Loading...
CCPC Minutes 04/27/2005 R April 27, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 27, 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 1 :00 p.m, at the CDES Building, Rooms 609 and 610, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Vice- Chairman: Mark P. Strain Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Kenneth Abernathy Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Russell A. Budd ( absent) Lindy Adelstein ( absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Svc. Susan Murray, Zoning & Land Development Patrick White, Asst. County Attorney Page 1 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This meeting will come to order. This is a continuation of Land Development Code amendment meeting that started last week. Patrick, are there any -- anything I've got to read into the record to make that absolutely perfect? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I have reviewed the affidavit of publication for last week's meeting. There was no quorum, so it was continued until this date, time, and location. And assuming, Mr. Chairman, that before we conclude today the Planning Commission decides to not have a, quote, second hearing, this will be the one and only public hearing on all of the LDC amendments for this cycle, notwithstanding the fact that we have had a multiple number of meetings continued from one to the next. But this meeting was properly advertised, I just want to put that on the record, and it is being taped and will be shown subsequently on the Collier TV channel. And I think that ought to do it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, this is the second hearing on many of these items. We have already met once. MR. WHITE: It is a continued meeting on the first hearing of those items. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. MR. WHITE: And I know we -- MR. SCHMITT: All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Splitting hairs, but I think we're all agreed to have a meeting and be done with it. MR. SCHMITT: All right. Let's have the meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's -- we don't have a flag today, so we'll have to dispense with the pledge of allegiance but we will go forward with roll call. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. Page 2 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Strain is here, Commissioner Bud is absent, Commissioner Adelstein is absent. Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Present and accounted for. With that, I spoke with Joe earlier in possibly going forward with the meeting in a -- more of a question and answer process instead of a presentation process. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, if we -- if it's -- be your pleasure, we'll go through the cover sheets just like we had in the past, and I'll ask Susan and Katherine to go through those. Each one of the spread sheets, we'll go through those, and kind of manage by exception. If you have a question, if you have an issue -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've got one issue about that. If there are any members of the public here who are wanting to speak on a particular item, I would like to move that to the top of the agenda. And then we'll just move through the rest of it after that. Is there anybody here from the public who is here to speak on a specific agenda item, besides the guys running the camera? No? Then we'll just go through the agenda as it's presented. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, Susan Murray, for the record. We've got two consultants here. Perhaps that's your consideration -- we might want to move those items to the front. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a fine suggestion. I have no problem with that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Just let me give you a little preface on how it's set up, in case there's any questions about that. Page 3 April 27, 2005 The first packet, it's divided into three sections. Each section has its own summary sheet. The first section really is comprised of what I would call changes or amendments to regulatory language in the LDC. The second and third sections were additions to text made for clarification purposes, and then amendments that are necessary to correct omissions and incorrect citations in the existing code as a result of the fall 2004 recodification process. If you disagree with some of the wording in those two sections and think they cause a regulatory change, we can certainly discuss that, but that really was only the way they were organized for ease of use and review. With that, then we'll go ahead and start with the first packet. And if you turn to your summary sheet, you'll notice on the left side the LDC sections are all numbered and then the page number is indicated on each section. And the page number is actually that handwritten number which is in the middle of each page thereafter. And if we could, probably the first thing to start with would be page two, I believe. And Stan Litsinger, Marti Chumbler are here and Michelle Mosca. I'm not sure how they want to proceed with these, but I think they're all interrelated. And I believe page two starts that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Miss Murray? MS. MURRAY: Yes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question on the item 1. I notice that in the new document, the chart, strike the word rent is there, but I don't think I received a packet that reflected that change or that document. Maybe Mr. Giblin has a change. MR. GIBLIN: I have -- for the record, Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants Manager. It was recommended at your last meeting that we strike the word rent from the work force housing definition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Page 4 April 27, 2005 MR. GIBLIN: And I have updated replacement copies here available. One other change that has been made to this definition since your last meeting is that work force housing has been restricted to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wait a minute. Aren't we -- didn't you just say we were going to start with items on page two, which is Marti Chumbler, Stan Litsinger's items. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, one precedes two. That's the only reason -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're not skipping anything. They asked if they could have the consultants address their issues first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I apologize. I thought we were just passing. MR. GIBLIN: The only reason I came up was-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I understand. MR. GIBLIN: -- because of Commissioner Murray. MS. MURRAY: And I apologize if I took away your opportunity. Here we go. MS. CHUMBLER: Can you hear me -- all hear me if I stand here and use this table top to put my papers on so -- I don't have the normal podium today. You've just all been handed out some further revisions, and I think probably the easiest would be for me to take you through those. Most of them are very minor, but so that you know what those are. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mrs. Chumbler, before you go too far, procedurally this is responsive to a GMP amendment that's going to be coming forward to us for final adoption probably later this month or the beginning of next month. I understand from past experience that when we make a motion on LDC amendments, we're supposed to make a motion that they're consistent with the Growth Management Plan. If I'm not mistaken, until this is approved and adopted, it's not consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Page 5 April 27, 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How-- MS. CHUMBLER: Your approval is going to be contingent upon approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Let me also tell you that not all of this is in response to that pending Comprehensive Plan. There are also amendments to these LDC's that are responsive to the earlier comp, the last batch of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The glitch -- as we called it, the glitch amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. So these -- this package that I'm going to refer you to includes both LDC amendments responsive to the pending what we call LD -- TDR amendments to the Comprehensive Plan but they also reflect some needed amendments for Comprehensive Plan Amendments that are already in effect. So it's a mixed bag. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: At a recent Planning Commission meeting there was a challenge about some of the Planning Commissioners maybe having their opinions fore thought, let's say, before the issue comes before the panel. Would we be doing the same thing here? It'd be kind of disingenuous to have another hearing on the GMP amendments if we sit here today and adopt them in the form ofLDC amendments. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, in fact, the Comprehensive Plan Amendments have been before you once for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. So in effect they have had your endorsement at one point in the past already. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. They have to go -- MS. CHUMBLER: They do have to be -- they have to be formally approved and adopted. But they have been transmitted through this body to the BCC, and then from the BCC to the Department of Community Affairs. The county has now gotten back the (inaudible) report from the Department of Community Affairs, and they have no criticism of the -- of those Compo Plan Amendments, and Page 6 April 27, 2005 those are now scheduled for adoption in June. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: So the things we're considering today are consistent with the GMP that we sent forward. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But not adopted. MS. CHUMBLER: But have not yet been adopted, that's correct. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Pretty much the -- MS. CHUMBLER: And the plan is that the final adoption of these LDC amendments will not occur until the Comprehensive Plan Amendments are adopted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MS. CHUMBLER: That's all right. That was a good -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would we see what's different in what you handed us today? MS. CHUMBLER: The difference is -- the different language is marked by double underlines or double strike throughs. And what I was going to do, as an initial matter, is sort of go through and show you where those are, if that's how you would like for me to handle it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean I don't -- whatever the whim of the panel is. As far as I'm concerned, what you've handed us today, like the BCC recently did, it should be continued to a day we have time to read it. If the rest of the panel wants to go forward, I'm fine with that. I just will not -- in my understanding of it, I'm still going to refer to what I had time to read. MS. CHUMBLER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Which is what we received prior to that. So how do you-all want to go forward? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They look small, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me then ask a question on the -- on the first item, which would be two decimal oh three decimal oh five. Page 7 April 27, 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then there's a single underscore, then a double underscore. But there's a date, it says rule existed on blank 2005. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. That would be -- the date that would be plugged in there is the date that this regulation would become effective. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that should have been underscored double underscored, right? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, the blank -- and this is my-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: --lack of technical skills on the computer. I simply couldn't make the blank underscore twice, so I apologize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. So then I'm not incorrect about that. Thank you. MS. CHUMBLER: And that -- let me just -- there are a number of changes throughout this that are identical to the change made in that one single item. The intent was -- is that all of the oil and glass -- gas language throughout all of the LDC's should be identical. And so some of -- many of the changes in this package we handed out to you today are for the simple purpose of going back and making sure that that language is identical throughout. And in every instance, we've changed that date because our understanding -- we just found out that -- the first date that was there was a January 2005 date, but we've now been told the Department of Environmental Protection is in the process of doing a whole new revision of the oil and gas regs. And so in order to capture the latest version of the EP oil and gas regulations, we decided that we should capture the last date we could, and that would be the date these regulations become effective. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Why are we doing things this way? This is sort of the regulatory equivalent of a (inaudible) arrangement. We're approving this before the other thing is approved Page 8 April 27 , 2005 and so forth and so on. Why can't we wait until the GMP is adopted? I mean is there some hurry about this? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think the goal was for the LDC's to go into effect when the Compo Plan did so there wasn't a several months lag in the ability to implement these provisions. In particular, the TR revisions. The intent and the desire seem to be that the implementing regulations go into effect at the same time as the comprehensive plan so the program could start working. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Looking back on it, was there a lack of forehandedness somewhere in there that brought this about, or is this an inevitable that we always have to do business this way? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I'm not sure what you're responding to. A lack of foresight in the need for regulation changes or a lack of foresight now? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: How did these things get on top of each other? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there was a period of -- you remember there was a lag time between the implementation of the original TDR regulations and the Compo Plan provisions that first put the TDR program in place. And for that reason, the TDR program didn't get started for some period of time, even though the Compo Plan provisions were -- were there. And so in the Compo Plan, there was a provision that a year after -- or within the first year that the TDR program was implemented, there would be a reexamination of the TDR program to determine whether there should be any adjustments made. And that's why those compo -- that's why the county has come back -- and in fact, there were petitioners that requested changes in the TDR program at the Compo Plan level. But we didn't want to have the same thing we did before, which is a several month lag between the adoption of Compo Plan Amendments and the LDR's that allow that program to get started and Page 9 ."-.-- April 27, 2005 those changes to be wrapped into the program. So that's the intent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the reason we want this to move forward faster is so that the landowners can develop their properties faster? MS. CHUMBLER: So that the TDR program can start -- these adjustments in the TDR program can start work -- determine whether they're going to work or not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if we didn't do this, would this Land Development Code change cycle, what cycle would it go into and how far away is that? MS. CHUMBLER: I'm going to have to defer to Stan on that. MR. LIT SINGER: Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Plan director. It would be -- they would be introduced into the second cycle, which begins in June and concludes in December. So they -- there would be about a six month lag, approximately, in the effective date of these regulations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And haven't we done intermittent cycles periodically over the years, more than two a year? MR. LITSINGER: I believe in one particular year we called it the wheel barrel cycle. We had three LDC cycles. MR. SCHMITT: I had one special cycle this year that was for the sidewalk amendment in addition to the two scheduled cycles. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are we limited to the number of special cycles we can have? MR. SCHMITT: No. It's just a matter of going to the Board and asking the Board of County Commissioners to approve a special cycle. It would be a petition to the Board asking for the Board to approve the scheduling of a special cycle, and then we would proceed with that in -- through the public hearing process. Normally, it would be inclusive in one of the Board meetings. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Marti, would you prefer we just start asking questions as you get to each section, or Page 10 April 27, 2005 how do you want to -- MS. CHUMBLER: It's -- whichever way you would like to handle it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean I've read the material that I've got, and I have questions about each piece of it. Not too many. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Well, if you prefer to do it that way, I can -- as we get to change language, I can point it out to you and if you have other questions about the change language, I can address it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the members here? Okay. Marti, on the old page five of our package, which was-- MS. CHUMBLER: Excuse me, Commissioner. Let me just -- since I don't have table space, I brought limited amount in my hands. Let me get -- MR. SCHMITT: Why don't you come over -- we'll get a chair, come over here and sit down and do it right with you sitting here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, no. We're still going in order. She's got several. We're going to go through hers first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That's what I'm holding. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that's what we're just getting established. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Allright. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're going through the first one, which starts on page four. MS. CHUMBLER: Actually, the first one starts on page two. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, well-- this sheet that we-- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Don't get too far ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, do you want a microphone? Bob and I can share one. Why don't you grab that? MR. WHITE: I got it. Page 11 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have -- MS. CHUMBLER: Now that they've completely rearranged the room for me, are we ready to go? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then, Marti, if we could start then with pages two and three, which is your first section. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any questions from the panel on pages two and three? MS. CHUMBLER: And, again, on page three are -- there are-- in the package that was handed out today, there are -- is some slight wording change in the two provisions related to oil and gas. The most significant being the leaving that date blank so we can make it the latest possible date. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And on page -- is it page four and five next then? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Four, five, six? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Seven, eight, nine, and nine a, if I'm not mistaken. MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I have a question on page five, Marti. THE WITNESS: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it's -- might be pretty simple. You're talking about creating something called a restoration and management plan an RMP. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who is qualified to produce that plan? MS. CHUMBLER: There will be a list of qualified consultants that will be maintained by the Environmental Services Department. Page 12 April 27 , 2005 So you have to be an approved consultant to be able to -- to submit an environmental plan and management plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that since RMP is a new definition in at least this code by the way I've seen on that page, is that defined somewhere else as to who can qualify to submit that? I just want to make sure we don't have anybody coming in with an inappropriate plan or unprofessionally done plan. MR. LITSINGER: The Environmental Service Department is -- we have discussed this issue, and they would maintain a list, which we would publish, similar in this manner that code enforcement maintains a list of qualified contractors to resolve issues in that realm. It was determined that we would not list firms in the LDC because of the inflexibility of adding or dropping firms from the list. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I would agree with that, Stan, but my question is more like when we had landscaping issues, at one point we said a landscape architect had to produce the plans, at another point we say engineers gotta produce the plans, or general contractors. What licensed entity would be an entity capable of producing the restoration and management plan? MS. CHUMBLER: I think part of the problem here is that some of the consultants that would be doing these plans are not licensed currently in the State of Florida. For example, biologists, it's not licensed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they can do this plan? MS. CHUMBLER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're not licensed in the State of Florida to do business, but they can come in the State of Florida and MS. CHUMBLER: They don't -- they may be licensed to do business, but there is not a professional licensure in the State of Florida for biologist at the present time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. So Page 13 April 27, 2005 there is no entity that is professionally licensed to do restoration and management plans. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: It would be difficult to define -- there may be -- for example, there may be some PEls who are very well qualified to do this, but it's difficult to capture all the different professionals that would be -- have the ability to prepare one of these plans by listing licensures because not all of those areas of expertise have a licensure in Florida. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: How do you keep unqualified people from submitting that plan? THE WITNESS: Well, the biggest thing that we've got here that -- that protects against that is it's got to be accepted by the county. Which means the plan that's submitted has got to be reviewed by Environmental Services and determined to be acceptable by the county via Environmental Services. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if they can submit a plan that's accepted, regardless of their qualifications, it's okay to go forward. MR. LIT SINGER: Correct. MS. CHUMBLER: You're going have to judge it on the -- on the face of the plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have on those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean that there are standards involved that -- I mean it would sound like -- let's say someone came with no apparent credentials that are pertinent but had a good general background and was -- had an interest in it and competency. And they submit the plan and that leaves it with an individual or individuals in the county who mayor may not have the same level of competency. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, there are criteria that relate to the Page 14 April 27, 2005 content of the plan that are spelled out here, including cross-reference to criteria that are set out in 3.05.08. And so it's -- the only criteria that we're able to put down, because of this licensure problem, are -- relate to the content of the plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I appreciate -- so it's best efforts is really -- MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what this is going to go forward. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If there's no further questions in those pages, Marti, the next section you have is page 53, is that -- MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. But before we move on, let me just point out to you a couple of pages in this section where there are -- there is some new language. On page -- I believe it's going to be on page seven -- yes, page seven of your version, under F as in Frank, little I, paren A -- actually, it looks like you've got the double -- you do have that language there, so that's not -- not a new change for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If the original packet or the second packet we had does have double lines, that means then it's -- MS. CHUMBLER: I think that's different. It shows that-- because you-all saw these regulations once on a very preliminary basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. CHUMBLER: So there's some double underlining that indicates language that's new to you at this meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: It wasn't before you at the earlier meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we reviewed double lines for this meeting, and so that means we've got the most up-to-date. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Well, no. As of this morning you Page 15 April 27, 2005 have, because there is some -- in fact, the next one I'm going to point out to you is language that was not in your notebook. And it's language that appears at -- on the next page, at eight, under paren A. Right now you have paren A, there is a new little Roman Numeral VI that's -- it starts with the -- let's see how to refer you there. It's under the county maintains central TDR registry, little Roman Numeral I, on page 8. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Our pages aren't numbered. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. That complicates it a little bit. MS. CHUMBLER: This is not in your notebook? MR. LIT SINGER: The old version. MS. CHUMBLER: Oh, the old version. I'm sorry. I'm referring you -- I'm cross-referencing you to the old version for the page numbers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In order to get us to -- MS. CHUMBLER: In order to get you there. So if you look at page eight of your old version -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, actually, it's got to be page -- the circled number pages. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. Page eight. You're at the wrong section. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, all right. On page 53 and 54 so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The arts and crafts part of this job is -- MR. SCHMITT: Get back to page -- MS. CHUMBLER: As many times as I've appeared before this group and -- I think I have page number problems every single time, so it's probably me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's really difficult for this Board to read something ahead of time for a meeting and be handed a package of 25 pages and say will you read this? We can't do it. ,"-- Page 16 April 27 , 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: Right. We understand that and -- and this was provided just as an effort to give you -- because we do catch things at the last minute, and that's what we -- so we try to get it in front of you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we'll expect an increase in pay. MS. CHUMBLER: The language I want to point out to you appears under that little Roman Numeral ii. There is going to be a new paren A and then paren Roman V1. In the new language, it begins documented evidence that. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: It's here somewhere. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So that whole paragraph is new? MS. CHUMBLER: That whole paragraph is new. And this arose out of a concern that someone who makes the -- who severs TDR's from their property needs to document -- if there's a mortgage or some other lien on that property, they need to document that they've gotten the consent from the lien holder before they do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we -- how do we -- what is the vehicle by which we make certain that the mortgagee or lien holder consents to that? MS. CHUMBLER: There -- we've asked for documentation of that. And we note that the water management districts have a form called a -- a release -- or a consent of lien holder or consent of mortgagee. So the person would have to provide us something similar to that document that's been signed and sealed by someone representing the lien holder to document that in fact that consent's been obtained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. WHITE: And, Commissioners, we routinely use just the same type of document for platting purposes to ensure that the mortgagee has knowledge and has given consent or joinder to the Page 1 7 April 27, 2005 action that's intended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. White. Can we move onto page 53 now? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, we can. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Next section is page 53 in our original book, and it goes to page 63 A, if I'm not mistaken. MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Now, Marti, there's been a lot of changes there. I've got four questions in that section. If the panel doesn't mind, I'll just start asking mine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The first one is under three, your allowable uses. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. On Page 54? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There has been -- page 54, item three. There has been TDR credits required for golf courses, one per five acres. Now we're saying that not only does that entitle the golf course, but also one unit with a golf course; is that right? MS. CHUMBLER: That's -- it could also be used to entitle residential density, as well as golf course acreage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it entitles both. This is proposed to say that it's both dual functions now. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. And that -- after discussing what the original intent of this -- the Comprehensive Plan language on this was, it was determined that that was the intent all along, but it was just unclear. So this is intended as clarification language. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. My next question is on page 58. On this one -- and I remember part of this from the GMP amendments. Buffers got reduced from 500 to 300 feet, but the open space -- and I don't remember this from the GMP amendments, maybe can you refresh my memory on that one. The open space requirement ,--~ Page 18 April 27 , 2005 went from 70 percent to 40 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that a separate issue, or is that still-- is that part of the GMP amendment? Middle of page 58. MS. CHUMBLER: This is a Compo Plan Amendment. This is a result of compo planned -- pending Compo Planned Amendments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So we not only reduced the buffer in the Compo Plan, but reduced almost in half the open space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The open space. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was the rationale? MS. CHUMBLER: The -- this came out of the work -- this is part of the private petition that was filed; is that correct, Stan? Private petition that was filed for Compo Plan Amendments that were then approved by or transmitted by the BCC and will now be back to the BCC for -- to you again and also to the BCC for consideration and adoption. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 59 there's a series of elements under conditional uses that are blank. MS. CHUMBLER: Yeah. And if you'll look at the new language, we've now filled in those blanks. Under three, conditional uses, we've maintained the two story building height limitation. The buffer that's been plugged in there is a ten-foot wide landscape buffer with tree space no more than 30 feet on center, setbacks are 50 percent of the height of the building but not less than 15 feet, and then we've deleted the category other. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted -- a question on that max height. I know that two stories is only single over the line, but we have -- two stories is -- truth in advertising thing, two stories is from FEMA, regardless -- even though this is a residential? Two stories doesn't equate to a height, I guess I should put it that way. MR. SCHMITT: It -- well, to answer your question -- question Page 19 April 27, 2005 correct, it does not relate to a height because the height certainly is dependent on the stories. But your first habitable floor is at FEMA elevation or above and the stories would have to be at FEMA elevation or above. I mean that's basically the way you would measure it. But we're not measuring -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's the way we've chosen to go from now on? MR. SCHMITT: In the rule -- the rule land stewardship or the rule stewardship overlay with stories, that's the way it is throughout the LDC. It has nothing to do with dimensional height. It is by stories. And that issue was debated quite extensively during the last series of LDC hearings that adopted those implementing that (inaudible) guidance. I could turn to Stan or -- we pretty much -- we went with stories, if I recall. MR. LITSINGER: The decision on stories had to do with in our decision that we needed to provide multifamilies conditional use in neutral lands is where this would apply. Keeping in mind that maximum density one unit per five acres, and the Compo Plan calls for maintaining a rural character. And quite frankly, we have had the question mark out there for some time within -- among staff and the various stakeholders relative to what standards are we going to use. Fairly early, it was determined that in keeping with the rule character, we wanted to stay at two stories, half of that converted to building height with all the FEMA standards and so forth and move on from there. Not arguing what the probability of large scale multifamily development in neutral lands would be due to the density requirements. COMMISSIONER CARON: Stan, as you mentioned, the whole point is to have a rural character. And so to that end, so far what I've seen, in creating a rural character, is we are taking away green space. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we are -- these buffers and Page 20 April 27, 2005 setbacks are no better than what they have -- we have in the urban area. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, keep in mind that the only way you can have multifamily and the density in neutral area is one unit per five acres. So the only way to have multifamily is to do significant clustering. I suspect you're going to have very little multifamily development in neutral anyway. You'd have to have a very large piece of property for multifamily to be very practical. I mean there's -- there's almost a built in green space there because you've got to have clustered development before you can ever have any multifamily. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I believe that wraps up that section, unless there's any more questions from the panel. Otherwise, Marti, your next section is page 64, if I'm not mistaken. 20502. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have any questions on 64 or page 65. Does anybody else on the panel? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the next section, Marti? MS. CHUMBLER: The next section I've got is way over at 107. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 107? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Starts on 107 and goes through 125. And I have a few questions. MS. CHUMBLER: Just a second. I want to double-check one thing. Actually, Commissioner Strain, I misspoke. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 101. MS. CHUMBLER: It's 10l. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's 10l. MS. CHUMBLER: Correct, it's 101. But let me just say the Page 21 April 27, 2005 reason I was a little confused is if you look at 101 and 107, there's some overlap. 101 purports to be changes to all of 4.08.00 through the entirety of that whole section, that whole division, and yet then 107 picks up with 4.08.05. So one of the changes we gave you today, we're sort of merging both of those two pieces into one. So what you now will take to the BCC will in fact be a single revision request that does in fact incorporate all of 4.08.00 through the end of that subsection or division, I'm not sure what -- how you title it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're starting on page 101, the first section will be through 106. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Marti, I've got two, three questions. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Top of page 104, small letter c. First of all, grammatical, located should be locating. But there -- MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. I see. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA and the sites of any sites that may be dedicated or otherwise made available for a public education facility. Is the word potential in this case a requirement or an option? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I think the thought is that there be-- because this is all what information needs to be provided that -- in the description, in the narrative -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. CHUMBLER: -- here, you would describe whether the site is in fact one that's potentially usable for a public educational facility. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then determining factor there is if they're required based on the size, whatever it is that they're Page 22 April 27, 2005 creating to have an educational facility within it? MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Under item M, the BCC may -- and it says as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require the suitable areas for parks, schools, and other public facilities be set aside. After the word schools could the -- could we insert the word hurricane shelters? Because SRA's are quite a ways inland, and it sure would be advantageous to at least put that thought in the BCC's process as they look at these. And enter it more prominent than just not even mention at all. If that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, that's a wonderful idea. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, that makes sense. MS. CHUMBLER: How close -- I think the one thing we need -- yeah. The one thing we need to check -- I'm thinking -- I don't have the Compo Plan with me, but I think this list came out of the Compo Plan. And there may -- there's probably a problem. Unless it says and other facilities, we may have some problems expanding that list beyond what's allowed in the Compo Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Has it been adopted yet? MS. CHUMBLER: We'll look at that. This -- this has. These are not part of -- these are caused by Compo Plan Amendments that are already adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if it does include and other facilities, you could then make a stipulation -- MS. CHUMBLER: You could add it. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: It says it right there, other public facilities. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Well, but, again, we need to look at the Compo Plan language to make sure that it's -- we're not expanding it beyond what the Compo Plan does. If the Compo Plan allows for-- Page 23 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Compo Plan (inaudible). MS. CHUMBLER: It should. If the Compo Plan allows for it, then certainly you can specify it in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's just a suggestion. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A great suggestion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 105, item E 2. Previously required that -- in your 40 percent needed vegetation, first priority shall be given to preserving the habitat of such listed -- of listed species. Now that language is taken out, and it just says a minimum of 40 percent native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for incidental purposes. Does that mean that the preservation of habitat of the listed species does not take a priority in consideration of this? MS. CHUMBLER: Actually, I believe that's language that now is -- let's see. It's -- the language -- and this is part of the package that we just gave you. Let me make sure I'm giving you the right page. The way that we have proposed that entire section read now would be if listed species are directly observed on site of a project or indicated by evidence, such as denning, forging, or other indications, a minimum of 40 percent of native vegetation on site shall be retained, with the exception of clearing for incidental purposes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's-- MS. CHUMBLER: So we've added some new language. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, no. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, that's what's there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what's there. MS. CHUMBLER: So the intent is only -- the minimum 40 percent is intended -- only intended to kick in if there's evidence of listed species on the site. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. But the prior language Page 24 April 27, 2005 said if there -- if that happens, then the priority should be given to the habitat of those listed species. The way this would seem to read is if you've discovered those listed species and you want to preserve 40 percent of anything on the site because you have listed species on it, not necessarily their habitat's going to be preserved. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. Part of the problem was there was a -- and I don't know if you remember in the Compo Plan there was some Compo Plan language that had to be cleaned up last time around where we -- we had stated two priorities. Wetlands as a first priority in one place and listed species habitat as a first priority someplace else. And the decision -- and these are Compo Plan Amendments that have already been adopted -- was that in fact, wetland should receive the first priority. And so, in fact, the decision was that listed species habitat doesn't get first priority, wetlands does. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But this -- so is there some way we could indicate that in this paragraph? MS. CHUMBLER: I think it is other places, but if we want to clarify it there -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what if you don't have wetlands, but the listed species is an upland habitat that you're concerned about? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then they're gone. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then they're gone. I mean they don't have any preservation requirement, other than 40 percent somewhere on the site. MS. CHUMBLER: I'm sorry, do you mind, I missed the -- the-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Your focus was on wetlands. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. What if you read paragraph two and there are no wetlands on site, but the habitat is uplands, how do you get that uplands habitat first priority for Page 25 April 27, 2005 preservation? MS. CHUMBLER: So you would like to see this changed to make sure that there at least be a priority given, whether it be first or second, regardless -- depending upon whether there's wetlands also there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Inaudible) or two. MS. CHUMBLER: (Inaudible) habitat. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that was the intent, I think you just said, you-all interpreted the GMP amendment to really mean. So -- MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifwe go further down on H1, the native preservation requirement, you're looking at a -- having a wetland functionality assessment score. It used to be .65 now it's .7. Now, paragraph under A, it also refers to .7, but if you if you go up to the next page, on the top you got wrap scores referring to .65. Is there a definitional difference between the two? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, there is. There are two different wetlands methodologies. The one that's now in place with the water management districts is the one that's referred to in A, and the 0.7, using that analysis, is comparable to the 0.65 under the old wrap sconng. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had on that section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marti -- and I again am having trouble with the arts and crafts part of this. You added quite a bit of language to this in the handout, correct? I couldn't even follow what Mark was doing because, for example, 4085 is new. MS. CHUMBLER: Well, no. Four -- what's happened is four-- the old 4085 was really -- it was a very short provision that basically just said, you know, if you have not yet entered into designation as an Page 26 April 27, 2005 SSA or an SRA, then you'll follow the requirements in 4.08.08. And so what was decided the best thing to do -- and then 4.08.08 stated what those base line standards are. So we've just picked up the entirety of 4.08.08 and moved it over and put it at 4.08.05. If you look at your original package you see there's a -- very many pages, starting at page one -- 11 7. Look at 11 7 of your notebook. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Of the old notebook? MS. CHUMBLER: Of the old notebook. And you'll see that all of 4.08.08 has been deleted. And it's not -- we're not changing -- I mean we're not deleting that language. We're really just moving it to 4.08.05. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which was not done in the last submission then. You caught up with that on this -- MS. CHUMBLER: Well, it was done here, but what was not done was it was also another section that changed 4.08.08 without recognizing that that now has been deleted and moved to 4.08.05, and there was also some slight wording change to that. So the new package given you today both reflects the fact that we've moved that whole section over to 05 and it's also incorporated the slight wording change that was in the package starting at 101. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there anything further on those pages, gentleman and ladies? I keep forgetting. If not, let's move on to 107. That is the larger section, takes us through page 125. My first question on that, Marti, is on page 114 of our original packet, item L, it's talking about applicable standards in the FSASHSAS and WRAS, refers to chapters three, four, and ten. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It has an effective date of July 25th, 2000. On the -- first of all, chapters three, four and ten of what document? Page 27 - April 27, 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: Of the -- of this -- of the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Land Development? MS. CHUMBLER: Land Development Code, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Effective July 25th, 2000. The prior cross out for that same paragraph had an effective date in November of'99. Do you know why? I'm sure you had a reason for taking November '99 out and putting -- cover-up the mike. MS. CHUMBLER: We'll check that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. CHUMBLER: I think the intent was that it be the effective date of those regulations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On the next page -- MS. CHUMBLER: My suspicion is that someone picked up that there was a change in those regulations as of that date. In fact, Patrick, is that the date of the recodification, or what -- do you know the significance of that date? MR. WHITE: That's too early to be the recodification date. It may have been the date of some GMP changes or LDC changes, but we can figure it out fairly quickly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just thought I'd check it and be consistent, that's all I was trying to do. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 115, under item four, on the top, revegetation and landscaping of cleared areas shall be accomplished with predominantly native species. How definitive is the word predominantly? MS. CHUMBLER: That would mean the majority has to be, so 51 percent, 50.5 percent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could we use a numeric? I mean it would be less -- might be less argument that way. MS. CHUMBLER: You would like to see it say something like at least 50 percent or greater than 50 percent? Page 28 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't like flexible words, so whatever -- whatever predominantly means in the eyes of the beholder, I guess, in just regarding the intent of this paragraph, I would rather -- if the Board doesn't object, I would rather see us putting a percentage in there so we know factually what it's got to be as a mInImum. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. Greater than 50 percent? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If that's what predominantly means. I don't-- MS. CHUMBLER: I'm just making sure before I-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you-all have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's fine by me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Then on item seven, on the bottom, the last line, it refers to buffers is required adjacent to a natural water body. MS. CHUMBLER: I'm sorry, could you tell me the page number again? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 115. MR. WHITE: 115. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Item seven, on the bottom. Now natural water body is not bolded, which means it's not a defined term. So what's a natural water body? MS. CHUMBLER: One that's not manmade. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. How far back in time may we have to go to prove that? I mean is there another way to define it, a definition? MS. CHUMBLER: Well, one way of handling that would be to create a definition, and that might be the best way to do it, is to create a definition for natural water body. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I just think it needs to be clarified. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one. Page 29 April 27 , 2005 Patrick, you like definitions. MR. WHITE: In fact, I know there are other jurisdictions that have some fairly clear lines between them as to the distinction between manmade and naturally occurring. Typically it resulted in a review of fairly ancient photography, aerial photography probably from the '40's anywhere forward. So-- MS. CHUMBLER: The proposal was do we add a definition to the definition sections of natural water body. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just think it needs to be clarified so you don't have a dispute later on. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Top of page 116, the very last-- second to the last sentence of that top paragraph, it says a structural buffer shall be required adjacent to wetlands where direct impacts are allows. Does that mean allowed? The S is the only thing, I think you need to put in allowed there. MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The buffer -- item C, the buffer shall be maintained free of category one exotics. Further on, there will be a list -- I'm just pointing this out because we'll have to come back to it -- a list of exotics. I'll have to ask at that time if they're all category one, it will probably dovetail back to this. I'm only pointing that out because later on I need to bring it up. So it's nothing you can answer right now. MS. CHUMBLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Gentlemen and ladies, that's all the questions I have on that section. Anybody else have any comments on that section? Ifnot, we'll move on. Marti, do you have any others on this -- MS. CHUMBLER: That's all I have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to do is I'm going to read off the sections we've just gone through and entertain a Page 30 April 27, 2005 motion. That way -- I have circled them, so maybe it would be simpler if I read them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be clear on something. The sections you're going to read off are contained in here. They've been modified, but they're contained in here; is that correct? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's something the Board needs to discuss. We've discussed about five or six sections. We were handed a new handout today. I didn't have time to review it. We might want to continue those elements to another date, or we can vote on them today, if you-all feel that you want to vote on them today. MS. CHUMBLER: And I think every -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you know which one you want to vote on. MS. CHUMBLER: Every one of the ones that I -- that are in -- that are changes here, we've talked about. The only one that I didn't specifically point out by page, because it appears many times, is the oil and gas language, which is changed uniformly throughout all of the provIsIons. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I am comfortable with Marti's explanation as to why the handout was created today. My whole problem with this whole thing is it's premature, and I see no need to rushing into helping this county fill in faster. So I'd just as soon -- and my thought is I'd wait until the GMP's get done and the proper procedures get taken care of and we take it in order. So I was going to decline or vote to deny this anyway, but the rest of you obviously have -- may have different opinions. MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner Strain, could I just if -- just for everyone's edification, make sure that you understand. The changes -- all of the changes in 2.03.05 have nothing to do with the pending Compo Plan changes. Those are required by already made and adopted and effective Compo Plan changes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that the only one? Page 31 April 27, 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: The changes in 2.07 -- 03.07 are driven by the pending Compo Plan changes. Some, but not all of the changes in 2.03.08, are driven by the pending Compo Plan changes. And I believe everything in 4.08 -- in fact, I know everything in 4.08.00, that whole section is as a result of already adopted comprehensive plan changes. So you may want to treat those two differently because they are not, in fact, affected by the pending Compo Plan changes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about 4.08.05? MS. CHUMBLER: I include all of 4.08 in that last statement. MR. WHITE: And just for the record, Commissioners, there's-- it's my opinion that if you were to move forward with an adoption and finding of consistency contingent upon the subsequent GPM adoption prior to the LDC approval by the BCC, that that would be legal and lawful to do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You mean the GMP approval? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. CHUMBLER: In fact, it's done fairly routinely across the state by other jurisdictions. Obviously it's your discretion. MR. WHITE: Correspondingly, since it's really not a legal issue, it's one that's more a question of policy. MS. CHUMBLER: Right. MR. WHITE: And certainly you're free to make that recommendation. I think the thing that we'd ask you to do, if you're contemplating making that policy recommendation, is to still to make the appropriate findings of consistency or not with the proposed amendments and the existing amend -- existing to the GMP. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Basically, I would suggest to the panel we look at this in two sections, two steps. Sections 2.03.05, section 4.08.00, and 4.08.05 are all elements derived from not -- not impacted by the GMP amendment that has yet to be adopted. MS. CHUMBLER: It's actually, all of 4.08. Page 32 -,~-".>..,,,.> --.~~. April 27, 2005 MR. WHITE: And all of it's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All of 4.08 -- MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and 2.03.05 are not affected by the pending GMP element. MS. CHUMBLER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Those are the only ones of the group we just talked about. MS. CHUMBLER: That's the only ones that you can say that uniformly. Some of the others are kind of a mixed bag. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Based on the discussion and comments we've made, I have no problem with seeing that through myself. So with that being said, is there a motion from the panel for those two sections? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor for recommendation of approval and finding of consistency with the future -- no, consistency with the current GMP -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The current GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Read the section again. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Section 2.03.05 and sections 4.08.00. MR. WHITE: All of the sub subsections of 4.08, that would be 00 through OX. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The entire section? MR. WHITE: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion made, seconded. All those in favor? Aye. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 33 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody opposed? The next sections that we've gone over are section 2.03.07, 2.03.08, 2.05.02. And I think that's it, isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we discuss some of the changes in there? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, I'm still not sure why the green belt was reduced. It's a year later, what happened in that year that made us want to reduce the green bells? Because we wrote this code, what, about a year ago? MS. CHUMBLER: Actually, those provisions are in the Compo Plan. So it's not just the code, it's -- those were Compo Plan provIsIons. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they being amended in the Compo Plan? MS. CHUMBLER: Yes, they are. They're proposed to be amended in the Compo Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Proposed to be. MS. CHUMBLER: Proposed to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They were amendments not brought by staff but by private interests; is that right? MS. CHUMBLER: Right. MR. WHITE: As Marti, noted, they have been transmitted, reviewed, and are anticipated for adoption by the Board in early June, prior to these LDC amendments being considered. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Passed by us in the process. MR. WHITE: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not unanimously, though. MR. WHITE: I can't recall the vote. Page 34 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I do. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it seems to me we've wordsmithed these things and we've expressed our opinions as to the philosophy behind them. It would seem to me we could not err too much by finding them in a -- in accordance with the Perspective Growth Management Plan and forward them to the BCC, if we can get Marti to agree to tell the BCC that we don't like doing business this way, but it's theirs and they can either put them aside or pass them. So MS. CHUMBLER: Well, I will have to have a stand in that day since I will be in Missouri, but I will certainly make sure that someone makes that statement. MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Stan, but they will see the Compo Plan Amendments on May 19th -- MS. CHUMBLER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- for adoption, and they are scheduled for a special hearing by the Board of County Commissioners June 7th. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Abernathy, that's -- I understand you're making a motion? COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? MR. WHITE: I'd merely note that as a matter of process and timing, whatever the substance of the motion is would arguably be something that you could directly communicate in the form of your GMP recommendations for the June 7th consideration by the BCC, if you so chose. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask the motion maker to repeat the motion so I could be clear, please. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: The motion is to forward these -- the second category of LDC amendments to the BCC, finding them consistent with the GMP to be, as we've previously passed on it, Page 35 April 27 , 2005 and noting that we do not think this is the best way to do business, but that it's expedient and if they agree that it shouldn't be done this way, then they can stop the process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. MR. SCHMITT: Just for understanding, the two hearings before the Board of County Commissioners for the final adoption or final approval of this LDC cycle, first hearing is May 11 th, second hearing is June 8th. So that would be the day after the -- the adoption of the LD -- of the GMP amendment. So their final approval will be actually after the approval of the GMP amendment. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Just doesn't seem to me that any useful purpose -- there's a -- a practical purpose is served by putting these things aside when we can anticipate, after all is said and done, we're going to approve them, so that's the basis of my motion. MR. SCHMITT: If it's the panel's wish, I mean that's the motion, we -- I just left it just accordingly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We haven't finished. Commissioner Murray seconded, is there any discussions amongst the panel? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion fails, four to two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's go to another. Can we have another motion? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Certainly. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't have one. Page 36 April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, my motion -- anybody else have a motion? Do you have -- my motion is to recommend -- not recommend approval of section 2.03.07, 2.03.08, 2.05.02 as being inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan in place today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming at some point, if this motion passes, there will be a subsequent motion where you will make a determination with respect to the consistency or not of the proposed GMP amendments that have been transmitted and are proposed for adoption on June 7th, so we actually have something in the record from this panel in the recommendation with regards to that aspect. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You do have a recommendation in regards to the GMP's from our very first meeting of those. The second meeting of those GMP's in front of us is probably due here fairly shortly. MR. SCHMITT: May 19th. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And when we have that package in front of us, can review it again, along with any comments or results from the DCA, we could make a finding at that time. MR. WHITE: I'd say that that would be helpful. And you could make a motion today contingent upon your action then, but to do it the other way, I'd have a procedural concern that that -- that meeting would not have been advertised with the purposes of conducting business with respect to the LDC amendment cycle. I know that's getting those few hairs on my head split even further to take liberty with Mr. Schmitt's comment earlier, but I think you're fine to go forward with what you want to do here, as long as you're going to give us some indication in a contingent fashion about the proposed amendments. You can always -- you can always make it contingent upon you subsequently adopting or approving, Page 37 April 27, 2005 recommending for approval the proposed amendments coming back for adoption that are going to go to the Board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So what you're saying is anytime we make a motion on an LDC amendment that we find inconsistent with the GMP, we have to caveat that with another possible GMP resolution coming down the pike at sometime? MR. WHITE: Well, assuming there's regulations that are being considered, yes. You're trying to say that they're inconsistent because they're not consistent with the present GMP. That begs the questions and leaves absent from your recommendation at any point something that talks about how you would find them consistent or not with the proposed GMP, which is truly the reason why the regulations, in part, that part of the mixed bag, are here before you today. So I believe it would be incumbent upon you to make at least some recommendation. Even if there's not a -- I guess a second for a motion or a vote in favor, at least there was some attempt made. That's all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm a little puzzled. Maybe you can, Brad, sort it out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern was what if we made a change to the GMP, when we do here for the second time, and that change prevails with the commission and it would be contrary to what we voted on today. MR. WHITE: I think that you could craft a motion today that whatever it is that might be changed as to the GMP would have to be, when you considered it at the GMP phase, recognized as a corresponding amendment to these provisions, that the Board itself on June 8th could then take into consideration both your recommendation and the actual text change to the LDC and fit it to the GMP as changed, along with your recommendation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, as the one member who did not recommend approval of the last GMP amendments, I can't sit here Page 38 . .-'~-.--"'--._. ,__,_~k April 27, 2005 today and tell you that I would still go along with these if the GMP was changed at that time because I don't know what the changes would be because I don't know what -- I can't remember what the language was that we discussed two months ago, Patrick. MR. WHITE: I understand your concern, Commissioner, and I -- I fully understand you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean I'd have to go back and pull those GMP's, reread them, understand the issues then in order to complete the program that you're asking. MR. WHITE: My expectation is that you could do that in the form of an approval today, contingent upon you taking that course of action prior to you considering -- this panel considering the GMP proposed amendments. And at that point in time, make any adjustments that you feel may be necessary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if this becomes consistent with the GMP it wouldn't be a problem. We could vote on it, whether we -- and then make the motion that it would be consistent. The problem is it isn't today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I -- MR. WHITE: The problem is that you'd be attempting to do something procedurally that the scope of that hearing wouldn't allow you to do, unless you had created effectively, I guess, a mechanism for doing it today. MS. CHUMBLER: Commissioner, let me make a suggestion. I think what we need here is some determination. First, the vote. There's a pending motion obviously that there needs to be a vote on, but then we need a motion subsequent to that and some sort of vote on whether or not this body finds these proposed regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan changes as transmitted by the Board of County Commission. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can I have -- I haven't seen those, so how do I -- Page 39 .'~~._.- April 27, 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: Yes you have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We've seen what we transmitted to the BCC many times. Most of the time what ends up going out of the BCC does not necessarily mimic ours in a word for word basis. So I have not seen the BCC's transmittal to this day, so I have no way of understanding how to answer your question or pose a better solution. MR. WHITE: Well, procedurally, the only way to resolve it is-- is to arguably create a conditional or contingent approval, recommendation of consistency today, subject to any inconsistencies with the prior transmittal and changed by the Board, or new changes that may be desired and allow those to effectively go back and amend any of the LDC text that would have to change correspondingly. That's procedurally the only way through the can of worms. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to -- this labyrinth that we're in is very interesting. I heard the word contingent. I was fine with contingent, but I think you added a contingency to the contingency or you amplified the contingency. MR. WHITE: That was to address Commissioner Strains' -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- additional concern about the difference between the CCP review transmittal and the Board approved transmittal to the DCA. MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a suggestion? Rather than going through the legal gymnastics -- and my apologies to the county attorney, I didn't mean that to be offensive. But why not just continue these three items, I'll reschedule the three items, you can continue at this hearing, and if need be they'll have to be continued with the Board of County Commissioners and be dealt with at a subsequent or following LDC hearing. MR. WHITE: Is there a point in time between your GMP consideration I believe you said on the 19th and the Board consideration on the 7th of June? Page 40 April 27, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: The Board hears -- MR. WHITE: My point is, is there a point in time for the CCPC to meet between those two dates to do what it is you're suggesting. MS . MURRAY: Why could they not meet on the same day, the 19th? MR. WHITE: As long as it was prior to on the same day. I'm sorry. I understand what you're saying better now. Later in the day, yes, certainly that would be possible. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The purpose here would be to get us a copy of what was transmitted by the BCC, the results from the DCA, if any, and then we can evaluate those against these procedures to know if the upcoming GMP's, if passed as you presented them, would be consistent with the Land Development Code changes. MR. SCHMITT: Proposal would be I'm going to have to delay the May 11th hearing of these items. The Board may see them the first time, but we'll advise them that your vote has been delayed. We can do it on May 19th, after you -- you see, review, approve or disapprove or whatever the GMP amendments, we can deal with these three LDC amendments on the 19th, before and prior to the Board June 8th meeting. MR. WHITE: Seventh and 8th meetings. MR. SCHMITT: Seven and eight. Seven is the GMP hearings, the 8th is the LDC hearings. MR. WHITE: Right. And in fact, Commissioners, notwithstanding the absence of any recommendation or finding of consistency or not, with either transmitted or proposed rules, the Board can in May hear these LDC amendments for the first time and that meets the test. So that in June, their second consideration with all of those findings and recommendations would be a -- an appropriate and lawful final adoption, if that's what the Board desired to do then. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Schmitt's suggestion is a good one. Page 41 April 27, 2005 MR. WHITE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I withdraw my motion. Do you withdraw your second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Motion has been withdraw, second has been withdrawn. MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, I -- could I ask the Board to make a motion to continue those three LDC hearings then? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make that motion. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: To what date? MR. SCHMITT: Until the May 19th Planning Commission. I'm just discussing with Susan we're certainly going to have to work -- look at the workload of that meeting because you know how contentious the issues were during the entire GMP cycle. That was almost a four hour Board of County Commissioner hearing just for those GMP amendments. I would expect no more -- no less than four hours for all those GMP amendments and then to include this -- because there are other GMP issues that were dealt with that I'm sure are going to be -- shall I say, have the interest of the community, some of the other GMP amendments that you're going to be dealing with. This -- this issue was one, and of course there was another one with development along 951. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: (Inaudible). MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: So we do the-- MR. SCHMITT: So you do the GMP amendments -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: -- adoptions first. MR. SCHMITT: Do the adoptions first, then we deal with the LD -- these three LDC amendments immediately following your review, approval, disapproval or whatever in regards to those GMP amendments -- I mean Marti's going to be here anyway, I believe, or somebody will be here -- Page 42 -, April 27 , 2005 MS. CHUMBLER: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: -- on the 19th, and pretty much that will be the -- devoted pretty much the day, the 19th, to these issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I made the motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Motion had been made and seconded to continue those three items to May 19th. All those in favor? Aye. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I need a break. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Are you finished? MS. CHUMBLER: I am. MR. SCHMITT: But you did vote on 2.3035. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. We voted on three and we continued three. MS. CHUMBLER: You voted on two. Well, there's three in the package. You're correct, you're correct. Two are included in 4.08. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's keep going. And just so the panel knows, I have to leave at quarter to 3 :00, seeing that we have a quorum, so that -- there will be five of you remaining and Commissioner Abernathy can run the meeting after I'm gone. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have to leave at 4:30. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hopefully you'll be done by then. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, the next item would be on page 125, A through G. That would be the well facilities. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: What was the number again, Page 43 April 27, 2005 Susan? MS. MURRAY: Page 125, A through G. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're giving us more paperwork, too. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just for your reference during the presentation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, again, let's go back to where we started. We don't need a presentation unless any board member wants it. MR. SCHMITT: We don't need a presentation. MS. MURRAY: I don't think they were here at the beginning. So if you -- I think if anybody has questions, any of the Board members have questions, Bruce and Karen, they would -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'd like to expedite this process. We can all read, we've all read our packages. Simply like to ask you questions and be done with it. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Unless somebody here wants it. MR. WHITE: I just encourage you to each accept them and review them at your -- at your leisure. That way at least we can indicate that they were part of the record, although unreviewed at the hearing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, with that, then let's open the floor to questions. Starting on page 125 A going through page 125 F. It's a well field, and there was a handout last week updating these a little bit. MR. TYSON: For the record, I'm Bruce Tyson with Wilson, Miller, and I've been assisting the public utilities people in establishing this zoning change. The only change that you have is on page six. And I have underlined it in the fifth line down where we had ten-foot heights to the walls, that has been lowered to eight-foot. That's the only change Page 44 April 27, 2005 that you have here today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Tyson, I read your original package and then when you handed me a new one last week, I had time and I read that. So I have marked up the package you handed out last week, and I'm sure that's going to make it harder for the Board to follow. But based on that package, I had a couple of questions. On page three of that package, in the first paragraph, you talk about directing or constructing a well house around the raw water well on a minimum area required to do so within a specified parcel, tract, or easement shall not require perimeter buffers. I'm just wondering why you don't think perimeter buffers would be needed around a well house or well -- let me explain to you why the question came up is because it was a week or so ago there was a request to the Planning Commission for a well site just south of Immokalee Road, and it was on the back side of an estates lot. And I'm wondering now how would this apply to that well site? MR. TYSON: All right. When -- when you were talking about perimeter buffering, we're talking about the perimeter of a property, not the perimeter of the well house itself. So what we have is we have special requirements for placing buffers and landscaping around the well houses and around the fences that enclose wells but not around the complete perimeter of the property. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that makes sense. How about your -- you have an exception for certain appurtenant equipment that would not be enclosed with a buffer; is that correct? MR. TYSON: The only piece of a pertinent equipment when you are -- well, first of all, we have well houses that do have appurtenant equipment that are outside. And that's mandated pretty much by either the type of equipment that it is. An antenna, for instance, or a fuel storage tank, which needs to be outside of the building. So that appurtenant equipment must be outside of the Page 45 ""-,--._--~ April 27 , 2005 facility. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Then on one of your other pages you have fence heights may be up to eight feet and wall heights up to ten feet. MR. TYSON: And that wall height has been reduced now to eight feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, right. The may bothers me. What -- because may has been a word that sometimes is not mandatory. It's not mandatory. It's not sometimes, it just isn't mandatory. At what point and who would decide whether that wall is going in or not? MR. TYSON: It will either be a combination of a wall or a fence. And the reason for the may is that in places in the zoning regulations there are requirements that only allow a six-foot high fence in residential areas. So we are allowing these to go up to eight feet simply for the security needed for the well. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you always intending to put a fence and a wall up or a wall up? Is there anytime you wouldn't do that? MR. TYSON: Only when the well is enclosed in a house. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So at those times that you're going to use fences or walls, could we simply say that in any case, there will be a fence or wall placed at six feet but no higher than eight feet so that we know that that's a mandatory thing that's going to be included? MR. TYSON : We could say that, yes. I mean it's the same thing, I think, in essence. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It is. Well, here it's the word may. It says may be up to eight feet, it doesn't say it's required. I'd just like to make sure. If you guys are going to do it anyway, let's just let the public know, maybe we'll have a-- MR. TYSON: Sure. Page 46 -'"--~"-" April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- fence or wall up to eight feet. MR. TYSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Minimum of six feet, up to eight feet. MR. TYSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If that's -- that's the only language change I thought would be helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the same topic, is the barbed wire you show in the illustration, is that part of the eight feet, or is that above the eight feet? MR. TYSON: That's above the eight feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's an eight-foot fence with barbed wire? MR. TYSON: Correct. And the idea of the landscaping that surrounds that is to allow the landscaping to grow so that it will eventually get higher than the fence and the wire. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Antenna pad you show, how tall is the antenna on that pad? MR. TYSON: I think typically they get up to about 20 feet. Sometime -- somewhere between 13 and 20 feet, depending upon how far away you are from the receiver. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The last time you were around, we had a lot of discussions on the setbacks. MR. TYSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So to summarize, the setbacks for these will be the same as the zoning with the scope in -- MR. TYSON: No, not necessarily . You have certain cases of where you have easements, and you have other cases of where you're on a complete property. So we've separated those so that it's clear as to where the buildings need to be placed when they are placed within an easement or placed within a separate property. So in some cases -- for instance, I think you just asked a Page 47 --~,._" April 27 , 2005 question, would they comply with the zoning district, and the answer would be if you're in the estates, for instance, we have complied with -- or any zoning district. We have complied with the side yard setback, so that setback must be adhered to, but not necessarily the front yard or the rear yard. Simply because you wouldn't wind up having an easement that would say that your building had to be back 75 feet, as an example in the estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what would the minimum front yard -- is that -- MR. TYSON: Twenty-five feet for -- for the first condition of a well house where you had one greater than 400 square feet. If you have a well house that is less than 400 square feet, it's a 15 feet. And if you have the fence or the wall, it's five feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the fence and wall will always be five feet, no less? MR. TYSON: It depends on its location, wherever that easement is within the property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the buffer we were talking about, there is no buffer in the front anymore or -- MR. TYSON: Yes. All of the walls and all of the -- the -- the well houses have buffers. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But they're up against the unit, if I'm not mistaken. MR. TYSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Set up on the perimeter track line. MR. TYSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. TYSON: That's for the well houses. They're surrounding the fence on the outside of the fence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the rear setback is -- I'm just looking at 25 feet for the bigger one, ten feet for the smaller one. MR. TYSON: Right. Page 48 April 27 , 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Are there any other issues that you're involved with, sir? MR. TYSON: No. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to take forward with approval consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Assuming that it's going to be LDC sections referred to on this handout sheet. Mr. White, do I need to read them for the record? MR. WHITE: Please. I think it would be good to read them for the record. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And I just want to note for the record that the motion is with the change that the staff brought to your attention today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's correct. MR. WHITE: And the proposed amendment six and eight feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The LDC sections that this is referring to is 1.08.02, 4.05.03 A, 4.06.05, 5.03.2, 5.05.08, 5.05.12, 10.02.03 B 2. With that, I'll call for motion. All those in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody opposed? No one Page 49 April 27, 2005 opposed. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, the next item I do have a registered speaker for is a tree removal fund and that is -- trying to find it here. I believe that's on page 97, section 4.06.05. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry, what section was that? MS. MURRAY: Page 97, section 4.06.05. I didn't know if there was any questions from the Planning Commission on that, or if you just wanted to go right to the public speaker. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I've got quite a bit of questions. Maybe my questions will resolve some of the questions the public speaker may have. I know it's a short change, but the way I'm reading this is if you remove a tree, no matter what tree, whether it was a required tree to meet minimum code or it was a tree that was in addition to minimum code and on the site, you now have got to pay a fine or a fee or something when that's removed, even though it was never required in the first place. Is that right, Nancy? MS. SIEMION: For the record, I'm Nancy Siemion, landscape architect with Zoning and Land Development Review. And to answer your question, that is correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So the incentive to do more landscaping in this county is going to be penalized by the fact if you do it and you want to remove it, you gotta pay now to remove it, even though it wasn't required in the first place? Has anybody thought of that part of it? I mean right now we have a lot of landscaping that is more flush in a lot of communities than it needs to be. It's above the minimum. This seems to discourage anything above the minimum. MS. SIEMION: Keep in mind, anything above the minimum is voluntary. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So why are you penalizing them for taking it away? MS. SIEMION: Actually, it's not my idea. Page 50 April 27 , 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, your name's on it. MS. SIEMION: I'm just trying to defend something that's-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator, Community Development Environmental Services. This is brought -- this was developed at direction of the Board of County Commissioners. And based on our understanding of what the Board had asked staff to develop and pretty much is what they had directed through -- through -- well, pretty much through consensus and asked us to do. We certainly would appreciate -- I would appreciate if you would like to take the liberty to make any changes to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to make some comments. MR. SCHMITT: Your comment is certainly noted and appropriate. Now, our intent here was protect trees in Collier County, but I certainly don't want to make this in any way a repressive type of code where it dissuades somebody from doing exactly that. In most communities -- as you-all know, in most communities in this -- the county go far, far above minimum code. Especially in -- we're not talking about individual home sites here, we're talking about site common -- common areas and site plans. Those kind of -- those kind of plans where they have architectural or -- I mean landscape architect plans to define what is going to be planted and then oftentimes go above and beyond that. But certainly we'll accept any -- any comments that you have. So with that, I think that will save Nancy from trying to explain all this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sorry, Nancy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would ask you, Mr. Page 51 ----- April 27, 2005 Schmitt, is this an outgrowth of the original presentation where it was $500 for the removal of -- from one to ten trees? Is that where this was brought to the Commission and this is an outgrowth of that, or is this in addition to. MS. SIEMION: I think I can help you answer that question. It's -- what -- I think what you're bringing up is the amendment that was adopted last amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was enacted. MS. SIEMION: And that one was $250 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, it got down to 250? MS. SIEMION: -- for the removal often trees. Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now this is a new piece. MS. SIEMION: Well, actually, this is something that's slightly different. It is a tree replacement fund. And I wanted to share with you, Commissioner Strain, another way to look at it is -- is under the language that was adopted last cycle, we were not getting any compensation for removal of any trees. And now at least we're getting a hundred dollars that we could put towards purchasing trees and -- and placing them out in a location that might be more desirable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I understand. MS. SIEMION: I mean there's a lot of ways to look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I -- I'm definitely concerned about the loss of incentive for more planting than less. To me, someone's going to be saddled with whatever they inherited, even if it was more and they want to trim back a little bit. Because, as you know, the trees grow and when they plant more initially, they get bigger canopies to get the initial impulse and have everybody look at it, say, oh, that looks like a real-- something that's been there a long time. But then those big trees grow, and it only makes common sense to take a few of them out. But now it looks like they would be penalized to do that. Page 52 April 27, 2005 So that's my comment. I don't know if -- we have a public speaker at some point so -- MR. SCHMITT: Do you have a recommendation on where you want to make a change in this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what was the direction of the Board? What were we trying to solve? MR. SCHMITT: The direction of the Board -- frankly, Commissioner Henning had raised to the Board, the Board then directed staff, he -- he had different articles that he published, as well, and I believe it's East Naples Paper and some others where he was promoting a tree replacement fund. Part of the thought was that there would be a fund to generate income to pay -- help defer costs of replacing land -- to pay for landscaping, median landscaping and some other things. In no way would this raise sufficient money. I believe, Nancy, we were estimating probably no more than 60 to $80,000, if we'd even raise that. It was not even going to pay for the staff time involved in doing these inspections. But, again, I'm -- we're responding to direct -- directive of the Board. They asked us to put some thought into this and bring it back. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Whose trees do they apply to? MR. SCHMITT: Whose trees? COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Any tree in Collier County, except if it's on your personal single-family lot, it does -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Where does it say that? MR. SCHMITT: It does not pertain to single-family lot. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Can I tell that by virtue of where it's located in the code? Oh, single-family. All right. MR. WHITE: And it sounds like the nature of the discussion is one where you're seeking an exception for those plantings that would Page 53 ........-...,-'""'.'''.......- April 27, 2005 be in excess of the minimum requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem is you would have to replace a tree that's required anyway. So in other words, you would -- MR. WHITE: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- fine (inaudible) -- MR. WHITE: I think it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- generate -- MR. WHITE: -- begs the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a hundred bucks. MR. WHITE: -- the question of which are the ones that are excess factually, which may be difficult to resolve. But legally it's certainly something that is -- I guess you'd say doable. It is possible to write a lawful regulation that would say there could be an exception from this provision for any tree that was in excess of the minimum requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what you're doing. Mark is really -- the key is anybody that wants to over landscape the thing is creating a liability for themselves. MR. WHITE: I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not creating -- MR. WHITE: -- as Miss Siemion has-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a pretty landscape -- MR. WHITE: -- pointed out, you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- plan. MR. WHITE: That is -- that is what I call a telescope issue in the sense depends upon which end you're looking through. So-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would -- would it not be code enforcement's responsibility to go and determine the inventory of trees and then qualify that information? MR. SCHMITT: I mean that's the next step, if you want to get Page 54 -.---. April 27, 2005 into a county wide arborist or tree manager. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Would a hundred dollars be enough? MR. SCHMITT: Code enforcement would not do this. Code enforcement only enforces the minimum code. That's all they can enforce. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what code would they be enforcing? MR. SCHMITT: This would be -- if it's defined in the Land Development Code where they removed a tree without a permit, then it would be a -- a violation. So that way code could issue a violation against this. If in fact, like I said, the tree was removed and not being properly permitted to do so. MR. WHITE: In other words, the regulation, I think you're suggesting, might be required is one that would have to be pled as a defense in the event that there was a notice of violation that was brought forward and prosecuted. MR. SCHMITT: Frankly, I would appreciate any guidance or advice you have on this evaluation of an unintended consequences because I'm just complying with Board direction on this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Joe, I don't think the Board makes mistakes, but staff must have in interpreting what the Board meant. How's that? MR. SCHMITT: Understand. We won't go there. MR. WHITE: Certainly puts the staff in a difficult position as to the direction you're likely to get from this body. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think it -- I understand what-- I'm getting a feel of what the idea was, but I don't know if the good idea that this may have intended takes away another better idea that would have required more vegetation to begin with in Collier County, would have allowed more vegetation to proceed within Collier County. So it's not that I'm against it, I just don't know how it helps. It Page 55 April 27, 2005 might fix one problem, but it may incur another. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the intent was basically if you want to take a tree down, it will be a one for one deal. We want -- we'll collect money and put a tree up elsewhere. That's pretty much what this was. Yes, and in fact, you're right, it would be somewhat, I guess, counter productive or -- or would create somewhat of an unintended liability on a developer who in fact, as most people when they move into a new development want it to look like it's been around and been -- the greenery's been five and ten years, just like as you said, five years later that which looked really nice now is over consuming the entire property. But we -- we went into this also Nancy and -- with -- with Island Walk, Island Walk was one. MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. Village Walk. MR. SCHMITT: Huh? MS. SIEMION: Village Walk. MR. SCHMITT: Village Walk. We -- but some of that was as a result of probably poor planning, let's leave it at that, in regards to how the plantings were put in and certainly problem -- and, again, they were above and beyond. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My view of this -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as I'm experiencing it in this projection in my mind is it would seem to me you'd have to have a staff who would go out and take pictures, document everything -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- keep an inventory, a library of that, update it frequently. I think this is a colossal make work opportunity that you don't want. If that's not hard enough, I'll make a more stressing comment. MR. WHITE: Are you suggesting they become the stump police? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think the -- go ahead, Mr. Page 56 April 27, 2005 Vigliotti. Do you have comments? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think the fund is a good idea. Is there another way to finance it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean like Arbor Day at the schools and stuff like that? MR. SCHMITT: No. I mean I don't know how else to fund it. The only other way to fund it of course -- but -- code enforcement but that money goes back into the general fund, but that's for other reasons. Code is out there doing violations, legal topping of trees, those kinds of things. And I mean that would probably be only one way. I know Michelle's here, and she could probably tell you the workload in that regard. But for environmental reviewers or for environmental code enforcement staff, they're pretty much looking -- out doing lot of other things besides just trees. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Joe, it'd be one thing if you made the owner plant a tree to replace the one he had taken down, but to take money is just confiscatory. It doesn't bear any relation to what he's doing. MR. SCHMITT: I can't argue that point. MR. WHITE: I-- MR. SCHMITT: Walking on eggshells here, guys. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Natural occurrence of thinning out mature trees has got to happen, and this would be a penalty from putting them in in the first place. I would like to hear from the public speaker, if the panel doesn't mind, at this point. Could you state your name for the record, please, sir? MR. MOORE: Yes, I'm Jeff Moore. I'm a landscape architect. I've worked in Collier County for the last 15 years. So I'm very well aware of what you-all are talking about, and I have a couple issues I need to bring to your attention. Number one, on that last paragraph on page 99, I think that Page 57 April 27, 2005 needs a lot more development. Just doubling the fee for a 24- inch caliber tree to me it doesn't -- gives no incentive to save that tree. Second point I need to bring up to your attention that this primarily is focused on what is considered a code tree that goes in when you build a project in regards to an STP. Majority of those trees are less than two inches in caliber. But I've been involved in a lot of proj ects for the last 15 years, and those trees are starting to grow but they're not up to the inch of 24- inch caliber yet. So those trees are not getting any protection whatsoever. I'd recommend maybe dropping that caliber size or that DPH size maybe in half. Because you're not going to catch very many trees at 24-inch caliber. You're going to catch, you know, I -- I can definitely recommend that. Second thing I'd recommend is looking at doubling the -- a hundred dollars value to $200 for a tree of that size. That's no incentive to save those trees. So that's the two things I think we need to consider seriously if we're really going to try to give some teeth to this ordinance to say if you have to target trees to come out, leave the big ones and go for maybe small ones or thin trees out or do other things besides just arbitrarily say we gotta take them out. Just makes no sense at all. It's counter productive to the whole effort of planting trees. If we're going to recycle them over and over again, it seems to be kind of a waste of money and effort. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I ask a question of the gentleman? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Condominiums, they typically plant all kinds of things and sometimes these things grow, they get quite thick, their root system goes under -- burrows under the structure. We have now the potential for the destruction of some part Page 58 April 27, 2005 of the structure. What should we -- should we penalize -- MR. MOORE: It's an ongoing battle that I've been fighting for 30 years. I tell clients on a daily basis, do not put trees close to buildings. And sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. I design with no trees near buildings because I know it's going to create a problem down the road because they will outgrow the space. It is a very common problem, and it's something I fight on a daily basis and try to explain to clients. You've got to give room for these trees to grow. They will not stay small, they will grow. So you either try to use palm trees or things like that and make sure you have adequate spacing -- but it's a very common problem I agree with you that it's -- it's a nightmare that's out there, and I've warned clients on a daily basis to be careful where you put plant material because you're going to be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree that it's a nightmare. It would become an additional nightmare to penalize all of the owners for that kind of condition. MR. MOORE: Well, the primary effort, I think, is just the trees. The shrubbery and other stuff, that's -- that's not being considered in this issue that I -- I'm very concerned that if we're going to do this, to try to give some incentive to save trees or find other mechanisms to either thin the trees out or do some kind of maintenance besides just letting these trees go natural. Because if they don't -- I agree, there is some areas that are over planted, and some of it's driven by the code, some of it's driven by the clients' efforts to sell these properties. They do that deliberately sometimes. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Do you think we ought to do this ordinance at all, this Land Development Code? MR. MOORE: If it's something that's evolving out there that -- that has maybe a one or two time of a year or maybe a very -- not a serious effort to go out there and do it, I don't see a serious problem with it. But I definitely think we need to put some standards out there Page 59 . '----~--"-- April 27, 2005 to give everybody an understanding that, yeah, we'll let you do it, but these are the consequences of your actions. And that's what I'm concerned about. I agree with the words originated from -- if we don't, we're going to have a wholesale removal of plant material and, boom, you're going to go from one extreme to the next. From a very lush environment to a very nothing environment. It's going to repeat itself over and over agaIn. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: And what if we required the landowner -- if he's thinning something that's gotten too big, why not require him to replace it one for one? MR. MOORE: Because the trees are not equal size is what I'm concerned about. If he goes back to the code size plant, you might have a plant that could be 12 to IS-inch caliber placed back with a code tree that could be only one to two inches of caliber. That's-- that's definitely self-defeating. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: That's what the other one was when it started. MR. MOORE: I know, but that's why I think we need to really think that -- think that through, make sure we're understanding where we're going. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: How do we solve it by fining a guy a hundred bucks and planting it -- MR. MOORE: I think we need to find other ways to help him find ways to do it besides removing the trees. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's kind of where I -- the Land -- this Land Development Code amendment is more focused on the fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It certainly is. MR. MOORE: I know. That's what I'm concerned about. I think we need to give more incentive to finding other solutions than just arbitrarily taking the trees out. Page 60 -~~'--"" April 27, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: This wasn't meant to be a fine. It was basically -- yeah, okay. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: A rose by any other name. MR. SCHMITT: Again, let me point out another example. And I'll use the example -- I can't recall the -- what the plaza name is but the Blockbuster plaza across from the government center. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Shadow -- Shadow -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Courthouse Shadow. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Shadow Court. MR. SCHMITT: When they -- basically, the developer went in and removed what I would call some significant and pretty magnificent canopy trees and replaced them and met code. And basically took down what, 20 -- 15 or 20 year old trees and placed -- replaced them with about a two-inch diameter tree. Basically, met the code, replaced the trees, there's -- there was absolutely nothing from a county perspective to prevent what that developer did, that property owner did. They had every right to do that. They don't want to maintain -- deal with the trees anymore, they -- whatever and they say, well, I -- I'm meeting the original intent of my site development plan, and I'll replant the trees and that's it. So what was lost, some pretty significant trees were lost. In that regard, this will prevent some of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. I think as you're speaking I'm thinking alternatively of any new project that comes in, requires a B buffer or a C buffer and trees, and they all start at their small and they have to grow up. I mean it's an evolution of life. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They grow, they die, lightning will burn some of them. I'm not sure that -- that with this -- while well intended, I don't know that the fund would ever reach the point where it would benefit the public. Because the first lawsuit might -- all the Page 61 April 27, 2005 money might be used up in support of the lawsuit. But there's another question. Is this for the entire county? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it would apply to the Villages Ave Maria, every place? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What about in a hurricane, what do we do then? MR. SCHMITT: Well, a hurricane is completely different. You're dealing with storm damage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Joe, you said that -- how would this language that you're presenting here today change what happened across the street? That was wrong, that should never have happened. Now, all that developer would say then, I'm going to cut all these trees down, give you a hundred bucks and walk. So for a hundred bucks, he'd come out ahead compared to what he did, and he didn't do that much. So I'm not sure this has been as completely vetted out as maybe the BCC had hoped it would be. And maybe the solution is to look at more of a protection ordinance than a penalty ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: We -- we did look at other communities. This is somewhat comparable to other communities that developed similar plans or similar codes. MS. SIEMION: Would you like me to respond to that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. SIEMION: It is similar in many ways, but in -- in the other communities that I studied, I noticed that they were acquiring their funding from sites predevelopment. In other words, it was a naturally occurring force community, and they would charge them a fee, either per acre or per tree, and that's how they funded it. This one is a post-development tree, as opposed to a predevelopment tree, so it's very different in that perspective. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one more question, Mr. Page 62 April 27, 2005 Moore, before we let you go, sir. Are you -- you're a landscape architect? MR. MOORE: Yes, sir. I've been working in Florida for 30 years, and the last 15 years down here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you a landscape planner? MR. MOORE: There's no such thing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MOORE: I mean you could be a designer, you could be anything you want to. The only one -- the only -- landscape architect means I'm registered by the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just -- as a qualified professional, I wanted to hear you say that there was no such thing as a landscape planner because when we get to page 160, that's an issue. MR. MOORE: No, not in my avenue, but in Nancy's avenue there might be such a thing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'll have to see. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Moore? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Nancy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Moore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, do you think that maybe what Commissioner Henning's concerned about is when developers go in the proj ects they -- you know, they just genocide the trees that are there, do you think the intent of this might be for the development industry? I mean we're focusing -- I guess we have that can't see the forest for the trees problem here, but do you think the intent is that, you know, he wants to do something to stop the total destruction of all the landscaping and building back of buffers? MS. SIEMION: I -- Joe and Susan, I don't know if you -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The requirement to clear trees on a property is due to things like FEMA elevations where you gotta fill the property three feet above existing grade, and the remaining trees would be (inaudible). Page 63 April 27, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: Most cases, a developer would save the trees if they could, but normally it's to bring fill in and that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, would this apply to him? Would we go in and take an inventory-- MR. SCHMITT: NO. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and see what he built back, in terms of -- MS. SIEMION: No. This does not at all apply to the developer. MR. SCHMITT: The intent there, if we wanted to save the trees, we wouldn't approve the development in the first place. So-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski from engineering reVIew. In Village Walk, the homeowners association came in and wanted all the trees removed that the developer put in to make the area more lush. Most of the vegetation removal we're seeing is from homeowners associations. Because the trees grow, the olive trees, they drop droppings on the cars and people don't like it. It also stains your concrete. The oak trees, certain time of the year they drop acorns everywhere, they get crushed by the cars, turns everything brown, washes down the catch basins fills up the retention areas. Leaves everywhere certain times of the year fill up all the drainage. You know, they run into maintenance problems, the first thing they want to do is tear the trees out. And it's not the developers, it's the homeowners. COMMISSIONER CARON: But are they not suggesting replacing these trees? They just want to take them out, period? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They talk about replacement -- MS. SIEMION: I can just speak from experience with the tree removal permits. Sometimes they want to remove trees and -- just because they don't like them. And what this fund would do is basically, you know, provide money to replant the trees somewhere Page 64 April 27, 2005 else where maybe somebody would like to look at it. So as you can see, there's a lot of different perspective and angles to look at this particular -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me give you another example. Somebody comes in for a tree removal permit. They bought a condominium. The tree, when they bought the condominium, wasn't at the height it may be now, and now it's blocking -- they go out on their balcony and all they see is tree, rather than maybe whatever, but that tree is not on their property it's in common properties. What we're trying to do, okay, you can remove that tree, but you're going to replace it. You're going to -- you're going to compensate the, quote, community for the loss of that tree, somewhere else it will be -- be made up. That -- that was the intent of some of this. Now, how do you legislate that? That's the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next thing you know we'll be giving the tree the vote if we keep it up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right. I need -- we need to move this forward. And I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on it. Is there any motion on behalf of the Board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would motion that -- make a motion that we disapproval or whatever the appropriate language is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're recommending disapproval as being inconsistent? No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Recommending disapproval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Disapproval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. There's a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think if you would be so Page 65 '.'.------ '---'.- April 27, 2005 gracious as to add in, if it's appropriate to the motion maker and second, a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I find it inconsistent, a finding of inconsistency. MR. WHITE: I'd -- I'd ask you to at least give us some clue on what provision you think it might be inconsistent with then, sir. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, for heaven sake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They don't have to give us -- MR. WHITE: There's no problem with finding it consistent and recommending denial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, in other words, they don't have any -- there's no GMP reference in the LDC. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're finding it inconsistent with all of the elements that it's not consistent with. MR. WHITE: I love the logic. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Whatever that may be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- I would love to try and craft some language that makes sense out of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't have a GMP with me to do that, Patrick, so I can't be of any help in that regard. MR. WHITE: Just trying to do my job. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know. Well, there's a recommendation for denial then, how's that? MR. WHITE: And all I'd ask if you'd make a determination one way or the other as to consistency in terms of your recommendation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that there was a -- Commissioner. Murray, do you find it consistent or inconsistent? MR. WHITE: I am trying to find it inconsistent because -- I don't know where to go precisely to relate to that, but I find it as not serving a public purpose in the manner in which it's written. Is that adequate? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'll go with that. Page 66 --~-_..._""._,- .'--' April 27, 2005 COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: It's ill-conceived, so it must be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second accepts it. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Based on that, for the record, I will-- staff will relook at this and take your comments. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: I don't think we voted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was trying to get there. I was waiting for Mr. Schmitt to finish. MR. SCHMITT: We'll take your input, and we'll bring that forward to the Board based on how you want to go forward with this. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All those in favor? Aye. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody opposed? No one's opposed. Motion passes unanimously. We will take a ten minute break for the court reporter and for the rest of us. And I will not be back, Commissioner -- Ex-Chairman Abernathy will be. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Bringing it out of the bull pIn. (A brief recess was taken.) COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Susan, you have another item that you want to take out of order, so to speak. MS. MURRAY: Yes. There was another individual. I don't know if he'll speak, but he did register and depends, I guess, on how your discussion goes. But that's on page 94, section 4.06.04, A and B, vegetation clearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section what again? Page 67 April 27, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Page 94 section 4.06.04, A and B. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Trees and vegetation. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Is there a 94 A and B? Just that one little -- I -- I just have -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. That's the LDC section. I got this last night. MS. MURRAY: Sorry. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention-- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's the same. MS. MURRAY: Correct. This is the one that was e-mailed to you yesterday. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You sent it via e-mail, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're going to fine the county for killing trees is what we're going to do. MR. WHITE: We have a very aggressive recycling program. MS. MURRAY: It's called the Naples Daily News. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Barbara, are you going to tell us what's changed or-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. I'll tell you. Good afternoon, Stan Chrzanowski, engineering review. What's changed is that the EAC -- when we first came up with this tree removal criteria -- well, many years ago you couldn't do any . You had to haul all your fill off site, and then you had to haul it back on site, which was very inefficient. So we allowed people to clear 25 acres, the 25 acres -- this seems to loud to me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move back a little bit. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Filled the 25 acres and stockpile on some and just do house pads on the other, but we have had projects come in for multiple 25 acres, which is a lot of unnecessary paperwork. And we look at projects coming in now, and they're all pre-sold. We have seen proj ects do 200 acres a year. So we decided Page 68 - April 27, 2005 to -- to jack the limit up of what you could do under a vegetation rule of permits, 200 and a hundred. The Environmental Advisory Counsel felt that was about double what it should be. And we looked at it and how many lots that would entail, and we voluntarily cut back -- staff cut back to a hundred fifty and that's what the change you have there is. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: So that the substance of it, that's it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's the substance of this last change, yes. But the LDC amendment is to -- is to raise the clearing limit from 25 up to a hundred. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: I see. Okay. Questions about that? MS. MURRAY: I had a registered speaker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's your opinion of the 200? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, my first opinion was that it was about what we've seen done in a year, but I -- I'm happy with the hundred because the -- the most that we've seen come in consecutively would be about a hundred, so I -- this -- we're happy with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will resolve it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Just as background on this, this thing's gone back and forth for years. It was 25, and those have been around the county certainly much longer than I, related that the intent of 25 was deemed to be just about the size one could develop in a year and not create a situation where you would have a home scape out there, everything's level. That's certainly not the case today. The -- the Cape Coral and whatever where developer came in and leveled hundreds of acres and then years later developed, certainly we're not in that situation today. We have developers who are coming in who certain -- it's far more economically viable, from a standpoint Page 69 April 27, 2005 of the development, and we know that a hundred acres is about what they can develop now a year. I mean literally they -- you go -- V erona Walk is a great example. That's what they're developing, and -- and -- and if they were -- if a builder were to go belly up tomorrow, there's six more hovering overhead ready to go in and swoop in and take that land. And so it's just not an issue today. All we're trying to do is create a process to -- to -- I guess I won't say accommodate, but at least to meet the demands of the industry out there without creating the unnecessary paperwork. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's streamlining, it's to make it more efficient. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, make it more efficient. MS. MURRAY: Any questions or comment from the Board? Did the registered speaker want to speak? No. He waives then. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: All right. MS. MURRAY: Okay. That was all the speakers I had. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Are you going to keep track of that one, plus all the stuff we're about to go through seriatim. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: While you're getting yourself organized, maybe we can bring the coffee up here. Recess in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, are we going to vote on these all at once at the end then? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I prefer to vote on each one and get it out of the way, but if you want to hold it. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: If there's one we're going to take exception to, I agree with that, but otherwise she'll just read off all the numbers at the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Robert? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay, if you want to do it Page 70 -" April 27, 2005 that way. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. That's the way we always have done it, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're the chair, I'm happy. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: All set? Okay. Go back to page one of your summary sheet, and then we can just start from the beginning. And I'll skip over the ones you've already handled. If you wish, I'll just read the section number into the record, and anybody can stop me if -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: And the page number. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did we take care of Cormac (inaudible) item? MS. MURRAY: That would be page I, section 1.08.02. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He went to -- about to hand something out. I'm not sure (inaudible). MS. MURRAY: I think what he did was essentially handed out the corrected version, which took out the word rent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my only question. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. MS. MURRAY: Then the next would be on page one, and that's section 1.08.02 also. That's the definition for pervious surface. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Anybody that has a question, bring it up, or she's going to move onto the next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next will be at the top of page -- middle of page two on your summary sheet, it's on page ten of your handout, and that -- I'm sorry, that's been withdrawn. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Thanks. The next section, we're at the Page 71 -' April 27, 2005 bottom of page three of your summary sheet, section 2.06.03, affordable housing density bonus rating system. That's on page 66. Next item is on the top of page four, section 2.07.00 and 4.02.01, which is on page 70. The next item has been withdrawn. We're now at the top of page five of your summary sheet, and that's section 3.04.02, which is on page 79. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you have EAC comments? MS. MURRAY: Barb? That's on section 3.04.02, sea turtle, dune walk over repair, page 79. MS. BURGESON: The amendment language that you've got-- MR. SCHMITT: Barbara, you need to come up here to the microphone if you would, please -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Our sheet shows it was continued to the April EAC for further discussions, so we're curious. MS. BURGESON: -- yes. For the record, Barbara Burgeson, Environmental Services. The amendment language that you have in front of you was approved by the EAC and was presented twice to the CCPC and amended for each of those three meetings and approved at each of those -- or approved at the last CCPC meeting -- I'm sorry, DSA T not -- the last DSA T meeting and the last DAC meeting. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. I think that-- MS. MURRAY: The next item is on page 80. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: That take care of it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: The next item, page 83, section 3.05.05. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page what? MS. MURRAY: Page 83. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Right here in the middle. MS. MURRAY: Next is page 87, section 3.05.07. Next is page 88, section 3.05.08 C. MS. BURGESON: For the record, again, 3.05.08, the exotic Page 72 ~'_.-. ~._,-- April 27, 2005 removal amendment, was e-mailed to the planning -- CCPC last night, and a minor change was made to the document that you've got in your package that was sent out to you to remove the word minor, as was requested at the EAC meeting and also approved by DSAT. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Remove the word major. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. Major. MS. MURRAY: The next -- on page six of your summary sheet, section 3.06.06, which is page 91. Okay. Now we go to page seven of your summary sheet, at the top of the page, section 4.06.05, which is on page 100. Go to page eight of your summary sheet, and that's section 5.05.08 C, which is on page 126. Next would be -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Did the -- you got all of this taken care of; is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I -- page 80, yeah. Actually, we resolved it with one word. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So you're all set. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm happy, he's here, he's happy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the one word that -- but rather than a paragraph, we solved it by just adding a word someplace else. What page number is that again? COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Page 126. MS. MURRAY: 126. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's resolved. MS. MURRAY: Section 5.05.09 G, on page 127, page nine of your summary sheet, section 6.06.010 on page 129; appendix E, access plan management maps. Section 10.01.02, A and B, early work Page 73 April 27, 2005 authorization on page 155 A. Top of page ten on your summary sheet section 10.02.02 B on page 156. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I got it answered already. I'm fine. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Everybody okay? MS. MURRAY: The next item I need to read, and I need Patrick's help on this a little bit. It's section 10.02.02 B subsidization exemption. And staff needed to just add an effective date to that. And I think we agreed on four months, Patrick, from the adoption; is that correct? Or three? I think it was 90 days. MR. WHITE: Three is my recollection. MS. MURRAY: Three. So just to -- it's just an FYI for you. We will be adding an effective date onto this language of three months after the adoption or effective date of the regular -- the rest of these amendments, in order for staff to develop the actual process. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: We don't need to put that in our motion? MS. MURRAY: Prob-- MR. WHITE: I don't think it's necessary. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Well, we won't then. MR. WHITE: But certainly if you have any observations or concerns about it -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: No, no. Just a matter of formalities. MS. MURRAY: Just wanted to let you know. Section 10.02.04 on page 157, section 10.02.04 B 4 I on page 158, section 10.03.05 B 8 on page 166. I'm sorry. I jumped. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute. MS. MURRAY: Sorry about that. The top, on page 11 of your summary sheet has been withdrawn, 10.02.06 H. 10.02.06 J, on page 160, 10.02.07 and 1.08.01, pages 160, 2A through D. 10.02.13 F on Page 74 "~"' April 27, 2005 page 163. Now I'm at the top of page 12 of your summary sheet. 10.03 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: (Inaudible) 163 there for a minute. MS. MURRAY: 163. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Is this -- oh, okay. No, I'm sorry that's, not the one. MS. MURRAY: No? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Keep going. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next item is 10.03.05 B 8, page 166. And did you want to stop on that one? COMMISSIONER CARON: I want to stop on the one -- the notice requirement. Yeah, this is it. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: 166. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: 166 we're looking at. COMMISSIONER CARON: We are taking out one of the notices. It was recommended to me that it might be a good area that the notices get sent out to the public further than 15 days in advance, that it's pretty -- that it might be better to do 30 days in advance. I don't even know if that's a possibility. MS. MURRAY: Are you referencing the notice for the hearing? MR. WHITE: I think it's page 167. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Comes out 15 days in advance. MS. MURRAY: Okay. So you're suggesting an actual change rather than -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that's when it's sent out. If somebody's out of state, they wouldn't get that. COMMISSIONER CARON: If somebody is out of state, it's hard to get back and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we make it 20 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: (Inaudible.) Page 75 -'--.----.~ -. April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- make it 21 days? COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. I mean-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty-one days in advance of the hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since we're going to vote on them all in one lump, should we just vote on that issue? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we wait? MR. WHITE: I think you can include the change in the motion. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, yeah. Unless there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark's not here, we'll forget it. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: No, we'll get it, but there's no disagreement among us as to the -- of 21. COMMISSIONER CARON: Everybody is agreed on 21. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just would like to give people time. It's very difficult. MS. MURRAY: Okay. And then the last item would be on page 168, it's section 10.03.05 E. And then I did receive a note that Cormac would like to read two corrections into the record for his two items. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Pages I and page 66. MR. GIBLIN: At the bottom of this, it says replacement for page I, and then the next one says replacement for page 66. There's been one or two changes on each one. For the record, my name is Cormac Giblin. I'm the housing and grants manager for Collier County. And -- bring your attention to page I first, the one labeled replacement for page I where the change recommended at your last meeting has been implemented, removing the word rent from the definition of work-force housing. Page 76 '------- ..._~----",- ,.-~,-",".-" . April 27, 2005 There is one other change that has also been made to that definition of work-force housing. And it is a change in the percentage of median income to which work-force housing would apply. It used to be 50 to 100 percent median income, it's been amended downward to 50 to 80 percent of median income. The rationale behind that is that there is absolutely nothing else in the entire LDC or in any of our affordable housing programs that reach up to that hundred percent of median income level, so it was almost pointless to have a definition that referenced something that could never be used. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Murray, I think you were our point man on that one. Is this okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is fine for me. This is a good move. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: Then the other item I just passed out to you was LDC section 2.06.03, starts on replacement page numbers 36, and it is continued on -- I'm sorry, 66, 67, and 67 A. This is a -- a reexamination of the formula used to calculate an affordable housing density bonus. It is required by the Comprehensive Plan that this be reviewed every once in a while to be brought back in line with what the current market conditions and other requirements are. This amendment -- first, let me explain why I passed out a substitute page as to what you have in your packet. There was one change that's been made, and it is at the top of page 67 A. The second sentence that starts in no event shall the AHD exceed eight units -- eight dwelling units per gross acre. The first -- the page in your packet that had been changed to 12. Since then we've discovered that that is not in compliance with the Growth Management -- Growth Management Plan itself. So we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was 12 (inaudible). MR. GIBLIN: No. Page 77 --- April 27, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're saying it's eight. MR. GIBLIN: Right. Only allowable to go to eight bonus units at this time, per the Growth Management Plan. It had been our -- our intention to raise it to 12 or allow it to go to 12, however, we can't really implement that until further change is done in the GMP first. So that -- that is the only difference between what -- what you had in your packet in the first place and what I've handed you out now. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Any questions -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: -- about that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with that. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Now we have the two remaining summary sheets that deal with the omissions during recodification and then language out of the -- for clarification. Would you like me to just go through and read and -- how would you like to handle that? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Let me -- MR. WHITE: If I might inquire of the commissioners, if none of you have comments about those -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: I don't. MR. WHITE: -- then I suggest we just work through them and then do one whole motion. But if you do have comments, it may be better to kind of capture what we've done thus far in a motion of approval and finding of consistency so we don't lose the thread of the changes. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Why don't we do the substantive changes right now? MR. WHITE: That's what I'm suggesting. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Is that what you're saying? Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a motion of a finding of consistency with the GMP for the LDC amendments as presented this Page 78 April 27, 2005 afternoon, and modified where applicable by the staff and with stipulations or amendments by the commissioners. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: So staff changes to one -- 1.08.02,2.06.03. Very few. They added some language somewhere. Change 10.02.02 B to be changed to three months, and 10.03.05 B 8 changed 15 to 21. I believe those are the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Changes. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Subject to those -- you don't need to read all these numbers back into the record again, do you, Susan? MS. MURRAY: I don't think so, no. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: Thank goodness. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve these and find them consistent with the Growth Management Plan, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think Mr. Murray did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray made that motion. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: He did? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did a whole mouthful. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: That's-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I second your motion. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Add to the other. All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Opposed? All right. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The -- the next section would actually -- the summary sheet would actually begin after page 170. I have it labeled as B. And if you want, I can just quickly read the section numbers, and you-all can stop me if you need to. I'm working from page one. Section 1.08.02, section 2.03.08 C, section 4.02.23, section f-"> Page 79 ,._._~~_'_. --'-,--.0',---- April 27, 2005 4.05.04 B 5, section 4.08.07, section 5.02.03. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question on that. Is there -- are people allowed to come to home occupancy that you're -- this is a parking -- MS. MURRAY: Typically, you're not allowed to have customers come here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How does that jive with the fact that you could have some home occupation? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. How does that work, considering that we do allow some home occupation? MS. MURRAY: Well, typically the home occupations are supposed to be kind of just -- I'll describe it as an office within your home where customers -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I understand that. MS. MURRAY: -- don't come and go. You know, you could have a phone, a fax, computer, that -- those sort of communications take place, but there's not an actual physical presence of employees or customers coming in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the wording that you're adding is wording that was in there prior? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. It just clarifies the fact that you can't have any employees or you can't have clients visit the residence? MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. WHITE: And it attempts to say it in a slightly simpler way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Section 5.03.02, section 5.05.02, section 5.05.09,5.06.07, 8.06.03, 9.04.00, and 10.09.00, 10.02.02, 10.02.07, Page 80 .'-.'. April 27, 2005 10.02.06, and 10.02.12, appendix H. And then there's various sections where we cleaned up typographical errors in a variety of sections. That's all for summary sheet B. Did you want to make a motion on that? COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: You want a motion on those? MS. MURRAY: Please. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Have a motion to forward recommending approval of the recodification based LDC amendments contained on sheet B, finding that they're consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. MR. WHITE: And I'll just note for the record, Commissioners, that as to those typographicals on page 74 and following, that those are authorized under the original recodification ordinance that the Board adopted 04-41. So there's no need to arguably read any of those sections into the record. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: All right. MS. MURRAY: The next -- COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: We need to vote on that. MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: It carries. MS. MURRAY: The next summary sheet is found after 108 B. And that's labeled C and that begins with section 2.03.08. 4.03.02, 4.06.05 C, 5.05.08 C 4,5.06.01, 6.01.02, 9.04.06, and 10.02.06 H, and section 10.02.02. And that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say there was an architectural issue in there that was resolved, also. Page 81 April 27, 2005 COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Motion to approve the clarification type amendments contained on summary sheet C, finding that they are consistent with Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. COMMISIONERABERNATHY: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. MS. MURRAY: That concludes our business. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. Is there other business? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing. If you go to the municipal code (inaudible) standards aren't in there yet. How long does it take before it hits that level of accessibility? MR. WHITE: In fact, if you look at the muni code web site, as of approximately -- I'm going to say a week to ten days ago, supplement one of the Land Development Code is what you will find online. Now, the staff has yet to have gotten the benefit of that in their desktop versions, but in the actual community code web site should be sup one, supplement one included. And you'll note that that has occurred from time to time. In the future, if you look in the lower left-hand corner of the screen, where you'll have the listing of all of the various chapters and appendices at the very bottom there, you'll find ordinances adopted but not yet codified. If you open that up, you'll find what those ordinances are in the fashion when they were adopted by the Board. In other words, they'll look like ordinances. Once those have been electronically adopted Page 82 ----'> April 27, 2005 (- and published into the electronic version of the Land Development Code, that now page, that now click on item will have disappeared. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: And you'll note when you look at the very top of the text of the document, it will be updated to reflect the new ordinance number that it ended with as to all of the text changes that are incorporated in the body of what follows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: Patrick, do we need to indicate for the record that this is our one and only hearing of these? MR. WHITE: No, I do not believe you need to, although I think -- that's because the rule -- the LDC says you'll have one, unless you vote to have two. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: All right. MR. WHITE: That's the point I was making initially about hearings versus meetings. But I think it is worth mentioning that as to all of the actions taken today, there are only three sections not yet decided by this body as to recommendations and findings, and that as to those matters, there will be a -- either a continuation of this meeting, if you want to think of it that way -- continuation of the hearing and a new meeting on May 19th in the BCC chambers, following the GMP presentation, 8:30 a.m. that Thursday. And the sections of the LDC are 2.0.3.07,2.03.08, and 2.05.02. Thank you. COMMISIONER ABERNATHY: I believe we're adjourned. (Adjourned at 3:30 p.m.) Page 83 April 27, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 3 :30 p.m COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark P. Strain, Vice-Chairman Page 84