'- March 16, 2005 consumptive process. And at this point I only have one architect and don't have the other architectural position filled and don't anticipate that for quite a while, due to the difficulty in getting qualified applicants. So I'd hate to strain myself to a process where I think that if there's just minor language changes that needs to cQme through, knowing that this is a public hearing process, and we could certainly go to the point of notifying all the committee members that hey, we're bringing this change forward, that we believe it's a minor modification, if you have comments, feel free to attend the public hearing, or submit them to us in writing, and we'd certainly contemplate it. Maybe we could go from there. If things evolve to bigger issues, we could pull the committee together. But that was my understanding of these. And if I'm incorrect, I'm incorrect. But again, I'm trying to speak for Keith, but he's not here and I don't want to assume what I'm saying is -_ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, Keith wouldn't be any help because Keith wasn't at any of those meetings. He wouldn't know the conversations we had. And I think that the fact that the wall planing, that 20 percent thing he wants to do, that means he doesn't understand the following section, which replaced the 20 percent. MS. MURRAY: Okay. So let me -- rather than commit to pulling anything, let me go back to them and talk with them and see if we can get some clarification and decide what we want to do and then bring that back to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. When we come back on April 20th, let's have a good explanation -- MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- because the way I'm measuring it is in respect to our fellow planning commissioner who went through all those meetings and he feels this strongly, and I wasn't there, but I Page 34 ._--,-_.... ------_.- March 16, 2005 believe he was and has strong feelings, he's probably going to carry the planning committee recommendation on that issue. So-- MS. MURRAY: I understand. And it was a very good committee and very productive, and I was fully supportive of it, you know, throughout the public hearing process. I just don't want to get hamstrung into having to go through a whole committee if we're making minor modifications. Which these mayor may not be. I'm not talking about that, I'm just talking -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're not minor. And I don't think it's fair that staff -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute, Brad, you all are playing tennis with this darn thing. MR. SCHMITT: That's kind of where I want to go, too. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think we've agreed to address it __ MR. SCHMITT: We've agreed to address it. I don't think it's worth debating the issue tonight. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else on this item, or are we ready for the next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item is Section 5.05.09.G, and that's on Page 127. On the top of Page 9, and that's Section 6.06.01.0 right-of-way width cross-sections, which are on Page 129. The next item is appendix E, excess management plan maps, on Page 131. The next item is Section 10.02.02.B, which is submittal requirements for plats on Page 156. The next item is Section 10.02.02.B, subdivision exemptions, Page 156-A. On top of Page 10 of your summary sheet, Section 10.02.04, submission requirements, on Page 157. The next item, Section 10.02.06.H, has been withdrawn. Next item is Section 10.02.06.J, which is cultivate a tree removal Page 35 v,_,_",~..,,"" March 16, 2005 permit, on Page 160. Next item is Section 10.02.07 and 1.08.01, certificate of public facility adequacy, which is on Page 162, A through D. Top of Page 11 of your summary sheet, Section 10.02.13.F, which is PUD monitoring -- PUD reporting procedures, Page 163. Section 10.03.05.B 8, notice and public hearing, Page 166. Section 10.03.05.E, public participation, on Page 168. And that completes the new amendments. How would you like to handle the remaining? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now, are the remaining items those scriveners errors, editorial comments? Would that be correct? MS. MURRAY: That would be correct, yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Then why don't we, unless there's specific items that members of the audience want to address or specific items that planning commissioners want to address, let's read and dispense with those at the April meeting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Pass them over. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Pass them over for tonight, unless there's specific items of concern. Are there any by any planning commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's one where I could go back to playing tennis with, but I'll back off. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And I assume there's no public speakers. You have no speaker slips for -- MS. MURRAY: No speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- registered items. MS. MURRAY: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Then we'll hear that in more detail on April 20th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Patrick, could I ask you a question? MR. WHITE: Absolutely. Page 36 . 0·....··'n~....""'__,..~_~~.. March 16, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the purpose of the double meeting? Is it -- MR. WHITE: The double what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two meetings. Two readings of these ordinances. We do it, the commission does it. MR. WHITE: We, I'm going to guess about two years, went from the notion of having the CCPC have two independent and separate distinct readings or series of meetings, i.e. hearings, on all the Land Development Code amendments. And that was modified to reflect and to give discretion to the commission so that they would be able to have certainly one, which is required, because you need to have the findings with respect to the Growth Management Plan in consistency, but also, for those things that seem to be not the right fit in a particular regulation to give you all the opportunity to require it to come back a second time for a kind of complete independent rehearing. More than that, there's nothing in the statutes that requires it, other than the bare minimum of having this commission make the determination and recommendation as to the findings with the comprehensive plan. That's the bare bones of what the statutes requIre. Our county has, through its board, directed that you guys give it a complete look-over at least once, and if you choose to exercise your discretion to do it twice as to all or some of those proposed amendments, that is your prerogative. What I take from your actions today, is that in this round, there does not appear to be any provision or set of provisions that you believe need a second set of hearings. You may change your mind in April, and if we need to schedule in something else at this point, we would do that at that time. What I think we've tried to do in scheduling the meetings is that staff has attempted to put some redundancy and some elasticity in Page 37 '·'m_.__," March 16, 2005 there so that if we find problems, we can fix them so that we pretty much can guarantee to the board then when we get to June we're going to be done, and we're not going to be asking them to interfere with their summer break. That's the way we've tried to program it, and I think that's the glide path we're on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the reason for two hearings is not that the public can see it in the first hearing and gives them a chance to catch up with something they had a problem with. That's kind of why I thought we always read it twice, but -- MR. WHITE: We are not in fact reading it twice. We're simply having two meetings essentially to hear these things. Sometimes the volume of them is such that you can't do it all in one meeting night. And -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that's a continuation of the first meeting. MR. WHITE: And it can be done in that fashion as well. Here I think we're not so much continuing this one as I believe there are no determinations at all being made today, it's just something that would be an informal review, and when we get to April we will have the actual formal meeting on these matters. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any further questions? Any further business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, we will -- MR. WHITE: Just we'll see you in the morning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll be back here in the morning for our regularly scheduled planning commission meeting. We are adjourned. ***** Page 38 -----~.. March 16, 2005 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6: 12 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 39 -~...."..--_.,~---_.