Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/08/2005 S (LDC Amendments) June 8, 2005 SPECIAL LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida June 8, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5 :05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development Susan Murray, Zoning Director Catherine Fabacher, Principle Planner Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA June 8, 2005 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 June 8,2005 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN 2 June 8,2005 June 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's 5:05. Okay, we are in session. Where is everybody? MR. SCHMITT: You have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you please stand for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Now, this is the second hearing of these Land Development Code changes; is that not correct? Is there any reason that we cannot concentrate only on those where there were comments or concerns from commissioners at the last meeting? If -- they have been reviewed and passed. MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray, zoning director. I don't see any reason why you can't do that. There are a few items that had changes to them that we need to bring to your attention, and I do need to read a few corrections into the record. And I can do that as I go through the summary sheet, which shouldn't take much time. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. MS. MURRAY: So if that's your desire, we can certainly-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, if the commissioners don't have an obj ection to that. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute; I want to make sure the commissioners don't have any objections to that process. Do I hear any? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's go with it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development, Environmental Services Division. I need to have Mr. White place on the record officially informing the court reporter of the notice. Page 2 June 8, 2005 MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. Good evening, Commissioners. I have reviewed the affidavit of publication and find that it is legally sufficient for today's public hearing to proceed, and I'm turning over a copy of it, received by fax this afternoon, to our court reporter. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just so you understand where we're going, we do want to do this by objection only. Those we want to -- you've already reviewed all these. We do have to point out; there are some administrative changes that have been made. Your packet is broken down into three sections, and the first sections are those regulations that are actually being changed. There are others making that are -- that are putting omissions back into the LDC that were admitted during the recodification process on the third tab under clarifications. We can -- we'll go through those rather quickly. If you have any questions on those, we can certainly stop and answer your questions. But before we start, I do need -- and I don't see Stan here, but we do need to point out -- Stan has to point out on the record, there were some LDC amendments that had to do with the implementation of the compo plan amendments that you passed yesterday; those specifically having to do with the TDR's. Because the planning commission had a 4-4 vote for and 4-4 against, it was sent twice, we have to bring those back to the planning commission. Those are being withdrawn, at least from tonight's packets. And those items will be continued to a future date. I'll turn it over to Stan, just so he can explain to the members of the public as well. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you, Joe. For the record, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director. As Joe had mentioned, the planning commission, at its hearing that they actually held subsequent to your first hearing on these LDC Page 3 ~--_...- June 8, 2005 amendments, were not able to reach a majority vote to either approve or disapprove or recommend approval or disapproval of the LDC to implement the TDR bonuses that you adopted just yesterday. As a result of that, all those provisions associated with the LDC to implement those TDR bonuses will have to be brought to you at a separate adoption public hearing through a continued and advertised ordinance. And we will probably target having you receive the Land Development Code ordinance for adoption on September the 13th, which also will correspond roughly to the effective date of the Growth Management Plan amendments that you adopted yesterday, which will be required in order to implement those TDR bonuses. MR. SCHMITT: If I could clarify, there are ordinances in here that deal with some of yesterday's compo plan amendments. Any of the language that had to deal with the TDR and the issues that planning commission failed to forward to you with a recommendation has been removed. We will have two separate ordinances for the Chairman's signature, one related after tonight's amendments, after we finish and conclude with your guidance from these amendments, and we'll have a second ordinance that will come to you probably in September. I'm saying probably . We will have that resolved, we'll have to bring those back to the planning commission. But they will be deemed a continuance of this LDC cycle, so we don't have to start the process all over again. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What changed between the time we heard these and approved them and tonight? Why wasn't this issue addressed with us at the time it was brought before us at the time, at the last meeting? MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner Coyle, the previous Land Development Code meeting that you had on these parallel amendments to the Land Development Code to implement the Growth Management Plan amendments that you adopted yesterday, Page 4 June 8, 2005 you passed those at your first hearing, and subsequently the planning commission had their second hearing, or reading, of the provisions associated with the TDR bonuses that you enacted by compo plan amendment yesterday. And due to some confusion or disagreement, the planning commission deadlocked at 4-4 on a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. And as we understand it, the local planning agency on land development regulations must either vote for or against that a deadlock vote does not provide the necessary guidance that's required under the statutes in order for you to have an adoption hearing. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's really dumb. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's ridiculous. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's really ridiculous. You know, if it fails to pass, it fails to pass. That's a no vote. MR. WHITE: Commissioners, all that that means is that there was no recommendation to you. The final authority for decision making on these matters rests with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We made the decision. Why do we have to bring it back? MR. WHITE: Because the decision that you made did not include authorizing legislation at a point in time that would allow the LDC amendments to go forward at the same time. Those things that you approved will not become effective for some time yet. And that would be after the LDC amendments themselves were to become effective. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that has nothing to do then with the CCPC vote. Is it because of the timing of the LDC amendments, or is it because of the CCPC votes? MR. WHITE: It's the timing of the actual amendments that was recognized as part of those votes. As you've seen in past cycles, making sure that we keep the Page 5 June 8, 2005 proper alignment of a Growth Management Plan in effect prior to creating amending -- excuse me, implementing land development codes, those small pieces of two sections of the LDC were not able to go forward until the actual GMP provisions became effective. Part of our thinking was apparently based solely on the notion that they would be approved and adopted by the board June 7th, not recalling that there was an effective period that flowed afterwards. And when the issue was raised, we recognized we couldn't get there from here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I give up. Let's just get on with this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand a word. MR. WHITE: I'm sorry. MR. LITSINGER: The practical result of this conundrum is that it will have no impact on the implementation on the TDR bonuses and the TDR program that you adopted yesterday. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it means it comes back to us another meeting so we -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have to do it again. MR. LITSINGER: Ifwe had not had a -- if we had a recommendation from the planning commission either for or against unanimous or just a majority, the compo plan amendments will be effective sometime in the latter part of August or early September at the earliest. And that would be the earliest time at which we could operate as far as proving development petitions is late August, at any rate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My only question is, I want to you repeat this one more time, there's absolutely nothing negative happening to this program because of this delay. MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, in consideration that the Page 6 June 8, 2005 Board of County Commissioners approved the Growth Management Plan amendments and the TDR bonuses unanimously would make me opine that there is no problem with this program. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, let's get on with this. MR. SCHMITT: And now the amendments will come back -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's stop that. MR. SCHMITT: -- as part of our regular agenda. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're finished with this issue. MS. MURRAY: Okay, I'm working from page one of your summary sheet of Cycle 1. Section 1.08.02. And this is the definitions for housing for workforce and affordable. And I know that you all wanted to rediscuss this on that meeting -- on today's meeting, so I'll call Cormac up for that. MR. GIBLIN: Good evening, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, for the record, your Housing and Grants Manager. This amendment seeks to clarify the definition of affordable and workforce housing which had been intermixed and mingled in the . . preVIOUS verSIon. Your affordable housing commission saw this version -- or actually created this version at their May meeting, and it's to read, affordable workforce housing, followed by the percentage of median income to which that housing is targeted. Just for specificity and clarification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to continue on down and read the section numbers and the page they're located on, and expect that you all would -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: When do you want us to vote on these? MS. MURRAY: That's really up to you. Normally it happens at Page 7 ------...- June 8, 2005 the end. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But do we have to do it individually, or can we do it as a total? MS. MURRAY: You can do it as a total. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The next would be Section 1.08.02, which is on Page 2, and that's the definition of pervious surface area. The next would be Section 2.03.05, open space zoning, on Page 3. Did you need to read something else? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, I need to read a correction that obviously we still have a slight error. On Page 4, here again, we're just clarifying the effective date of regulations associated with the oil and gas provisions, and we need to continue down in sub-paragraph conditional uses no change, paragraph one. We need to include the effective date of this provision, as we had done in the paragraph above. Typographical error. And we would ask for your approval to add that language also in the repetitive paragraph. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that say where the rules exist on? MR. LITSINGER: That would be as it states above, the effective date of this provision. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's going to be in paragraph two; is that -- MR. LITSINGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- correct? Okay. MS. MURRAY: The next item, I'm on the top of Page 2 of your summary sheet, Section 2.03.07, the overlay zoning districts. Stan, did you need to read anything -- MR. LITSINGER: I have no comments on that, Commissioner. Here again, these are rural fringe mixed use district provisions and items associated with the rural village provisions that are not related Page 8 June 8, 2005 to the TDR bonus provisions. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I do have two registered speakers on golf course TDR's. I'm not sure if that's this one or the next. Okay, thank you. The next item is Section 2.03.08, Eastern Lands rural fringe, on Page 7. MR. LITSINGER: Here again, these are rural lands and rural fringe -- excuse me, rural fringe provisions, and we also have an added provision relative to a clarification of the consumption and use of TDR's that are applied to the entitlement of golf course development within the rural fringe mixed use district receiving lands. Here we have an interpretation based on staff recall, stakeholders recall, that TDRs used to entitle a golf course may also entitle units associated with that golf course development but may not be free floating in the TDR market. And that is the nature of this clarification which uses the standards of contiguous development out of Section 380 of the Florida Statutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the letter from-- MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, I was unable to reach Dr. Nicholas. He's in a travel status. As we had mentioned at the previous meeting, he has not reduced an opinion to writing, other than a phone conversation with Marti Chumbler, to indicate that he had -- he was neither for or against this particular provision. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason in bringing this up again is the fact that I had reservations. When we originally put this thing together, it was my understanding, it was just the way it was written that it was going to be required to have the TDRs for the golf course, and that was the beginning and end of it. N ow to apply them to the residents in the place there, it gives me an added value, which I have no problem with. My problem is the fact that I can't be assured that I'm not going to cause the TDRs to Page 9 June 8, 2005 dry up. I mean, we've already -- we're going to expand them as far as the number goes. We have one more -- we have another reading coming back on this? MR. LITSINGER: No, Commissioner, this would be the adoption reading. And I would add is staff is not taking a position for or against this particular clarification. But the number of additional units in the pool of possible units in the TDR bowl, if you will, will not be significantly increased by this change. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, Mr. Litsinger, but it's been a long time since the last meeting when I made this request. And, you know, I'm not sure where Dr. Nicholas is in this world, but, you know, I don't feel comfortable proceeding on this myself for giving it a yes vote without hearing from my consultant on this who's led this program from one end to the other. MR. LITSINGER: We understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what do we do now? Do we pull this particular item off? CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you don't feel comfortable, you're absolutely right. You asked for this some time ago. It hasn't been provided to you. If you're not comfortable with it, then I'd be willing to pull it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got three nods. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to pull. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the speakers want to precisely address this issue or not, but based upon your intended action, they may desire to. And I just want to give them that opportunity at this time. That would be Mr. Anderson and Ms. May. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, I also have a comment. Page 10 June 8, 2005 Would we also receive direction either to or not to bring these back to you when we bring the TDR bonus provisions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By all means. I'm open to this, but at this point in time I just don't feel comfortable to proceed. I want to make sure that I have a reasonable assurance that the holders in the sending lands, the TDRs, are going to be financially secure. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. MS. MURRAY: Did you want to hear the speakers, or were they -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're waiving. Okay, thank you very much. This -- I don't think this is an issue of disapproving the item, it's just that the commissioner asked for clarifying information and it hasn't been provided. It should have been provided. MS. MURRAY: The next item is on the top of your summary sheet, Page 3, it's Section 2.05.02, density blending, on Page 18. MR. LITSINGER: Here again, this is the provision that you have seen in your previous hearings. There have been no changes to this. It clarifies the amendment based on the glitch amendments that you adopted some time ago. It's identical as you had previously seen it and passed. MS. MURRAY: The next item is Section 2.06.03, the affordable density housing bonus rating system, on Page 20. I'm on the top of Page 4, or the only item on Page 4 of your summary sheet, Section 2.07.00 and 4.02.01, on Page 23. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that change with respect to the footnote has been made, right? MS. MURRAY: That's my understanding. Catherine, is that correct? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, which footnote was that? MS. MURRAY: The footnote pertaining to the 20 percent. I believe it was Commissioner Henning wanted to ensure that that was Page 11 June 8, 2005 clear, so it was full and clear. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, I was confused about those directions. I apologize. Which footnote that was? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a footnote on -- the footnote is about the -- MS. F ABACHER: Is that footnote E? Excuse me, Commissioner. Is that footnote E, the total of all side yard setbacks shall be equal to 20 percent of the lot width? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm sorry, I apologize, what was I going to do to that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you were going to put it in the paragraph where it says estates. MS. MURRAY: I think you just wanted to relocate it, Commissioner, to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Either that or, you know, put a footnote. You know, put a little number in there that refers you to the footnote. MS. MURRAY: Understood. Okay. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. I apologize. MS. MURRAY: We'll make that correction on the ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're happy with that, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm tickled pink. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: The next item is at the top of Page 5 of your summary sheet. Actually it's the second item there, Section 3.04.02, sea turtle dune walkover repair, on Page 33. Next item is Section 3.05.05, criteria for removal of protective vegetation, on Page 37. Next is Section 3.05.07, preservation standards, on page 40. At the top of Page 6 of your summary sheet, Section 3.05.08.C, Page 12 June 8, 2005 exotic removal, single-family and two-family. Page 42. Next is Section 3.06.06, regulated well fields, Page 46 and maps following Page 46. The next item I need to read just some correction into the record. And it's really kind of minor here. But Section 4.06.01.E.3, landscape certificate, is found on Page 55, and the proposed amendment is to require certification of installed landscapes. And all the text on Page 55 should be underlined. That's new text, and that's actually just a preface to the meat of the ordinance which is found on Page 65, we haven't gotten there yet. I just wanted to make that clear. And you had no comments on that at the last meeting. I'm on the top of Page 7, Section 4.06.04.A and B, vegetation clearing, on Page 56. Section 4.06.04.C, cultivated tree protection and tree replacement fund on Page 62. You asked that we clarify that this applies to improved properties only. I believe that was done. Also wanted to point out, and we didn't bring this up at the last meeting, and I should have probably told you this at the beginning, and I'm sorry, but we just -- we didn't call to your attention any CCPC recommendations at our last meeting, and I didn't want to leave that as an oversight, because those are your recommending board. So-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, can I have some additional clarification on the hundred dollar tree replacement and how we're going to administer that? MS. GUNLOCK: Good evening. For the record, Nancy Gunlock. I'm a landscaped architect with Zoning and Land Development Review. And Commissioner, the purpose of the $100 in the tree replacement fund is the way it would work is for trees that are above code trees that are non-hazardous, if a property owner would like to remove them, they have two options: They can either replant them Page 13 June 8, 2005 on their property, remove the tree and replant a more suitable tree on their property that's to their liking, or they can put $100 into the tree replacement fund and that money would be used towards the purchasing of trees for public properties. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where would this fall? Can you give me an example of where this would be used at? MS. GUNLOCK: Could be used on median projects. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you saying if I have a tree on my property and I want to remove it, that I have to pay $100 into this fund -- MS. GUNLOCK: Typically the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- if I don't replace it? MS. GUNLOCK: Yes. And I just want to give you a little more information. The people who probably would be -- that would be most affected by this are people who live under the authority of a homeowners association. It would affect them the most. MS. MURRAY: And for example, they -- when their project was developed, they came in, as the code requires, with a landscape plan. And part of their landscape plan is to show that they meet the minimum requirements of the code as far as landscape installation. But on that plan they show everything that they're planning, to meet minimum code and even in excess of minimum code in many cases in Collier County. That is considered the cultivated landscape, what is shown on that plan. We're not talking about preserves, we're not talking about naturally occurring vegetation, we are talking about landscapes planted by man to meet the minimum code requirements as shown on approved plans. These are tree removals that affect cultivated landscapes or planted landscapes by man. And the choice is if somebody desires to remove one of those planted trees, they have to come in and get a Page 14 June 8, 2005 permit, and they can either replace it on-site somewhere else that's more suitable, or they can pay into the fund. What they can't do is fall below the minimum landscape requirements, and that's a determination that has to be made through staff during this process. MR. SCHMITT: And single-family homes are exempt. MS. MURRAY: Are exempt. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it say that? CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- did you have a question? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, Page 63, paragraph 4-A, exempted activities; single-family lots are exempt. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just further clarification. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- this is an item that the board directed staff to approve. And also with it goes along code enforcement as far as hat racking. We're losing some of our mature trees; we're losing some of our vegetation, the community is as a whole. And some things for good reason. So the idea was to utilize that to everybody's benefit on public lands, like it was stated, in our medians or some of our swale areas or so on and so forth. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out, we -- and I'm surprised that there's nobody here tonight, because in part I think this swayed the recommendation of the planning commission, which you'll see they voted to deny 6-0. We did have several speakers at the planning commission, Nancy, who were concerned. Homeowners association representatives; is that correct? MS. GUNLOCK: Actually, I didn't hear from them at the planning commission meeting, but I'd be happy to share with you why the planning commission rejected it. They felt it would discourage developers from planting above and beyond the kind of Page 15 June 8, 2005 skimpy code, minimum code landscapes. And they were also concerned that what started off as something that's supposed to be a community benefit would feel like a fine in the end to the homeowners who would have to pay the $100 into the fund if they chose not to replace on-site. So they were really concerned, I think, for, you know, people who live in condominiums that would ultimately be the ones who'd be paying the $100 fee. And I think another thing that's important for you to know about is I did do a cost analysis as to, you know, what this may cost staff, like a cost benefit analysis, and I estimated that based on -- you see the example of the permits that we permitted over the past year, we probably would make about $9,000 for the tree replacement fund. But it's pale in comparison to what it would take to -- for administrative staff time to administer the fund. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what would that estimate be? MS. GUNLOCK: For? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The administration from the staff to administer this program. MS. GUNLOCK: Well, currently we're losing money on the tree removal permits. We charge $250 for a tree removal permit. So MS. MURRAY: I think what Nancy -- to clarify, that when you start to introduce a penalty into the process, then there becomes a greater need for more detailed assessment of the tree and the condition of the tree and why it needs to be removed. Because there's some criteria in the proposed code language that says you can remove a tree and not be penalized under X, Y and Z criteria. And I think what we hear now and what we experience now is a lot of lack of understanding of the current code requirement by homeowners associations, and quite a bit of staff time is taken to educate people simply about the code, why it's here and then the process, and then Page 16 ~._-"_.. June 8, 2005 the analysis. And I think when we start introducing penalties, the kind of feedback we got was, and I don't want to say this in a negative light, but kind of a debate or an argument with property owners as to whether or not they should be assessed a fee. So then you're talking about probably adding, I would say -- MS. GUNLOCK: From negotiations. MS . MURRAY: Not necessarily negotiation, but assessment. Is the tree, you know, a hazard or is it not. And then, you know, who's qualified to make that determination. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that we would have to have an additional staff person that was educated in looking at a tree, like an arborist? MS. MURRAY: Possibly. This is -- I mean, this is a small point of what could be a very broader larger program that many communities enter into. And they actually do have certified arborists on staff. And they have very comprehensive tree protection ordinances, which, I mean, as staff we believe is a good thing, but I'm not sure that's the direction we got from the board for this amendment, and so this is just a piece of it, I guess is my point. MR. SCHMITT: Normally you would have a staff arborist who would do a complete inventory of trees. It's an entire activity. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to pull it and look at this in more detail. How's everybody else feel as far as -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you have a concern with it, fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you're uncomfortable with it, I am too. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't feel good about this. MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask, I mean, this was on based on direction from the board to come back with a program. This was a small piece of this, the program. If you're looking for us to develop an entire tree program, is that something you're asking -- Page 1 7 June 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll make a motion we just disapprove this thing, get rid of it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to discard it or disapprove it. Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1, with Commissioner Henning in opposition. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The one item I pulled earlier, we never did vote on. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I thought you wanted it pulled for additional information. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you'll get the additional information. This one I just think there's so much confusion about it that, you know, we don't know where we're going with it, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: At this point in time, yeah. MS. MURRAY: Are you ready for the next? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: Are the ready for the next one? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Section 4.06.05, landscape certificate of compliance, on Page 65. On the top of Page 8, Section 4.08.00, 4.08.05 and 4.08.08, the rural land stewardship area overlay district standard. I don't believe Stan has anything else to add for that. Page 18 June 8, 2005 MR. LITSINGER: Nothing. MS. MURRAY: Section 5.05.02, well facilities, on Page 89, you had no comment. Top of Page 9, Section 5.05.08.C on Page 95, I did just want to point out the CCPC had some concerns here as well, but we did meet with a couple of -- or Brad Schiffer and resolved some of these, and Dallas Disney and resolved some of these issues, so they were happy with that. Section 5.05.09.G, on Page 97, communication towers. Section 6.06.01.0 right-of-way cross-section width standards, on Page 99. I'm on the top of page 10. Appendix C, access plan management maps, on Page 101. Section 10.01.02.A and B, early work authorization, on Page 126. The next item is located on Page 132. It says 129 in your packet. And I believe this is Section 10.02.04.B.4.I, and I think it's mislabeled there. But regardless, it's submittal requirements for plats. And we did discuss that last time and you had no comment. I'm on the top of Page lIon Section 2.02.02.B, which is on Page 129, not on Page 131. And we had noted on there in the CCPC recommendation that we were going to add an effective date. And I just wanted to clarify that in the ordinance you received, an effective date was added; however, in the text within this document, your working document, the effective date was not. So I just want to be sure you understood that one was added and it is in the adopting ordinance. Next section, 10.02.04.F, which is on Page 131, not on Page 132. The next item is Section 10.02.06.J, which is on Page 134. I'm on the top of Page 12, Section 10.02.07 and 1.08.01, certificate of public facility adequacy, on Page 137. Page 19 June 8, 2005 Then Section 10.02.13.F, PUD reporting procedures, on Page 141. Section 10.03.05.B.8, notice and public hearing requirements, on Page 144. And I need to point out that the CCPC had suggested a 21 days in advance of the hearing, rather than 15, and that needs to be changed in your working document, as well as the ordinance. I don't believe it was changed in either, so I just wanted to make -- put that on the record. Next is Section 10.03.03.E, public participation, on Page 146. You had a version handed out last time and no comments. That ends the first summary sheet which was the result of all the regulatory changes. If you wish, I could just quickly read through summary sheets two and three and I'll just skim through the numbers, whatever you wish. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's vote on these and get those out of the way, please, before we lose track of where we are. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go back on one? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. Which one do you want to see? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're doing such a good job going forward, I'd just like to step back a little bit. The one on the transportation reporting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What page are you on? What summary page are you on? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only one on transportation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 141, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What page on the summary plan are we on? MS. MURRAY: It's on Page 141, and it's Section 10.02.13.F. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. We just went through Page 20 June 8, 2005 12 pages. Which one on those 12 pages is this item on? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Page 12. 12 on the summary sheet, 141 on the working document. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only thing it doesn't say, when does a PUD have to stop recording? This is the annual traffic MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that question for you, sure. On Page 137, Paula Fleishman had an impact fee LDC, and as you go to Page 139 in B, it kind of covers a little bit of the PUD monitoring in that section. So I'm on Page 139, paragraph B, and it says annual traffic PUD monitoring report. After February 6th, 2003, the effective date of this section, all PUDs which are less than 90 percent built out must annually submit a report detailing their pro gress. So that kind of covers it there. But talking to Commissioner Henning, we had a problem with some of the PUDs intensity. For instance, if they're zoned for 1,000 units and they built 600 but they were physically built out on their property, they would still fall below the 90 percent but would still have to report annually, due to the code the way it stands right now. So I think the county attorney's office is working on some legislation to clean that up, but that hasn't come forward yet. MR. SCHMITT: We're working -- the county attorney, along with the comprehensive planning staff, is working on an ordinance to do two things: One is to, for all intent and purposes, retire the PUDs that -- and deem them as built out; and two, to take away the -- I want to say ghost units, but I lost the word -- phantom units as we were -- they're being referred to as. And that will be coming back at the end of your summer break. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, the only -- I guess Page 21 June 8, 2005 the only concern that I have is a staff member taking a look at this part of the language and saying well, wait a minute, Mr. Community, you're still a PUD, even though that you're built out. It still says that you need to report. And knowing that a -- somebody was asked to put a landscaped berm over a middle of the lake, that I'm a little bit concerned that looking at language in the land development code narratively. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently right now they still have to report anyway. The change we've made is the way they report. So it's a procedural matter that we've asked them to be more specific in the timing of their reporting and what they report. But if you were to deny this, we'd still have the same problem with the existing language that's there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know. But when does it end? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think -- I don't know if we want to address the build-out status in this amendment. I think -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have a lot of build-out of communities. You're saying that they have to report? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Up till 90 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Up till 90 percent. But it doesn't say it in that language in this. It says it in a previous language on a separate page. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, in a separate section. MR. WHITE: Your staff reads and applies all of those rules together. And it's anticipated that we're not going to clarify those PUDs that have excess number of units relative to their physical space, phantom units, access intensity, whichever name you want to know them by. And it does not make sense to finally address those unless you have first the means to do so and secondarily then tie it into these regulations. So I think the timing is an issue. Your question was when. I Page 22 June 8, 2005 think Administrator Schmitt had indicated we're looking sometime at the end of summer. But I also think that we probably need to come to the board and talk to you about, quote, a special cycle to achieve that objective, as well as the others that are tied to the two sections at the LDC today that we started out talking about and we had a concern about, 2.03.7, 2.03.08. So I don't know if we're prepared to do that today. I don't think so. We may have to wait until one of your regular meetings to ask you for that special cycle. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, and I know the one issue you're concerned about. But that -- and I believe it's the one PUD, but that's also a DR!. And then there's other requirements as well that have been placed upon that PUD, because it's integral to a DRI, which we'll have to address separately. Because they have reporting requirements to the RPC, the Regional Planning Council. MR. WHITE: And generally speaking, DRI's already have a series of requirements for build-out and termination of those -- the DRI status. So they are relatively well protected under the existing regulations. And what we're going to do is harmonize our rules for PUDs with those for DRIs as much as possible, and provide a mechanism where we terminate the reporting requirement if they achieve, quote, build-out status. MR. SCHMITT: Could I bring this into perspective for the board? Because really, this is important to Nick and transportation, and it's important to my staff well. Because this is how we get the data, frankly, for our concurrency and our annual reports and our updating of the checkbook concurrency. What is the board's desire? Because in one -- on one hand we need the information to keep track of certainly the demand placed upon our infrastructure, but the second piece of this is it becomes a burden. Becomes a burden to the homeowner association. If the Page 23 June 8, 2005 developer leaves and it's still not deemed to build out, then we've placed probably a financial burden certainly and a difficult burden on the homeowners association, because they can't sort through this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we just provide them the option? Until we can get rid of the phantom units, just tell them you report on them if you've got excess capacity that hasn't been built, or you give up the excess capacity and you don't report on them. Real simple. So that means a homeowners association, if they've taken over, they've got excess capacity, they haven't built on it, they're not planning on building on it, just tell them not report anymore and you're going to take the phantom units away. End of story. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we have to put that in the ordinance -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand. MR. SCHMITT: -- because that requires some kind of an amendment to the PUD to take away -- that will be part of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's the crux of the problem, okay? So if what you're saying is you've got to have the phantom ordinance -- MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- approved first or at least concurrently with this one -- is that what you're saying? MR. SCHMITT: Well, we'll need the two. We'll need the other ordinance that will provide the mechanism for you, the board, to deem build-out. You're built out. We don't want to hear from you anymore. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell me how you can approve this one then if you don't have a phantom ordinance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could address that, Commissioner. If you were to not approve this, that problem would still be there. The only thing this ordinance does is just tells you how we Page 24 June 8, 2005 want to you report. It just details a little bit better than -- and it gives you an option to pay in lieu of if you'd prefer not to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to solve this problem whenever the phantom ordinance -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is ready, and hopefully it will be ready in September. MR. WHITE: The ordinance itself, which will be effectively LDC text, why we need that special cycle, to have your approval to do so. A subset of that is the authorization for this board, as the administrative said, to make those determinations on a case-by-case basis. I don't anticipate that the way that that phantom unit ordinance is going to operate is that it immediately divests those excess units. I think what Mr. Schmitt is saying to you is that there has to be some separate additional actions that take place, and once those actions take place, then the status of build-out is effectively determined, and at that point the reporting requirement drops off as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, so that's going to be solved with the ordinance in September. MR. WHITE: And the subsequent actions it implements. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, good. Well, what's your pleasure with this one, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then we're okay. You want to go to the second category? Oh, no, no, we were going to vote on these. MR. WHITE: Yes, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now, if I remember correctly, we wanted to pull Section 4.06.04.C. And all of the remainder, with the exception of one that we disapproved -- Page 25 June 8, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: 2.03.08 is the other one, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 2.03.08 we disapproved. All of the others -- MR. SCHMITT: That's the one we withdrew. We'll bring that back. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The one that we disapproved was 4.06. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, 4.06 was the one we disapproved. MR. SCHMITT: All the others you basically consented by nod, so we need a vote on those. We can do that in one fell swoop. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to approve the remainder? Okay, Motion by Commissioner Halas. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS . MURRAY: The next section -- and I'll go through this a Page 26 June 8, 2005 lot more quickly. You have a tab that says omissions, it should be red, and if you start from that tab you'll see a new summary sheet. And I'll just quickly read through the sections. Again, these are correcting omissions during recodification of the 2004 amendments and you did not have comments on these, and they don't result in regulatory change. Section 1.08.02. And there are various sections -- definitions within that section. Then Section 2.03.08.C. Now I'm on Page 2 of the summary sheet. At the top, Section 2.06.04. Section 4.02.23. 4.05.04.B.5. 4.08.07. I'm on Page 3 of your summary sheet. 5.02.03. 5.03.02. 5.05.02. 5.05.09. I'm on Page 4. Section 5.06.07. 8.06.03. 9.04.00, and 10.09.00. 10.02.02.A.4. Page 5, Section 10.02.07. 10.02.06. And 12, appendix H. And then various sections which clean up various typographical errors in various sections, on Page 74. And if you want to take a vote now on that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed, by like sign. Page 27 June 8, 2005 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS. MURRAY: The final section will be found under your clarifications tab. And you'll see another summary sheet C there. And I'm on Page 1 of the summary sheet that starts with Section 2.03.08. 4.03.02. 4.06.05. 5.05.08.C.4. Page 2 of your summary sheet, Section 5.06.01. 6.01.02. 9.04.06. And 10.02.06.H. And 10.02.02. And that's the end of that summary sheet and you can take a vote. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to -- second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta makes a motion to approve, Commissioner Halas seconded. Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MR. SCHMITT: One last item, Mr. Chairman, if you could, a motion to continue those items that we withdrew to a future date which will be advertised. And that will be heard at a regular scheduled Board of County Commissioner meeting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. Page 28 June 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're rescheduling only one. We disapproved one. We're not -- MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- rescheduling. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're talking about-- MR. SCHMITT: But we have the other -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- TDRs. MR. SCHMITT: -- stuff we're bringing back that's associated with the implementation of the TDRs that have to go back to the planning commission and some form or fashion have to come back to you with a recommendation. And we're asking that you as a board would approve to have those come back as a regularly scheduled agenda item during a Board of County Commissioner meeting. Mr. White, if you would clarify that from the county -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. MR. SCHMITT: -- attorney's perspective. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a motion by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And there's a second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Page 29 June 8, 2005 Okay, now, with respect to the item that you pulled, do you need any guidance about when to bring it back? That was Section 2.03.08. That was the TDR program. You were going to give -- MR. SCHMITT: Guidance on that is to have a letter accompany Mr. Nichols, a letter accompanying that. So we'll have that as part of the discussion when we bring those items back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Okay, is there any other business? MS. MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we are adjourned. Thank you. Page 30 June 8, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:54 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. '-M-w. ~ FRED W. COYLE, airman ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , : ,!;:..", 0;(" ~" ~(þ.~ ,~.(l. a ~.. . "),, "ttest IS to Ch. ft"lÎþfj/ ,i" signature onl~. ' ,'. . These minutdrhþproved by the Board on ~ uJ Lf z.~. ZooS , as presented./ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 31