Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/17/2005 S August 17, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 17, 2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Russell Budd Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Brad Schiffer Mark Strain Robert Vigliotti Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, ASCI, Zoning & Land Development Review Page 1 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good evening. We'll call this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. If you would please rise with me for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good evening. This is the evening meeting for the Land Development Code, cycle two. Since this is legislative in nature, there will not be any swearing in of the speakers, and there will not be any disclosures by Planning Commissioners. Just a little bit of housecleaning before we get started. There's quite a lot of material in front of us this evening we're going to need to work through, and I think it would be appropriate for the Planning Commissioners to discuss a fixed time that we can focus on that if our business this evening is not complete, we can adjourn and reconvene at another set time. And I would suggest for consideration that we select 8:00 p.m. as the cut-off point for this evening. Do we have any discussion on that or a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved -- second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Abernathy. Further discussion? (No response.) All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Opposed? Page 2 August 17, 2005 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: So at that time, Mr. Schmitt, we'll either pick a time certain, if you could give us some guidance at that time on what's open on the meeting room calendar and we'll pick a time and go from there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, could I verify that tonight is the first hearing of all these and that there will be a second hearing? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, I'm Catherine Fabacher, I'm the LDC coordinator, and I was going to announce that this is the first meeting, and our next meeting is, I believe, going to be September 21 st. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. Just as a preliminary housekeeping matter, I've reviewed the Affidavit of Publication for this evening's public hearing and find that it's legally sufficient for a meeting to proceed. And in a perhaps more substantive answer for Commissioner Strain's question, let me note for the record that I'm turning this document over to the minutes keeper. Let me just say that he asked his question as to whether this would be the first hearing or whether there would be I guess implicitly a second hearing. And that is a matter that is entirely at this commission's discretion. You need to make a motion and a vote, if there are any matters that you hear tonight or any subsequent LDC amendment hearing in this cycle, as to whether you want to hear them a second time. If you want to have more than one meeting to hear the package, you certainly are free to do so. And in fact we have, as indicated by Ms. Fabacher, a second meeting planned in this schedule. The LDC Page 3 August 17, 2005 says that there will be only one hearing of the matters in a particular cycle, unless the CCPC votes to have more than one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. With that in mind, I'd like to take that action to confirm our meeting for September 21 st. Given that we only had four days to review all this material for this hearing this evening, I'm sure we would not be as complete as we would like. Also, given the late submission of the Bayshore overlay, which we're not even going to be able to get into in any depth at this first round, I think it would be a logical conclusion that we should plan on the September 21 st meeting. Do we have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: A motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Strain to confirm the second hearing on September 21 st for this LDC cycle two. MR. WHITE: May I inquire? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, is the Planning Commission under this motion voting to require hearing all of the matters in this cycle two times separately and independently, or are you simply by this motion looking to have another meeting to talk about some aspect or the other of the package? I just don't want to put you in a -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifwe had gotten this package in a timely manner to have had time to go through it, I wouldn't be so concerned about needing two meetings. But four days is not enough for the amount of intensity, plus with the meeting following tomorrow that's got a packet twice as thick as the one that this meeting's got. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see us do what we can tonight, but make sure that we have time to think about it and study it further in another meeting in September, if that's the majority of the board's opInIon. Page 4 ----- August 17, 2005 MR. WHITE: But I'm trying to get to that same end, but just do not want to hamstring you by having a motion passed and adopted that does more than that, and in fact requires you to have to hear everything independently twice. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein? Mr. Adelstein is indicating that the second meeting, that of September 21 st, will be a meeting not to discuss every item individually, but we will meet and discuss those items that need further consideration. MR. WHITE: So tonight's meeting you may decide on certain matters that you will vote finally on, and others you will reserve determination on till the 21 st. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's correct. Mr. Adelstein, is that correct with the motion? MR. WHITE: Thank you for the clarification. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain, are you the second on that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was the second, but to be honest with you, I'm a little puzzled because how do we know if we're going to need to know -- if we need -- as far as I'm concerned, none of these I've had ample time to look at. So I would rather see everything deferred to the 21st of September. CHAIRMAN BUDD: By the nature of this motion, we have that prerogative. We're not closing the door, we're just not forcing ourselves to look at something that we can look at, see tonight, like and approve and be done with it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll accept the second. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Excuse me. There are two different issues to me. You've got what's left that we don't get to tonight by 8:00. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's true. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Is that going to be heard for Page 5 August 17, 2005 the first and last time on the -- on that September meeting? I thought we would have a continuation of this meeting to dispose of everything one time through, except those things that we want to hear a second time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The motion that has already been passed was to continue this meeting that whatever business is unfinished at 8:00 p.m. will be continued at a time certain and will finish the first hearing of everything. Might be tomorrow, might be next week. It's a time we've yet to determine. Everything will be heard the first time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: First time through. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And on September 21st, that's our second shot at anything that we have not dispensed with at the first hearing, because we consider it completed and thorough. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, I'm with you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: A motion on the table right now, a motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Strain, is that on September 21st, we will meet and discuss any and all items that have not been dispensed with by the completion of our first hearing. Is that legally sufficient, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I hate to have to do this, Mr. Chairman, but please bear with me. We've used two words interchangeably. And I've tried to be very precise about using them in this meeting and previously. There is no problem with having multiple meetings. The problem is when you inject the use of the word hearing and start talking about having more than one hearing. Whether it's different meetings, the same, that is my concern here. And if what the gist of the motion is that you're going to have a meeting this evening for a first hearing and you will dispose of those matters you deem appropriate, and others will remain, and then at some other point in time yet to be determined you'll have a continued meeting that will still be a first hearing and dispose of those matters, are you intending to have a second independent requirement for a Page 6 .------- August 17, 2005 complete hearing -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. WHITE: -- on September 21 ? CHAIRMAN BUDD: The intention is for a second meeting and hear those items that have not been dispensed with at the first hearing. MR. WHITE: Very good. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that -- MR. WHITE: First meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- correct with the motion maker and the second? Okay, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a proposal then and continuation-- as I understand the county attorney, that's a continuation of this meeting. And being that it would be, we could start earlier, if you think it would be in your best interest to say start at like 3:00 p.m. rather than wait until 5 :00. MR. WHITE: And if you do announce that today as to time certain, then we do not have to advertise independently, unless we choose to. And that's a staff determination. But there is no legal requirement to have to do so. MR. SCHMITT: I would only offer that because it would be the continuation of this meeting and it would allow for a little bit more -- about probably five hours worth of work. Instead of normally starting at 5:00 and quitting at 8:00, we could probably start at possibly 3:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We could start at 1:00. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we could. I would have to find out the availability of this room. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There are some people here that are employed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schmitt, that's a good idea. Before we get too convoluted, let's take a vote on that we will meet again on Page 7 August 17, 2005 September 21 st, decide that and then we'll zero in on what time. So we have a motion by Mr. Adelstein, second by Mr. Strain. Any further discussion on the meeting on the 21 st? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's clear. Now, Mr. Schmitt brings up a good point, is there an inclination to meet earlier or not? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think we would probably have a better judgment of it when we see what comes up at 8:00. At that time we'll know whether we've got "X" out of the way or we still have a real pile, and then we'll discuss whether or not what time we should start the second meeting. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I only say that because at that meeting on the 21 st, I would expect we're going to spend a considerable amount of time on the overlays, and Bayshore/Gateway and the triangle overlays. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Adelstein makes a good point. At 8:00 when we finish our business for this evening, we'll not only fix the next time, we'll also clarify when we're corning on the 21 st and handle the advertising issue that Mr. White pointed out to us. Okay, any other housecleaning? Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? Page 8 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Patrick ran away, but I'll try anyway. Is there a requirement that we have a meeting in the evening? I know the requirement of two meetings. My impression was that that would give the public access to one evening meeting for changes in the LDC. MR. SCHMITT: This would be that meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if we continue it to the day, then items that weren't brought up this evening would never be brought up in the evening. MS. MURRAY: I believe I heard the chairman say you were going to at least touch on everything today. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're going to make that attempt. And what I would like to do on this timing question is to bring it up at 8 :00 p.m., or a quarter till, wherever is the logical breaking point, we'll see what we've got and then we'll deal with it. MR. SCHMITT: We can certainly deal with -- if there's public here, and Commissioner Schiffer, if that's your concern, we could certainly listen to the public. If there are any issues the public hears that want to raise issues in regards to this LDC amendment, we can deal with those this evening. We should be able to deal with some of those this evening. MS. F ABACHER: So I didn't receive any speaker slip. Is anybody here? You found one? No, that's from something else. Here we go, here's one, here's two, here's three. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any other housecleaning or can we get started with this process? MR. SCHMITT: I think we can start. I would ask Catherine, she is gathering -- we'll try and deal with the LDC amendment that the public are here and signed up for, we'd like to deal with those first, if that's your desire, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, I think that makes sense. So let's zero in on those items that we have significant public interest. Page 9 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, could I make one statement for the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- record? We received a hand-out when we carne in this evening. I cannot use that hand-out tonight. I spent what time I could on the existing package, so my comments will be corning from the existing package, regardless of what's handed out here tonight. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree. MS. FABACHER: All right, we seem to have two speakers on some of the transportation issues, which are in the back of the packet. One is Al Zichella, and he's talking about Section 10.02.07 and 10.02.02. Wait, that's not transportation, I'm sorry. That should be -- let's see. MR. WHITE: Transportation. MS. FABACHER: It is. It is transportation, thank you. It's transportation concurrency, and it's the -- limiting the number of de minimis development order submittals allowed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have no problem starting with that item. Do you have a page number that we could -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, that would be on Page 192. I'm on Page 17 of the summary sheet and that is on Page 192. Transportation staff is here, if you have questions or whatever you'd like to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, if we could go to Page 192, and I believe that is -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 17. MS. FABACHER: Page 17 of the summary sheet, Page 192 of the amendments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Could we have the appropriate staff presentation on this item? MS. FABACHER: Yes, we do. Page 10 August 17, 2005 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation planning. I think just to give you a brief idea on -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't think your speaker's working. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hello? For the record, Nick Casalanguida, transportation planning. Over the past six months we've approached certain segments in the county concurrency system that have approached the level between 100 and 110 percent where we've seen developments corne in and we've allowed developments in that are de minimis, less than one percent of the adopted level of service on that roadway segment. What's happened is, is some applicants have submitted multiple applications for development orders for the same development that were aggregate in the sense for the development of the whole project. What we're trying to do is to figure out a way to submit something that slowed that process down. We consider the 100 percent capacity almost like the yellow light, and 110 percent the red light for concurrency in the county. So at the 100 percent, the de minimis regulation that's now in effect is almost like the yellow light; it says slow down, you know, we're accepting de minimis, you know, applications, and that's what we're doing. This amendment that we proposed was to try and address the submittal process for the applications corning forward, and that's where we're at right now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions on the staff presentation? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. So is the problem, Nick, that developers are breaking projects up into smaller projects, thus corning in under the de minimis wire? MR. CASALANGUIDA: A good way to describe it would be if Page 11 August 17, 2005 a plat contains 500 units, and if they submitted the plat in say three or one or two sections, they wouldn't qualify as de minimis. And what happened was there was submittals of plats of 16 units. So in Joe's department, they would get 25 applications of the same proj ect, almost on the same day or every other day for the same development. And so that's what was happening. We were trying to slow that down and temper that, if we could. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if they were submitted at once, they would not meet that requirement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The de minimis requirement, that's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Playing limbo with the de minimis requirement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And fair to the development community, they play within the bounds. And we've had a couple meetings scheduled with them over the next couple of days to talk about that and work with them on that, and especially this amendment that's in front of you right now, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent of the amendment is that you're going to summarize a one-year, 12-month period and they can't go above that level within that period? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And I guess we submitted this rather quickly, and in fairness to them, they didn't get a chance to review it as much as they probably would like to have. And we're working with them on that now. We're reviewing what that 12-month does to them, and that time frame is not set in stone. We're trying to figure out a good period. But 12 months was a number that was thrown around by staff and we thought that was a good time period. They've pointed out some problems with that and we're going to work with them on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And building codes have a similar condition, they have similar situations and that's exactly how Page 12 August 17, 2005 they handle it, you know, within a 12-month period you can't exceed a certain percentage of what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I'm not familiar with what the exact submittal process of some of the building requirements, but that's probably the case. MR. WHITE: And I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think that there's an analogous type of rules -- set of rules that exist for DRI's, developments of regional impact, that similarly would be recognized as I think what are called aggregation rules, so that you don't allow folks to by just dropping below some threshold in submitting a series of applications over a short period of time avoid what otherwise was the regulatory intent in effect that those rules were intended to address. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other questions on the staff presentation? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If everybody else is finished, I do. First off, I notice it hasn't been before DSAC. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody explain why it would corne to us first? MR. CASALANGUIDA: DSAC hasn't reviewed all the packet -- all the presentations that were there. I think we were on the back end and it was a late submittal or just in time submittal. And I think DSAC was going to hear it in the next meeting that they had. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Isn't DSAC a more business orientated panel? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say so. And an advisory committee. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, I'm -- as the record will testify, I'm pretty strong on making sure that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. Page 13 August 17, 2005 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed, sir. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, we have scheduled to take it back to DSAC December 7th -- not December, September 7th. It's just that we had, like at this meeting, so many things for them to consider that they just couldn't get to that, so we agreed to bring it back and have reports to you on what their comments are by the -- our second -- our hearing date. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it would have been important for me to know on the first hearing date what their thoughts were so that any of their comments that were relevant or valid we could incorporate into the suggestions that you're going to bring back to us on the second meeting. Now, if we don't get it till the second meeting, you're not going to be able to make any changes that we're going to see before it goes forward to the BCC. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, agreed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And for that reason, I think -- I'm disappointed it wouldn't have gone to DSAC, as it always has in the past when something like this has corne forward. I don't know what the motivation has been to get it here first. I don't agree with it, and I think it's unfair, just as I would think certain things the development industry does is unfair to the civic association, civic groups, this is unfair to the development -- MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record so you understand, the DSAC sub-committee never got a quorum to do the review. And then on the second meeting with the DSAC they failed to have a quorum. So we've been struggling to try and get the DSAC to review these amendments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does that mean we're going to be assuming their responsibility, too? MR. SCHMITT: No. No, it will go back to the DSAC. It still has to go to the DSAC. It doesn't necessarily have to go to the DSAC Page 14 August 17, 2005 before it goes to the Planning Commission, but it has to go to the DSAC and the Planning Commission -- it should go to the DSAC before your second meeting so that you can make a final recommendation to the Board. And that's-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What if we put it over until our next continuation of this meeting? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think we should hear from the public. MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend you hear from the public. COMMISSIONER CARON: This fellow's here, let him speak and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm not nearly done yet. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- then we can put it-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I've still got quite a bit -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I'm hearing several people talking at one time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll wait till everybody stops. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Have you had any meetings with the local business community, Chamber of Commerce, CBIA or others in regards to this issue? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it was a submittal we had to get in. And we discussed it with some of the local engineers, and especially the people that present the traffic impact statements, along with the local development order applications. We've discussed this process with them. As a matter of fact, we're meeting with six of them tomorrow morning to address specifically this, to try and get ahead of the DSAC presentation. So we're going to go out of our way to make sure that they're informed, and we're going to go out of our way to work with Page 15 August 17, 2005 them. So I want to make that clear for the record. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So their input has not been incorporated in any you've got here tonight? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Preliminarily some of it has and some of it hasn't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sure we'll be hearing from them. Maybe they -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sure we will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the actual language that you're proposing, in about the fifth or sixth line down, you refer to the language, or other developments of relatively large tracts of land. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What is a relatively large tract of land? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That definition, I think that's also in our PUD definition or -- MR. TINDALL: If I could take that one, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. My name is Phil Tindall, I'm with the Transportation Planning Department. When we carne up with this language to determine who we were going to apply this to, we looked up the section in the zoning district section of the Land Development Code, and it described the PUD as a relatively large tract of land under single ownership. And we were -- and we most of these developments that this proposed section would apply to would be PUD's, but there might be some rare cases when it applies to a project that for some reason it was not petitioned to be zoned as a PUD, but would be similar in size and other characteristics. We just wanted to make sure that nothing fell through the cracks of that similar size and nature. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is three acres a relatively large tract of land? MR. TINDALL: I couldn't give you an answer to that right at Page 16 August 17, 2005 this moment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ten acres? I'm wondering where the threshold is. I think that this needs -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- a threshold rather than a guess. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you look at what's in the fringe right now, I know I have applications that are going to be corning across my desk in the next month or so that could be 530 acres at one unit per acre. So that definition of a relatively large tract, I think we apply towards the transportation definition. If it's de minimis, a tract of land would provide de minimis impact. It wouldn't be a project of that relatively large size. But if it's something that could be broken down into small sections, we'd consider that a relatively large tract of land, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe you ought to be referencing the traffic counts, not tracts of land, if that's the issue that you're concerned about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll take that recommendation into consideration, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The next line down you talk about developed in multiple phases. Does that mean anything more than one? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say that that's what it means, yes, SIr. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. A little further down you talk about potentially deficient road segments. What is a potentially deficient road segment? Is that a black and white issue or is it -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- a grey area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- talked about that. There's a section in the LDC in 6.0 -- I see in highlight, 6.02.03 that defines what potential (sic) deficient is. And one of the members of the Page 1 7 August 17, 2005 development community pointed out that that can be broad. And we're considering redefining that, maybe even pulling that out of that. One way we're going to maybe address that would be to say as deficient road segments as defined by the checkbook concurrency system, once it approaches or surpasses the 100 percent capacity level. So we might clean that language up to take the "potentially" out and clean that up a little bit. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if you're going to do something like this, I would think that you'd want it to be exact so everybody knows exactly the impacts. Because you've used the word "potentially" in this document three times, and potentially means nothing then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think with the discussion we've had today, we are going to have a definite line. I think the 100 percent line would be the line that we cross to say when it's deficient. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if you get a potentially deficient road segment, they're still allowed to submit only one final local development order. Can that one development order be for a plat for 2,000 acres? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It could be. But then it wouldn't be de minimis in its application for transportation -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you're limited then in the one not to exceed the de minimis threshold? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. THE COURT REPORTER: You guys are going very fast. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And just to clarify, you need to let each-- let the other complete the sentence, complete the statement, take a breath and answer, because I've had the same thoughts, and I'm not doing my job as a Chair in making it humanly possible to keep an accurate record. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fair enough. Page 18 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They referred to me as Chair a couple of times, so I'm glad it wasn't me, it was you. What segments are currently potentially deficient, in your -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, what's defined by currently potentially deficient in that section would be a lot, under the definition section. I think we want to get away from that, and I think we're going to go towards deficient segments, as defined by the checkbook concurrency system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you're saying that by the time we see this again, more than likely the language that references potentially will be taken out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're probably going to say just deficient road segment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: As defined by the checkbook concurrency system. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And what segments are deficient right now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: 41 east of951; 951 south of U.S. 41. And there may be Davis Boulevard, which is also in the transportation concurrency management exception area -- management area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What about Immokalee and I-75? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That wouldn't be considered deficient, . SIr. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It would be or would not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would not be, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What you're proposing here is virtually a moratorium. And I know that latitude has always in the past been reserved for the Board of County Commissioners, because as much as we would not like it to be, it is also a political decision. By reducing applicants to only one submittal a year that is less than de minimis, you're virtually locking out development. Page 19 .-.------- August 17, 2005 I'm not saying that's bad or good, but I'm wondering where the authority is going to be corning from to make a decision on a moratorium based on an administrative code instead of going to the BCC to be aired in the public, as it would have in the past. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think, sir, that moratorium's the correct word. I think it's concurrency management. But I'd also like to point out that what we're trying to do is to say to a developer or developers, submit your application and, you know, do it in a fashion that's consistent that we can manage it. In other words, as we get to 100 percent, it's a yellow light. We're telling you to corne in in an organized, orderly fashion, and it's something we can handle and it's de minimis. At 110 percent, and that's debatable with the management bill what happens. But to say stop at that point in time, not due to a moratorium but due to concurrency. And that allows us time to try and look for a resolution to that problem in that area and work towards a solution. So I try and stay away from that word moratorium. I don't think that's what-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I know you do, and I don't blame you for doing that, because it's a red hot button. But I would rather we be as blunt as we possibly can so that all members of the public, both in the civic side and the business community, realize the potential that's sitting here in front of them today. And that's why I brought it up the way I did. I may have more questions before this is over but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can I answer one -- follow up on one comment you made, sir? I don't think it's the intent of this amendment to stop or put a moratorium. I think it's just to make it so the process for submittal is a little bit more organized and separated. We had two applicants that were standing across the street from this one applicant that submitted and said you told me today that we were 103 percent, and there were enough trips left and that was a de Page 20 August 17, 2005 minimis application, and then three weeks later you said the de minimis remaining capacity is gone. And I said 26 de minimis applications carne in, or -- I'm using a number; it could be 10, it could be 12 -- carne in from one development and gobbled up that capacity. And I don't think that was the intent of the de minimis section of the code. And I'm not being derogatory to the development community, they were just using the code to their nature, just like you would the tax code. And we're just trying to clean that up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Nick, what I'm concerned about is that if that scenario occurs and you have to limit other developers in the area to one parcel that is not exceeding the de minimis threshold, the de minimis threshold is so low that most of your projects cannot survive with only one of those a year. So in essence you've actually gotten into a moratorium status with them as far as their functioning is going to be concerned, because they can't produce the product that they need to stay viable. Now, I'm not saying that's bad or good, but I'm saying that could be the outcome here and that's why it's important that we get the business community to weigh in on this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. That's where I'm going with it. Agreed. MR. WHITE: If I could address that, Mr. Chairman. There's going to be limitations on capacity when these types of provisions are being considered and applied. And I guess if there's a way of fairly distributing that amongst a number of competing development projects, I think it's fair to say that that's the intent of this provIsIon. It is not the idea that it is intended to operate against one or more developer to preclude them from being able to reach some desired level of production, but rather from the government side with the responsibility to regulate fairly, attempting to do so in the most equitable manner possible. Page 21 -.-....-- August 17, 2005 And if I could just jump back to the discussion about potentially deficient road segments, 6.02.03(E) of the Land Development Code talks very specifically about what potentially deficient road segments are. And in fact, I think that notwithstanding the staffs comments today about how they may choose to look at Commissioner Strain's concerns that we need to be very judicious in whether or not we're going to have these types of provisions apply not only to deficient road segments, but to those that are potentially deficient. Because you can be in a potentially deficient road segment status for up to two years under the AUIR. So I think we're going to have to look at that more closely, and I don't know that it would be fair to make a representation that the regulation would only apply to deficient road segments or not. So I think that's a further discussion that we'll have to take input from DSAC and others as well on and think about. I mean, because arguably, it would seem to me that if you didn't include potentially deficient road segments, you may effectively not have achieved the goal here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer, you had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Nick, rather than limiting to one application a year, could you do this where the cumulative total of the traffic wouldn't exceed the de minimis within a 12-month period? People could have multiple applications, but you would be constantly looking at it in a 12-month period. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could do that. I don't know if it would be practical, only for the fact of one percent -- which is less than one percent on a road segment that may have capacity of 3,000 trips, maybe 30 trips, so it would be tough for them to corne in even smaller and say you could do it smaller. I understand your question. I'd have to probably show you on a math level, you know, what our trips -- how they would do that. That -- for instance, a plot and plan submittal might only be three homes Page 22 August 17, 2005 four times that would do what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think having one submittal up to the de minimis level might be 15 or 20 trips on a particular segment, which may equate to 30 homes in one development. So it was a level we felt that was -- a builder or an applicant could do a single-family home or multi-family project that may sustain them for a year, or an SDP that was reasonable in size. So I think there's still question, when we're talking about the development community, is it one per year, two per year, is it, you know, one per 10 months? I think -- we're working with them to figure out maybe a number that they're comfortable with that we're also comfortable with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you believe this applies to all development? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it should sir, yes. I'm sorry, I'll strike that and I'll say unless the development is considered vested under the transportation system. Then they've already pretty much in effect been considered for concurrency. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions from the staff presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe could have public speakers on this item. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, we have Al Zichella, CBIA. MR. ZICHELLA: For the record, Al Zichella. I'm here on behalf ofCBIA. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Wish I was someplace else. Just found out about this yesterday. Page 23 August 17, 2005 I'll tell you that the industry has absolutely no input into this at all. Nick and I have had two phone conversations, and I will take him at his word that he intends to work around this, but I am very concerned by the lack of public process on this. DSAC did not hear it. And whether or not you realize it, CBIA has no seats on DSAC right now, by virtue of the fact that we're in lawsuit with the county over the government building impact fees. They have barred us from sitting on that committee. So I would have thought at the very least that a phone call was entitled to the representatives of the building and development industry, yet we didn't receive any. I got a heads up yesterday from one of our attorneys; otherwise I wouldn't even know this was corning before you. I think that it is rife with problems. I think it's very clear, by what we heard tonight, it's an ambiguous document, filled with many unintended consequences, not the least of which is a moratorium, potentially. And if you're going to declare a moratorium, it is, as Mr. Strain said, the problems of the county commission, and not the county staff, to impose rules that are so onerous as to be a defactive (sic) moratorium. There are rules about moratoriums. You have to have a way out of them. They have to have a predetermined period of time. This bypasses all of that. We would have no reason to be here, except for we spent the last three years hammering out what is now the most onerous and severe concurrency management program for transportation in the entire State of Florida by far. I participated and spent hundreds of hours in that process. I sat with Mr. Feder and his staff many, many times. What they're complaining about here was a negotiated result that would pass muster with the DCA. The reason we're allowed to submit multiple projects under the de minimis, if we can do that legally Page 24 August 17, 2005 within the rules, is because there's a delivery issue in this county. They cannot deliver roads to the infrastructure fast enough. And we have people and employees and customers that we have obligations to. There's issues of contract law here that are also at issue. It's not a simple matter of saying, oh, well, one guy submitted 12 applications. You know what? That might be wrong. Maybe we need to address that. But you don't devise a document without any public input, bring it before the Planning Commission and try to get it approved. I find that really very -- a sad day for public process. There are many unintended consequences in this document. Delivery issue aside, we wouldn't even be here if we could produce roads. I'll remind anyone who may not know that part of our transportation negotiations with the county, way back when, on concurrency -- way back when, the last three years -- was we had asked what do you need to do your job better? And we were told they needed the money sooner. And development industry -- and I know this is a fact because I'm the one who agreed to it. We told Norm Feder we would give him half of all of our impact fees on transportation, as long as there was capacity on the road in advance to build roads. I think that they have collected probably in excess of $40 million since we made that agreement. And not one road has been delivered to the system since Livingston Road was. So all of this plain -- excuse me, Mr. Schiffer, but limbo with the concurrency, that was a provision to protect us. We agreed to that in this. Maybe it is being abused by a couple of developers, I can't speak to that, I don't know for sure. The intention was not for one guy to corne in with 20 parcels and consume all of the capacity, I agree with Nick on that, and we should fix that problem. But you can't limit us to one SDP a year, because that's not really doing business. I submit to you, that's not being -- that's not acting as Page 25 August 17, 2005 a developer, that's practicing to be a developer. And we can't exist in that. It is a moratorium. It's unfair. Part of the reason for no quorum at DSAC, by the way, is because there are no building industry representatives sitting on DSAC. Sad thing, but that's the case, too. And of course we're being barred from it. I have to tell you, three years of a lot of hard work and goodwill on both sides can go up in smoke when something like this happens, and there's no public input from us. We're the ones being regulated. We think we should at least have a voice. And I'm deeply disappointed that this happened. Now, having said that, I'd be happy to work with county staff. I do respect them, despite all of this, and would like to iron this out. What I would very much like to see is to have this pulled from this cycle and have them bring it forward after it's been deliberated on and we can agree on how at least how we're going to be regulated in the next cycle. I think that would be fair and appropriate. With all due respect to everyone here, bringing this up with one day's notice to us is a little bit shocking. I commend Mr. Strain, you asked many of the questions that I had intended to ask. There is fuzzy definitions here. Mr. White said definition notwithstanding. The limitations are unreasonable and they're burdensome to the community, and I would very respectfully ask that a recommendation be made to pull this from the cycle and reintroduce it when we get it ironed out. As it is, I mean, something like this should never see the light of day. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please? MS. F ABACHER: Next speaker will be Cathy M. Sellers. MS. SELLERS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Page 26 August 17, 2005 Cathy Sellers. I'm with the law firm of Broad and Cassel, from Tallahassee, Florida. And following up on a comment that the speaker who presented the item to you made about vested proj ects not being subj ect to this, I would like to get confirmation that this would not apply to DRI's that have valid and expired development orders that are covered under Section 1.63.3167, subsection 8. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a question for Mr. White. MR. SCHMITT: I wasn't going to answer it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I can't answer it. MR. WHITE: I would say that the only way, Mr. Chairman, that any potential property owner wanted that assurance would be if they otherwise complied with the county's vested rights determination process. That is what has been in there under old Division 3.15, the predecessor to provisions in 6.06 and 10.02. And all of those DRI's are equally capable of being able to a attain that status and have been able to do so for years, and in fact was part of the discussion that we had with Mr. Zichella and others and contemplated, those steps being taken in conjunction with those types of annual traffic reports that were supposed to be provided in conjunction with PUD monitoring. So there is a viable mechanism to achieve that status. I believe that it would be premature and perhaps inappropriate to make a categorical statement about that today with respect to those individual DRI's, of which there may be some 26 or 27 of in this county. So I don't think there's a general rule that fits all of them that, you know, our office or even staff could categorically answer Ms. Sellers' question. Today, anyways. So I think the staff was basically saying that if you've attained vested status, and there's a process for that, then there would be no operation of this provision against your project. So-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Sellers? MS. SELLERS: If I may, to follow up, I would note that Section Page 27 August 17, 2005 10.02.07 of the code dealing with adequate public facility certifications does have a self-executing exemption for these kinds of DRI's, and they're expressly recognized as exempt from the concurrency certification process, and so we would request that a similar provision be put in in this section. And that really completes my remarks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you. Next speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: Mr. David M. Smith. MR. SMITH: Thank you. David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, Florida, with the law firm of Stearns, Weaver, Miller. I'm a planner with that firm, on behalf of CBIA. As indicated by everybody else and yourselves, we just got this last night and made arrangements to get down here today to speak on it. I think what's clear, in talking with some of the professionals that they're going to be meeting with, is that this is a very ambiguous document. There are a lot of things that could be interpreted. There are a lot of, and we've heard it already, unintended consequences. But I think what's really important to realize is this seems to be a lot of overkill. We're in a situation where this is all -- where this only makes a difference is when you have a deficient segment and you want to continue to develop and you want to have a de minimis impact and you submit a de minimis application. If there were capacity available to you, you would submit a full application for as much capacity as you could reasonably move forward with at that stage of development, and you would get your application processed. Only when a road has problems that you could not otherwise submit a larger application and not be under the de minimis threshold would this corne into play. There's an automatic provision in the concurrency rules. It's called a 110 percent provision. Basically once you have a deficient Page 28 August 17, 2005 road, you cannot have a de minimis impact once that road reaches 110 percent. Now, it's been referenced that the reason they want to do this is so we can better plan for the roads. I would submit to you that we should we will be planning for the roads well before it gets to 100 or 110 percent. The planning for the road should be occurring, one that's at 80 percent, 90 percent of capacity, those steps should be in place to allow for the planning of roads to corne on-line to satisfy those problems well in advance of having to worry about de minimis impacts. I would think along those lines that this is -- may be an unnecessary regulation. I work all over the state, and nowhere else that I am aware of is there even a discussion of this being a problem with people submitting de minimises. Let's flip it around and say we're a large project, I'm a well-planned project and everybody realizes that this is a great project in the community and it's held out as to being, you know, what Naples is all about and what Collier County is all about. But now because of the road deficiency, I can submit one application for 16 houses or 10 houses or whatever it may be. However, I happen to be in an area where there's a bunch of small parcels available. Well, nothing stops anybody from corning in and building three houses, four houses, five houses, six houses, de minimis, as many applications as they can file during the course of a year, because it would not apply to those small developers. Not large tracts. Not people that would have multi phases. And I think that what de minimis was all about was saying okay, once we reach a deficiency or we're getting to the deficient stage where the road doesn't meet adopted level of service, that we can still allow some development to occur and it can occur when we review it under de minimis impacts, but even at that -- at some point in time that has to stop. Because something has to be done about the roads. Page 29 August 17, 2005 Many jurisdictions have very poor road programs. Some of them are playing a lot of catch-up. I think the catch-up is what causes the problem. It's not that somebody is submitting de minimis applications. And once it gets to 110 percent, no more de minimis applications can be filed, except if you're an individual property owner that has a lot. It won't prohibit you from building that house, but it would prohibit somebody else with a larger scale development coming in and putting three lots in, or one lot in a large-scale development. If you were, say, WCI or any of the large-scale developers, they would not be allowed to do it. But a single-family owner that owns a lot in a subdivision could build this house and do de minimis. So I just think this is something that's unnecessary. It really doesn't further better planning for roads. It covers a very short period of time. And these are roads that should have plans into place to address their needs immediately. I would also offer that even though it says in the report -- and I understand this is probably not what this is intended -- it says, physical and operational impacts, none. Well, there will be some, because as you are allowed to put in de minimis applications, there will be ad valorem taxes placed on these houses that are allowed to be built while the road system is being planned and looked at. And there are impact fees that will be paid, 100 percent, some of the highest in the state, if not the highest in the state that would become available for these units. The amount of money may be de minimis, but it's still money going towards the transportation problems. So I think this is something that needs to be sent back, looked at harder, and maybe found not even to be necessary. I understand there is a meeting corning up. And I know some of the people that work in the business community are going to be looking at that. Any questions, I would be glad to answer them, but that's just mye Page 30 August 17, 2005 VIew. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: That's all the speakers that we have. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Comments? Questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, let me ask you a question on -- all these amendments have a certain schedule. Was this one submitted to meet the staff deadline? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it was. It was submitted with a staff deadline at the time, and didn't get into DSAC I think for the first round, but I think we also knew that it was at -- would have been at the back of the DSAC hearings. They wouldn't have got to it in the first hearing, anyway. So I think our submittal was in time. It wouldn't have made a DSAC hearing in the first hearing, knowing that we'd go to the second DSAC hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, in the schedule that's proposed, before these things start there is a deadline where staff has to have all their submittals in, yours was in that deadline? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Catherine, how close were we to that, or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's an absolute answer. MS. F ABACHER: You were beyond the deadline for the submittal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we move it to the next cycle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Move it what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next cycle. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The point being, that based on Mr. Page 31 August 17, 2005 Schiffer's questions, it came in past the deadline, which directly correlates to all the angst and grief we're facing, that there appears to be insufficient public review. Motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr. Strain to continue this to the next LDC cycle. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Sure. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Schmitt, if there's nobody from the development industry on the DS, Development Services Advisory Committee, what difference does it make whether they've had a hearing or not? Who is on it? MR. SCHMITT: Well, there are many members-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't mean by name, I mean by background. MR. SCHMITT: What Al mentioned was CBIA. There was one member from the CBIA on the DSAC. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But there are other developers? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, there are other developers. But because of the lawsuit and the issue with the pending lawsuit and members who are suing the county cannot be on an advisory committee, that gentleman was removed from the committee. But there are other developers. It's made up of developers -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Majority of them developers? MR. SCHMITT: It's all developers. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All developers. Well, that seems like -- MR. SCHMITT: Developers or members of the industry. It just so happens that what Al said is in fact correct. They may be -- their companies may be part of the CBIA, but no -- officers of the CBIA are no longer serving on the DSAC. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I got you. Okay. Page 32 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Along the lines of discussion -- yes, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand and basically agree with what the motion and the second. My only recommendation would be, even though I'm sure it won't happen, but some things could happen between this meeting and the next meeting that we're having. We could also postpone it at that time and know for sure that nothing could be done in that interim of time. Why should we have to put the answer to it now when in fact we know we have to have another meeting on the 21 st? CHAIRMAN BUDD: For my own part, I'm in favor of the motion and my answer would be what's the use of having a deadline that doesn't matter? Because I'm still personally bothered by the point brought out at the beginning of this evening's meeting that Mr. Strain raised that we received this packet four days ago, and while members of the construction and development industry commented that they became aware of it yesterday, because I'm old-fashioned, I start at the front and read a book to the back, this being at the back, I found out about 2: 00 this afternoon as I'm still crunching my way through this stuff. And I don't know, what -- Mr. Schmitt, what is the staff deadline for a hearing here on this date and time that it would have to have been submitted? Is that a matter of days or weeks, or when was that? MR. SCHMITT: I have a very -- a specific schedule, I have to turn to Catherine. I can give you the date, but there are dates. Submittals have to be in and then there are dates for each of the administrators to review the packets and concur with what's in the packet. It's a fairly prescriptive process. This was submitted late -- there's one development, I won't reveal the development, but there was one development that submitted 22 submittals, various SDP or plat submittals, to get under this process. And that's really what drove transportation to develop this. It was Page 33 August 17,2005 developed rather expeditiously in order to preclude future events or at least future attempts to try and circumvent what was meant to be for de minimis applications. So what you have here is a developer who has a large development, approved PUD and then has -- and breaking it down into 22 submittals. Now, certainly they have the option to do that in accordance with the code. They pay for each one of those submittals, but it certainly bogs down the system. And it was not meant to be that way. And this was a way to preclude that. But if this board feels -- they certainly can make that recommendation, if they believe that this out to be reviewed thoroughly. And I would say it probably is a good recommendation, that we understand the impacts and both the second and third order impacts of this, because it is a direct impact on the transportation issue and transportation concurrency. And if you feel that's what you want to do, we'll so note. We can bring it back at the next meeting, or we'll take your recommendation and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, the motion is to take it to the next cycle. When is the next cycle? MR. SCHMITT: Next cycle will start in the spring. We've been -- I don't know if we've been able to announce the date yet. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. We don't have the schedule posted yet, but typically it begins January of 2006 and ends roughly in June of 2006. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold it off for six months. MR. SCHMITT: We will have a call basically for LDC submittals sometime in December for a finalization. They'll probably be final in January as we put the packet together. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You better start before December. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Page 34 August 17, 2005 Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Move the question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries to continue this item to the next LDC cycle. Next item. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. MS. F ABACHER: I'd just like to clear something up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: I couried those out on Thursday morning of last week. When were they received? They were supposed to be hand delivered that day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mine, I remember seeing mine Friday. So I don't know if I got it Friday or it carne in Thursday, because I stayed late, I don't know. But I got mine, first opened it on Friday. It's been four, five days. But for a package of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that isn't the issue here. MS. FABACHER: No, I understand. And, you know, if possible, I would like to give you more time. I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'd like it, too. MS. FABACHER: -- stretch the schedule out to give you a Page 35 August 17, 2005 couple weeks to look at it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we've asked that many -- not of you, but we have asked that many times. For 204 pages, to have five days to digest it, then go back and -- MS. FABACHER: I agree. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- check it-- MS. FABACHER: Try putting it together. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Also to verify the GMP, that time has not been here to do that. Especially with a meeting tomorrow that has a packet twice as thick as this one. So this has been inappropriate for this time frame, as serious of a nature as this one is. MS. FABACHER: Well, I promise we'll try and do much better and give you a lot more time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Catherine, I always know you will. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. What's our next item with multiple speakers? MS. FABACHER: We have no more speakers, so I think we could start at the -- go back -- if it's your pleasure, to go back to the beginning of the summary and -- unless you had some -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, didn't you guys say there were two -- or is this both sections from the transportation that we voted on? MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 197 and 198, I'm assuming that's part of that. Okay. MS. FABACHER: That's two. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then I'm clear. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. So then we'll go back to the front. MS. FABACHER: The front page? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That works for me. MS. FABACHER: Okay. How about if I just read out from the Page 36 August 17, 2005 summary sheet and give you the number and the packet, and if you have any questions, if not, we'll just go on. All right, I'm on Page 1 of the summary sheet, and I'm looking at the first box, the definition -- adding the definition of adjacent. Looking at the next box, which was an omission, which was -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do that one. MS. FABACHER: Oh, you want to do that one? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, this is an interesting one. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear anything. I thought we were moving fast. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll let Brad go first. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. FABACHER: That would be on Page 1 of the packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, you know -- and the reason you described, that it was altered in recodification? Nothing was supposed to be altered, so -- MS. MURRAY: I can't hear you. Could you speak up a little bit? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, you're away from the mic. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In the reasoning, it does say that it was altered. Everything -- nothing was supposed to be altered. We were supposed to keep all our meetings the same. But move on to the adjacent. I kind of like the old definition better. The new one has things like lying near or in close proximity. That's not exactly precise. Where the old one, I could read that and feel exactly what that meant. MS. FABACHER: The old one above, lying near or adjoining? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you crossed out, to share a common property line or boundary, that's understandable. Will be Page 37 August 17, 2005 separated by a public right-of-way -- that's understandable -- easement or water body. The new wording, lying near or in close proximity, I don't know if that's adjacent or not. MS. F ABACHER: Well, it doesn't -- under the definition, it does not have to touch, abut or be contiguous to be adjacent. MS . MURRAY: I think the intent here was to distinguish it between the definition of abut or abutting. Because they're intended to be two different terms. If that helps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, abut and abutting I think is different than the old definition of adjacent. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I mean, how would -- what's close proximity? Is that one foot, is that 300 feet? Is that -- where is that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're thinking alike tonight. MS. MURRAY: It depends on who you ask. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's -- the definition's supposed to stop depending who you ask. MS. MURRAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would move to certainly add it back in, if it was removed, but I would go with the old wording. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to take it a step farther. Since staff has brought up the possibility of a change to this definition, I've had an experience with the word water body in this definition that is unbelievable. And because the word water body is not defined as to width, height or depth, if you have a 200- foot lake and you've got a product that's single-family on one side and multi-family on the another, you're required to put a six-foot hedge to block the view of that lake up, based on this definition. And I think because of that, this definition needs to have some clarification in regards to what is a water body. Is it a puddle, a stream, is it a long distance? And I'm glad to see there's been a suggested change, but it needs to go farther and be more definitive as Page 38 August 17, 2005 to what these such things are. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, the word is waterway, rather than water body. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, in the old one it was water body. In the new one, it's waterway. I'm still same -- my question still stands then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, is the problem you describe the problem with the requirement for the buffer or the definition of adjacent? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if you have a lake as an amenity and you charge people to have their homes on the lake, and require a six-foot buffer in the back to protect them from seeing that lake, does that make a lot of -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, that is going to be addressed tonight on one of the other amendments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I want to make -- okay, but in the word adjacent, now that the water body is an issue and has come up as an issue, what is a waterway in regards to its width? If you guys have got to have -- I think they're -- some kind of definition as to a waterway or water body occurs when you get past so many feet. Otherwise you could be -- like I said, a lake that's 100 or 200 feet wide all of a sudden becomes contiguous to two products, and you've got to have hedges between them when you're really on a lake. That's where I'm corning from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, are both sides of that lake owned by the same title? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why is this an issue? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know. It's just how the interpretation carne up. MS. F ABACHER: Well, we'll take another shot at it and bring it back to you. Page 39 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we won't take specific action but say that we've got problems and we're looking for a revision at our next -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there an attempt to define this in the new language where it says waterways such as, and then lists several items? MS. FABACHER: That was, yeah, that was the intent. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was that the attempt, to clarify water body? MS . MURRAY: Yes, to answer your question. What is -- can I -- I just want to make sure I have an understanding of the concern. I have a partial understanding. And just as you said, Commissioner, we had attempted to clarify it by putting river channel. And it is -- sometimes that's kind of hard to define by waterway. I mean, you've got manmade things, you've got naturally occurring things, you've got half and half, you've got huge lakes, you've got puddles. And so I was just trying to understand exactly your concerns. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Waterway implies some flow, to me, and I think it does to most people. A water body is one that does not have that flow characteristic. MR. SCHMITT: Can I bring some clarification? A developer who has a waterfront property or units on a water body, of course they're marketing those as an amenity as waterfront property, as they describe it in Naples, waterfront property. What has corne up is the -- when you're using adjacent and you have a single-family on one side of the water body and a multi-family on the other, that mandates a certain buffer. And where we've been having problems is determining, well, if you had a single-family on one side and a multi-family on the other, then you're going to have a required type B buffer. And that type B buffer may be behind the lots that are being sold as waterfront properties as an amenity. So we tried Page 40 August 17, 2005 to clear this up. And in the landscaping language, we describe the distance that is deemed to be not requiring that would allow for some other method of putting in landscaping, rather than a straight type B buffer. So that was the problem. This is to preclude putting in a comment saying okay, type B buffer, and then somebody says okay, there they go again, telling me a put a buffer down the middle of a lake, or down the back yards of a lake that our property's being sold, frankly, as waterfront as an amenity. So that's what we're trying to describe here. We're trying to write a precise definition to ensure that when single-family or multi-family or any other type of buffering, that the buffering is put in. But if you're at a water management canal five feet or 10 feet, we certainly think there ought to be adequate buffering to buffer those two types of developments. If you're on a water body that's a water management lake, a large 60- foot, 100- foot. So that's what we're trying to do here, we're trying to preclude a standard comment from being applied to a situation that doesn't really, when you look at it and you go wow, this doesn't make sense. I mean, who would put a buffer behind their home because they're on a fronting water? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but this is just the definition of the word adjacent. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The misuse of the word adjacent's the problem someplace else in the code. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. So what I'm trying to do is clean up the word adjacent because it says -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think one of the important things in here, it says a common property line, which means -- gives the concept of two owners, which is why you would use the Page 41 August 17, 2005 word adjacent, which I think has been dropped. So I really think the old definition was good. A water body, I mean, if it's a puddle owned by one guy, it's -- you know, the regulations should treat it differently. But I mean, what they're saying is that a property across another water body would be considered an adjacent property, and the word adjacent used for whatever regulations further in the code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I believe that what you're talking about trying to correct is in another LDC amendment here submitted. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Mike wrote that in another -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Not -- I don't think it relates to the word adjacent. MR. SCHMITT: -- portion of this LDC tonight, but the -- we were also trying to correct any misuse of another part of the code, based on the word adjacent. And that was the attempt here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it should be corrected in the other LDC amendment. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it was trying to be corrected in both. Both the definition of when to apply the type B buffer, and also to clarify the word adjacent. MR. WHITE: Have we defined the word-- MR. SCHMITT: We may have created more complications now is what I'm hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you missed the point of what adjacent is. Let me -- where adjacent's a concern is is in the definition of -- adjacent used like in architectural standards. Is the building across the street adjacent to the property? We know it's not abutting. And I think that's what the importance of this word would be. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't think there's any dispute that Page 42 August 17, 2005 there's a problem. The question on this is, is this the answer? So if you could take a swing at this and have something different at our next reVIew. MR. SCHMITT: Got it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, next item. MR. SCHMITT: I'll certainly entertain any suggestions, if you have any. You can e-mail it to me or Susan if you've got any suggestions that you think might help clear this up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll give you one now. Stay with the old, dump the new. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Moving right along. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item. MS. FABACHER: Next item would be the definition of parking. Exclusion of interior parking structures from the calculations of the floor area ratio, which was omitted during recodification. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions on that item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. I'm going to end up having to have questions on everything tonight. I'm sorry. When you're adding -- when you're taking out parking facilities now, out of FAR, you're saying that's the way it was in the prior code? Because I don't recall that. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's the way it was in the prior code. In the LDC, parking was not part of the FAR? MS. FABACHER: Right. Not parking, but I mean interior parking. I'm sorry if I misspoke. Interior parking within the structure was not -- was deducted when they calculated the floor area ratio. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, floor area ratio is-- MS. F ABACHER: Relationship of the square footage of each -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: -- floor to the size of the lot. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 43 ...~---_. August 17, 2005 MS. FABACHER: But what they allowed you to do is if you put parking structures inside of your building, then that wouldn't count towards your square footage of your building. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But it still would be massing of the building in relationship to the lot. Because you'd have to increase the building size to accommodate the parking. Floor area ratio is more of a comparison of massing to the lot than anything else. So I'm wondering if that's the right thing to do, and that's why I circled it, to question what the intent was here. Because I've tried to look on the Internet for different definitions of floor area ratio. I didn't find any in the little bit of time I took that excluded this area, so I wasn't sure why we were trying to do it. MS. MURRAY: Well, floor area ratio is a regulation that deals with intensity, much like density. So I think the thought here -- and I can't answer your question about whether it was in the old code or not. Did you confirm that? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, it was in the old code. MS . MURRAY: But the idea here is the building square footage that actually deals with the use -- I mean, the use of the building, the portions of the building that would generate traffic from an intensity standpoint is what the true calculation should be. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But isn't that a zoning calculation, really? Not -- I mean, FAR is supposed to show something different than zoning. Zoning can be calculated by use. FAR is more of a massing in comparison to the lot size. MS. MURRAY: It's in part massing, but it's also mostly in part an intensity regulation. Compare it to density. You know, four dwelling units an acre compared to eight dwelling units an acre, there's a difference in density. Intensity is often areas used to describe, for example, commercial or industrial square footage, different from density. So that's the intent of the regulation. So you have a ratio that Page 44 August 17, 2005 measures the floor area of a use, an actual use that generates intensity. Traffic trips is the normal measurement there in relationship to the land. Yes, it does have to do with massing, certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, any traditional stories or width for parking would generate massing. I would certainly like to make sure we hear this twice so that I would have some time between now and the next meeting to verify some of the thoughts I have about it, maybe staff could do the same thing. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, we don't really use floor area ratio much in Collier at all except -- what zoning district is this? Isn't it tourist or something? MS. MURRAY: Well, it was in residential tourist and then it got taken out and we reverted back to old language. And some PUD's have it. It's also used for -- oh, gosh, the name goes right out of my head. It's not necessarily a zoning district, but for the old age facilities, the COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Assisted living. MS. MURRAY: Assisted living, thank you. Assisted living facilities are regulated by FAR. Some PUD's may have it in there. But yeah, you're right, we don't use it in our typical zoning districts, right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item, please. MS. FABACHER: All right, the next item, which is the last one on Page 1 of the summary sheet would be the definition of lot depth Page 45 -.....------< August 17, 2005 and lot width measurement. It's how it's measured. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can go first this time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My question here is how does this -- this is really addressing pie-shaped lots? And the reason I'm asking that is basically then what we'd have to have is a minimum lot width of every pie-shaped lot at whatever the setback is for that lot. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In the PUD -- MS. FABACHER: Well, when the lengths and the widths lot lines vary on either side, then you would go to the building setback line to measure there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In PUD's we generally see a lot of variable front setbacks, which is the line that's going to be affected most by this. Pie-shaped lots come off at very tight ankles at times. If you have a 10- foot or IS-foot required setback on an PUD, and if you've got to have the lot width -- the minimum lot width started at that setback point, I don't think you're going to get that in a lot of cases, because what happens is people will use that setback with a narrow point, still get their seven and a half on each side, but in the center they can start their garage or something else and build the building to the back of that. This would take that ability away, because you'd have to have wider pie-shaped lots to begin with. I'm not sure that is the intent of where you were trying to go with this. That would be my only concern. I'd like to see how it applies to those forms of pie-shaped lots. MS. FABACHER: Cul-de-sacs. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, that's where pie shapes normally -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern on width also is for example you're actually saying that it's a straight line parallel to the front line, which in a cul-de-sac would be curved, it wouldn't be a line. So where is that? And I mean, it's obviously the horizontal distance. Page 46 -,~--,- August 17, 2005 The thing up above on depth, these are all for four-sided sites. If you have a site that has five sides, for example, the depth could be greater. So I'm not really sure these are good definitions for the different kind of sites we could have. So, I mean, I think I could make the suggestion on the depth would be to make it the average and the maximum to the minimum depth of the lot. I mean, if you want to rather than work it out here, we could meet and I could show you -- MS. FABACHER: That would be helpful, thanks. COMMISSIONER CARON: But this definition was not being changed, correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is the one we've been living with forever. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we were just putting it back because somehow it was left out. MS. FABACHER: No, I'm sorry, it was changed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's not what it says here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the recodification, nothing was changed, so how could this be? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Theoretically. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why I'm asking the question. MS. MURRAY: Okay, we need to clarify that for you in the next meeting. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are not. We've been going for almost an hour and a half, and before the court reporter hits me with her computer, let's take a 10-minute break. (Recess. ) Page 47 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm worried that the folks from Golden Gate are going to fall asleep back here. And they're here for an item starting on Page 130. And I was wondering if we could hear their item out of the stream of items. If no one objects, would that be something that the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That works for me. That would be Golden Gate downtown commercial overlay. Page 130 of our package. And Ms. Mosca? MS. MOSCA: Yes, good evening, Commissioners. Michelle Mosca with the county's comprehensive planning staff. I would, very briefly, if you would allow me to, just provide you the genesis of the amendment. If not, we could go into questions. Whatever your pleasure is. In June of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners appointed individuals to Golden Gate area master plan restudy committee, primarily to assist staff with reinvestigations to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. As a result of the restudy process, the committee recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that a downtown center commercial district be established. And this was to serve as the primary entryway into the Golden Gate community, as well as provide a downtown commercial area for the Golden Gate city residents and the Estates residents. The Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in October of2004. Staff was then directed to work with an ad hoc committee and the community to establish an implementing zoning overlay, which is before you tonight. Staff would also like to mention that there are certain outstanding issues that still remain as a result of committee review and further staff review. The principal issues include access for properties along Page 48 August 17,2005 Golden Gate Parkway, as well as a provision for installation and maintenance of street trees and buffering along the Parkway. However, staff intends to work with both the former ad hoc committee members and county staff to resolve the outstanding issues and bring it forward at your next -- those recommendations to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Comments on this item? Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm pleased to see that the community's corne forward with some more changes. Certainly they're needed. I had seen this at a draft format a long time ago, and I provided my comments to members of that committee. I believe that -- I thought this was the refined version, but I found out that even the committee members hadn't seen this version until just recently. So when this carne across, my opportunity -- since this weekend, I have not had time to read it. I'm going through it before the next hearing, but I don't expect to have too many comments. But I just wanted you to know I just can't comment on it right now, because this went out of my head to put aside. There's too many that are on for tonight. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? MS. FABACHER: I just wanted to say that on the top of the handout I gave you, I had neglected in your packet to put the DSAC comments. And they were just some -- that was on that Page 7 of the summary sheet, just discussing using the alley for primary entrance, screening of dumpsters. Just some DSAC comments, just so you know. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Very good. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the concerns we're having with other overlay districts is the use on -- underlying use Page 49 ..~._- August 17, 2005 being different than what the overlay allows. Is that addressed in this? I didn't see the -- MS. MOSCA: It is. The underlying zoning uses, some of them will still be allowed, but yet some of them are prohibited. Does that answer your question? And in addition to the underlying uses, C-l through -- certain C-l through C-3 uses are allowed as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, does this restrict the underlying use -- existing zoning? MS. MOSCA: Somewhat, yes, it does. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially it's changing their zoning. I mean -- MS. MOSCA: It's restricted in certain uses, yes. If an individual who for example has a residence and it's owner occupied, they can retain that residence. They're not forced to participate in the program to develop as commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm in favor of it, but I don't want it to be like other overlays which become like the Emperor's new overlay where even though it says you can do something, you can't because the underlying existing zoning won't allow it. MS. MOSCA: Well, there are prohibited uses. For example, the underlying zoning would allow as a conditional use day care centers, for example. But the committee and the community, their vision is that this would not be suitable, a suitable use for that particular area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the owner of that site, when he comes in to do a day care, how will you -- I mean, this overlying -- the overlay will trump the underlying zoning? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. The use is pro -- it's listed as a prohibited use within the zoning overlay. So, therefore, if an individual requested, for example, that day care center, they would not Page 50 August 17, 2005 be allowed to operate one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are there any uses that are given because of the overlay? MS. MOSCA: Yes. That would be C-l through C-3 uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a residential lot allows them to do the C-l through C- 3 uses? MS. MOSCA: Provided they meet certain development criteria and design criteria, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is powerful enough to change that zoning? We won't have the same problem we're finding where we have residential zoning, we can't do commercial uses, even though the overlay says that? MS. MOSCA: I don't want to say there won't be any problems. Something always comes up, depending on the situation. Our hope and our goal is that these residential owners will participate and share that same vision as the remainder of the community and develop -- basically this sub district encourages the aggregation of property and to develop as a pedestrian oriented retail type restaurant, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to make it quick, just make sure that if the owners do have to share the hope and goal, which I share, that they're able to really do it, they're not stopped because the zoning that they own now doesn't meet what the overlay says they can do. It's just the problem in other places we're having. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments, questions? MR. WHITE: If I may piggyback on Commissioner Schiffer's comment. I think it's fair to say that just the same as some of the concerns that have corne up most recently with respect to how to administer the Bayshore and now Gateway triangle overlays, I think those same issues exist here in terms of, you know, process. And I think the staff and our office are going to have to take a look at those things more generally and specifically as to this particular overlay. Page 51 . .----.-. August 17, 2005 And so your comments are duly noted and I think they're very timely and helpful for having us all to appreciate just some of the complexities that can arise, depending upon a property owner's particular choices, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other comments or questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: No public speakers on this item? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, we have one more public speaker -- or someone else here for Section 4.06.02, 4.06.05. That's on Page 12 of your summary sheet. And 13. And that is the buffer requirements and the general landscape, general landscaping requirements. So if it's your pleasure, we could have Mr. Sawyer address these now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, please, let's do that. And that's on Page 163 of our binder. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just for clarification, we'll hear the Golden Gate elements a second time on the 21 st? MS. F ABACHER: Right. That's what I have down. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good point. I forgot to make that clarification. Yes, sir, Mr. Sawyer. MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development review, to talk about the landscape amendments. I do have a presentation. I'm trying to get it up right now. There we go. Basically we've got three amendments that are landscape related with this particular cycle. The first is to provide flexibility when we've got A and B buffers adjacent to lakes. We've already talked a bit about that issue, kind of skirting it. The second is to have limits on synthetic turf in the landscape. Page 52 August 17, 2005 And the third is to have specific requirements when we're dealing with steep slopes, or slopes in general. We did pull together a group of review people in a committee to look at all three of the amendments. These are the people that were on the committee. We had a number of people from outside the county, as well as county staff in the committee. We basically met three times to talk about the amendments, refine them as we were going through. Again, the first one is the flexibility, when we've got A and B buffers adjacent to lakes. Primarily this is in residential areas where the conflict actually exists. The landscape should actually enhance lake views instead of taking away from them. The real issue that is the lakes themselves don't provide a vertical buffer. They provide a dimensional width as far as separation, but they don't provide any kind of vertical buffer. And we can also have the same level of landscaping provided with proposed flexibility that we're proposing with this amendment. This gives you an idea of what can possibly happen when we don't have buffers adjacent to lakes. It gets pretty bear. Here we've got a landscape buffer that is adjacent to a lake. And what's on the other side of that is a fairly large loading dock related to a strip center. So there are -- you know, there are times when we definitely need to have buffers to try and take that visibility away from the edge of the lakes. This gives you an idea of a typical development where we do have part of the buffer that's already in place, and the newer section that is being constructed right now where the buffer isn't. So that gives you again an idea of where we've got buffers and where we don't. This gives a good example here of what we're talking about with the amendment as far as actually having clusters of the plantings; in other words, allowing some room in between the buffers for views. Page 53 . -....---.-- August 17, 2005 Again, this is another example where the tree plantings are not exactly done in a row. The plantings, the shrub materials again aren't put in the exact row. That's pretty much as far as that particular section goes. We do have language in the amendment currently that does address the width issues, when is a lake a lake, in other words. We've defined it that it needs to be a minimum width of 50 feet at the low water level. We arrived at that figure, along with discussions talking with our engineers, that generally tends to be the minimum width that you need to have when you've got large fluctuations in lakes. Some areas in the county have as much as three plus feet of water fluctuation in some of the lakes. With that 50 feet, we're fairly confident that we're going to have a fairly good width element that will address that particular issue. We're including both A and B buffers. The B buffers where the six - foot hedge would be required, we're taking that six-foot hedge and allowing it to be incorporated into lower plantings. And again, these plantings would also be allowed basically anywhere from the lake maintenance easement all the way up to the edge of the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll start. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: My turn after you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When do we need a buffer? First of all, I definitely think the commercial thing you showed between commercial and residential of full-blown buffers shouldn't even have the option to do this on the commercial side. When is a hedge required in residential construction? MR. SAWYER: When you've got multi-family adjacent to single- family. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why is that? MR. SAWYER: Because the idea there is that you've got a more intense use with the multi-family, compared to the single family. You've got different densities. Usually you have different heights Page 54 --_._~ August 17, 2005 related to those structures also. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And multi-family certainly tends to be taller than six feet. So you're not blocking anything, you're just blocking -- MR. SAWYER: You're softening the image of those structures, basically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I would personally like to see -- I think what you're doing here is good, but I'd like to see maybe you removing that requirement, too. The clustering, you're allowed a tree in the A-type buffer, one tree for every 30 feet, but you're allowed to put them 50 foot together. I mean, that's not giving you too much leeway. Where is the 50 feet corning from? Why is that? MR. SAWYER: The 50 feet is allowing the clustering of plantings to occur so that you've got more of -- you've got the opportunity to have wider views into the lake. In other words, you don't have to have exactly one tree every 30 feet, you're able to have some of those clustered more towards the common property lines between the two homes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the home would probably have more trees than that. MR. SAWYER: Normally they have a lot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my comment is one to 30, giving it to 50 doesn't -- you know, it's not extra trees to move around. The -- why is it a requirement, though, like in this house you're showing here, if these people didn't want a tree in the center of their property line, I mean, wouldn't it be good to cluster them along the property line? MR. SAWYER: That's -- our intention is to allow that to happen. And if, you know, the committee would rather have that width greater than 50 feet, we can certainly consider that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think in single family, it would Page 55 -,-----~- August 17, 2005 be better to put them on the property line, let the people have full view. Just my opinion. MS . MURRAY: I think we could make that an option. I think, if I'm understanding, it's maybe not so clear here, because that is the intent is to allow them to be clustered on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would make the site. Looking between the trees, that would be a pretty vista. MR. SAWYER: If we were to look at it just from a property line standpoint, that probably would also address where we've got much larger lots. Sometimes you've got them on the peninsulas and that sort of thing so you have a tremendously long -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your B buffer, what's going to happen to the hedges in that case? You say you can double them up. So you're going to take out a chunk of hedge and put them behind other hedge? MR. SAWYER: Yeah, basically what's going to happen, Commissioner, at that point is that you're going to wind up with larger and deeper beds in some areas and not beds in others, again to allow those views to actually occur. Again, that could be at the edges of the structures or where you don't have windows. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the sad thing -- and I know you're trying to protect the view of the multi-family, but the multi-family people would like a view of the lake, too, to put a six-foot hedge which now we're letting you gap it. I mean, I'm not sure why the hedge is there yet, but that's not the issue. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mike, when you right responded to Brad's -- one of his first questions, you said when multi-family is adjacent to single-family, and of course this is where the definition of adjacent comes in. Now that you've put that on the table, when is a multi-family, in Page 56 August 17, 2005 regards to these buffers, adjacent to a single-family? MR. SAWYER: It will be any time that you've got an individual development corning in with a, you know, defined development area, and you've got on the other side of a lake or another water body or what have you, that's when you would have the buffers kick in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You said any time. There's no exceptions? MR. SAWYER: Currently there are none, no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you have a 200-foot wide lake, you've got to have this apply? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We've just kind of defeated our purpose. I'm just wondering -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, don't you have put it on the ocean to block the view from Mexico? MR. SAWYER: That one hasn't corne up, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it meets the definition. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what my concern is. Why would we think that we need a buffer between unlike product across from a 200- foot lake? I don't understand that. You're selling the lake. Every development in this town sells water view amenities. And they're all water management lakes, by the way. So if it applies to any lake -- at first I thought it only applied to lakes that were less than 50 feet, but you just said it applies -- when I asked you 200, you said yes, it would apply. So what is this -- how does the 50 feet minimum low water level come in to play if it applies to a lake 200 feet across? MR. SAWYER: What we're looking at is to allow the clustering to happen where there actually is a defined lake or water body. And what we're trying to avoid is those instances where we've got very thin, you know, very small little areas that on occasion fill up with water. In other words, a simple water management swale, we would Page 57 August 17, 2005 not consider that a lake. So we're trying to avoid that with this particular language. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, but if you have a 200-foot lake, 200 foot across, 100 foot across, 300 foot across, 600 foot across, the Gulf of Mexico, if you have two product on each side that's different, you believe a buffer is needed is needed between those product, based on the word adjacent, including the word water body; is that a fair statement? MR. SAWYER: This is the way the LDC reads currently, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I think needs to be changed. That is wrong. If you guys want more landscaping on a piece of property and are using the argument of a buffer to get there, that's in improper use of buffering. Why don't you just say you want to increase the landscaping template in the back of homes, and in the back of homes of "X" amount of width they've got to have a minimum landscape template of "X"? Why pretend that we need a buffer when it's obviously something that isn't needed and then turn around and saY'well, we don't really want to have a buffer, you can take the buffer but just spread it around the property. It's no longer a buffer. A buffer is something that's partially or semi-opaque. MS. MURRAY: I think Mike demonstrated that it does function as a buffer in a lot of cases. And I think what I hear you saying, Commissioner, and that's your opinion, is that you don't -- you believe that there's a certain dimension where a vertical buffer is not necessary, because the width of the horizontal or flat buffer makes up for that. So if that's your conclusion and you want to make a recommendation to us, then please do, so we can maybe add a dimension in here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't talk about a horizontal buffer. I didn't -- the buffer that I'm trying to speak of is what staffs Page 58 August 17, 2005 indicating is needed to block lake views. MS. MURRAY: It's not a lake view issue. The issue is between dissimilar uses. And I say dissimilar because in this county we typically view multi-family and single-family residential as dissimilar, in a way. You know, right or wrong, I think that's historically how it's been applied in the code. So I guess all I'm saying is if you believe that, you know, a width of a waterway would preclude a vertical buffer, then do you have a recommendation of an adequate width so, you know, the buffer isn't required anymore? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I have a recommendation that don't call something a buffer that doesn't -- that isn't going to function as a buffer. A buffer is something that you don't see through. In a commercial application in pictures that Michael showed, yes, it's a good thing to have a buffer. But when you've got residential that pays for water views, you're doing nothing to benefit those citizens, to block their views that they've paid for. MS. MURRAY: Well, a Type A buffer is not an impervious or opaque buffer. So I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your statement that a buffer has to be opaque. There's a lot of factors about buffers besides opacity that helps soften or block views. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I will continue this argument all night, if you'd like, Susan. But what I would like to tell you is if you don't want a -- if a buffer isn't required, then increase the landscaping template in a manner relative to the width of the lot and stop saying it's a buffer. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, I don't want for argue with you, but you're implying that we're somehow misleading you or lying to you, and I don't appreciate that. All I'm asking is that if you have a recommendation, please give it to us. Because I understand your point, and I think it's a good one, but we're here for your input. We didn't present this in a way to mislead or misintend it. We're trying to Page 59 August 17, 2005 clarify the code and provide what happens in reality, which is -- you're right, people pay for water views. Let's try to buffer while minimizing the impact to water views that people are paying for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I have a recommendation. Type A buffer doesn't have a hedge, correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the Type B buffer, the wording you have is good. Could we add to that another sentence to say that any water view with a minimum level at 100 feet does not require a hedge between residential? In other words, add one sentence to the wording on two that would say that any waterway -- and I think you're right at minimum low water level -- greater than 100 feet between residential uses does not require a hedge. And then everybody's happy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering why 100 feet, Brad. 100 feet's a long distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the depth of this room? MR. SAWYER: Fifty? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fifty? I mean, I think a single- family home with a two-story residential that distance might want a hedge. I don't know. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Fifty might. Why 100? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, let's try 50. So that way you don't have to add a new sentence, you could just in that one sentence say, you know, between 50 foot -- you know what to say. Just whereas, between residential it's not required with water bodies over 50 feet. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Is that -- the rest of the board okay with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because when you think of it -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'll believe it when I see it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- a multi-family building could Page 60 August 17, 2005 be a three-story building. A hedge isn't doing much other than block the view of the guys on the ground floor. CHAIRMAN BUDD: By consensus, that sounds like a good recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fifty feet? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. Other comments on this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There appear to be none. And no speakers. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Also, I have the other -- also the other amendments. The synthetic turf amendment basically addresses actually limiting the amount or location of synthetic turf in the landscape. What we're running up against with synthetic turfs are that they actually have a compacted gravel base that can be up to six inches, generally they're four to six inches, that's actually creating impervious areas. It does increase the heat gain on sites, and it does limit the on-site water quality treatment possible. It also can increase deep flows from storm water runoff. When you can't contain the water on-site and it winds up all running off, that does have implications in the water systems. Obviously they don't have the ability to produce oxygen, absorb pollution -- pollutants, and it doesn't allow any kind of water permeability down at the aquifers. The -- I'll be real honest, the DSAC committee did not recommend approval of this particular amendment. The reasoning given was for water saving criteria. And obviously synthetic turfs do not require watering, as natural turfs do. I believe that if you look at the down side of synthetic turfs, and the one saving grace being if it is saving water, there are better methods of saving water than resorting to using synthetic turfs. Weare just limiting it. You can put them in the backyard, in Page 61 August 17, 2005 your backyards. Up to 30 percent of the backyards can be in synthetic turfs. So that will allow you to do play structures, other types of -- possibly putting greens and that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions on this item? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I kind of agree with it. I think there's nothing uglier than an old piece of synthetic turf, which is what they become real quick. Is there a way that we could limit it outside the setbacks of the building that would allow people -- do people really want to put it in their backyard? Is that what you're finding? MR. SAWYER: I think the more appropriate uses, when you relate it -- there are certain reasons and areas that you do want to have it. Some people like to have it in play areas. Some people do like to have putting greens. In those cases I think there's a good argument, yeah, go ahead and have it in those areas, and those uses are generally in the backyard. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 167, top of the page, it reads grass lawn areas shall be planted with turf grass species normally grown for use as permanent lawns in Collier County. What species do you mean when you say normally grown? Do we have a definition for that in the code? MR. SAWYER: Actually, I copied that out of the previous language for that particular section. We would use what is generally currently available in the landscape industry. They are constantly corning up with new species, new subspecies, and they are commonly used throughout the county. So we really don't want to have just a specific -- you know, just limit those to just those particular species, because some of the newer Page 62 August 17, 2005 species have advantages from a water standpoint, from a fertilization standpoint. There's a lot of improvements being made in the turf industry. We didn't want to just limit that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is there any type of grass then that you would refuse? MR. SAWYER: That's a good question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forbidden turf. MR. SAWYER: I don't think we have a forbidden turf -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay, then do we-- MR. SAWYER: -- other than possibly weeds. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that sentence needed then? If you're not going to have any that you're not going to allow, then why do we need to only allow the ones that we normally use, since there's none that we don't normally use? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you reduce the word normally with naturally grown? Because I think the point he's trying to make is that it's a living grass, it's not a -- to get to the synthetic issue. If you said species naturally grown or something. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I don't think grass is naturally grown. They corne in big rolls and they're -- sections and they drop it on the ground, ground side up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's unnatural. MR. SAWYER: But it does corne from seed. It is naturally grown. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just -- I mean, unless you -- I just thought it was odd that if there's no grass that's not allowed, then why do we need to say that only the normally grown grass is allowed? Because basically everything's allowed. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Think about that sentence and do something creative. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Make it simple. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Make it simple. Page 63 August 17, 2005 MR. SAWYER: We'll simplify it, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just looking at that, six-in-one slope would be really huge, isn't it? I mean, you'd almost have to have synthetic turf. You'd have to nail it to it. MR. SAWYER: Actually six-to-one is the minimum that is -- that actually carne out of our engineering division. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is six the vertical and one the horizontal? MR. SAWYER: No, it's six horizontal, one vertical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that the backwards way to say it? MR. SAWYER: We could be more definitive on that. We did define that better in the slope section. We can do that here also. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right, anything else on this section? MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, yes. Ms. Petry would like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, great. Ifwe could hear from you, please. MS. PETRY: Hello, everybody. I'm Kristen Petry and I have a landscape design/build company in town. And it's just a quick comment about the normally grown species. And I think what that's doing is just precluding a use of a species that doesn't thrive here, something in a northern climate. And I think that's just what Mike is trying to say and what the code is trying to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else on this section? MS. FABACHER: I believe Mike has another on slopes.u Page 64 August 17, 2005 MR. SAWYER: Yeah, we do have slopes. MS. MURRAY: It's on Page 168. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We received an addendum on that tonight? We've received additional paperwork on that? Slopes? MS. FABACHER: Yes, we did, as a matter of fact. The refinement. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, the refinement that you see, last amendment cycle, there were -- because of the codification, there were actually -- the slope section previously was in two locations in the LDC. When we started this amendment cycle, we cited the incorrect one, and so that's why you've got the revised version that you've got. We originally were citing C-l1, I believe. And we should have been citing section I. It was doubling up because of the codification. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on this. MR. SAWYER: Basically just to give you a little background, currently we're seeing a lot of much more compacted development on sites, and we're having conflicts, and we're seeing a lot steeper slopes than traditionally Collier County has seen. And this has got certain design challenges to it. Currently the LDC doesn't address slope situations. And pretty much industry-wide we're feeling that it should. We need to have design flexibility to ensure that we still have public health, safety and welfare addressed. We also need to still incorporate the landscape buffers and certainly address aesthetics, is what our amendment's trying to do. These two photos will actually show you what can happen when we do have in this case rip-rap that's used on some side slopes. The top photo that you see was a situation directly after installation. And the main photo actually shows you what it looks like about four years later. The rip-rap is not -- has not been successful and is eroding away . You can also see that it's become pretty much impossible to Page 65 August 17, 2005 maintain that water management area in the bottom. Here we've got an example of an exposed concrete wall, and also again some rip-rap around the edges that just is not succeeding. This is on the same site. Here we've got plantings that were planted on top of that retaining wall and it actually is giving you a high degree of opacity. A very simple row of shrub material on the top, growing right over the retaining wall. Here we've got an example of an open vault that we've got in the county, where we've again got the exposed concrete retaining wall. And again, more use of rip-rap. The top photo basically shows you when we've got a good relationship between water management and the typical buffers. That's basically a four-to-one gentle slope. When the buffers do become steep and narrow, we wind up often having rip-rap as being the only answer. And again, when we've got those slope situations, they do tend to not succeed in the long run. The committee spent a great deal of time, we talked with a lot of the engineers. The engineers were a main water of putting this amendment together. Obviously from a landscape standpoint, we can only go so far when it comes to the engineering. We really feel like we've corne up with a fairly good way of addressing slope situations, according to what the slopes actually are and solutions that allow the designers an amount of flexibility to actually incorporate those, and also allow some of that compacted development to actually get built and succeed over the long run. One hopeful outcome is that we're going to have a little bit more sensitivity to slopes, and also the developer should be able to have more developable land when they treat the slopes in a more correct manner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Schiffer brought up an issue before about the nomenclature. And I'm not as experienced with site work and civil engineering in terms of trusses which are expressed Page 66 August 17, 2005 in terms of rise over run, that the vertical precedes the horizontal. And in your nomenclature here, it's the opposite. Is that consistent with normal civil engineering? Is it rise over run also in civil engineering normally done, or is this traditionally the way it's done? Because to me it's backwards, as Mr. Schiffer commented earlier. MR. SAWYER: Correct, that's been pointed out before, and this is the way that it normally is listed in, you know, engineering documents. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So for engineering, civil engineering, this is their tradition, they look at it from the opposite prospective? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Horizontal, then vertical, the ratio. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If that's the way. MR. SAWYER: And we did specify it, you know, so that we do have a little bit better specification in the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wouldn't mind a thumbs up or thumbs down from Stan. Is that correct, Stan, an engineering nomenclature for civil work that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Come up to the mic. Either gesture or don't talk. Get up to the mic. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, good afternoon, Stan Chrzanowski, engineering review. I've always advised people not to even say four-to-one or one-to- four. Say four horizontal to one vertical. Extended critition (sic) coordinate is the rise over the run, one to four, one over four. But in engineering parlance we always said four-to-one side slopes. And it is confusing, which is why I tell people not to use it. I tell people to put four horizontal to one vertical. And then I always suggest that they draw a little sketch just to make sure. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, thank you. Page 67 August 17, 2005 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why I believe that in the table here it specifies the horizontal and the vertical. Because that issue was brought up. I'm not sure whether it was by DSAC or EAC MR. SAWYER: EAC-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- somebody brought it up. MR. SAWYER: -- actually brought it up. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so you've put it in here that way. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And taken care of the issue. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be nice if civil engineers would draw things to scale. They always draw everything not to scale and it's always -- MR. SAWYER: It always gets exaggerated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can live with, you know, slight angles. The computer would even do it nicely. Question on the retaining wall. You have a 36-inch, three foot height. In building codes, if there's a walkway along -- and it looks like in Collier we assume there's always a walkway along these retaining walls -- that it requires a guardrail over 30 inches. Sometimes it's a shame to put these nice landscape things together -- you even had a picture prior to this -- and then have a 42-inch aluminum anodized aluminum guardrail. So would it be wise to limit that retaining the 30 inches to prevent guardrails? MR. SCHMITT: That's a health safety issue, and I believe that it is maybe an ADA requirement. Russ, do you know? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, ADA, if there's a walkway along it, that ADA would be accessing, that's a different Page 68 ..----- August 17, 2005 situation. This thing here that's sad is you see these -- a lot of the landscape work along the roadways have these horrible anodized aluminum guardrails which distract from all the landscaping and everything anyway. So if we could keep it as -- I mean, is there an importance to get that extra six inches? MR. SAWYER: Again, that came out of our review committee from the engineers feeling that that was pretty much the limit on what they were seeing currently with their development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Were guardrails discussed? MR. SAWYER: We talked about it. Most of the engineers felt that they could accommodate either with a guardrail or by having some sort of planter or planting area up at the top that would, you know, take and pull whatever walking condition you had away from the edge of the retaining wall itself. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Does that answer your-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would just like to make sure we avoid those guardrails wherever possible. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Other comments on this section? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, Page 171. Mike, your number C, water management areas with continuous and vertical walls or open vaults are prohibited. I know what the open vaults are. What is a continuous vertical wall? What are you -- are you referring to how long? MR. SAWYER: What we're talking about there is avoiding that situation, basically where you've got a water management area where you've got a continuous wall going around it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What would you -- I mean, if they have to do this for water management, what's the alternative? MR. SAWYER: Well, the alternative is to use some -- either -- there is a possibility if you're doing it for water quantity is that you Page 69 August 17, 2005 can -- or quantity, excuse me. You can do vaults, you know, as opposed to doing these types of structures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Can do what? I'm sorry. MR. SAWYER: Do vaults. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Water storage vaults. Basically you can do that for water quantity, not quality. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Those are very expensive. MR. SAWYER: They are very expensive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they could be parked -- what's missing here, Mark, is the top, the lid. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you put a lid on it, there could be parking on it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you think a lid would be -- I mean, I don't see what the advantage would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it stores water. And then you don't see it. And you could even be politically correct and hold it and sprinkle during drier periods. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if someone wanted to avoid having a continuous vertical wall like this picture, how far and how long is the continuous that they would have to avoid? Ten feet, 100 feet, 25 feet? MR. SAWYER: We didn't think about any kind of dimension. If you want to propose a distance on that, we certainly can do it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm just asking you, I mean, if someone carne in with this and said it's not continuous, it goes 50 feet, turns, goes another 50 feet, turns, is that acceptable or is that unacceptable? And whatever the criteria is, I think that ought to be in the code so that's clear when continuous is continuous when it's considered too long. So -- MR. SAWYER: Good point. We can look at that language and Page 70 August 17, 2005 clarify it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Anything else on this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are no other questions or comments. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mike. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right, we're back to Page 2 of the summary sheet, and we're on definitions again. Page 5 of your packet. We've returned the definitions of four types of restaurants that were omitted during recodification. And this was important because your parking requirements differ, based on the type of restaurant you have. So applicants were getting confused and drawing up plans thinking they had one parking requirement to fulfill when in fact they weren't meeting it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions or comments on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the restaurant fast food. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're allowed drive-thru lanes, correct? What that make them -- what would happen there? Would that make them one of two creatures or -- MS. MURRAY: They're allowed to have drive-thru on fast food. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we -- and then the other thing is we have a menu where they have to pick two of the following characteristics. First of all, I don't think E is a characteristic, is it? Shouldn't E be eliminated from that and just a comment within that definition? And-- MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, your concern with E was? I didn't quite hear it. Page 71 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, E is in there as one of the menu items that I can choose from that qualifies as fast food. But that's actually a -- MS. MURRAY: Okay, I see what your point is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not really a menu choice. MS. MURRAY: Exactly, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we're talking food here. And in the outdoor seating, is there a limit to the outdoor seating? Is that -- I mean, could I have a drive-thru restaurant with 400 outdoor seats? MS. MURRAY: Well, you could, as long as you provided all the parking for that. There is no limit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there will be require -- okay, you're right, parking. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Strain? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. You have a restaurant with a window that you drive up to and place the order, then you drive to the next window and get it. What one of these would that be? MS. MURRAY: That is the drive-thru restaurant. And an example of that, although I'm not sure it would be a true example, because I think they have some outdoor seats, would be like what is that, Checkers, up by Horne Depot on Pine Ridge Road? That's the one that comes to my mind. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I ask is because that definition says it has to be ordered through a speaker phone and a menu boa-rd. If they didn't have either one of those, would they be a drive-thru restaurant? MS. MURRAY: And what would they have for that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A window. You just drive up and tell the guy I want a hamburger and drive to the next -- I wouldn't eat meat, but still, some people do. Page 72 August 17, 2005 MS. MURRAY: I think we can clarify that, yeah. I think that's just an old definition that's been in there when people were using speaker phones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You typically order through a speaker phone. MS. MURRAY: Typically, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or a cell phone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's true. MS . MURRAY: But you could drive up to the window. I see your point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifwe could clarify that. And when you get into the pick and choose so you determine if you're a fast food restaurant, a limited -- A is the limited menu, usually posted on the sign. Is there any concern about what usually means? I mean, what's the extent of usually posted? I'm just going to read these off. If you guys think they need clarification, then you can work with it, but I'll tell you what my concerns are. B is a self-service rather than table service. I've been in restaurants where you get a cafeteria style, you sit down, but then when you leave, the employee comes and takes care of the table. Is that table service, or do you mean someone that waits on the table and actually comes out each time? Under restaurant sit-down, again, the table service keeps corning up. And cafeterias are deemed sit-down restaurants for the purpose of land development code. Well, if they are, it's because they do have table service in the sense someone comes along and cleans the table afterwards, then that kind of dovetails into my concern about the definition of table service in B above. So those are the issues I think that if someone looks at those and feels there's a way to clarify them, it might help. I don't eat in restaurants, so in the end I'm not too concerned about it. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 73 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments on this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. MS. FABACHER: Okay, the next -- bottom of summary sheet two, Page 7 of your packet, the definition of sporting and recreational camps has been returned to the code. We've recently had requests for this type of facility and discovered that it was not permitted in the code anymore, so we're putting it back in from the old code. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions or comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There are none. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm going to Page 3 of the summary sheet. Another definition of waterfront yard. To help staff, provided for clarification, it was omitted from the older code. It's to allow staff to -- and applicants to determine where their setback begins. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have a question. And it's really -- and it's on the access easement. So if there was an access easement running along the waterfront, that we would actually be measuring from the edge of the easement? Because I mean, the easement's not a property line. Why wouldn't that be allowed to be in the yard? MS. FABACHER: It would depend to me if the easement is across the property. Then you're going to count from the front of the easement. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And essentially an easement would be something that is within your property line. MS. F ABACHER: It could be either way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't -- MS. FABACHER: You're right, it wouldn't matter ifit wasn't. Page 74 August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then your property line -- MS. MURRAY: Actually, we require the setbacks from right-of-way easements, and I think probably what this is trying to do is it's saying access and it should probably be clarified to be consistent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like vehicular access. So the maintenance easement I'm thinking of is not what this is saying. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We've gone through a few of these. Are there any of them that we actually want to make a vote on now? Are we going to have -- if we're not, then we're going to have a real meeting corning up on the 21 st. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It sounds like with rare exception there are modifications that we'll be voting for final action at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All of them. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's the way it's shaping up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, too. Is the sentence, for the purpose of this ordinance -- I'm not really sure what that sentence means. I could read it aloud, but -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the purpose of this ordinance, the minimum setback for any principal or accessory structure adjacent to the water shall be the same as the setback specified for the side or rear yard, as the case may be in that particular -- does that need to be said or -- MR. WHITE: Commissioner Schiffer, if I may, Mr. Chairman, part of the reason that some of these definitional terms were -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yanked. Page 75 ..-.-.-......-- August 17, 2005 MR. WHITE: -- I guess omitted was because they had those types of internal I guess concerns that blended a mix of something that would be considered purely definitional in nature, and something that would have arguably an operational effect, with the understanding being that the operational piece of those definitions should be placed in the appropriate portion or portions of the Land Development Code where those regulations existed. And I'm glad that we're asking these questions, because I think they're very important ones to assure that as we move forward we don't go back and uncreate the benefits of what we were trying to create in the recodification. So I don't know how you fix it other than to use that general guideline of keeping the things that are definitional in the definition, and finding through word searches and other of the tools that we now have the places where those operative portions belong. But I appreciate the comment and the insight that you have from your questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I kind of -- and I use the code. Why is it necessary to pull this one back in? Is there an issue that carne up, or -- MS. F ABACHER: Just the problem of measuring where it starts, where the property line starts. MS . MURRAY: Well, there are regulations that are associated with waterfront yards that are different from non waterfront yards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it was confusing? I'll look at that, because those regulations point where things are measured from. When it was yanked from here, it may have been clarified someplace else. But-- MR. WHITE: Well, I mean, if you take a surgical knife to this one, I think you start out by saying well, maybe what you need first is a definition of what a waterfront property is and is not, and then you start talking about what a yard for a required yard may be for a Page 76 August 17, 2005 waterfront lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WHITE: And then I think you start seeing are there operative provisions for such required yards that exist elsewhere in the LDC, and I think there are tables we've created, et cetera, that these operative provisions more properly ought to be located in, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Following Pat's suggestion, why don't we just suggest that this definition be struck from the word "for" in the third sentence, because the rest of it's operational and should be elsewhere in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. MURRAY: Could I suggest maybe we take a look at this for next cycle? I'm just hesitant that this is something that's been in for a while and it may have an impact on another part of code and I can't say that -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ifwe move too hurriedly, we may have unintended consequences, so let's take a look at it and we'll reconsider it at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Honestly, any suggestion that we do tonight, I figure somebody brought back for final review. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a good point. All right, anything else on this section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item, please. MS. FABACHER: Next item would be on Page 3 of the summary sheet, the middle item. It gives the -- the proposed amendment definition is not there. But it's to add the sign definitions back into the code that were omitted. People with the sign department said it's impossible to kind of regulate without these definitions, because people argue over what a V sign means, and if it's not, they say show me in the code where it says that. And so we were asked by sign department to provide them back Page 77 August 17, 2005 In. And they have looked at possibly taking a few out. This is the first cut at it. And Assistant County Attorney White has suggested that may be not all of them are needed. But we're working on whittling it down. MR. WHITE: My suggestion was to analyze it, similar to what I recommended in the last instance, which is to use the word search tools that we have to find out where the operative provisions are that these definitions, as building blocks, tie to. And to leave as much in these as may be necessary that defines what that class of sign may be. If we regulate that specific type of sign, then yes, we would need to have some definition of what that type of sign is. But many of these I think tend to blur or go across the line of what is an operational provIsIon. So this is not easy stuff, believe me. And when we try to do it kind of whole cloth, I think that sometimes we may do ourselves a disservice. But I have no objection to us moving forward with, you know, adding in things that exist as part of the operational provisions of the Land Development Code that may need to be defined. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, and I think what Patrick's said, I mean, we're going to go on with this tonight, there's a lot of little weird things that are happening that really are a part of this code. So has the author gone through the rest of the code to make sure that someplace else that these definitions or these operational things were brought out? MS. F ABACHER: I think they're in the process of doing that now, as I mentioned. They're working on whittling it down. That's what I meant, taking out -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then let's not waste time Page 78 August 17, 2005 joining the whittle. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well done. MS . MURRAY: One thing, and Patrick, maybe you could speak to this, because we did, when we adopted or recodified the code, we did also adopt the provision that said that they were non-regulatory changes and whatnot. And I'm concerned that perhaps by the elimination of some of these, it may have resulted in a regulatory change or difference in interpretation. And I'm not sure, but, you know, is it a benefit to try to put these back in now and then come back later and try to go back through and whittle them down? You know, I -- again, back to unintended consequences, we're in the middle of the cycle and -- MR. WHITE: I don't know how many issues we may have had arise in the enforcement arena based on that. It's sufficient to me -- if staff is indicating they've had difficulty being able to enforce in particular the sign code provisions, then certainly it makes sense to add those things that may help in that regard. But maybe it was a bad thing to take them out whole cloth, but I think it's a correspondingly equal concern to bring them back in in whole cloth, because I think you can just randomly select these and see that they have some of these concerns about operational versus definitional. As far as the notion of unintended consequences, I think we've been able to work for those that have come to our attention and resolved all of them, to my knowledge. And as a result have never had to use the unresolved conflict provisions. But the notion of unintended consequences, well, certainly we've never intended that we wouldn't be able to enforce in clear and unambiguous terms the Land Development Code, in particular the sign code. So I just simply suggest, as I did before, that we go back and look to make sure that there's an operative provision that every one of these definitions ties to. And that to the extent that there's any aspect of the Page 79 August 17, 2005 definition that is more than just a definition, we try to move it in to where we find that operative provision, and all the rest of them we don't bring back into the LDC. There's arguably no reason for it to exist. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And while we're talking about good procedure, I think it would be worth taking it one step farther that while we want to identify those overlaps, we should interject that into the staff deadline, the staff scheduling and require some staff discipline, and that it's a little frustrating to look at some proposals that clearly is not what we're being asked to move forward, then why are we talking about it, because it's still in process? If we were a little bit further along and then we would -- I don't think I'd have this feeling like we're wasting our time talking about this one right now. MS. MURRAY: Well, and that's kind of my concern as well, because the intent was just to bring back what we perceive as being unintentionally omitted, and what I hear you all saying, and Patrick is, well, let's make sure what we're bringing back is not going to cause us problems in the future. So we have a difference of strategy or plan here. And being that we're in the middle of a Land Development Code cycle, it's not fair to you, not fair to us to then have to go do a wholesale review of this and then bring it back and have another lengthy discussion about it. I guess my intent was just to try to say why don't we take a little bit of time and bring it back next cycle and do that type of review next cycle and be able to plan for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think what Russell said is bring it to us post-whittled. MS . MURRAY: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If there is such a phrase, I agree completely. Page 80 --~_._- August 17, 2005 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hasn't staff evaluated every one of these proposals in a manner like you described was supposed to have been done with this one? MR. WHITE: Let me take a swing at that one. What you're asking is the very timely question of how in fact collectively and comprehensively the county reviews and revises its own Land Development Code. We've had essentially the same issues and discussions with the DSAC at their last meeting. And I think that the county is poised to consider some more comprehensive and well developed internal procedures that would give us some better gatekeeping types of functions, some better quality control types of functions that in addition will assure when there's a complex set of regulations being reviewed that there's some type of vetting by the stakeholders, I guess is the popular phrase we use. Kind of like Michael Sawyer did with the landscaping provisions, there's a collection of individuals who are the responsible professionals and practitioners, along with some of the staff people, et cetera, who work on these things. Transitioning from Russell Webb, Catherine's taken us some time. But the truth of the matter is is that this is an evolutionary process. And I think what you're hearing tonight, we're hearing from you and you're hearing from us, is we recognize that that's essentially the next step in our own mutual growth. MR. SCHMITT: Let me ask, since we brought this topic up and we're talking philosophically now, we'll digress a bit. To explain the process, for instance, right now staff is supposed to be working on LDC amendments for the next cycle. Those amendments on this cycle were due and completed -- were supposed to be completed by staff and staff review on June 10th. Then they go to the department directors and division directors June 24th, DSAC on July 21 st, EAC August 3rd, and then of course the Planning Commission. Page 81 August 17, 2005 Frankly, the issue really is we ought to be doing only one cycle a year. And every time that issue is brought up -- you know, we have four cycles this year on the LDC. We have two special cycles and two regular cycles. So we're in the midst of a cycle. We're amending and preparing amendments for inclusion into an LDC cycle and working the completion of an LDC cycle at the same time. And amongst many of the other things that need to be done like review plans and plats and SDP's and petitions and other things. So I guess the frustration at the beginning of the meeting was well, we need this in more time. I've got to tell you, the only way you're going to get it in more time is if I stretch this almost six-month process into a 12-month process and only do one cycle a year. But when I do that, as everybody says, the LDC is changing too fast, we can't keep up with it. And three-and-a-half minutes later somebody says we need to change the LDC and we need to fix this. So I guess that's the dichotomy here. We can't deal with the changes, but just this one time we need the change, which has created four cycles this year alone. You're dealing with another one tomorrow mornIng. So I guess from the Planning Commission perspective, what is your recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? Do you as a board think that this county ought to put the breaks on a bit and slow this process down into a more deliberative process once a year? I send the packets out. The first time I send it, I ask other divisions to comment and return, and I think I got two back. N ow I require every division administrator to sign a receipt and return it. And of course you saw what happened tonight. One division administrator signed and then 14, 18 days ago says gee, I've got to get this one in because it's a problem, and can I get this one in this cycle. So I guess from that standpoint, dealing with reality and dealing with how we process and go through this LDC review process, you Page 82 August 17, 2005 should have these things a month ahead of time. And if you want them a month ahead of time, I have to back plan, and what is now a six-month process should be a 12-month process. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, let's take some time and try to address that. For my own part, I'd rather slow down and do it once, rather than hurry up and do something, even if it's wrong, so that we can hurry up and do something again that may be a little less wrong or more wrong and then we just keep getting into a mindless spiral. So that would be my personal advise. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: My problem is I spent between 15 to 16 hours going through this, realizing right from the beginning that it wasn't complete. It wasn't accurate in many ways, and yet you wanted us to corne to decisions. And I just don't see how it is -- how it's possible. It was very frustrating to go through it. I don't have the experience that he does and the ability to comprehend what this is actually all about. And every time I was corning through one section, I'd corne to a point where I would say this doesn't make sense. But that's the way you sent it to us, so it obviously had to make senses. It's got to be slowed down. It's got to be given to us in a condition that an average person who is not an expert in this area can read it, understand it, and decide whether it's proper or not proper. This didn't do the job. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, I think maybe the opposite. I think maybe it should be an agenda item on our bi-monthly meetings and we can deal with these things -- you know, look at a fewer of them at a time. And that way I think your staff isn't, you know, pushing things. That way we can constantly be adjusting it. The only concern might be is making sure the public is involved in that process. Page 83 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because this is an important public involvement. But rather than lump them all together and have to spend the hours, it would be wise if we could be constantly looking at things, looking at smaller things that are finished that are totally tweedled (sic), as we carne up with. And, you know, so we can look at them constantly throughout the year, rather than put them into a group like the cycles. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other thoughts? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I totally agree with that. It makes a lot of sense. This way it's an ongoing process, not a hurry up rush and then submit something just to fill up a binder. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Joe, do you really honestly believe that on the 21 st we'll have something that we really could exercise good judgment with? I mean, in this frustration -- MR. SCHMITT: You have to, or they'll be withdrawn. Because I've got to bring them to the board on October 2nd, to their first reading. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: And I have to have them to the board at least a week and a half, two weeks prior. So it will be -- whatever is not completed will be withdrawn from this cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And some of the sad things, a lot of these things we put in, even some of these emergency fixers, are fixing stuff that we didn't really look carefully enough at. So the danger of this process is that we're -- you know, things are getting by us, and we have to catch up with them and fix them when I think we really should be looking at them constantly. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: What I think is that not only are the timing issues important to understand, discuss and corne to some recommendations Page 84 August 17, 2005 about, but also the process itself. Are we in fact managing the amendment of the Land Development Code in the most efficient and expeditious way that we can? And those require resources, obviously. And I probably have staff so, you know, tired of hearing me say that, you know, it's all about the words. I mean, it's the black stuff on the page that every day we find ourselves struggling with. And so the quest is to purify that as much as possible to make it as simple and easy to use. We tried doing that and have done that I believe with the structure. And we've talked and recognize we need to do that now with kind of the major muscle groups of the LDC. But that begs the question of whether in fact we are using the best process to get there. Other jurisdictions have a committee whose sole reason to exist is simply to do Land Development Code amendments as part of their job function. You've had that added to yours, as had the EAC, as had the DSAC, et cetera, et cetera, and yet no one seems to have solely as their charge as an advisory body the care and feeding of the Land Development Code. That's not to say that there isn't an integral function, an important role that remains for each of the other advisory bodies. Their piece is the operational impact, the same way that the staff kind of feeds in its stuff. But I think the time's corne, if we're going to have this kind of philosophical and more broad-based discussion to think about those kinds of process changes as well. So I just offer it for your consideration. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other thoughts, comments, by Planning Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being none, have we exhausted this item with the signs? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we didn't get into it. But the point is, what you're saying is don't look at it too closely now, which we already have. Wait until you corne back with it? Page 85 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we'll see it again by the 21st. And as Mr. Schmitt pointed out, we'll either be satisfied with it and recommend approval, or we'll pull it because it's still a work in process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Catherine, if you're going to have a committee meet, feel free to invite me, because I wouldn't mind -- MS. FABACHER: We'd very much like to get a committee-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I don't want to feel like I wasted my time corning up with all the marks I did. MS. F ABACHER: -- to meet within to vet these things, as everyone's mentioned. But, you know, almost everybody who has to write them has to do it in addition to what their regular work is. There's nobody except possibly me, who's new, to even work on this. And then having to send it out to all these departments and look for -- it's just -- and it's such a volume that I think you're right, it's breaking the camel's back for everybody. So anything you can do to help us, it's a better system, with some limits. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, what's our next item? MS. FABACHER: Okay, we're back to the summary sheet on Page 3. And we are doing the Conservation Collier lands. That would be on Page 18 in your packet. And also, I want to say that you got handed out an addendum to your packet. There is -- there are some significant changes to the next to that. And it's keyed to the same page number. 11 -- I'm sorry, 18, 18. It's keyed as 18-A in your new packet. COMMISSIONER CARON: But if there are significant changes, then we really should just put it off and not bother with it right now. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said significant. I'll try and explain. Because of what Patrick has been saying about taking the operational provisions out of the definition, we remove the Page 86 August 17, 2005 operational provisions from the definition. It's not really significant, if you look at the two definitions. The second change was we put a whole phrase of uses --let's see. We put a whole provision under -- I'm on Page 22 of your packet. And I'm looking at G.l.c. And when we were initially working on this -- and as I said, it's kind of been a work in progress through the cycle, which we're all admitting now is not a good way to do things. But if you look on Page 21 at G.l.f, you'll see that they had struck through directional drilling for oil and gas extraction under the provisions of this section. This is a conditional use in every zoning district, excluding the RFMU, the fringe area, the con. district, the natural resource protection areas and the rural land stewardship areas. But then if you read under 2, G .2, it says that essential services identified as allowed conditional uses in Section 2.01.03.G.l above, so we then realize that we didn't need to repeat everything. All we need to put there then was the directional drilling as a conditional use, because the others had been covered over here. And that's the change. It's not significant, it's just the wordsmithing. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Comments on that item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I won't have any till next hearing, because I won't be able to read the addendum that was handed out at this meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll wait until -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the land which provides the directional drilling? What does that mean? MS. FABACHER: Land which -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the land which provides directional drilling? Which is your C on Page 22- A. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, yes, 22-A. And it's C. It's G.2.c, actually. And it's a conditional use. Directional drilling for oil and Page 87 August 17, 2005 gas. Extraction under the provisions of Section 2.03.05. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what does that mean land which provide for directional drilling? I'm not sure exactly what that means. I guess if I read those sections, I'll probably understand that. I'll read -- MR. WHITE: I think it's susceptible to two applications: One that would be a place from which you could directionally drill that were otherwise Conservation Collier land. And it might be possible to apply it in a way where that's indicative of the fact that it's the conditional use, if approved, then it's lands which would perform that function. It's more likely the former, the idea that it is lands from which you can do directional drilling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that's saying, like these other lands in one are kind of less sensitive than ones in number two. So you're saying one we're not allowed to have oil and gas and two we are? MS. FABACHER: As a conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I just -- MS. FABACHER: Right, but the first lands in G-l are more sensitive, so we're not allowing it as a conditional -- no, it's not that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rural lands are less sensitive. MR. WHITE: I'm going to plead the Fifth in the sense of saying that at this point we've harmonized the provisions as close as they can be. And I think like Commissioner Strain's indicated, we're going to have a conversation with the folks who are -- these issues about directional drilling are most important to make sure that we've accurately and adequately achieved the goal here. I think we're probably about 85 percent, but we can tighten it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did we -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good. Look forward to seeing that one agaIn. Page 88 August 17, 2005 Before we go on to another item, we've got 15 minutes before our announced departure. And based upon my previous experience, I think it will take us at least 15 minutes to set the next time that we will meet to continue this meeting. Mr. Schmitt, do you have times that staff and the room would be available that we could start trying to find something mutually convenient so that Planning Commission can reconvene and pick up where we left off tonight? MR. SCHMITT: No, I'm unable to ensure that the time was available because the County Commissioners' office was closed while we're discussing this. So unable to confirm, but I would propose that we look at the September 21 st date and announce a time we meet earlier on the 21 st. MS. MURRAY: Could we possibly meet in CDES in the large room, just as a safety precaution, if that room is available earlier? MR. SCHMITT: We certainly could. If this room is not available, we would meet out in the Room 609, 610. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, before we go further on that, Mr. White, you were very particular about the manner in which we made our motion. Did our motion not require us to have a first and second hearing? MR. WHITE: I do not believe it required you to have two hearings. I believe the intent was to recognize that you'd have multiple meetings. And as such, if you desire to continue this meeting to another date and time certain, date, time and place certain, you may do so. And if the best we can do with it is to try to hopscotch it through tomorrow and continue it until then and then continue it again after then, it is probably legally permissible to do so. But I would strongly encourage that we attempt to provide some type of more official notice consistent with what we usually do for a regular LDC amendment meeting for the CCPC, which I think is either a 10 or IS-day ad. I can't remember. Page 89 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In this particular situation, the only thing we are going to be discussing will be the time and place. Therefore, that will give plenty of time for notice. We're not going to be discussing any of the issues, so we don't have to worry about the public. I don't think we have any problem as far as tomorrow deciding what hour, what time and what place and then publishing it later. MR. SCHMITT: We have this room at 5:00 on the 21st. September 21 st. That has been advertised and scheduled for the meeting to be on the 21 st. A proposal was, as mentioned earlier tonight, was to move that time to an earlier start time. But of course that would be based on availability of this room. I honestly -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that in mind, why don't we continue this meeting tonight until tomorrow. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Tomorrow. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The Board of County Commissioners' office will be open, we can verify the availability of the room, and then from that point continue again to a time certain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move. MR. WHITE: Another date and time certain. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Another date and time. MR. WHITE: And my point being that at that juncture, I would hope that there would be adequate amount of time to be able to put some type of more formal published notice out to the community. CHAIRMAN BUDD: With that in mind, I have a motion by Mr. Adelstein. Do we -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: A second by Mr. Vigliotti. Discussion? MR. SCHMITT: I have discussion. Just to make sure you understand, tomorrow we have LDC amendments, but it's a different cycle, it's a special cycle, not to be confused with these LDC amendments. Three you're going to be dealing with tomorrow. Page 90 August 17, 2005 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, understood. All right, motion and second. Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Just for the purposes of the record, to indicate that this meeting is being continued until tomorrow at -- as part of the 8:30 a.m. agenda in the east chambers for purposes of further consideration ofLDC amendments in Cycle 2. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's correct. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We are continued till tomorrow. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, Chairman Page 91